-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
/
ContraGentiles1.htm
3953 lines (3952 loc) · 888 KB
/
ContraGentiles1.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Thomas Aquinas: Contra Gentiles: English</title>
<body style="text-align=justify;font-family:Arial">
<blockquote>
<center>
<h1>CONTRA GENTILES</h1>
<h2>BOOK ONE: GOD</h2>
<h3>translated by<br>
Anton C. Pegis<br>
<br>
CONTENTS</h3>
</center>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<ol>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#1">The office of the wise man</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#2">The author’s intention in the present work</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#3">On the way in which divine truth is to be made known</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#4">That the truth about God to which the natural reason reaches is fittingly proposed to men for belief</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#5">That the truths the human reason is not able to investigate are fittingly proposed to men for belief</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#6">That to give assent to the truths of faith is not foolishness even though they are above reason</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#7">That the truth of reason is not opposed to the truth of the Christian faith</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#8">How the human reason is related to the truth of faith</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#9">The order and manner of procedure in the present work</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#10">The opinion of those who say that the existence of God, being self-evident, cannot be demonstrated</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#11">A refutation of the above-mentioned opinion and a solution of the arguments</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#12">The opinion of those who say that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated but is held by faith alone</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#13">Arguments in proof of the existence of God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#14">That to know God we must use the way of remotion</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#15">That God is eternal</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#16">That there is no passive potency in God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#17">That there is no matter in God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#18">That there is no composition in God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#19">That in God there is nothing violent or unnatural</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#20">That God is not a body</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#21">That God is His essence</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#22">That in God being and essence are the same</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#23">That no accident is found in God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#24">That the divine being cannot be determined by the addition of some substantial difference</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#25">That God is not in some genus</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#26">That God is not the formal being of all things</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#27">That God is not the form of any body</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#28">The divine perfection</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#29">The likeness of creatures to God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#30">The names that can be predicated of God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#31">That the divine perfection and the plurality of divine names are not opposed to the divine simplicity</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#32">That nothing is predicated univocally of God and other things</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#33">That not all names are said of God and creatures in a purely equivocal way</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#34">That names said of God and creatures are said analogically</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#35">That many names said of God are not synonyms</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#36">How our intellect forms a proposition about God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#37">That God is good</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#38">That God is goodness itself</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#39">That there cannot be evil in God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#40">That God is the good of every good</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#41">That God is the highest good</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#42">That God is one</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#43">That God is infinite</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#44">That God is intelligent</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#45">That God’s act of understanding is His essence</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#46">That God understands through nothing other than through His essence</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#47">That God understands Himself perfectly</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#48">That primarily and essentially God knows only Himself</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#49">That God understands things other than Himself</a>
</ol>
<td valign="top">
<ol>
<li value="50">
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#50">That God has a proper knowledge of all things</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#51">Arguments inquiring how a multitude of intellectual objects is in the divine intellect</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#52">Continued</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#53">The solution of the above difficulty</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#54">How the divine essence, being one and simple, is the proper likeness of all intelligible objects</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#55">That God understands all things together</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#56">That God’s knowledge is not habitual</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#57">That God’s knowledge is not discursive</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#58">That God does not understand by composing and dividing</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#59">That the truth of enunciables; is not excluded from God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#60">That God is truth</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#61">That God is the purest truth</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#62">That the divine truth is the first and highest truth</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#63">The arguments of those who wish to take away the knowledge of singulars from God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#64">The order of what is to be said on the divine knowledge</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#65">That God knows singulars</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#66">That God knows the things that are not</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#67">That God knows future contingent singulars;</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#68">That God knows the motions of the will</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#69">That God knows infinite things</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#70">That God knows lowly things</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#71">That God knows evils</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#72">That God has will</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#73">That the will of God is His essence</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#74">That the principal object of the divine will is the divine essence</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#75">That in willing Himself God also wills other things</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#76">That God wills Himself and other things by one act of will</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#77">That the multitude of the objects of the will is not opposed to the divine simplicity</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#78">That the divine will extends to singular goods</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#79">That God wills even the things that are not yet</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#80">That His own being and His own goodness God wills necessarily</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#81">That God does not will other things in a necessary way</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#82">Arguments leading to awkward consequences if God does not necessarily will things other than Himself</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#83">That God wills something other than Himself with the necessity of supposition</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#84">That the will of God is not of what is in itself impossible</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#85">That the divine will does not remove contingency from things, nor does it impose absolute necessity on them</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#86">That a reason can be assigned to the divine Will</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#87">That nothing can be the cause of the divine Will</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#88">That in God there is free choice</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#89">That in God there are not the passions of the appetites</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#90">That in God there are delight and joy, but they are not opposed to the divine perfection</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#91">That in God there is love</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#92">How virtues may be held to be in God</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#93">That in God there are the moral virtues that deal with actions</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#94">That in God there are contemplative virtues</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#95">That God cannot will evil</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#96">That God hates nothing, and the hatred of no thing befits Him</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#97">That God is living</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#98">That God is His life</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#99">That the life of God is everlasting</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#100">That God is blessed</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#101">That God is His blessedness</a>
<li>
<a href="ContraGentiles1.htm#102">That the perfect and unique blessedness of God excels every other blessedness</a>
</ol>
</table>
<hr align="center">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="1" id="1"><b>Caput 1</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 1</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod sit officium sapientis</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THE OFFICE OF THE WISE MAN</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Veritatem meditabitur guttur meum, et labia mea detestabuntur impium. Prov. 8-7.
<td style="text-align:justify">“My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate impiety” (Prov. 8:7).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Multitudinis usus, quem in rebus nominandis sequendum philosophus censet, communiter obtinuit ut sapientes dicantur qui res directe ordinant et eas bene gubernant. Unde inter alia quae homines de sapiente concipiunt, a philosopho ponitur quod sapientis est ordinare. Omnium autem ordinatorum ad finem, gubernationis et ordinis regulam ex fine sumi necesse est: tunc enim unaquaeque res optime disponitur cum ad suum finem convenienter ordinatur; finis enim est bonum uniuscuiusque. Unde videmus in artibus unam alterius esse gubernativam et quasi principem, ad quam pertinet eius finis: sicut medicinalis ars pigmentariae principatur et eam ordinat, propter hoc quod sanitas, circa quam medicinalis versatur, finis est omnium pigmentorum, quae arte pigmentaria conficiuntur. Et simile apparet in arte gubernatoria respectu navifactivae; et in militari respectu equestris et omnis bellici apparatus. Quae quidem artes aliis principantes architectonicae nominantur, quasi principales artes: unde et earum artifices, qui architectores vocantur, nomen sibi vindicant sapientum.<br>
Quia vero praedicti artifices, singularium quarundam rerum fines pertractantes, ad finem universalem omnium non pertingunt, dicuntur quidem sapientes huius vel illius rei, secundum quem modum dicitur 1 Cor. 3-10, ut sapiens architectus, fundamentum posui; nomen autem simpliciter sapientis illi soli reservatur cuius consideratio circa finem universi versatur, qui item est universitatis principium; unde secundum philosophum, sapientis est causas altissimas considerare.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] The usage of the multitude, which according to the Philosopher is to be followed in giving names to things, has commonly held that they are to be called wise who order things rightly and govern them well. Hence, among other things that men have conceived about the wise man, the Philosopher includes the notion that “it belongs to the wise man to order.” Now, the rule of government and order for all things directed to an end must be taken from the end. For, since the end of each thing is its good, a thing is then best disposed when it is fittingly ordered to its end. And so we see among the arts that one functions as the governor and the ruler of another because it controls its end. Thus, the art of medicine rules and orders the art of the chemist because health, with which medicine is concerned, is the end of all the medications prepared by the art of the chemist. A similar situation obtains in the art of ship navigation in relation to shipbuilding, and in the military art with respect to the equestrian art and the equipment of war. The arts that rule other arts are called architectonic, as being the ruling arts. That is why the artisans devoted to these arts, who are called master artisans, appropriate to themselves the name of wise men.<br>
But, since these artisans are concerned, in each case, with the ends of certain particular things, they do not reach to the universal end of all things. They are therefore said to be wise with respect to this or that thing; in which sense it is said that “as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation” (1 Cor. 3:10). The name of the absolutely wise man, however, is reserved for him whose consideration is directed to the end of the universe, which is also the origin of the universe. That is why, according to the Philosopher, it belongs to the wise man to consider the highest causes.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Finis autem ultimus uniuscuiusque rei est qui intenditur a primo auctore vel motore ipsius. Primus autem auctor et motor universi est intellectus, ut infra ostendetur. Oportet igitur ultimum finem universi esse bonum intellectus. Hoc autem est veritas. Oportet igitur veritatem esse ultimum finem totius universi; et circa eius considerationem principaliter sapientiam insistere. Et ideo ad veritatis manifestationem divina sapientia carne induta se venisse in mundum testatur, dicens, Ioan. 18-37: ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati.<br>
Sed et primam philosophiam philosophus determinat esse scientiam veritatis; non cuiuslibet, sed eius veritatis quae est origo omnis veritatis, scilicet quae pertinet ad primum principium essendi omnibus; unde et sua veritas est omnis veritatis principium; sic enim est dispositio rerum in veritate sicut in esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Now, the end of each thing is that which is intended by its first author or mover. But the first author and mover of the universe is an intellect, as will be later shown. The ultimate end of the universe must, therefore, be the good of an intellect. This good is truth. Truth must consequently be the ultimate end of the whole universe, and the consideration of the wise man aims principally at truth. So it is that, according to His own statement, divine Wisdom testifies that He has assumed flesh and come into the world in order to make the truth known: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth” (John 18:37).<br>
The Philosopher himself establishes that first philosophy is the science of truth, not of any truth, but of that truth which is the origin of all truth, namely, which belongs to the first principle whereby all things are. The truth belonging to such a principle is, clearly, the source of all truth; for things have the same disposition in truth as in being.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Eiusdem autem est unum contrariorum prosequi et aliud refutare sicut medicina, quae sanitatem operatur, aegritudinem excludit. Unde sicut sapientis est veritatem praecipue de primo principio meditari et aliis disserere, ita eius est falsitatem contrariam impugnare.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] It belongs to one and the same science, however, both to pursue one of two contraries and to oppose the other. Medicine, for example, seeks to effect health and to eliminate illness. Hence, just as it belongs to the wise man to meditate especially on the truth belonging to the first principle and to teach it to others, so it belongs to him to refute the opposing falsehood.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Convenienter ergo ex ore sapientiae duplex sapientis officium in verbis propositis demonstratur: scilicet veritatem divinam, quae antonomastice est veritas, meditatam eloqui, quod tangit cum dicit, veritatem meditabitur guttur meum; et errorem contra veritatem impugnare, quod tangit cum dicit, et labia mea detestabuntur impium, per quod falsitas contra divinam veritatem designatur, quae religioni contraria est, quae etiam pietas nominatur, unde et falsitas contraria ei impietatis sibi nomen assumit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Appropriately, therefore, is the twofold office of the wise man shown from the mouth of Wisdom in our opening words: to meditate and speak forth of the divine truth, which is truth in person (Wisdom touches on this in the words my mouth shall meditate truth), and to refute the opposing error (which Wisdom touches on in the words and my lips shall hate impiety). By impiety is here meant falsehood against the divine truth. This falsehood is contrary to religion, which is likewise named piety. Hence, the falsehood contrary to it is called impiety.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="2" id="2"><b>Caput 2</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 2</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quae sit in hoc opere auctoris intentio</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THE AUTHOR’S INTENTION IN THE PRESENT WORK</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Inter omnia vero hominum studia sapientiae studium est perfectius, sublimius, utilius et iucundius.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Perfectius quidem, quia inquantum homo sapientiae studium dat, intantum verae beatitudinis iam aliquam partem habet unde sapiens dicit, beatus vir qui in sapientia morabitur, Eccli. 14-22.
<td style="text-align:justify">It is more perfect because, in so far as a man gives himself to the pursuit of wisdom, so far does he even now have some share in true beatitude. And so a wise man has said: “Blessed is the man that shall continue in wisdom” (Sirach 14:22).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sublimius autem est quia per ipsum homo praecipue ad divinam similitudinem accedit, quae omnia in sapientia fecit: unde, quia similitudo causa est dilectionis, sapientiae studium praecipue Deo per amicitiam coniungit; propter quod Sap. 7-14 dicitur quod sapientia infinitus thesaurus est hominibus, quo qui usi sunt, facti sunt participes amicitiae Dei.
<td style="text-align:justify">It is more noble because through this pursuit man especially approaches to a likeness to God Who “made all things in wisdom” (Ps. 103:24). And since likeness is the cause of love, the pursuit of wisdom especially joins man to God in friendship. That is why it is said of wisdom that “she is an infinite treasure to men! which they that use become the friends of God” (Wis. 7:14).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Utilius autem est quia per ipsam sapientiam ad immortalitatis regnum pervenitur: concupiscentia enim sapientiae deducet ad regnum perpetuum, Sap. 6-21.
<td style="text-align:justify">It is more useful because through wisdom we arrive at the kingdom of immortality. For “the desire of wisdom leads to the everlasting kingdom” (Wis. 6:21).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Iucundius autem est quia non habet amaritudinem conversatio illius nec taedium convictus illius, sed laetitiam et gaudium, Sap. 8-16.
<td style="text-align:justify">It is more full of joy because “her conversation has no bitterness, nor her company any tediousness, but joy and gladness” (Wis. 7:16).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Assumpta igitur ex divina pietate fiducia sapientis officium prosequendi, quamvis proprias vires excedat, propositum nostrae intentionis est veritatem quam fides Catholica profitetur, pro nostro modulo manifestare, errores eliminando contrarios: ut enim verbis Hilarii utar, ego hoc vel praecipuum vitae meae officium debere me Deo conscius sum, ut eum omnis sermo meus et sensus loquatur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] And so, in the name of the divine Mercy, I have the confidence to embark upon the work of a wise man, even though this may surpass my powers, and I have set myself the task of making known, as far as my limited powers will allow, the truth that the Catholic faith professes, and of setting aside the errors that are opposed to it. To use the words of Hilary: “I am aware that I owe this to God as the chief duty of my life, that my every word and sense may speak of Him” [ <i>De Trinitate</i> I, 37].
