Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

´╗┐Title: Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) - From the Complete American Edition
Author: Aquinas, Thomas, Saint, 1225?-1274
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) - From the Complete American Edition" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



supplementation by David McClamrock



ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

SUMMA THEOLOGICA

PART I ("Prima Pars")

Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

BENZIGER BROTHERS
NEW YORK
_______________________

DEDICATION

To the Blessed Virgin
Mary Immaculate
Seat of Wisdom
_______________________

NOTE TO THIS ELECTRONIC EDITION

K. Perry, Perrysburg, Ohio, and made available through the Christian
Classics Ethereal Library . I have eliminated
unnecessary formatting in the text, corrected some errors in
transcription, and added the dedication, tables of contents,
Prologue, and the numbers of the questions and articles, as they
appeared in the printed translation published by Benziger Brothers.
Each article is now designated by part, question number, and article
number in brackets, like this:

> SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 49, Art. 2]

> Whether the Supreme Good, God, Is the Cause of Evil?

In a few places, where obvious errors appeared in the Benziger
Brothers edition, I have corrected them by reference to a Latin text
of the _Summa._ These corrections are indicated by English text in
brackets. For example, in Part I, Question 45, Article 2, the first
sentence in the Benziger Brothers edition begins: "Not only is it
impossible that anything should be created by God...." By reference
to the Latin, "non solum _non_ est impossibile a Deo aliquid creari"
(emphasis added), this has been corrected to "Not only is it [not]
impossible that anything should be created by God...."

This electronic edition also differs from the Benziger Brothers
edition in the following details (as well as the obvious lack of the
original page numbers and headers):

* The repetitive expression "We proceed thus to the [next] Article"
does not appear directly below the title of each article.

* Italics are represented by underscores at the beginning and end,
_like this._ Quotations and other "quotable" matter, however, are
ordinarily set off by quotation marks with no underscores in this
edition, in accordance with common English usage, even where they
were set in italics with no quotation marks in the Benziger Brothers
edition. Titles of books are set off by underscores when they appear
in the text with no parentheses, but not when the books are cited in
parentheses.

* Bible chapters and verses are cited with arabic numerals separated
by colons, like this: "Dan. 7:10"--not like this: "Dan. vii. 10."
Small roman numerals have been retained where they appear in
citations to books other than the Bible.

* Any matter that appeared in a footnote in the Benziger Brothers
edition is presented in brackets at the point in the text where the
footnote mark appeared.

* Greek words are presented in Roman transliteration.

* Paragraphs are not indented and are separated by blank lines.

* Numbered topics, set forth at the beginning of each question and
at certain other places, are ordinarily presented on a separate line
for each topic.

* Titles of questions are in all caps.

Anything else in this electronic edition that does not correspond to
the content of the Benziger Brothers edition may be regarded as a
defect in this edition and attributed to me (David McClamrock).

_______________________

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE

FIRST PART (QQ. 1-119)

Question

1.   The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine
2.   The Existence of God
3.   On the Simplicity of God
4.   The Perfection of God
5.   Of Goodness in General
6.   The Goodness of God
7.   The Infinity of God
8.   The Existence of God in Things
9.   The Immutability of God
10.  The Eternity of God
11.  The Unity of God
12.  How God Is Known by Us
13.  The Names of God
14.  Of God's Knowledge
15.  Of Ideas
16.  Of Truth
17.  Concerning Falsity
18.  The Life of God
19.  The Will of God
20.  God's Love
21.  The Justice and Mercy of God
22.  The Providence of God
23.  Of Predestination
24.  The Book of Life
25.  The Power of God
26.  Of the Divine Beatitude
27.  The Procession of the Divine Persons
28.  The Divine Relations
29.  The Divine Persons
30.  The Plurality of Persons in God
31.  Of What Belongs to the Unity or Plurality in God
32.  The Knowledge of the Divine Persons
33.  Of the Person of the Father
34.  Of the Person of the Son
35.  Of the Image
36.  Of the Person of the Holy Ghost
37.  Of the Name of the Holy Ghost--Love
38.  Of the Name of the Holy Ghost, as Gift
39.  Of the Persons in Relation to the Essence
40.  Of the Persons as Compared to the Relations or Properties
41.  Of the Persons in Reference to the Notional Acts
42.  Of Equality and Likeness Among the Divine Persons
43.  The Mission of the Divine Persons

TREATISE ON THE CREATION

44.  The Procession of Creatures from God, and of the First Cause
       of All Things
45.  The Mode of Emanation of Things from the First Principle
46.  Of the Beginning of the Duration of Creatures
47.  Of the Distinction of Things in General
48.  The Distinction of Things in Particular
49.  The Cause of Evil

TREATISE ON THE ANGELS

50.  Of the Substance of the Angels Absolutely Considered
51.  Of the Angels in Comparison with Bodies
52.  Of the Angels in Relation to Place
53.  Of the Local Movement of the Angels
54.  Of the Knowledge of the Angels
55.  Of the Medium of the Angelic Knowledge
56.  Of the Angels' Knowledge of Immaterial Things
57.  Of the Angels' Knowledge of Material Things
58.  Of the Mode of the Angelic Knowledge
59.  The Will of the Angels
60.  Of the Love or Dilection of the Angels
61.  Of the Production of the Angels in the Order of Natural Being
62.  Of the Perfection of the Angels in the Order of Grace and of
       Glory
63.  The Malice of the Angels with Regard to Sin
64.  The Punishment of the Demons

TREATISE ON THE WORK OF THE SIX DAYS

65.  The Work of Creation of Corporeal Creatures
66.  On the Order of Creation Towards Distinction
67.  On the Work of Distinction in Itself
68.  On the Work of the Second Day
69.  On the Work of the Third Day
70.  On the Work of Adornment, as Regards the Fourth Day
71.  On the Work of the Fifth Day
72.  On the Work of the Sixth Day
73.  On the Things That Belong to the Seventh Day
74.  On All the Seven Days in Common

TREATISE ON MAN

75.  Of Man Who Is Composed of a Spiritual and a Corporeal Substance:
       and in the First Place, Concerning What Belongs to the Essence
       of the Soul
76.  Of the Union of Body and Soul
77.  Of Those Things Which Belong to the Powers of the Soul in General
78.  Of the Specific Powers of the Soul
79.  Of the Intellectual Powers
80.  Of the Appetitive Powers in General
81.  Of the Power of Sensuality
82.  Of the Will
83.  Of Free-Will
84.  How the Soul While United to the Body Understands Corporeal
       Things Beneath It
85.  Of the Mode and Order of Understanding
86.  What Our Intellect Knows in Material Things
87.  How the Intellectual Soul Knows Itself and All Within Itself
88.  How the Human Soul Knows What Is Above Itself
89.  Of the Knowledge of the Separated Soul
90.  Of the First Production of Man's Soul
91.  The Production of the First Man's Body
92.  The Production of the Woman
93.  The End or Term of the Production of Man
94.  Of the State and Condition of the First Man as Regards His
       Intellect
95.  Of Things Pertaining to the First Man's Will--Namely, Grace
       and Righteousness
96.  Of the Mastership Belonging to Man in the State of Innocence
97.  Of the Preservation of the Individual in the Primitive State
98.  Of the Preservation of the Species
99.  Of the Condition of the Offspring As to the Body
100. Of the Condition of the Offspring As Regards Righteousness
101. Of the Condition of the Offspring As Regards Knowledge
102. Of Man's Abode, Which Is Paradise

TREATISE ON THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT

103. Of the Government of Things in General
104. The Special Effects of the Divine Government
105. Of the Change of Creatures by God
106. How One Creature Moves Another
107. The Speech of the Angels
108. Of the Angelic Degrees of Hierarchies and Orders
109. The Ordering of the Bad Angels
110. How Angels Act on Bodies
111. The Action of the Angels on Man
112. The Mission of the Angels
113. Of the Guardianship of the Good Angels
114. Of the Assaults of the Demons
115. Of the Action of the Corporeal Creature
116. On Fate
117. Of Things Pertaining to the Action of Man
118. Of the Production of Man from Man As to the Soul
119. Of the Propagation of Man As to the Body
_______________________

PROLOGUE

Because the Master of Catholic Truth ought not only to teach the
proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle:
As Unto Little Ones in Christ, I Gave You Milk to Drink, Not Meat--
1 Cor. iii. 1, 2)--we purpose in this book to treat of whatever
belongs to the Christian Religion, in such a way as may tend to the
instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this
Science have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written
by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless
questions, articles, and arguments; partly also because those things
that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the
order of the subject-matter, but according as the plan of the book
might require, or the occasion of the argument offer; partly, too,
because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the
minds of the readers.

Endeavoring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by
God's help, to set forth whatever is included in this Sacred Science
as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.
_______________________

SUMMA THEOLOGICA

FIRST PART
["I," "Prima Pars"]
_______________________

QUESTION 1

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SACRED DOCTRINE
(in Ten Articles)

To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to
investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine. Concerning
this there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is necessary?

(2) Whether it is a science?

(3) Whether it is one or many?

(4) Whether it is speculative or practical?

(5) How it is compared with other sciences?

(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?

(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?

(8) Whether it is a matter of argument?

(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?

(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded
in different senses?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 1]

Whether, besides Philosophy, any Further Doctrine Is Required?

Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no
need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is
above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee"
(Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of
in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides
philosophical science is superfluous.

Obj. 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for
nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But
everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God
Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the
divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore,
besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further
knowledge.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture inspired
of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in
justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical
science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is
useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other
knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

_I answer that,_ It was necessary for man's salvation that there should
be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up
by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as
to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not
seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them
that wait for Thee" (Isa. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men
who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was
necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed
human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as
regards those truths about God which human reason could have
discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine
revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover,
would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the
admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in
God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order
that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more
surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by
divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides
philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred
science learned through revelation.

Reply Obj. 1: Although those things which are beyond man's
knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason,
nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by
faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to
thee above the understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the
sacred science consists.

Reply Obj. 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the
various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer
and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth,
for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e.
abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.
Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from
philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason,
may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall
within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs
in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 2]

Whether Sacred Doctrine Is a Science?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every
science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine
proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since
their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2
Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Obj. 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this
sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is
not a science.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science
alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished,
protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except
sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

_I answer that,_ Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that
there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a
principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as
arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed
from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the
science of perspective proceeds from principles established by
geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it
is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from
principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the
science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on
authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred
science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply Obj. 1: The principles of any science are either in
themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher
science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred
doctrine.

Reply Obj. 2: Individual facts are treated of in sacred
doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they
are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as
in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those
men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture
or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 3]

Whether Sacred Doctrine Is One Science?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for
according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) "that science is one which
treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the
creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be
grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred
doctrine is not one science.

Obj. 2: Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal
creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate
philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one
science.

_On the contrary,_ Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom
gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" (Wis. 10:10).

_I answer that,_ Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty
or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material
aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an
object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise
formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight.
Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under
the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely
revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this
science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one
science.

Reply Obj. 1: Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and
creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far
as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the
unity of this science is not impaired.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits
from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher
faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards
the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the
_common sense_ is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore,
whatever is visible or audible. Hence the _common sense,_ although one
faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly,
objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical
sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science under
one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So
that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the
divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 4]

Whether Sacred Doctrine Is a Practical Science?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for
a practical science is that which ends in action according to the
Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action:
"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22).
Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.

Obj. 2: Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the
New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science.
Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.

_On the contrary,_ Every practical science is concerned with human
operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and
architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned
with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a
practical but a speculative science.

_I answer that,_ Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which
belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in
each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known
through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical
sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred
doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows
both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than
practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with
human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man
is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists
eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 5]

Whether Sacred Doctrine Is Nobler than Other Sciences?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other
sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it
establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be
doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine; for its
principles--namely, articles of faith--can be doubted. Therefore
other sciences seem to be nobler.

Obj. 2: Further, it is the sign of a lower science to depend upon
a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred doctrine does in
a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in
his Epistle to Magnus, that "the ancient doctors so enriched their
books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou
knowest not what more to admire in them, their profane erudition or
their scriptural learning." Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to
other sciences.

_On the contrary,_ Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this
one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower" (Prov. 9:3).

_I answer that,_ Since this science is partly speculative and partly
practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one
speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by
reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of
its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses
other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because
other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human
reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the
light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the
higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly
of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while
other sciences consider only those things which are within reason's
grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained
to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military
science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the
State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical,
is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every
practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every
standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.

Reply Obj. 1: It may well happen that what is in itself the
more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the
weakness of our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest
objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun"
(Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about
articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths,
but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest
knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable
than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said
in _de Animalibus_ xi.

Reply Obj. 2: This science can in a sense depend upon the
philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but
only in order to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its
principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by
revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon
the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as
handmaidens: even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that
supply their materials, as political of military science. That it thus
uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to the
defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known
through natural reason (from which proceed the other sciences) to that
which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 6]

Whether This Doctrine Is the Same as Wisdom?

Objection 1: It seems that this doctrine is not the same as wisdom.
For no doctrine which borrows its principles is worthy of the name of
wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Metaph.
i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore this science
is not wisdom.

Obj. 2: Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles
of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is
clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of
other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom.

Obj. 3: Further, this doctrine is acquired by study, whereas
wisdom is acquired by God's inspiration; so that it is numbered among
the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2). Therefore this doctrine is
not the same as wisdom.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 4:6): "This is your wisdom and
understanding in the sight of nations."

_I answer that,_ This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not
merely in any one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of a
wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be
judged in the light of some higher principle, he is said to be wise in
any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus
in the order of building, he who plans the form of the house is called
wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers who trim
the wood and make ready the stones: "As a wise architect, I have laid
the foundation" (1 Cor. 3:10). Again, in the order of all human life,
the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a
fitting end: "Wisdom is prudence to a man" (Prov. 10: 23). Therefore
he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the whole universe,
namely God, is most of all called wise. Hence wisdom is said to be the
knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But
sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest
cause--not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as
philosophers knew Him--"That which is known of God is manifest in
them" (Rom. 1:19)--but also as far as He is known to Himself alone
and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called
wisdom.

Reply Obj. 1: Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from
any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as
through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order.

Reply Obj. 2: The principles of other sciences either are
evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through
some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes
through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no
concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge
of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth
of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and
every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2
Cor. 10:4, 5).

Reply Obj. 3: Since judgment appertains to wisdom, the twofold
manner of judging produces a twofold wisdom. A man may judge in one
way by inclination, as whoever has the habit of a virtue judges
rightly of what concerns that virtue by his very inclination towards
it. Hence it is the virtuous man, as we read, who is the measure and
rule of human acts. In another way, by knowledge, just as a man
learned in moral science might be able to judge rightly about virtuous
acts, though he had not the virtue. The first manner of judging divine
things belongs to that wisdom which is set down among the gifts of the
Holy Ghost: "The spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 Cor. 2:15). And
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "Hierotheus is taught not by mere
learning, but by experience of divine things." The second manner of
judging belongs to this doctrine which is acquired by study, though
its principles are obtained by revelation.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 7]

Whether God Is the Object of This Science?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not the object of this science. For
in every science, the nature of its object is presupposed. But this
science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De
Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence of God."
Therefore God is not the object of this science.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science
must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy Writ
we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many
other things, such as creatures and human morality. Therefore God is
not the object of this science.

_On the contrary,_ The object of the science is that of which it
principally treats. But in this science, the treatment is mainly about
God; for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is
the object of this science.

_I answer that,_ God is the object of this science. The relation between
a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or
faculty and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty
or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are
referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to
the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things
are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are
treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God
Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence
it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This
is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the
articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the
principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole
science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however,
looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect
under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to
be something other than God--that is, either things and signs; or the
works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of
all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as
they have reference to God.

Reply Obj. 1: Although we cannot know in what consists the
essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His
effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in
regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even
as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a
cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition
of the cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Whatever other conclusions are reached in this
sacred science are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or
accidents but as in some way related to Him.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 8]

Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Matter of Argument?

Objection 1: It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For
Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought."
But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things
are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Obj. 2: Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is
either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it
seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the
weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting
its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit
in those things of which human reason brings its own experience."
Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

_On the contrary,_ The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that
faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to
exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).

_I answer that,_ As other sciences do not argue in proof of their
principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other
truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of
its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes
on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of
Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15).
However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical
sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles
nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher
science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute
with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make
some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute
with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture,
since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies
its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths
obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics
from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of
faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of
divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the
articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his
objections--if he has any--against faith. Since faith rests upon
infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be
demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith
cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

Reply Obj. 1: Although arguments from human reason cannot
avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this
doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.

Reply Obj. 2: This doctrine is especially based upon arguments
from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation:
thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the
revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of
this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human
reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine
revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of
human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of
faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are
put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy
nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the
natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says:
"Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of
Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the
authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able
to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of
Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His
offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of
these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly
uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible
proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may
properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the
revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical
books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to
other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only
those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to
hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any
way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem
everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their
having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness
and learning."
_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 9]

Whether Holy Scripture Should Use Metaphors?

Objection 1: It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors.
For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit this
science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the
aid of various similitudes and figures is proper to poetry, the least
of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science
should make use of such similitudes.

Obj. 2: Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth
clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: "They that
explain me shall have life everlasting" (Ecclus. 24:31). But by such
similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths
by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.

Obj. 3: Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they
approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to
represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the
higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is often found in
Scriptures.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Osee 12:10): "I have multiplied
visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets."
But to put forward anything by means of similitudes is to use
metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors.

_I answer that,_ It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and
spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God
provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now
it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible
objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in
Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of
material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We
cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within
the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting Holy Writ,
which is proposed to all without distinction of persons--"To the wise
and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Rom. 1:14)--that spiritual truths
be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order
that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp
intellectual things may be able to understand it.

Reply Obj. 1: Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a
representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with
representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both
necessary and useful.

Reply Obj. 2: The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished
by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says
(Coel. Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow
the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in
the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through
those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive
instruction in these matters. Hence those things that are taught
metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught
more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the
exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of
the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to
dogs" (Matt. 7:6).

Reply Obj. 3: As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more
fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of
less noble than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons. Firstly,
because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error. For
then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of
divine truths, which might have been open to doubt had they been
expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who
could think of nothing nobler than bodies. Secondly, because this is
more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this life. For
what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes
drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer
estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him.
Thirdly, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the
unworthy.
_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 1, Art. 10]

Whether in Holy Scripture a Word may have Several Senses?

Objection 1: It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several
senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and
anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion
and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument,
but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of
propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth
without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to
a word.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the
Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy
and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four
divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem
fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four
different senses mentioned above.

Obj. 3: Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical,
which is not one of these four.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner
of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same
sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."

_I answer that,_ The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to
signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also
by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are
signified by words, this science has the property, that the things
signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore
that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the
first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby
things signified by words have themselves also a signification is
called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and
presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For
as the Apostle says (Heb. 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New
Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a
figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has
done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things
of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the
allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as
the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do,
there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to
eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense
is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is
God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not
unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the
literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

Reply Obj. 1: The multiplicity of these senses does not
produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that
these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several
things, but because the things signified by the words can be
themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion
results, for all the senses are founded on one--the literal--from
which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in
allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy
Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to
faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere
put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

Reply Obj. 2: These three--history, etiology, analogy--are
grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as
Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it
is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave
the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives--namely, on
account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever
the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the
truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three
spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.)
includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three
senses only--the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.

Reply Obj. 3: The parabolical sense is contained in the
literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively.
Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal
sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not
that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member,
namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever
underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.
_______________________

QUESTION 2

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(In Three Articles)

Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of
God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning of
things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is
clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavor to
expound this science, we shall treat:

(1) Of God;

(2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God;

(3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God.

In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall
consider:

(1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence;

(2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons;

(3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.

Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider:

(1) Whether God exists?

(2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is _not_ the
manner of His existence;

(3) Whatever concerns His operations--namely, His knowledge, will,
power.

Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether God exists?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 2, Art. 1]

Whether the Existence of God Is Self-Evident?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now
those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which
is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first
principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the
knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the
existence of God is self-evident.

Obj. 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which
are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1
Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration.
Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once
recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as
the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen
that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which
nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and
mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore,
since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it
also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God
exists" is self-evident.

Obj. 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For
whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not
exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does
not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be
truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the
life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

_On the contrary,_ No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is
self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states
concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of
the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in
his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is
not self-evident.

_I answer that,_ A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on
the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other,
self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident
because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as
"Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If,
therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all,
the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard
to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are
common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being,
whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the
essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will
be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the
meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it
happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether
all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts
self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are
not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of
itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject,
because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q. 3,
Art. 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition
is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that
are more known to us, though less known in their nature--namely, by
effects.

Reply Obj. 1: To know that God exists in a general and
confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's
beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally
desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not
to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is
approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even
though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine
that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and
others in pleasures, and others in something else.

Reply Obj. 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God"
understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be
thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted
that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified
something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it
does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word
signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can
it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there
actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought;
and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not
exist.

Reply Obj. 3: The existence of truth in general is
self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident
to us.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 2, Art. 2]

Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be
demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what
is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces
scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1).
Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Obj. 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration.
But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what
it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore
we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Obj. 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this
could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate
to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between
the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a
cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it
seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom.
1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be
demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we
must know of anything is whether it exists.

_I answer that,_ Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through
the cause, and is called _a priori,_ and this is to argue from what is
prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a
demonstration _a posteriori_; this is to argue from what is prior
relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its
cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And
from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be
demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because
since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the
cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is
not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects
which are known to us.

Reply Obj. 1: The existence of God and other like truths about
God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith,
but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural
knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes
something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to
prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of
faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically
known and demonstrated.

Reply Obj. 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated
from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the
cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case
in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of
anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of
the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows
on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are
derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence
of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning
of the word "God".

Reply Obj. 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no
perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect
the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can
demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we
cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 2, Art. 3]

Whether God Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two
contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But
the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God
existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the
world. Therefore God does not exist.

Obj. 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be
accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it
seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by
other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things
can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary
things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will.
Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex.
3:14)

_I answer that,_ The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is
certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are
in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for
nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards
which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from
potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from
potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of
actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which
is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes
it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in
actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different
respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be
potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is
therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a
thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.
Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If
that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this
also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another
again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be
no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that
subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the
first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by
the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in
motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world
of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no
case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found
to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to
itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not
possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes
following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause
is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any
intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on
to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes;
all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a
first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus.
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since
they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they
are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these
always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is
not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time
there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true,
even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does
not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.
Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been
impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now
nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all
beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the
existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has
its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on
to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by
another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes.
Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having
of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but
rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as
God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.
Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and
the like. But _more_ and _less_ are predicated of different things,
according as they resemble in their different ways something which is
the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more
nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something
which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently,
something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest
in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in _Metaph._ ii. Now
the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire,
which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore
there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their
being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that
things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an
end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always,
in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain
that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now
whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be
directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the
arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent
being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and
this being we call God.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God
is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His
works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good
even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that
He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply Obj. 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under
the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs
be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done
voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than
human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things
that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an
immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body
of the Article.
_______________________

QUESTION 3

OF THE SIMPLICITY OF GOD
(In Eight Articles)

When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the
further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may
know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather
what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but
rather how He is not.

Therefore, we must consider:

(1) How He is not;

(2) How He is known by us;

(3) How He is named.

Now it can be shown how God is not, by denying Him whatever is opposed
to the idea of Him, viz. composition, motion, and the like. Therefore

(1) we must discuss His simplicity, whereby we deny composition in
Him; and because whatever is simple in material things is imperfect
and a part of something else, we shall discuss (2) His perfection;
(3) His infinity; (4) His immutability; (5) His unity.

Concerning His simplicity, there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God is a body?

(2) Whether He is composed of matter and form?

(3) Whether in Him there is composition of quiddity, essence
or nature, and subject?

(4) Whether He is composed of essence and existence?

(5) Whether He is composed of genus and difference?

(6) Whether He is composed of subject and accident?

(7) Whether He is in any way composite, or wholly simple?

(8) Whether He enters into composition with other things?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 1]

Whether God Is a Body?

Objection 1: It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has
the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three
dimensions to God, for it is written: "He is higher than Heaven, and
what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The
measure of Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea" (Job
11:8, 9). Therefore God is a body.

Obj. 2: Further, everything that has figure is a body, since
figure is a quality of quantity. But God seems to have figure, for it
is written: "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26).
Now a figure is called an image, according to the text: "Who being the
brightness of His glory and the figure," i.e. the image, "of His
substance" (Heb. 1:3). Therefore God is a body.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever has corporeal parts is a body. Now
Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. "Hast thou an arm like
God?" (Job 40:4); and "The eyes of the Lord are upon the just" (Ps.
33:16); and "The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength" (Ps.
117:16). Therefore God is a body.

Obj. 4: Further, posture belongs only to bodies. But something
which supposes posture is said of God in the Scriptures: "I saw the
Lord sitting" (Isa. 6:1), and "He standeth up to judge" (Isa. 3:13).
Therefore God is a body.

Obj. 5: Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local
term _wherefrom_ or _whereto._ But in the Scriptures God is spoken of
as a local term _whereto,_ according to the words, "Come ye to Him and
be enlightened" (Ps. 33:6), and as a term _wherefrom_: "All they that
depart from Thee shall be written in the earth" (Jer. 17:13).
Therefore God is a body.

_On the contrary,_ It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24):
"God is a spirit."

_I answer that,_ It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this
can be shown in three ways. First, because no body is in motion unless
it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been
already proved (Q. 2, A. 3), that God is the First Mover, and is
Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in
no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes
from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to
the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior
to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into
actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already
proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in
God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in
potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to
infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body.
Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible
for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either
animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than
any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as
body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation
depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation
on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be
nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a
body.

Reply Obj. 1: As we have said above (Q. 1, A. 9), Holy Writ
puts before us spiritual and divine things under the comparison of
corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three
dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His
virtual quantity; thus, by depth, it signifies His power of knowing
hidden things; by height, the transcendence of His excelling power; by
length, the duration of His existence; by breadth, His act of love for
all. Or, as says Dionysius (Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is
meant the incomprehensibility of His essence; by length, the
procession of His all-pervading power; by breadth, His overspreading
all things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.

Reply Obj. 2: Man is said to be after the image of God, not as
regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals.
Hence, when it is said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness",
it is added, "And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea"
(Gen. 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence;
hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are
incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.

Reply Obj. 3: Corporeal parts are attributed to God in
Scripture on account of His actions, and this is owing to a certain
parallel. For instance the act of the eye is to see; hence the eye
attributed to God signifies His power of seeing intellectually, not
sensibly; and so on with the other parts.

Reply Obj. 4: Whatever pertains to posture, also, is only
attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as
sitting, on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as
standing, on account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands
Him.

Reply Obj. 5: We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since
He is everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the
actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near
to or to withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the
metaphor of local motion.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 2]

Whether God Is Composed of Matter and Form?

Objection 1: It seems that God is composed of matter and form. For
whatever has a soul is composed of matter and form; since the soul is
the form of the body. But Scripture attributes a soul to God; for it
is mentioned in Hebrews (Heb. 10:38), where God says: "But My just man
liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please My
soul." Therefore God is composed of matter and form.

Obj. 2: Further, anger, joy and the like are passions of the
composite. But these are attributed to God in Scripture: "The Lord was
exceeding angry with His people" (Ps. 105:40). Therefore God is
composed of matter and form.

Obj. 3: Further, matter is the principle of individualization.
But God seems to be individual, for He cannot be predicated of many.
Therefore He is composed of matter and form.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is composed of matter and form is a body;
for dimensive quantity is the first property of matter. But God is not
a body as proved in the preceding Article; therefore He is not
composed of matter and form.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible that matter should exist in God.
First, because matter is in potentiality. But we have shown (Q. 2, A. 3)
that God is pure act, without any potentiality. Hence it is
impossible that God should be composed of matter and form. Secondly,
because everything composed of matter and form owes its perfection and
goodness to its form; therefore its goodness is participated, inasmuch
as matter participates the form. Now the first good and the
best--viz. God--is not a participated good, because the essential
good is prior to the participated good. Hence it is impossible that
God should be composed of matter and form. Thirdly, because every
agent acts by its form; hence the manner in which it has its form is
the manner in which it is an agent. Therefore whatever is primarily
and essentially an agent must be primarily and essentially form. Now
God is the first agent, since He is the first efficient cause. He is
therefore of His essence a form; and not composed of matter and form.

Reply Obj. 1: A soul is attributed to God because His acts
resemble the acts of a soul; for, that we will anything, is due to our
soul. Hence what is pleasing to His will is said to be pleasing to His
soul.

Reply Obj. 2: Anger and the like are attributed to God on
account of a similitude of effect. Thus, because to punish is properly
the act of an angry man, God's punishment is metaphorically spoken of
as His anger.

Reply Obj. 3: Forms which can be received in matter are
individualized by matter, which cannot be in another as in a subject
since it is the first underlying subject; although form of itself,
unless something else prevents it, can be received by many. But that
form which cannot be received in matter, but is self-subsisting, is
individualized precisely because it cannot be received in a subject;
and such a form is God. Hence it does not follow that matter exists in
God.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 3]

Whether God is the Same as His Essence or Nature?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not the same as His essence or
nature. For nothing can be in itself. But the substance or nature of
God--i.e. the Godhead--is said to be in God. Therefore it seems that
God is not the same as His essence or nature.

Obj. 2: Further, the effect is assimilated to its cause; for
every agent produces its like. But in created things the _suppositum_
is not identical with its nature; for a man is not the same as his
humanity. Therefore God is not the same as His Godhead.

_On the contrary,_ It is said of God that He is life itself, and not
only that He is a living thing: "I am the way, the truth, and the
life" (John 14:6). Now the relation between Godhead and God is the same
as the relation between life and a living thing. Therefore God is His
very Godhead.

_I answer that,_ God is the same as His essence or nature. To understand
this, it must be noted that in things composed of matter and form, the
nature or essence must differ from the _suppositum,_ because the
essence or nature connotes only what is included in the definition of
the species; as, humanity connotes all that is included in the
definition of man, for it is by this that man is man, and it is this
that humanity signifies, that, namely, whereby man is man. Now
individual matter, with all the individualizing accidents, is not
included in the definition of the species. For this particular flesh,
these bones, this blackness or whiteness, etc., are not included in
the definition of a man. Therefore this flesh, these bones, and the
accidental qualities distinguishing this particular matter, are not
included in humanity; and yet they are included in the thing which is
man. Hence the thing which is a man has something more in it than has
humanity. Consequently humanity and a man are not wholly identical;
but humanity is taken to mean the formal part of a man, because the
principles whereby a thing is defined are regarded as the formal
constituent in regard to the individualizing matter. On the other
hand, in things not composed of matter and form, in which
individualization is not due to individual matter--that is to say, to
_this_ matter--the very forms being individualized of themselves--it
is necessary the forms themselves should be subsisting _supposita._
Therefore _suppositum_ and nature in them are identified. Since God
then is not composed of matter and form, He must be His own Godhead,
His own Life, and whatever else is thus predicated of Him.

Reply Obj. 1: We can speak of simple things only as though
they were like the composite things from which we derive our
knowledge. Therefore in speaking of God, we use concrete nouns to
signify His subsistence, because with us only those things subsist
which are composite; and we use abstract nouns to signify His
simplicity. In saying therefore that Godhead, or life, or the like are
in God, we indicate the composite way in which our intellect
understands, but not that there is any composition in God.

Reply Obj. 2: The effects of God do not imitate Him perfectly,
but only as far as they are able; and the imitation is here defective,
precisely because what is simple and one, can only be represented by
divers things; consequently, composition is accidental to them, and
therefore, in them _suppositum_ is not the same as nature.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 4]

Whether Essence and Existence Are the Same in God?

Objection 1: It seems that essence and existence are not the same in
God. For if it be so, then the divine being has nothing added to it.
Now being to which no addition is made is universal being which is
predicated of all things. Therefore it follows that God is being in
general which can be predicated of everything. But this is false: "For
men gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood" (Wis. 14:21).
Therefore God's existence is not His essence.

Obj. 2: Further, we can know _whether_ God exists as said above
(Q. 2, A. 2); but we cannot know _what_ He is. Therefore God's
existence is not the same as His essence--that is, as His quiddity or
nature.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (Trin. vii): "In God existence is not an
accidental quality, but subsisting truth." Therefore what subsists in
God is His existence.

_I answer that,_ God is not only His own essence, as shown in the
preceding article, but also His own existence. This may be shown in
several ways. First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be
caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a
property that necessarily accompanies the species--as the faculty of
laughing is proper to a man--and is caused by the constituent
principles of the species), or by some exterior agent--as heat is
caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing
differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some
exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible
for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent
principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own
existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose
existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by
another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first
efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence
should differ from His essence. Secondly, existence is that which
makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are
spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing.
Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a
distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in
God there is no potentiality, as shown above (A. 1), it follows
that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His
essence is His existence. Thirdly, because, just as that which has
fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that
which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation.
But God is His own essence, as shown above (A. 3); if, therefore, He
is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated
being. He will not therefore be the first being--which is absurd.
Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence.

Reply Obj. 1: A thing that has nothing added to it can be of
two kinds. Either its essence precludes any addition; thus, for
example, it is of the essence of an irrational animal to be without
reason. Or we may understand a thing to have nothing added to it,
inasmuch as its essence does not require that anything should be added
to it; thus the genus animal is without reason, because it is not of
the essence of animal in general to have reason; but neither is it to
lack reason. And so the divine being has nothing added to it in the
first sense; whereas universal being has nothing added to it in the
second sense.

Reply Obj. 2: "To be" can mean either of two things. It may
mean the act of essence, or it may mean the composition of a
proposition effected by the mind in joining a predicate to a subject.
Taking "to be" in the first sense, we cannot understand God's
existence nor His essence; but only in the second sense. We know that
this proposition which we form about God when we say "God is," is
true; and this we know from His effects (Q. 2, A. 2).
______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 5]

Whether God Is Contained in a Genus?

Objection 1: It seems that God is contained in a genus. For a
substance is a being that subsists of itself. But this is especially
true of God. Therefore God is in a genus of substance.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing can be measured save by something of its
own genus; as length is measured by length and numbers by number. But
God is the measure of all substances, as the Commentator shows
(Metaph. x). Therefore God is in the genus of substance.

_On the contrary,_ In the mind, genus is prior to what it contains. But
nothing is prior to God either really or mentally. Therefore God is
not in any genus.

_I answer that,_ A thing can be in a genus in two ways; either
absolutely and properly, as a species contained under a genus; or as
being reducible to it, as principles and privations. For example, a
point and unity are reduced to the genus of quantity, as its
principles; while blindness and all other privations are reduced to
the genus of habit. But in neither way is God in a genus. That He
cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways. First,
because a species is constituted of genus and difference. Now that
from which the difference constituting the species is derived, is
always related to that from which the genus is derived, as actuality
is related to potentiality. For animal is derived from sensitive
nature, by concretion as it were, for that is animal, which has a
sensitive nature. Rational being, on the other hand, is derived from
intellectual nature, because that is rational, which has an
intellectual nature, and intelligence is compared to sense, as
actuality is to potentiality. The same argument holds good in other
things. Hence since in God actuality is not added to potentiality, it
is impossible that He should be in any genus as a species. Secondly,
since the existence of God is His essence, if God were in any genus,
He would be the genus _being,_ because, since genus is predicated as
an essential it refers to the essence of a thing. But the Philosopher
has shown (Metaph. iii) that being cannot be a genus, for every genus
has differences distinct from its generic essence. Now no difference
can exist distinct from being; for non-being cannot be a difference.
It follows then that God is not in a genus. Thirdly, because all in
one genus agree in the quiddity or essence of the genus which is
predicated of them as an essential, but they differ in their
existence. For the existence of man and of horse is not the same; as
also of this man and that man: thus in every member of a genus,
existence and quiddity--i.e. essence--must differ. But in God they
do not differ, as shown in the preceding article. Therefore it is
plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it
is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be
any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration
of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of
a demonstration is a definition. That God is not in a genus, as
reducible to it as its principle, is clear from this, that a principle
reducible to any genus does not extend beyond that genus; as, a point
is the principle of continuous quantity alone; and unity, of
discontinuous quantity. But God is the principle of all being.
Therefore He is not contained in any genus as its principle.

Reply Obj. 1: The word substance signifies not only what
exists of itself--for existence cannot of itself be a genus, as shown
in the body of the article; but, it also signifies an essence that has
the property of existing in this way--namely, of existing of itself;
this existence, however, is not its essence. Thus it is clear that God
is not in the genus of substance.

Reply Obj. 2: This objection turns upon proportionate measure
which must be homogeneous with what is measured. Now, God is not a
measure proportionate to anything. Still, He is called the measure of
all things, in the sense that everything has being only according as
it resembles Him.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 6]

Whether in God There Are Any Accidents?

Objection 1: It seems that there are accidents in God. For substance
cannot be an accident, as Aristotle says (Phys. i). Therefore that
which is an accident in one, cannot, in another, be a substance. Thus
it is proved that heat cannot be the substantial form of fire, because
it is an accident in other things. But wisdom, virtue, and the like,
which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God
there are accidents.

Obj. 2: Further, in every genus there is a first principle. But
there are many genera of accidents. If, therefore, the primal
members of these genera are not in God, there will be many primal
beings other than God--which is absurd.

_On the contrary,_ Every accident is in a subject. But God cannot be a
subject, for "no simple form can be a subject", as Boethius says (De
Trin.). Therefore in God there cannot be any accident.

_I answer that,_ From all we have said, it is clear there can be no
accident in God. First, because a subject is compared to its accidents
as potentiality to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made
actual by its accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as
was shown (Q. 2, A. 3). Secondly, because God is His own
existence; and as Boethius says (Hebdom.), although every essence may
have something superadded to it, this cannot apply to absolute being:
thus a heated substance can have something extraneous to heat added to
it, as whiteness, nevertheless absolute heat can have nothing else
than heat. Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is
accidental. Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in
Him nothing accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents
(as the capability of laughing is an essential accident of man),
because such accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the
subject. Now there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first
cause. Hence it follows that there is no accident in God.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue and wisdom are not predicated of God and
of us univocally. Hence it does not follow that there are accidents in
God as there are in us.

Reply Obj. 2: Since substance is prior to its accidents, the
principles of accidents are reducible to the principles of the
substance as to that which is prior; although God is not first as if
contained in the genus of substance; yet He is first in respect to all
being, outside of every genus.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 7]

Whether God Is Altogether Simple?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not altogether simple. For whatever
is from God must imitate Him. Thus from the first being are all
beings; and from the first good is all good. But in the things which
God has made, nothing is altogether simple. Therefore neither is God
altogether simple.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is best must be attributed to God. But
with us that which is composite is better than that which is simple;
thus, chemical compounds are better than simple elements, and animals
than the parts that compose them. Therefore it cannot be said that God
is altogether simple.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): "God is truly and
absolutely simple."

_I answer that,_ The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many
ways. First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is
neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a
body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ
from His _suppositum_; nor His essence from His existence; neither is
there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and
accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is
altogether simple. Secondly, because every composite is posterior to
its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first
being, as shown above (Q. 2, A. 3). Thirdly, because every
composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite
unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as shown
above (Q. 2, A. 3), since He is the first efficient cause.
Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and
actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts
actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the
whole. Fifthly, because nothing composite can be predicated of any
single one of its parts. And this is evident in a whole made up of
dissimilar parts; for no part of a man is a man, nor any of the parts
of the foot, a foot. But in wholes made up of similar parts, although
something which is predicated of the whole may be predicated of a part
(as a part of the air is air, and a part of water, water),
nevertheless certain things are predicable of the whole which cannot
be predicated of any of the parts; for instance, if the whole volume
of water is two cubits, no part of it can be two cubits. Thus in every
composite there is something which is not it itself. But, even if this
could be said of whatever has a form, viz. that it has something which
is not it itself, as in a white object there is something which does
not belong to the essence of white; nevertheless in the form itself,
there is nothing besides itself. And so, since God is absolute form,
or rather absolute being, He can be in no way composite. Hilary
implies this argument, when he says (De Trin. vii): "God, Who is
strength, is not made up of things that are weak; nor is He Who is
light, composed of things that are dim."

Reply Obj. 1: Whatever is from God imitates Him, as caused
things imitate the first cause. But it is of the essence of a thing to
be in some sort composite; because at least its existence differs from
its essence, as will be shown hereafter, (Q. 4, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 2: With us composite things are better than simple
things, because the perfections of created goodness cannot be found in
one simple thing, but in many things. But the perfection of divine
goodness is found in one simple thing (QQ. 4, A. 1, and 6, A. 2).
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 3, Art. 8]

Whether God Enters into the Composition of Other Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God enters into the composition of other
things, for Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The being of all things
is that which is above being--the Godhead." But the being of all
things enters into the composition of everything. Therefore God enters
into the composition of other things.

Obj. 2: Further, God is a form; for Augustine says (De Verb.
Dom. [Serm. xxxviii]) that, "the word of God, which is God, is an
uncreated form." But a form is part of a compound. Therefore God is
part of some compound.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever things exist, in no way differing from
each other, are the same. But God and primary matter exist, and in no
way differ from each other. Therefore they are absolutely the same.
But primary matter enters into the composition things. Therefore also
does God. Proof of the minor--whatever things differ, they differ by
some differences, and therefore must be composite. But God and primary
matter are altogether simple. Therefore they nowise differ from each
other.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "There can be no
touching Him," i.e. God, "nor any other union with Him by mingling
part with part."

Further, the first cause rules all things without commingling with
them, as the Philosopher says (De Causis).

_I answer that,_ On this point there have been three errors. Some have
affirmed that God is the world-soul, as is clear from Augustine (De
Civ. Dei vii, 6). This is practically the same as the opinion of those
who assert that God is the soul of the highest heaven. Again, others
have said that God is the formal principle of all things; and this was
the theory of the Almaricians. The third error is that of David of
Dinant, who most absurdly taught that God was primary matter. Now all
these contain manifest untruth; since it is not possible for God to
enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or a
material principle. First, because God is the first efficient cause.
Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of
the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But
primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical
with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the
latter is actual. Secondly, because, since God is the first efficient
cause, to act belongs to Him primarily and essentially. But that which
enters into composition with anything does not act primarily and
essentially, but rather the composite so acts; for the hand does not
act, but the man by his hand; and, fire warms by its heat. Hence God
cannot be part of a compound. Thirdly, because no part of a compound
can be absolutely primal among beings--not even matter, nor form,
though they are the primal parts of every compound. For matter is
merely potential; and potentiality is absolutely posterior to
actuality, as is clear from the foregoing (Q. 3, A. 1): while a
form which is part of a compound is a participated form; and as that
which participates is posterior to that which is essential, so
likewise is that which is participated; as fire in ignited objects is
posterior to fire that is essentially such. Now it has been proved
that God is absolutely primal being (Q. 2, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 1: The Godhead is called the being of all things,
as their efficient and exemplar cause, but not as being their essence.

Reply Obj. 2: The Word is an exemplar form; but not a form
that is part of a compound.

Reply Obj. 3: Simple things do not differ by added
differences--for this is the property of compounds. Thus man and
horse differ by their differences, rational and irrational; which
differences, however, do not differ from each other by other
differences. Hence, to be quite accurate, it is better to say that
they are, not different, but diverse. Hence, according to the
Philosopher (Metaph. x), "things which are diverse are absolutely
distinct, but things which are different differ by something."
Therefore, strictly speaking, primary matter and God do not differ,
but are by their very being, diverse. Hence it does not follow they
are the same.
_______________________

QUESTION 4

THE PERFECTION OF GOD
(In Three Articles)

Having considered the divine simplicity, we treat next of God's
perfection. Now because everything in so far as it is perfect is
called good, we shall speak first of the divine perfection; secondly
of the divine goodness.

Concerning the first there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God is perfect?

(2) Whether God is perfect universally, as having in Himself the
perfections of all things?

(3) Whether creatures can be said to be like God?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 4, Art. 1]

Whether God is Perfect?

Objection 1: It seems that perfection does not belong to God. For we
say a thing is perfect if it is completely made. But it does not befit
God to be made. Therefore He is not perfect.

Obj. 2: Further, God is the first beginning of things. But the
beginnings of things seem to be imperfect, as seed is the beginning of
animal and vegetable life. Therefore God is imperfect.

Obj. 3: Further, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 4), God's essence
is existence. But existence seems most imperfect, since it is most
universal and receptive of all modification. Therefore God is
imperfect.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "Be you perfect as also your heavenly
Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48).

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher relates (Metaph. xii), some ancient
philosophers, namely, the Pythagoreans and Leucippus, did not
predicate "best" and "most perfect" of the first principle. The reason
was that the ancient philosophers considered only a material
principle; and a material principle is most imperfect. For since
matter as such is merely potential, the first material principle must
be simply potential, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first
principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which
must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely
potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the
first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most
perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of
actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the
mode of its perfection.

Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says (Moral. v, 26,29): "Though our
lips can only stammer, we yet chant the high things of God." For that
which is not made is improperly called perfect. Nevertheless because
created things are then called perfect, when from potentiality they
are brought into actuality, this word "perfect" signifies whatever is
not wanting in actuality, whether this be by way of perfection or not.

Reply Obj. 2: The material principle which with us is found to
be imperfect, cannot be absolutely primal; but must be preceded by
something perfect. For seed, though it be the principle of animal life
reproduced through seed, has previous to it, the animal or plant from
which is came. Because, previous to that which is potential, must be
that which is actual; since a potential being can only be reduced into
act by some being already actual.

Reply Obj. 3: Existence is the most perfect of all things, for
it is compared to all things as that by which they are made actual;
for nothing has actuality except so far as it exists. Hence existence
is that which actuates all things, even their forms. Therefore it is
not compared to other things as the receiver is to the received; but
rather as the received to the receiver. When therefore I speak of the
existence of man, or horse, or anything else, existence is considered
a formal principle, and as something received; and not as that which
exists.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 4, Art. 2]

Whether the Perfections of All Things Are in God?

Objection 1: It seems that the perfections of all things are not in
God. For God is simple, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 7); whereas the
perfections of things are many and diverse. Therefore the perfections
of all things are not in God.

Obj. 2: Further, opposites cannot coexist. Now the perfections of
things are opposed to each other, for each thing is perfected by its
specific difference. But the differences by which genera are
divided, and species constituted, are opposed to each other.
Therefore because opposites cannot coexist in the same subject, it
seems that the perfections of all things are not in God.

Obj. 3: Further, a living thing is more perfect than what merely
exists; and an intelligent thing than what merely lives. Therefore
life is more perfect than existence; and knowledge than life. But the
essence of God is existence itself. Therefore He has not the
perfections of life, and knowledge, and other similar perfections.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v) that "God in His one
existence prepossesses all things."

_I answer that,_ All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken
of as universally perfect, because He lacks not (says the Commentator,
_Metaph._ v) any excellence which may be found in any genus. This may
be seen from two considerations. First, because whatever perfection
exists in an effect must be found in the effective cause: either in the
same formality, if it is a univocal agent--as when man reproduces man;
or in a more eminent degree, if it is an equivocal agent--thus in the
sun is the likeness of whatever is generated by the sun's power. Now it
is plain that the effect pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause:
and although to pre-exist in the potentiality of a material cause is to
pre-exist in a more imperfect way, since matter as such is imperfect,
and an agent as such is perfect; still to pre-exist virtually in the
efficient cause is to pre-exist not in a more imperfect, but in a more
perfect way. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of
things, the perfections of all things must pre-exist in God in a more
eminent way. Dionysius implies the same line of argument by saying of
God (Div. Nom. v): "It is not that He is this and not that, but that He
is all, as the cause of all." Secondly, from what has been already
proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (Q. 3, A. 4).
Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of
being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole
perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its
full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the
virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is
subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be
wanting to Him. Now all created perfections are included in the
perfection of being; for things are perfect, precisely so far as they
have being after some fashion. It follows therefore that the perfection
of no one thing is wanting to God. This line of argument, too, is
implied by Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), when he says that, "God exists not
in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely,
without limitation, uniformly;" and afterwards he adds that, "He is the
very existence to subsisting things."

Reply Obj. 1: Even as the sun (as Dionysius remarks, (Div.
Nom. v)), while remaining one and shining uniformly, contains within
itself first and uniformly the substances of sensible things, and many
and diverse qualities; _a fortiori_ should all things in a kind of
natural unity pre-exist in the cause of all things; and thus things
diverse and in themselves opposed to each other, pre-exist in God as
one, without injury to His simplicity. This suffices for the Reply to
the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: The same Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v) that,
although existence is more perfect than life, and life than wisdom, if
they are considered as distinguished in idea; nevertheless, a living
thing is more perfect than what merely exists, because living things
also exist and intelligent things both exist and live. Although
therefore existence does not include life and wisdom, because that
which participates in existence need not participate in every mode of
existence; nevertheless God's existence includes in itself life and
wisdom, because nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to
Him who is subsisting being itself.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 4, Art. 3]

Whether Any Creature Can Be Like God?

Objection 1: It seems that no creature can be like God. For it is
written (Ps. 85:8): "There is none among the gods like unto Thee, O
Lord." But of all creatures the most excellent are those which are
called by participation gods. Therefore still less can other creatures be
said to be like God.

Obj. 2: Further, likeness implies comparison. But there can be no
comparison between things in a different genus. Therefore neither
can there be any likeness. Thus we do not say that sweetness is like
whiteness. But no creature is in the same genus as God: since God is
no genus, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 5). Therefore no creature is
like God.

Obj. 3: Further, we speak of those things as like which agree in
form. But nothing can agree with God in form; for, save in God alone,
essence and existence differ. Therefore no creature can be like to
God.

Obj. 4: Further, among like things there is mutual likeness; for
like is like to like. If therefore any creature is like God, God will
be like some creature, which is against what is said by Isaias: "To
whom have you likened God?" (Isa. 40:18).

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "Let us make man to our image and
likeness" (Gen. 1:26), and: "When He shall appear we shall be like to
Him" (1 John 3:2).

_I answer that,_ Since likeness is based upon agreement or communication
in form, it varies according to the many modes of communication in
form. Some things are said to be like, which communicate in the same
form according to the same formality, and according to the same mode;
and these are said to be not merely like, but equal in their likeness;
as two things equally white are said to be alike in whiteness; and
this is the most perfect likeness. In another way, we speak of things
as alike which communicate in form according to the same formality,
though not according to the same measure, but according to more or
less, as something less white is said to be like another thing more
white; and this is imperfect likeness. In a third way some things are
said to be alike which communicate in the same form, but not according
to the same formality; as we see in non-univocal agents. For since
every agent reproduces itself so far as it is an agent, and everything
acts according to the manner of its form, the effect must in some way
resemble the form of the agent. If therefore the agent is contained in
the same species as its effect, there will be a likeness in form
between that which makes and that which is made, according to the same
formality of the species; as man reproduces man. If, however, the
agent and its effect are not contained in the same species, there will
be a likeness, but not according to the formality of the same species;
as things generated by the sun's heat may be in some sort spoken of as
like the sun, not as though they received the form of the sun in its
specific likeness, but in its generic likeness. Therefore if there is
an agent not contained in any genus, its effect will still more
distantly reproduce the form of the agent, not, that is, so as to
participate in the likeness of the agent's form according to the same
specific or generic formality, but only according to some sort of
analogy; as existence is common to all. In this way all created
things, so far as they are beings, are like God as the first and
universal principle of all being.

Reply Obj. 1: As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix), when Holy Writ
declares that nothing is like God, it does not mean to deny all
likeness to Him. For, "the same things can be like and unlike to God:
like, according as they imitate Him, as far as He, Who is not
perfectly imitable, can be imitated; unlike according as they fall
short of their cause," not merely in intensity and remission, as that
which is less white falls short of that which is more white; but
because they are not in agreement, specifically or generically.

Reply Obj. 2: God is not related to creatures as though
belonging to a different genus, but as transcending every genus,
and as the principle of all genera.

Reply Obj. 3: Likeness of creatures to God is not affirmed on
account of agreement in form according to the formality of the same
genus or species, but solely according to analogy, inasmuch as God is
essential being, whereas other things are beings by participation.

Reply Obj. 4: Although it may be admitted that creatures are
in some sort like God, it must nowise be admitted that God is like
creatures; because, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix): "A mutual
likeness may be found between things of the same order, but not
between a cause and that which is caused." For, we say that a statue
is like a man, but not conversely; so also a creature can be spoken of
as in some sort like God; but not that God is like a creature.
_______________________

QUESTION 5

OF GOODNESS IN GENERAL
(In Six Articles)

We next consider goodness: First, goodness in general. Secondly, the
goodness of God.

Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether goodness and being are the same really?

(2) Granted that they differ only in idea, which is prior in thought?

(3) Granted that being is prior, whether every being is good?

(4) To what cause should goodness be reduced?

(5) Whether goodness consists in mode, species, and order?

(6) Whether goodness is divided into the virtuous, the useful, and the
pleasant?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 5, Art. 1]

Whether Goodness Differs Really from Being?

Objection 1: It seems that goodness differs really from being. For
Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "I perceive that in nature the fact that
things are good is one thing: that they are is another." Therefore
goodness and being really differ.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing can be its own form. "But that is called
good which has the form of being," according to the commentary on _De
Causis._ Therefore goodness differs really from being.

Obj. 3: Further, goodness can be more or less. But being cannot
be more or less. Therefore goodness differs really from being.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 42) that,
"inasmuch as we exist we are good."

_I answer that,_ Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only
in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of
goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. i): "Goodness is what all desire." Now it is
clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for
all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as
it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as
it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is
clear from the foregoing (Q. 3, A. 4; Q. 4, A. 1). Hence it is
clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness
presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present.

Reply Obj. 1: Although goodness and being are the same really,
nevertheless since they differ in thought, they are not predicated of
a thing absolutely in the same way. Since being properly signifies
that something actually is, and actuality properly correlates to
potentiality; a thing is, in consequence, said simply to have being,
accordingly as it is primarily distinguished from that which is only
in potentiality; and this is precisely each thing's substantial being.
Hence by its substantial being, everything is said to have being
simply; but by any further actuality it is said to have being
relatively. Thus to be white implies relative being, for to be white
does not take a thing out of simply potential being; because only a
thing that actually has being can receive this mode of being. But
goodness signifies perfection which is desirable; and consequently of
ultimate perfection. Hence that which has ultimate perfection is said
to be simply good; but that which has not the ultimate perfection it
ought to have (although, in so far as it is at all actual, it has some
perfection), is not said to be perfect simply nor good simply, but
only relatively. In this way, therefore, viewed in its primal (i.e.
substantial) being a thing is said to be simply, and to be good
relatively (i.e. in so far as it has being) but viewed in its complete
actuality, a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply.
Hence the saying of Boethius (De Hebdom.), "I perceive that in nature
the fact that things are good is one thing; that they are is another,"
is to be referred to a thing's goodness simply, and having being
simply. Because, regarded in its primal actuality, a thing simply
exists; and regarded in its complete actuality, it is good simply--in
such sort that even in its primal actuality, it is in some sort good,
and even in its complete actuality, it in some sort has being.

Reply Obj. 2: Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness
signifies complete actuality.

Reply Obj. 3: Again, goodness is spoken of as more or less
according to a thing's superadded actuality, for example, as to
knowledge or virtue.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 5, Art. 2]

Whether Goodness Is Prior in Idea to Being?

Objection 1: It seems that goodness is prior in idea to being. For
names are arranged according to the arrangement of the things
signified by the names. But Dionysius (Div. Nom. iii) assigned the
first place, amongst the other names of God, to His goodness rather
than to His being. Therefore in idea goodness is prior to being.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is the more extensive is prior in
idea. But goodness is more extensive than being, because, as Dionysius
notes (Div. Nom. v), "goodness extends to things both existing and
non-existing; whereas existence extends to existing things alone."
Therefore goodness is in idea prior to being.

Obj. 3: Further, what is the more universal is prior in idea. But
goodness seems to be more universal than being, since goodness has the
aspect of desirable; whereas to some non-existence is desirable; for
it is said of Judas: "It were better for him, if that man had not been
born" (Matt. 26:24). Therefore in idea goodness is prior to being.

Obj. 4: Further, not only is existence desirable, but life,
knowledge, and many other things besides. Thus it seems that existence
is a particular appetible, and goodness a universal appetible.
Therefore, absolutely, goodness is prior in idea to being.

_On the contrary,_ It is said by Aristotle (De Causis) that "the first
of created things is being."

_I answer that,_ In idea being is prior to goodness. For the meaning
signified by the name of a thing is that which the mind conceives of
the thing and intends by the word that stands for it. Therefore, that
is prior in idea, which is first conceived by the intellect. Now the
first thing conceived by the intellect is being; because everything is
knowable only inasmuch as it is in actuality. Hence, being is the
proper object of the intellect, and is primarily intelligible; as
sound is that which is primarily audible. Therefore in idea being is
prior to goodness.

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius discusses the Divine Names (Div. Nom.
i, iii) as implying some causal relation in God; for we name God, as
he says, from creatures, as a cause from its effects. But goodness,
since it has the aspect of desirable, implies the idea of a final
cause, the causality of which is first among causes, since an agent
does not act except for some end; and by an agent matter is moved to
its form. Hence the end is called the cause of causes. Thus goodness,
as a cause, is prior to being, as is the end to the form. Therefore
among the names signifying the divine causality, goodness precedes
being. Again, according to the Platonists, who, through not
distinguishing primary matter from privation, said that matter was
non-being, goodness is more extensively participated than being; for
primary matter participates in goodness as tending to it, for all seek
their like; but it does not participate in being, since it is presumed
to be non-being. Therefore Dionysius says that "goodness extends to
non-existence" (Div. Nom. v).

Reply Obj. 2: The same solution is applied to this objection.
Or it may be said that goodness extends to existing and non-existing
things, not so far as it can be predicated of them, but so far as it
can cause them--if, indeed, by non-existence we understand not simply
those things which do not exist, but those which are potential, and
not actual. For goodness has the aspect of the end, in which not only
actual things find their completion, but also towards which tend even
those things which are not actual, but merely potential. Now being
implies the habitude of a formal cause only, either inherent or
exemplar; and its causality does not extend save to those things which
are actual.

Reply Obj. 3: Non-being is desirable, not of itself, but only
relatively--i.e. inasmuch as the removal of an evil, which can only
be removed by non-being, is desirable. Now the removal of an evil
cannot be desirable, except so far as this evil deprives a thing of
some being. Therefore being is desirable of itself; and non-being only
relatively, inasmuch as one seeks some mode of being of which one
cannot bear to be deprived; thus even non-being can be spoken of as
relatively good.

Reply Obj. 4: Life, wisdom, and the like, are desirable only
so far as they are actual. Hence, in each one of them some sort of
being is desired. And thus nothing can be desired except being; and
consequently nothing is good except being.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 5, Art. 3]

Whether Every Being Is Good?

Objection 1: It seems that not every being is good. For goodness is
something superadded to being, as is clear from A. 1. But whatever is
added to being limits it; as substance, quantity, quality, etc.
Therefore goodness limits being. Therefore not every being is good.

Obj. 2: Further, no evil is good: "Woe to you that call evil good
and good evil" (Isa. 5:20). But some things are called evil. Therefore
not every being is good.

Obj. 3: Further, goodness implies desirability. Now primary
matter does not imply desirability, but rather that which desires.
Therefore primary matter does not contain the formality of goodness.
Therefore not every being is good.

Obj. 4: Further, the Philosopher notes (Metaph. iii) that "in
mathematics goodness does not exist." But mathematics are entities;
otherwise there would be no science of mathematics. Therefore not
every being is good.

_On the contrary,_ Every being that is not God is God's creature. Now
every creature of God is good (1 Tim. 4:4): and God is the greatest
good. Therefore every being is good.

_I answer that,_ Every being, as being, is good. For all being, as
being, has actuality and is in some way perfect; since every act
implies some sort of perfection; and perfection implies desirability
and goodness, as is clear from A. 1. Hence it follows that every being
as such is good.

Reply Obj. 1: Substance, quantity, quality, and everything
included in them, limit being by applying it to some essence or
nature. Now in this sense, goodness does not add anything to being
beyond the aspect of desirability and perfection, which is also proper
to being, whatever kind of nature it may be. Hence goodness does not
limit being.

Reply Obj. 2: No being can be spoken of as evil, formally as
being, but only so far as it lacks being. Thus a man is said to be
evil, because he lacks some virtue; and an eye is said to be evil,
because it lacks the power to see well.

Reply Obj. 3: As primary matter has only potential being, so
it is only potentially good. Although, according to the Platonists,
primary matter may be said to be a non-being on account of the
privation attaching to it, nevertheless, it does participate to a
certain extent in goodness, viz. by its relation to, or aptitude for,
goodness. Consequently, to be desirable is not its property, but to
desire.

Reply Obj. 4: Mathematical entities do not subsist as
realities; because they would be in some sort good if they subsisted;
but they have only logical existence, inasmuch as they are abstracted
from motion and matter; thus they cannot have the aspect of an end,
which itself has the aspect of moving another. Nor is it repugnant
that there should be in some logical entity neither goodness nor form
of goodness; since the idea of being is prior to the idea of goodness,
as was said in the preceding article.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 5, Art. 4]

Whether Goodness Has the Aspect of a Final Cause?

Objection 1: It seems that goodness has not the aspect of a final
cause, but rather of the other causes. For, as Dionysius says (Div.
Nom. iv), "Goodness is praised as beauty." But beauty has the aspect
of a formal cause. Therefore goodness has the aspect of a formal
cause.

Obj. 2: Further, goodness is self-diffusive; for Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv) that goodness is that whereby all things subsist, and
are. But to be self-giving implies the aspect of an efficient cause.
Therefore goodness has the aspect of an efficient cause.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 31) that
"we exist because God is good." But we owe our existence to God as the
efficient cause. Therefore goodness implies the aspect of an efficient
cause.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Phys. ii) that "that is to be
considered as the end and the good of other things, for the sake of
which something is." Therefore goodness has the aspect of a final
cause.

_I answer that,_ Since goodness is that which all things desire, and
since this has the aspect of an end, it is clear that goodness implies
the aspect of an end. Nevertheless, the idea of goodness presupposes
the idea of an efficient cause, and also of a formal cause. For we see
that what is first in causing, is last in the thing caused. Fire, e.g.
heats first of all before it reproduces the form of fire; though the
heat in the fire follows from its substantial form. Now in causing,
goodness and the end come first, both of which move the agent to act;
secondly, the action of the agent moving to the form; thirdly, comes
the form. Hence in that which is caused the converse ought to take
place, so that there should be first, the form whereby it is a being;
secondly, we consider in it its effective power, whereby it is perfect
in being, for a thing is perfect when it can reproduce its like, as
the Philosopher says (Meteor. iv); thirdly, there follows the
formality of goodness which is the basic principle of its perfection.

Reply Obj. 1: Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical
fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the
form; and consequently goodness is praised as beauty. But they differ
logically, for goodness properly relates to the appetite (goodness
being what all things desire); and therefore it has the aspect of an
end (the appetite being a kind of movement towards a thing). On the
other hand, beauty relates to the cognitive faculty; for beautiful
things are those which please when seen. Hence beauty consists in due
proportion; for the senses delight in things duly proportioned, as in
what is after their own kind--because even sense is a sort of reason,
just as is every cognitive faculty. Now since knowledge is by
assimilation, and similarity relates to form, beauty properly belongs
to the nature of a formal cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Goodness is described as self-diffusive in the
sense that an end is said to move.

Reply Obj. 3: He who has a will is said to be good, so far as
he has a good will; because it is by our will that we employ whatever
powers we may have. Hence a man is said to be good, not by his good
understanding; but by his good will. Now the will relates to the end
as to its proper object. Thus the saying, "we exist because God is
good" has reference to the final cause.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 5, Art. 5]

Whether the Essence of Goodness Consists in Mode, Species and Order?

Objection 1: It seems that the essence of goodness does not consist in
mode, species and order. For goodness and being differ logically. But
mode, species and order seem to belong to the nature of being, for it
is written: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and
weight" (Wis. 11:21). And to these three can be reduced species, mode
and order, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 3): "Measure fixes the
mode of everything, number gives it its species, and weight gives it
rest and stability." Therefore the essence of goodness does not
consist in mode, species and order.

Obj. 2: Further, mode, species and order are themselves good.
Therefore if the essence of goodness consists in mode, species and
order, then every mode must have its own mode, species and order. The
same would be the case with species and order in endless succession.

Obj. 3: Further, evil is the privation of mode, species and
order. But evil is not the total absence of goodness. Therefore the
essence of goodness does not consist in mode, species and order.

Obj. 4: Further, that wherein consists the essence of goodness
cannot be spoken of as evil. Yet we can speak of an evil mode, species
and order. Therefore the essence of goodness does not consist in mode,
species and order.

Obj. 5: Further, mode, species and order are caused by weight,
number and measure, as appears from the quotation from Augustine. But
not every good thing has weight, number and measure; for Ambrose says
(Hexam. i, 9): "It is of the nature of light not to have been created
in number, weight and measure." Therefore the essence of goodness does
not consist in mode, species and order.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Nat. Boni. iii): "These
three--mode, species and order--as common good things, are in
everything God has made; thus, where these three abound the things are
very good; where they are less, the things are less good; where they
do not exist at all, there can be nothing good." But this would not be
unless the essence of goodness consisted in them. Therefore the
essence of goodness consists in mode, species and order.

_I answer that,_ Everything is said to be good so far as it is perfect;
for in that way only is it desirable (as shown above, AA. 1, 3). Now
a thing is said to be perfect if it lacks nothing according to the
mode of its perfection. But since everything is what it is by its form
(and since the form presupposes certain things, and from the form
certain things necessarily follow), in order for a thing to be perfect
and good it must have a form, together with all that precedes and
follows upon that form. Now the form presupposes determination or
commensuration of its principles, whether material or efficient, and
this is signified by the mode: hence it is said that the measure marks
the mode. But the form itself is signified by the species; for
everything is placed in its species by its form. Hence the number is
said to give the species, for definitions signifying species are like
numbers, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x); for as a unit added
to, or taken from a number, changes its species, so a difference added
to, or taken from a definition, changes its species. Further, upon the
form follows an inclination to the end, or to an action, or something
of the sort; for everything, in so far as it is in act, acts and tends
towards that which is in accordance with its form; and this belongs to
weight and order. Hence the essence of goodness, so far as it consists
in perfection, consists also in mode, species and order.

Reply Obj. 1: These three only follow upon being, so far as it
is perfect, and according to this perfection is it good.

Reply Obj. 2: Mode, species and order are said to be good, and
to be beings, not as though they themselves were subsistences, but
because it is through them that other things are both beings and good.
Hence they have no need of other things whereby they are good: for
they are spoken of as good, not as though formally constituted so by
something else, but as formally constituting others good: thus
whiteness is not said to be a being as though it were by anything
else; but because, by it, something else has accidental being, as an
object that is white.

Reply Obj. 3: Every being is due to some form. Hence,
according to every being of a thing is its mode, species, order. Thus,
a man has a mode, species and order as he is white, virtuous, learned
and so on; according to everything predicated of him. But evil
deprives a thing of some sort of being, as blindness deprives us of
that being which is sight; yet it does not destroy every mode, species
and order, but only such as follow upon the being of sight.

Reply Obj. 4: Augustine says (De Nat. Boni. xxiii), "Every
mode, as mode, is good" (and the same can be said of species and
order). "But an evil mode, species and order are so called as being
less than they ought to be, or as not belonging to that which they
ought to belong. Therefore they are called evil, because they are out
of place and incongruous."

Reply Obj. 5: The nature of light is spoken of as being
without number, weight and measure, not absolutely, but in comparison
with corporeal things, because the power of light extends to all
corporeal things; inasmuch as it is an active quality of the first
body that causes change, i.e. the heavens.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 5, Art. 6]

Whether Goodness Is Rightly Divided into the Virtuous*, the Useful
and the Pleasant? [*"Bonum honestum" is the virtuous good considered
as fitting. Cf. II-II, Q. 141, A. 3; Q. 145.]

Objection 1: It seems that goodness is not rightly divided into the
virtuous, the useful and the pleasant. For goodness is divided by the
ten predicaments, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i). But the
virtuous, the useful and the pleasant can be found under one
predicament. Therefore goodness is not rightly divided by them.

Obj. 2: Further, every division is made by opposites. But these
three do not seem to be opposites; for the virtuous is pleasing, and
no wickedness is useful; whereas this ought to be the case if the
division were made by opposites, for then the virtuous and the useful
would be opposed; and Tully speaks of this (De Offic. ii). Therefore
this division is incorrect.

Obj. 3: Further, where one thing is on account of another, there
is only one thing. But the useful is not goodness, except so far as it
is pleasing and virtuous. Therefore the useful ought not to divided
against the pleasant and the virtuous.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose makes use of this division of goodness (De
Offic. i, 9)

_I answer that,_ This division properly concerns human goodness. But if
we consider the nature of goodness from a higher and more universal
point of view, we shall find that this division properly concerns
goodness as such. For everything is good so far as it is desirable,
and is a term of the movement of the appetite; the term of whose
movement can be seen from a consideration of the movement of a natural
body. Now the movement of a natural body is terminated by the end
absolutely; and relatively by the means through which it comes to the
end, where the movement ceases; so a thing is called a term of
movement, so far as it terminates any part of that movement. Now the
ultimate term of movement can be taken in two ways, either as the
thing itself towards which it tends, e.g. a place or form; or a state
of rest in that thing. Thus, in the movement of the appetite, the
thing desired that terminates the movement of the appetite relatively,
as a means by which something tends towards another, is called the
useful; but that sought after as the last thing absolutely terminating
the movement of the appetite, as a thing towards which for its own
sake the appetite tends, is called the virtuous; for the virtuous is
that which is desired for its own sake; but that which terminates the
movement of the appetite in the form of rest in the thing desired, is
called the pleasant.

Reply Obj. 1: Goodness, so far as it is identical with being,
is divided by the ten predicaments. But this division belongs to it
according to its proper formality.

Reply Obj. 2: This division is not by opposite things; but by
opposite aspects. Now those things are called pleasing which have no
other formality under which they are desirable except the pleasant,
being sometimes hurtful and contrary to virtue. Whereas the useful
applies to such as have nothing desirable in themselves, but are
desired only as helpful to something further, as the taking of bitter
medicine; while the virtuous is predicated of such as are desirable in
themselves.

Reply Obj. 3: Goodness is not divided into these three as
something univocal to be predicated equally of them all; but as
something analogical to be predicated of them according to priority
and posteriority. Hence it is predicated chiefly of the virtuous; then
of the pleasant; and lastly of the useful.
_______________________

QUESTION 6

THE GOODNESS OF GOD
(In Four Articles)

We next consider the goodness of God; under which head there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether goodness belongs to God?

(2) Whether God is the supreme good?

(3) Whether He alone is essentially good?

(4) Whether all things are good by the divine goodness?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 6, Art. 1]

Whether God is good?

Objection 1: It seems that to be good does not belong to God. For
goodness consists in mode, species and order. But these do not seem to
belong to God; since God is immense and is not ordered to anything
else. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

Obj. 2: Further, the good is what all things desire. But all
things do not desire God, because all things do not know Him; and
nothing is desired unless it is known. Therefore to be good does not
belong to God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lam. 3:25): "The Lord is good to them
that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."

_I answer that,_ To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is
good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its
own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a
certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and
hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For
the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its
likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all
things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness
belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to
God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good
"as by Whom all things subsist."

Reply Obj. 1: To have mode, species and order belongs to the
essence of caused good; but good is in God as in its cause, and hence
it belongs to Him to impose mode, species and order on others;
wherefore these three things are in God as in their cause.

Reply Obj. 2: All things, by desiring their own perfection,
desire God Himself, inasmuch as the perfections of all things are so
many similitudes of the divine being; as appears from what is said
above (Q. 4, A. 3). And so of those things which desire God, some
know Him as He is Himself, and this is proper to the rational
creature; others know some participation of His goodness, and this
belongs also to sensible knowledge; others have a natural desire
without knowledge, as being directed to their ends by a higher
intelligence.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 6, Art. 2]

Whether God Is the Supreme Good?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not the supreme good. For the
supreme good adds something to good; otherwise it would belong to
every good. But everything which is an addition to anything else is a
compound thing: therefore the supreme good is a compound. But God is
supremely simple; as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 7). Therefore God
is not the supreme good.

Obj. 2: Further, "Good is what all desire," as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. i, 1). Now what all desire is nothing but God, Who is the
end of all things: therefore there is no other good but God. This
appears also from what is said (Luke 18:19): "None is good but God
alone." But we use the word supreme in comparison with others, as e.g.
supreme heat is used in comparison with all other heats. Therefore God
cannot be called the supreme good.

Obj. 3: Further, supreme implies comparison. But things not in
the same genus are not comparable; as, sweetness is not properly
greater or less than a line. Therefore, since God is not in the same
genus as other good things, as appears above (QQ. 3, A. 5;
4, A. 3) it seems that God cannot be called the supreme good in
relation to others.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. ii) that, the Trinity of the
divine persons is "the supreme good, discerned by purified minds."

_I answer that,_ God is the supreme good simply, and not only as
existing in any genus or order of things. For good is attributed to
God, as was said in the preceding article, inasmuch as all desired
perfections flow from Him as from the first cause. They do not,
however, flow from Him as from a univocal agent, as shown above
(Q. 4, A. 2); but as from an agent which does not agree with its
effects either in species or genus. Now the likeness of an effect in
the univocal cause is found uniformly; but in the equivocal cause it
is found more excellently, as, heat is in the sun more excellently
than it is in fire. Therefore as good is in God as in the first, but
not the univocal, cause of all things, it must be in Him in a most
excellent way; and therefore He is called the supreme good.

Reply Obj. 1: The supreme good does not add to good any
absolute thing, but only a relation. Now a relation of God to
creatures, is not a reality in God, but in the creature; for it is in
God in our idea only: as, what is knowable is so called with relation
to knowledge, not that it depends on knowledge, but because knowledge
depends on it. Thus it is not necessary that there should be
composition in the supreme good, but only that other things are
deficient in comparison with it.

Reply Obj. 2: When we say that good is what all desire, it is
not to be understood that every kind of good thing is desired by all;
but that whatever is desired has the nature of good. And when it is
said, "None is good but God alone," this is to be understood of
essential goodness, as will be explained in the next article.

Reply Obj. 3: Things not of the same genus are in no way
comparable to each other if indeed they are in different genera. Now
we say that God is not in the same genus with other good things; not
that He is any other genus, but that He is outside genus, and is the
principle of every genus; and thus He is compared to others by excess,
and it is this kind of comparison the supreme good implies.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I. Q. 6, Art. 3]

Whether to Be Essentially Good Belongs to God Alone?

Objection 1: It seems that to be essentially good does not belong to
God alone. For as _one_ is convertible with _being,_ so is _good;_ as
we said above (Q. 5, A. 1). But every being is one essentially, as
appears from the Philosopher (Metaph. iv); therefore every being is
good essentially.

Obj. 2: Further, if good is what all things desire, since being
itself is desired by all, then the being of each thing is its good.
But everything is a being essentially; therefore every being is good
essentially.

Obj. 3: Further, everything is good by its own goodness.
Therefore if there is anything which is not good essentially, it is
necessary to say that its goodness is not its own essence. Therefore
its goodness, since it is a being, must be good; and if it is good by
some other goodness, the same question applies to that goodness also;
therefore we must either proceed to infinity, or come to some goodness
which is not good by any other goodness. Therefore the first
supposition holds good. Therefore everything is good essentially.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Hebdom.), that "all things but God
are good by participation." Therefore they are not good essentially.

_I answer that,_ God alone is good essentially. For everything is called
good according to its perfection. Now perfection of a thing is
threefold: first, according to the constitution of its own being;
secondly, in respect of any accidents being added as necessary for its
perfect operation; thirdly, perfection consists in the attaining to
something else as the end. Thus, for instance, the first perfection of
fire consists in its existence, which it has through its own
substantial form; its secondary perfection consists in heat, lightness
and dryness, and the like; its third perfection is to rest in its own
place. This triple perfection belongs to no creature by its own
essence; it belongs to God only, in Whom alone essence is existence;
in Whom there are no accidents; since whatever belongs to others
accidentally belongs to Him essentially; as, to be powerful, wise and
the like, as appears from what is stated above (Q. 3, A. 6); and
He is not directed to anything else as to an end, but is Himself the
last end of all things. Hence it is manifest that God alone has every
kind of perfection by His own essence; therefore He Himself alone is
good essentially.

Reply Obj. 1: "One" does not include the idea of perfection,
but only of indivision, which belongs to everything according to its
own essence. Now the essences of simple things are undivided both
actually and potentially, but the essences of compounds are undivided
only actually; and therefore everything must be one essentially, but
not good essentially, as was shown above.

Reply Obj. 2: Although everything is good in that it has
being, yet the essence of a creature is not very being; and therefore
it does not follow that a creature is good essentially.

Reply Obj. 3: The goodness of a creature is not its very
essence, but something superadded; it is either its existence, or some
added perfection, or the order to its end. Still, the goodness itself
thus added is good, just as it is being. But for this reason is it
called being because by it something has being, not because it itself
has being through something else: hence for this reason is it called
good because by it something is good, and not because it itself has
some other goodness whereby it is good.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 6, Art. 4]

Whether All Things Are Good by the Divine Goodness?

Objection 1: It seems that all things are good by the divine goodness.
For Augustine says (De Trin. viii), "This and that are good; take away
this and that, and see good itself if thou canst; and so thou shalt
see God, good not by any other good, but the good of every good." But
everything is good by its own good; therefore everything is good by
that very good which is God.

Obj. 2: Further, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), all things are
called good, accordingly as they are directed to God, and this is by
reason of the divine goodness; therefore all things are good by the
divine goodness.

_On the contrary,_ All things are good, inasmuch as they have being. But
they are not called beings through the divine being, but through their
own being; therefore all things are not good by the divine goodness,
but by their own goodness.

_I answer that,_ As regards relative things, we must admit extrinsic
denomination; as, a thing is denominated "placed" from "place," and
"measured" from "measure." But as regards absolute things opinions
differ. Plato held the existence of separate ideas (Q. 84, A. 4)
of all things, and that individuals were denominated by them as
participating in the separate ideas; for instance, that Socrates is
called man according to the separate idea of man. Now just as he laid
down separate ideas of man and horse which he called absolute man and
absolute horse, so likewise he laid down separate ideas of "being" and
of "one," and these he called absolute being and absolute oneness; and
by participation of these, everything was called "being" or "one"; and
what was thus absolute being and absolute one, he said was the supreme
good. And because good is convertible with being, as one is also; he
called God the absolute good, from whom all things are called good by
way of participation.

Although this opinion appears to be unreasonable in affirming separate
ideas of natural things as subsisting of themselves--as Aristotle
argues in many ways--still, it is absolutely true that there is first
something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we
call God, as appears from what is shown above (Q. 2, A. 3), and
Aristotle agrees with this. Hence from the first being, essentially
such, and good, everything can be called good and a being, inasmuch as
it participates in it by way of a certain assimilation which is far
removed and defective; as appears from the above (Q. 4, A. 3).

Everything is therefore called good from the divine goodness, as from
the first exemplary effective and final principle of all goodness.
Nevertheless, everything is called good by reason of the similitude of
the divine goodness belonging to it, which is formally its own
goodness, whereby it is denominated good. And so of all things there
is one goodness, and yet many goodnesses.

This is a sufficient Reply to the Objections.
_______________________

QUESTION 7

THE INFINITY OF GOD
(In Four Articles)

After considering the divine perfection we must consider the divine
infinity, and God's existence in things: for God is everywhere, and in
all things, inasmuch as He is boundless and infinite.

Concerning the first, there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God is infinite?

(2) Whether anything besides Him is infinite in essence?

(3) Whether anything can be infinitude in magnitude?

(4) Whether an infinite multitude can exist?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 7, Art. 1]

Whether God Is Infinite?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not infinite. For everything
infinite is imperfect, as the Philosopher says; because it has parts
and matter, as is said in Phys. iii. But God is most perfect;
therefore He is not infinite.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. i), finite
and infinite belong to quantity. But there is no quantity in God, for
He is not a body, as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 1). Therefore it
does not belong to Him to be infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, what is here in such a way as not to be
elsewhere, is finite according to place. Therefore that which is a
thing in such a way as not to be another thing, is finite according to
substance. But God is this, and not another; for He is not a stone or
wood. Therefore God is not infinite in substance.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4) that "God is
infinite and eternal, and boundless."

_I answer that,_ All the ancient philosophers attribute infinitude to
the first principle, as is said (Phys. iii), and with reason; for they
considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle.
But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle,
as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity; forasmuch as
they asserted that matter was the first principle; consequently they
attributed to the first principle a material infinity to the effect
that some infinite body was the first principle of things.

We must consider therefore that a thing is called infinite because it
is not finite. Now matter is in a way made finite by form, and the
form by matter. Matter indeed is made finite by form, inasmuch as
matter, before it receives its form, is in potentiality to many forms;
but on receiving a form, it is terminated by that one. Again, form is
made finite by matter, inasmuch as form, considered in itself, is
common to many; but when received in matter, the form is determined to
this one particular thing. Now matter is perfected by the form by
which it is made finite; therefore infinite as attributed to matter,
has the nature of something imperfect; for it is as it were formless
matter. On the other hand, form is not made perfect by matter, but
rather is contracted by matter; and hence the infinite, regarded on
the part of the form not determined by matter, has the nature of
something perfect. Now being is the most formal of all things, as
appears from what is shown above (Q. 4, A. 1, Obj. 3). Since
therefore the divine being is not a being received in anything, but He
is His own subsistent being as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 4), it is
clear that God Himself is infinite and perfect.

From this appears the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: Quantity is terminated by its form, which can be
seen in the fact that a figure which consists in quantity terminated,
is a kind of quantitative form. Hence the infinite of quantity is the
infinite of matter; such a kind of infinite cannot be attributed to
God; as was said above, in this article.

Reply Obj. 3: The fact that the being of God is self-subsisting,
not received in any other, and is thus called infinite, shows Him
to be distinguished from all other beings, and all others to be
apart from Him. Even so, were there such a thing as a
self-subsisting whiteness, the very fact that it did not exist in
anything else, would make it distinct from every other whiteness
existing in a subject.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 7, Art. 2]

Whether Anything but God Can Be Essentially Infinite?

Objection 1: It seems that something else besides God can be
essentially infinite. For the power of anything is proportioned to its
essence. Now if the essence of God is infinite, His power must also be
infinite. Therefore He can produce an infinite effect, since the
extent of a power is known by its effect.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever has infinite power, has an infinite
essence. Now the created intellect has an infinite power; for it
apprehends the universal, which can extend itself to an infinitude of
singular things. Therefore every created intellectual substance is
infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, primary matter is something other than God, as
was shown above (Q. 3, A. 8). But primary matter is infinite.
Therefore something besides God can be infinite.

_On the contrary,_ The infinite cannot have a beginning, as said in
Phys. iii. But everything outside God is from God as from its first
principle. Therefore besides God nothing can be infinite.

_I answer that,_ Things other than God can be relatively infinite, but
not absolutely infinite. For with regard to infinite as applied to
matter, it is manifest that everything actually existing possesses a
form; and thus its matter is determined by form. But because matter,
considered as existing under some substantial form, remains in
potentiality to many accidental forms, which is absolutely finite can
be relatively infinite; as, for example, wood is finite according to
its own form, but still it is relatively infinite, inasmuch as it is
in potentiality to an infinite number of shapes. But if we speak of
the infinite in reference to form, it is manifest that those things,
the forms of which are in matter, are absolutely finite, and in no way
infinite. If, however, any created forms are not received into matter,
but are self-subsisting, as some think is the case with angels, these
will be relatively infinite, inasmuch as such kinds of forms are not
terminated, nor contracted by any matter. But because a created form
thus subsisting has being, and yet is not its own being, it follows
that its being is received and contracted to a determinate nature.
Hence it cannot be absolutely infinite.

Reply Obj. 1: It is against the nature of a made thing for its
essence to be its existence; because subsisting being is not a created
being; hence it is against the nature of a made thing to be absolutely
infinite. Therefore, as God, although He has infinite power, cannot
make a thing to be not made (for this would imply that two
contradictories are true at the same time), so likewise He cannot make
anything to be absolutely infinite.

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that the power of the intellect extends
itself in a way to infinite things, is because the intellect is a form
not in matter, but either wholly separated from matter, as is the
angelic substance, or at least an intellectual power, which is not the
act of any organ, in the intellectual soul joined to a body.

Reply Obj. 3: Primary matter does not exist by itself in
nature, since it is not actually being, but potentially only; hence it
is something concreated rather than created. Nevertheless, primary
matter even as a potentiality is not absolutely infinite, but
relatively, because its potentiality extends only to natural forms.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 7, Art. 3]

Whether an Actually Infinite Magnitude Can Exist?

Objection 1: It seems that there can be something actually infinite in
magnitude. For in mathematics there is no error, since "there is no
lie in things abstract," as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii). But
mathematics uses the infinite in magnitude; thus, the geometrician in
his demonstrations says, "Let this line be infinite." Therefore it is
not impossible for a thing to be infinite in magnitude.

Obj. 2: Further, what is not against the nature of anything, can
agree with it. Now to be infinite is not against the nature of
magnitude; but rather both the finite and the infinite seem to be
properties of quantity. Therefore it is not impossible for some
magnitude to be infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, magnitude is infinitely divisible, for the
continuous is defined that which is infinitely divisible, as is clear
from Phys. iii. But contraries are concerned about one and the same
thing. Since therefore addition is opposed to division, and increase
opposed to diminution, it appears that magnitude can be increased to
infinity. Therefore it is possible for magnitude to be infinite.

Obj. 4: Further, movement and time have quantity and continuity
derived from the magnitude over which movement passes, as is said in
Phys. iv. But it is not against the nature of time and movement to be
infinite, since every determinate indivisible in time and circular
movement is both a beginning and an end. Therefore neither is it
against the nature of magnitude to be infinite.

_On the contrary,_ Every body has a surface. But every body which has a
surface is finite; because surface is the term of a finite body.
Therefore all bodies are finite. The same applies both to surface and
to a line. Therefore nothing is infinite in magnitude.

_I answer that,_ It is one thing to be infinite in essence, and another
to be infinite in magnitude. For granted that a body exists infinite
in magnitude, as fire or air, yet this could not be infinite in
essence, because its essence would be terminated in a species by its
form, and confined to individuality by matter. And so assuming from
these premises that no creature is infinite in essence, it still
remains to inquire whether any creature can be infinite in magnitude.

We must therefore observe that a body, which is a complete magnitude,
can be considered in two ways; mathematically, in respect to its
quantity only; and naturally, as regards its matter and form.

Now it is manifest that a natural body cannot be actually infinite.
For every natural body has some determined substantial form. Since
therefore the accidents follow upon the substantial form, it is
necessary that determinate accidents should follow upon a determinate
form; and among these accidents is quantity. So every natural body has
a greater or smaller determinate quantity. Hence it is impossible for
a natural body to be infinite. The same appears from movement; because
every natural body has some natural movement; whereas an infinite body
could not have any natural movement; neither direct, because nothing
moves naturally by a direct movement unless it is out of its place;
and this could not happen to an infinite body, for it would occupy
every place, and thus every place would be indifferently its own
place. Neither could it move circularly; forasmuch as circular motion
requires that one part of the body is necessarily transferred to a
place occupied by another part, and this could not happen as regards
an infinite circular body: for if two lines be drawn from the centre,
the farther they extend from the centre, the farther they are from
each other; therefore, if a body were infinite, the lines would be
infinitely distant from each other; and thus one could never occupy
the place belonging to any other.

