Thomas Aquinas

translated by
Cyril Vollert, S.J.

St. Louis & London: B. Herder Book Co., 1947


  1. Scope of the Present Work



  2. Arrangement of Topics Concerning Faith



  3. The Existence of God
  4. The Immobility of God
  5. The Eternity of God
  6. The Necessity of God’s Existence
  7. The Everlasting Existence of God
  8. Absence of Succession in God
  9. Simplicity of God
  10. Identity of God with His Essence
  11. Identity of Essence and Existence in God
  12. God Not Contained under Any Genus
  13. God Not a Genus
  14. God Not a Species Predicated of Individuals
  15. The Unicity of God
  16. God Not a Body
  17. God Neither the Form of a Body Nor a Force in a Body
  18. The Infinity of God According to Essence
  19. Infinite Power of God.
  20. Absence of Imperfection in God’s Infinity
  21. Eminent Existence in God of All Perfections Found in Creatures
  22. Unity of All Perfections in God
  23. Absence of Accidents in God.
  24. God’s Simplicity Not Contradicted by the Multiplicity of Names Applied to Him
  25. The Names of God Not Synonymous
  26. Impossibility of Defining God
  27. Analogy of Terms Predicated of God and of Other Beings
  28. The Intelligence of God
  29. God’s Intelligence Not Potential or Habitual but Actual
  30. God’s Essence the Only Species in His Understanding
  31. Identity Between God and His Intelligence
  32. The Volition of God
  33. Identity of God’s Will with His Intellect
  34. Identity Between God’s Will and His Willing
  35. The Foregoing Truths Embraced in One Article of Faith
  36. Philosophical Character of this Doctrine
  37. The Word in God
  38. The Word as Conception
  39. Relation of the Word to the Father
  40. Generation in God
  41. The Son Equal to the Father in Existence and Essence
  42. This Teaching in Catholic Faith
  43. The Divine Word Not Distinct from the Father in Time, Species, or Nature
  44. Conclusion from the Foregoing
  45. God in Himself as Beloved in Lover
  46. Love in God as Spirit
  47. Holiness of the Spirit in God
  48. Love in God Not Accidental
  49. Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
  50. The Trinity of Divine Persons and the Unity of the Divine Essence
  51. A Seeming Contradiction in the Trinity
  52. Solution of the Difficulty: Distinction in God According to Relations
  53. Nature of the Relations Whereby the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit Are Distinguished
  54. Relations in God Not Accidental
  55. Personal Distinction in God Through the Relations
  56. Impossibility of More than Three Persons in God
  57. Properties of the Father
  58. Properties of the Son and the Holy Spirit
  59. Why These Properties Are Called Notions
  60. The Number of Relations and the Number of Persons
  61. Dependence of the Hypostases on the Personal Properties
  62. Effect of Intellectual Removal of Personal Properties on the Divine Essence
  63. Personal Acts and Personal Properties
  64. Generation with Respect to the Father and with Respect to the Son
  65. Nature of the Distinction Between Notional Acts and Notional Properties
  66. Identity Between the Relative Properties and the Divine Essence
  67. The Divine Properties Not Externally Affixed
  68. The Effects Produced by God
  69. Creation from Nothing
  70. Creation Possible for God Alone
  71. Matter Not the Cause of Diversity in Things
  72. The Cause of Diversity
  73. Diversity in Things According to Degree and Order
  74. Incorporeal Substances Requisite for the Perfection of the Universe
  75. Intellectual Substances
  76. Freedom of Choice in Intellectual Substances
  77. Order and Degree among Intellectual Beings
  78. Order and Degree in Intellectual Operation
  79. Inferiority of Man’s Intellectual Nature
  80. Different Kinds of Intellect and Ways of Understanding
  81. Reception of Intelligible Forms in the Possible Intellect
  82. Man’s Need of Sense Faculties for Understanding
  83. Necessity of the Agent Intellect
  84. Incorruptibility of the Human Soul
  85. Unity of the Possible Intellect
  86. The Agent Intellect Not One in All Men
  87. The Possible Intellect and the Agent Intellect as Residing in the Essence of the Soul
  88. The Way These Two Faculties Are United in the Same Essence of the Soul
  89. Radication of All the Faculties in the Essence of the Soul
  90. Unicity of the Soul
  91. Arguments Advanced to Show a Multiplicity of Souls in Man
  92. Refutation of the Preceding Objections
  93. Production of the Rational Soul
  94. The Rational Soul Not Derived from God’s Substance
  95. Immediate Creation by God
  96. Voluntariness of God’s Activity<
  97. Immutability of God in His Activity
  98. Question of the Eternity of Motion
  99. Controversy on the Eternity of Matter
  100. Finality of God’s Creative Activity
  101. The Divine Goodness as the Ultimate End the Reason for Diversity in Things
  102. The Divine Goodness as the End of All Action and Movement in Creatures
  103. The Divine Goodness as the End of All Action and Movement in Creatures
  104. The End of the Intellectual Creature
  105. Knowledge of the Divine Essence by the Created Intellect
  106. Fruition of Natural Desire in the Beatific Vision
  107. Beatitude Essentially in the Act of the Intellect
  108. The Error of Placing Happiness in Creatures
  109. The Essential Goodness of God and the Participated Goodness of Creatures
  110. God’s Goodness Incapable of Being Lost
  111. Insecurity of the Creature’s Goodness<
  112. Defectibility of the Creature’s Goodness in Activity
  113. The Twofold Principle of Activity and the Possibility of Defect Therein
  114. The Meaning of Good and Evil in Things
  115. Impossibility of an Evil Nature
  116. Good and Evil as Specific Differences and as Contraries
  117. Impossibility of Essential or Supreme Evil
  118. Foundation of Evil in Good as its Substratum
  119. Two Kinds of Evil
  120. Three Kinds of Action, and the Evil of Sin
  121. The Evil of Punishment
  122. Punishment Variously Opposed to the Will
  123. The Universality of Divine Providence
  124. God’s Plan of Ruling Lower Creatures by Higher Creatures
  125. The Government of Lower Intellectual Substances by Higher Intellectual Substances
  126. Rank and Order of the Angels
  127. Control of Lower Bodies, but Not of the Human Intellect, by Higher Bodies
  128. Indirect Influence of Heavenly Bodies on the Human Intellect Through the Senses
  129. Movement of Man’s Will by God
  130. Government of the World by God
  131. Immediate Disposing of All Things by God
  1. Objections to God’s Particular Providence
  2. Solution of the Foregoing Objections
  3. God’s Detailed Knowledge of Contingent Futures
  4. God’s Existence in All Things by Power, Essence, and Presence
  5. The Working of Miracles Proper to God Alone
  6. Fortuitous Events
  7. Fate and its Nature
  8. Contingency of Some Effects
  9. Divine Providence Compatible with Contingency
  10. Providence and Evil
  11. God’s Goodness and the Permission of Evil
  12. God’s Special Providence over Man by Grace
  13. Remission of Sin by the Gifts of Grace
  14. No Sin Unforgivable
  15. Remission of Sin by God Alone
  16. Some Articles of Faith on the Effects of Divine Government
  17. All Creation for Man
  18. The Ultimate End of Man
  19. Consummation of Man in Eternity
  20. Reunion with the Body Requisite for the Soul’s Perfect Happiness
  21. Separation of the Body from the Soul Both Natural and Contrary to Nature
  22. The Soul’s Resumption of the Same Body
  23. Miraculous Nature of the Resurrection
  24. Resurrection to New Life
  25. Cessation of Nutrition and Reproduction after the Resurrection
  26. Resurrection of All the Bodily Members
  27. Absence of Defects in the Resurrection.
  28. Resurrection Restricted to What Is Necessary for True Human Nature
  29. God’s Action in Supplying What Is Lacking in the Body
  30. Solution of Possible Objections
  31. The Resurrection of the Dead as an Article of Faith
  32. Nature of Risen Man’s Activity
  33. The Vision of God in His Essence
  34. Supreme Perfection and Happiness in the Vision of God
  35. Confirmation in Good in the Beatific Vision
  36. Complete Subjection of the Body to the Soul
  37. Qualities of the Glorified Body
  38. Renovation of Man and of Material Nature
  39. Renovation Restricted to Certain Classes of Creatures
  40. Cessation of Motion in the Heavenly Bodies
  41. Man’s Reward or Misery According to His Works
  42. Reward and Misery Postponed to the next World
  43. Wretchedness Flowing from the Punishment of Loss
  44. Forgiveness of Sin in the next World
  45. Properties of the Bodies of the Damned
  46. Suffering Compatible with Incorruptibility in the Bodies of the Damned
  47. Punishment of the Damned Prior to the Resurrection
  48. Spiritual and Corporal Punishment of the Damned
  49. The Soul and Corporeal Fire
  50. Punishments of Purgatory for Unexpiated Mortal Sins
  51. Punishment in Purgatory for Venial Sins
  52. Eternal Punishment for Momentary Sin Not Incompatible with Divine Justice
  53. The Eternal Lot of Other Spiritual Substances Comparable with That of Souls



  54. Faith in the Humanity of Christ
  55. The Commands Laid on the First Man, and His Perfection in the Pristine State
  56. The State of Original Justice
  57. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
  58. Seduction of Eve by the Devil
  59. The Woman’s Sin
  60. The Man’s Sin
  61. Effect of the Sin as Regards the Rebellion of the Lower Faculties Against Reason
  62. The Punishment as Regards the Necessity of Dying
  63. Evils Affecting Intellect and Will
  64. Transmission of These Evils to Posterity
  65. Privation of Original Justice as Sin in Adam’s Descendants
  66. Not All Sins Transmitted to Posterity
  67. Insufficiency of Adams Merit to Restore Nature
  68. The Reparation of Human Nature by Christ
  69. Restoration of Man by God Through the Incarnation
  70. Other Reasons for the Incarnation
  71. The Error of Photinus Concerning the Incarnation
  72. The Error of Nestorius about the Incarnation
  73. The Error of Arius About the Incarnation
  74. The Error of Apollinaris in Regard to the Incarnation
  75. The Error of Eutyches Regarding Union in Nature
  76. Refutation of the Manichaean Error Concerning the Nature of Christ’s Body
  77. The Reality of Christ’s Earthly Body, Against Valentinus
  78. the Teaching of Faith about the Incarnation
  79. Exclusion of Two Supposita in Christ
  80. One Suppositum and One Person in Christ
  81. Unity and Multiplicity in Christ
  82. Perfection of Grace and Wisdom in Christ
  83. The Fullness of Christ’s Grace
  84. Infinitude of Christ’s Grace
  85. Fullness of Christ’s Wisdom
  86. The Matter of Christ’s Body
  87. Formation of Christ’s Body
  88. The Cause of the Formation of Christ’s Body
  89. Explanation of the Article in the Creed on the Conception and Birth of Christ
  90. Christ’s Birth from a Virgin
  91. The Mother of Christ
  92. The Holy Spirit Not the Father of Christ
  93. Sanctification of Christ’s Mother
  94. Perpetual Virginity of Christ’s Mother
  95. Defects Assumed by Christ
  96. Why Christ Willed to Die
  97. The Death of the Cross
  98. The Death of Christ
  99. Voluntary Character of Christ’s Death
  100. The Passion of Christ as Regards His Body
  101. The Passibility of Christ’s Soul
  102. The Prayer of Christ
  103. The Burial of Christ
  104. Descent of Christ into Hell
  105. The Resurrection of Christ
  106. Qualities of the Risen Christ
  107. Arguments Demonstrating Christ’s Resurrection
  108. The Twofold Life Restored in Man by Christ
  109. The Twofold Reward of Christ’s Humiliation
  110. Christ as Judge
  111. All Judgment Given to the Son
  112. Universality of the Judgment
  113. Procedure and Place of the Judgment
  114. Role of the Saints in the Judgment
  115. The Foregoing Teachings Comprised in Articles of Faith



  1. Necessity of the Virtue of Hope
  2. Prayer and Hope
  3. The Lord’s Prayer
  4. Why We must Pray to God for What We Hope
  5. Why We Are to Say “Our Father,” not “My Father”
  6. God’s Power to Grant Our Petitions
  7. Objects of Hope
  8. First Petition: Desire for Perfect Knowledge of God
  9. Second Petition: Prayer for Participation in God’s Glory
  10. Possibility of Reaching the Kingdom

Liber 1

Caput 1

Aeterni patris verbum sua immensitate universa comprehendens, ut hominem per peccata minoratum in celsitudinem divinae gloriae revocaret, breve fieri voluit nostra brevitate assumpta, non sua deposita maiestate. Et ut a caelestis verbi capessenda doctrina nullus excusabilis redderetur, quod pro studiosis diffuse et dilucide per diversa Scripturae sanctae volumina tradiderat, propter occupatos sub brevi summa humanae salutis doctrinam conclusit. Consistit enim humana salus in veritatis cognitione, ne per diversos errores intellectus obscuretur humanus; in debiti finis intentione, ne indebitos fines sectando, a vera felicitate deficiat; in iustitiae observatione, ne per vitia diversa sordescat. To restore man, who had been laid low by sin, to the heights of divine glory, the Word of the eternal Father, though containing all things within His immensity, willed to become small. This He did, not by putting aside His greatness, but by taking to Himself our littleness. No one can say that he is unable to grasp the teaching of heavenly wisdom; what the Word taught at great length, although clearly, throughout the various volumes of Sacred Scripture for those who have leisure to study, He has reduced to brief compass for the sake of those whose time is taken up with the cares of daily life. Man’s salvation consists in knowing the truth, so that the human mind may not be confused by divers errors; in making for the right goal, so that man may not fall away from true happiness by pursuing wrong ends; and in carrying out the law of justice, so that he may not besmirch himself with a multitude of vices.
Cognitionem autem veritatis humanae saluti necessariam brevibus et paucis fidei articulis comprehendit. Hinc est quod apostolus ad Roman. IX, 28, dicit: verbum abbreviatum faciet Deus super terram. Et hoc quidem est verbum fidei, quod praedicamus. Intentionem humanam brevi oratione rectificavit: in qua dum nos orare docuit, quomodo nostra intentio et spes tendere debet, ostendit. Humanam iustitiam quae in legis observatione consistit, uno praecepto caritatis consummavit. Plenitudo enim legis est dilectio. Unde apostolus, I Cor. XIII, 13, in fide, spe et caritate, quasi in quibusdam salutis nostrae compendiosis capitulis, totam praesentis vitae perfectionem consistere docuit, dicens: nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas. Unde haec tria sunt, ut beatus Augustinus dicit, quibus colitur Deus. Knowledge of the truth necessary for man’s salvation is comprised within a few brief articles of faith. The Apostle says in Romans 9:2 8: “A short word shall the Lord make upon the earth”; and later he adds: “This is the word of faith, which we preach” (Rom. 15:8). In a short prayer Christ clearly marked out man’s right course; and in teaching us to say this prayer, He showed us the goal of our striving and our hope. In a single precept of charity He summed up that human justice which consists in observing the law: “Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:15). Hence the Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 13:13, taught that the whole perfection of this present life consists in faith, hope, and charity, as in certain brief headings outlining our salvation: “Now there remain faith, hope, and charity.” These are the three virtues, as St. Augustine says, by which God is worshiped [ De doctrina christiana, 1, 35]
Ut igitur tibi, fili carissime Reginalde, compendiosam doctrinam de Christiana religione tradam, quam semper prae oculis possis habere, circa haec tria in praesenti opere tota nostra versatur intentio. Primum de fide, secundo de spe, tertio vero de caritate agemus. Hoc enim et apostolicus ordo habet, et ratio recta requirit. Non enim amor rectus esse potest, nisi debitus finis spei statuatur; nec hoc esse potest, si veritatis agnitio desit. Primo igitur necessaria est fides, per quam veritatem cognoscas; secundo spes, per quam in debito fine tua intentio collocetur; tertio necessaria est caritas, per quam tuus affectus totaliter ordinetur. Wherefore, my dearest son Reginald, receive from my hands this compendious treatise on Christian teaching to keep continually before your eyes. My whole endeavor in the present work is taken up with these three virtues. I shall treat first of faith, then of hope, and lastly of charity. This is the Apostle’s arrangement which, for that matter, right reason imposes. Love cannot be rightly ordered unless the proper goal of our hope is established; nor can there be any hope if knowledge of the truth is lacking. Therefore the first thing necessary is faith, by which you may come to a knowledge of the truth. Secondly, hope is necessary, that your intention may be fixed on the right end. Thirdly, love is necessary, that your affections may be perfectly put in order.



Caput 2

Ordo dicendorum circa fidem

Fides autem praelibatio quaedam est illius cognitionis quae nos in futuro beatos facit. Unde et apostolus dicit quod est substantia sperandarum rerum: quasi iam in nobis sperandas res, idest futuram beatitudinem, per modum cuiusdam inchoationis subsistere faciens. Illam autem beatificantem cognitionem circa duo cognita dominus consistere docuit, scilicet circa divinitatem Trinitatis, et humanitatem Christi; unde ad patrem loquens, dicit: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Circa haec ergo duo tota fidei cognitio versatur: scilicet circa divinitatem Trinitatis, et humanitatem Christi. Nec mirum: quia Christi humanitas via est qua ad divinitatem pervenitur. Oportet igitur et in via viam cognoscere, per quam possit perveniri ad finem; et in patria Dei gratiarum actio sufficiens non esset, nisi viae, per quam salvati sunt, cognitionem haberent. Hinc est quod dominus discipulis dixit: et quo ego vado scitis, et viam scitis. Faith is a certain foretaste of that knowledge which is to make us happy in the life to come. The Apostle says, in Hebrews 11:1, that faith is “the substance of things to be hoped for,” as though implying that faith is already, in some preliminary way, inaugurating in us the things that are to be hoped for, that is, future beatitude. Our that this beatific knowledge has to do with Lord has taught us two truths, namely, the divinity of the Blessed Trinity and the humanity of Christ. That is why, addressing the Father, He says: “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You sent” (John 17:3). All the knowledge imparted by faith turns about these two points, the divinity of the Trinity and the humanity of Christ. This should cause us no surprise: the humanity of Christ is the way by which we come to the divinity. Therefore, while we are still wayfarers, we ought to know the road leading to our goal. In the heavenly fatherland adequate thanks would not be rendered to God if men had no knowledge of the way by which they are saved. This is the meaning of our Lord’s words to His disciples: “And where I go you know, and the way you know” (John 14:4).
Circa divinitatem vero tria cognosci oportet. Primo quidem essentiae unitatem, secundo personarum Trinitatem, tertio divinitatis effectus. Three truths must be known about the divinity: first the unity of the divine essence, secondly the Trinity of persons, and thirdly the effects wrought by the divinity.

Caput 3

Quod Deus sit

Circa essentiae quidem divinae unitatem primo quidem credendum est Deum esse; quod ratione conspicuum est. Videmus enim omnia quae moventur, ab aliis moveri: inferiora quidem per superiora, sicut elementa per corpora caelestia; et in elementis quod fortius est, movet id quod debilius est; et in corporibus etiam caelestibus inferiora a superioribus aguntur. Hoc autem in infinitum procedere impossibile est. Cum enim omne quod movetur ab aliquo, sit quasi instrumentum quoddam primi moventis; si primum movens non sit, quaecumque movent, instrumenta erunt. Oportet autem, si in infinitum procedatur in moventibus et motis, primum movens non esse. Igitur omnia infinita moventia et mota erunt instrumenta. Ridiculum est autem etiam apud indoctos, ponere instrumenta moveri non ab aliquo principali agente: simile enim est hoc ac si aliquis circa constitutionem arcae vel lecti ponat serram vel securim absque carpentario operante. Oportet igitur primum movens esse, quod sit omnibus supremum; et hoc dicimus Deum. Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God.

Caput 4

Quod Deus est immobilis

Ex hoc apparet quod necesse est Deum moventem omnia, immobilem esse. Cum enim sit primum movens, si moveretur, necesse esset se ipsum vel a se ipso, vel ab alio moveri. Ab alio quidem moveri non potest: oporteret enim esse aliquid movens prius eo; quod est contra rationem primi moventis. A se ipso autem si movetur, hoc potest esse dupliciter. Vel quod secundum idem sit movens et motum; aut ita quod secundum aliquid sui sit movens, et secundum aliquid motum. Horum quidem primum esse non potest. Cum enim omne quod movetur, inquantum huiusmodi, sit in potentia; quod autem movet, sit in actu; si secundum idem esset movens et motum, oporteret quod secundum idem esset in potentia et in actu; quod est impossibile. Secundum etiam esse non potest. Si enim esset aliquod movens, et alterum motum, non esset ipsum secundum se primum movens, sed ratione suae partis quae movet. Quod autem est per se, prius est eo quod non est per se. Non potest igitur primum movens esse, si ratione suae partis hoc ei conveniat. Oportet igitur primum movens omnino immobile esse. We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, He would have to be moved either by Himself or by another. He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover. If He is moved by Himself, this can be conceived in two ways: either that He is mover and moved according to the same respect, or that He is a mover according to one aspect of Him and is moved according to another aspect. The first of these alternatives is ruled out. For everything that is moved is, to that extent, in potency, and whatever moves is in act. Therefore if God is both mover and moved according to the same respect, He has to be in potency and in act according to the same respect, which is impossible. The second alternative is likewise out of the question. If one part were moving and another were moved, there would be no first mover Himself as such, but only by reason of that part of Him which moves. But what is per se is prior to that which is not per se. Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being. Accordingly the first mover must be altogether immovable.
Ex iis etiam quae moventur et movent, hoc ipsum considerari potest. Omnis enim motus videtur ab aliquo immobili procedere, quod scilicet non movetur secundum illam speciem motus; sicut videmus quod alterationes et generationes et corruptiones quae sunt in istis inferioribus, reducuntur sicut in primum movens in corpus caeleste, quod secundum hanc speciem motus non movetur, cum sit ingenerabile et incorruptibile et inalterabile. Illud ergo quod est primum principium omnis motus, oportet esse immobile omnino. Among things that are moved and that also move, the following may also be considered. All motion is observed to proceed from something immobile, that is, from something that is not moved according to the particular species of motion in question, Thus we see that alterations and generations and corruptions occurring in lower bodies are reduced, as to their first mover, to a heavenly body that is not moved according to this species of motion, since it is incapable of being generated, and is incorruptible and unalterable. Therefore the first principle of all motion must be absolutely immobile.

Caput 5

Quod Deus est aeternus

Ex hoc autem apparet ulterius Deum esse aeternum. Omne enim quod incipit esse vel desinit, per motum vel per mutationem hoc patitur. Ostensum est autem quod Deus est omnino immobilis. Est ergo aeternus. The further conclusion is evident that God is eternal. For everything that begins to be or that ceases to be, is affected in this way through motion or change. But we have just shown that God is absolutely immobile. Consequently He is eternal.

Caput 6

Quod Deum esse per se est necessarium

Per hoc autem ostenditur, quod Deum esse sit necessarium. Omne enim quod possibile est esse et non esse, est mutabile. Sed Deus est omnino immutabilis, ut ostensum est. Ergo Deum non est possibile esse et non esse. Omne autem quod est, et non est possibile ipsum non esse, necesse est ipsum esse: quia necesse esse, et non possibile non esse, idem significant. Ergo Deum esse est necesse. The same line of reasoning clearly shows that God necessarily exists. For everything that has the possibility of being and of not being, is mutable. But God is absolutely immutable, as has been demonstrated. Therefore it is impossible for God to be and not to be. But anything that exists in such a way that it is impossible for it not to exist, is necessarily Being itself, ipsum esse. Necessary existence, and impossibility of nonexistence, mean one and the same thing. Therefore God must necessarily exist.
Item. Omne quod est possibile esse et non esse, indiget aliquo alio quod faciat ipsum esse: quia quantum est in se, se habet ad utrumque. Quod autem facit aliquid esse, est prius eo. Ergo omni quod est possibile esse et non esse, est aliquid prius. Deo autem non est aliquid prius. Ergo non est possibile ipsum esse et non esse, sed necesse est eum esse. Et quia aliqua necessaria sunt quae suae necessitatis causam habent, quam oportet eis esse priorem; Deus, qui est omnium primum, non habet causam suae necessitatis: unde Deum esse per se ipsum est necesse. Moreover, everything that has a possibility of being and of not being, needs something else to make it be, for, as far as it itself is concerned, it is indifferent with regard to either alternative. But that which causes another thing to be, is prior to that thing. Hence something exists prior to that which has the possibility of being and of not being. However, nothing is prior to God. Therefore it is impossible for Him to be and not to be; of necessity, He must be. And since there are some necessary things that have a cause of their necessity, a cause that must be prior to them, God, who is the first of all, has no cause of His own necessity. Therefore it is necessary for God to be through Himself.

Caput 7

Quod Deus semper est

Ex his autem manifestum est quod Deus est semper. Omne enim quod necesse est esse, semper est: quia quod non possibile est non esse, impossibile est non esse, et ita nunquam non est. Sed necesse est Deum esse, ut ostensum est. Ergo Deus semper est. From all this it is evident that God exists always. For whatever necessarily exists, always exists; it is impossible for a thing that has no possibility of not being, not to be. Hence such a thing is never without existence. But it is necessary for God to be, as has been shown.” Therefore God exists always.
Adhuc. Nihil incipit esse aut desinit nisi per motum vel mutationem. Deus autem omnino est immutabilis, ut probatum est. Impossibile est igitur quod esse inceperit, vel quod esse desinat. Again, nothing begins to be or ceases to be except through motion or change. But God is absolutely immutable, as has been proved. Therefore it is impossible for Him ever to have begun to be or to cease to be.
Item. Omne quod non semper fuit, si esse incipiat, indiget aliquo quod sit ei causa essendi: nihil enim se ipsum educit de potentia in actum, vel de non esse in esse. Deo autem nulla potest esse causa essendi, cum sit primum ens; causa enim prior est causato. Necesse est igitur Deum semper fuisse. Likewise, if anything that has not always existed begins to be, it needs some cause for its existence. Nothing brings itself forth from potency to act or from non-being to being. But God can have no cause of His being, since He is the first Being; a cause is prior to what is caused. Of necessity, therefore, God must always have existed.
Amplius. Quod convenit alicui non ex aliqua causa extrinseca, convenit ei per se ipsum. Esse autem Deo non convenit ex aliqua causa extrinseca, quia illa causa esset eo prior. Deus igitur habet esse per se ipsum. Sed ea quae per se sunt, semper sunt, et ex necessitate. Igitur Deus semper est. Furthermore, whatever pertains to anyone in some other way than by reason of an external cause, pertains to him of himself. But existence does not come to God from any external cause, since such a cause would have to be prior to Him. Therefore God has existence of Himself, per se ipsum. But what exists per se exists always and necessarily. Therefore God exists always.

Caput 8

Quod in Deo non est aliqua successio

Per hoc autem manifestum est quod in Deo non est aliqua successio; sed eius esse totum est simul. Successio enim non invenitur nisi in illis quae sunt aliqualiter motui subiecta; prius enim et posterius in motu causant temporis successionem. Deus autem nullo modo est motui subiectus, ut ostensum est. Non igitur est in Deo aliqua successio, sed eius esse est totum simul. Clearly, therefore, no succession occurs in God. His entire existence is simultaneous. Succession is not found except in things that are in some way subject to motion; for prior and posterior in motion cause the succession of time. God, however, is in no sense subject to motion, as has been shown. Accordingly there is no succession in God. His existence is simultaneously whole.
Item. Si alicuius esse non est totum simul, oportet quod ei aliquid deperire possit, et aliquid advenire. Deperit enim illud quod transit, et advenire ei potest illud quod in futurum expectatur. Deo autem nihil deperit nec accrescit, quia immobilis est. Igitur esse eius est totum simul. Again, if a being’s existence is not simultaneously whole, something can be lost to it and something can accrue to it. That which passes is lost, and what is expected in the future can be acquired. But nothing is lost to God or accrues to Him, since He is immutable. Therefore His existence is simultaneously whole.
Ex his autem duobus apparet quod proprie est aeternus. Illud enim proprie est aeternum quod semper est, et eius esse est totum simul; secundum quod Boetius dicit, quod aeternitas est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio. From these two observations the proper meaning of eternity emerges. That is properly eternal which always exists, in such a way that its existence is simultaneously whole. This agrees with the definition proposed by Boethius: “Eternity is the simultaneously whole and perfect possession of endless life.”