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Contra singulorum autem errores difficile est procedere, propter duo. Primo, quia non ita sunt nobis nota singulorum errantium dicta sacrilega ut ex his quae dicunt possimus rationes assumere ad eorum errores destruendos. Hoc enim modo usi sunt antiqui doctores in destructionem errorum gentilium quorum positiones scire poterant quia et ipsi gentiles fuerant, vel saltem inter gentiles conversati et in eorum doctrinis eruditi.<br>
Secundo, quia quidam eorum, ut Mahumetistae et Pagani, non conveniunt nobiscum in auctoritate alicuius Scripturae, per quam possint convinci, sicut contra Iudaeos disputare possumus per vetus testamentum, contra haereticos per novum. Hi vero neutrum recipiunt. Unde necesse est ad naturalem rationem recurrere, cui omnes assentire coguntur. Quae tamen in rebus divinis deficiens est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.<br>
In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Simul autem veritatem aliquam investigantes ostendemus qui errores per eam excludantur: et quomodo demonstrativa veritas, fidei Christianae religionis concordet.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Now, while we are investigating some given truth, we shall also show what errors are set aside by it; and we shall likewise show how the truth that we come to know by demonstration is in accord with the Christian religion.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="3" id="3"><b>Caput 3</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 3</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quis modus sit possibilis divinae veritatis manifestandae</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>ON THE WAY IN WHICH DIVINE TRUTH IS TO BE MADE KNOWN</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quia vero non omnis veritatis manifestandae modus est idem; disciplinati autem hominis est tantum de unoquoque fidem capere tentare, quantum natura rei permittit, ut a philosopho, optime dictum Boetius introducit, necesse est prius ostendere quis modus sit possibilis ad veritatem propositam manifestandam.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] The way of making truth known is not always the same, and, as the Philosopher has very well said, “it belongs to an educated man to seek such certitude in each thing as the nature of that thing allows.” The remark is also introduced by Boethius [ <i>De Trinitate</i> II]. But, since such is the case, we must first show what way is open to us in order that we may make known the truth which is our object.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Est autem in his quae de Deo confitemur duplex veritatis modus. Quaedam namque vera sunt de Deo quae omnem facultatem humanae rationis excedunt, ut Deum esse trinum et unum. Quaedam vero sunt ad quae etiam ratio naturalis pertingere potest, sicut est Deum esse, Deum esse unum, et alia huiusmodi; quae etiam philosophi demonstrative de Deo probaverunt, ducti naturalis lumine rationis.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] There is a twofold mode of truth in what we profess about God. Some truths about God exceed all the ability of the human reason. Such is the truth that God is triune. But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are that God exists, that He is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of the natural reason.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quod autem sint aliqua intelligibilium divinorum quae humanae rationis penitus excedant ingenium, evidentissime apparet.<br>
Cum enim principium totius scientiae quam de aliqua re ratio percipit, sit intellectus substantiae ipsius, eo quod, secundum doctrinam philosophi demonstrationis principium est quod quid est; oportet quod secundum modum quo substantia rei intelligitur, sit modus eorum quae de re illa cognoscuntur. Unde si intellectus humanus, alicuius rei substantiam comprehendit, puta lapidis vel trianguli, nullum intelligibilium illius rei facultatem humanae rationis excedet. Quod quidem nobis circa Deum non accidit. Nam ad substantiam ipsius capiendam intellectus humanus naturali virtute pertingere non potest: cum intellectus nostri, secundum modum praesentis vitae, cognitio a sensu incipiat; et ideo ea quae in sensu non cadunt, non possunt humano intellectu capi, nisi quatenus ex sensibilibus earum cognitio colligitur. Sensibilia autem ad hoc ducere intellectum nostrum non possunt ut in eis divina substantia videatur quid sit: cum sint effectus causae virtutem non aequantes. Ducitur tamen ex sensibilibus intellectus noster in divinam cognitionem ut cognoscat de Deo quia est, et alia huiusmodi quae oportet attribui primo principio. Sunt igitur quaedam intelligibilium divinorum quae humanae rationi sunt pervia; quaedam vero quae omnino vim humanae rationis excedunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] That there are certain truths about God that totally surpass man’s ability appears with the greatest evidence.<br>
Since, indeed, the principle of all knowledge that the reason perceives about some thing is the understanding of the very substance of that being (for according to Aristotle “what a thing is” is the principle of demonstration) [ <i>Posterior Analytics</i> II, 3], it is necessary that the way in which we understand the substance of a thing determines the way in which we know what belongs to it. Hence, if the human intellect comprehends the substance of some thing, for example, that of a stone or of a triangle, no intelligible characteristic belonging to that thing surpasses the grasp of the human reason. But this does not happen to us in the case of God. For the human intellect is not able to reach a comprehension of the divine substance through its natural power. For, according to its manner of knowing in the present life, the intellect depends on the sense for the origin of knowledge; and so those things that do not fall under the senses cannot be grasped by the human intellect except in so far as the knowledge of them is gathered from sensible things. Now, sensible things cannot lead the human intellect to the point of seeing in them the nature of the divine substance; for sensible things are effects that fall short of the power of their cause. Yet, beginning with sensible things, our intellect is led to the point of knowing about God that He exists, and other such characteristics that must be attributed to the First Principle. There are, consequently, some intelligible truths about God that are open to the human reason; but there are others that absolutely surpass its power.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc ex intellectuum gradibus idem facile est videre. Duorum enim quorum unus alio rem aliquam intellectu subtilius intuetur, ille cuius intellectus est elevatior, multa intelligit quae alius omnino capere non potest: sicut patet in rustico, qui nullo modo philosophiae subtiles considerationes capere potest. Intellectus autem Angeli plus excedit intellectum humanum quam intellectus optimi philosophi intellectum rudissimi idiotae: quia haec distantia inter speciei humanae limites continetur, quos angelicus intellectus excedit. Cognoscit quidem Angelus Deum ex nobiliori effectu quam homo: quanto ipsa substantia Angeli, per quam in Dei cognitionem ducitur naturali cognitione, est dignior rebus sensibilibus et etiam ipsa anima, per quam intellectus humanus in Dei cognitionem ascendit. Multoque amplius intellectus divinus excedit angelicum quam angelicus humanum. Ipse enim intellectus divinus sua capacitate substantiam suam adaequat, et ideo perfecte de se intelligit quid est, et omnia cognoscit quae de ipso intelligibilia sunt: non autem naturali cognitione Angelus de Deo cognoscit quid est, quia et ipsa substantia Angeli, per quam in Dei cognitionem ducitur, est effectus causae virtutem non adaequans. Unde non omnia quae in seipso Deus intelligit, Angelus naturali cognitione capere potest: nec ad omnia quae Angelus sua naturali virtute intelligit, humana ratio sufficit capienda. Sicut igitur maximae amentiae esset idiota qui ea quae a philosopho proponuntur falsa esse assereret propter hoc quod ea capere non potest, ita, et multo amplius, nimiae stultitiae est homo si ea quae divinitus Angelorum ministerio revelantur falsa esse suspicatur ex hoc quod ratione investigari non possunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] We may easily see the same point from the gradation of intellects. Consider the case of two persons of whom one has a more penetrating grasp of a thing by his intellect than, does the other. He who has the superior intellect understands many things that the other cannot grasp at all. Such is the case with a very simple person who cannot at all grasp the subtle speculations of philosophy. But the intellect of an angel surpasses the human intellect much more than the intellect of the greatest philosopher surpasses the intellect of the most uncultivated simple person; for the distance between the best philosopher and a simple person is contained within the limits of the human species, which the angelic intellect surpasses. For the angel knows God on the basis of a more noble effect than does man; and this by as much as the substance of an angel, through which the angel in his natural knowledge is led to the knowledge of God, is nobler than sensible things and even than the soul itself, through which the human intellect mounts to the knowledge of God. The divine intellect surpasses the angelic intellect much more than the angelic surpasses the human. For the divine intellect is in its capacity equal to its substance, and therefore it understands fully what it is, including all its intelligible attributes. But by his natural knowledge the angel does not know what God is, since the substance itself of the angel, through which he is led to the knowledge of God, is an effect that is not equal to the power of its cause. Hence, the angel is not able, by means of his natural knowledge, to grasp all the things that God understands in Himself; nor is the human reason sufficient to grasp all the things that the angel understands through his own natural power. Just as, therefore, it would he the height of folly for a simple person to assert that what a philosopher proposes is false on the ground that he himself cannot understand it, so (and even more so) it is the acme of stupidity for a man to suspect as false what is divinely revealed through the ministry of the angels simply because it cannot be investigated by reason.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc idem manifeste apparet ex defectu quem in rebus cognoscendis quotidie experimur. Rerum enim sensibilium plurimas proprietates ignoramus, earumque proprietatum quas sensu apprehendimus rationes perfecte in pluribus invenire non possumus. Multo igitur amplius illius excellentissimae substantiae omnia intelligibilia humana ratio investigare non sufficit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] The same thing, moreover, appears quite clearly from the defect that we experience every day in our knowledge of things. We do not know a great many of the properties of sensible things, and in most cases we are not able to discover fully the natures of those properties that we apprehend by the sense. Much more is it the case, therefore, that the human reason is not equal to the task of investigating all the intelligible characteristics of that most excellent substance.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huic etiam consonat dictum philosophi, qui in II Metaphys. asserit quod intellectus noster se habet ad prima entium, quae sunt manifestissima in natura, sicut oculus vespertilionis ad solem.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] The remark of Aristotle likewise agrees with this conclusion. He says that “our intellect is related to the prime beings, which are most evident in their nature, as the eye of an owl is related to the sun” [ <i>Metaphysics</i> Ia, 1]
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huic etiam veritati sacra Scriptura testimonium perhibet. Dicitur enim Iob 11-7: forsitan vestigia Dei comprehendes, et omnipotentem usque ad perfectum reperies? Et 36-26: ecce, Deus magnus, vincens scientiam nostram. Et 1 Cor. 13-9: ex parte cognoscimus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] Sacred Scripture also gives testimony to this truth. We read in Job: “Do you think you can comprehend the depths of God, and find the limit of the Almighty?” (11:7). And again: “Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Job 36:26). And St. Paul: “We know in part” (1 Cor. 13:9).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Non igitur omne quod de Deo dicitur, quamvis ratione investigari non possit, statim quasi falsum abiiciendum est, ut Manichaei et plures infidelium putaverunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[8] We should not, therefore, immediately reject as false, following the opinion of the Manicheans and many unbelievers, everything that is said about God even though it cannot be investigated by reason.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="4" id="4"><b>Caput 4</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 4</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod veritas divinorum ad quam naturalis ratio pertingit<br>
convenienter hominibus credenda proponitur</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD TO WHICH THE NATURAL REASON REACHES<br>
IS FITTINGLY PROPOSED TO MEN FOR BELIEF</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Duplici igitur veritate divinorum intelligibilium existente, una ad quam rationis inquisitio pertingere potest, altera quae omne ingenium humanae rationis excedit, utraque convenienter divinitus homini credenda proponitur.<br>
Hoc autem de illa primo ostendendum est quae inquisitioni rationis pervia esse potest: ne forte alicui videatur, ex quo ratione haberi potest, frustra id supernaturali inspiratione credendum traditum esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] Since, therefore, there exists a twofold truth concerning the divine being, one to which the inquiry of the reason can reach, the other which surpasses the whole ability of the human reason, it is fitting that both of these truths be proposed to man divinely for belief.<br>
This point must first be shown concerning the truth that is open to the inquiry of the reason; otherwise, it might perhaps seem to someone that, since such a truth can be known by the reason, it was uselessly given to men through a supernatural inspiration as an object of belief.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sequerentur autem tria inconvenientia si huiusmodi veritas solummodo rationi inquirenda relinqueretur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Yet, if this truth were left solely as a matter of inquiry for the human reason, three awkward consequences would follow.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Unum est quod paucis hominibus Dei cognitio inesset. A fructu enim studiosae inquisitionis, qui est inventio veritatis, plurimi impediuntur tribus de causis. Quidam siquidem propter complexionis indispositionem, ex qua multi naturaliter sunt indispositi ad sciendum: unde nullo studio ad hoc pertingere possent ut summum gradum humanae cognitionis attingerent, qui in cognoscendo Deum consistit. Quidam vero impediuntur necessitate rei familiaris. Oportet enim esse inter homines aliquos qui temporalibus administrandis insistant, qui tantum tempus in otio contemplativae inquisitionis non possent expendere ut ad summum fastigium humanae inquisitionis pertingerent, scilicet Dei cognitionem. Quidam autem impediuntur pigritia. Ad cognitionem enim eorum quae de Deo ratio investigare potest, multa praecognoscere oportet: cum fere totius philosophiae consideratio ad Dei cognitionem ordinetur; propter quod metaphysica, quae circa divina versatur, inter philosophiae partes ultima remanet addiscenda. Sic ergo non nisi cum magno labore studii ad praedictae veritatis inquisitionem perveniri potest. Quem quidem laborem pauci subire volunt pro amore scientiae, cuius tamen mentibus hominum naturalem Deus inseruit appetitum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] The first is that few men would possess the knowledge of God. For there are three reasons why most men are cut off from the fruit of diligent inquiry which is the discovery of truth. Some do not have the physical disposition for such work. As a result, there are many who are naturally not fitted to pursue knowledge; and so, however much they tried, they would be unable to reach the highest level of human knowledge which consists in knowing God. Others are cut off from pursuing this truth by the necessities imposed upon them by their daily lives. For some men must devote themselves to taking care of temporal matters. Such men would not be able to give so much time to the leisure of contemplative inquiry as to reach the highest peak at which human investigation can arrive, namely, the knowledge of God. Finally, there are some who are cut off by indolence. In order to know the things that the reason can investigate concerning God, a knowledge of many things must already be possessed. For almost all of philosophy is directed towards the knowledge of God, and that is why metaphysics, which deals with divine things, is the last part of philosophy to be learned. This means that we are able to arrive at the inquiry concerning the aforementioned truth only on the basis of a great deal of labor spent in study. Now, those who wish to undergo such a labor for the mere love of knowledge are few, even though God has inserted into the minds of men a natural appetite for knowledge.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Secundum inconveniens est quod illi qui ad praedictae veritatis inventionem pervenirent, vix post longum tempus pertingerent. Tum propter huius veritatis profunditatem, ad quam capiendam per viam rationis non nisi post longum exercitium intellectus humanus idoneus invenitur. Tum etiam propter multa quae praeexiguntur, ut dictum est. Tum etiam propter hoc quod tempore iuventutis, dum diversis motibus passionum anima fluctuat, non est apta ad tam altae veritatis cognitionem, sed in quiescendo fit prudens et sciens, ut dicitur in VII Physic. Remaneret igitur humanum genus, si sola rationis via ad Deum cognoscendum pateret, in maximis ignorantiae tenebris: cum Dei cognitio, quae homines maxime perfectos et bonos facit, non nisi quibusdam paucis, et his etiam post temporis longitudinem proveniret.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] The second awkward effect is that those who would come to discover the abovementioned truth would barely reach it after a great deal of time. The reasons are several. There is the profundity of this truth, which the human intellect is made capable of grasping by natural inquiry only after a long training. Then, there are many things that must be presupposed, as we have said. There is also the fact that, in youth, when the soul is swayed by the various movements of the passions, it is not in a suitable state for the knowledge of such lofty truth. On the contrary, “one becomes wise and knowing in repose,” as it is said in the <i>Physics</i> [VII, 3]. The result is this. If the only way open to us for the knowledge of God were solely that of the reason, the human race would remain in the blackest shadows of ignorance. For then the knowledge of God, which especially renders men perfect and good, would come to be possessed only by a few, and these few would require a great deal of time in order to reach it.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Tertium inconveniens est quod investigationi rationis humanae plerumque falsitas admiscetur, propter debilitatem intellectus nostri in iudicando, et phantasmatum permixtionem. Et ideo apud multos in dubitatione remanerent ea quae sunt etiam verissime demonstrata, dum vim demonstrationis ignorant; et praecipue cum videant a diversis qui sapientes dicuntur, diversa doceri. Inter multa etiam vera quae demonstrantur, immiscetur aliquando aliquid falsum, quod non demonstratur, sed aliqua probabili vel sophistica ratione asseritur, quae interdum demonstratio reputatur. Et ideo oportuit per viam fidei fixam certitudinem et puram veritatem de rebus divinis hominibus exhiberi.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] The third awkward effect is this. The investigation of the human reason for the most part has falsity present within it, and this is due partly to the weakness of our intellect in judgment, and partly to the admixture of images. The result is that many, remaining ignorant of the power of demonstration, would hold in doubt those things that have been most truly demonstrated. This would be particularly the case since they see that, among those who are reputed to be wise men, each one teaches his own brand of doctrine. Furthermore, with the many truths that are demonstrated, there sometimes is mingled something that is false, which is not demonstrated but rather asserted on the basis of some probable or sophistical argument, which yet has the credit of being a demonstration. That is why it was necessary that the unshakeable certitude and pure truth concerning divine things should be presented to men by way of faith.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Salubriter ergo divina providit clementia ut ea etiam quae ratio investigare potest, fide tenenda praeciperet: ut sic omnes de facili possent divinae cognitionis participes esse et absque dubitatione et errore.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] Beneficially, therefore, did the divine Mercy provide that it should instruct us to hold by faith even those truths that the human reason is able to investigate. In this way, all men would easily be able to have a share in the knowledge of God, and this without uncertainty and error.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Hinc est quod Ephes. 4-17 dicitur: iam non ambuletis sicut et gentes ambulant in vanitate sensus sui, tenebris obscuratum habentes intellectum. Et Isaiae 54-13: ponam universos filios tuos doctos a domino.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] Hence it is written: “Henceforward walk not as the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having their understanding darkened” (Eph. 4:17-18). And again: “All your children shall be taught of the Lord” (Is. 54:13).
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="5" id="5"><b>Caput 5</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 5</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod ea quae ratione investigari non possunt convenienter fide tenenda hominibus proponuntur</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT THE TRUTHS THE HUMAN REASON IS NOT ABLE TO INVESTIGATE ARE FITTINGLY PROPOSED TO MEN FOR BELIEF</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Videtur autem quibusdam fortasse non debere homini ad credendum proponi illa quae ratio investigare non sufficit cum divina sapientia unicuique secundum modum suae naturae provideat. Et ideo demonstrandum est quod necessarium sit homini divinitus credenda proponi etiam illa quae rationem excedunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] Now, perhaps some will think that men should not be asked to believe what the reason is not adequate to investigate, since the divine Wisdom provides in the case of each thing according to the mode of its nature. We must therefore prove that it is necessary for man to receive from God as objects of belief even those truths that are above the human reason.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nullus enim desiderio et studio in aliquid tendit nisi sit ei praecognitum. Quia ergo ad altius bonum quam experiri in praesenti vita possit humana fragilitas, homines per divinam providentiam ordinantur, ut in sequentibus investigabitur, oportuit mentem evocari in aliquid altius quam ratio nostra in praesenti possit pertingere, ut sic disceret aliquid desiderare, et studio tendere in aliquid quod totum statum praesentis vitae excedit. Et hoc praecipue Christianae religioni competit, quae singulariter bona spiritualia et aeterna promittit: unde et in ea plurima humanum sensum excedentia proponuntur. Lex autem vetus, quae temporalia promissa habebat, pauca proposuit quae humanae rationis inquisitionem excederent. Secundum etiam hunc modum philosophis cura fuit, ad hoc ut homines a sensibilium delectationibus ad honestatem perducerent, ostendere esse alia bona his sensibilibus potiora, quorum gustu multo suavius qui vacant activis vel contemplativis virtutibus delectantur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] No one tends with desire and zeal towards something that is not already known to him. But, as we shall examine later on in this work, men are ordained by the divine Providence towards a higher good than human fragility can experience in the present life. That is why it was necessary for the human mind to be called to something higher than the human reason here and now can reach, so that it would thus learn to desire something and with zeal tend towards something that surpasses the whole state of the present life. This belongs especially to the Christian religion, which in a unique way promises spiritual and eternal goods. And so there are many things proposed to men in it that transcend human sense. The Old Law, on the other hand, whose promises were of a temporal character, contained very few proposals that transcended the inquiry of the human reason. Following this same direction, the philosophers themselves, in order that they might lead men from the pleasure of sensible things to virtue, were concerned to show that there were in existence other goods of a higher nature than these things of sense, and that those who gave themselves to the active or contemplative virtues would find much sweeter enjoyment in the taste of these higher goods.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Est etiam necessarium huiusmodi veritatem ad credendum hominibus proponi ad Dei cognitionem veriorem habendam. Tunc enim solum Deum vere cognoscimus quando ipsum esse credimus supra omne id quod de Deo cogitari ab homine possibile est: eo quod naturalem hominis cognitionem divina substantia excedit, ut supra ostensum est. Per hoc ergo quod homini de Deo aliqua proponuntur quae rationem excedunt, firmatur in homine opinio quod Deus sit aliquid supra id quod cogitare potest.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] It is also necessary that such truth be proposed to men for belief so that they may have a truer knowledge of God. For then only do we know God truly when we believe Him to be above everything that it is possible for man to think about Him; for, as we have shown, the divine substance surpasses the natural knowledge of which man is capable. Hence, by the fact that some things about God are proposed to man that surpass his reason, there is strengthened in man the view that God is something above what he can think.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Alia etiam utilitas inde provenit, scilicet praesumptionis repressio, quae est mater erroris. Sunt enim quidam tantum de suo ingenio praesumentes ut totam rerum naturam se reputent suo intellectu posse metiri, aestimantes scilicet totum esse verum quod eis videtur et falsum quod eis non videtur. Ut ergo ab hac praesumptione humanus animus liberatus ad modestam inquisitionem veritatis perveniat, necessarium fuit homini proponi quaedam divinitus quae omnino intellectum eius excederent.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Another benefit that comes from the revelation to men of truths that exceed the reason is the curbing of presumption, which is the mother of error. For there are some who have such a presumptuous opinion of their own ability that they deem themselves able to measure the nature of everything; I mean to say that, in their estimation, everything is true that seems to them so, and everything is false that does not. So that the human mind, therefore, might be freed from this presumption and come to a humble inquiry after truth, it was necessary that some things should be proposed to man by God that would completely surpass his intellect.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Apparet etiam alia utilitas ex dictis philosophi in X Ethicor. Cum enim Simonides quidam homini praetermittendam divinam cognitionem persuaderet et humanis rebus ingenium applicandum, oportere inquiens humana sapere hominem et mortalia mortalem; contra eum philosophus dicit quod homo debet se ad immortalia et divina trahere quantum potest. Unde in XI de Animal. dicit, quod, quamvis parum sit quod de substantiis superioribus percipimus, tamen illud modicum est magis amatum et desideratum omni cognitione quam de substantiis inferioribus habemus. Dicit etiam in II Cael. et Mund. quod cum de corporibus caelestibus quaestiones possint solvi parva et topica solutione, contingit auditori ut vehemens sit gaudium eius. Ex quibus omnibus apparet quod de rebus nobilissimis quantumcumque imperfecta cognitio maximam perfectionem animae confert.<br>
Et ideo, quamvis ea quae supra rationem sunt ratio humana plene capere non possit, tamen multum sibi perfectionis acquiritur si saltem ea qualitercumque teneat fide.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] A still further benefit may also be seen in what Aristotle says in the <i>Ethics</i> [X, 7]. There was a certain Simonides who exhorted people to put aside the knowledge of divine things and to apply their talents to human occupations. He said that “he who is a man should know human things, and he who is mortal, things that are mortal.” Against Simonides Aristotle says that “man should draw himself towards what is immortal and divine as much as he can.” And so he says in the <i>De animalibus</i> [I, 5] that, although what we know of the higher substances is very little, yet that little is loved and desired more than all the knowledge that we have about less noble substances. He also says in the <i>De caelo et mundo</i> [II, 12] that when questions about the heavenly bodies can be given even a modest and merely plausible solution, he who hears this experiences intense joy. From all these considerations it is clear that even the most imperfect knowledge about the most noble realities brings the greatest perfection to the soul.<br>
Therefore, although the human reason cannot grasp fully the truths that are above it, yet, if it somehow holds these truths at least by faith, it acquires great perfection for itself.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ideo dicitur Eccli. 3-25: plurima supra sensum hominis ostensa sunt tibi. Et 1 Cor. 2-11 quae sunt Dei nemo novit nisi spiritus Dei; nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] Therefore it is written: “For many things are shown to you above the understanding of men” (Sirach 3:75). Again: “So the things that are of God no man knows but the Spirit of God. But to us God has revealed them by His Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:11, 10).