The same applies to a mathematical body. For if we imagine a
mathematical body actually existing, we must imagine it under some
form, because nothing is actual except by its form; hence, since the
form of quantity as such is figure, such a body must have some figure,
and so would be finite; for figure is confined by a term or boundary.

Reply Obj. 1: A geometrician does not need to assume a line
actually infinite, but takes some actually finite line, from which he
subtracts whatever he finds necessary; which line he calls infinite.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the infinite is not against the nature
of magnitude in general, still it is against the nature of any species
of it; thus, for instance, it is against the nature of a bicubical or
tricubical magnitude, whether circular or triangular, and so on. Now
what is not possible in any species cannot exist in the genus; hence
there cannot be any infinite magnitude, since no species of magnitude
is infinite.

Reply Obj. 3: The infinite in quantity, as was shown above,
belongs to matter. Now by division of the whole we approach to matter,
forasmuch as parts have the aspect of matter; but by addition we
approach to the whole which has the aspect of a form. Therefore the
infinite is not in the addition of magnitude, but only in division.

Reply Obj. 4: Movement and time are whole, not actually but
successively; hence they have potentiality mixed with actuality. But
magnitude is an actual whole; therefore the infinite in quantity
refers to matter, and does not agree with the totality of magnitude;
yet it agrees with the totality of time and movement: for it is proper
to matter to be in potentiality.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 7, Art. 4]

Whether an Infinite Multitude Can Exist?

Objection 1: It seems that an actually infinite multitude is possible.
For it is not impossible for a potentiality to be made actual. But
number can be multiplied to infinity. Therefore it is possible for an
infinite multitude actually to exist.

Obj. 2: Further, it is possible for any individual of any species
to be made actual. But the species of figures are infinite. Therefore
an infinite number of actual figures is possible.

Obj. 3: Further, things not opposed to each other do not obstruct
each other. But supposing a multitude of things to exist, there can
still be many others not opposed to them. Therefore it is not
impossible for others also to coexist with them, and so on to
infinitude; therefore an actual infinite number of things is possible.

_On the contrary,_ It is written, "Thou hast ordered all things in
measure, and number, and weight" (Wis. 11:21).

_I answer that,_ A twofold opinion exists on this subject. Some, as
Avicenna and Algazel, said that it was impossible for an actually
infinite multitude to exist absolutely; but that an accidentally
infinite multitude was not impossible. A multitude is said to be
infinite absolutely, when an infinite multitude is necessary that
something may exist. Now this is impossible; because it would entail
something dependent on an infinity for its existence; and hence its
generation could never come to be, because it is impossible to pass
through an infinite medium.

A multitude is said to be accidentally infinite when its existence as
such is not necessary, but accidental. This can be shown, for example,
in the work of a carpenter requiring a certain absolute multitude;
namely, art in the soul, the movement of the hand, and a hammer; and
supposing that such things were infinitely multiplied, the
carpentering work would never be finished, forasmuch as it would
depend on an infinite number of causes. But the multitude of hammers,
inasmuch as one may be broken and another used, is an accidental
multitude; for it happens by accident that many hammers are used, and
it matters little whether one or two, or many are used, or an infinite
number, if the work is carried on for an infinite time. In this way
they said that there can be an accidentally infinite multitude.

This, however, is impossible; since every kind of multitude must
belong to a species of multitude. Now the species of multitude are to
be reckoned by the species of numbers. But no species of number is
infinite; for every number is multitude measured by one. Hence it is
impossible for there to be an actually infinite multitude, either
absolute or accidental. Likewise multitude in nature is created; and
everything created is comprehended under some clear intention of the
Creator; for no agent acts aimlessly. Hence everything created must be
comprehended in a certain number. Therefore it is impossible for an
actually infinite multitude to exist, even accidentally. But a
potentially infinite multitude is possible; because the increase of
multitude follows upon the division of magnitude; since the more a
thing is divided, the greater number of things result. Hence, as the
infinite is to be found potentially in the division of the continuous,
because we thus approach matter, as was shown in the preceding
article, by the same rule, the infinite can be also found potentially
in the addition of multitude.

Reply Obj. 1: Every potentiality is made actual according to
its mode of being; for instance, a day is reduced to act successively,
and not all at once. Likewise the infinite in multitude is reduced to
act successively, and not all at once; because every multitude can be
succeeded by another multitude to infinity.

Reply Obj. 2: Species of figures are infinite by infinitude of
number. Now there are various species of figures, such as trilateral,
quadrilateral and so on; and as an infinitely numerable multitude is
not all at once reduced to act, so neither is the multitude of
figures.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the supposition of some things does not
preclude the supposition of others, still the supposition of an
infinite number is opposed to any single species of multitude. Hence
it is not possible for an actually infinite multitude to exist.
_______________________

QUESTION 8

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THINGS
(In Four Articles)

Since it evidently belongs to the infinite to be present everywhere,
and in all things, we now consider whether this belongs to God; and
concerning this there arise four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God is in all things?

(2) Whether God is everywhere?

(3) Whether God is everywhere by essence, power, and presence?

(4) Whether to be everywhere belongs to God alone?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 8, Art. 1]

Whether God Is in All Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not in all things. For what is above
all things is not in all things. But God is above all, according to
the Psalm (Ps. 112:4), "The Lord is high above all nations," etc.
Therefore God is not in all things.

Obj. 2: Further, what is in anything is thereby contained. Now
God is not contained by things, but rather does He contain them.
Therefore God is not in things but things are rather in Him. Hence
Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. 20), that "in Him things are,
rather than He is in any place."

Obj. 3: Further, the more powerful an agent is, the more extended
is its action. But God is the most powerful of all agents. Therefore
His action can extend to things which are far removed from Him; nor is
it necessary that He should be in all things.

Obj. 4: Further, the demons are beings. But God is not in the
demons; for there is no fellowship between light and darkness (2 Cor.
6:14). Therefore God is not in all things.

_On the contrary,_ A thing is wherever it operates. But God operates in
all things, according to Isa. 26:12, "Lord . . . Thou hast wrought all
our works in [Vulg.: 'for'] us." Therefore God is in all things.

_I answer that,_ God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their
essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon
which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts
immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii
that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since
God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper
effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this
effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as
they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun
as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing
has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being.
But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent
in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a
thing, as was shown above (Q. 7, A. 1). Hence it must be that God
is in all things, and innermostly.

Reply Obj. 1: God is above all things by the excellence of His
nature; nevertheless, He is in all things as the cause of the being of
all things; as was shown above in this article.

Reply Obj. 2: Although corporeal things are said to be in
another as in that which contains them, nevertheless, spiritual things
contain those things in which they are; as the soul contains the body.
Hence also God is in things containing them; nevertheless, by a
certain similitude to corporeal things, it is said that all things are
in God; inasmuch as they are contained by Him.

Reply Obj. 3: No action of an agent, however powerful it may
be, acts at a distance, except through a medium. But it belongs to the
great power of God that He acts immediately in all things. Hence
nothing is distant from Him, as if it could be without God in itself.
But things are said to be distant from God by the unlikeness to Him in
nature or grace; as also He is above all by the excellence of His own
nature.

Reply Obj. 4: In the demons there is their nature which is
from God, and also the deformity of sin which is not from Him;
therefore, it is not to be absolutely conceded that God is in the
demons, except with the addition, "inasmuch as they are beings." But
in things not deformed in their nature, we must say absolutely that
God is.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 8, Art. 2]

Whether God Is Everywhere?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not everywhere. For to be everywhere
means to be in every place. But to be in every place does not belong
to God, to Whom it does not belong to be in place at all; for
"incorporeal things," as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), "are not in a
place." Therefore God is not everywhere.

Obj. 2: Further, the relation of time to succession is the same
as the relation of place to permanence. But one indivisible part of
action or movement cannot exist in different times; therefore neither
can one indivisible part in the genus of permanent things be in every
place. Now the divine being is not successive but permanent. Therefore
God is not in many places; and thus He is not everywhere.

Obj. 3: Further, what is wholly in any one place is not in part
elsewhere. But if God is in any one place He is all there; for He has
no parts. No part of Him then is elsewhere; and therefore God is not
everywhere.

_On the contrary,_ It is written, "I fill heaven and earth." (Jer.
   23:24).

_I answer that,_ Since place is a thing, to be in place can be
understood in a twofold sense; either by way of other things--i.e. as
one thing is said to be in another no matter how; and thus the
accidents of a place are in place; or by a way proper to place; and
thus things placed are in a place. Now in both these senses, in some
way God is in every place; and this is to be everywhere. First, as He
is in all things giving them being, power and operation; so He is in
every place as giving it existence and locative power. Again, things
placed are in place, inasmuch as they fill place; and God fills every
place; not, indeed, like a body, for a body is said to fill place
inasmuch as it excludes the co-presence of another body; whereas by
God being in a place, others are not thereby excluded from it; indeed,
by the very fact that He gives being to the things that fill every
place, He Himself fills every place.

Reply Obj. 1: Incorporeal things are in place not by contact
of dimensive quantity, as bodies are but by contact of power.

Reply Obj. 2: The indivisible is twofold. One is the term of
the continuous; as a point in permanent things, and as a moment in
succession; and this kind of the indivisible in permanent things,
forasmuch as it has a determinate site, cannot be in many parts of
place, or in many places; likewise the indivisible of action or
movement, forasmuch as it has a determinate order in movement or
action, cannot be in many parts of time. Another kind of the
indivisible is outside of the whole genus of the continuous; and in
this way incorporeal substances, like God, angel and soul, are called
indivisible. Such a kind of indivisible does not belong to the
continuous, as a part of it, but as touching it by its power; hence,
according as its power can extend itself to one or to many, to a small
thing, or to a great one, in this way it is in one or in many places,
and in a small or large place.

Reply Obj. 3: A whole is so called with reference to its
parts. Now part is twofold: viz. a part of the essence, as the form
and the matter are called parts of the composite, while genus and
difference are called parts of species. There is also part of quantity
into which any quantity is divided. What therefore is whole in any
place by totality of quantity, cannot be outside of that place,
because the quantity of anything placed is commensurate to the
quantity of the place; and hence there is no totality of quantity
without totality of place. But totality of essence is not commensurate
to the totality of place. Hence it is not necessary for that which is
whole by totality of essence in a thing, not to be at all outside of
it. This appears also in accidental forms which have accidental
quantity; as an example, whiteness is whole in each part of the
surface if we speak of its totality of essence; because according to
the perfect idea of its species it is found to exist in every part of
the surface. But if its totality be considered according to quantity
which it has accidentally, then it is not whole in every part of the
surface. On the other hand, incorporeal substances have no totality
either of themselves or accidentally, except in reference to the
perfect idea of their essence. Hence, as the soul is whole in every
part of the body, so is God whole in all things and in each one.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 8, Art. 3]

Whether God Is Everywhere by Essence, Presence and Power?

Objection 1: It seems that the mode of God's existence in all things
is not properly described by way of essence, presence and power. For
what is by essence in anything, is in it essentially. But God is not
essentially in things; for He does not belong to the essence of
anything. Therefore it ought not to be said that God is in things by
essence, presence and power.

Obj. 2: Further, to be present in anything means not to be absent
from it. Now this is the meaning of God being in things by His
essence, that He is not absent from anything. Therefore the presence
of God in all things by essence and presence means the same thing.
Therefore it is superfluous to say that God is present in things by
His essence, presence and power.

Obj. 3: Further, as God by His power is the principle of all
things, so He is the same likewise by His knowledge and will. But it
is not said that He is in things by knowledge and will. Therefore
neither is He present by His power.

Obj. 4: Further, as grace is a perfection added to the substance
of a thing, so many other perfections are likewise added. Therefore if
God is said to be in certain persons in a special way by grace, it
seems that according to every perfection there ought to be a special
mode of God's existence in things.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on the Canticle of Canticles (5) says that,
"God by a common mode is in all things by His presence, power and
substance; still He is said to be present more familiarly in some by
grace." [*The quotation is from St. Gregory, (Hom. viii in Ezech.)].

_I answer that,_ God is said to be in a thing in two ways; in one way
after the manner of an efficient cause; and thus He is in all things
created by Him; in another way he is in things as the object of
operation is in the operator; and this is proper to the operations of
the soul, according as the thing known is in the one who knows; and
the thing desired in the one desiring. In this second way God is
especially in the rational creature which knows and loves Him actually
or habitually. And because the rational creature possesses this
prerogative by grace, as will be shown later (Q. 12). He is said
to be thus in the saints by grace.

But how He is in other things created by Him, may be considered from
human affairs. A king, for example, is said to be in the whole kingdom
by his power, although he is not everywhere present. Again a thing is
said to be by its presence in other things which are subject to its
inspection; as things in a house are said to be present to anyone, who
nevertheless may not be in substance in every part of the house.
Lastly, a thing is said to be by way of substance or essence in that
place in which its substance may be. Now there were some (the
Manichees) who said that spiritual and incorporeal things were subject
to the divine power; but that visible and corporeal things were
subject to the power of a contrary principle. Therefore against these
it is necessary to say that God is in all things by His power.

But others, though they believed that all things were subject to the
divine power, still did not allow that divine providence extended to
these inferior bodies, and in the person of these it is said, "He
walketh about the poles of the heavens; and He doth not consider our
things [*Vulg.: 'He doth not consider . . . and He walketh,' etc.]"
(Job 22:14). Against these it is necessary to say that God is in all
things by His presence.

Further, others said that, although all things are subject to God's
providence, still all things are not immediately created by God; but
that He immediately created the first creatures, and these created the
others. Against these it is necessary to say that He is in all things
by His essence.

Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things
are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all
things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His
essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

Reply Obj. 1: God is said to be in all things by essence, not
indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their
essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to
all things as the cause of their being.

Reply Obj. 2: A thing can be said to be present to another,
when in its sight, though the thing may be distant in substance, as
was shown in this article; and therefore two modes of presence are
necessary; viz. by essence and by presence.

Reply Obj. 3: Knowledge and will require that the thing known
should be in the one who knows, and the thing willed in the one who
wills. Hence by knowledge and will things are more truly in God than
God in things. But power is the principle of acting on another; hence
by power the agent is related and applied to an external thing; thus
by power an agent may be said to be present to another.

Reply Obj. 4: No other perfection, except grace, added to
substance, renders God present in anything as the object known and
loved; therefore only grace constitutes a special mode of God's
existence in things. There is, however, another special mode of God's
existence in man by union, which will be treated of in its own place
(Part III).
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 8, Art. 4]

Whether to Be Everywhere Belongs to God Alone?

Objection 1: It seems that to be everywhere does not belong to God
alone. For the universal, according to the Philosopher (Poster. i), is
everywhere, and always; primary matter also, since it is in all
bodies, is everywhere. But neither of these is God, as appears from
what is said above (Q. 3). Therefore to be everywhere does not
belong to God alone.

Obj. 2: Further, number is in things numbered. But the whole
universe is constituted in number, as appears from the Book of Wisdom
(Wis. 11:21). Therefore there is some number which is in the whole
universe, and is thus everywhere.

Obj. 3: Further, the universe is a kind of "whole perfect body"
(Coel. et Mund. i). But the whole universe is everywhere, because
there is no place outside it. Therefore to be everywhere does not
belong to God alone.

Obj. 4: Further, if any body were infinite, no place would exist
outside of it, and so it would be everywhere. Therefore to be
everywhere does not appear to belong to God alone.

Obj. 5: Further, the soul, as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 6), is
"whole in the whole body, and whole in every one of its parts."
Therefore if there was only one animal in the world, its soul would be
everywhere; and thus to be everywhere does not belong to God alone.

Obj. 6: Further, as Augustine says (Ep. 137), "The soul feels
where it sees, and lives where it feels, and is where it lives." But
the soul sees as it were everywhere: for in a succession of glances it
comprehends the entire space of the heavens in its sight. Therefore
the soul is everywhere.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i, 7): "Who dares to
call the Holy Ghost a creature, Who in all things, and everywhere, and
always is, which assuredly belongs to the divinity alone?"

_I answer that,_ To be everywhere primarily and absolutely, is proper to
God. Now to be everywhere primarily is said of that which in its whole
self is everywhere; for if a thing were everywhere according to its
parts in different places, it would not be primarily everywhere,
forasmuch as what belongs to anything according to part does not
belong to it primarily; thus if a man has white teeth, whiteness
belongs primarily not to the man but to his teeth. But a thing is
everywhere absolutely when it does not belong to it to be everywhere
accidentally, that is, merely on some supposition; as a grain of
millet would be everywhere, supposing that no other body existed. It
belongs therefore to a thing to be everywhere absolutely when, on any
supposition, it must be everywhere; and this properly belongs to God
alone. For whatever number of places be supposed, even if an infinite
number be supposed besides what already exist, it would be necessary
that God should be in all of them; for nothing can exist except by
Him. Therefore to be everywhere primarily and absolutely belongs to
God and is proper to Him: because whatever number of places be
supposed to exist, God must be in all of them, not as to a part of
Him, but as to His very self.

Reply Obj. 1: The universal, and also primary matter are
indeed everywhere; but not according to the same mode of existence.

Reply Obj. 2: Number, since it is an accident, does not, of
itself, exist in place, but accidentally; neither is the whole but
only part of it in each of the things numbered; hence it does not
follow that it is primarily and absolutely everywhere.

Reply Obj. 3: The whole body of the universe is everywhere,
but not primarily; forasmuch as it is not wholly in each place, but
according to its parts; nor again is it everywhere absolutely,
because, supposing that other places existed besides itself, it would
not be in them.

Reply Obj. 4: If an infinite body existed, it would be
everywhere; but according to its parts.

Reply Obj. 5: Were there one animal only, its soul would be
everywhere primarily indeed, but only accidentally.

Reply Obj. 6: When it is said that the soul sees anywhere,
this can be taken in two senses. In one sense the adverb "anywhere"
determines the act of seeing on the part of the object; and in this
sense it is true that while it sees the heavens, it sees in the
heavens; and in the same way it feels in the heavens; but it does not
follow that it lives or exists in the heavens, because to live and to
exist do not import an act passing to an exterior object. In another
sense it can be understood according as the adverb determines the act
of the seer, as proceeding from the seer; and thus it is true that
where the soul feels and sees, there it is, and there it lives
according to this mode of speaking; and thus it does not follow that
it is everywhere.
_______________________

QUESTION 9

THE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD
(In Two Articles)

We next consider God's immutability, and His eternity following on His
immutability. On the immutability of God there are two points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether God is altogether immutable?

(2) Whether to be immutable belongs to God alone?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 9, Art. 1]

Whether God is altogether immutable?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not altogether immutable. For
whatever moves itself is in some way mutable. But, as Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit, viii, 20), "The Creator Spirit moves Himself neither by
time, nor by place." Therefore God is in some way mutable.

Obj. 2: Further, it is said of Wisdom, that "it is more mobile
than all things active [Vulg. 'mobilior']" (Wis. 7:24). But God is
wisdom itself; therefore God is movable.

Obj. 3: Further, to approach and to recede signify movement. But
these are said of God in Scripture, "Draw nigh to God and He will draw
nigh to you" (James 4:8). Therefore God is mutable.

_On the contrary,_ It is written, "I am the Lord, and I change not"
(Malachi 3:6).

_I answer that,_ From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether
immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first
being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act,
without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that,
absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is
in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is
evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.
Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in
part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to
blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which
is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has
been shown above (Q. 3, A. 7) that in God there is no composition,
for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be
moved. Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something
by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously.
But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude
of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend
Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence
movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients,
constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first
principle was immovable.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine there speaks in a similar way to
Plato, who said that the first mover moves Himself; calling every
operation a movement, even as the acts of understanding, and willing,
and loving, are called movements. Therefore because God understands
and loves Himself, in that respect they said that God moves Himself,
not, however, as movement and change belong to a thing existing in
potentiality, as we now speak of change and movement.

Reply Obj. 2: Wisdom is called mobile by way of similitude,
according as it diffuses its likeness even to the outermost of things;
for nothing can exist which does not proceed from the divine wisdom by
way of some kind of imitation, as from the first effective and formal
principle; as also works of art proceed from the wisdom of the artist.
And so in the same way, inasmuch as the similitude of the divine
wisdom proceeds in degrees from the highest things, which participate
more fully of its likeness, to the lowest things which participate of
it in a lesser degree, there is said to be a kind of procession and
movement of the divine wisdom to things; as when we say that the sun
proceeds to the earth, inasmuch as the ray of light touches the earth.
In this way Dionysius (Coel. Hier. i) expounds the matter, that every
procession of the divine manifestation comes to us from the movement
of the Father of light.

Reply Obj. 3: These things are said of God in Scripture
metaphorically. For as the sun is said to enter a house, or to go out,
according as its rays reach the house, so God is said to approach to
us, or to recede from us, when we receive the influx of His goodness,
or decline from Him.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I. Q. 9, Art. 2]

Whether to Be Immutable Belongs to God Alone?

Objection 1: It seems that to be immutable does not belong to God
alone. For the Philosopher says (Metaph. ii) that "matter is in
everything which is moved." But, according to some, certain created
substances, as angels and souls, have not matter. Therefore to be
immutable does not belong to God alone.

Obj. 2: Further, everything in motion moves to some end. What
therefore has already attained its ultimate end, is not in motion. But
some creatures have already attained to their ultimate end; as all the
blessed in heaven. Therefore some creatures are immovable.

Obj. 3: Further, everything which is mutable is variable. But
forms are invariable; for it is said (Sex Princip. i) that "form is
essence consisting of the simple and invariable." Therefore it does
not belong to God alone to be immutable.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Nat. Boni. i), "God alone is
immutable; and whatever things He has made, being from nothing, are
mutable."

_I answer that,_ God alone is altogether immutable; whereas every
creature is in some way mutable. Be it known therefore that a mutable
thing can be called so in two ways: by a power in itself; and by a
power possessed by another. For all creatures before they existed,
were possible, not by any created power, since no creature is eternal,
but by the divine power alone, inasmuch as God could produce them into
existence. Thus, as the production of a thing into existence depends
on the will of God, so likewise it depends on His will that things
should be preserved; for He does not preserve them otherwise than by
ever giving them existence; hence if He took away His action from
them, all things would be reduced to nothing, as appears from
Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 12). Therefore as it was in the Creator's
power to produce them before they existed in themselves, so likewise
it is in the Creator's power when they exist in themselves to bring
them to nothing. In this way therefore, by the power of
another--namely, of God--they are mutable, inasmuch as they are
producible from nothing by Him, and are by Him reducible from
existence to non-existence.

If, however, a thing is called mutable by a power in itself, thus also
in some manner every creature is mutable. For every creature has a
twofold power, active and passive; and I call that power passive which
enables anything to attain its perfection either in being, or in
attaining to its end. Now if the mutability of a thing be considered
according to its power for being, in that way all creatures are not
mutable, but those only in which what is potential in them is
consistent with non-being. Hence, in the inferior bodies there is
mutability both as regards substantial being, inasmuch as their matter
can exist with privation of their substantial form, and also as
regards their accidental being, supposing the subject to coexist with
privation of accident; as, for example, this subject _man_ can exist
with _not-whiteness_ and can therefore be changed from white to
not-white. But supposing the accident to be such as to follow on the
essential principles of the subject, then the privation of such an
accident cannot coexist with the subject. Hence the subject cannot be
changed as regards that kind of accident; as, for example, snow cannot
be made black. Now in the celestial bodies matter is not consistent
with privation of form, because the form perfects the whole
potentiality of the matter; therefore these bodies are not mutable as
to substantial being, but only as to locality, because the subject is
consistent with privation of this or that place. On the other hand
incorporeal substances, being subsistent forms which, although with
respect to their own existence are as potentiality to act, are not
consistent with the privation of this act; forasmuch as existence is
consequent upon form, and nothing corrupts except it lose its form.
Hence in the form itself there is no power to non-existence; and so
these kinds of substances are immutable and invariable as regards
their existence. Wherefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that
"intellectual created substances are pure from generation and from
every variation, as also are incorporeal and immaterial substances."
Still, there remains in them a twofold mutability: one as regards
their potentiality to their end; and in that way there is in them a
mutability according to choice from good to evil, as Damascene says
(De Fide ii, 3,4); the other as regards place, inasmuch as by their
finite power they attain to certain fresh places--which cannot be
said of God, who by His infinity fills all places, as was shown above
(Q. 8, A. 2).

Thus in every creature there is a potentiality to change either as
regards substantial being as in the case of things corruptible; or as
regards locality only, as in the case of the celestial bodies; or as
regards the order to their end, and the application of their powers to
divers objects, as in the case with the angels; and universally all
creatures generally are mutable by the power of the Creator, in Whose
power is their existence and non-existence. Hence since God is in none
of these ways mutable, it belongs to Him alone to be altogether
immutable.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection proceeds from mutability as
regards substantial or accidental being; for philosophers treated of
such movement.

Reply Obj. 2: The good angels, besides their natural endowment
of immutability of being, have also immutability of election by divine
power; nevertheless there remains in them mutability as regards place.

Reply Obj. 3: Forms are called invariable, forasmuch as they
cannot be subjects of variation; but they are subject to variation
because by them their subject is variable. Hence it is clear that they
vary in so far as they are; for they are not called beings as though
they were the subject of being, but because through them something has
being.
_______________________

QUESTION 10

THE ETERNITY OF GOD
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the eternity of God, concerning which arise six
points of inquiry:

(1) What is eternity?

(2) Whether God is eternal?

(3) Whether to be eternal belongs to God alone?

(4) Whether eternity differs from time?

(5) The difference of aeviternity and of time.

(6) Whether there is only one aeviternity, as there is one time, and
one eternity?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 10, Art. 1]

Whether This Is a Good Definition of Eternity, "The Simultaneously-
Whole and Perfect Possession of Interminable Life"?

Objection 1: It seems that the definition of eternity given by
Boethius (De Consol. v) is not a good one: "Eternity is the
simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life." For
the word "interminable" is a negative one. But negation only belongs
to what is defective, and this does not belong to eternity. Therefore
in the definition of eternity the word "interminable" ought not to be
found.

Obj. 2: Further, eternity signifies a certain kind of duration.
But duration regards existence rather than life. Therefore the word
"life" ought not to come into the definition of eternity; but rather
the word "existence."

Obj. 3: Further, a whole is what has parts. But this is alien to
eternity which is simple. Therefore it is improperly said to be
"whole."

Obj. 4: Many days cannot occur together, nor can many times exist
all at once. But in eternity, days and times are in the plural, for it
is said, "His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of
eternity" (Micah 5:2); and also it is said, "According to the
revelation of the mystery hidden from eternity" (Rom. 16:25).
Therefore eternity is not omni-simultaneous.

Obj. 5: Further, the whole and the perfect are the same thing.
Supposing, therefore, that it is "whole," it is superfluously
described as "perfect."

Obj. 6: Further, duration does not imply "possession." But eternity
is a kind of duration. Therefore eternity is not possession.

_I answer that,_ As we attain to the knowledge of simple things by way
of compound things, so must we reach to the knowledge of eternity by
means of time, which is nothing but the numbering of movement by
_before_ and _after._ For since succession occurs in every movement,
and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and
after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but
the measure of before and after in movement. Now in a thing bereft of
movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As
therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and
after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity
of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.

Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a
beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved
there is a beginning, and there is an end. But as whatever is wholly
immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning, and no end.

Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is
eternal is interminable--that is, has no beginning nor end (that is,
no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession,
being simultaneously whole.

Reply Obj. 1: Simple things are usually defined by way of negation;
as "a point is that which has no parts." Yet this is not to be taken
as if the negation belonged to their essence, but because our
intellect which first apprehends compound things, cannot attain to
the knowledge of simple things except by removing the opposite.

Reply Obj. 2: What is truly eternal, is not only being, but also
living; and life extends to operation, which is not true of being.
Now the protraction of duration seems to belong to operation rather
than to being; hence time is the numbering of movement.

Reply Obj. 3: Eternity is called whole, not because it has parts, but
because it is wanting in nothing.

Reply Obj. 4: As God, although incorporeal, is named in Scripture
metaphorically by corporeal names, so eternity though simultaneously
whole, is called by names implying time and succession.

Reply Obj. 5: Two things are to be considered in time: time itself,
which is successive; and the "now" of time, which is imperfect. Hence
the expression "simultaneously-whole" is used to remove the idea of
time, and the word "perfect" is used to exclude the "now" of time.

Reply Obj. 6: Whatever is possessed, is held firmly and quietly;
therefore to designate the immutability and permanence of eternity,
we use the word "possession."
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 10, Art. 2]

Whether God is Eternal?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not eternal. For nothing made can be
predicated of God; for Boethius says (De Trin. iv) that, "The now that
flows away makes time, the now that stands still makes eternity;" and
Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. 28) "that God is the author of
eternity." Therefore God is not eternal.

Obj. 2: Further, what is before eternity, and after eternity, is
not measured by eternity. But, as Aristotle says (De Causis), "God is
before eternity and He is after eternity": for it is written that "the
Lord shall reign for eternity, and beyond [*Douay: 'for ever and
ever']" (Ex. 15:18). Therefore to be eternal does not belong to God.

Obj. 3: Further, eternity is a kind of measure. But to be measured
belongs not to God. Therefore it does not belong to Him to be eternal.

Obj. 4: Further, in eternity, there is no present, past or future,
since it is simultaneously whole; as was said in the preceding
article. But words denoting present, past and future time are applied
to God in Scripture. Therefore God is not eternal.

_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says in his Creed: "The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is eternal."

_I answer that,_ The idea of eternity follows immutability, as the idea
of time follows movement, as appears from the preceding article.
Hence, as God is supremely immutable, it supremely belongs to Him to
be eternal. Nor is He eternal only; but He is His own eternity;
whereas, no other being is its own duration, as no other is its own
being. Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own
essence, so He is His own eternity.

Reply Obj. 1: The "now" that stands still, is said to make eternity
according to our apprehension. As the apprehension of time is caused
in us by the fact that we apprehend the flow of the "now," so the
apprehension of eternity is caused in us by our apprehending the
"now" standing still. When Augustine says that "God is the author of
eternity," this is to be understood of participated eternity. For God
communicates His eternity to some in the same way as He communicates
His immutability.

Reply Obj. 2: From this appears the answer to the Second Objection.
For God is said to be before eternity, according as it is shared by
immaterial substances. Hence, also, in the same book, it is said that
"intelligence is equal to eternity." In the words of Exodus, "The
Lord shall reign for eternity, and beyond," eternity stands for age,
as another rendering has it. Thus it is said that the Lord will reign
beyond eternity, inasmuch as He endures beyond every age, i.e. beyond
every kind of duration. For age is nothing more than the period of
each thing, as is said in the book _De Coelo_ i. Or to reign beyond
eternity can be taken to mean that if any other thing were conceived
to exist for ever, as the movement of the heavens according to some
philosophers, then God would still reign beyond, inasmuch as His
reign is simultaneously whole.

Reply Obj. 3: Eternity is nothing else but God Himself. Hence God is
not called eternal, as if He were in any way measured; but the idea
of measurement is there taken according to the apprehension of our
mind alone.

Reply Obj. 4: Words denoting different times are applied to God,
because His eternity includes all times; not as if He Himself were
altered through present, past and future.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 10, Art. 3]

Whether to Be Eternal Belongs to God Alone?

Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to God alone to be
eternal. For it is written that "those who instruct many to justice,"
shall be "as stars unto perpetual eternities [*Douay: 'for all
eternity']" (Dan. 12:3). Now if God alone were eternal, there could
not be many eternities. Therefore God alone is not the only eternal.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written "Depart, ye cursed into eternal
[Douay: 'everlasting'] fire" (Matt. 25:41). Therefore God is not the
only eternal.

Obj. 3: Further, every necessary thing is eternal. But there are
many necessary things; as, for instance, all principles of
demonstration and all demonstrative propositions. Therefore God is
not the only eternal.

_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ep. ad Damasum, xv) that "God is the
only one who has no beginning." Now whatever has a beginning, is not
eternal. Therefore God is the only one eternal.

_I answer that,_ Eternity truly and properly so called is in God alone,
because eternity follows on immutability; as appears from the first
article. But God alone is altogether immutable, as was shown above
(Q. 9, A. 1). Accordingly, however, as some receive immutability
from Him, they share in His eternity. Thus some receive immutability
from God in the way of never ceasing to exist; in that sense it is
said of the earth, "it standeth for ever" (Eccl. 1:4). Again, some
things are called eternal in Scripture because of the length of their
duration, although they are in nature corruptible; thus (Ps. 75:5) the
hills are called "eternal" and we read "of the fruits of the eternal
hills." (Deut. 33:15). Some again, share more fully than others in the
nature of eternity, inasmuch as they possess unchangeableness either
in being or further still in operation; like the angels, and the
blessed, who enjoy the Word, because "as regards that vision of the
Word, no changing thoughts exist in the Saints," as Augustine says (De
Trin. xv). Hence those who see God are said to have eternal life;
according to that text, "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee
the only true God," etc. (John 17:3).

Reply Obj. 1: There are said to be many eternities, accordingly as
many share in eternity, by the contemplation of God.

Reply Obj. 2: The fire of hell is called eternal, only because it
never ends. Still, there is change in the pains of the lost,
according to the words "To extreme heat they will pass from snowy
waters" (Job 24:19). Hence in hell true eternity does not exist, but
rather time; according to the text of the Psalm "Their time will be
for ever" (Ps. 80:16).

Reply Obj. 3: Necessary means a certain mode of truth; and truth,
according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vi), is in the mind. Therefore
in this sense the true and necessary are eternal, because they are in
the eternal mind, which is the divine intellect alone; hence it does
not follow that anything beside God is eternal.
______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I. Q. 10, Art. 4]

Whether Eternity Differs from Time?

Objection 1: It seems that eternity does not differ from time. For two
measures of duration cannot exist together, unless one is part of the
other; for instance two days or two hours cannot be together;
nevertheless, we may say that a day or an hour are together,
considering hour as part of a day. But eternity and time occur
together, each of which imports a certain measure of duration. Since
therefore eternity is not a part of time, forasmuch as eternity
exceeds time, and includes it, it seems that time is a part of
eternity, and is not a different thing from eternity.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iv), the "now"
of time remains the same in the whole of time. But the nature of
eternity seems to be that it is the same indivisible thing in the
whole space of time. Therefore eternity is the "now" of time. But the
"now" of time is not substantially different from time. Therefore
eternity is not substantially different from time.

Obj. 3: Further, as the measure of the first movement is the
measure of every movement, as said in Phys. iv, it thus appears that
the measure of the first being is that of every being. But eternity is
the measure of the first being--that is, of the divine being.
Therefore eternity is the measure of every being. But the being of
things corruptible is measured by time. Time therefore is either
eternity or is a part of eternity.

_On the contrary,_ Eternity is simultaneously whole. But time has a
"before" and an "after." Therefore time and eternity are not the same
thing.

_I answer that,_ It is manifest that time and eternity are not the same.
Some have founded this difference on the fact that eternity has
neither beginning nor an end; whereas time has a beginning and an end.
This, however, makes a merely accidental, and not an absolute
difference because, granted that time always was and always will be,
according to the idea of those who think the movement of the heavens
goes on for ever, there would yet remain a difference between eternity
and time, as Boethius says (De Consol. v), arising from the fact that
eternity is simultaneously whole; which cannot be applied to time: for
eternity is the measure of a permanent being; while time is a measure
of movement. Supposing, however, that the aforesaid difference be
considered on the part of the things measured, and not as regards the
measures, then there is some reason for it, inasmuch as that alone is
measured by time which has beginning and end in time. Hence, if the
movement of the heavens lasted always, time would not be of its
measure as regards the whole of its duration, since the infinite is
not measurable; but it would be the measure of that part of its
revolution which has beginning and end in time.

Another reason for the same can be taken from these measures in
themselves, if we consider the end and the beginning as
potentialities; because, granted also that time always goes on, yet it
is possible to note in time both the beginning and the end, by
considering its parts: thus we speak of the beginning and the end of a
day or of a year; which cannot be applied to eternity. Still these
differences follow upon the essential and primary differences, that
eternity is simultaneously whole, but that time is not so.

Reply Obj. 1: Such a reason would be a valid one if time and eternity
were the same kind of measure; but this is seen not to be the case
when we consider those things of which the respective measures are
time and eternity.

Reply Obj. 2: The "now" of time is the same as regards its subject in
the whole course of time, but it differs in aspect; for inasmuch as
time corresponds to movement, its "now" corresponds to what is
movable; and the thing movable has the same one subject in all time,
but differs in aspect a being here and there; and such alteration is
movement. Likewise the flow of the "now" as alternating in aspect is
time. But eternity remains the same according to both subject and
aspect; and hence eternity is not the same as the "now" of time.

Reply Obj. 3: As eternity is the proper measure of permanent being,
so time is the proper measure of movement; and hence, according as
any being recedes from permanence of being, and is subject to change,
it recedes from eternity, and is subject to time. Therefore the being
of things corruptible, because it is changeable, is not measured by
eternity, but by time; for time measures not only things actually
changed, but also things changeable; hence it not only measures
movement but it also measures repose, which belongs to whatever is
naturally movable, but is not actually in motion.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 10, Art. 5]

The Difference of Aeviternity and Time

Objection 1: It seems that aeviternity is the same as time. For
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 20, 22, 23), that "God moves the
spiritual through time." But aeviternity is said to be the measure of
spiritual substances. Therefore time is the same as aeviternity.

Obj. 2: Further, it is essential to time to have "before" and
"after"; but it is essential to eternity to be simultaneously whole,
as was shown above in the first article. Now aeviternity is not
eternity; for it is written (Ecclus. 1:1) that eternal "Wisdom is
before age." Therefore it is not simultaneously whole but has "before"
and "after"; and thus it is the same as time.

Obj. 3: Further, if there is no "before" and "after" in
aeviternity, it follows that in aeviternal things there is no
difference between being, having been, or going to be. Since then it
is impossible for aeviternal things not to have been, it follows that
it is impossible for them not to be in the future; which is false,
since God can reduce them to nothing.

Obj. 4: Further, since the duration of aeviternal things is
infinite as to subsequent duration, if aeviternity is simultaneously
whole, it follows that some creature is actually infinite; which is
impossible. Therefore aeviternity does not differ from time.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Consol. iii) "Who commandest time
to be separate from aeviternity."

_I answer that,_ Aeviternity differs from time, and from eternity, as
the mean between them both. This difference is explained by some to
consist in the fact that eternity has neither beginning nor end,
aeviternity, a beginning but no end, and time both beginning and end.
This difference, however, is but an accidental one, as was shown
above, in the preceding article; because even if aeviternal things had
always been, and would always be, as some think, and even if they
might sometimes fail to be, which is possible to God to allow; even
granted this, aeviternity would still be distinguished from eternity,
and from time.

Others assign the difference between these three to consist in the
fact that eternity has no "before" and "after"; but that time has
both, together with innovation and veteration; and that aeviternity
has "before" and "after" without innovation and veteration. This
theory, however, involves a contradiction; which manifestly appears
if innovation and veteration be referred to the measure itself. For
since "before" and "after" of duration cannot exist together, if
aeviternity has "before" and "after," it must follow that with the
receding of the first part of aeviternity, the after part of
aeviternity must newly appear; and thus innovation would occur in
aeviternity itself, as it does in time. And if they be referred to
the things measured, even then an incongruity would follow. For a
thing which exists in time grows old with time, because it has a
changeable existence, and from the changeableness of a thing
measured, there follows "before" and "after" in the measure, as is
clear from _Physic._ iv. Therefore the fact that an aeviternal thing
is neither inveterate, nor subject to innovation, comes from its
changelessness; and consequently its measure does not contain
"before" and "after." We say then that since eternity is the measure
of a permanent being, in so far as anything recedes from permanence
of being, it recedes from eternity. Now some things recede from
permanence of being, so that their being is subject to change, or
consists in change; and these things are measured by time, as are all
movements, and also the being of all things corruptible. But others
recede less from permanence of being, forasmuch as their being
neither consists in change, nor is the subject of change;
nevertheless they have change annexed to them either actually or
potentially. This appears in the heavenly bodies, the substantial
being of which is unchangeable; and yet with unchangeable being they
have changeableness of place. The same applies to the angels, who
have an unchangeable being as regards their nature with
changeableness as regards choice; moreover they have changeableness
of intelligence, of affections and of places in their own degree.
Therefore these are measured by aeviternity which is a mean between
eternity and time. But the being that is measured by eternity is not
changeable, nor is it annexed to change. In this way time has
"before" and "after"; aeviternity in itself has no "before" and
"after," which can, however, be annexed to it; while eternity has
neither "before" nor "after," nor is it compatible with such at all.

Reply Obj. 1: Spiritual creatures as regards successive affections
and intelligences are measured by time. Hence also Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. viii, 20, 22, 23) that to be moved through time, is
to be moved by affections. But as regards their nature they are
measured by aeviternity; whereas as regards the vision of glory, they
have a share of eternity.

Reply Obj. 2: Aeviternity is simultaneously whole; yet it is not
eternity, because "before" and "after" are compatible with it.

Reply Obj. 3: In the very being of an angel considered absolutely,
there is no difference of past and future, but only as regards
accidental change. Now to say that an angel was, or is, or will be,
is to be taken in a different sense according to the acceptation of
our intellect, which apprehends the angelic existence by comparison
with different parts of time. But when we say that an angel is, or
was, we suppose something, which being supposed, its opposite is not
subject to the divine power. Whereas when we say he will be, we do
not as yet suppose anything. Hence, since the existence and
non-existence of an angel considered absolutely is subject to the
divine power, God can make the existence of an angel not future; but
He cannot cause him not to be while he is, or not to have been, after
he has been.

Reply Obj. 4: The duration of aeviternity is infinite, forasmuch as
it is not finished by time. Hence, there is no incongruity in saying
that a creature is infinite, inasmuch as it is not ended by any other
creature.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I. Q. 10, Art. 6]

Whether There Is Only One Aeviternity?

Objection 1: It seems that there is not only one aeviternity; for it
is written in the apocryphal books of Esdras: "Majesty and power of
ages are with Thee, O Lord."

Obj. 2: Further, different genera have different measures. But
some aeviternal things belong to the corporeal genus, as the heavenly
bodies; and others are spiritual substances, as are the angels.
Therefore there is not only one aeviternity.

Obj. 3: Further, since aeviternity is a term of duration, where
there is one aeviternity, there is also one duration. But not all
aeviternal things have one duration, for some begin to exist after
others; as appears in the case especially of human souls. Therefore
there is not only one aeviternity.

Obj. 4: Further, things not dependent on each other do not seem
to have one measure of duration; for there appears to be one time for
all temporal things; since the first movement, measured by time, is in
some way the cause of all movement. But aeviternal things do not
depend on each other, for one angel is not the cause of another angel.
Therefore there is not only one aeviternity.

_On the contrary,_ Aeviternity is a more simple thing than time, and is
nearer to eternity. But time is one only. Therefore much more is
aeviternity one only.

_I answer that,_ A twofold opinion exists on this subject. Some say
there is only one aeviternity; others that there are many
aeviternities. Which of these is true, may be considered from the
cause why time is one; for we can rise from corporeal things to the
knowledge of spiritual things.

Now some say that there is only one time for temporal things,
forasmuch as one number exists for all things numbered; as time is a
number, according to the Philosopher (Physic. iv). This, however,
is not a sufficient reason; because time is not a number abstracted
from the thing numbered, but existing in the thing numbered;
otherwise it would not be continuous; for ten ells of cloth are
continuous not by reason of the number, but by reason of the thing
numbered. Now number as it exists in the thing numbered, is not the
same for all; but it is different for different things. Hence, others
assert that the unity of eternity as the principle of all duration is
the cause of the unity of time. Thus all durations are one in that
view, in the light of their principle, but are many in the light of
the diversity of things receiving duration from the influx of the
first principle. On the other hand others assign primary matter as
the cause why time is one; as it is the first subject of movement,
the measure of which is time. Neither of these reasons, however, is
sufficient; forasmuch as things which are one in principle, or in
subject, especially if distant, are not one absolutely, but
accidentally. Therefore the true reason why time is one, is to be
found in the oneness of the first movement by which, since it is most
simple, all other movements are measured. Therefore time is referred
to that movement, not only as a measure is to the thing measured, but
also as accident is to subject; and thus receives unity from it.
Whereas to other movements it is compared only as the measure is to
the thing measured. Hence it is not multiplied by their multitude,
because by one separate measure many things can be measured.

This being established, we must observe that a twofold opinion existed
concerning spiritual substances. Some said that all proceeded from God
in a certain equality, as Origen said (Peri Archon. i); or at least
many of them, as some others thought. Others said that all spiritual
substances proceeded from God in a certain degree and order; and
Dionysius (Coel. Hier. x) seems to have thought so, when he said that
among spiritual substances there are the first, the middle and the
last; even in one order of angels. Now according to the first opinion,
it must be said that there are many aeviternities as there are many
aeviternal things of first degree. But according to the second
opinion, it would be necessary to say that there is one aeviternity
only; because since each thing is measured by the most simple element
of its genus, it must be that the existence of all aeviternal things
should be measured by the existence of the first aeviternal thing,
which is all the more simple the nearer it is to the first. Wherefore
because the second opinion is truer, as will be shown later
(Q. 47, A. 2); we concede at present that there is only one
aeviternity.

Reply Obj. 1: Aeviternity is sometimes taken for age, that is, a
space of a thing's duration; and thus we say many aeviternities when
we mean ages.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the heavenly bodies and spiritual things
differ in the genus of their nature, still they agree in having a
changeless being, and are thus measured by aeviternity.

Reply Obj. 3: All temporal things did not begin together;
nevertheless there is one time for all of them, by reason of the
first measured by time; and thus all aeviternal things have one
aeviternity by reason of the first, though all did not begin together.

Reply Obj. 4: For things to be measured by one, it is not necessary
that the one should be the cause of all, but that it be more simple
than the rest.
_______________________

QUESTION 11

THE UNITY OF GOD
(In Four Articles)

After the foregoing, we consider the divine unity; concerning which
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether "one" adds anything to "being"?

(2) Whether "one" and "many" are opposed to each other?

(3) Whether God is one?

(4) Whether He is in the highest degree one?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 11, Art. 1]

Whether "One" Adds Anything to "Being"?

Objection 1: It seems that "one" adds something to "being." For
everything is in a determinate genus by addition to being, which
penetrates all _genera._ But "one" is a determinate genus, for it is
the principle of number, which is a species of quantity. Therefore
"one" adds something to "being."

Obj. 2: Further, what divides a thing common to all, is an
addition to it. But "being" is divided by "one" and by "many."
Therefore "one" is an addition to "being."

Obj. 3: Further, if "one" is not an addition to "being," "one"
and "being" must have the same meaning. But it would be nugatory to
call "being" by the name of "being"; therefore it would be equally so
to call being "one." Now this is false. Therefore "one" is an addition
to "being."

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 5, ult.): "Nothing which
exists is not in some way one," which would be false if "one" were an
addition to "being," in the sense of limiting it. Therefore "one" is
not an addition to "being."

_I answer that,_ "One" does not add any reality to "being"; but is only
a negation of division; for "one" means undivided "being." This is the
very reason why "one" is the same as "being." Now every being is
either simple or compound. But what is simple is undivided, both
actually and potentially. Whereas what is compound, has not being
whilst its parts are divided, but after they make up and compose it.
Hence it is manifest that the being of anything consists in
undivision; and hence it is that everything guards its unity as it
guards its being.

Reply Obj. 1: Some, thinking that the "one" convertible with "being"
is the same as the "one" which is the principle of number, were
divided into contrary opinions. Pythagoras and Plato, seeing that the
"one" convertible with "being" did not add any reality to "being,"
but signified the substance of "being" as undivided, thought that the
same applied to the "one" which is the principle of number. And
because number is composed of unities, they thought that numbers were
the substances of all things. Avicenna, however, on the contrary,
considering that "one" which is the principle of number, added a
reality to the substance of "being" (otherwise number made of unities
would not be a species of quantity), thought that the "one"
convertible with "being" added a reality to the substance of beings;
as "white" to "man." This, however, is manifestly false, inasmuch as
each thing is "one" by its substance. For if a thing were "one" by
anything else but by its substance, since this again would be "one,"
supposing it were again "one" by another thing, we should be driven
on to infinity. Hence we must adhere to the former statement;
therefore we must say that the "one" which is convertible with
"being," does not add a reality to being; but that the "one" which is
the principle of number, does add a reality to "being," belonging to
the genus of quantity.

Reply Obj. 2: There is nothing to prevent a thing which in one way is
divided, from being another way undivided; as what is divided in
number, may be undivided in species; thus it may be that a thing is
in one way "one," and in another way "many." Still, if it is
absolutely undivided, either because it is so according to what
belongs to its essence, though it may be divided as regards what is
outside its essence, as what is one in subject may have many
accidents; or because it is undivided actually, and divided
potentially, as what is "one" in the whole, and is "many" in parts;
in such a case a thing will be "one" absolutely and "many"
accidentally. On the other hand, if it be undivided accidentally, and
divided absolutely, as if it were divided in essence and undivided in
idea or in principle or cause, it will be "many" absolutely and "one"
accidentally; as what are "many" in number and "one" in species or
"one" in principle. Hence in that way, being is divided by "one" and
by "many"; as it were by "one" absolutely and by "many" accidentally.
For multitude itself would not be contained under "being," unless it
were in some way contained under "one." Thus Dionysius says (Div.
Nom., cap. ult.) that "there is no kind of multitude that is not in
a way one. But what are many in their parts, are one in their whole;
and what are many in accidents, are one in subject; and what are many
in number, are one in species; and what are many in species, are one
in genus; and what are many in processions, are one in principle."

Reply Obj. 3: It does not follow that it is nugatory to say
"being" is "one"; forasmuch as "one" adds an idea to "being."
_______________________

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

Whether "One" and "Many" Are Opposed to Each Other?

Objection 1: It seems that "one" and "many" are not mutually opposed.
For no opposite thing is predicated of its opposite. But every
_multitude_ is in a certain way _one,_ as appears from the preceding
article. Therefore "one" is not opposed to "multitude."

Obj. 2: Further, no opposite thing is constituted by its
opposite. But _multitude_ is constituted by _one._ Therefore it is not
opposed to "multitude."

Obj. 3: Further, "one" is opposed to "one." But the idea of "few"
is opposed to "many." Therefore "one" is not opposed to "many."

Obj. 4: Further, if "one" is opposed to "multitude," it is
opposed as the undivided is to the divided; and is thus opposed to it
as privation is to habit. But this appears to be incongruous; because
it would follow that "one" comes after "multitude," and is defined by
it; whereas, on the contrary, "multitude" is defined by "one." Hence
there would be a vicious circle in the definition; which is
inadmissible. Therefore "one" and "many" are not opposed.

_On the contrary,_ Things which are opposed in idea, are themselves
opposed to each other. But the idea of "one" consists in
indivisibility; and the idea of "multitude" contains division.
Therefore "one" and "many" are opposed to each other.

_I answer that,_ "One" is opposed to "many," but in various ways. The
_one_ which is the principle of number is opposed to _multitude_ which
is number, as the measure is to the thing measured. For "one" implies
the idea of a primary measure; and number is _multitude_ measured by
_one,_ as is clear from _Metaph._ x. But the _one_ which is convertible
with _being_ is opposed to _multitude_ by way of privation; as the
undivided is to the thing divided.

Reply Obj. 1: No privation entirely takes away the being of a thing,
inasmuch as privation means "negation in the subject," according to
the Philosopher (Categor. viii). Nevertheless every privation takes
away some being; and so in being, by reason of its universality, the
privation of being has its foundation in being; which is not the case
in privations of special forms, as of sight, or of whiteness and the
like. And what applies to being applies also to one and to good,
which are convertible with being, for the privation of good is
founded in some good; likewise the removal of unity is founded in
some one thing. Hence it happens that multitude is some one thing;
and evil is some good thing, and non-being is some kind of being.
Nevertheless, opposite is not predicated of opposite; forasmuch as
one is absolute, and the other is relative; for what is relative
being (as a potentiality) is non-being absolutely, i.e. actually; or
what is absolute being in the genus of substance is non-being
relatively as regards some accidental being. In the same way, what is
relatively good is absolutely bad, or vice versa; likewise what is
absolutely _one_ is relatively _many,_ and vice versa.

Reply Obj. 2: A _whole_ is twofold. In one sense it is homogeneous,
composed of like parts; in another sense it is heterogeneous,
composed of dissimilar parts. Now in every homogeneous whole, the
whole is made up of parts having the form of the whole; as, for
instance, every part of water is water; and such is the constitution
of a continuous thing made up of its parts. In every heterogeneous
whole, however, every part is wanting in the form belonging to the
whole; as, for instance, no part of a house is a house, nor is any
part of a man a man. Now multitude is such a kind of a whole.
Therefore inasmuch as its part has not the form of the multitude, the
latter is composed of unities, as a house is composed of not houses;
not, indeed, as if unities constituted multitude so far as they are
undivided, in which way they are opposed to multitude; but so far as
they have being, as also the parts of a house make up the house by
the fact that they are beings, not by the fact that they are not
houses.

Reply Obj. 3: "Many" is taken in two ways: absolutely, and in that
sense it is opposed to "one"; in another way as importing some kind
of excess, in which sense it is opposed to "few"; hence in the first
sense two are many but not in the second sense.

Reply Obj. 4: "One" is opposed to "many" privatively, inasmuch as the
idea of "many" involves division. Hence division must be prior to
unity, not absolutely in itself, but according to our way of
apprehension. For we apprehend simple things by compound things; and
hence we define a point to be, "what has no part," or "the beginning
of a line." "Multitude" also, in idea, follows on "one"; because we
do not understand divided things to convey the idea of multitude
except by the fact that we attribute unity to every part. Hence "one"
is placed in the definition of "multitude"; but "multitude" is not
placed in the definition of "one." But division comes to be
understood from the very negation of being: so what first comes to
mind is being; secondly, that this being is not that being, and thus
we apprehend division as a consequence; thirdly, comes the notion of
one; fourthly, the notion of multitude.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 11, Art. 3]

Whether God Is One?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not one. For it is written "For
there be many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5).

Obj. 2: Further, "One," as the principle of number, cannot be
predicated of God, since quantity is not predicated of God; likewise,
neither can "one" which is convertible with "being" be predicated of
God, because it imports privation, and every privation is an
imperfection, which cannot apply to God. Therefore God is not one.

_On the contrary,_ It is written "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is
one Lord" (Deut. 6:4).

_I answer that,_ It can be shown from these three sources that God is
one. First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why
any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be
communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be
communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is
only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what
makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates,
so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God
alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above
(Q. 3, A. 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He
is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it
was shown above (Q. 4, A. 2) that God comprehends in Himself the
whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would
necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong
to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation,
one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one
of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to
exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by
truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise
that there was only one such principle.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things
that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve
others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same
order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced
into one order by one better than by many: because one is the _per se_
cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch
as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most
perfect, and is so _per se_ and not accidentally, it must be that the
first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this
one is God.

Reply Obj. 1: Gods are called many by the error of some who
worshipped many deities, thinking as they did that the planets and
other stars were gods, and also the separate parts of the world.
Hence the Apostle adds: "Our God is one," etc.

Reply Obj. 2: "One" which is the principle of number is not
predicated of God, but only of material things. For "one" the
principle of number belongs to the genus of mathematics, which are
material in being, and abstracted from matter only in idea. But "one"
which is convertible with being is a metaphysical entity and does not
depend on matter in its being. And although in God there is no
privation, still, according to the mode of our apprehension, He is
known to us by way only of privation and remotion. Thus there is no
reason why a certain kind of privation should not be predicated of
God; for instance, that He is incorporeal and infinite; and in the
same way it is said of God that He is one.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 11, Art. 4]

Whether God Is Supremely One?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not supremely _one._ For "one" is so
called from the privation of division. But privation cannot be greater
or less. Therefore God is not more "one" than other things which are
called "one."

Obj. 2: Further, nothing seems to be more indivisible than what
is actually and potentially indivisible; such as a point and unity.
But a thing is said to be more "one" according as it is indivisible.
Therefore God is not more _one_ than unity is _one_ and a point is
_one._

Obj. 3: Further, what is essentially good is supremely good.
Therefore what is essentially _one_ is supremely _one._ But every
being is essentially _one,_ as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv).
Therefore every being is supremely _one;_ and therefore God is not
_one_ more than any other being is _one._

_On the contrary,_ Bernard says (De Consid. v): "Among all things called
one, the unity of the Divine Trinity holds the first place."

_I answer that,_ Since _one_ is an undivided being, if anything is
supremely _one_ it must be supremely being, and supremely undivided.
Now both of these belong to God. For He is supremely being, inasmuch
as His being is not determined by any nature to which it is adjoined;
since He is being itself, subsistent, absolutely undetermined. But He
is supremely undivided inasmuch as He is divided neither actually nor
potentially, by any mode of division; since He is altogether simple,
as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 7). Hence it is manifest that God is
_one_ in the supreme degree.

Reply Obj. 1: Although privation considered in itself is not
susceptive of more or less, still according as its opposite is
subject to more or less, privation also can be considered itself in
the light of more and less. Therefore according as a thing is more
divided, or is divisible, either less or not at all, in the degree it
is called more, or less, or supremely, _one._

Reply Obj. 2: A point and unity which is the principle of number, are
not supremely being, inasmuch as they have being only in some
subject. Hence neither of them can be supremely _one._ For as a
subject cannot be supremely _one,_ because of the difference within
it of accident and subject, so neither can an accident.

Reply Obj. 3: Although every being is _one_ by its substance, still
every such substance is not equally the cause of unity; for the
substance of some things is compound and of others simple.
_______________________

QUESTION 12

HOW GOD IS KNOWN BY US
(In Thirteen Articles)

As hitherto we have considered God as He is in Himself, we now go on
to consider in what manner He is in the knowledge of creatures;
concerning which there are thirteen points of inquiry:

(1) Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God?

(2) Whether the essence of God is seen by the intellect through any
created image?

(3) Whether the essence of God can be seen by the corporeal eye?

(4) Whether any created intellectual substance is sufficient by its
own natural powers to see the essence of God?

(5) Whether the created intellect needs any created light in order
to see the essence of God?

(6) Whether of those who see God, one sees Him more perfectly than
another?

(7) Whether any created intellect can comprehend the essence of God?

(8) Whether the created intellect seeing the essence of God, knows
all things in it?

(9) Whether what is there known is known by any similitudes?

(10) Whether the created intellect knows at once what it sees in God?

(11) Whether in the state of this life any man can see the essence of
God?

(12) Whether by natural reason we can know God in this life?

(13) Whether there is in this life any knowledge of God through grace
above the knowledge of natural reason?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 1]

Whether Any Created Intellect Can See the Essence of God?

Objection 1: It seems that no created intellect can see the essence of
God. For Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Joan.) commenting on John 1:18, "No
man hath seen God at any time," says: "Not prophets only, but neither
angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what
is increatable?" Dionysius also says (Div. Nom. i), speaking of God:
"Neither is there sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor
knowledge of Him."

Obj. 2: Further, everything infinite, as such, is unknown. But
God is infinite, as was shown above (Q. 7, A. 1). Therefore in
Himself He is unknown.

Obj. 3: Further, the created intellect knows only existing things.
For what falls first under the apprehension of the intellect is
being. Now God is not something existing; but He is rather
super-existence, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore God is
not intelligible; but above all intellect.

Obj. 4: Further, there must be some proportion between the knower
and the known, since the known is the perfection of the knower. But no
proportion exists between the created intellect and God; for there is
an infinite distance between them. Therefore the created intellect
cannot see the essence of God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "We shall see Him as He is" (1 John
2:2).

_I answer that,_ Since everything is knowable according as it is actual,
God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in
Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself,
may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the
excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for
example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the
bat by reason of its excess of light.

Therefore some who considered this, held that no created intellect can
see the essence of God. This opinion, however, is not tenable. For as
the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest
function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we suppose that
the created intellect could never see God, it would either never
attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else
beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the ultimate perfection of
the rational creature is to be found in that which is the principle of
its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its
principle. Further the same opinion is also against reason. For there
resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect
which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. But if the intellect
of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause
of things, the natural desire would remain void.

Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence
of God.

Reply Obj. 1: Both of these authorities speak of the vision of
comprehension. Hence Dionysius premises immediately before the words
cited, "He is universally to all incomprehensible," etc. Chrysostom
likewise after the words quoted says: "He says this of the most
certain vision of the Father, which is such a perfect consideration
and comprehension as the Father has of the Son."

Reply Obj. 2: The infinity of matter not made perfect by form, is
unknown in itself, because all knowledge comes by the form; whereas
the infinity of the form not limited by matter, is in itself
supremely known. God is Infinite in this way, and not in the first
way: as appears from what was said above (Q. 7, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 3: God is not said to be not existing as if He did not
exist at all, but because He exists above all that exists; inasmuch
as He is His own existence. Hence it does not follow that He cannot
be known at all, but that He exceeds every kind of knowledge; which
means that He is not comprehended.

Reply Obj. 4: Proportion is twofold. In one sense it means a certain
relation of one quantity to another, according as double, treble and
equal are species of proportion. In another sense every relation of
one thing to another is called proportion. And in this sense there
can be a proportion of the creature to God, inasmuch as it is related
to Him as the effect of its cause, and as potentiality to its act;
and in this way the created intellect can be proportioned to know God.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 2]

Whether the Essence of God Is Seen by the Created Intellect Through an
Image?

Objection 1: It seems that the essence of God is seen through an image
by the created intellect. For it is written: "We know that when He
shall appear, we shall be like to Him, and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall
see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2).

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. v): "When we know God,
some likeness of God is made in us."

Obj. 3: Further, the intellect in act is the actual intelligible;
as sense in act is the actual sensible. But this comes about inasmuch
as sense is informed with the likeness of the sensible object, and the
intellect with the likeness of the thing understood. Therefore, if God
is seen by the created intellect in act, it must be that He is seen by
some similitude.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xv) that when the Apostle
says, "We see through a glass and in an enigma [*Douay: 'in a dark
manner']," "by the terms 'glass' and 'enigma' certain similitudes are
signified by him, which are accommodated to the vision of God." But to
see the essence of God is not an enigmatic nor a speculative vision,
but is, on the contrary, of an opposite kind. Therefore the divine
essence is not seen through a similitude.

_I answer that,_ Two things are required both for sensible and for
intellectual vision--viz. power of sight, and union of the thing seen
with the sight. For vision is made actual only when the thing seen is
in a certain way in the seer. Now in corporeal things it is clear that
the thing seen cannot be by its essence in the seer, but only by its
likeness; as the similitude of a stone is in the eye, whereby the
vision is made actual; whereas the substance of the stone is not
there. But if the principle of the visual power and the thing seen
were one and the same thing, it would necessarily follow that the seer
would receive both the visual power and the form whereby it sees, from
that one same thing.

Now it is manifest both that God is the author of the intellectual
power, and that He can be seen by the intellect. And since the
intellective power of the creature is not the essence of God, it
follows that it is some kind of participated likeness of Him who is
the first intellect. Hence also the intellectual power of the
creature is called an intelligible light, as it were, derived from
the first light, whether this be understood of the natural power, or
of some perfection superadded of grace or of glory. Therefore, in
order to see God, there must be some similitude of God on the part of
the visual faculty, whereby the intellect is made capable of seeing
God. But on the part of the object seen, which must necessarily be
united to the seer, the essence of God cannot be seen by any created
similitude. First, because as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), "by the
similitudes of the inferior order of things, the superior can in no
way be known;" as by the likeness of a body the essence of an
incorporeal thing cannot be known. Much less therefore can the
essence of God be seen by any created likeness whatever. Secondly,
because the essence of God is His own very existence, as was shown
above (Q. 3, A. 4), which cannot be said of any created form; and so
no created form can be the similitude representing the essence of God
to the seer. Thirdly, because the divine essence is uncircumscribed,
and contains in itself super-eminently whatever can be signified or
understood by the created intellect. Now this cannot in any way be
represented by any created likeness; for every created form is
determined according to some aspect of wisdom, or of power, or of
being itself, or of some like thing. Hence to say that God is seen by
some similitude, is to say that the divine essence is not seen at
all; which is false.

Therefore it must be said that to see the essence of God, there is
required some similitude in the visual faculty, namely, the light of
glory strengthening the intellect to see God, which is spoken of in
the Psalm (35:10), "In Thy light we shall see light." The essence of
God, however, cannot be seen by any created similitude representing
the divine essence itself as it really is.

Reply Obj. 1: That authority speaks of the similitude which is
caused by participation of the light of glory.

Reply Obj. 2: Augustine speaks of the knowledge of God here on earth.

Reply Obj. 3: The divine essence is existence itself. Hence as
other intelligible forms which are not their own existence are united
to the intellect by means of some entity, whereby the intellect itself
is informed, and made in act; so the divine essence is united to the
created intellect, as the object actually understood, making the
intellect in act by and of itself.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 3]

Whether the Essence of God Can Be Seen with the Bodily Eye?

Objection 1: It seems that the essence of God can be seen by the
corporeal eye. For it is written (Job 19:26): "In my flesh I shall see
. . . God," and (Job 42:5), "With the hearing of the ear I have heard
Thee, but now my eye seeth Thee."

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxix, 29): "Those
eyes" (namely the glorified) "will therefore have a greater power of
sight, not so much to see more keenly, as some report of the sight of
serpents or of eagles (for whatever acuteness of vision is possessed
by these creatures, they can see only corporeal things) but to see
even incorporeal things." Now whoever can see incorporeal things, can
be raised up to see God. Therefore the glorified eye can see God.

Obj. 3: Further, God can be seen by man through a vision of the
imagination. For it is written: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a
throne," etc. (Isa. 6:1). But an imaginary vision originates from
sense; for the imagination is moved by sense to act. Therefore God can
be seen by a vision of sense.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii): "No one
has ever seen God either in this life, as He is, nor in the angelic
life, as visible things are seen by corporeal vision."

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for God to be seen by the sense of
sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power. For
every such kind of power is the act of a corporeal organ, as will be
shown later (Q. 78). Now act is proportional to the nature which
possesses it. Hence no power of that kind can go beyond corporeal
things. For God is incorporeal, as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 1).
Hence He cannot be seen by the sense or the imagination, but only by
the intellect.

Reply Obj. 1: The words, "In my flesh I shall see God my Saviour," do
not mean that God will be seen with the eye of the flesh, but that
man existing in the flesh after the resurrection will see God.
Likewise the words, "Now my eye seeth Thee," are to be understood of
the mind's eye, as the Apostle says: "May He give unto you the spirit
of wisdom . . . in the knowledge of Him, that the eyes of your heart"
may be "enlightened" (Eph. 1:17, 18).

Reply Obj. 2: Augustine speaks as one inquiring, and conditionally.
This appears from what he says previously: "Therefore they will have
an altogether different power (viz. the glorified eyes), if they
shall see that incorporeal nature;" and afterwards he explains this,
saying: "It is very credible, that we shall so see the mundane bodies
of the new heaven and the new earth, as to see most clearly God
everywhere present, governing all corporeal things, not as we now see
the invisible things of God as understood by what is made; but as
when we see men among whom we live, living and exercising the
functions of human life, we do not believe they live, but see it."
Hence it is evident how the glorified eyes will see God, as now our
eyes see the life of another. But life is not seen with the corporeal
eye, as a thing in itself visible, but as the indirect object of the
sense; which indeed is not known by sense, but at once, together with
sense, by some other cognitive power. But that the divine presence is
known by the intellect immediately on the sight of, and through,
corporeal things, happens from two causes--viz. from the perspicuity
of the intellect, and from the refulgence of the divine glory infused
into the body after its renovation.

Reply Obj. 3: The essence of God is not seen in a vision of the
imagination; but the imagination receives some form representing God
according to some mode of similitude; as in the divine Scripture
divine things are metaphorically described by means of sensible
things.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 4]

Whether Any Created Intellect by Its Natural Powers Can See the Divine
Essence?

Objection 1: It seems that a created intellect can see the Divine
essence by its own natural power. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv):
"An angel is a pure mirror, most clear, receiving, if it is right to
say so, the whole beauty of God." But if a reflection is seen, the
original thing is seen. Therefore since an angel by his natural power
understands himself, it seems that by his own natural power he
understands the Divine essence.

Obj. 2: Further, what is supremely visible, is made less visible to
us by reason of our defective corporeal or intellectual sight. But
the angelic intellect has no such defect. Therefore, since God is
supremely intelligible in Himself, it seems that in like manner He is
supremely so to an angel. Therefore, if he can understand other
intelligible things by his own natural power, much more can he
understand God.

Obj. 3: Further, corporeal sense cannot be raised up to understand
incorporeal substance, which is above its nature. Therefore if to see
the essence of God is above the nature of every created intellect, it
follows that no created intellect can reach up to see the essence of
God at all. But this is false, as appears from what is said above (A.
1). Therefore it seems that it is natural for a created intellect to
see the Divine essence.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "The grace of God is life everlasting"
(Rom. 6:23). But life everlasting consists in the vision of the Divine
essence, according to the words: "This is eternal life, that they may
know Thee the only true God," etc. (John 17:3). Therefore to see the
essence of God is possible to the created intellect by grace, and not
by nature.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any created intellect to see the
essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated
according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is
in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge
of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the
mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must
result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the
knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things
have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But
others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which,
however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are
the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong
to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in
individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we
know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two
cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally
knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the
singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul,
called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ.
Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in
individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but
according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of
the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can
understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of
the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are
not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our
soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It
follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the
divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any
created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as
its existence is participated. Therefore the created intellect cannot
see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the
created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.

Reply Obj. 1: This mode of knowing God is natural to an
angel--namely, to know Him by His own likeness refulgent in the angel
himself. But to know God by any created similitude is not to know the
essence of God, as was shown above (A. 2). Hence it does not follow
that an angel can know the essence of God by his own power.

Reply Obj. 2: The angelic intellect is not defective, if defect be
taken to mean privation, as if it were without anything which it
ought to have. But if the defect be taken negatively, in that sense
every creature is defective, when compared with God; forasmuch as it
does not possess the excellence which is in God.

Reply Obj. 3: The sense of sight, as being altogether material,
cannot be raised up to immateriality. But our intellect, or the
angelic intellect, inasmuch as it is elevated above matter in its own
nature, can be raised up above its own nature to a higher level by
grace. The proof is, that sight cannot in any way know abstractedly
what it knows concretely; for in no way can it perceive a nature
except as this one particular nature; whereas our intellect is able
to consider abstractedly what it knows concretely. Now although it
knows things which have a form residing in matter, still it resolves
the composite into both of these elements; and it considers the form
separately by itself. Likewise, also, the intellect of an angel,
although it naturally knows the concrete in any nature, still it is
able to separate that existence by its intellect; since it knows that
the thing itself is one thing, and its existence is another. Since
therefore the created intellect is naturally capable of apprehending
the concrete form, and the concrete being abstractedly, by way of a
kind of resolution of parts; it can by grace be raised up to know
separate subsisting substance, and separate subsisting existence.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 5]

Whether the Created Intellect Needs Any Created Light in Order to See the
Essence of God?

Objection 1: It seems that the created intellect does not need any
created light in order to see the essence of God. For what is of
itself lucid in sensible things does not require any other light in
order to be seen. Therefore the same applies to intelligible things.
Now God is intelligible light. Therefore He is not seen by means of
any created light.

Obj. 2: Further, if God is seen through a medium, He is not seen
in His essence. But if seen by any created light, He is seen through a
medium. Therefore He is not seen in His essence.

Obj. 3: Further, what is created can be natural to some creature.
Therefore if the essence of God is seen through any created light,
such a light can be made natural to some other creature; and thus,
that creature would not need any other light to see God; which is
impossible. Therefore it is not necessary that every creature should
require a superadded light in order to see the essence of God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "In Thy light we shall see light" (Ps.
35:10).

_I answer that,_ Everything which is raised up to what exceeds its
nature, must be prepared by some disposition above its nature; as, for
example, if air is to receive the form of fire, it must be prepared by
some disposition for such a form. But when any created intellect sees
the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible
form of the intellect. Hence it is necessary that some supernatural
disposition should be added to the intellect in order that it may be
raised up to such a great and sublime height. Now since the natural
power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the
essence of God, as was shown in the preceding article, it is necessary
that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now
this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of
the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the
name of light of illumination. And this is the light spoken of in the
Apocalypse (Apoc. 21:23): "The glory of God hath enlightened
it"--viz. the society of the blessed who see God. By this light the
blessed are made "deiform"--i.e. like to God, according to the
saying: "When He shall appear we shall be like to Him, and [Vulg.:
'because'] we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 2:2).

Reply Obj. 1: The created light is necessary to see the
essence of God, not in order to make the essence of God intelligible,
which is of itself intelligible, but in order to enable the intellect
to understand in the same way as a habit makes a power abler to act.
Even so corporeal light is necessary as regards external sight,
inasmuch as it makes the medium actually transparent, and susceptible
of color.

Reply Obj. 2: This light is required to see the divine
essence, not as a similitude in which God is seen, but as a perfection
of the intellect, strengthening it to see God. Therefore it may be
said that this light is to be described not as a medium in which God
is seen, but as one by which He is seen; and such a medium does not
take away the immediate vision of God.

Reply Obj. 3: The disposition to the form of fire can be
natural only to the subject of that form. Hence the light of glory
cannot be natural to a creature unless the creature has a divine
nature; which is impossible. But by this light the rational creature
is made deiform, as is said in this article.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I. Q. 12, Art. 6]

Whether of Those Who See the Essence of God, One Sees More Perfectly Than
Another?

Objection 1: It seems that of those who see the essence of God, one
does not see more perfectly than another. For it is written (1 John
3:2): "We shall see Him as He is." But He is only in one way.
Therefore He will be seen by all in one way only; and therefore He
will not be seen more perfectly by one and less perfectly by another.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xxxii):
"One person cannot see one and the same thing more perfectly than
another." But all who see the essence of God, understand the Divine
essence, for God is seen by the intellect and not by sense, as was
shown above (A. 3). Therefore of those who see the divine essence,
one does not see more clearly than another.

Obj. 3: Further, That anything be seen more perfectly than another
can happen in two ways: either on the part of the visible object, or
on the part of the visual power of the seer. On the part of the
object, it may so happen because the object is received more
perfectly in the seer, that is, according to the greater perfection
of the similitude; but this does not apply to the present question,
for God is present to the intellect seeing Him not by way of
similitude, but by His essence. It follows then that if one sees Him
more perfectly than another, this happens according to the difference
of the intellectual power; thus it follows too that the one whose
intellectual power is higher, will see Him the more clearly; and this
is incongruous; since equality with angels is promised to men as
their beatitude.

_On the contrary,_ Eternal life consists in the vision of God, according
to John 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only
true God," etc. Therefore if all saw the essence of God equally in
eternal life, all would be equal; the contrary to which is declared by
the Apostle: "Star differs from star in glory" (1 Cor. 15:41).

_I answer that,_ Of those who see the essence of God, one sees Him more
perfectly than another. This, indeed, does not take place as if one
had a more perfect similitude of God than another, since that vision
will not spring from any similitude; but it will take place because
one intellect will have a greater power or faculty to see God than
another. The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the
created intellect naturally, but is given to it by the light of glory,
which establishes the intellect in a kind of "deiformity," as appears
from what is said above, in the preceding article.

Hence the intellect which has more of the light of glory will see God
the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the
light of glory who has more charity; because where there is the
greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain
degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object
desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the
more perfectly, and will be the more beatified.

Reply Obj. 1: In the words, "We shall see Him as He is," the
conjunction "as" determines the mode of vision on the part of the
object seen, so that the meaning is, we shall see Him to be as He is,
because we shall see His existence, which is His essence. But it does
not determine the mode of vision on the part of the one seeing; as if
the meaning was that the mode of seeing God will be as perfect as is
the perfect mode of God's existence.

Thus appears the answer to the Second Objection. For when it is said
that one intellect does not understand one and the same thing better
than another, this would be true if referred to the mode of the thing
understood, for whoever understands it otherwise than it really is,
does not truly understand it, but not if referred to the mode of
understanding, for the understanding of one is more perfect than the
understanding of another.

Reply Obj. 3: The diversity of seeing will not arise on the part of
the object seen, for the same object will be presented to all--viz.
the essence of God; nor will it arise from the diverse participation
of the object seen by different similitudes; but it will arise on the
part of the diverse faculty of the intellect, not, indeed, the
natural faculty, but the glorified faculty.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 7]

Whether Those Who See the Essence of God Comprehend Him?

Objection 1: It seems that those who see the divine essence,
comprehend God. For the Apostle says (Phil. 3:12): "But I follow
after, if I may by any means comprehend [Douay: 'apprehend']." But the
Apostle did not follow in vain; for he said (1 Cor. 9:26): "I . . . so
run, not as at an uncertainty." Therefore he comprehended; and in the
same way, others also, whom he invites to do the same, saying: "So run
that you may comprehend."

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii): "That
is comprehended which is so seen as a whole, that nothing of it is
hidden from the seer." But if God is seen in His essence, He is seen
whole, and nothing of Him is hidden from the seer, since God is
simple. Therefore whoever sees His essence, comprehends Him.

Obj. 3: Further, if we say that He is seen as a "whole," but not
"wholly," it may be contrarily urged that "wholly" refers either to
the mode of the seer, or to the mode of the thing seen. But he who
sees the essence of God, sees Him wholly, if the mode of the thing
seen is considered; forasmuch as he sees Him as He is; also, likewise,
he sees Him wholly if the mode of the seer is meant, forasmuch as the
intellect will with its full power see the Divine essence. Therefore
all who see the essence of God see Him wholly; therefore they
comprehend Him.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "O most mighty, great, and powerful,
the Lord of hosts is Thy Name. Great in counsel, and incomprehensible
in thought" (Jer. 32:18,19). Therefore He cannot be comprehended.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any created intellect to
comprehend God; yet "for the mind to attain to God in some degree is
great beatitude," as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxxviii).

In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is
perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as
it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific
demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof,
it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by
scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two
right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it
as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot
be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to
that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable.
But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the
knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable.
Which thus appears--Everything is knowable according to its
actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above
(Q. 7), is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know
God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence
more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or
lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory
received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly
impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite
degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Reply Obj. 1: "Comprehension" is twofold: in one sense it is taken
strictly and properly, according as something is included in the one
comprehending; and thus in no way is God comprehended either by
intellect, or in any other way; forasmuch as He is infinite and
cannot be included in any finite being; so that no finite being can
contain Him infinitely, in the degree of His own infinity. In this
sense we now take comprehension. But in another sense "comprehension"
is taken more largely as opposed to "non-attainment"; for he who
attains to anyone is said to comprehend him when he attains to him.
And in this sense God is comprehended by the blessed, according to
the words, "I held him, and I will not let him go" (Cant. 3:4); in
this sense also are to be understood the words quoted from the
Apostle concerning comprehension. And in this way "comprehension" is
one of the three prerogatives of the soul, responding to hope, as
vision responds to faith, and fruition responds to charity. For even
among ourselves not everything seen is held or possessed, forasmuch
as things either appear sometimes afar off, or they are not in our
power of attainment. Neither, again, do we always enjoy what we
possess; either because we find no pleasure in them, or because such
things are not the ultimate end of our desire, so as to satisfy and
quell it. But the blessed possess these three things in God; because
they see Him, and in seeing Him, possess Him as present, having the
power to see Him always; and possessing Him, they enjoy Him as the
ultimate fulfilment of desire.

Reply Obj. 2: God is called incomprehensible not because anything of
Him is not seen; but because He is not seen as perfectly as He is
capable of being seen; thus when any demonstrable proposition is
known by probable reason only, it does not follow that any part of it
is unknown, either the subject, or the predicate, or the composition;
but that it is not as perfectly known as it is capable of being
known. Hence Augustine, in his definition of comprehension, says the
whole is comprehended when it is seen in such a way that nothing of
it is hidden from the seer, or when its boundaries can be completely
viewed or traced; for the boundaries of a thing are said to be
completely surveyed when the end of the knowledge of it is attained.

Reply Obj. 3: The word "wholly" denotes a mode of the object; not
that the whole object does not come under knowledge, but that the
mode of the object is not the mode of the one who knows. Therefore he
who sees God's essence, sees in Him that He exists infinitely, and is
infinitely knowable; nevertheless, this infinite mode does not extend
to enable the knower to know infinitely; thus, for instance, a person
can have a probable opinion that a proposition is demonstrable,
although he himself does not know it as demonstrated.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 8]

Whether Those Who See the Essence of God See All in God?

Objection 1: It seems that those who see the essence of God see all
things in God. For Gregory says (Dialog. iv): "What do they not see,
who see Him Who sees all things?" But God sees all things. Therefore
those who see God see all things.

Obj. 2: Further, whoever sees a mirror, sees what is reflected in
the mirror. But all actual or possible things shine forth in God as in
a mirror; for He knows all things in Himself. Therefore whoever sees
God, sees all actual things in Him, and also all possible things.

Obj. 3: Further, whoever understands the greater, can understand
the least, as is said in _De Anima_ iii. But all that God does, or can
do, are less than His essence. Therefore whoever understands God, can
understand all that God does, or can do.

Obj. 4: Further, the rational creature naturally desires to know
all things. Therefore if in seeing God it does not know all things,
its natural desire will not rest satisfied; thus, in seeing God it
will not be fully happy; which is incongruous. Therefore he who sees
God knows all things.

_On the contrary,_ The angels see the essence of God; and yet do not
know all things. For as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), "the
inferior angels are cleansed from ignorance by the superior angels."
Also they are ignorant of future contingent things, and of secret
thoughts; for this knowledge belongs to God alone. Therefore whosoever
sees the essence of God, does not know all things.

_I answer that,_ The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence,
does not see in it all that God does or can do. For it is manifest
that things are seen in God as they are in Him. But all other things
are in God as effects are in the power of their cause. Therefore all
things are seen in God as an effect is seen in its cause. Now it is
clear that the more perfectly a cause is seen, the more of its effects
can be seen in it. For whoever has a lofty understanding, as soon as
one demonstrative principle is put before him can gather the knowledge
of many conclusions; but this is beyond one of a weaker intellect, for
he needs things to be explained to him separately. And so an intellect
can know all the effects of a cause and the reasons for those effects
in the cause itself, if it comprehends the cause wholly. Now no
created intellect can comprehend God wholly, as shown above
(A. 7). Therefore no created intellect in seeing God can know all
that God does or can do, for this would be to comprehend His power;
but of what God does or can do any intellect can know the more, the
more perfectly it sees God.

Reply Obj. 1: Gregory speaks as regards the object being sufficient,
namely, God, who in Himself sufficiently contains and shows forth all
things; but it does not follow that whoever sees God knows all
things, for he does not perfectly comprehend Him.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not necessary that whoever sees a mirror should
see all that is in the mirror, unless his glance comprehends the
mirror itself.

Reply Obj. 3: Although it is more to see God than to see all things
else, still it is a greater thing to see Him so that all things are
known in Him, than to see Him in such a way that not all things, but
the fewer or the more, are known in Him. For it has been shown in
this article that the more things are known in God according as He is
seen more or less perfectly.

Reply Obj. 4: The natural desire of the rational creature is to know
everything that belongs to the perfection of the intellect, namely,
the species and the genera of things and their types, and these
everyone who sees the Divine essence will see in God. But to know
other singulars, their thoughts and their deeds does not belong to
the perfection of the created intellect nor does its natural desire
go out to these things; neither, again, does it desire to know things
that exist not as yet, but which God can call into being. Yet if God
alone were seen, Who is the fount and principle of all being and of
all truth, He would so fill the natural desire of knowledge that
nothing else would be desired, and the seer would be completely
beatified. Hence Augustine says (Confess. v): "Unhappy the man who
knoweth all these" (i.e. all creatures) "and knoweth not Thee! but
happy whoso knoweth Thee although he know not these. And whoso
knoweth both Thee and them is not the happier for them, but for Thee
alone."
_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 9]

Whether What Is Seen in God by Those Who See the Divine Essence, Is Seen
Through Any Similitude?

Objection 1: It seems that what is seen in God by those who see the
Divine essence, is seen by means of some similitude. For every kind of
knowledge comes about by the knower being assimilated to the object
known. For thus the intellect in act becomes the actual intelligible,
and the sense in act becomes the actual sensible, inasmuch as it is
informed by a similitude of the object, as the eye by the similitude
of color. Therefore if the intellect of one who sees the Divine
essence understands any creatures in God, it must be informed by their
similitudes.

Obj. 2: Further, what we have seen, we keep in memory. But Paul,
seeing the essence of God whilst in ecstasy, when he had ceased to see
the Divine essence, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 28,34),
remembered many of the things he had seen in the rapture; hence he
said: "I have heard secret words which it is not granted to man to
utter" (2 Cor. 12:4). Therefore it must be said that certain
similitudes of what he remembered, remained in his mind; and in the
same way, when he actually saw the essence of God, he had certain
similitudes or ideas of what he actually saw in it.

_On the contrary,_ A mirror and what is in it are seen by means of one
likeness. But all things are seen in God as in an intelligible mirror.
Therefore if God Himself is not seen by any similitude but by His own
essence, neither are the things seen in Him seen by any similitudes or
ideas.

_I answer that,_ Those who see the divine essence see what they see in
God not by any likeness, but by the divine essence itself united to
their intellect. For each thing is known in so far as its likeness is
in the one who knows. Now this takes place in two ways. For as things
which are like one and the same thing are like to each other, the
cognitive faculty can be assimilated to any knowable object in two
ways. In one way it is assimilated by the object itself, when it is
directly informed by a similitude, and then the object is known in
itself. In another way when informed by a similitude which resembles
the object; and in this way, the knowledge is not of the thing in
itself, but of the thing in its likeness. For the knowledge of a man
in himself differs from the knowledge of him in his image. Hence to
know things thus by their likeness in the one who knows, is to know
them in themselves or in their own nature; whereas to know them by
their similitudes pre-existing in God, is to see them in God. Now
there is a difference between these two kinds of knowledge. Hence,
according to the knowledge whereby things are known by those who see
the essence of God, they are seen in God Himself not by any other
similitudes but by the Divine essence alone present to the intellect;
by which also God Himself is seen.

Reply Obj. 1: The created intellect of one who sees God is
assimilated to what is seen in God, inasmuch as it is united to the
Divine essence, in which the similitudes of all things pre-exist.

Reply Obj. 2: Some of the cognitive faculties form other images from
those first conceived; thus the imagination from the preconceived
images of a mountain and of gold can form the likeness of a golden
mountain; and the intellect, from the preconceived ideas of genus and
difference, forms the idea of species; in like manner from the
similitude of an image we can form in our minds the similitude of the
original of the image. Thus Paul, or any other person who sees God,
by the very vision of the divine essence, can form in himself the
similitudes of what is seen in the divine essence, which remained in
Paul even when he had ceased to see the essence of God. Still this
kind of vision whereby things are seen by this likeness thus
conceived, is not the same as that whereby things are seen in God.
_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 10]

Whether Those Who See the Essence of God See All They See in It at the
Same Time?

Objection 1: It seems that those who see the essence of God do not see
all they see in Him at one and the same time. For according to the
Philosopher (Topic. ii): "It may happen that many things are known,
but only one is understood." But what is seen in God, is understood;
for God is seen by the intellect. Therefore those who see God do not
see all in Him at the same time.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 22, 23), "God
moves the spiritual creature according to time"--i.e. by intelligence
and affection. But the spiritual creature is the angel who sees God.
Therefore those who see God understand and are affected successively;
for time means succession.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xvi): "Our thoughts will not
be unstable, going to and fro from one thing to another; but we shall
see all we know at one glance."

