Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum Deus sit maxime unus Whether God is supremely one? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit maxime unus. Unum enim dicitur secundum privationem divisionis. Sed privatio non recipit magis et minus. Ergo Deus non dicitur magis unus quam alia quae sunt unum. 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. Praeterea, nihil videtur esse magis indivisibile quam id quod est indivisibile actu et potentia, cuiusmodi est punctus et unitas. Sed intantum dicitur aliquid magis unum, inquantum est indivisibile. Ergo Deus non est magis unum quam unitas et punctus. 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. Praeterea, quod est per essentiam bonum, est maxime bonum, ergo quod est per essentiam suam unum, est maxime unum. Sed omne ens est unum per suam essentiam, ut patet per Philosophum in IV Metaphys. Ergo omne ens est maxime unum. Deus igitur non est magis unum quam alia entia. 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. Sed contra est quod dicit Bernardus, quod inter omnia quae unum dicuntur, arcem tenet unitas divinae Trinitatis. On the contrary, Bernard says (De Consid. v): Among all things called one, the unity of the Divine Trinity holds the first place. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum unum sit ens indivisum, ad hoc quod aliquid sit maxime unum, oportet quod sit et maxime ens et maxime indivisum. Utrumque autem competit Deo. Est enim maxime ens, inquantum est non habens aliquod esse determinatum per aliquam naturam cui adveniat, sed est ipsum esse subsistens, omnibus modis indeterminatum. Est autem maxime indivisum, inquantum neque dividitur actu neque potentia, secundum quemcunque modum divisionis, cum sit omnibus modis simplex, ut supra ostensum est. Unde manifestum est quod Deus est maxime unus. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet privatio secundum se non recipiat magis et minus, tamen secundum quod eius oppositum recipit magis et minus, etiam ipsa privativa dicuntur secundum magis et minus. Secundum igitur quod aliquid est magis divisum vel divisibile, vel minus, vel nullo modo, secundum hoc aliquid dicitur magis et minus vel maxime unum. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod punctus et unitas quae est principium numeri, non sunt maxime entia, cum non habeant esse nisi in subiecto aliquo. Unde neutrum eorum est maxime unum. Sicut enim subiectum non est maxime unum, propter diversitatem accidentis et subiecti, ita nec accidens. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet omne ens sit unum per suam substantiam, non tamen se habet aequaliter substantia cuiuslibet ad causandam unitatem, quia substantia quorundam est ex multis composita, quorundam vero non. 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. Quaestio 12 Question 12 Quomodo Deus a nobis cognoscatur How God is Known by Us Quia in superioribus consideravimus qualiter Deus sit secundum seipsum, restat considerandum qualiter sit in cognitione nostra, idest quomodo cognoscatur a creaturis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tredecim. 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: Primo, utrum aliquis intellectus creatus possit videre essentiam Dei. (1) Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God? Secundo, utrum Dei essentia videatur ab intellectu per aliquam speciem creatam. (2) Whether the essence of God is seen by the intellect through any created image? Tertio, utrum oculo corporeo Dei essentia possit videri. (3) Whether the essence of God can be seen by the corporeal eye? Quarto, utrum aliqua substantia intellectualis creata ex suis naturalibus sufficiens sit videre Dei essentiam. (4) Whether any created intellectual substance is sufficient by its own natural powers to see the essence of God? Quinto, utrum intellectus creatus ad videndam Dei essentiam indigeat aliquo lumine creato. (5) Whether the created intellect needs any created light in order to see the essence of God? Sexto, utrum videntium essentiam Dei unus alio perfectius videat. (6) Whether of those who see God, one sees Him more perfectly than another? Septimo, utrum aliquis intellectus creatus possit comprehendere Dei essentiam. (7) Whether any created intellect can comprehend the essence of God? Octavo, utrum intellectus creatus videns Dei essentiam, omnia in ipsa cognoscat. (8) Whether the created intellect seeing the essence of God, knows all things in it? Nono, utrum ea quae ibi cognoscit, per aliquas similitudines cognoscat. (9) Whether what is there known is known by any similitudes? Decimo, utrum simul cognoscat omnia quae in Deo videt. (10) Whether the created intellect knows at once what it sees in God? Undecimo, utrum in statu huius vitae possit aliquis homo essentiam Dei videre. (11) Whether in the state of this life any man can see the essence of God? Duodecimo, utrum per rationem naturalem Deum in hac vita possimus cognoscere. (12) Whether by natural reason we can know God in this life? Tertiodecimo, utrum, supra cognitionem naturalis rationis, sit in praesenti vita aliqua cognitio Dei per gratiam. (13) Whether there is in this life any knowledge of God through grace above the knowledge of natural reason? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum aliquis intellectus creatus possit Deum per essentiam videre Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nullus intellectus creatus possit Deum per essentiam videre. Chrysostomus enim, super Ioannem, exponens illud quod dicitur Ioan. I, Deum nemo vidit unquam, sic dicit, ipsum quod est Deus, non solum prophetae, sed nec Angeli viderunt nec Archangeli, quod enim creabilis est naturae, qualiter videre poterit quod increabile est? Dionysius etiam, I cap. de Div. Nom., loquens de Deo, dicit, neque sensus est eius, neque phantasia, neque opinio, nec ratio, nec scientia. 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. Praeterea, omne infinitum, inquantum huiusmodi, est ignotum. Sed Deus est infinitus, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo secundum se est ignotus. 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. Praeterea, intellectus creatus non est cognoscitivus nisi existentium, primum enim quod cadit in apprehensione intellectus, est ens. Sed Deus non est existens, sed supra existentia, ut dicit Dionysius. Ergo non est intelligibilis; sed est supra omnem intellectum. 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. Praeterea, cognoscentis ad cognitum oportet esse aliquam proportionem, cum cognitum sit perfectio cognoscentis. Sed nulla est proportio intellectus creati ad Deum, quia in infinitum distant. Ergo intellectus creatus non potest videre essentiam Dei. 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. III, videbimus eum sicuti est. On the contrary, It is written: We shall see Him as He is (1 John 3:2). Respondeo dicendum quod, cum unumquodque sit cognoscibile secundum quod est in actu, Deus, qui est actus purus absque omni permixtione potentiae, quantum in se est, maxime cognoscibilis est. 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. Sed quod est maxime cognoscibile in se, alicui intellectui cognoscibile non est, propter excessum intelligibilis supra intellectum, sicut sol, qui est maxime visibilis, videri non potest a vespertilione, propter excessum luminis. Hoc igitur attendentes, quidam posuerunt quod nullus intellectus creatus essentiam Dei videre potest. 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. Sed hoc inconvenienter dicitur. Cum enim ultima hominis beatitudo in altissima eius operatione consistat, quae est operatio intellectus, si nunquam essentiam Dei videre potest intellectus creatus, vel nunquam beatitudinem obtinebit, vel in alio eius beatitudo consistet quam in Deo. Quod est alienum a fide. In ipso enim est ultima perfectio rationalis creaturae, quia est ei principium essendi, intantum enim unumquodque perfectum est, inquantum ad suum principium attingit. Similiter etiam est praeter rationem. Inest enim homini naturale desiderium cognoscendi causam, cum intuetur effectum; et ex hoc admiratio in hominibus consurgit. Si igitur intellectus rationalis creaturae pertingere non possit ad primam causam rerum, remanebit inane desiderium naturae. 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.