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="6" id="6"><b>Caput 6</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 6.</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod assentire his quae sunt fidei non est levitatis quamvis supra rationem sint</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE TRUTHS OF FAITH IS NOT FOOLISHNESS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABOVE REASON</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huiusmodi autem veritati, cui ratio humana experimentum non praebet, fidem adhibentes non leviter credunt, quasi indoctas fabulas secuti, ut 2 Petr. 1-16, dicitur.<br>
Haec enim divinae sapientiae secreta ipsa divina sapientia, quae omnia plenissime novit, dignata est hominibus revelare: quae sui praesentiam et doctrinae et inspirationis veritatem, convenientibus argumentis ostendit, dum ad confirmandum ea quae naturalem cognitionem excedunt, opera visibiliter ostendit quae totius naturae superant facultatem; videlicet in mirabili curatione languorum, mortuorum suscitatione, caelestium corporum mirabili immutatione; et, quod est mirabilius, humanarum mentium inspiratione, ut idiotae et simplices, dono spiritus sancti repleti, summam sapientiam et facundiam in instanti consequerentur.<br>
Quibus inspectis, praedictae probationis efficacia, non armorum violentia, non voluptatum promissione, et, quod est mirabilissimum, inter persecutorum tyrannidem, innumerabilis turba non solum simplicium, sed sapientissimorum hominum, ad fidem Christianam convolavit, in qua omnem humanum intellectum excedentia praedicantur, voluptates carnis cohibentur et omnia quae in mundo sunt contemni docentur; quibus animos mortalium assentire et maximum miraculorum est, et manifestum divinae inspirationis opus, ut, contemptis visibilibus, sola invisibilia cupiantur.<br>
Hoc autem non subito neque a casu, sed ex divina dispositione factum esse, manifestum est ex hoc quod hoc se facturum Deus multis ante prophetarum praedixit oraculis, quorum libri penes nos in veneratione habentur, utpote nostrae fidei testimonium adhibentes.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] Those who place their faith in this truth, however, “for which the human reason offers no experimental evidence,” do not believe foolishly, as though “following artificial fables” (2 Peter 2:16).<br>
For these “secrets of divine Wisdom” (Job 11:6) the divine Wisdom itself, which knows all things to the full, has deigned to reveal to men. It reveals its own presence, as well as the truth of its teaching and inspiration, by fitting arguments; and in order to confirm those truths that exceed natural knowledge, it gives visible manifestation to works that surpass the ability of all nature. Thus, there are the wonderful cures of illnesses, there is the raising of the dead, and the wonderful immutation in the heavenly bodies; and what is more wonderful, there is the inspiration given to human minds, so that simple and untutored persons, filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit, come to possess instantaneously the highest wisdom and the readiest eloquence.<br>
When these arguments were examined, through the efficacy of the abovementioned proof, and not the violent assault of arms or the promise of pleasure, and (what is most wonderful of all) in the midst of the tyranny of the persecutors, an innumerable throng of people, both simple and most learned, flocked to the Christian faith. In this faith there are truths preached that surpass every human intellect; the pleasures of the flesh are curbed; it is taught that the things of the world should be spurned. Now, for the minds of mortal men to assent to these things is the greatest of miracles, just as it is a manifest work of divine inspiration that, spurning visible things, men should seek only what is invisible.<br>
Now, that this has happened neither without preparation nor by chance, but as a result of the disposition of God, is clear from the fact that through many pronouncements of the ancient prophets God had foretold that He would do this. The books of these prophets are held in veneration among us Christians, since they give witness to our faith.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huius quidem confirmationis modus tangitur Hebr. 2-3 quae, scilicet humana salus, cum initium accepisset enarrari per dominum, ab eis qui audierunt in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo signis et portentis et variis spiritus sancti distributionibus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] The manner of this confirmation is touched on by St. Paul: “Which,” that is, human salvation, “having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed to us by them that hear Him: God also bearing them witness of signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 7:3-4).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Haec autem tam mirabilis mundi conversio ad fidem Christianam indicium certissimum est praeteritorum signorum: ut ea ulterius iterari necesse non sit, cum in suo effectu appareant evidenter. Esset enim omnibus signis mirabilius si ad credendum tam ardua, et ad operandum tam difficilia, et ad sperandum tam alta, mundus absque mirabilibus signis inductus fuisset a simplicibus et ignobilibus hominibus. Quamvis non cesset Deus etiam nostris temporibus, ad confirmationem fidei, per sanctos suos miracula operari.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Hi vero qui sectas errorum introduxerunt processerunt via contraria: ut patet in Mahumeto qui carnalium voluptatum promissis, ad quorum desiderium carnalis concupiscentia instigat, populus illexit. Praecepta etiam tradidit promissis conformia, voluptati carnali habenas relaxans, in quibus in promptu est a carnalibus hominibus obediri. Documenta etiam veritatis non attulit nisi quae de facili a quolibet mediocriter sapiente naturali ingenio cognosci possint: quin potius vera quae docuit multis fabulis et falsissimis doctrinis immiscuit. Signa etiam non adhibuit supernaturaliter facta, quibus solis divinae inspirationi conveniens testimonium adhibetur, dum operatio visibilis quae non potest esse nisi divina, ostendit doctorem veritatis invisibiliter inspiratum: sed dixit se in armorum potentia missum, quae signa etiam latronibus et tyrannis non desunt. Ei etiam non aliqui sapientes, in rebus divinis et humanis exercitati, a principio crediderunt: sed homines bestiales in desertis morantes, omnis doctrinae divinae prorsus ignari, per quorum multitudinem alios armorum violentia in suam legem coegit. Nulla etiam divina oracula praecedentium prophetarum ei testimonium perhibent: quin potius quasi omnia veteris et novi testamenti documenta fabulosa narratione depravat, ut patet eius legem inspicienti. Unde astuto consilio libros veteris et novi testamenti suis sequacibus non reliquit legendos, ne per eos falsitatis argueretur. Et sic patet quod eius dictis fidem adhibentes leviter credunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="7" id="7"><b>Caput 7</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 7</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod veritati fidei Christianae non contrariatur veritas rationis</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT THE TRUTH OF REASON IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quamvis autem praedicta veritas fidei Christianae humanae rationis capacitatem excedat, haec tamen quae ratio naturaliter indita habet, huic veritati contraria esse non possunt.<br>
Ea enim quae naturaliter rationi sunt insita, verissima esse constat: in tantum ut nec esse falsa sit possibile cogitare. Nec id quod fide tenetur, cum tam evidenter divinitus confirmatum sit, fas est credere esse falsum. Quia igitur solum falsum vero contrarium est, ut ex eorum definitionibus inspectis manifeste apparet, impossibile est illis principiis quae ratio naturaliter cognoscit, praedictam veritatem fidei contrariam esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] Now, although the truth of the Christian faith which we have discussed surpasses the capacity of the reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith.<br>
For that with which the human reason is naturally endowed is clearly most true; so much so, that it is impossible for us to think of such truths as false. Nor is it permissible to believe as false that which we hold by faith, since this is confirmed in a way that is so clearly divine. Since, therefore, only the false is opposed to the true, as is clearly evident from an examination of their definitions, it is impossible that the truth of faith should be opposed to those principles that the human reason knows naturally.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Illud idem quod inducitur in animam discipuli a docente, doctoris scientia continet: nisi doceat ficte, quod de Deo nefas est dicere. Principiorum autem naturaliter notorum cognitio nobis divinitus est indita: cum ipse Deus sit nostrae auctor naturae. Haec ergo principia etiam divina sapientia continet. Quicquid igitur principiis huiusmodi contrarium est, divinae sapientiae contrariatur. Non igitur a Deo esse potest. Ea igitur quae ex revelatione divina per fidem tenentur, non possunt naturali cognitioni esse contraria.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Furthermore, that which is introduced into the soul of the student by the teacher is contained in the knowledge of the teacher—unless his teaching is fictitious, which it is improper to say of God. Now, the knowledge of the principles that are known to us naturally has been implanted in us by God; for God is the Author of our nature. These principles, therefore, are also contained by the divine Wisdom. Hence, whatever is opposed to them is opposed to the divine Wisdom, and, therefore, cannot come from God. That which we hold by faith as divinely revealed, therefore, cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Contrariis rationibus intellectus noster ligatur, ut ad veri cognitionem procedere nequeat. Si igitur contrariae cognitiones nobis a Deo immitterentur, ex hoc a veritatis cognitione noster intellectus impediretur. Quod a Deo esse non potest.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Again. In the presence of contrary arguments our intellect is chained, so that it cannot proceed to the knowledge of the truth. If, therefore, contrary knowledges were implanted in us by God, our intellect would be hindered from knowing truth by this very fact. Now, such an effect cannot come from God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Ea quae sunt naturalia mutari non possunt, natura manente. Contrariae autem opiniones simul eidem inesse non possunt. Non igitur contra cognitionem naturalem aliqua opinio vel fides homini a Deo immittitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] And again. What is natural cannot change as long as nature does not. Now, it is impossible that contrary opinions should exist in the same knowing subject at the same time. No opinion or belief, therefore, is implanted in man by God which is contrary to man’s natural knowledge.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ideo apostolus dicit, Rom. 10-8: prope est verbum in corde tuo et in ore tuo: hoc est verbum fidei, quod praedicamus. Sed quia superat rationem, a nonnullis reputatur quasi contrarium. Quod esse non potest.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Therefore, the Apostle says: “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart. This is the word of faith, which we preach” (Rom. 10:8). But because it overcomes reason, there are some who think that it is opposed to it: which is impossible.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huic etiam auctoritas Augustini concordat, qui in II super Gen. ad Litt. dicit sic: illud quod veritas patefaciet, libris sanctis sive testamenti veteris sive novi nullo modo potest esse adversum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] The authority of St. Augustine also agrees with this. He writes as follows: “That which truth will reveal cannot in any way be opposed to the sacred books of the Old and the New Testament” [ <i>De genesi ad litteram</i> II, 18].
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex quo evidenter colligitur, quaecumque argumenta contra fidei documenta ponantur, haec ex principiis primis naturae inditis per se notis non recte procedere. Unde nec demonstrationis vim habent, sed vel sunt rationes probabiles vel sophisticae. Et sic ad ea solvenda locus relinquitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] From this we evidently gather the following conclusion: whatever arguments are brought forward against the doctrines of faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles imbedded in nature. Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either probable or sophistical. And so, there exists the possibility to answer them.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="8" id="8"><b>Caput 8</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 8</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Qualiter se habeat humana ratio ad veritatem fidei</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>HOW THE HUMAN REASON IS RELATED TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Considerandum etiam videtur quod res quidem sensibiles, ex quibus humana ratio cognitionis principium sumit, aliquale vestigium in se divinae imitationis retinent, ita tamen imperfectum quod ad declarandam ipsius Dei substantiam omnino insufficiens invenitur. Habent enim effectus suarum causarum suo modo similitudinem, cum agens agat sibi simile: non tamen effectus ad perfectam agentis similitudinem semper pertingit. Humana igitur ratio ad cognoscendum fidei veritatem, quae solum videntibus divinam substantiam potest esse notissima, ita se habet quod ad eam potest aliquas verisimilitudines colligere, quae tamen non sufficiunt ad hoc quod praedicta veritas quasi demonstrative vel per se intellecta comprehendatur.<br>
Utile tamen est ut in huiusmodi rationibus, quantumcumque debilibus, se mens humana exerceat, dummodo desit comprehendendi vel demonstrandi praesumptio: quia de rebus altissimis etiam parva et debili consideratione aliquid posse inspicere iucundissimum est, ut ex dictis apparet.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] There is also a further consideration. Sensible things, from which the human reason takes the origin of its knowledge, retain within themselves some sort of trace of a likeness to God. This is so imperfect, however, that it is absolutely inadequate to manifest the substance of God. For effects bear within themselves, in their own way, the likeness of their causes, since an agent produces its like; yet an effect does not always reach to the full likeness of its cause. Now, the human reason is related to the knowledge of the truth of faith (a truth which can be most evident only to those who see the divine substance) in such a way that it can gather certain likenesses of it, which are yet not sufficient so that the truth of faith may be comprehended as being understood demonstratively or through itself.<br>
Yet it is useful for the human reason to exercise itself in such arguments, however weak they may be, provided only that there be present no presumption to comprehend or to demonstrate. For to be able to see something of the loftiest realities, however thin and weak the sight may be, is, as our previous remarks indicate, a cause of the greatest joy.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Cui quidem sententiae auctoritas Hilarii concordat, qui sic dicit in libro de Trin., loquens de huiusmodi veritate: haec credendo incipe, procurre, persiste: etsi non perventurum sciam, gratulabor tamen profecturum. Qui enim pie infinita prosequitur, etsi non contingat aliquando, semper tamen proficiet prodeundo. Sed ne te inferas in illud secretum, et arcano interminabilis nativitatis non te immergas, summam intelligentiae comprehendere praesumens: sed intellige incomprehensibilia esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] The testimony of Hilary agrees with this. Speaking of this same truth, he writes as follows in his <i>De Trinitate</i> [II, 10, ii]: “Enter these truths by believing, press forward, persevere. And though I may know that you will not arrive at an end, yet I will congratulate you in your progress. For, though he who pursues the infinite with reverence will never finally reach the end, yet he will always progress by pressing onward. But do not intrude yourself into the divine secret, do not, presuming to comprehend the sum total of intelligence, plunge yourself into the mystery of the unending nativity; rather, understand that these things are incomprehensible.”
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="9" id="9"><b>Caput 9</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 9</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>De ordine et modo procedendi in hoc opere</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THE ORDER AND MANNER OF PROCEDURE IN THE PRESENT WORK</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex praemissis igitur evidenter apparet sapientis intentionem circa duplicem veritatem divinorum debere versari, et circa errores contrarios destruendos: ad quarum unam investigatio rationis pertingere potest, alia vero omnem rationis excedit industriam. Dico autem duplicem veritatem divinorum, non ex parte ipsius Dei, qui est una et simplex veritas; sed ex parte cognitionis nostrae, quae ad divina cognoscenda diversimode se habet.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] It is clearly apparent, from what has been said, that the intention of the wise man ought to be directed toward the twofold truth of divine things, and toward the destruction of the errors that are contrary to this truth. One kind of divine truth the investigation of the reason is competent to reach, whereas the other surpasses every effort of the reason. I am speaking of a “twofold truth of divine things,” not on the part of God Himself, Who is truth one and simple, but from the point of view of our knowledge, which is variously related to the knowledge of divine things.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad primae igitur veritatis manifestationem per rationes demonstrativas, quibus adversarius convinci possit, procedendum est. Sed quia tales rationes ad secundam veritatem haberi non possunt, non debet esse ad hoc intentio ut adversarius rationibus convincatur: sed ut eius rationes, quas contra veritatem habet, solvantur; cum veritati fidei ratio naturalis contraria esse non possit, ut ostensum est.<br>
Singularis vero modus convincendi adversarium contra huiusmodi veritatem est ex auctoritate Scripturae divinitus confirmata miraculis: quae enim supra rationem humanam sunt, non credimus nisi Deo revelante.<br>
Sunt tamen ad huiusmodi veritatem manifestandam rationes aliquae verisimiles inducendae, ad fidelium quidem exercitium et solatium, non autem ad adversarios convincendos: quia ipsa rationum insufficientia eos magis in suo errore confirmaret, dum aestimarent nos propter tam debiles rationes veritati fidei consentire.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Now, to make the first kind of divine truth known, we must proceed through demonstrative arguments, by which our adversary may become convinced. However, since such arguments are not available for the second kind of divine truth, our intention should not be to convince our adversary by arguments: it should be to answer his arguments against the truth; for, as we have shown, the natural reason cannot be contrary to the truth of faith.<br>
The sole way to overcome an adversary of divine truth is from the authority of Scripture—an authority divinely confirmed by miracles. For that which is above the human reason we believe only because God has revealed it.<br>
Nevertheless, there are certain likely arguments that should be brought forth in order to make divine truth known. This should be done for the training and consolation of the faithful, and not with any idea of refuting those who are adversaries. For the very inadequacy of the arguments would rather strengthen them in their error, since they would imagine that our acceptance of the truth of faith was based on such weak arguments.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Modo ergo proposito procedere intendentes, primum nitemur ad manifestationem illius veritatis quam fides profitetur et ratio investigat, inducentes rationes demonstrativas et probabiles, quarum quasdam ex libris philosophorum et sanctorum collegimus per quas veritas confirmetur et adversarius convincatur.<br>
Deinde, ut a manifestioribus ad minus manifesta fiat processus, ad illius veritatis manifestationem procedemus quae rationem excedit, solventes rationes adversariorum et rationibus probabilibus et auctoritatibus, quantum Deus dederit, veritatem fidei declarantes.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] This, then, is the manner of procedure we intend to follow. We shall first seek to make known that truth which faith professes and reason investigates. This we shall do by bringing forward both demonstrative and probable arguments, some of which were drawn from the books of the philosophers and of the saints, through which truth is strengthened and its adversary overcome [Books I-III].<br>
Then, in order to follow a development from the more manifest to the less manifest, we shall proceed to make known that truth which surpasses reason, answering the objections of its adversaries and setting forth the truth of faith by probable arguments and by authorities, to the best of our ability [Book IV].
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Intendentibus igitur nobis per viam rationis prosequi ea quae de Deo ratio humana investigare potest, primo, occurrit consideratio de his quae Deo secundum seipsum conveniunt; secundo, vero, de processu creaturarum ab ipso; tertio, autem, de ordine creaturarum in ipsum sicut in finem.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] We are aiming, then, to set out following the way of the reason and to inquire into what the human reason can investigate about God. In this aim the first consideration that confronts us is of that which belongs to God in Himself [Book I]. The second consideration concerns the coming forth of creatures from God [Book II]. The third concerns the ordering of creatures to God as to their end [Book III].