_I answer that,_ What is seen in the Word is seen not successively, but
at the same time. In proof whereof, we ourselves cannot know many
things all at once, forasmuch as understand many things by means of
many ideas. But our intellect cannot be actually informed by many
diverse ideas at the same time, so as to understand by them; as one
body cannot bear different shapes simultaneously. Hence, when many
things can be understood by one idea, they are understood at the same
time; as the parts of a whole are understood successively, and not all
at the same time, if each one is understood by its own idea; whereas
if all are understood under the one idea of the whole, they are
understood simultaneously. Now it was shown above that things seen in
God, are not seen singly by their own similitude; but all are seen by
the one essence of God. Hence they are seen simultaneously, and not
successively.

Reply Obj. 1: We understand one thing only when we understand by one
idea; but many things understood by one idea are understood
simultaneously, as in the idea of a man we understand "animal" and
"rational"; and in the idea of a house we understand the wall and the
roof.

Reply Obj. 2: As regards their natural knowledge, whereby they know
things by diverse ideas given them, the angels do not know all things
simultaneously, and thus they are moved in the act of understanding
according to time; but as regards what they see in God, they see all
at the same time.
_______________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 11]

Whether Anyone in This Life Can See the Essence of God?

Objection 1: It seems that one can in this life see the Divine
essence. For Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face" (Gen. 32:30).
But to see Him face to face is to see His essence, as appears from the
words: "We see now in a glass and in a dark manner, but then face to
face" (1 Cor. 13:12).

Obj. 2: Further, the Lord said to Moses: "I speak to him mouth to
mouth, and plainly, and not by riddles and figures doth he see the
Lord" (Num. 12:8); but this is to see God in His essence. Therefore it
is possible to see the essence of God in this life.

Obj. 3: Further, that wherein we know all other things, and whereby
we judge of other things, is known in itself to us. But even now we
know all things in God; for Augustine says (Confess. viii): "If we
both see that what you say is true, and we both see that what I say
is true; where, I ask, do we see this? neither I in thee, nor thou in
me; but both of us in the very incommutable truth itself above our
minds." He also says (De Vera Relig. xxx) that, "We judge of all
things according to the divine truth"; and (De Trin. xii) that, "it
is the duty of reason to judge of these corporeal things according to
the incorporeal and eternal ideas; which unless they were above the
mind could not be incommutable." Therefore even in this life we see
God Himself.

Obj. 4: Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 24, 25),
those things that are in the soul by their essence are seen by
intellectual vision. But intellectual vision is of intelligible
things, not by similitudes, but by their very essences, as he also
says (Gen. ad lit. xiii, 24, 25). Therefore since God is in our soul
by His essence, it follows that He is seen by us in His essence.

_On the contrary,_ It is written, "Man shall not see Me, and live" (Ex.
32:20), and a gloss upon this says, "In this mortal life God can be
seen by certain images, but not by the likeness itself of His own
nature."

_I answer that,_ God cannot be seen in His essence by a mere human
being, except he be separated from this mortal life. The reason is
because, as was said above (A. 4), the mode of knowledge follows
the mode of the nature of the knower. But our soul, as long as we live
in this life, has its being in corporeal matter; hence naturally it
knows only what has a form in matter, or what can be known by such a
form. Now it is evident that the Divine essence cannot be known
through the nature of material things. For it was shown above
(AA. 2, 9) that the knowledge of God by means of any created
similitude is not the vision of His essence. Hence it is impossible
for the soul of man in this life to see the essence of God. This can
be seen in the fact that the more our soul is abstracted from
corporeal things, the more it is capable of receiving abstract
intelligible things. Hence in dreams and alienations of the bodily
senses divine revelations and foresight of future events are perceived
the more clearly. It is not possible, therefore, that the soul in this
mortal life should be raised up to the supreme of intelligible
objects, i.e. to the divine essence.

Reply Obj. 1: According to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv) a man is said
in the Scriptures to see God in the sense that certain figures are
formed in the senses or imagination, according to some similitude
representing in part the divinity. So when Jacob says, "I have seen
God face to face," this does not mean the Divine essence, but some
figure representing God. And this is to be referred to some high mode
of prophecy, so that God seems to speak, though in an imaginary
vision; as will later be explained (II-II, Q. 174) in treating of the
degrees of prophecy. We may also say that Jacob spoke thus to
designate some exalted intellectual contemplation, above the ordinary
state.

Reply Obj. 2: As God works miracles in corporeal things, so also He
does supernatural wonders above the common order, raising the minds
of some living in the flesh beyond the use of sense, even up to the
vision of His own essence; as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 26,
27, 28) of Moses, the teacher of the Jews; and of Paul, the teacher
of the Gentiles. This will be treated more fully in the question of
rapture (II-II, Q. 175).

Reply Obj. 3: All things are said to be seen in God and all things
are judged in Him, because by the participation of His light, we know
and judge all things; for the light of natural reason itself is a
participation of the divine light; as likewise we are said to see and
judge of sensible things in the sun, i.e., by the sun's light. Hence
Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 8), "The lessons of instruction can only
be seen as it were by their own sun," namely God. As therefore in
order to see a sensible object, it is not necessary to see the
substance of the sun, so in like manner to see any intelligible
object, it is not necessary to see the essence of God.

Reply Obj. 4: Intellectual vision is of the things which are in the
soul by their essence, as intelligible things are in the intellect.
And thus God is in the souls of the blessed; not thus is He in our
soul, but by presence, essence and power.
_______________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 12]

Whether God Can Be Known in This Life by Natural Reason?

Objection 1: It seems that by natural reason we cannot know God in
this life. For Boethius says (De Consol. v) that "reason does not
grasp simple form." But God is a supremely simple form, as was shown
above (Q. 3, A. 7). Therefore natural reason cannot attain to know
Him.

Obj. 2: Further, the soul understands nothing by natural reason
without the use of the imagination. But we cannot have an imagination
of God, Who is incorporeal. Therefore we cannot know God by natural
knowledge.

Obj. 3: Further, the knowledge of natural reason belongs to both
good and evil, inasmuch as they have a common nature. But the
knowledge of God belongs only to the good; for Augustine says (De
Trin. i): "The weak eye of the human mind is not fixed on that
excellent light unless purified by the justice of faith." Therefore
God cannot be known by natural reason.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 1:19), "That which is known of
God," namely, what can be known of God by natural reason, "is manifest
in them."

_I answer that,_ Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our
natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things.
But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of
God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God
as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole
power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen.
But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be
led from them so far as to know of God "whether He exists," and to
know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of
all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.

Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the
cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He
is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures
are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but
because He superexceeds them all.

Reply Obj. 1: Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to
know "what it is"; but it can know "whether it is."

Reply Obj. 2: God is known by natural knowledge through the
images of His effects.

Reply Obj. 3: As the knowledge of God's essence is by grace, it
belongs only to the good; but the knowledge of Him by natural reason
can belong to both good and bad; and hence Augustine says (Retract.
i), retracting what he had said before: "I do not approve what I said
in prayer, 'God who willest that only the pure should know truth.'
For it can be answered that many who are not pure can know many
truths," i.e. by natural reason.
_______________________

THIRTEENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 13]

Whether by Grace a Higher Knowledge of God Can Be Obtained Than by
Natural Reason?

Objection 1: It seems that by grace a higher knowledge of God is not
obtained than by natural reason. For Dionysius says (De Mystica Theol.
i) that whoever is the more united to God in this life, is united to
Him as to one entirely unknown. He says the same of Moses, who
nevertheless obtained a certain excellence by the knowledge conferred
by grace. But to be united to God while ignoring of Him "what He is,"
comes about also by natural reason. Therefore God is not more known to
us by grace than by natural reason.

Obj. 2: Further, we can acquire the knowledge of divine things by
natural reason only through the imagination; and the same applies to
the knowledge given by grace. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that
"it is impossible for the divine ray to shine upon us except as
screened round about by the many colored sacred veils." Therefore we
cannot know God more fully by grace than by natural reason.

Obj. 3: Further, our intellect adheres to God by grace of faith.
But faith does not seem to be knowledge; for Gregory says (Hom. xxvi
in Ev.) that "things not seen are the objects of faith, and not of
knowledge." Therefore there is not given to us a more excellent
knowledge of God by grace.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says that "God hath revealed to us His
spirit," what "none of the princes of this world knew" (1 Cor. 2:10),
namely, the philosophers, as the gloss expounds.

_I answer that,_ We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than
by natural reason. Which is proved thus. The knowledge which we have
by natural reason contains two things: images derived from the
sensible objects; and the natural intelligible light, enabling us to
abstract from them intelligible conceptions.

Now in both of these, human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of
grace. For the intellect's natural light is strengthened by the
infusion of gratuitous light; and sometimes also the images in the
human imagination are divinely formed, so as to express divine things
better than those do which we receive from sensible objects, as
appears in prophetic visions; while sometimes sensible things, or even
voices, are divinely formed to express some divine meaning; as in the
Baptism, the Holy Ghost was seen in the shape of a dove, and the voice
of the Father was heard, "This is My beloved Son" (Matt. 3:17).

Reply Obj. 1: Although by the revelation of grace in this life we
cannot know of God "what He is," and thus are united to Him as to one
unknown; still we know Him more fully according as many and more
excellent of His effects are demonstrated to us, and according as we
attribute to Him some things known by divine revelation, to which
natural reason cannot reach, as, for instance, that God is Three and
One.

Reply Obj. 2: From the images either received from sense in the
natural order, or divinely formed in the imagination, we have so much
the more excellent intellectual knowledge, the stronger the
intelligible light is in man; and thus through the revelation given
by the images a fuller knowledge is received by the infusion of the
divine light.

Reply Obj. 3: Faith is a kind of knowledge, inasmuch as the intellect
is determined by faith to some knowable object. But this
determination to one object does not proceed from the vision of the
believer, but from the vision of Him who is believed. Thus as far as
faith falls short of vision, it falls short of the knowledge which
belongs to science, for science determines the intellect to one
object by the vision and understanding of first principles.
_______________________

QUESTION 13

THE NAMES OF GOD
(In Twelve Articles)

After the consideration of those things which belong to the divine
knowledge, we now proceed to the consideration of the divine names.
For everything is named by us according to our knowledge of it.

Under this head, there are twelve points for inquiry:

(1) Whether God can be named by us?

(2) Whether any names applied to God are predicated of Him
substantially?

(3) Whether any names applied to God are said of Him literally, or
are all to be taken metaphorically?

(4) Whether any names applied to God are synonymous?

(5) Whether some names are applied to God and to creatures univocally
or equivocally?

(6) Whether, supposing they are applied analogically, they are
applied first to God or to creatures?

(7) Whether any names are applicable to God from time?

(8) Whether this name "God" is a name of nature, or of the operation?

(9) Whether this name "God" is a communicable name?

(10) Whether it is taken univocally or equivocally as signifying God,
by nature, by participation, and by opinion?

(11) Whether this name, "Who is," is the supremely appropriate name
of God?

(12) Whether affirmative propositions can be formed about God?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 1]

Whether a Name Can Be Given to God?

Objection 1: It seems that no name can be given to God. For Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. i) that, "Of Him there is neither name, nor can one be
found of Him;" and it is written: "What is His name, and what is the
name of His Son, if thou knowest?" (Prov. 30:4).

Obj. 2: Further, every name is either abstract or concrete. But
concrete names do not belong to God, since He is simple, nor do
abstract names belong to Him, forasmuch as they do not signify any
perfect subsisting thing. Therefore no name can be said of God.

Obj. 3: Further, nouns are taken to signify substance with quality;
verbs and participles signify substance with time; pronouns the same
with demonstration or relation. But none of these can be applied to
God, for He has no quality, nor accident, nor time; moreover, He
cannot be felt, so as to be pointed out; nor can He be described by
relation, inasmuch as relations serve to recall a thing mentioned
before by nouns, participles, or demonstrative pronouns. Therefore
God cannot in any way be named by us.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ex. 15:3): "The Lord is a man of war,
Almighty is His name."

_I answer that,_ Since according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i),
words are signs of ideas, and ideas the similitude of things, it is
evident that words relate to the meaning of things signified through
the medium of the intellectual conception. It follows therefore that
we can give a name to anything in as far as we can understand it. Now
it was shown above (Q. 12, AA. 11, 12) that in this life we cannot
see the essence of God; but we know God from creatures as their
principle, and also by way of excellence and remotion. In this way
therefore He can be named by us from creatures, yet not so that the
name which signifies Him expresses the divine essence in itself. Thus
the name "man" expresses the essence of man in himself, since it
signifies the definition of man by manifesting his essence; for the
idea expressed by the name is the definition.

Reply Obj. 1: The reason why God has no name, or is said to be
above being named, is because His essence is above all that we
understand about God, and signify in word.

Reply Obj. 2: Because we know and name God from creatures, the
names we attribute to God signify what belongs to material creatures,
of which the knowledge is natural to us. And because in creatures of
this kind what is perfect and subsistent is compound; whereas their
form is not a complete subsisting thing, but rather is that whereby a
thing is; hence it follows that all names used by us to signify a
complete subsisting thing must have a concrete meaning as applicable
to compound things; whereas names given to signify simple forms,
signify a thing not as subsisting, but as that whereby a thing is; as,
for instance, whiteness signifies that whereby a thing is white. And
as God is simple, and subsisting, we attribute to Him abstract names
to signify His simplicity, and concrete names to signify His substance
and perfection, although both these kinds of names fail to express His
mode of being, forasmuch as our intellect does not know Him in this
life as He is.

Reply Obj. 3: To signify substance with quality is to signify the
_suppositum_ with a nature or determined form in which it subsists.
Hence, as some things are said of God in a concrete sense, to signify
His subsistence and perfection, so likewise nouns are applied to God
signifying substance with quality. Further, verbs and participles
which signify time, are applied to Him because His eternity includes
all time. For as we can apprehend and signify simple subsistences
only by way of compound things, so we can understand and express
simple eternity only by way of temporal things, because our intellect
has a natural affinity to compound and temporal things. But
demonstrative pronouns are applied to God as describing what is
understood, not what is sensed. For we can only describe Him as far
as we understand Him. Thus, according as nouns, participles and
demonstrative pronouns are applicable to God, so far can He be
signified by relative pronouns.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 2]

Whether Any Name Can Be Applied to God Substantially?

Objection 1: It seems that no name can be applied to God
substantially. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 9): "Everything
said of God signifies not His substance, but rather shows forth what
He is not; or expresses some relation, or something following from His
nature or operation."

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "You will find a
chorus of holy doctors addressed to the end of distinguishing clearly
and praiseworthily the divine processions in the denomination of God."
Thus the names applied by the holy doctors in praising God are
distinguished according to the divine processions themselves. But what
expresses the procession of anything, does not signify its essence.
Therefore the names applied to God are not said of Him substantially.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing is named by us according as we
understand it. But God is not understood by us in this life in His
substance. Therefore neither is any name we can use applied
substantially to God.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi): "The being of God is
the being strong, or the being wise, or whatever else we may say of
that simplicity whereby His substance is signified." Therefore all
names of this kind signify the divine substance.

_I answer that,_ Negative names applied to God, or signifying His
relation to creatures manifestly do not at all signify His substance,
but rather express the distance of the creature from Him, or His
relation to something else, or rather, the relation of creatures to
Himself.

But as regards absolute and affirmative names of God, as "good,"
"wise," and the like, various and many opinions have been given. For
some have said that all such names, although they are applied to God
affirmatively, nevertheless have been brought into use more to express
some remotion from God, rather than to express anything that exists
positively in Him. Hence they assert that when we say that God lives,
we mean that God is not like an inanimate thing; and the same in like
manner applies to other names; and this was taught by Rabbi Moses.
Others say that these names applied to God signify His relationship
towards creatures: thus in the words, "God is good," we mean, God is
the cause of goodness in things; and the same rule applies to other
names.

Both of these opinions, however, seem to be untrue for three reasons.
First because in neither of them can a reason be assigned why some
names more than others are applied to God. For He is assuredly the
cause of bodies in the same way as He is the cause of good things;
therefore if the words "God is good," signified no more than, "God is
the cause of good things," it might in like manner be said that God is
a body, inasmuch as He is the cause of bodies. So also to say that He
is a body implies that He is not a mere potentiality, as is primary
matter. Secondly, because it would follow that all names applied to
God would be said of Him by way of being taken in a secondary sense,
as healthy is secondarily said of medicine, forasmuch as it signifies
only the cause of the health in the animal which primarily is called
healthy. Thirdly, because this is against the intention of those who
speak of God. For in saying that God lives, they assuredly mean more
than to say the He is the cause of our life, or that He differs from
inanimate bodies.

Therefore we must hold a different doctrine--viz. that these names
signify the divine substance, and are predicated substantially of God,
although they fall short of a full representation of Him. Which is
proved thus. For these names express God, so far as our intellects
know Him. Now since our intellect knows God from creatures, it knows
Him as far as creatures represent Him. Now it is shown above
(Q. 4, A. 2) that God prepossesses in Himself all the perfections
of creatures, being Himself simply and universally perfect. Hence
every creature represents Him, and is like Him so far as it possesses
some perfection; yet it represents Him not as something of the same
species or genus, but as the excelling principle of whose form the
effects fall short, although they derive some kind of likeness
thereto, even as the forms of inferior bodies represent the power of
the sun. This was explained above (Q. 4, A. 3), in treating of the
divine perfection. Therefore the aforesaid names signify the divine
substance, but in an imperfect manner, even as creatures represent it
imperfectly. So when we say, "God is good," the meaning is not, "God
is the cause of goodness," or "God is not evil"; but the meaning is,
"Whatever good we attribute to creatures, pre-exists in God," and in a
more excellent and higher way. Hence it does not follow that God is
good, because He causes goodness; but rather, on the contrary, He
causes goodness in things because He is good; according to what
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 32), "Because He is good, we
are."

Reply Obj. 1: Damascene says that these names do not signify what God
is, forasmuch as by none of these names is perfectly expressed what
He is; but each one signifies Him in an imperfect manner, even as
creatures represent Him imperfectly.

Reply Obj. 2: In the significance of names, that from which the name
is derived is different sometimes from what it is intended to
signify, as for instance, this name "stone" [lapis] is imposed from
the fact that it hurts the foot [loedit pedem], but it is not imposed
to signify that which hurts the foot, but rather to signify a certain
kind of body; otherwise everything that hurts the foot would be a
stone [*This refers to the Latin etymology of the word _lapis,_ which
has no place in English]. So we must say that these kinds of divine
names are imposed from the divine processions; for as according to
the diverse processions of their perfections, creatures are the
representations of God, although in an imperfect manner; so likewise
our intellect knows and names God according to each kind of
procession; but nevertheless these names are not imposed to signify
the procession themselves, as if when we say "God lives," the sense
were, "life proceeds from Him"; but to signify the principle itself
of things, in so far as life pre-exists in Him, although it
pre-exists in Him in a more eminent way than can be understood or
signified.

Reply Obj. 3: We cannot know the essence of God in this life, as He
really is in Himself; but we know Him accordingly as He is
represented in the perfections of creatures; and thus the names
imposed by us signify Him in that manner only.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 3]

Whether Any Name Can Be Applied to God in Its Literal Sense?

Objection 1: It seems that no name is applied literally to God. For
all names which we apply to God are taken from creatures; as was
explained above (A. 1). But the names of creatures are applied to
God metaphorically, as when we say, God is a stone, or a lion, or the
like. Therefore names are applied to God in a metaphorical sense.

Obj. 2: Further, no name can be applied literally to anything if it
should be withheld from it rather than given to it. But all such
names as "good," "wise," and the like are more truly withheld from
God than given to Him; as appears from Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.
ii). Therefore none of these names belong to God in their literal
sense.

Obj. 3: Further, corporeal names are applied to God in a metaphorical
sense only; since He is incorporeal. But all such names imply some
kind of corporeal condition; for their meaning is bound up with time
and composition and like corporeal conditions. Therefore all these
names are applied to God in a metaphorical sense.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Fide ii), "Some names there are
which express evidently the property of the divinity, and some which
express the clear truth of the divine majesty, but others there are
which are applied to God metaphorically by way of similitude."
Therefore not all names are applied to God in a metaphorical sense,
but there are some which are said of Him in their literal sense.

_I answer that,_ According to the preceding article, our knowledge of
God is derived from the perfections which flow from Him to creatures,
which perfections are in God in a more eminent way than in creatures.
Now our intellect apprehends them as they are in creatures, and as it
apprehends them it signifies them by names. Therefore as to the names
applied to God--viz. the perfections which they signify, such as
goodness, life and the like, and their mode of signification. As
regards what is signified by these names, they belong properly to God,
and more properly than they belong to creatures, and are applied
primarily to Him. But as regards their mode of signification, they do
not properly and strictly apply to God; for their mode of
signification applies to creatures.

Reply Obj. 1: There are some names which signify these perfections
flowing from God to creatures in such a way that the imperfect way in
which creatures receive the divine perfection is part of the very
signification of the name itself as "stone" signifies a material
being, and names of this kind can be applied to God only in a
metaphorical sense. Other names, however, express these perfections
absolutely, without any such mode of participation being part of
their signification as the words "being," "good," "living," and the
like, and such names can be literally applied to God.

Reply Obj. 2: Such names as these, as Dionysius shows, are denied of
God for the reason that what the name signifies does not belong to
Him in the ordinary sense of its signification, but in a more eminent
way. Hence Dionysius says also that God is above all substance and
all life.

Reply Obj. 3: These names which are applied to God literally imply
corporeal conditions not in the thing signified, but as regards their
mode of signification; whereas those which are applied to God
metaphorically imply and mean a corporeal condition in the thing
signified.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 4]

Whether Names Applied to God Are Synonymous?

Objection 1: It seems that these names applied to God are synonymous
names. For synonymous names are those which mean exactly the same. But
these names applied to God mean entirely the same thing in God; for
the goodness of God is His essence, and likewise it is His wisdom.
Therefore these names are entirely synonymous.

Obj. 2: Further, if it be said these names signify one and the same
thing in reality, but differ in idea, it can be objected that an idea
to which no reality corresponds is a vain notion. Therefore if these
ideas are many, and the thing is one, it seems also that all these
ideas are vain notions.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing which is one in reality and in idea, is more
one than what is one in reality and many in idea. But God is
supremely one. Therefore it seems that He is not one in reality and
many in idea; and thus the names applied to God do not signify
different ideas; and thus they are synonymous.

_On the contrary,_ All synonyms united with each other are redundant, as
when we say, "vesture clothing." Therefore if all names applied to God
are synonymous, we cannot properly say "good God" or the like, and yet
it is written, "O most mighty, great and powerful, the Lord of hosts
is Thy name" (Jer. 32:18).

_I answer that,_ These names spoken of God are not synonymous. This
would be easy to understand, if we said that these names are used to
remove, or to express the relation of cause to creatures; for thus it
would follow that there are different ideas as regards the diverse
things denied of God, or as regards diverse effects connoted. But even
according to what was said above (A. 2), that these names signify
the divine substance, although in an imperfect manner, it is also
clear from what has been said (AA. 1, 2) that they have diverse
meanings. For the idea signified by the name is the conception in the
intellect of the thing signified by the name. But our intellect, since
it knows God from creatures, in order to understand God, forms
conceptions proportional to the perfections flowing from God to
creatures, which perfections pre-exist in God unitedly and simply,
whereas in creatures they are received and divided and multiplied. As
therefore, to the different perfections of creatures, there
corresponds one simple principle represented by different perfections
of creatures in a various and manifold manner, so also to the various
and multiplied conceptions of our intellect, there corresponds one
altogether simple principle, according to these conceptions,
imperfectly understood. Therefore although the names applied to God
signify one thing, still because they signify that under many and
different aspects, they are not synonymous.

Thus appears the solution of the First Objection, since synonymous
terms signify one thing under one aspect; for words which signify
different aspects of one thing, do not signify primarily and
absolutely one thing; because the term only signifies the thing
through the medium of the intellectual conception, as was said above.

Reply Obj. 2: The many aspects of these names are not empty and
vain, for there corresponds to all of them one simple reality
represented by them in a manifold and imperfect manner.

Reply Obj. 3: The perfect unity of God requires that what are
manifold and divided in others should exist in Him simply and
unitedly. Thus it comes about that He is one in reality, and yet
multiple in idea, because our intellect apprehends Him in a manifold
manner, as things represent Him.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 5]

Whether What Is Said of God and of Creatures Is Univocally Predicated
of Them?

Objection 1: It seems that the things attributed to God and creatures
are univocal. For every equivocal term is reduced to the univocal, as
many are reduced to one; for if the name "dog" be said equivocally of
the barking dog, and of the dogfish, it must be said of some
univocally--viz. of all barking dogs; otherwise we proceed to
infinitude. Now there are some univocal agents which agree with their
effects in name and definition, as man generates man; and there are
some agents which are equivocal, as the sun which causes heat,
although the sun is hot only in an equivocal sense. Therefore it seems
that the first agent to which all other agents are reduced, is an
univocal agent: and thus what is said of God and creatures, is
predicated univocally.

Obj. 2: Further, there is no similitude among equivocal things.
Therefore as creatures have a certain likeness to God, according to
the word of Genesis (Gen. 1:26), "Let us make man to our image and
likeness," it seems that something can be said of God and creatures
univocally.

Obj. 3: Further, measure is homogeneous with the thing measured.
But God is the first measure of all beings. Therefore God is
homogeneous with creatures; and thus a word may be applied univocally
to God and to creatures.

_On the contrary,_ whatever is predicated of various things under the
same name but not in the same sense, is predicated equivocally. But no
name belongs to God in the same sense that it belongs to creatures;
for instance, wisdom in creatures is a quality, but not in God. Now a
different genus changes an essence, since the genus is part of the
definition; and the same applies to other things. Therefore whatever
is said of God and of creatures is predicated equivocally.

Further, God is more distant from creatures than any creatures are
from each other. But the distance of some creatures makes any univocal
predication of them impossible, as in the case of those things which
are not in the same genus. Therefore much less can anything be
predicated univocally of God and creatures; and so only equivocal
predication can be applied to them.

_I answer that,_ Univocal predication is impossible between God and
creatures. The reason of this is that every effect which is not an
adequate result of the power of the efficient cause, receives the
similitude of the agent not in its full degree, but in a measure that
falls short, so that what is divided and multiplied in the effects
resides in the agent simply, and in the same manner; as for example
the sun by exercise of its one power produces manifold and various
forms in all inferior things. In the same way, as said in the
preceding article, all perfections existing in creatures divided and
multiplied, pre-exist in God unitedly. Thus when any term expressing
perfection is applied to a creature, it signifies that perfection
distinct in idea from other perfections; as, for instance, by the term
"wise" applied to man, we signify some perfection distinct from a
man's essence, and distinct from his power and existence, and from all
similar things; whereas when we apply to it God, we do not mean to
signify anything distinct from His essence, or power, or existence.
Thus also this term "wise" applied to man in some degree circumscribes
and comprehends the thing signified; whereas this is not the case when
it is applied to God; but it leaves the thing signified as
incomprehended, and as exceeding the signification of the name. Hence
it is evident that this term "wise" is not applied in the same way to
God and to man. The same rule applies to other terms. Hence no name is
predicated univocally of God and of creatures.

Neither, on the other hand, are names applied to God and creatures in
a purely equivocal sense, as some have said. Because if that were so,
it follows that from creatures nothing could be known or demonstrated
about God at all; for the reasoning would always be exposed to the
fallacy of equivocation. Such a view is against the philosophers, who
proved many things about God, and also against what the Apostle says:
"The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the
things that are made" (Rom. 1:20). Therefore it must be said that
these names are said of God and creatures in an analogous sense, i.e.
according to proportion.

Now names are thus used in two ways: either according as many things
are proportionate to one, thus for example "healthy" predicated of
medicine and urine in relation and in proportion to health of a body,
of which the former is the sign and the latter the cause: or
according as one thing is proportionate to another, thus "healthy" is
said of medicine and animal, since medicine is the cause of health in
the animal body. And in this way some things are said of God and
creatures analogically, and not in a purely equivocal nor in a purely
univocal sense. For we can name God only from creatures (A. 1). Thus
whatever is said of God and creatures, is said according to the
relation of a creature to God as its principle and cause, wherein all
perfections of things pre-exist excellently. Now this mode of
community of idea is a mean between pure equivocation and simple
univocation. For in analogies the idea is not, as it is in univocals,
one and the same, yet it is not totally diverse as in equivocals; but
a term which is thus used in a multiple sense signifies various
proportions to some one thing; thus "healthy" applied to urine
signifies the sign of animal health, and applied to medicine
signifies the cause of the same health.

Reply Obj. 1: Although equivocal predications must be reduced to
univocal, still in actions, the non-univocal agent must precede the
univocal agent. For the non-univocal agent is the universal cause of
the whole species, as for instance the sun is the cause of the
generation of all men; whereas the univocal agent is not the
universal efficient cause of the whole species (otherwise it would be
the cause of itself, since it is contained in the species), but is a
particular cause of this individual which it places under the species
by way of participation. Therefore the universal cause of the whole
species is not an univocal agent; and the universal cause comes
before the particular cause. But this universal agent, whilst it is
not univocal, nevertheless is not altogether equivocal, otherwise it
could not produce its own likeness, but rather it is to be called an
analogical agent, as all univocal predications are reduced to one
first non-univocal analogical predication, which is being.

Reply Obj. 2: The likeness of the creature to God is imperfect, for
it does not represent one and the same generic thing (Q. 4, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 3: God is not the measure proportioned to things measured;
hence it is not necessary that God and creatures should be in the
same genus.

The arguments adduced in the contrary sense prove indeed that these
names are not predicated univocally of God and creatures; yet they do
not prove that they are predicated equivocally.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 6]

Whether Names Predicated of God Are Predicated Primarily of Creatures?

Objection 1: It seems that names are predicated primarily of creatures
rather than of God. For we name anything accordingly as we know it,
since "names", as the Philosopher says, "are signs of ideas." But we
know creatures before we know God. Therefore the names imposed by us
are predicated primarily of creatures rather than of God.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We name God from
creatures." But names transferred from creatures to God, are said
primarily of creatures rather than of God, as "lion," "stone," and the
like. Therefore all names applied to God and creatures are applied
primarily to creatures rather than to God.

Obj. 3: Further, all names equally applied to God and creatures,
are applied to God as the cause of all creatures, as Dionysius says
(De Mystica Theol.). But what is applied to anything through its
cause, is applied to it secondarily, for "healthy" is primarily
predicated of animal rather than of medicine, which is the cause of
health. Therefore these names are said primarily of creatures rather
than of God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written, "I bow my knees to the Father, of our
Lord Jesus Christ, of Whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named"
(Eph. 3:14,15); and the same applies to the other names applied to God
and creatures. Therefore these names are applied primarily to God
rather than to creatures.

_I answer that,_ In names predicated of many in an analogical sense,
all are predicated because they have reference to some one thing; and
this one thing must be placed in the definition of them all. And
since that expressed by the name is the definition, as the
Philosopher says (Metaph. iv), such a name must be applied primarily
to that which is put in the definition of such other things, and
secondarily to these others according as they approach more or less
to that first. Thus, for instance, "healthy" applied to animals comes
into the definition of "healthy" applied to medicine, which is called
healthy as being the cause of health in the animal; and also into the
definition of "healthy" which is applied to urine, which is called
healthy in so far as it is the sign of the animal's health. Thus all
names applied metaphorically to God, are applied to creatures
primarily rather than to God, because when said of God they mean only
similitudes to such creatures. For as "smiling" applied to a field
means only that the field in the beauty of its flowering is like the
beauty of the human smile by proportionate likeness, so the name of
"lion" applied to God means only that God manifests strength in His
works, as a lion in his. Thus it is clear that applied to God the
signification of names can be defined only from what is said of
creatures. But to other names not applied to God in a metaphorical
sense, the same rule would apply if they were spoken of God as the
cause only, as some have supposed. For when it is said, "God is
good," it would then only mean "God is the cause of the creature's
goodness"; thus the term good applied to God would included in its
meaning the creature's goodness. Hence "good" would apply primarily
to creatures rather than to God. But as was shown above (A. 2), these
names are applied to God not as the cause only, but also essentially.
For the words, "God is good," or "wise," signify not only that He is
the cause of wisdom or goodness, but that these exist in Him in a
more excellent way. Hence as regards what the name signifies, these
names are applied primarily to God rather than to creatures, because
these perfections flow from God to creatures; but as regards the
imposition of the names, they are primarily applied by us to
creatures which we know first. Hence they have a mode of
signification which belongs to creatures, as said above (A. 3).

Reply Obj. 1: This objection refers to the imposition of the name.

Reply Obj. 2: The same rule does not apply to metaphorical and
to other names, as said above.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection would be valid if these names were
applied to God only as cause, and not also essentially, for
instance as "healthy" is applied to medicine.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 7]

Whether Names Which Imply Relation to Creatures Are Predicated of
God Temporally?

Objection 1: It seems that names which imply relation to creatures
are not predicated of God temporally. For all such names signify the
divine substance, as is universally held. Hence also Ambrose says (De
Fide i) that this name "Lord" is the name of power, which is the
divine substance; and "Creator" signifies the action of God, which is
His essence. Now the divine substance is not temporal, but eternal.
Therefore these names are not applied to God temporally, but
eternally.

Obj. 2: Further, that to which something applies temporally can be
described as made; for what is white temporally is made white. But to
make does not apply to God. Therefore nothing can be predicated of
God temporally.

Obj. 3: Further, if any names are applied to God temporally as
implying relation to creatures, the same rule holds good of all
things that imply relation to creatures. But some names are spoken of
God implying relation of God to creatures from eternity; for from
eternity He knew and loved the creature, according to the word: "I
have loved thee with an everlasting love" (Jer. 31:3). Therefore also
other names implying relation to creatures, as "Lord" and "Creator,"
are applied to God from eternity.

Obj. 4: Further, names of this kind signify relation. Therefore that
relation must be something in God, or in the creature only. But it
cannot be that it is something in the creature only, for in that case
God would be called "Lord" from the opposite relation which is in
creatures; and nothing is named from its opposite. Therefore the
relation must be something in God also. But nothing temporal can be
in God, for He is above time. Therefore these names are not applied
to God temporally.

Obj. 5: Further, a thing is called relative from relation; for
instance lord from lordship, as white from whiteness. Therefore if
the relation of lordship is not really in God, but only in idea, it
follows that God is not really Lord, which is plainly false.

Obj. 6: Further, in relative things which are not simultaneous in
nature, one can exist without the other; as a thing knowable can
exist without the knowledge of it, as the Philosopher says (Praedic.
v). But relative things which are said of God and creatures are not
simultaneous in nature. Therefore a relation can be predicated of God
to the creature even without the existence of the creature; and thus
these names "Lord" and "Creator" are predicated of God from eternity,
and not temporally.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. v) that this relative
appellation "Lord" is applied to God temporally.

_I answer that,_ The names which import relation to creatures are
applied to God temporally, and not from eternity.

To see this we must learn that some have said that relation is not a
reality, but only an idea. But this is plainly seen to be false from
the very fact that things themselves have a mutual natural order and
habitude. Nevertheless it is necessary to know that since relation has
two extremes, it happens in three ways that a relation is real or
logical. Sometimes from both extremes it is an idea only, as when
mutual order or habitude can only go between things in the
apprehension of reason; as when we say a thing "the same as itself."
For reason apprehending one thing twice regards it as two; thus it
apprehends a certain habitude of a thing to itself. And the same
applies to relations between _being_ and _non-being_ formed by reason,
apprehending _non-being_ as an extreme. The same is true of relations
that follow upon an act of reason, as genus and species, and the like.

Now there are other relations which are realities as regards both
extremes, as when for instance a habitude exists between two things
according to some reality that belongs to both; as is clear of all
relations, consequent upon quantity; as great and small, double and
half, and the like; for quantity exists in both extremes: and the same
applies to relations consequent upon action and passion, as motive
power and the movable thing, father and son, and the like.

Again, sometimes a relation in one extreme may be a reality, while in
the other extreme it is an idea only; and this happens whenever two
extremes are not of one order; as sense and science refer respectively
to sensible things and to intellectual things; which, inasmuch as they
are realities existing in nature, are outside the order of sensible
and intellectual existence. Therefore in science and in sense a real
relation exists, because they are ordered either to the knowledge or
to the sensible perception of things; whereas the things looked at in
themselves are outside this order, and hence in them there is no real
relation to science and sense, but only in idea, inasmuch as the
intellect apprehends them as terms of the relations of science and
sense. Hence the Philosopher says (Metaph. v) that they are called
relative, not forasmuch as they are related to other things, but as
others are related to them. Likewise for instance, "on the right" is
not applied to a column, unless it stands as regards an animal on the
right side; which relation is not really in the column, but in the
animal.

Since therefore God is outside the whole order of creation, and all
creatures are ordered to Him, and not conversely, it is manifest that
creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God there is
no real relation to creatures, but a relation only in idea, inasmuch
as creatures are referred to Him. Thus there is nothing to prevent
these names which import relation to the creature from being
predicated of God temporally, not by reason of any change in Him, but
by reason of the change of the creature; as a column is on the right
of an animal, without change in itself, but by change in the animal.

Reply Obj. 1: Some relative names are imposed to signify the
relative habitudes themselves, as "master" and "servant," "father,"
and "son," and the like, and these relatives are called predicamental
[secundum esse]. But others are imposed to signify the things from
which ensue certain habitudes, as the mover and the thing moved, the
head and the thing that has a head, and the like: and these relatives
are called transcendental [secundum dici]. Thus, there is the same
two-fold difference in divine names. For some signify the habitude
itself to the creature, as "Lord," and these do not signify the divine
substance directly, but indirectly, in so far as they presuppose the
divine substance; as dominion presupposes power, which is the divine
substance. Others signify the divine essence directly, and
consequently the corresponding habitudes, as "Saviour," "Creator," and
suchlike; and these signify the action of God, which is His essence.
Yet both names are said of God temporarily so far as they imply a
habitude either principally or consequently, but not as signifying the
essence, either directly or indirectly.

Reply Obj. 2: As relations applied to God temporally are only
in God in our idea, so, "to become" or "to be made" are applied to God
only in idea, with no change in Him, as for instance when we say,
"Lord, Thou art become [Douay: 'hast been'] our refuge" (Ps. 89:1).

Reply Obj. 3: The operation of the intellect and the will is
in the operator, therefore names signifying relations following upon
the action of the intellect or will, are applied to God from eternity;
whereas those following upon the actions proceeding according to our
mode of thinking to external effects are applied to God temporally, as
"Saviour," "Creator," and the like.

Reply Obj. 4: Relations signified by these names which are
applied to God temporally, are in God only in idea; but the opposite
relations in creatures are real. Nor is it incongruous that God should
be denominated from relations really existing in the thing, yet so
that the opposite relations in God should also be understood by us at
the same time; in the sense that God is spoken of relatively to the
creature, inasmuch as the creature is related to Him: thus the
Philosopher says (Metaph. v) that the object is said to be knowable
relatively because knowledge relates to it.

Reply Obj. 5: Since God is related to the creature for the
reason that the creature is related to Him: and since the relation of
subjection is real in the creature, it follows that God is Lord not in
idea only, but in reality; for He is called Lord according to the
manner in which the creature is subject to Him.

Reply Obj. 6: To know whether relations are simultaneous by
nature or otherwise, it is not necessary [to consider the order] of
things to which they belong but the meaning of the relations
themselves. For if one in its idea includes another, and vice versa,
then they are simultaneous by nature: as double and half, father and
son, and the like. But if one in its idea includes another, and not
vice versa, they are not simultaneous by nature. This applies to
science and its object; for the object knowable is considered as a
potentiality, and the science as a habit, or as an act. Hence the
knowable object in its mode of signification exists before science,
but if the same object is considered in act, then it is simultaneous
with science in act; for the object known is nothing as such unless it
is known. Thus, though God is prior to the creature, still because the
signification of Lord includes the idea of a servant and vice versa,
these two relative terms, "Lord" and "servant," are simultaneous by
nature. Hence, God was not "Lord" until He had a creature subject to
Himself.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 8]

Whether This Name "God" Is a Name of the Nature?

Objection 1: It seems that this name, "God," is not a name of the
nature. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. 1) that "God (_Theos_) is so
called from _theein_ which means to take care of, and to cherish all
things; or from _aithein_ that is, to burn, for our God is a fire
consuming all malice; or from _theasthai,_ which means to consider all
things." But all these names belong to operation. Therefore this name
"God" signifies His operation and not His nature.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing is named by us as we know it. But the
divine nature is unknown to us. Therefore this name "God" does not
signify the divine nature.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "God" is a name of the
nature.

_I answer that,_ Whence a name is imposed, and what the name signifies
are not always the same thing. For as we know substance from its
properties and operations, so we name substance sometimes for its
operation, or its property; e.g. we name the substance of a stone from
its act, as for instance that it hurts the foot [loedit pedem]; but
still this name is not meant to signify the particular action, but the
stone's substance. The things, on the other hand, known to us in
themselves, such as heat, cold, whiteness and the like, are not named
from other things. Hence as regards such things the meaning of the
name and its source are the same.

Because therefore God is not known to us in His nature, but is made
known to us from His operations or effects, we name Him from these, as
said in A. 1; hence this name "God" is a name of operation so far as
relates to the source of its meaning. For this name is imposed from
His universal providence over all things; since all who speak of God
intend to name God as exercising providence over all; hence Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. ii), "The Deity watches over all with perfect
providence and goodness." But taken from this operation, this name
"God" is imposed to signify the divine nature.

Reply Obj. 1: All that Damascene says refers to providence; which is
the source of the signification of the name "God."

Reply Obj. 2: We can name a thing according to the knowledge we have
of its nature from its properties and effects. Hence because we can
know what stone is in itself from its property, this name "stone"
signifies the nature of the stone itself; for it signifies the
definition of stone, by which we know what it is, for the idea which
the name signifies is the definition, as is said in _Metaph._ iv. Now
from the divine effects we cannot know the divine nature in itself,
so as to know what it is; but only by way of eminence, and by way of
causality, and of negation as stated above (Q. 12, A. 12). Thus the
name "God" signifies the divine nature, for this name was imposed to
signify something existing above all things, the principle of all
things and removed from all things; for those who name God intend to
signify all this.
_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 9]

Whether This Name "God" Is Communicable?

Objection 1: It seems that this name "God" is communicable. For
whosoever shares in the thing signified by a name shares in the name
itself. But this name "God" signifies the divine nature, which is
communicable to others, according to the words, "He hath given us
great [Vulg.: 'most great'] and precious promises, that by these we
[Vulg.: 'ye'] may be made partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet.
1:4). Therefore this name "God" can be communicated to others.

Obj. 2: Further, only proper names are not communicable. Now this
name "God" is not a proper, but an appellative noun; which appears
from the fact that it has a plural, according to the text, "I have
said, You are gods" (Ps. 81:6). Therefore this name "God" is
communicable.

Obj. 3: Further, this name "God" comes from operation, as explained.
But other names given to God from His operations or effects are
communicable; as "good," "wise," and the like. Therefore this name
"God" is communicable.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "They gave the incommunicable name to
wood and stones" (Wis. 14:21), in reference to the divine name.
Therefore this name "God" is incommunicable.

_I answer that,_ A name is communicable in two ways: properly, and by
similitude. It is properly communicable in the sense that its whole
signification can be given to many; by similitude it is communicable
according to some part of the signification of the name. For instance
this name "lion" is properly communicable to all things of the same
nature as "lion"; by similitude it is communicable to those who
participate in the nature of a lion, as for instance by courage, or
strength, and those who thus participate are called lions
metaphorically. To know, however, what names are properly
communicable, we must consider that every form existing in the
singular subject, by which it is individualized, is common to many
either in reality, or in idea; as human nature is common to many in
reality, and in idea; whereas the nature of the sun is not common to
many in reality, but only in idea; for the nature of the sun can be
understood as existing in many subjects; and the reason is because the
mind understands the nature of every species by abstraction from the
singular. Hence to be in one singular subject or in many is outside
the idea of the nature of the species. So, given the idea of a
species, it can be understood as existing in many. But the singular,
from the fact that it is singular, is divided off from all others.
Hence every name imposed to signify any singular thing is
incommunicable both in reality and idea; for the plurality of this
individual thing cannot be; nor can it be conceived in idea. Hence no
name signifying any individual thing is properly communicable to many,
but only by way of similitude; as for instance a person can be called
"Achilles" metaphorically, forasmuch as he may possess something of
the properties of Achilles, such as strength. On the other hand, forms
which are individualized not by any _suppositum,_ but by and of
themselves, as being subsisting forms, if understood as they are in
themselves, could not be communicable either in reality or in idea;
but only perhaps by way of similitude, as was said of individuals.
Forasmuch as we are unable to understand simple self-subsisting forms
as they really are, we understand them as compound things having forms
in matter; therefore, as was said in the first article, we give them
concrete names signifying a nature existing in some _suppositum._
Hence, so far as concerns images, the same rules apply to names we
impose to signify the nature of compound things as to names given to
us to signify simple subsisting natures.

Since, then, this name "God" is given to signify the divine nature as
stated above (A. 8), and since the divine nature cannot be multiplied
as shown above (Q. 11, A. 3), it follows that this name "God" is
incommunicable in reality, but communicable in opinion; just in the
same way as this name "sun" would be communicable according to the
opinion of those who say there are many suns. Therefore, it is
written: "You served them who by nature are not gods," (Gal. 4:8),
and a gloss adds, "Gods not in nature, but in human opinion."
Nevertheless this name "God" is communicable, not in its whole
signification, but in some part of it by way of similitude; so that
those are called gods who share in divinity by likeness, according to
the text, "I have said, You are gods" (Ps. 81:6).

But if any name were given to signify God not as to His nature but as
to His _suppositum,_ accordingly as He is considered as "this
something," that name would be absolutely incommunicable; as, for
instance, perhaps the Tetragrammaton among the Hebrew; and this is
like giving a name to the sun as signifying this individual thing.

Reply Obj. 1: The divine nature is only communicable according to the
participation of some similitude.

Reply Obj. 2: This name "God" is an appellative name, and not a
proper name, for it signifies the divine nature in the possessor;
although God Himself in reality is neither universal nor particular.
For names do not follow upon the mode of being in things, but upon
the mode of being as it is in our mind. And yet it is incommunicable
according to the truth of the thing, as was said above concerning the
name "sun."

Reply Obj. 3: These names "good," "wise," and the like, are imposed
from the perfections proceeding from God to creatures; but they do
not signify the divine nature, but rather signify the perfections
themselves absolutely; and therefore they are in truth communicable
to many. But this name "God" is given to God from His own proper
operation, which we experience continually, to signify the divine
nature.
_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 10]

Whether This Name "God" Is Applied to God Univocally by Nature,
by Participation, and According to Opinion?

Objection 1: It seems that this name "God" is applied to God
univocally by nature, by participation, and according to opinion. For
where a diverse signification exists, there is no contradiction of
affirmation and negation; for equivocation prevents contradiction. But
a Catholic who says: "An idol is not God," contradicts a pagan who
says: "An idol is God." Therefore "God" in both senses is spoken of
univocally.

Obj. 2: Further, as an idol is God in opinion, and not in truth,
so the enjoyment of carnal pleasures is called happiness in opinion,
and not in truth. But this name "beatitude" is applied univocally to
this supposed happiness, and also to true happiness. Therefore also
this name "God" is applied univocally to the true God, and to God also
in opinion.

Obj. 3: Further, names are called univocal because they contain one
idea. Now when a Catholic says: "There is one God," he understands by
the name God an omnipotent being, and one venerated above all; while
the heathen understands the same when he says: "An idol is God."
Therefore this name "God" is applied univocally to both.

_On the contrary,_ The idea in the intellect is the likeness of what is
in the thing as is said in Peri Herm. i. But the word "animal" applied
to a true animal, and to a picture of one, is equivocal. Therefore
this name "God" applied to the true God and to God in opinion is
applied equivocally.

Further, No one can signify what he does not know. But the heathen
does not know the divine nature. So when he says an idol is God, he
does not signify the true Deity. On the other hand, a Catholic
signifies the true Deity when he says that there is one God. Therefore
this name "God" is not applied univocally, but equivocally to the true
God, and to God according to opinion.

_I answer that,_ This name "God" in the three aforesaid significations
is taken neither univocally nor equivocally, but analogically. This is
apparent from this reason: Univocal terms mean absolutely the same
thing, but equivocal terms absolutely different; whereas in analogical
terms a word taken in one signification must be placed in the
definition of the same word taken in other senses; as, for instance,
"being" which is applied to "substance" is placed in the definition of
being as applied to "accident"; and "healthy" applied to animal is
placed in the definition of healthy as applied to urine and medicine.
For urine is the sign of health in the animal, and medicine is the
cause of health.

The same applies to the question at issue. For this name "God," as
signifying the true God, includes the idea of God when it is used to
denote God in opinion, or participation. For when we name anyone god
by participation, we understand by the name of god some likeness of
the true God. Likewise, when we call an idol god, by this name god we
understand and signify something which men think is God; thus it is
manifest that the name has different meanings, but that one of them is
comprised in the other significations. Hence it is manifestly said
analogically.

Reply Obj. 1: The multiplication of names does not depend on the
predication of the name, but on the signification: for this name
"man," of whomsoever it is predicated, whether truly or falsely, is
predicated in one sense. But it would be multiplied if by the name
"man" we meant to signify different things; for instance, if one
meant to signify by this name "man" what man really is, and another
meant to signify by the same name a stone, or something else. Hence
it is evident that a Catholic saying that an idol is not God
contradicts the pagan asserting that it is God; because each of them
uses this name "God" to signify the true God. For when the pagan says
an idol is God, he does not use this name as meaning God in opinion,
for he would then speak the truth, as also Catholics sometimes use
the name in that sense, as in the Psalm, "All the gods of the
Gentiles are demons" (Ps. 95:5).

The same remark applies to the Second and Third Objections. For these
reasons proceed from the different predication of the name, and not
from its various significations.

Reply Obj. 4 ["On the contrary," par. 1]: The term "animal" applied
to a true and a pictured animal is not purely equivocal; for the
Philosopher takes equivocal names in a large sense, including
analogous names; because also being, which is predicated
analogically, is sometimes said to be predicated equivocally of
different predicaments.

Reply Obj. 5 ["On the contrary," par. 2] : Neither a Catholic nor a
pagan knows the very nature of God as it is in itself; but each one
knows it according to some idea of causality, or excellence, or
remotion (Q. 12, A. 12). So a pagan can take this name "God" in the
same way when he says an idol is God, as the Catholic does in saying
an idol is not God. But if anyone should be quite ignorant of God
altogether, he could not even name Him, unless, perhaps, as we use
names the meaning of which we know not.
_______________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 11]

Whether This Name, HE WHO IS, Is the Most Proper Name of God?

Objection 1: It seems that this name HE WHO IS is not the most proper
name of God. For this name "God" is an incommunicable name. But this
name HE WHO IS, is not an incommunicable name. Therefore this name HE
WHO IS is not the most proper name of God.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iii) that "the name of
good excellently manifests all the processions of God." But it
especially belongs to God to be the universal principle of all things.
Therefore this name "good" is supremely proper to God, and not this
name HE WHO IS.

Obj. 3: Further, every divine name seems to imply relation to
creatures, for God is known to us only through creatures. But this
name HE WHO IS imports no relation to creatures. Therefore this name
HE WHO IS is not the most applicable to God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written that when Moses asked, "If they should
say to me, What is His name? what shall I say to them?" The Lord
answered him, "Thus shalt thou say to them, HE WHO IS hath sent me to
you" (Ex. 3:13, 14). Therefore this name HE WHO IS most properly belongs
to God.

_I answer that,_ This name HE WHO IS is most properly applied to God,
for three reasons:

First, because of its signification. For it does not signify form, but
simply existence itself. Hence since the existence of God is His
essence itself, which can be said of no other (Q. 3, A. 4), it is
clear that among other names this one specially denominates God, for
everything is denominated by its form.

Secondly, on account of its universality. For all other names are
either less universal, or, if convertible with it, add something above
it at least in idea; hence in a certain way they inform and determine
it. Now our intellect cannot know the essence of God itself in this
life, as it is in itself, but whatever mode it applies in determining
what it understands about God, it falls short of the mode of what God
is in Himself. Therefore the less determinate the names are, and the
more universal and absolute they are, the more properly they are
applied to God. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i) that, "HE WHO
IS, is the principal of all names applied to God; for comprehending
all in itself, it contains existence itself as an infinite and
indeterminate sea of substance." Now by any other name some mode of
substance is determined, whereas this name HE WHO IS, determines no
mode of being, but is indeterminate to all; and therefore it
denominates the "infinite ocean of substance."

Thirdly, from its consignification, for it signifies present
existence; and this above all properly applies to God, whose existence
knows not past or future, as Augustine says (De Trin. v).

Reply Obj. 1: This name HE WHO IS is the name of God more properly
than this name "God," as regards its source, namely, existence; and
as regards the mode of signification and consignification, as said
above. But as regards the object intended by the name, this name
"God" is more proper, as it is imposed to signify the divine nature;
and still more proper is the Tetragrammaton, imposed to signify the
substance of God itself, incommunicable and, if one may so speak,
singular.

Reply Obj. 2: This name "good" is the principal name of God in so far
as He is a cause, but not absolutely; for existence considered
absolutely comes before the idea of cause.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not necessary that all the divine names should
import relation to creatures, but it suffices that they be imposed
from some perfections flowing from God to creatures. Among these the
first is existence, from which comes this name, HE WHO IS.
_______________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 12]

Whether Affirmative Propositions Can Be Formed About God?

Objection 1: It seems that affirmative propositions cannot be formed
about God. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ii) that "negations about
God are true; but affirmations are vague."

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Trin. ii) that "a simple form
cannot be a subject." But God is the most absolutely simple form, as
shown (Q. 3): therefore He cannot be a subject. But everything about
 which an affirmative proposition is made is taken as a subject.
Therefore an affirmative proposition cannot be formed about God.

Obj. 3: Further, every intellect is false which understands a
thing otherwise than as it is. But God has existence without any
composition as shown above (Q. 3, A. 7). Therefore since every
affirmative intellect understands something as compound, it follows
that a true affirmative proposition about God cannot be made.

_On the contrary,_ What is of faith cannot be false. But some
affirmative propositions are of faith; as that God is Three and One;
and that He is omnipotent. Therefore true affirmative propositions can
be formed about God.

_I answer that,_ True affirmative propositions can be formed about God.
To prove this we must know that in every true affirmative proposition
the predicate and the subject signify in some way the same thing in
reality, and different things in idea. And this appears to be the case
both in propositions which have an accidental predicate, and in those
which have an essential predicate. For it is manifest that "man" and
"white" are the same in subject, and different in idea; for the idea
of man is one thing, and that of whiteness is another. The same
applies when I say, "man is an animal"; since the same thing which is
man is truly animal; for in the same _suppositum_ there is sensible
nature by reason of which he is called animal, and the rational nature
by reason of which he is called man; hence here again predicate and
subject are the same as to _suppositum,_ but different as to idea. But
in propositions where one same thing is predicated of itself, the same
rule in some way applies, inasmuch as the intellect draws to the
_suppositum_ what it places in the subject; and what it places in the
predicate it draws to the nature of the form existing in the
_suppositum_; according to the saying that "predicates are to be taken
formally, and subjects materially." To this diversity in idea
corresponds the plurality of predicate and subject, while the
intellect signifies the identity of the thing by the composition
itself.

God, however, as considered in Himself, is altogether one and simple,
yet our intellect knows Him by different conceptions because it cannot
see Him as He is in Himself. Nevertheless, although it understands Him
under different conceptions, it knows that one and the same simple
object corresponds to its conceptions. Therefore the plurality of
predicate and subject represents the plurality of idea; and the
intellect represents the unity by composition.

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius says that the affirmations about God
are vague or, according to another translation, "incongruous,"
inasmuch as no name can be applied to God according to its mode of
signification.

Reply Obj. 2: Our intellect cannot comprehend simple subsisting
forms, as they really are in themselves; but it apprehends them as
compound things in which there is something taken as subject and
something that is inherent. Therefore it apprehends the simple form
as a subject, and attributes something else to it.

Reply Obj. 3: This proposition, "The intellect understanding anything
otherwise than it is, is false," can be taken in two senses,
accordingly as this adverb "otherwise" determines the word
"understanding" on the part of the thing understood, or on the part
of the one who understands. Taken as referring to the thing
understood, the proposition is true, and the meaning is: Any
intellect which understands that the thing is otherwise than it is,
is false. But this does not hold in the present case; because our
intellect, when forming a proposition about God, does not affirm that
He is composite, but that He is simple. But taken as referring to the
one who understands, the proposition is false. For the mode of the
intellect in understanding is different from the mode of the thing in
its essence. Since it is clear that our intellect understands
material things below itself in an immaterial manner; not that it
understands them to be immaterial things; but its manner of
understanding is immaterial. Likewise, when it understands simple
things above itself, it understands them according to its own mode,
which is in a composite manner; yet not so as to understand them to
be composite things. And thus our intellect is not false in forming
composition in its ideas concerning God.
_______________________

QUESTION 14

OF GOD'S KNOWLEDGE
(In Sixteen Articles)

Having considered what belongs to the divine substance, we have now
to treat of God's operation. And since one kind of operation is
immanent, and another kind of operation proceeds to the exterior
effect, we treat first of knowledge and of will (for understanding
abides in the intelligent agent, and will is in the one who wills);
and afterwards of the power of God, the principle of the divine
operation as proceeding to the exterior effect. Now because to
understand is a kind of life, after treating of the divine knowledge,
we consider the divine life. And as knowledge concerns truth, we
consider truth and falsehood. Further, as everything known is in the
knower, and the types of things as existing in the knowledge of God
are called ideas, to the consideration of knowledge will be added the
treatment of ideas.

Concerning knowledge, there are sixteen points for inquiry:

(1) Whether there is knowledge in God?

(2) Whether God understands Himself?

(3) Whether He comprehends Himself?

(4) Whether His understanding is His substance?

(5) Whether He understands other things besides Himself?

(6) Whether He has a proper knowledge of them?

(7) Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?

(8) Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?

(9) Whether God has knowledge of non-existing things?

(10) Whether He has knowledge of evil?

(11) Whether He has knowledge of individual things?

(12) Whether He knows the infinite?

(13) Whether He knows future contingent things?

(14) Whether He knows enunciable things?

(15) Whether the knowledge of God is variable?

(16) Whether God has speculative or practical knowledge of things?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Knowledge [*Scientia] in God?

Objection 1: It seems that in God there is not knowledge. For
knowledge is a habit; and habit does not belong to God, since it is
the mean between potentiality and act. Therefore knowledge is not in
God.

Obj. 2: Further, since science is about conclusions, it is a kind of
knowledge caused by something else which is the knowledge of
principles. But nothing is caused in God; therefore science is not in
God.

Obj. 3: Further, all knowledge is universal, or particular. But in God
there is no universal or particular (Q. 3, A. 5). Therefore in God
there is not knowledge.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says, "O the depth of the riches of the
wisdom and of the knowledge of God" (Rom. 11:33).

_I answer that,_ In God there exists the most perfect knowledge. To
prove this, we must note that intelligent beings are distinguished
from non-intelligent beings in that the latter possess only their own
form; whereas the intelligent being is naturally adapted to have also
the form of some other thing; for the idea of the thing known is in
the knower. Hence it is manifest that the nature of a non-intelligent
being is more contracted and limited; whereas the nature of
intelligent beings has a greater amplitude and extension; therefore
the Philosopher says (De Anima iii) that "the soul is in a sense all
things." Now the contraction of the form comes from the matter. Hence,
as we have said above (Q. 7, A. 1) forms according as they are the
more immaterial, approach more nearly to a kind of infinity. Therefore
it is clear that the immateriality of a thing is the reason why it is
cognitive; and according to the mode of immateriality is the mode of
knowledge. Hence it is said in _De Anima_ ii that plants do not know,
because they are wholly material. But sense is cognitive because it
can receive images free from matter, and the intellect is still
further cognitive, because it is more separated from matter and
unmixed, as said in _De Anima_ iii. Since therefore God is in the
highest degree of immateriality as stated above (Q. 7, A. 1), it
follows that He occupies the highest place in knowledge.

Reply Obj. 1: Because perfections flowing from God to creatures exist
in a higher state in God Himself (Q. 4, A. 2), whenever a name taken
from any created perfection is attributed to God, it must be
separated in its signification from anything that belongs to that
imperfect mode proper to creatures. Hence knowledge is not a quality
of God, nor a habit; but substance and pure act.

Reply Obj. 2: Whatever is divided and multiplied in creatures exists
in God simply and unitedly (Q. 13, A. 4). Now man has different kinds
of knowledge, according to the different objects of His knowledge. He
has _intelligence_ as regards the knowledge of principles; he has
_science_ as regards knowledge of conclusions; he has _wisdom,_
according as he knows the highest cause; he has _counsel_ or
_prudence,_ according as he knows what is to be done. But God knows
all these by one simple act of knowledge, as will be shown (A. 7).
Hence the simple knowledge of God can be named by all these names; in
such a way, however, that there must be removed from each of them, so
far as they enter into divine predication, everything that savors of
imperfection; and everything that expresses perfection is to be
retained in them. Hence it is said, "With Him is wisdom and strength,
He hath counsel and understanding" (Job 12:13).

Reply Obj. 3: Knowledge is according to the mode of the one who
knows; for the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of
the knower. Now since the mode of the divine essence is higher than
that of creatures, divine knowledge does not exist in God after the
mode of created knowledge, so as to be universal or particular, or
habitual, or potential, or existing according to any such mode.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 2]

Whether God Understands Himself?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not understand Himself. For it is
said by the Philosopher (De Causis), "Every knower who knows his own
essence, returns completely to his own essence." But God does not go
out from His own essence, nor is He moved at all; thus He cannot
return to His own essence. Therefore He does not know His own essence.

Obj. 2: Further, to understand is a kind of passion and movement,
as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii); and knowledge also is a kind
of assimilation to the object known; and the thing known is the
perfection of the knower. But nothing is moved, or suffers, or is made
perfect by itself, "nor," as Hilary says (De Trin. iii), "is a thing
its own likeness." Therefore God does not understand Himself.

Obj. 3: Further, we are like to God chiefly in our intellect,
because we are the image of God in our mind, as Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. vi). But our intellect understands itself, only as it
understands other things, as is said in _De Anima_ iii. Therefore God
understands Himself only so far perchance as He understands other
things.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "The things that are of God no man
knoweth, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11).

_I answer that,_ God understands Himself through Himself. In proof
whereof it must be known that although in operations which pass to an
external effect, the object of the operation, which is taken as the
term, exists outside the operator; nevertheless in operations that
remain in the operator, the object signified as the term of operation,
resides in the operator; and accordingly as it is in the operator, the
operation is actual. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima iii) that
"the sensible in act is sense in act, and the intelligible in act is
intellect in act." For the reason why we actually feel or know a thing
is because our intellect or sense is actually informed by the sensible
or intelligible species. And because of this only, it follows that
sense or intellect is distinct from the sensible or intelligible
object, since both are in potentiality.

Since therefore God has nothing in Him of potentiality, but is pure
act, His intellect and its object are altogether the same; so that He
neither is without the intelligible species, as is the case with our
intellect when it understands potentially; nor does the intelligible
species differ from the substance of the divine intellect, as it
differs in our intellect when it understands actually; but the
intelligible species itself is the divine intellect itself, and thus
God understands Himself through Himself.

Reply Obj. 1: Return to its own essence means only that a thing
subsists in itself. Inasmuch as the form perfects the matter by
giving it existence, it is in a certain way diffused in it; and it
returns to itself inasmuch as it has existence in itself. Therefore
those cognitive faculties which are not subsisting, but are the acts
of organs, do not know themselves, as in the case of each of the
senses; whereas those cognitive faculties which are subsisting, know
themselves; hence it is said in _De Causis_ that, "whoever knows his
essence returns to it." Now it supremely belongs to God to be
self-subsisting. Hence according to this mode of speaking, He
supremely returns to His own essence, and knows Himself.

Reply Obj. 2: Movement and passion are taken equivocally, according
as to understand is described as a kind of movement or passion, as
stated in _De Anima_ iii. For to understand is not a movement that is
an act of something imperfect passing from one to another, but it is
an act, existing in the agent itself, of something perfect. Likewise
that the intellect is perfected by the intelligible object, i.e. is
assimilated to it, this belongs to an intellect which is sometimes in
potentiality; because the fact of its being in a state of
potentiality makes it differ from the intelligible object and
assimilates it thereto through the intelligible species, which is the
likeness of the thing understood, and makes it to be perfected
thereby, as potentiality is perfected by act. On the other hand, the
divine intellect, which is no way in potentiality, is not perfected
by the intelligible object, nor is it assimilated thereto, but is its
own perfection, and its own intelligible object.

Reply Obj. 3: Existence in nature does not belong to primary matter,
which is a potentiality, unless it is reduced to act by a form. Now
our passive intellect has the same relation to intelligible objects
as primary matter has to natural things; for it is in potentiality as
regards intelligible objects, just as primary matter is to natural
things. Hence our passive intellect can be exercised concerning
intelligible objects only so far as it is perfected by the
intelligible species of something; and in that way it understands
itself by an intelligible species, as it understands other things:
for it is manifest that by knowing the intelligible object it
understands also its own act of understanding, and by this act knows
the intellectual faculty. But God is a pure act in the order of
existence, as also in the order of intelligible objects; therefore He
understands Himself through Himself.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 3]

Whether God Comprehends Himself?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not comprehend Himself. For
Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. xv), that "whatever comprehends
itself is finite as regards itself." But God is in all ways infinite.
Therefore He does not comprehend Himself.

Obj. 2: If it is said that God is infinite to us, and finite to
Himself, it can be urged to the contrary, that everything in God is
truer than it is in us. If therefore God is finite to Himself, but
infinite to us, then God is more truly finite than infinite; which is
against what was laid down above (Q. 7, A. 1). Therefore God does
not comprehend Himself.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. xv), that
"Everything that understands itself, comprehends itself." But God
understands Himself. Therefore He comprehends Himself.

_I answer that,_ God perfectly comprehends Himself, as can be thus
proved. A thing is said to be comprehended when the end of the
knowledge of it is attained, and this is accomplished when it is known
as perfectly as it is knowable; as, for instance, a demonstrable
proposition is comprehended when known by demonstration, not, however,
when it is known by some probable reason. Now it is manifest that God
knows Himself as perfectly as He is perfectly knowable. For everything
is knowable according to the mode of its own actuality; since a thing
is not known according as it is in potentiality, but in so far as it
is in actuality, as said in _Metaph._ ix. Now the power of God in
knowing is as great as His actuality in existing; because it is from
the fact that He is in act and free from all matter and potentiality,
that God is cognitive, as shown above (AA. 1, 2). Whence it is
manifest that He knows Himself as much as He is knowable; and for that
reason He perfectly comprehends Himself.

Reply Obj. 1: The strict meaning of "comprehension" signifies that
one thing holds and includes another; and in this sense everything
comprehended is finite, as also is everything included in another.
But God is not said to be comprehended by Himself in this sense, as
if His intellect were a faculty apart from Himself, and as if it held
and included Himself; for these modes of speaking are to be taken by
way of negation. But as God is said to be in Himself, forasmuch as He
is not contained by anything outside of Himself; so He is said to be
comprehended by Himself, forasmuch as nothing in Himself is hidden
from Himself. For Augustine says (De Vid. Deum. ep. cxii), "The whole
is comprehended when seen, if it is seen in such a way that nothing
of it is hidden from the seer."

Reply Obj. 2: When it is said, "God is finite to Himself," this is to
be understood according to a certain similitude of proportion,
because He has the same relation in not exceeding His intellect, as
anything finite has in not exceeding finite intellect. But God is not
to be called finite to Himself in this sense, as if He understood
Himself to be something finite.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 4]

Whether the Act of God's Intellect Is His Substance?

Objection 1: It seems that the act of God's intellect is not His
substance. For to understand is an operation. But an operation
signifies something proceeding from the operator. Therefore the act of
God's intellect is not His substance.

Obj. 2: Further, to understand one's act of understanding, is to
understand something that is neither great nor chiefly understood,
but secondary and accessory. If therefore God be his own act of
understanding, His act of understanding will be as when we understand
our act of understanding: and thus God's act of understanding will not
be something great.

Obj. 3: Further, every act of understanding means understanding
something. When therefore God understands Himself, if He Himself is
not distinct from this act of understanding, He understands that He
understands Himself; and so on to infinity. Therefore the act of God's
intellect is not His substance.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vii), "In God to be is
the same as to be wise." But to be wise is the same thing as to
understand. Therefore in God to be is the same thing as to
understand. But God's existence is His substance, as shown above
(Q. 3, A. 4). Therefore the act of God's intellect is His substance.

_I answer that,_ It must be said that the act of God's intellect is
His substance. For if His act of understanding were other than His
substance, then something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph.
xii), would be the act and perfection of the divine substance, to
which the divine substance would be related, as potentiality is to
act, which is altogether impossible; because the act of understanding
is the perfection and act of the one understanding. Let us now
consider how this is. As was laid down above (A. 2), to understand is
not an act passing to anything extrinsic; for it remains in the
operator as his own act and perfection; as existence is the
perfection of the one existing: just as existence follows on the
form, so in like manner to understand follows on the intelligible
species. Now in God there is no form which is something other than
His existence, as shown above (Q. 3). Hence as His essence itself is
also His intelligible species, it necessarily follows that His act of
understanding must be His essence and His existence.

Thus it follows from all the foregoing that in God, intellect, and
the object understood, and the intelligible species, and His act of
understanding are entirely one and the same. Hence when God is said
to be understanding, no kind of multiplicity is attached to His
substance.

Reply Obj. 1: To understand is not an operation proceeding out of the
operator, but remaining in him.

Reply Obj. 2: When that act of understanding which is not subsistent
is understood, something not great is understood; as when we
understand our act of understanding; and so this cannot be likened to
the act of the divine understanding which is subsistent.

Thus appears the Reply to the Third Objection. For the act of divine
understanding subsists in itself, and belongs to its very self and is
not another's; hence it need not proceed to infinity.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 5]

Whether God Knows Things Other Than Himself?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not know things besides Himself.
For all other things but God are outside of God. But Augustine says
(Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi) that "God does not behold anything out
of Himself." Therefore He does not know things other than Himself.

Obj. 2: Further, the object understood is the perfection of the one
who understands. If therefore God understands other things besides
Himself, something else will be the perfection of God, and will be
nobler than He; which is impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, the act of understanding is specified by the
intelligible object, as is every other act from its own object. Hence
the intellectual act is so much the nobler, the nobler the object
understood. But God is His own intellectual act. If therefore God
understands anything other than Himself, then God Himself is specified
by something else than Himself; which cannot be. Therefore He does not
understand things other than Himself.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "All things are naked and open to His
eyes" (Heb. 4:13).

_I answer that,_ God necessarily knows things other than Himself. For
it is manifest that He perfectly understands Himself; otherwise His
existence would not be perfect, since His existence is His act of
understanding. Now if anything is perfectly known, it follows of
necessity that its power is perfectly known. But the power of
anything can be perfectly known only by knowing to what its power
extends. Since therefore the divine power extends to other things by
the very fact that it is the first effective cause of all things, as
is clear from the aforesaid (Q. 2, A. 3), God must necessarily know
things other than Himself. And this appears still more plainly if we
add that the very existence of the first effective cause--viz.
God--is His own act of understanding. Hence whatever effects
pre-exist in God, as in the first cause, must be in His act of
understanding, and all things must be in Him according to an
intelligible mode: for everything which is in another, is in it
according to the mode of that in which it is.

Now in order to know how God knows things other than Himself, we must
consider that a thing is known in two ways: in itself, and in another.
A thing is known in itself when it is known by the proper species
adequate to the knowable object; as when the eye sees a man through
the image of a man. A thing is seen in another through the image of
that which contains it; as when a part is seen in the whole by the
image of the whole; or when a man is seen in a mirror by the image in
the mirror, or by any other mode by which one thing is seen in
another.

So we say that God sees Himself in Himself, because He sees Himself
through His essence; and He sees other things not in themselves, but
in Himself; inasmuch as His essence contains the similitude of things
other than Himself.

Reply Obj. 1: The passage of Augustine in which it is said that God
"sees nothing outside Himself" is not to be taken in such a way, as
if God saw nothing outside Himself, but in the sense that what is
outside Himself He does not see except in Himself, as above explained.

Reply Obj. 2: The object understood is a perfection of the one
understanding not by its substance, but by its image, according to
which it is in the intellect, as its form and perfection, as is said
in _De Anima_ iii. For "a stone is not in the soul, but its image."
Now those things which are other than God are understood by God,
inasmuch as the essence of God contains their images as above
explained; hence it does not follow that there is any perfection in
the divine intellect other than the divine essence.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellectual act is not specified by what is
understood in another, but by the principal object understood in which
other things are understood. For the intellectual act is specified by
its object, inasmuch as the intelligible form is the principle of the
intellectual operation: since every operation is specified by the form
which is its principle of operation; as heating by heat. Hence the
intellectual operation is specified by that intelligible form which
makes the intellect in act. And this is the image of the principal
thing understood, which in God is nothing but His own essence in which
all images of things are comprehended. Hence it does not follow that
the divine intellectual act, or rather God Himself, is specified by
anything else than the divine essence itself.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 6]

Whether God Knows Things Other Than Himself by Proper Knowledge?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not know things other than
Himself by proper knowledge. For, as was shown (A. 5), God knows
things other than Himself, according as they are in Himself. But
other things are in Him as in their common and universal cause, and
are known by God as in their first and universal cause. This is to
know them by general, and not by proper knowledge. Therefore God
knows things besides Himself by general, and not by proper knowledge.

Obj. 2: Further, the created essence is as distant from the divine
essence, as the divine essence is distant from the created essence.
But the divine essence cannot be known by the created essence, as
said above (Q. 12, A. 2). Therefore neither can the created essence
be known by the divine essence. Thus as God knows only by His
essence, it follows that He does not know what the creature is in its
essence, so as to know "what it is," which is to have proper
knowledge of it.

Obj. 3: Further, proper knowledge of a thing can come only through
its proper ratio [i.e., concept]. But as God knows all things by His
essence, it seems that He does not know each thing by its proper
ratio; for one thing cannot be the proper ratio of many and diverse
things. Therefore God has not a proper knowledge of things, but a
general knowledge; for to know things otherwise than by their proper
ratio is to have only a common and general knowledge of them.

_On the contrary,_ To have a proper knowledge of things is to know them
not only in general, but as they are distinct from each other. Now God
knows things in that manner. Hence it is written that He reaches "even
to the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the
marrow, and is a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart;
neither is there any creature invisible in His sight" (Heb. 4:12,13).

_I answer that,_ Some have erred on this point, saying that God knows
things other than Himself only in general, that is, only as beings.
For as fire, if it knew itself as the principle of heat, would know
the nature of heat, and all things else in so far as they are hot; so
God, through knowing Himself as the principle of being, knows the
nature of being, and all other things in so far as they are beings.

But this cannot be. For to know a thing in general and not in
particular, is to have an imperfect knowledge. Hence our intellect,
when it is reduced from potentiality to act, acquires first a
universal and confused knowledge of things, before it knows them in
particular; as proceeding from the imperfect to the perfect, as is
clear from _Phys._ i. If therefore the knowledge of God regarding things
other than Himself is only universal and not special, it would follow
that His understanding would not be absolutely perfect; therefore
neither would His being be perfect; and this is against what was said
above (Q. 4, A. 1). We must therefore hold that God knows things
other than Himself with a proper knowledge; not only in so far as
being is common to them, but in so far as one is distinguished from
the other. In proof thereof we may observe that some wishing to show
that God knows many things by one, bring forward some examples, as,
for instance, that if the centre knew itself, it would know all lines
that proceed from the centre; or if light knew itself, it would know
all colors.

Now these examples although they are similar in part, namely, as
regards universal causality, nevertheless they fail in this respect,
that multitude and diversity are caused by the one universal
principle, not as regards that which is the principle of distinction,
but only as regards that in which they communicate. For the diversity
of colors is not caused by the light only, but by the different
disposition of the diaphanous medium which receives it; and likewise,
the diversity of the lines is caused by their different position.
Hence it is that this kind of diversity and multitude cannot be known
in its principle by proper knowledge, but only in a general way. In
God, however, it is otherwise. For it was shown above (Q. 4, A. 2)
that whatever perfection exists in any creature, wholly pre-exists and
is contained in God in an excelling manner. Now not only what is
common to creatures--viz. being--belongs to their perfection, but
also what makes them distinguished from each other; as living and
understanding, and the like, whereby living beings are distinguished
from the non-living, and the intelligent from the non-intelligent.
Likewise every form whereby each thing is constituted in its own
species, is a perfection; and thus all things pre-exist in God, not
only as regards what is common to all, but also as regards what
distinguishes one thing from another. And therefore as God contains
all perfections in Himself, the essence of God is compared to all
other essences of things, not as the common to the proper, as unity is
to numbers, or as the centre (of a circle) to the (radiating) lines;
but as perfect acts to imperfect; as if I were to compare man to
animal; or six, a perfect number, to the imperfect numbers contained
under it. Now it is manifest that by a perfect act imperfect acts can
be known not only in general, but also by proper knowledge; thus, for
example, whoever knows a man, knows an animal by proper knowledge; and
whoever knows the number six, knows the number three also by proper
knowledge.

As therefore the essence of God contains in itself all the perfection
contained in the essence of any other being, and far more, God can
know in Himself all of them with proper knowledge. For the nature
proper to each thing consists in some degree of participation in the
divine perfection. Now God could not be said to know Himself perfectly
unless He knew all the ways in which His own perfection can be shared
by others. Neither could He know the very nature of being perfectly,
unless He knew all modes of being. Hence it is manifest that God knows
all things with proper knowledge, in their distinction from each
other.

Reply Obj. 1: So to know a thing as it is in the knower, may be
understood in two ways. In one way this adverb "so" imports the mode
of knowledge on the part of the thing known; and in that sense it is
false. For the knower does not always know the object known according
to the existence it has in the knower; since the eye does not know a
stone according to the existence it has in the eye; but by the image
of the stone which is in the eye, the eye knows the stone according
to its existence outside the eye. And if any knower has a knowledge
of the object known according to the (mode of) existence it has in
the knower, the knower nevertheless knows it according to its (mode
of) existence outside the knower; thus the intellect knows a stone
according to the intelligible existence it has in the intellect,
inasmuch as it knows that it understands; while nevertheless it knows
what a stone is in its own nature. If however the adverb 'so' be
understood to import the mode (of knowledge) on the part of the
knower, in that sense it is true that only the knower has knowledge
of the object known as it is in the knower; for the more perfectly
the thing known is in the knower, the more perfect is the mode of
knowledge.

We must say therefore that God not only knows that all things are in
Himself; but by the fact that they are in Him, He knows them in their
own nature and all the more perfectly, the more perfectly each one is
in Him.

Reply Obj. 2: The created essence is compared to the essence of God
as the imperfect to the perfect act. Therefore the created essence
cannot sufficiently lead us to the knowledge of the divine essence,
but rather the converse.

Reply Obj. 3: The same thing cannot be taken in an equal manner as
the ratio of different things. But the divine essence excels all
creatures. Hence it can be taken as the proper ratio of each thing
according to the diverse ways in which diverse creatures participate
in, and imitate it.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 7]

Whether the Knowledge of God Is Discursive?

Objection 1: It seems that the knowledge of God is discursive. For the
knowledge of God is not habitual knowledge, but actual knowledge. Now
the Philosopher says (Topic. ii): "The habit of knowledge may regard
many things at once; but actual understanding regards only one thing
at a time." Therefore as God knows many things, Himself and others, as
shown above (AA. 2, 5), it seems that He does not understand all at
once, but discourses from one to another.

Obj. 2: Further, discursive knowledge is to know the effect through
its cause. But God knows things through Himself; as an effect (is
known) through its cause. Therefore His knowledge is discursive.

Obj. 3: Further, God knows each creature more perfectly than we know
it. But we know the effects in their created causes; and thus we go
discursively from causes to things caused. Therefore it seems that
the same applies to God.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "God does not see all
things in their particularity or separately, as if He saw alternately
here and there; but He sees all things together at once."

_I answer that,_ In the divine knowledge there is no discursion; the
proof of which is as follows. In our knowledge there is a twofold
discursion: one is according to succession only, as when we have
actually understood anything, we turn ourselves to understand
something else; while the other mode of discursion is according to
causality, as when through principles we arrive at the knowledge of
conclusions. The first kind of discursion cannot belong to God. For
many things, which we understand in succession if each is considered
in itself, we understand simultaneously if we see them in some one
thing; if, for instance, we understand the parts in the whole, or see
different things in a mirror. Now God sees all things in one (thing),
which is Himself. Therefore God sees all things together, and not
successively. Likewise the second mode of discursion cannot be
applied to God. First, because this second mode of discursion
presupposes the first mode; for whosoever proceeds from principles to
conclusions does not consider both at once; secondly, because to
discourse thus is to proceed from the known to the unknown. Hence it
is manifest that when the first is known, the second is still
unknown; and thus the second is known not in the first, but from the
first. Now the term of discursive reasoning is attained when the
second is seen in the first, by resolving the effects into their
causes; and then the discursion ceases. Hence as God sees His effects
in Himself as their cause, His knowledge is not discursive.

Reply Obj. 1: Although there is only one act of understanding in
itself, nevertheless many things may be understood in one (medium),
as shown above.

Reply Obj. 2: God does not know by their cause, known, as it were
previously, effects unknown; but He knows the effects in the cause;
and hence His knowledge is not discursive, as was shown above.

Reply Obj. 3: God sees the effects of created causes in the causes
themselves, much better than we can; but still not in such a manner
that the knowledge of the effects is caused in Him by the knowledge
of the created causes, as is the case with us; and hence His
knowledge is not discursive.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 8]

Whether the Knowledge of God Is the Cause of Things?

Objection 1: It seems that the knowledge of God is not the cause of
things. For Origen says, on Rom. 8:30, "Whom He called, them He also
justified," etc.: "A thing will happen not because God knows it as
future; but because it is future, it is on that account known by God,
before it exists."

Obj. 2: Further, given the cause, the effect follows. But the
knowledge of God is eternal. Therefore if the knowledge of God is
the cause of things created, it seems that creatures are eternal.

Obj. 3: Further, "The thing known is prior to knowledge, and is
its measure," as the Philosopher says (Metaph. x). But what is
posterior and measured cannot be a cause. Therefore the knowledge
of God is not the cause of things.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "Not because they are,
does God know all creatures spiritual and temporal, but because He
knows them, therefore they are."

_I answer that,_ The knowledge of God is the cause of things. For the
knowledge of God is to all creatures what the knowledge of the
artificer is to things made by his art. Now the knowledge of the
artificer is the cause of the things made by his art from the fact
that the artificer works by his intellect. Hence the form of the
intellect must be the principle of action; as heat is the principle of
heating. Nevertheless, we must observe that a natural form, being a
form that remains in that to which it gives existence, denotes a
principle of action according only as it has an inclination to an
effect; and likewise, the intelligible form does not denote a
principle of action in so far as it resides in the one who understands
unless there is added to it the inclination to an effect, which
inclination is through the will. For since the intelligible form has a
relation to opposite things (inasmuch as the same knowledge relates to
opposites), it would not produce a determinate effect unless it were
determined to one thing by the appetite, as the Philosopher says
(Metaph. ix). Now it is manifest that God causes things by His
intellect, since His being is His act of understanding; and hence His
knowledge must be the cause of things, in so far as His will is joined
to it. Hence the knowledge of God as the cause of things is usually
called the "knowledge of approbation."

Reply Obj. 1: Origen spoke in reference to that aspect of knowledge
to which the idea of causality does not belong unless the will is
joined to it, as is said above.

But when he says the reason why God foreknows some things is because
they are future, this must be understood according to the cause of
consequence, and not according to the cause of essence. For if things
are in the future, it follows that God knows them; but not that the
futurity of things is the cause why God knows them.

Reply Obj. 2: The knowledge of God is the cause of things according
as things are in His knowledge. Now that things should be eternal was
not in the knowledge of God; hence although the knowledge of God is
eternal, it does not follow that creatures are eternal.

Reply Obj. 3: Natural things are midway between the knowledge of God
and our knowledge: for we receive knowledge from natural things, of
which God is the cause by His knowledge. Hence, as the natural
objects of knowledge are prior to our knowledge, and are its measure,
so, the knowledge of God is prior to natural things, and is the
measure of them; as, for instance, a house is midway between the
knowledge of the builder who made it, and the knowledge of the one
who gathers his knowledge of the house from the house already built.
_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 9]

Whether God Has Knowledge of Things That Are Not?

Objection 1: It seems that God has not knowledge of things that are
not. For the knowledge of God is of true things. But "truth" and
"being" are convertible terms. Therefore the knowledge of God is not
of things that are not.

Obj. 2: Further, knowledge requires likeness between the knower and
the thing known. But those things that are not cannot have any
likeness to God, Who is very being. Therefore what is not, cannot be
known by God.

Obj. 3: Further, the knowledge of God is the cause of what is known
by Him. But it is not the cause of things that are not, because a
thing that is not, has no cause. Therefore God has no knowledge of
things that are not.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says: "Who . . . calleth those things
that are not as those that are" (Rom. 4:17).

_I answer that,_ God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are.
Now it is possible that things that are not absolutely, should be in a
certain sense. For things absolutely are which are actual; whereas
things which are not actual, are in the power either of God Himself or
of a creature, whether in active power, or passive; whether in power
of thought or of imagination, or of any other manner of meaning
whatsoever. Whatever therefore can be made, or thought, or said by the
creature, as also whatever He Himself can do, all are known to God,
although they are not actual. And in so far it can be said that He has
knowledge even of things that are not.

Now a certain difference is to be noted in the consideration of those
things that are not actual. For though some of them may not be in act
now, still they were, or they will be; and God is said to know all
these with the knowledge of vision: for since God's act of
understanding, which is His being, is measured by eternity; and since
eternity is without succession, comprehending all time, the present
glance of God extends over all time, and to all things which exist in
any time, as to objects present to Him. But there are other things in
God's power, or the creature's, which nevertheless are not, nor will
be, nor were; and as regards these He is said to have knowledge, not
of vision, but of simple intelligence. This is so called because the
things we see around us have distinct being outside the seer.

Reply Obj. 1: Those things that are not actual are true in so far as
they are in potentiality; for it is true that they are in
potentiality; and as such they are known by God.

Reply Obj. 2: Since God is very being everything is, in so far as it
participates in the likeness of God; as everything is hot in so far
as it participates in heat. So, things in potentiality are known by
God, although they are not in act.

Reply Obj. 3: The knowledge of God, joined to His will is the cause
of things. Hence it is not necessary that what ever God knows, is, or
was, or will be; but only is this necessary as regards what He wills
to be, or permits to be. Further, it is in the knowledge of God not
that they be, but that they be possible.
_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 10]

Whether God Knows Evil Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not know evil things. For the
Philosopher (De Anima iii) says that the intellect which is not in
potentiality does not know privation. But "evil is the privation of
good," as Augustine says (Confess. iii, 7). Therefore, as the
intellect of God is never in potentiality, but is always in act, as is
clear from the foregoing (A. 2), it seems that God does not know evil
things.

Obj. 2: Further, all knowledge is either the cause of the thing
known, or is caused by it. But the knowledge of God is not the cause
of evil, nor is it caused by evil. Therefore God does not know evil
things.

Obj. 3: Further, everything known is known either by its likeness,
or by its opposite. But whatever God knows, He knows through His
essence, as is clear from the foregoing (A. 5). Now the divine
essence neither is the likeness of evil, nor is evil contrary to it;
for to the divine essence there is no contrary, as Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xii). Therefore God does not know evil things.

Obj. 4: Further, what is known through another and not through
itself, is imperfectly known. But evil is not known by God; for the
thing known must be in the knower. Therefore if evil is known through
another, namely, through good, it would be known by Him imperfectly;
which cannot be, for the knowledge of God is not imperfect. Therefore
God does not know evil things.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 15:11), "Hell and destruction
are before God [Vulg: 'the Lord']."