Caput 9

Quod Deus est simplex

Inde etiam apparet quod oportet primum movens simplex esse. Nam in omni compositione oportet esse duo, quae ad invicem se habeant sicut potentia ad actum. In primo autem movente, si est omnino immobile, impossibile est esse potentiam cum actu; nam unumquodque ex hoc quod est in potentia, mobile est. Impossibile igitur est primum movens compositum esse. A similar course of reasoning clearly shows that the first mover must be simple. For any composite being must contain two factors that are related to each other as potency to act. But in the first mover, which is altogether immobile, all combination of potency and act is impossible, because whatever is in potency is, by that very fact, movable. Accordingly the first mover cannot be composite.
Adhuc. Omni composito necesse est esse aliquid prius: nam componentia naturaliter sunt composito priora. Illud igitur quod omnium entium est primum, impossibile est esse compositum. Videmus etiam in ordine eorum quae sunt composita, simpliciora priora esse: nam elementa sunt naturaliter priora corporibus mixtis. Item etiam inter ipsa elementa primum est ignis, quod est simplicissimum. Omnibus autem elementis prius est corpus caeleste, quod in maiori simplicitate constitutum est, cum ab omni contrarietate sit purum. Relinquitur igitur quod primum entium oportet omnino simplex esse. Moreover, something has to exist prior to any composite, since composing elements are by their very nature antecedent to a composite. Hence the first of all beings cannot be composite. Even within the order of composite beings we observe that the simpler things have priority. Thus elements are naturally prior to mixed bodies. Likewise, among the elements themselves, the first is fire, which is the simplest of all. Prior to all elements is the heavenly body, which has a simpler construction, since it is free from all contrariety. Hence the truth remains that the first of beings must be absolutely simple.

Caput 10

Quod Deus est sua essentia

Sequitur autem ulterius quod Deus sit sua essentia. Essentia enim uniuscuiusque rei est illud quod significat definitio eius. Hoc autem est idem cum re cuius est definitio, nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet definito accidit aliquid quod est praeter definitionem ipsius; sicut homini accidit albedo praeter id quod est animal rationale et mortale: unde animal rationale et mortale est idem quod homo, sed non idem homini albo inquantum est album. In quocumque igitur non est invenire duo, quorum unum est per se et aliud per accidens, oportet quod essentia eius sit omnino idem cum eo. In Deo autem, cum sit simplex, ut ostensum est, non est invenire duo quorum unum sit per se, et aliud per accidens. Oportet igitur quod essentia eius sit omnino idem quod ipse. The further conclusion follows that God is His own essence. The essence of anything is that which its definition signifies. This is identical with the thing of which it is the definition, unless per accidens something is added to the thing defined over and above its definition. Thus whiteness is added to man, over and above the fact that he is a rational and mortal animal. Hence rational and mortal animal is the same as man; but whiteness, so far as it is white, is not the same as man. In any being, therefore, in which there are not found two factors whereof one is per se and the other per accidens, its essence must be altogether identical with it. In God, however, since He is simple, as has been shown, there are not found two factors whereof one is per se and the other per accidens. Therefore His essence must be absolutely the same as He Himself.
Item. In quocumque essentia non est omnino idem cum re cuius est essentia, est invenire aliquid per modum potentiae, et aliquid per modum actus, nam essentia formaliter se habet ad rem cuius est essentia, sicut humanitas ad hominem: in Deo autem non est invenire potentiam et actum, sed est actus purus; est igitur ipse sua essentia. Moreover, whenever an essence is not absolutely identical with the thing of which it is the essence, something is discerned in that thing that has the function of potency, and something else that has the function of act. For an essence is formally related to the thing of which it is the essence as humanity is related to man. In God. however, no potency and act can be discerned: He is pure act. Accordingly He is His essence.

Caput 11

Quod Dei essentia non est aliud quam suum esse

Ulterius autem necesse est quod Dei essentia non sit aliud quam esse ipsius. In quocumque enim aliud est essentia, et aliud esse eius, oportet quod aliud sit quod sit, et aliud quo aliquid sit: nam per esse suum de quolibet dicitur quod est, per essentiam vero suam de quolibet dicitur quid sit: unde et diffinitio significans essentiam, demonstrat quid est res. In Deo autem non est aliud quod est, et aliud quo aliquid est; cum non sit in eo compositio, ut ostensum est. Non est igitur ibi aliud eius essentia, quam suum esse. God’s essence cannot be other than His existence. In any being whose essence is distinct from its existence, what it is must be distinct from that whereby it is. For in virtue of a thing’s existence we say that it is, and in virtue of its essence we say what it is. This is why a definition that signifies an essence manifests what a thing is. In God, however, there is no distinction between what He is and that whereby He is, since there is no composition in Him, as has been shown. Therefore God’s essence is nothing else than His existence.
Item. Ostensum est quod Deus est actus purus absque alicuius potentialitatis permixtione. Oportet igitur quod eius essentia sit ultimus actus: nam omnis actus qui est circa ultimum, est in potentia ad ultimum actum. Ultimus autem actus est ipsum esse. Cum enim omnis motus sit exitus de potentia in actum, oportet illud esse ultimum actum in quod tendit omnis motus: et cum motus naturalis in hoc tendat quod est naturaliter desideratum, oportet hoc esse ultimum actum quod omnia desiderant. Hoc autem est esse. Oportet igitur quod essentia divina, quae est actus purus et ultimus, sit ipsum esse. Likewise, we have proved that God is pure act without any admixture of potentiality. Accordingly His essence must be the ultimate act in Him; for any act that has a bearing on the ultimate act, is in potency to that ultimate act. But the ultimate act is existence itself, ipsum esse. For, since all motion is an issuing forth from potency to act, the ultimate act must be that toward which all motion tends; and since natural motion tends to what is naturally desired, the ultimate act must be that which all desire. This is existence. Consequently the divine essence, which is pure and ultimate act, must be existence itself, ipsum esse.

Caput 12

Quod Deus non est in aliquo genere sicut species

Hinc autem apparet quod Deus non sit in aliquo genere sicut species. Nam differentia addita generi constituit speciem, ergo cuiuslibet speciei essentia habet aliquid additum supra genus. Sed ipsum esse, quod est essentia Dei, nihil in se continet, quod sit alteri additum. Deus igitur non est species alicuius generis. We infer from the above that God is not contained as a species within any genus. Species is constituted by specific difference added to genus. Hence the essence of any species possesses something over and above its genus. But existence itself, ipsum esse, which is God’s essence, does not comprise within itself any factor that is added to some other factor. Accordingly God is not a species of any genus.
Item. Cum genus contineat differentias potestate, in omni constituto ex genere et differentiis est actus permixtus potentiae. Ostensum est autem Deum esse purum actum absque permixtione potentiae. Non est igitur eius essentia constituta ex genere et differentiis; et ita non est in genere. Furthermore, since genus potentially contains specific differences, in every being composed of genus and differences, act is commingled with potency. But we have shown that God is pure act without any commingling of potency. (Cf. chap. 9.) Therefore His essence is not composed of genus and differences; and so He is not in any genus.

Caput 13

Quod impossibile est Deum esse genus alicuius

Ulterius autem ostendendum est, quod neque possibile est Deum esse genus. Ex genere enim habetur quid est res, non autem rem esse: nam per differentias specificas constituitur res in proprio esse; sed hoc quod Deus est, est ipsum esse. Impossibile est ergo quod sit genus. We go on to show that God cannot be a genus. What a thing is, but not that it is, comes from its genus; the thing is established in its proper existence by specific differences. But that which God is, is very existence itself. Therefore He cannot be a genus.
Item. Omne genus differentiis aliquibus dividitur. Ipsius autem esse non est accipere aliquas differentias: differentiae enim non participant genus nisi per accidens, inquantum species constitutae per differentias genus participant. Non potest autem esse aliqua differentia quae non participet esse, quia non ens nullius est differentia. Impossibile est igitur quod Deus sit genus de multis speciebus praedicatum. Moreover, every genus is divided by some differences. But no differences can be apprehended in very existence itself. For differences do not share in genus except indirectly, so far as the species that are constituted by differences share in a genus. But there cannot be any difference that does not share in existence, since non-being is not the specific difference of anything. Accordingly God cannot be a genus predicated of a number of species.

Caput 14

Quod Deus non est aliqua species praedicata de multis individuis

Neque est possibile quod sit sicut una species de multis individuis praedicata. Individua enim diversa quae conveniunt in una essentia speciei, distinguuntur per aliqua quae sunt praeter essentiam speciei; sicut homines conveniunt in humanitate, sed distinguuntur ab invicem per id quod est praeter rationem humanitatis. Hoc autem in Deo non potest accidere: nam ipse Deus est sua essentia, ut ostensum est. Impossibile est igitur quod Deus sit species quae de pluribus individuis praedicetur. God cannot be, as it were, a single species predicated of many individuals. Various individuals that come together in one essence of a species are distinguished by certain notes that lie outside the essence of the species. For example, men are alike in their common humanity but differ from one another in virtue of something that is outside the concept of humanity. This cannot occur in God, for God Himself is His essence, as has been shown. Therefore God cannot be a species that is predicated of several individuals.
Item. Plura individua sub una specie contenta differunt secundum esse, et tamen conveniunt in una essentia. Ubicumque igitur sunt plura individua sub specie una, oportet quod aliud sit esse, et aliud essentia speciei. In Deo autem idem est esse et essentia, ut ostensum est. Impossibile est igitur quod Deus sit quaedam species de pluribus praedicata. Again, a number of individuals comprised under one species differ in their existence, and yet are alike in their one essence. Accordingly, whenever a number of individuals are under one species, their existence must be different from the essence of the species. But in God existence and essence are identical, as has been demonstrated. Therefore God cannot be a sort of species predicated of many individuals.

Caput 15

Quod necesse est dicere Deum esse unum

Hinc etiam apparet quod necesse est unum Deum solum esse. Nam si sint multi dii, aut aequivoce aut univoce dicuntur. Si aequivoce, hoc non est ad propositum: nihil enim prohibet quod nos appellamus lapidem, alios appellare Deum. Si autem univoce, oportet quod conveniant vel in genere vel in specie. Ostensum est autem, quod Deus non potest esse genus neque species plura sub se continens. Impossibile est igitur esse plures deos. The conclusion is evident that there can be but one God. If there were many gods, they would be called by this name either equivocally or univocally. If they are called gods equivocally, further discussion is fruitless; there is nothing to prevent other peoples from applying the name “god” to what we call a stone. If they are called gods univocally, they must agree either in genus or in species. But we have just shown that God can be neither a genus nor a species comprising many individuals under Himself. Accordingly a multiplicity of gods is impossible.
Item. Illud quo essentia communis individuatur, impossibile est pluribus convenire: unde licet possint esse plures homines, impossibile tamen est hunc hominem esse nisi unum tantum. Si igitur essentia per se ipsam individuatur, et non per aliquid aliud, impossibile est quod pluribus conveniat. Sed essentia divina per se ipsam individuatur, quia in Deo non est aliud essentia et quod est, cum ostensum sit quod Deus sit sua essentia: impossibile est ergo quod sit Deus nisi unus tantum. Again, that whereby a common essence is individuated cannot pertain to many. Although there can be many men, it is impossible for this particular man to be more than one only. So if an essence is individuated by itself, and not by something else, it cannot pertain to many. But the divine essence is individuated by itself, since God’s essence is not distinct from His existence; for we have shown that God is His essence. Hence God cannot be more than one only.
Item. Duplex est modus quo aliqua forma potest multiplicari: unus per differentias, sicut forma generalis, ut color in diversas species coloris; alius per subiectum, sicut albedo. Omnis ergo forma quae non potest multiplicari per differentias, si non sit forma in subiecto existens, impossibile est quod multiplicetur, sicut albedo, si subsisteret sine subiecto, non esset nisi una tantum. Essentia autem divina est ipsum esse, cuius non est accipere differentias, ut ostensum est. Cum igitur ipsum esse divinum sit quasi forma per se subsistens, eo quod Deus est suum esse, impossibile est quod essentia divina sit nisi una tantum. Impossibile est igitur esse plures deos. Another consideration is the following. A form can be multiplied in two ways: first, by specific differences, as in the case of a generic form; in this way color is differentiated into the various species of color; secondly, by the subjects in which it inheres, for example, whiteness. Therefore any form incapable of being multiplied by specific differences cannot be multiplied at all, if it is a form that does not exist in a subject. Thus whiteness, if it were to subsist without a subject, would not be more than one. But the divine essence is very existence, ipsum esse, which does not admit of specific differences, as we have shown. Since, therefore, the divine existence is a quasi-form subsisting by itself, seeing that God is His existence, the divine essence cannot be more than one. Accordingly a plurality of gods is impossible.

Caput 16

Quod impossibile est Deum esse corpus

Patet autem ulterius quod impossibile est ipsum Deum esse corpus. Nam in omni corpore compositio aliqua invenitur: omne enim corpus est partes habens. Id igitur quod est omnino simplex, corpus esse non potest. It is evident, further, that God Himself cannot be a body. For in every body some composition is found, since a body has parts. Hence that which is absolutely simple cannot be a body.
Item. Nullum corpus invenitur movere nisi per hoc quod ipsum movetur, ut per omnia inducenti apparet. Si ergo primum movens est omnino immobile, impossibile est ipsum esse corpus. Moreover, we find that a body does not move anything else unless it is first moved itself, as will appear clearly to anyone who examines the matter fully. So if the first mover is absolutely immovable, that being cannot be a body.

Caput 17

Quod impossibile est esse formam corporis, aut virtutem in corpore

Neque etiam est possibile ipsum esse formam corporis, aut aliquam virtutem in corpore. Cum enim omne corpus mobile inveniatur, oportet corpore moto, ea quae sunt in corpore moveri saltem per accidens. Primum autem movens non potest nec per se nec per accidens moveri, cum oporteat ipsum omnino esse immobile, ut ostensum est. Impossibile est igitur quod sit forma, vel virtus in corpore. God cannot be the form of a body or any kind of force existing in a body. For, since all bodies are found to be mobile, whatever is present in a body must be moved, at least per accidens or concomitantly, if the body itself is moved. The first mover, however, cannot be moved either per se or per accidens, for it must be absolutely immobile, as has been shown. Therefore God cannot be a body or a force in a body.
Item. Oportet omne movens, ad hoc quod moveat, dominium super rem quae movetur, habere: videmus enim quod quanto magis virtus movens excedit virtutem mobilis, tanto velocior est motus. Illud igitur quod est omnium moventium primum, oportet maxime dominari super res motas. Hoc autem esse non posset, si esset mobili aliquo modo alligatum; quod esse oporteret, si esset forma eius, vel virtus. Oportet igitur primum movens neque corpus esse, neque virtutem in corpore, neque formam in corpore. Hinc est quod Anaxagoras posuit intellectum immixtum, ad hoc quod imperet, et omnia moveat. Again, in order to move an object, every mover must have dominion over the thing that is moved. For we observe that motion is more rapid in proportion as the motive force exceeds the resisting force of the mobile object. Therefore that which is the very first among all movers, must predominate supremely over all the things moved. But this would be impossible if the mover were in any way attached to the mobile object, as it would have to be if it were the form or motive power of the latter. Consequently the first mover cannot be a body or a force in a body or a form in a body. This is why Anaxagoras postulated an intelligence liberated from matter, that it might rule and move all things.”

Caput 18

Quod Deus est infinitus secundum essentiam

Hinc etiam considerari potest ipsum esse infinitum, non privative quidem secundum quod infinitum est passio quantitatis, prout scilicet infinitum dicitur quod est natum habere finem ratione sui generis, sed non habet; sed negative, prout infinitum dicitur quod nullo modo finitur. Nullus enim actus invenitur finiri nisi per potentiam, quae est vis receptiva: invenimus enim formas limitari secundum potentiam materiae. Si igitur primum movens est actus absque potentiae permixtione, quia non est forma alicuius corporis, nec virtus in corpore, necessarium est ipsum infinitum esse. This leads to the question of God’s infinity. God is not infinite by way of privation, according to which infinity is a passion of quantity; in this sense whatever lacks limits, but is nevertheless capable of having limits by reason of its genus, is said to be infinite. Rather, God is infinite negatively, in the sense that a being that is unlimited in every way is infinite. No act is found to be limited except by a potency that is receptive of the act; thus we observe that forms are limited in accordance with the potency of matter. Hence, if the first mover is an act without any admixture of potency, as not being the form of any body or a force inhering in a body, it must be infinite.
Hoc etiam ipse ordo qui in rebus invenitur, demonstrat: nam quanto aliqua in entibus sunt sublimiora, tanto suo modo maiora inveniuntur. Inter elementa enim quae sunt superiora, maiora quantitative inveniuntur, sicut etiam in simplicitate; quod eorum generatio demonstrat, cum multiplicata proportione ignis ex aere generetur, aer ex aqua, aqua autem ex terra. Corpus autem caeleste manifeste apparet totam quantitatem elementorum excedere. Oportet igitur id quod inter omnia entia primum est, et eo non potest esse aliud prius, infinitae quantitatis suo modo existere. The very order perceived in things is a proof of this. The higher the position occupied in the scale of being, the greater are things found to be in their own way. Among the elements, nobler things are found to be greater in quantity, as also in simplicity. Their generation demonstrates this: as the proportion of the respective elements is increased, fire is generated from air, air from water, and water from earth. And a heavenly body clearly exceeds the total quantity of the elements. Necessarily, therefore, that which is the first among beings and which has nothing above it, must in its own fashion be of infinite quantity.
Nec mirum, si id quod est simplex, et corporea quantitate caret, infinitum ponatur, et sua immensitate omnem corporis quantitatem excedere, cum intellectus noster, qui est incorporeus et simplex, omnium corporum quantitatem vi suae cognitionis excedat, et omnia circumplectatur. Multo igitur magis id quod est omnium primum, sua immensitate universa excedit, omnia complectens. Nor is there anything to wonder at if what is simple and lacks corporeal quantity is said to be infinite and to exceed in its immensity all quantity of body. For our own intellect, which is incorporeal and simple, exceeds the quantity of all bodies in virtue of its knowledge, and embraces all things. Much more, then, that which is the very first of all exceeds the universe of beings in its immensity, and embraces them all.

Caput 19

Quod Deus est infinitae virtutis

Hinc etiam apparet Deum infinitae virtutis esse. Virtus enim consequitur essentiam rei: nam unumquodque secundum modum quo est, agere potest. Si igitur Deus secundum essentiam infinitus est, oportet quod eius virtus sit infinita. The further inference is drawn that God is infinite in power. For power is consequent upon a thing’s essence; anything whatever possesses a power of activity consonant with its manner of being. Therefore, if God is infinite in His essence, His power must be infinite.
Hoc etiam apparet, si quis rerum ordinem diligenter inspiciat. Nam unumquodque quod est in potentia, secundum hoc habet virtutem receptivam et passivam; secundum vero quod actu est, habet virtutem activam. Quod igitur est in potentia tantum, scilicet materia prima, habet virtutem infinitam ad recipiendum, nihil de virtute activa participans; et supra ipsam quanto aliquid formalius est, tanto id abundat in virtute agendi: propter quod ignis inter omnia elementa est maxime activus. Deus igitur, qui est actus purus, nihil potentialitatis permixtum habens, in infinitum abundat in virtute activa super alia. This is clear to anyone who will inspect the order of things. Whatever is in potency, is thereby endowed with receptive and passive power; and so far as a thing is in act, it possesses active power. Hence what is exclusively in potency, namely, prime matter, has an unlimited power of receptivity, but has no part in active power. And in the scale of being above matter, the more a thing has of form, the more it abounds in the power of acting. This is why fire is the most active of all the elements. Therefore God, who is pure act without any admixture of potency, infinitely abounds in active power above all things.

Caput 20

Quod infinitum in Deo non importat imperfectionem

Quamvis autem infinitum quod in quantitatibus invenitur, imperfectum sit, tamen quod Deus infinitus dicitur, summam perfectionem in ipso demonstrat. Infinitum enim quod est in quantitatibus ad materiam pertinet, prout fine privatur. Imperfectio autem accidit rei secundum quod materia sub privatione invenitur; perfectio autem omnis ex forma est. Cum igitur Deus ex hoc infinitus sit quod tantum forma vel actus est, nullam materiae vel potentialitatis permixtionem habens, sua infinitas ad summam perfectionem ipsius pertinet. Although the infinity discerned in quantities is imperfect, the infinity predicated of God indicates supreme perfection in Him. The infinity that is in quantities pertains to matter, in the sense that matter lacks limits. Imperfection occurs in a thing for the reason that matter is found in a state of privation. On the other hand, perfection comes exclusively from form. Consequently, since God is infinite because He is exclusively form or act and has no admixture of matter or potentiality, His infinity pertains to His supreme perfection.
Hoc etiam ex rebus aliis considerari potest. Nam licet in uno et eodem, quod de imperfecto ad perfectum perducitur, prius sit aliquid imperfectum quam perfectum, sicut prius est puer quam vir, tamen oportet quod omne imperfectum a perfecto trahat originem: non enim oritur puer nisi ex viro, nec semen nisi ex animali vel planta. Illud igitur quod est naturaliter omnibus prius, omnia movens, oportet omnibus perfectius esse. This can also be gathered from a consideration of other things. Although in one and the same being that evolves from imperfect to perfect, something imperfect precedes the perfect stage, as, for example, the boy is prior to the man, everything imperfect must derive its origin from what is perfect. The child is not begotten except by a man and the seed does not receive existence except from an animal or a plant. Accordingly that which is by nature prior to all other things and sets them all in motion, must be more perfect than all the rest.

Caput 21

Quod in Deo est omnimoda perfectio quae est in rebus, et eminentius

Unde etiam apparet quod omnes perfectiones in quibuscumque rebus inventas, necesse est originaliter et superabundanter in Deo esse. Nam omne quod movet aliquid ad perfectionem, prius habet in se perfectionem ad quam movet, sicut magister prius habet in se doctrinam quam aliis tradit. Cum igitur Deus sit primum movens, et omnia alia immoveat in suas perfectiones, necesse est omnes perfectiones rerum in ipso praeexistere superabundanter. The further inference clearly follows that all perfections found in anything at all must originally and superabundantly be present in God. Whatever moves something toward perfection, must first possess in itself the perfection it confers on others. Thus a teacher has in his own mind the knowledge he hands on to others. Therefore, since God is the first mover, and moves all other beings toward their perfections, all perfections found in things must pre-exist in Him superabundantly.
Item. Omne quod habet aliquam perfectionem, si alia perfectio ei desit, est limitatum sub aliquo genere vel specie: nam per formam, quae est perfectio rei, quaelibet res in genere, vel specie collocatur. Quod autem est sub specie et genere constitutum, non potest esse infinitae essentiae: nam oportet quod ultima differentia per quam in specie ponitur, terminet eius essentiam; unde et ratio speciem notificans, definitio vel finis dicitur. Si ergo divina essentia infinita est, impossibile est quod alicuius tantum generis vel speciei perfectionem habeat, et aliis privetur, sed oportet quod omnium generum vel specierum perfectiones in ipso existant. Besides, whatever has a particular perfection but lacks another perfection, is contained under some genus or species. For each thing is classed under a genus or a species by its form, which is the thing’s perfection. But what is placed under species and genus cannot be infinite in essence; for the ultimate difference whereby it is placed in a species necessarily closes off its essence. Hence the very ratio or description that makes a species known is called its definition, or even finis. Therefore, if the divine essence is infinite, it cannot possess merely the perfection of some genus or species and be lacking in other perfections; the perfections of all genera or species must be in God.

Caput 22

Quod in Deo omnes perfectiones sunt unum secundum rem

Si autem colligamus ea quae superius dicta sunt, manifestum est quod omnes perfectiones in Deo sunt unum secundum rem. Ostensum est enim supra, Deum simplicem esse. Ubi autem est simplicitas, diversitas eorum quae insunt, esse non potest. Si ergo in Deo sunt omnium perfectiones, impossibile est quod sint diversae in ipso: relinquitur ergo quod omnes sint unum in eo. If we gather together the various points established thus far, we perceive that all perfections in God are in reality one. We have shown above that God is simple. But where there is simplicity, there can be no distinction among the perfections that are present. Hence, if the perfections of all things are in God, they cannot be distinct in Him. Accordingly they are all one in Him.
Hoc autem manifestum fit consideranti in virtutibus cognoscitivis. Nam superior vis secundum unum et idem est cognoscitiva omnium quae ab inferioribus viribus secundum diversa cognoscuntur: omnia enim quae visus, auditus, et ceteri sensus percipiunt, intellectus una et simplici virtute diiudicat. Simile etiam apparet in scientiis: nam cum inferiores scientiae secundum diversa genera rerum circa quae versatur eorum intentio, multiplicentur, una tamen scientia est in eis superior, ad omnia se habens, quae philosophia prima dicitur. Apparet etiam idem in potestatibus: nam in regia potestate, cum sit una, includuntur omnes potestates quae per diversa officia sub dominio regni distribuuntur. Sic igitur et perfectiones quae in inferioribus rebus secundum diversitatem rerum multiplicantur, oportet quod in ipso rerum vertice, scilicet Deo, uniantur. This will become evident to anyone who reflects on our cognitive powers. A higher faculty has a unified knowledge of all that is known through the lower faculties according to diverse aspects. All that the sight, the hearing, and the other senses perceive, the intellect judges with the one, simple power that belongs to it. Something similar appears in the sciences. The lower sciences are multiplied in accord with the various classes of beings that constitute their objects. Yet one science which holds the primacy among them is interested in all classes of beings. This is known as first philosophy. The same situation is observed in civil power; in the royal power, which is but one, are included all the powers that are distributed through various offices within the jurisdiction of the kingdom. In the same way perfections, which in lower things are multiplied according to the diversity of these things, must be united in the pinnacle of being, that is, in God.

Caput 23

Quod in Deo nullum accidens invenitur

Inde etiam apparet quod in Deo nullum accidens esse potest. Si enim in eo omnes perfectiones sunt unum, ad perfectionem autem pertinet esse, posse, agere, et omnia huiusmodi, necesse est omnia in eo idem esse quod eius essentia. Nullum igitur eorum in eo est accidens. It is also clear that there can be no accident in God. If all perfections are one in Him, and if existence, power, action, and all such attributes pertain to perfection, they are necessarily all identical with His essence. Therefore none of these perfections is an accident in God.
Item. Impossibile est infinitum esse perfectione, cuius perfectioni aliquid adiici potest. Si autem aliquid est cuius aliqua perfectio sit accidens, cum omne accidens superaddatur essentiae, oportet quod eius essentiae aliqua perfectio adiici possit. Non igitur invenitur in eius essentia perfectio infinita. Ostensum est autem, Deum secundum suam essentiam infinitae perfectionis esse. Nulla igitur in eo perfectio accidentalis esse potest, sed quidquid in eo est, substantia eius est. Furthermore, a being to whose perfection something can be added, cannot be infinite in perfection. But if a being has some perfection that is an accident, a perfection can be added to its essence, since every accident is super-added to essence. Hence infinite perfection will not be found in its essence. But, as we have shown, God is of infinite perfection according to essence. Consequently there can be in Him no accidental perfection; whatever is in Him, is His substance.
Hoc etiam facile est concludere ex summa simplicitate illius, et ex hoc quod est actus purus, et ex hoc quod est primum in entibus. Est enim aliquis compositionis modus accidentis ad subiectum. Id etiam quod subiectum est, non potest esse actus purus, cum accidens sit quaedam forma vel actus subiecti. Semper etiam quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per accidens. Ex quibus omnibus secundum supradicta haberi potest, quod in Deo nihil est quod secundum accidens dicatur. The same truth can be easily inferred from God’s supreme simplicity, and from the fact that He is pure act and is the first among beings. For some sort of composition obtains between an accident and its subject. Likewise, that which is a subject of this kind cannot be pure act, since an accident is a certain, form or act of the subject. Similarly, what is per se always precedes what is per accidens. From all this we can infer, in keeping with the truths established above, that nothing can be predicated of God as an accident.