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Inter ea vero quae de Deo secundum seipsum consideranda sunt, praemittendum est, quasi totius operis necessarium fundamentum, consideratio qua demonstratur Deum esse. Quo non habito, omnis consideratio de rebus divinis tollitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Now, among the inquiries that we must undertake concerning God in Himself, we must set down in the beginning that whereby His Existence is demonstrated, as the necessary foundation of the whole work. For, if we do not demonstrate that God exists, all consideration of divine things is necessarily suppressed.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="10" id="10"><b>Caput 10</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 10</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>De opinione dicentium quod Deum esse demonstrari non potest cum sit per se notum</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, BEING SELF-EVIDENT, CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Haec autem consideratio qua quis nititur ad demonstrandum Deum esse, superflua fortasse quibusdam videbitur, qui asserunt quod Deum esse per se notum est, ita quod eius contrarium cogitari non possit, et sic Deum esse demonstrari non potest. Quod quidem videtur ex his.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] There are some persons to whom the inquiry seeking to demonstrate that God exists may perhaps appear superfluous. These are the persons who assert that the existence of God is self-evident, in such wise that its contrary cannot be entertained in the mind. It thus appears that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, as may be seen from the following arguments.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Illa enim per se esse nota dicuntur quae statim notis terminis cognoscuntur: sicut, cognito quid est totum et quid est pars, statim cognoscitur quod omne totum est maius sua parte. Huiusmodi autem est hoc quod dicimus Deum esse. Nam nomine Dei intelligimus aliquid quo maius cogitari non potest. Hoc autem in intellectu formatur ab eo qui audit et intelligit nomen Dei: ut sic saltem in intellectu iam Deum esse oporteat. Nec potest in intellectu solum esse: nam quod in intellectu et re est, maius est eo quod in solo intellectu est; Deo autem nihil esse maius ipsa nominis ratio demonstrat. Unde restat quod Deum esse per se notum est, quasi ex ipsa significatione nominis manifestum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Those propositions are said to be self-evident that are known immediately upon the knowledge of their terms. Thus, as soon as you know the nature of a whole and the nature of a part, you know immediately that every whole is greater than its part. The proposition God exists is of this sort. For by the name God we understand something than which a greater cannot be thought. This notion is formed in the intellect by one who hears and understands the name God. As a result, God must exist already at least in the intellect. But He cannot exist solely in the intellect, since that which exists both in the intellect and in reality is greater than that which exists in the intellect alone. Now, as the very definition of the name points out, nothing can be greater than God. Consequently, the proposition that God exists is self-evident, as being evident from the very meaning of the name God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Cogitari quidem potest quod aliquid sit quod non possit cogitari non esse. Quod maius est evidenter eo quod potest cogitari non esse. Sic ergo Deo aliquid maius cogitari posset, si ipse posset cogitari non esse. Quod est contra rationem nominis. Relinquitur quod Deum esse per se notum est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Again, it is Possible to think that something exists whose non-existence cannot be thought. Clearly, such a being is greater than the being whose non-existence can be thought. Consequently, if God Himself could be thought not to be, then something greater than God could be thought. This, however, is contrary to the definition of the name God. Hence, the proposition that God exists is self-evident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Propositiones illas oportet esse notissimas in quibus idem de seipso praedicatur, ut, homo est homo; vel quarum praedicata in definitionibus subiectorum includuntur, ut, homo est animal. In Deo autem hoc prae aliis invenitur, ut infra ostendetur, quod suum esse est sua essentia, ac si idem sit quod respondetur ad quaestionem quid est, et ad quaestionem an est. Sic ergo cum dicitur, Deus est, praedicatum vel est idem subiecto, vel saltem in definitione subiecti includitur. Et ita Deum esse per se notum erit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Furthermore, those propositions ought to be the most evident in which the same thing is predicated of itself, for example, man is man, or whose predicates are included in the definition of their subjects, for example, Man is an animal. Now, in God, as will be shown in a later chapter, it is pre-eminently the case that His being is His essence, so that to the question what is He? and to the question is He? the answer is one and the same. Thus, in the proposition God exists, the predicate is consequently either identical with the subject or at least included in the definition of the subject. Hence, that God exists is self-evident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Quae naturaliter sunt nota, per se cognoscuntur: non enim ad ea cognoscenda inquisitionis studio pervenitur. At Deum esse naturaliter notum est: cum in Deum naturaliter desiderium hominis tendat sicut in ultimum finem, ut infra patebit. Est igitur per se notum Deum esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] What is naturally known is known through itself, for we do not come to such propositions through an effort of inquiry. But the proposition that God exists is naturally known since, as will be shown later on, the desire of man naturally tends towards God as towards the ultimate end. The proposition that God exists is, therefore, self-evident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Illud per se notum oportet esse quo omnia alia cognoscuntur. Deus autem huiusmodi est. Sicut enim lux solis principium est omnis visibilis perceptionis, ita divina lux omnis intelligibilis cognitionis principium est: cum sit in quo primum maxime lumen intelligibile invenitur. Oportet igitur quod Deum esse per se notum sit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] There is also the consideration that that through which all the rest are known ought itself to be self-evident. Now, God is of this sort. For just as the light of the sun is the principle of all visible perception, so the divine light is the principle of all intelligible knowledge; since the divine light is that in which intelligible illumination is found first and in its highest degree. That God exists, therefore, must be self-evident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex his igitur et similibus aliqui opinantur Deum esse sic per se notum existere ut contrarium mente cogitari non possit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] These, then, and others like them are the arguments by which some think that the proposition God exists is so self-evident that its contrary cannot be entertained by the mind.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="11" id="11"><b>Caput 11</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 11</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Reprobatio praemissae opinionis et solutio rationum praemissarum</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>A REFUTATION OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED OPINION AND A SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Praedicta autem opinio provenit. Partim quidem ex consuetudine qua ex principio assueti sunt nomen Dei audire et invocare. Consuetudo autem, et praecipue quae est a puero, vim naturae obtinet: ex quo contingit ut ea quibus a pueritia animus imbuitur, ita firmiter teneat ac si essent naturaliter et per se nota.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] In part, the above opinion arises from the custom by which from their earliest days people are brought up to hear and to call upon the name of God. Custom, and especially custom in a child comes to have the force of nature. As a result, what the mind is steeped in from childhood it clings to very firmly, as something known naturally and self-evidently.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Partim vero contingit ex eo quod non distinguitur quod est notum per se simpliciter, et quod est quoad nos per se notum. Nam simpliciter quidem Deum esse per se notum est: cum hoc ipsum quod Deus est, sit suum esse. Sed quia hoc ipsum quod Deus est mente concipere non possumus, remanet ignotum quoad nos. Sicut omne totum sua parte maius esse, per se notum est simpliciter: ei autem qui rationem totius mente non conciperet, oporteret esse ignotum. Et sic fit ut ad ea quae sunt notissima rerum, noster intellectus se habeat ut oculus noctuae ad solem, ut II Metaphys. dicitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] In part, however, the above opinion comes about because of a failure to distinguish between that which is self-evident in an absolute sense and that which is self-evident in relation to us. For assuredly that God exists is, absolutely speaking, self-evident, since what God is is His own being. Yet, because we are not able to conceive in our minds that which God is, that God exists remains unknown in relation to us. So, too, that every whole is greater than its part is, absolutely speaking, self-evident; but it would perforce be unknown to one who could not conceive the nature of a whole. Hence it comes about, as it is said in <i>Metaphysics</i> II [Ia, 1], that “our intellect is related to the most knowable things in reality as the eye of an owl is related to the sun.”’
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nec oportet ut statim, cognita huius nominis Deus significatione, Deum esse sit notum, ut prima ratio intendebat. Primo quidem, quia non omnibus notum est, etiam concedentibus Deum esse, quod Deus sit id quo maius cogitari non possit: cum multi antiquorum mundum istum dixerint Deum esse. Nec etiam ex interpretationibus huius nominis Deus, quas Damascenus ponit, aliquid huiusmodi intelligi datur. Deinde quia, dato quod ab omnibus per hoc nomen Deus intelligatur aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit, non necesse erit aliquid esse quo maius cogitari non potest in rerum natura. Eodem enim modo necesse est poni rem, et nominis rationem. Ex hoc autem quod mente concipitur quod profertur hoc nomine Deus, non sequitur Deum esse nisi in intellectu. Unde nec oportebit id quo maius cogitari non potest esse nisi in intellectu. Et ex hoc non sequitur quod sit aliquid in rerum natura quo maius cogitari non possit. Et sic nihil inconveniens accidit ponentibus Deum non esse: non enim inconveniens est quolibet dato vel in re vel in intellectu aliquid maius cogitari posse, nisi ei qui concedit esse aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit in rerum natura.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] And, contrary to the Point made by the first argument, it does not follow immediately that, as soon as we know the meaning of the name God, the existence of God is known. It does not follow first because it is not known to all, even including those who admit that God exists, that God is that than which a greater cannot be thought. After all, many ancients said that this world itself was God. Furthermore, no such inference can be drawn from the interpretations of the name God to be found in Damascene [ <i>De fide orthodoxa</i> I, 9]. What is more, granted that everyone should understand by the name God something than which a greater cannot be thought, it will still not be necessary that there exist in reality something than which a greater cannot be thought. For a thing and the definition of a name are posited in the same way. Now, from the fact that that which is indicated by the name God is conceived by the mind, it does not follow that God exists save only in the intellect. Hence, that than which a greater cannot be thought will likewise not have to exist save only in the intellect. From this it does not follow that there exists in reality something than which a greater cannot be thought. No difficulty, consequently, befalls anyone who posits that God does not exist. For that something greater can be thought than anything given in reality or in the intellect is a difficulty only to him who admits that there is something than which a greater cannot be thought in reality.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nec etiam oportet, ut secunda ratio proponebat, Deo posse aliquid maius cogitari si potest cogitari non esse. Nam quod possit cogitari non esse, non ex imperfectione sui esse est vel incertitudine, cum suum esse sit secundum se manifestissimum: sed ex debilitate nostri intellectus, qui eum intueri non potest per seipsum, sed ex effectibus eius, et sic ad cognoscendum ipsum esse ratiocinando perducitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Nor, again, is it necessary, as the second argument advanced, that something greater than God can be thought if God can be thought not to be. For that He can be thought not to be does not arise either from the imperfection or the uncertainty of His own being, since this is in itself most manifest. It arises, rather, from the weakness of our intellect, which cannot behold God Himself except through His effects and which is thus led to know His existence through reasoning.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex quo etiam tertia ratio solvitur. Nam sicut nobis per se notum est quod totum sua parte sit maius, sic videntibus ipsam divinam essentiam per se notissimum est Deum esse, ex hoc quod sua essentia est suum esse. Sed quia eius essentiam videre non possumus, ad eius esse cognoscendum non per seipsum, sed per eius effectus pervenimus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] This enables us to solve the third argument as well. For just as it is evident to us that a whole is greater than a part of itself, so to those seeing the divine essence in itself it is supremely self-evident that God exists because His essence is His being. But, because we are not able to see His essence, we arrive at the knowledge of His being, not through God Himself, but through His effects.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad quartam etiam patet solutio. Sic enim homo naturaliter Deum cognoscit sicut naturaliter ipsum desiderat. Desiderat autem ipsum homo naturaliter inquantum desiderat naturaliter beatitudinem, quae est quaedam similitudo divinae bonitatis. Sic igitur non oportet quod Deus ipse in se consideratus sit naturaliter notus homini, sed similitudo ipsius. Unde oportet quod per eius similitudines in effectibus repertas in cognitionem ipsius homo ratiocinando perveniat.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] The answer to the fourth argument is likewise clear. For man naturally knows God in the same way as he naturally desires God. Now, man naturally desires God in so far as he naturally desires beatitude, which is a certain likeness of the divine goodness. On this basis, it is not necessary that God considered in Himself be naturally known to man, but only a likeness of God. It remains, therefore, that man is to reach the knowledge of God through reasoning by way of the likenesses of God found in His effects.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad quintam etiam de facili patet solutio. Nam Deus est quidem quo omnia cognoscuntur, non ita quod alia non cognoscantur nisi eo cognito, sicut in principiis per se notis accidit: sed quia per eius influentiam omnis causatur in nobis cognitio.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] So, too, with the fifth argument, an easy solution is available. For God is indeed that by which all things are known, not in the sense that they are not known unless He is known (as obtains among self-evident principles), but because all our knowledge is caused in us through His influence.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="12" id="12"><b>Caput 12</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 12</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>De opinione dicentium quod Deum esse demonstrari non potest sed sola fide tenetur</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED BUT IS HELD BY FAITH ALONE</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Est autem quaedam aliorum opinio praedictae positioni contraria, per quam etiam inutilis redderetur conatus probare intendentium Deum esse. Dicunt enim quod Deum esse non potest per rationem inveniri, sed per solam viam fidei et revelationis est acceptum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] There are others who hold a certain opinion, contrary to the position mentioned above, through which the efforts of those seeking to prove the existence of God would likewise be rendered futile. For they say that we cannot arrive at the existence of God through the reason; it is received by way of faith and revelation alone.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad hoc autem dicendum moti sunt quidam propter debilitatem rationum quas aliqui inducebant ad probandum Deum esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] What led some persons to hold this view was the weakness of the arguments which had been brought forth by others to prove that God exists.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Posset tamen hic error fulcimentum aliquod falso sibi assumere ex quorundam philosophorum dictis, qui ostendunt in Deo idem esse essentiam et esse, scilicet id quod respondetur ad quid est, et ad quaestionem an est. Via autem rationis perveniri non potest ut sciatur de Deo quid est. Unde nec ratione videtur posse demonstrari an Deus sit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Nevertheless, the present error might erroneously find support in its behalf in the words of some philosophers who show that in God essence and being are identical, that is, that that which answers to the question what is it? is identical with that which answers to the question is it? Now, following the way of the reason we cannot arrive at a knowledge of what God is. Hence, it seems likewise impossible to demonstrate by the reason that God exists.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Si principium ad demonstrandum an est, secundum artem philosophi, oportet accipere quid significet nomen; ratio vero significata per nomen est definitio, secundum philosophum, in IV Metaph.; nulla remanebit via ad demonstrandum Deum esse, remota divinae essentiae vel quidditatis cognitione.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Furthermore, according to the logic of the Philosopher, as a principle to demonstrate whether a thing is we must take the signification of the name of that thing [ <i>Posterior Analytics</i> II, 9]; and, again according to the Philosopher [ <i>Metaphysics</i> IV, 7], the meaning signified by a name is its definition. If this be so, if we set aside a knowledge of the divine essence or quiddity, no means will be available whereby to demonstrate that God exists.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Si demonstrationis principia a sensu cognitionis originem sumunt, ut in posterioribus ostenditur, ea quae omnem sensum et sensibilia excedunt, videntur indemonstrabilia esse. Huiusmodi autem est Deum esse. Est igitur indemonstrabile.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Again, if, as is shown in the <i>Posterior Analytics</i> [I, 18], the knowledge of the principles of demonstration takes its origin from sense, whatever transcends all sense and sensibles seems to be indemonstrable. That God exists appears to be a proposition of this sort and is therefore indemonstrable.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huius autem sententiae falsitas nobis ostenditur, tum ex demonstrationis arte, quae ex effectibus causas concludere docet. Tum ex ipso scientiarum ordine. Nam, si non sit aliqua scibilis substantia supra substantiam sensibilem, non erit aliqua scientia supra naturalem, ut dicitur in IV Metaph. Tum ex philosophorum studio, qui Deum esse demonstrare conati sunt. Tum etiam apostolica veritate asserente, Rom. 1-20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] The falsity of this opinion is shown to us, first, from the art of demonstration which teaches us to arrive at causes from their effects. Then, it is shown to us from the order of the sciences. For, as it is said in the <i>Metaphysics</i> [IV, 3], if there is no knowable substance higher than sensible substance, there will be no science higher than physics. It is shown, thirdly, from the pursuit of the philosophers, who have striven to demonstrate that God exists. Finally, it is shown to us by the truth in the words of the Apostle Paul: “For the invisible things of God... are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20).