_I answer that,_ Whoever knows a thing perfectly, must know all that
can be accidental to it. Now there are some good things to which
corruption by evil may be accidental. Hence God would not know good
things perfectly, unless He also knew evil things. Now a thing is
knowable in the degree in which it is; hence since this is the
essence of evil that it is the privation of good, by the fact that
God knows good things, He knows evil things also; as by light is
known darkness. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "God through
Himself receives the vision of darkness, not otherwise seeing
darkness except through light."

Reply Obj. 1: The saying of the Philosopher must be understood as
meaning that the intellect which is not in potentiality, does not
know privation by privation existing in it; and this agrees with what
he said previously, that a point and every indivisible thing are
known by privation of division. This is because simple and
indivisible forms are in our intellect not actually, but only
potentially; for were they actually in our intellect, they would not
be known by privation. It is thus that simple things are known by
separate substances. God therefore knows evil, not by privation
existing in Himself, but by the opposite good.

Reply Obj. 2: The knowledge of God is not the cause of evil; but is
the cause of the good whereby evil is known.

Reply Obj. 3: Although evil is not opposed to the divine essence,
which is not corruptible by evil; it is opposed to the effects of
God, which He knows by His essence; and knowing them, He knows the
opposite evils.

Reply Obj. 4: To know a thing by something else only, belongs to
imperfect knowledge, if that thing is of itself knowable; but evil is
not of itself knowable, forasmuch as the very nature of evil means
the privation of good; therefore evil can neither be defined nor
known except by good.
_______________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 11]

Whether God Knows Singular Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not know singular things. For the
divine intellect is more immaterial than the human intellect. Now the
human intellect by reason of its immateriality does not know singular
things; but as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), "reason has to do
with universals, sense with singular things." Therefore God does not
know singular things.

Obj. 2: Further, in us those faculties alone know the singular, which
receive the species not abstracted from material conditions. But in
God things are in the highest degree abstracted from all materiality.
Therefore God does not know singular things.

Obj. 3: Further, all knowledge comes about through the medium of some
likeness. But the likeness of singular things in so far as they are
singular, does not seem to be in God; for the principle of
singularity is matter, which, since it is in potentiality only, is
altogether unlike God, Who is pure act. Therefore God cannot know
singular things.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 16:2), "All the ways of a man
are open to His eyes."

_I answer that,_ God knows singular things. For all perfections found
in creatures pre-exist in God in a higher way, as is clear from the
foregoing (Q. 4, A. 2). Now to know singular things is part of our
perfection. Hence God must know singular things. Even the Philosopher
considers it incongruous that anything known by us should be unknown
to God; and thus against Empedocles he argues (De Anima i and _Metaph._
iii) that God would be most ignorant if He did not know discord. Now
the perfections which are divided among inferior beings, exist simply
and unitedly in God; hence, although by one faculty we know the
universal and immaterial, and by another we know singular and material
things, nevertheless God knows both by His simple intellect.

Now some, wishing to show how this can be, said that God knows
singular things by universal causes. For nothing exists in any
singular thing, that does not arise from some universal cause. They
give the example of an astrologer who knows all the universal
movements of the heavens, and can thence foretell all eclipses that
are to come. This, however, is not enough; for singular things from
universal causes attain to certain forms and powers which, however
they may be joined together, are not individualized except by
individual matter. Hence he who knows Socrates because he is white, or
because he is the son of Sophroniscus, or because of something of that
kind, would not know him in so far as he is this particular man. Hence
according to the aforesaid mode, God would not know singular things in
their singularity.

On the other hand, others have said that God knows singular things by
the application of universal causes to particular effects. But this
will not hold; forasmuch as no one can apply a thing to another unless
he first knows that thing; hence the said application cannot be the
reason of knowing the particular, for it presupposes the knowledge of
singular things.

Therefore it must be said otherwise, that, since God is the cause of
things by His knowledge, as stated above (A. 8), His knowledge
extends as far as His causality extends. Hence as the active power of
God extends not only to forms, which are the source of universality,
but also to matter, as we shall prove further on (Q. 44, A. 2), the
knowledge of God must extend to singular things, which are
individualized by matter. For since He knows things other than
Himself by His essence, as being the likeness of things, or as their
active principle, His essence must be the sufficing principle of
knowing all things made by Him, not only in the universal, but also in
the singular. The same would apply to the knowledge of the artificer,
if it were productive of the whole thing, and not only of the form.

Reply Obj. 1: Our intellect abstracts the intelligible species from
the individualizing principles; hence the intelligible species in our
intellect cannot be the likeness of the individual principles; and on
that account our intellect does not know the singular. But the
intelligible species in the divine intellect, which is the essence of
God, is immaterial not by abstraction, but of itself, being the
principle of all the principles which enter into the composition of
things, whether principles of the species or principles of the
individual; hence by it God knows not only universal, but also
singular things.

Reply Obj. 2: Although as regards the species in the divine intellect
its being has no material conditions like the images received in the
imagination and sense, yet its power extends to both immaterial and
material things.

Reply Obj. 3: Although matter as regards its potentiality recedes
from likeness to God, yet, even in so far as it has being in this
wise, it retains a certain likeness to the divine being.
_______________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 12]

Whether God Can Know Infinite Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God cannot know infinite things. For the
infinite, as such, is unknown; since the infinite is that which, "to
those who measure it, leaves always something more to be measured,"
as the Philosopher says (Phys. iii). Moreover, Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xii) that "whatever is comprehended by knowledge, is bounded
by the comprehension of the knower." Now infinite things have no
boundary. Therefore they cannot be comprehended by the knowledge of
God.

Obj. 2: Further, if we say that things infinite in themselves are
finite in God's knowledge, against this it may be urged that the
essence of the infinite is that it is untraversable, and the finite
that it is traversable, as said in _Phys._ iii. But the infinite is
not traversable either by the finite or by the infinite, as is proved
in Phys. vi. Therefore the infinite cannot be bounded by the finite,
nor even by the infinite; and so the infinite cannot be finite in
God's knowledge, which is infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, the knowledge of God is the measure of what is
known. But it is contrary to the essence of the infinite that it be
measured. Therefore infinite things cannot be known by God.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xii), "Although we cannot
number the infinite, nevertheless it can be comprehended by Him whose
knowledge has no bounds."

_I answer that,_ Since God knows not only things actual but also
things possible to Himself or to created things, as shown above (A.
9), and as these must be infinite, it must be held that He knows
infinite things. Although the knowledge of vision which has relation
only to things that are, or will be, or were, is not of infinite
things, as some say, for we do not say that the world is eternal, nor
that generation and movement will go on for ever, so that individuals
be infinitely multiplied; yet, if we consider more attentively, we
must hold that God knows infinite things even by the knowledge of
vision. For God knows even the thoughts and affections of hearts,
which will be multiplied to infinity as rational creatures go on for
ever.

The reason of this is to be found in the fact that the knowledge of
every knower is measured by the mode of the form which is the
principle of knowledge. For the sensible image in sense is the
likeness of only one individual thing, and can give the knowledge of
only one individual. But the intelligible species of our intellect is
the likeness of the thing as regards its specific nature, which is
participable by infinite particulars; hence our intellect by the
intelligible species of man in a certain way knows infinite men; not
however as distinguished from each other, but as communicating in the
nature of the species; and the reason is because the intelligible
species of our intellect is the likeness of man not as to the
individual principles, but as to the principles of the species. On
the other hand, the divine essence, whereby the divine intellect
understands, is a sufficing likeness of all things that are, or can
be, not only as regards the universal principles, but also as regards
the principles proper to each one, as shown above. Hence it follows
that the knowledge of God extends to infinite things, even as
distinct from each other.

Reply Obj. 1: The idea of the infinite pertains to quantity, as the
Philosopher says (Phys. i). But the idea of quantity implies the
order of parts. Therefore to know the infinite according to the mode
of the infinite is to know part after part; and in this way the
infinite cannot be known; for whatever quantity of parts be taken,
there will always remain something else outside. But God does not
know the infinite or infinite things, as if He enumerated part after
part; since He knows all things simultaneously, and not successively,
as said above (A. 7). Hence there is nothing to prevent Him from
knowing infinite things.

Reply Obj. 2: Transition imports a certain succession of parts; and
hence it is that the infinite cannot be traversed by the finite, nor
by the infinite. But equality suffices for comprehension, because
that is said to be comprehended which has nothing outside the
comprehender. Hence it is not against the idea of the infinite to be
comprehended by the infinite. And so, what is infinite in itself can
be called finite to the knowledge of God as comprehended; but not as
if it were traversable.

Reply Obj. 3: The knowledge of God is the measure of things, not
quantitatively, for the infinite is not subject to this kind of
measure; but it is the measure of the essence and truth of things.
For everything has truth of nature according to the degree in which
it imitates the knowledge of God, as the thing made by art agrees
with the art. Granted, however, an actually infinite number of
things, for instance, an infinitude of men, or an infinitude in
continuous quantity, as an infinitude of air, as some of the ancients
held; yet it is manifest that these would have a determinate and
finite being, because their being would be limited to some
determinate nature. Hence they would be measurable as regards the
knowledge of God.
_______________________

THIRTEENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 13]

Whether the Knowledge of God Is of Future Contingent Things?

Objection 1: It seems that the knowledge of God is not of future
contingent things. For from a necessary cause proceeds a necessary
effect. But the knowledge of God is the cause of things known, as said
above (A. 8). Since therefore that knowledge is necessary, what He
knows must also be necessary. Therefore the knowledge of God is not of
contingent things.

Obj. 2: Further, every conditional proposition of which the
antecedent is absolutely necessary must have an absolutely necessary
consequent. For the antecedent is to the consequent as principles are
to the conclusion: and from necessary principles only a necessary
conclusion can follow, as is proved in _Poster._ i. But this is a true
conditional proposition, "If God knew that this thing will be, it will
be," for the knowledge of God is only of true things. Now the
antecedent conditional of this is absolutely necessary, because it is
eternal, and because it is signified as past. Therefore the consequent
is also absolutely necessary. Therefore whatever God knows, is
necessary; and so the knowledge of God is not of contingent things.

Obj. 3: Further, everything known by God must necessarily be,
because even what we ourselves know, must necessarily be; and, of
course, the knowledge of God is much more certain than ours. But no
future contingent things must necessarily be. Therefore no contingent
future thing is known by God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 32:15), "He Who hath made the
hearts of every one of them; Who understandeth all their works," i.e.
of men. Now the works of men are contingent, being subject to free
will. Therefore God knows future contingent things.

_I answer that,_ Since as was shown above (A. 9), God knows all
things; not only things actual but also things possible to Him and
creature; and since some of these are future contingent to us, it
follows that God knows future contingent things.

In evidence of this, we must consider that a contingent thing can be
considered in two ways; first, in itself, in so far as it is now in
act: and in this sense it is not considered as future, but as
present; neither is it considered as contingent (as having reference)
to one of two terms, but as determined to one; and on account of this
it can be infallibly the object of certain knowledge, for instance to
the sense of sight, as when I see that Socrates is sitting down. In
another way a contingent thing can be considered as it is in its
cause; and in this way it is considered as future, and as a
contingent thing not yet determined to one; forasmuch as a contingent
cause has relation to opposite things: and in this sense a contingent
thing is not subject to any certain knowledge. Hence, whoever knows a
contingent effect in its cause only, has merely a conjectural
knowledge of it. Now God knows all contingent things not only as they
are in their causes, but also as each one of them is actually in
itself. And although contingent things become actual successively,
nevertheless God knows contingent things not successively, as they
are in their own being, as we do but simultaneously. The reason is
because His knowledge is measured by eternity, as is also His being;
and eternity being simultaneously whole comprises all time, as said
above (Q. 10, A. 2). Hence all things that are in time are present to
God from eternity, not only because He has the types of things
present within Him, as some say; but because His glance is carried
from eternity over all things as they are in their presentiality.
Hence it is manifest that contingent things are infallibly known by
God, inasmuch as they are subject to the divine sight in their
presentiality; yet they are future contingent things in relation to
their own causes.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the supreme cause is necessary, the effect may
be contingent by reason of the proximate contingent cause; just as
the germination of a plant is contingent by reason of the proximate
contingent cause, although the movement of the sun which is the first
cause, is necessary. So likewise things known by God are contingent
on account of their proximate causes, while the knowledge of God,
which is the first cause, is necessary.

Reply Obj. 2: Some say that this antecedent, "God knew this
contingent to be future," is not necessary, but contingent; because,
although it is past, still it imports relation to the future. This
however does not remove necessity from it; for whatever has had
relation to the future, must have had it, although the future
sometimes does not follow. On the other hand some say that this
antecedent is contingent, because it is a compound of necessary and
contingent; as this saying is contingent, "Socrates is a white man."
But this also is to no purpose; for when we say, "God knew this
contingent to be future," contingent is used here only as the matter
of the word, and not as the chief part of the proposition. Hence its
contingency or necessity has no reference to the necessity or
contingency of the proposition, or to its being true or false. For it
may be just as true that I said a man is an ass, as that I said
Socrates runs, or God is: and the same applies to necessary and
contingent. Hence it must be said that this antecedent is absolutely
necessary. Nor does it follow, as some say, that the consequent is
absolutely necessary, because the antecedent is the remote cause of
the consequent, which is contingent by reason of the proximate cause.
But this is to no purpose. For the conditional would be false were
its antecedent the remote necessary cause, and the consequent a
contingent effect; as, for example, if I said, "if the sun moves, the
grass will grow."

Therefore we must reply otherwise; that when the antecedent contains
anything belonging to an act of the soul, the consequent must be
taken not as it is in itself, but as it is in the soul: for the
existence of a thing in itself is different from the existence of a
thing in the soul. For example, when I say, "What the soul
understands is immaterial," this is to be understood that it is
immaterial as it is in the intellect, not as it is in itself.
Likewise if I say, "If God knew anything, it will be," the consequent
must be understood as it is subject to the divine knowledge, i.e. as
it is in its presentiality. And thus it is necessary, as also is the
antecedent: "For everything that is, while it is, must be necessarily
be," as the Philosopher says in _Peri Herm._ i.

Reply Obj. 3: Things reduced to act in time, as known by us
successively in time, but by God (are known) in eternity, which is
above time. Whence to us they cannot be certain, forasmuch as we know
future contingent things as such; but (they are certain) to God
alone, whose understanding is in eternity above time. Just as he who
goes along the road, does not see those who come after him; whereas
he who sees the whole road from a height, sees at once all travelling
by the way. Hence what is known by us must be necessary, even as it
is in itself; for what is future contingent in itself, cannot be
known by us. Whereas what is known by God must be necessary according
to the mode in which they are subject to the divine knowledge, as
already stated, but not absolutely as considered in their own causes.
Hence also this proposition, "Everything known by God must
necessarily be," is usually distinguished; for this may refer to the
thing, or to the saying. If it refers to the thing, it is divided and
false; for the sense is, "Everything which God knows is necessary."
If understood of the saying, it is composite and true; for the sense
is, "This proposition, 'that which is known by God is' is necessary."

Now some urge an objection and say that this distinction holds good
with regard to forms that are separable from the subject; thus if I
said, "It is possible for a white thing to be black," it is false as
applied to the saying, and true as applied to the thing: for a thing
which is white, can become black; whereas this saying, "a white thing
is black" can never be true. But in forms that are inseparable from
the subject, this distinction does not hold, for instance, if I said,
"A black crow can be white"; for in both senses it is false. Now to
be known by God is inseparable from the thing; for what is known by
God cannot be known. This objection, however, would hold if these
words "that which is known" implied any disposition inherent to the
subject; but since they import an act of the knower, something can be
attributed to the thing known, in itself (even if it always be
known), which is not attributed to it in so far as it stands under
actual knowledge; thus material existence is attributed to a stone in
itself, which is not attributed to it inasmuch as it is known.
_______________________

FOURTEENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 14]

Whether God Knows Enunciable Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not know enunciable things. For to
know enunciable things belongs to our intellect as it composes and
divides. But in the divine intellect, there is no composition.
Therefore God does not know enunciable things.

Obj. 2: Further, every kind of knowledge is made through some
likeness. But in God there is no likeness of enunciable things, since
He is altogether simple. Therefore God does not know enunciable
things.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men"
(Ps. 93:11). But enunciable things are contained in the thoughts of
men. Therefore God knows enunciable things.

_I answer that,_ Since it is in the power of our intellect to form
enunciations, and since God knows whatever is in His own power or in
that of creatures, as said above (A. 9), it follows of necessity
that God knows all enunciations that can be formed.

Now just as He knows material things immaterially, and composite
things simply, so likewise He knows enunciable things not after the
manner of enunciable things, as if in His intellect there were
composition or division of enunciations; for He knows each thing by
simple intelligence, by understanding the essence of each thing; as if
we by the very fact that we understand what man is, were to understand
all that can be predicated of man. This, however, does not happen in
our intellect, which discourses from one thing to another, forasmuch
as the intelligible species represents one thing in such a way as not
to represent another. Hence when we understand what man is, we do not
forthwith understand other things which belong to him, but we
understand them one by one, according to a certain succession. On this
account the things we understand as separated, we must reduce to one
by way of composition or division, by forming an enunciation. Now the
species of the divine intellect, which is God's essence, suffices to
represent all things. Hence by understanding His essence, God knows
the essences of all things, and also whatever can be accidental to
them.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection would avail if God knew enunciable
things after the manner of enunciable things.

Reply Obj. 2: Enunciatory composition signifies some existence of a
thing; and thus God by His existence, which is His essence, is the
similitude of all those things which are signified by enunciation.
_______________________

FIFTEENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 15]

Whether the Knowledge of God Is Variable?

Objection 1: It seems that the knowledge of God is variable. For
knowledge is related to what is knowable. But whatever imports
relation to the creature is applied to God from time, and varies
according to the variation of creatures. Therefore the knowledge of
God is variable according to the variation of creatures.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever God can make, He can know. But God can
make more than He does. Therefore He can know more than He knows.
Thus His knowledge can vary according to increase and diminution.

Obj. 3: Further, God knew that Christ would be born. But He does
not know now that Christ will be born; because Christ is not to be
born in the future. Therefore God does not know everything He once
knew; and thus the knowledge of God is variable.

_On the contrary,_ It is said, that in God "there is no change nor
shadow of alteration" (James 1:17).

_I answer that,_ Since the knowledge of God is His substance, as is
clear from the foregoing (A. 4), just as His substance is altogether
immutable, as shown above (Q. 9, A. 1), so His knowledge likewise
must be altogether invariable.

Reply Obj. 1: "Lord", "Creator" and the like, import relations to
creatures in so far as they are in themselves. But the knowledge of
God imports relation to creatures in so far as they are in God;
because everything is actually understood according as it is in the
one who understands. Now created things are in God in an invariable
manner; while they exist variably in themselves. We may also say that
"Lord", "Creator" and the like, import the relations consequent upon
the acts which are understood as terminating in the creatures
themselves, as they are in themselves; and thus these relations are
attributed to God variously, according to the variation of creatures.
But "knowledge" and "love," and the like, import relations consequent
upon the acts which are understood to be in God; and therefore these
are predicated of God in an invariable manner.

Reply Obj. 2: God knows also what He can make, and does not make.
Hence from the fact that He can make more than He makes, it does not
follow that He can know more than He knows, unless this be referred
to the knowledge of vision, according to which He is said to know
those things which are in act in some period of time. But from the
fact that He knows some things might be which are not, or that some
things might not be which are, it does not follow that His knowledge
is variable, but rather that He knows the variability of things. If,
however, anything existed which God did not previously know, and
afterwards knew, then His knowledge would be variable. But this could
not be; for whatever is, or can be in any period of time, is known by
God in His eternity. Therefore from the fact that a thing exists in
some period of time, it follows that it is known by God from
eternity. Therefore it cannot be granted that God can know more than
He knows; because such a proposition implies that first of all He did
not know, and then afterwards knew.

Reply Obj. 3: The ancient Nominalists said that it was the same thing
to say "Christ is born" and "will be born" and "was born"; because
the same thing is signified by these three--viz. the nativity of
Christ. Therefore it follows, they said, that whatever God knew, He
knows; because now He knows that Christ is born, which means the same
thing as that Christ will be born. This opinion, however, is false;
both because the diversity in the parts of a sentence causes a
diversity of enunciations; and because it would follow that a
proposition which is true once would be always true; which is
contrary to what the Philosopher lays down (Categor. iii) when he
says that this sentence, "Socrates sits," is true when he is sitting,
and false when he rises up. Therefore, it must be conceded that this
proposition is not true, "Whatever God knew He knows," if referred to
enunciable propositions. But because of this, it does not follow that
the knowledge of God is variable. For as it is without variation in
the divine knowledge that God knows one and the same thing sometime
to be, and sometime not to be, so it is without variation in the
divine knowledge that God knows an enunciable proposition is sometime
true, and sometime false. The knowledge of God, however, would be
variable if He knew enunciable things by way of enunciation, by
composition and division, as occurs in our intellect. Hence our
knowledge varies either as regards truth and falsity, for example, if
when either as regards truth and falsity, for example, if when a
thing suffers change we retained the same opinion about it; or as
regards diverse opinions, as if we first thought that anyone was
sitting, and afterwards thought that he was not sitting; neither of
which can be in God.
_______________________

SIXTEENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 16]

Whether God Has a Speculative Knowledge of Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God has not a speculative knowledge of
things. For the knowledge of God is the cause of things, as shown
above (A. 8). But speculative knowledge is not the cause of the
things known. Therefore the knowledge of God is not speculative.

Obj. 2: Further, speculative knowledge comes by abstraction from
things; which does not belong to the divine knowledge. Therefore the
knowledge of God is not speculative.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is the more excellent must be attributed to
God. But speculative knowledge is more excellent than practical
knowledge, as the Philosopher says in the beginning of Metaphysics.
Therefore God has a speculative knowledge of things.

_I answer that,_ Some knowledge is speculative only; some is practical
only; and some is partly speculative and partly practical. In proof
whereof it must be observed that knowledge can be called speculative
in three ways: first, on the part of the things known, which are not
operable by the knower; such is the knowledge of man about natural or
divine thing[s]. Secondly, as regards the manner of knowing--as, for
instance, if a builder consider a house by defining and dividing, and
considering what belongs to it in general: for this is to consider
operable things in a speculative manner, and not as practically
operable; for operable means the application of form to matter, and
not the resolution of the composite into its universal formal
principles. Thirdly, as regards the end; "for the practical intellect
differs in its end from the speculative," as the Philosopher says (De
Anima iii). For the practical intellect is ordered to the end of the
operation; whereas the end of the speculative intellect is the
consideration of truth. Hence if a builder should consider how a house
can be made, not ordering this to the end of operation, but only to
know (how to do it), this would be only a speculative considerations
as regards the end, although it concerns an operable thing. Therefore
knowledge which is speculative by reason of the thing itself known, is
merely speculative. But that which is speculative either in its mode
or as to its end is partly speculative and partly practical: and when
it is ordained to an operative end it is simply practical.

In accordance with this, therefore, it must be said that God has of
Himself a speculative knowledge only; for He Himself is not operable.
But of all other things He has both speculative and practical
knowledge. He has speculative knowledge as regards the mode; for
whatever we know speculatively in things by defining and dividing, God
knows all this much more perfectly.

Now of things which He can make, but does not make at any time, He has
not a practical knowledge, according as knowledge is called practical
from the end. But He has a practical knowledge of what He makes in
some period of time. And, as regards evil things, although they are
not operable by Him, yet they fall under His practical knowledge, like
good things, inasmuch as He permits, or impedes, or directs them; as
also sicknesses fall under the practical knowledge of the physician,
inasmuch as he cures them by his art.

Reply Obj. 1: The knowledge of God is the cause, not indeed of
Himself, but of other things. He is actually the cause of some, that
is, of things that come to be in some period of time; and He is
virtually the cause of others, that is, of things which He can make,
and which nevertheless are never made.

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that knowledge is derived from things known
does not essentially belong to speculative knowledge, but only
accidentally in so far as it is human.

In answer to what is objected on the contrary, we must say that
perfect knowledge of operable things is obtainable only if they are
known in so far as they are operable. Therefore, since the knowledge
of God is in every way perfect, He must know what is operable by Him,
formally as such, and not only in so far as they are speculative.
Nevertheless this does not impair the nobility of His speculative
knowledge, forasmuch as He sees all things other than Himself in
Himself, and He knows Himself speculatively; and so in the speculative
knowledge of Himself, he possesses both speculative and practical
knowledge of all other things.
_______________________

QUESTION 15

OF IDEAS
(In Three Articles)

After considering the knowledge of God, it remains to consider ideas.
And about this there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there are ideas?

(2) Whether they are many, or one only?

(3) Whether there are ideas of all things known by God?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 15, Art. 1]

Whether There Are Ideas?

Objection 1: It seems that there are no ideas. For Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. vii), that God does not know things by ideas. But ideas
are for nothing else except that things may be known through them.
Therefore there are no ideas.

Obj. 2: Further, God knows all things in Himself, as has been
already said (Q. 14, A. 5). But He does not know Himself through
an idea; neither therefore other things.

Obj. 3: Further, an idea is considered to be the principle of
knowledge and action. But the divine essence is a sufficient
principle of knowing and effecting all things. It is not therefore
necessary to suppose ideas.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi),
"Such is the power inherent in ideas, that no one can be wise unless
they are understood."

_I answer that,_ It is necessary to suppose ideas in the divine mind.
For the Greek word _Idea_ is in Latin _Forma._ Hence by ideas are
understood the forms of things, existing apart from the things
themselves. Now the form of anything existing apart from the thing
itself can be for one of two ends: either to be the type of that of
which it is called the form, or to be the principle of the knowledge
of that thing, inasmuch as the forms of things knowable are said to be
in him who knows them. In either case we must suppose ideas, as is
clear for the following reason:

In all things not generated by chance, the form must be the end of
any generation whatsoever. But an agent does not act on account of
the form, except in so far as the likeness of the form is in the
agent, as may happen in two ways. For in some agents the form of the
thing to be made pre-exists according to its natural being, as in
those that act by their nature; as a man generates a man, or fire
generates fire. Whereas in other agents (the form of the thing to be
made pre-exists) according to intelligible being, as in those that
act by the intellect; and thus the likeness of a house pre-exists in
the mind of the builder. And this may be called the idea of the
house, since the builder intends to build his house like to the form
conceived in his mind. As then the world was not made by chance, but
by God acting by His intellect, as will appear later (Q. 46, A. 1),
there must exist in the divine mind a form to the likeness of which
the world was made. And in this the notion of an idea consists.

Reply Obj. 1: God does not understand things according to an idea
existing outside Himself. Thus Aristotle (Metaph. ix) rejects the
opinion of Plato, who held that ideas existed of themselves, and not
in the intellect.

Reply Obj. 2: Although God knows Himself and all else by His own
essence, yet His essence is the operative principle of all things,
except of Himself. It has therefore the nature of an idea with
respect to other things; though not with respect to Himself.

Reply Obj. 3: God is the similitude of all things according to His
essence; therefore an idea in God is identical with His essence.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 15, Art. 2]

Whether Ideas Are Many?

Objection 1: It seems that ideas are not many. For an idea in God is
His essence. But God's essence is one only. Therefore there is only
one idea.

Obj. 2: Further, as the idea is the principle of knowing and
operating, so are art and wisdom. But in God there are not several
arts or wisdoms. Therefore in Him there is no plurality of ideas.

Obj. 3: Further, if it be said that ideas are multiplied according to
their relations to different creatures, it may be argued on the
contrary that the plurality of ideas is eternal. If, then, ideas are
many, but creatures temporal, then the temporal must be the cause of
the eternal.

Obj. 4: Further, these relations are either real in creatures only,
or in God also. If in creatures only, since creatures are not from
eternity, the plurality of ideas cannot be from eternity, if ideas
are multiplied only according to these relations. But if they are
real in God, it follows that there is a real plurality in God other
than the plurality of Persons: and this is against the teaching of
Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 10), who says, in God all things are one,
except "ingenerability, generation, and procession." Ideas therefore
are not many.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi),
"Ideas are certain principal forms, or permanent and immutable types
of things, they themselves not being formed. Thus they are eternal,
and existing always in the same manner, as being contained in the
divine intelligence. Whilst, however, they themselves neither come
into being nor decay, yet we say that in accordance with them
everything is formed that can rise or decay, and all that actually
does so."

_I answer that,_ It must necessarily be held that ideas are many. In
proof of which it is to be considered that in every effect the
ultimate end is the proper intention of the principal agent, as the
order of an army (is the proper intention) of the general. Now the
highest good existing in things is the good of the order of the
universe, as the Philosopher clearly teaches in _Metaph._ xii.
Therefore the order of the universe is properly intended by God, and
is not the accidental result of a succession of agents, as has been
supposed by those who have taught that God created only the first
creature, and that this creature created the second creature, and so
on, until this great multitude of beings was produced. According to
this opinion God would have the idea of the first created thing
alone; whereas, if the order itself of the universe was created by
Him immediately, and intended by Him, He must have the idea of the
order of the universe. Now there cannot be an idea of any whole,
unless particular ideas are had of those parts of which the whole is
made; just as a builder cannot conceive the idea of a house unless he
has the idea of each of its parts. So, then, it must needs be that in
the divine mind there are the proper ideas of all things. Hence
Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi), "that each thing was
created by God according to the idea proper to it," from which it
follows that in the divine mind ideas are many. Now it can easily be
seen how this is not repugnant to the simplicity of God, if we
consider that the idea of a work is in the mind of the operator as
that which is understood, and not as the image whereby he
understands, which is a form that makes the intellect in act. For the
form of the house in the mind of the builder, is something understood
by him, to the likeness of which he forms the house in matter. Now,
it is not repugnant to the simplicity of the divine mind that it
understand many things; though it would be repugnant to its
simplicity were His understanding to be formed by a plurality of
images. Hence many ideas exist in the divine mind, as things
understood by it; as can be proved thus. Inasmuch as He knows His own
essence perfectly, He knows it according to every mode in which it
can be known. Now it can be known not only as it is in itself, but as
it can be participated in by creatures according to some degree of
likeness. But every creature has its own proper species, according to
which it participates in some degree in likeness to the divine
essence. So far, therefore, as God knows His essence as capable of
such imitation by any creature, He knows it as the particular type
and idea of that creature; and in like manner as regards other
creatures. So it is clear that God understands many particular types
of things and these are many ideas.

Reply Obj. 1: The divine essence is not called an idea in so far as
it is that essence, but only in so far as it is the likeness or type
of this or that thing. Hence ideas are said to be many, inasmuch as
many types are understood through the self-same essence.

Reply Obj. 2: By wisdom and art we signify that by which God
understands; but an idea, that which God understands. For God by one
understands many things, and that not only according to what they are
in themselves, but also according as they are understood, and this is
to understand the several types of things. In the same way, an
architect is said to understand a house, when he understands the form
of the house in matter. But if he understands the form of a house, as
devised by himself, from the fact that he understands that he
understands it, he thereby understands the type or idea of the house.
Now not only does God understand many things by His essence, but He
also understands that He understands many things by His essence. And
this means that He understands the several types of things; or that
many ideas are in His intellect as understood by Him.

Reply Obj. 3: Such relations, whereby ideas are multiplied, are
caused not by the things themselves, but by the divine intellect
comparing its own essence with these things.

Reply Obj. 4: Relations multiplying ideas do not exist in created
things, but in God. Yet they are not real relations, such as those
whereby the Persons are distinguished, but relations understood by
God.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 15, Art. 3]

Whether There Are Ideas of All Things That God Knows?

Objection 1: It seems that there are not ideas in God of all things
that He knows. For the idea of evil is not in God; since it would
follow that evil was in Him. But evil things are known by God.
Therefore there are not ideas of all things that God knows.

Obj. 2: Further, God knows things that neither are, nor will be,
nor have been, as has been said above (A. 9). But of such things
there are no ideas, since, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v): "Acts of
the divine will are the determining and effective types of things."
Therefore there are not in God ideas of all things known by Him.

Obj. 3: Further, God knows primary matter, of which there can be
no idea, since it has no form. Hence the same conclusion.

Obj. 4: Further, it is certain that God knows not only species, but
also genera, singulars, and accidents. But there are not ideas of
these, according to Plato's teaching, who first taught ideas, as
Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi). Therefore there are
not ideas in God of all things known by Him.

_On the contrary,_ Ideas are types existing in the divine mind, as is
clear from Augustine (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi). But God has the
proper types of all things that He knows; and therefore He has ideas
of all things known by Him.

_I answer that,_ As ideas, according to Plato, are principles of the
knowledge of things and of their generation, an idea has this twofold
office, as it exists in the mind of God. So far as the idea is the
principle of the making of things, it may be called an "exemplar," and
belongs to practical knowledge. But so far as it is a principle of
knowledge, it is properly called a "type," and may belong to
speculative knowledge also. As an exemplar, therefore, it has respect
to everything made by God in any period of time; whereas as a
principle of knowledge it has respect to all things known by God, even
though they never come to be in time; and to all things that He knows
according to their proper type, in so far as they are known by Him in
a speculative manner.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil is known by God not through its own type, but
through the type of good. Evil, therefore, has no idea in God,
neither in so far as an idea is an "exemplar" nor as a "type."

Reply Obj. 2: God has no practical knowledge, except virtually, of
things which neither are, nor will be, nor have been. Hence, with
respect to these there is no idea in God in so far as idea signifies
an "exemplar" but only in so far as it denotes a "type."

Reply Obj. 3: Plato is said by some to have considered matter as not
created; and therefore he postulated not an idea of matter but a
concause with matter. Since, however, we hold matter to be created by
God, though not apart from form, matter has its idea in God; but not
apart from the idea of the composite; for matter in itself can
neither exist, nor be known.

Reply Obj. 4: Genus can have no idea apart from the idea of species,
in so far as idea denotes an "exemplar"; for genus cannot exist
except in some species. The same is the case with those accidents
that inseparably accompany their subject; for these come into being
along with their subject. But accidents which supervene to the
subject, have their special idea. For an architect produces through
the form of the house all the accidents that originally accompany it;
whereas those that are superadded to the house when completed, such
as painting, or any other such thing, are produced through some other
form. Now individual things, according to Plato, have no other idea
than that of species; both because particular things are
individualized by matter, which, as some say, he held to be uncreated
and the concause with the idea; and because the intention of nature
regards the species, and produces individuals only that in them the
species may be preserved. However, divine providence extends not
merely to species; but to individuals as will be shown later (Q. 22,
A. 3).
_______________________

QUESTION 16

OF TRUTH
(In Eight Articles)

Since knowledge is of things that are true, after the consideration
of the knowledge of God, we must inquire concerning truth. About this
there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether truth resides in the thing, or only in the intellect?

(2) Whether it resides only in the intellect composing and dividing?

(3) On the comparison of the true to being.

(4) On the comparison of the true to the good.

(5) Whether God is truth?

(6) Whether all things are true by one truth, or by many?

(7) On the eternity of truth.

(8) On the unchangeableness of truth.
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 1]

Whether Truth Resides Only in the Intellect?

Objection 1: It seems that truth does not reside only in the
intellect, but rather in things. For Augustine (Soliloq. ii, 5)
condemns this definition of truth, "That is true which is seen"; since
it would follow that stones hidden in the bosom of the earth would not
be true stones, as they are not seen. He also condemns the following,
"That is true which is as it appears to the knower, who is willing and
able to know," for hence it would follow that nothing would be true,
unless someone could know it. Therefore he defines truth thus: "That
is true which is." It seems, then, that truth resides in things, and
not in the intellect.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is true, is true by reason of truth. If,
then, truth is only in the intellect, nothing will be true except in
so far as it is understood. But this is the error of the ancient
philosophers, who said that whatever seems to be true is so.
Consequently mutual contradictories seem to be true as seen by
different persons at the same time.

Obj. 3: Further, "that, on account of which a thing is so, is itself
more so," as is evident from the Philosopher (Poster. i). But it is
from the fact that a thing is or is not, that our thought or word is
true or false, as the Philosopher teaches (Praedicam. iii). Therefore
truth resides rather in things than in the intellect.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Metaph. vi), " The true and the
false reside not in things, but in the intellect."

_I answer that,_ As the good denotes that towards which the appetite
tends, so the true denotes that towards which the intellect tends. Now
there is this difference between the appetite and the intellect, or
any knowledge whatsoever, that knowledge is according as the thing
known is in the knower, whilst appetite is according as the desirer
tends towards the thing desired. Thus the term of the appetite, namely
good, is in the object desirable, and the term of the intellect,
namely true, is in the intellect itself. Now as good exists in a thing
so far as that thing is related to the appetite--and hence the aspect
of goodness passes on from the desirable thing to the appetite, in so
far as the appetite is called good if its object is good; so, since
the true is in the intellect in so far as it is conformed to the
object understood, the aspect of the true must needs pass from the
intellect to the object understood, so that also the thing understood
is said to be true in so far as it has some relation to the intellect.
Now a thing understood may be in relation to an intellect either
essentially or accidentally. It is related essentially to an intellect
on which it depends as regards its essence; but accidentally to an
intellect by which it is knowable; even as we may say that a house is
related essentially to the intellect of the architect, but
accidentally to the intellect upon which it does not depend.

Now we do not judge of a thing by what is in it accidentally, but by
what is in it essentially. Hence, everything is said to be true
absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it
depends; and thus it is that artificial things are said to be true as
being related to our intellect. For a house is said to be true that
expresses the likeness of the form in the architect's mind; and words
are said to be true so far as they are the signs of truth in the
intellect. In the same way natural things are said to be true in so
far as they express the likeness of the species that are in the divine
mind. For a stone is called true, which possesses the nature proper to
a stone, according to the preconception in the divine intellect. Thus,
then, truth resides primarily in the intellect, and secondarily in
things according as they are related to the intellect as their
principle. Consequently there are various definitions of truth.
Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxvi), "Truth is that whereby is made
manifest that which is;" and Hilary says (De Trin. v) that "Truth
makes being clear and evident" and this pertains to truth according as
it is in the intellect. As to the truth of things in so far as they
are related to the intellect, we have Augustine's definition (De Vera
Relig. xxxvi), "Truth is a supreme likeness without any unlikeness to
a principle": also Anselm's definition (De Verit. xii), "Truth is
rightness, perceptible by the mind alone"; for that is right which is
in accordance with the principle; also Avicenna's definition (Metaph.
viii, 6), "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which
is immutably attached to it." The definition that "Truth is the
equation of thought and thing" is applicable to it under either
aspect.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking about the truth of things, and
excludes from the notion of this truth, relation to our intellect;
for what is accidental is excluded from every definition.

Reply Obj. 2: The ancient philosophers held that the species of
natural things did not proceed from any intellect, but were produced
by chance. But as they saw that truth implies relation to intellect,
they were compelled to base the truth of things on their relation to
our intellect. From this, conclusions result that are inadmissible,
and which the Philosopher refutes (Metaph. iv). Such, however, do not
follow, if we say that the truth of things consists in their relation
to the divine intellect.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the truth of our intellect is caused by the
thing, yet it is not necessary that truth should be there primarily,
any more than that health should be primarily in medicine, rather
than in the animal: for the virtue of medicine, and not its health,
is the cause of health, for here the agent is not univocal. In the
same way, the being of the thing, not its truth, is the cause of
truth in the intellect. Hence the Philosopher says that a thought or
a word is true "from the fact that a thing is, not because a thing is
true."
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 2]

Whether Truth Resides Only in the Intellect Composing and Dividing?

Objection 1: It seems that truth does not reside only in the intellect
composing and dividing. For the Philosopher says (De Anima iii) that
as the senses are always true as regards their proper sensible
objects, so is the intellect as regards "what a thing is." Now
composition and division are neither in the senses nor in the
intellect knowing "what a thing is." Therefore truth does not reside
only in the intellect composing and dividing.

Obj. 2: Further, Isaac says in his book _On Definitions_ that truth
is the equation of thought and thing. Now just as the intellect with
regard to complex things can be equated to things, so also with regard
to simple things; and this is true also of sense apprehending a thing
as it is. Therefore truth does not reside only in the intellect
composing and dividing.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi) that with regard to
simple things and "what a thing is," truth is "found neither in the
intellect nor in things."

_I answer that,_ As stated before, truth resides, in its primary aspect,
in the intellect. Now since everything is true according as it has the
form proper to its nature, the intellect, in so far as it is knowing,
must be true, so far as it has the likeness of the thing known, this
being its form, as knowing. For this reason truth is defined by the
conformity of intellect and thing; and hence to know this conformity
is to know truth. But in no way can sense know this. For although
sight has the likeness of a visible thing, yet it does not know the
comparison which exists between the thing seen and that which itself
apprehends concerning it. But the intellect can know its own
conformity with the intelligible thing; yet it does not apprehend it
by knowing of a thing "what a thing is." When, however, it judges that
a thing corresponds to the form which it apprehends about that thing,
then first it knows and expresses truth. This it does by composing and
dividing: for in every proposition it either applies to, or removes
from the thing signified by the subject, some form signified by the
predicate: and this clearly shows that the sense is true of any thing,
as is also the intellect, when it knows "what a thing is"; but it does
not thereby know or affirm truth. This is in like manner the case with
complex or non-complex words. Truth therefore may be in the senses, or
in the intellect knowing "what a thing is," as in anything that is
true; yet not as the thing known in the knower, which is implied by
the word "truth"; for the perfection of the intellect is truth as
known. Therefore, properly speaking, truth resides in the intellect
composing and dividing; and not in the senses; nor in the intellect
knowing "what a thing is."

And thus the Objections given are solved.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 3]

Whether the True and Being Are Convertible Terms?

Objection 1: It seems that the true and being are not convertible
terms. For the true resides properly in the intellect, as stated
(A. 1); but being is properly in things. Therefore they are not
convertible.

Obj. 2: Further, that which extends to being and not-being is not
convertible with being. But the true extends to being and not-being;
for it is true that what is, is; and that what is not, is not.
Therefore the true and being are not convertible.

Obj. 3: Further, things which stand to each other in order of
priority and posteriority seem not to be convertible. But the true
appears to be prior to being; for being is not understood except
under the aspect of the true. Therefore it seems they are not
convertible.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Metaph. ii) that there is the
same disposition of things in being and in truth.

_I answer that,_ As good has the nature of what is desirable, so truth
is related to knowledge. Now everything, in as far as it has being, so
far is it knowable. Wherefore it is said in _De Anima_ iii that "the
soul is in some manner all things," through the senses and the
intellect. And therefore, as good is convertible with being, so is the
true. But as good adds to being the notion of desirable, so the true
adds relation to the intellect.

Reply Obj. 1: The true resides in things and in the intellect, as
said before (A. 1). But the true that is in things is convertible
with being as to substance; while the true that is in the intellect
is convertible with being, as the manifestation with the manifested;
for this belongs to the nature of truth, as has been said already (A.
1). It may, however, be said that being also is in things and in the
intellect, as is the true; although truth is primarily in the
intellect, while being is primarily in things; and this is so because
truth and being differ in idea.

Reply Obj. 2: Not-being has nothing in itself whereby it can be
known; yet it is known in so far as the intellect renders it
knowable. Hence the true is based on being, inasmuch as not-being is
a kind of logical being, apprehended, that is, by reason.

Reply Obj. 3: When it is said that being cannot be apprehended except
under the notion of the true, this can be understood in two ways. In
the one way so as to mean that being is not apprehended, unless the
idea of the true follows apprehension of being; and this is true. In
the other way, so as to mean that being cannot be apprehended unless
the idea of the true be apprehended also; and this is false. But the
true cannot be apprehended unless the idea of being be apprehended
also; since being is included in the idea of the true. The case is
the same if we compare the intelligible object with being. For being
cannot be understood, unless being is intelligible. Yet being can be
understood while its intelligibility is not understood. Similarly,
being when understood is true, yet the true is not understood by
understanding being.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 4]

Whether Good Is Logically Prior to the True?

Objection 1: It seems that good is logically prior to the true. For
what is more universal is logically prior, as is evident from _Phys._
i. But the good is more universal than the true, since the true is a
kind of good, namely, of the intellect. Therefore the good is
logically prior to the true.

Obj. 2: Further, good is in things, but the true in the intellect
composing and dividing as said above (A. 2). But that which is in
things is prior to that which is in the intellect. Therefore good is
logically prior to the true.

Obj. 3: Further, truth is a species of virtue, as is clear from
_Ethic._ iv. But virtue is included under good; since, as Augustine
says (De Lib. Arbit. ii, 19), it is a good quality of the mind.
Therefore the good is prior to the true.

_On the contrary,_ What is in more things is prior logically. But the
true is in some things wherein good is not, as, for instance, in
mathematics. Therefore the true is prior to good.

_I answer that,_ Although the good and the true are convertible with
being, as to suppositum, yet they differ logically. And in this manner
the true, speaking absolutely, is prior to good, as appears from two
reasons. First, because the true is more closely related to being than
is good. For the true regards being itself simply and immediately;
while the nature of good follows being in so far as being is in some
way perfect; for thus it is desirable. Secondly, it is evident from
the fact that knowledge naturally precedes appetite. Hence, since the
true regards knowledge, but the good regards the appetite, the true
must be prior in idea to the good.

Reply Obj. 1: The will and the intellect mutually include one
another: for the intellect understands the will, and the will wills
the intellect to understand. So then, among things directed to the
object of the will, are comprised also those that belong to the
intellect; and conversely. Whence in the order of things desirable,
good stands as the universal, and the true as the particular; whereas
in the order of intelligible things the converse is the case. From the
fact, then, that the true is a kind of good, it follows that the good
is prior in the order of things desirable; but not that it is prior
absolutely.

Reply Obj. 2: A thing is prior logically in so far as it is prior to
the intellect. Now the intellect apprehends primarily being itself;
secondly, it apprehends that it understands being; and thirdly, it
apprehends that it desires being. Hence the idea of being is first,
that of truth second, and the idea of good third, though good is in
things.

Reply Obj. 3: The virtue which is called "truth" is not truth in
general, but a certain kind of truth according to which man shows
himself in deed and word as he really is. But truth as applied to
"life" is used in a particular sense, inasmuch as a man fulfills in
his life that to which he is ordained by the divine intellect, as it
has been said that truth exists in other things (A. 1). Whereas the
truth of "justice" is found in man as he fulfills his duty to his
neighbor, as ordained by law. Hence we cannot argue from these
particular truths to truth in general.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 5]

Whether God Is Truth?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not truth. For truth consists in the
intellect composing and dividing. But in God there is not composition
and division. Therefore in Him there is not truth.

Obj. 2: Further, truth, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xxxvi)
is a "likeness to the principle." But in God there is no likeness to
a principle. Therefore in God there is not truth.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever is said of God, is said of Him as of the
first cause of all things; thus the being of God is the cause of all
being; and His goodness the cause of all good. If therefore there is
truth in God, all truth will be from Him. But it is true that someone
sins. Therefore this will be from God; which is evidently false.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the
Life" (John 14:6).

_I answer that,_ As said above (A. 1), truth is found in the
intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things
according as they have being conformable to an intellect. This is to
the greatest degree found in God. For His being is not only conformed
to His intellect, but it is the very act of His intellect; and His act
of understanding is the measure and cause of every other being and of
every other intellect, and He Himself is His own existence and act of
understanding. Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but
that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.

Reply Obj. 1: Although in the divine intellect there is neither
composition nor division, yet in His simple act of intelligence He
judges of all things and knows all things complex; and thus there is
truth in His intellect.

Reply Obj. 2: The truth of our intellect is according to its
conformity with its principle, that is to say, to the things from
which it receives knowledge. The truth also of things is according to
their conformity with their principle, namely, the divine intellect.
Now this cannot be said, properly speaking, of divine truth; unless
perhaps in so far as truth is appropriated to the Son, Who has a
principle. But if we speak of divine truth in its essence, we cannot
understand this unless the affirmative must be resolved into the
negative, as when one says: "the Father is of Himself, because He is
not from another." Similarly, the divine truth can be called a
"likeness to the principle," inasmuch as His existence is not
dissimilar to His intellect.

Reply Obj. 3: Not-being and privation have no truth of themselves,
but only in the apprehension of the intellect. Now all apprehension
of the intellect is from God. Hence all the truth that exists in the
statement--"that a person commits fornication is true"--is entirely
from God. But to argue, "Therefore that this person fornicates is
from God", is a fallacy of Accident.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 6]

Whether There Is Only One Truth, According to Which All Things Are True?

Objection 1: It seems that there is only one truth, according to which
all things are true. For according to Augustine (De Trin. xv, 1),
"nothing is greater than the mind of man, except God." Now truth is
greater than the mind of man; otherwise the mind would be the judge of
truth: whereas in fact it judges all things according to truth, and
not according to its own measure. Therefore God alone is truth.
Therefore there is no other truth but God.

Obj. 2: Further, Anselm says (De Verit. xiv), that, "as is the
relation of time to temporal things, so is that of truth to true
things." But there is only one time for all temporal things.
Therefore there is only one truth, by which all things are true.

_On the contrary,_ it is written (Ps. 11:2), "Truths are decayed from
among the children of men."

_I answer that,_ In one sense truth, whereby all things are true, is
one, and in another sense it is not. In proof of which we must
consider that when anything is predicated of many things univocally,
it is found in each of them according to its proper nature; as animal
is found in each species of animal. But when anything is predicated of
many things analogically, it is found in only one of them according to
its proper nature, and from this one the rest are denominated. So
healthiness is predicated of animal, of urine, and of medicine, not
that health is only in the animal; but from the health of the animal,
medicine is called healthy, in so far as it is the cause of health,
and urine is called healthy, in so far as it indicates health. And
although health is neither in medicine nor in urine, yet in either
there is something whereby the one causes, and the other indicates
health. Now we have said (A. 1) that truth resides primarily in
the intellect; and secondarily in things, according as they are
related to the divine intellect. If therefore we speak of truth, as it
exists in the intellect, according to its proper nature, then are
there many truths in many created intellects; and even in one and the
same intellect, according to the number of things known. Whence a
gloss on Ps. 11:2, "Truths are decayed from among the children of
men," says: "As from one man's face many likenesses are reflected in a
mirror, so many truths are reflected from the one divine truth." But
if we speak of truth as it is in things, then all things are true by
one primary truth; to which each one is assimilated according to its
own entity. And thus, although the essences or forms of things are
many, yet the truth of the divine intellect is one, in conformity to
which all things are said to be true.

Reply Obj. 1: The soul does not judge of things according to any kind
of truth, but according to the primary truth, inasmuch as it is
reflected in the soul, as in a mirror, by reason of the first
principles of the understanding. It follows, therefore, that the
primary truth is greater than the soul. And yet, even created truth,
which resides in our intellect, is greater than the soul, not simply,
but in a certain degree, in so far as it is its perfection; even as
science may be said to be greater than the soul. Yet it is true that
nothing subsisting is greater than the rational soul, except God.

Reply Obj. 2: The saying of Anselm is correct in so far as things are
said to be true by their relation to the divine intellect.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 7]

Whether Created Truth Is Eternal?

Objection 1: It seems that created truth is eternal. For Augustine
says (De Lib. Arbit. ii, 8) "Nothing is more eternal than the nature
of a circle, and that two added to three make five." But the truth of
these is a created truth. Therefore created truth is eternal.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is always, is eternal. But universals
are always and everywhere; therefore they are eternal. So therefore
is truth, which is the most universal.

Obj. 3: Further, it was always true that what is true in the present
was to be in the future. But as the truth of a proposition regarding
the present is a created truth, so is that of a proposition regarding
the future. Therefore some created truth is eternal.

Obj. 4: Further, all that is without beginning and end is eternal.
But the truth of enunciables is without beginning and end; for if
their truth had a beginning, since it was not before, it was true
that truth was not, and true, of course, by reason of truth; so that
truth was before it began to be. Similarly, if it be asserted that
truth has an end, it follows that it is after it has ceased to be,
for it will still be true that truth is not. Therefore truth is
eternal.

_On the contrary,_ God alone is eternal, as laid down before
(Q. 10, Art. 3).

_I answer that,_ The truth of enunciations is no other than the truth of
the intellect. For an enunciation resides in the intellect, and in
speech. Now according as it is in the intellect it has truth of
itself: but according as it is in speech, it is called enunciable
truth, according as it signifies some truth of the intellect, not on
account of any truth residing in the enunciation, as though in a
subject. Thus urine is called healthy, not from any health within it
but from the health of an animal which it indicates. In like manner it
has been already said that things are called true from the truth of
the intellect. Hence, if no intellect were eternal, no truth would be
eternal. Now because only the divine intellect is eternal, in it alone
truth has eternity. Nor does it follow from this that anything else
but God is eternal; since the truth of the divine intellect is God
Himself, as shown already (A. 5).

Reply Obj. 1: The nature of a circle, and the fact that two and three
make five, have eternity in the mind of God.

Reply Obj. 2: That something is always and everywhere, can be
understood in two ways. In one way, as having in itself the power of
extension to all time and to all places, as it belongs to God to be
everywhere and always. In the other way as not having in itself
determination to any place or time, as primary matter is said to be
one, not because it has one form, but by the absence of all
distinguishing form. In this manner all universals are said to be
everywhere and always, in so far as universals are independent of
place and time. It does not, however, follow from this that they are
eternal, except in an intellect, if one exists that is eternal.

Reply Obj. 3: That which now is, was future, before it (actually)
was; because it was in its cause that it would be. Hence, if the
cause were removed, that thing's coming to be was not future. But the
first cause is alone eternal. Hence it does not follow that it was
always true that what now is would be, except in so far as its future
being was in the sempiternal cause; and God alone is such a cause.

Reply Obj. 4: Because our intellect is not eternal, neither is the
truth of enunciable propositions which are formed by us, eternal, but
it had a beginning in time. Now before such truth existed, it was not
true to say that such a truth did exist, except by reason of the
divine intellect, wherein alone truth is eternal. But it is true now
to say that that truth did not then exist: and this is true only by
reason of the truth that is now in our intellect; and not by reason
of any truth in the things. For this is truth concerning not-being;
and not-being has not truth of itself, but only so far as our
intellect apprehends it. Hence it is true to say that truth did not
exist, in so far as we apprehend its not-being as preceding its being.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 8]

Whether Truth Is Immutable?

Objection 1: It seems that truth is immutable. For Augustine says (De
Lib. Arbit. ii, 12), that "Truth and mind do not rank as equals,
otherwise truth would be mutable, as the mind is."

Obj. 2: Further, what remains after every change is immutable; as
primary matter is unbegotten and incorruptible, since it remains after
all generation and corruption. But truth remains after all change; for
after every change it is true to say that a thing is, or is not.
Therefore truth is immutable.

Obj. 3: Further, if the truth of an enunciation changes, it changes
mostly with the changing of the thing. But it does not thus change.
For truth, according to Anselm (De Verit. viii), "is a certain
rightness" in so far as a thing answers to that which is in the
divine mind concerning it. But this proposition that "Socrates sits",
receives from the divine mind the signification that Socrates does
sit; and it has the same signification even though he does not sit.
Therefore the truth of the proposition in no way changes.

Obj. 4: Further, where there is the same cause, there is the same
effect. But the same thing is the cause of the truth of the three
propositions, "Socrates sits, will sit, sat." Therefore the truth of
each is the same. But one or other of these must be the true one.
Therefore the truth of these propositions remains immutable; and for
the same reason that of any other.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 11:2), "Truths are decayed from
among the children of men."

_I answer that,_ Truth, properly speaking, resides only in the
intellect, as said before (A. 1); but things are called true in
virtue of the truth residing in an intellect. Hence the mutability of
truth must be regarded from the point of view of the intellect, the
truth of which consists in its conformity to the thing understood. Now
this conformity may vary in two ways, even as any other likeness,
through change in one of the two extremes. Hence in one way truth
varies on the part of the intellect, from the fact that a change of
opinion occurs about a thing which in itself has not changed, and in
another way, when the thing is changed, but not the opinion; and in
either way there can be a change from true to false. If, then, there
is an intellect wherein there can be no alternation of opinions, and
the knowledge of which nothing can escape, in this is immutable truth.
Now such is the divine intellect, as is clear from what has been said
before (Q. 14, A. 15). Hence the truth of the divine intellect is
immutable. But the truth of our intellect is mutable; not because it
is itself the subject of change, but in so far as our intellect
changes from truth to falsity, for thus forms may be called mutable.
Whereas the truth of the divine intellect is that according to which
natural things are said to be true, and this is altogether immutable.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of divine truth.

Reply Obj. 2: The true and being are convertible terms. Hence just as
being is not generated nor corrupted of itself, but accidentally, in
so far as this being or that is corrupted or generated, as is said in
_Phys._ i, so does truth change, not so as that no truth remains, but
because that truth does not remain which was before.

Reply Obj. 3: A proposition not only has truth, as other things are
said to have it, in so far, that is, as they correspond to that which
is the design of the divine intellect concerning them; but it is said
to have truth in a special way, in so far as it indicates the truth
of the intellect, which consists in the conformity of the intellect
with a thing. When this disappears, the truth of an opinion changes,
and consequently the truth of the proposition. So therefore this
proposition, "Socrates sits," is true, as long as he is sitting, both
with the truth of the thing, in so far as the expression is
significative, and with the truth of signification, in so far as it
signifies a true opinion. When Socrates rises, the first truth
remains, but the second is changed.

Reply Obj. 4: The sitting of Socrates, which is the cause of the
truth of the proposition, "Socrates sits," has not the same meaning
when Socrates sits, after he sits, and before he sits. Hence the
truth which results, varies, and is variously signified by these
propositions concerning present, past, or future. Thus it does not
follow, though one of the three propositions is true, that the same
truth remains invariable.
_______________________

QUESTION 17

CONCERNING FALSITY
(In Four Articles)

We next consider falsity. About this four points of inquiry arise:

(1) Whether falsity exists in things?

(2) Whether it exists in the sense?

(3) Whether it exists in the intellect?

(4) Concerning the opposition of the true and the false.
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 17, Art. 1]

Whether Falsity Exists in Things?

Objection 1: It appears that falsity does not exist in things. For
Augustine says (Soliloq. ii, 8), "If the true is that which is, it
will be concluded that the false exists nowhere; whatever reason may
appear to the contrary."

Obj. 2: Further, false is derived from _fallere_ (to deceive). But
things do not deceive; for, as Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 33),
they show nothing but their own species. Therefore the false is not
found in things.

Obj. 3: Further, the true is said to exist in things by conformity to
the divine intellect, as stated above (Q. 16). But everything, in so
far as it exists, imitates God. Therefore everything is true without
admixture of falsity; and thus nothing is false.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 34): "Every body is a
true body and a false unity: for it imitates unity without being
unity." But everything imitates the divine unity yet falls short of
it. Therefore in all things falsity exists.

_I answer that,_ Since true and false are opposed, and since opposites
stand in relation to the same thing, we must needs seek falsity, where
primarily we find truth; that is to say, in the intellect. Now, in
things, neither truth nor falsity exists, except in relation to the
intellect. And since every thing is denominated simply by what belongs
to it _per se,_ but is denominated relatively by what belongs to it
accidentally; a thing indeed may be called false simply when compared
with the intellect on which it depends, and to which it is compared
_per se_ but may be called false relatively as directed to another
intellect, to which it is compared accidentally. Now natural things
depend on the divine intellect, as artificial things on the human.
Wherefore artificial things are said to be false simply and in
themselves, in so far as they fall short of the form of the art;
whence a craftsman is said to produce a false work, if it falls short
of the proper operation of his art.

In things that depend on God, falseness cannot be found, in so far as
they are compared with the divine intellect; since whatever takes
place in things proceeds from the ordinance of that intellect, unless
perhaps in the case of voluntary agents only, who have it in their
power to withdraw themselves from what is so ordained; wherein
consists the evil of sin. Thus sins themselves are called untruths and
lies in the Scriptures, according to the words of the text, "Why do
you love vanity, and seek after lying?" (Ps. 4:3): as on the other
hand virtuous deeds are called the "truth of life" as being obedient
to the order of the divine intellect. Thus it is said, "He that doth
truth, cometh to the light" (John 3:21).

But in relation to our intellect, natural things which are compared
thereto accidentally, can be called false; not simply, but relatively;
and that in two ways. In one way according to the thing signified, and
thus a thing is said to be false as being signified or represented by
word or thought that is false. In this respect anything can be said to
be false as regards any quality not possessed by it; as if we should
say that a diameter is a false commensurable thing, as the Philosopher
says (Metaph. v, 34). So, too, Augustine says (Soliloq. ii, 10): "The
true tragedian is a false Hector": even as, on the contrary, anything
can be called true, in regard to that which is becoming to it. In
another way a thing can be called false, by way of cause--and thus a
thing is said to be false that naturally begets a false opinion. And
whereas it is innate in us to judge things by external appearances,
since our knowledge takes its rise from sense, which principally and
naturally deals with external accidents, therefore those external
accidents, which resemble things other than themselves, are said to be
false with respect to those things; thus gall is falsely honey; and
tin, false gold. Regarding this, Augustine says (Soliloq. ii, 6): "We
call those things false that appear to our apprehension like the
true:" and the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, 34): "Things are called
false that are naturally apt to appear such as they are not, or what
they are not." In this way a man is called false as delighting in
false opinions or words, and not because he can invent them; for in
this way many wise and learned persons might be called false, as
stated in _Metaph._ v, 34.

Reply Obj. 1: A thing compared with the intellect is said to be true
in respect to what it is; and false in respect to what it is not.
Hence, "The true tragedian is a false Hector," as stated in Soliloq.
ii, 6. As, therefore, in things that are is found a certain
non-being, so in things that are is found a degree of falseness.

Reply Obj. 2: Things do not deceive by their own nature, but by
accident. For they give occasion to falsity, by the likeness they
bear to things which they actually are not.

Reply Obj. 3: Things are said to be false, not as compared with the
divine intellect, in which case they would be false simply, but as
compared with our intellect; and thus they are false only relatively.

To the argument which is urged on the contrary, likeness or defective
representation does not involve the idea of falsity except in so far
as it gives occasion to false opinion. Hence a thing is not always
said to be false, because it resembles another thing; but only when
the resemblance is such as naturally to produce a false opinion, not
in any one case, but in the majority of instances.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 17, Art. 2]

Whether There Is Falsity in the Senses?

Objection 1: It seems that falsity is not in the senses. For Augustine
says (De Vera Relig. 33): "If all the bodily senses report as they are
affected, I do not know what more we can require from them." Thus it
seems that we are not deceived by the senses; and therefore that
falsity is not in them.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv, 24) that falsity
is not proper to the senses, but to the imagination.

Obj. 3: Further, in non-complex things there is neither true nor
false, but in complex things only. But affirmation and negation do
not belong to the senses. Therefore in the senses there is no falsity.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Soliloq. ii, 6), "It appears that the
senses entrap us into error by their deceptive similitudes."

_I answer that,_ Falsity is not to be sought in the senses except as
truth is in them. Now truth is not in them in such a way as that the
senses know truth, but in so far as they apprehend sensible things
truly, as said above (Q. 16, A. 2), and this takes place through
the senses apprehending things as they are, and hence it happens that
falsity exists in the senses through their apprehending or judging
things to be otherwise than they really are.

The knowledge of things by the senses is in proportion to the
existence of their likeness in the senses; and the likeness of a thing
can exist in the senses in three ways. In the first way, primarily and
of its own nature, as in sight there is the likeness of colors, and of
other sensible objects proper to it. Secondly, of its own nature,
though not primarily; as in sight there is the likeness of shape,
size, and of other sensible objects common to more than one sense.
Thirdly, neither primarily nor of its own nature, but accidentally, as
in sight, there is the likeness of a man, not as man, but in so far as
it is accidental to the colored object to be a man.

Sense, then, has no false knowledge about its proper objects, except
accidentally and rarely, and then, because of the unsound organ it
does not receive the sensible form rightly; just as other passive
subjects because of their indisposition receive defectively the
impressions of the agent. Hence, for instance, it happens that on
account of an unhealthy tongue sweet seems bitter to a sick person.
But as to common objects of sense, and accidental objects, even a
rightly disposed sense may have a false judgment, because it is
referred to them not directly, but accidentally, or as a consequence
of being directed to other things.

Reply Obj. 1: The affection of sense is its sensation itself. Hence,
from the fact that sense reports as it is affected, it follows that
we are not deceived in the judgment by which we judge that we
experience sensation. Since, however, sense is sometimes affected
erroneously of that object, it follows that it sometimes reports
erroneously of that object; and thus we are deceived by sense about
the object, but not about the fact of sensation.

Reply Obj. 2: Falsity is said not to be proper to sense, since sense
is not deceived as to its proper object. Hence in another translation
it is said more plainly, "Sense, about its proper object, is never
false." Falsity is attributed to the imagination, as it represents
the likeness of something even in its absence. Hence, when anyone
perceives the likeness of a thing as if it were the thing itself,
falsity results from such an apprehension; and for this reason the
Philosopher says (Metaph. v, 34) that shadows, pictures, and dreams
are said to be false inasmuch as they convey the likeness of things
that are not present in substance.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument proves that the false is not in the
sense, as in that which knows the true and the false.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 17, Art. 3]

Whether Falsity Is in the Intellect?

Objection 1: It seems that falsity is not in the intellect. For
Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, 32), "Everyone who is deceived,
understands not that in which he is deceived." But falsity is said to
exist in any knowledge in so far as we are deceived therein. Therefore
falsity does not exist in the intellect.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 51) that the
intellect is always right. Therefore there is no falsity in the
intellect.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in _De Anima_ iii, 21, 22 that "where
there is composition of objects understood, there is truth and
falsehood." But such composition is in the intellect. Therefore truth
and falsehood exist in the intellect.

_I answer that,_ Just as a thing has being by its proper form, so the
knowing faculty has knowledge by the likeness of the thing known.
Hence, as natural things cannot fall short of the being that belongs
to them by their form, but may fall short of accidental or consequent
qualities, even as a man may fail to possess two feet, but not fail
to be a man; so the faculty of knowing cannot fail in knowledge of
the thing with the likeness of which it is informed; but may fail
with regard to something consequent upon that form, or accidental
thereto. For it has been said (A. 2) that sight is not deceived in
its proper sensible, but about common sensibles that are consequent
to that object; or about accidental objects of sense. Now as the
sense is directly informed by the likeness of its proper object, so
is the intellect by the likeness of the essence of a thing. Hence the
intellect is not deceived about the essence of a thing, as neither
the sense about its proper object. But in affirming and denying, the
intellect may be deceived, by attributing to the thing of which it
understands the essence, something which is not consequent upon it,
or is opposed to it. For the intellect is in the same position as
regards judging of such things, as sense is as to judging of common,
or accidental, sensible objects. There is, however, this difference,
as before mentioned regarding truth (Q. 16, A. 2), that falsity can
exist in the intellect not only because the knowledge of the
intellect is false, but because the intellect is conscious of that
knowledge, as it is conscious of truth; whereas in sense falsity does
not exist as known, as stated above (A. 2).

But because falsity of the intellect is concerned essentially only
with the composition of the intellect, falsity occurs also
accidentally in that operation of the intellect whereby it knows the
essence of a thing, in so far as composition of the intellect is
mixed up in it. This can take place in two ways. In one way, by the
intellect applying to one thing the definition proper to another; as
that of a circle to a man. Wherefore the definition of one thing is
false of another. In another way, by composing a definition of parts
which are mutually exclusive. For thus the definition is not only
false of the thing, but false in itself. A definition such as "a
reasonable four-footed animal" would be of this kind, and the
intellect false in making it; for such a statement as "some
reasonable animals are four-footed" is false in itself. For this
reason the intellect cannot be false in its knowledge of simple
essences; but it is either true, or it understands nothing at all.

Reply Obj. 1: Because the essence of a thing is the proper object of
the intellect, we are properly said to understand a thing when we
reduce it to its essence, and judge of it thereby; as takes place in
demonstrations, in which there is no falsity. In this sense
Augustine's words must be understood, "that he who is deceived,
understands not that wherein he is deceived;" and not in the sense
that no one is ever deceived in any operation of the intellect.

Reply Obj. 2: The intellect is always right as regards first
principles; since it is not deceived about them for the same reason
that it is not deceived about what a thing is. For self-known
principles are such as are known as soon as the terms are understood,
from the fact that the predicate is contained in the definition of
the subject.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 17, Art. 4]

Whether True and False Are Contraries?

Objection 1: It seems that true and false are not contraries. For true
and false are opposed, as that which is to that which is not; for
"truth," as Augustine says (Soliloq. ii, 5), "is that which is." But
that which is and that which is not are not opposed as contraries.
Therefore true and false are not contrary things.

Obj. 2: Further, one of two contraries is not in the other. But
falsity is in truth, because, as Augustine says, (Soliloq. ii, 10),
"A tragedian would not be a false Hector, if he were not a true
tragedian." Therefore true and false are not contraries.

Obj. 3: Further, in God there is no contrariety, for "nothing is
contrary to the Divine Substance," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
xii, 2). But falsity is opposed to God, for an idol is called in
Scripture a lie, "They have laid hold on lying" (Jer. 8:5), that is
to say, "an idol," as a gloss says. Therefore false and true are not
contraries.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Peri Herm. ii), that a false
opinion is contrary to a true one.

_I answer that,_ True and false are opposed as contraries, and not, as
some have said, as affirmation and negation. In proof of which it must
be considered that negation neither asserts anything nor determines
any subject, and can therefore be said of being as of not-being, for
instance not-seeing or not-sitting. But privation asserts nothing,
whereas it determines its subject, for it is "negation in a subject,"
as stated in _Metaph._ iv, 4: v. 27; for blindness is not said except of
one whose nature it is to see. Contraries, however, both assert
something and determine the subject, for blackness is a species of
color. Falsity asserts something, for a thing is false, as the
Philosopher says (Metaph. iv, 27), inasmuch as something is said or
seems to be something that it is not, or not to be what it really is.
For as truth implies an adequate apprehension of a thing, so falsity
implies the contrary. Hence it is clear that true and false are
contraries.

Reply Obj. 1: What is in things is the truth of the thing; but what
is apprehended, is the truth of the intellect, wherein truth
primarily resides. Hence the false is that which is not as
apprehended. To apprehend being, and not-being, implies contrariety;
for, as the Philosopher proves (Peri Herm. ii), the contrary of this
statement "God is good," is, "God is not good."

Reply Obj. 2: Falsity is not founded in the truth which is contrary
to it, just as evil is not founded in the good which is contrary to
it, but in that which is its proper subject. This happens in either,
because true and good are universals, and convertible with being.
Hence, as every privation is founded in a subject, that is a being,
so every evil is founded in some good, and every falsity in some
truth.

Reply Obj. 3: Because contraries, and opposites by way of privation,
are by nature about one and the same thing, therefore there is
nothing contrary to God, considered in Himself, either with respect
to His goodness or His truth, for in His intellect there can be
nothing false. But in our apprehension of Him contraries exist, for
the false opinion concerning Him is contrary to the true. So idols
are called lies, opposed to the divine truth, inasmuch as the false
opinion concerning them is contrary to the true opinion of the divine
unity.
_______________________

QUESTION 18

THE LIFE OF GOD
(In Four Articles)

Since to understand belongs to living beings, after considering the
divine knowledge and intellect, we must consider the divine life.
About this, four points of inquiry arise:

(1) To whom does it belong to live?

(2) What is life?

(3) Whether life is properly attributed to God?

(4) Whether all things in God are life?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 18, Art. 1]

Whether to Live Belongs to All Natural Things?

Objection 1: It seems that to live belongs to all natural things. For
the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, 1) that "Movement is like a kind of
life possessed by all things existing in nature." But all natural
things participate in movement. Therefore all natural things partake
of life.

Obj. 2: Further, plants are said to live, inasmuch as they have in
themselves a principle of movement of growth and decay. But local
movement is naturally more perfect than, and prior to, movement of
growth and decay, as the Philosopher shows (Phys. viii, 56, 57).
Since then, all natural bodies have in themselves some principle of
local movement, it seems that all natural bodies live.

Obj. 3: Further, amongst natural bodies the elements are the less
perfect. Yet life is attributed to them, for we speak of "living
waters." Much more, therefore, have other natural bodies life.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vi, 1) that "The last
echo of life is heard in the plants," whereby it is inferred that
their life is life in its lowest degree. But inanimate bodies are
inferior to plants. Therefore they have not life.

_I answer that,_ We can gather to what things life belongs, and to what
it does not, from such things as manifestly possess life. Now life
manifestly belongs to animals, for it said in _De Vegetab._ i [*De
Plantis i, 1] that in animals life is manifest. We must, therefore,
distinguish living from lifeless things, by comparing them to that by
reason of which animals are said to live: and this it is in which life
is manifested first and remains last. We say then that an animal
begins to live when it begins to move of itself: and as long as such
movement appears in it, so long as it is considered to be alive. When
it no longer has any movement of itself, but is only moved by another
power, then its life is said to fail, and the animal to be dead.
Whereby it is clear that those things are properly called living that
move themselves by some kind of movement, whether it be movement
properly so called, as the act of an imperfect being, i.e. of a thing
in potentiality, is called movement; or movement in a more general
sense, as when said of the act of a perfect thing, as understanding
and feeling are called movement. Accordingly all things are said to be
alive that determine themselves to movement or operation of any kind:
whereas those things that cannot by their nature do so, cannot be
called living, unless by a similitude.

Reply Obj. 1: These words of the Philosopher may be understood either
of the first movement, namely, that of the celestial bodies, or of
the movement in its general sense. In either way is movement called
the life, as it were, of natural bodies, speaking by a similitude,
and not attributing it to them as their property. The movement of the
heavens is in the universe of corporeal natures as the movement of
the heart, whereby life is preserved, is in animals. Similarly also
every natural movement in respect to natural things has a certain
similitude to the operations of life. Hence, if the whole corporeal
universe were one animal, so that its movement came from an
"intrinsic moving force," as some in fact have held, in that case
movement would really be the life of all natural bodies.

Reply Obj. 2: To bodies, whether heavy or light, movement does not
belong, except in so far as they are displaced from their natural
conditions, and are out of their proper place; for when they are in
the place that is proper and natural to them, then they are at rest.
Plants and other living things move with vital movement, in
accordance with the disposition of their nature, but not by
approaching thereto, or by receding from it, for in so far as they
recede from such movement, so far do they recede from their natural
disposition. Heavy and light bodies are moved by an extrinsic force,
either generating them and giving them form, or removing obstacles
from their way. They do not therefore move themselves, as do living
bodies.

Reply Obj. 3: Waters are called living that have a continuous
current: for standing waters, that are not connected with a
continually flowing source, are called dead, as in cisterns and
ponds. This is merely a similitude, inasmuch as the movement they are
seen to possess makes them look as if they were alive. Yet this is
not life in them in its real sense, since this movement of theirs is
not from themselves but from the cause that generates them. The same
is the case with the movement of other heavy and light bodies.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 18, Art. 2]

Whether Life Is an Operation?

Objection 1: It seems that life is an operation. For nothing is
divided except into parts of the same genus. But life is divided by
certain operations, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Anima ii,
13), who distinguishes four kinds of life, namely, nourishment,
sensation, local movement and understanding. Therefore life is an
operation.

Obj. 2: Further, the active life is said to be different from the
contemplative. But the contemplative is only distinguished from the
active by certain operations. Therefore life is an operation.

Obj. 3: Further, to know God is an operation. But this is life,
as is clear from the words of John 18:3, "Now this is eternal life,
that they may know Thee, the only true God." Therefore life is an
operation.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 37), "In living
things, to live is to be."

_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said (Q. 17, A. 3),
our intellect, which takes cognizance of the essence of a thing as
its proper object, gains knowledge from sense, of which the proper
objects are external accidents. Hence from external appearances we
come to the knowledge of the essence of things. And because we name a
thing in accordance with our knowledge of it, as is clear from what
has already been said (Q. 13, A. 1), so from external properties
names are often imposed to signify essences. Hence such names are
sometimes taken strictly to denote the essence itself, the
signification of which is their principal object; but sometimes, and
less strictly, to denote the properties by reason of which they are
imposed. And so we see that the word "body" is used to denote a genus
of substances from the fact of their possessing three dimensions: and
is sometimes taken to denote the dimensions themselves; in which
sense body is said to be a species of quantity. The same must be said
of life. The name is given from a certain external appearance,
namely, self-movement, yet not precisely to signify this, but rather
a substance to which self-movement and the application of itself to
any kind of operation, belong naturally. To live, accordingly, is
nothing else than to exist in this or that nature; and life signifies
this, though in the abstract, just as the word "running" denotes "to
run" in the abstract.

Hence "living" is not an accidental but an essential predicate.
Sometimes, however, life is used less properly for the operations from
which its name is taken, and thus the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 9)
that to live is principally to sense or to understand.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher here takes "to live" to mean an
operation of life. Or it would be better to say that sensation and
intelligence and the like, are sometimes taken for the operations,
sometimes for the existence itself of the operator. For he says
(Ethic. ix, 9) that to live is to sense or to understand--in other
words, to have a nature capable of sensation or understanding. Thus,
then, he distinguishes life by the four operations mentioned. For in
this lower world there are four kinds of living things. It is the
nature of some to be capable of nothing more than taking nourishment,
and, as a consequence, of growing and generating. Others are able, in
addition, to sense, as we see in the case of shellfish and other
animals without movement. Others have the further power of moving from
place to place, as perfect animals, such as quadrupeds, and birds, and
so on. Others, as man, have the still higher faculty of understanding.

Reply Obj. 2: By vital operations are meant those whose principles
are within the operator, and in virtue of which the operator produces
such operations of itself. It happens that there exist in men not
merely such natural principles of certain operations as are their
natural powers, but something over and above these, such as habits
inclining them like a second nature to particular kinds of
operations, so that the operations become sources of pleasure. Thus,
as by a similitude, any kind of work in which a man takes delight, so
that his bent is towards it, his time spent in it, and his whole life
ordered with a view to it, is said to be the life of that man. Hence
some are said to lead a life of self-indulgence, others a life of
virtue. In this way the contemplative life is distinguished from the
active, and thus to know God is said to be life eternal.

Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection is clear.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 18, Art. 3]

Whether Life Is Properly Attributed to God?

Objection 1: It seems that life is not properly attributed to God.
For things are said to live inasmuch as they move themselves, as
previously stated (A. 2). But movement does not belong to God.
Neither therefore does life.

Obj. 2: Further, in all living things we must needs suppose some
principle of life. Hence it is said by the Philosopher (De Anima ii,
4) that "the soul is the cause and principle of the living body." But
God has no principle. Therefore life cannot be attributed to Him.

Obj. 3: Further, the principle of life in the living things that
exist among us is the vegetative soul. But this exists only in
corporeal things. Therefore life cannot be attributed to incorporeal
things.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 83:3): "My heart and my flesh have
rejoiced in the living God."

_I answer that,_ Life is in the highest degree properly in God. In
proof of which it must be considered that since a thing is said to
live in so far as it operates of itself and not as moved by another,
the more perfectly this power is found in anything, the more perfect
is the life of that thing. In things that move and are moved, a
threefold order is found. In the first place, the end moves the
agent: and the principal agent is that which acts through its form,
and sometimes it does so through some instrument that acts by virtue
not of its own form, but of the principal agent, and does no more
than execute the action. Accordingly there are things that move
themselves, not in respect of any form or end naturally inherent in
them, but only in respect of the executing of the movement; the form
by which they act, and the end of the action being alike determined
for them by their nature. Of this kind are plants, which move
themselves according to their inherent nature, with regard only to
executing the movements of growth and decay.

Other things have self-movement in a higher degree, that is, not only
with regard to executing the movement, but even as regards to the
form, the principle of movement, which form they acquire of
themselves. Of this kind are animals, in which the principle of
movement is not a naturally implanted form; but one received through
sense. Hence the more perfect is their sense, the more perfect is
their power of self-movement. Such as have only the sense of touch, as
shellfish, move only with the motion of expansion and contraction; and
thus their movement hardly exceeds that of plants. Whereas such as
have the sensitive power in perfection, so as to recognize not only
connection and touch, but also objects apart from themselves, can move
themselves to a distance by progressive movement. Yet although animals
of the latter kind receive through sense the form that is the
principle of their movement, nevertheless they cannot of themselves
propose to themselves the end of their operation, or movement; for
this has been implanted in them by nature; and by natural instinct
they are moved to any action through the form apprehended by sense.
Hence such animals as move themselves in respect to an end they
themselves propose are superior to these. This can only be done by
reason and intellect; whose province it is to know the proportion
between the end and the means to that end, and duly coordinate them.
Hence a more perfect degree of life is that of intelligent beings;
for their power of self-movement is more perfect. This is shown by the
fact that in one and the same man the intellectual faculty moves the
sensitive powers; and these by their command move the organs of
movement. Thus in the arts we see that the art of using a ship, i.e.
the art of navigation, rules the art of ship-designing; and this in
its turn rules the art that is only concerned with preparing the
material for the ship.

But although our intellect moves itself to some things, yet others are
supplied by nature, as are first principles, which it cannot doubt;
and the last end, which it cannot but will. Hence, although with
respect to some things it moves itself, yet with regard to other
things it must be moved by another. Wherefore that being whose act of
understanding is its very nature, and which, in what it naturally
possesses, is not determined by another, must have life in the most
perfect degree. Such is God; and hence in Him principally is life.
From this the Philosopher concludes (Metaph. xii, 51), after showing
God to be intelligent, that God has life most perfect and eternal,
since His intellect is most perfect and always in act.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _Metaph._ ix, 16, action is twofold. Actions
of one kind pass out to external matter, as to heat or to cut; whilst
actions of the other kind remain in the agent, as to understand, to
sense and to will. The difference between them is this, that the
former action is the perfection not of the agent that moves, but of
the thing moved; whereas the latter action is the perfection of the
agent. Hence, because movement is an act of the thing in movement,
the latter action, in so far as it is the act of the operator, is
called its movement, by this similitude, that as movement is an act
of the thing moved, so an act of this kind is the act of the agent,
although movement is an act of the imperfect, that is, of what is in
potentiality; while this kind of act is an act of the perfect, that
is to say, of what is in act as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 28. In the
sense, therefore, in which understanding is movement, that which
understands itself is said to move itself. It is in this sense that
Plato also taught that God moves Himself; not in the sense in which
movement is an act of the imperfect.

Reply Obj. 2: As God is His own very existence and understanding, so
is He His own life; and therefore He so lives that He has no
principle of life.

Reply Obj. 3: Life in this lower world is bestowed on a corruptible
nature, that needs generation to preserve the species, and
nourishment to preserve the individual. For this reason life is not
found here below apart from a vegetative soul: but this does not hold
good with incorruptible natures.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 18, Art. 4]

Whether All Things Are Life in God?

Objection 1: It seems that not all things are life in God. For it is
said (Acts 17:28), "In Him we live, and move, and be." But not all
things in God are movement. Therefore not all things are life in Him.

Obj. 2: Further, all things are in God as their first model. But
things modelled ought to conform to the model. Since, then, not all
things have life in themselves, it seems that not all things are life
in God.

Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29), a living
substance is better than a substance that does not live. If,
therefore, things which in themselves have not life, are life in God,
it seems that things exist more truly in God than themselves. But this
appears to be false; since in themselves they exist actually, but in
God potentially.

Obj. 4: Further, just as good things and things made in time are
known by God, so are bad things, and things that God can make, but
that never will be made. If, therefore, all things are life in God,
inasmuch as known by Him, it seems that even bad things and things
that will never be made are life in God, as known by Him, and this
appears inadmissible.

_On the contrary,_ (John 1:3, 4), it is said, "What was made, in Him
was life." But all things were made, except God. Therefore all things
are life in God.

_I answer that,_ In God to live is to understand, as before stated
(A. 3). In God intellect, the thing understood, and the act of
understanding, are one and the same. Hence whatever is in God as
understood is the very living or life of God. Now, wherefore, since
all things that have been made by God are in Him as things understood,
it follows that all things in Him are the divine life itself.

Reply Obj. 1: Creatures are said to be in God in a twofold sense. In
one way, so far are they are held together and preserved by the
divine power; even as we say that things that are in our power are in
us. And creatures are thus said to be in God, even as they exist in
their own natures. In this sense we must understand the words of the
Apostle when he says, "In Him we live, move, and be"; since our
being, living, and moving are themselves caused by God. In another
sense things are said to be in God, as in Him who knows them, in
which sense they are in God through their proper ideas, which in God
are not distinct from the divine essence. Hence things as they are in
God are the divine essence. And since the divine essence is life and
not movement, it follows that things existing in God in this manner
are not movement, but life.

Reply Obj. 2: The thing modelled must be like the model according to
the form, not the mode of being. For sometimes the form has being of
another kind in the model from that which it has in the thing
modelled. Thus the form of a house has in the mind of the architect
immaterial and intelligible being; but in the house that exists
outside his mind, material and sensible being. Hence the ideas of
things, though not existing in themselves, are life in the divine
mind, as having a divine existence in that mind.

Reply Obj. 3: If form only, and not matter, belonged to natural
things, then in all respects natural things would exist more truly in
the divine mind, by the ideas of them, than in themselves. For which
reason, in fact, Plato held that the _separate_ man was the true man;
and that man as he exists in matter, is man only by participation.
But since matter enters into the being of natural things, we must say
that those things have simply being in the divine mind more truly
than in themselves, because in that mind they have an uncreated
being, but in themselves a created being: whereas this particular
being, a man, or horse, for example, has this being more truly in its
own nature than in the divine mind, because it belongs to human
nature to be material, which, as existing in the divine mind, it is
not. Even so a house has nobler being in the architect's mind than in
matter; yet a material house is called a house more truly than the
one which exists in the mind; since the former is actual, the latter
only potential.

Reply Obj. 4: Although bad things are in God's knowledge, as being
comprised under that knowledge, yet they are not in God as created by
Him, or preserved by Him, or as having their type in Him. They are
known by God through the types of good things. Hence it cannot be
said that bad things are life in God. Those things that are not in
time may be called life in God in so far as life means understanding
only, and inasmuch as they are understood by God; but not in so far
as life implies a principle of operation.
_______________________

QUESTION 19

THE WILL OF GOD
(In Twelve Articles)

After considering the things belonging to the divine knowledge, we
consider what belongs to the divine will. The first consideration is
about the divine will itself; the second about what belongs strictly
to His will; the third about what belongs to the intellect in
relation to His will. About His will itself there are twelve points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is will in God?

(2) Whether God wills things apart from Himself?

(3) Whether whatever God wills, He wills necessarily?

(4) Whether the will of God is the cause of things?

(5) Whether any cause can be assigned to the divine will?

(6) Whether the divine will is always fulfilled?

(7) Whether the will of God is mutable?

(8) Whether the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed?

(9) Whether there is in God the will of evil?

(10) Whether God has free will?

(11) Whether the will of expression is distinguished in God?

(12) Whether five expressions of will are rightly assigned to the
divine will?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Will in God?

Objection 1: It seems that there is not will in God. For the object of
will is the end and the good. But we cannot assign to God any end.
Therefore there is not will in God.

Obj. 2: Further, will is a kind of appetite. But appetite, as it
is directed to things not possessed, implies imperfection, which
cannot be imputed to God. Therefore there is not will in God.

Obj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 54),
the will moves, and is moved. But God is the first cause of movement,
and Himself is unmoved, as proved in Phys. viii, 49. Therefore there
is not will in God.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 12:2): "That you may prove
what is the will of God."

_I answer that,_ There is will in God, as there is intellect: since
will follows upon intellect. For as natural things have actual
existence by their form, so the intellect is actually intelligent by
its intelligible form. Now everything has this aptitude towards its
natural form, that when it has it not, it tends towards it; and when
it has it, it is at rest therein. It is the same with every natural
perfection, which is a natural good. This aptitude to good in things
without knowledge is called natural appetite. Whence also
intellectual natures have a like aptitude as apprehended through its
intelligible form; so as to rest therein when possessed, and when not
possessed to seek to possess it, both of which pertain to the will.
Hence in every intellectual being there is will, just as in every
sensible being there is animal appetite. And so there must be will in
God, since there is intellect in Him. And as His intellect is His own
existence, so is His will.