Caput 24

Quod multitudo nominum quae dicuntur de Deo, non repugnat simplicitati eius

Per hoc autem apparet ratio multitudinis nominum quae de Deo dicuntur, licet ipse in se sit omnimode simplex. Cum enim intellectus noster essentiam eius in se ipsa capere non sufficiat, in eius cognitionem consurgit ex rebus quae apud nos sunt, in quibus inveniuntur diversae perfectiones, quarum omnium radix et origo in Deo una est, ut ostensum est. Et quia non possumus aliquid nominare nisi secundum quod intelligimus (sunt enim nomina intellectuum signa), Deum non possumus nominare nisi ex perfectionibus in aliis rebus inventis, quarum origo in ipso est: et quia hae in rebus istis multiplices sunt, oportet multa nomina Deo imponere. Si autem essentiam eius in se ipsa videremus, non requireretur nominum multitudo, sed esset simplex notitia eius, sicut est simplex essentia eius: et hoc in die gloriae nostrae expectamus, secundum illud Zachar. ultimo: in illa die erit dominus unus, et nomen eius unum. This enables us to perceive the reason for the many names that are applied to God, even though in Himself He is absolutely simple. Since our intellect is unable to grasp His essence as it is in itself, we rise to a knowledge of that essence from the things that surround us. Various perfections are discerned in these things, the root and origin of them all being one in God, as has been shown. Since we cannot name an object except as we understand it (for names are signs of things understood), we cannot give names to God except in terms of perfections perceived in other things that have their origin in Him. And since these perfections are multiple in such things, we must assign many names to God. If we saw His essence as it is in itself, a multiplicity of names would not be required; our idea of it would be simple, just as His essence is simple. This vision we hope for in the day of our glory; for, according to Zacharias 14:9, “In that day there shall be one Lord, and His name shall be one.”

Caput 25

Quod licet diversa nomina dicantur de Deo, non tamen sunt synonima

Ex his autem tria possumus considerare. Quorum primum est, quod diversa nomina, licet idem in Deo secundum rem significent, non tamen sunt synonima. Ad hoc enim quod nomina aliqua sint synonima, oportet quod significent eamdem rem, et eamdem intellectus conceptionem repraesentent. Ubi vero significatur eadem res secundum diversas rationes, idest apprehensiones quas habet intellectus de re illa, non sunt nomina synonima, quia non est penitus significatio eadem, cum nomina immediate significent conceptiones intellectus, quae sunt rerum similitudines. Et ideo cum diversa nomina dicta de Deo significent diversas conceptiones quas intellectus noster habet de ipso non sunt synonima, licet omnino eamdem rem significent. In this connection three observations are in order. The first is that the various names applied to God are not synonymous, even though they signify what is in reality the same thing in God. In order to be synonymous, names must signify the same thing, and besides must stand for the same intellectual. conception. But when the same object is signified according to diverse aspects, that is, notions which the mind forms of that object, the names are not synonymous. For then the meaning is not quite the same, since names directly signify intellectual conceptions, which are likenesses of things. Therefore, since the various names predicated of God signify the various conceptions our mind forms of Him, they are not synonymous, even though they signify absolutely the same thing.

Caput 26

Quod per definitiones ipsorum nominum non potest definiri id quod est in Deo

Secundum est: quod cum intellectus noster secundum nullam earum conceptionum quas nomina dicta de Deo significant, divinam essentiam perfecte capiat, impossibile est quod per definitiones horum nominum definiatur id quod est in Deo, sicut quod definitio sapientiae sit definitio potentiae divinae, et similiter in aliis. A second point is this: since our intellect does not adequately grasp the divine essence in any of the conceptions which the names applied to God signify, the definitions of these terms cannot define what is in God. That is, any definition we might formulate of the divine wisdom would not be a definition of the divine power, and so on regarding other attributes.
Quod alio modo etiam est manifestum. Omnis enim definitio ex genere et differentiis constat: id etiam quod proprie definitur, species est. Ostensum est autem, quod divina essentia non concluditur sub aliquo genere, nec sub aliqua specie. Unde non potest eius esse aliqua definitio. The same is clear for another reason. A definition is made up of genus and specific differences, for what is properly defined is the species. But we have shown that the divine essence is not included under any genus or species. Therefore it cannot be defined.

Caput 27

Quod nomina de Deo et aliis, non omnino univoce, nec aequivoce dicuntur

Tertium est quod nomina de Deo et aliis rebus dicta, non omnino univoce, nec omnino aequivoce dicuntur. Univoce namque dici non possunt, cum definitio eius quod de creatura dicitur, non sit definitio eius quod dicitur de Deo: oportet autem univoce dictorum eamdem definitionem esse. The third point is that names applied to God and to other beings are not predicated either quite univocally or quite equivocally. They cannot be predicated univocally, because the definition of what is said of a creature is not a definition of what is said of God. Things predicated univocally must have the same definition.
Similiter autem nec omnino aequivoce. In his enim quae sunt a casu aequivoca, idem nomen imponitur uni rei, nullo habito respectu ad rem aliam: unde per unum non potest ratiocinari de alio. Haec autem nomina quae dicuntur de Deo et de aliis rebus, attribuuntur Deo secundum aliquem ordinem quem habet ad istas res, in quibus intellectus significata eorum considerat; unde et per alias res ratiocinari de Deo possumus. Non igitur omnino aequivoce dicuntur ista de Deo et de aliis rebus, sicut ea quae sunt a casu aequivoca. Nor are these names predicated in all respects equivocally. In the case of fortuitous equivocation, a name is attached to an object that has no relation to another object bearing the same name. Hence the reasoning in which we engage about one cannot be transferred to the other. But the names predicated of God and of other things are attributed to God according to some relation He has to those things; and in their case the mind ponders what the names signify. This is why we can transfer our’ reasoning about other things to God. Therefore such terms are not predicated altogether equivocally about God and about other things, as happens in fortuitous equivocation.
Dicuntur igitur secundum analogiam, idest secundum proportionem ad unum. Ex eo enim quod alias res comparamus ad Deum sicut ad suam primam originem, huiusmodi nomina quae significant perfectiones aliarum, Deo attribuimus. Ex quo patet quod licet quantum ad nominis impositionem huiusmodi nomina per prius de creaturis dicantur, eo quod ex creaturis intellectus nomina imponens ascendit in Deum; tamen secundum rem significatam per nomen, per prius dicuntur de Deo, a quo perfectiones descendunt in alias res. Consequently they are predicated according to analogy, that is, according to their proportion to one thing. For, from the fact that we compare other things with God as their first origin, we attribute to God such names as signify perfections in other things. This clearly brings out the truth that, as regards the assigning of the names, such names are primarily predicated of creatures, inasmuch as the intellect that assigns the names ascends from creatures to God. But as regards the thing signified by the name, they are primarily predicated of God, from whom the perfections descend to other beings.

Caput 28

Quod oportet Deum esse intelligentem

Ulterius autem ostendendum est, quod Deus est intelligens. Ostensum est enim, quod in ipso praeexistunt omnes perfectiones quorumlibet entium superabundanter. Inter omnes autem perfectiones entium ipsum intelligere praecellere videtur, cum res intellectuales sint omnibus aliis potiores. Igitur oportet Deum esse intelligentem. We must go on to demonstrate that God is intelligent. We have already proved that all perfections of all beings whatsoever pre-exist in God superabundantly. Among all the perfections found in beings, intelligence is deemed to possess a special pre-eminence, for the reason that intellectual beings are more powerful than all others. Therefore God must be intelligent.
Item. Ostensum est supra, quod Deus est actus purus absque potentialitatis permixtione. Materia autem est ens in potentia. Oportet igitur Deum esse omnino immunem a materia. Immunitas autem a materia est causa intellectualitatis: cuius signum est quod formae materiales efficiuntur intelligibiles actu per hoc quod abstrahuntur a materia et a materialibus conditionibus. Est igitur Deus intelligens. Moreover, we pointed out above that God is pure act without any admixture of potentiality. On the other hand, matter is being in potency. Consequently God must be utterly free from matter. But freedom from matter ii the cause of intellectuality. An indication of this is that material forms are rendered intelligible in act by being abstracted from matter and from material conditions. Therefore God is intelligent.
Item. Ostensum est, Deum esse primum movens. Hoc autem videtur esse proprium intellectus, nam intellectus omnibus aliis videtur uti quasi instrumentis ad motum: unde et homo suo intellectu utitur quasi instrumentis et animalibus et plantis et rebus inanimatis. Oportet igitur Deum, qui est primum movens, esse intelligentem. We proved, further, that God is the first mover. This very perfection appears to be a property of intellect, for the intellect, we observe, uses all other things as instruments, so to speak, in producing movement. Thus man, through his intellect, uses animals and plants and inanimate objects as instruments, of a sort, to cause motion. Consequently God, the first mover, must be intelligent.

Caput 29

Quod in Deo non est intellectio nec in potentia nec in habitu, sed in actu

Cum autem in Deo non sit aliquid in potentia, sed in actu tantum, ut ostensum est, oportet quod Deus non sit intelligens neque in potentia neque in habitu, sed actu tantum: ex quo patet quod nullam in intelligendo patitur successionem. Cum enim aliquis intellectus successive multa intelligit, oportet quod dum unum intelligit actu, alterum intelligat in potentia. Inter ea enim quae simul sunt, non est aliqua successio. Si igitur Deus nihil intelligit in potentia, absque omni successione est eius intelligentia: unde sequitur quod omnia quaecumque intelligit, simul intelligat; et iterum, quod nihil de novo intelligat. Intellectus enim de novo aliquid intelligens, prius fuit intelligens in potentia. Since in God nothing is in potency but all is in act, as has been shown. God cannot be intelligent either potentially or habitually but only actually. An evident consequence of this is that He undergoes no succession in understanding. The intellect that understands a number of things successively is able, while actually understanding one thing, to understand another only potentially. But there is no succession among things that exist simultaneously. So, if God understands nothing in potency, His understanding is free from all succession. Accordingly, whatever He understands, He understands simultaneously. Furthermore, He does not begin to understand anything. For the intellect that begins to understand something, was previously in potency to understanding.
Inde etiam oportet quod intellectus eius non discursive intelligat, ut ex uno in cognitionem alterius deveniat, sicut intellectus noster ratiocinando patitur. Discursus enim talis in intellectu est, dum ex noto pervenimus in cognitionem ignoti, vel eius quod prius actu non considerabamus: quae in intellectu divino accidere non possunt. It is likewise evident that God’s intellect does not understand in discursive fashion, proceeding from one truth to a knowledge of another, as is the case with our intellect in reasoning. A discursive process of this sort takes place in our intellect when we advance from the known to a knowledge of the unknown, or to that which previously we had not actually thought of. Such processes cannot occur in the divine intellect.

Caput 30

Quod Deus non intelligit per aliam speciem quam per essentiam suam

Patet etiam ex praedictis, quod Deus non intelligit per aliam speciem quam per essentiam suam. The foregoing exposition makes it clear that God understands through no other species than through His essence.
Omnis enim intellectus intelligens per speciem aliam a se, comparatur ad illam speciem intelligibilem sicut potentia ad actum, cum species intelligibilis sit perfectio eius faciens ipsum intelligentem actu. Si igitur in Deo nihil est in potentia, sed est actus purus, oportet quod non per aliam speciem, sed per essentiam suam intelligat; The reason is, that any intellect which understands through a species other than itself, is related to that intelligible species as potency to act. For an intelligible species is a perfection of the intellect, causing it to understand in act. Therefore, if nothing in God is in potency, but He is pure act, He must understand through His own essence, and not through any other kind of species.
et inde sequitur quod directe et principaliter se ipsum intelligat. Essentia enim rei non ducit proprie et directe in cognitionem alicuius nisi eius cuius est essentia: nam per definitionem hominis proprie cognoscitur homo, et per definitionem equi, equus. Si igitur Deus est per essentiam suam intelligens, oportet quod id quod est intellectum ab eo directe et principaliter, sit ipse Deus. Et cum ipse sit sua essentia, sequitur quod in eo intelligens et quo intelligit et intellectum sint omnino idem. In consequence of this, He directly and principally understands Himself. For the essence of a thing does not properly and directly lead to the knowledge of anything else than of that being whose essence it is. Thus man is properly known through the definition of man, and horse is known through the definition of horse. Therefore, if God understands through His essence, that which is directly and principally understood by Him must be God Himself. And, since God is His own essence, it follows that, in Him, understanding and that whereby He understands and that which is understood are absolutely identical.

Caput 31

Quod Deus est suum intelligere

Oportet etiam quod ipse Deus sit suum intelligere. Cum enim intelligere sit actus secundus, ut considerare (primus enim actus est intellectus vel scientia), omnis intellectus qui non est suum intelligere, comparatur ad suum intelligere sicut potentia ad actum. Nam semper in ordine potentiarum et actuum quod est prius, est potentiale respectu sequentis, et ultimum est completivum, loquendo in uno et eodem, licet in diversis sit e converso: nam movens et agens comparatur ad motum et actum, sicut agens ad potentiam. In Deo autem, cum sit actus purus, non est aliquid quod comparetur ad alterum sicut potentia ad actum. Oportet ergo quod ipse Deus sit suum intelligere. God must be His own intelligence. Since “to understand” is second act, for example, to consider, whereas the corresponding first act is the intellect or knowledge, any intellect that is not its own understanding is related to its understanding as potency to act. For in the order of potencies and acts, what is first is always potential with respect to what follows, and what is last is perfective. This is true only with reference to one and the same being, for among different beings the converse obtains; thus a mover and an agent are related to the thing moved and actuated as act to potency. In God, however, who is pure act, there is nothing that is related to anything else as potency to act. Accordingly God must be His own intelligence.
Item. Quodammodo comparatur intellectus ad intelligere sicut essentia ad esse. Sed Deus est intelligens per essentiam; essentia autem sua est suum esse. Ergo eius intellectus est suum intelligere; et sic per hoc quod est intelligens, nulla compositio in eo ponitur, cum in eo non sint aliud intellectus, intelligere, et species intelligibilis. Et haec non sunt aliud quam eius essentia. Furthermore, the intellect is related to its act of understanding as essence is related to existence. But God understands through His essence, and His essence is His existence. Therefore His intellect is His act of understanding. And thus no composition is attributed to Him by the fact that He understands, since in Him intellect and understanding and intelligible species are not distinct; and these in turn are nothing else than His essence.

Caput 32

Quod oportet Deum esse volentem

Ulterius autem manifestum est quod necesse est Deum esse volentem. Ipse enim se ipsum intelligit, qui est bonum perfectum, ut ex dictis patet. Bonum autem intellectum ex necessitate diligitur. Hoc autem fit per voluntatem. Necesse est igitur Deum volentem esse. We perceive, further, that God must have volition. For He understands Himself, who is perfect good, as is clear from all that has been hitherto established. But good as apprehended is necessarily loved, and love operates through the will. Consequently God must have volition.
Item. Ostensum est supra, quod Deus est primum movens. Intellectus autem non utique movet nisi mediante appetitu; appetitus autem sequens intellectum, est voluntas. Oportet igitur Deum esse volentem. Moreover, we showed above that God is the first mover. But the intellect, assuredly, does not move except through the intermediacy of appetite, and the appetite that follows intellectual apprehension is the will. Therefore God must have volition.

Caput 33

Quod ipsam Dei voluntatem oportet nihil aliud esse quam eius intellectum

Patet autem quod oportet ipsam Dei voluntatem nihil aliud esse quam eius intellectum. Bonum enim intellectum, cum sit obiectum voluntatis, movet voluntatem, et est actus et perfectio eius. In Deo autem non differt movens et motum, actus et potentia, perfectio et perfectibile, ut ex superioribus patet. Oportet igitur voluntatem divinam esse ipsum bonum intellectum. Idem autem est intellectus divinus et essentia divina. Voluntas igitur Dei non est aliud quam intellectus divinus et essentia eius. Evidently God’s will cannot be anything other than His intellect. For, since a good that is apprehended by the intellect is the object of the will, it moves the will and is the will’s act and perfection. In God, however, there is no distinction between mover and moved, act and potency, perfection and perfectible, as is clear from the truths we have already gained. Also, the divine intellect and the divine essence are identical. Therefore the will of God is not distinct from the divine intellect and God’s essence.
Item. Intra alias perfectiones rerum praecipuae sunt intellectus et voluntas, cuius signum est quod inveniuntur in rebus nobilioribus. Perfectiones autem omnium rerum sunt in Deo unum, quod est eius essentia, ut supra ostensum est. Intellectus igitur et voluntas in Deo sunt idem quod eius essentia. Another consideration: among the various perfections of things, the chief are intellect and will. A sign of this is that they are found in the nobler beings. But the perfections of all things are one in God, and this is His essence, as we showed above.” In God, therefore, intellect and will are identical with His essence.

Caput 34

Quod voluntas Dei est ipsum eius velle

Hinc etiam patet quod voluntas divina est ipsum velle Dei. Ostensum est enim, quod voluntas in Deo est idem quod bonum volitum ab ipso. Hoc autem esse non posset, nisi velle esset idem quod voluntas, cum velle insit voluntati ex volito. Est igitur Dei voluntas suum velle. Hence it is also clear that the divine will is the very act of willing in God. As has been pointed out, God’s will is identical with the good willed by Him. But this would be impossible if His willing were not the same as His will; for willing is in the will because of the object willed. Accordingly God’s will is His willing.
Item. Voluntas Dei idem est quod eius intellectus et eius essentia. Intellectus autem Dei est suum intelligere, et essentia est suum esse. Ergo oportet quod voluntas sit suum velle. Et sic patet quod voluntas Dei simplicitati non repugnat. Again, God’s will is the same as His intellect and His essence. But God’s intellect is His act of understanding, and His essence is His existing. Therefore His will must be His act of willing. And so we see clearly that God’s will is not opposed to His simplicity.

Caput 35

Quod omnia supradicta uno fidei articulo comprehenduntur

Ex his autem omnibus quae praedicta sunt, colligere possumus, quod Deus est unus, simplex, perfectus, infinitus, intelligens et volens. Quae quidem omnia in symbolo fidei brevi articulo comprehenduntur, cum nos profitemur credere in Deum unum omnipotentem. Cum enim hoc nomen Deus a nomine Graeco quod dicitur Theos, dictum videatur, quod quidem a theaste dicitur, quod est videre vel considerare; in ipso Dei nomine patet quod sit intelligens, et per consequens volens. In hoc autem quod dicimus eum unum, excluditur et deorum pluralitas, et omnis compositio: non enim est simpliciter unum nisi quod est simplex. Per hoc autem quod dicimus, omnipotentem, ostenditur quod sit infinitae virtutis, cui nihil subtrahi possit, in quo includitur quod sit et infinitus et perfectus: nam virtus rei perfectionem essentiae consequitur. From all the details of doctrines thus far discussed, we can gather that God is one, simple, perfect, and infinite, and that He understands and wills. All these truths are assembled in a brief article of our Creed, wherein we profess to believe “in one God, almighty.” For, since this name “God” (Deus), is apparently derived from the Greek name Theos, which comes from theasthai, meaning to see or to consider, the very name of God makes it clear that He is intelligent and consequently that He wills. In proclaiming that He is one, we exclude a plurality of gods, and also all composition; for a thing is not simply one unless it is simple. The assertion that He is almighty is evidence of our belief that He possesses infinite power, from which nothing can be taken away. And this includes the further truth that He is infinite and perfect; for the power of a thing follows the perfection of its essence.

Caput 36

Quod haec omnia a philosophis posita sunt

Haec autem quae in superioribus de Deo tradita sunt, a pluribus quidem gentilium philosophis subtiliter considerata sunt, quamvis nonnulli eorum circa praedicta erraverint: et qui in iis verum dixerunt, post longam et laboriosam inquisitionem ad veritatem praedictam vix pervenire potuerunt. Sunt autem et alia nobis de Deo tradita in doctrina Christianae religionis, ad quam pervenire non potuerunt, circa quae secundum Christianam fidem ultra humanum sensum instruimur. Est autem hoc: quod cum sit Deus unus et simplex, ut ostensum est, est tamen Deus pater, et Deus filius, et Deus spiritus sanctus, et ii tres non tres dii, sed unus Deus est: quod quidem, quantum possibile nobis est, considerare intendimus. The truths about God thus far proposed have been subtly discussed by a number of pagan philosophers, although some of them erred concerning these matters. And those who propounded true doctrine in this respect were scarcely able to arrive at such truths even after long and painstaking investigation. But there are other truths about God revealed to us in the teaching of the Christian religion, which were beyond the reach of the philosopher. These are truths about which we are instructed, in accord with the norm of Christian faith, in a way that transcends human perception. The teaching is this: although God is one and simple, as has been explained, God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit. And these three are not three gods, but are one God. We now turn to a consideration of this truth, so far as is possible to us.

Caput 37

Qualiter ponatur verbum in divinis

Accipiendum autem est ex his quae supra dicta sunt, quod Deus se ipsum intelligit et diligit. Item quod intelligere in ipso et velle non sit aliud quam eius esse. Quia vero Deus se ipsum intelligit, omne autem intellectum in intelligente est, oportet Deum in se ipso esse sicut intellectum in intelligente. Intellectum autem prout est in intelligente, est verbum quoddam intellectus: hoc enim exteriori verbo significamus quod interius in intellectu comprehendimus. Sunt enim, secundum philosophum, voces signa intellectuum. Oportet igitur in Deo ponere verbum ipsius. We take from the doctrine previously laid down that God understands and loves Himself; likewise, that understanding and willing in Him are not something distinct from His essence. Since God understands Himself, and since all that is understood is in the person who understands, God must be in Himself as the object understood is in the person understanding. But the object understood, so far as it is in the one who understands, is a certain word of the intellect; we signify by an exterior word what we comprehend interiorly in our intellect. For words, according to the Philosopher, are signs of intellectual concepts [De interpretatione, I, 1, 16 a 3]. Hence we must acknowledge in God the existence of His Word.

Caput 38

Quod verbum in divinis conceptio dicitur

Id autem quod in intellectu continetur, ut interius verbum, ex communi usu loquendi conceptio intellectus dicitur. Nam corporaliter aliquid concipi dicitur quod in utero animalis viventis vivifica virtute formatur, mare agente, et femina patiente, in qua fit conceptio, ita quod ipsum conceptum pertinet ad naturam utriusque quasi secundum speciem conforme. What is contained in the intellect, as an interior word, is by common usage said to be a conception of the intellect. A being is said to be conceived in a corporeal way if it is formed in the womb of a living animal by a life-giving energy, in virtue of the active function of the male and the passive function of the female, in whom the conception takes place. The being thus conceived shares in the nature of both parents and resembles them in species.
Quod autem intellectus comprehendit, in intellectu formatur, intelligibili quasi agente, et intellectu quasi patiente. Et ipsum quod intellectu comprehenditur, intra intellectum existens, conforme est et intelligibili moventi, cuius quaedam similitudo est, et intellectui quasi patienti, secundum quod esse intelligibile habet. Unde id quod intellectu comprehenditur, non immerito conceptio intellectus vocatur. In a similar manner, what the intellect comprehends is formed in the intellect, the intelligible object being, as it were, the active principle, and the intellect the passive principle. That which is thus comprehended by the intellect, existing as it does within the intellect, is conformed both to the moving intelligible object, of which it is a certain likeness, and to the quasi-passive intellect, which confers on it intelligible existence. Hence what is comprehended by the intellect is not unfittingly called the conception of the intellect.

Caput 39

Quomodo verbum comparatur ad patrem

In hoc autem consideranda est differentia. Nam cum id quod intellectu concipitur, sit similitudo rei intellectae, eius speciem repraesentans, quaedam proles ipsius esse videtur. Quando igitur intellectus intelligit aliud a se, res intellecta est sicut pater verbi in intellectu concepti; ipse autem intellectus magis gerit similitudinem matris, cuius est ut in ea fiat conceptio. Quando vero intellectus intelligit seipsum, verbum conceptum comparatur ad intelligentem sicut proles ad patrem. Cum igitur de verbo loquamur secundum quod Deus se ipsum intelligit, oportet quod ipsum verbum comparetur ad Deum, cuius est verbum, sicut filius ad patrem. But here a point of difference must be noted. What is conceived in the intellect is a likeness of the thing understood and represents its species; and so it seems to be a sort of offspring of the intellect. Therefore, when the intellect understands something other than itself, the thing understood is, so to speak, the father of the word conceived in the intellect, and the intellect itself resembles rather a mother, whose function is such that conception takes place in her. But when the intellect understands itself, the word conceived is related to the understanding person as offspring to father. Consequently, since we are using the term “Word” in the latter sense, that is, according as God understands Himself, the Word itself must be related to God, from whom the Word proceeds, as Son to Father.

Caput 40

Quomodo intelligitur generatio in divinis

Hinc est quod in regula Catholicae fidei, patrem et filium in divinis confiteri docemur, cum dicitur: credo in Deum patrem et filium eius. Et ne aliquis audiens nomen patris et filii, carnalem generationem suspicaretur, secundum quam apud nos pater dicitur et filius, Ioannes Evangelista, cui revelata sunt secreta caelestia, loco filii ponit verbum, ut generationem intelligibilem cognoscamus. Hence in the rule of Catholic faith we are taught to profess belief in the Father and Son in God by saying: “I believe in God the Father, and in His Son.” And lest anyone, on hearing Father and Son mentioned, should have any notion of carnal generation, by which among us men father and son receive their designation, John the Evangelist, to whom were revealed heavenly mysteries, substitutes “Word” for “Son,” (John 1: 14) so that we may understand that the generation is intellectual.

Caput 41

Quod verbum, quod est filius, idem esse habet cum Deo patre, et eamdem essentiam

Considerandum est autem, quod cum in nobis sit aliud esse naturale et intelligere, oportet quod verbum in nostro intellectu conceptum, quod habet esse intelligibile tantum, alterius naturae sit quam intellectus noster, qui habet esse naturale. In Deo autem idem est esse et intelligere. Verbum igitur Dei quod est in Deo, cuius verbum est secundum esse intelligibile, idem esse habet cum Deo, cuius est verbum. Et per hoc oportet quod sit eiusdem essentiae et naturae cum ipso, et quod omnia quaecumque de Deo dicuntur, verbo Dei conveniant. Since natural existence and the action of understanding are distinct in us, we should note that a word conceived in our intellect, having only intellectual existence, differs in nature from our intellect, which has natural existence. In God, however, to be and to understand are identical. Therefore the divine Word that is in God, whose Word He is according to intellectual existence, has the same existence as God, whose Word He is. Consequently the Word must be of the same essence and nature as God Himself, and all attributes whatsoever that are predicated of God, must pertain also to the Word of God.

Caput 42

Quod Catholica fides haec docet

Et inde est quod in regula Catholicae fidei docemur confiteri filium consubstantialem patri, per quod duo excluduntur. Primo quidem ut non intelligatur pater et filius secundum carnalem generationem, quae fit per aliquam decisionem substantiae filii a patre, ut sic oporteat filium non esse patri consubstantialem. Secundo ut etiam non intelligamus patrem et filium secundum generationem intelligibilem, prout verbum in mente nostra concipitur, quasi accidentaliter superveniens intellectui, et non de eius essentia existens. Hence we are instructed in the rule of Catholic faith to profess that the Son is “consubstantial with the Father,” a phrase that excludes two errors. First, the Father and the Son may not be thought of according to carnal generation, which is effected by a certain separation of the son’s substance from the father. If this were so in God, the Son could not be consubstantial with the Father. Secondly, we are taught not to think of the Father and the Son according to intellectual generation in the way that a word is conceived in our mind. For such a word comes to our intellect by a sort of accidental accretion, and does not exist with the existence proper to the essence of the intellect.