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nec hoc debet movere, quod in Deo idem est essentia et esse, ut prima ratio proponebat. Nam hoc intelligitur de esse quo Deus in seipso subsistit, quod nobis quale sit ignotum est, sicut eius essentia. Non autem intelligitur de esse quod significat compositionem intellectus. Sic enim esse Deum sub demonstratione cadit, dum ex rationibus demonstrativis mens nostra inducitur huiusmodi propositionem de Deo formare qua exprimat Deum esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] Nor, contrary to the first argument, is there any problem in the fact that in God essence and being are identical. For this is understood of the being by which God subsists in Himself. But we do not know of what sort this being is, just as we do not know the divine essence. The reference is not to the being that signifies the composition of intellect. For thus the existence of God does fall under demonstration; this happens when our mind is led from demonstrative arguments to form such a proposition of God whereby it expresses that He exists.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">In rationibus autem quibus demonstratur Deum esse, non oportet assumi pro medio divinam essentiam sive quidditatem, ut secunda ratio proponebat: sed loco quidditatis accipitur pro medio effectus, sicut accidit in demonstrationibus quia; et ex huiusmodi effectu sumitur ratio huius nominis Deus. Nam omnia divina nomina imponuntur vel ex remotione effectuum divinorum ab ipso, vel ex aliqua habitudine Dei ad suos effectus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[8] Now, in arguments proving the existence of God, it is not necessary to assume the divine essence or quiddity as the middle term of the demonstration. This was the second view proposed above. In place of the quiddity, an effect is taken as the middle term, as in demonstrations <i>quia</i>. It is from such effects that the meaning of the name God is taken. For all divine names are imposed either by removing the effects of God from Him or by relating God in some way to His effects.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Patet etiam ex hoc quod, etsi Deus sensibilia omnia et sensum excedat, eius tamen effectus, ex quibus demonstratio sumitur ad probandum Deum esse, sensibiles sunt. Et sic nostrae cognitionis origo in sensu est etiam de his quae sensum excedunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[9] It is thereby likewise evident that, although God transcends all sensible things and the sense itself, His effects, on which the demonstration proving His existence is based, are nevertheless sensible things. And thus, the origin of our knowledge in the sense applies also to those things that transcend the sense.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="13" id="13"><b>Caput 13</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 13</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Rationes ad probandum Deum esse</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>ARGUMENTS IN PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ostenso igitur quod non est vanum niti ad demonstrandum Deum esse, procedamus ad ponendum rationes quibus tam philosophi quam doctores Catholici Deum esse probaverunt.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Primo autem ponemus rationes quibus Aristoteles procedit ad probandum Deum esse. Qui hoc probare intendit ex parte motus duabus viis.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] We shall first set forth the arguments by which Aristotle proceeds to prove that God exists. The aim of Aristotle is to do this in two ways, beginning with motion.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quarum prima talis est: omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Patet autem sensu aliquid moveri, utputa solem. Ergo alio movente movetur. Aut ergo illud movens movetur, aut non. Si non movetur, ergo habemus propositum, quod necesse est ponere aliquod movens immobile. Et hoc dicimus Deum. Si autem movetur, ergo ab alio movente movetur. Aut ergo est procedere in infinitum: aut est devenire ad aliquod movens immobile. Sed non est procedere in infinitum. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquod primum movens immobile.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Of these ways the first is as follows. Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">In hac autem probatione sunt duae propositiones probandae: scilicet, quod omne motum movetur ab alio; et quod in moventibus et motis non sit procedere in infinitum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] In this proof, there are two propositions that need to be proved, namely, that everything that is moved is moved by another, and that in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quorum primum probat philosophus tribus modis. Primo, sic. Si aliquid movet seipsum, oportet quod in se habeat principium motus sui: alias, manifeste ab alio moveretur. Oportet etiam quod sit primo motum: scilicet quod moveatur ratione sui ipsius, et non ratione suae partis, sicut movetur animal per motum pedis; sic enim totum non moveretur a se, sed sua pars, et una pars ab alia. Oportet etiam ipsum esse divisibile, et habere partes: cum omne quod movetur sit divisibile, ut probatur in VI Physic.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] The first of these propositions Aristotle proves in three ways. The first way is as follows. If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion; otherwise, it is clearly moved by another. Furthermore, it must be primarily moved. This means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot. For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another. It is also necessary that a self-moving being be divisible and have parts, since, as it is proved in the <i>Physics</i> [VI, 4], whatever is moved is divisible.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">His suppositis sic arguit. Hoc quod a seipso ponitur moveri, est primo motum. Ergo ad quietem unius partis eius, sequitur quies totius. Si enim, quiescente una parte, alia pars eius moveretur, tunc ipsum totum non esset primo motum, sed pars eius quae movetur alia quiescente. Nihil autem quod quiescit quiescente alio, movetur a seipso: cuius enim quies ad quietem sequitur alterius, oportet quod motus ad motum alterius sequatur; et sic non movetur a seipso. Ergo hoc quod ponebatur a seipso moveri, non movetur a seipso. Necesse est ergo omne quod movetur, ab alio moveri.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] On the basis of these suppositions Aristotle argues as follows. That which is held to be moved by itself is primarily moved. Hence, when one of its parts is at rest, the whole is then at rest. For if, while one part was at rest, another part in it were moved, then the whole itself would not be primarily moved; it would be that part in it which is moved while another part is at rest. But nothing that is at rest because something else is at rest is moved by itself; for that being whose rest follows upon the rest of another must have its motion follow upon the motion of another. It is thus not moved by itself. Therefore, that which was posited as being moved by itself is not moved by itself. Consequently, everything that is moved must be moved by another.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nec obviat huic rationi quod forte aliquis posset dicere quod eius quod ponitur movere seipsum, pars non potest quiescere; et iterum quod partis non est quiescere vel moveri nisi per accidens; ut Avicenna calumniatur. Quia vis rationis in hoc consistit, quod, si aliquid seipsum moveat primo et per se, non ratione partium, oportet quod suum moveri non dependeat ab aliquo; moveri autem ipsius divisibilis, sicut et eius esse, dependet a partibus; et sic non potest seipsum movere primo et per se. Non requiritur ergo ad veritatem conclusionis inductae quod supponatur partem moventis seipsum quiescere quasi quoddam verum absolute: sed oportet hanc conditionalem esse veram, quod, si quiesceret pars, quod quiesceret totum. Quae quidem potest esse vera etiam si antecedens sit impossibile: sicut ista conditionalis est vera, si homo est asinus, est irrationalis.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] Nor is it an objection to this argument if one might say that, when something is held to move itself, a part of it cannot be at rest; or, again, if one might say that a part is not subject to rest or motion except accidentally, which is the unfounded argument of Avicenna. For, indeed, the force of Aristotle’s argument lies in this: if something moves itself primarily and through itself, rather than through its parts, that it is moved cannot depend on another. But the moving of the divisible itself, like its being, depends on its parts; it cannot therefore move itself primarily and through itself. Hence, for the truth of the inferred conclusion it is not necessary to assume as an absolute truth that a part of a being moving itself is at rest. What must rather be true is this conditional proposition: if the part were at rest, the whole would be at rest. Now, this proposition would be true even though its antecedent be impossible. In the same way, the following conditional proposition is true: if man is an ass, he is irrational.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Secundo, probat per inductionem, sic. Omne quod movetur per accidens, non movetur a seipso. Movetur enim ad motum alterius. Similiter neque quod movetur per violentiam: ut manifestum est. Neque quae moventur per naturam ut ex se mota, sicut animalia, quae constat ab anima moveri. Nec iterum quae moventur per naturam ut gravia et levia. Quia haec moventur a generante et removente prohibens. Omne autem quod movetur, vel movetur per se, vel per accidens. Et si per se, vel per violentiam, vel per naturam. Et hoc, vel motum ex se, ut animal; vel non motum ex se, ut grave et leve. Ergo omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[8] In the second way, Aristotle proves the proposition by induction [ <i>Physics</i> VIII, 4]. Whatever is moved by accident is not moved by itself, since it is moved upon the motion of another. So, too, as is evident, what is moved by violence is not moved by itself. Nor are those beings moved by themselves that are moved by their nature as being moved from within; such is the case with animals, which evidently are moved by the soul. Nor, again, is this true of those beings, such as heavy and light bodies, which are moved through nature. For such beings are moved by the generating cause and the cause removing impediments. Now, whatever is moved is moved through itself or by accident. If it is moved through itself, then it is moved either violently or by nature; if by nature, then either through itself, as the animal, or not through itself, as heavy and light bodies. Therefore, everything that is moved is moved by another.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Tertio, probat sic. Nihil idem est simul actu et potentia respectu eiusdem. Sed omne quod movetur, inquantum huiusmodi, est in potentia: quia motus est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huiusmodi. Omne autem quod movet est in actu, inquantum huiusmodi: quia nihil agit nisi secundum quod est in actu. Ergo nihil est respectu eiusdem motus movens et motum. Et sic nihil movet seipsum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[9] In the third way, Aristotle proves the proposition as follows [VIII, 5]. The same thing cannot be at once in act and in potency with respect to the same thing. But everything that is moved is, as such, in potency. For motion is the act of something that is in potency inasmuch as it is in potency. That which moves, however, is as such in act, for nothing acts except according as it is in act. Therefore, with respect to the same motion, nothing is both mover and moved. Thus, nothing moves itself.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sciendum autem quod Plato qui posuit omne movens moveri, communius accepit nomen motus quam Aristoteles. Aristoteles enim proprie accepit motum secundum quod est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huiusmodi: qualiter non est nisi divisibilium et corporum, ut probatur in VI Physic. Secundum Platonem autem movens seipsum non est corpus: accipiebat enim motum pro qualibet operatione, ita quod intelligere et opinari sit quoddam moveri; quem etiam modum loquendi Aristoteles tangit in III de anima. Secundum hoc ergo dicebat primum movens seipsum movere quod intelligit se et vult vel amat se. Quod in aliquo non repugnat rationibus Aristotelis: nihil enim differt devenire ad aliquod primum quod moveat se, secundum Platonem; et devenire ad primum quod omnino sit immobile, secundum Aristotelem.
<td style="text-align:justify">[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [ <i>Phaedrus</i> ], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the <i>Physics</i> [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the <i>De anima</i> [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Aliam autem propositionem, scilicet quod in moventibus et motis non sit procedere in infinitum, probat tribus rationibus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[11] The second proposition, namely, that there is no procession to infinity among movers and things moved, Aristotle proves in three ways.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quarum prima talis est. Si in motoribus et motis proceditur in infinitum, oportet omnia huiusmodi infinita corpora esse: quia omne quod movetur est divisibile et corpus, ut probatur in VI Physic. Omne autem corpus quod movet motum, simul dum movet movetur. Ergo omnia ista infinita simul moventur dum unum eorum movetur. Sed unum eorum, cum sit finitum, movetur tempore finito. Ergo omnia illa infinita moventur tempore finito. Hoc autem est impossibile. Ergo impossibile est quod in motoribus et motis procedatur in infinitum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the <i>Physics</i> [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quod autem sit impossibile quod infinita praedicta moveantur tempore finito, sic probat. Movens et motum oportet simul esse: ut probat inducendo in singulis speciebus motus. Sed corpora non possunt simul esse nisi per continuitatem vel contiguationem. Cum ergo omnia praedicta moventia et mota sint corpora, ut probatum est, oportet quod sint quasi unum mobile per continuationem vel contiguationem. Et sic unum infinitum movetur tempore finito. Quod est impossibile, ut probatur in VI physicorum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[13] Furthermore, that it is impossible for the abovementioned infinites to be moved in a finite time Aristotle proves as follows. The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. This Aristotle proves by induction in the various species of motion. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity. Now, since, as has been proved, all the aforementioned movers and. things moved are bodies, they must constitute by continuity or contiguity a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in a finite time. This is impossible, as is proved in the <i>Physics</i> [VII, 1].
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Secunda ratio ad idem probandum talis est. In moventibus et motis ordinatis, quorum scilicet unum per ordinem ab alio movetur, hoc necesse est inveniri, quod, remoto primo movente vel cessante a motione, nullum aliorum movebit neque movebitur: quia primum est causa movendi omnibus aliis. Sed si sint moventia et mota per ordinem in infinitum, non erit aliquod primum movens, sed omnia erunt quasi media moventia. Ergo nullum aliorum poterit moveri. Et sic nihil movebitur in mundo.
<td style="text-align:justify">[14] The second argument proving the same conclusion is the following. In an ordered series of movers and things moved (this is a series in which one is moved by another according to an order), it is necessarily the fact that, when the first mover is removed or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. For the first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. But, if there are movers and things moved following an order to infinity, there will be no first mover, but all would be as intermediate movers. Therefore, none of the others will be able to be moved, and thus nothing in the world will be moved.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Tertia probatio in idem redit, nisi quod est ordine transmutato, incipiendo scilicet a superiori. Et est talis. Id quod movet instrumentaliter, non potest movere nisi sit aliquid quod principaliter moveat. Sed si in infinitum procedatur in moventibus et motis, omnia erunt quasi instrumentaliter moventia, quia ponentur sicut moventia mota, nihil autem erit sicut principale movens. Ergo nihil movebitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[15] The third proof comes to the same conclusion, except that, by beginning with the superior, it has a reversed order. It is as follows. That which moves as an instrumental cause cannot move unless there be a principal moving cause. But, if we proceed to infinity among movers and things moved, all movers will be as instrumental causes, because they will be moved movers and there will be nothing as a principal mover. Therefore, nothing will be moved.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et sic patet probatio utriusque propositionis quae supponebatur in prima demonstrationis via, qua probat Aristoteles esse primum motorem immobilem.
<td style="text-align:justify">[16] Such, then, is the proof of both propositions assumed by Aristotle in the first demonstrative way by which he proved that a first unmoved mover exists.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Secunda via talis est. Si omne movens movetur, aut haec propositio est vera per se, aut per accidens. Si per accidens, ergo non est necessaria: quod enim est per accidens verum, non est necessarium. Contingens est ergo nullum movens moveri. Sed si movens non movetur, non movet: ut adversarius dicit. Ergo contingens est nihil moveri: nam, si nihil movet, nihil movetur. Hoc autem habet Aristoteles pro impossibili, quod scilicet aliquando nullus motus sit. Ergo primum non fuit contingens: quia ex falso contingenti non sequitur falsum impossibile. Et sic haec propositio, omne movens ab alio movetur, non fuit per accidens vera.
<td style="text-align:justify">[17] The second way is this. If every mover is moved, this proposition is true either by itself or by accident. If by accident, then it is not necessary, since what is true by accident is not necessary. It is something possible, therefore, that no mover is moved. But if a mover is not moved, it does not move: as the adversary says. It is therefore possible that nothing is moved. For, if nothing moves, nothing is moved. This, however, Aristotle considers to be impossible—namely, that at any time there be no motion. Therefore, the first proposition was not possible, since from a false possible, a false impossible does not follow. Hence, this proposition, every mover is moved by another, was not true by accident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item, si aliqua duo sunt coniuncta per accidens in aliquo; et unum illorum invenitur sine altero, probabile est quod alterum absque illo inveniri possit: sicut, si album et musicum inveniuntur in Socrate, et in Platone invenitur musicum absque albo, probabile est quod in aliquo alio possit inveniri album absque musico. Si igitur movens et motum coniunguntur in aliquo per accidens, motum autem invenitur in aliquo absque eo quod moveat, probabile est quod movens inveniatur absque eo quod moveatur. Nec contra hoc potest ferri instantia de duobus quorum unum ab altero dependet: quia haec non coniunguntur per se, sed per accidens.
<td style="text-align:justify">[18] Again, if two things are accidentally joined in some being, and one of them is found without the other, it is probable that the other can be found without it. For example, if white and musical are found in Socrates, and in Plato we find musical but not white, it is probable that in some other being we can find the white without the musical. Therefore, if mover and thing moved are accidentally joined in some being, and the thing moved be found without the mover in some being, it is probable that the mover is found without that which is moved. Nor can the example of two things, of which one depends on the other, be brought as an objection against this. For the union we are speaking of is not essential, but accidental.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Si autem praedicta propositio est vera per se, similiter sequitur impossibile vel inconveniens. Quia vel oportet quod movens moveatur eadem specie motus qua movet, vel alia. Si eadem, ergo oportebit quod alterans alteretur, et ulterius quod sanans sanetur, et quod docens doceatur, et secundum eandem scientiam. Hoc autem est impossibile: nam docentem necesse est habere scientiam, addiscentem vero necesse est non habere; et sic idem habebitur ab eodem et non habebitur, quod est impossibile. Si autem secundum aliam speciem motus movetur, ita scilicet quod alterans moveatur secundum locum, et movens secundum locum augeatur, et sic de aliis; cum sint finita genera et species motus, sequetur quod non sit abire in infinitum. Et sic erit aliquod primum movens quod non movetur ab alio. Nisi forte aliquis dicat quod fiat reflexio hoc modo quod, completis omnibus generibus et speciebus motus, iterum oporteat redire ad primam: ut, si movens secundum locum alteretur et alterans augeatur, iterum augens moveatur secundum locum. Sed ex hoc sequetur idem quod prius: scilicet quod id quod movet secundum aliquam speciem motus, secundum eandem moveatur, licet non immediate sed mediate.
<td style="text-align:justify">[19] But, if the proposition that every mover is moved is true by itself, something impossible or awkward likewise follows. For the mover must be moved either by the same kind of motion as that by which he moves, or by another. If the same, a cause of alteration must itself be altered, and further, a healing cause must itself be healed, and a teacher must himself be taught and this with respect to the same knowledge. Now, this is impossible. A teacher must have science, whereas he who is a learner of necessity does not have it. So that, if the proposition were true, the same thing would be possessed and not possessed by the same being—which is impossible. If, however, the mover is moved by another species of motion, so that (namely) the altering cause is moved according to place, and the cause moving according to place is increased, and so forth, since the genera and species of motion are finite in number, it will follow that we cannot proceed to infinity. There will thus be a first mover, which is not moved by another. Will someone say that there will be a recurrence, so that when all the genera and species of motion have been completed the series will be repeated and return to the first motion? This would involve saying, for example, that a mover according to place would be altered, the altering cause would be increased, and the increasing cause would be moved according to place. Yet this whole view would arrive at the same conclusion as before: whatever moves according to a certain species of motion is itself moved according to the same species of motion, though mediately and not immediately.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ergo relinquitur quod oportet ponere aliquod primum quod non movetur ab alio exteriori.
<td style="text-align:justify">[20] It remains, therefore, that we must posit some first mover that is not moved by any exterior moving cause.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quia vero, hoc habito quod sit primum movens quod non movetur ab alio exteriori, non sequitur quod sit penitus immobile, ideo ulterius procedit Aristoteles, dicendo quod hoc potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo, ita quod illud primum sit penitus immobile. Quo posito, habetur propositum: scilicet, quod sit aliquod primum movens immobile. Alio modo, quod illud primum moveatur a seipso. Et hoc videtur probabile: quia quod est per se, semper est prius eo quod est per aliud; unde et in motis primum motum rationabile est per seipsum moveri, non ab alio.
<td style="text-align:justify">[21] Granted this conclusion—namely, that there is a first mover that is not moved by an exterior moving cause—it yet does not follow that this mover is absolutely unmoved. That is why Aristotle goes on to say that the condition of the first mover may be twofold [VIII, 5]. The first mover can be absolutely unmoved. If so, we have the conclusion we are seeking: there is a first unmoved mover. On the other hand, the first mover can be self-moved. This may be argued, because that which is through itself is prior to what is through another. Hence, among things moved as well, it seems reasonable that the first moved is moved through itself and not by another.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sed, hoc dato, iterum idem sequitur. Non enim potest dici quod movens seipsum totum moveatur a toto: quia sic sequerentur praedicta inconvenientia, scilicet quod aliquis simul doceret et doceretur, et similiter in aliis motibus; et iterum quod aliquid simul esset in potentia et actu, nam movens, inquantum huiusmodi, est actu, motum vero in potentia. Relinquitur igitur quod una pars eius est movens tantum et altera mota. Et sic habetur idem quod prius: scilicet quod aliquid sit movens immobile.
<td style="text-align:justify">[22] But, on this basis, the same conclusion again follows. For it cannot be said that, when a mover moves himself, the whole is moved by the whole. Otherwise, the same difficulties would follow as before: one person would both teach and be taught, and the same would be true among other motions. It would also follow that a being would be both in potency and in act; for a mover is, as such, in act, whereas the thing moved is in potency. Consequently, one part of the self-moved mover is solely moving, and the other part solely moved. We thus reach the same conclusion as before: there exists an unmoved mover.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Non autem potest dici quod utraque pars moveatur, ita quod una ab altera; neque quod una pars moveat seipsam et moveat alteram; neque quod totum moveat partem; neque quod pars moveat totum: quia sequerentur praemissa inconvenientia, scilicet quod aliquid simul moveret et moveretur secundum eandem speciem motus; et quod simul esset in potentia et actu; et ulterius quod totum non esset primo movens se, sed ratione partis. Relinquitur ergo quod moventis seipsum oportet unam partem esse immobilem et moventem aliam partem.