Reply Obj. 1: Although nothing apart from God is His end, yet He
Himself is the end with respect to all things made by Him. And this
by His essence, for by His essence He is good, as shown above (Q. 6,
A. 3): for the end has the aspect of good.

Reply Obj. 2: Will in us belongs to the appetitive part, which,
although named from appetite, has not for its only act the seeking
what it does not possess; but also the loving and the delighting in
what it does possess. In this respect will is said to be in God, as
having always good which is its object, since, as already said, it is
not distinct from His essence.

Reply Obj. 3: A will of which the principal object is a good outside
itself, must be moved by another; but the object of the divine will
is His goodness, which is His essence. Hence, since the will of God
is His essence, it is not moved by another than itself, but by itself
alone, in the same sense as understanding and willing are said to be
movement. This is what Plato meant when he said that the first mover
moves itself.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 2]

Whether God Wills Things Apart from Himself?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not will things apart from
Himself. For the divine will is the divine existence. But God is not
other than Himself. Therefore He does not will things other than
Himself.

Obj. 2: Further, the willed moves the willer, as the appetible the
appetite, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 54. If, therefore, God wills
anything apart from Himself, His will must be moved by another; which
is impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, if what is willed suffices the willer, he seeks
nothing beyond it. But His own goodness suffices God, and completely
satisfies His will. Therefore God does not will anything apart from
Himself.

Obj. 4: Further, acts of will are multiplied in proportion to the
number of their objects. If, therefore, God wills Himself and things
apart from Himself, it follows that the act of His will is manifold,
and consequently His existence, which is His will. But this is
impossible. Therefore God does not will things apart from Himself.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Thess. 4:3): "This is the will of
God, your sanctification."

_I answer that,_ God wills not only Himself, but other things apart
from Himself. This is clear from the comparison which we made above
(A. 1). For natural things have a natural inclination not only
towards their own proper good, to acquire it if not possessed, and,
if possessed, to rest therein; but also to spread abroad their own
good amongst others, so far as possible. Hence we see that every
agent, in so far as it is perfect and in act, produces its like. It
pertains, therefore, to the nature of the will to communicate as far
as possible to others the good possessed; and especially does this
pertain to the divine will, from which all perfection is derived in
some kind of likeness. Hence, if natural things, in so far as they
are perfect, communicate their good to others, much more does it
appertain to the divine will to communicate by likeness its own good
to others as much as possible. Thus, then, He wills both Himself to
be, and other things to be; but Himself as the end, and other things
as ordained to that end; inasmuch as it befits the divine goodness
that other things should be partakers therein.

Reply Obj. 1: The divine will is God's own existence essentially,
yet they differ in aspect, according to the different ways of
understanding them and expressing them, as is clear from what has
already been said (Q. 13, A. 4). For when we say that God exists, no
relation to any other object is implied, as we do imply when we say
that God wills. Therefore, although He is not anything apart from
Himself, yet He does will things apart from Himself.

Reply Obj. 2: In things willed for the sake of the end, the whole
reason for our being moved is the end, and this it is that moves the
will, as most clearly appears in things willed only for the sake of
the end. He who wills to take a bitter draught, in doing so wills
nothing else than health; and this alone moves his will. It is
different with one who takes a draught that is pleasant, which anyone
may will to do, not only for the sake of health, but also for its own
sake. Hence, although God wills things apart from Himself only for
the sake of the end, which is His own goodness, it does not follow
that anything else moves His will, except His goodness. So, as He
understands things apart from Himself by understanding His own
essence, so He wills things apart from Himself by willing His own
goodness.

Reply Obj. 3: From the fact that His own goodness suffices the divine
will, it does not follow that it wills nothing apart from itself, but
rather that it wills nothing except by reason of its goodness. Thus,
too, the divine intellect, though its perfection consists in its very
knowledge of the divine essence, yet in that essence knows other
things.

Reply Obj. 4: As the divine intellect is one, as seeing the many only
in the one, in the same way the divine will is one and simple, as
willing the many only through the one, that is, through its own
goodness.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 3]

Whether Whatever God Wills He Wills Necessarily?

Objection 1: It seems that whatever God wills He wills necessarily.
For everything eternal is necessary. But whatever God wills, He wills
from eternity, for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore
whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.

Obj. 2: Further, God wills things apart from Himself, inasmuch as He
wills His own goodness. Now God wills His own goodness necessarily.
Therefore He wills things apart from Himself necessarily.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever belongs to the nature of God is necessary,
for God is of Himself necessary being, and the principle of all
necessity, as above shown (Q. 2, A. 3). But it belongs to His nature
to will whatever He wills; since in God there can be nothing over and
above His nature as stated in _Metaph._ v, 6. Therefore whatever He
wills, He wills necessarily.

Obj. 4: Further, being that is not necessary, and being that is
possible not to be, are one and the same thing. If, therefore, God
does not necessarily will a thing that He wills, it is possible for
Him not to will it, and therefore possible for Him to will what He
does not will. And so the divine will is contingent upon one or the
other of two things, and imperfect, since everything contingent is
imperfect and mutable.

Obj. 5: Further, on the part of that which is indifferent to one or
the other of two things, no action results unless it is inclined to
one or the other by some other power, as the Commentator [*Averroes]
says in Phys. ii. If, then, the Will of God is indifferent with
regard to anything, it follows that His determination to act comes
from another; and thus He has some cause prior to Himself.

Obj. 6: Further, whatever God knows, He knows necessarily. But as the
divine knowledge is His essence, so is the divine will. Therefore
whatever God wills, He wills necessarily.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 1:11): "Who worketh all things
according to the counsel of His will." Now, what we work according to
the counsel of the will, we do not will necessarily. Therefore God
does not will necessarily whatever He wills.

_I answer that,_ There are two ways in which a thing is said to be
necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to
be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the
predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is
absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the
subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is
absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it
is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary
absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he
is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting.
Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills
something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He
wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine
goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own
goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily,
and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and
principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to
it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so
far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in
willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it,
unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as,
we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to
cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the
end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on
foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to
other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can
exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him
from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is
not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for
supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as
His will cannot change.

Reply Obj. 1: From the fact that God wills from eternity whatever He
wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by
supposition.

Reply Obj. 2: Although God necessarily wills His own goodness, He
does not necessarily will things willed on account of His goodness;
for it can exist without other things.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not natural to God to will any of those other
things that He does not will necessarily; and yet it is not unnatural
or contrary to His nature, but voluntary.

Reply Obj. 4: Sometimes a necessary cause has a non-necessary
relation to an effect; owing to a deficiency in the effect, and not
in the cause. Even so, the sun's power has a non-necessary relation
to some contingent events on this earth, owing to a defect not in the
solar power, but in the effect that proceeds not necessarily from the
cause. In the same way, that God does not necessarily will some of
the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine
will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed,
namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such
defect accompanies all created good.

Reply Obj. 5: A naturally contingent cause must be determined to act
by some external power. The divine will, which by its nature is
necessary, determines itself to will things to which it has no
necessary relation.

Reply Obj. 6: As the divine essence is necessary of itself, so is the
divine will and the divine knowledge; but the divine knowledge has a
necessary relation to the thing known; not the divine will to the
thing willed. The reason for this is that knowledge is of things as
they exist in the knower; but the will is directed to things as they
exist in themselves. Since then all other things have necessary
existence inasmuch as they exist in God; but no absolute necessity so
as to be necessary in themselves, in so far as they exist in
themselves; it follows that God knows necessarily whatever He wills,
but does not will necessarily whatever He wills.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 4]

Whether the Will of God Is the Cause of Things?

Objection 1: It seems that the will of God is not the cause of things.
For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1): "As our sun, not by reason nor
by pre-election, but by its very being, enlightens all things that can
participate in its light, so the divine good by its very essence pours
the rays of goodness upon everything that exists." But every voluntary
agent acts by reason and pre-election. Therefore God does not act by
will; and so His will is not the cause of things.

Obj. 2: Further, The first in any order is that which is essentially
so, thus in the order of burning things, that comes first which is
fire by its essence. But God is the first agent. Therefore He acts by
His essence; and that is His nature. He acts then by nature, and not
by will. Therefore the divine will is not the cause of things.

Obj. 3: Further, Whatever is the cause of anything, through being
_such_ a thing, is the cause by nature, and not by will. For fire is
the cause of heat, as being itself hot; whereas an architect is the
cause of a house, because he wills to build it. Now Augustine says (De
Doctr. Christ. i, 32), "Because God is good, we exist." Therefore God
is the cause of things by His nature, and not by His will.

Obj. 4: Further, Of one thing there is one cause. But the [cause of]
created things is the knowledge of God, as said before (Q. 14, A. 8).
Therefore the will of God cannot be considered the cause of things.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Wis. 11:26), "How could anything endure,
if Thou wouldst not?"

_I answer that,_ We must hold that the will of God is the cause of
things; and that He acts by the will, and not, as some have supposed,
by a necessity of His nature.

This can be shown in three ways: First, from the order itself of
active causes. Since both intellect and nature act for an end, as
proved in _Phys._ ii, 49, the natural agent must have the end and the
necessary means predetermined for it by some higher intellect; as the
end and definite movement is predetermined for the arrow by the
archer. Hence the intellectual and voluntary agent must precede the
agent that acts by nature. Hence, since God is first in the order of
agents, He must act by intellect and will.

This is shown, secondly, from the character of a natural agent, of
which the property is to produce one and the same effect; for nature
operates in one and the same way unless it be prevented. This is
because the nature of the act is according to the nature of the agent;
and hence as long as it has that nature, its acts will be in
accordance with that nature; for every natural agent has a determinate
being. Since, then, the Divine Being is undetermined, and contains in
Himself the full perfection of being, it cannot be that He acts by a
necessity of His nature, unless He were to cause something
undetermined and indefinite in being: and that this is impossible has
been already shown (Q. 7, A. 2). He does not, therefore, act by a
necessity of His nature, but determined effects proceed from His own
infinite perfection according to the determination of His will and
intellect.

Thirdly, it is shown by the relation of effects to their cause. For
effects proceed from the agent that causes them, in so far as they
pre-exist in the agent; since every agent produces its like. Now
effects pre-exist in their cause after the mode of the cause.
Wherefore since the Divine Being is His own intellect, effects
pre-exist in Him after the mode of intellect, and therefore proceed
from Him after the same mode. Consequently, they proceed from Him
after the mode of will, for His inclination to put in act what His
intellect has conceived appertains to the will. Therefore the will of
God is the cause of things.

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius in these words does not intend to exclude
election from God absolutely; but only in a certain sense, in so far,
that is, as He communicates His goodness not merely to certain
things, but to all; and as election implies a certain distinction.

Reply Obj. 2: Because the essence of God is His intellect and will,
from the fact of His acting by His essence, it follows that He acts
after the mode of intellect and will.

Reply Obj. 3: Good is the object of the will. The words, therefore,
"Because God is good, we exist," are true inasmuch as His goodness is
the reason of His willing all other things, as said before (A. 2, ad
2).

Reply Obj. 4: Even in us the cause of one and the same effect is
knowledge as directing it, whereby the form of the work is conceived,
and will as commanding it, since the form as it is in the intellect
only is not determined to exist or not to exist in the effect, except
by the will. Hence, the speculative intellect has nothing to say to
operation. But the power is cause, as executing the effect, since it
denotes the immediate principle of operation. But in God all these
things are one.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 5]

Whether Any Cause Can Be Assigned to the Divine Will?

Objection 1: It seems that some cause can be assigned to the divine
will. For Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, 46): "Who would venture to say
that God made all things irrationally?" But to a voluntary agent, what
is the reason of operating, is the cause of willing. Therefore the
will of God has some cause.

Obj. 2: Further, in things made by one who wills to make them, and
whose will is influenced by no cause, there can be no cause assigned
except by the will of him who wills. But the will of God is the cause
of all things, as has been already shown (A. 4). If, then, there is
no cause of His will, we cannot seek in any natural things any cause,
except the divine will alone. Thus all science would be in vain,
since science seeks to assign causes to effects. This seems
inadmissible, and therefore we must assign some cause to the divine
will.

Obj. 3: Further, what is done by the willer, on account of no cause,
depends simply on his will. If, therefore, the will of God has no
cause, it follows that all things made depend simply on His will, and
have no other cause. But this also is not admissible.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, 28): "Every efficient
cause is greater than the thing effected." But nothing is greater than
the will of God. We must not then seek for a cause of it.

_I answer that,_ In no wise has the will of God a cause. In proof of
which we must consider that, since the will follows from the
intellect, there is cause of the will in the person who wills, in the
same way as there is a cause of the understanding, in the person that
understands. The case with the understanding is this: that if the
premiss and its conclusion are understood separately from each other,
the understanding the premiss is the cause that the conclusion is
known. If the understanding perceive the conclusion in the premiss
itself, apprehending both the one and the other at the same glance, in
this case the knowing of the conclusion would not be caused by
understanding the premisses, since a thing cannot be its own cause;
and yet, it would be true that the thinker would understand the
premisses to be the cause of the conclusion. It is the same with the
will, with respect to which the end stands in the same relation to the
means to the end, as do the premisses to the conclusion with regard to
the understanding.

Hence, if anyone in one act wills an end, and in another act the means
to that end, his willing the end will be the cause of his willing the
means. This cannot be the case if in one act he wills both end and
means; for a thing cannot be its own cause. Yet it will be true to say
that he wills to order to the end the means to the end. Now as God by
one act understands all things in His essence, so by one act He wills
all things in His goodness. Hence, as in God to understand the cause
is not the cause of His understanding the effect, for He understands
the effect in the cause, so, in Him, to will an end is not the cause
of His willing the means, yet He wills the ordering of the means to
the end. Therefore, He wills this to be as means to that; but does not
will this on account of that.

Reply Obj. 1: The will of God is reasonable, not because anything is
to God a cause of willing, but in so far as He wills one thing to be
on account of another.

Reply Obj. 2: Since God wills effects to proceed from definite
causes, for the preservation of order in the universe, it is not
unreasonable to seek for causes secondary to the divine will. It
would, however, be unreasonable to do so, if such were considered as
primary, and not as dependent on the will of God. In this sense
Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 2): "Philosophers in their vanity have
thought fit to attribute contingent effects to other causes, being
utterly unable to perceive the cause that is shown above all others,
the will of God."

Reply Obj. 3: Since God wills effects to come from causes, all
effects that presuppose some other effect do not depend solely on the
will of God, but on something else besides: but the first effect
depends on the divine will alone. Thus, for example, we may say that
God willed man to have hands to serve his intellect by their work,
and intellect, that he might be man; and willed him to be man that he
might enjoy Him, or for the completion of the universe. But this
cannot be reduced to other created secondary ends. Hence such things
depend on the simple will of God; but the others on the order of
other causes.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 6]

Whether the Will of God Is Always Fulfilled?

Objection 1: It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled.
For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 2:4): "God will have all men to be saved,
and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But this does not happen.
Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

Obj. 2: Further, as is the relation of knowledge to truth, so is that
of the will to good. Now God knows all truth. Therefore He wills all
good. But not all good actually exists; for much more good might
exist. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

Obj. 3: Further, since the will of God is the first cause, it does
not exclude intermediate causes. But the effect of a first cause may
be hindered by a defect of a secondary cause; as the effect of the
motive power may be hindered by the weakness of the limb. Therefore
the effect of the divine will may be hindered by a defect of the
secondary causes. The will of God, therefore, is not always fulfilled.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 113:11): "God hath done all things,
whatsoever He would."

_I answer that,_ The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In
proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to
the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with active
causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although
a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of
the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a
man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the
same must happen in active causes. Something may fall outside the
order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the
universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and
if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the
hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the
order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly
escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this
is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from
producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal
things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred
through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first
heaven. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all
things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its
effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one
order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by
sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls
back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.

Reply Obj. 1: The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be
saved," etc. can be understood in three ways. First, by a restricted
application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De
praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved
that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish
saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not
will." Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of
individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case
they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be
saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not
all of every condition. Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide
Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not
of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as
applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing
antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it
is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and
absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some
additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent
consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should
live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely
considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a
murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live
is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he
wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be
hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved,
but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor
do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in
a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in
themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular
qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it
when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is
meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge
wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he
would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a
qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute
will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place;
although what He wills antecedently may not take place.

Reply Obj. 2: An act of the cognitive faculty is according as the
thing known is in the knower; while an act of the appetite faculty is
directed to things as they exist in themselves. But all that can have
the nature of being and truth virtually exists in God, though it does
not all exist in created things. Therefore God knows all truth; but
does not will all good, except in so far as He wills Himself, in Whom
all good virtually exists.

Reply Obj. 3: A first cause can be hindered in its effect by
deficiency in the secondary cause, when it is not the universal first
cause, including within itself all causes; for then the effect could
in no way escape its order. And thus it is with the will of God, as
said above.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 7]

Whether the Will of God Is Changeable?

Objection 1: It seems that the will of God is changeable. For the Lord
says (Gen. 6:7): "It repenteth Me that I have made man." But whoever
repents of what he has done, has a changeable will. Therefore God has
a changeable will.

Obj. 2: Further, it is said in the person of the Lord: "I will speak
against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull
down, and to destroy it; but if that nation shall repent of its evil,
I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them"
(Jer. 18:7, 8). Therefore God has a changeable will.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever God does, He does voluntarily. But God does
not always do the same thing, for at one time He ordered the law to
be observed, and at another time forbade it. Therefore He has a
changeable will.

Obj. 4: Further, God does not will of necessity what He wills, as
said before (A. 3). Therefore He can both will and not will the
same thing. But whatever can incline to either of two opposites, is
changeable substantially; and that which can exist in a place or not
in that place, is changeable locally. Therefore God is changeable as
regards His will.

_On the contrary,_ It is said: "God is not as a man, that He should lie,
nor as the son of man, that He should be changed" (Num. 23:19).

_I answer that,_ The will of God is entirely unchangeable. On this
point we must consider that to change the will is one thing; to will
that certain things should be changed is another. It is possible to
will a thing to be done now, and its contrary afterwards; and yet for
the will to remain permanently the same: whereas the will would be
changed, if one should begin to will what before he had not willed;
or cease to will what he had willed before. This cannot happen,
unless we presuppose change either in the knowledge or in the
disposition of the substance of the willer. For since the will
regards good, a man may in two ways begin to will a thing. In one way
when that thing begins to be good for him, and this does not take
place without a change in him. Thus when the cold weather begins, it
becomes good to sit by the fire; though it was not so before. In
another way when he knows for the first time that a thing is good for
him, though he did not know it before; hence we take counsel in order
to know what is good for us. Now it has already been shown that both
the substance of God and His knowledge are entirely unchangeable (QQ.
9, A. 1; 14, A. 15). Therefore His will must be entirely unchangeable.

Reply Obj. 1: These words of the Lord are to be understood
metaphorically, and according to the likeness of our nature. For when
we repent, we destroy what we have made; although we may even do so
without change of will; as, when a man wills to make a thing, at the
same time intending to destroy it later. Therefore God is said to
have repented, by way of comparison with our mode of acting, in so
far as by the deluge He destroyed from the face of the earth man whom
He had made.

Reply Obj. 2: The will of God, as it is the first and universal
cause, does not exclude intermediate causes that have power to
produce certain effects. Since however all intermediate causes are
inferior in power to the first cause, there are many things in the
divine power, knowledge and will that are not included in the order
of inferior causes. Thus in the case of the raising of Lazarus, one
who looked only on inferior causes might have said: "Lazarus will not
rise again," but looking at the divine first cause might have said:
"Lazarus will rise again." And God wills both: that is, that in the
order of the inferior cause a thing shall happen; but that in the
order of the higher cause it shall not happen; or He may will
conversely. We may say, then, that God sometimes declares that a
thing shall happen according as it falls under the order of inferior
causes, as of nature, or merit, which yet does not happen as not
being in the designs of the divine and higher cause. Thus He foretold
to Ezechias: "Take order with thy house, for thou shalt die, and not
live" (Isa. 38:1). Yet this did not take place, since from eternity it
was otherwise disposed in the divine knowledge and will, which is
unchangeable. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xvi, 5): "The sentence of
God changes, but not His counsel"--that is to say, the counsel of His
will. When therefore He says, "I also will repent," His words must be
understood metaphorically. For men seem to repent, when they do not
fulfill what they have threatened.

Reply Obj. 3: It does not follow from this argument that God has a
will that changes, but that He sometimes wills that things should
change.

Reply Obj. 4: Although God's willing a thing is not by absolute
necessity, yet it is necessary by supposition, on account of the
unchangeableness of the divine will, as has been said above (A. 3).
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 8]

Whether the Will of God Imposes Necessity on the Things Willed?

Objection 1: It seems that the will of God imposes necessity on the
things willed. For Augustine says (Enchiridion 103): "No one is saved,
except whom God has willed to be saved. He must therefore be asked to
will it; for if He wills it, it must necessarily be."

Obj. 2: Further, every cause that cannot be hindered, produces its
effect necessarily, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 84)
"Nature always works in the same way, if there is nothing to hinder
it." But the will of God cannot be hindered. For the Apostle says
(Rom. 9:19): "Who resisteth His will?" Therefore the will of God
imposes necessity on the things willed.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever is necessary by its antecedent cause is
necessary absolutely; it is thus necessary that animals should die,
being compounded of contrary elements. Now things created by God are
related to the divine will as to an antecedent cause, whereby they
have necessity. For the conditional statement is true that if God
wills a thing, it comes to pass; and every true conditional statement
is necessary. It follows therefore that all that God wills is
necessary absolutely.

_On the contrary,_ All good things that exist God wills to be. If
therefore His will imposes necessity on things willed, it follows that
all good happens of necessity; and thus there is an end of free will,
counsel, and all other such things.

_I answer that,_ The divine will imposes necessity on some things
willed but not on all. The reason of this some have chosen to assign
to intermediate causes, holding that what God produces by necessary
causes is necessary; and what He produces by contingent causes
contingent.

This does not seem to be a sufficient explanation, for two reasons.
First, because the effect of a first cause is contingent on account of
the secondary cause, from the fact that the effect of the first cause
is hindered by deficiency in the second cause, as the sun's power is
hindered by a defect in the plant. But no defect of a secondary cause
can hinder God's will from producing its effect. Secondly, because if
the distinction between the contingent and the necessary is to be
referred only to secondary causes, this must be independent of the
divine intention and will; which is inadmissible. It is better
therefore to say that this happens on account of the efficacy of the
divine will. For when a cause is efficacious to act, the effect
follows upon the cause, not only as to the thing done, but also as to
its manner of being done or of being. Thus from defect of active power
in the seed it may happen that a child is born unlike its father in
accidental points, that belong to its manner of being. Since then the
divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things
are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in
the way that He wills. Now God wills some things to be done
necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for
the building up of the universe. Therefore to some effects He has
attached necessary causes, that cannot fail; but to others defectible
and contingent causes, from which arise contingent effects. Hence it
is not because the proximate causes are contingent that the effects
willed by God happen contingently, but because God prepared contingent
causes for them, it being His will that they should happen
contingently.

Reply Obj. 1: By the words of Augustine we must understand a
necessity in things willed by God that is not absolute, but
conditional. For the conditional statement that if God wills a
thing it must necessarily be, is necessarily true.

Reply Obj. 2: From the very fact that nothing resists the divine
will, it follows that not only those things happen that God wills
to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently
according to His will.

Reply Obj. 3: Consequents have necessity from their antecedents
according to the mode of the antecedents. Hence things effected by
the divine will have that kind of necessity that God wills them to
have, either absolute or conditional. Not all things, therefore,
are absolute necessities.
_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 8]

Whether God Wills Evils?

Objection 1: It seems that God wills evils. For every good that
exists, God wills. But it is a good that evil should exist. For
Augustine says (Enchiridion 95): "Although evil in so far as it is
evil is not a good, yet it is good that not only good things should
exist, but also evil things." Therefore God wills evil things.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 23): "Evil would
conduce to the perfection of everything," i.e. the universe. And
Augustine says (Enchiridion 10, 11): "Out of all things is built up
the admirable beauty of the universe, wherein even that which is
called evil, properly ordered and disposed, commends the good more
evidently in that good is more pleasing and praiseworthy when
contrasted with evil." But God wills all that appertains to the
perfection and beauty of the universe, for this is what God desires
above all things in His creatures. Therefore God wills evil.

Obj. 3: Further, that evil should exist, and should not exist, are
contradictory opposites. But God does not will that evil should not
exist; otherwise, since various evils do exist, God's will would not
always be fulfilled. Therefore God wills that evil should exist.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. 83,3): "No wise man is the
cause of another man becoming worse. Now God surpasses all men in
wisdom. Much less therefore is God the cause of man becoming worse;
and when He is said to be the cause of a thing, He is said to will
it." Therefore it is not by God's will that man becomes worse. Now it
is clear that every evil makes a thing worse. Therefore God wills not
evil things.

_I answer that,_ Since the ratio of good is the ratio of
appetibility, as said before (Q. 5, A. 1), and since evil is opposed
to good, it is impossible that any evil, as such, should be sought
for by the appetite, either natural, or animal, or by the
intellectual appetite which is the will. Nevertheless evil may be
sought accidentally, so far as it accompanies a good, as appears in
each of the appetites. For a natural agent intends not privation or
corruption, but the form to which is annexed the privation of some
other form, and the generation of one thing, which implies the
corruption of another. Also when a lion kills a stag, his object is
food, to obtain which the killing of the animal is only the means.
Similarly the fornicator has merely pleasure for his object, and the
deformity of sin is only an accompaniment. Now the evil that
accompanies one good, is the privation of another good. Never
therefore would evil be sought after, not even accidentally, unless
the good that accompanies the evil were more desired than the good of
which the evil is the privation. Now God wills no good more than He
wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another.
Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of
right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or
of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils
are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; and in
willing the preservation of the natural order, He wills some things
to be naturally corrupted.

Reply Obj. 1: Some have said that although God does not will evil,
yet He wills that evil should be or be done, because, although evil
is not a good, yet it is good that evil should be or be done. This
they said because things evil in themselves are ordered to some good
end; and this order they thought was expressed in the words "that
evil should be or be done." This, however, is not correct; since evil
is not of itself ordered to good, but accidentally. For it is beside
the intention of the sinner, that any good should follow from his
sin; as it was beside the intention of tyrants that the patience of
the martyrs should shine forth from all their persecutions. It cannot
therefore be said that such an ordering to good is implied in the
statement that it is a good thing that evil should be or be done,
since nothing is judged of by that which appertains to it
accidentally, but by that which belongs to it essentially.

Reply Obj. 2: Evil does not operate towards the perfection and beauty
of the universe, except accidentally, as said above (ad 1). Therefore
Dionysius in saying that "evil would conduce to the perfection of the
universe," draws a conclusion by reduction to an absurdity.

Reply Obj. 3: The statements that evil exists, and that evil exists
not, are opposed as contradictories; yet the statements that anyone
wills evil to exist and that he wills it not to be, are not so
opposed; since either is affirmative. God therefore neither wills
evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit
evil to be done; and this is a good.
_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 10]

Whether God Has Free-Will?

Objection 1: It seems that God has not free-will. For Jerome says, in
a homily on the prodigal son [*Ep. 146, ad Damas.]; "God alone is He
who is not liable to sin, nor can be liable: all others, as having
free-will, can be inclined to either side."

Obj. 2: Further, free-will is the faculty of the reason and will, by
which good and evil are chosen. But God does not will evil, as has
been said (A. 9). Therefore there is not free-will in God.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 3): "The Holy Spirit
divideth unto each one as He will, namely, according to the free
choice of the will, not in obedience to necessity."

_I answer that,_ We have free-will with respect to what we will not of
necessity, nor by natural instinct. For our will to be happy does not
appertain to free-will, but to natural instinct. Hence other animals,
that are moved to act by natural instinct, are not said to be moved by
free-will. Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but
other things not necessarily, as shown above (A. 3), He has free
will with respect to what He does not necessarily will.

Reply Obj. 1: Jerome seems to deny free-will to God not simply, but
only as regards the inclination to sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the evil of sin consists in turning away from the
divine goodness, by which God wills all things, as above shown, it is
manifestly impossible for Him to will the evil of sin; yet He can
make choice of one of two opposites, inasmuch as He can will a thing
to be, or not to be. In the same way we ourselves, without sin, can
will to sit down, and not will to sit down.
_______________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 11]

Whether the Will of Expression Is to Be Distinguished in God?

Objection 1: It seems that the will of expression is not to be
distinguished in God. For as the will of God is the cause of things,
so is His wisdom. But no expressions are assigned to the divine
wisdom. Therefore no expressions ought to be assigned to the divine
will.

Obj. 2: Further, every expression that is not in agreement with the
mind of him who expresses himself, is false. If therefore the
expressions assigned to the divine will are not in agreement with
that will, they are false. But if they do agree, they are
superfluous. No expressions therefore must be assigned to the divine
will.

_On the contrary,_ The will of God is one, since it is the very
essence of God. Yet sometimes it is spoken of as many, as in the
words of Ps. 110:2: "Great are the works of the Lord, sought out
according to all His wills." Therefore sometimes the sign must be
taken for the will.

_I answer that,_ Some things are said of God in their strict sense;
others by metaphor, as appears from what has been said before
(Q. 13, A. 3). When certain human passions are predicated of the
Godhead metaphorically, this is done because of a likeness in the
effect. Hence a thing that is in us a sign of some passion, is
signified metaphorically in God under the name of that passion. Thus
with us it is usual for an angry man to punish, so that punishment
becomes an expression of anger. Therefore punishment itself is
signified by the word anger, when anger is attributed to God. In the
same way, what is usually with us an expression of will, is sometimes
metaphorically called will in God; just as when anyone lays down a
precept, it is a sign that he wishes that precept obeyed. Hence a
divine precept is sometimes called by metaphor the will of God, as in
the words: "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt.
6:10). There is, however, this difference between will and anger, that
anger is never attributed to God properly, since in its primary
meaning it includes passion; whereas will is attributed to Him
properly. Therefore in God there are distinguished will in its proper
sense, and will as attributed to Him by metaphor. Will in its proper
sense is called the will of good pleasure; and will metaphorically
taken is the will of expression, inasmuch as the sign itself of will
is called will.

Reply Obj. 1: Knowledge is not the cause of a thing being done,
unless through the will. For we do not put into act what we know,
unless we will to do so. Accordingly expression is not attributed to
knowledge, but to will.

Reply Obj. 2: Expressions of will are called divine wills, not as
being signs that God wills anything; but because what in us is the
usual expression of our will, is called the divine will in God. Thus
punishment is not a sign that there is anger in God; but it is called
anger in Him, from the fact that it is an expression of anger in
ourselves.
_______________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 19, Art. 12]

Whether Five Expressions of Will Are Rightly Assigned to the Divine
Will?

Objection 1: It seems that five expressions of will--namely,
prohibition, precept, counsel, operation, and permission--are not
rightly assigned to the divine will. For the same things that God
bids us do by His precept or counsel, these He sometimes operates in
us, and the same things that He prohibits, these He sometimes
permits. They ought not therefore to be enumerated as distinct.

Obj. 2: Further, God works nothing unless He wills it, as the
Scripture says (Wis. 11:26). But the will of expression is distinct
from the will of good pleasure. Therefore operation ought not to be
comprehended in the will of expression.

Obj. 3: Further, operation and permission appertain to all creatures
in common, since God works in them all, and permits some action in
them all. But precept, counsel, and prohibition belong to rational
creatures only. Therefore they do not come rightly under one
division, not being of one order.

Obj. 4: Further, evil happens in more ways than good, since "good
happens in one way, but evil in all kinds of ways," as declared by
the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), and Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 22). It
is not right therefore to assign one expression only in the case of
evil--namely, prohibition--and two--namely, counsel and precept--in
the case of good.

_I answer that,_ By these signs we name the expression of will by
which we are accustomed to show that we will something. A man may
show that he wills something, either by himself or by means of
another. He may show it by himself, by doing something either
directly, or indirectly and accidentally. He shows it directly when
he works in his own person; in that way the expression of his will is
his own working. He shows it indirectly, by not hindering the doing
of a thing; for what removes an impediment is called an accidental
mover. In this respect the expression is called permission. He
declares his will by means of another when he orders another to
perform a work, either by insisting upon it as necessary by precept,
and by prohibiting its contrary; or by persuasion, which is a part of
counsel. Since in these ways the will of man makes itself known, the
same five are sometimes denominated with regard to the divine will,
as the expression of that will. That precept, counsel, and
prohibition are called the will of God is clear from the words of
Matt. 6:10: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That
permission and operation are called the will of God is clear from
Augustine (Enchiridion 95), who says: "Nothing is done, unless the
Almighty wills it to be done, either by permitting it, or by actually
doing it."

Or it may be said that permission and operation refer to present time,
permission being with respect to evil, operation with regard to good.
Whilst as to future time, prohibition is in respect to evil, precept
to good that is necessary and counsel to good that is of
supererogation.

Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to prevent anyone declaring his will
about the same matter in different ways; thus we find many words that
mean the same thing. Hence there is no reason why the same thing
should not be the subject of precept, operation, and counsel; or of
prohibition or permission.

Reply Obj. 2: As God may by metaphor be said to will what by His
will, properly speaking, He wills not; so He may by metaphor be said
to will what He does, properly speaking, will. Hence there is nothing
to prevent the same thing being the object of the will of good
pleasure, and of the will of expression. But operation is always the
same as the will of good pleasure; while precept and counsel are not;
both because the former regards the present, and the two latter the
future; and because the former is of itself the effect of the will;
the latter its effect as fulfilled by means of another.

Reply Obj. 3: Rational creatures are masters of their own acts; and
for this reason certain special expressions of the divine will are
assigned to their acts, inasmuch as God ordains rational creatures to
act voluntarily and of themselves. Other creatures act only as moved
by the divine operation; therefore only operation and permission are
concerned with these.

Reply Obj. 4: All evil of sin, though happening in many ways, agrees
in being out of harmony with the divine will. Hence with regard to
evil, only one expression is assigned, that of prohibition. On the
other hand, good stands in various relations to the divine goodness,
since there are good deeds without which we cannot attain to the
fruition of that goodness, and these are the subject of precept; and
there are others by which we attain to it more perfectly, and these
are the subject of counsel. Or it may be said that counsel is not
only concerned with the obtaining of greater good; but also with the
avoiding of lesser evils.
_______________________

QUESTION 20

GOD'S LOVE
(In Four Articles)

We next consider those things that pertain absolutely to the will of
God. In the appetitive part of the soul there are found in ourselves
both the passions of the soul, as joy, love, and the like; and the
habits of the moral virtues, as justice, fortitude and the like.
Hence we shall first consider the love of God, and secondly His
justice and mercy. About the first there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether love exists in God?

(2) Whether He loves all things?

(3) Whether He loves one thing more than another?

(4) Whether He loves more the better things?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 20, Art. 1]

Whether Love Exists in God?

Objection 1: It seems that love does not exist in God. For in God
there are no passions. Now love is a passion. Therefore love is not
in God.

Obj. 2: Further, love, anger, sorrow and the like, are mutually
divided against one another. But sorrow and anger are not attributed
to God, unless by metaphor. Therefore neither is love attributed to
Him.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "Love is a uniting
and binding force." But this cannot take place in God, since He is
simple. Therefore love does not exist in God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written: "God is love" (John 4:16).

_I answer that,_ We must needs assert that in God there is love:
because love is the first movement of the will and of every
appetitive faculty. For since the acts of the will and of every
appetitive faculty tend towards good and evil, as to their proper
objects: and since good is essentially and especially the object of
the will and the appetite, whereas evil is only the object
secondarily and indirectly, as opposed to good; it follows that the
acts of the will and appetite that regard good must naturally be
prior to those that regard evil; thus, for instance, joy is prior to
sorrow, love to hate: because what exists of itself is always prior
to that which exists through another. Again, the more universal is
naturally prior to what is less so. Hence the intellect is first
directed to universal truth; and in the second place to particular
and special truths. Now there are certain acts of the will and
appetite that regard good under some special condition, as joy and
delight regard good present and possessed; whereas desire and hope
regard good not as yet possessed. Love, however, regards good
universally, whether possessed or not. Hence love is naturally the
first act of the will and appetite; for which reason all the other
appetite movements presuppose love, as their root and origin. For
nobody desires anything nor rejoices in anything, except as a good
that is loved: nor is anything an object of hate except as opposed to
the object of love. Similarly, it is clear that sorrow, and other
things like to it, must be referred to love as to their first
principle. Hence, in whomsoever there is will and appetite, there
must also be love: since if the first is wanting, all that follows is
also wanting. Now it has been shown that will is in God (Q. 19, A.
1), and hence we must attribute love to Him.

Reply Obj. 1: The cognitive faculty does not move except through the
medium of the appetitive: and just as in ourselves the universal
reason moves through the medium of the particular reason, as stated
in _De Anima_ iii, 58, 75, so in ourselves the intellectual appetite,
or the will as it is called, moves through the medium of the
sensitive appetite. Hence, in us the sensitive appetite is the
proximate motive-force of our bodies. Some bodily change therefore
always accompanies an act of the sensitive appetite, and this change
affects especially the heart, which, as the Philosopher says (De
part. animal. iii, 4), is the first principle of movement in animals.
Therefore acts of the sensitive appetite, inasmuch as they have
annexed to them some bodily change, are called passions; whereas acts
of the will are not so called. Love, therefore, and joy and delight
are passions; in so far as they denote acts of the intellective
appetite, they are not passions. It is in this latter sense that they
are in God. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii): "God rejoices by
an operation that is one and simple," and for the same reason He
loves without passion.

Reply Obj. 2: In the passions of the sensitive appetite there may be
distinguished a certain material element--namely, the bodily
change--and a certain formal element, which is on the part of the
appetite. Thus in anger, as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 15,
63, 64), the material element is the kindling of the blood about the
heart; but the formal, the appetite for revenge. Again, as regards
the formal element of certain passions a certain imperfection is
implied, as in desire, which is of the good we have not, and in
sorrow, which is about the evil we have. This applies also to anger,
which supposes sorrow. Certain other passions, however, as love and
joy, imply no imperfection. Since therefore none of these can be
attributed to God on their material side, as has been said (ad 1);
neither can those that even on their formal side imply imperfection
be attributed to Him; except metaphorically, and from likeness of
effects, as already show (Q. 3, A. 2, ad 2; Q. 19, A. 11). Whereas,
those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be
properly predicated of God, though without attributing passion to
Him, as said before (Q. 19, A. 11).

Reply Obj. 3: An act of love always tends towards two things; to the
good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since
to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we
love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible,
union with that good. So love is called the unitive force, even in
God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for
Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as
above shown (Q. 6, AA. 1, 3). And by the fact that anyone loves
another, he wills good to that other. Thus he puts the other, as it
were, in the place of himself; and regards the good done to him as
done to himself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates
another to ourselves, and refers his good to our own. And then again
the divine love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to
others; yet it implies no composition in God.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 20, Art. 2]

Whether God Loves All Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not love all things. For
according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 1), love places the lover
outside himself, and causes him to pass, as it were, into the object
of his love. But it is not admissible to say that God is placed
outside of Himself, and passes into other things. Therefore it is
inadmissible to say that God loves things other than Himself.

Obj. 2: Further, the love of God is eternal. But things apart from
God are not from eternity; except in God. Therefore God does not love
anything, except as it exists in Himself. But as existing in Him, it
is no other than Himself. Therefore God does not love things other
than Himself.

Obj. 3: Further, love is twofold--the love, namely, of desire, and
the love of friendship. Now God does not love irrational creatures
with the love of desire, since He needs no creature outside Himself.
Nor with the love of friendship; since there can be no friendship
with irrational creatures, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic. viii, 2).
Therefore God does not love all things.

Obj. 4: Further, it is written (Ps. 5:7): "Thou hatest all the
workers of iniquity." Now nothing is at the same time hated and
loved. Therefore God does not love all things.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Wis. 11:25): "Thou lovest all things
that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made."

_I answer that,_ God loves all existing things. For all existing
things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a
thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it
possesses. Now it has been shown above (Q. 19, A. 4) that God's will
is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing
has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by
God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since
to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it
is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we
love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of
things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we
will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but
conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our
love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and
receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our
actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.

Reply Obj. 1: A lover is placed outside himself, and made to pass
into the object of his love, inasmuch as he wills good to the
beloved; and works for that good by his providence even as he works
for his own. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1): "On behalf of
the truth we must make bold to say even this, that He Himself, the
cause of all things, by His abounding love and goodness, is placed
outside Himself by His providence for all existing things."

Reply Obj. 2: Although creatures have not existed from eternity,
except in God, yet because they have been in Him from eternity, God
has known them eternally in their proper natures; and for that reason
has loved them, even as we, by the images of things within us, know
things existing in themselves.

Reply Obj. 3: Friendship cannot exist except towards rational
creatures, who are capable of returning love, and communicating one
with another in the various works of life, and who may fare well or
ill, according to the changes of fortune and happiness; even as to
them is benevolence properly speaking exercised. But irrational
creatures cannot attain to loving God, nor to any share in the
intellectual and beatific life that He lives. Strictly speaking,
therefore, God does not love irrational creatures with the love of
friendship; but as it were with the love of desire, in so far as He
orders them to rational creatures, and even to Himself. Yet this is
not because He stands in need of them; but only on account of His
goodness, and of the services they render to us. For we can desire a
thing for others as well as for ourselves.

Reply Obj. 4: Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved
under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners
in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and
have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not
existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from
God. Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 20, Art. 3]

Whether God Loves All Things Equally?

Objection 1: It seems that God loves all things equally. For it is
said: "He hath equally care of all" (Wis. 6:8). But God's providence
over things comes from the love wherewith He loves them. Therefore He
loves all things equally.

Obj. 2: Further, the love of God is His essence. But God's essence
does not admit of degree; neither therefore does His love. He does
not therefore love some things more than others.

Obj. 3: Further, as God's love extends to created things, so do His
knowledge and will extend. But God is not said to know some things
more than others; nor will one thing more than another. Neither
therefore does He love some things more than others.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. in Joan. cx): "God loves all
things that He has made, and amongst them rational creatures more, and
of these especially those who are members of His only-begotten Son
Himself."

_I answer that,_ Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a
twofold way anything may be loved more, or less. In one way on the
part of the act of the will itself, which is more or less intense. In
this way God does not love some things more than others, because He
loves all things by an act of the will that is one, simple, and
always the same. In another way on the part of the good itself that a
person wills for the beloved. In this way we are said to love that
one more than another, for whom we will a greater good, though our
will is not more intense. In this way we must needs say that God
loves some things more than others. For since God's love is the cause
of goodness in things, as has been said (A. 2), no one thing would be
better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than
for another.

Reply Obj. 1: God is said to have equally care of all, not because by
His care He deals out equal good to all, but because He administers
all things with a like wisdom and goodness.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument is based on the intensity of love on the
part of the act of the will, which is the divine essence. But the
good that God wills for His creatures, is not the divine essence.
Therefore there is no reason why it may not vary in degree.

Reply Obj. 3: To understand and to will denote the act alone, and do
not include in their meaning objects from the diversity of which God
may be said to know or will more or less, as has been said with
respect to God's love.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 20, Art. 4]

Whether God Always Loves More the Better Things?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not always love more the better
things. For it is manifest that Christ is better than the whole human
race, being God and man. But God loved the human race more than He
loved Christ; for it is said: "He spared not His own Son, but
delivered Him up for us all" (Rom. 8:32). Therefore God does not
always love more the better things.

Obj. 2: Further, an angel is better than a man. Hence it is said of
man: "Thou hast made him a little less than the angels" (Ps. 8:6).
But God loved men more than He loved the angels, for it is said:
"Nowhere doth He take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham
He taketh hold" (Heb. 2:16). Therefore God does not always love more
the better things.

Obj. 3: Further, Peter was better than John, since he loved Christ
more. Hence the Lord, knowing this to be true, asked Peter, saying:
"Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" Yet Christ
loved John more than He loved Peter. For as Augustine says,
commenting on the words, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?": "By
this very mark is John distinguished from the other disciples, not
that He loved him only, but that He loved him more than the rest."
Therefore God does not always love more the better things.

Obj. 4: Further, the innocent man is better than the repentant, since
repentance is, as Jerome says (Cap. 3 in Isa.), "a second plank after
shipwreck." But God loves the penitent more than the innocent; since
He rejoices over him the more. For it is said: "I say to you that
there shall be joy in heaven upon the one sinner that doth penance,
more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance" (Luke 15:7).
Therefore God does not always love more the better things.

Obj. 5: Further, the just man who is foreknown is better than the
predestined sinner. Now God loves more the predestined sinner, since
He wills for him a greater good, life eternal. Therefore God does not
always love more the better things.

_On the contrary,_ Everything loves what is like it, as appears from
(Ecclus. 13:19): "Every beast loveth its like." Now the better a thing
is, the more like is it to God. Therefore the better things are more
loved by God.

_I answer that,_ It must needs be, according to what has been said
before, that God loves more the better things. For it has been shown
(AA. 2, 3), that God's loving one thing more than another is nothing
else than His willing for that thing a greater good: because God's
will is the cause of goodness in things; and the reason why some
things are better than others, is that God wills for them a greater
good. Hence it follows that He loves more the better things.

Reply Obj. 1: God loves Christ not only more than He loves the whole
human race, but more than He loves the entire created universe:
because He willed for Him the greater good in giving Him "a name that
is above all names," in so far as He was true God. Nor did anything
of His excellence diminish when God delivered Him up to death for the
salvation of the human race; rather did He become thereby a glorious
conqueror: "The government was placed upon His shoulder," according
to Isa. 9:6.

Reply Obj. 2: God loves the human nature assumed by the Word of God
in the person of Christ more than He loves all the angels; for that
nature is better, especially on the ground of the union with the
Godhead. But speaking of human nature in general, and comparing it
with the angelic, the two are found equal, in the order of grace and
of glory: since according to Rev 21:17, the measure of a man and of
an angel is the same. Yet so that, in this respect, some angels are
found nobler than some men, and some men nobler than some angels. But
as to natural condition an angel is better than a man. God therefore
did not assume human nature because He loved man, absolutely
speaking, more; but because the needs of man were greater; just as
the master of a house may give some costly delicacy to a sick
servant, that he does not give to his own son in sound health.

Reply Obj. 3: This doubt concerning Peter and John has been solved in
various ways. Augustine interprets it mystically, and says that the
active life, signified by Peter, loves God more than the
contemplative signified by John, because the former is more conscious
of the miseries of this present life, and therefore the more ardently
desires to be freed from them, and depart to God. God, he says, loves
more the contemplative life, since He preserves it longer. For it
does not end, as the active life does, with the life of the body.

Some say that Peter loved Christ more in His members, and therefore
was loved more by Christ also, for which reason He gave him the care
of the Church; but that John loved Christ more in Himself, and so was
loved more by Him; on which account Christ commended His mother to his
care. Others say that it is uncertain which of them loved Christ more
with the love of charity, and uncertain also which of them God loved
more and ordained to a greater degree of glory in eternal life. Peter
is said to have loved more, in regard to a certain promptness and
fervor; but John to have been more loved, with respect to certain
marks of familiarity which Christ showed to him rather than to others,
on account of his youth and purity. While others say that Christ loved
Peter more, from his more excellent gift of charity; but John more,
from his gifts of intellect. Hence, absolutely speaking, Peter was the
better and more beloved; but, in a certain sense, John was the better,
and was loved the more. However, it may seem presumptuous to pass
judgment on these matters; since "the Lord" and no other "is the
weigher of spirits" (Prov. 16:2).

Reply Obj. 4: The penitent and the innocent are related as exceeding
and exceeded. For whether innocent or penitent, those are the better
and better loved who have most grace. Other things being equal,
innocence is the nobler thing and the more beloved. God is said to
rejoice more over the penitent than over the innocent, because often
penitents rise from sin more cautious, humble, and fervent. Hence
Gregory commenting on these words (Hom. 34 in Ev.) says that, "In
battle the general loves the soldier who after flight returns and
bravely pursues the enemy, more than him who has never fled, but has
never done a brave deed."

Or it may be answered that gifts of grace, equal in themselves, are
more as conferred on the penitent, who deserved punishment, than as
conferred on the innocent, to whom no punishment was due; just as a
hundred pounds [marcoe] are a greater gift to a poor man than to a
king.

Reply Obj. 5: Since God's will is the cause of goodness in things,
the goodness of one who is loved by God is to be reckoned according
to the time when some good is to be given to him by divine goodness.
According therefore to the time, when there is to be given by the
divine will to the predestined sinner a greater good, the sinner is
better; although according to some other time he is the worse;
because even according to some time he is neither good nor bad.
_______________________

QUESTION 21

THE JUSTICE AND MERCY OF GOD (In Four Articles)

After considering the divine love, we must treat of God's justice and
mercy. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is justice in God?

(2) Whether His justice can be called truth?

(3) Whether there is mercy in God?

(4) Whether in every work of God there are justice and mercy?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 21, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Justice in God?

Objection 1: It seems that there is not justice in God. For justice is
divided against temperance. But temperance does not exist in God:
neither therefore does justice.

Obj. 2: Further, he who does whatsoever he wills and pleases does
not work according to justice. But, as the Apostle says: "God worketh
all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11).
Therefore justice cannot be attributed to Him.

Obj. 3: Further, the act of justice is to pay what is due. But
God is no man's debtor. Therefore justice does not belong to God.

Obj. 4: Further, whatever is in God, is His essence. But justice
cannot belong to this. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "Good regards
the essence; justice the act." Therefore justice does not belong to
God.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 10:8): "The Lord is just, and hath
loved justice."

_I answer that,_ There are two kinds of justice. The one consists in
mutual giving and receiving, as in buying and selling, and other kinds
of intercourse and exchange. This the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) calls
commutative justice, that directs exchange and intercourse of
business. This does not belong to God, since, as the Apostle says:
"Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made him?" (Rom.
11:35). The other consists in distribution, and is called distributive
justice; whereby a ruler or a steward gives to each what his rank
deserves. As then the proper order displayed in ruling a family or any
kind of multitude evinces justice of this kind in the ruler, so the
order of the universe, which is seen both in effects of nature and in
effects of will, shows forth the justice of God. Hence Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. viii, 4): "We must needs see that God is truly just, in
seeing how He gives to all existing things what is proper to the
condition of each; and preserves the nature of each in the order and
with the powers that properly belong to it."

Reply Obj. 1: Certain of the moral virtues are concerned with the
passions, as temperance with concupiscence, fortitude with fear and
daring, meekness with anger. Such virtues as these can only
metaphorically be attributed to God; since, as stated above (Q. 20,
A. 1), in God there are no passions; nor a sensitive appetite, which
is, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10), the subject of those
virtues. On the other hand, certain moral virtues are concerned with
works of giving and expending; such as justice, liberality, and
magnificence; and these reside not in the sensitive faculty, but in
the will. Hence, there is nothing to prevent our attributing these
virtues to God; although not in civil matters, but in such acts as
are not unbecoming to Him. For, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x,
8), it would be absurd to praise God for His political virtues.

Reply Obj. 2: Since good as perceived by intellect is the object of
the will, it is impossible for God to will anything but what His
wisdom approves. This is, as it were, His law of justice, in
accordance with which His will is right and just. Hence, what He does
according to His will He does justly: as we do justly what we do
according to law. But whereas law comes to us from some higher power,
God is a law unto Himself.

Reply Obj. 3: To each one is due what is his own. Now that which is
directed to a man is said to be his own. Thus the master owns the
servant, and not conversely, for that is free which is its own cause.
In the word debt, therefore, is implied a certain exigence or
necessity of the thing to which it is directed. Now a twofold order
has to be considered in things: the one, whereby one created thing is
directed to another, as the parts of the whole, accident to
substance, and all things whatsoever to their end; the other, whereby
all created things are ordered to God. Thus in the divine operations
debt may be regarded in two ways, as due either to God, or to
creatures, and in either way God pays what is due. It is due to God
that there should be fulfilled in creatures what His will and wisdom
require, and what manifests His goodness. In this respect, God's
justice regards what befits Him; inasmuch as He renders to Himself
what is due to Himself. It is also due to a created thing that it
should possess what is ordered to it; thus it is due to man to have
hands, and that other animals should serve him. Thus also God
exercises justice, when He gives to each thing what is due to it by
its nature and condition. This debt however is derived from the
former; since what is due to each thing is due to it as ordered to it
according to the divine wisdom. And although God in this way pays
each thing its due, yet He Himself is not the debtor, since He is not
directed to other things, but rather other things to Him. Justice,
therefore, in God is sometimes spoken of as the fitting accompaniment
of His goodness; sometimes as the reward of merit. Anselm touches on
either view where he says (Prosolog. 10): "When Thou dost punish the
wicked, it is just, since it agrees with their deserts; and when Thou
dost spare the wicked, it is also just; since it befits Thy goodness."

Reply Obj. 4: Although justice regards act, this does not prevent its
being the essence of God; since even that which is of the essence of
a thing may be the principle of action. But good does not always
regard act; since a thing is called good not merely with respect to
act, but also as regards perfection in its essence. For this reason
it is said (De Hebdom.) that the good is related to the just, as the
general to the special.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 21, Art. 2]

Whether the Justice of God Is Truth?

Objection 1: It seems that the justice of God is not truth. For
justice resides in the will; since, as Anselm says (Dial. Verit. 13),
it is a rectitude of the will, whereas truth resides in the intellect,
as the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi; Ethic. vi, 2,6). Therefore
justice does not appertain to truth.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 7),
truth is a virtue distinct from justice. Truth therefore does not
appertain to the idea of justice.

_On the contrary,_ it is said (Ps. 84:11): "Mercy and truth have met
each other": where truth stands for justice.

_I answer that,_ Truth consists in the equation of mind and thing, as
said above (Q. 16, A. 1). Now the mind, that is the cause of the
thing, is related to it as its rule and measure; whereas the converse
is the case with the mind that receives its knowledge from things.
When therefore things are the measure and rule of the mind, truth
consists in the equation of the mind to the thing, as happens in
ourselves. For according as a thing is, or is not, our thoughts or our
words about it are true or false. But when the mind is the rule or
measure of things, truth consists in the equation of the thing to the
mind; just as the work of an artist is said to be true, when it is in
accordance with his art.

Now as works of art are related to art, so are works of justice
related to the law with which they accord. Therefore God's justice,
which establishes things in the order conformable to the rule of His
wisdom, which is the law of His justice, is suitably called truth.
Thus we also in human affairs speak of the truth of justice.

Reply Obj. 1: Justice, as to the law that governs, resides in the
reason or intellect; but as to the command whereby our actions are
governed according to the law, it resides in the will.

Reply Obj. 2: The truth of which the Philosopher is speaking in this
passage, is that virtue whereby a man shows himself in word and deed
such as he really is. Thus it consists in the conformity of the sign
with the thing signified; and not in that of the effect with its
cause and rule: as has been said regarding the truth of justice.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 21, Art. 3]

Whether Mercy Can Be Attributed to God?

Objection 1: It seems that mercy cannot be attributed to God. For
mercy is a kind of sorrow, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 14).
But there is no sorrow in God; and therefore there is no mercy in Him.

Obj. 2: Further, mercy is a relaxation of justice. But God cannot
remit what appertains to His justice. For it is said (2 Tim. 2:13):
"If we believe not, He continueth faithful: He cannot deny Himself."
But He would deny Himself, as a gloss says, if He should deny His
words. Therefore mercy is not becoming to God.

_On the contrary,_ it is said (Ps. 110:4): "He is a merciful and
gracious Lord."

_I answer that,_ Mercy is especially to be attributed to God, as seen
in its effect, but not as an affection of passion. In proof of which
it must be considered that a person is said to be merciful
[misericors], as being, so to speak, sorrowful at heart [miserum
cor]; being affected with sorrow at the misery of another as though
it were his own. Hence it follows that he endeavors to dispel the
misery of this other, as if it were his; and this is the effect of
mercy. To sorrow, therefore, over the misery of others belongs not to
God; but it does most properly belong to Him to dispel that misery,
whatever be the defect we call by that name. Now defects are not
removed, except by the perfection of some kind of goodness; and the
primary source of goodness is God, as shown above (Q. 6, A. 4). It
must, however, be considered that to bestow perfections appertains
not only to the divine goodness, but also to His justice, liberality,
and mercy; yet under different aspects. The communicating of
perfections, absolutely considered, appertains to goodness, as shown
above (Q. 6, AA. 1, 4); in so far as perfections are given to things
in proportion, the bestowal of them belongs to justice, as has been
already said (A. 1); in so far as God does not bestow them for His
own use, but only on account of His goodness, it belongs to
liberality; in so far as perfections given to things by God expel
defects, it belongs to mercy.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is based on mercy, regarded as an
affection of passion.

Reply Obj. 2: God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His
justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who
pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one
hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or
mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence
committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a
gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one
another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Eph. 4:32). Hence it is clear
that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness
thereof. And thus it is said: "Mercy exalteth itself above judgement"
(James 2:13).
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 21, Art. 4]

Whether in Every Work of God There Are Mercy and Justice?

Objection 1: It seems that not in every work of God are mercy and
justice. For some works of God are attributed to mercy, as the
justification of the ungodly; and others to justice, as the damnation
of the wicked. Hence it is said: "Judgment without mercy to him that
hath not done mercy" (James 2:13). Therefore not in every work of God
do mercy and justice appear.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle attributes the conversion of the Jews to
justice and truth, but that of the Gentiles to mercy (Rom. 15).
Therefore not in every work of God are justice and mercy.

Obj. 3: Further, many just persons are afflicted in this world; which
is unjust. Therefore not in every work of God are justice and mercy.

Obj. 4: Further, it is the part of justice to pay what is due, but of
mercy to relieve misery. Thus both justice and mercy presuppose
something in their works: whereas creation presupposes nothing.
Therefore in creation neither mercy nor justice is found.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord
are mercy and truth."

_I answer that,_ Mercy and truth are necessarily found in all God's
works, if mercy be taken to mean the removal of any kind of defect.
Not every defect, however, can properly be called a misery; but only
defect in a rational nature whose lot is to be happy; for misery is
opposed to happiness. For this necessity there is a reason, because
since a debt paid according to the divine justice is one due either to
God, or to some creature, neither the one nor the other can be lacking
in any work of God: because God can do nothing that is not in accord
with His wisdom and goodness; and it is in this sense, as we have
said, that anything is due to God. Likewise, whatever is done by Him
in created things, is done according to proper order and proportion
wherein consists the idea of justice. Thus justice must exist in all
God's works. Now the work of divine justice always presupposes the
work of mercy; and is founded thereupon. For nothing is due to
creatures, except for something pre-existing in them, or foreknown.
Again, if this is due to a creature, it must be due on account of
something that precedes. And since we cannot go on to infinity, we
must come to something that depends only on the goodness of the divine
will--which is the ultimate end. We may say, for instance, that to
possess hands is due to man on account of his rational soul; and his
rational soul is due to him that he may be man; and his being man is
on account of the divine goodness. So in every work of God, viewed at
its primary source, there appears mercy. In all that follows, the
power of mercy remains, and works indeed with even greater force; as
the influence of the first cause is more intense than that of second
causes. For this reason does God out of abundance of His goodness
bestow upon creatures what is due to them more bountifully than is
proportionate to their deserts: since less would suffice for
preserving the order of justice than what the divine goodness confers;
because between creatures and God's goodness there can be no
proportion.

Reply Obj. 1: Certain works are attributed to justice, and certain
others to mercy, because in some justice appears more forcibly and in
others mercy. Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen,
which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in
punishing short of what is deserved.

In the justification of the ungodly, justice is seen, when God remits
sins on account of love, though He Himself has mercifully infused that
love. So we read of Magdalen: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she
hath loved much" (Luke 7:47).

Reply Obj. 2: God's justice and mercy appear both in the conversion
of the Jews and of the Gentiles. But an aspect of justice appears in
the conversion of the Jews which is not seen in the conversion of the
Gentiles; inasmuch as the Jews were saved on account of the promises
made to the fathers.

Reply Obj. 3: Justice and mercy appear in the punishment of the just
in this world, since by afflictions lesser faults are cleansed in
them, and they are the more raised up from earthly affections to God.
As to this Gregory says (Moral. xxvi, 9): "The evils that press on us
in this world force us to go to God."

Reply Obj. 4: Although creation presupposes nothing in the universe;
yet it does presuppose something in the knowledge of God. In this way
too the idea of justice is preserved in creation; by the production
of beings in a manner that accords with the divine wisdom and
goodness. And the idea of mercy, also, is preserved in the change of
creatures from non-existence to existence.
_______________________

QUESTION 22

THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD
(In Four Articles)

Having considered all that relates to the will absolutely, we must
now proceed to those things which have relation to both the intellect
and the will, namely providence, in respect to all created things;
predestination and reprobation and all that is connected with these
acts in respect especially of man as regards his eternal salvation.
For in the science of morals, after the moral virtues themselves,
comes the consideration of prudence, to which providence would seem
to belong. Concerning God's providence there are four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether providence is suitably assigned to God?

(2) Whether everything comes under divine providence?

(3) Whether divine providence is immediately concerned with all
things?

(4) Whether divine providence imposes any necessity upon things
foreseen?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 22, Art. 1]

Whether Providence Can Suitably Be Attributed to God?

Objection 1: It seems that providence is not becoming to God. For
providence, according to Tully (De Invent. ii), is a part of
prudence. But prudence, since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
vi, 5, 9, 18), it gives good counsel, cannot belong to God, Who never
has any doubt for which He should take counsel. Therefore providence
cannot belong to God.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is in God, is eternal. But providence is
not anything eternal, for it is concerned with existing things that
are not eternal, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29).
Therefore there is no providence in God.

Obj. 3: Further, there is nothing composite in God. But providence
seems to be something composite, because it includes both the
intellect and the will. Therefore providence is not in God.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Wis. 14:3): "But Thou, Father,
governest all things by providence [*Vulg. But 'Thy providence, O
Father, governeth it.']."

_I answer that,_ It is necessary to attribute providence to God. For
all the good that is in created things has been created by God, as
was shown above (Q. 6, A. 4). In created things good is found not
only as regards their substance, but also as regards their order
towards an end and especially their last end, which, as was said
above, is the divine goodness (Q. 21, A. 4). This good of order
existing in things created, is itself created by God. Since, however,
God is the cause of things by His intellect, and thus it behooves
that the type of every effect should pre-exist in Him, as is clear
from what has gone before (Q. 19, A. 4), it is necessary that the
type of the order of things towards their end should pre-exist in the
divine mind: and the type of things ordered towards an end is,
properly speaking, providence. For it is the chief part of prudence,
to which two other parts are directed--namely, remembrance of the
past, and understanding of the present; inasmuch as from the
remembrance of what is past and the understanding of what is present,
we gather how to provide for the future. Now it belongs to prudence,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 12), to direct other things
towards an end whether in regard to oneself--as for instance, a man
is said to be prudent, who orders well his acts towards the end of
life--or in regard to others subject to him, in a family, city or
kingdom; in which sense it is said (Matt. 24:45), "a faithful and wise
servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family." In this way
prudence or providence may suitably be attributed to God. For in God
Himself there can be nothing ordered towards an end, since He is the
last end. This type of order in things towards an end is therefore in
God called providence. Whence Boethius says (De Consol. iv, 6) that
"Providence is the divine type itself, seated in the Supreme Ruler;
which disposeth all things": which disposition may refer either to
the type of the order of things towards an end, or to the type of the
order of parts in the whole.

Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 9, 10),
"Prudence is what, strictly speaking, commands all that 'ebulia' has
rightly counselled and 'synesis' rightly judged" [*Cf. I-II, Q. 57,
A. 6]. Whence, though to take counsel may not be fitting to God, from
the fact that counsel is an inquiry into matters that are doubtful,
nevertheless to give a command as to the ordering of things towards
an end, the right reason of which He possesses, does belong to God,
according to Ps. 148:6: "He hath made a decree, and it shall not pass
away." In this manner both prudence and providence belong to God.
Although at the same time it may be said that the very reason of
things to be done is called counsel in God; not because of any
inquiry necessitated, but from the certitude of the knowledge, to
which those who take counsel come by inquiry. Whence it is said: "Who
worketh all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11).

Reply Obj. 2: Two things pertain to the care of providence--namely,
the "reason of order," which is called providence and disposition;
and the execution of order, which is termed government. Of these, the
first is eternal, and the second is temporal.

Reply Obj. 3: Providence resides in the intellect; but presupposes
the act of willing the end. Nobody gives a precept about things done
for an end; unless he will that end. Hence prudence presupposes the
moral virtues, by means of which the appetitive faculty is directed
towards good, as the Philosopher says. Even if Providence has to do
with the divine will and intellect equally, this would not affect the
divine simplicity, since in God both the will and intellect are one
and the same thing, as we have said above (Q. 19).
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 22, Art. 2]

Whether Everything Is Subject to the Providence of God?

Objection 1: It seems that everything is not subject to divine
providence. For nothing foreseen can happen by chance. If then
everything was foreseen by God, nothing would happen by chance. And
thus hazard and luck would disappear; which is against common opinion.

Obj. 2: Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far
as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils
existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not
omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever happens of necessity does not require
providence or prudence. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
vi, 5, 9, 10, 11): "Prudence is the right reason of things contingent
concerning which there is counsel and choice." Since, then, many
things happen from necessity, everything cannot be subject to
providence.

Obj. 4: Further, whatsoever is left to itself cannot be subject to
the providence of a governor. But men are left to themselves by God
in accordance with the words: "God made man from the beginning, and
left him in the hand of his own counsel" (Ecclus. 15:14). And
particularly in reference to the wicked: "I let them go according to
the desires of their heart" (Ps. 80:13). Everything, therefore,
cannot be subject to divine providence.

Obj. 5: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9): "God doth not care
for oxen [*Vulg. 'Doth God take care for oxen?']": and we may say the
same of other irrational creatures. Thus everything cannot be under
the care of divine providence.

_On the contrary,_ It is said of Divine Wisdom: "She reacheth from
end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wis. 8:1).

_I answer that,_ Certain persons totally denied the existence of
providence, as Democritus and the Epicureans, maintaining that the
world was made by chance. Others taught that incorruptible things
only were subject to providence and corruptible things not in their
individual selves, but only according to their species; for in this
respect they are incorruptible. They are represented as saying (Job
22:14): "The clouds are His covert; and He doth not consider our
things; and He walketh about the poles of heaven." Rabbi Moses,
however, excluded men from the generality of things corruptible, on
account of the excellence of the intellect which they possess, but in
reference to all else that suffers corruption he adhered to the
opinion of the others.

We must say, however, that all things are subject to divine
providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual
selves. This is made evident thus. For since every agent acts for an
end, the ordering of effects towards that end extends as far as the
causality of the first agent extends. Whence it happens that in the
effects of an agent something takes place which has no reference
towards the end, because the effect comes from a cause other than,
and outside the intention of the agent. But the causality of God, Who
is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent
principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles;
not only of things incorruptible, but also of things corruptible.
Hence all things that exist in whatsoever manner are necessarily
directed by God towards some end; as the Apostle says: "Those things
that are of God are well ordered [*Vulg. 'Those powers that are, are
ordained of God': 'Quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt.' St. Thomas
often quotes this passage, and invariably reads: 'Quae a Deo sunt,
ordinata sunt.']" (Rom. 13:1). Since, therefore, as the providence of
God is nothing less than the type of the order of things towards an
end, as we have said; it necessarily follows that all things,
inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject
to divine providence. It has also been shown (Q. 14, AA. 6, 11) that
God knows all things, both universal and particular. And since His
knowledge may be compared to the things themselves, as the knowledge
of art to the objects of art, all things must of necessity come under
His ordering; as all things wrought by art are subject to the
ordering of that art.

Reply Obj. 1: There is a difference between universal and particular
causes. A thing can escape the order of a particular cause; but not
the order of a universal cause. For nothing escapes the order of a
particular cause, except through the intervention and hindrance of
some other particular cause; as, for instance, wood may be prevented
from burning, by the action of water. Since then, all particular
causes are included under the universal cause, it could not be that
any effect should take place outside the range of that universal
cause. So far then as an effect escapes the order of a particular
cause, it is said to be casual or fortuitous in respect to that
cause; but if we regard the universal cause, outside whose range no
effect can happen, it is said to be foreseen. Thus, for instance, the
meeting of two servants, although to them it appears a chance
circumstance, has been fully foreseen by their master, who has
purposely sent them to meet at the one place, in such a way that the
one knows not about the other.

Reply Obj. 2: It is otherwise with one who has care of a particular
thing, and one whose providence is universal, because a particular
provider excludes all defects from what is subject to his care as far
as he can; whereas, one who provides universally allows some little
defect to remain, lest the good of the whole should be hindered.
Hence, corruption and defects in natural things are said to be
contrary to some particular nature; yet they are in keeping with the
plan of universal nature; inasmuch as the defect in one thing yields
to the good of another, or even to the universal good: for the
corruption of one is the generation of another, and through this it
is that a species is kept in existence. Since God, then, provides
universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit
certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the
universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much
good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live,
if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience
of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine
says (Enchiridion 2): "Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to
exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to
produce good even from evil." It would appear that it was on account
of these two arguments to which we have just replied, that some were
persuaded to consider corruptible things--e.g. casual and evil
things--as removed from the care of divine providence.

Reply Obj. 3: Man is not the author of nature; but he uses natural
things in applying art and virtue to his own use. Hence human
providence does not reach to that which takes place in nature from
necessity; but divine providence extends thus far, since God is the
author of nature. Apparently it was this argument that moved those
who withdrew the course of nature from the care of divine providence,
attributing it rather to the necessity of matter, as Democritus, and
others of the ancients.

Reply Obj. 4: When it is said that God left man to himself, this does
not mean that man is exempt from divine providence; but merely that
he has not a prefixed operating force determined to only the one
effect; as in the case of natural things, which are only acted upon
as though directed by another towards an end; and do not act of
themselves, as if they directed themselves towards an end, like
rational creatures, through the possession of free will, by which
these are able to take counsel and make a choice. Hence it is
significantly said: "In the hand of his own counsel." But since the
very act of free will is traced to God as to a cause, it necessarily
follows that everything happening from the exercise of free will must
be subject to divine providence. For human providence is included
under the providence of God, as a particular under a universal cause.
God, however, extends His providence over the just in a certain more
excellent way than over the wicked; inasmuch as He prevents anything
happening which would impede their final salvation. For "to them that
love God, all things work together unto good" (Rom. 8:28). But from
the fact that He does not restrain the wicked from the evil of sin,
He is said to abandon them: not that He altogether withdraws His
providence from them; otherwise they would return to nothing, if they
were not preserved in existence by His providence. This was the
reason that had weight with Tully, who withdrew from the care of
divine providence human affairs concerning which we take counsel.

Reply Obj. 5: Since a rational creature has, through its free will,
control over its actions, as was said above (Q. 19, A. 10), it is
subject to divine providence in an especial manner, so that something
is imputed to it as a fault, or as a merit; and there is given it
accordingly something by way of punishment or reward. In this way,
the Apostle withdraws oxen from the care of God: not, however, that
individual irrational creatures escape the care of divine providence;
as was the opinion of the Rabbi Moses.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 22, Art. 3]

Whether God Has Immediate Providence Over Everything?

Objection 1: It seems that God has not immediate providence over all
things. For whatever is contained in the notion of dignity, must be
attributed to God. But it belongs to the dignity of a king, that he
should have ministers; through whose mediation he provides for his
subjects. Therefore much less has God Himself immediate providence
over all things.

Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to providence to order all things to an
end. Now the end of everything is its perfection and its good. But it
appertains to every cause to direct its effect to good; wherefore
every active cause is a cause of the effect of providence. If
therefore God were to have immediate providence over all things, all
secondary causes would be withdrawn.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion 17) that, "It is better
to be ignorant of some things than to know them, for example, vile
things": and the Philosopher says the same (Metaph. xii, 51). But
whatever is better must be assigned to God. Therefore He has not
immediate providence over bad and vile things.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Job 34:13): "What other hath He
appointed over the earth? or whom hath He set over the world which He
made?" On which passage Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 20): "Himself He
ruleth the world which He Himself hath made."

_I answer that,_ Two things belong to providence--namely, the type of
the order of things foreordained towards an end; and the execution of
this order, which is called government. As regards the first of these,
God has immediate providence over everything, because He has in His
intellect the types of everything, even the smallest; and whatsoever
causes He assigns to certain effects, He gives them the power to
produce those effects. Whence it must be that He has beforehand the
type of those effects in His mind. As to the second, there are certain
intermediaries of God's providence; for He governs things inferior by
superior, not on account of any defect in His power, but by reason of
the abundance of His goodness; so that the dignity of causality is
imparted even to creatures. Thus Plato's opinion, as narrated by
Gregory of Nyssa (De Provid. viii, 3), is exploded. He taught a
threefold providence. First, one which belongs to the supreme Deity,
Who first and foremost has provision over spiritual things, and thus
over the whole world as regards genus, species, and universal causes.
The second providence, which is over the individuals of all that can
be generated and corrupted, he attributed to the divinities who
circulate in the heavens; that is, certain separate substances, which
move corporeal things in a circular direction. The third providence,
over human affairs, he assigned to demons, whom the Platonic
philosophers placed between us and the gods, as Augustine tells us (De
Civ. Dei, 1, 2: viii, 14).

Reply Obj. 1: It pertains to a king's dignity to have ministers who
execute his providence. But the fact that he has not the plan of
those things which are done by them arises from a deficiency in
himself. For every operative science is the more perfect, the more it
considers the particular things with which its action is concerned.

Reply Obj. 2: God's immediate provision over everything does not
exclude the action of secondary causes; which are the executors of
His order, as was said above (Q. 19, AA. 5, 8).

Reply Obj. 3: It is better for us not to know low and vile things,
because by them we are impeded in our knowledge of what is better and
higher; for we cannot understand many things simultaneously; because
the thought of evil sometimes perverts the will towards evil. This
does not hold with God, Who sees everything simultaneously at one
glance, and whose will cannot turn in the direction of evil.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 22, Art. 4]

Whether Providence Imposes Any Necessity on Things Foreseen?

Objection 1: It seems that divine providence imposes necessity upon
things foreseen. For every effect that has a _per se_ cause, either
present or past, which it necessarily follows, happens from necessity;
as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. vi, 7). But the providence of God,
since it is eternal, pre-exists; and the effect flows from it of
necessity, for divine providence cannot be frustrated. Therefore
divine providence imposes a necessity upon things foreseen.

Obj. 2: Further, every provider makes his work as stable as he
can, lest it should fail. But God is most powerful. Therefore He
assigns the stability of necessity to things provided.

Obj. 3: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iv, 6): "Fate from the
immutable source of providence binds together human acts and fortunes
by the indissoluble connection of causes." It seems therefore that
providence imposes necessity upon things foreseen.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says that (Div. Nom. iv, 23) "to corrupt
nature is not the work of providence." But it is in the nature of some
things to be contingent. Divine providence does not therefore impose
any necessity upon things so as to destroy their contingency.

_I answer that,_ Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things;
not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs
to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which
is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things
themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were
not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine
providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared
for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity;
for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency,
according to the nature of their proximate causes.

Reply Obj. 1: The effect of divine providence is not only that
things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by
necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence
ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and
of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of
divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.

Reply Obj. 2: The order of divine providence is unchangeable and
certain, so far as all things foreseen happen as they have been
foreseen, whether from necessity or from contingency.

Reply Obj. 3: That indissolubility and unchangeableness of
which Boethius speaks, pertain to the certainty of providence, which
fails not to produce its effect, and that in the way foreseen; but
they do not pertain to the necessity of the effects. We must remember
that properly speaking "necessary" and "contingent" are consequent
upon being, as such. Hence the mode both of necessity and of
contingency falls under the foresight of God, who provides universally
for all being; not under the foresight of causes that provide only for
some particular order of things.
_______________________

QUESTION 23

OF PREDESTINATION
(In Eight Articles)

After consideration of divine providence, we must treat of
predestination and the book of life. Concerning predestination there
are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether predestination is suitably attributed to God?

(2) What is predestination, and whether it places anything in the
predestined?

(3) Whether to God belongs the reprobation of some men?

(4) On the comparison of predestination to election; whether, that is
to say, the predestined are chosen?

(5) Whether merits are the cause or reason of predestination, or
reprobation, or election?

(6) of the certainty of predestination; whether the predestined will
infallibly be saved?

(7) Whether the number of the predestined is certain?

(8) Whether predestination can be furthered by the prayers of the
saints?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 1]

Whether Men Are Predestined by God?

Objection 1: It seems that men are not predestined by God, for
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 30): "It must be borne in mind that
God foreknows but does not predetermine everything, since He foreknows
all that is in us, but does not predetermine it all." But human merit
and demerit are in us, forasmuch as we are the masters of our own acts
by free will. All that pertains therefore to merit or demerit is not
predestined by God; and thus man's predestination is done away.

Obj. 2: Further, all creatures are directed to their end by divine
providence, as was said above (Q. 22, AA. 1, 2). But other creatures
are not said to be predestined by God. Therefore neither are men.

Obj. 3: Further, the angels are capable of beatitude, as well as men.
But predestination is not suitable to angels, since in them there
never was any unhappiness (miseria); for predestination, as Augustine
says (De praedest. sanct. 17), is the "purpose to take pity
[miserendi]" [*See Q. 22, A. 3]. Therefore men are not predestined.

Obj. 4: Further, the benefits God confers upon men are revealed by
the Holy Ghost to holy men according to the saying of the Apostle (1
Cor. 2:12): "Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but
the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given
us from God." Therefore if man were predestined by God, since
predestination is a benefit from God, his predestination would be
made known to each predestined; which is clearly false.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:30): "Whom He predestined,
them He also called."

_I answer that,_ It is fitting that God should predestine men. For
all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above (Q. 22,
A. 2). Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their
end, as was also said (Q. 22, AA. 1, 2). The end towards which
created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all
proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life
eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of
every creature, as shown above (Q. 12, A. 4). The other end, however,
is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can
attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot
attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed
thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards
a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of
eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God. The
reason of that direction pre-exists in God; as in Him is the type of
the order of all things towards an end, which we proved above to be
providence. Now the type in the mind of the doer of something to be
done, is a kind of pre-existence in him of the thing to be done.
Hence the type of the aforesaid direction of a rational creature
towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to
destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination,
as regards its objects, is a part of providence.

Reply Obj. 1: Damascene calls predestination an imposition of
necessity, after the manner of natural things which are predetermined
towards one end. This is clear from his adding: "He does not will
malice, nor does He compel virtue." Whence predestination is not
excluded by Him.

Reply Obj. 2: Irrational creatures are not capable of that end which
exceeds the faculty of human nature. Whence they cannot be properly
said to be predestined; although improperly the term is used in
respect of any other end.

Reply Obj. 3: Predestination applies to angels, just as it does to
men, although they have never been unhappy. For movement does not
take its species from the term _wherefrom_ but from the term
_whereto._ Because it matters nothing, in respect of the notion of
making white, whether he who is made white was before black, yellow
or red. Likewise it matters nothing in respect of the notion of
predestination whether one is predestined to life eternal from the
state of misery or not. Although it may be said that every conferring
of good above that which is due pertains to mercy; as was shown
previously (Q. 21, AA. 3, 4).

Reply Obj. 4: Even if by a special privilege their predestination
were revealed to some, it is not fitting that it should be revealed
to everyone; because, if so, those who were not predestined would
despair; and security would beget negligence in the predestined.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 2]

Whether Predestination Places Anything in the Predestined?

Objection 1: It seems that predestination does place something in the
predestined. For every action of itself causes passion. If therefore
predestination is action in God, predestination must be passion in the
predestined.

Obj. 2: Further, Origen says on the text, "He who was predestined,"
etc. (Rom. 1:4): "Predestination is of one who is not; destination,
of one who is." And Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct.): "What is
predestination but the destination of one who is?" Therefore
predestination is only of one who actually exists; and it thus places
something in the predestined.

Obj. 3: Further, preparation is something in the thing prepared. But
predestination is the preparation of God's benefits, as Augustine
says (De Praed. Sanct. ii, 14). Therefore predestination is something
in the predestined.

Obj. 4: Further, nothing temporal enters into the definition of
eternity. But grace, which is something temporal, is found in the
definition of predestination. For predestination is the preparation
of grace in the present; and of glory in the future. Therefore
predestination is not anything eternal. So it must needs be that it is
in the predestined, and not in God; for whatever is in Him is eternal.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. ii, 14) that
"predestination is the foreknowledge of God's benefits." But
foreknowledge is not in the things foreknown, but in the person who
foreknows them. Therefore, predestination is in the one who
predestines, and not in the predestined.

_I answer that,_ Predestination is not anything in the predestined;
but only in the person who predestines. We have said above that
predestination is a part of providence. Now providence is not
anything in the things provided for; but is a type in the mind of the
provider, as was proved above (Q. 22, A. 1). But the execution of
providence which is called government, is in a passive way in the
thing governed, and in an active way in the governor. Whence it is
clear that predestination is a kind of type of the ordering of some
persons towards eternal salvation, existing in the divine mind. The
execution, however, of this order is in a passive way in the
predestined, but actively in God. The execution of predestination is
the calling and magnification; according to the Apostle (Rom. 8:30):
"Whom He predestined, them He also called and whom He called, them He
also magnified [Vulg. 'justified']."

Reply Obj. 1: Actions passing out to external matter imply of
themselves passion--for example, the actions of warming and cutting;
but not so actions remaining in the agent, as understanding and
willing, as said above (Q. 14, A. 2; Q. 18, A. 3, ad 1).
Predestination is an action of this latter class. Wherefore, it does
not put anything in the predestined. But its execution, which passes
out to external things, has an effect in them.

Reply Obj. 2: Destination sometimes denotes a real mission of someone
to a given end; thus, destination can only be said of someone
actually existing. It is taken, however, in another sense for a
mission which a person conceives in the mind; and in this manner we
are said to destine a thing which we firmly propose in our mind. In
this latter way it is said that Eleazar "determined not to do any
unlawful things for the love of life" (2 Macc. 6:20). Thus
destination can be of a thing which does not exist. Predestination,
however, by reason of the antecedent nature it implies, can be
attributed to a thing which does not actually exist; in whatsoever
way destination is accepted.

Reply Obj. 3: Preparation is twofold: of the patient in respect to
passion and this is in the thing prepared; and of the agent to
action, and this is in the agent. Such a preparation is
predestination, and as an agent by intellect is said to prepare
itself to act, accordingly as it preconceives the idea of what is to
be done. Thus, God from all eternity prepared by predestination,
conceiving the idea of the order of some towards salvation.

Reply Obj. 4: Grace does not come into the definition of
predestination, as something belonging to its essence, but inasmuch
as predestination implies a relation to grace, as of cause to effect,
and of act to its object. Whence it does not follow that
predestination is anything temporal.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 3]

Whether God Reprobates Any Man?

Objection 1: It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody
reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wis.
11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the
things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man.

Obj. 2: Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for
reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as
predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the
cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will
likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false.
For it is said (Osee 13:9): "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy
help is only in Me." God does not, then, reprobate any man.

Obj. 3: Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot
avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is
said (Eccles. 7:14): "Consider the works of God, that no man can
correct whom He hath despised." Therefore it could not be imputed to
any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not
reprobate anyone.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Malachi 1:2,3): "I have loved Jacob, but
have hated Esau."

_I answer that,_ God does reprobate some. For it was said above (A.
1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence,
however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which
are subject to providence, as was said above (Q. 22, A. 2). Thus, as
men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it
likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from
that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a
part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation,
so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn
aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only
foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was
said above (Q. 22, A. 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the
will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will
to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of
damnation on account of that sin.

Reply Obj. 1: God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He
wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them
all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular
good--namely, eternal life--He is said to hate or reprobated them.

Reply Obj. 2: Reprobation differs in its causality from
predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in
the future life by the predestined--namely, glory--and of what is
received in this life--namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not
the cause of what is in the present--namely, sin; but it is the cause
of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned
in the future--namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from
the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace.
In this way, the word of the prophet is true--namely, "Destruction is
thy own, O Israel."

Reply Obj. 3: Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the
power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the
reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as
implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility:
as was said above (Q. 19, A. 3), that the predestined must
necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do
away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated
by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or
that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is
rightly imputed to him as guilt.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 4]

Whether the Predestined Are Chosen by God? [*"Eligantur."]

Objection 1: It seems that the predestined are not chosen by God. For
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1) that as the corporeal sun sends his
rays upon all without selection, so does God His goodness. But the
goodness of God is communicated to some in an especial manner through
a participation of grace and glory. Therefore God without any
selection communicates His grace and glory; and this belongs to
predestination.

Obj. 2: Further, election is of things that exist. But predestination
from all eternity is also of things which do not exist. Therefore,
some are predestined without election.

Obj. 3: Further, election implies some discrimination. Now God "wills
all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, predestination which
ordains men towards eternal salvation, is without election.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Eph. 1:4): "He chose us in Him before
the foundation of the world."

_I answer that,_ Predestination presupposes election in the order of
reason; and election presupposes love. The reason of this is that
predestination, as stated above (A. 1), is a part of providence. Now
providence, as also prudence, is the plan existing in the intellect
directing the ordering of some things towards an end; as was proved
above (Q. 22, A. 2). But nothing is directed towards an end unless
the will for that end already exists. Whence the predestination of
some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that
God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and
love:--love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of
eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated
above (Q. 20, AA. 2 ,3):--election, inasmuch as He wills this good to
some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated
above (A. 3). Election and love, however, are differently ordered in
God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not
cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already
exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in
us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will,
by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that
good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that
love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes
predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election
and love.

Reply Obj. 1: If the communication of the divine goodness in general
be considered, God communicates His goodness without election;
inasmuch as there is nothing which does not in some way share in His
goodness, as we said above (Q. 6, A. 4). But if we consider the
communication of this or that particular good, He does not allot it
without election; since He gives certain goods to some men, which He
does not give to others. Thus in the conferring of grace and glory
election is implied.

Reply Obj. 2: When the will of the person choosing is incited to make
a choice by the good already pre-existing in the object chosen, the
choice must needs be of those things which already exist, as happens
in our choice. In God it is otherwise; as was said above (Q. 20, A.
2). Thus, as Augustine says (De Verb. Ap. Serm. 11): "Those are
chosen by God, who do not exist; yet He does not err in His choice."

Reply Obj. 3: God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will,
which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent
will, which is to will simply.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 5]

Whether the Foreknowledge of Merits Is the Cause of Predestination?

Objection 1: It seems that foreknowledge of merits is the cause of
predestination. For the Apostle says (Rom. 8:29): "Whom He foreknew,
He also predestined." Again a gloss of Ambrose on Rom. 9:15: "I will
have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" says: "I will give mercy to
him who, I foresee, will turn to Me with his whole heart." Therefore
it seems the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination.

Obj. 2: Further, Divine predestination includes the divine will,
which by no means can be irrational; since predestination is "the
purpose to have mercy," as Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. ii, 17).
But there can be no other reason for predestination than the
foreknowledge of merits. Therefore it must be the cause of reason of
predestination.

Obj. 3: Further, "There is no injustice in God" (Rom. 9:14). Now
it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all
men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality
in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore
God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and
reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and
demerits.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Titus 3:5): "Not by works of
justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us."
But as He saved us, so He predestined that we should be saved.
Therefore, foreknowledge of merits is not the cause or reason of
predestination.

_I answer that,_ Since predestination includes will, as was said
above (A. 4), the reason of predestination must be sought for in the
same way as was the reason of the will of God. Now it was shown above
(Q. 19, A. 5), that we cannot assign any cause of the divine will on
the part of the act of willing; but a reason can be found on the part
of the things willed; inasmuch as God wills one thing on account of
something else. Wherefore nobody has been so insane as to say that
merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the
predestinator. But this is the question, whether, as regards the
effect, predestination has any cause; or what comes to the same
thing, whether God pre-ordained that He would give the effect of
predestination to anyone on account of any merits.