Caput 43

Quod in divinis non est differentia verbi a patre secundum tempus, vel speciem, vel naturam

Eorum autem quae in essentia non differunt, impossibile est esse differentiam secundum speciem, tempus et naturam. Quia ergo verbum patri est consubstantiale, necesse est quod secundum nihil dictorum a patre differat. Among things that are not distinct in essence, there can be no distinction according to species, time, or nature. Therefore, since the Word is consubstantial with the Father, He cannot differ from the Father in any of these respects.
Et quidem secundum tempus differre non potest. Cum enim hoc verbum in Deo ponatur per hoc quod Deus se ipsum intelligit, sui verbum intelligibile concipiendo, oportet quod si aliquando Dei verbum non fuit, quod tunc Deus se ipsum non intellexerit. Semper autem quando Deus fuit, se intellexit, quia eius intelligere est eius esse. Semper ergo et verbum eius fuit: et ideo in regula Catholicae fidei dicimus: ex patre natum ante omnia saecula. There can be no difference according to time. The divine Word is present in God for the reason that God understands Himself, thereby conceiving His intelligible Word. Hence, if at any time there were no Word of God, during that period God would not understand Himself. But God always understood Himself during His whole existence, for His understanding is His existence. Therefore His Word, also, existed always. And so in the rule of Catholic faith we say that the Son of God “is born of the Father before all ages.”
Secundum speciem etiam est impossibile verbum Dei a Deo quasi minoratum differre, cum Deus seipsum non minus intelligat quam sit. Verbum autem perfectam speciem habet: quia id cuius est verbum, perfecte intelligitur. Oportet igitur Dei verbum omnino perfectum secundum speciem divinitatis esse. Inveniuntur autem quaedam quae ex aliis procedunt, perfectam eorum speciem non consequi, ex quibus procedunt. Uno modo sicut in generationibus aequivocis: a sole enim non generatur sol, sed quoddam animal. Ut ergo talis imperfectio a generatione divina excludatur, confitemur natum Deum de Deo. Alio modo quod procedit ex aliquo, differt ab eo propter defectum puritatis, dum scilicet ab eo quod est in se simplex et purum, per applicationem ad extraneam materiam aliquid producitur a prima specie deficiens: sicut ex domo quae est in mente artificis, fit domus quae est in materia; et a lumine recepto in corpore terminato, fit color; et ex igne adiuncto aliis elementis, fit mixtum; et ex radio per oppositionem corporis opaci, fit umbra. Ut hoc ergo a divina generatione excludatur, additur lumen de lumine. Tertio modo quod ex aliquo procedit, non consequitur speciem eius propter defectum veritatis, quia scilicet non vere recipit eius naturam, sed quamdam eius similitudinem tantum, sicut imago in speculo vel sculptura, aut etiam similitudo rei in intellectu vel sensu. Non enim imago hominis dicitur verus homo, sed similitudo; nec lapis est anima, ut dicit philosophus, sed species lapidis. Ut igitur haec a divina generatione excludantur, additur: Deum verum de Deo vero. According to species, too, it is impossible for the Word of God to differ from God, as though He were inferior; for God does not understand Himself to be less than He is. The Word has a perfect likeness to the Father, because that whereof He is the Word is perfectly understood. Therefore the Word of God must be absolutely perfect according to the species of divinity. Some beings, it is true, that proceed from others, are found not to inherit the perfect species of those from whom they proceed. One way in which this can happen is in equivocal generations: the sun does not generate a sun, but an animal of some kind. To exclude imperfection of this sort from divine generation, we proclaim that the Word is born “God of God.” The same thing occurs in another way when that which proceeds from another differs from the latter because of a defect in purity; that is, when something is produced from what is simple and pure in itself by being applied to extraneous matter, and so turns out to be inferior to the original species. Thus, from a house that is in the architect’s mind, a house is fashioned in various materials; and from light received in the surface of a body, color results; and from fire, by adding other elements, a mixture is produced; and from a beam of light, by interposing an opaque body, shadow is caused. To exclude any imperfection of this kind from divine generation, we add: “Light of Light.” In yet a third way, what proceeds from another can fail to equal the latter’s species, because of a deficiency in truth. That is, it does not truly receive the nature of its original, but only a certain likeness thereof; for example, an image in a mirror or in a picture or in a statue; also, the likeness of a thing in the intellect or in one of the senses. For the image of a man is not said to be a true man, but is a likeness of a man; and a stone is not in the soul, as the Philosopher notes [ De anima, III, 8, 431 b 29], but a likeness of the stone is in the soul. To exclude all this from divine generation, we subjoin: “True God of true God.”
Secundum naturam etiam impossibile est verbum a Deo differre, cum hoc sit Deo naturale quod se ipsum intelligat. Habet enim omnis intellectus aliqua quae naturaliter intelligit, sicut intellectus noster habet prima principia. Multo ergo magis Deus, cuius intelligere est suum esse, seipsum naturaliter intelligit. Verbum ergo ipsius naturaliter ex ipso est, non sicut ea quae praeter naturalem originem procedunt, ut a nobis procedunt res artificiales, quas facere dicimur. Quae vero naturaliter a nobis procedunt, dicimur generare, ut filius. Ne igitur Dei verbum non naturaliter a Deo procedere intelligatur, sed secundum potestatem suae voluntatis, additur: genitum, non factum. Lastly it is impossible for the Word to differ from God according to nature, since it is natural for God to understand Himself. Every intellect has some objects which it naturally understands. Thus, our intellect naturally understands first principles. Much more does God, whose intellectual activity is His existence, naturally understand Himself. Therefore His Word proceeds from Him naturally, not in the way that things proceed otherwise than by natural origin, that is, not in the way that artificial objects, which we are said to make, take shape from us. On the other hand, whatever proceeds from us naturally we are said to generate, for example, a son. Accordingly, to preclude the error of thinking that the Word of God proceeds from God, not by way of nature, but by the power of His will, the phrase is added: “Begotten, not made.”

Caput 44

Conclusio ex praemissis

Quia ergo, ut ex praemissis patet, omnes praedictae divinae generationis conditiones ad hoc pertinent quod filius est patri consubstantialis, ideo post omnia subiungitur quasi summa universorum: consubstantialem patri. As is clear from the foregoing, all the characteristics of divine generation we have been discussing lead to the conclusion that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Therefore, by way of summing up all these points, the words, “Consubstantial with the Father,” are subjoined.

Caput 45

Quod Deus est in se ipso sicut amatum in amante

Sicut autem intellectum est in intelligente inquantum intelligitur, ita et amatum esse debet in amante inquantum amatur. Movetur enim quodammodo amans ab amato quadam intrinseca motione. Unde cum movens contingat id quod movetur, necesse est amatum intrinsecum esse amanti. Deus autem sicut intelligit seipsum, ita necesse est quod seipsum amet: bonum enim intellectum secundum se amabile est. Est igitur Deus in seipso tanquam amatum in amante. As the object known is in the knower, to the extent that it is known, so the beloved must be in the lover, as loved. The, lover is, in some way, moved by the beloved with a certain interior impulse. Therefore, since a mover is in contact with the object moved, the beloved must be intrinsic to the lover. But God, just as He understands Himself, must likewise love Himself; for good, as apprehended, is in itself lovable. Consequently God is in Himself as beloved in lover.

Caput 46

Quod amor in Deo dicitur spiritus

Cum autem intellectum sit in intelligente, et amatum in amante, diversa ratio eius quod est esse in aliquo, utrobique consideranda est. Cum enim intelligere fiat per assimilationem aliquam intelligentis ad id quod intelligitur, necesse est id quod intelligitur, in intelligente esse, secundum quod eius similitudo in ea consistit. Amatio autem fit secundum quamdam motionem amantis ab amato: amatum enim trahit ad seipsum amantem. Igitur non perficitur amatio in similitudine amati, sicut perficitur intelligere in similitudine intellecti, sed perficitur in attractione amantis ad ipsum amatum. Since the object known is in the knower and the beloved is in the lover, the different ways of existing in something must be considered in the two cases before us. The act of understanding takes place by a certain assimilation of the knower to the object known; and so the object known must be in the knower in the sense that a likeness of it is present in him. But the act of loving takes place through a sort of impulse engendered in the lover by the beloved: the beloved draws the lover to himself. Accordingly the act of loving reaches its perfection, not in a likeness of the beloved, in the way that the act of understanding reaches perfection in a likeness of the object understood, but in. a drawing of the lover to the beloved in person.
Traductio autem similitudinis principalis fit per generationem univocam, secundum quam in rebus viventibus generans pater, et genitus filius nominatur. In eisdem etiam prima motio fit secundum speciem. Sicut igitur in divinis modus ille quo Deus est in Deo ut intellectum in intelligente, exprimitur per hoc quod dicimus filium, qui est verbum Dei; ita modum quo Deus est in Deo sicut amatum in amante exprimimus per hoc quod ponimus ibi spiritum, qui est amor Dei: et ideo secundum regulam Catholicae fidei credere in spiritum iubemur. The transferring of the likeness of the original is effected by univocal generation whereby, among living beings, the begetter is called father, and the begotten is called son. Among such beings, moreover, the first motion occurs conformably to the species. Therefore, as within the Godhead the way whereby God is in God as the known in the knower, is expressed by what we call “Son,” who is the Word of God, so the way by which God is in God as the beloved is in the lover is brought out by acknowledging in God a Spirit, who is the love of God. And so, according to the rule of Catholic faith, we are directed to believe in the Spirit.

Caput 47

Quod spiritus, qui est in Deo, est sanctus

Considerandum est autem, quod cum bonum amatum habeat rationem finis, ex fine autem motus voluntarius bonus vel malus reddatur, necesse est quod amor quo ipsum summum bonum amatur, quod Deus est, eminentem quamdam obtineat bonitatem, quae nomine sanctitatis exprimitur, sive dicatur sanctum quasi purum, secundum Graecos, quia in Deo est purissima bonitas ab omni defectu immunis: sive dicatur sanctum, idest firmum, secundum Latinos, quia in Deo est immutabilis bonitas, propter quod omnia quae ad Deum ordinantur, sancta dicuntur, sicut templum et vasa templi, et omnia divino cultui mancipata. Convenienter igitur spiritus, quo nobis insinuatur amor quo Deus se amat, spiritus sanctus nominatur. Unde et regula Catholicae fidei spiritum praedictum nominat sanctum, cum dicitur credo in spiritum sanctum. Another point to consider is this. Since good that is loved has the nature of an end, and since the motion of the will is designated good or evil in terms of the end it pursues, the love whereby the supreme good that is God is loved must possess the supereminent goodness that goes by the name of holiness. This is true whether “holy” is taken as equivalent to “pure,” according to the Greeks, the idea being that in God there is most pure goodness free from all defect, or whether “holy” is taken to mean “firm,” in the view of the Latins, on the score that in God there is unchangeable goodness. In either case, everything dedicated to God is called holy, such as a temple and the vessels of the temple and all objects consecrated to divine service. Rightly, then, the Spirit, who represents to us the love whereby God loves Himself, is called the Holy Spirit. For this reason the rule of Catholic faith proclaims that the Spirit is holy, in the clause, “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”

Caput 48

Quod amor in divinis non importat accidens

Sicut autem intelligere Dei est suum esse, ita et eius amare. Non igitur Deus amat seipsum secundum aliquid suae essentiae superveniens, sed secundum suam essentiam. Cum igitur amet seipsum secundum hoc quod ipse in seipso est ut amatum in amante, non est Deus amatus in Deo amante per modum accidentalem, sicut et res amatae sunt in nobis amantibus accidentaliter, sed Deus est in seipso ut amatum in amante substantialiter. Ipse ergo spiritus sanctus, quo nobis insinuatur divinus amor, non est aliquid accidentale in Deo, sed est res subsistens in essentia divina, sicut pater et filius. Et ideo in regula Catholicae fidei ostenditur coadorandus, et simul glorificandus cum patre et filio. Just as God’s understanding is His existence, so likewise is His love. Accordingly God does not love Himself by any act that is over and above His essence, but He loves Himself by His very essence. Since God loves Himself for the reason that He is in Himself as the beloved in the lover, God the beloved is not in God the lover in any accidental fashion, in the way that the objects of our love are in us who love them, that is, accidentally. No, God is substantially in Himself as beloved in lover. Therefore the Holy Spirit, who represents the divine love to us, is not something accidental in God, but subsists in the divine essence just as the Father and the Son do. And so in the rule of Catholic faith He is exhibited as no less worthy of adoration and glorification than the Father and the Son are.

Caput 49

Quod spiritus sanctus a patre filioque procedit

Est etiam considerandum, quod ipsum intelligere ex virtute intellectus procedit. Secundum autem quod intellectus actu intelligit, est in ipso id quod intelligitur. Hoc igitur quod est intellectum esse in intelligente, procedit ex virtute intellectiva intellectus, et hoc est verbum ipsius, ut supra dictum est. Similiter etiam id quod amatur est in amante secundum quod amatur actu. Quod autem aliquid actu ametur, procedit et ex virtute amativa amantis, et ex bono amabili actu intellecto. Hoc igitur quod est amatum esse in amante, ex duobus procedit: scilicet ex principio amativo, et ex intelligibili apprehenso, quod est verbum conceptum de amabili. Cum igitur in Deo seipsum intelligente et amante verbum sit filius; is autem cuius est verbum, sit verbi pater, ut ex dictis patet, necesse est quod spiritus sanctus, qui pertinet ad amorem, secundum quod Deus in seipso est ut amatum in amante, ex patre procedat, et filio: unde et in symbolo dicitur: qui ex patre filioque procedit. We should recall that the act of understanding proceeds from the intellectual power of the mind. When the intellect actually understands, the object it understands is in it. The presence of the object known in the knower results from the intellectual power of the mind, and is its word, as we said above. Likewise, what is loved is in the lover, when it is actually loved. The fact that an object is actually loved, results from the lover’s power to love and from the lovable good as actually known. Accordingly the presence of the beloved object in the lover is brought about by two factors: the appetitive principle and the intelligible object as apprehended, that is, the word conceived about the lovable object. Therefore, since the Word in God who knows and loves Himself is the Son, and since He to whom the Word belongs is the Father of the Word, as is clear from our exposition, the necessary consequence is that the Holy Spirit, who pertains to the love whereby God is in Himself as beloved in lover, proceeds from the Father and the Son. And so we say in the Creed: “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

Caput 50

Quod in divinis Trinitas personarum non repugnat unitati essentiae

Ex omnibus autem quae dicta sunt, colligi oportet, quod in divinitate quendam trinarium ponimus, qui tamen unitati et simplicitati essentiae non repugnat. Oportet enim concedi Deum esse ut existentem in sua natura, et intellectum et amatum a seipso. We must conclude from all we have said that in the Godhead there is something threefold which is not opposed to the unity and simplicity of the divine essence. We must acknowledge that God is, as existing in His nature, and that He is known and loved by Himself.
Aliter autem hoc accidit in Deo et in nobis. Quia enim in sua natura homo substantia est, intelligere autem et amare eius non sunt eius substantia, homo quidem, secundum quod in natura sua consideratur, quaedam res subsistens est; secundum autem quod est in suo intellectu, non est res subsistens, sed intentio quaedam rei subsistentis, et similiter secundum quod est in seipso ut amatum in amante. Sic ergo in homine tria quaedam considerari possunt: idest homo in natura sua existens, et homo in intellectu existens, et homo in amore existens; et tamen hi tres non sunt unum, quia intelligere eius non est eius esse, similiter autem et amare: et horum trium unus solus est res quaedam subsistens, scilicet homo in natura sua existens. But this occurs otherwise in God than in us. Man, to be sure, is a substance in his nature; but his actions of knowing and loving are not his substance. Considered in his nature, man is indeed a subsisting thing; as he exists in his mind, however, he is not a subsisting thing, but a certain representation of a subsisting thing; and similarly with regard to his existence in himself as beloved in lover. Thus man may be regarded under three aspects: that is, man existing in his nature, man existing in his intellect, and man existing in his love. Yet these three are not one, for man’s knowing is not his existing, and the same is true of his loving. Only one of these three is a subsisting thing, namely, man existing in his nature.
In Deo autem idem est esse, intelligere, et amare. Deus ergo in esse suo naturali existens, et Deus existens in intellectu, et Deus existens in amore suo, unum sunt; unusquisque tamen eorum est subsistens. Et quia res subsistentes in intellectuali natura personas Latini nominare consueverunt, Graeci vero hypostases, propter hoc in divinis Latini dicunt tres personas, Graeci vero tres hypostases, patrem scilicet, et filium, et spiritum sanctum. In God, on the contrary, to be, to know, and to love are identical. Therefore God existing in His natural being and God existing in the divine intellect and God existing in the divine love are one thing. Yet each of them is subsistent. And, as things subsisting in intellectual nature are usually called persons in Latin, or hypostases in Greek, the Latins say that there are three persons in God, and the Greeks say that there are three hypostases, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Caput 51

Quomodo videtur esse repugnantia Trinitatis personarum in divinis

Videtur autem ex praedictis repugnantia quaedam suboriri. Si enim in Deo ternarius aliquis ponitur, cum omnis numerus divisionem aliquam consequatur, oportebit in Deo aliquam differentiam ponere, per quam tres ab invicem distinguantur: et ita non erit in Deo summa simplicitas. Nam si in aliquo tres conveniunt, et in aliquo differunt, necesse est ibi esse compositionem, quod superioribus repugnat. Rursus si necesse est esse unum solum Deum, ut supra ostensum est, nulla autem res una oritur vel procedit a seipsa, impossibile videtur quod sit Deus genitus, vel Deus procedens. Falso igitur ponitur in divinis nomen patris et filii, et spiritus procedentis. A certain contradiction, arising from truths previously established, seemingly makes its appearance at this point. If threefold personality is assumed in God, then, since number always follows division, some division will have to be acknowledged in God, whereby the three may be distinguished from one another. Thus supreme simplicity will be lacking in God. If three agree in some respect and differ in another, composition must be present; which is contrary to what was set forth above.” Again, if God must be strictly one, as was shown above, 118 and if one and the same thing cannot originate or proceed from itself, it seems impossible for God to be begotten or to proceed. Wrongly, therefore, the names of Father and of Son and of proceeding Spirit are given place in the Godhead.

Caput 52

Solutio rationis: et quod in divinis non est distinctio nisi secundum relationes

Principium autem ad dissolvendum hanc dubitationem, hinc sumere oportet, quia secundum diversitatem naturarum est in diversis rebus diversus modus aliquid ex alio oriendi vel procedendi. In rebus enim vita carentibus, quia non sunt seipsa moventia, sed solum extrinsecus possunt moveri, oritur unum ex altero quasi exterius alteratum et immutatum, sicut ab igne generatur ignis, et ab aere aer. The principle for solving this difficulty must be derived from the fact that, among different classes of beings, the various ways in which one thing may arise or proceed from another, depend on the diversity of their natures. Among lifeless beings, which do not move themselves and are capable of being moved only from outside, one thing arises from another by being, as it were, outwardly altered and changed. In this way fire is generated from fire and air from air.
In rebus vero viventibus, quarum proprietas est ut seipsas moveant, generatur aliquid in ipso generante, sicut foetus animalium et fructus plantarum. Est autem considerare diversum modum processionis secundum diversas vires et processiones earumdem. Sunt enim quaedam vires in eis, quarum operationes non se extendunt nisi ad corpora, secundum quod materialia sunt, sicut patet de viribus animae vegetabilis, quae sunt nutritiva et augmentativa et generativa: et secundum hoc genus virium animae non procedit nisi aliquid corporale corporaliter distinctum, et tamen aliquo modo coniunctum in viventibus ei a quo procedit. But among living beings, which have the property of moving themselves, something is generated within the parent; for example, the young of animals and the fruits of plants. Moreover, the different manner of procession in living beings must be viewed according to their different powers and kinds of proceeding. Among such beings, there are certain powers whose operations extend only to bodies, so far as they are material. This is clear with regard to the powers of the vegetative soul, which serve nutrition, growth, and generation. In virtue of this class of the soul’s powers, there proceeds only what is corporeal and what is bodily distinct although, in the case of living beings, somehow joined to that from which it proceeds.
Sunt autem quaedam vires, quarum operationes etsi corpora non transcendant, tamen se extendunt ad species corporum, sine materia eas recipiendo, sicut est in omnibus viribus animae sensitivae. Est enim sensus susceptivus specierum sine materia, ut philosophus dicit. Huiusmodi autem vires, licet quodammodo immaterialiter formas rerum suscipiant, non tamen eas suscipiunt absque organo corporali. Si qua igitur processio in huiusmodi viribus animae inveniatur, quod procedit, non erit aliquod corporale, vel corporaliter distinctum, vel coniunctum ei a quo procedit, sed incorporaliter et immaterialiter quodammodo, licet non omnino absque adminiculo organi corporalis. Sic enim procedunt in animalibus formationes rerum imaginatarum, quae quidem sunt in imaginatione non sicut corpus in corpore, sed quodam spirituali modo: unde et ab Augustino imaginaria visio spiritualis nominatur. There are other powers whose operations do not transcend the limits of bodies and yet extend to the species of bodies, receiving them without their accompanying matter. This is the case with all the powers of the sensitive soul. For sense is capable of receiving species without matter, as the Philosopher says [De anima, III, 4, 429 b 21]. But such faculties, although they are receptive of the forms of things in a sort of immaterial way, do not receive them without a bodily organ. If procession takes place within these powers of the soul, that which proceeds will not be something corporeal, nor will it be distinct or joined to that faculty whence it proceeds in a corporeal way, but in a certain incorporeal and immaterial fashion, although not entirely without the help of a bodily organ. Thus the representations of things imagined, which exist in the imagination not as a body in a body, but in a certain spiritual way, proceed in animals. This is why imaginary vision is called spiritual by Augustine [ De Genesi ad littera m, XII, vii, 16; xxiv, 50].
Si autem secundum operationem imaginationis procedit aliquid non per modum corporalem, multo fortius hoc accidet per operationem partis intellectivae, quae nec etiam in sui operatione indiget organo corporali, sed omnino eius operatio immaterialis est. Procedit enim verbum secundum operationem intellectus, ut in ipso intellectu dicentis existens, non quasi localiter in eo contentum, nec corporaliter ab eo separatum, sed in ipso quidem existens secundum ordinem originis: et eadem ratio est de processione quae attenditur secundum operationem voluntatis, prout res amata existit in amante, ut supra dictum est. Licet autem vires intellectivae et sensitivae secundum propriam rationem sint nobiliores viribus animae vegetabilis, non tamen in hominibus aut in aliis animalibus secundum processionem imaginativae partis, aut sensitivae procedit aliquid subsistens in natura speciei eiusdem, sed hoc solum accidit per processionem quae fit secundum operationem animae vegetabilis: But if something proceeds in a way that is not corporeal when the imagination is in action, this will be the case much more in the operation of the intellectual faculty, which can act without any bodily organ at all; its operation is strictly immaterial. For in intellectual operation a word proceeds in such a way that it exists in the very intellect of the speaker, not as though contained therein locally, nor as bodily separated therefrom, but as present there in a manner that is conformable to its origin. The same is true in that procession which is observed to take place in the operation of the will, so far as the thing loved exists in the lover, in the sense described above. However, although the intellectual and sensitive powers are nobler in their own scale of being than the powers of the vegetative soul, nothing that subsists in the nature of the same species proceeds either in men or in other animals according to the procession of the imaginative or sensitive faculties. This occurs only in that procession which takes place through the operation of the vegetative soul.
et hoc ideo est, quia in omnibus compositis ex materia et forma, multiplicatio individuorum in eadem specie fit secundum materiae divisionem. Unde in hominibus, et aliis animalibus, cum ex forma et materia componantur secundum corporalem divisionem, quae invenitur secundum processionem quae est secundum operationem animae vegetabilis, et non in aliis operationibus animae, multiplicantur individua secundum eamdem speciem. In rebus autem quae non sunt ex materia et forma compositae, non potest inveniri nisi distinctio formalis tantum. Sed si forma, secundum quam attenditur distinctio, sit substantia rei, oportet quod illa distinctio sit rerum subsistentium quarumdam; non autem si forma illa non sit rei subiecta. The reason for this is that in all beings composed of matter and form, the multiplication of individuals in the same species is effected by a division of matter. Hence among men and other animals, composed as they are of form and matter, individuals are multiplied in the same species by the bodily division which ensues in the procession that is proper to the operation of the vegetative soul, but that does not take place in other operations of the soul. In beings that are not composed of matter and form, no distinction can be discerned other than that of the forms themselves. But if the form, which is the reason for the distinction, is the substance of a thing, the distinction must obtain between subsistent things. Of course, this is not the case if the form in question is not the substance of the thing.
Est igitur commune in omni intellectu, ut ex dictis patet, quod oportet id quod in intellectu concipitur, ab intelligente quodammodo procedere, inquantum intelligens est, et sua processione ab ipso quodammodo distinguitur, sicut conceptio intellectus quae est intentio intellecta, distinguitur ab intellectu intelligente; et similiter oportet quod affectio amantis, per quam amatum est in amante, procedat a voluntate amantis inquantum est amans. Sed hoc proprium habet intellectus divinus, quod cum intelligere eius sit esse ipsius, oportet quod conceptio intellectus, quae est intentio intellecta, sit substantia eius, et similiter est de affectione in ipso Deo amante. Relinquitur ergo quod intentio intellectus divini, quae est verbum ipsius, non distinguitur a producente ipsum in hoc quod est esse secundum substantiam, sed solum in hoc quod est esse secundum rationem processionis unius ex alio: et similiter est de affectione amoris in Deo amante, quae ad spiritum sanctum pertinet. As is clear from our discussion, every intellect has this in common, that what is conceived in the intellect must in some way proceed from the knower, so far as he is knowing; and in its procession it is to some extent distinct from him, just as the conception of the intellect, which is the intellectual likeness, is distinct from the knowing intellect. Similarly the affection of the lover, whereby the beloved is in the lover, must proceed from the will of the lover so far as he is loving. But the divine intellect has this exclusive perfection: since God’s understanding is His existence, His intellectual conception, which is the intelligible likeness, must be His substance; and the case is similar with affection in God, regarded as loving. Consequently the representation of the divine intellect, which is God’s Word, is distinct from Him who produces the Word, not with respect to substantial existence, but only according to the procession of one from the other. And in God considered as loving, the same is true of the affection of love, which pertains to the Spirit.
Sic igitur patet quod nihil prohibet verbum Dei, quod est filius, esse unum cum patre secundum substantiam, et tamen distinguitur ab eo secundum relationem processionis, ut dictum est. Unde et manifestum est quod eadem res non oritur neque procedit a seipsa: quia filius, secundum quod a patre procedit, ab eo distinguitur; et eadem ratio est de spiritu sancto per comparationem ad patrem et filium. Thus it is plain that nothing prevents God’s Word, who is the Son, from being one with the Father in substance, and that, nevertheless, the Word is distinct from the Father according to the relation of procession, as we have said. Hence it is also evident that the same thing does not arise or proceed from itself; for the Son, as proceeding from the Father, is distinct from Him. And the same observation holds true of the Holy Spirit, relative to the Father and the Son.

Caput 53

Quod relationes quibus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus distinguuntur, sunt reales, et non rationis tantum

Istae autem relationes, quibus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus ab invicem distinguuntur, sunt relationes reales et non rationis tantum. Illae enim relationes sunt rationis tantum quae non consequuntur ad aliquid quod est in rerum natura, sed ad aliquid quod est in apprehensione tantum, sicut dextrum et sinistrum in lapide non sunt relationes reales, sed rationis tantum, quia non consequuntur aliquam virtutem realem in lapide existentem, sed solum acceptionem apprehendentis lapidem ut sinistrum quia est alicui animali ad sinistram; sed sinistrum et dextrum in animali sunt relationes reales, quia consequuntur virtutes quasdam in determinatis partibus animalis inventas. Cum igitur relationes praedictae, quibus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus distinguuntur, sint realiter in Deo existentes, oportet quod relationes praedictae sint relationes reales, non rationis tantum. The relations by which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinguished from one another are real relations, and not merely mental relations. Those relations are purely mental which do not correspond to anything found in the nature of things, but depend on intellectual apprehension alone. Thus right and left in a stone are not real relations, but only mental relations; they do not correspond to any real disposition present in the stone, but exist only in the mind of one who apprehends the stone as left, because it is, for instance, to the left of some animal. On the other hand, left and right in an animal are real relations, because they correspond to certain dispositions found in definite parts of the animal. Accordingly, since the relations whereby the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished really exist in God, the relations in question must be real relations, and are not merely mental relations.

Caput 54

Quod huiusmodi relationes non sunt accidentaliter inhaerentes

Non est autem possibile quod sint accidentaliter inhaerentes: tum quia operationes ad quas sequuntur directe relationes, sunt ipsa Dei substantia, tum etiam quia supra ostensum est quod in Deo nullum accidens esse potest. Unde si relationes praedictae realiter sunt in Deo, oportet quod non sint accidentaliter inhaerentes, sed subsistentes. Quomodo autem id quod est in aliis rebus accidens, in Deo substantialiter esse possit, ex praemissis manifestum est These relations cannot inhere in God accidentally, because the operations on which the relations follow directly are the very substance of God, and also because, as was shown above ‘48 there can be no accident in God. Hence, if the relations are really in God, they cannot be accidentally inherent, but must be subsistent. How it is that what is an accident in other things, can exist substantially in God, is clear from the doctrine previously set forth.