<td style="text-align:justify">[23] Nor can it be held that both parts of the self-moved mover are moved, so that one is moved by the other, or that one moves both itself and the other, or that the whole moves a part, or that a part moves the whole. All this would involve the return of the aforementioned difficulties: something would both move and be moved according to the same species of motion; something would be at once in potency and in act; and, furthermore, the whole would not be primarily moving itself, it would move through the motion of a part. The conclusion thus stands: one part of a self-moved mover must be unmoved and moving the other part.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sed quia in moventibus se quae sunt apud nos, scilicet in animalibus, pars movens, scilicet anima, etsi sit immobilis per se, movetur tamen per accidens; ulterius ostendit quod primi moventis seipsum pars movens non movetur neque per se neque per accidens.<br>
Moventia enim se quae sunt apud nos, scilicet animalia, cum sint corruptibilia, pars movens in eis movetur per accidens. Necesse est autem moventia se corruptibilia reduci ad aliquod primum movens se quod sit sempiternum. Ergo necesse est aliquem motorem esse alicuius moventis seipsum qui neque per se neque per accidens moveatur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[24] But there is another point to consider. Among self-moved beings known to us, namely, animals, although the moving part, which is to say the soul, is unmoved through itself, it is yet moved by accident. That is why Aristotle further shows that the moving part of the first self-moving being is not moved either through itself or by accident [VIII, 6].<br>
For, since self-moving beings known to us, namely, animals, are corruptible, the moving part in them is moved by accident. But corruptible self-moving beings must be reduced to some first self-moving being that is everlasting. Therefore, some self-moving being must have a mover that is moved neither through itself nor by accident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quod autem necesse sit, secundum suam positionem, aliquod movens se esse sempiternum, patet. Si enim motus est sempiternus, ut ipse supponit, oportet quod generatio moventium seipsa quae sunt generabilia et corruptibilia, sit perpetua. Sed huius perpetuitatis non potest esse causa aliquod ipsorum moventium se: quia non semper est. Nec simul omnia: tum quia infinita essent; tum quia non simul sunt. Relinquitur igitur quod oportet esse aliquod movens seipsum perpetuum, quod causat perpetuitatem generationis in istis inferioribus moventibus se. Et sic motor eius non movetur neque per se neque per accidens.
<td style="text-align:justify">[25] It is further evident that, according to the position of Aristotle, some self-moved being must be everlasting. For if, as Aristotle supposes, motion is everlasting, the generation of self-moving beings (this means beings that are generable and corruptible) must be endless. But the cause of this endlessness cannot be one of the self-moving beings, since it does not always exist. Nor can the cause be all the self-moving beings together, both because they would be infinite and because they would not be simultaneous. There must therefore be some endlessly self-moving being, causing the endlessness of generation among these sublunary self-movers. Thus, the mover of the self-moving being is not moved, either through itself or by accident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item, in moventibus se videmus quod aliqua incipiunt de novo moveri propter aliquem motum quo non movetur a seipso animal, sicut cibo digesto aut aere alterato: quo quidem motu ipse motor movens seipsum movetur per accidens. Ex quo potest accipi quod nullum movens seipsum movetur semper cuius motor movetur per se vel per accidens. Sed primum movens seipsum movetur semper: alias non posset motus esse sempiternus, cum omnis alius motus a motu primi moventis seipsum causetur. Relinquitur igitur quod primum movens seipsum movetur a motore qui non movetur neque per se neque per accidens.
<td style="text-align:justify">[26] Again, we see that among beings that move themselves some initiate a new motion as a result of some motion. This new motion is other than the motion by which an animal moves itself, for example, digested food or altered air. By such a motion the self-moving mover is moved by accident. From this we may infer that no self-moved being is moved everlastingly whose mover is moved either by itself or by accident. But the first self-mover is everlastingly in motion; otherwise, motion could not be everlasting, since every other motion is caused by the motion of the self-moving first mover. Ile first self-moving being, therefore, is moved by a mover who is himself moved neither through himself nor by accident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nec est contra hanc rationem quod motores inferiorum orbium movent motum sempiternum, et tamen dicuntur moveri per accidens. Quia dicuntur moveri per accidens non ratione sui ipsorum, sed ratione suorum mobilium, quae sequuntur motum superioris orbis.
<td style="text-align:justify">[27] Nor is it against this argument that the movers of the lower spheres produce an everlasting motion and yet are said to be moved by accident. For they are said to be moved by accident, not on their own account, but on account of their movable subjects, which follow the motion of the higher sphere.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sed quia Deus non est pars alicuius moventis seipsum, ulterius Aristoteles, in sua metaphysica, investigat ex hoc motore qui est pars moventis seipsum, alium motorem separatum omnino, qui est Deus. Cum enim omne movens seipsum moveatur per appetitum, oportet quod motor qui est pars moventis seipsum, moveat propter appetitum alicuius appetibilis. Quod est eo superius in movendo: nam appetens est quodammodo movens motum; appetibile autem est movens omnino non motum. Oportet igitur esse primum motorem separatum omnino immobilem, qui Deus est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[28] Now, God is not part of any self-moving mover. In his <i>Metaphysics</i> [XII, 7], therefore, Aristotle goes on from the mover who is a part of the self-moved mover to seek another mover—God—who is absolutely separate. For, since everything moving itself is moved through appetite, the mover who is part of the self-moving being moves because of the appetite of some appetible object. This object is higher, in the order of motion, than the mover desiring it; for the one desiring is in a manner a moved mover, whereas an appetible object is an absolutely unmoved mover. There must, therefore, be an absolutely unmoved separate first mover. This is God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Praedictos autem processus duo videntur infirmare. Quorum primum est, quod procedunt ex suppositione aeternitatis motus: quod apud Catholicos supponitur esse falsum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[29] Two considerations seem to invalidate these arguments. The first consideration is that, as arguments, they presuppose the eternity of motion, which Catholics consider to be false.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ad hoc dicendum quod via efficacissima ad probandum Deum esse est ex suppositione aeternitatis mundi, qua posita, minus videtur esse manifestum quod Deus sit. Nam si mundus et motus de novo incoepit, planum est quod oportet poni aliquam causam quae de novo producat mundum et motum: quia omne quod de novo fit, ab aliquo innovatore oportet sumere originem; cum nihil educat se de potentia in actum vel de non esse in esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[30] To this consideration the reply is as follows. The most efficacious way to prove that God exists is on the supposition that the world is eternal. Granted this supposition, that God exists is less manifest. For, if the world and motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited to account for this origin of the world and of motion. That which comes to be anew must take its origin from some innovating cause; since nothing brings itself from potency to act, or from non-being to being.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Secundum est, quod supponitur in praedictis demonstrationibus primum motum, scilicet corpus caeleste, esse motum ex se. Ex quo sequitur ipsum esse animatum. Quod a multis non conceditur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[31] The second consideration is that the demonstrations given above presuppose that the first moved being, namely, a heavenly body, is self-moved. This means that it is animated, which many do not admit.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ad hoc dicendum est quod, si primum movens non ponitur motum ex se, oportet quod moveatur immediate a penitus immobili. Unde etiam Aristoteles sub disiunctione hanc conclusionem inducit: quod scilicet oporteat vel statim devenire ad primum movens immobile separatum, vel ad movens seipsum, ex quo iterum devenitur ad movens primum immobile separatum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[32] The reply to this consideration is that, if the prime mover is not held to be self-moved, then it must be moved immediately by something absolutely unmoved. Hence, even Aristotle himself proposed this conclusion as a disjunction: it is necessary either to arrive immediately at an unmoved separate first mover, or to arrive at a self-moved mover from whom, in turn, an unmoved separate first mover is reached.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Procedit autem philosophus alia via in II Metaphys., ad ostendendum non posse procedi in infinitum in causis efficientibus, sed esse devenire ad unam causam primam: et hanc dicimus Deum. Et haec via talis est. In omnibus causis efficientibus ordinatis primum est causa medii, et medium est causa ultimi: sive sit unum, sive plura media. Remota autem causa, removetur id cuius est causa. Ergo, remoto primo, medium causa esse non poterit. Sed si procedatur in causis efficientibus in infinitum, nulla causarum erit prima. Ergo omnes aliae tollentur, quae sunt mediae. Hoc autem est manifeste falsum. Ergo oportet ponere primam causam efficientem esse. Quae Deus est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[33] In <i>Metaphysics</i> II [Ia, 2] Aristotle also uses another argument to show that there is no infinite regress in efficient causes and that we must reach one first cause—God. This way is as follows. In all ordered efficient causes, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether one or many, and this is the cause of the last cause. But, when you suppress a cause, you suppress its effect. Therefore, if you suppress the first cause, the intermediate cause cannot be a cause. Now, if there were an infinite regress among efficient causes, no cause would be first. Therefore, all the other causes, which are intermediate, will be suppressed. But this is manifestly false. We must, therefore, posit that there exists a first efficient cause. This is God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Potest etiam alia ratio colligi ex verbis Aristotelis. In II enim Metaphys. ostendit quod ea quae sunt maxime vera, sunt et maxime entia. In IV autem Metaphys. ostendit esse aliquid maxime verum, ex hoc quod videmus duorum falsorum unum altero esse magis falsum, unde oportet ut alterum sit etiam altero verius; hoc autem est secundum approximationem ad id quod est simpliciter et maxime verum. Ex quibus concludi potest ulterius esse aliquid quod est maxime ens. Et hoc dicimus Deum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[34] Another argument may also be gathered from the words of Aristotle. In <i>Metaphysics</i> II [Ia, 1] he shows that what is most true is also most a being. But in <i>Metaphysics</i> IV [4] he shows the existence of something supremely true from the observed fact that of two false things one is more false than the other, which means that one is more true than the other. This comparison is based on the nearness to that which is absolutely and supremely true. From these Aristotelian texts we may further infer that there is something that is supremely being. This we call God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad hoc etiam inducitur a Damasceno alia ratio sumpta ex rerum gubernatione: quam etiam innuit Commentator in II physicorum. Et est talis. Impossibile est aliqua contraria et dissonantia in unum ordinem concordare semper vel pluries nisi alicuius gubernatione, ex qua omnibus et singulis tribuitur ut ad certum finem tendant. Sed in mundo videmus res diversarum naturarum in unum ordinem concordare, non ut raro et a casu, sed ut semper vel in maiori parte. Oportet ergo esse aliquem cuius providentia mundus gubernetur. Et hunc dicimus Deum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[35] Damascene proposes another argument for the same conclusion taken from the government of the world [ <i>De fide orthodoxa</i> I, 3]. Averroes likewise hints at it [In II <i>Physicorum</i> ]. The argument runs thus. Contrary and discordant things cannot, always or for the most part, be parts of one order except under someone’s government, which enables all and each to tend to a definite end. But in the world we find that things of diverse natures come together under one order, and this not rarely or by chance, but always or for the most part. There must therefore be some being by whose providence the world is governed. This we call God.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="14" id="14"><b>Caput 14</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 14</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod ad cognitionem Dei oportet uti via remotionis</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT TO KNOW GOD WE MUST USE THE WAY OF REMOTION</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ostenso igitur quod est aliquod primum ens, quod Deum dicimus, oportet eius conditiones investigare.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] We have shown that there exists a first being, whom we call God. We must, accordingly, now investigate the properties of this being.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Est autem via remotionis utendum praecipue in consideratione divinae substantiae. Nam divina substantia omnem formam quam intellectus noster attingit, sua immensitate excedit: et sic ipsam apprehendere non possumus cognoscendo quid est. Sed aliqualem eius habemus notitiam cognoscendo quid non est. Tantoque eius notitiae magis appropinquamus, quanto plura per intellectum nostrum ab eo poterimus removere. Tanto enim unumquodque perfectius cognoscimus, quanto differentias eius ad alia plenius intuemur: habet enim res unaquaeque in seipsa esse proprium ab omnibus aliis rebus distinctum. Unde et in rebus quarum definitiones cognoscimus, primo eas in genere collocamus, per quod scimus in communi quid est; et postmodum differentias addimus, quibus a rebus aliis distinguatur; et sic perficitur substantiae rei completa notitia.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Now, in considering the divine substance, we should especially make use of the method of remotion. For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not. Furthermore, we approach nearer to a knowledge of God according as through our intellect we are able to remove more and more things from Him. For we know each thing more perfectly the more fully we see its differences from other things; for each thing has within itself its own being, distinct from all other things. So, too, in the case of the things whose definitions we know. We locate them in a genus, through which we know in a general way what they are. Then we add differences to each thing, by which it may be distinguished from other things. In this way, a complete knowledge of a substance is built up.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sed quia in consideratione substantiae divinae non possumus accipere quid, quasi genus; nec distinctionem eius ab aliis rebus per affirmativas differentias accipere possumus, oportet eam accipere per differentias negativas. Sicut autem in affirmativis differentiis una aliam contrahit, et magis ad completam designationem rei appropinquat secundum quod a pluribus differre facit; ita una differentia negativa per aliam contrahitur, quae a pluribus differre facit. Sicut, si dicamus Deum non esse accidens, per hoc ab omnibus accidentibus distinguitur; deinde si addamus ipsum non esse corpus, distinguemus ipsum etiam ab aliquibus substantiis; et sic per ordinem ab omni eo quod est praeter ipsum, per negationes huiusmodi distinguetur; et tunc de substantia eius erit propria consideratio cum cognoscetur ut ab omnibus distinctus. Non tamen erit perfecta: quia non cognoscetur quid in se sit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] However, in the consideration of the divine substance we cannot take a what as a genus; nor can we derive the distinction of God from things by differences affirmed of God. For this reason, we must derive the distinction of God from other beings by means of negative differences. And just as among affirmative differences one contracts the other, so one negative difference is contracted by another that makes it to differ from many beings. For example, if we say that God is not an accident, we thereby distinguish Him from all accidents. Then, if we add that He is not a body, we shall further distinguish Him from certain substances. And thus, proceeding in order, by such negations God will be distinguished from all that He is not. Finally, there will then be a proper consideration of God’s substance when He will be known as distinct from all things. Yet, this knowledge will not be perfect, since it will not tell us what God is in Himself.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad procedendum igitur circa Dei cognitionem per viam remotionis, accipiamus principium id quod ex superioribus iam manifestum est, scilicet quod Deus sit omnino immobilis. Quod etiam auctoritas sacrae Scripturae confirmat. Dicitur enim Malach. 3-6: ego Deus, et non mutor; Iac. 1-17: apud quem non est transmutatio; et Num. 23-19: non est Deus quasi homo, ut mutetur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] As a principle of procedure in knowing God by way of remotion, therefore, let us adopt the proposition which, from what we have said, is now manifest, namely, that God is absolutely unmoved. The authority of Sacred Scripture also confirms this. For it is written: “I am the Lord and I change not” (Mal. 3:6);...“with whom there is no change” (James 2:17). Again: “God is not man... that He should be changed (Num. 23:19).
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="15" id="15"><b>Caput 15</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 15</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod Deus sit aeternus</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT GOD IS ETERNAL</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex hoc autem apparet ulterius Deum esse aeternum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] From what we have said it is further apparent that God is eternal.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nam omne quod incipit esse vel desinit, per motum vel mutationem hoc patitur. Ostensum autem est Deum esse omnino immutabilem. Est igitur aeternus, carens principio et fine.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Illa sola tempore mensurantur quae moventur: eo quod tempus est numerus motus, ut patet in IV physicorum. Deus autem est omnino absque motu, ut iam probatum est. Tempore igitur non mensuratur. Igitur in ipso non est prius et posterius accipere. Non ergo habet esse post non esse, nec non esse post esse potest habere, nec aliqua successio in esse ipsius inveniri potest: quia haec sine tempore intelligi non possunt. Est igitur carens principio et fine, totum esse suum simul habens. In quo ratio aeternitatis consistit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Again. Those beings alone are measured by time that are moved. For time, as is made clear in <i>Physics</i> IV [11], is “the number of motion.” But God, as has been proved, is absolutely without motion, and is consequently not measured by time. There is, therefore, no before and after in Him; He does not have being after non-being, nor non-being after being, nor can any succession be found in His being. For none of these characteristics can be understood without time. God, therefore, is without beginning and end, having His whole being at once. In this consists the nature of eternity.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Si aliquando non fuit et postmodum fuit, ab aliquo eductus est de non esse in esse. Non a seipso: quia quod non est non potest aliquid agere. Si autem ab alio, illud est prius eo. Ostensum autem est Deum esse primam causam. Non igitur esse incoepit. Unde nec esse desinet: quia quod semper fuit, habet virtutem semper essendi. Est igitur aeternus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] What is more, if it were true that there was a time when He existed after not existing, then He must have been brought by someone from non-being to being. Not by Himself, since what does not exist cannot act. If by another, then this other is prior to God. But we have shown that God is the first cause. Hence, He did not begin to be, nor consequently will He cease to be, for that which has been everlastingly has the power to be everlastingly. God is, therefore, eternal.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Videmus in mundo quaedam quae sunt possibilia esse et non esse, scilicet generabilia et corruptibilia. Omne autem quod est possibile esse, causam habet: quia, cum de se aequaliter se habeat ad duo, scilicet esse et non esse, oportet, si ei approprietur esse, quod hoc sit ex aliqua causa. Sed in causis non est procedere in infinitum, ut supra probatum est per rationem Aristotelis. Ergo oportet ponere aliquid quod sit necesse-esse. Omne autem necessarium vel habet causam suae necessitatis aliunde; vel non, sed est per seipsum necessarium. Non est autem procedere in infinitum in necessariis quae habent causam suae necessitatis aliunde. Ergo oportet ponere aliquod primum necessarium, quod est per seipsum necessarium. Et hoc Deus est: cum sit causa prima, ut ostensum est. Est igitur Deus aeternus: cum omne necessarium per se sit aeternum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] We find in the world, furthermore, certain beings, those namely that are subject to generation and corruption, which can be and not-be. But what can be has a cause because, since it is equally related to two contraries, namely, being and non-being, it must be owing to some cause that being accrues to it. Now, as we have proved by the reasoning of Aristotle, one cannot proceed to infinity among causes. We must therefore posit something that is a necessary being. Every necessary being, however, either has the cause of its necessity in an outside source or, if it does not, it is necessary through itself. But one cannot proceed to infinity among necessary beings the cause of whose necessity lies in an outside source. We must therefore posit a first necessary being, which is necessary through itself. This is God, since, as we have shown, He is the first cause. God, therefore, is eternal, since whatever is necessary through itself is eternal.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ostendit etiam Aristoteles ex sempiternitate temporis sempiternitatem motus. Ex quo iterum ostendit sempiternitatem substantiae moventis. Prima autem substantia movens Deus est. Est igitur sempiternus. Negata autem sempiternitate temporis et motus, adhuc manet ratio ad sempiternitatem substantiae. Nam, si motus incoepit, oportet quod ab aliquo movente incoeperit. Qui si incoepit, aliquo agente incoepit. Et sic vel in infinitum ibitur; vel devenietur ad aliquid quod non incoepit.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] From the everlastingness of time, likewise, Aristotle shows the everlastingness of motion [ <i>Physics</i> VIII, 1], from which he further shows the everlastingness of the moving substance [VIII, 6]. Now, the first moving substance is God. God is therefore everlasting. If we deny the everlastingness of time and motion, we are still able to prove the everlastingness of the moving substance. For, if motion had a beginning, it must have done so through some moving cause. If this moving cause began, it did so through the action of some cause. Hence, either one will proceed to infinity, or he will arrive at a moving cause that had no beginning.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Huic autem veritati divina auctoritas testimonium perhibet. Unde Psalmus: tu autem, domine, in aeternum permanes. Et idem: tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] To this truth divine authority offers witness. The Psalmist says: “But You, Lord, endure forever”; and he goes on to say: “But You art always the selfsame: and Your years shall not fail” (Ps. 101:13, 28).