Accordingly there were some who held that the effect of
predestination was pre-ordained for some on account of pre-existing
merits in a former life. This was the opinion of Origen, who thought
that the souls of men were created in the beginning, and according to
the diversity of their works different states were assigned to them
in this world when united with the body. The Apostle, however, rebuts
this opinion where he says (Rom. 9:11,12): "For when they were not
yet born, nor had done any good or evil . . . not of works, but of
Him that calleth, it was said of her: The elder shall serve the
younger."

Others said that pre-existing merits in this life are the reason and
cause of the effect of predestination. For the Pelagians taught that
the beginning of doing well came from us; and the consummation from
God: so that it came about that the effect of predestination was
granted to one, and not to another, because the one made a beginning
by preparing, whereas the other did not. But against this we have the
saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 3:5), that "we are not sufficient to
think anything of ourselves as of ourselves." Now no principle of
action can be imagined previous to the act of thinking. Wherefore it
cannot be said that anything begun in us can be the reason of the
effect of predestination.

And so others said that merits following the effect of predestination
are the reason of predestination; giving us to understand that God
gives grace to a person, and pre-ordains that He will give it, because
He knows beforehand that He will make good use of that grace, as if a
king were to give a horse to a soldier because he knows he will make
good use of it. But these seem to have drawn a distinction between
that which flows from grace, and that which flows from free will, as
if the same thing cannot come from both. It is, however, manifest that
what is of grace is the effect of predestination; and this cannot be
considered as the reason of predestination, since it is contained in
the notion of predestination. Therefore, if anything else in us be the
reason of predestination, it will outside the effect of
predestination. Now there is no distinction between what flows from
free will, and what is of predestination; as there is not distinction
between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For
the providence of God produces effects through the operation of
secondary causes, as was above shown (Q. 22, A. 3). Wherefore,
that which flows from free-will is also of predestination. We must
say, therefore, that the effect of predestination may be considered in
a twofold light--in one way, in particular; and thus there is no
reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reason or
cause of another; a subsequent effect being the reason of a previous
effect, as its final cause; and the previous effect being the reason
of the subsequent as its meritorious cause, which is reduced to the
disposition of the matter. Thus we might say that God pre-ordained to
give glory on account of merit, and that He pre-ordained to give grace
to merit glory. In another way, the effect of predestination may be
considered in general. Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the
effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming
from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation,
is all included under the effect of predestination; even the
preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by
divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lam. 5:21): "convert
us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." Yet predestination
has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its
reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed
as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from its first moving
principle.

Reply Obj. 1: The use of grace foreknown by God is not the cause of
conferring grace, except after the manner of a final cause; as was
explained above.

Reply Obj. 2: Predestination has its foundation in the goodness of
God as regards its effects in general. Considered in its particular
effects, however, one effect is the reason of another; as already
stated.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason for the predestination of some, and
reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus
He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the
divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary
that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be
manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in
themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for
the completion of the universe there are required different grades of
being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe.
That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God
allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was
said above (Q. 22, A. 2). Let us then consider the whole of the
human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest
His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means
of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he
reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the
reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle
refers, saying (Rom. 9:22, 23): "What if God, willing to show His wrath
[that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known,
endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath,
fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on
the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory" and (2 Tim.
2:20): "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and
silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor,
but some unto dishonor." Yet why He chooses some for glory, and
reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence
Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another
He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus
too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary
matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God
from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of
earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature.
Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form,
and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from
the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part
of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some
stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on
this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares
unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary
to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted
as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given
gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases
(provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of
justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is
thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?"
(Matt. 20:14,15).
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 6]

Whether Predestination Is Certain?

Objection 1: It seems that predestination is not certain. Because
on the words "Hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy
crown," (Rev 3:11), Augustine says (De Corr. et Grat. 15): "Another
will not receive, unless this one were to lose it." Hence the crown
which is the effect of predestination can be both acquired and lost.
Therefore predestination cannot be certain.

Obj. 2: Further, granted what is possible, nothing impossible
follows. But it is possible that one predestined--e.g. Peter--may
sin and then be killed. But if this were so, it would follow that
the effect of predestination would be thwarted. This then, is not
impossible. Therefore predestination is not certain.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever God could do in the past, He can do
now. But He could have not predestined whom He hath predestined.
Therefore now He is able not to predestine him. Therefore
predestination is not certain.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew, He also
predestinated", says: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and
preparation of the benefits of God, by which whosoever are freed will
most certainly be freed."

_I answer that,_ Predestination most certainly and infallibly takes
effect; yet it does not impose any necessity, so that, namely, its
effect should take place from necessity. For it was said above (A.
1), that predestination is a part of providence. But not all things
subject to providence are necessary; some things happening from
contingency, according to the nature of the proximate causes, which
divine providence has ordained for such effects. Yet the order of
providence is infallible, as was shown above (Q. 22, A. 4). So also
the order of predestination is certain; yet free-will is not
destroyed; whence the effect of predestination has its contingency.
Moreover all that has been said about the divine knowledge and will
(Q. 14, A. 13; Q. 19, A. 4) must also be taken into consideration;
since they do not destroy contingency in things, although they
themselves are most certain and infallible.

Reply Obj. 1: The crown may be said to belong to a person in two
ways; first, by God's predestination, and thus no one loses his
crown: secondly, by the merit of grace; for what we merit, in a
certain way is ours; and thus anyone may lose his crown by mortal
sin. Another person receives that crown thus lost, inasmuch as he
takes the former's place. For God does not permit some to fall,
without raising others; according to Job 34:24: "He shall break in
pieces many and innumerable, and make others to stand in their
stead." Thus men are substituted in the place of the fallen angels;
and the Gentiles in that of the Jews. He who is substituted for
another in the state of grace, also receives the crown of the fallen
in that in eternal life he will rejoice at the good the other has
done, in which life he will rejoice at all good whether done by
himself or by others.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it is possible for one who is predestinated
considered in himself to die in mortal sin; yet it is not possible,
supposed, as in fact it is supposed. that he is predestinated. Whence
it does not follow that predestination can fall short of its effect.

Reply Obj. 3: Since predestination includes the divine will as stated
above (A. 4): and the fact that God wills any created thing is
necessary on the supposition that He so wills, on account of the
immutability of the divine will, but is not necessary absolutely; so
the same must be said of predestination. Wherefore one ought not to
say that God is able not to predestinate one whom He has
predestinated, taking it in a composite sense, thought, absolutely
speaking, God can predestinate or not. But in this way the certainty
of predestination is not destroyed.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 7]

Whether the Number of the Predestined Is Certain?

Objection 1: It seems that the number of the predestined is not
certain. For a number to which an addition can be made is not certain.
But there can be an addition to the number of the predestined as it
seems; for it is written (Deut. 1:11): "The Lord God adds to this number
many thousands," and a gloss adds, "fixed by God, who knows those who
belong to Him." Therefore the number of the predestined is not
certain.

Obj. 2: Further, no reason can be assigned why God pre-ordains to
salvation one number of men more than another. But nothing is arranged
by God without a reason. Therefore the number to be saved pre-ordained
by God cannot be certain.

Obj. 3: Further, the operations of God are more perfect than those of
nature. But in the works of nature, good is found in the majority of
things; defect and evil in the minority. If, then, the number of the
saved were fixed by God at a certain figure, there would be more
saved than lost. Yet the contrary follows from Matt. 7:13,14: "For
wide is the gate, and broad the way that leadeth to destruction, and
many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait
is the way that leadeth to life; and few there are who find it!"
Therefore the number of those pre-ordained by God to be saved is not
certain.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Corr. et Grat. 13): "The number
of the predestined is certain, and can neither be increased nor
diminished."

_I answer that,_ The number of the predestined is certain. Some have
said that it was formally, but not materially certain; as if we were
to say that it was certain that a hundred or a thousand would be
saved; not however these or those individuals. But this destroys the
certainty of predestination; of which we spoke above (A. 6).
Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is
certain, not only formally, but also materially. It must, however, be
observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to
God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows
how many will be saved (for in this way the number of drops of rain
and the sands of the sea are certain to God); but by reason of His
deliberate choice and determination. For the further evidence of which
we must remember that every agent intends to make something finite, as
is clear from what has been said above when we treated of the infinite
(Q. 7, AA. 2 ,3). Now whosoever intends some definite measure in
his effect thinks out some definite number in the essential parts,
which are by their very nature required for the perfection of the
whole. For of those things which are required not principally, but
only on account of something else, he does not select any definite
number _per se_; but he accepts and uses them in such numbers as are
necessary on account of that other thing. For instance, a builder
thinks out the definite measurements of a house, and also the definite
number of rooms which he wishes to make in the house; and definite
measurements of the walls and roof; he does not, however, select a
definite number of stones, but accepts and uses just so many as are
sufficient for the required measurements of the wall. So also must we
consider concerning God in regard to the whole universe, which is His
effect. For He pre-ordained the measurements of the whole of the
universe, and what number would befit the essential parts of that
universe--that is to say, which have in some way been ordained in
perpetuity; how many spheres, how many stars, how many elements, and
how many species. Individuals, however, which undergo corruption, are
not ordained as it were chiefly for the good of the universe, but in a
secondary way, inasmuch as the good of the species is preserved
through them. Whence, although God knows the total number of
individuals, the number of oxen, flies and such like, is not
pre-ordained by God _per se_; but divine providence produces just so
many as are sufficient for the preservation of the species. Now of all
creatures the rational creature is chiefly ordained for the good of
the universe, being as such incorruptible; more especially those who
attain to eternal happiness, since they more immediately reach the
ultimate end. Whence the number of the predestined is certain to God;
not only by way of knowledge, but also by way of a principal
pre-ordination.

It is not exactly the same thing in the case of the number of the
reprobate, who would seem to be pre-ordained by God for the good of
the elect, in whose regard "all things work together unto good" (Rom.
8:28). Concerning the number of all the predestined, some say that so
many men will be saved as angels fell; some, so many as there were
angels left; others, as many as the number of angels created by God.
It is, however, better to say that, "to God alone is known the number
for whom is reserved eternal happiness [*From the 'secret' prayer of
the missal, 'pro vivis et defunctis.']"

Reply Obj. 1: These words of Deuteronomy must be taken as applied to
those who are marked out by God beforehand in respect to present
righteousness. For their number is increased and diminished, but not
the number of the predestined.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason of the quantity of any one part must be
judged from the proportion of that part of the whole. Thus in God the
reason why He has made so many stars, or so many species of things,
or predestined so many, is according to the proportion of the
principal parts to the good of the whole universe.

Reply Obj. 3: The good that is proportionate to the common state of
nature is to be found in the majority; and is wanting in the
minority. The good that exceeds the common state of nature is to be
found in the minority, and is wanting in the majority. Thus it is
clear that the majority of men have a sufficient knowledge for the
guidance of life; and those who have not this knowledge are said to
be half-witted or foolish; but they who attain to a profound
knowledge of things intelligible are a very small minority in respect
to the rest. Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision
of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially in so far
as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original sin,
those who are saved are in the minority. In this especially, however,
appears the mercy of God, that He has chosen some for that salvation,
from which very many in accordance with the common course and
tendency of nature fall short.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 23, Art. 8]

Whether Predestination Can Be Furthered by the Prayers of the Saints?

Objection 1: It seems that predestination cannot be furthered by the
prayers of the saints. For nothing eternal can be preceded by anything
temporal; and in consequence nothing temporal can help towards making
something else eternal. But predestination is eternal. Therefore,
since the prayers of the saints are temporal, they cannot so help as
to cause anyone to become predestined. Predestination therefore is not
furthered by the prayers of the saints.

Obj. 2: Further, as there is no need of advice except on account of
defective knowledge, so there is no need of help except through
defective power. But neither of these things can be said of God when
He predestines. Whence it is said: "Who hath helped the Spirit of the
Lord? [*Vulg.: 'Who hath known the mind of the Lord?'] Or who hath
been His counsellor?" (Rom. 11:34). Therefore predestination cannot
be furthered by the prayers of the saints.

Obj. 3: Further, if a thing can be helped, it can also be hindered.
But predestination cannot be hindered by anything. Therefore it
cannot be furthered by anything.

_On the contrary,_ It is said that "Isaac besought the Lord for his
wife because she was barren; and He heard him and made Rebecca to
conceive" (Gen. 25:21). But from that conception Jacob was born, and
he was predestined. Now his predestination would not have happened if
he had never been born. Therefore predestination can be furthered by
the prayers of the saints.

_I answer that,_ Concerning this question, there were different
errors. Some, regarding the certainty of divine predestination, said
that prayers were superfluous, as also anything else done to attain
salvation; because whether these things were done or not, the
predestined would attain, and the reprobate would not attain, eternal
salvation. But against this opinion are all the warnings of Holy
Scripture, exhorting us to prayer and other good works.

Others declared that the divine predestination was altered through
prayer. This is stated to have the opinion of the Egyptians, who
thought that the divine ordination, which they called fate, could be
frustrated by certain sacrifices and prayers. Against this also is the
authority of Scripture. For it is said: "But the triumpher in Israel
will not spare and will not be moved to repentance" (1 Kings 15:29);
and that "the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance"
(Rom. 11:29).

Wherefore we must say otherwise that in predestination two things are
to be considered--namely, the divine ordination; and its effect. As
regards the former, in no possible way can predestination be furthered
by the prayers of the saints. For it is not due to their prayers that
anyone is predestined by God. As regards the latter, predestination is
said to be helped by the prayers of the saints, and by other good
works; because providence, of which predestination is a part, does not
do away with secondary causes but so provides effects, that the order
of secondary causes falls also under providence. So, as natural
effects are provided by God in such a way that natural causes are
directed to bring about those natural effects, without which those
effects would not happen; so the salvation of a person is predestined
by God in such a way, that whatever helps that person towards
salvation falls under the order of predestination; whether it be one's
own prayers or those of another; or other good works, and such like,
without which one would not attain to salvation. Whence, the
predestined must strive after good works and prayer; because through
these means predestination is most certainly fulfilled. For this
reason it is said: "Labor more that by good works you may make sure
your calling and election" (2 Pet. 1:10).

Reply Obj. 1: This argument shows that predestination is not
furthered by the prayers of the saints, as regards the preordination.

Reply Obj. 2: One is said to be helped by another in two ways; in one
way, inasmuch as he receives power from him: and to be helped thus
belongs to the weak; but this cannot be said of God, and thus we are
to understand, "Who hath helped the Spirit of the Lord?" In another
way one is said to be helped by a person through whom he carries out
his work, as a master through a servant. In this way God is helped by
us; inasmuch as we execute His orders, according to 1 Cor. 3:9: "We
are God's co-adjutors." Nor is this on account of any defect in the
power of God, but because He employs intermediary causes, in order
that the beauty of order may be preserved in the universe; and also
that He may communicate to creatures the dignity of causality.

Reply Obj. 3: Secondary causes cannot escape the order of the first
universal cause, as has been said above (Q. 19, A. 6), indeed, they
execute that order. And therefore predestination can be furthered by
creatures, but it cannot be impeded by them.
_______________________

QUESTION 24

THE BOOK OF LIFE
(In Three Articles)

We now consider the book of life; concerning which there are three
points of inquiry:

(1) What is the book of life?

(2) Of what life is it the book?

(3) Whether anyone can be blotted out of the book of life?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 24, Art. 1]

Whether the Book of Life Is the Same As Predestination?

Objection 1: It seems that the book of life is not the same thing as
predestination. For it is said, "All things are the book of life"
(Ecclus. 4:32)--i.e. the Old and New Testament according to a gloss.
This, however, is not predestination. Therefore the book of life is
not predestination.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 14) that "the book
of life is a certain divine energy, by which it happens that to each
one his good or evil works are recalled to memory." But divine energy
belongs seemingly, not to predestination, but rather to divine power.
Therefore the book of life is not the same thing as predestination.

Obj. 3: Further, reprobation is opposed to predestination. So, if the
book of life were the same as predestination, there should also be a
book of death, as there is a book of life.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in a gloss upon Ps. 68:29, "Let them be
blotted out of the book of the living," "This book is the knowledge
of God, by which He hath predestined to life those whom He foreknew."

_I answer that,_ The book of life is in God taken in a metaphorical
sense, according to a comparison with human affairs. For it is usual
among men that they who are chosen for any office should be inscribed
in a book; as, for instance, soldiers, or counsellors, who formerly
were called "conscript" fathers. Now it is clear from the preceding
(Q. 23, A. 4) that all the predestined are chosen by God to possess
eternal life. This conscription, therefore, of the predestined is
called the book of life. A thing is said metaphorically to be written
upon the mind of anyone when it is firmly held in the memory,
according to Prov. 3:3: "Forget not My Law, and let thy heart keep My
commandments," and further on, "Write them in the tables of thy
heart." For things are written down in material books to help the
memory. Whence, the knowledge of God, by which He firmly remembers
that He has predestined some to eternal life, is called the book of
life. For as the writing in a book is the sign of things to be done,
so the knowledge of God is a sign in Him of those who are to be
brought to eternal life, according to 2 Tim. 11:19: "The sure
foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal; the Lord knoweth
who are His."

Reply Obj. 1: The book of life may be understood in two senses. In
one sense as the inscription of those who are chosen to life; thus we
now speak of the book of life. In another sense the inscription of
those things which lead us to life may be called the book of life;
and this also is twofold, either as of things to be done; and thus
the Old and New Testament are called a book of life; or of things
already done, and thus that divine energy by which it happens that to
each one his deeds will be recalled to memory, is spoken of as the
book of life. Thus that also may be called the book of war, whether
it contains the names inscribed of those chosen for military service;
or treats of the art of warfare, or relates the deeds of soldiers.

Hence the solution of the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: It is the custom to inscribe, not those who are
rejected, but those who are chosen. Whence there is no book of death
corresponding to reprobation; as the book of life to predestination.

Reply Obj. 4: Predestination and the book of life are different
aspects of the same thing. For this latter implies the knowledge of
predestination; as also is made clear from the gloss quoted above.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 24, Art. 2]

Whether the Book of Life Regards Only the Life of Glory of the
Predestined?

Objection 1: It seems that the book of life does not only regard
the life of glory of the predestined. For the book of life is the
knowledge of life. But God, through His own life, knows all other
life. Therefore the book of life is so called in regard to divine
life; and not only in regard to the life of the predestined.

Obj. 2: Further, as the life of glory comes from God, so also does
the life of nature. Therefore, if the knowledge of the life of glory
is called the book of life; so also should the knowledge of the life
of nature be so called.

Obj. 3: Further, some are chosen to the life of grace who are not
chosen to the life of glory; as it is clear from what is said: "Have
not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:71). But
the book of life is the inscription of the divine election, as stated
above (A. 1). Therefore it applies also to the life of grace.

_On the contrary,_ The book of life is the knowledge of
predestination, as stated above (ibid.). But predestination does not
regard the life of grace, except so far as it is directed to glory;
for those are not predestined who have grace and yet fail to obtain
glory. The book of life altogether is only so called in regard to the
life of glory.

_I answer that,_ The book of life, as stated above (A. 1), implies a
conscription or a knowledge of those chosen to life. Now a man is
chosen for something which does not belong to him by nature; and
again that to which a man is chosen has the aspect of an end. For a
soldier is not chosen or inscribed merely to put on armor, but to
fight; since this is the proper duty to which military service is
directed. But the life of glory is an end exceeding human nature, as
said above (Q. 23, A. 1). Wherefore, strictly speaking, the book of
life regards the life of glory.

Reply Obj. 1: The divine life, even considered as a life of glory, is
natural to God; whence in His regard there is no election, and in
consequence no book of life: for we do not say that anyone is chosen
to possess the power of sense, or any of those things that are
consequent on nature.

From this we gather the Reply to the Second Objection. For there is
no election, nor a book of life, as regards the life of nature.

Reply Obj. 3: The life of grace has the aspect, not of an end, but of
something directed towards an end. Hence nobody is said to be chosen
to the life of grace, except so far as the life of grace is directed
to glory. For this reason those who, possessing grace, fail to obtain
glory, are not said to be chosen simply, but relatively. Likewise
they are not said to be written in the book of life simply, but
relatively; that is to say, that it is in the ordination and
knowledge of God that they are to have some relation to eternal life,
according to their participation in grace.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 24, Art. 3]

Whether Anyone May Be Blotted Out of the Book of Life?

Objection 1: It seems that no one may be blotted out of the book of
life. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 15): "God's foreknowledge,
which cannot be deceived, is the book of life." But nothing can be
taken away from the foreknowledge of God, nor from predestination.
Therefore neither can anyone be blotted out from the book of life.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is in a thing is in it according to the
disposition of that thing. But the book of life is something eternal
and immutable. Therefore whatsoever is written therein, is there not
in a temporary way, but immovably, and indelibly.

Obj. 3: Further, blotting out is the contrary to inscription. But
nobody can be written a second time in the book of life. Neither
therefore can he be blotted out.

_On the contrary,_ It is said, "Let them be blotted out from the book
of the living" (Ps. 68:29).

_I answer that,_ Some have said that none could be blotted out of the
book of life as a matter of fact, but only in the opinion of men. For
it is customary in the Scriptures to say that something is done when
it becomes known. Thus some are said to be written in the book of
life, inasmuch as men think they are written therein, on account of
the present righteousness they see in them; but when it becomes
evident, either in this world or in the next, that they have fallen
from that state of righteousness, they are then said to be blotted
out. And thus a gloss explains the passage: "Let them be blotted out
of the book of the living." But because not to be blotted out of the
book of life is placed among the rewards of the just, according to the
text, "He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white
garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life" (Apoc.
3:5) (and what is promised to holy men, is not merely something in the
opinion of men), it can therefore be said that to be blotted out, and
not blotted out, of the book of life is not only to be referred to the
opinion of man, but to the reality of the fact. For the book of life
is the inscription of those ordained to eternal life, to which one is
directed from two sources; namely, from predestination, which
direction never fails, and from grace; for whoever has grace, by this
very fact becomes fitted for eternal life. This direction fails
sometimes; because some are directed by possessing grace, to obtain
eternal life, yet they fail to obtain it through mortal sin. Therefore
those who are ordained to possess eternal life through divine
predestination are written down in the book of life simply, because
they are written therein to have eternal life in reality; such are
never blotted out from the book of life. Those, however, who are
ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but
through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply,
but relatively, for they are written therein not to have eternal life
in itself, but in its cause only. Yet though these latter can be said
to be blotted out of the book of life, this blotting out must not be
referred to God, as if God foreknew a thing, and afterwards knew it
not; but to the thing known, namely, because God knows one is first
ordained to eternal life, and afterwards not ordained when he falls
from grace.

Reply Obj. 1: The act of blotting out does not refer to the book of
life as regards God's foreknowledge, as if in God there were any
change; but as regards things foreknown, which can change.

Reply Obj. 2: Although things are immutably in God, yet in themselves
they are subject to change. To this it is that the blotting out of
the book of life refers.

Reply Obj. 3: The way in which one is said to be blotted out of the
book of life is that in which one is said to be written therein anew;
either in the opinion of men, or because he begins again to have
relation towards eternal life through grace; which also is included
in the knowledge of God, although not anew.
_______________________

QUESTION 25

THE POWER OF GOD
(In Six Articles)

After considering the divine foreknowledge and will, and other things
pertaining thereto, it remains for us to consider the power of God.
About this are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is power in God?

(2) Whether His power is infinite?

(3) Whether He is almighty?

(4) Whether He could make the past not to have been?

(5) Whether He could do what He does not, or not do what He does?

(6) Whether what He makes He could make better?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Power in God?

Objection 1: It seems that power is not in God. For as primary matter
is to power, so God, who is the first agent, is to act. But primary
matter, considered in itself, is devoid of all act. Therefore, the
first agent--namely, God--is devoid of power.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vi, 19),
better than every power is its act. For form is better than matter;
and action than active power, since it is its end. But nothing is
better than what is in God; because whatsoever is in God, is God, as
was shown above (Q. 3, A. 3). Therefore, there is no power in
God.

Obj. 3: Further, Power is the principle of operation. But the divine
power is God's essence, since there is nothing accidental in God: and
of the essence of God there is no principle. Therefore there is no
power in God.

Obj. 4: Further, it was shown above (Q. 14, A. 8; Q. 19, A. 4) that
God's knowledge and will are the cause of things. But the cause and
principle of a thing are identical. We ought not, therefore, to
assign power to God; but only knowledge and will.

_On the contrary,_ It is said: "Thou art mighty, O Lord, and Thy truth
is round about Thee" (Ps. 88:9).

_I answer that,_ Power is twofold--namely, passive, which exists not
at all in God; and active, which we must assign to Him in the highest
degree. For it is manifest that everything, according as it is in act
and is perfect, is the active principle of something: whereas
everything is passive according as it is deficient and imperfect. Now
it was shown above (Q. 3, A. 2; Q. 4, AA. 1, 2), that God is pure
act, simply and in all ways perfect, nor in Him does any imperfection
find place. Whence it most fittingly belongs to Him to be an active
principle, and in no way whatsoever to be passive. On the other hand,
the notion of active principle is consistent with active power. For
active power is the principle of acting upon something else; whereas
passive power is the principle of being acted upon by something else,
as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, 17). It remains, therefore, that
in God there is active power in the highest degree.

Reply Obj. 1: Active power is not contrary to act, but is founded
upon it, for everything acts according as it is actual: but passive
power is contrary to act; for a thing is passive according as it is
potential. Whence this potentiality is not in God, but only active
power.

Reply Obj. 2: Whenever act is distinct from power, act must be nobler
than power. But God's action is not distinct from His power, for both
are His divine essence; neither is His existence distinct from His
essence. Hence it does not follow that there should be anything in
God nobler than His power.

Reply Obj. 3: In creatures, power is the principle not only of
action, but likewise of effect. Thus in God the idea of power is
retained, inasmuch as it is the principle of an effect; not, however,
as it is a principle of action, for this is the divine essence
itself; except, perchance, after our manner of understanding,
inasmuch as the divine essence, which pre-contains in itself all
perfection that exists in created things, can be understood either
under the notion of action, or under that of power; as also it is
understood under the notion of _suppositum_ possessing nature, and
under that of nature. Accordingly the notion of power is retained in
God in so far as it is the principle of an effect.

Reply Obj. 4: Power is predicated of God not as something really
distinct from His knowledge and will, but as differing from them
logically; inasmuch as power implies a notion of a principle putting
into execution what the will commands, and what knowledge directs,
which three things in God are identified. Or we may say, that the
knowledge or will of God, according as it is the effective principle,
has the notion of power contained in it. Hence the consideration of
the knowledge and will of God precedes the consideration of His
power, as the cause precedes the operation and effect.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 2]

Whether the Power of God Is Infinite?

Objection 1: It seems that the power of God is not infinite. For
everything that is infinite is imperfect according to the Philosopher
(Phys. iii, 6). But the power of God is far from imperfect. Therefore
it is not infinite.

Obj. 2: Further, every power is made known by its effect; otherwise
it would be ineffectual. If, then, the power of God were infinite, it
could produce an infinite effect, but this is impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 79) that if the
power of any corporeal thing were infinite, it would cause
instantaneous movement. God, however, does not cause instantaneous
movement, but moves the spiritual creature in time, and the corporeal
creature in place and time, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. 20, 22,
23). Therefore, His power is not infinite.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. viii), that "God's power is
immeasurable. He is the living mighty one." Now everything that is
immeasurable is infinite. Therefore the power of God is infinite.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), active power exists in God
according to the measure in which He is actual. Now His existence is
infinite, inasmuch as it is not limited by anything that receives it,
as is clear from what has been said, when we discussed the infinity of
the divine essence (Q. 7, A. 1). Wherefore, it is necessary that
the active power in God should be infinite. For in every agent is it
found that the more perfectly an agent has the form by which it acts
the greater its power to act. For instance, the hotter a thing is, the
greater the power has it to give heat; and it would have infinite
power to give heat, were its own heat infinite. Whence, since the
divine essence, through which God acts, is infinite, as was shown
above (Q. 7, A. 1) it follows that His power likewise is infinite.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is here speaking of an infinity in
regard to matter not limited by any form; and such infinity belongs
to quantity. But the divine essence is otherwise, as was shown above
(Q. 7, A. 1); and consequently so also His power. It does not follow,
therefore, that it is imperfect.

Reply Obj. 2: The power of a univocal agent is wholly manifested in
its effect. The generative power of man, for example, is not able to
do more than beget man. But the power of a non-univocal agent does
not wholly manifest itself in the production of its effect: as, for
example, the power of the sun does not wholly manifest itself in the
production of an animal generated from putrefaction. Now it is clear
that God is not a univocal agent. For nothing agrees with Him either
in species or in genus, as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 5; Q. 4, A. 3).
Whence it follows that His effect is always less than His power. It
is not necessary, therefore, that the infinite power of God should be
manifested so as to produce an infinite effect. Yet even if it were
to produce no effect, the power of God would not be ineffectual;
because a thing is ineffectual which is ordained towards an end to
which it does not attain. But the power of God is not ordered toward
its effect as towards an end; rather, it is the end of the effect
produced by it.

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher (Phys. viii, 79) proves that if a body
had infinite power, it would cause a non-temporal movement. And he
shows that the power of the mover of heaven is infinite, because it
can move in an infinite time. It remains, therefore, according to his
reckoning, that the infinite power of a body, if such existed, would
move without time; not, however, the power of an incorporeal mover.
The reason of this is that one body moving another is a univocal
agent; wherefore it follows that the whole power of the agent is made
known in its motion. Since then the greater the power of a moving
body, the more quickly does it move; the necessary conclusion is that
if its power were infinite, it would move beyond comparison faster,
and this is to move without time. An incorporeal mover, however, is
not a univocal agent; whence it is not necessary that the whole of
its power should be manifested in motion, so as to move without time;
and especially since it moves in accordance with the disposition of
its will.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 3]

Whether God Is Omnipotent?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not omnipotent. For movement and
passiveness belong to everything. But this is impossible with God,
for He is immovable, as was said above (Q. 2, A. 3). Therefore He
is not omnipotent.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin,
nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is
not omnipotent.

Obj. 3: Further, it is said of God that He manifests His omnipotence
"especially by sparing and having mercy" [*Collect, 10th Sunday after
Pentecost]. Therefore the greatest act possible to the divine power
is to spare and have mercy. There are things much greater, however,
than sparing and having mercy; for example, to create another world,
and the like. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

Obj. 4: Further, upon the text, "God hath made foolish the wisdom of
this world" (1 Cor. 1:20), a gloss says: "God hath made the wisdom of
this world foolish [*Vulg.: 'Hath not God', etc.] by showing those
things to be possible which it judges to be impossible." Whence it
would seem that nothing is to be judged possible or impossible in
reference to inferior causes, as the wisdom of this world judges
them; but in reference to the divine power. If God, then, were
omnipotent, all things would be possible; nothing, therefore
impossible. But if we take away the impossible, then we destroy also
the necessary; for what necessarily exists is impossible not to
exist. Therefore there would be nothing at all that is necessary in
things if God were omnipotent. But this is an impossibility.
Therefore God is not omnipotent.

_On the contrary,_ It is said: "No word shall be impossible with God"
(Luke 1:37).

_I answer that,_ All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems
difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for
there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we
say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter
aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this
phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that
God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is
said to be omnipotent. Now according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v,
17), a thing is said to be possible in two ways. First in relation to
some power, thus whatever is subject to human power is said to be
possible to man. Secondly absolutely, on account of the relation in
which the very terms stand to each other. Now God cannot be said to be
omnipotent through being able to do all things that are possible to
created nature; for the divine power extends farther than that. If,
however, we were to say that God is omnipotent because He can do all
things that are possible to His power, there would be a vicious circle
in explaining the nature of His power. For this would be saying
nothing else but that God is omnipotent, because He can do all that He
is able to do.

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do
all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of
saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or
impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very
terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not
incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely
impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the
subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.

It must, however, be remembered that since every agent produces an
effect like itself, to each active power there corresponds a thing
possible as its proper object according to the nature of that act on
which its active power is founded; for instance, the power of giving
warmth is related as to its proper object to the being capable of
being warmed. The divine existence, however, upon which the nature of
power in God is founded, is infinite, and is not limited to any genus
of being; but possesses within itself the perfection of all being.
Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered
among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except
non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the
same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing,
within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under
the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God,
but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing.
Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to
the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God."
For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no
intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.

Reply Obj. 1: God is said to be omnipotent in respect to His active
power, not to passive power, as was shown above (A. 1). Whence the
fact that He is immovable or impassible is not repugnant to His
omnipotence.

Reply Obj. 2: To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to
be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is
repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin,
because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says
(Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this
must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is
impossible--as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil
things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional
proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and
consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: "If man is a
donkey, he has four feet." Or he may be understood to mean that God
can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He
did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the
common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like
Jupiter or Mercury.

Reply Obj. 3: God's omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and
having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has
supreme power, that He freely forgives sins. For it is not for one
who is bound by laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free
will. Or, because by sparing and having mercy upon men, He leads them
on to the participation of an infinite good; which is the ultimate
effect of the divine power. Or because, as was said above (Q. 21, A.
4), the effect of the divine mercy is the foundation of all the
divine works. For nothing is due to anyone, except on account of
something already given him gratuitously by God. In this way the
divine omnipotence is particularly made manifest, because to it
pertains the first foundation of all good things.

Reply Obj. 4: The absolute possible is not so called in reference
either to higher causes, or to inferior causes, but in reference to
itself. But the possible in reference to some power is named possible
in reference to its proximate cause. Hence those things which it
belongs to God alone to do immediately--as, for example, to create,
to justify, and the like--are said to be possible in reference to a
higher cause. Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be
done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those
inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the
proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity, as was
shown above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2). Thus is it that the wisdom of the
world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it
judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence
of God does not take away from things their impossibility and
necessity.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 4]

Whether God Can Make the Past Not to Have Been?

Objection 1: It seems that God can make the past not to have been.
For what is impossible in itself is much more impossible than that
which is only impossible accidentally. But God can do what is
impossible in itself, as to give sight to the blind, or to raise the
dead. Therefore, and much more can He do what is only impossible
accidentally. Now for the past not to have been is impossible
accidentally: thus for Socrates not to be running is accidentally
impossible, from the fact that his running is a thing of the past.
Therefore God can make the past not to have been.

Obj. 2: Further, what God could do, He can do now, since His power is
not lessened. But God could have effected, before Socrates ran, that
he should not run. Therefore, when he has run, God could effect that
he did not run.

Obj. 3: Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than virginity.
But God can supply charity that is lost; therefore also lost
virginity. Therefore He can so effect that what was corrupt should
not have been corrupt.

_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.): "Although God can
do all things, He cannot make a thing that is corrupt not to have been
corrupted." Therefore, for the same reason, He cannot effect that
anything else which is past should not have been.

_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 7, A. 2), there does not
fall under the scope of God's omnipotence anything that implies a
contradiction. Now that the past should not have been implies a
contradiction. For as it implies a contradiction to say that Socrates
is sitting, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did
not sit. But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the
past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did not happen.
Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the
scope of divine power. This is what Augustine means when he says
(Contra Faust. xxix, 5): "Whosoever says, If God is almighty, let Him
make what is done as if it were not done, does not see that this is to
say: If God is almighty let Him effect that what is true, by the very
fact that it is true, be false": and the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi,
2): "Of this one thing alone is God deprived--namely, to make undone
the things that have been done."

Reply Obj. 1: Although it is impossible accidentally for the past not
to have been, if one considers the past thing itself, as, for
instance, the running of Socrates; nevertheless, if the past thing is
considered as past, that it should not have been is impossible, not
only in itself, but absolutely since it implies a contradiction.
Thus, it is more impossible than the raising of the dead; in which
there is nothing contradictory, because this is reckoned impossible
in reference to some power, that is to say, some natural power; for
such impossible things do come beneath the scope of divine power.

Reply Obj. 2: As God, in accordance with the perfection of the divine
power, can do all things, and yet some things are not subject to His
power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we
regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God could do,
He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature
of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short
of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God
said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be
done.

Reply Obj. 3: God can remove all corruption of the mind and body from
a woman who has fallen; but the fact that she had been corrupt cannot
be removed from her; as also is it impossible that the fact of having
sinned or having lost charity thereby can be removed from the sinner.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 5]

Whether God Can Do What He Does Not?

Objection 1: It seems that God cannot do other than what He does. For
God cannot do what He has not foreknown and pre-ordained that He would
do. But He neither foreknew nor pre-ordained that He would do anything
except what He does. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.

Obj. 2: Further, God can only do what ought to be done and what is
right to be done. But God is not bound to do what He does not; nor is
it right that He should do what He does not. Therefore He cannot do
except what He does.

Obj. 3: Further, God cannot do anything that is not good and
befitting creation. But it is not good for creatures nor befitting
them to be otherwise than as they are. Therefore God cannot do except
what He does.

_On the contrary,_ It is said: "Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My
Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of
angels?" (Matt. 26:53). But He neither asked for them, nor did His
Father show them to refute the Jews. Therefore God can do what He
does not.

_I answer that,_ In this matter certain persons erred in two ways. Some
laid it down that God acts from natural necessity in such way that as
from the action of nature nothing else can happen beyond what actually
takes place--as, for instance, from the seed of man, a man must come,
and from that of an olive, an olive; so from the divine operation
there could not result other things, nor another order of things, than
that which now is. But we showed above (Q. 19, A. 3) that God
does not act from natural necessity, but that His will is the cause of
all things; nor is that will naturally and from any necessity
determined to those things. Whence in no way at all is the present
course of events produced by God from any necessity, so that other
things could not happen. Others, however, said that the divine power
is restricted to this present course of events through the order of
the divine wisdom and justice without which God does nothing. But
since the power of God, which is His essence, is nothing else but His
wisdom, it can indeed be fittingly said that there is nothing in the
divine power which is not in the order of the divine wisdom; for the
divine wisdom includes the whole potency of the divine power. Yet the
order placed in creation by divine wisdom, in which order the notion
of His justice consists, as said above (Q. 21, A. 2), is not so
adequate to the divine wisdom that the divine wisdom should be
restricted to this present order of things. Now it is clear that the
whole idea of order which a wise man puts into things made by him is
taken from their end. So, when the end is proportionate to the things
made for that end, the wisdom of the maker is restricted to some
definite order. But the divine goodness is an end exceeding beyond all
proportion things created. Whence the divine wisdom is not so
restricted to any particular order that no other course of events
could happen. Wherefore we must simply say that God can do other
things than those He has done.

Reply Obj. 1: In ourselves, in whom power and essence are distinct
from will and intellect, and again intellect from wisdom, and will
from justice, there can be something in the power which is not in the
just will nor in the wise intellect. But in God, power and essence,
will and intellect, wisdom and justice, are one and the same. Whence,
there can be nothing in the divine power which cannot also be in His
just will or in His wise intellect. Nevertheless, because His will
cannot be determined from necessity to this or that order of things,
except upon supposition, as was said above (Q. 19, A. 3), neither are
the wisdom and justice of God restricted to this present order, as
was shown above; so nothing prevents there being something in the
divine power which He does not will, and which is not included in the
order which He has place in things. Again, because power is
considered as executing, the will as commanding, and the intellect
and wisdom as directing; what is attributed to His power considered
in itself, God is said to be able to do in accordance with His
absolute power. Of such a kind is everything which has the nature of
being, as was said above (A. 3). What is, however, attributed to the
divine power, according as it carries into execution the command of a
just will, God is said to be able to do by His ordinary power. In
this manner, we must say that God can do other things by His absolute
power than those He has foreknown and pre-ordained He would do. But
it could not happen that He should do anything which He had not
foreknown, and had not pre-ordained that He would do, because His
actual doing is subject to His foreknowledge and pre-ordination,
though His power, which is His nature, is not so. For God does things
because He wills so to do; yet the power to do them does not come
from His will, but from His nature.

Reply Obj. 2: God is bound to nobody but Himself. Hence, when it is
said that God can only do what He ought, nothing else is meant by
this than that God can do nothing but what is befitting to Himself,
and just. But these words "befitting" and "just" may be understood in
two ways: one, in direct connection with the verb "is"; and thus they
would be restricted to the present order of things; and would concern
His power. Then what is said in the objection is false; for the sense
is that God can do nothing except what is now fitting and just. If,
however, they be joined directly with the verb "can" (which has the
effect of extending the meaning), and then secondly with "is," the
present will be signified, but in a confused and general way. The
sentence would then be true in this sense: "God cannot do anything
except that which, if He did it, would be suitable and just."

Reply Obj. 3: Although this order of things be restricted to what now
exists, the divine power and wisdom are not thus restricted. Whence,
although no other order would be suitable and good to the things
which now are, yet God can do other things and impose upon them
another order.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 6]

Whether God Can Do Better Than What He Does?

Objection 1: It seems that God cannot do better than He does. For
whatever God does, He does in a most powerful and wise way. But a
thing is so much the better done as it is more powerfully and wisely
done. Therefore God cannot do anything better than He does.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine thus argues (Contra Maximin. iii, 8):
"If God could, but would not, beget a Son His equal, He would have
been envious." For the same reason, if God could have made better
things than He has done, but was not willing so to do, He would have
been envious. But envy is far removed from God. Therefore God makes
everything of the best. He cannot therefore make anything better
than He does.

Obj. 3: Further, what is very good and the best of all cannot be
bettered; because nothing is better than the best. But as Augustine
says (Enchiridion 10), "each thing that God has made is good, and,
taken all together they are very good; because in them all consists
the wondrous beauty of the universe." Therefore the good in the
universe could not be made better by God.

Obj. 4: Further, Christ as man is full of grace and truth, and has
the Spirit without measure; and so He cannot be better. Again created
happiness is described as the highest good, and thus cannot be
better. And the Blessed Virgin Mary is raised above all the choirs of
angels, and so cannot be better than she is. God cannot therefore
make all things better than He has made them.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Eph. 3:20): "God is able to do all
things more abundantly than we desire or understand."

_I answer that,_ The goodness of anything is twofold; one, which is of
the essence of it--thus, for instance, to be rational pertains to the
essence of man. As regards this good, God cannot make a thing better
than it is itself; although He can make another thing better than it;
even as He cannot make the number four greater than it is; because if
it were greater it would no longer be four, but another number. For
the addition of a substantial difference in definitions is after the
manner of the addition of unity of numbers (Metaph. viii, 10). Another
kind of goodness is that which is over and above the essence; thus,
the good of a man is to be virtuous or wise. As regards this kind of
goodness, God can make better the things He has made. Absolutely
speaking, however, God can make something else better than each thing
made by Him.

Reply Obj. 1: When it is said that God can make a thing better than
He makes it, if "better" is taken substantively, this proposition is
true. For He can always make something else better than each
individual thing: and He can make the same thing in one way better
than it is, and in another way not; as was explained above. If,
however, "better" is taken as an adverb, implying the manner of the
making; thus God cannot make anything better than He makes it,
because He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness. But if it
implies the manner of the thing done, He can make something better;
because He can give to things made by Him a better manner of
existence as regards the accidents, although not as regards the
substance.

Reply Obj. 2: It is of the nature of a son that he should be equal to
his father, when he comes to maturity. But it is not of the nature of
anything created, that it should be better than it was made by God.
Hence the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 3: The universe, the present creation being supposed,
cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to
things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any
one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed;
as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody
of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or
add something to the present creation; and then there would be
another and a better universe.

Reply Obj. 4: The humanity of Christ, from the fact that it is united
to the Godhead; and created happiness from the fact that it is the
fruition of God; and the Blessed Virgin from the fact that she is the
mother of God; have all a certain infinite dignity from the infinite
good, which is God. And on this account there cannot be anything
better than these; just as there cannot be anything better than God.
_______________________

QUESTION 26

OF THE DIVINE BEATITUDE
(In Four Articles)

After considering all that pertains to the unity of the divine
essence, we come to treat of the divine beatitude. Concerning this,
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether beatitude belongs to God?

(2) In regard to what is God called blessed; does this regard His act
of intellect?

(3) Whether He is essentially the beatitude of each of the blessed?

(4) Whether all other beatitude is included in the divine beatitude?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 26, Art. 1]

Whether Beatitude Belongs to God?

Objection 1: It seems that beatitude does not belong to God. For
beatitude according to Boethius (De Consol. iv) "is a state made
perfect by the aggregation of all good things." But the aggregation of
goods has no place in God; nor has composition. Therefore beatitude
does not belong to God.

Obj. 2: Further, beatitude or happiness is the reward of virtue,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 9). But reward does not apply
to God; as neither does merit. Therefore neither does beatitude.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says: "Which in His times He shall
show, who is the Blessed and only Almighty, the King of Kings and
Lord of Lords." (1 Tim. 6:15).

_I answer that,_ Beatitude belongs to God in a very special manner.
For nothing else is understood to be meant by the term beatitude than
the perfect good of an intellectual nature; which is capable of
knowing that it has a sufficiency of the good which it possesses, to
which it is competent that good or ill may befall, and which can
control its own actions. All of these things belong in a most
excellent manner to God, namely, to be perfect, and to possess
intelligence. Whence beatitude belongs to God in the highest degree.

Reply Obj. 1: Aggregation of good is in God, after the manner not of
composition, but of simplicity; for those things which in creatures
is manifold, pre-exist in God, as was said above (Q. 4, A. 2; Q. 13,
A. 4), in simplicity and unity.

Reply Obj. 2: It belongs as an accident to beatitude or happiness to
be the reward of virtue, so far as anyone attains to beatitude; even
as to be the term of generation belongs accidentally to a being, so
far as it passes from potentiality to act. As, then, God has being,
though not begotten; so He has beatitude, although not acquired by
merit.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 26, Art. 2]

Whether God Is Called Blessed in Respect of His Intellect?

Objection 1: It seems that God is not called blessed in respect to
His intellect. For beatitude is the highest good. But good is said to
be in God in regard to His essence, because good has reference to
being which is according to essence, according to Boethius (De
Hebdom.). Therefore beatitude also is said to be in God in regard to
His essence, and not to His intellect.

Obj. 2: Further, Beatitude implies the notion of end. Now the end is
the object of the will, as also is the good. Therefore beatitude is
said to be in God with reference to His will, and not with reference
to His intellect.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xxxii, 7): "He is in glory,
Who whilst He rejoices in Himself, needs not further praise." To be
in glory, however, is the same as to be blessed. Therefore, since we
enjoy God in respect to our intellect, because "vision is the whole
of the reward," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii), it would seem
that beatitude is said to be in God in respect of His intellect. it
would seem that beatitude is said to be in God in respect of His
intellect.

_I answer that,_ Beatitude, as stated above (A. 1), is the perfect
good of an intellectual nature. Thus it is that, as everything desires
the perfection of its nature, intellectual nature desires naturally to
be happy. Now that which is most perfect in any intellectual nature is
the intellectual operation, by which in some sense it grasps
everything. Whence the beatitude of every intellectual nature consists
in understanding. Now in God, to be and to understand are one and the
same thing; differing only in the manner of our understanding them.
Beatitude must therefore be assigned to God in respect of His
intellect; as also to the blessed, who are called blessed [beati] by
reason of the assimilation to His beatitude.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument proves that beatitude belongs to God; not
that beatitude pertains essentially to Him under the aspect of His
essence; but rather under the aspect of His intellect.

Reply Obj. 2: Since beatitude is a good, it is the object of the
will; now the object is understood as prior to the act of a power.
Whence in our manner of understanding, divine beatitude precedes the
act of the will at rest in it. This cannot be other than the act of
the intellect; and thus beatitude is to be found in an act of the
intellect.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 26, Art. 3]

Whether God Is the Beatitude of Each of the Blessed?

Objection 1: It seems that God is the beatitude of each of the
blessed. For God is the supreme good, as was said above (Q. 6, AA. 2,
4). But it is quite impossible that there should be many supreme
goods, as also is clear from what has been said above (Q. 11, A. 3).
Therefore, since it is of the essence of beatitude that it should be
the supreme good, it seems that beatitude is nothing else but God
Himself.

Obj. 2: Further, beatitude is the last end of the rational
nature. But to be the last end of the rational nature belongs only to
God. Therefore the beatitude of every blessed is God alone.

_On the contrary,_ The beatitude of one is greater than that of
another, according to 1 Cor. 15:41: "Star differeth from star in
glory." But nothing is greater than God. Therefore beatitude is
something different from God.

_I answer that,_ The beatitude of an intellectual nature consists in
an act of the intellect. In this we may consider two things, namely,
the object of the act, which is the thing understood; and the act
itself which is to understand. If, then, beatitude be considered on
the side of the object, God is the only beatitude; for everyone is
blessed from this sole fact, that he understands God, in accordance
with the saying of Augustine (Confess. v, 4): "Blessed is he who
knoweth Thee, though he know nought else." But as regards the act of
understanding, beatitude is a created thing in beatified creatures;
but in God, even in this way, it is an uncreated thing.

Reply Obj. 1: Beatitude, as regards its object, is the supreme good
absolutely, but as regards its act, in beatified creatures it is
their supreme good, not absolutely, but in that kind of goods which a
creature can participate.

Reply Obj. 2: End is twofold, namely, _objective_ and _subjective,_
as the Philosopher says (Greater Ethics i, 3), namely, the "thing
itself" and "its use." Thus to a miser the end is money, and its
acquisition. Accordingly God is indeed the last end of a rational
creature, as the thing itself; but created beatitude is the end, as
the use, or rather fruition, of the thing.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 26, Art. 4]

Whether All Other Beatitude Is Included in the Beatitude of God?

Objection 1: It seems that the divine beatitude does not embrace all
other beatitudes. For there are some false beatitudes. But nothing
false can be in God. Therefore the divine beatitude does not embrace
all other beatitudes.

Obj. 2: Further, a certain beatitude, according to some, consists
in things corporeal; as in pleasure, riches, and such like. Now none
of these have to do with God, since He is incorporeal. Therefore His
beatitude does not embrace all other beatitudes.

_On the contrary,_ Beatitude is a certain perfection. But the divine
perfection embraces all other perfection, as was shown above
(Q. 4, A. 2). Therefore the divine beatitude embraces all other
beatitudes.

_I answer that,_ Whatever is desirable in whatsoever beatitude, whether
true or false, pre-exists wholly and in a more eminent degree in the
divine beatitude. As to contemplative happiness, God possesses a
continual and most certain contemplation of Himself and of all things
else; and as to that which is active, He has the governance of the
whole universe. As to earthly happiness, which consists in delight,
riches, power, dignity, and fame, according to Boethius (De Consol.
iii, 10), He possesses joy in Himself and all things else for His
delight; instead of riches He has that complete self-sufficiency,
which is promised by riches; in place of power, He has omnipotence;
for dignities, the government of all things; and in place of fame, He
possesses the admiration of all creatures.

Reply Obj. 1: A particular kind of beatitude is false according as it
falls short of the idea of true beatitude; and thus it is not in God.
But whatever semblance it has, howsoever slight, of beatitude, the
whole of it pre-exists in the divine beatitude.

Reply Obj. 2: The good that exists in things corporeal in a corporeal
manner, is also in God, but in a spiritual manner.

We have now spoken enough concerning what pertains to the unity of
the divine essence.
_______________________

TREATISE ON THE MOST HOLY TRINITY (QQ. 27-43)
_______________________

QUESTION 27

THE PROCESSION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS
(In Five Articles)

Having considered what belongs to the unity of the divine essence, it
remains to treat of what belongs to the Trinity of the persons in God.
And because the divine Persons are distinguished from each other
according to the relations of origin, the order of the doctrine leads
us to consider firstly, the question of origin or procession;
secondly, the relations of origin; thirdly, the persons.

Concerning procession there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is procession in God?

(2) Whether any procession in God can be called generation?

(3) Whether there can be any other procession in God besides
generation?

(4) Whether that other procession can be called generation?

(5) Whether there are more than two processions in God?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Procession in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be any procession in God.
For procession signifies outward movement. But in God there is nothing
mobile, nor anything extraneous. Therefore neither is there procession
in God.

Obj. 2: Further, everything which proceeds differs from that whence
it proceeds. But in God there is no diversity; but supreme
simplicity. Therefore in God there is no procession.

Obj. 3: Further, to proceed from another seems to be against the
nature of the first principle. But God is the first principle, as
shown above (Q. 2, A. 3). Therefore in God there is no procession.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says, "From God I proceeded" (John 8:42).

_I answer that,_ Divine Scripture uses, in relation to God, names which
signify procession. This procession has been differently understood.
Some have understood it in the sense of an effect, proceeding from its
cause; so Arius took it, saying that the Son proceeds from the Father
as His primary creature, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father and the Son as the creature of both. In this sense neither the
Son nor the Holy Ghost would be true God: and this is contrary to what
is said of the Son, "That . . . we may be in His true Son. This is
true God" (1 John 5:20). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, "Know you
not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor.
6:19). Now, to have a temple is God's prerogative. Others take this
procession to mean the cause proceeding to the effect, as moving it,
or impressing its own likeness on it; in which sense it was understood
by Sabellius, who said that God the Father is called Son in assuming
flesh from the Virgin, and that the Father also is called Holy Ghost
in sanctifying the rational creature, and moving it to life. The words
of the Lord contradict such a meaning, when He speaks of Himself, "The
Son cannot of Himself do anything" (John 5:19); while many other
passages show the same, whereby we know that the Father is not the
Son. Careful examination shows that both of these opinions take
procession as meaning an outward act; hence neither of them affirms
procession as existing in God Himself; whereas, since procession
always supposes action, and as there is an outward procession
corresponding to the act tending to external matter, so there must be
an inward procession corresponding to the act remaining within the
agent. This applies most conspicuously to the intellect, the action of
which remains in the intelligent agent. For whenever we understand, by
the very fact of understanding there proceeds something within us,
which is a conception of the object understood, a conception issuing
from our intellectual power and proceeding from our knowledge of that
object. This conception is signified by the spoken word; and it is
called the word of the heart signified by the word of the voice.

As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God,
not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but
from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual
substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short
in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not
to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local
movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect,
as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot.
Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for
example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet
remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands
procession as existing in God.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection comes from the idea of procession in the
sense of local motion, or of an action tending to external matter, or
to an exterior effect; which kind of procession does not exist in
God, as we have explained.

Reply Obj. 2: Whatever proceeds by way of outward procession is
necessarily distinct from the source whence it proceeds, whereas,
whatever proceeds within by an intelligible procession is not
necessarily distinct; indeed, the more perfectly it proceeds, the
more closely it is one with the source whence it proceeds. For it is
clear that the more a thing is understood, the more closely is the
intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent;
since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with
the object understood. Thus, as the divine intelligence is the very
supreme perfection of God (Q. 14, A. 2), the divine Word is of
necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without
any kind of diversity.

Reply Obj. 3: To proceed from a principle, so as to be something
outside and distinct from that principle, is irreconcilable with the
idea of a first principle; whereas an intimate and uniform procession
by way of an intelligible act is included in the idea of a first
principle. For when we call the builder the principle of the house,
in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it
would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder
the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of
all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to
things designed.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 2]

Whether Any Procession in God Can Be Called Generation?

Objection 1: It would seem that no procession in God can be called
generation. For generation is change from non-existence to existence,
and is opposed to corruption; while matter is the subject of both.
Nothing of all this belongs to God. Therefore generation cannot exist
in God.

Obj. 2: Further, procession exists in God, according to an
intelligible mode, as above explained (A. 1). But such a process is
not called generation in us; therefore neither is it to be so called
in God.

Obj. 3: Further, anything that is generated derives existence from
its generator. Therefore such existence is a derived existence. But
no derived existence can be a self-subsistence. Therefore, since the
divine existence is self-subsisting (Q. 3, A. 4), it follows that no
generated existence can be the divine existence. Therefore there is
no generation in God.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 2:7): "This day have I begotten
Thee."

_I answer that,_ The procession of the Word in God is called
generation. In proof whereof we must observe that generation has a
twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and
corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from
non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs
to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living
being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called
birth. Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but,
strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. Hence a
hair has not the aspect of generation and sonship, but only that has
which proceeds by way of a similitude. Nor will any likeness suffice;
for a worm which is generated from animals has not the aspect of
generation and sonship, although it has a generic similitude; for
this kind of generation requires that there should be a procession by
way of similitude in the same specific nature; as a man proceeds from
a man, and a horse from a horse. So in living things, which proceed
from potential to actual life, such as men and animals, generation
includes both these kinds of generation. But if there is a being
whose life does not proceed from potentiality to act, procession (if
found in such a being) excludes entirely the first kind of
generation; whereas it may have that kind of generation which belongs
to living things. So in this manner the procession of the Word in God
is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which
is a vital operation:--from a conjoined principle (as above
described):--by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the
intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:--and exists in the
same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His
existence are the same, as shown above (Q. 14, A. 4). Hence the
procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word
Himself proceeding is called the Son.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection is based on the idea of generation in
the first sense, importing the issuing forth from potentiality to
act; in which sense it is not found in God.

Reply Obj. 2: The act of human understanding in ourselves is not the
substance itself of the intellect; hence the word which proceeds
within us by intelligible operation is not of the same nature as the
source whence it proceeds; so the idea of generation cannot be
properly and fully applied to it. But the divine act of intelligence
is the very substance itself of the one who understands (Q. 14, A.
4). The Word proceeding therefore proceeds as subsisting in the same
nature; and so is properly called begotten, and Son. Hence Scripture
employs terms which denote generation of living things in order to
signify the procession of the divine Wisdom, namely, conception and
birth; as is declared in the person of the divine Wisdom, "The depths
were not as yet, and I was already conceived; before the hills, I was
brought forth." (Prov. 8:24). In our way of understanding we use the
word "conception" in order to signify that in the word of our
intellect is found the likeness of the thing understood, although
there be no identity of nature.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything derived from another has existence in
another subject; otherwise we could not say that the whole substance
of created being comes from God, since there is no subject that could
receive the whole substance. So, then, what is generated in God
receives its existence from the generator, not as though that
existence were received into matter or into a subject (which would
conflict with the divine self-subsistence); but when we speak of His
existence as received, we mean that He Who proceeds receives divine
existence from another; not, however, as if He were other from the
divine nature. For in the perfection itself of the divine existence
are contained both the Word intelligibly proceeding and the principle
of the Word, with whatever belongs to His perfection (Q. 4, A. 2).
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 3]

Whether Any Other Procession Exists in God Besides That of the Word?

Objection 1: It would seem that no other procession exists in God
besides the generation of the Word. Because, for whatever reason we
admit another procession, we should be led to admit yet another, and
so on to infinitude; which cannot be. Therefore we must stop at the
first, and hold that there exists only one procession in God.

Obj. 2: Further, every nature possesses but one mode of
self-communication; because operations derive unity and diversity
from their terms. But procession in God is only by way of
communication of the divine nature. Therefore, as there is only one
divine nature (Q. 11, A. 4), it follows that only one procession
exists in God.

Obj. 3: Further, if any other procession but the intelligible
procession of the Word existed in God, it could only be the
procession of love, which is by the operation of the will. But such a
procession is identified with the intelligible procession of the
intellect, inasmuch as the will in God is the same as His intellect
(Q. 19, A. 1). Therefore in God there is no other procession but the
procession of the Word.

_On the contrary,_ The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (John
15:26); and He is distinct from the Son, according to the words, "I
will ask My Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" (John
14:16). Therefore in God another procession exists besides the
procession of the Word.

_I answer that,_ There are two processions in God; the procession of the
Word, and another.

In evidence whereof we must observe that procession exists in God,
only according to an action which does not tend to anything external,
but remains in the agent itself. Such an action in an intellectual
nature is that of the intellect, and of the will. The procession of
the Word is by way of an intelligible operation. The operation of the
will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love,
whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the
word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent.
Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him
another procession called the procession of love.

Reply Obj. 1: There is no need to go on to infinitude in the divine
processions; for the procession which is accomplished within the
agent in an intellectual nature terminates in the procession of the
will.

Reply Obj. 2: All that exists in God, is God (Q. 3, AA. 3, 4);
whereas the same does not apply to others. Therefore the divine
nature is communicated by every procession which is not outward, and
this does not apply to other natures.

Reply Obj. 3: Though will and intellect are not diverse in God,
nevertheless the nature of will and intellect requires the
processions belonging to each of them to exist in a certain order.
For the procession of love occurs in due order as regards the
procession of the Word; since nothing can be loved by the will unless
it is conceived in the intellect. So as there exists a certain order
of the Word to the principle whence He proceeds, although in God the
substance of the intellect and its concept are the same; so, although
in God the will and the intellect are the same, still, inasmuch as
love requires by its very nature that it proceed only from the
concept of the intellect, there is a distinction of order between the
procession of love and the procession of the Word in God.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 4]

Whether the Procession of Love in God Is Generation?

Objection 1: It would seem that the procession of love in God is
generation. For what proceeds by way of likeness of nature among
living things is said to be generated and born. But what proceeds in
God by way of love proceeds in the likeness of nature; otherwise it
would be extraneous to the divine nature, and would be an external
procession. Therefore what proceeds in God by way of love, proceeds
as generated and born.

Obj. 2: Further, as similitude is of the nature of the word, so does
it belong to love. Hence it is said, that "every beast loves its
like" (Ecclus. 13:19). Therefore if the Word is begotten and born by
way of likeness, it seems becoming that love should proceed by way of
generation.

Obj. 3: Further, what is not in any species is not in the genus. So
if there is a procession of love in God, there ought to be some
special name besides this common name of procession. But no other
name is applicable but generation. Therefore the procession of love
in God is generation.

_On the contrary,_ Were this true, it would follow that the Holy Ghost
Who proceeds as love, would proceed as begotten; which is against the
statement of Athanasius: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the
Son, not made, nor begotten, but proceeding."

_I answer that,_ The procession of love in God ought not to be called
generation. In evidence whereof we must consider that the intellect
and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual
by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the
intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of
the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination
to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of
similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets
its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of
similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an
object.

So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten,
or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit; which name expresses a
certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described
as moved or impelled by love to perform an action.

Reply Obj. 1: All that exists in God is one with the divine nature.
Hence the proper notion of this or that procession, by which one
procession is distinguished from another, cannot be on the part of
this unity: but the proper notion of this or that procession must be
taken from the order of one procession to another; which order is
derived from the nature of the will and intellect. Hence, each
procession in God takes its name from the proper notion of will and
intellect; the name being imposed to signify what its nature really
is; and so it is that the Person proceeding as love receives the
divine nature, but is not said to be born.

Reply Obj. 2: Likeness belongs in a different way to the word and to
love. It belongs to the word as being the likeness of the object
understood, as the thing generated is the likeness of the generator;
but it belongs to love, not as though love itself were a likeness,
but because likeness is the principle of loving. Thus it does not
follow that love is begotten, but that the one begotten is the
principle of love.

Reply Obj. 3: We can name God only from creatures (Q. 13, A. 1). As
in creatures generation is the only principle of communication of
nature, procession in God has no proper or special name, except that
of generation. Hence the procession which is not generation has
remained without a special name; but it can be called spiration, as
it is the procession of the Spirit.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 5]

Whether There Are More Than Two Processions in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are more than two processions
in God. As knowledge and will are attributed to God, so is power.
Therefore, if two processions exist in God, of intellect and will,
it seems that there must also be a third procession of power.

Obj. 2: Further, goodness seems to be the greatest principle of
procession, since goodness is diffusive of itself. Therefore there
must be a procession of goodness in God.

Obj. 3: Further, in God there is greater power of fecundity than
in us. But in us there is not only one procession of the word, but
there are many: for in us from one word proceeds another; and also
from one love proceeds another. Therefore in God there are more
than two processions.

_On the contrary,_ In God there are not more than two who
proceed--the Son and the Holy Ghost. Therefore there are in Him
but two processions.

_I answer that,_ The divine processions can be derived only from
the actions which remain within the agent. In a nature which is
intellectual, and in the divine nature these actions are two, the
acts of intelligence and of will. The act of sensation, which also
appears to be an operation within the agent, takes place outside the
intellectual nature, nor can it be reckoned as wholly removed from
the sphere of external actions; for the act of sensation is perfected
by the action of the sensible object upon sense. It follows that no
other procession is possible in God but the procession of the Word,
and of Love.

Reply Obj. 1: Power is the principle whereby one thing acts on
another. Hence it is that external action points to power. Thus the
divine power does not imply the procession of a divine person; but
is indicated by the procession therefrom of creatures.

Reply Obj. 2: As Boethius says (De Hebdom.), goodness belongs to
the essence and not to the operation, unless considered as the
object of the will.

Thus, as the divine processions must be denominated from certain
actions; no other processions can be understood in God according to
goodness and the like attributes except those of the Word and of love,
according as God understands and loves His own essence, truth and
goodness.

Reply Obj. 3: As above explained (Q. 14, A. 5; Q. 19, A. 5), God
understands all things by one simple act; and by one act also He
wills all things. Hence there cannot exist in Him a procession of
Word from Word, nor of Love from Love: for there is in Him only one
perfect Word, and one perfect Love; thereby being manifested His
perfect fecundity.
_______________________

QUESTION 28

THE DIVINE RELATIONS
(In Four Articles)

The divine relations are next to be considered, in four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether there are real relations in God?

(2) Whether those relations are the divine essence itself, or are
extrinsic to it?

(3) Whether in God there can be several relations distinct from
each other?

(4) The number of these relations.
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 28, Art. 1]

Whether There Are Real Relations in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are no real relations in God.
For Boethius says (De Trin. iv), "All possible predicaments used as
regards the Godhead refer to the substance; for nothing can be
predicated relatively." But whatever really exists in God can be
predicated of Him. Therefore no real relation exists in God.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Trin. iv) that, "Relation in the
Trinity of the Father to the Son, and of both to the Holy Ghost, is
the relation of the same to the same." But a relation of this kind is
only a logical one; for every real relation requires and implies in
reality two terms. Therefore the divine relations are not real
relations, but are formed only by the mind.

Obj. 3: Further, the relation of paternity is the relation of a
principle. But to say that God is the principle of creatures does not
import any real relation, but only a logical one. Therefore paternity
in God is not a real relation; while the same applies for the same
reason to the other relations in God.

Obj. 4: Further, the divine generation proceeds by way of an
intelligible word. But the relations following upon the operation of
the intellect are logical relations. Therefore paternity and
filiation in God, consequent upon generation, are only logical
relations.

_On the contrary,_ The Father is denominated only from paternity;
and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or
filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really
Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is
the Sabellian heresy.

_I answer that,_ relations exist in God really; in proof whereof we
may consider that in relations alone is found something which is only
in the apprehension and not in reality. This is not found in any
other genus; forasmuch as other genera, as quantity and quality, in
their strict and proper meaning, signify something inherent in a
subject. But relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what
refers to another. Such regard to another exists sometimes in the
nature of things, as in those things which by their own very nature
are ordered to each other, and have a mutual inclination; and such
relations are necessarily real relations; as in a heavy body is found
an inclination and order to the centre; and hence there exists in the
heavy body a certain respect in regard to the centre and the same
applies to other things. Sometimes, however, this regard to another,
signified by relation, is to be found only in the apprehension of
reason comparing one thing to another, and this is a logical relation
only; as, for instance, when reason compares man to animal as the
species to the genus. But when something proceeds from a principle of
the same nature, then both the one proceeding and the source of
procession, agree in the same order; and then they have real
relations to each other. Therefore as the divine processions are in
the identity of the same nature, as above explained (Q. 27, AA. 2,
4), these relations, according to the divine processions, are
necessarily real relations.

Reply Obj. 1: Relationship is not predicated of God according to its
proper and formal meaning, that is to say, in so far as its proper
meaning denotes comparison to that in which relation is inherent, but
only as denoting regard to another. Nevertheless Boethius did not
wish to exclude relation in God; but he wished to show that it was
not to be predicated of Him as regards the mode of inherence in
Himself in the strict meaning of relation; but rather by way of
relation to another.

Reply Obj. 2: The relation signified by the term "the same" is a
logical relation only, if in regard to absolutely the same thing;
because such a relation can exist only in a certain order observed by
reason as regards the order of anything to itself, according to some
two aspects thereof. The case is otherwise, however, when things are
called the same, not numerically, but generically or specifically.
Thus Boethius likens the divine relations to a relation of identity,
not in every respect, but only as regards the fact that the substance
is not diversified by these relations, as neither is it by relation
of identity.

Reply Obj. 3: As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of
nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any
relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not
produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect
and will, as is above explained (Q. 14, AA. 3, 4; Q. 19, A. 8).
Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas
in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are
contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails
dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in
one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists.

Reply Obj. 4: Relations which result from the mental operation alone
in the objects understood are logical relations only, inasmuch as
reason observes them as existing between two objects perceived by the
mind. Those relations, however, which follow the operation of the
intellect, and which exist between the word intellectually proceeding
and the source whence it proceeds, are not logical relations only,
but are real relations; inasmuch as the intellect and the reason are
real things, and are really related to that which proceeds from them
intelligibly; as a corporeal thing is related to that which proceeds
from it corporeally. Thus paternity and filiation are real relations
in God.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 28, Art. 2]

Whether Relation in God Is the Same As His Essence?

Objection 1: It would seem that the divine relation is not the same as
the divine essence. For Augustine says (De Trin. v) that "not all that
is said of God is said of His substance, for we say some things
relatively, as Father in respect of the Son: but such things do not
refer to the substance." Therefore the relation is not the divine
essence.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii) that, "every relative
expression is something besides the relation expressed, as master is
a man, and slave is a man." Therefore, if relations exist in God,
there must be something else besides relation in God. This can only
be His essence. Therefore essence differs from relation.

Obj. 3: Further, the essence of relation is the being referred to
another, as the Philosopher says (Praedic. v). So if relation is the
divine essence, it follows that the divine essence is essentially
itself a relation to something else; whereas this is repugnant to the
perfection of the divine essence, which is supremely absolute and
self-subsisting (Q. 3, A. 4). Therefore relation is not the divine
essence.

_On the contrary,_ Everything which is not the divine essence is a
creature. But relation really belongs to God; and if it is not the
divine essence, it is a creature; and it cannot claim the adoration of
latria; contrary to what is sung in the Preface: "Let us adore the
distinction of the Persons, and the equality of their Majesty."

_I answer that,_ It is reported that Gilbert de la Porree erred on
this point, but revoked his error later at the council of Rheims.
For he said that the divine relations are assistant, or externally
affixed.

To perceive the error here expressed, we must consider that in each of
the nine genera of accidents there are two points for remark. One is
the nature belonging to each one of them considered as an accident;
which commonly applies to each of them as inherent in a subject, for
the essence of an accident is to inhere. The other point of remark is
the proper nature of each one of these genera. In the genera, apart
from that of _relation,_ as in quantity and quality, even the true
idea of the genus itself is derived from a respect to the subject; for
quantity is called the measure of substance, and quality is the
disposition of substance. But the true idea of relation is not taken
from its respect to that in which it is, but from its respect to
something outside. So if we consider even in creatures, relations
formally as such, in that aspect they are said to be "assistant," and
not intrinsically affixed, for, in this way, they signify a respect
which affects a thing related and tends from that thing to something
else; whereas, if relation is considered as an accident, it inheres in
a subject, and has an accidental existence in it. Gilbert de la Porree
considered relation in the former mode only.

Now whatever has an accidental existence in creatures, when considered
as transferred to God, has a substantial existence; for there is no
accident in God; since all in Him is His essence. So, in so far as
relation has an accidental existence in creatures, relation really
existing in God has the existence of the divine essence in no way
distinct therefrom. But in so far as relation implies respect to
something else, no respect to the essence is signified, but rather to
its opposite term.

Thus it is manifest that relation really existing in God is really the
same as His essence and only differs in its mode of intelligibility;
as in relation is meant that regard to its opposite which is not
expressed in the name of essence. Thus it is clear that in God
relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and
the same.

Reply Obj. 1: These words of Augustine do not imply that paternity or
any other relation which is in God is not in its very being the same
as the divine essence; but that it is not predicated under the mode
of substance, as existing in Him to Whom it is applied; but as a
relation. So there are said to be two predicaments only in God, since
other predicaments import habitude to that of which they are spoken,
both in their generic and in their specific nature; but nothing that
exists in God can have any relation to that wherein it exists or of
whom it is spoken, except the relation of identity; and this by
reason of God's supreme simplicity.

Reply Obj. 2: As the relation which exists in creatures involves not
only a regard to another, but also something absolute, so the same
applies to God, yet not in the same way. What is contained in the
creature above and beyond what is contained in the meaning of
relation, is something else besides that relation; whereas in God
there is no distinction, but both are one and the same; and this is
not perfectly expressed by the word "relation," as if it were
comprehended in the ordinary meaning of that term. For it was above
explained (Q. 13, A. 2), in treating of the divine names, that more
is contained in the perfection of the divine essence than can be
signified by any name. Hence it does not follow that there exists in
God anything besides relation in reality; but only in the various
names imposed by us.

Reply Obj. 3: If the divine perfection contained only what is
signified by relative names, it would follow that it is imperfect,
being thus related to something else; as in the same way, if nothing
more were contained in it than what is signified by the word
"wisdom," it would not in that case be a subsistence. But as the
perfection of the divine essence is greater than can be included in
any name, it does not follow, if a relative term or any other name
applied to God signify something imperfect, that the divine essence
is in any way imperfect; for the divine essence comprehends within
itself the perfection of every genus (Q. 4, A. 2).
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 28, Art. 3]

Whether the Relations in God Are Really Distinguished from Each Other?

Objection 1: It would seem that the divine relations are not really
distinguished from each other. For things which are identified with
the same, are identified with each other. But every relation in God
is really the same as the divine essence. Therefore the relations are
not really distinguished from each other.

Obj. 2: Further, as paternity and filiation are by name distinguished
from the divine essence, so likewise are goodness and power. But this
kind of distinction does not make any real distinction of the divine
goodness and power. Therefore neither does it make any real
distinction of paternity and filiation.

Obj. 3: Further, in God there is no real distinction but that of
origin. But one relation does not seem to arise from another.
Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Trin.) that in God "the substance
contains the unity; and relation multiplies the trinity." Therefore,
if the relations were not really distinguished from each other, there
would be no real trinity in God, but only an ideal trinity, which is
the error of Sabellius.

_I answer that,_ The attributing of anything to another involves the
attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is
attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him.
The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to
another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in
God there is a real relation (A. 1), there must also be a real
opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes
distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not,
indeed, according to that which is absolute--namely, essence, wherein
there is supreme unity and simplicity--but according to that which is
relative.

Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument
holds, that whatever things are identified with the same thing are
identified with each other, if the identity be real and logical; as,
for instance, a tunic and a garment; but not if they differ
logically. Hence in the same place he says that although action is
the same as motion, and likewise passion; still it does not follow
that action and passion are the same; because action implies
reference as of something "from which" there is motion in the thing
moved; whereas passion implies reference as of something "which is
from" another. Likewise, although paternity, just as filiation, is
really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in
their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects. Hence
they are distinguished from each other.

Reply Obj. 2: Power and goodness do not import any opposition in
their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument.

Reply Obj. 3: Although relations, properly speaking, do not arise or
proceed from each other, nevertheless they are considered as opposed
according to the procession of one from another.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 28, Art. 3]

Whether in God There Are Only Four Real Relations--Paternity,
Filiation, Spiration, and Procession?

Objection 1: It would seem that in God there are not only four real
relations--paternity, filiation, spiration and procession. For it
must be observed that in God there exist the relations of the
intelligent agent to the object understood; and of the one willing to
the object willed; which are real relations not comprised under those
above specified. Therefore there are not only four real relations in
God.

Obj. 2: Further, real relations in God are understood as coming
from the intelligible procession of the Word. But intelligible
relations are infinitely multiplied, as Avicenna says. Therefore
in God there exists an infinite series of real relations.

Obj. 3: Further, ideas in God are eternal (Q. 15, A. 1); and are only
distinguished from each other by reason of their regard to things, as
above stated. Therefore in God there are many more eternal relations.

Obj. 4: Further, equality, and likeness, and identity are relations:
and they are in God from eternity. Therefore several more relations
are eternal in God than the above named.

Obj. 5: Further, it may also contrariwise be said that there are
fewer relations in God than those above named. For, according to the
Philosopher (Phys. iii text 24), "It is the same way from Athens to
Thebes, as from Thebes to Athens." By the same way of reasoning there
is the same relation from the Father to the Son, that of paternity,
and from the Son to the Father, that of filiation; and thus there are
not four relations in God.

_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every
relation is based either on quantity, as double and half; or on
action and passion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son,
the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quantity
in God, for He is great without quantity, as Augustine says (De Trin.
i, 1) it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on
action. Such relations are not based on the actions of God according
to any extrinsic procession, forasmuch as the relations of God to
creatures are not real in Him (Q. 13, A. 7). Hence, it follows that
real relations in God can be understood only in regard to those
actions according to which there are internal, and not external,
processions in God. These processions are two only, as above
explained (Q. 27, A. 5), one derived from the action of the
intellect, the procession of the Word; and the other from the action
of the will, the procession of love. In respect of each of these
processions two opposite relations arise; one of which is the
relation of the person proceeding from the principle; the other is
the relation of the principle Himself. The procession of the Word is
called generation in the proper sense of the term, whereby it is
applied to living things. Now the relation of the principle of
generation in perfect living beings is called paternity; and the
relation of the one proceeding from the principle is called
filiation. But the procession of Love has no proper name of its own
(Q. 27, A. 4); and so neither have the ensuing relations a proper
name of their own. The relation of the principle of this procession
is called spiration; and the relation of the person proceeding is
called procession: although these two names belong to the processions
or origins themselves, and not to the relations.

Reply Obj. 1: In those things in which there is a difference between
the intellect and its object, and the will and its object, there can
be a real relation, both of science to its object, and of the willer
to the object willed. In God, however, the intellect and its object
are one and the same; because by understanding Himself, God
understands all other things; and the same applies to His will and
the object that He wills. Hence it follows that in God these kinds of
relations are not real; as neither is the relation of a thing to
itself. Nevertheless, the relation to the word is a real relation;
because the word is understood as proceeding by an intelligible
action; and not as a thing understood. For when we understand a
stone; that which the intellect conceives from the thing understood,
is called the word.

Reply Obj. 2: Intelligible relations in ourselves are infinitely
multiplied, because a man understands a stone by one act, and by
another act understands that he understands the stone, and again by
another, understands that he understands this; thus the acts of
understanding are infinitely multiplied, and consequently also the
relations understood. This does not apply to God, inasmuch as He
understands all things by one act alone.

Reply Obj. 3: Ideal relations exist as understood by God. Hence it
does not follow from their plurality that there are many relations in
God; but that God knows these many relations.

Reply Obj. 4: Equality and similitude in God are not real relations;
but are only logical relations (Q. 42, A. 3, ad 4).

Reply Obj. 5: The way from one term to another and conversely is the
same; nevertheless the mutual relations are not the same. Hence, we
cannot conclude that the relation of the father to the son is the
same as that of the son to the father; but we could conclude this of
something absolute, if there were such between them.
_______________________

QUESTION 29

THE DIVINE PERSONS
(In Four Articles)

Having premised what have appeared necessary notions concerning the
processions and the relations, we must now approach the subject of the
persons.

First, we shall consider the persons absolutely, and then
comparatively as regards each other. We must consider the persons
absolutely first in common; and then singly.

The general consideration of the persons seemingly involves four
points:

(1) The signification of this word "person";

(2) the number of the persons;

(3) what is involved in the number of persons, or is opposed thereto;
as diversity, and similitude, and the like; and

(4) what belongs to our knowledge of the persons.

Four subjects of inquiry are comprised in the first point:

(1) The definition of "person."

(2) The comparison of person to essence, subsistence, and hypostasis.

(3) Whether the name of person is becoming to God?

(4) What does it signify in Him?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 29, Art. 1]

The Definition of "Person"

Objection 1: It would seem that the definition of person given by
Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) is insufficient--that is, "a person is an
individual substance of a rational nature." For nothing singular can
be subject to definition. But "person" signifies something singular.
Therefore person is improperly defined.

Obj. 2: Further, substance as placed above in the definition of
person, is either first substance, or second substance. If it is the
former, the word "individual" is superfluous, because first substance
is individual substance; if it stands for second substance, the word
"individual" is false, for there is contradiction of terms; since
second substances are the genera or species. Therefore this
definition is incorrect.

Obj. 3: Further, an intentional term must not be included in the
definition of a thing. For to define a man as "a species of animal"
would not be a correct definition; since man is the name of a thing,
and species is a name of an intention. Therefore, since person is
the name of a thing (for it signifies a substance of a rational
nature), the word "individual" which is an intentional name comes
improperly into the definition.

Obj. 4: Further, "Nature is the principle of motion and rest, in
those things in which it is essentially, and not accidentally," as
Aristotle says (Phys. ii). But person exists in things immovable, as
in God, and in the angels. Therefore the word "nature" ought not to
enter into the definition of person, but the word should rather be
"essence."

Obj. 5: Further, the separated soul is an individual substance of
the rational nature; but it is not a person. Therefore person is not
properly defined as above.

_I answer that,_ Although the universal and particular exist in every
genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs
to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself;
whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the
substance; since this particular whiteness is called "this," because
it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the
individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their
own; for they are called "hypostases," or first substances.

Further still, in a more special and perfect way, the particular and
the individual are found in the rational substances which have
dominion over their own actions; and which are not only made to act,
like others; but which can act of themselves; for actions belong to
singulars. Therefore also the individuals of the rational nature have
a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person."

Thus the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of
person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the
term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in
rational substances.

Reply Obj. 1: Although this or that singular may not be definable,
yet what belongs to the general idea of singularity can be defined;
and so the Philosopher (De Praedic., cap. De substantia) gives a
definition of first substance; and in this way Boethius defines
person.

Reply Obj. 2: In the opinion of some, the term "substance" in the
definition of person stands for first substance, which is the
hypostasis; nor is the term "individual" superfluously added,
forasmuch as by the name of hypostasis or first substance the idea of
universality and of part is excluded. For we do not say that man in
general is an hypostasis, nor that the hand is since it is only a
part. But where "individual" is added, the idea of assumptibility is
excluded from person; for the human nature in Christ is not a person,
since it is assumed by a greater--that is, by the Word of God. It is,
however, better to say that substance is here taken in a general
sense, as divided into first and second, and when "individual" is
added, it is restricted to first substance.

Reply Obj. 3: Substantial differences being unknown to us, or at
least unnamed by us, it is sometimes necessary to use accidental
differences in the place of substantial; as, for example, we may say
that fire is a simple, hot, and dry body: for proper accidents are
the effects of substantial forms, and make them known. Likewise,
terms expressive of intention can be used in defining realities if
used to signify things which are unnamed. And so the term
"individual" is placed in the definition of person to signify the
mode of subsistence which belongs to particular substances.

Reply Obj. 4: According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 5), the word
"nature" was first used to signify the generation of living things,
which is called nativity. And because this kind of generation comes
from an intrinsic principle, this term is extended to signify the
intrinsic principle of any kind of movement. In this sense he defines
"nature" (Phys. ii, 3). And since this kind of principle is either
formal or material, both matter and form are commonly called nature.
And as the essence of anything is completed by the form; so the
essence of anything, signified by the definition, is commonly called
nature. And here nature is taken in that sense. Hence Boethius says
(De Duab. Nat.) that, "nature is the specific difference giving its
form to each thing," for the specific difference completes the
definition, and is derived from the special form of a thing. So in
the definition of "person," which means the singular in a determined
genus, it is more correct to use the term "nature" than "essence,"
because the latter is taken from being, which is most common.

Reply Obj. 5: The soul is a part of the human species; and so,
although it may exist in a separate state, yet since it ever retains
its nature of unibility, it cannot be called an individual substance,
which is the hypostasis or first substance, as neither can the hand
nor any other part of man; thus neither the definition nor the name
of person belongs to it.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 29, Art. 2]

Whether "Person" Is the Same As Hypostasis, Subsistence, and Essence?

Objection 1: It would seem that "person" is the same as "hypostasis,"
"subsistence," and "essence." For Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that
"the Greeks called the individual substance of the rational nature by
the name hypostasis." But this with us signifies "person." Therefore
"person" is altogether the same as "hypostasis."

Obj. 2: Further, as we say there are three persons in God, so we say
there are three subsistences in God; which implies that "person" and
"subsistence" have the same meaning. Therefore "person" and
"subsistence" mean the same.

Obj. 3: Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that the Greek _ousia,_
which means essence, signifies a being composed of matter and form.
Now that which is composed of matter and form is the individual
substance called "hypostasis" and "person." Therefore all the
aforesaid names seem to have the same meaning.

Obj. 4: _On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that genera
and species only subsist; whereas individuals are not only
subsistent, but also substand. But subsistences are so called from
subsisting, as substance or hypostasis is so called from substanding.
Therefore, since genera and species are not hypostases or persons,
these are not the same as subsistences.

Obj. 5: Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that matter is called
hypostasis, and form is called _ousiosis_--that is, subsistence. But
neither form nor matter can be called person. Therefore person
differs from the others.

_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance
is twofold. In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified
by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the
substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the
Greeks _ousia,_ what we may call "essence." In another sense
substance means a subject or _suppositum,_ which subsists in the
genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be
applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called
_suppositum._ It is also called by three names signifying a
reality--that is, "a thing of nature," "subsistence," and
"hypostasis," according to a threefold consideration of the substance
thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is
called "subsistence"; as we say that those things subsist which exist
in themselves, and not in another. As it underlies some common
nature, it is called "a thing of nature"; as, for instance, this
particular man is a human natural thing. As it underlies the
accidents, it is called "hypostasis," or "substance." What these
three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this
name "person" signifies in the genus of rational substances.

Reply Obj. 1: Among the Greeks the term "hypostasis," taken in the
strict interpretation of the word, signifies any individual of the
genus substance; but in the usual way of speaking, it means the
individual of the rational nature, by reason of the excellence of
that nature.

Reply Obj. 2: As we say "three persons" plurally in God, and "three
subsistences," so the Greeks say "three hypostases." But because the
word "substance," which, properly speaking, corresponds in meaning to
"hypostasis," is used among us in an equivocal sense, since it
sometimes means essence, and sometimes means hypostasis, in order to
avoid any occasion of error, it was thought preferable to use
"subsistence" for hypostasis, rather than "substance."

Reply Obj. 3: Strictly speaking, the essence is what is expressed by
the definition. Now, the definition comprises the principles of the
species, but not the individual principles. Hence in things composed
of matter and form, the essence signifies not only the form, nor only
the matter, but what is composed of matter and the common form, as
the principles of the species. But what is composed of this matter
and this form has the nature of hypostasis and person. For soul,
flesh, and bone belong to the nature of man; whereas this soul, this
flesh and this bone belong to the nature of this man. Therefore
hypostasis and person add the individual principles to the idea of
essence; nor are these identified with the essence in things composed
of matter and form, as we said above when treating of divine
simplicity (Q. 3, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 4: Boethius says that genera and species subsist, inasmuch
as it belongs to some individual things to subsist, from the fact
that they belong to genera and species comprised in the predicament
of substance, but not because the species and genera themselves
subsist; except in the opinion of Plato, who asserted that the
species of things subsisted separately from singular things. To
substand, however, belongs to the same individual things in relation
to the accidents, which are outside the essence of genera and species.

Reply Obj. 5: The individual composed of matter and form substands in
relation to accident from the very nature of matter. Hence Boethius
says (De Trin.): "A simple form cannot be a subject." Its
self-subsistence is derived from the nature of its form, which does
not supervene to the things subsisting, but gives actual existence to
the matter and makes it subsist as an individual. On this account,
therefore, he ascribes hypostasis to matter, and _ousiosis,_ or
subsistence, to the form, because the matter is the principle of
substanding, and form is the principle of subsisting.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 29, Art. 3]

Whether the Word "Person" Should Be Said of God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the name "person" should not be said
of God. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom.): "No one should ever dare to
say or think anything of the supersubstantial and hidden Divinity,
beyond what has been divinely expressed to us by the oracles." But the
name "person" is not expressed to us in the Old or New Testament.
Therefore "person" is not to be applied to God.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.): "The word person
seems to be taken from those persons who represented men in comedies
and tragedies. For person comes from sounding through [personando],
since a greater volume of sound is produced through the cavity in the
mask. These "persons" or masks the Greeks called _prosopa,_ as they
were placed on the face and covered the features before the eyes."
This, however, can apply to God only in a metaphorical sense.
Therefore the word "person" is only applied to God metaphorically.