Caput 55

Quod per praedictas relationes in Deo personalis distinctio constituitur

Quia ergo in divinis distinctio est per relationes quae non accidunt, sed sunt subsistentes, rerum autem subsistentium in natura quacumque intellectuali est distinctio personalis, necesse est quod per praedictas relationes in Deo personalis distinctio constituatur. Pater igitur et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt tres personae, et similiter tres hypostases, quia hypostasis significat aliquid subsistens completum. Since distinction in the Godhead is accounted for by relations that are not accidental but are subsistent, and since among beings subsisting in an intellectual nature personal distinction is discerned, it necessarily follows that personal distinction in God is constituted by the relations in question. Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and also three hypostases, since hypostasis means something that is subsistent and complete.

Caput 56

Quod impossibile est plures personas esse in divinis quam tres

Plures autem in divinis personas tribus esse impossibile est, cum non sit possibile divinas personas multiplicari per substantiae divisionem, sed solum per alicuius processionis relationem, nec cuiuscumque processionis, sed talis quae non terminetur ad aliquod extrinsecum. Nam si terminaretur ad aliquod extrinsecum, non haberet naturam divinam, et sic non posset esse persona aut hypostasis divina. Processio autem in Deo ad exterius non terminata non potest accipi nisi aut secundum operationem intellectus, prout procedit verbum; aut secundum operationem voluntatis, prout procedit amor, ut ex dictis patet. Non igitur potest esse aliqua persona divina procedens, nisi vel ut verbum, quod dicimus filium, vel ut amor, quod dicimus spiritum sanctum. There cannot be more than three persons in God. For the divine persons cannot be multiplied by a division of their substance, but solely by the relation of some procession; and not by any sort of procession, but only by such as does not have its term in something outside of God. If the relation had something external as its term, this would not possess the divine nature, and so could not be a divine person or hypostasis. But procession in God that does not terminate outside of God must be either according to the operation of the intellect, whereby the Word proceeds, or according to the operation of the will, whereby love proceeds, as is clear from our exposition. Therefore no divine person can proceed unless He proceeds as the Word, whom we call the Son, or as love, whom we call the Holy Spirit.
Rursus. Cum Deus omnia uno intuitu per suum intellectum comprehendat, et similiter uno actu voluntatis omnia diligat, impossibile est in Deo esse plura verba aut plures amores. Si igitur filius procedit ut verbum, et spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor, impossibile est in Deo esse plures filios, vel plures spiritus sanctos. Moreover, since God comprehends everything in His intellect by a single act of intuition, and similarly loves everything by a single act of His will, there cannot be several words or several loves in God. If, then, the Son proceeds as Word, and if the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, there cannot be several Sons or several Holy Spirits in God.
Item. Perfectum est extra quod nihil est. Quod igitur extra se aliquid sui generis patitur, non simpliciter perfectum est, propter quod et ea quae sunt simpliciter in suis naturis perfecta, numero non multiplicantur, sicut Deus, sol et luna, et huiusmodi. Oportet autem tam filium quam spiritum sanctum esse simpliciter perfectum, cum uterque eorum sit Deus, ut ostensum est. Impossibile est igitur esse plures filios, aut plures spiritus sanctos. Again: the perfect is that beyond which there is nothing. Hence a being that would tolerate anything of its own class to be outside itself, would fall short of absolute perfection. This is why things that are simply perfect in their natures are not numerically multiplied; thus God, the sun, the moon, and so on. But both the Son and the Holy Spirit must be simply perfect, since each of them is God, as we have shown. Therefore several Sons or several Holy Spirits are impossible.
Praeterea. Illud per quod aliquid subsistens est hoc aliquid, et ab aliis distinctum, impossibile est quod numero multiplicetur, eo quod individuum de pluribus dici non potest. Sed filiatione filius est haec persona divina in se subsistens et ab aliis distincta, sicut per principia individuantia, Socrates est haec persona humana. Sicut ergo principia individuantia, quibus Socrates est hic homo, non possunt convenire nisi uni, ita etiam filiatio in divinis non potest nisi uni convenire. Et simile est de relatione patris et spiritus sancti. Impossibile est igitur in divinis esse plures patres, aut plures filios, aut plures spiritus sanctos. Besides, that whereby a subsistent thing is this particular thing, distinct from other things, cannot be numerically multiplied, for the reason that an individual cannot be predicated of many. But the Son is this divine person, subsisting in Himself and distinct from the other divine persons by sonship; just as Socrates is constituted this human person by individuating principles. Accordingly, as the individuating principles whereby Socrates is this man cannot pertain to more than one man, so sonship in the Godhead cannot pertain to more than one divine person. Similar is the case with the relation of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Hence there cannot be several Fathers in God or several Sons or several Holy Spirits.
Adhuc. Ea quae sunt unum secundum formam non multiplicantur numero nisi per materiam, sicut multiplicatur albedo per hoc quod est in pluribus subiectis. In divinis autem non est materia. Quidquid igitur est unum specie et forma in divinis, impossibile est multiplicari secundum numerum. Huiusmodi autem sunt paternitas et filiatio et spiritus sancti processio. Impossibile est igitur in divinis esse plures patres, aut filios, aut spiritus sanctos. Lastly, whatever is one by reason of its form, is not numerically multiplied except through matter; thus whiteness is multiplied by existing in many subjects. But there is no matter in God. Consequently whatever is one in species and form in the Godhead, cannot be multiplied numerically. Such are paternity and filiation and the procession of the Holy Spirit. And thus there cannot be several Fathers or Sons or Holy Spirits in God.

Caput 57

De proprietatibus seu notionibus in divinis, et quot sunt numero in patre

Huiusmodi autem existente numero personarum in divinis, necesse est personarum proprietates, quibus ab invicem distinguuntur, in aliquo numero esse, quarum tres oportet patri convenire. Una qua distinguatur a filio solo, et haec est paternitas; alia qua distinguatur a duobus, scilicet filio et spiritu sancto, et haec est innascibilitas, quia pater non est Deus procedens ab alio, filius autem et spiritus sanctus ab alio procedunt; tertia est qua ipse pater cum filio a spiritu sancto distinguitur; et haec dicitur communis spiratio. Proprietatem autem qua pater differat a solo spiritu sancto, non est assignare, eo quod pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, ut ostensum est. Such being the number of persons in God, the properties whereby the persons are distinguished from one another must be of some definite number. Three properties are characteristic of the Father. The first is that whereby He is distinguished from the Son alone. This is paternity. The second is that whereby the Father is distinguished from the other two persons, namely, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And this is innascibility; for the Father is not God as proceeding from another person, whereas the Son and the Holy Spirit do proceed from another person. The third property is that whereby the Father along with the Son is distinguished from the Holy Spirit. This is called their common spiration. But a property whereby the Father may be distinguished from the Holy Spirit alone is not to be assigned, for the reason that the Father and the Son are a single principle of the Holy Spirit, as has been shown.

Caput 58

De proprietatibus filii et spiritus sancti, quae et quot sunt

Filio autem necesse est duas convenire. Unam scilicet qua distinguatur a patre, et haec est filiatio; aliam qua simul cum patre distinguatur a spiritu sancto, quae est communis spiratio. Non autem est assignare proprietatem qua distinguatur a solo spiritu sancto, quia, ut iam dictum est, filius et pater sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Similiter etiam non est assignare proprietatem unam qua spiritus sanctus et filius simul distinguantur a patre. Pater enim ab eis distinguitur una proprietate, scilicet innascibilitate, inquantum est non procedens. Sed quia filius et spiritus sanctus non una processione procedunt, sed pluribus, duabus proprietatibus a patre distinguuntur. Spiritus autem sanctus habet unam proprietatem tantum, qua distinguitur a patre et filio, et dicitur processio. Quod autem non possit esse aliqua proprietas qua spiritus sanctus distinguatur a filio solo, vel a patre solo, ex dictis patet. Two properties must pertain to the Son: one whereby He is distinguished from the Father, and this is filiation; another whereby, along with the Father, He is distinguished from the Holy Spirit; and this is their common spiration. But no property is to be assigned whereby the Son is distinguished from the Holy Spirit alone, because as we said above, the Son and the Father are a single principle of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, no single property is to be assigned whereby the Holy Spirit and the Son together are distinguished from the Father. For the Father is distinguished from them by one property, namely, innascibility, inasmuch as He does not proceed. However, since the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed, not by one procession, but by several, they are distinguished from the Father by two properties. The Holy Spirit has only one property by which He is distinguished from the Father and the Son, and this is called procession. That there cannot be any property by which the Holy Spirit may be distinguished from the Son alone or from the Father alone, is evident from this whole discussion.
Sunt igitur quinque quae personis attribuuntur: scilicet innascibilitas, paternitas, filiatio, spiratio et processio. Accordingly five properties in all are attributed to the divine persons: innascibility, paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession.

Caput 59

Quare illae proprietates dicantur notiones

Haec autem quinque notiones personarum dici possunt, eo quod per eas nobis innotescit in divinis distinctio personarum, non tamen haec quinque possunt dici proprietates, si hoc in proprietatis ratione observetur, ut proprium esse dicatur quod convenit uni soli: nam communis conspiratio patri et filio convenit. Sed secundum illum modum quo aliquid dicitur proprium aliquibus per respectum ad aliud sicut bipes homini et avi per respectum ad quadrupedia, nihil prohibet etiam communem spirationem proprietatem dici. Quia vero in divinis personae solis relationibus distinguuntur, notiones autem sunt quibus divinarum personarum distinctio innotescit, necesse est notiones aliqualiter ad relationem pertinere. Sed earum quatuor verae relationes sunt, quibus divinae personae ad invicem referuntur. Quinta vero notio, scilicet innascibilitas, ad relationem pertinet, sicut relationis negatio; nam negationes ad genus affirmationum reducuntur, et privationes ad genus habituum, sicut non homo ad genus hominis, et non album ad genus albedinis. These five properties can be called notions of the persons, for the reason that the distinction between the persons in God is brought to our notice through them. On the other hand, they cannot be called properties, if the root meaning of a property is insisted on, so that a property is taken to mean a characteristic pertaining to one individual alone; for common spiration pertains to the Father and the Son. But if the word “property” is employed in the sense of an attribute that is proper to some individuals as setting them off from others, in the way that “two-footed,” for example, is proper to man and bird in contradistinction to quadrupeds, there is nothing to prevent even common spiration from being called a property. Since, however, the persons in God are distinguished solely by relations, and distinction among the divine persons is manifested by the notions, the notions must in some sense pertain to relationship. But only four of the notions are real relations, whereby the divine persons are related to one another. The fifth notion, innascibility, pertains to relation as being the denial of relation; for negations are reduced to the genus of affirmations, and privations are reduced to the genus of habits, as, for example, not man is reduced to the genus of man, and not white is reduced to the genus of whiteness.
Sciendum tamen quod relationum, quibus personae ad invicem referuntur, quaedam nominatae sunt, ut paternitas et filiatio, quae proprie relationem significant; quaedam vero innominatae, illae scilicet quibus pater et filius ad spiritum sanctum referuntur, et spiritus sanctus ad eos; sed loco relationum utimur nominibus originum. Manifestum est enim quod communis spiratio et processio originem significant; non autem relationes originem consequentes: quod potest perpendi ex relationibus patris et filii. Generatio enim significat activam originem, quam consequitur paternitatis relatio; nativitas vero significat passivam filii, quam consequitur relatio filiationis. Similiter igitur ad communem spirationem sequitur aliqua relatio, et etiam ad processionem. Sed quia relationes innominatae sunt, utimur nominibus actuum pro nominibus relationum. We should note that among the relations whereby the divine persons are related to one another, some have definite names, such as paternity and filiation, which properly signify relationship. But others lack a definite name: those whereby the Father and the Son are related to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is related to them. So for these we use names of origin in place of relative names. We perceive clearly that common spiration and procession signify origin, but not relations that follow origin. This can be brought out in the case of the relations between the Father and the Son. Generation denotes active origin, and is followed by the relation of paternity; and nativity signifies the passive generation of the Son, and is followed by the relation of filiation. In like manner, some relation follows common spiration, and the same is true of procession. But as these relations lack definite names, we use the names of the actions instead of relative names.

Caput 60

Quod licet relationes in divinis subsistentes sint quatuor, tamen non sunt nisi tres personae

Considerandum autem, quod quamvis relationes subsistentes in divinis sint ipsae personae divinae, ut supra dictum est, non tamen oportet esse quinque, vel quatuor personas secundum numerum relationum. Numerus enim distinctionem aliquam consequitur. Sicut autem unum est indivisibile vel indivisum, ita pluralitas est divisibile vel divisum. Ad pluralitatem enim personarum requiritur quod relationes vim distinctivam habeant ratione oppositionis, nam formalis distinctio non est nisi per oppositionem. Si ergo praedictae relationes inspiciantur, paternitas et filiatio oppositionem ad invicem habent relativam, unde non se compatiuntur in eodem supposito: propter hoc oportet quod paternitas et filiatio sint duae personae subsistentes. Innascibilitas autem opponitur quidem filiationi, non autem paternitati: unde paternitas et innascibilitas possunt uni et eidem personae convenire. Similiter communis spiratio non opponitur neque paternitati, neque filiationi, nec etiam innascibilitati. Unde nihil prohibet communem spirationem inesse et personae patris, et personae filii. Propter quod communis spiratio non est persona subsistens seorsum a persona patris et filii. Processio autem oppositionem relativam habet ad communem spirationem. Unde, cum communis spiratio conveniat patri et filio, oportet quod processio sit alia persona a persona patris et filii. We must realize that, although the relations subsisting in the Godhead are the divine persons themselves, as was stated above, we are not to conclude that there are five or four persons corresponding to the number of relations. For number follows distinction of some sort. just as unity is indivisible or undivided, so plurality is divisible or divided. For a plurality of persons requires that relations have power to distinguish by reason of opposition, since formal distinction necessarily entails opposition. If, then, the relations in question are closely examined, paternity and filiation will be seen to have relative opposition to each other; hence they are incompatible in the same suppositum. Consequently paternity and filiation in God must be two subsistent persons. Innascibility, on the other hand, although opposed to filiation, is not opposed to paternity. Hence paternity and innascibility can pertain to one and the same person. Similarly, common spiration is not opposed either to paternity or to filiation, nor to innascibility. Thus nothing prevents common spiration from being in both the person of the Father and the person of the Son. Accordingly common spiration is not a subsisting person distinct from the persons of the Father and the Son. But procession has a relation of opposition to common spiration. Therefore, since common spiration pertains to the Father and the Son, procession must be a person distinct from the persons of the Father and the Son.
Hinc autem patet quare Deus non dicitur quinus, propter quinarium numerum notionum, sed dicitur trinus propter trinarium personarum. Quinque enim notiones non sunt quinque subsistentes res, sed tres personae sunt tres res subsistentes. Licet autem uni personae plures notiones aut proprietates conveniant, una tamen sola est quae personam constituit. Non enim sic constituitur persona proprietatibus quasi ex pluribus constituta, sed eo quod proprietas ipsa relativa subsistens persona est. Si igitur intelligerentur plures proprietates ut seorsum per se subsistentes, essent iam plures personae, et non una. Oportet igitur intelligi, quod plurium proprietatum seu notionum uni personae convenientium illa quae procedit secundum ordinem naturae, personam constituit; aliae vero intelliguntur ut personae iam constitutae inhaerentes. Accordingly the reason is clear why God is not called “quiune,” quinus, on account of the notions, which are five in number, but is called triune, on account of the Trinity of persons. The five notions are not five subsisting things, but the three persons are three subsisting things. Although several notions or properties may pertain to a single person, only one of them constitutes the person. For a divine person is constituted by the properties, not in the sense that He is constituted by several of them, but in the sense that the relative, subsisting property itself is a person. If several properties were understood as subsisting in themselves apart, they would be several persons, and not one person. Hence we must understand that, of the several properties or notions belonging to a single person, the one that precedes according to the order of nature constitutes the person; the others are understood as inhering in the person already constituted.
Manifestum est autem quod innascibilitas non potest esse prima notio patris quae personam eius constituat, tum quia nihil negatione constituitur, tum quia naturaliter affirmatio negationem praecedit. Communis autem spiratio ordine naturae praesupponit paternitatem et filiationem, sicut processio amoris processionem verbi. Thus it is evident that innascibility cannot be the first notion of the Father, constituting His person, because nothing is constituted by a negation, and also because affirmation naturally precedes negation. Further, common spiration presupposes paternity and filiation in the order of nature, just as the procession of love presupposes the procession of the Word.
Unde nec communis spiratio potest esse prima notio patris, sed nec filii. Relinquitur ergo quod prima notio patris sit paternitas, filii autem filiatio, spiritus autem sancti sola processio notio est. Hence common spiration cannot be the first notion of the Father, or of the Son either. The first notion of the Father is paternity and the first notion of the Son is filiation, whereas procession alone is the notion of the Holy Spirit.
Relinquitur igitur quod tres sunt notiones constituentes personas, scilicet paternitas, filiatio et processio. Et has quidem notiones necesse est proprietates esse. Id enim quod personam constituit, oportet soli illi personae convenire, principia enim individuationis non possunt pluribus convenire. Dicuntur igitur praedictae tres notiones personales proprietates, quasi constituentes tres personas modo praedicto. Aliae vero dicuntur proprietates seu notiones personarum, non autem personales, quia personam non constituunt. Accordingly the notions constituting persons are three in number: paternity, filiation, and procession. And these notions must be strict properties. For that which constitutes a person must pertain to that person alone; individuating principles cannot belong to several individuals. For this reason the three notions in question are called personal properties, in the sense that they constitute the three persons in the manner described. The remaining notions are called properties or notions of the persons, but not personal properties or notions, because they do not constitute a person.

Caput 61

Quod remotis per intellectum proprietatibus personalibus, non remanent hypostases

Ex hoc autem apparet quod remotis per intellectum proprietatibus personalibus, non remanent hypostases. In resolutione enim quae fit per intellectum, remota forma, remanet subiectum formae, sicut remota albedine remanet superficies, qua remota, remanet substantia, cuius forma remota remanet materia prima; sed remoto subiecto nihil remanet. Proprietates autem personales sunt ipsae personae subsistentes, nec constituunt personas, quasi praeexistentibus suppositis advenientes: quia nihil in divinis potest esse distinctum quod absolute dicitur, sed solum quod relativum est. Relinquitur igitur quod proprietatibus remotis personalibus per intellectum, non remanent aliquae hypostases distinctae; sed remotis notionibus non personalibus, remanent hypostases distinctae. This makes it clear that if we were to remove the personal properties by intellectual abstraction, the hypostases could not remain. If a form is removed by intellectual abstraction, the subject of the form remains. Thus if whiteness is removed, the surface remains; if the surface is removed, the substance remains; if the form of the substance is removed, prime matter remains. But if the subject is removed, nothing remains. In the case of God, the personal properties are the subsisting persons themselves. They do not constitute the persons in the sense that they are added to pre-existing supposita; for in the Godhead nothing that is predicated absolutely, but only what is relative, can be distinct. Therefore, if the personal properties are removed by intellectual abstraction, no distinct hypostases remain. But if non-personal notions are thus removed, distinct hypostases do remain.

Caput 62

Quomodo, remotis per intellectum proprietatibus personalibus, remaneat essentia divina

Si quis autem quaerat, utrum remotis per intellectum proprietatibus personalibus remaneat essentia divina, dicendum est quod quodam modo remanet, quodam vero modo non. Est enim duplex resolutio quae fit per intellectum. Una secundum abstractionem formae a materia, in qua quidem proceditur ab eo quod formalius est, ad id quod est materialius: nam id quod est primum subiectum, ultimo remanet; ultima vero forma primo removetur. Alia vero resolutio est secundum abstractionem universalis a particulari, quae quodammodo contrario ordine se habet: nam prius removentur conditiones materiales individuantes, ut accipiatur quod commune est. If the question were to be asked whether, in consequence of the removal of the personal properties by intellectual abstraction, the divine essence would remain, the answer is that in one respect it would remain, but in another it would not. Intellectual abstraction can take place in two ways. The first is by abstracting form from matter. In this abstraction the mind proceeds from the more formal to the more material; the first subject remains until the end, and the ultimate form is removed first. The second way of abstracting is by the abstraction of the universal from the particular, and this proceeds according to an order that is, in a sense, the opposite; the individuating material conditions are first removed, so that what is common may be retained.
Quamvis autem in divinis non sit materia et forma, neque universale et particulare, est tamen in divinis commune et proprium, et suppositum naturae communi. Personae enim comparantur ad essentiam, secundum modum intelligendi, sicut supposita propria ad naturam communem. Secundum igitur primum modum resolutionis quae fit per intellectum, remotis proprietatibus personalibus, quae sunt ipsae personae subsistentes, non remanet natura communis; modo autem secundo remanet. In God, of course, there are neither matter and form, nor universal and particular. Nevertheless there is in the Godhead something that is common, and something that is proper and that supposes the common nature; for, in our human way of thinking, the divine persons are to the divine essence what individual supposita are to a common nature. According to the first type of intellectual abstraction, therefore, if we remove the personal properties, which are the subsisting persons themselves, the common nature does not remain. But in the second type of abstraction it does remain.

Caput 63

De ordine actuum personalium ad proprietates personales

Potest autem ex dictis manifestum esse, qualis sit ordo secundum intellectum actuum personalium ad proprietates personales. Proprietates enim personales sunt subsistentes personae: persona autem subsistens in quacumque natura agit communicando suam naturam in virtute suae naturae; nam forma speciei est principium generandi simile secundum speciem. Cum igitur actus personales ad communicationem naturae divinae pertineant, oportet quod persona subsistens communicet naturam communem virtute ipsius naturae. We can perceive from this discussion the nature of the order between the personal acts and the personal properties. The personal properties are subsistent persons. But a person subsisting in any nature whatsoever, acts in virtue of his nature when he communicates his nature; for the form of a species is the principle for generating a product that is of like species. Consequently, since personal acts in God have to do with communicating the divine nature, a subsisting person must communicate the common nature in virtue of the nature itself.
Et ex hoc duo possunt concludi. Quorum unum est quod potentia generativa in patre sit ipsa natura divina, nam potentia quodcumque agendi, est principium cuius virtute aliquid agitur. Aliud est quod actus personalis, scilicet generatio, secundum modum intelligendi praesupponit et naturam divinam et proprietatem personalem patris, quae est ipsa hypostasis patris, licet huiusmodi proprietas, inquantum relatio est, ex actu consequatur. Unde si in patre attendatur quod subsistens persona est, dici potest, quod quia pater est, generat; si autem attendatur quod relationis est, e converso dicendum videtur, quod quia generat, pater est. Two conclusions follow from this. The first is, that the generative power of the Father is the divine nature itself; for the power of performing any action is the principle in virtue of which a thing acts. The second conclusion is that, according to our way of conceiving, the personal act of generation presupposes both the divine nature and the personal property of the Father, which is the very hypostasis of the Father. This is true even though such property, regarded as a relation, follows from the act. Thus, in speaking of the Father, if we attend to the fact that He is a subsistent person, we can say that He generates because He is the Father. But if we are thinking of what pertains to relationship, it seems we should say, contrariwise, that He is the Father because He generates.

Caput 64

Quomodo oportet recipere generationem respectu patris, et respectu filii

Sciendum est tamen, quod alio modo oportet accipere ordinem generationis activae ad paternitatem, alio modo generationis passivae, sive nativitatis ad filiationem. Generatio enim activa praesupponit ordine naturae personam generantis; sed generatio passiva sive nativitas ordine naturae praecedit personam genitam, quia persona genita nativitate sua habet ut sit. Sic igitur generatio activa secundum modum intelligendi praesupponit paternitatem, secundum quod est constitutiva personae patris; nativitas autem non praesupponit filiationem, secundum quod est constitutiva personae filii, sed secundum intelligendi modum praecedit eam utroque modo, scilicet et secundum quod est constitutiva personae, et secundum quod est relatio. Et similiter intelligendum est de his quae pertinent ad processionem spiritus sancti. However, we should understand that the order of active generation, with reference to paternity, is to be taken in one way, and that the order of passive generation, or nativity, with reference to filiation, is to be taken in another way. In the order of nature, active generation presupposes the person of the begetter. But in the same order of nature, passive generation, or nativity, precedes the begotten person, for the begotten person owes his existence to his birth. Hence active generation, according to our way of representing the matter, presupposes paternity, understood as constituting the person of the Father. Nativity, however, does not presuppose filiation, understood as constituting the person of the Son but, according to our manner of conceiving, precedes it in both respects, that is, both as being constitutive of the person and as being a relation. And whatever pertains to the procession of the Holy Spirit is to be understood in a similar way.

Caput 65

Quomodo actus notionales a personis non differunt nisi secundum rationem

Ex ordine autem assignato inter actus notionales et proprietates notionales, non intendimus quod actus notionales, secundum rem a proprietatibus personalibus differant, sed solum secundum modum intelligendi. Sicut enim intelligere Dei est ipse Deus intelligens, ita et generatio patris est ipse pater generans, licet alio modo significentur. Similiter etiam licet una persona plures notiones habeat, non tamen in ea est aliqua compositio. Innascibilitas enim, cum sit proprietas negativa, nullam compositionem facere potest. Duae vero relationes quae sunt in persona patris, scilicet paternitas et communis spiratio, sunt quidem idem secundum rem prout comparantur ad personam patris: sicut enim paternitas est pater, ita et communis spiratio in patre est pater, et in filio est filius. Differunt autem secundum ea ad quae referuntur: nam paternitate pater refertur ad filium, communi spiratione ad spiritum sanctum; et similiter filius filiatione quidem ad patrem, communi vero spiratione ad spiritum sanctum. In thus indicating the order between the notional acts and the notional properties, we do not mean to imply that the notional acts differ from the personal properties in objective reality, for they are distinct only according to our manner of conceiving. just as God’s act of understanding is God Himself understanding, so the Father’s act of begetting is the begetting Father, although the modes of signifying are different. Likewise, although one divine person may have several notions, there is no composition in Him. Innascibility cannot cause any composition, since it is a negative property. And the two relations in the person of the Father, namely, paternity and common spiration, are in reality identical as referring to the person of the Father; for, as the paternity is the Father, so common spiration in the Father is the Father, and in the Son is the Son. But these two properties differ according to the terms to which they refer; for by paternity the Father is related to the Son, and by common spiration He is related to the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Son is related to the Father by filiation, and to the Holy Spirit by common spiration.

Caput 66

Quod proprietates relativae sunt ipsa divina essentia

Oportet autem quod ipsae proprietates relativae sint ipsa divina essentia. Proprietates enim relativae sunt ipsae personae subsistentes. Persona autem subsistens in divinis non potest esse aliud quam divina essentia: essentia autem divina est ipse Deus, ut supra ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod proprietates relativae sint secundum rem idem quod divina essentia. The relative properties must be the divine essence itself. For the relative properties are precisely the subsistent persons. But a person subsisting in the Godhead cannot be something other than the divine essence; and the divine essence is God Himself, as was shown above. Therefore the relative properties are in all reality identical with the divine essence.
Item. Quidquid est in aliquo praeter essentiam eius, inest ei accidentaliter. In Deo autem nullum accidens esse potest, ut supra ostensum est. Proprietates igitur relativae non sunt aliud ab essentia divina secundum rem. Moreover, whatever is in a being besides its essence, is in it accidentally. But there cannot be any accidents in God, as was pointed out above. Accordingly the relative properties are not really distinct from the divine essence.

Caput 67

Quod relationes non sunt exterius affixae, ut Porretani dixerunt

Non autem dici potest quod proprietates praedictae non sint in personis, sed exterius ad eas se habeant, sicut Porretani dixerunt. Relationes enim reales oportet esse in rebus relatis, quod quidem in creaturis manifestum est: sunt enim relationes reales in eis sicut accidentia in subiectis. Relationes autem istae quibus personae distinguuntur in divinis, sunt relationes reales, ut supra ostensum est. Igitur oportet quod sint in personis divinis, non quidem sicut accidentia: nam et alia quae in creaturis sunt accidentia, ad Deum translata a ratione accidentium cadunt, ut sapientia et iustitia, et alia huiusmodi, ut supra ostensum est. The view proposed by Gilbert de la Porrée and some of his followers, that the properties under discussion are not in the persons, but are external to them, cannot be defended. Real relations must be in the things that are related. This is evident in the case of creatures, for real relations are in them as accidents in their subjects. But the relations whereby the persons are distinguished within the Godhead are real relations, as was demonstrated above.” Hence they must be in the divine persons; but not, of course, as accidents. Other perfections, too, which in creatures are accidents, cease to be accidents when transferred to God, as was shown above; such are wisdom, justice, and the like.
Praeterea. In divinis non potest esse distinctio nisi per relationes: nam quaecumque absolute dicuntur, communia sunt. Si igitur relationes exterius se habeant ad personas, nulla in ipsis personis distinctio remanebit. Sunt igitur proprietates relativae in personis, ita tamen quod sunt ipsae personae, et etiam ipsa essentia divina; sicut sapientia et bonitas dicuntur esse in Deo, et sunt ipse Deus et essentia divina, ut supra ostensum est. Besides, there can be no distinction in God except through the relations; all perfections that are predicated absolutely are common. Therefore, if the relations were external to the persons, no distinction would remain among the persons themselves. And so there are relative properties in the persons; but they are the persons themselves, and also the divine essence itself. In the same way wisdom and goodness are said to be in God, and are God Himself, as well as the divine essence, as was said above.