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="16" id="16"><b>Caput 16</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 16</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod in Deo non est potentia passiva</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT THERE IS NO PASSIVE POTENCY IN GOD</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Si autem Deus aeternus est, necesse est ipsum non esse in potentia.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] If God is eternal, of necessity there is no potency in Him.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Omne enim id in cuius substantia admiscetur potentia, secundum id quod habet de potentia potest non esse: quia quod potest esse, potest non esse. Deus autem secundum se non potest non esse: cum sit sempiternus. In Deo igitur non est potentia ad esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] The being whose substance has an admixture of potency is liable not to be by as much as it has potency; for that which can be, can not-be. But, God, being everlasting, in His substance cannot not-be. In God, therefore, there is no potency to being.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Quamvis id quod quandoque est in potentia quandoque actu, prius sit tempore in potentia quam in actu, tamen simpliciter actus est prior potentia: quia potentia non educit se in actum, sed oportet quod educatur in actum per aliquid quod sit in actu. Omne igitur quod est aliquo modo in potentia, habet aliquid prius se. Deus autem est primum ens et prima causa, ut ex supra dictis patet. Non igitur habet in se aliquid potentiae admixtum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Though a being that is sometime in potency and sometime in act is in time in potency before being in act, absolutely speaking act is prior to potency. For potency does not raise itself to act; it must be raised to act by something that is in act. Hence, whatever is in some way in potency has something prior to it. But, as is evident from what was said above, God is the first being and the first cause. Hence, He has no admixture of potency in Himself.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Illud quod est per se necesse esse, nullo modo est possibile esse: quia quod est per se necesse esse, non habet causam; omne autem quod est possibile esse, habet causam, ut supra ostensum est. Deum autem est per se necesse esse. Nullo igitur modo est possibile esse. Nihil ergo potentiae in sua substantia invenitur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Moreover, that which is a necessary being through itself is in no way a possible being, since that which is through itself a necessary being has no cause, whereas, as we have shown above, whatever is a possible being has a cause. But God is through Himself a necessary being. He is, therefore, in no way a possible being, and so no potency is found in His substance.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Unumquodque agit secundum quod est actu. Quod igitur non est totus actus, non toto se agit, sed aliquo sui. Quod autem non toto se agit, non est primum agens: agit enim alicuius participatione, non per essentiam suam. Primum igitur agens, quod Deus est, nullam habet potentiam admixtam, sed est actus purus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Again, each thing acts in so far as it is in act. Therefore, what is not wholly act acts, not with the whole of itself, but with part of itself. But what does not act with the whole of itself is not the first agent, since it does not act through its essence but through participation in something. The first agent, therefore, namely, God, has no admixture of potency but is pure act.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Unumquodque, sicut natum est agere inquantum est actu, ita natum est pati inquantum est potentia: nam motus est actus potentia existentis. Sed Deus est omnino impassibilis ac immutabilis, ut patet ex dictis. Nihil ergo habet de potentia, scilicet passiva.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] Further, just as each thing naturally acts in so far as it is in act, so it is naturally receptive in so far as it is in potency; for motion is the act of that which exists in potency. But God is absolutely impassible and immutable, as is clear from what we have said. He has, therefore, no part of potency—that is, passive potency.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Videmus aliquid esse in mundo quod exit de potentia in actum. Non autem educit se de potentia in actum: quia quod est potentia, nondum est; unde nec agere potest. Ergo oportet esse aliquid aliud prius, qui educatur de potentia in actum. Et iterum, si hoc est exiens de potentia in actum, oportet ante hoc aliquid aliud poni, quo reducatur in actum. Hoc autem in infinitum procedere non potest. Ergo oportet devenire ad aliquid quod est tantum actu et nullo modo in potentia. Et hoc dicimus Deum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] Then, too, we see something in the world that emerges from potency to act. Now, it does not educe itself from potency to act, since that which is in potency, being still in potency, can therefore not act. Some prior being is therefore needed by which it may be brought forth from potency to act. This cannot go on to infinity. We must, therefore, arrive at some being that is only in act and in no wise in potency. This being we call God.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="17" id="17"><b>Caput 17</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 17</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod in Deo non est materia</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT THERE IS NO MATTER IN GOD</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Apparet etiam ex hoc Deum non esse materiam.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] From this it is likewise evident that God is not matter.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quia materia id quod est, in potentia est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Whatever matter is, it is in potency.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Materia non est agendi principium: unde efficiens et materia in idem non incidunt, secundum philosophum. Deo autem convenit esse primam causam effectivam rerum, ut supra dictum est. Ipse igitur materia non est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Matter, furthermore, is not a principle of acting. That is why, according to Aristotle, the efficient cause and matter do not coincide [ <i>Physics</i> II, 7]. But, as we have said, it belongs to God to be the first efficient cause of things. Therefore, He is not matter.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Sequitur res naturales casu existere his qui omnia in materiam reducebant sicut in causam primam: contra quos agitur in II physicorum. Si igitur Deus, qui est prima causa, sit causa materialis rerum, sequitur omnia a casu existere.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Moreover, for those who reduced all things to matter as to the first cause it follows that natural things exist by chance. Aristotle argues against these thinkers in <i>Physics</i> II [8]. Hence, if God, Who is the first cause, is the material cause of things, it follows that all things exist by chance.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Materia non fit causa alicuius in actu nisi secundum quod alteratur et mutatur. Si igitur Deus est immobilis, ut probatum est, nullo modo potest esse rerum causa per modum materiae.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Again, matter does not become the cause of something actual except by being altered and changed. But if, as we have proved, God is absolutely immobile, He cannot in any way be the cause of things according to the mode of matter.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Hanc autem veritatem fides Catholica confitetur, qua Deum non de sua substantia, sed de nihilo asserit cuncta creasse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] Now, the Catholic faith professes this truth, namely, it asserts that God has created all things, not out of His own substance, but out of nothing.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">In hoc autem insania David de Dinando confunditur, qui ausus est dicere Deum esse idem quod prima materia, ex hoc quod, si non esset idem, oporteret differre ea aliquibus differentiis, et sic non essent simplicia; nam in eo quod per differentiam ab alio differt, ipsa differentia compositionem facit.<br>
Hoc autem processit ex ignorantia qua nescivit quid inter differentiam et diversitatem intersit. Differens enim, ut in X Metaph. determinatur, dicitur ad aliquid, nam omne differens aliquo est differens: diversum autem aliquid absolute dicitur, ex hoc quod non est idem. Differentia igitur in his quaerenda est quae in aliquo conveniunt: oportet enim aliquid in eis assignari secundum quod differant; sicut duae species conveniunt in genere, unde oportet quod differentiis distinguantur. In his autem quae in nullo conveniunt, non est quaerendum quo differant, sed seipsis diversa sunt. Sic enim et oppositae differentiae ab invicem distinguuntur: non enim participant genus quasi partem suae essentiae: et ideo non est quaerendum quibus differant, seipsis enim diversa sunt. Sic etiam Deus et materia prima distinguuntur, quorum unus est actus purus, aliud potentia pura, in nullo convenientiam habentes.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] On this point, however, the madness of David of Dinant stands confounded. He dared to assert that God is the same as prime matter on the ground that, if He were not, He would have to differ from it by some differences, and thus they would not be simple. For in the being that differs from another by a difference, the difference itself produces a composition.<br>
David’s position was the result of ignorance. He did not know how to distinguish between difference and diversity. The different, as is determined in <i>Metaphysics</i> X [3], is said relationally, for every different is different by something. Something is called diverse, however, absolutely, from the fact that it is not the same. Difference, therefore, must be sought among those things that agree in something, for we must point to something in them according to which they differ: for example, two species agree in genus and must therefore be distinguished by differences. But in things that agree in nothing we need not seek the whereby they differ; they are diverse by themselves. In the same way, opposite differences are distinguished from one another. For they do not share in the genus as a part of their essence, and therefore, since they are by themselves diverse, there is no need to seek that by which they differ. In this way, too, God and prime matter are distinguished: one is pure act, the other is pure potency, and they agree in nothing.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="18" id="18"><b>Caput 18</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 18</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod in Deo nulla est compositio</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT THERE IS NO COMPOSITION IN GOD</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex praemissis autem concludi potest quod in Deo nulla sit compositio.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] From what we have set down we can conclude that there is no composition in God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Nam in omni composito oportet esse actum et potentiam. Non enim plura possunt simpliciter unum fieri nisi aliquid sit ibi actus, et aliud potentia. Quae enim actu sunt, non uniuntur nisi quasi colligata vel congregata, quae non sunt unum simpliciter. In quibus etiam ipsae partes congregatae sunt sicut potentia respectu unionis: sunt enim unitae in actu postquam fuerint in potentia unibiles. In Deo autem nulla est potentia. Non est igitur in eo aliqua compositio.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] In every composite there must be act and potency. For several things cannot become absolutely one unless among them something is act and something potency. Now, beings in act are not united except by being, so to speak, bound or joined together, which means that they are not absolutely one. Their parts, likewise, are brought together as being in potency with respect to the union, since they are united in act after being potentially unitable. But in God there is no potency. Therefore, there is no composition in Him.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Omne compositum posterius est suis componentibus. Primum ergo ens, quod Deus est, ex nullis compositum est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Every composite, moreover, is subsequent to its components. The first being, therefore, which is God, has no components.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Omne compositum est potentia dissolubile, quantum est ex ratione compositionis: licet in quibusdam sit aliquid aliud dissolutioni repugnans. Quod autem est dissolubile, est in potentia ad non esse. Quod Deo non competit: cum sit per se necesse-esse. Non est igitur in eo aliqua compositio.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Every composite, furthermore, is potentially dissoluble. This arises from the nature of composition, although in some composites there is another element that resists dissolution. Now, what is dissoluble can not-be. This does not befit God, since He is through Himself the necessary being. There is, therefore, no composition in God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Omnis compositio indiget aliquo componente: si enim compositio est, ex pluribus est; quae autem secundum se sunt plura, in unum non convenirent nisi ab aliquo componente unirentur. Si igitur compositus esset Deus, haberet componentem: non enim ipse seipsum componere posset, quia nihil est causa sui ipsius; esset enim prius seipso, quod est impossibile. Componens autem est causa efficiens compositi. Ergo Deus haberet causam efficientem. Et sic non esset causa prima, quod supra habitum est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Every composition, likewise, needs some composer. For, if there is composition, it is made up of a plurality, and a plurality cannot be fitted into a unity except by some composer. If, then, God were composite, He would have a composer. He could not compose Himself, since nothing is its own cause, because it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now, the composer is the efficient cause of the composite. Thus, God would have an efficient cause. Thus, too, He would not be the first cause—which was proved above.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. In quolibet genere tanto aliquid est nobilius quanto simplicius: sicut in genere calidi ignis, qui non habet aliquam frigidi permixtionem. Quod igitur est in fine nobilitatis omnium entium, oportet esse in fine simplicitatis. Hoc autem quod est in fine nobilitatis omnium entium, dicimus Deum, cum sit prima causa: causa enim est nobilior effectu. Nulla igitur compositio ei accidere potest.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] Again, in every genus the simpler a being, the more noble it is: e.g., in the genus of the hot, Ere, which has no admixture of cold. That, therefore, which is at the peak of nobility among all beings must be at the peak of simplicity. But the being that is at the peak of nobility among all beings we call God, since He is the first cause. For a cause is nobler than an effect. God can, therefore, have no composition.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Praeterea. In omni composito bonum non est huius vel illius partis, sed totius,- et dico bonum secundum illam bonitatem quae est propria totius et perfectio eius: nam partes sunt imperfectae respectu totius: sicut partes hominis non sunt homo, partes etiam numeri senarii non habent perfectionem senarii, et similiter partes lineae non perveniunt ad perfectionem mensurae quae in tota linea invenitur. Si ergo Deus est compositus, perfectio et bonitas eius propria invenitur in toto, non autem in aliqua eius partium. Et sic non erit in eo pure illud bonum quod est proprium ei. Non est ergo ipse primum et summum bonum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] Furthermore, in every composite the good belongs, not to this or that part, but to the whole—and I say good according to the goodness that is proper to the whole and its perfection. For parts are imperfect in comparison with the whole, as the parts of man are not a man, the parts of the number six do not have the perfection of six, and similarly the parts of a line do not reach the perfection of the measure found in the whole line. If, then, God is composite, His proper perfection and goodness is found in the whole, not in any part of the whole. Thus, there will not be in God purely that good which is proper to Him. God, then, is not the first and highest good.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Ante omnem multitudinem oportet invenire unitatem. In omni autem composito est multitudo. Igitur oportet id quod est ante omnia, scilicet Deum, omni compositione carere.
<td style="text-align:justify">[8] Again, prior to all multitude we must find unity. But there is multitude in every composite. Therefore, that which is before all things, namely, God, must be free of all composition.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="19" id="19"><b>Caput 19</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 19</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod in Deo nihil est violentum neque praeter naturam</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT IN GOD THERE IS NOTHING VIOLENT OR UNNATURAL</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex hoc autem philosophus concludit quod in Deo nihil potest esse violentum neque extra naturam.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] From this Aristotle concludes that in God there can be nothing violent or unnatural.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Omne enim illud in quo aliquid violentum et praeter naturam invenitur, aliquid sibi additum habet: nam quod est de substantia rei non potest esse violentum neque praeter naturam. Nullum autem simplex habet in se aliquid additum: ex hoc enim compositio relinqueretur. Cum igitur Deus sit simplex, ut ostensum est, nihil in eo potest esse violentum neque praeter naturam.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Everything in which there is found something violent and outside nature has something added to itself, for what belongs to the substance of a thing can be neither violent nor outside nature. Now, nothing simple has anything added to itself, since this would render it composite. Since, then, God is simple, as we have shown, nothing in Him can be violent or outside nature.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Necessitas coactionis est necessitas ex alio. In Deo autem non est necessitas ex alio, sed est per seipsum necessarium, et causa necessitatis aliis. Igitur nihil in eo est coactum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Furthermore, the necessity of coaction is a necessity from another. But in God there is no necessity from another; He is necessary through Himself and the cause of necessity for other things. Therefore, nothing in God is due to coaction.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Ubicumque est aliquid violentum, ibi potest esse aliquid praeter id quod rei per se convenit: nam violentum contrariatur ei quod est secundum naturam. Sed in Deo non est possibile esse aliquid praeter id quod secundum se ei convenit: cum secundum se sit necesse-esse, ut ostensum est. Non potest igitur in eo esse aliquid violentum.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Again, wherever there is something violent, there can be something beyond what befits a thing through itself; for the violent is opposed to what is according to nature. But in God there cannot be anything beyond what befits Him according to Himself; for God, as we have shown, is of Himself the necessary being. There can, therefore, be nothing violent in God.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Omne in quo est aliquid violentum vel innaturale, natum est ab alio moveri: nam violentum est cuius principium est extra nil conferente vim passo. Deus autem est omnino immobilis, ut ostensum est. Igitur non potest in eo esse aliquid violentum vel innaturale.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Then, too, everything in which there can be something violent or unnatural is by nature able to be moved by another. For the violent is “that whose source is from the outside, the receiver being completely passive.” Now, as we have shown, God is absolutely immobile. There can, therefore, be nothing violent or unnatural in Him.
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center">
<a name="20" id="20"><b>Caput 20</b></a>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Chapter 20</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:center"><b>Quod Deus non est corpus</b>
<td style="text-align:center"><b>THAT GOD IS NOT A BODY</b>
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ex praemissis etiam ostenditur quod Deus non est corpus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[1] From the preceding remarks it is also shown that God is not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Omne enim corpus, cum sit continuum, compositum est et partes habens. Deus autem non est compositus, ut ostensum est. Igitur corpus non est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[2] Every body, being a continuum, is composite and has parts. But, as we have shown, God is not composite, and is, therefore, not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Praeterea. Omne quantum est aliquo modo in potentia: nam continuum est potentia divisibile in infinitum; numerus autem in infinitum est augmentabilis. Omne autem corpus est quantum. Ergo omne corpus est in potentia. Deus autem non est in potentia, sed actus purus, ut ostensum est. Ergo Deus non est corpus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[3] Again, everything possessed of quantity is in a certain manner in potency. For a continuum is potentially divisible to infinity, while numbers can be increased to infinity. But every body has quantity and is therefore in potency. But God is not in potency, being pure act, as has been shown. Therefore, God is not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Si Deus est corpus, oportet quod sit aliquod corpus naturale: nam corpus mathematicum non est per se existens, ut philosophus probat, eo quod dimensiones accidentia sunt. Non autem est corpus naturale: cum sit immobilis, ut ostensum est; omne autem corpus naturale mobile est. Deus igitur non est corpus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[4] Furthermore, if God is a body, He must be some natural body, since, as the Philosopher proves, a mathematical body is not something self-existing, since dimensions are accidents. But God is not a natural body, being immobile, as we have shown, whereas every natural body is movable. God is, therefore, not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Amplius. Omne corpus finitum est: quod tam de corpore circulari quam de recto probatur in I caeli et mundi. Quodlibet autem corpus finitum intellectu et imaginatione transcendere possumus. Si igitur Deus est corpus, intellectus et imaginatio nostra aliquid maius Deo cogitare possunt. Et sic Deus non est maior intellectu nostro. Quod est inconveniens. Non est igitur corpus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[5] Again, every body is finite, as is proved in <i>De caelo</i> I [I, 5] of a circular body and a rectilinear body. Now, we can transcend any given finite body by means of the intellect and the imagination. If, then, God is a body, our intellect and imagination can think of something greater than God. God is thus not greater than our intellect—which is awkward. God is, therefore, not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Cognitio intellectiva certior est quam sensitiva. Invenitur autem aliquid subiectum sensui in rerum natura. Igitur et intellectui. Sed secundum ordinem obiectorum est ordo potentiarum, sicut et distinctio. Ergo super omnia sensibilia est aliquid intelligibile in rerum natura existens. Omne autem corpus in rebus existens est sensibile. Igitur super omnia corpora est aliquid accipere nobilius. Si igitur Deus est corpus, non erit primum et maximum ens.