Obj. 3: Further, every person is a hypostasis. But the word
"hypostasis" does not apply to God, since, as Boethius says (De Duab.
Nat.), it signifies what is the subject of accidents, which do not
exist in God. Jerome also says (Ep. ad Damas.) that, "in this word
hypostasis, poison lurks in honey." Therefore the word "person"
should not be said of God.

Obj. 4: Further, if a definition is denied of anything, the thing
defined is also denied of it. But the definition of "person," as
given above, does not apply to God. Both because reason implies a
discursive knowledge, which does not apply to God, as we proved above
(Q. 14, A. 12); and thus God cannot be said to have "a rational
nature." And also because God cannot be called an individual
substance, since the principle of individuation is matter; while God
is immaterial: nor is He the subject of accidents, so as to be called
a substance. Therefore the word "person" ought not to be attributed
to God.

_On the contrary,_ In the Creed of Athanasius we say: "One is the person
of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost."

_I answer that,_ "Person" signifies what is most perfect in all
nature--that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature. Hence,
since everything that is perfect must be attributed to God, forasmuch
as His essence contains every perfection, this name "person" is
fittingly applied to God; not, however, as it is applied to creatures,
but in a more excellent way; as other names also, which, while giving
them to creatures, we attribute to God; as we showed above when
treating of the names of God (Q. 13, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 1: Although the word "person" is not found applied to God
in Scripture, either in the Old or New Testament, nevertheless what
the word signifies is found to be affirmed of God in many places of
Scripture; as that He is the supreme self-subsisting being, and the
most perfectly intelligent being. If we could speak of God only in
the very terms themselves of Scripture, it would follow that no one
could speak about God in any but the original language of the Old or
New Testament. The urgency of confuting heretics made it necessary to
find new words to express the ancient faith about God. Nor is such a
kind of novelty to be shunned; since it is by no means profane, for
it does not lead us astray from the sense of Scripture. The Apostle
warns us to avoid "profane novelties of words" (1 Tim. 6:20).

Reply Obj. 2: Although this name "person" may not belong to God as
regards the origin of the term, nevertheless it excellently belongs
to God in its objective meaning. For as famous men were represented
in comedies and tragedies, the name "person" was given to signify
those who held high dignity. Hence, those who held high rank in the
Church came to be called "persons." Thence by some the definition of
person is given as "hypostasis distinct by reason of dignity." And
because subsistence in a rational nature is of high dignity,
therefore every individual of the rational nature is called a
"person." Now the dignity of the divine nature excels every other
dignity; and thus the name "person" pre-eminently belongs to God.

Reply Obj. 3: The word "hypostasis" does not apply to God as regards
its source of origin, since He does not underlie accidents; but it
applies to Him in its objective sense, for it is imposed to signify
the subsistence. Jerome said that "poison lurks in this word,"
forasmuch as before it was fully understood by the Latins, the
heretics used this term to deceive the simple, to make people profess
many essences as they profess several hypostases, inasmuch as the
word "substance," which corresponds to hypostasis in Greek, is
commonly taken amongst us to mean essence.

Reply Obj. 4: It may be said that God has a rational _nature,_ if
reason be taken to mean, not discursive thought, but in a general
sense, an intelligent nature. But God cannot be called an
"individual" in the sense that His individuality comes from matter;
but only in the sense which implies incommunicability. "Substance"
can be applied to God in the sense of signifying self-subsistence.
There are some, however, who say that the definition of Boethius,
quoted above (A. 1), is not a definition of person in the sense we
use when speaking of persons in God. Therefore Richard of St. Victor
amends this definition by adding that "Person" in God is "the
incommunicable existence of the divine nature."
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 29, Art. 4]

Whether This Word "Person" Signifies Relation?

Objection 1: It would seem that this word "person," as applied to God,
does not signify relation, but substance. For Augustine says (De Trin.
vii, 6): "When we speak of the person of the Father, we mean nothing
else but the substance of the Father, for person is said in regard to
Himself, and not in regard to the Son."

Obj. 2: Further, the interrogation "What?" refers to essence. But, as
Augustine says: "When we say there are three who bear witness in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and it is asked,
Three what? the answer is, Three persons." Therefore person signifies
essence.

Obj. 3: According to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv), the meaning of a
word is its definition. But the definition of "person" is this: "The
individual substance of the rational nature," as above stated.
Therefore "person" signifies substance.

Obj. 4: Further, person in men and angels does not signify relation,
but something absolute. Therefore, if in God it signified relation,
it would bear an equivocal meaning in God, in man, and in angels.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Trin.) that "every word that
refers to the persons signifies relation." But no word belongs to
person more strictly than the very word "person" itself. Therefore
this word "person" signifies relation.

_I answer that,_ A difficulty arises concerning the meaning of this
word "person" in God, from the fact that it is predicated plurally
of the Three in contrast to the nature of the names belonging to the
essence; nor does it in itself refer to another, as do the words
which express relation.

Hence some have thought that this word "person" of itself expresses
absolutely the divine essence; as this name "God" and this word
"Wise"; but that to meet heretical attack, it was ordained by
conciliar decree that it was to be taken in a relative sense, and
especially in the plural, or with the addition of a distinguishing
adjective; as when we say, "Three persons," or, "one is the person of
the Father, another of the Son," etc. Used, however, in the singular,
it may be either absolute or relative. But this does not seem to be a
satisfactory explanation; for, if this word "person," by force of its
own signification, expresses the divine essence only, it follows that
forasmuch as we speak of "three persons," so far from the heretics
being silenced, they had still more reason to argue. Seeing this,
others maintained that this word "person" in God signifies both the
essence and the relation. Some of these said that it signifies
directly the essence, and relation indirectly, forasmuch as "person"
means as it were "by itself one" [per se una]; and unity belongs to
the essence. And what is "by itself" implies relation indirectly; for
the Father is understood to exist "by Himself," as relatively distinct
from the Son. Others, however, said, on the contrary, that it
signifies relation directly; and essence indirectly; forasmuch as in
the definition of "person" the term nature is mentioned indirectly;
and these come nearer to the truth.

To determine the question, we must consider that something may be
included in the meaning of a less common term, which is not included
in the more common term; as "rational" is included in the meaning of
"man," and not in the meaning of "animal." So that it is one thing to
ask the meaning of the word animal, and another to ask its meaning
when the animal in question is man. Also, it is one thing to ask the
meaning of this word "person" in general; and another to ask the
meaning of "person" as applied to God. For "person" in general
signifies the individual substance of a rational figure. The
individual in itself is undivided, but is distinct from others.
Therefore "person" in any nature signifies what is distinct in that
nature: thus in human nature it signifies this flesh, these bones, and
this soul, which are the individuating principles of a man, and which,
though not belonging to "person" in general, nevertheless do belong to
the meaning of a particular human person.

Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above
(Q. 28, AA. 2, 3), while relation in God is not as an accident in
a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent,
for the divine essence subsists. Therefore, as the Godhead is God so
the divine paternity is God the Father, Who is a divine person.
Therefore a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this
is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a
hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that
which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself. Thus
it is true to say that the name "person" signifies relation directly,
and the essence indirectly; not, however, the relation as such, but as
expressed by way of a hypostasis. So likewise it signifies directly
the essence, and indirectly the relation, inasmuch as the essence is
the same as the hypostasis: while in God the hypostasis is expressed
as distinct by the relation: and thus relation, as such, enters into
the notion of the person indirectly. Thus we can say that this
signification of the word "person" was not clearly perceived before it
was attacked by heretics. Hence, this word "person" was used just as
any other absolute term. But afterwards it was applied to express
relation, as it lent itself to that signification, so that this word
"person" means relation not only by use and custom, according to the
first opinion, but also by force of its own proper signification.

Reply Obj. 1: This word "person" is said in respect to itself, not to
another; forasmuch as it signifies relation not as such, but by way
of a substance--which is a hypostasis. In that sense Augustine says
that it signifies the essence, inasmuch as in God essence is the same
as the hypostasis, because in God what He is, and whereby He is are
the same.

Reply Obj. 2: The term "what" refers sometimes to the nature
expressed by the definition, as when we ask; What is man? and we
answer: A mortal rational animal. Sometimes it refers to the
_suppositum,_ as when we ask, What swims in the sea? and answer, A
fish. So to those who ask, Three what? we answer, Three persons.

Reply Obj. 3: In God the individual--i.e. distinct and incommunicable
substance--includes the idea of relation, as above explained.

Reply Obj. 4: The different sense of the less common term does not
produce equivocation in the more common. Although a horse and an ass
have their own proper definitions, nevertheless they agree univocally
in animal, because the common definition of animal applies to both.
So it does not follow that, although relation is contained in the
signification of divine person, but not in that of an angelic or of a
human person, the word "person" is used in an equivocal sense. Though
neither is it applied univocally, since nothing can be said
univocally of God and creatures (Q. 13, A. 5).
_______________________

QUESTION 30

THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN GOD
(In Four Articles)

We are now led to consider the plurality of the persons: about which
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there are several persons in God?

(2) How many are they?

(3) What the numeral terms signify in God?

(4) The community of the term "person."
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 30, Art. 1]

Whether There Are Several Persons in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not several persons in God.
For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then
there are several persons in God, there must be several substances;
which appears to be heretical.

Obj. 2: Further, Plurality of absolute properties does not make a
distinction of persons, either in God, or in ourselves. Much less
therefore is this effected by a plurality of relations. But in God
there is no plurality but of relations (Q. 28, A. 3). Therefore
there cannot be several persons in God.

Obj. 3: Further, Boethius says of God (De Trin. i), that "this is
truly one which has no number." But plurality implies number.
Therefore there are not several persons in God.

Obj. 4: Further, where number is, there is whole and part. Thus,
if in God there exist a number of persons, there must be whole and
part in God; which is inconsistent with the divine simplicity.

_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says: "One is the person of the Father,
another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost." Therefore the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are several persons.

_I answer that,_ It follows from what precedes that there are several
persons in God. For it was shown above (Q. 29, A. 4) that this
word "person" signifies in God a relation as subsisting in the divine
nature. It was also established (Q. 28, A. 1) that there are
several real relations in God; and hence it follows that there are
also several realities subsistent in the divine nature; which means
that there are several persons in God.

Reply Obj. 1: The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as
meaning the essence, but the _suppositum_ which is made clear by the
addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus
understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say,
"Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however,
accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean
three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification
of the term.

Reply Obj. 2: The absolute properties in God, such as goodness and
wisdom, are not mutually opposed; and hence, neither are they really
distinguished from each other. Therefore, although they subsist,
nevertheless they are not several subsistent realities--that is,
several persons. But the absolute properties in creatures do not
subsist, although they are really distinguished from each other, as
whiteness and sweetness; on the other hand, the relative properties
in God subsist, and are really distinguished from each other (Q. 28,
A. 3). Hence the plurality of persons in God.

Reply Obj. 3: The supreme unity and simplicity of God exclude every
kind of plurality of absolute things, but not plurality of relations.
Because relations are predicated relatively, and thus the relations
do not import composition in that of which they are predicated, as
Boethius teaches in the same book.

Reply Obj. 4: Number is twofold, simple or absolute, as two and three
and four; and number as existing in things numbered, as two men and
two horses. So, if number in God is taken absolutely or abstractedly,
there is nothing to prevent whole and part from being in Him, and
thus number in Him is only in our way of understanding; forasmuch as
number regarded apart from things numbered exists only in the
intellect. But if number be taken as it is in the things numbered, in
that sense as existing in creatures, one is part of two, and two of
three, as one man is part of two men, and two of three; but this does
not apply to God, because the Father is of the same magnitude as the
whole Trinity, as we shall show further on (Q. 42, AA. 1, 4).
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 30, Art. 2]

Whether There Are More Than Three Persons in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are more than three persons in
God. For the plurality of persons in God arises from the plurality of
the relative properties as stated above (A. 1). But there are four
relations in God as stated above (Q. 28, A. 4), paternity, filiation,
common spiration, and procession. Therefore there are four persons in
God.

Obj. 2: The nature of God does not differ from His will more than
from His intellect. But in God, one person proceeds from the will, as
love; and another proceeds from His nature, as Son. Therefore another
proceeds from His intellect, as Word, besides the one Who proceeds
from His nature, as Son; thus again it follows that there are not
only three persons in God.

Obj. 3: Further, the more perfect a creature is, the more interior
operations it has; as a man has understanding and will beyond other
animals. But God infinitely excels every creature. Therefore in God
not only is there a person proceeding from the will, and another from
the intellect, but also in an infinite number of ways. Therefore
there are an infinite number of persons in God.

Obj. 4: Further, it is from the infinite goodness of the Father that
He communicates Himself infinitely in the production of a divine
person. But also in the Holy Ghost is infinite goodness. Therefore
the Holy Ghost produces a divine person; and that person another; and
so to infinity.

Obj. 5: Further, everything within a determinate number is measured,
for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we
say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is
immense, the Holy Ghost is immense." Therefore the persons are not
contained within the number three.

_On the contrary,_ It is said: "There are three who bear witness in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" (1 John 5:7). To
those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii,
4), "Three persons." Therefore there are but three persons in God.

_I answer that,_ As was explained above, there can be only three
persons in God. For it was shown above that the several persons are
the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other. But
a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from
relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs
refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must
needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation
are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons.
Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and
the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son. The other two
relations are not opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot
belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of
the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the
other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and
the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the
procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom
paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession
of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person
generating and the person generated proceeded from the person
spirating; and this is against what was laid down above (Q. 27, AA.
3, 4). We must consequently admit that spiration belongs to the
person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it
has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and
consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is
called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as
above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 1: Although there are four relations in God, one of them,
spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father and of the
Son, but belongs to both; thus, although it is a relation, it is not
called a property, because it does not belong to only one person; nor
is it a personal relation--i.e. constituting a person. The three
relations--paternity, filiation, and procession--are called personal
properties, constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the
person of the Father, filiation is the person of the Son, procession
is the person of the Holy Ghost proceeding.

Reply Obj. 2: That which proceeds by way of intelligence, as word,
proceeds according to similitude, as also that which proceeds by way
of nature; thus, as above explained (Q. 27, A. 3), the procession of
the divine Word is the very same as generation by way of nature. But
love, as such, does not proceed as the similitude of that whence it
proceeds; although in God love is co-essential as being divine; and
therefore the procession of love is not called generation in God.

Reply Obj. 3: As man is more perfect than other animals, he has more
intrinsic operations than other animals, because his perfection is
something composite. Hence the angels, who are more perfect and more
simple, have fewer intrinsic operations than man, for they have no
imagination, or feeling, or the like. In God there exists only one
real operation--that is, His essence. How there are in Him two
processions was above explained (Q. 27, AA. 1, 4).

Reply Obj. 4: This argument would prove if the Holy Ghost possessed
another goodness apart from the goodness of the Father; for then if
the Father produced a divine person by His goodness, the Holy Ghost
also would do so. But the Father and the Holy Ghost have one and the
same goodness. Nor is there any distinction between them except by
the personal relations. So goodness belongs to the Holy Ghost, as
derived from another; and it belongs to the Father, as the principle
of its communication to another. The opposition of relation does not
allow the relation of the Holy Ghost to be joined with the relation
of principle of another divine person; because He Himself proceeds
from the other persons who are in God.

Reply Obj. 5: A determinate number, if taken as a simple number,
existing in the mind only, is measured by one. But when we speak of a
number of things as applied to the persons in God, the notion of
measure has no place, because the magnitude of the three persons is
the same (Q. 42, AA. 1, 4), and the same is not measured by the same.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 30, Art. 3]

Whether the Numeral Terms Denote Anything Real in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the numeral terms denote something
real in God. For the divine unity is the divine essence. But every
number is unity repeated. Therefore every numeral term in God
signifies the essence; and therefore it denotes something real in
God.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is said of God and of creatures, belongs to
God in a more eminent manner than to creatures. But the numeral terms
denote something real in creatures; therefore much more so in God.

Obj. 3: Further, if the numeral terms do not denote anything real in
God, and are introduced simply in a negative and removing sense, as
plurality is employed to remove unity, and unity to remove plurality;
it follows that a vicious circle results, confusing the mind and
obscuring the truth; and this ought not to be. Therefore it must be
said that the numeral terms denote something real in God.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit
companionship"--that is, plurality--"we exclude the idea of oneness
and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God,
unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God."
Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove
something; and not to denote anything positive.

_I answer that,_ The Master (Sent. i, D, 24) considers that the numeral
terms do not denote anything positive in God, but have only a negative
meaning. Others, however, assert the contrary.

In order to resolve this point, we may observe that all plurality is a
consequence of division. Now division is twofold; one is material, and
is division of the continuous; from this results number, which is a
species of quantity. Number in this sense is found only in material
things which have quantity. The other kind of division is called
formal, and is effected by opposite or diverse forms; and this kind of
division results in a multitude, which does not belong to a genus, but
is transcendental in the sense in which being is divided by one and by
many. This kind of multitude is found only in immaterial things.

Some, considering only that multitude which is a species of discrete
quantity, and seeing that such kind of quantity has no place in God,
asserted that the numeral terms do not denote anything real in God,
but remove something from Him. Others, considering the same kind of
multitude, said that as knowledge exists in God according to the
strict sense of the word, but not in the sense of its genus (as in God
there is no such thing as a quality), so number exists in God in the
proper sense of number, but not in the sense of its genus, which is
quantity.

But we say that numeral terms predicated of God are not derived from
number, a species of quantity, for in that sense they could bear only
a metaphorical sense in God, like other corporeal properties, such as
length, breadth, and the like; but that they are taken from multitude
in a transcendent sense. Now multitude so understood has relation to
the many of which it is predicated, as "one" convertible with "being"
is related to being; which kind of oneness does not add anything to
being, except a negation of division, as we saw when treating of the
divine unity (Q. 11, A. 1); for "one" signifies undivided being.
So, of whatever we say "one," we imply its undivided reality: thus,
for instance, "one" applied to man signifies the undivided nature or
substance of a man. In the same way, when we speak of many things,
multitude in this latter sense points to those things as being each
undivided in itself.

But number, if taken as a species of quantity, denotes an accident
added to being; as also does "one" which is the principle of that
number. Therefore the numeral terms in God signify the things of which
they are said, and beyond this they add negation only, as stated
(Sent. i, D, 24); in which respect the Master was right (Sent. i, D,
24). So when we say, the essence is one, the term "one" signifies the
essence undivided; and when we say the person is one, it signifies the
person undivided; and when we say the persons are many, we signify
those persons, and their individual undividedness; for it is of the
very nature of multitude that it should be composed of units.

Reply Obj. 1: One, as it is a transcendental, is wider and more
general than substance and relation. And so likewise is multitude;
hence in God it may mean both substance and relation, according to
the context. Still, the very signification of such names adds a
negation of division, beyond substance and relation; as was explained
above.

Reply Obj. 2: Multitude, which denotes something real in creatures,
is a species of quantity, and cannot be used when speaking of God:
unlike transcendental multitude, which adds only indivision to those
of which it is predicated. Such a kind of multitude is applicable to
God.

Reply Obj. 3: "One" does not exclude multitude, but division, which
logically precedes one or multitude. Multitude does not remove unity,
but division from each of the individuals which compose the
multitude. This was explained when we treated of the divine unity (Q.
11, A. 2).

It must be observed, nevertheless, that the opposite arguments do not
sufficiently prove the point advanced. Although the idea of solitude
is excluded by plurality, and the plurality of gods by unity, it does
not follow that these terms express this signification alone. For
blackness is excluded by whiteness; nevertheless, the term whiteness
does not signify the mere exclusion of blackness.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 30, Art. 4]

Whether This Term "Person" Can Be Common to the Three Persons?

Objection 1: It would seem that this term "person" cannot be common to
the three persons. For nothing is common to the three persons but the
essence. But this term "person" does not signify the essence directly.
Therefore it is not common to all three.

Obj. 2: Further, the common is the opposite to the incommunicable.
But the very meaning of person is that it is incommunicable; as
appears from the definition given by Richard of St. Victor (Q. 29, A.
3, ad 4). Therefore this term "person" is not common to all the three
persons.

Obj. 3: Further, if the name "person" is common to the three, it is
common either really, or logically. But it is not so really;
otherwise the three persons would be one person; nor again is it so
logically; otherwise person would be a universal. But in God there is
neither universal nor particular; neither genus nor species, as we
proved above (Q. 3, A. 5). Therefore this term 'person' is not common
to the three.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4) that when we ask,
"Three what?" we say, "Three persons," because what a person is, is
common to them.

_I answer that,_ The very mode of expression itself shows that this
term "person" is common to the three when we say "three persons"; for
when we say "three men" we show that "man" is common to the three.
Now it is clear that this is not community of a real thing, as if one
essence were common to the three; otherwise there would be only one
person of the three, as also one essence.

What is meant by such a community has been variously determined by
those who have examined the subject. Some have called it a community
of exclusion, forasmuch as the definition of "person" contains the
word "incommunicable." Others thought it to be a community of
intention, as the definition of person contains the word "individual";
as we say that to be a species is common to horse and ox. Both of
these explanations, however, are excluded by the fact that "person" is
not a name of exclusion nor of intention, but the name of a reality.
We must therefore resolve that even in human affairs this name
"person" is common by a community of idea, not as genus or species,
but as a vague individual thing. The names of genera and species, as
man or animal, are given to signify the common natures themselves, but
not the intentions of those common natures, signified by the terms
genus or species. The vague individual thing, as "some man,"
signifies the common nature with the determinate mode of existence of
singular things--that is, something self-subsisting, as distinct from
others. But the name of a designated singular thing signifies that
which distinguishes the determinate thing; as the name Socrates
signifies this flesh and this bone. But there is this
difference--that the term "some man" signifies the nature, or the
individual on the part of its nature, with the mode of existence of
singular things; while this name "person" is not given to signify the
individual on the part of the nature, but the subsistent reality in
that nature. Now this is common in idea to the divine persons, that
each of them subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature.
Thus this name "person" is common in idea to the three divine persons.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is founded on a real community.

Reply Obj. 2: Although person is incommunicable, yet the mode itself
of incommunicable existence can be common to many.

Reply Obj. 3: Although this community is logical and not real, yet it
does not follow that in God there is universal or particular, or
genus, or species; both because neither in human affairs is the
community of person the same as community of genus or species; and
because the divine persons have one being; whereas genus and species
and every other universal are predicated of many which differ in
being.
_______________________

QUESTION 31

OF WHAT BELONGS TO THE UNITY OR PLURALITY IN GOD
(In Four Articles)

We now consider what belongs to the unity or plurality in God; which
gives rise to four points of inquiry:

(1) Concerning the word "Trinity";

(2) Whether we can say that the Son is other than the Father?

(3) Whether an exclusive term, which seems to exclude otherness, can
be joined to an essential name in God?

(4) Whether it can be joined to a personal term?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 31, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Trinity in God?

Objection 1: It would seem there is not trinity in God. For every name
in God signifies substance or relation. But this name "Trinity" does
not signify the substance; otherwise it would be predicated of each
one of the persons: nor does it signify relation; for it does not
express a name that refers to another. Therefore the word "Trinity" is
not to be applied to God.

Obj. 2: Further, this word "trinity" is a collective term, since it
signifies multitude. But such a word does not apply to God; as the
unity of a collective name is the least of unities, whereas in God
there exists the greatest possible unity. Therefore this word
"trinity" does not apply to God.

Obj. 3: Further, every trine is threefold. But in God there is not
triplicity; since triplicity is a kind of inequality. Therefore
neither is there trinity in God.

Obj. 4: Further, all that exists in God exists in the unity of the
divine essence; because God is His own essence. Therefore, if Trinity
exists in God, it exists in the unity of the divine essence; and thus
in God there would be three essential unities; which is heresy.

Obj. 5: Further, in all that is said of God, the concrete is
predicated of the abstract; for Deity is God and paternity is the
Father. But the Trinity cannot be called trine; otherwise there would
be nine realities in God; which, of course, is erroneous. Therefore
the word trinity is not to be applied to God.

_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says: "Unity in Trinity; and Trinity in
Unity is to be revered."

_I answer that,_ The name "Trinity" in God signifies the determinate
number of persons. And so the plurality of persons in God requires
that we should use the word trinity; because what is indeterminately
signified by plurality, is signified by trinity in a determinate
manner.

Reply Obj. 1: In its etymological sense, this word "Trinity" seems to
signify the one essence of the three persons, according as trinity
may mean trine-unity. But in the strict meaning of the term it rather
signifies the number of persons of one essence; and on this account
we cannot say that the Father is the Trinity, as He is not three
persons. Yet it does not mean the relations themselves of the
Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and
hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to
another.

Reply Obj. 2: Two things are implied in a collective term, plurality
of the _supposita,_ and a unity of some kind of order. For "people"
is a multitude of men comprehended under a certain order. In the
first sense, this word "trinity" is like other collective words; but
in the second sense it differs from them, because in the divine
Trinity not only is there unity of order, but also with this there is
unity of essence.

Reply Obj. 3: "Trinity" is taken in an absolute sense; for it
signifies the threefold number of persons. "Triplicity" signifies a
proportion of inequality; for it is a species of unequal proportion,
according to Boethius (Arithm. i, 23). Therefore in God there is not
triplicity, but Trinity.

Reply Obj. 4: In the divine Trinity is to be understood both number
and the persons numbered. So when we say, "Trinity in Unity," we do
not place number in the unity of the essence, as if we meant three
times one; but we place the Persons numbered in the unity of nature;
as the _supposita_ of a nature are said to exist in that nature. On
the other hand, we say "Unity in Trinity"; meaning that the nature is
in its _supposita._

Reply Obj. 5: When we say, "Trinity is trine," by reason of the
number implied, we signify the multiplication of that number by
itself; since the word trine imports a distinction in the _supposita_
of which it is spoken. Therefore it cannot be said that the Trinity
is trine; otherwise it follows that, if the Trinity be trine, there
would be three _supposita_ of the Trinity; as when we say, "God is
trine," it follows that there are three _supposita_ of the Godhead.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 31, Art. 2]

Whether the Son Is Other Than the Father?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father.
For "other" is a relative term implying diversity of substance. If,
then, the Son is other than the Father, He must be different from the
Father; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. vii), that
when we speak of three persons, "we do not mean to imply diversity."

Obj. 2: Further, whosoever are other from one another, differ in
some way from one another. Therefore, if the Son is other than the
Father, it follows that He differs from the Father; which is against
what Ambrose says (De Fide i), that "the Father and the Son are one
in Godhead; nor is there any difference in substance between them,
nor any diversity."

Obj. 3: Further, the term alien is taken from _alius_ (other).
But the Son is not alien from the Father, for Hilary says (De Trin.
vii) that "in the divine persons there is nothing diverse, nothing
alien, nothing separable." Therefore the Son is not other than the
Father.

Obj. 4: Further, the terms "other person" and "other thing" [alius et
aliud] have the same meaning, differing only in gender. So if the Son
is another person from the Father, it follows that the Son is a thing
apart from the Father.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i.] says:
"There is one essence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, in which
the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost
another; although the Father is one person, the Son another, and the
Holy Ghost another."

_I answer that,_ Since as Jerome remarks [*In substance, Ep. lvii.], a
heresy arises from words wrongly used, when we speak of the Trinity we
must proceed with care and with befitting modesty; because, as
Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3), "nowhere is error more harmful, the
quest more toilsome, the finding more fruitful." Now, in treating of
the Trinity, we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed
cautiously between them--namely, the error of Arius, who placed a
Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons; and the error of
Sabellius, who placed unity of person with the unity of essence.

Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms
diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of
essence: we may, however, use the term "distinction" on account of the
relative opposition. Hence whenever we find terms of "diversity" or
"difference" of Persons used in an authentic work, these terms of
"diversity" or "difference" are taken to mean "distinction." But lest
the simplicity and singleness of the divine essence be taken away, the
terms "separation" and "division," which belong to the parts of a
whole, are to be avoided: and lest quality be taken away, we avoid the
use of the term "disparity": and lest we remove similitude, we avoid
the terms "alien" and "discrepant." For Ambrose says (De Fide i) that
"in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead":
and according to Hilary, as quoted above, "in God there is nothing
alien, nothing separable."

To avoid the heresy of Sabellius, we must shun the term "singularity,"
lest we take away the communicability of the divine essence. Hence
Hilary says (De Trin. vii): "It is sacrilege to assert that the Father
and the Son are separate in Godhead." We must avoid the adjective
"only" (unici) lest we take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary
says in the same book: "We exclude from God the idea of singularity or
uniqueness." Nevertheless, we say "the only Son," for in God there is
no plurality of Sons. Yet, we do not say "the only God," for the Deity
is common to several. We avoid the word "confused," lest we take away
from the Persons the order of their nature. Hence Ambrose says (De
Fide i): "What is one is not confused; and there is no multiplicity
where there is no difference." The word "solitary" is also to be
avoided, lest we take away the society of the three persons; for, as
Hilary says (De Trin. iv), "We confess neither a solitary nor a
diverse God."

This word "other" [alius], however, in the masculine sense, means only
a distinction of _suppositum_; and hence we can properly say that "the
Son is other than the Father," because He is another _suppositum_ of
the divine nature, as He is another person and another hypostasis.

Reply Obj. 1: "Other," being like the name of a particular thing,
refers to the _suppositum_; and so, there is sufficient reason for
using it, where there is a distinct substance in the sense of
hypostasis or person. But diversity requires a distinct substance in
the sense of essence. Thus we cannot say that the Son is diverse from
the Father, although He is another.

Reply Obj. 2: "Difference" implies distinction of form. There is one
form in God, as appears from the text, "Who, when He was in the form
of God" (Phil. 2:6). Therefore the term "difference" does not
properly apply to God, as appears from the authority quoted. Yet,
Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 5) employs the term "difference" in the
divine persons, as meaning that the relative property is signified by
way of form. Hence he says that the hypostases do not differ from
each other in substance, but according to determinate properties. But
"difference" is taken for "distinction," as above stated.

Reply Obj. 3: The term "alien" means what is extraneous and
dissimilar; which is not expressed by the term "other" [alius]; and
therefore we say that the Son is "other" than the Father, but not
that He is anything "alien."

Reply Obj. 4: The neuter gender is formless; whereas the masculine is
formed and distinct; and so is the feminine. So the common essence is
properly and aptly expressed by the neuter gender, but by the
masculine and feminine is expressed the determined subject in the
common nature. Hence also in human affairs, if we ask, Who is this
man? we answer, Socrates, which is the name of the _suppositum_;
whereas, if we ask, What is he? we reply, A rational and mortal
animal. So, because in God distinction is by the persons, and not by
the essence, we say that the Father is other than the Son, but not
something else; while conversely we say that they are one thing, but
not one person.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 31, Art. 3]

Whether the Exclusive Word "Alone" Should Be Added to the Essential
Term in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the exclusive word "alone" [solus] is
not to be added to an essential term in God. For, according to the
Philosopher (Elench. ii, 3), "He is alone who is not with another."
But God is with the angels and the souls of the saints. Therefore we
cannot say that God is alone.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is joined to the essential term in God can
be predicated of every person _per se,_ and of all the persons
together; for, as we can properly say that God is wise, we can say
the Father is a wise God; and the Trinity is a wise God. But
Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 9): "We must consider the opinion that
the Father is not true God alone." Therefore God cannot be said to be
alone.

Obj. 3: Further if this expression "alone" is joined to an essential
term, it would be so joined as regards either the personal predicate
or the essential predicate. But it cannot be the former, as it is
false to say, "God alone is Father," since man also is a father; nor,
again, can it be applied as regards the latter, for, if this saying
were true, "God alone creates," it would follow that the "Father
alone creates," as whatever is said of God can be said of the Father;
and it would be false, as the Son also creates. Therefore this
expression "alone" cannot be joined to an essential term in God.

_On the contrary,_ It is said, "To the King of ages, immortal,
invisible, the only God" (1 Tim. 1:17).

_I answer that,_ This term "alone" can be taken as a categorematical
term, or as a syncategorematical term. A categorematical term is one
which ascribes absolutely its meaning to a given _suppositum_; as, for
instance, "white" to man, as when we say a "white man." If the term
"alone" is taken in this sense, it cannot in any way be joined to any
term in God; for it would mean solitude in the term to which it is
joined; and it would follow that God was solitary, against what is
above stated (A. 2). A syncategorematical term imports the order
of the predicate to the subject; as this expression "every one" or
"no one"; and likewise the term "alone," as excluding every other
_suppositum_ from the predicate. Thus, when we say, "Socrates alone
writes," we do not mean that Socrates is solitary, but that he has no
companion in writing, though many others may be with him. In this way
nothing prevents the term "alone" being joined to any essential term
in God, as excluding the predicate from all things but God; as if we
said "God alone is eternal," because nothing but God is eternal.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the angels and the souls of the saints are
always with God, nevertheless, if plurality of persons did not exist
in God, He would be alone or solitary. For solitude is not removed by
association with anything that is extraneous in nature; thus anyone
is said to be alone in a garden, though many plants and animals are
with him in the garden. Likewise, God would be alone or solitary,
though angels and men were with Him, supposing that several persons
were not within Him. Therefore the society of angels and of souls
does not take away absolute solitude from God; much less does it
remove respective solitude, in reference to a predicate.

Reply Obj. 2: This expression "alone," properly speaking, does not
affect the predicate, which is taken formally, for it refers to the
_suppositum,_ as excluding any other suppositum from the one which it
qualifies. But the adverb "only," being exclusive, can be applied
either to subject or predicate. For we can say, "Only Socrates"--that
is, no one else--"runs: and Socrates runs only"--that is, he does
nothing else. Hence it is not properly said that the Father is God
alone, or the Trinity is God alone, unless some implied meaning be
assumed in the predicate, as, for instance, "The Trinity is God Who
alone is God." In that sense it can be true to say that the Father is
that God Who alone is God, if the relative be referred to the
predicate, and not to the _suppositum._ So, when Augustine says that
the Father is not God alone, but that the Trinity is God alone, he
speaks expositively, as he might explain the words, "To the King of
ages, invisible, the only God," as applying not to the Father, but to
the Trinity alone.

Reply Obj. 3: In both ways can the term "alone" be joined to an
essential term. For this proposition, "God alone is Father," can mean
two things, because the word "Father" can signify the person of the
Father; and then it is true; for no man is that person: or it can
signify that relation only; and thus it is false, because the
relation of paternity is found also in others, though not in a
univocal sense. Likewise it is true to say God alone creates; nor,
does it follow, "therefore the Father alone creates," because, as
logicians say, an exclusive diction so fixes the term to which it is
joined that what is said exclusively of that term cannot be said
exclusively of an individual contained in that term: for instance,
from the premiss, "Man alone is a mortal rational animal," we cannot
conclude, "therefore Socrates alone is such."
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 31, Art. 4]

Whether an Exclusive Diction Can Be Joined to the Personal Term?

Objection 1: It would seem that an exclusive diction can be joined to
the personal term, even though the predicate is common. For our Lord
speaking to the Father, said: "That they may know Thee, the only true
God" (John 17:3). Therefore the Father alone is true God.

Obj. 2: Further, He said: "No one knows the Son but the Father" (Matt.
11:27); which means that the Father alone knows the Son. But to know
the Son is common (to the persons). Therefore the same conclusion
follows.

Obj. 3: Further, an exclusive diction does not exclude what enters
into the concept of the term to which it is joined. Hence it does not
exclude the part, nor the universal; for it does not follow that if
we say "Socrates alone is white," that therefore "his hand is not
white," or that "man is not white." But one person is in the
concept of another; as the Father is in the concept of the Son; and
conversely. Therefore, when we say, The Father alone is God, we do
not exclude the Son, nor the Holy Ghost; so that such a mode of
speaking is true.

Obj. 4: Further, the Church sings: "Thou alone art Most High, O Jesus
Christ."

_On the contrary,_ This proposition "The Father alone is God" includes
two assertions--namely, that the Father is God, and that no other
besides the Father is God. But this second proposition is false, for
the Son is another from the Father, and He is God. Therefore this is
false, The Father alone is God; and the same of the like sayings.

_I answer that,_ When we say, "The Father alone is God," such a
proposition can be taken in several senses. If "alone" means solitude
in the Father, it is false in a categorematical sense; but if taken in
a syncategorematical sense it can again be understood in several ways.
For if it exclude (all others) from the form of the subject, it is
true, the sense being "the Father alone is God"--that is, "He who
with no other is the Father, is God." In this way Augustine expounds
when he says (De Trin. vi, 6): "We say the Father alone, not because
He is separate from the Son, or from the Holy Ghost, but because they
are not the Father together with Him." This, however, is not the usual
way of speaking, unless we understand another implication, as though
we said "He who alone is called the Father is God." But in the strict
sense the exclusion affects the predicate. And thus the proposition is
false if it excludes another in the masculine sense; but true if it
excludes it in the neuter sense; because the Son is another person
than the Father, but not another thing; and the same applies to the
Holy Ghost. But because this diction "alone," properly speaking,
refers to the subject, it tends to exclude another Person rather than
other things. Hence such a way of speaking is not to be taken too
literally, but it should be piously expounded, whenever we find it in
an authentic work.

Reply Obj. 1: When we say, "Thee the only true God," we do not
understand it as referring to the person of the Father, but to the
whole Trinity, as Augustine expounds (De Trin. vi, 9). Or, if
understood of the person of the Father, the other persons are not
excluded by reason of the unity of essence; in so far as the word
"only" excludes another thing, as above explained.

The same Reply can be given to Obj. 2. For an essential term applied
to the Father does not exclude the Son or the Holy Ghost, by reason of
the unity of essence. Hence we must understand that in the text quoted
the term "no one" [*Nemo = non-homo, i.e. no man] is not the same as
"no man," which the word itself would seem to signify (for the person
of the Father could not be excepted), but is taken according to the
usual way of speaking in a distributive sense, to mean any rational
nature.

Reply Obj. 3: The exclusive diction does not exclude what enters into
the concept of the term to which it is adjoined, if they do not
differ in _suppositum,_ as part and universal. But the Son differs in
_suppositum_ from the Father; and so there is no parity.

Reply Obj. 4: We do not say absolutely that the Son alone is Most
High; but that He alone is Most High "with the Holy Ghost, in the
glory of God the Father."
_______________________

QUESTION 32

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE PERSONS
(In Four Articles)

We proceed to inquire concerning the knowledge of the divine persons;
and this involves four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the divine persons can be known by natural reason?

(2) Whether notions are to be attributed to the divine persons?

(3) The number of the notions?

(4) Whether we may lawfully have various contrary opinions of these
notions?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 32, Art. 1]

Whether the Trinity of the Divine Persons Can Be Known by Natural
Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the trinity of the divine persons can
be known by natural reason. For philosophers came to the knowledge of
God not otherwise than by natural reason. Now we find that they said
many things about the trinity of persons, for Aristotle says (De Coelo
et Mundo i, 2): "Through this number"--namely, three--"we bring
ourselves to acknowledge the greatness of one God, surpassing all
things created." And Augustine says (Confess. vii, 9): "I have read in
their works, not in so many words, but enforced by many and various
reasons, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God," and so on; in which passage the
distinction of persons is laid down. We read, moreover, in a gloss on
Rom. 1 and Ex. 8 that the magicians of Pharaoh failed in the third
sign--that is, as regards knowledge of a third person--i.e. of the
Holy Ghost--and thus it is clear that they knew at least two
persons. Likewise Trismegistus says: "The monad begot a monad, and
reflected upon itself its own heat." By which words the generation of
the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost seem to be indicated.
Therefore knowledge of the divine persons can be obtained by natural
reason.

Obj. 2: Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe
without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found
for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some
have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who
communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine
persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good
thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine
proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11, 12) to prove the trinity of persons
by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we
have followed him in this (Q. 27, AA. 1, 3). Therefore the trinity of
persons can be known by natural reason.

Obj. 3: Further, it seems to be superfluous to teach what cannot be
known by natural reason. But it ought not to be said that the divine
tradition of the Trinity is superfluous. Therefore the trinity of
persons can be known by natural reason.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. i), "Let no man think to
reach the sacred mystery of generation by his own mind." And Ambrose
says (De Fide ii, 5), "It is impossible to know the secret of
generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent." But the trinity of
the divine persons is distinguished by origin of generation and
procession (Q. 30, A. 2). Since, therefore, man cannot know, and with
his understanding grasp that for which no necessary reason can be
given, it follows that the trinity of persons cannot be known by
reason.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the
Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (Q. 12, AA. 4,
12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except
from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as
effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know
of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle
of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating
of God as above (Q. 12, A. 12). Now, the creative power of God is
common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the
essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by
natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence,
but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever,
then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason,
derogates from faith in two ways. Firstly, as regards the dignity of
faith itself, which consists in its being concerned with invisible
things, that exceed human reason; wherefore the Apostle says that
"faith is of things that appear not" (Heb. 11:1), and the same
Apostle says also, "We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the
wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world; but we speak
the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden" (1 Cor. 2:6, 7).
Secondly, as regards the utility of drawing others to the faith. For
when anyone in the endeavor to prove the faith brings forward reasons
which are not cogent, he falls under the ridicule of the unbelievers:
since they suppose that we stand upon such reasons, and that we
believe on such grounds.

Therefore, we must not attempt to prove what is of faith, except by
authority alone, to those who receive the authority; while as regards
others it suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not impossible.
Hence it is said by Dionysius (Div. Nom. ii): "Whoever wholly resists
the word, is far off from our philosophy; whereas if he regards the
truth of the word"--i.e. "the sacred word, we too follow this rule."

Reply Obj. 1: The philosophers did not know the mystery of the
trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as
paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle's
words, "We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the
world"--i.e. the philosophers--"knew" (1 Cor. 2:6). Nevertheless,
they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the
persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the
Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, "By this
number," etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold
number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the
threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some
perfection residing in the number three. In the Platonic books also
we find, "In the beginning was the word," not as meaning the Person
begotten in God, but as meaning the ideal type whereby God made all
things, and which is appropriated to the Son. And although they knew
these were appropriated to the three persons, yet they are said to
have failed in the third sign--that is, in the knowledge of the third
person, because they deviated from the goodness appropriated to the
Holy Ghost, in that knowing God "they did not glorify Him as God"
(Rom. 1); or, because the Platonists asserted the existence of one
Primal Being whom they also declared to be the father of the universe,
they consequently maintained the existence of another substance
beneath him, which they called "mind" or the "paternal intellect,"
containing the idea of all things, as Macrobius relates (Som. Scip.
iv). They did not, however, assert the existence of a third separate
substance which might correspond to the Holy Ghost. So also we do not
assert that the Father and the Son differ in substance, which was the
error of Origen and Arius, who in this followed the Platonists. When
Trismegistus says, "Monad begot monad," etc., this does not refer to
the generation of the Son, or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but
to the production of the world. For one God produced one world by
reason of His love for Himself.

Reply Obj. 2: Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a
point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of
some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be
brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform
velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a
sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already
established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in
astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as
established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly
movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were
sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the
first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second
way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true,
such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity
of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident
when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is
manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an
act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His
infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should
proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it
should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that
joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the
case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some
other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness.
Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God,
forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally.
Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we
arrive at knowledge, and not conversely.

Reply Obj. 3: There are two reasons why the knowledge of the divine
persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of
creation. The fact of saying that God made all things by His Word
excludes the error of those who say that God produced things by
necessity. When we say that in Him there is a procession of love, we
show that God produced creatures not because He needed them, nor
because of any other extrinsic reason, but on account of the love of
His own goodness. So Moses, when he had said, "In the beginning God
created heaven and earth," subjoined, "God said, Let there be light,"
to manifest the divine Word; and then said, "God saw the light that
it was good," to show proof of the divine love. The same is also
found in the other works of creation. In another way, and chiefly,
that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race,
accomplished by the Incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 32, Art. 2]

Whether There Are Notions in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that in God there are no notions. For
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything of God
but what is taught to us by the Holy Scripture." But Holy Scripture
does not say anything concerning notions. Therefore there are none in
God.

Obj. 2: Further, all that exists in God concerns the unity of the
essence or the trinity of the persons. But the notions do not concern
the unity of the essence, nor the trinity of the persons; for neither
can what belongs to the essence be predicated of the notions: for
instance, we do not say that paternity is wise or creates; nor can
what belongs to the persons be so predicated; for example, we do not
say that paternity begets, nor that filiation is begotten. Therefore
there do not exist notions in God.

Obj. 3: Further, we do not require to presuppose any abstract notions
as principles of knowing things which are devoid of composition: for
they are known of themselves. But the divine persons are supremely
simple. Therefore we are not to suppose any notions in God.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 5): "We
recognize difference of hypostases [i.e. of persons], in the three
properties; i.e. in the paternal, the filial, and the processional."
Therefore we must admit properties and notions in God.

_I answer that,_ Prepositivus, considering the simplicity of the
persons, said that in God there were no properties or notions, and
wherever there were mentioned, he propounded the abstract for the
concrete. For as we are accustomed to say, "I beseech your
kindness"--i.e. you who are kind--so when we speak of paternity in
God, we mean God the Father.

But, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 3, ad 1), the use of concrete and
abstract names in God is not in any way repugnant to the divine
simplicity; forasmuch as we always name a thing as we understand it.
Now, our intellect cannot attain to the absolute simplicity of the
divine essence, considered in itself, and therefore, our human
intellect apprehends and names divine things, according to its own
mode, that is in so far as they are found in sensible objects, whence
its knowledge is derived. In these things we use abstract terms to
signify simple forms; and to signify subsistent things we use concrete
terms. Hence also we signify divine things, as above stated, by
abstract names, to express their simplicity; whereas, to express their
subsistence and completeness, we use concrete names.

But not only must essential names be signified in the abstract and in
the concrete, as when we say Deity and God; or wisdom and wise; but
the same applies to the personal names, so that we may say paternity
and Father.

Two chief motives for this can be cited. The first arises from the
obstinacy of heretics. For since we confess the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost to be one God and three persons, to those who ask:
"Whereby are They one God? and whereby are They three persons?" as we
answer that They are one in essence or deity; so there must also be
some abstract terms whereby we may answer that the persons are
distinguished; and these are the properties or notions signified by an
abstract term, as paternity and filiation. Therefore the divine
essence is signified as "What"; and the person as "Who"; and the
property as "Whereby."

The second motive is because one person in God is related to two
persons--namely, the person of the Father to the person of the Son
and the person of the Holy Ghost. This is not, however, by one
relation; otherwise it would follow that the Son also and the Holy
Ghost would be related to the Father by one and the same relation.
Thus, since relation alone multiplies the Trinity, it would follow
that the Son and the Holy Ghost would not be two persons. Nor can it
be said with Prepositivus that as God is related in one way to
creatures, while creatures are related to Him in divers ways, so the
Father is related by one relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost;
whereas these two persons are related to the Father by two relations.
For, since the very specific idea of a relation is that it refers to
another, it must be said that two relations are not specifically
different if but one opposite relation corresponds to them. For the
relation of lord and father must differ according to the difference of
filiation and servitude. Now, all creatures are related to God as His
creatures by one specific relation. But the Son and the Holy Ghost are
not related to the Father by one and the same kind of relation. Hence
there is no parity.

Further, in God there is no need to admit any real relation to the
creature (Q. 28, A. 1, 3); while there is no reason against our
admitting in God, many logical relations. But in the Father there
must be a real relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Hence,
corresponding to the two relations of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,
whereby they are related to the Father, we must understand two
relations in the Father, whereby He is related to the Son and to the
Holy Ghost. Hence, since there is only one Person of the Father, it is
necessary that the relations should be separately signified in the
abstract; and these are what we mean by properties and notions.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the notions are not mentioned in Holy
Scripture, yet the persons are mentioned, comprising the idea of
notions, as the abstract is contained in the concrete.

Reply Obj. 2: In God the notions have their significance not after
the manner of realities, but by way of certain ideas whereby the
persons are known; although in God these notions or relations are
real, as stated above (Q. 28, A. 1). Therefore whatever has order to
any essential or personal act, cannot be applied to the notions;
forasmuch as this is against their mode of signification. Hence we
cannot say that paternity begets, or creates, or is wise, or is
intelligent. The essentials, however, which are not ordered to any
act, but simply remove created conditions from God, can be predicated
of the notions; for we can say that paternity is eternal, or immense,
or such like. So also on account of the real identity, substantive
terms, whether personal or essential, can be predicated of the
notions; for we can say that paternity is God, and that paternity is
the Father.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the persons are simple, still without
prejudice to their simplicity, the proper ideas of the persons can be
abstractedly signified, as above explained.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 32, Art. 3]

Whether There Are Five Notions?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not five notions. For the
notions proper to the persons are the relations whereby they are
distinguished from each other. But the relations in God are only four
(Q. 28, A. 4). Therefore the notions are only four in number.

Obj. 2: Further, as there is only one essence in God, He is called
one God, and because in Him there are three persons, He is called the
Trine God. Therefore, if in God there are five notions, He may be
called quinary; which cannot be allowed.

Obj. 3: Further, if there are five notions for the three persons in
God, there must be in some one person two or more notions, as in the
person of the Father there is innascibility and paternity, and common
spiration. Either these three notions really differ, or not. If they
really differ, it follows that the person of the Father is composed
of several things. But if they differ only logically, it follows that
one of them can be predicated of another, so that we can say that as
the divine goodness is the same as the divine wisdom by reason of the
common reality, so common spiration is paternity; which is not to be
admitted. Therefore there are not five notions.

Obj. 4: _On the contrary,_ It seems that there are more; because as
the Father is from no one, and therefrom is derived the notion of
innascibility; so from the Holy Ghost no other person proceeds. And
in this respect there ought to be a sixth notion.

Obj. 5: Further, as the Father and the Son are the common origin of
the Holy Ghost, so it is common to the Son and the Holy Ghost to
proceed from the Father. Therefore, as one notion is common to the
Father and the Son, so there ought to be one notion common to the Son
and to the Holy Ghost.

_I answer that,_ A notion is the proper idea whereby we know a divine
Person. Now the divine persons are multiplied by reason of their
origin: and origin includes the idea of someone from whom another
comes, and of someone that comes from another, and by these two modes
a person can be known. Therefore the Person of the Father cannot be
known by the fact that He is from another; but by the fact that He is
from no one; and thus the notion that belongs to Him is called
"innascibility." As the source of another, He can be known in two
ways, because as the Son is from Him, the Father is known by the
notion of "paternity"; and as the Holy Ghost is from Him, He is known
by the notion of "common spiration." The Son can be known as begotten
by another, and thus He is known by "filiation"; and also by another
person proceeding from Him, the Holy Ghost, and thus He is known in
the same way as the Father is known, by "common spiration." The Holy
Ghost can be known by the fact that He is from another, or from
others; thus He is known by "procession"; but not by the fact that
another is from Him, as no divine person proceeds from Him.

Therefore, there are Five notions in God: "innascibility,"
"paternity," "filiation," "common spiration," and "procession." Of
these only four are relations, for "innascibility" is not a relation,
except by reduction, as will appear later (Q. 33, A. 4, ad 3).
Four only are properties. For "common spiration" is not a property;
because it belongs to two persons. Three are personal notions--i.e.
constituting persons, "paternity," "filiation," and "procession."
"Common spiration" and "innascibility" are called notions of Persons,
but not personal notions, as we shall explain further on (Q. 40, A. 1,
ad 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Besides the four relations, another notion must be
admitted, as above explained.

Reply Obj. 2: The divine essence is signified as a reality; and
likewise the persons are signified as realities; whereas the notions
are signified as ideas notifying the persons. Therefore, although God
is one by unity of essence, and trine by trinity of persons,
nevertheless He is not quinary by the five notions.

Reply Obj. 3: Since the real plurality in God is founded only on
relative opposition, the several properties of one Person, as they
are not relatively opposed to each other, do not really differ. Nor
again are they predicated of each other, because they are different
ideas of the persons; as we do not say that the attribute of power is
the attribute of knowledge, although we do say that knowledge is
power.

Reply Obj. 4: Since Person implies dignity, as stated above (Q. 19,
A. 3), we cannot derive a notion of the Holy Spirit from the fact
that no person is from Him. For this does not belong to His dignity,
as it belongs to the authority of the Father that He is from no one.

Reply Obj. 5: The Son and the Holy Ghost do not agree in one special
mode of existence derived from the Father; as the Father and the Son
agree in one special mode of producing the Holy Ghost. But the
principle on which a notion is based must be something special; thus
no parity of reasoning exists.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 32, Art. 4]

Whether It Is Lawful to Have Various Contrary Opinions of Notions?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful to have various
contrary opinions of the notions. For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3):
"No error is more dangerous than any as regards the Trinity": to which
mystery the notions assuredly belong. But contrary opinions must be in
some way erroneous. Therefore it is not right to have contrary
opinions of the notions.

Obj. 2: Further, the persons are known by the notions. But no
contrary opinion concerning the persons is to be tolerated. Therefore
neither can there be about the notions.

_On the contrary,_ The notions are not articles of faith. Therefore
different opinions of the notions are permissible.

_I answer that,_ Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any
truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and
unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning
these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if
it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial
of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for
instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it
follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such
things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy,
before the matter has been considered or settled as involving
consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown;
whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided
that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free
from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as
heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences
are now more manifest.

So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about
the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with
faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the
notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would
follow, he would lapse into heresy.

By what has been said all the objections may be solved.
_______________________

QUESTION 33

OF THE PERSON OF THE FATHER
(In Four Articles)

We now consider the persons singly; and first, the Person of the
Father, concerning Whom there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Father is the Principle?

(2) Whether the person of the Father is properly signified by this
name "Father"?

(3) Whether "Father" in God is said personally before it is said
essentially?

(4) Whether it belongs to the Father alone to be unbegotten?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 33, Art. 1]

Whether It Belongs to the Father to Be the Principle?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Father cannot be called the
principle of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. For principle and cause
are the same, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv). But we do not
say that the Father is the cause of the Son. Therefore we must not say
that He is the principle of the Son.

Obj. 2: Further, a principle is so called in relation to the thing
principled. So if the Father is the principle of the Son, it follows
that the Son is a person principled, and is therefore created; which
appears false.

Obj. 3: Further, the word principle is taken from priority. But in
God there is no "before" and "after," as Athanasius says. Therefore
in speaking of God we ought not to used the term principle.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is
the Principle of the whole Deity."

_I answer that,_ The word "principle" signifies only that whence
another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way
we call a principle; and conversely. As the Father then is the one
whence another proceeds, it follows that the Father is a principle.

Reply Obj. 1: The Greeks use the words "cause" and "principle"
indifferently, when speaking of God; whereas the Latin Doctors do not
use the word "cause," but only "principle." The reason is because
"principle" is a wider term than "cause"; as "cause" is more common
than "element." For the first term of a thing, as also the first
part, is called the principle, but not the cause. Now the wider a
term is, the more suitable it is to use as regards God (Q. 13, A.
11), because the more special terms are, the more they determine the
mode adapted to the creature. Hence this term "cause" seems to mean
diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is
not implied in the word "principle." For in all kinds of causes there
is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of
perfection or of power: whereas we use the term "principle" even in
things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order
to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a
line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the
principle of a line.

Reply Obj. 2: It is the custom with the Greeks to say that the Son
and the Holy Ghost are principled. This is not, however, the custom
with our Doctors; because, although we attribute to the Father
something of authority by reason of His being the principle, still we
do not attribute any kind of subjection or inferiority to the Son, or
to the Holy Ghost, to avoid any occasion of error. In this way,
Hilary says (De Trin. ix): "By authority of the Giver, the Father is
the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of
nature is give."

Reply Obj. 3: Although this word principle, as regards its
derivation, seems to be taken from priority, still it does not
signify priority, but origin. For what a term signifies, and the
reason why it was imposed, are not the same thing, as stated above
(Q. 13, A. 8).
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 33, Art. 2]

Whether This Name "Father" Is Properly the Name of a Divine Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that this name "Father" is not properly
the name of a divine person. For the name "Father" signifies
relation. Moreover "person" is an individual substance. Therefore
this name "Father" is not properly a name signifying a Person.

Obj. 2: Further, a begetter is more common than father; for every
father begets; but it is not so conversely. But a more common term is
more properly applied to God, as stated above (Q. 13, A. 11).
Therefore the more proper name of the divine person is begetter and
genitor than Father.

Obj. 3: Further, a metaphorical term cannot be the proper name of
anyone. But the word is by us metaphorically called begotten, or
offspring; and consequently, he of whom is the word, is
metaphorically called father. Therefore the principle of the Word in
God is not properly called Father.

Obj. 4: Further, everything which is said properly of God, is said of
God first before creatures. But generation appears to apply to
creatures before God; because generation seems to be truer when the
one who proceeds is distinct from the one whence it proceeds, not
only by relation but also by essence. Therefore the name "Father"
taken from generation does not seem to be the proper name of any
divine person.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 88:27): "He shall cry out to me:
Thou art my Father."

_I answer that,_ The proper name of any person signifies that whereby
the person is distinguished from all other persons. For as body and
soul belong to the nature of man, so to the concept of this particular
man belong this particular soul and this particular body; and by these
is this particular man distinguished from all other men. Now it is
paternity which distinguishes the person of the Father from all other
persons. Hence this name "Father," whereby paternity is signified, is
the proper name of the person of the Father.

Reply Obj. 1: Among us relation is not a subsisting person. So this
name "father" among us does not signify a person, but the relation of
a person. In God, however, it is not so, as some wrongly thought; for
in God the relation signified by the name "Father" is a subsisting
person. Hence, as above explained (Q. 29, A. 4), this name "person"
in God signifies a relation subsisting in the divine nature.

Reply Obj. 2: According to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text 49), a
thing is denominated chiefly by its perfection, and by its end. Now
generation signifies something in process of being made, whereas
paternity signifies the complement of generation; and therefore the
name "Father" is more expressive as regards the divine person than
genitor or begettor.

Reply Obj. 3: In human nature the word is not a subsistence, and
hence is not properly called begotten or son. But the divine Word is
something subsistent in the divine nature; and hence He is properly
and not metaphorically called Son, and His principle is called Father.

Reply Obj. 4: The terms "generation" and "paternity" like the other
terms properly applied to God, are said of God before creatures as
regards the thing signified, but not as regards the mode of
signification. Hence also the Apostle says, "I bend my knee to the
Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all paternity in heaven and
on earth is named" (Eph. 3:14). This is explained thus. It is
manifest that generation receives its species from the term which is
the form of the thing generated; and the nearer it is to the form of
the generator, the truer and more perfect is the generation; as
univocal generation is more perfect than non-univocal, for it belongs
to the essence of a generator to generate what is like itself in
form. Hence the very fact that in the divine generation the form of
the Begetter and Begotten is numerically the same, whereas in
creatures it is not numerically, but only specifically, the same,
shows that generation, and consequently paternity, is applied to God
before creatures. Hence the very fact that in God a distinction
exists of the Begotten from the Begetter as regards relation only,
belongs to the truth of the divine generation and paternity.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 33, Art. 3]

Whether This Name "Father" Is Applied to God, Firstly As a Personal
Name?

Objection 1: It would seem that this name "Father" is not applied to
God, firstly as a personal name. For in the intellect the common
precedes the particular. But this name "Father" as a personal name,
belongs to the person of the Father; and taken in an essential sense
it is common to the whole Trinity; for we say "Our Father" to the
whole Trinity. Therefore "Father" comes first as an essential name
before its personal sense.

Obj. 2: Further, in things of which the concept is the same there is
no priority of predication. But paternity and filiation seem to be of
the same nature, according as a divine person is Father of the Son,
and the whole Trinity is our Father, or the creature's; since,
according to Basil (Hom. xv, De Fide), to receive is common to the
creature and to the Son. Therefore "Father" in God is not taken as an
essential name before it is taken personally.

Obj. 3: Further, it is not possible to compare things which have not
a common concept. But the Son is compared to the creature by reason
of filiation or generation, according to Col. 1:15: "Who is the image
of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature." Therefore
paternity taken in a personal sense is not prior to, but has the same
concept as, paternity taken essentially.

_On the contrary,_ The eternal comes before the temporal. But God is
the Father of the Son from eternity; while He is the Father of the
creature in time. Therefore paternity in God is taken in a personal
sense as regards the Son, before it is so taken as regards the
creature.

_I answer that,_ A name is applied to that wherein is perfectly
contained its whole signification, before it is applied to that which
only partially contains it; for the latter bears the name by reason of
a kind of similitude to that which answers perfectly to the
signification of the name; since all imperfect things are taken from
perfect things. Hence this name "lion" is applied first to the animal
containing the whole nature of a lion, and which is properly so
called, before it is applied to a man who shows something of a lion's
nature, as courage, or strength, or the like; and of whom it is said
by way of similitude.

Now it is manifest from the foregoing (Q. 27, A. 2; Q. 28, A. 4),
that the perfect idea of paternity and filiation is to be found in
God the Father, and in God the Son, because one is the nature and
glory of the Father and the Son. But in the creature, filiation is
found in relation to God, not in a perfect manner, since the Creator
and the creature have not the same nature; but by way of a certain
likeness, which is the more perfect the nearer we approach to the
true idea of filiation. For God is called the Father of some
creatures, by reason only of a trace, for instance of irrational
creatures, according to Job 38:28: "Who is the father of the rain? or
who begot the drops of dew?" Of some, namely, the rational creature
(He is the Father), by reason of the likeness of His image, according
to Deut. 32:6: "Is He not thy Father, who possessed, and made, and
created thee?" And of others He is the Father by similitude of grace,
and these are also called adoptive sons, as ordained to the heritage
of eternal glory by the gift of grace which they have received,
according to Rom. 8:16, 17: "The Spirit Himself gives testimony to
our spirit that we are the sons of God; and if sons, heirs also."
Lastly, He is the Father of others by similitude of glory, forasmuch
as they have obtained possession of the heritage of glory, according
to Rom. 5:2: "We glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God."
Therefore it is plain that "paternity" is applied to God first, as
importing regard of one Person to another Person, before it imports
the regard of God to creatures.

Reply Obj. 1: Common terms taken absolutely, in the order of our
intelligence, come before proper terms; because they are included in
the understanding of proper terms; but not conversely. For in the
concept of the person of the Father, God is understood; but not
conversely. But common terms which import relation to the creature
come after proper terms which import personal relations; because the
person proceeding in God proceeds as the principle of the production
of creatures. For as the word conceived in the mind of the artist is
first understood to proceed from the artist before the thing
designed, which is produced in likeness to the word conceived in the
artist's mind; so the Son proceeds from the Father before the
creature, to which the name of filiation is applied as it
participates in the likeness of the Son, as is clear from the words
of Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew and predestined to be made
conformable to the image of His Son."

Reply Obj. 2: To "receive" is said to be common to the creature and
to the Son not in a univocal sense, but according to a certain remote
similitude whereby He is called the First Born of creatures. Hence
the authority quoted subjoins: "That He may be the First Born among
many brethren," after saying that some were conformed to the image of
the Son of God. But the Son of God possesses a position of
singularity above others, in having by nature what He receives, as
Basil also declares (Hom. xv De Fide); hence He is called the only
begotten (John 1:18): "The only begotten Who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared unto us."

From this appears the Reply to the Third Objection.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 33, Art. 4]

Whether It Is Proper to the Father to Be Unbegotten?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the Father to be
unbegotten. For every property supposes something in that of which it
is the property. But "unbegotten" supposes nothing in the Father; it
only removes something. Therefore it does not signify a property of
the Father.

Obj. 2: Further, Unbegotten is taken either in a privative, or in
a negative sense. If in a negative sense, then whatever is not
begotten can be called unbegotten. But the Holy Ghost is not begotten;
neither is the divine essence. Therefore to be unbegotten belongs also
to the essence; thus it is not proper to the Father. But if it be
taken in a privative sense, as every privation signifies imperfection
in the thing which is the subject of privation, it follows that the
Person of the Father is imperfect; which cannot be.

Obj. 3: Further, in God, "unbegotten" does not signify relation,
for it is not used relatively. Therefore it signifies substance;
therefore unbegotten and begotten differ in substance. But the Son,
Who is begotten, does not differ from the Father in substance.
Therefore the Father ought not to be called unbegotten.

Obj. 4: Further, property means what belongs to one alone. Since,
then, there are more than one in God proceeding from another, there
is nothing to prevent several not receiving their being from another.
Therefore the Father is not alone unbegotten.

Obj. 5: Further, as the Father is the principle of the person
begotten, so is He of the person proceeding. So if by reason of his
opposition to the person begotten, it is proper to the Father to be
unbegotten it follows that it is proper to Him also to be
unproceeding.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "One is from one--that
is, the Begotten is from the Unbegotten--namely, by the property in
each one respectively of innascibility and origin."

_I answer that,_ As in creatures there exist a first and a secondary
principle, so also in the divine Persons, in Whom there is no before
or after, is formed the principle not from a principle, Who is the
Father; and the principle from a principle, Who is the Son.

Now in things created a first principle is known in two ways; in one
way as the first _principle,_ by reason of its having a relation to
what proceeds from itself; in another way, inasmuch as it is a _first_
principle by reason of its not being from another. Thus therefore the
Father is known both by paternity and by common spiration, as regards
the persons proceeding from Himself. But as the principle, not from a
principle He is known by the fact that He is not from another; and
this belongs to the property of innascibility, signified by this word
"begotten."

Reply Obj. 1: Some there are who say that innascibility, signified by
the word "unbegotten," as a property of the Father, is not a negative
term only, but either that it means both these things
together--namely, that the Father is from no one, and that He is the
principle of others; or that it imports universal authority, or also
His plenitude as the source of all. This, however, does not seem
true, because thus innascibility would not be a property distinct
from paternity and spiration; but would include them as the proper is
included in the common. For source and authority signify in God
nothing but the principle of origin. We must therefore say with
Augustine (De Trin. v, 7) that "unbegotten" imports the negation of
passive generation. For he says that "unbegotten" has the same
meaning as "not a son." Nor does it follow that "unbegotten" is not
the proper notion of the Father; for primary and simple things are
notified by negations; as, for instance, a point is defined as what
has no part.

Reply Obj. 2: "Unbegotten" is taken sometimes in a negative sense
only, and in that sense Jerome says that "the Holy Ghost is
unbegotten," that is, He is not begotten. Otherwise "unbegotten" may
be taken in a kind of privative sense, but not as implying any
imperfection. For privation can be taken in many ways; in one way
when a thing has not what is naturally belongs to another, even
though it is not of its own nature to have it; as, for instance, if a
stone be called a dead thing, as wanting life, which naturally
belongs to some other things. In another sense, privation is so
called when something has not what naturally belongs to some members
of its genus; as for instance when a mole is called blind. In a third
sense privation means the absence of what something ought to have; in
which sense, privation imports an imperfection. In this sense,
"unbegotten" is not attributed to the Father as a privation, but it
may be so attributed in the second sense, meaning that a certain
person of the divine nature is not begotten, while some person of the
same nature is begotten. In this sense the term "unbegotten" can be
applied also to the Holy Ghost. Hence to consider it as a term proper
to the Father alone, it must be further understood that the name
"unbegotten" belongs to a divine person as the principle of another
person; so that it be understood to imply negation in the genus of
principle taken personally in God. Or that there be understood in the
term "unbegotten" that He is not in any way derived from another; and
not only that He is not from another by way only of generation. In
this sense the term "unbegotten" does not belong at all to the Holy
Ghost, Who is from another by procession, as a subsisting person; nor
does it belong to the divine essence, of which it may be said that it
is in the Son or in the Holy Ghost from another--namely, from the
Father.

Reply Obj. 3: According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 9),
"unbegotten" in one sense signifies the same as "uncreated"; and thus
it applies to the substance, for thereby does the created substance
differ from the uncreated. In another sense it signifies what is not
begotten, and in this sense it is a relative term; just as negation
is reduced to the genus of affirmation, as "not man" is reduced to
the genus of substance, and "not white" to the genus of quality.
Hence, since "begotten" implies relation in God, "unbegotten" belongs
also to relation. Thus it does not follow that the Father unbegotten
is substantially distinguished from the Son begotten; but only by
relation; that is, as the relation of Son is denied of the Father.

Reply Obj. 4: In every genus there must be something first; so in the
divine nature there must be some one principle which is not from
another, and which we call "unbegotten." To admit two innascibles is
to suppose the existence of two Gods, and two divine natures. Hence
Hilary says (De Synod.): "As there is one God, so there cannot be two
innascibles." And this especially because, did two innascibles exist,
one would not be from the other, and they would not be distinguished
by relative opposition: therefore they would be distinguished from
each other by diversity of nature.

Reply Obj. 5: The property of the Father, whereby He is not from
another, is more clearly signified by the removal of the nativity of
the Son, than by the removal of the procession of the Holy Ghost;
both because the procession of the Holy Ghost has no special name, as
stated above (Q. 27, A. 4, ad 3), and because also in the order of
nature it presupposes the generation of the Son. Hence, it being
denied of the Father that He is begotten, although He is the
principle of generation, it follows, as a consequence, that He does
not proceed by the procession of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy
Ghost is not the principle of generation, but proceeds from the
person begotten.
_______________________

QUESTION 34

OF THE PERSON OF THE SON
(In Three Articles)

We next consider the person of the Son. Three names are attributed to
the Son--namely, "Son," "Word," and "Image." The idea of Son is
gathered from the idea of Father. Hence it remains for us to consider
Word and Image.

Concerning Word there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Word is an essential term in God, or a personal term?

(2) Whether it is the proper name of the Son?

(3) Whether in the name of Word is expressed relation to creatures?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 34, Art. 1]

Whether Word in God Is a Personal Name?

Objection 1: It would seem that Word in God is not a personal name.
For personal names are applied to God in a proper sense, as Father and
Son. But Word is applied to God metaphorically, as Origen says on
(John 1:1), "In the beginning was the Word." Therefore Word is not a
personal name in God.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. ix, 10), "The Word
is knowledge with love;" and according to Anselm (Monol. lx), "To
speak is to the Supreme Spirit nothing but to see by thought." But
knowledge and thought, and sight, are essential terms in God.
Therefore Word is not a personal term in God.

Obj. 3: Further, it is essential to word to be spoken. But, according
to Anselm (Monol. lix), as the Father is intelligent, the Son is
intelligent, and the Holy Ghost is intelligent, so the Father speaks,
the Son speaks, and the Holy Ghost speaks; and likewise, each one of
them is spoken. Therefore, the name Word is used as an essential term
in God, and not in a personal sense.

Obj. 4: Further, no divine person is made. But the Word of God is
something made. For it is said, "Fire, hail, snow, ice, the storms
which do His Word" (Ps. 148:8). Therefore the Word is not a personal
name in God.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 11): "As the Son is
related to the Father, so also is the Word to Him Whose Word He is."
But the Son is a personal name, since it is said relatively. Therefore
so also is Word.

_I answer that,_ The name of Word in God, if taken in its proper sense,
is a personal name, and in no way an essential name.

To see how this is true, we must know that our own word taken in its
proper sense has a threefold meaning; while in a fourth sense it is
taken improperly or figuratively. The clearest and most common sense
is when it is said of the word spoken by the voice; and this proceeds
from an interior source as regards two things found in the exterior
word--that is, the vocal sound itself, and the signification of the
sound. For, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i) vocal sound
signifies the concept of the intellect. Again the vocal sound proceeds
from the signification or the imagination, as stated in _De Anima_ ii,
text 90. The vocal sound, which has no signification cannot be called
a word: wherefore the exterior vocal sound is called a word from the
fact the it signifies the interior concept of the mind. Therefore it
follows that, first and chiefly, the interior concept of the mind is
called a word; secondarily, the vocal sound itself, signifying the
interior concept, is so called; and thirdly, the imagination of the
vocal sound is called a word. Damascene mentions these three kinds of
words (De Fide Orth. i, 17), saying that "word" is called "the natural
movement of the intellect, whereby it is moved, and understands, and
thinks, as light and splendor;" which is the first kind. "Again," he
says, "the word is what is not pronounced by a vocal word, but is
uttered in the heart;" which is the third kind. "Again," also, "the
word is the angel"--that is, the messenger "of intelligence;" which
is the second kind. Word is also used in a fourth way figuratively for
that which is signified or effected by a word; thus we are wont to
say, "this is the word I have said," or "which the king has
commanded," alluding to some deed signified by the word either by way
of assertion or of command.

Now word is taken strictly in God, as signifying the concept of the
intellect. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 10): "Whoever can
understand the word, not only before it is sounded, but also before
thought has clothed it with imaginary sound, can already see some
likeness of that Word of Whom it is said: In the beginning was the
Word." The concept itself of the heart has of its own nature to
proceed from something other than itself--namely, from the knowledge
of the one conceiving. Hence "Word," according as we use the term
strictly of God, signifies something proceeding from another; which
belongs to the nature of personal terms in God, inasmuch as the divine
persons are distinguished by origin (Q. 27, AA. 3, 4, 5). Hence the
term "Word," according as we use the term strictly of God, is to be
taken as said not essentially, but personally.

Reply Obj. 1: The Arians, who sprang from Origen, declared that the
Son differed in substance from the Father. Hence, they endeavored to
maintain that when the Son of God is called the Word, this is not to
be understood in a strict sense; lest the idea of the Word proceeding
should compel them to confess that the Son of God is of the same
substance as the Father. For the interior word proceeds in such a
manner from the one who pronounces it, as to remain within him. But
supposing Word to be said metaphorically of God, we must still admit
Word in its strict sense. For if a thing be called a word
metaphorically, this can only be by reason of some manifestation;
either it makes something manifest as a word, or it is manifested by
a word. If manifested by a word, there must exist a word whereby it
is manifested. If it is called a word because it exteriorly
manifests, what it exteriorly manifests cannot be called word except
in as far as it signifies the interior concept of the mind, which
anyone may also manifest by exterior signs. Therefore, although Word
may be sometimes said of God metaphorically, nevertheless we must
also admit Word in the proper sense, and which is said personally.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing belonging to the intellect can be applied to
God personally, except word alone; for word alone signifies that
which emanates from another. For what the intellect forms in its
conception is the word. Now, the intellect itself, according as it is
made actual by the intelligible species, is considered absolutely;
likewise the act of understanding which is to the actual intellect
what existence is to actual being; since the act of understanding
does not signify an act going out from the intelligent agent, but an
act remaining in the agent. Therefore when we say that word is
knowledge, the term knowledge does not mean the act of a knowing
intellect, or any one of its habits, but stands for what the
intellect conceives by knowing. Hence also Augustine says (De Trin.
vii, 1) that the Word is "begotten wisdom;" for it is nothing but the
concept of the Wise One; and in the same way It can be called
"begotten knowledge." Thus can also be explained how "to speak" is in
God "to see by thought," forasmuch as the Word is conceived by the
gaze of the divine thought. Still the term "thought" does not
properly apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv,
16): "Therefore do we speak of the Word of God, and not of the
Thought of God, lest we believe that in God there is something
unstable, now assuming the form of Word, now putting off that form
and remaining latent and as it were formless." For thought consists
properly in the search after the truth, and this has no place in God.
But when the intellect attains to the form of truth, it does not
think, but perfectly contemplates the truth. Hence Anselm (Monol. lx)
takes "thought" in an improper sense for "contemplation."

Reply Obj. 3: As, properly speaking, Word in God is said personally,
and not essentially, so likewise is to "speak." Hence, as the Word is
not common to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so it is not true that
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one speaker. So Augustine says
(De Trin. vii, 1): "He who speaks in that co-eternal Word is
understood as not alone in God, but as being with that very Word,
without which, forsooth, He would not be speaking." On the other
hand, "to be spoken" belongs to each Person, for not only is the word
spoken, but also the thing understood or signified by the word.
Therefore in this manner to one person alone in God does it belong to
be spoken in the same way as a word is spoken; whereas in the way
whereby a thing is spoken as being understood in the word, it belongs
to each Person to be spoken. For the Father, by understanding
Himself, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and all other things comprised
in this knowledge, conceives the Word; so that thus the whole Trinity
is "spoken" in the Word; and likewise also all creatures: as the
intellect of a man by the word he conceives in the act of
understanding a stone, speaks a stone. Anselm took the term "speak"
improperly for the act of understanding; whereas they really differ
from each other; for "to understand" means only the habitude of the
intelligent agent to the thing understood, in which habitude no trace
of origin is conveyed, but only a certain information of our
intellect; forasmuch as our intellect is made actual by the form of
the thing understood. In God, however, it means complete identity,
because in God the intellect and the thing understood are altogether
the same, as was proved above (Q. 14, AA. 4, 5). Whereas to "speak"
means chiefly the habitude to the word conceived; for "to speak" is
nothing but to utter a word. But by means of the word it imports a
habitude to the thing understood which in the word uttered is
manifested to the one who understands. Thus, only the Person who
utters the Word is "speaker" in God, although each Person understands
and is understood, and consequently is spoken by the Word.

Reply Obj. 4: The term "word" is there taken figuratively, as the
thing signified or effected by word is called word. For thus
creatures are said to do the word of God, as executing any effect,
whereto they are ordained from the word conceived of the divine
wisdom; as anyone is said to do the word of the king when he does the
work to which he is appointed by the king's word.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 34, Art. 2]

Whether "Word" Is the Son's Proper Name?

Objection 1: It would seem that "Word" is not the proper name of the
Son. For the Son is a subsisting person in God. But word does not
signify a subsisting thing, as appears in ourselves. Therefore word
cannot be the proper name of the person of the Son.

Obj. 2: Further, the word proceeds from the speaker by being uttered.
Therefore if the Son is properly the word, He proceeds from the
Father, by way only of utterance; which is the heresy of Valentine;
as appears from Augustine (De Haeres. xi).

Obj. 3: Further, every proper name of a person signifies some
property of that person. Therefore, if the Word is the Son's proper
name, it signifies some property of His; and thus there will be
several more properties in God than those above mentioned.

Obj. 4: Further, whoever understands conceives a word in the act of
understanding. But the Son understands. Therefore some word belongs
to the Son; and consequently to be Word is not proper to the Son.

Obj. 5: Further, it is said of the Son (Heb. 1:3): "Bearing all
things by the word of His power;" whence Basil infers (Cont. Eunom.
v, 11) that the Holy Ghost is the Son's Word. Therefore to be Word is
not proper to the Son.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 11): "By Word we
understand the Son alone."

_I answer that,_ "Word," said of God in its proper sense, is used
personally, and is the proper name of the person of the Son. For it
signifies an emanation of the intellect: and the person Who proceeds
in God, by way of emanation of the intellect, is called the Son; and
this procession is called generation, as we have shown above (Q. 27,
A. 2). Hence it follows that the Son alone is properly called Word in
God.

Reply Obj. 1: "To be" and "to understand" are not the same in us.
Hence that which in us has intellectual being, does not belong to our
nature. But in God "to be" and "to understand" are one and the same:
hence the Word of God is not an accident in Him, or an effect of His;
but belongs to His very nature. And therefore it must needs be
something subsistent; for whatever is in the nature of God subsists;
and so Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18) that "the Word of God is
substantial and has a hypostatic being; but other words [as our own]
are activities if the soul."

Reply Obj. 2: The error of Valentine was condemned, not as the Arians
pretended, because he asserted that the Son was born by being
uttered, as Hilary relates (De Trin. vi); but on account of the
different mode of utterance proposed by its author, as appears from
Augustine (De Haeres. xi).

Reply Obj. 3: In the term "Word" the same property is comprised as in
the name Son. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 11): "Word and Son
express the same." For the Son's nativity, which is His personal
property, is signified by different names, which are attributed to
the Son to express His perfection in various ways. To show that He is
of the same nature as the Father, He is called the Son; to show that
He is co-eternal, He is called the Splendor; to show that He is
altogether like, He is called the Image; to show that He is begotten
immaterially, He is called the Word. All these truths cannot be
expressed by only one name.

Reply Obj. 4: To be intelligent belongs to the Son, in the same way
as it belongs to Him to be God, since to understand is said of God
essentially, as stated above (Q. 14, AA. 2, 4). Now the Son is God
begotten, and not God begetting; and hence He is intelligent, not as
producing a Word, but as the Word proceeding; forasmuch as in God the
Word proceeding does not differ really from the divine intellect, but
is distinguished from the principle of the Word only by relation.

Reply Obj. 5: When it is said of the Son, "Bearing all things by the
word of His power"; "word" is taken figuratively for the effect of
the Word. Hence a gloss says that "word" is here taken to mean
command; inasmuch as by the effect of the power of the Word, things
are kept in being, as also by the effect of the power of the Word
things are brought into being. Basil speaks widely and figuratively
in applying Word to the Holy Ghost; in the sense perhaps that
everything that makes a person known may be called his word, and so
in that way the Holy Ghost may be called the Son's Word, because He
manifests the Son.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 34, Art. 3]

Whether the Name "Word" Imports Relation to Creatures?

Objection 1: It would seem that the name 'Word' does not import
relation to creatures. For every name that connotes some effect in
creatures, is said of God essentially. But Word is not said
essentially, but personally. Therefore Word does not import relation
to creatures.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever imports relation to creatures is said of
God in time; as "Lord" and "Creator." But Word is said of God from
eternity. Therefore it does not import relation to the creature.

Obj. 3: Further, Word imports relation to the source whence it
proceeds. Therefore, if it imports relation to the creature, it
follows that the Word proceeds from the creature.

Obj. 4: Further, ideas (in God) are many according to their various
relations to creatures. Therefore if Word imports relation to
creatures, it follows that in God there is not one Word only, but
many.

Obj. 5: Further, if Word imports relation to the creature, this can
only be because creatures are known by God. But God does not know
beings only; He knows also non-beings. Therefore in the Word are
implied relations to non-beings; which appears to be false.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 63), that "the
name Word signifies not only relation to the Father, but also
relation to those beings which are made through the Word, by His
operative power."

_I answer that,_ Word implies relation to creatures. For God by
knowing Himself, knows every creature. Now the word conceived in the
mind is representative of everything that is actually understood.
Hence there are in ourselves different words for the different things
which we understand. But because God by one act understands Himself
and all things, His one only Word is expressive not only of the
Father, but of all creatures.

And as the knowledge of God is only cognitive as regards God, whereas
as regards creatures, it is both cognitive and operative, so the Word
of God is only expressive of what is in God the Father, but is both
expressive and operative of creatures; and therefore it is said (Ps.
32:9): "He spake, and they were made;" because in the Word is implied
the operative idea of what God makes.

Reply Obj. 1: The nature is also included indirectly in the name of
the person; for person is an individual substance of a rational
nature. Therefore the name of a divine person, as regards the
personal relation, does not imply relation to the creature, but it is
implied in what belongs to the nature. Yet there is nothing to
prevent its implying relation to creatures, so far as the essence is
included in its meaning: for as it properly belongs to the Son to be
the Son, so it properly belongs to Him to be God begotten, or the
Creator begotten; and in this way the name Word imports relation to
creatures.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the relations result from actions, some names
import the relation of God to creatures, which relation follows on
the action of God which passes into some exterior effect, as to
create and to govern; and the like are applied to God in time. But
others import a relation which follows from an action which does not
pass into an exterior effect, but abides in the agent--as to know and
to will: such are not applied to God in time; and this kind of
relation to creatures is implied in the name of the Word. Nor is it
true that all names which import the relation of God to creatures are
applied to Him in time; but only those names are applied in time
which import relation following on the action of God passing into
exterior effect.

Reply Obj. 3: Creatures are known to God not by a knowledge derived
from the creatures themselves, but by His own essence. Hence it is
not necessary that the Word should proceed from creatures, although
the Word is expressive of creatures.

Reply Obj. 4: The name of Idea is imposed chiefly to signify relation
to creatures; and therefore it is applied in a plural sense to God;
and it is not said personally. But the name of Word is imposed
chiefly to signify the speaker, and consequently, relation to
creatures, inasmuch as God, by understanding Himself, understands
every creature; and so there is only one Word in God, and that is a
personal one.

Reply Obj. 5: God's knowledge of non-beings and God's Word about
non-beings are the same; because the Word of God contains no less
than does the knowledge of God, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 14).
Nevertheless the Word is expressive and operative of beings, but is
expressive and manifestive of non-beings.
_______________________

QUESTION 35

OF THE IMAGE
(In Two Articles)

We next inquire concerning the image: about which there are two points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether Image in God is said personally?

(2) Whether this name belongs to the Son alone?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 35, Art. 1]

Whether Image in God Is Said Personally?

Objection 1: It would seem that image is not said personally of God.
For Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i) says, "The Godhead
of the Holy Trinity and the Image whereunto man is made are one."
Therefore Image is said of God essentially, and not personally.

Obj. 2: Further, Hilary says (De Synod.): "An image is a like
species of that which it represents." But species or form is said
of God essentially. Therefore so also is Image.

Obj. 3: Further, Image is derived from imitation, which implies
"before" and "after." But in the divine persons there is no "before"
and "after." Therefore Image cannot be a personal name in God.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 1): "What is more
absurd than to say that an image is referred to itself?" Therefore
the Image in God is a relation, and is thus a personal name.

_I answer that,_ Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not
any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only
similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign. In corporeal
things the specific sign consists chiefly in the figure. For we see
that the species of different animals are of different figures; but
not of different colors. Hence if the color of anything is depicted on
a wall, this is not called an image unless the figure is likewise
depicted. Further, neither the similitude of species or of figure is
enough for an image, which requires also the idea of origin; because,
as Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 74): "One egg is not the image of
another, because it is not derived from it." Therefore for a true
image it is required that one proceeds from another like to it in
species, or at least in specific sign. Now whatever imports procession
or origin in God, belongs to the persons. Hence the name "Image" is a
personal name.

Reply Obj. 1: Image, properly speaking, means whatever proceeds forth
in likeness to another. That to the likeness of which anything
proceeds, is properly speaking called the exemplar, and is improperly
called the image. Nevertheless Augustine (Fulgentius) uses the name
of Image in this sense when he says that the divine nature of the
Holy Trinity is the Image to whom man was made.

Reply Obj. 2: species, as mentioned by Hilary in the definition of
image, means the form derived from one thing to another. In this
sense image is said to be the species of anything, as that which is
assimilated to anything is called its form, inasmuch as it has a like
form.

Reply Obj. 3: Imitation in God does not signify posteriority, but
only assimilation.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 35, Art. 2]

Whether the Name of Image Is Proper to the Son?

Objection 1: It would seem that the name of Image is not proper to the
Son; because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18), "The Holy Ghost
is the Image of the Son." Therefore Image does not belong to the Son
alone.

Obj. 2: Further, similitude in expression belongs to the nature of an
image, as Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 74). But this belongs to
the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds from another by way of similitude.
Therefore the Holy Ghost is an Image; and so to be Image does not
belong to the Son alone.

Obj. 3: Further, man is also called the image of God, according to 1
Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his head, for he is the image
and the glory of God." Therefore Image is not proper to the Son.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): "The Son alone is
the Image of the Father."

_I answer that,_ The Greek Doctors commonly say that the Holy Ghost
is the Image of both the Father and of the Son; but the Latin Doctors
attribute the name Image to the Son alone. For it is not found in the
canonical Scripture except as applied to the Son; as in the words,
"Who is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creatures"
(Col. 1:15) and again: "Who being the brightness of His glory, and
the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1:3).