Caput 68

De effectibus divinitatis, et primo de esse

His igitur consideratis quae ad unitatem essentiae divinae pertinent et ad personarum Trinitatem, restat de effectibus Trinitatis considerandum. Primus autem effectus Dei in rebus est ipsum esse, quod omnes alii effectus praesupponunt, et supra quod fundantur. Necesse est autem omne quod aliquo modo est, a Deo esse. In omnibus autem ordinatis hoc communiter invenitur, quod id quod est primum et perfectissimum in aliquo ordine, est causa eorum quae sunt post in ordine illo; sicut ignis, qui est maxime calidus, est causa caliditatis in reliquis corporibus calidis. Semper enim imperfecta a perfectis inveniuntur habere originem, sicut semina ab animalibus et plantis. Ostensum est autem supra, quod Deus est primum et perfectissimum ens: unde oportet quod sit causa essendi omnibus quae esse habent. After considering the truths which pertain to the unity of the divine essence and to the Trinity of persons, we turn to a study of the effects produced by the Trinity. The first effect wrought by God in things is existence itself, which all other effects presuppose, and on which they are based. Anything that exists in any way must necessarily have its origin from God. In all things that are arranged in orderly fashion, we find universally that what is first and most perfect in any order, is the cause of whatever follows in that order. Thus fire, which is hot in the highest degree, is the cause of heat in all other heated bodies. Imperfect objects are always found to have their origin from perfect things; seeds, for instance, come from animals and plants. But, as we proved above, God is the first and most perfect Being. Therefore He must be the cause of being in all things that have being.
Adhuc. Omne quod habet aliquid per participationem, reducitur in id quod habet illud per essentiam, sicut in principium et causam; sicut ferrum ignitum participat igneitatem ab eo quod est ignis per essentiam suam. Ostensum est autem supra, quod Deus est ipsum suum esse, unde esse convenit ei per suam essentiam, omnibus autem aliis convenit per participationem: non enim alicuius alterius essentia est suum esse, quia esse absolutum et per se subsistens non potest esse nisi unum, ut supra ostensum est. Igitur oportet Deum esse causam existendi omnibus quae sunt. Again, whatever has some perfection by participation, is traced back, as to its principle and cause, to what possesses that perfection essentially. Thus molten iron has its incandescence from that which is fire by its essence. We showed above that God is existence itself; hence existence belongs to Him in virtue of His essence, but pertains to all other things by way of participation. The essence of no other thing is its existence, for being that is absolute and per se subsistent cannot be more than one, as was brought out above. Therefore God must be the cause of existence of all things that are.

Caput 69

Quod Deus in creando res non praesupponit materiam

Hoc autem ostendit quod Deus in creando res non praeexigit materiam ex qua operetur. Nullum enim agens praeexigit ad suam actionem id quod per suam actionem producit, sed solum ea praeexigit quae sua actione producere non potest: aedificator enim lapides et ligna ad suam actionem praeexigit, quia ea sua actione producere non potest; domum autem producit in agendo, sed non praesupponit. Necesse est autem materiam produci per actionem Dei, cum ostensum sit, quod omne quod quolibet modo est, Deum habeat causam existendi. Relinquitur igitur quod Deus in agendo materiam non praesupponit. This makes it clear that, in creating, God has no need of pre-existing matter from which to fashion things. No agent needs, prior to his action, what he produces by his action; he needs only what he is unable to produce by his action. The builder requires stones and lumber before he can set to work, because he is unable to produce these materials by his action. On the other hand, he does not presuppose a house, but produces it by his activity. But matter must be produced by God’s action since, as has just been proved, everything that exists in any way at all has God as the cause of its existence. Therefore the conclusion follows that God does not presuppose matter in His activity.
Adhuc. Actus naturaliter prior est potentia, unde et per prius competit sibi ratio principii. Omne autem principium quod in creando aliud principium praesupponit, per posterius habet rationem principii. Cum igitur Deus sit principium rerum sicut actus primus, materia autem sicut ens in potentia, inconveniens est quod Deus in agendo materiam praesupponat. Besides, act naturally precedes potency, and hence the notion of principle primarily befits act. But any principle that in creating would presuppose some other principle, would verify the concept of principle only in a secondary way. Accordingly, since God is the principle of things as the first act, whereas matter is a principle as a being in potency, it is unthinkable that matter should be presupposed before God can act.
Item. Quanto aliqua causa est magis universalis, tanto effectus eius est universalior. Nam causae particulares, effectus universalium causarum ad aliquid determinatum appropriant, quae quidem determinatio ad effectum universalem comparatur sicut actus ad potentiam. Omnis igitur causa quae facit aliquid esse in actu, praesupposito eo quod est in potentia ad actum illum, est causa particularis respectu alicuius universalioris causae. Hoc autem Deo non competit, cum ipse sit causa prima, ut supra ostensum est. Non igitur praeexigit materiam ad suam actionem. Ipsius igitur est producere res in esse ex nihilo, quod est creare: et inde est quod fides Catholica eum creatorem confitetur. Furthermore, the more universal a cause is, the more universal its effect is. Particular causes make use of the effects of universal causes for something determinate; and such determination is related to a universal effect as act to potency. Hence any cause that causes something to be in act, utilizing pre-existing material that is in potency to that act, is a particular cause with respect to some more universal cause. But this sort of procedure cannot pertain to God, since He is the first cause, as we showed above. Consequently God does not need matter as a prerequisite to His action. Therefore He has the power to bring things into existence from nothing or, in other words, to create. This is why the Catholic faith professes that He is the Creator.

Caput 70

Quod creare soli Deo convenit

Hoc etiam apparet, quod soli Deo convenit esse creatorem. Nam creare illi causae convenit quae aliam universaliorem non praesupponit, ut ex dictis patet. Hoc autem soli Deo competit. Solus igitur ipse est creator. From this it appears, further, that God alone can be Creator. For to create is the prerogative of that cause which does not presuppose another cause that is more universal, as we saw in the preceding chapter. But such causality pertains to God alone. He alone, therefore, is Creator.
Item. Quanto potentia est magis remota ab actu, tanto oportet esse maiorem virtutem per quam reducatur in actum. Sed quantacumque distantia potentiae ad actum detur, semper remanet maior distantia, si ipsa potentia subtrahatur. Creare igitur aliquid ex nihilo requirit infinitam virtutem. Sed solus Deus est infinitae virtutis, cum ipse sit infinitae essentiae. Solus igitur Deus potest creare. Besides, the more remote a potency is from act, the greater must be the power that reduces it to act. But whatever distance may be imagined between potency and act, the distance will ever be still greater if the very potency itself is withdrawn. To create from nothing, then, requires infinite power. But God alone is infinite in power, since He alone is infinite in essence. Consequently God alone can create.

Caput 71

Quod materiae diversitas non est causa diversitatis in rebus

Manifestum est autem ex praeostensis, quod causa diversitatis in rebus non est materiae diversitas. Ostensum est enim, quod materia non praesupponitur actioni divinae, qua res in esse producit. Causa autem diversitatis rerum non est ex materia, nisi secundum quod materia ad rerum productionem praeexigitur, ut scilicet secundum diversitatem materiae diversae inducantur formae. Non igitur causa diversitatis in rebus a Deo productis est materia. The foregoing exposition shows clearly that the cause of diversity in things is not diversity on the part of matter. For, as we have proved, the divine action which brings things into being does not suppose the pre-existence of matter. The cause of diversity in things could not be on the side of matter unless matter were needed prior to the production of things, so that the various forms induced would follow diversity in matter. Therefore the cause of diversity in the things produced by God is not matter.
Adhuc. Secundum quod res habent esse, ita habent pluralitatem et unitatem, nam unumquodque secundum quod est ens, est etiam unum. Sed non habent esse formae propter materiam, sed magis materiae propter formas: nam actus melior est potentia, id autem propter quod aliquid est, oportet melius esse. Neque igitur formae ideo sunt diversae ut competant materiis diversis, sed materiae ideo sunt diversae, ut competant diversis formis. Again, the plurality or unity of things is dependent on their existence. For, to the extent that anything is a being, it is also one. But forms do not possess existence on account of matter; on the contrary, matter receives existence from form. For act is more excellent than potency; and that which is the reason for a thing’s existence must be the more excellent component. Consequently forms are not diverse in order that they may befit various types of matter, but matter is diversified that it may befit various forms.

Caput 72

Quomodo Deus diversa produxit, et quomodo pluralitas rerum causata est

Si autem hoc modo se habeant res ad unitatem et multitudinem, sicut se habent ad esse, totum autem esse rerum dependet a Deo, ut ostensum est, pluralitatis rerum causam ex Deo esse oportet. Quod quidem qualiter sit, considerandum est. If the unity and multiplicity of things are governed by their being, and if the entire being of things depends on God, as has been shown to be the case the cause of plurality in things must be sought in God. How this comes about, must now be examined.
Necesse est enim quod omne agens agat sibi simile, secundum quod possibile est. Non autem erat possibile quod similitudinem divinae bonitatis res a Deo productae consequerentur in ea simplicitate secundum quam invenitur in Deo: unde oportuit quod id quod est unum et simplex, repraesentaretur in rebus causatis diversimode et dissimiliter. Necesse igitur fuit diversitatem esse in rebus a Deo productis, ut divinam perfectionem rerum diversitas secundum suum modum imitaretur. Any active cause must produce its like, so far as this is possible. The things produced by God could not be endowed with a likeness of the divine goodness in the simplicity in which that goodness is found in God. Hence what is one and simple in God had to be represented in the produced things in a variety of dissimilar ways. There had to be diversity in the things produced by God, in order that the divine perfection might in some fashion be imitated in the variety found in things.
Item. Unumquodque causatum finitum est: solius enim Dei est essentia infinita, ut supra ostensum est. Quodlibet autem finitum per additionem alterius redditur maius. Melius igitur fuit diversitatem in rebus creatis esse, ut sic plura bona essent, quam quod esset unum tantum genus rerum a Deo productum. Optimi autem est optima adducere. Conveniens igitur fuit Deo quod in rebus diversitatem produceret. Furthermore, whatever is caused is finite, since only God’s essence is infinite, as was demonstrated above. The finite is rendered more perfect by the addition of other elements. Hence it was better to have diversity in created things, and thus to have good objects in greater number, than to have but a single kind of beings produced by God. For the best cause appropriately produces the best effects. Therefore it was fitting for God to produce variety in things.

Caput 73

De diversitate rerum, gradu et ordine

Oportuit autem diversitatem in rebus cum ordine quodam institui, ut scilicet quaedam aliis essent potiora. Hoc enim ad abundantiam divinae bonitatis pertinet, ut suae bonitatis similitudinem rebus causatis communicet, quantum possibile est. Deus autem non tantum in se bonus est, sed etiam alia in bonitate excellit, et ea ad bonitatem adducit. Ut igitur perfectior esset rerum creatarum similitudo ad Deum, necessarium fuit, ut quaedam res aliis constituerentur meliores, et ut quaedam in alia agerent, ea ad perfectionem ducendo. Diversity among things was rightly established according to a definite order, so that some things might be more excellent than others. For this pertains to the lavishness of the divine goodness, that God should communicate a likeness of His goodness to created things, so far as possible. God is not only good in Himself, but exceeds other beings in goodness, and guides them toward goodness. Consequently, that the likeness which created beings bear to God might be heightened, it was necessary for some things to be made better than others, and for some to act upon others, thus leading them toward perfection.
Prima autem diversitas rerum principaliter in diversitate formarum consistit. Formalis autem diversitas secundum contrarietatem est. Dividitur enim genus in diversas species differentiis contrariis. In contrarietate autem ordinem necesse est esse, nam semper alterum contrariorum perfectius est. Oportet igitur rerum diversitatem cum quodam ordine a Deo esse institutam, ut scilicet quaedam sint aliis potiora. The basic diversity among things consists chiefly in diversity of forms. Formal diversity is achieved by way of contrariety; for genus is divided into various species by contrary differences. But order is necessarily found in contrariety, for among contraries one is always better than the other. Therefore diversity among things had to be established by God according to a definite order, in such a way that some beings might be more excellent than others.

Caput 74

Quomodo res creatae quaedam plus habent de potentia, minus de actu, quaedam e converso

Quia vero unumquodque intantum nobile et perfectum est, inquantum ad divinam similitudinem accedit, Deus autem est actus purus absque potentiae permixtione; necesse est ea quae sunt suprema in entibus, magis esse in actu, et minus de potentia habere, quae autem inferiora sunt magis in potentia esse. Hoc autem qualiter sit, considerandum est. A being is noble and perfect in the measure that it approaches likeness to God, who is pure act without any admixture of potency. Therefore beings that are supreme among entities must be more in act and must have less of potency, whereas inferior beings must be more in potency. How this is to be understood, we must now examine.
Cum enim Deus sit sempiternus et incommutabilis in suo esse, illa sunt in rebus infima, utpote de similitudine divina minus habentia, quae sunt generationi et corruptioni subiecta, quae quandoque sunt, et quandoque non sunt. Et quia esse sequitur formam rei, sunt quidem huiusmodi quando formam habent, desinunt autem esse quando forma privantur. Oportet igitur in eis esse aliquid quod possit quandoque formam habere, quandoque vero forma privari, quod dicimus materiam. Huiusmodi igitur quae sunt in rebus infima, oportet esse ex materia et forma composita. Illa vero quae sunt suprema in entibus creatis, ad similitudinem divini esse maxime accedunt, nec est in eis potentia ad esse et non esse, sed a Deo per creationem sempiternum esse adepta sunt. Cum autem materia hoc ipsum quod est, sit potentia ad esse quod est per formam, huiusmodi entia in quibus non est potentia ad esse et non esse, non sunt composita ex materia et forma, sed sunt formae tantum subsistentes in suo esse, quod acceperunt a Deo. Necesse est autem huiusmodi substantias incorporales incorruptibiles esse. In omnibus enim corruptibilibus est potentia ad non esse. In iis autem non est, ut dictum est. Sunt igitur incorruptibiles. Since God is eternal and immutable in His being, those things are lowest in the scale of being, as possessing less likeness to God, which are subject to generation and corruption. Such beings exist for a time, and then cease to be. And, since existence follows the form of a thing, beings of this kind exist while they have their form, but cease to exist when deprived of their form. Hence there must be something in them that can retain a form for a time, and can then be deprived of the form. This is what we call matter. Therefore such beings, which are lowest in degree among things, must be composed of matter and form. But beings that are supreme among created entities approach most closely to likeness with God. They have no potency with regard to existence and non-existence; they have received everlasting existence from God through creation. Since matter, by the very fact that it is what it is, is a potency for that existence which is imparted through form, those beings which have no potency for existence and nonexistence, are not composed of matter and form, but are forms only, subsisting in their being which they have received from God. Such incorporeal substances must be incorruptible. For all corruptible beings have a potency for non-existence; but incorporeal beings have no such potency, as we said. Hence they are incorruptible.
Item. Nihil corrumpitur nisi per separationem formae ab ipso, nam esse semper consequitur formam. Huiusmodi autem substantiae, cum sint formae subsistentes, non possunt separari a suis formis, et ita esse amittere non possunt. Ergo sunt incorruptibiles. Furthermore, nothing is corrupted unless its form is separated from it, for existence always follows form. Since the substances in question are subsisting forms, they cannot be separated from their forms, and so cannot lose existence. Therefore they are incorruptible.
Sunt autem inter utraque praedictorum quaedam media, in quibus etsi non sit potentia ad esse et non esse, est tamen in eis potentia ad ubi. Huiusmodi autem sunt corpora caelestia, quae generationi et corruptioni non subiiciuntur, quia in iis contrarietates non inveniuntur, et tamen sunt mutabilia secundum locum: sic autem invenitur in aliquibus materia sicut et motus, est enim motus actus existentis in potentia. Habent igitur huiusmodi corpora materiam non subiectam generationi et corruptioni, sed solum loci mutationi. Between the extremes mentioned, there are certain intermediate beings which have no potency for existence and nonexistence, but which have a potency for ubi, or presence in place. Such are the heavenly bodies, which are not subject to generation and corruption, since contrarieties are not found in them. However, they are changeable according to local presence. Thus in some beings there is found matter as well as motion. For motion is the act of a being in potency. Accordingly such bodies have matter that is not subject to generation and corruption, but is subject only to change of place.

Caput 75

Quod quaedam sunt substantiae intellectuales, quae immateriales dicuntur

Praedictas autem substantias, quas immateriales diximus, necesse est etiam intellectuales esse. Ex hoc enim aliquid intellectuale est quod immune est a materia, quod ex ipso intelligendi modo percipi potest. Intelligibile enim in actu et intellectus in actu sunt unum. Manifestum est autem aliquid esse actu intelligibile per hoc quod est a materia separatum: nam et de rebus materialibus intellectualem cognitionem habere non possumus nisi per abstractionem a materia. Unde oportet idem iudicium de intellectu esse, ut scilicet quae sunt immaterialia, sint intellectualia. The substances mentioned above, which are called immaterial, must also be intellectual. A being is intellectual for the reason that it is free from matter. This can be perceived from the very way it understands. The intelligible in act and the intellect in act are the same thing. But it is clear that a thing is intelligible in act because it is separated from matter, we cannot have intellectual knowledge of material things except by abstracting from matter. Accordingly we must pronounce the same judgment regarding the intellect; that is, whatever is immaterial, is intellectual.
Item. Substantiae immateriales sunt primae et supremae in entibus, nam actus naturaliter est prior potentia. Omnibus autem rebus apparet intellectus esse superior: intellectus enim utitur corporalibus quasi instrumentis. Oportet igitur substantias immateriales intellectuales esse. Furthermore, immaterial substances hold the first place and are supreme among beings; for act naturally has precedence over potency. But the intellect is clearly superior to all other beings; for the intellect uses corporeal things as instruments. Therefore immaterial substances must be intellectual.
Adhuc. Quanto aliqua sunt superiora in entibus, tanto magis pertingunt ad similitudinem divinam. Videmus enim res quasdam infimi gradus participare divinam similitudinem quantum ad esse tantum, velut inanimata; quaedam autem quantum ad esse et vivere, ut plantae; quaedam autem quantum ad sentire, ut animalia; supremus autem modus est per intellectum, et maxime Deo conveniens. Supremae igitur creaturae sunt intellectuales: et quia inter caeteras creaturas magis ad Dei similitudinem accedunt, propter hoc dicuntur ad imaginem Dei constitutae. Moreover, the higher a thing is in the scale of being, the closer it draws to likeness with God. Thus we observe that some things, those pertaining to the lowest degree, such as lifeless beings, share in the divine likeness with respect to existence only; others, for example, plants, share in the divine likeness with respect to existence and life; yet others, such as animals, with respect to sense perception. But the highest degree, and that which makes us most like to God, is conferred by the intellect. Consequently the most excellent creatures are intellectual. Indeed, they are said to be fashioned in God’s image for the very reason that among all creatures they approach most closely to likeness with God.

Caput 76

Quomodo tales substantiae sunt arbitrio liberae

Per hoc autem ostenditur, quod sunt arbitrio liberae. Intellectus enim non agit aut appetit sine iudicio, sicut inanimata; neque est iudicium intellectus ex naturali impetu, sicut in brutis, sed ex propria apprehensione: quia intellectus et finem cognoscit, et id quod est ad finem, et habitudinem unius ad alterum; et ideo ipse sui iudicii causa esse potest, quo appetat et agat aliquid propter finem. Liberum autem dicimus quod sui causa est. Appetit igitur et agit intellectus libero iudicio, quod est esse liberum arbitrio. Supremae igitur substantiae sunt arbitrio liberae. This fact shows that such beings have freedom of choice. The intellect does not act or desire without forming a judgment, as lifeless beings do, nor is the judgment of the intellect the product of natural impulse, as in brutes, but results from a. true apprehension of the object. For the intellect perceives the end, the means leading to the end, and the bearing of one on the other. Hence the intellect can be the cause of its own judgment, whereby it desires a good and performs an action for the sake of an end. But what is a cause unto itself, is precisely what we call free. Accordingly the intellect desires and acts in virtue of a free judgment, which is the same as having freedom of choice. Therefore the highest substances enjoy freedom of choice.
Adhuc. Liberum est quod non est obligatum ad aliquid unum determinatum. Appetitus autem substantiae intellectivae non est obligatus ad aliquid unum determinatum bonum: sequitur enim apprehensionem intellectus, quae est de bono universaliter. Igitur appetitus substantiae intelligentis est liber, utpote communiter se habens ad quodcumque bonum. Furthermore, that is free which is not tied down to any one definite course. But the appetite of an intellectual substance is not under compulsion to pursue any one definite good, for it follows intellectual apprehension, which embraces good universally. Therefore the appetite of an intelligent substance is free, since it tends toward all good in general.

Caput 77

Quod in eis est ordo et gradus secundum perfectionem naturae

Sicut autem hae substantiae intelligentes quodam gradu aliis substantiis praeponuntur, ita etiam ipsas substantias necesse est aliquibus gradibus ab invicem distare. Non enim ab invicem differre possunt materiali differentia, cum materia careant: unde si in eis est pluralitas, necesse est eam per distinctionem formalem causari, quae diversitatem speciei constituit. In quibuscumque autem est speciei diversitatem accipere, necesse est in eis gradum quemdam et ordinem considerare: cuius ratio est, quia sicut in numeris additio vel subtractio unitatis speciem variat, ita per additionem et subtractionem differentiarum res naturales specie differentes inveniuntur; sicut quod est animatum tantum, ab eo differt quod est animatum et sensibile; et quod est animatum et sensibile tantum, ab eo quod est animatum, sensibile et rationale. Necesse est igitur praedictas immateriales substantias secundum quosdam gradus et ordines esse distinctas. Intellectual substances are superior to other substances in the scale of perfection. These same substances must also differ from one another in degree. They cannot differ from one another by material differentiation, since they lack matter; if any plurality is found among them, it must be caused by formal distinction, which establishes diversity of species. In beings that exhibit diversity of species, the degree and order existing in them must be taken into consideration. The reason is that, just as addition or subtraction of a unit causes variation of species in numbers, so natural entities are found to vary in species by the addition or subtraction of differences. For instance, what is merely alive, differs from what is both alive and endowed with sense perception; and the latter differs from what is alive, endowed with sense, and rational. Therefore the immaterial substances under discussion must be distinct according to various degrees and orders.

Caput 78

Qualiter est in eis ordo et gradus in intelligendo

Et quia secundum modum substantiae rei est modus operationis, necesse est quod superiores earum nobilius intelligant, utpote formas intelligibiles et virtutes magis universales et magis unitas habentes: inferiores autem esse debiliores in intelligendo, et habere formas magis multiplicatas et minus universales. Since the nature of a being’s activity is in keeping with its substance, the higher intellectual substances must understand in a more perfect way, inasmuch as they have intelligible species and powers that are more universal and are more unified. On the other hand, intellectual substances that are less perfect must be weaker in intelligence, and must have species that are more numerous and less universal.

Caput 79

Quod substantia per quam homo intelligit, est infima in genere substantiarum intellectualium

Cum autem non sit in rebus in infinitum procedere, sicut est invenire supremam in praedictis substantiis, quae propinquissime accedit ad Deum, ita necesse est inveniri infimam, quae maxime appropinquat materiae corporali. Infinite progression is impossible in any series. Among intellectual substances, one must ultimately be found to be supreme, namely, the one which approaches most closely to God. Likewise, one must be found to be the lowest, and this will be the most intimately associated with corporeal matter.
Et hoc quidem taliter potest esse manifestum. Intelligere enim homini supra alia animalia convenit. Manifestum est enim quod homo solus universalia considerat, et habitudines rerum, et res immateriales, quae solum intelligendo percipiuntur. Impossibile est autem quod intelligere sit actus exercitus per organum corporale, sicut visio exercetur per oculum. Necesse est enim quod omne instrumentum virtutis cognoscitivae careat illo genere rerum quod per ipsum cognoscitur, sicut pupilla caret coloribus ex sua natura: sic enim cognoscuntur colores, inquantum colorum species recipiuntur in pupilla; recipiens autem oportet esse denudatum ab eo quod recipitur. Intellectus autem cognoscitivus est omnium naturarum sensibilium. Si igitur cognosceret per organum corporale, oporteret illud organum esse denudatum ab omni natura sensibili, quod est impossibile. This can be explained in the following way. Understanding is proper to man beyond all the other animals. Evidently, man alone comprehends universals, and the relations between things, and immaterial objects, which are perceptible only to the intelligence. Understanding cannot be an act performed by a bodily organ, in the way that vision is exercised by the eye. No faculty endowed with cognitive power can belong to the genus of things that is known through its agency. Thus the pupil of the eye lacks color by its very nature. Colors are recognized to the extent that the species of colors are received into the pupil; but a recipient must be lacking in that which is received. The intellect is capable of knowing all sensible natures. Therefore, if it knew through the medium of a bodily organ, that organ would have to be entirely lacking in sensible nature; but this is impossible.
Item. Omnis ratio cognoscitiva eo modo cognoscitur quo species cogniti est apud ipsam, nam haec est sibi principium cognoscendi. Intellectus autem cognoscit res immaterialiter, etiam eas quae in sua natura sunt materiales, abstrahendo formam universalem a materialibus conditionibus individuantibus. Impossibile est ergo quod species rei cognitae sit in intellectu materialiter: ergo non recipitur in organo corporali, nam omne organum corporale est materiale. Moreover, any cognitive faculty exercises its power of knowing in accord with the way the species of the object known is in it, for this is its principle of knowing. But the intellect knows things in an immaterial fashion, even those things that are by nature material; it abstracts a universal form from its individuating material conditions. Therefore the species of the object known cannot exist in the intellect materially; and so it is not received into a bodily organ, seeing that every bodily organ is material.
Idem etiam apparet ex hoc quod sensus debilitatur et corrumpitur ab excellentibus sensibilibus, sicut auditus a magnis sonis, et visus a rebus valde fulgidis, quod accidit, quia solvitur organi harmonia. Intellectus autem magis roboratur ex excellentia intelligibilium: nam qui intelligit altiora intelligibilium, non minus potest intelligere alia, sed magis. Si igitur homo inveniatur intelligens, et intelligere hominis non sit per organum corporale, oportet quod sit aliqua substantia incorporea, per quam homo intelligat. Nam quod per se potest operari sine corpore, etiam eius substantia non dependet a corpore. Omnes enim virtutes et formae quae per se subsistere non possunt sine corpore, operationem habere non possunt sine corpore: non enim calor per se calefacit, sed corpus per calorem. Haec igitur substantia incorporea per quam homo intelligit, est infima in genere substantiarum intellectualium, et maxime materiae propinqua. ,The same is clear from the fact that a sense is weakened and injured by sensible objects of extreme intensity. Thus the ear is impaired by excessively loud sounds, and the eye by excessively bright lights. This occurs because the harmony within the organ is shattered. The intellect, on the contrary, is perfected in proportion to the excellence of intelligible objects; he who understands the higher objects of intelligence is able to understand other objects more perfectly rather than less perfectly. Consequently, if man is found to be intelligent, and if man’s understanding is not effected through the medium of a bodily organ, we are forced to acknowledge the existence of some incorporeal substance whereby man exercises the act of understanding. For the substance of a being that can perform an action by itself, without the aid of a body, is not dependent on a body. But all powers and forms that are unable to subsist by themselves without a body, cannot exercise any activity without a body. Thus heat does not by itself cause warmth; rather a body causes warmth by the heat that is in it. Accordingly this incorporeal substance whereby man understands, occupies the lowest place in the genus of intellectual substances, and is the closest to matter.