<td style="text-align:justify">[6] Intellectual knowledge, moreover, is more certain than sensitive knowledge. In nature we find an object for the sense and therefore for the intellect as well. But the order and distinction of powers is according to the order of objects. Therefore, above all sensible things there is something intelligible among things. Now, every body having actual existence is sensible. Therefore, we can find something nobler above all bodies. Hence, if God is a body, He will not be the first and greatest being.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Praeterea. Quolibet corpore non vivente res vivens est nobilior. Quolibet autem corpore vivente sua vita est nobilior: cum per hoc habeat supra alia corpora nobilitatem. Id igitur quo nihil est nobilius, corpus non est. Hoc autem est Deus. Igitur non est corpus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[7] A living thing, likewise, is nobler than any non-living body, and the life of a living body is nobler than it, since it is this life that gives to the living body its nobility above other bodies. Therefore, that than which nothing is nobler is not a body. Ibis is God. God is, therefore, not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Item. Inveniuntur rationes philosophorum ad idem ostendendum procedentes ex aeternitate motus, in hunc modum. In omni motu sempiterno oportet quod primum movens non moveatur neque per se neque per accidens, sicut ex supra dictis patet. Corpus autem caeli movetur circulariter motu sempiterno. Ergo primus motor eius non movetur neque per se neque per accidens. Nullum autem corpus movet localiter nisi moveatur: eo quod oportet movens et motum esse simul; et sic corpus movens moveri oportet, ad hoc quod sit simul cum corpore moto. Nulla etiam virtus in corpore movet nisi per accidens moveatur: quia, moto corpore, movetur per accidens virtus corporis. Ergo primus motor caeli non est corpus neque virtus in corpore. Hoc autem ad quod ultimo reducitur motus caeli sicut ad primum movens immobile, est Deus. Deus igitur non est corpus.
<td style="text-align:justify">[8] Then, too, there are the arguments of the philosophers to the same effect, based on the eternity of motion. They are as follows. In every everlasting motion, the first mover cannot be moved either through Himself or by accident, as is clear from the above. Now, the body of the heavens is moved in a circle with an everlasting motion. Therefore, its first mover is not moved either through Himself or by accident. Now, no body moves locally unless it be moved, since the mover and the moved must be together. The moving body must thus be moved in order to be together with the moved body. But no power in a body moves unless it itself be moved by accident, since, when a body is moved, its power is by accident moved. The first mover of the heavens, therefore, is neither a body nor a power in a body. Now, that to which the motion of the heavens is ultimately reduced as to its first unmoved mover is God. God is, therefore, not a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Adhuc. Nulla potentia infinita est potentia in magnitudine. Potentia primi motoris est potentia infinita. Ergo non est in aliqua magnitudine. Et sic Deus, qui est primus motor, neque est corpus neque est virtus in corpore.
<td style="text-align:justify">[9] Again, no infinite power is a power in a magnitude. But the power of the prime mover is an infinite power. Therefore, it is not in any magnitude. Therefore, God, Who is the prime mover, is neither a body nor a power in a body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Prima sic probatur. Si potentia magnitudinis alicuius est infinita, aut ergo erit magnitudinis finitae; aut infinitae. Magnitudo infinita nulla est, ut probatur in III Physic. et in I caeli et mundi. Magnitudinis autem finitae non est possibile esse potentiam infinitam. Et sic in nulla magnitudine potest esse potentia infinita.<br>
Quod autem in magnitudine finita non possit esse potentia infinita, sic probatur. Aequalem effectum quem facit potentia minor in tempore maiori, facit potentia maior in tempore minori: qualiscumque sit ille effectus, sive sit secundum alterationem, sive secundum motum localem, sive secundum quemcumque alium motum. Sed potentia infinita est maior omni potentia finita. Ergo oportet quod in minori perficiat effectum, velocius movendo, quam potentia quaecumque finita. Nec potest esse quod in minori quod sit tempus. Relinquitur igitur quod hoc erit in indivisibili temporis. Et sic movere et moveri et motus erunt in instanti. Cuius contrarium demonstratum est in VI physicorum.<br>
Quod autem non possit potentia infinita magnitudinis finitae movere in tempore, sic iterum probatur. Sit potentia infinita quae est a. Accipiatur pars eius quae est ab. Pars igitur ista movebit in tempore maiori. Oportebit tamen esse aliquam proportionem huius temporis ad tempus in quo movet tota potentia: cum utrumque tempus sit finitum. Sint igitur haec duo tempora in decupla proportione se ad invicem habentia: non enim quantum ad hanc rationem differt istam vel aliam proportionem dicere. Si autem addatur ad potentiam praedictam finitam, diminui oportebit de tempore secundum proportionem additionis ad potentiam: cum maior potentia in minori tempore moveat. Si ergo addatur decuplum, illa potentia movebit in tempore quod erit decima pars temporis in quo movebat prima pars accepta infinitae potentiae, scilicet ab. Et tamen haec potentia quae est decuplum eius, est potentia finita: cum habeat proportionem determinatam ad potentiam finitam. Relinquitur igitur quod in aequali tempore movet potentia finita et infinita. Quod est impossibile. Non igitur potentia infinita magnitudinis finitae potest movere in tempore aliquo.
<td style="text-align:justify">[10] The first proposition is proved thus. If the power of some magnitude is infinite, it will be the power either of a finite magnitude or an infinite one. But there is no infinite magnitude, as is proved in <i>Physics</i> III [5] and <i>De caelo</i> I [5]. But a finite magnitude cannot have an infinite power. Therefore, an infinite power cannot reside in any magnitude.<br>
That an infinite power cannot reside in a finite magnitude is proved thus. A greater power produces an equal effect in a shorter time than a lesser power does in a longer time. This is true whether that effect be according to alteration, local motion, or any other motion whatever. But an infinite power is greater than every finite power. Therefore, by moving more swiftly, it should produce its effect in a shorter time than any finite power. Nor can it be in something lesser that still is in time, Therefore, this will be in an indivisible point of time. And thus to move, to be moved, and motion will take place in an instant—of which the contrary has been proved in <i>Physics</i> VI [3].<br>
That an infinite power in a finite magnitude cannot move in time is likewise proved as follows. Let there be an infinite power A. Let us assume a part of that power to be AB. This part will, therefore, move in a greater time. Yet there must be some proportion of this time to the time in which the whole power moves, since both times are finite. Let these two times be related to one another in the proportion of one to ten, since for the present argument this proportion will do as well as any other. Now, if we add to the aforementioned finite power, we must diminish its time according to the proportion of the addition to the power; for a greater power moves in a lesser time. If the decuple be added, that power will move in a time that will be a tenth part of the time in which the first assumed part of the infinite power, namely, AB, moved. And yet this power, which is its decuple, is a finite power, since it has a determinate proportion to the finite power. Therefore, the finite and the infinite power will move in the same time—which is impossible. Therefore, the infinite power of a finite magnitude cannot move in time.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quod autem potentia primi motoris sit infinita, sic probatur. Nulla potentia finita potest movere tempore infinito. Sed potentia primi motoris movet in tempore infinito: quia motus primus est sempiternus. Ergo potentia primi motoris est infinita. Prima sic probatur. Si aliqua potentia finita alicuius corporis movet tempore infinito, pars illius corporis, habens partem potentiae, movebit in tempore minori: quia quanto aliquid est maioris potentiae, tanto in maiori tempore motum continuare poterit; et sic pars praedicta movebit tempore finito, maior autem pars in maiori tempore movere poterit. Et sic semper, secundum quod addetur ad potentiam motoris, addetur ad tempus secundum eandem proportionem. Sed additio aliquoties facta perveniet ad quantitatem totius, vel etiam excedet. Ergo et additio ex parte temporis perveniet ad quantitatem temporis in quo movet totum. Tempus autem in quo totum movebat, dicebatur esse infinitum. Ergo tempus finitum metietur tempus infinitum. Quod est impossibile.
<td style="text-align:justify">[11] That the power of the first mover is infinite is proved thus. No finite power can move in an infinite time. But the power of the first mover moves in an infinite time because the first motion is endless. Therefore, the power of the prime mover is infinite. Ile first proposition is proved thus. If the finite power of some body moves in an infinite time, a part of that body, having a part of the power, will move in a shorter time; for the greater the power of a mover, the more it will be able to keep up its motion in a longer time. Thus, the aforementioned part will move in a finite time, and a greater part will be able to move in a longer time. Thus, as we add to the power of the mover, we shall always add to the time according to the same proportion. But after a certain addition has been made, the addition win reach the quantity of the whole or even exceed it. So, too, an addition of time will reach the quantity of time in which it moves the whole. But the time in which it moved the whole was said to be infinite. Therefore, a finite time will measure an infinite time—which is impossible.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sed contra hunc processum plures sunt obiectiones.
<td style="text-align:justify">[12] But against this reasoning there are several objections.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quarum una est, quia potest poni quod illud corpus quod movet primum motum, non est divisibile: sicut patet de corpore caelesti. Praedicta autem probatio procedit ex divisione eius.
<td style="text-align:justify">[13] One objection is this. It can be assumed that the body that moves the first moved is not divisible, as is the case with a heavenly body. But the preceding proof is based on the division of the first body.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sed ad hoc dicendum quod conditionalis potest esse vera cuius antecedens est impossibile. Et si quid est quod destruat veritatem talis conditionalis, est impossibile: sicut, si aliquis destrueret veritatem huius conditionalis, si homo volat, habet alas, esset impossibile. Et secundum modum hunc intelligendus est processus probationis praedictae. Quia haec conditionalis est vera, si corpus caeleste dividitur, pars eius erit minoris potentiae quam totum. Huius autem conditionalis veritas tollitur si ponatur primum movens esse corpus, propter impossibilia quae sequuntur. Unde patet hoc esse impossibile. Et similiter potest responderi si fiat obiectio de augmento potentiarum finitarum. Quia non est accipere in rerum natura potentias secundum omnem proportionem quam habet tempus ad tempus quodcumque. Est tamen conditionalis vera, qua in praedicta probatione indigetur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[14] The reply to this objection is as follows. There can be a true conditional proposition whose antecedent is impossible. If there is something that destroys the truth of this conditional proposition, it is then impossible. For example, if someone destroys the truth of the conditional proposition, <i>If man flies, he has wings</i>, it would be impossible. It is in this manner that the above proof is to be understood. For the following conditional proposition is true: <i>If a heavenly body is divided, a part of it will have less power than the whole</i>. Now, the truth of this conditional proposition is taken away if it be posited that the first mover is a body; and the reason is the impossibilities that follow from it. Therefore, to posit this is impossible. A similar reply can be given if objection is made concerning the increase of finite powers. We cannot assume powers in nature according to all proportions of time to any given time. Nevertheless, the proposition required in the above proof is a true conditional proposition.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Secunda obiectio est quia, etsi corpus dividitur, aliqua virtus potest esse alicuius corporis quae non dividitur diviso corpore: sicut anima rationalis non dividitur diviso corpore.
<td style="text-align:justify">[15] The second objection is this. Although a body is divided, it is possible to find in a given body a power that is not divided when the body is divided. For example, the rational soul is not divided if the body is divided.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ad hoc est dicendum quod per processum praedictum non probatur quod non sit Deus coniunctus corpori sicut anima rationalis corpori humano: sed quod non est virtus in corpore sicut virtus materialis, quae dividitur ad divisionem corporis. Unde etiam dicitur de intellectu humano quod non est corpus neque virtus in corpore. Quod autem Deus, non sit unitus corpori sicut anima, alterius rationis est.
<td style="text-align:justify">[16] The reply is as follows. The above argument does not prove that God is not joined to a body as the rational soul is joined to the human body; it proves that He is not a power in a body in the manner of a material power, which is divided upon the division of the body. So, too, it is said of the human intellect that it is not a body or a power in a body. However, that God is not joined to a body as the soul is, this is another issue.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Tertia obiectio est quia, si cuiuslibet corporis est potentia finita, ut in praedicto processu ostenditur; per potentiam autem finitam non potest aliquid durare tempore infinito: sequetur quod nullum corpus possit durare tempore infinito. Et sic corpus caeleste de necessitate corrumpetur.
<td style="text-align:justify">[17] The third objection is this. If some given body has a finite power, as the above argument shows, and if through a finite power nothing can endure through an infinite time, it will follow that no body can endure through an infinite time. Thus, a heavenly body will of necessity be corrupted.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Ad hoc autem a quibusdam respondetur quod corpus caeleste secundum potentiam suam potest deficere, sed perpetuitatem durationis acquirit ab alio quod est potentiae infinitae. Et huic solutioni videtur attestari Plato, qui de corporibus caelestibus Deum loquentem inducit in hunc modum: natura vestra estis dissolubilia, voluntate autem mea indissolubilia: quia voluntas mea maior est nexu vestro.
<td style="text-align:justify">[18] To this objection some reply that, as far as its own power is concerned, a heavenly body can fail, but it acquires an eternal duration from another being of an infinite power. Plato [ <i>Timaeus</i> ] seems to speak for this solution when he introduces God addressing the heavenly bodies as follows: “By your natures you are dissoluble, but through my will you are indissoluble; for my will is greater than your bond.”
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Hanc autem solutionem improbat Commentator, in XI Metaph. Nam impossibile est, secundum eum, quod id quod est de se possibile non esse, acquirat perpetuitatem essendi ab alio. Sequeretur enim quod corruptibile mutetur in incorruptibilitatem. Quod est impossibile secundum ipsum. Et ideo ipse in hunc modum respondet: quod in corpore caelesti omnis potentia quae est, finita est: non tamen oportet quod habeat omnem potentiam; est enim in corpore caelesti, secundum Aristotelem, in VIII Metaph., potentia ad ubi, sed non ad esse. Et sic non oportet quod insit ei potentia ad non esse.
<td style="text-align:justify">[19] The Commentator attacks this position in <i>Metaphysics</i> XI. According to him, it is impossible that what can of itself not-be should acquire a perpetuity of being from another. This would mean that something corruptible becomes incorruptible, which according to him is impossible. Hence, Averroes answers the objection as follows. All the potency that is in a heavenly body is finite, but there is no reason why a heavenly body should have every potency. For, according to Aristotle in <i>Metaphysics</i> VIII, there is in a heavenly body potency with respect to place, but not with respect to being. Hence, a heavenly body need not have a potency to non-being.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Sciendum tamen quod haec responsio Commentatoris non est sufficiens. Quia, etsi detur quod in corpore caelesti non sit potentia quasi passiva ad esse, quae est potentia materiae, est tamen in eo potentia quasi activa, quae est virtus essendi: cum expresse Aristoteles dicat, in I caeli et mundi, quod caelum habet virtutem ut sit semper.
<td style="text-align:justify">[20] This reply of the Commentator, however, is not sufficient. Even if we should grant that in a heavenly body there is no sort of a passive potency to being, which is the potency of matter, yet there is in it a potency of an active kind, which is the power of being. For Aristotle expressly says in <i>De caelo</i> I [I, 3] that the heavens have the power to be forever.”
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ideo melius dicendum est quod, cum potentia dicatur ad actum, oportet iudicare de potentia secundum modum actus. Motus autem de sui ratione quantitatem habet et extensionem: unde duratio eius infinita requirit quod potentia movens sit infinita. Esse autem non habet aliquam extensionem quantitatis: praecipue in re cuius esse est invariabile, sicut caelum. Et ideo non oportet quod virtus essendi sit infinita in corpore finito, licet in infinitum duret: quia non differt quod per illam virtutem aliquid duret in uno instanti vel tempore infinito, cum esse illud invariabile non attingatur a tempore nisi per accidens.
<td style="text-align:justify">[21] Hence, it is better to reply as follows. Since potency is said relatively to act, we must judge of potency according to the mode of the act. Now, according to its nature, motion has quantity and extension, and hence its infinite duration requires that the potency moving it be infinite. But being does not have any quantitative extension, especially in the case of a thing, such as the heavens, whose being is without change. Hence, the power of being need not be infinite in a finite body, even though it will endure to infinity. For it is one and the same whether through that power something will endure for an instant or for an infinite time, since its changeless being is not touched by time except by accident.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Quarta obiectio est de hoc quod non videtur esse necessarium quod id quod movet tempore infinito, habeat potentiam infinitam, in illis moventibus quae movendo non alterantur. Quia talis motus nihil consumit de potentia eorum: unde non minore tempore movere possunt postquam aliquo tempore moverunt quam ante; sicut solis virtus finita est, et, quia in agendo eius virtus activa non minuitur, infinito tempore potest agere in haec inferiora, secundum naturam.
<td style="text-align:justify">[22] The fourth objection is this. In those beings that in moving are not themselves altered, it does not seem necessary that what moves in an infinite time should have an infinite power. For such a motion consumes nothing of their power, so that after they have moved for a time they are able to move for no less a time than before. Thus, the power of the sun is finite, and because its active power is not lessened by acting, it is able, according to its nature, to act on the sublunary world during an infinite time.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Et ad hoc dicendum est quod corpus non movet nisi motum, ut probatum est. Et ideo, si contingat corpus aliquod non moveri, sequetur ipsum non movere. In omni autem quod movetur est potentia ad opposita: quia termini motus sunt oppositi. Et ideo, quantum est de se, omne corpus quod movetur possibile est non moveri. Et quod possibile est non moveri, non habet de se ut perpetuo tempore moveatur. Et sic nec quod in perpetuo tempore moveat.
<td style="text-align:justify">[23] To this the reply is, as we have proved, that a body does not move unless it be moved. If, then, it should happen that a certain body is not moved, that body will consequently not move. But in everything that is moved there is a potency towards opposites, since the termini of motion are opposites. Therefore, of itself, every body that is moved can also not-be-moved. But what can not-be-moved is not of itself able to be moved through endless time, and hence neither to move through endless time.
<tr valign="top">
<td style="text-align:justify">Procedit ergo praedicta demonstratio de potentia finita corporis finiti, quae non potest de se movere tempore infinito. Sed corpus quod de se possibile est moveri et non moveri, movere et non movere, acquirere potest perpetuitatem motus ab aliquo. Quod oportet esse incorporeum. Et ideo oportet primum movens esse incorporeum. Et sic nihil prohibet secundum naturam corpus finitum, quod acquirit ab alio perpetuitatem in moveri, habere etiam perpetuitatem in movere: nam et ipsum primum corpus caeleste, secundum naturam, potest perpetuo motu inferiora corpora caelestia revolvere, secundum quod sphaera movet sphaeram.<br>
Nec est inconveniens secundum Commentatorem quod illud quod de se est in potentia moveri et non moveri, acquirat ab alio perpetuitatem motus, sicut ponebatur esse impossibile de perpetuitate essendi. Nam motus est quidam defluxus a movente in mobile: et ideo potest aliquod mobile acquirere ab alio perpetuitatem motus, quam non habet de se. Esse autem est aliquid fixum et quietum in ente: et ideo quod de se est in potentia ad non esse, non potest, ut ipse dicit, secundum viam naturae acquirere ab alio perpetuitatem essendi.