Some explain this by the fact that the Son agrees with the Father, not
in nature only, but also in the notion of principle: whereas the Holy
Ghost agrees neither with the Son, nor with the Father in any notion.
This, however, does not seem to suffice. Because as it is not by
reason of the relations that we consider either equality or inequality
in God, as Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6), so neither (by reason
thereof do we consider) that similitude which is essential to image.
Hence others say that the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Image of the
Son, because there cannot be an image of an image; nor of the Father,
because again the image must be immediately related to that which it
is the image; and the Holy Ghost is related to the Father through the
Son; nor again is He the Image of the Father and the Son, because then
there would be one image of two; which is impossible. Hence it follows
that the Holy Ghost is in no way an Image. But this is no proof: for
the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we
shall explain further on (Q. 36, A. 4). Hence there is nothing
to prevent there being one Image of the Father and of the Son,
inasmuch as they are one; since even man is one image of the whole
Trinity.

Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the
Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of the
Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to be
"born"; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father, He is
not called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and it is
essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds;
whereas this does not essentially belong to love, although it may
belong to that love which is the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He is the
divine love.

Reply Obj. 1: Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly employ
the term image as meaning a perfect similitude.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the Holy Ghost is like to the Father and the
Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image, as above
explained.

Reply Obj. 3: The image of a thing may be found in something in two
ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific
nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way
it is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image
on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father;
in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in
order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man,
man is not simply called the image, but "to the image," whereby is
expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot
be said that the Son of God is "to the image," because He is the
perfect Image of the Father.
_______________________

QUESTION 36

OF THE PERSON OF THE HOLY GHOST
(In Four Articles)

We proceed to treat of what belongs to the person of the Holy Ghost,
Who is called not only the Holy Ghost, but also the Love and Gift of
God. Concerning the name "Holy Ghost" there are four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether this name, "Holy Ghost," is the proper name of one divine
Person?

(2) Whether that divine person Who is called the Holy Ghost, proceeds
from the Father and the Son?

(3) Whether He proceeds from the Father through the Son?

(4) Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy
Ghost?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 36, Art. 1]

Whether This Name "Holy Ghost" Is the Proper Name of One Divine Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that this name, "Holy Ghost," is not the
proper name of one divine person. For no name which is common to the
three persons is the proper name of any one person. But this name of
'Holy Ghost' [*It should be borne in mind that the word "ghost" is the
old English equivalent for the Latin "spiritus,"] whether in the sense
of "breath" or "blast," or in the sense of "spirit," as an immaterial
substance. Thus, we read in the former sense (Hampole, Psalter x, 7),
"The Gost of Storms" [spiritus procellarum], and in the latter
"Trubled gost is sacrifice of God" (Prose Psalter, A.D. 1325), and
"Oure wrestlynge is . . . against the spiritual wicked gostes of the
ayre" (More, "Comfort against Tribulation"); and in our modern
expression of "giving up the ghost." As applied to God, and not
specially to the third Holy Person, we have an example from Maunder,
"Jhesu Criste was the worde and the goste of Good." (See Oxford
Dictionary).) is common to the three persons; for Hilary (De Trin.
viii) shows that the "Spirit of God" sometimes means the Father, as in
the words of Isa. 61:1: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me;" and
sometimes the Son, as when the Son says: "In the Spirit of God I cast
out devils" (Matt. 12:28), showing that He cast out devils by His own
natural power; and that sometimes it means the Holy Ghost, as in the
words of Joel 2:28: "I will pour out of My Spirit over all flesh."
Therefore this name 'Holy Ghost' is not the proper name of a divine
person.

Obj. 2: Further, the names of the divine persons are relative terms,
as Boethius says (De Trin.). But this name "Holy Ghost" is not a
relative term. Therefore this name is not the proper name of a divine
Person.

Obj. 3: Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He
cannot be called the Son of this or of that. But the spirit is spoken
of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, "The Lord said to
Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them" (Num. 11:17)
and also "The Spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus" (4 Kings 2:15).
Therefore "Holy Ghost" does not seem to be the proper name of a
divine Person.

_On the contrary,_ It is said (1 John 5:7): "There are three who bear
witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." As
Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4): "When we ask, Three what? we say,
Three persons." Therefore the Holy Ghost is the name of a divine
person.

_I answer that,_ While there are two processions in God, one of
these, the procession of love, has no proper name of its own, as
stated above (Q. 27, A. 4, ad 3). Hence the relations also which
follow from this procession are without a name (Q. 28, A. 4): for
which reason the Person proceeding in that manner has not a proper
name. But as some names are accommodated by the usual mode of
speaking to signify the aforesaid relations, as when we use the names
of procession and spiration, which in the strict sense more fittingly
signify the notional acts than the relations; so to signify the
divine Person, Who proceeds by way of love, this name "Holy Ghost" is
by the use of scriptural speech accommodated to Him. The
appropriateness of this name may be shown in two ways. Firstly, from
the fact that the person who is called "Holy Ghost" has something in
common with the other Persons. For, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv,
17; v, 11), "Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is
called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father
also is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy,
and the Son is holy." Secondly, from the proper signification of the
name. For the name spirit in things corporeal seems to signify
impulse and motion; for we call the breath and the wind by the term
spirit. Now it is a property of love to move and impel the will of
the lover towards the object loved. Further, holiness is attributed
to whatever is ordered to God. Therefore because the divine person
proceeds by way of the love whereby God is loved, that person is most
properly named "The Holy Ghost."

Reply Obj. 1: The expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two words, is
applicable to the whole Trinity: because by 'spirit' the
immateriality of the divine substance is signified; for corporeal
spirit is invisible, and has but little matter; hence we apply this
term to all immaterial and invisible substances. And by adding the
word "holy" we signify the purity of divine goodness. But if Holy
Spirit be taken as one word, it is thus that the expression, in the
usage of the Church, is accommodated to signify one of the three
persons, the one who proceeds by way of love, for the reason above
explained.

Reply Obj. 2: Although this name "Holy Ghost" does not indicate a
relation, still it takes the place of a relative term, inasmuch as it
is accommodated to signify a Person distinct from the others by
relation only. Yet this name may be understood as including a
relation, if we understand the Holy Spirit as being breathed
[spiratus].

Reply Obj. 3: In the name Son we understand that relation only which
is of something from a principle, in regard to that principle: but in
the name "Father" we understand the relation of principle; and
likewise in the name of Spirit inasmuch as it implies a moving power.
But to no creature does it belong to be a principle as regards a
divine person; but rather the reverse. Therefore we can say "our
Father," and "our Spirit"; but we cannot say "our Son."
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 36, Art. 2]

Whether the Holy Ghost Proceeds from the Son?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from
the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say
anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been
divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred
Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son;
but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from John 15:26:
"The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the
Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Obj. 2: Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can.
vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver,
who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be
adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a
thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the
Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the
Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we
name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not
proceed from the Son.

Obj. 4: Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the
Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St.
Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the
Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one
Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son."
Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Obj. 5: Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath
[spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word.
Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Obj. 6: Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father.
Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.

Obj. 7: Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things
perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is
possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if
He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir.
Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the
Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by
Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And
further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and
the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the
Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father
and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

_I answer that,_ It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son.
For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally
distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (Q.
28, A. 3; Q. 30, A. 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons
are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would
follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons:
since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs
to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine
persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now
the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they
are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father
has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by
the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations,
and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the
one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost
there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to
the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as
neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to
them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that
the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two
relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is
heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the
Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite
relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each
other, except relations of origin, as proved above (Q. 28, A. 4). And
opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a
"principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must
conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the
Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the
Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this
conclusion. For it was said above (Q. 27, AA. 2, 4; Q. 28, A. 4),
that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the
Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a
word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental
conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature
itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one
without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as
for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other
materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which
there is not only a material distinction we always find that some
order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of
creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So
if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and
the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any
other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is
from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy
Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them
proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material
distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the
Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy
Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father
"through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is
from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He
proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just
consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word
procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin
of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as
when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a
stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted
that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can
conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Reply Obj. 1: We ought not to say about God anything which is not
found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although
we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of
Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost,
"He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" (John 16:14).
It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the
Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive
term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations,
whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For
when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the
idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we
say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be
added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not
thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of
the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other,
but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is
the Son.

Reply Obj. 2: In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has
been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council
at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as
making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in
the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against
rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it
is declared that those who were congregated together in the council
of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not
implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their
predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what
those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the
time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the
Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not
necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas,
later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [*Council of
Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was
explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose
authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed.
Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

Reply Obj. 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error
that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a
Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was
embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him,
among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is
not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that
while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son,
neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.

Reply Obj. 4: When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the
Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son
also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the
Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of
the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature
of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (John
1:33).

Reply Obj. 5: The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of
the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not proceed; for it
would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the
mental word, whence proceeds love.

Reply Obj. 6: For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds
from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one
power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from
the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property
of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from
the Father.

Reply Obj. 7: The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch
as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other;
but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son
is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father
and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished
from each other, as explained above, and in Q. 27.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 36, Art. 3]

Whether the Holy Ghost Proceeds from the Father Through the Son?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from
the Father through the Son. For whatever proceeds from one through
another, does not proceed immediately. Therefore, if the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed
immediately; which seems to be unfitting.

Obj. 2: Further, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through
the Son, He does not proceed from the Son, except on account of the
Father. But "whatever causes a thing to be such is yet more so."
Therefore He proceeds more from the Father than from the Son.

Obj. 3: Further, the Son has His being by generation. Therefore if
the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, it follows that
the Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Ghost proceeds;
and thus the procession of the Holy Ghost is not eternal, which is
heretical.

Obj. 4: Further, when anyone acts through another, the same may be
said conversely. For as we say that the king acts through the
bailiff, so it can be said conversely that the bailiff acts through
the king. But we can never say that the Son spirates the Holy Ghost
through the Father. Therefore it can never be said that the Father
spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. xii): "Keep me, I pray, in
this expression of my faith, that I may ever possess the
Father--namely Thyself: that I may adore Thy Son together with Thee:
and that I may deserve Thy Holy Spirit, who is through Thy Only
Begotten."

_I answer that,_ Whenever one is said to act through another, this
preposition "through" points out, in what is covered by it, some cause
or principle of that act. But since action is a mean between the agent
and the thing done, sometimes that which is covered by the preposition
"through" is the cause of the action, as proceeding from the agent;
and in that case it is the cause of why the agent acts, whether it be
a final cause or a formal cause, whether it be effective or motive. It
is a final cause when we say, for instance, that the artisan works
through love of gain. It is a formal cause when we say that he works
through his art. It is a motive cause when we say that he works
through the command of another. Sometimes, however, that which is
covered by this preposition "through" is the cause of the action
regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance, when we
say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not mean that
the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is the cause
why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has even
this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said that
this preposition "through" sometimes denotes direct authority, as when
we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes indirect
authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the king.

Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the
Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.

Reply Obj. 1: In every action two things are to be considered, the
_suppositum_ acting, and the power whereby it acts; as, for instance,
fire heats through heat. So if we consider in the Father and the Son
the power whereby they spirate the Holy Ghost, there is no mean, for
this is one and the same power. But if we consider the persons
themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the
Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He
is said to proceed from the Father through the Son. So also did Abel
proceed immediately from Adam, inasmuch as Adam was his father; and
mediately, as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam; although,
indeed, this example of a material procession is inept to signify the
immaterial procession of the divine persons.

Reply Obj. 2: If the Son received from the Father a numerically
distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow
that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the
Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the Son;
whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the
Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds equally
from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or
properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the
Father.

Reply Obj. 3: As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal with the
begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before begetting the
Son), so the procession of the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with His
principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost
proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal.

Reply Obj. 4: When anyone is said to work through anything, the
converse proposition is not always true. For we do not say that the
mallet works through the carpenter; whereas we can say that the
bailiff acts through the king, because it is the bailiff's place to
act, since he is master of his own act, but it is not the mallet's
place to act, but only to be made to act, and hence it is used only
as an instrument. The bailiff is, however, said to act through the
king, although this preposition "through" denotes a medium, for the
more a _suppositum_ is prior in action, so much the more is its power
immediate as regards the effect, inasmuch as the power of the first
cause joins the second cause to its effect. Hence also first
principles are said to be immediate in the demonstrative sciences.
Therefore, so far as the bailiff is a medium according to the order
of the subject's acting, the king is said to work through the
bailiff; but according to the order of powers, the bailiff is said to
act through the king, forasmuch as the power of the king gives the
bailiff's action its effect. Now there is no order of power between
Father and Son, but only order of 'supposita'; and hence we say that
the Father spirates through the Son; and not conversely.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 36, Art. 4]

Whether the Father and the Son Are One Principle of the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Father and the Son are not one
principle of the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost does not proceed from
the Father and the Son as they are one; not as they are one in nature,
for the Holy Ghost would in that way proceed from Himself, as He is
one in nature with Them; nor again inasmuch as they are united in any
one property, for it is clear that one property cannot belong to two
subjects. Therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the
Son as distinct from one another. Therefore the Father and the Son are
not one principle of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, in this proposition "the Father and the Son are one
principle of the Holy Ghost," we do not designate personal unity,
because in that case the Father and the Son would be one person; nor
again do we designate the unity of property, because if one property
were the reason of the Father and the Son being one principle of the
Holy Ghost, similarly, on account of His two properties, the Father
would be two principles of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which
cannot be admitted. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one
principle of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 3: Further, the Son is not one with the Father more than is the
Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost and the Father are not one principle
as regards any other divine person. Therefore neither are the Father
and the Son.

Obj. 4: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the
Holy Ghost, this one is either the Father or it is not the Father.
But we cannot assert either of these positions because if the one is
the Father, it follows that the Son is the Father; and if the one is
not the Father, it follows that the Father is not the Father.
Therefore we cannot say that the Father and the Son are one principle
of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 5: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the
Holy Ghost, it seems necessary to say, conversely, that the one
principle of the Holy Ghost is the Father and the Son. But this seems
to be false; for this word "principle" stands either for the person
of the Father, or for the person of the Son; and in either sense it
is false. Therefore this proposition also is false, that the Father
and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 6: Further, unity in substance makes identity. So if the Father
and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Ghost, it follows that
they are the same principle; which is denied by many. Therefore we
cannot grant that the Father and the Son are one principle of the
Holy Ghost.

Obj. 7: Further, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are called one
Creator, because they are the one principle of the creature. But the
Father and the Son are not one, but two Spirators, as many assert;
and this agrees also with what Hilary says (De Trin. ii) that "the
Holy Ghost is to be confessed as proceeding from Father and Son as
authors." Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of
the Holy Ghost.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. v, 14) that the Father and
the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost.

_I answer that,_ The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever
there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since
there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the
Holy Ghost it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of
the Holy Ghost.

Some, however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: "The Father
and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost," because, they
declare, since the word "principle" in the singular number does not
signify "person," but "property," it must be taken as an adjective;
and forasmuch as an adjective cannot be modified by another adjective,
it cannot properly be said that the Father and the Son are one
principle of the Holy Ghost unless one be taken as an adverb, so that
the meaning should be: They are one principle--that is, in one and
the same way. But then it might be equally right to say that the
Father is two principles of the Son and of the Holy Ghost--namely, in
two ways. Therefore, we must say that, although this word "principle"
signifies a property, it does so after the manner of a substantive, as
do the words "father" and "son" even in things created. Hence it takes
its number from the form it signifies, like other substantives.
Therefore, as the Father and the Son are one God, by reason of the
unity of the form that is signified by this word "God"; so they are
one principle of the Holy Ghost by reason of the unity of the property
that is signified in this word "principle."

Reply Obj. 1: If we consider the spirative power, the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are one in the spirative
power, which in a certain way signifies the nature with the property,
as we shall see later (ad 7). Nor is there any reason against one
property being in two _supposita_ that possess one common nature. But
if we consider the _supposita_ of the spiration, then we may say that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for
He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both.

Reply Obj. 2: In the proposition "the Father and the Son are one
principle of the Holy Ghost," one property is designated which is the
form signified by the term. It does not thence follow that by reason
of the several properties the Father can be called several
principles, for this would imply in Him a plurality of subjects.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not by reason of relative properties that we
speak of similitude or dissimilitude in God, but by reason of the
essence. Hence, as the Father is not more like to Himself than He is
to the Son; so likewise neither is the Son more like to the Father
than is the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 4: These two propositions, "The Father and the Son are one
principle which is the Father," or, "one principle which is not the
Father," are not mutually contradictory; and hence it is not
necessary to assert one or other of them. For when we say the Father
and the Son are one principle, this word "principle" has not
determinate supposition but rather it stands indeterminately for two
persons together. Hence there is a fallacy of "figure of speech" as
the argument concludes from the indeterminate to the determinate.

Reply Obj. 5: This proposition is also true:--The one principle of
the Holy Ghost is the Father and the Son; because the word
"principle" does not stand for one person only, but indistinctly for
the two persons as above explained.

Reply Obj. 6: There is no reason against saying that the Father and
the Son are the same principle, because the word "principle" stands
confusedly and indistinctly for the two Persons together.

Reply Obj. 7: Some say that although the Father and the Son are one
principle of the Holy Ghost, there are two spirators, by reason of
the distinction of _supposita,_ as also there are two spirating,
because acts refer to subjects. Yet this does not hold good as to the
name "Creator"; because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and
the Son as from two distinct persons, as above explained; whereas the
creature proceeds from the three persons not as distinct persons, but
as united in essence. It seems, however, better to say that because
spirating is an adjective, and spirator a substantive, we can say
that the Father and the Son are two spirating, by reason of the
plurality of the _supposita_ but not two spirators by reason of the
one spiration. For adjectival words derive their number from the
_supposita_ but substantives from themselves, according to the form
signified. As to what Hilary says, that "the Holy Ghost is from the
Father and the Son as His authors," this is to be explained in the
sense that the substantive here stands for the adjective.
_______________________

QUESTION 37

OF THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST--LOVE
(In Two Articles)

We now inquire concerning the name "Love," on which arise two points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?

(2) Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 37, Art. 2]

Whether "Love" Is the Proper Name of the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that "Love" is not the proper name of the
Holy Ghost. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17): "As the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost are called Wisdom, and are not three Wisdoms, but one;
I know not why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost should not be called
Charity, and all together one Charity." But no name which is
predicated in the singular of each person and of all together, is a
proper name of a person. Therefore this name, "Love," is not the
proper name of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, the Holy Ghost is a subsisting person, but love is
not used to signify a subsisting person, but rather an action passing
from the lover to the beloved. Therefore Love is not the proper name
of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 3: Further, Love is the bond between lovers, for as Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. iv): "Love is a unitive force." But a bond is a
medium between what it joins together, not something proceeding from
them. Therefore, since the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and
the Son, as was shown above (Q. 36, A. 2), it seems that He is not
the Love or bond of the Father and the Son.

Obj. 4: Further, Love belongs to every lover. But the Holy Ghost is a
lover: therefore He has love. So if the Holy Ghost is Love, He must
be love of love, and spirit from spirit; which is not admissible.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Hom. xxx, in Pentecost.): "The Holy
Ghost Himself is Love."

_I answer that,_ The name Love in God can be taken essentially and
personally. If taken personally it is the proper name of the Holy
Ghost; as Word is the proper name of the Son.

To see this we must know that since as shown above (Q. 27, AA. 2, 3,
4, 5), there are two processions in God, one by way of the intellect,
which is the procession of the Word, and another by way of the will,
which is the procession of Love; forasmuch as the former is the more
known to us, we have been able to apply more suitable names to
express our various considerations as regards that procession, but
not as regards the procession of the will. Hence, we are obliged to
employ circumlocution as regards the person Who proceeds, and the
relations following from this procession which are called
"procession" and "spiration," as stated above (Q. 27, A. 4, ad 3),
and yet express the origin rather than the relation in the strict
sense of the term. Nevertheless we must consider them in respect of
each procession simply. For as when a thing is understood by anyone,
there results in the one who understands a conception of the object
understood, which conception we call word; so when anyone loves an
object, a certain impression results, so to speak, of the thing loved
in the affection of the lover; by reason of which the object loved is
said to be in the lover; as also the thing understood is in the one
who understands; so that when anyone understands and loves himself he
is in himself, not only by real identity, but also as the object
understood is in the one who understands, and the thing loved is in
the lover. As regards the intellect, however, words have been found
to describe the mutual relation of the one who understands the object
understood, as appears in the word "to understand"; and other words
are used to express the procession of the intellectual
conception--namely, "to speak," and "word." Hence in God, "to
understand" is applied only to the essence; because it does not
import relation to the Word that proceeds; whereas "Word" is said
personally, because it signifies what proceeds; and the term "to
speak" is a notional term as importing the relation of the principle
of the Word to the Word Himself. On the other hand, on the part of
the will, with the exception of the words "dilection" and "love,"
which express the relation of the lover to the object loved, there
are no other terms in use, which express the relation of the
impression or affection of the object loved, produced in the lover by
fact that he loves--to the principle of that impression, or "vice
versa." And therefore, on account of the poverty of our vocabulary,
we express these relations by the words "love" and "dilection": just
as if we were to call the Word "intelligence conceived," or "wisdom
begotten."

It follows that so far as love means only the relation of the lover to
the object loved, "love" and "to love" are said of the essence, as
"understanding" and "to understand"; but, on the other hand, so far as
these words are used to express the relation to its principle, of what
proceeds by way of love, and "vice versa," so that by "love" is
understood the "love proceeding," and by "to love" is understood "the
spiration of the love proceeding," in that sense "love" is the name of
the person and "to love" is a notional term, as "to speak" and "to
beget."

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is there speaking of charity as it means the
divine essence, as was said above (here and Q. 24, A. 2, ad 4).

Reply Obj. 2: Although to understand, and to will, and to love
signify actions passing on to their objects, nevertheless they are
actions that remain in the agents, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 4),
yet in such a way that in the agent itself they import a certain
relation to their object. Hence, love also in ourselves is something
that abides in the lover, and the word of the heart is something
abiding in the speaker; yet with a relation to the thing expressed by
word, or loved. But in God, in whom there is nothing accidental, there
is more than this; because both Word and Love are subsistent.
Therefore, when we say that the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father
for the Son, or for something else; we do not mean anything that
passes into another, but only the relation of love to the beloved; as
also in the Word is imported the relation of the Word to the thing
expressed by the Word.

Reply Obj. 3: The Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the Father and
Son, inasmuch as He is Love; because, since the Father loves Himself
and the Son with one Love, and conversely, there is expressed in the
Holy Ghost, as Love, the relation of the Father to the Son, and
conversely, as that of the lover to the beloved. But from the fact
that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily
follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As
regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the
third person in the Trinity; whereas as regards the aforesaid
relation He is the bond between the two persons, as proceeding from
both.

Reply Obj. 4: As it does not belong to the Son, though He
understands, to produce a word, for it belongs to Him to understand
as the word proceeding; so in like manner, although the Holy Ghost
loves, taking Love as an essential term, still it does not belong to
Him to spirate love, which is to take love as a notional term;
because He loves essentially as love proceeding; but not as the one
whence love proceeds.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 37, Art. 2]

Whether the Father and the Son Love Each Other by the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Father and the Son do not love
each other by the Holy Ghost. For Augustine (De Trin. vii, 1) proves
that the Father is not wise by the Wisdom begotten. But as the Son is
Wisdom begotten, so the Holy Ghost is the Love proceeding, as
explained above (Q. 27, A. 3). Therefore the Father and the Son do
not love Themselves by the Love proceeding, which is the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, in the proposition, "The Father and the Son love
each other by the Holy Ghost," this word "love" is to be taken either
essentially or notionally. But it cannot be true if taken
essentially, because in the same way we might say that "the Father
understands by the Son"; nor, again, if it is taken notionally, for
then, in like manner, it might be said that "the Father and the Son
spirate by the Holy Ghost," or that "the Father generates by the
Son." Therefore in no way is this proposition true: "The Father and
the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost."

Obj. 3: Further, by the same love the Father loves the Son, and
Himself, and us. But the Father does not love Himself by the Holy
Ghost; for no notional act is reflected back on the principle of the
act; since it cannot be said that the "Father begets Himself," or
that "He spirates Himself." Therefore, neither can it be said that
"He loves Himself by the Holy Ghost," if "to love" is taken in a
notional sense. Again, the love wherewith He loves us is not the Holy
Ghost; because it imports a relation to creatures, and this belongs
to the essence. Therefore this also is false: "The Father loves the
Son by the Holy Ghost."

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 5): "The Holy Ghost
is He whereby the Begotten is loved by the one begetting and loves
His Begetter."

_I answer that,_ A difficulty about this question is objected to the
effect that when we say, "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost,"
since the ablative is construed as denoting a cause, it seems to mean
that the Holy Ghost is the principle of love to the Father and the
Son; which cannot be admitted.

In view of this difficulty some have held that it is false, that "the
Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost"; and they add
that it was retracted by Augustine when he retracted its equivalent to
the effect that "the Father is wise by the Wisdom begotten." Others
say that the proposition is inaccurate and ought to be expounded, as
that "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost"--that is, "by His
essential Love," which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost. Others
further say that this ablative should be construed as importing a
sign, so that it means, "the Holy Ghost is the sign that the Father
loves the Son"; inasmuch as the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both, as
Love. Others, again, say that this ablative must be construed as
importing the relation of formal cause, because the Holy Ghost is the
love whereby the Father and the Son formally love each other. Others,
again, say that it should be construed as importing the relation of a
formal effect; and these approach nearer to the truth.

To make the matter clear, we must consider that since a thing is
commonly denominated from its forms, as "white" from whiteness, and
"man" from humanity; everything whence anything is denominated, in
this particular respect stands to that thing in the relation of form.
So when I say, "this man is clothed with a garment," the ablative is
to be construed as having relation to the formal cause, although the
garment is not the form. Now it may happen that a thing may be
denominated from that which proceeds from it, not only as an agent is
from its action, but also as from the term itself of the action--that
is, the effect, when the effect itself is included in the idea of the
action. For we say that fire warms by heating, although heating is not
the heat which is the form of the fire, but is an action proceeding
from the fire; and we say that a tree flowers with the flower,
although the flower is not the tree's form, but is the effect
proceeding from the form. In this way, therefore, we must say that
since in God "to love" is taken in two ways, essentially and
notionally, when it is taken essentially, it means that the Father and
the Son love each other not by the Holy Ghost, but by their essence.
Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 7): "Who dares to say that the
Father loves neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, except
by the Holy Ghost?" The opinions first quoted are to be taken in this
sense. But when the term Love is taken in a notional sense it means
nothing else than "to spirate love"; just as to speak is to produce a
word, and to flower is to produce flowers. As therefore we say that a
tree flowers by its flower, so do we say that the Father, by the Word
or the Son, speaks Himself, and His creatures; and that the Father and
the Son love each other and us, by the Holy Ghost, or by Love
proceeding.

Reply Obj. 1: To be wise or intelligent is taken only essentially in
God; therefore we cannot say that "the Father is wise or intelligent
by the Son." But to love is taken not only essentially, but also in a
notional sense; and in this way, we can say that the Father and the
Son love each other by the Holy Ghost, as was above explained.

Reply Obj. 2: When the idea of an action includes a determined
effect, the principle of the action may be denominated both from the
action, and from the effect; so we can say, for instance, that a tree
flowers by its flowering and by its flower. When, however, the idea
of an action does not include a determined effect, then in that case,
the principle of the action cannot be denominated from the effect,
but only from the action. For we do not say that the tree produces
the flower by the flower, but by the production of the flower. So
when we say, "spirates" or "begets," this imports only a notional
act. Hence we cannot say that the Father spirates by the Holy Ghost,
or begets by the Son. But we can say that the Father speaks by the
Word, as by the Person proceeding, "and speaks by the speaking," as
by a notional act; forasmuch as "to speak" imports a determinate
person proceeding; since "to speak" means to produce a word. Likewise
to love, taken in a notional sense, means to produce love; and so it
can be said that the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost, as by
the person proceeding, and by Love itself as a notional act.

Reply Obj. 3: The Father loves not only the Son, but also Himself and
us, by the Holy Ghost; because, as above explained, to love, taken in
a notional sense, not only imports the production of a divine person,
but also the person produced, by way of love, which has relation to
the object loved. Hence, as the Father speaks Himself and every
creature by His begotten Word, inasmuch as the Word "begotten"
adequately represents the Father and every creature; so He loves
Himself and every creature by the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the Holy
Ghost proceeds as the love of the primal goodness whereby the Father
loves Himself and every creature. Thus it is evident that relation to
the creature is implied both in the Word and in the proceeding Love,
as it were in a secondary way, inasmuch as the divine truth and
goodness are a principle of understanding and loving all creatures.
_______________________

QUESTION 38

OF THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST, AS GIFT
(In Two Articles)

There now follows the consideration of the Gift; concerning which
there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether "Gift" can be a personal name?

(2) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 38, Art. 1]

Whether "Gift" Is a Personal Name?

Objection 1: It would seem that "Gift" is not a personal name. For
every personal name imports a distinction in God. But the name of
"Gift" does not import a distinction in God; for Augustine says (De
Trin. xv, 19): that "the Holy Ghost is so given as God's Gift, that He
also gives Himself as God." Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name.

Obj. 2: Further, no personal name belongs to the divine essence. But
the divine essence is the Gift which the Father gives to the Son, as
Hilary says (De Trin. ix). Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 19) there
is no subjection nor service in the divine persons. But gift implies
a subjection both as regards him to whom it is given, and as regards
him by whom it is given. Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name.

Obj. 4: Further, "Gift" imports relation to the creature, and it thus
seems to be said of God in time. But personal names are said of God
from eternity; as "Father," and "Son." Therefore "Gift" is not a
personal name.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 19): "As the body of
flesh is nothing but flesh; so the gift of the Holy Ghost is nothing
but the Holy Ghost." But the Holy Ghost is a personal name; so also
therefore is "Gift."

_I answer that,_ The word "gift" imports an aptitude for being given.
And what is given has an aptitude or relation both to the giver and to
that to which it is given. For it would not be given by anyone, unless
it was his to give; and it is given to someone to be his. Now a divine
person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son
belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to
possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way
a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature
united to God. Other creatures can be moved by a divine person, not,
however, in such a way as to be able to enjoy the divine person, and
to use the effect thereof. The rational creature does sometimes attain
thereto; as when it is made partaker of the divine Word and of the
Love proceeding, so as freely to know God truly and to love God
rightly. Hence the rational creature alone can possess the divine
person. Nevertheless in order that it may possess Him in this manner,
its own power avails nothing: hence this must be given it from above;
for that is said to be given to us which we have from another source.
Thus a divine person can "be given," and can be a "gift."

Reply Obj. 1: The name "Gift" imports a personal distinction, in so
far as gift imports something belonging to another through its
origin. Nevertheless, the Holy Ghost gives Himself, inasmuch as He is
His own, and can use or rather enjoy Himself; as also a free man
belongs to himself. And as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix):
"What is more yours than yourself?" Or we might say, and more
fittingly, that a gift must belong in a way to the giver. But the
phrase, "this is this one's," can be understood in several senses. In
one way it means identity, as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix);
and in that sense "gift" is the same as "the giver," but not the same
as the one to whom it is given. The Holy Ghost gives Himself in that
sense. In another sense, a thing is another's as a possession, or as
a slave; and in that sense gift is essentially distinct from the
giver; and the gift of God so taken is a created thing. In a third
sense "this is this one's" through its origin only; and in this sense
the Son is the Father's; and the Holy Ghost belongs to both.
Therefore, so far as gift in this way signifies the possession of the
giver, it is personally distinguished from the giver, and is a
personal name.

Reply Obj. 2: The divine essence is the Father's gift in the first
sense, as being the Father's by way of identity.

Reply Obj. 3: Gift as a personal name in God does not imply
subjection, but only origin, as regards the giver; but as regards the
one to whom it is given, it implies a free use, or enjoyment, as
above explained.

Reply Obj. 4: Gift is not so called from being actually given, but
from its aptitude to be given. Hence the divine person is called Gift
from eternity, although He is given in time. Nor does it follow that
it is an essential name because it imports relation to the creature;
but that it includes something essential in its meaning; as the
essence is included in the idea of person, as stated above (Q. 34, A.
3).
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 38, Art. 2]

Whether "Gift" Is the Proper Name of the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that Gift is not the proper name of the
Holy Ghost. For the name Gift comes from being given. But, as Isaiah
says (9:16): "A Son is given to us." Therefore to be Gift belongs to
the Son, as well as to the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, every proper name of a person signifies a property.
But this word Gift does not signify a property of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore Gift is not a proper name of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 3: Further, the Holy Ghost can be called the spirit of a man,
whereas He cannot be called the gift of any man, but "God's Gift"
only. Therefore Gift is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "As 'to be born'
is, for the Son, to be from the Father, so, for the Holy Ghost, 'to be
the Gift of God' is to proceed from Father and Son." But the Holy
Ghost receives His proper name from the fact that He proceeds from
Father and Son. Therefore Gift is the proper name of the Holy Ghost.

_I answer that,_ Gift, taken personally in God, is the proper name of
the Holy Ghost.

In proof of this we must know that a gift is properly an unreturnable
giving, as Aristotle says (Topic. iv, 4)--i.e. a thing which is not
given with the intention of a return--and it thus contains the idea
of a gratuitous donation. Now, the reason of donation being
gratuitous is love; since therefore do we give something to anyone
gratuitously forasmuch as we wish him well. So what we first give him
is the love whereby we wish him well. Hence it is manifest that love
has the nature of a first gift, through which all free gifts are
given. So since the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, as stated above (Q.
27, A. 4; Q. 37, A. 1), He proceeds as the first gift. Hence
Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 24): "By the gift, which is the Holy
Ghost, many particular gifts are portioned out to the members of
Christ."

Reply Obj. 1: As the Son is properly called the Image because He
proceeds by way of a word, whose nature it is to be the similitude of
its principle, although the Holy Ghost also is like to the Father; so
also, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father as love, He is
properly called Gift, although the Son, too, is given. For that the
Son is given is from the Father's love, according to the words, "God
so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son" (John 3:16).

Reply Obj. 2: The name Gift involves the idea of belonging to the
Giver through its origin; and thus it imports the property of the
origin of the Holy Ghost--that is, His procession.

Reply Obj. 3: Before a gift is given, it belongs only to the giver;
but when it is given, it is his to whom it is given. Therefore,
because "Gift" does not import the actual giving, it cannot be called
a gift of man, but the Gift of God giving. When, however, it has been
given, then it is the spirit of man, or a gift bestowed on man.
_______________________

QUESTION 39

OF THE PERSONS IN RELATION TO THE ESSENCE
(In Eight Articles)

Those things considered which belong to the divine persons absolutely,
we next treat of what concerns the person in reference to the essence,
to the properties, and to the notional acts; and of the comparison of
these with each other.

As regards the first of these, there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the essence in God is the same as the person?

(2) Whether we should say that the three persons are of one essence?

(3) Whether essential names should be predicated of the persons in
the plural, or in the singular?

(4) Whether notional adjectives, or verbs, or participles, can be
predicated of the essential names taken in a concrete sense?

(5) Whether the same can be predicated of essential names taken in
the abstract?

(6) Whether the names of the persons can be predicated of concrete
essential names?

(7) Whether essential attributes can be appropriated to the persons?

(8) Which attributes should be appropriated to each person?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 1]

Whether in God the Essence Is the Same As the Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that in God the essence is not the same as
person. For whenever essence is the same as person or _suppositum,_
there can be only one _suppositum_ of one nature, as is clear in the
case of all separate substances. For in those things which are really
one and the same, one cannot be multiplied apart from the other. But
in God there is one essence and three persons, as is clear from what
is above expounded (Q. 28, A. 3; Q. 30, A. 2). Therefore essence is
not the same as person.

Obj. 2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same
things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and
negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct,
whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing can be subject to itself. But person is
subject to essence; whence it is called _suppositum_ or "hypostasis."
Therefore person is not the same as essence.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): "When we say the
person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the
Father."

_I answer that,_ The truth of this question is quite clear if we
consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Q. 3, A. 3)
that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same
as _suppositum,_ which in intellectual substances is nothing else
than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while
the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains
its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), "relation
multiplies the Trinity of persons," some have thought that in God
essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be
"adjacent"; considering only in the relations the idea of "reference
to another," and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown
above (Q. 28, A. 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in
God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God
essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons
are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated
(Q. 29, A. 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature.
But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom
really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an
opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that
opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.

Reply Obj. 1: There cannot be a distinction of _suppositum_ in
creatures by means of relations, but only by essential principles;
because in creatures relations are not subsistent. But in God
relations are subsistent, and so by reason of the opposition between
them they distinguish the _supposita_; and yet the essence is not
distinguished, because the relations themselves are not distinguished
from each other so far as they are identified with the essence.

Reply Obj. 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way
of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and
affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need
not suppose the other.

Reply Obj. 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of
created things, as above explained (Q. 13, AA. 1, 3). And since
created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of
the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called
"subjects," _supposita,_ or "hypostases." So the divine persons are
named _supposita_ or "hypostases," but not as if there really existed
any real "supposition" or "subjection."
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 2]

Whether It Must Be Said That the Three Persons Are of One Essence?

Objection 1: It would seem not right to say that the three persons are
of one essence. For Hilary says (De Synod.) that the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost "are indeed three by substance, but one in harmony." But
the substance of God is His essence. Therefore the three persons are
not of one essence.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing is to be affirmed of God except what can be
confirmed by the authority of Holy Writ, as appears from Dionysius
(Div. Nom. i). Now Holy Writ never says that the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost are of one essence. Therefore this should not be asserted.

Obj. 3: Further, the divine nature is the same as the divine essence.
It suffices therefore to say that the three persons are of one nature.

Obj. 4: Further, it is not usual to say that the person is of the
essence; but rather that the essence is of the person. Therefore it
does not seem fitting to say that the three persons are of one
essence.

Obj. 5: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 6) that we do not say
that the three persons are "from one essence [ex una essentia]," lest
we should seem to indicate a distinction between the essence and the
persons in God. But prepositions which imply transition, denote the
oblique case. Therefore it is equally wrong to say that the three
persons are "of one essence [unius essentiae]."

Obj. 6: Further, nothing should be said of God which can be occasion
of error. Now, to say that the three persons are of one essence or
substance, furnishes occasion of error. For, as Hilary says (De
Synod.): "One substance predicated of the Father and the Son
signifies either one subsistent, with two denominations; or one
substance divided into two imperfect substances; or a third prior
substance taken and assumed by the other two." Therefore it must not
be said that the three persons are of one substance.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii) that the word
_homoousion,_ which the Council of Nicaea adopted against the Arians,
means that the three persons are of one essence.

_I answer that,_ As above explained (Q. 13, AA. 1, 2), divine things
are named by our intellect, not as they really are in themselves, for
in that way it knows them not; but in a way that belongs to things
created. And as in the objects of the senses, whence the intellect
derives its knowledge, the nature of the species is made individual by
the matter, and thus the nature is as the form, and the individual is
the _suppositum_ of the form; so also in God the essence is taken as
the form of the three persons, according to our mode of signification.
Now in creatures we say that every form belongs to that whereof it is
the form; as the health and beauty of a man belongs to the man. But we
do not say of that which has a form, that it belongs to the form,
unless some adjective qualifies the form; as when we say: "That woman
is of a handsome figure," or: "This man is of perfect virtue." In like
manner, as in God the persons are multiplied, and the essence is not
multiplied, we speak of one essence of the three persons, and three
persons of the one essence, provided that these genitives be
understood as designating the form.

Reply Obj. 1: Substance is here taken for the "hypostasis," and not
for the essence.

Reply Obj. 2: Although we may not find it declared in Holy Writ in so
many words that the three persons are of one essence, nevertheless we
find it so stated as regards the meaning; for instance, "I and the
Father are one (John 10:30)," and "I am in the Father, and the Father
in Me (John 10:38)"; and there are many other texts of the same
import.

Reply Obj. 3: Because "nature" designates the principle of action
while "essence" comes from being [essendo], things may be said to be
of one nature which agree in some action, as all things which give
heat; but only those things can be said to be of "one essence" which
have one being. So the divine unity is better described by saying
that the three persons are "of one essence," than by saying they are
"of one nature."

Reply Obj. 4: Form, in the absolute sense, is wont to be designated
as belonging to that of which it is the form, as we say "the virtue
of Peter." On the other hand, the thing having form is not wont to be
designated as belonging to the form except when we wish to qualify or
designate the form. In which case two genitives are required, one
signifying the form, and the other signifying the determination of
the form, as, for instance, when we say, "Peter is of great virtue
[magnae virtutis]," or else one genitive must have the force of two,
as, for instance, "he is a man of blood"--that is, he is a man who
sheds much blood [multi sanguinis]. So, because the divine essence
signifies a form as regards the person, it may properly be said that
the essence is of the person; but we cannot say the converse, unless
we add some term to designate the essence; as, for instance, the
Father is a person of the "divine essence"; or, the three persons are
"of one essence."

Reply Obj. 5: The preposition "from" or "out of" does not designate
the habitude of a formal cause, but rather the habitude of an
efficient or material cause; which causes are in all cases
distinguished from those things of which they are the causes. For
nothing can be its own matter, nor its own active principle. Yet a
thing may be its own form, as appears in all immaterial things. So,
when we say, "three persons of one essence," taking essence as having
the habitude of form, we do not mean that essence is different from
person, which we should mean if we said, "three persons from the same
essence."

Reply Obj. 6: As Hilary says (De Synod.): "It would be prejudicial to
holy things, if we had to do away with them, just because some do not
think them holy. So if some misunderstand _homoousion,_ what is that
to me, if I understand it rightly? . . . The oneness of nature does
not result from division, or from union or from community of
possession, but from one nature being proper to both Father and Son."
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 3]

Whether Essential Names Should Be Predicated in the Singular of the
Three Persons?

Objection 1: It would seem that essential names, as the name "God,"
should not be predicated in the singular of the three persons, but in
the plural. For as "man" signifies "one that has humanity," so God
signifies "one that has Godhead." But the three persons are three who
have Godhead. Therefore the three persons are "three Gods."

Obj. 2: Further, Gen. 1:1, where it is said, "In the beginning God
created heaven and earth," the Hebrew original has "Elohim," which may
be rendered "Gods" or "Judges": and this word is used on account of
the plurality of persons. Therefore the three persons are "several
Gods," and not "one" God.

Obj. 3: Further, this word "thing" when it is said absolutely,
seems to belong to substance. But it is predicated of the three
persons in the plural. For Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5):
"The things that are the objects of our future glory are the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost." Therefore other essential names can be
predicated in the plural of the three persons.

Obj. 4: Further, as this word "God" signifies "a being who has
Deity," so also this word "person" signifies a being subsisting in
an intellectual nature. But we say there are three persons. So for
the same reason we can say there are "three Gods."

_On the contrary,_ It is said (Deut. 6:4): "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy
God is one God."

_I answer that,_ Some essential names signify the essence after the
manner of substantives; while others signify it after the manner of
adjectives. Those which signify it as substantives are predicated of
the three persons in the singular only, and not in the plural. Those
which signify the essence as adjectives are predicated of the three
persons in the plural. The reason of this is that substantives
signify something by way of substance, while adjectives signify
something by way of accident, which adheres to a subject. Now just as
substance has existence of itself, so also it has of itself unity or
multitude; wherefore the singularity or plurality of a substantive
name depends upon the form signified by the name. But as accidents
have their existence in a subject, so they have unity or plurality
from their subject; and therefore the singularity and plurality of
adjectives depends upon their _supposita._ In creatures, one form
does not exist in several _supposita_ except by unity of order, as
the form of an ordered multitude. So if the names signifying such a
form are substantives, they are predicated of many in the singular,
but otherwise if they adjectives. For we say that many men are a
college, or an army, or a people; but we say that many men are
collegians. Now in God the divine essence is signified by way of a
form, as above explained (A. 2), which, indeed, is simple and
supremely one, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 7; Q. 11, A. 4). So, names
which signify the divine essence in a substantive manner are
predicated of the three persons in the singular, and not in the
plural. This, then, is the reason why we say that Socrates, Plato and
Cicero are "three men"; whereas we do not say the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost are "three Gods," but "one God"; forasmuch as in the three
_supposita_ of human nature there are three humanities, whereas in
the three divine Persons there is but one divine essence. On the
other hand, the names which signify essence in an adjectival manner
are predicated of the three persons plurally, by reason of the
plurality of _supposita._ For we say there are three "existent" or
three "wise" beings, or three "eternal," "uncreated," and "immense"
beings, if these terms are understood in an adjectival sense. But if
taken in a substantive sense, we say "one uncreated, immense, eternal
being," as Athanasius declares.

Reply Obj. 1: Though the name "God" signifies a being having Godhead,
nevertheless the mode of signification is different. For the name
"God" is used substantively; whereas "having Godhead" is used
adjectively. Consequently, although there are "three having Godhead,"
it does not follow that there are three Gods.

Reply Obj. 2: Various languages have diverse modes of expression. So
as by reason of the plurality of _supposita_ the Greeks said "three
hypostases," so also in Hebrew "Elohim" is in the plural. We,
however, do not apply the plural either to "God" or to "substance,"
lest plurality be referred to the substance.

Reply Obj. 3: This word "thing" is one of the transcendentals.
Whence, so far as it is referred to relation, it is predicated of God
in the plural; whereas, so far as it is referred to the substance, it
is predicated in the singular. So Augustine says, in the passage
quoted, that "the same Trinity is a thing supreme."

Reply Obj. 4: The form signified by the word "person" is not essence
or nature, but personality. So, as there are three
personalities--that is, three personal properties in the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost--it is predicated of the three, not in the singular,
but in the plural.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 4]

Whether the Concrete Essential Names Can Stand for the Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that the concrete, essential names cannot
stand for the person, so that we can truly say "God begot God." For,
as the logicians say, "a singular term signifies what it stands for."
But this name "God" seems to be a singular term, for it cannot be
predicated in the plural, as above explained (A. 3). Therefore, since
it signifies the essence, it stands for essence, and not for person.

Obj. 2: Further, a term in the subject is not modified by a term in
the predicate, as to its signification; but only as to the sense
signified in the predicate. But when I say, "God creates," this name
"God" stands for the essence. So when we say "God begot," this term
"God" cannot by reason of the notional predicate, stand for person.

Obj. 3: Further, if this be true, "God begot," because the Father
generates; for the same reason this is true, "God does not beget,"
because the Son does not beget. Therefore there is God who begets,
and there is God who does not beget; and thus it follows that there
are two Gods.

Obj. 4: Further, if "God begot God," He begot either God, that is
Himself, or another God. But He did not beget God, that is Himself;
for, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1), "nothing begets itself."
Neither did He beget another God; as there is only one God. Therefore
it is false to say, "God begot God."

Obj. 5: Further, if "God begot God," He begot either God who is the
Father, or God who is not the Father. If God who is the Father, then
God the Father was begotten. If God who is not the Father, then there
is a God who is not God the Father: which is false. Therefore it
cannot be said that "God begot God."

_On the contrary,_ In the Creed it is said, "God of God."

_I answer that,_ Some have said that this name "God" and the like,
properly according to their nature, stand for the essence, but by
reason of some notional adjunct are made to stand for the Person. This
opinion apparently arose from considering the divine simplicity, which
requires that in God, He "who possesses" and "what is possessed" be
the same. So He who possesses Godhead, which is signified by the name
God, is the same as Godhead. But when we consider the proper way of
expressing ourselves, the mode of signification must be considered no
less than the thing signified. Hence as this word "God" signifies the
divine essence as in Him Who possesses it, just as the name "man"
signifies humanity in a subject, others more truly have said that this
word "God," from its mode of signification, can, in its proper sense,
stand for person, as does the word "man." So this word "God" sometimes
stands for the essence, as when we say "God creates"; because this
predicate is attributed to the subject by reason of the form
signified--that is, Godhead. But sometimes it stands for the person,
either for only one, as when we say, "God begets," or for two, as when
we say, "God spirates"; or for three, as when it is said: "To the King
of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God," etc. (1 Tim. 1:17).

Reply Obj. 1: Although this name "God" agrees with singular terms as
regards the form signified not being multiplied; nevertheless it
agrees also with general terms so far as the form signified is to be
found in several _supposita._ So it need not always stand for the
essence it signifies.

Reply Obj. 2: This holds good against those who say that the word
"God" does not naturally stand for person.

Reply Obj. 3: The word "God" stands for the person in a different way
from that in which this word "man" does; for since the form signified
by this word "man"--that is, humanity--is really divided among its
different subjects, it stands of itself for the person, even if there
is no adjunct determining it to the person--that is, to a distinct
subject. The unity or community of the human nature, however, is not
a reality, but is only in the consideration of the mind. Hence this
term "man" does not stand for the common nature, unless this is
required by some adjunct, as when we say, "man is a species"; whereas
the form signified by the name "God"--that is, the divine essence--is
really one and common. So of itself it stands for the common nature,
but by some adjunct it may be restricted so as to stand for the
person. So, when we say, "God generates," by reason of the notional
act this name "God" stands for the person of the Father. But when we
say, "God does not generate," there is no adjunct to determine this
name to the person of the Son, and hence the phrase means that
generation is repugnant to the divine nature. If, however, something
be added belonging to the person of the Son, this proposition, for
instance, "God begotten does not beget," is true. Consequently, it
does not follow that there exists a "God generator," and a "God not
generator"; unless there be an adjunct pertaining to the persons; as,
for instance, if we were to say, "the Father is God the generator"
and the "Son is God the non-generator" and so it does not follow that
there are many Gods; for the Father and the Son are one God, as was
said above (A. 3).

Reply Obj. 4: This is false, "the Father begot God, that is Himself,"
because the word "Himself," as a reciprocal term, refers to the same
_suppositum._ Nor is this contrary to what Augustine says (Ep. lxvi
ad Maxim.) that "God the Father begot another self [alterum se],"
forasmuch as the word "se" is either in the ablative case, and then
it means "He begot another from Himself," or it indicates a single
relation, and thus points to identity of nature. This is, however,
either a figurative or an emphatic way of speaking, so that it would
really mean, "He begot another most like to Himself." Likewise also
it is false to say, "He begot another God," because although the Son
is another than the Father, as above explained (Q. 31, A. 2),
nevertheless it cannot be said that He is "another God"; forasmuch as
this adjective "another" would be understood to apply to the
substantive God; and thus the meaning would be that there is a
distinction of Godhead. Yet this proposition "He begot another God"
is tolerated by some, provided that "another" be taken as a
substantive, and the word "God" be construed in apposition with it.
This, however, is an inexact way of speaking, and to be avoided, for
fear of giving occasion to error.

Reply Obj. 5: To say, "God begot God Who is God the Father," is
wrong, because since the word "Father" is construed in apposition to
"God," the word "God" is restricted to the person of the Father; so
that it would mean, "He begot God, Who is Himself the Father"; and
then the Father would be spoken of as begotten, which is false.
Wherefore the negative of the proposition is true, "He begot God Who
is not God the Father." If however, we understand these words not to
be in apposition, and require something to be added, then, on the
contrary, the affirmative proposition is true, and the negative is
false; so that the meaning would be, "He begot God Who is God Who is
the Father." Such a rendering however appears to be forced, so that
it is better to say simply that the affirmative proposition is false,
and the negative is true. Yet Prepositivus said that both the
negative and affirmative are false, because this relative "Who" in
the affirmative proposition can be referred to the _suppositum_;
whereas in the negative it denotes both the thing signified and the
_suppositum._ Whence, in the affirmative the sense is that "to be God
the Father" is befitting to the person of the Son; and in the
negative sense is that "to be God the Father," is to be removed from
the Son's divinity as well as from His personality. This, however,
appears to be irrational; since, according to the Philosopher (Peri
Herm. ii), what is open to affirmation, is open also to negation.
_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 5]

Whether Abstract Essential Names Can Stand for the Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that abstract essential names can stand
for the person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets
essence." For Augustine says (De Trin. vii, i, 2): "The Father and
the Son are one Wisdom, because they are one essence; and taken
singly Wisdom is from Wisdom, as essence from essence."

Obj. 2: Further, generation or corruption in ourselves implies
generation or corruption of what is within us. But the Son is
generated. Therefore since the divine essence is in the Son, it
seems that the divine essence is generated.

Obj. 3: Further, God and the divine essence are the same, as is clear
from what is above explained (Q. 3, A. 3). But, as was shown, it is
true to say that "God begets God." Therefore this is also true:
"Essence begets essence."

Obj. 4: Further, a predicate can stand for that of which it is
predicated. But the Father is the divine essence; therefore essence
can stand for the person of the Father. Thus the essence begets.

Obj. 5: Further, the essence is "a thing begetting," because the
essence is the Father who is begetting. Therefore if the essence is
not begetting, the essence will be "a thing begetting," and "not
begetting": which cannot be.

Obj. 6: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "The Father is the
principle of the whole Godhead." But He is principle only by
begetting or spirating. Therefore the Father begets or spirates the
Godhead.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1): "Nothing begets
itself." But if the essence begets the essence, it begets itself only,
since nothing exists in God as distinguished from the divine essence.
Therefore the essence does not beget essence.

_I answer that,_ Concerning this, the abbot Joachim erred in
asserting that as we can say "God begot God," so we can say "Essence
begot essence": considering that, by reason of the divine simplicity
God is nothing else but the divine essence. In this he was wrong,
because if we wish to express ourselves correctly, we must take into
account not only the thing which is signified, but also the mode of
its signification as above stated (A. 4). Now although "God" is
really the same as "Godhead," nevertheless the mode of signification
is not in each case the same. For since this word "God" signifies the
divine essence in Him that possesses it, from its mode of
signification it can of its own nature stand for person. Thus the
things which properly belong to the persons, can be predicated of
this word, "God," as, for instance, we can say "God is begotten" or
is "Begetter," as above explained (A. 4). The word "essence,"
however, in its mode of signification, cannot stand for Person,
because it signifies the essence as an abstract form. Consequently,
what properly belongs to the persons whereby they are distinguished
from each other, cannot be attributed to the essence. For that would
imply distinction in the divine essence, in the same way as there
exists distinction in the _supposita._

Reply Obj. 1: To express unity of essence and of person, the holy
Doctors have sometimes expressed themselves with greater emphasis
than the strict propriety of terms allows. Whence instead of
enlarging upon such expressions we should rather explain them: thus,
for instance, abstract names should be explained by concrete names,
or even by personal names; as when we find "essence from essence"; or
"wisdom from wisdom"; we should take the sense to be, _the Son_ who
is essence and wisdom, is from the Father who is essence and wisdom.
Nevertheless, as regards these abstract names a certain order should
be observed, forasmuch as what belongs to action is more nearly
allied to the persons because actions belong to _supposita._ So
"nature from nature," and "wisdom from wisdom" are less inexact than
"essence from essence."

Reply Obj. 2: In creatures the one generated has not the same nature
numerically as the generator, but another nature, numerically
distinct, which commences to exist in it anew by generation, and
ceases to exist by corruption, and so it is generated and corrupted
accidentally; whereas God begotten has the same nature numerically as
the begetter. So the divine nature in the Son is not begotten either
directly or accidentally.

Reply Obj. 3: Although God and the divine essence are really the
same, nevertheless, on account of their different mode of
signification, we must speak in a different way about each of them.

Reply Obj. 4: The divine essence is predicated of the Father by mode
of identity by reason of the divine simplicity; yet it does not
follow that it can stand for the Father, its mode of signification
being different. This objection would hold good as regards things
which are predicated of another as the universal of a particular.

Reply Obj. 5: The difference between substantive and adjectival names
consist in this, that the former carry their subject with them,
whereas the latter do not, but add the thing signified to the
substantive. Whence logicians are wont to say that the substantive is
considered in the light of _suppositum,_ whereas the adjective
indicates something added to the _suppositum._ Therefore substantive
personal terms can be predicated of the essence, because they are
really the same; nor does it follow that a personal property makes a
distinct essence; but it belongs to the _suppositum_ implied in the
substantive. But notional and personal adjectives cannot be
predicated of the essence unless we add some substantive. We cannot
say that the "essence is begetting"; yet we can say that the "essence
is a thing begetting," or that it is "God begetting," if "thing" and
God stand for person, but not if they stand for essence. Consequently
there exists no contradiction in saying that "essence is a thing
begetting," and "a thing not begetting"; because in the first case
"thing" stands for person, and in the second it stands for the
essence.

Reply Obj. 6: So far as Godhead is one in several _supposita,_ it
agrees in a certain degree with the form of a collective term. So
when we say, "the Father is the principle of the whole Godhead," the
term Godhead can be taken for all the persons together, inasmuch as
it is the principle in all the divine persons. Nor does it follow
that He is His own principle; as one of the people may be called the
ruler of the people without being ruler of himself. We may also say
that He is the principle of the whole Godhead; not as generating or
spirating it, but as communicating it by generation and spiration.
_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 6]

Whether the Persons Can Be Predicated of the Essential Terms?

Objection 1: It would seem that the persons cannot be predicated of
the concrete essential names; so that we can say for instance, "God is
three persons"; or "God is the Trinity." For it is false to say, "man
is every man," because it cannot be verified as regards any particular
subject. For neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor anyone else is every
man. In the same way this proposition, "God is the Trinity," cannot be
verified of any one of the _supposita_ of the divine nature. For the
Father is not the Trinity; nor is the Son; nor is the Holy Ghost. So
to say, "God is the Trinity," is false.

Obj. 2: Further, the lower is not predicated of the higher except
by accidental predication; as when I say, "animal is man"; for it is
accidental to animal to be man. But this name "God" as regards the
three persons is as a general term to inferior terms, as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4). Therefore it seems that the names of
the persons cannot be predicated of this name "God," except in an
accidental sense.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says, in his sermon on Faith [*Serm. ii,
in coena Domini], "We believe that one God is one divinely named
Trinity."

_I answer that,_ As above explained (A. 5), although adjectival
terms, whether personal or notional, cannot be predicated of the
essence, nevertheless substantive terms can be so predicated, owing to
the real identity of essence and person. The divine essence is not
only really the same as one person, but it is really the same as the
three persons. Whence, one person, and two, and three, can be
predicated of the essence as if we were to say, "The essence is the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." And because this word "God"
can of itself stand for the essence, as above explained (A. 4, ad 3),
hence, as it is true to say, "The essence is the three persons"; so
likewise it is true to say, "God is the three persons."

Reply Obj. 1: As above explained this term "man" can of itself stand
for person, whereas an adjunct is required for it to stand for the
universal human nature. So it is false to say, "Man is every man";
because it cannot be verified of any particular human subject. On the
contrary, this word "God" can of itself be taken for the divine
essence. So, although to say of any of the _supposita_ of the divine
nature, "God is the Trinity," is untrue, nevertheless it is true of
the divine essence. This was denied by Porretanus because he did not
take note of this distinction.

Reply Obj. 2: When we say, "God," or "the divine essence is the
Father," the predication is one of identity, and not of the lower in
regard to a higher species: because in God there is no universal and
singular. Hence, as this proposition, "The Father is God" is of
itself true, so this proposition "God is the Father" is true of
itself, and by no means accidentally.
_______________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 7]

Whether the Essential Names Should Be Appropriated to the Persons?

Objection 1: It would seem that the essential names should not be
appropriated to the persons. For whatever might verge on error in
faith should be avoided in the treatment of divine things; for, as
Jerome says, "careless words involve risk of heresy" [*In substance
Ep. lvii.]. But to appropriate to any one person the names which are
common to the three persons, may verge on error in faith; for it may
be supposed either that such belong only to the person to whom they
are appropriated or that they belong to Him in a fuller degree than
to the others. Therefore the essential attributes should not be
appropriated to the persons.

Obj. 2: Further, the essential attributes expressed in the abstract
signify by mode of form. But one person is not as a form to another;
since a form is not distinguished in subject from that of which it is
the form. Therefore the essential attributes, especially when
expressed in the abstract, are not to be appropriated to the persons.

Obj. 3: Further, property is prior to the appropriated, for property
is included in the idea of the appropriated. But the essential
attributes, in our way of understanding, are prior to the persons; as
what is common is prior to what is proper. Therefore the essential
attributes are not to be appropriated to the persons.

_On the contrary,_ the Apostle says: "Christ the power of God and the
wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24).

_I answer that,_ For the manifestation of our faith it is fitting
that the essential attributes should be appropriated to the persons.
For although the trinity of persons cannot be proved by
demonstration, as was above expounded (Q. 32, A. 1), nevertheless it
is fitting that it be declared by things which are more known to us.
Now the essential attributes of God are more clear to us from the
standpoint of reason than the personal properties; because we can
derive certain knowledge of the essential attributes from creatures
which are sources of knowledge to us, such as we cannot obtain
regarding the personal properties, as was above explained (Q. 32, A.
1). As, therefore, we make use of the likeness of the trace or image
found in creatures for the manifestation of the divine persons, so
also in the same manner do we make use of the essential attributes.
And such a manifestation of the divine persons by the use of the
essential attributes is called "appropriation."

The divine person can be manifested in a twofold manner by the
essential attributes; in one way by similitude, and thus the things
which belong to the intellect are appropriated to the Son, Who
proceeds by way of intellect, as Word. In another way by
dissimilitude; as power is appropriated to the Father, as Augustine
says, because fathers by reason of old age are sometimes feeble;
lest anything of the kind be imagined of God.

Reply Obj. 1: The essential attributes are not appropriated to the
persons as if they exclusively belonged to them; but in order to make
the persons manifest by way of similitude, or dissimilitude, as above
explained. So, no error in faith can arise, but rather manifestation
of the truth.

Reply Obj. 2: If the essential attributes were appropriated to the
persons as exclusively belonging to each of them, then it would
follow that one person would be as a form as regards another; which
Augustine altogether repudiates (De Trin. vi, 2), showing that the
Father is wise, not by Wisdom begotten by Him, as though only the Son
were Wisdom; so that the Father and the Son together only can be
called wise, but not the Father without the Son. But the Son is
called the Wisdom of the Father, because He is Wisdom from the Father
Who is Wisdom. For each of them is of Himself Wisdom; and both
together are one Wisdom. Whence the Father is not wise by the wisdom
begotten by Him, but by the wisdom which is His own essence.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the essential attribute is in its proper
concept prior to person, according to our way of understanding;
nevertheless, so far as it is appropriated, there is nothing to
prevent the personal property from being prior to that which is
appropriated. Thus color is posterior to body considered as body,
but is naturally prior to "white body," considered as white.
_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 8]

Whether the Essential Attributes Are Appropriated to the Persons in
a Fitting Manner by the Holy Doctors?

Objection 1: It would seem that the essential attributes are
appropriated to the persons unfittingly by the holy doctors. For
Hilary says (De Trin. ii): "Eternity is in the Father, the species in
the Image; and use is in the Gift." In which words he designates
three names proper to the persons: the name of the "Father," the name
"Image" proper to the Son (Q. 35, A. 2), and the name "Bounty" or
"Gift," which is proper to the Holy Ghost (Q. 38, A. 2). He also
designates three appropriated terms. For he appropriates "eternity"
to the Father, species to the Son, and "use" to the Holy Ghost.
This he does apparently without reason. For "eternity" imports
duration of existence; species, the principle of existence; and
'use' belongs to the operation. But essence and operation are not
found to be appropriated to any person. Therefore the above terms are
not fittingly appropriated to the persons.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5): "Unity is
in the Father, equality in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost is the
concord of equality and unity." This does not, however, seem fitting;
because one person does not receive formal denomination from what is
appropriated to another. For the Father is not wise by the wisdom
begotten, as above explained (Q. 37, A. 2, ad 1). But, as he
subjoins, "All these three are one by the Father; all are equal by
the Son, and all united by the Holy Ghost." The above, therefore, are
not fittingly appropriated to the Persons.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Augustine, to the Father is attributed
"power," to the Son "wisdom," to the Holy Ghost "goodness." Nor does
this seem fitting; for "strength" is part of power, whereas strength
is found to be appropriated to the Son, according to the text,
"Christ the strength [*Douay: power] of God" (1 Cor. 1:24). So it is
likewise appropriated to the Holy Ghost, according to the words,
"strength [*Douay: virtue] came out from Him and healed all" (Luke
6:19). Therefore power should not be appropriated to the Father.

Obj. 4: Likewise Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10): "What the Apostle
says, "From Him, and by Him, and in Him," is not to be taken in a
confused sense." And (Contra Maxim. ii) "'from Him' refers to the
Father, 'by Him' to the Son, 'in Him' to the Holy Ghost." This,
however, seems to be incorrectly said; for the words "in Him" seem to
imply the relation of final cause, which is first among the causes.
Therefore this relation of cause should be appropriated to the
Father, Who is "the principle from no principle."

Obj. 5: Likewise, Truth is appropriated to the Son, according to John
14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"; and likewise "the book
of life," according to Ps. 39:9, "In the beginning of the book it is
written of Me," where a gloss observes, "that is, with the Father Who
is My head," also this word "Who is"; because on the text of Isaias,
"Behold I go to the Gentiles" (65:1), a gloss adds, "The Son speaks
Who said to Moses, I am Who am." These appear to belong to the Son,
and are not appropriated. For "truth," according to Augustine (De
Vera Relig. 36), "is the supreme similitude of the principle without
any dissimilitude." So it seems that it properly belongs to the Son,
Who has a principle. Also the "book of life" seems proper to the Son,
as signifying "a thing from another"; for every book is written by
someone. This also, "Who is," appears to be proper to the Son;
because if when it was said to Moses, "I am Who am," the Trinity
spoke, then Moses could have said, "He Who is Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and the Holy Ghost sent me to you," so also he could have said
further, "He Who is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost sent
me to you," pointing out a certain person. This, however, is false;
because no person is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Therefore it cannot
be common to the Trinity, but is proper to the Son.

_I answer that,_ Our intellect, which is led to the knowledge of God
from creatures, must consider God according to the mode derived from
creatures. In considering any creature four points present themselves
to us in due order. Firstly, the thing itself taken absolutely is
considered as a being. Secondly, it is considered as one. Thirdly, its
intrinsic power of operation and causality is considered. The fourth
point of consideration embraces its relation to its effects. Hence
this fourfold consideration comes to our mind in reference to God.

According to the first point of consideration, whereby we consider
God absolutely in His being, the appropriation mentioned by Hilary
applies, according to which "eternity" is appropriated to the Father,
species to the Son, "use" to the Holy Ghost. For "eternity" as
meaning a "being" without a principle, has a likeness to the property
of the Father, Who is "a principle without a principle." Species or
beauty has a likeness to the property of the Son. For beauty includes
three conditions, "integrity" or "perfection," since those things
which are impaired are by the very fact ugly; due "proportion" or
"harmony"; and lastly, "brightness" or "clarity," whence things are
called beautiful which have a bright color.

The first of these has a likeness to the property of the Son, inasmuch
as He as Son has in Himself truly and perfectly the nature of the
Father. To insinuate this, Augustine says in his explanation (De Trin.
vi, 10): "Where--that is, in the Son--there is supreme and primal
life," etc.

The second agrees with the Son's property, inasmuch as He is the
express Image of the Father. Hence we see that an image is said to be
beautiful, if it perfectly represents even an ugly thing. This is
indicated by Augustine when he says (De Trin. vi, 10), "Where there
exists wondrous proportion and primal equality," etc.

The third agrees with the property of the Son, as the Word, which is
the light and splendor of the intellect, as Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. iii, 3). Augustine alludes to the same when he says (De Trin.
vi, 10): "As the perfect Word, not wanting in anything, and, so to
speak, the art of the omnipotent God," etc.

"Use" has a likeness to the property of the Holy Ghost; provided the
"use" be taken in a wide sense, as including also the sense of "to
enjoy"; according as "to use" is to employ something at the beck of
the will, and "to enjoy" means to use joyfully, as Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 11). So "use," whereby the Father and the Son enjoy each
other, agrees with the property of the Holy Ghost, as Love. This is
what Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10): "That love, that delectation,
that felicity or beatitude, is called use by him" (Hilary). But the
"use" by which we enjoy God, is likened to the property of the Holy
Ghost as the Gift; and Augustine points to this when he says (De Trin.
vi, 10): "In the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, the sweetness of the
Begettor and the Begotten, pours out upon us mere creatures His
immense bounty and wealth." Thus it is clear how "eternity,"
species, and "use" are attributed or appropriated to the persons,
but not essence or operation; because, being common, there is nothing
in their concept to liken them to the properties of the Persons.

The second consideration of God regards Him as "one." In that view
Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) appropriates "unity" to the Father,
"equality" to the Son, "concord" or "union" to the Holy Ghost. It is
manifest that these three imply unity, but in different ways. For
"unity" is said absolutely, as it does not presuppose anything else;
and for this reason it is appropriated to the Father, to Whom any
other person is not presupposed since He is the "principle without
principle." "Equality" implies unity as regards another; for that is
equal which has the same quantity as another. So equality is
appropriated to the Son, Who is the "principle from a principle."
"Union" implies the unity of two; and is therefore appropriated to the
Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He proceeds from two. And from this we can
understand what Augustine means when he says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5)
that "The Three are one, by reason of the Father; They are equal by
reason of the Son; and are united by reason of the Holy Ghost." For it
is clear that we trace a thing back to that in which we find it first:
just as in this lower world we attribute life to the vegetative soul,
because therein we find the first trace of life. Now "unity" is
perceived at once in the person of the Father, even if by an
impossible hypothesis, the other persons were removed. So the other
persons derive their unity from the Father. But if the other persons
be removed, we do not find equality in the Father, but we find it as
soon as we suppose the Son. So, all are equal by reason of the Son,
not as if the Son were the principle of equality in the Father, but
that, without the Son equal to the Father, the Father could not be
called equal; because His equality is considered firstly in regard to
the Son: for that the Holy Ghost is equal to the Father, is also from
the Son. Likewise, if the Holy Ghost, Who is the union of the two, be
excluded, we cannot understand the oneness of the union between the
Father and the Son. So all are connected by reason of the Holy Ghost;
because given the Holy Ghost, we find whence the Father and the Son
are said to be united.

According to the third consideration, which brings before us the
adequate power of God in the sphere of causality, there is said to be
a third kind of appropriation, of "power," "wisdom," and "goodness."
This kind of appropriation is made both by reason of similitude as
regards what exists in the divine persons, and by reason of
dissimilitude if we consider what is in creatures. For "power" has
the nature of a principle, and so it has a likeness to the heavenly
Father, Who is the principle of the whole Godhead. But in an earthly
father it is wanting sometimes by reason of old age. "Wisdom" has
likeness to the heavenly Son, as the Word, for a word is nothing but
the concept of wisdom. In an earthly son this is sometimes absent by
reason of lack of years. "Goodness," as the nature and object of love,
has likeness to the Holy Ghost; but seems repugnant to the earthly
spirit, which often implies a certain violent impulse, according to
Isa. 25:4: "The spirit of the strong is as a blast beating on the
wall." "Strength" is appropriated to the Son and to the Holy Ghost,
not as denoting the power itself of a thing, but as sometimes used to
express that which proceeds from power; for instance, we say that the
strong work done by an agent is its strength.

According to the fourth consideration, i.e. God's relation to His
effects, there arise[s] appropriation of the expression "from Whom, by
Whom, and in Whom." For this preposition "from" [ex] sometimes implies
a certain relation of the material cause; which has no place in God;
and sometimes it expresses the relation of the efficient cause, which
can be applied to God by reason of His active power; hence it is
appropriated to the Father in the same way as power. The preposition
"by" [per] sometimes designates an intermediate cause; thus we may say
that a smith works "by" a hammer. Hence the word "by" is not always
appropriated to the Son, but belongs to the Son properly and strictly,
according to the text, "All things were made by Him" (John 1:3); not
that the Son is an instrument, but as "the principle from a
principle." Sometimes it designates the habitude of a form "by" which
an agent works; thus we say that an artificer works by his art. Hence,
as wisdom and art are appropriated to the Son, so also is the
expression "by Whom." The preposition "in" strictly denotes the
habitude of one containing. Now, God contains things in two ways: in
one way by their similitudes; thus things are said to be in God, as
existing in His knowledge. In this sense the expression "in Him"
should be appropriated to the Son. In another sense things are
contained in God forasmuch as He in His goodness preserves and
governs them, by guiding them to a fitting end; and in this sense the
expression "in Him" is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, as likewise is
"goodness." Nor need the habitude of the final cause (though the first
of causes) be appropriated to the Father, Who is "the principle
without a principle": because the divine persons, of Whom the Father
is the principle, do not proceed from Him as towards an end, since
each of Them is the last end; but They proceed by a natural
procession, which seems more to belong to the nature of a natural
power.

Regarding the other points of inquiry, we can say that since "truth"
belongs to the intellect, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 1), it is
appropriated to the Son, without, however, being a property of His.
For truth can be considered as existing in the thought or in the thing
itself. Hence, as intellect and thing in their essential meaning, are
referred to the essence, and not to the persons, so the same is to be
said of truth. The definition quoted from Augustine belongs to truth
as appropriated to the Son. The "book of life" directly means
knowledge but indirectly it means life. For, as above explained
(Q. 24, A. 1), it is God's knowledge regarding those who are to
possess eternal life. Consequently, it is appropriated to the Son;
although life is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, as implying a certain
kind of interior movement, agreeing in that sense with the property of
the Holy Ghost as Love. To be written by another is not of the essence
of a book considered as such; but this belongs to it only as a work
produced. So this does not imply origin; nor is it personal, but an
appropriation to a person. The expression "Who is" is appropriated to
the person of the Son, not by reason of itself, but by reason of an
adjunct, inasmuch as, in God's word to Moses, was prefigured the
delivery of the human race accomplished by the Son. Yet, forasmuch as
the word "Who" is taken in a relative sense, it may sometimes relate
to the person of the Son; and in that sense it would be taken
personally; as, for instance, were we to say, "The Son is the
begotten 'Who is,'" inasmuch as "God begotten is personal." But
taken indefinitely, it is an essential term. And although the pronoun
"this" [iste] seems grammatically to point to a particular person,
nevertheless everything that we can point to can be grammatically
treated as a person, although in its own nature it is not a person;
as we may say, "this stone," and "this ass." So, speaking in a
grammatical sense, so far as the word "God" signifies and stands for
the divine essence, the latter may be designated by the pronoun
"this," according to Ex. 15:2: "This is my God, and I will glorify
Him."
_______________________

QUESTION 40

OF THE PERSONS AS COMPARED TO THE RELATIONS OR PROPERTIES
(In Four Articles)

We now consider the persons in connection with the relations, or
properties; and there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether relation is the same as person?

(2) Whether the relations distinguish and constitute the persons?

(3) Whether mental abstraction of the relations from the persons
leaves the hypostases distinct?

(4) Whether the relations, according to our mode of understanding,
presuppose the acts of the persons, or contrariwise?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 40, Art. 1]

Whether Relation Is the Same As Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that in God relation is not the same as
person. For when things are identical, if one is multiplied the others
are multiplied. But in one person there are several relations; as in
the person of the Father there is paternity and common spiration.
Again, one relation exists in two person, as common spiration in the
Father and in the Son. Therefore relation is not the same as person.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 24),
nothing is contained by itself. But relation is in the person; nor
can it be said that this occurs because they are identical, for
otherwise relation would be also in the essence. Therefore relation,
or property, is not the same as person in God.

Obj. 3: Further, when several things are identical, what is
predicated of one is predicated of the others. But all that is
predicated of a Person is not predicated of His property. For we say
that the Father begets; but not that the paternity is begetting.
Therefore property is not the same as person in God.

_On the contrary,_ in God "what is" and "whereby it is" are the same,
according to Boethius (De Hebdom.). But the Father is Father by
paternity. In the same way, the other properties are the same as the
persons.

_I answer that,_ Different opinions have been held on this point. Some
have said that the properties are not the persons, nor in the persons;
and these have thought thus owing to the mode of signification of the
relations, which do not indeed signify existence "in" something, but
rather existence "towards" something. Whence, they styled the
relations "assistant," as above explained (Q. 28, A. 2). But
since relation, considered as really existing in God, is the divine
essence Itself, and the essence is the same as person, as appears from
what was said above (Q. 39, A. 1), relation must necessarily be
the same as person.

Others, therefore, considering this identity, said that the properties
were indeed the persons; but not "in" the persons; for, they said,
there are no properties in God except in our way of speaking, as
stated above (Q. 32, A. 2). We must, however, say that there are
properties in God; as we have shown (Q. 32, A. 2). These are
designated by abstract terms, being forms, as it were, of the persons.
So, since the nature of a form requires it to be "in" that of which it
is the form, we must say that the properties are in the persons, and
yet that they are the persons; as we say that the essence is in God,
and yet is God.

Reply Obj. 1: Person and property are really the same, but differ in
concept. Consequently, it does not follow that if one is multiplied,
the other must also be multiplied. We must, however, consider that in
God, by reason of the divine simplicity, a twofold real identity
exists as regards what in creatures are distinct. For, since the
divine simplicity excludes the composition of matter and form, it
follows that in God the abstract is the same as the concrete, as
"Godhead" and "God." And as the divine simplicity excludes the
composition of subject and accident, it follows that whatever is
attributed to God, is His essence Itself; and so, wisdom and power
are the same in God, because they are both in the divine essence.
According to this twofold identity, property in God is the same as
person. For personal properties are the same as the persons because
the abstract and the concrete are the same in God; since they are the
subsisting persons themselves, as paternity is the Father Himself,
and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. But the
non-personal properties are the same as the persons according to the
other reason of identity, whereby whatever is attributed to God is
His own essence. Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of
the Father, and the person of the Son; not that it is one
self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two
persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above
explained (Q. 30, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: The properties are said to be in the essence, only by
mode of identity; but in the persons they exist by mode of identity,
not merely in reality, but also in the mode of signification; as the
form exists in its subject. Thus the properties determine and
distinguish the persons, but not the essence.

Reply Obj. 3: Notional participles and verbs signify the notional
acts: and acts belong to a _suppositum._ Now, properties are not
designated as _supposita,_ but as forms of _supposita._ And so their
mode of signification is against notional participles and verbs being
predicated of the properties.
_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 40, Art. 2]

Whether the Persons Are Distinguished by the Relations?

Objection 1: It would seem that the persons are not distinguished by
the relations. For simple things are distinct by themselves. But the
persons are supremely simple. Therefore they are distinguished by
themselves, and not by the relation.

Obj. 2: Further, a form is distinguished only in relation to its
genus. For white is distinguished from black only by quality. But
"hypostasis" signifies an individual in the genus of substance.
Therefore the hypostases cannot be distinguished by relations.

Obj. 3: Further, what is absolute comes before what is relative. But
the distinction of the divine persons is the primary distinction.
Therefore the divine persons are not distinguished by the relations.

Obj. 4: Further, whatever presupposes distinction cannot be the first
principle of distinction. But relation presupposes distinction, which
comes into its definition; for a relation is essentially what is
towards another. Therefore the first distinctive principle in God
cannot be relation.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Trin.): "Relation alone
multiplies the Trinity of the divine persons."

_I answer that,_ In whatever multitude of things is to be found
something common to all, it is necessary to seek out the principle of
distinction. So, as the three persons agree in the unity of essence,
we must seek to know the principle of distinction whereby they are
several. Now, there are two principles of difference between the
divine persons, and these are "origin" and "relation." Although these
do not really differ, yet they differ in the mode of signification;
for "origin" is signified by way of act, as "generation"; and
"relation" by way of the form, as "paternity."

Some, then, considering that relation follows upon act, have said that
the divine hypostases are distinguished by origin, so that we may say
that the Father is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the former
begets and the latter is begotten. Further, that the relations, or the
properties, make known the distinctions of the hypostases or persons
as resulting therefrom; as also in creatures the properties manifest
the distinctions of individuals, which distinctions are caused by the
material principles.

This opinion, however, cannot stand--for two reasons. Firstly,
because, in order that two things be understood as distinct, their
distinction must be understood as resulting from something intrinsic
to both; thus in things created it results from their matter or their
form. Now origin of a thing does not designate anything intrinsic, but
means the way from something, or to something; as generation signifies
the way to a thing generated, and as proceeding from the generator.
Hence it is not possible that what is generated and the generator
should be distinguished by generation alone; but in the generator and
in the thing generated we must presuppose whatever makes them to be
distinguished from each other. In a divine person there is nothing to
presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the
persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons
are distinguished from each other by the relations. Secondly: because
the distinction of the divine persons is not to be so understood as if
what is common to them all is divided, because the common essence
remains undivided; but the distinguishing principles themselves must
constitute the things which are distinct. Now the relations or the
properties distinguish or constitute the hypostases or persons,
inasmuch as they are themselves the subsisting persons; as paternity
is the Father, and filiation is the Son, because in God the abstract
and the concrete do not differ. But it is against the nature of origin
that it should constitute hypostasis or person. For origin taken in an
active sense signifies proceeding from a subsisting person, so that it
presupposes the latter; while in a passive sense origin, as
"nativity," signifies the way to a subsisting person, and as not yet
constituting the person.

It is therefore better to say that the persons or hypostases are
distinguished rather by relations than by origin. For, although in
both ways they are distinguished, nevertheless in our mode of
understanding they are distinguished chiefly and firstly by relations;
whence this name "Father" signifies not only a property, but also the
hypostasis; whereas this term "Begetter" or "Begetting" signifies
property only; forasmuch as this name "Father" signifies the relation
which is distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis; and this term
"Begetter" or "Begotten" signifies the origin which is not distinctive
and constitutive of the hypostasis.

Reply Obj. 1: The persons are the subsisting relations themselves.
Hence it is not against the simplicity of the divine persons for them
to be distinguished by the relations.

Reply Obj. 2: The divine persons are not distinguished as regards
being, in which they subsist, nor in anything absolute, but only as
regards something relative. Hence relation suffices for their
distinction.

Reply Obj. 3: The more prior a distinction is, the nearer it
approaches to unity; and so it must be the least possible
distinction. So the distinction of the persons must be by that which
distinguishes the least possible; and this is by relation.

Reply Obj. 4: Relation presupposes the distinction of the subjects,
when it is an accident; but when the relation is subsistent, it does
not presuppose, but brings about distinction. For when it is said
that relation is by nature to be towards another, the word "another"
signifies the correlative which is not prior, but simultaneous in the
order of nature.
_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 40, Art. 3]

Whether the Hypostases Remain If the Relations Are Mentally Abstracted
from the Persons?

Objection 1: It would seem that the hypostases remain if the
properties or relations are mentally abstracted from the persons. For
that to which something is added, may be understood when the addition
is taken away; as man is something added to animal which can be
understood if rational be taken away. But person is something added to
hypostasis; for person is "a hypostasis distinguished by a property of
dignity." Therefore, if a personal property be taken away from a
person, the hypostasis remains.

Obj. 2: Further, that the Father is Father, and that He is someone,
are not due to the same reason. For as He is the Father by paternity,
supposing He is some one by paternity, it would follow that the Son,
in Whom there is not paternity, would not be "someone." So when
paternity is mentally abstracted from the Father, He still remains
"someone"--that is, a hypostasis. Therefore, if property be removed
from person, the hypostasis remains.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6): "Unbegotten is not
the same as Father; for if the Father had not begotten the Son,
nothing would prevent Him being called unbegotten." But if He had not
begotten the Son, there would be no paternity in Him. Therefore, if
paternity be removed, there still remains the hypostasis of the
Father as unbegotten.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "The Son has nothing
else than birth." But He is Son by "birth." Therefore, if filiation
be removed, the Son's hypostasis no more remains; and the same holds
as regards the other persons.

_I answer that,_ Abstraction by the intellect is twofold--when the
universal is abstracted from the particular, as animal abstracted from
man; and when the form is abstracted from the matter, as the form of a
circle is abstracted by the intellect from any sensible matter. The
difference between these two abstractions consists in the fact that in
the abstraction of the universal from the particular, that from which
the abstraction is made does not remain; for when the difference of
rationality is removed from man, the man no longer remains in the
intellect, but animal alone remains. But in the abstraction of the
form from the matter, both the form and the matter remain in the
intellect; as, for instance, if we abstract the form of a circle from
brass, there remains in our intellect separately the understanding
both of a circle, and of brass. Now, although there is no universal
nor particular in God, nor form and matter, in reality; nevertheless,
as regards the mode of signification there is a certain likeness of
these things in God; and thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6)
that "substance is common and hypostasis is particular." So, if we
speak of the abstraction of the universal from the particular, the
common universal essence remains in the intellect if the properties
are removed; but not the hypostasis of the Father, which is, as it
were, a particular.

But as regards the abstraction of the form from the matter, if the
non-personal properties are removed, then the idea of the hypostases
and persons remains; as, for instance, if the fact of the Father's
being unbegotten or spirating be mentally abstracted from the Father,
the Father's hypostasis or person remains.

If, however, the personal property be mentally abstracted, the idea of
the hypostasis no longer remains. For the personal properties are not
to be understood as added to the divine hypostases, as a form is added
to a pre-existing subject: but they carry with them their own
_supposita,_ inasmuch as they are themselves subsisting persons; thus
paternity is the Father Himself. For hypostasis signifies something
distinct in God, since hypostasis means an individual substance. So,
as relation distinguishes and constitutes the hypostases, as above
explained (A. 2), it follows that if the personal relations are
mentally abstracted, the hypostases no longer remain. Some, however,
think, as above noted, that the divine hypostases are not
distinguished by the relations, but only by origin; so that the Father
is a hypostasis as not from another, and the Son is a hypostasis as
from another by generation. And that the consequent relations which
are to be regarded as properties of dignity, constitute the notion of
a person, and are thus called "personal properties." Hence, if these
relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostasis, but not the
persons, remain.

But this is impossible, for two reasons: first, because the relations
distinguish and constitute the hypostases, as shown above (A. 2);
secondly, because every hypostasis of a rational nature is a person,
as appears from the definition of Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) that,
"person is the individual substance of a rational nature." Hence, to
have hypostasis and not person, it would be necessary to abstract the
rationality from the nature, but not the property from the person.

Reply Obj. 1: Person does not add to hypostasis a distinguishing
property absolutely, but a distinguishing property of dignity, all
of which must be taken as the difference. Now, this distinguishing
property is one of dignity precisely because it is understood as
subsisting in a rational nature. Hence, if the distinguishing
property be removed from the person, the hypostasis no longer
remains; whereas it would remain were the rationality of the nature
removed; for both person and hypostasis are individual substances.
Consequently, in God the distinguishing relation belongs essentially
to both.

Reply Obj. 2: By paternity the Father is not only Father, but is a
person, and is "someone," or a hypostasis. It does not follow,
however, that the Son is not "someone" or a hypostasis; just as it
does not follow that He is not a person.

Reply Obj. 3: Augustine does not mean to say that the hypostasis of
the Father would remain as unbegotten, if His paternity were removed,
as if innascibility constituted and distinguished the hypostasis of
the Father; for this would be impossible, since "being unbegotten"
says nothing positive and is only a negation, as he himself says. But
he speaks in a general sense, forasmuch as not every unbegotten being
is the Father. So, if paternity be removed, the hypostasis of the
Father does not remain in God, as distinguished from the other
persons, but only as distinguished from creatures; as the Jews
understand it.
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 40, Art. 4]

Whether the properties presuppose the notional acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the notional acts are understood
before the properties. For the Master of the Sentences says (Sent. i,
D, xxvii) that "the Father always is, because He is ever begetting the
Son." So it seems that generation precedes paternity in the order of
intelligence.

Obj. 2: Further, in the order of intelligence every relation
presupposes that on which it is founded; as equality presupposes
quantity. But paternity is a relation founded on the action of
generation. Therefore paternity presupposes generation.

Obj. 3: Further, active generation is to paternity as nativity is
to filiation. But filiation presupposes nativity; for the Son is so
called because He is born. Therefore paternity also presupposes
generation.

_On the contrary,_ Generation is the operation of the person of the
Father. But paternity constitutes the person of the Father. Therefore
in the order of intelligence, paternity is prior to generation.

_I answer that,_ According to the opinion that the properties do not
distinguish and constitute the hypostases in God, but only manifest
them as already distinct and constituted, we must absolutely say that
the relations in our mode of understanding follow upon the notional
acts, so that we can say, without qualifying the phrase, that "because
He begets, He is the Father." A distinction, however, is needed if we
suppose that the relations distinguish and constitute the divine
hypostases. For origin has in God an active and passive
signification--active, as generation is attributed to the Father, and
spiration, taken for the notional act, is attributed to the