Caput 80

De differentia intellectus, et modo intelligendi

Cum autem esse intelligibile sit supra esse sensibile, sicut intellectus supra sensum, ea autem quae sunt inferiora in entibus, imitantur ut possunt superiora, sicut corpora generabilia et corruptibilia imitantur aliquo modo circulationem caelestium corporum, necesse est et sensibilia intelligibilibus suo modo assimilari; et sic ex similitudine sensibilium utcumque possumus devenire in notitiam intelligibilium. Since intellectual being is superior to sentient being, just as intellect is superior to sense, and since lower beings imitate higher beings as best they may, just as bodies subject to generation and corruption imitate in some fashion the circulatory motion of heavenly bodies, it follows that sensible beings resemble, in; their own way, intellectual beings. Thus from the resemblance of sense to intellect we can mount to some knowledge of intellectual beings.
Est autem in sensibilibus aliquid quasi supremum quod est actus, scilicet forma, et aliquid infimum quod est potentia tantum, scilicet materia, et aliquid medium, scilicet compositum ex materia et forma. In sensible beings a certain factor is found to be the highest; this is act, that is, form. Another factor is found to be the lowest, for it is pure potency; this is matter. Midway between the two is the composite of matter and form.
Sic etiam in esse intelligibili considerandum est: nam supremum intelligibile, quod est Deus, est actus purus; substantiae vero intellectuales aliae sunt habentes aliquid de actu et de potentia secundum esse intelligibile; infima vero intellectualium substantiarum, per quam homo intelligit, est quasi in potentia tantum in esse intelligibili. Huic etiam attestatur quod homo invenitur a principio potentia tantum intelligens, et postmodum paulatim reducitur in actum; et inde est quod id per quod homo intelligit, vocatur intellectus possibilis. We expect to find something similar in the intellectual world. The supreme intellectual being, God, is pure act. Other intellectual substances have something of act and of potency, but in a way that befits intellectual being. And the lowest among intellectual substances, that whereby man understands, has, so to speak, intellectual being only in potency. This is borne out by the fact that man is at first found to be only potentially intelligent, and this potency is gradually reduced to act in the course of time. And this is why the faculty whereby man understands is called the possible intellect.

Caput 81

Quod intellectus possibilis in homine accipit formas intelligibiles a rebus sensibilibus

Quia vero, ut dictum est, quanto substantia intellectualis est altior, tanto formas intelligibiles universaliores habet, consequens est ut intellectus humanus, quem possibilem diximus, inter alias intellectuales substantias formas habeat minus universales, et inde est quod formas intelligibiles a rebus sensibilibus accipit. As was stated above, the higher an intellectual substance is in perfection, the more universal are the intelligible forms it possesses. Of all the intellectual substances, consequently, the human intellect, which we have called possible, has forms of the least universality. This is the reason it receives its intelligible forms from sensible things.
Hoc etiam aliter consideranti manifestum esse potest. Oportet enim formam esse proportionatam susceptibili. Sicut igitur intellectus possibilis humanus inter omnes substantias intellectuales propinquior invenitur materiae corporali, ita necesse est quod eius formae intelligibiles rebus materialibus sint maxime propinquae. This can be made clear from another point of view. A form must have some proportion to the potency which receives it. Therefore, since of all intellectual substances man’s possible intellect is found to be the closest to corporeal matter, its intelligible forms must, likewise, be most closely allied to material things.

Caput 82

Quod homo indiget potentiis sensitivis ad intelligendum

Considerandum autem quod formae in rebus corporeis particulares sunt, et materiale esse habentes; in intellectu vero universales sunt, et immateriales: quod quidem demonstrat intelligendi modus. Intelligimus enim universaliter et immaterialiter. Modus autem intelligendi speciebus intelligibilibus, quibus intelligimus, necesse est quod respondeat. Oportet igitur, cum de extremo ad extremum non perveniatur nisi per medium, quod formae a rebus corporeis ad intellectum perveniant per aliqua media. However, we must realize that forms in corporeal things are particular, and have a material existence. But in the intellect they are universal and immaterial. Our manner of understanding brings this out. That is, we apprehend things universally and immaterially. This way of understanding must conform to the intelligible species whereby we understand. Consequently, since it is impossible to pass from one extreme to another without traversing what lies between, forms reaching the intellect from corporeal objects must pass through certain media.
Huiusmodi autem sunt potentiae sensitivae, quae formas rerum materialium recipiunt sine materia: fit enim in oculo species lapidis, sed non materia, recipiuntur tamen in potentiis sensitivis formae rerum particulariter, nam potentiis sensitivis non nisi particularia cognoscimus. Necesse igitur fuit hominem, ad hoc quod intelligat, etiam sensus habere. Huius autem signum est quod cui deficit unus sensus, deficit scientia sensibilium quae illo sensu comprehenduntur, sicut caecus natus de coloribus scientiam habere non potest. These are the sense faculties, which receive the forms of material things without their matter; what lodges in the eye is the species of the stone, but not its matter. However, the forms of things received into the sense faculties are particular; for we know only particular objects with our sense faculties. Hence man must be endowed with senses as a prerequisite to understanding. A proof of this is the fact that if a man is lacking in one of the senses, he has no knowledge of sensible objects that are apprehended by that sense. Thus a person born blind can have no knowledge of colors.

Caput 83

Quod necesse est ponere intellectum agentem

Inde manifestum fit quod scientia rerum in intellectu nostro non causatur per participationem aut influxum aliquarum formarum actu intelligibilium per se subsistentium, sicut Platonici posuerunt, et alii quidam ipsos sequentes, sed intellectus acquirit eam a rebus sensibilibus, mediantibus sensibus. Sed cum in potentiis sensitivis formae rerum sint particulares, ut dictum est, non sunt intelligibiles actu, sed potentia tantum. Intellectus enim non nisi universalia intelligit. Quod autem est in potentia, non reducitur in actum nisi ab aliquo agente. Oportet igitur quod sit aliquod agens quod species in potentiis sensitivis existentes faciat intelligibiles actu. Hoc autem non potest facere intellectus possibilis, ipse enim magis est in potentia ad intelligibilia quam intelligibilium activus. Necesse est igitur ponere alium intellectum, qui species intelligibiles in potentia faciat intelligibiles actu, sicut lumen facit colores visibiles potentia, esse visibiles actu, et hunc dicimus intellectum agentem, quem ponere non esset necesse, si formae rerum essent intelligibiles actu, sicut Platonici posuerunt. This discussion brings out the truth that knowledge of things in our intellect is not caused by any participation or influence of forms that are intelligible in act and that subsist by themselves, as was taught by the Platonists and certain other philosophers who followed them in this doctrine. No, the intellect acquires such knowledge from sensible objects, through the intermediacy of the senses. However, since the forms of objects in the sense faculties are particular, as we just said, they are intelligible not in act, but only in potency. For the intellect understands nothing but universals. But what is in potency is not reduced to act except by some agent. Hence there must be some agent that causes the species existing in the sense faculties to be intelligible in act. The possible intellect cannot perform this service, for it is in potency with respect to intelligible objects rather than active in rendering them intelligible. Therefore we must assume some other intellect, which will cause species that are intelligible in potency to become intelligible in act, just as light causes colors that are potentially visible to be actually visible. This faculty we call the agent intellect, which we would not have to postulate if the forms of things were intelligible in act, as the Platonists held.
Sic igitur ad intelligendum primo necessarius est nobis intellectus possibilis, qui est receptivus specierum intelligibilium; secundo intellectus agens qui facit intelligibilia actu. Cum autem intellectus possibilis iam fuerit per species intelligibiles perfectus, vocatur intellectus in habitu, cum species intelligibiles iam sic habet ut eis possit uti cum voluerit, medio quodam modo inter potentiam puram et actum completum. Cum vero praedictas species in actu completo habuerit, vocatur intellectus in actu. Sic enim actu intelligit res, cum species rei facta fuerit forma intellectus possibilis: propter quod dicitur quod intellectus in actu est intellectum in actu. To understand, therefore, we have need, first, of the possible intellect which receives intelligible species, and secondly, of the agent intellect which renders things intelligible in act. Once the possible intellect has been perfected by the intelligible species, it is called the habitual intellect (intellectus in habitu), for then it possesses intelligible species in such a way that it can use them at will; in other words, it possesses them in a fashion that is midway between pure potency and complete act. But when it has these species in full actuality, it is called the intellect in act. That is, the intellect actually understands a thing when the species of the thing is made the form of the possible intellect. This is why we say that the intellect in act is the object actually understood.

Caput 84

Quod anima humana est incorruptibilis

Necesse est autem secundum praemissa, intellectum quo homo intelligit, incorruptibilem esse. Unumquodque enim sic operatur secundum quod habet esse. Intellectus autem habet operationem in qua non communicat sibi corpus, ut ostensum est, ex quo patet quod est operans per seipsum. Ergo est substantia subsistens in suo esse. Ostensum est autem supra, quod substantiae intellectuales sunt incorruptibiles. Ergo intellectus quo homo intelligit, est incorruptibilis. A necessary consequence of the foregoing doctrine is that the intellect whereby man understands is incorruptible. Every being acts in a way that is conformable to its existence. The intellect has an activity which it does not share with the body, as we have proved. This shows that it can act by itself. Hence it is a substance subsisting in its own being. But, as was pointed out above, intellectual substances are incorruptible.” Accordingly the intellect whereby man understands is incorruptible.
Adhuc. Proprium subiectum generationis et corruptionis est materia. Intantum igitur unumquodque a corruptione recedit, inquantum recedit a materia: ea enim quae sunt composita ex materia et forma, sunt per se corruptibilia; formae autem materiales sunt corruptibiles per accidens, et non per se; formae autem immateriales, quae materiae proportionem excedunt, sunt incorruptibiles omnino. Intellectus autem omnino secundum suam naturam supra materiam elevatur, quod eius operatio ostendit: non enim intelligimus aliqua nisi per hoc quod ipsa a materia separamus. Est igitur intellectus secundum naturam incorruptibilis. Again, the proper subject of generation and corruption is matter. Hence a thing is immune to corruption to the extent that it is free from matter. Things composed of matter and form are per se corruptible; material forms are corruptible indirectly (per accidens), though not per se. Immaterial forms, which are above material conditions, are wholly incorruptible. The intellect by its very nature is elevated completely beyond matter, as its activity shows: we do not understand anything unless we separate it from matter. Consequently the intellect is by nature incorruptible.
Item. Corruptio absque contrarietate esse non potest, nihil enim corrumpitur nisi a suo contrario: unde corpora caelestia, in quibus non est contrarietas, sunt incorruptibilia. Sed contrarietas longe est a natura intellectus, in tantum quod ea quae secundum se sunt contraria, in intellectu contraria non sunt: est enim contrariorum ratio intelligibilis una, quia per unum intelligitur aliud. Impossibile est igitur quod intellectus sit corruptibilis. Moreover, corruption cannot take place without contrariety; for nothing is corrupted except by its contrary. This is why the heavenly bodies, which do not admit of contrariety, are incorruptible. But all contrariety is far removed from the nature of the intellect, so much so that things which are contraries in themselves, are not contraries in the intellect. The intelligible aspect of contraries is one, inasmuch as one thing is understood in terms of another. Thus it is impossible for the intellect to be corruptible.

Caput 85

De unitate intellectus possibilis

Forte autem aliquis dicet, quod intellectus quidem incorruptibilis est, sed est unus in omnibus hominibus, et sic quod post corruptionem omnium hominum remanet, non est nisi unum. Quod autem sit unus tantum intellectus in omnibus, multipliciter adstrui potest. An objector may say: the intellect is indeed incorruptible, but there is only one intellect in all men; and so what remains after the corruption of all men is but one. That there is only one intellect for all men, the objector may continue, can be established on many grounds.
Primo quidem ex parte intelligibilis. Quia si est alius intellectus in me, alius in te, oportebit quod sit alia species intelligibilis in me, et alia in te, et per consequens aliud intellectum quod ego intelligo, et aliud quod tu. Erit ergo intentio intellecta multiplicata secundum numerum individuorum, et ita non erit universalis, sed individualis. Ex quo videtur sequi quod non sit intellecta in actu, sed in potentia tantum: nam intentiones individuales sunt intelligibiles in potentia, non in actu. First, on the part of the intelligible species. If I have one intellect and you have another, there will have to be one intelligible species in me and another in you, and consequently there will be one object that I understand and another that you understand. Hence the intelligible species will be multiplied according to the number of individuals, and so it will not be universal but individual. The conclusion would then seem to follow that it is understood not in act, but only in potency; for individual species are intelligible in potency, not in act.
Deinde quia, cum ostensum sit quod intellectus est substantia subsistens in suo esse, substantiae autem intellectuales plures numero non sint in specie una, ut supra etiam ostensum est, sequitur quod si alius est intellectus in me et alius in te secundum numerum, quod sit etiam alius specie, et sic ego et tu non sumus eiusdem speciei. Moreover, since the intellect, as we have seen, is a substance subsisting in its own being, and since intellectual substances that are numerically many do not belong to one species, as we have also seen, it follows that if I have one intellect and you have another that is numerically different, the two must differ specifically. And so you and I would not belong to the same species.
Item. Cum in natura speciei omnia individua communicent, oportet poni aliquid praeter naturam speciei, secundum quod ab invicem individua distinguuntur. Si igitur in omnibus hominibus est unus intellectus secundum speciem, plures autem secundum numerum, oportet ponere aliquid quod faciat numero differre unum intellectum ab alio. Hoc autem non potest esse aliquid quod sit de substantia intellectus, cum intellectus non sit compositus ex materia et forma. Ex quo sequitur quod omnis differentia quae accipi posset secundum id quod est de substantia intellectus, sit differentia formalis et diversificans speciem. Relinquitur ergo quod intellectus unius hominis non possit esse alius numero ab intellectu alterius, nisi propter diversitatem corporum. Corruptis ergo corporibus diversis, videtur quod non remaneant plures intellectus, sed unus tantum. Furthermore, since all individuals share in one specific nature, there must be something besides specific nature whereby individuals may be distinguished from one another. Accordingly, if there is one specific intellect in all men, but many intellects that are numerically distinct, something must be found that will make one intellect differ numerically from another. This cannot be anything pertaining to the substance of the intellect, since the intellect is not composed of matter and form. Consequently any difference that might be admitted, on the part of the substance of the intellect, would be a formal difference that would cause diversity in the species. The only possibility left is that the intellect of one man cannot differ numerically from the intellect of another man except by reason of the diversity of their bodies. Therefore, when the various bodies corrupt, it seems that only one intellect, and not a plurality of intellects, would remain.
Hoc autem quod impossibile sit, evidenter apparet. Ad quod ostendendum, procedendum est sicut proceditur contra negantes principia, ut ponamus aliquid quod omnino negari non possit. Ponamus igitur quod hic homo, puta Socrates vel Plato, intelligat: quod negare non posset respondens, nisi intelligeret esse negandum. Negando igitur ponit: nam affirmare et negare intelligentis est. Si autem hic homo intelligit, oportet quod id quo formaliter intelligit, sit forma eius, quia nihil agit nisi secundum quod est actu. Illud ergo quo agit agens, est actus eius, sicut calor quo calidum calefacit, est actus eius. Intellectus igitur quo homo intelligit, est forma huius hominis, et eadem ratione illius. Impossibile est autem quod forma eadem numero sit diversorum secundum numerum, quia diversorum secundum numerum, non est idem esse. Unumquodque autem habet esse per suam formam. Impossibile est igitur quod intellectus quo homo intelligit, sit unus in omnibus. The absurdity of this whole position is easily perceived. To make this clear, let us proceed as one would proceed against those who deny fundamental principles. That is, let us establish a truth that simply cannot be denied. Let us suppose that this man, for example, Socrates or Plato, understands. Our adversary could not deny that the man understands, unless he knew that it ought to be denied. By denying he affirms, for affirmation and denial are intelligent actions. If, then, the man in question understands, that whereby he formally understands must be his form, since nothing acts unless it is in act. Hence that whereby an agent acts, is his act; just as the heat by which a heated body causes warmth, is its act. Therefore the intellect whereby a man understands is the form of this man, and the same is true of another man. But the same numerical form cannot belong to numerically different individuals, for numerically different individuals do not possess the same existence; and yet everything has existence by reason of its form. Accordingly the intellect whereby a man understands cannot be but one in all men.
Huius autem rationis difficultatem aliqui cognoscentes, conantur invenire viam evadendi. Dicunt enim, quod intellectus possibilis, de quo supra est habitum, recipit species intelligibiles, quibus fit in actu. Species autem intelligibiles sunt quodammodo in phantasmatibus. Inquantum igitur species intelligibilis est in intellectu possibili et in phantasmatibus quae sunt in nobis, intantum intellectus possibilis continuatur et unitur nobiscum, ut sic per ipsum intelligere possimus. Perceiving the force of this difficulty, some endeavor to find a way of escaping it. They say that the possible intellect, of which there was question above, receives the intelligible species by which it is reduced to act. These intelligible species are, in some way, in the phantasms. Hence the possible intellect is continuous and is joined to us so far as the intelligible species is both in the possible intellect and in the phantasms that are in us. It is thus that we are able to understand through the agency of the possible intellect.
Haec autem responsio omnino nulla est. Primo quidem, quia species intelligibilis secundum quod est in phantasmatibus, est intellecta in potentia tantum, secundum autem quod est in intellectu possibili, est intellecta in actu. Secundum igitur quod est in intellectu possibili non est in phantasmatibus, sed magis a phantasmatibus abstracta. Nulla ergo remanet unio intellectus possibilis ad nos. Deinde dato quod sit aliqua unio, non tamen sufficeret ad hoc quod faceret nos intelligentes. Per hoc enim quod species alicuius est in intellectu, non sequitur quod se ipsum intelligat, sed quod intelligatur: non enim lapis intelligit, etiam si eius species sit in intellectu possibili. Neque igitur per hoc quod species phantasmatum quae sunt in nobis, sunt in intellectu possibili, sequitur quod nos simus intelligentes, sed magis quod nos simus intellecti, vel potius phantasmata quae sunt in nobis. Unfortunately for this solution, it is utterly valueless. In the first place, the intelligible species, as it exists in the phantasms, is a concept only in potency; and as it exists in the possible intellect, it is a concept in act. As existing in the possible intellect, it is not in the phantasms, but rather is abstracted from the phantasms. Hence no union of the possible intellect with us remains. Secondly, even granting that there may be some sort of union, this would not suffice to enable us to understand. The presence of the species of some object in the intellect does not entail the consequence that the object understands itself, but only that it is understood; a stone does not understand, even though a species of it may be in the possible intellect. Hence, from the fact that species of phantasms present in us are in the possible intellect, it does not follow that we thereupon understand. It only follows that we ourselves, or rather the phantasms in us, are understood.
Hoc autem evidentius apparet, si quis consideret comparationem quam facit Aristoteles in III de anima, dicens, quod intellectus se habet ad phantasmata sicut visus ad colores. Manifestum est autem quod per hoc quod species colorum qui sunt in pariete, sunt in visu, non habet paries quod videat, sed magis videatur. Neque ergo etiam ex hoc quod species phantasmatum quae sunt in nobis, fiunt in intellectu, sequitur quod nos simus intelligentes, sed quod simus intellecti. Amplius, si nos per intellectum formaliter intelligimus, oportet quod ipsum intelligere intellectus, sit intelligere hominis, sicut eadem est calefactio ignis et caloris. Si igitur idem est intellectus numero in me et in te, sequitur de necessitate quod respectu eiusdem intelligibilis sit idem intelligere meum et tuum, dum scilicet simul aliquid idem intelligimus; quod est impossibile: non enim diversorum operantium potest esse una et eadem numero operatio. Impossibile est igitur quod sit unus intellectus in omnibus. Sequitur ergo quod si intellectus est incorruptibilis, ut ostensum est, quod destructis corporibus remaneant plures intellectus secundum numerum hominum. This will appear more clearly if we examine the comparison proposed by Aristotle in Book III of De anima [7, 431 a 14], where he says that the intellect is to phantasm what sight is to color. Manifestly, the fact that the species of colors on a wall are in our vision does not cause the wall to see, but to be seen. Likewise, the fact that the species of the phantasms in us come to be in the intellect, does not cause us to understand, but to be understood. Further, if we understand formally through the intellect, the intellectual action of the intellect must be the intellectual action of the man, just as the heating action of fire and of heat are the same. Therefore, if intellect is numerically the same in me and in you, it follows that, with respect to the same intelligible object, my action of understanding must be the same as yours, provided, of course, both of us understand the same thing at the same time. But this is impossible, for different agents cannot perform one and the same numerical operation. Therefore it is impossible for all men to have but a single intellect. Consequently, if the intellect is incorruptible, as has been demonstrated many intellects, corresponding to the number of men, will survive the destruction of their bodies.
Ea vero quae in contrarium obiiciuntur, facile est solvere. The arguments advanced to support the contrary view are easily answered.
Prima enim ratio multipliciter deficit. Primo quidem concedimus idem esse intellectum ab omnibus hominibus: dico autem intellectum id quod est intellectus obiectum; obiectum autem intellectus non est species intelligibilis, sed quidditas rei. Non enim scientiae intellectuales omnes sunt de speciebus intelligibilibus, sed sunt de naturis rerum, sicut etiam obiectum visus est color, non species coloris, quae est in oculo. Quamvis igitur sint plures intellectus diversorum hominum, non tamen est nisi unum intellectum apud omnes, sicut unum coloratum est quod a diversis inspicientibus videtur. Secundo, quia non est necessarium, si aliquid est individuum, quod sit intellectum in potentia et non in actu, sed hoc est verum in illis tantum quae individuantur per materiam: oportet enim illud quod est intellectum in actu, esse immateriale. Unde substantiae immateriales, licet sint quaedam individua per se existentia, sunt tamen intellecta in actu: unde et species intelligibiles, quae sunt immateriales, licet sint aliae numero in me et in te, non propter hoc perdunt quin sint intelligibiles actu; sed intellectus intelligens per eas suum obiectum reflectitur supra se ipsum intelligendo ipsum suum intelligere, et speciem qua intelligit. Deinde considerandum est, quod si ponatur unus intellectus omnium hominum, adhuc est eadem difficultas, quia adhuc remanet multitudo intellectuum, cum sint plures substantiae separatae intelligentes, et ita sequeretur secundum eorum rationem quod intellecta essent secundum numerum diversa, et per consequens individualia, et non intellecta in actu primo. Patet igitur quod praemissa ratio si aliquid necessitatis haberet, auferret pluralitatem intellectuum simpliciter, et non solum in hominibus. Unde cum haec conclusio sit falsa, manifestum est quod ratio non ex necessitate concludit. The first argument has many defects. First of all, we concede that the same thing may be understood by all. By the thing understood I mean that which is the object of the intellect. However, the object of the intellect is not the intelligible species, but the quiddity of the thing. The intellectual sciences are all concerned with the natures of things, not with intelligible species; just as the object of sight is color, not the species of color in the eye. Hence, although there may be many intellects belonging to different men, the thing understood by all may be but one; just as a colored object which many look at is but one. Secondly, the consequence does not necessarily follow that, if a thing is individual, it is understood in potency and not in act. This is true only of things that are individuated by matter. Of course, what is understood in act must be immaterial. Accordingly immaterial substances, even though they may be individuals existing by themselves, are understood in act. The same holds for intelligible species, which are immaterial; although they differ numerically in me and in you, they do not on that account lose their property of being intelligible in act. The intellect that understands its objects by means of them reflects upon itself, thereby understanding its very action of understanding as well as the species whereby it understands. Moreover, we should realize that, even if we admit but one intellect for all men, the difficulty is still the same. There would still remain many intellects, because there are many separate substances endowed with intelligence. And so it would follow, pursuing our adversaries’ line of reasoning, that the objects understood would be numerically different, hence individual and not understood in first act. Obviously, therefore, if the objection under discussion had any cogency, it would do away with a plurality of intellects simply as such, and not merely in men. Since this conclusion is false, the argument manifestly does not conclude with necessity.
Secunda ratio solvitur facile, si quis consideret differentiam intellectualis animae ad substantias separatas. Anima enim intellectiva ex natura suae speciei hoc habet ut uniatur alicui corpori ut forma, unde et in definitione animae cadit corpus, et propter hoc secundum habitudinem ad diversa corpora diversificantur animae secundum numerum, quod non est in substantiis separatis. The second argument is readily answered, if we but consider the difference between an intellectual soul and separate substances. In virtue of its specific nature, the intellectual soul is meant to be united to some body as the latter’s form; the body even enters into the definition of the soul. For this reason, souls are numerically differentiated according to the relation they have to different bodies; which is not the case with separate substances.
Ex quo etiam patet qualiter tertia ratio sit solvenda. Non enim anima intellectiva ex natura suae speciei habet corpus partem sui, sed unibilitatem ad ipsum: unde per hoc quod est unibilis diversis corporibus, diversificatur secundum numerum, quod etiam manet in animabus, corporibus destructis: sunt enim unibiles corporibus diversis, licet non actu unitae. This also indicates how the third argument is to be answered. In virtue of its specific nature, the intellectual soul does not possess the body as a part of itself, but has only an aptitude for union with the body. Therefore it is numerically differentiated by its capacity for union with different bodies. And this remains the case with souls even after their bodies have been destroyed: they retain a capacity for union with different bodies even when they are not actually united to their respective bodies.

Caput 86

De intellectu agente, quod non est unus in omnibus

Fuerunt autem quidam, qui licet concederent intellectum possibilem diversificari in hominibus, posuerunt tamen intellectum agentem unum respectu omnium esse. Quae quidem opinio licet sit tolerabilior quam praemissa, similibus tamen rationibus confutari potest. There were also some philosophers who argued that, even granting the diversification of the possible intellect in men, at any rate the agent intellect was but one for all. This view, while less objectionable than the theory discussed in the preceding chapter, can be refuted by similar considerations.
Est enim actio intellectus possibilis recipere intellecta et intelligere ea; actio autem intellectus agentis facere intellecta in actu abstrahendo ipsa. Utrumque autem horum huic homini convenit: nam hic homo, ut Socrates vel Plato, et recipit intellecta, et abstrahit, et intelligit abstracta. Oportet igitur quod tam intellectus possibilis quam intellectus agens uniatur huic homini ut forma, et sic oportet quod uterque multiplicetur numero secundum numerum hominum. The action of the possible intellect consists in receiving the objects understood and in understanding them. And the action of the agent intellect consists in causing things to be actually understood by abstracting species. But both these functions pertain to one particular man. This man, for example, Socrates or Plato, receives the objects understood, abstracts the species, and understands what is abstracted. Hence the possible intellect as well as the agent intellect must be united to this man as a form. And so both must be numerically multiplied in accord with the number of men concerned.
Item. Agens et patiens oportet esse ad invicem proportionata, sicut materia et forma, nam materia fit in actu ab agente; et inde est quod cuilibet potentiae passivae respondet potentia activa sui generis. Actus enim et potentia unius generis sunt. Intellectus autem agens comparatur ad possibilem sicut potentia activa ad passivam, ut ex dictis patet. Oportet igitur utrumque esse unius generis. Cum igitur intellectus possibilis non sit secundum esse separatus a nobis, sed unitus nobis ut forma, et multiplicetur secundum multitudinem hominum, ut ostensum est, necesse est etiam quod intellectus agens sit aliquid unitum nobis formaliter, et multiplicetur secundum numerum hominum. Moreover, agent and patient must be proportionate to each other. Examples are matter and form, for matter is reduced to act by an agent. This is why an active potency of the same genus corresponds to every passive potency; for act and potency pertain to one genus. But the agent intellect is to the possible intellect what active potency is to passive potency, as is clear from this discussion. Hence they must both pertain to one genus. Therefore, since the possible intellect has no separate existence apart from us, but is united to us as a form and is multiplied according to the number of men, as we have shown, the agent intellect must likewise be something that is united to us as a form, and must be multiplied according to the number of men.

Caput 87

Quod intellectus possibilis et agens fundantur in essentia animae

Cum autem intellectus agens et possibilis nobis formaliter uniantur, necesse est dicere quod in eadem essentia animae conveniant. Omne enim quod alicui unitur formaliter, unitur ei per modum formae substantialis, aut per modum formae accidentalis. Si igitur intellectus possibilis et agens uniantur homini per modum formae substantialis, cum unius rei non sit nisi una forma substantialis, necesse est dicere quod intellectus possibilis et agens conveniant in una essentia formae, quae est anima. Si vero uniantur homini per modum formae accidentalis, manifestum est quod neutrum potest esse accidens corpori; et ex hoc quod operationes eorum sunt absque organo corporali, ut supra ostensum est, sequitur quod uterque eorum sit accidens animae. Non est autem in uno homine nisi una anima. Oportet igitur quod intellectus agens et possibilis in una essentia animae conveniant. Since the agent intellect and the possible intellect are united to us as form, we must acknowledge that they pertain to the same essence of the soul. Whatever is formally united to another thing, is united to it either in the manner of a substantial form or in the manner of an accidental form. If the possible intellect and the agent intellect were united to man after the fashion of a substantial form, we would have to hold that they share in the one essence of that form which is the soul, since one thing cannot have more than one substantial form. On the other hand, if they are united to man after the fashion of an accidental form, neither of them, evidently, can be an accident of the body. Besides, the fact that their operations are performed without a bodily organ, as we proved above, shows that each of them is an accident of the soul. But there is only one soul in one man. Therefore the agent intellect and the possible intellect must inhere in the one essence of the soul.
Item. Omnis actio quae est propria alicui speciei, est a principiis consequentibus formam quae dat speciem. Intelligere autem est operatio propria humanae speciei. Oportet igitur quod intellectus agens et possibilis, qui sunt principia huius operationis, sicut ostensum est, consequantur animam humanam, a qua homo habet speciem. Non autem sic consequuntur eam quasi ab ipsa procedentia in corpus, quia, ut ostensum est, praedicta operatio est sine organo corporali. Cuius autem est potentia, eius et actio. Relinquitur ergo quod intellectus possibilis et agens conveniant in una essentia animae. Furthermore, every action that is proper to a species proceeds from principles that emanate from the form which confers the species. But the action of understanding is an operation proper to the human species. Therefore the agent intellect and the possible intellect, which are principles of this action, as has been shown, emanate from the human soul, whence man has his species. However, they do not issue from the soul in such a way as to extend to the body, because, as we have said, the operation in question takes place independently of a bodily organ. Since, therefore, action pertains to the same subject as does potency, the possible intellect and the agent intellect inhere in the one essence of the soul.

Caput 88

Qualiter istae duae potentiae conveniant in una essentia animae

Considerandum autem relinquitur quomodo hoc possit esse. Videtur enim circa hoc aliqua difficultas suboriri. Intellectus enim possibilis est in potentia ad omnia intelligibilia. Intellectus autem agens facit intelligibilia in potentia esse intelligibilia in actu, et sic oportet quod comparetur ad ea sicut actus ad potentiam. Non videtur autem possibile quod idem respectu eiusdem sit in potentia et in actu. Sic igitur impossibile videtur quod in una substantia animae conveniant intellectus possibilis et agens. We have still to consider how this union is possible. Some difficulty may seem to arise in this matter. The possible intellect is in potency with respect to all that is intelligible, whereas the agent intellect causes what is intelligible in potency to be intelligible in act, and so must be related to what is intelligible as act to potency. But the same thing, seemingly, cannot be both in potency and in act with respect to the same object. Thus it would appear that the possible intellect and the agent intellect cannot be united in the same substance of the soul.
Haec autem dubitatio de facili solvitur, si quis consideret qualiter intellectus possibilis sit in potentia respectu intelligibilium, et qualiter intellectus agens faciat ea esse in actu. Est enim intellectus possibilis in potentia ad intelligibilia secundum quod non habet in sui natura aliquam determinatam formam rerum sensibilium, sicut pupilla est in potentia ad omnes colores. Inquantum ergo phantasmata a rebus sensibilibus abstracta sunt similitudines determinatarum rerum sensibilium, comparantur ad intellectum possibilem sicut actus ad potentiam: sed tamen phantasmata sunt in potentia ad aliquid quod anima intellectiva habet in actu, scilicet esse abstractum a materialibus conditionibus. Et quantum ad hoc anima intellectiva comparatur ad ipsam ut actus ad potentiam. Non est autem inconveniens quod aliquid respectu eiusdem sit in actu et in potentia secundum diversa: propter hoc enim naturalia corpora agunt et patiuntur ad invicem, quia utrumque est in potentia respectu alterius. Sic igitur non est inconveniens quod eadem anima intellectiva sit in potentia respectu omnium intelligibilium, prout ponitur in ea intellectus possibilis, et comparetur ad ea ut actus, prout ponitur in ea intellectus agens. This doubt is easily resolved if we examine how the possible intellect is in potency with respect to intelligible objects, and how the agent intellect renders them actually intelligible. The possible intellect is in potency with regard to intelligible objects in the sense that it does not contain within its nature any determinate form of sensible things. In the same way the pupil of the eye is in potency with regard to all colors. To the extent, then, that phantasms abstracted from sensible things are likenesses of definite sensible things, they are related to the possible intellect as act to potency. Nevertheless the phantasms are in potency with regard to something that the intellectual soul possesses in act, namely, being as abstracted from material conditions. And in this respect the intellectual soul is related to the phantasms as act to potency. No contradiction is involved if a thing is in act and potency with regard to the same object according to different points of view. Thus natural bodies act upon each other and are acted upon by each other, for each is in potency with respect to the other. The same intellectual soul, therefore, can be in potency with regard to al I intelligible objects and nevertheless, without any contradiction, can be related to them as act, if both a possible intellect and an agent intellect are acknowledged in the soul.
Et hoc manifestius apparebit ex modo quo intellectus facit intelligibilia in actu. Non enim intellectus agens sic facit intelligibilia in actu quasi ab ipso effluant in intellectum possibilem. Sic enim non indigeremus phantasmatibus et sensu ad intelligendum; sed facit intelligibilia in actu abstrahendo ea a phantasmatibus, sicut lumen facit quodammodo colores in actu, non quasi habeat eos apud se, sed inquantum dat eis quodammodo visibilitatem. Sic igitur aestimandum est unam esse animam intellectivam quae caret naturis rerum sensibilium et potest eas recipere per modum intelligibilem, et quae phantasmata facit intelligibilia in actu abstrahendo ab eis species intelligibiles. Unde potentia eius secundum quam est receptiva intelligibilium specierum, dicitur intellectus possibilis; potentia autem eius secundum quam abstrahit species intelligibiles a phantasmatibus, vocatur intellectus agens, qui est quasi quoddam lumen intelligibile, quod anima intellectiva participat ad imitationem superiorum substantiarum intellectualium. This will be seen more clearly from the way the intellect renders objects actually intelligible. The agent intellect does not render objects actually intelligible in the sense that the latter flow from it into the possible intellect. If this were the case, we would have no need of phantasms and sense in order to understand. No, the agent intellect renders things actually intelligible by abstracting them from phantasms; just as light, in a certain sense, renders colors actual, not as though it contained the colors within itself, but so far as it confers visibility on them. In the same way we are to judge that there is a single intellectual soul that lacks the natures of sensible things but can receive them in an intelligible manner, and that renders phantasms actually intelligible by abstracting intelligible species from them. The power whereby the soul is able to receive intelligible species is called the possible intellect, and the power whereby it abstracts intelligible species from phantasms is called the agent intellect. The latter is a sort of intelligible light communicated to the intellectual soul, in imitation of what takes place among the higher intellectual substances.

Caput 89

Quod omnes potentiae in essentia animae radicantur

Non solum autem intellectus agens et possibilis in una essentia animae humanae conveniunt, sed etiam omnes aliae potentiae, quae sunt principia operationum animae. Omnes enim huiusmodi potentiae quodammodo in anima radicantur: quaedam quidem, sicut potentiae vegetativae et sensitivae partis, in anima sunt sicut in principio, in coniuncto autem sicut in subiecto, quia earum operationes coniuncti sunt, et non solum animae: cuius est enim actio, eius est potentia; quaedam vero sunt in anima sicut in principio et in subiecto, quia earum operationes sunt animae absque organo corporali, et huiusmodi sunt potentiae intellectivae partis. Non est autem possibile esse plures animas in homine. Oportet igitur quod omnes potentiae animae ad eamdem animam pertineant. Not only the agent intellect and the possible intellect, but also all the other powers that are principles of the soul’s operations, are united in the essence of the soul. All such powers are somehow rooted in the soul. Some of them, indeed, such as the powers of the vegetative and sensitive parts, are in the soul as in their principle, but in the composite as in their subject, because their activities pertain to the composite, not to the soul alone; for power and action belong to the same subject. Some of them, on the other hand, are in the soul both as principle and as subject, for their operations pertain to the soul apart from any bodily organ. These are the powers of the intellectual part. But a man cannot have several souls. Accordingly all the powers must pertain to the same soul.

Caput 90

Quod unica est anima in uno corpore

Quod autem impossibile sit esse plures animas in uno corpore, sic probatur. Manifestum est enim animam esse formam substantialem habentis animam, ex hoc quod per animam animatum genus et speciem sortitur. Impossibile est autem plures formas substantiales eiusdem esse rei. Forma enim substantialis in hoc differt ab accidentali, quia forma substantialis facit esse hoc aliquid simpliciter; forma autem accidentalis advenit ei quod iam est hoc aliquid, et facit ipsum esse quale vel quantum, vel qualiter se habens. Si igitur plures formae substantiales sint unius et eiusdem rei, aut prima earum facit hoc aliquid, aut non. Si non facit hoc aliquid, non est forma substantialis. Si autem facit hoc aliquid, ergo omnes formae consequentes adveniunt ei quod iam est hoc aliquid. Nulla igitur consequentium erit forma substantialis, sed accidentalis. That there cannot be several souls in one body is proved as follows. The soul is evidently the substantial form of any being possessing a soul, because a living being is constituted in genus and species by its soul. But the same thing cannot have several substantial forms. A substantial form differs from an accidental form in this, that a substantial form causes a particular thing simply to be, whereas an accidental form is added to a particular being already constituted as such, and determines its quality or quantity or its mode of being. Hence, if several substantial forms belong to one and the same thing, either the first of them causes it to be this particular thing or it does not. If it does not, the form is not substantial; if it does, then all the subsequent forms accrue to what is already this particular thing. Therefore none of the subsequent forms will be the substantial form, but only some accidental form.
Sic igitur patet quod impossibile est formas substantiales esse plures unius et eiusdem rei. Clearly, therefore, one and the same thing cannot have several substantial forms; and so one and the same person cannot have several souls.
Neque igitur possibile est plures animas in uno et eodem esse. Adhuc: patet quod homo dicitur vivens secundum quod habet animam vegetabilem, animal autem secundum quod habet animam sensitivam, homo autem secundum quod habet animam intellectivam. Si igitur sunt tres animae in homine, scilicet vegetabilis, sensibilis et rationalis, sequitur quod homo secundum aliam animam ponatur in genere, et secundum aliam speciem sortiatur. Hoc autem est impossibile: sic enim ex genere et differentia non fieret unum simpliciter, sed unum per accidens, vel quasi congregatum, sicut musicum et album, quod non est esse unum simpliciter. Necesse est igitur in homine unam tantum animam esse. Furthermore, it is evident that a man is said to be living because he bas a vegetative soul, that he is called an animal because he has a sensitive soul, and that he is a man because he has an intellectual soul. Consequently, if there were three souls in man, namely, vegetative, sensitive, and rational, man would be placed in a genus because of one of his souls, and in a species because of another. But this is impossible. For thus genus and specific difference would constitute, not what is simply one, but what is one per accidens, or a sort of conglomeration, such as musical and white; but such is not a being that is simply one. Accordingly a man can have only one soul.

Caput 91

Rationes quae videntur probare quod in homine sunt plures animae

Videntur autem quaedam huic sententiae adversari. Primo quidem quia differentia comparatur ad genus ut forma ad materiam. Animal autem est genus hominis, rationale autem est differentia constitutiva eius. Cum igitur animal sit corpus animatum anima sensitiva, videtur quod corpus animatum anima sensitiva adhuc sit in potentia respectu animae rationalis, et sic anima rationalis esset anima alia a sensitiva. Certain considerations seem opposed to our doctrine. In the first place, specific difference is to genus what form is to matter. Animal is the genus of man, and rational is the difference that makes man what he is. Accordingly, since animal is a body animated by a sensitive soul, it seems that a body animated by a sensitive soul is still in potency with respect to the rational soul. Thus the rational soul would be distinct from the sensitive soul.
Item. Intellectus non habet organum corporale; sensitivae autem potentiae et nutritivae habent organum corporale. Impossibile igitur videtur quod eadem anima sit et intellectiva et sensitiva, quia non potest esse idem separatum et non separatum. Moreover, the intellect does not possess a bodily organ. But the sensitive and nutritive powers do possess bodily organs. Hence it seems impossible for the same soul to be both intellectual and sensitive, because the same thing cannot both be separated and not separated from another thing.
Adhuc. Anima rationalis est incorruptibilis, ut supra ostensum est, vegetabilis autem anima et sensibilis sunt corruptibiles, quia sunt actus corruptibilium organorum. Non est igitur eadem anima vegetabilis et sensibilis et rationalis, cum impossibile sit idem esse corruptibile et incorruptibile. Furthermore, the rational soul is incorruptible, as was shown above. On the other hand, the vegetative and the sensitive souls are corruptible, as they are acts of corruptible organs. Therefore the rational soul is not the same as the vegetative and the sensitive souls, for the same thing cannot be both corruptible and incorruptible.
Praeterea. In generatione hominis apparet vita, quae est per animam vegetabilem, antequam conceptum appareat esse animal per sensum et motum, et prius demonstratur animal esse per motum et sensum quam habeat intellectum. Si igitur est eadem anima per quam conceptum primo vivit vita plantae, secundo vita animalis, et tertio vita hominis, sequeretur quod vegetabilis, sensibilis et rationalis sint ab exteriori principio, vel etiam intellectiva sit ex virtute quae est in semine. Utrumque autem horum videtur inconveniens: quia cum operationes animae vegetabilis et sensibilis non sint sine corpore, nec earum principia sine corpore possunt esse; operatio autem animae intellectivae est sine corpore, et sic impossibile videtur quod aliqua virtus in corpore sit eius causa. Impossibile igitur videtur quod eadem anima sit vegetabilis, sensibilis et rationalis. Besides, in the generation of man the life conferred by the vegetative soul appears before the fetus is observed to be an animal from its sense activity and motion; and this same being is discerned to be an animal through its sense activity and movement before it has an intellect. Therefore, if the soul by which the fetus first lives the life of a plant, then the life of an animal, and thirdly the life of a man, is the same, it would follow that the vegetative, sensitive, and rational principles come from an outside source, or else that the intellectual soul arises from the energy in the semen. Both of these alternatives are inadmissible. On the one hand, since the operations of the vegetative and sensitive soul are not exercised apart from the body, their principles cannot be without a body. On the other hand, the operation of the intellectual soul is exercised without a body; and so, apparently, no bodily energy can be its cause. Therefore the same soul cannot be vegetative, sensitive, and rational.

Caput 92

Solutio rationum praemissarum

Ad huiusmodi igitur dubitationes tollendas considerandum est, quod sicut in numeris species diversificantur per hoc quod una earum super alteram addit, ita etiam in rebus materialibus una species aliam in perfectione excedit. Quidquid enim perfectionis est in corporibus inanimatis, hoc habent plantae, et adhuc amplius; et rursus quod habent plantae, habent animalia, et aliquid plus; et sic quousque veniatur ad hominem, qui est perfectissimus inter creaturas corporeas. Omne autem quod est imperfectum, se habet ut materia respectu perfectioris. Et hoc quidem in diversis manifestum est. To set aside such quibbles, we should reflect that, in material things, one species surpasses another in perfection, in the way that, in numbers, species are diversified by adding one to another. Whatever perfection is found in lifeless bodies, plants also possess, and more besides. Again, whatever plants have, animals have too, and something else in addition. And thus we proceed until we come to man, the most perfect of bodily creatures. All that is imperfect is related as matter to what is more perfect. This is clear in the various classes of beings.
Nam elementa sunt materia corporum similium partium; et rursus corpora similium partium sunt materia respectu animalium. Et similiter in uno et eodem considerandum est. Quod enim in rebus naturalibus ad altiorem gradum perfectionis attingit, per suam formam habet quidquid perfectionis convenit inferiori naturae, et per eamdem habet id quod eidem de perfectione superadditur, sicut planta per suam animam habet quod sit substantia, et quod sit corporea, et ulterius quod sit animatum corpus. Animal autem per suam animam habet haec omnia, et ultra, quod sit sentiens; homo autem super haec omnia habet per suam animam quod sit intelligens. Si igitur in re aliqua consideretur id quod ad inferioris gradus perfectionem pertinet, erit materiale respectu eius quod pertinet ad perfectionem superioris gradus, puta, si consideretur in animali quod habet vitam plantae, hoc est quodammodo materiale respectu eius quod pertinet ad vitam sensitivam, quae est propria animali. The elements constitute the matter of bodies that are composed of similar parts; and again, bodies having similar parts are matter with respect to animals. And this is likewise to be observed in one and the same being. Among natural things, that which is endowed with a higher degree of perfection has, in virtue of its form, whatever perfection is found in lower nature, and in virtue of the same form has, besides, its own added perfection. Through its soul, the plant is a substance, and is corporeal, and besides is an animated body. Through its soul, an animal has all these perfections, and moreover is sentient. In addition to all this, man is intelligent through his soul. Thus, in any object, if we consider what pertains to the perfection of a lower grade of being, this will be material when compared with what pertains to the perfection of a higher grade. For example, if we observe that an animal has the life of a plant, this life is in some fashion material with respect to what pertains to sensitive life, which is characteristic of an animal.
Genus autem non est materia, alioquin non praedicaretur de toto, sed est aliquid a materia sumptum: denominatio enim rei ab eo quod est materiale in ipsa, est genus eius; et per eumdem modum differentia sumitur a forma. Et propter hoc, corpus vivum seu animatum, est genus animalis, sensibile autem differentia constitutiva ipsius; et similiter animal est genus hominis, et rationale differentia constitutiva eius. Quia igitur forma superioris gradus habet in se omnes perfectiones inferioris gradus, non est alia forma secundum rem a qua sumitur genus, et a qua sumitur differentia, sed ab eadem forma, secundum quod habet inferioris gradus perfectionem, sumitur genus; secundum vero quod habet perfectionem superioris gradus, sumitur ab ea differentia. Genus, of course, is not matter, for then it would not be predicated of the whole. But it is something derived from matter; for the designation attaching to a thing in terms of what is material in it, is its genus. Specific difference is derived from the form of a thing in the same way. This is the reason why living or animated body is the genus of animal, and sensitive is the specific difference that constitutes it. Similarly, animal is the genus of man, and rational is the difference that constitutes him. Therefore, since the form of a higher grade of being comprises within itself all the perfections of a lower grade, there is not, in reality, one form from which genus is derived, and another from which specific difference is derived. Rather, genus is derived from a form so far as it has a perfection of lower degree, and specific difference is derived from the same form so far as it has a perfection of higher degree.
Et sic patet quod quamvis animal sit genus hominis, et rationale sit differentia constitutiva eius, non tamen oportet quod sit in homine alia anima sensitiva et alia intellectiva, ut prima ratio obiiciebat. Thus, although animal is the genus of man and rational is the specific difference constituting him, there need not be in man a sensitive soul distinct from the intellectual soul, as was urged in the first argument.
Per eadem autem apparet solutio secundae rationis. Dictum est enim quod forma superioris speciei comprehendit in se omnes inferiorum graduum perfectiones. Considerandum est autem, quod tanto species materialis est altior, quanto minus fuerit materiae subiecta, et sic oportet quod quanto aliqua forma est nobilior, tanto magis super materiam elevetur: This indicates the solution of the second difficulty. As we have pointed out, the form of a higher species comprises within itself all the perfections of lower classes of being. We must note, however, that the species of a material being is higher in proportion as it is less subject to matter. And so the nobler a form is, the more it must be elevated above matter.
unde anima humana, quae est nobilissima materialium formarum, ad summum elevationis gradum pertingit, ut scilicet habeat operationem absque communicatione materiae corporalis; tamen quia eadem anima inferiorum graduum perfectiones comprehendit, habet nihilominus et operationes in quibus communicat materia corporalis. Manifestum est autem quod operatio procedit a re secundum eius virtutem. Oportet igitur quod anima humana habeat aliquas vires sive potentias quae sunt principia operationum quae exercentur per corpus, et has oportet esse actus aliquarum partium corporis, et huiusmodi sunt potentiae vegetativae et sensitivae partis. Habet etiam aliquas potentias quae sunt principia operationum quae sine corpore exercentur, et huiusmodi sunt intellectivae partis potentiae, quae non sunt actus aliquorum organorum. Et ideo intellectus tam possibilis quam agens dicitur separatus, quia non habent organa quorum sunt actus, sicut visus et auditus, sed sunt tantum in anima, quae est corporis forma. Unde non oportet, propter hoc quod intellectus dicitur separatus et caret organo corporali, non autem sensus, quod alia sit anima intellectiva et sensitiva in homine. Hence the human soul, which is the noblest of all forms of matter, attains to the highest level of elevation, where it enjoys an activity that is independent of the concurrence of corporeal matter. Yet, since the same soul includes the perfection of lower levels, it also has activities in which corporeal matter shares. However, an activity is exercised by a thing in accordance with the thing’s power. Therefore the human soul must have some powers or potentialities that are principles of activities exercised through the body, and these must be actions of certain parts of the body. Such are the powers of the vegetative and sensitive parts. The soul has also certain powers that are the principles of activities exercised without the body. Such are the powers of the intellectual part, whose actions are not performed by any organs. For this reason both the possible intellect and the agent intellect are said to be separate; they have no organs as principles of their actions, such as sight and hearing have, but inhere in the soul alone, which is the form of the body. Hence we need not conclude, from the fact that the intellect is said to be separate and lacks a bodily organ, whereas neither of these is true of the senses, that the intellectual soul is distinct from the sensitive soul in man.
Ex quo etiam patet quod nec ex hoc cogimur ponere aliam animam intellectivam et aliam sensitivam in homine, quia anima sensitiva est corruptibilis, intellectiva incorruptibilis, ut alia ratio procedebat. Esse enim incorruptibile competit intellectivae parti inquantum est separata. Sicut igitur in eadem essentia animae fundantur potentiae quae sunt separatae, ut dictum est, et non separatae, ita nihil prohibet quasdam potentiarum animae simul cum corpore deficere, quasdam autem incorruptibiles esse. This also makes it clear that we are not forced to admit an intellectual soul distinct from the sensitive soul in man on the ground that the sensitive soul is corruptible whereas the intellectual soul is incorruptible, as the third objection set out to prove. Incorruptibility pertains to the intellectual part so far as it is separate. Therefore, as powers that are separate, in the sense mentioned above, and powers that are not separate, are all rooted in the same essence of the soul, there is nothing to prevent some of the powers of the soul from lapsing when the body perishes, while others remain incorruptible.
Secundum etiam praedicta patet solutio quartae obiectionis. Nam omnis motus naturalis paulatim ex imperfecto ad perfectum procedit; quod tamen aliter accidit in alteratione et generatione. Nam eadem qualitas suscipit magis et minus: et ideo alteratio, quae est motus in qualitate, una et continua existens, de potentia ad actum procedit de imperfecto ad perfectum. Forma vero substantialis non recipit magis et minus, quia esse substantiale uniuscuiusque est indivisibiliter se habens. Unde naturalis generatio non procedit continue per multa media de imperfecto ad perfectum, sed oportet esse ad singulos gradus perfectionis novam generationem et corruptionem. Sic igitur in generatione hominis conceptum quidem primo vivit vita plantae per animam vegetabilem; deinde remota hac forma per corruptionem, acquirit quadam alia generatione animam sensibilem, et vivit vita animalis; deinde remota hac anima per corruptionem, introducitur forma ultima et completa, quae est anima rationalis, comprehendens in se quidquid perfectionis in praecedentibus formis erat. The points already made lead to a solution of the fourth objection. All natural movement gradually advances from imperfect to perfect. The same quality is receptive of greater and less; hence alteration, which is movement in quality, being unified and continuous in its progress from potency to act, advances from imperfect to perfect. But substantial form is not receptive of greater and less, for the substantial nature of each being exists indivisibly. Therefore natural generation does not proceed continuously through many intermediate stages from imperfect to perfect, but at each level of perfection a new generation and corruption must take place. Thus in the generation of a man the fetus first lives the life of a plant through the vegetative soul; next, when this form is removed by corruption it acquires, by a sort of new generation, a sensitive soul and lives the life of an animal; finally, when this soul is in turn removed by corruption, the ultimate and complete form is introduced. This is the rational soul, which comprises within itself whatever perfection was found in the previous forms.

Caput 93

De productione animae rationalis, quod non sit ex traductione

Haec autem ultima et completa forma, scilicet anima rationalis, non educitur in esse a virtute quae est in semine, sed a superiori agente. Virtus enim quae est in semine, est virtus corporis cuiusdam. Anima autem rationalis excedit omnem corporis naturam et virtutem, cum ad eius intellectualem operationem nullum corpus pertingere possit. Cum igitur nihil agat ultra suam speciem, eo quod agens est nobilius patiente, et faciens facto, impossibile est quod virtus alicuius corporis producat animam rationalem: neque igitur virtus quae est in semine. This ultimate and complete form, the rational soul, is brought into existence, not by the power that is in the semen, but by a higher cause. For the power that is in the semen is a bodily power. But the rational soul exceeds the whole nature and power of the body, since no body can rise to the heights of the soul’s intellectual activity. Nothing can act in a way that surmounts its species, because the agent is nobler than the patient, and the maker excels his product. Hence the power possessed by a body cannot produce the rational soul, nor, consequently, can the energy inherent in the semen do so.
Adhuc. Secundum quod unumquodque habet esse de novo, sic de novo competit ei fieri: nam eius est fieri cuius est et esse, ad hoc enim aliquid fit ut sit. Eis igitur quae secundum se habent esse, competit per se fieri, sicut rebus subsistentibus; eis autem quae per se non habent esse, non competit per se fieri, sicut accidentibus, et formis materialibus. Anima autem rationalis secundum se habet esse, quia secundum se habet operationem, ut ex dictis patet. Animae igitur rationali secundum se competit fieri. Cum igitur non sit composita ex materia et forma, ut supra ostensum est, sequitur quod non possit educi in esse nisi per creationem. Solius autem Dei est creare, ut supra ostensum est. A solo igitur Deo anima rationalis in esse producitur. Moreover, a thing that has new existence must also have a new becoming; for that which is, must first become, since a thing becomes in order that it may be. Thus things which have being in their own right must have becoming in their own right; such are subsistent beings. But things that do not possess being in their own right do not properly have a becoming; such are accidents and material forms. The rational soul has being in its own right, because it has its own operation, as is clear from our previous discussion. Therefore becoming is properly predicated of the rational soul. Since the soul is not composed of matter and form, as was shown above, it cannot be brought into being except by creation. But God alone can create, as we said above. Consequently the rational soul is produced by God alone.
Hoc etiam rationabiliter accidit. Videmus enim in artibus ad invicem ordinatis, quod suprema ars inducit ultimam formam; artes autem inferiores disponunt materiam ad ultimam formam. Manifestum est autem quod anima rationalis est ultima et perfectissima forma quam potest consequi materia generabilium et corruptibilium. Convenienter igitur naturalia agentia in inferiora causant praecedentes dispositiones et formas; supremum vero agens, scilicet Deus, causat ultimam formam, quae est anima rationalis. We can readily understand why this should be so. In all arts that are hierarchically related to one another, we observe that the highest art induces the ultimate form, whereas the lower arts dispose matter for the reception of the ultimate form. The rational soul, evidently, is the ultimate and most perfect form that the matter of beings subject to generation and corruption can achieve. Therefore natural agents, which operate on lower levels, appropriately cause preliminary dispositions and forms, whereas the supreme agent, God, causes the ultimate form, which is the rational soul.

Caput 94

Quod anima rationalis non est de substantia Dei

Non tamen credendum est animam rationalem esse de substantia Dei, secundum quorumdam errorem. Ostensum est enim supra quod Deus simplex et indivisibilis est. Non igitur animam rationalem corpori unit quasi eamdem a sua substantia separando. However, we are not to imagine that the rational soul is derived from the substance of God, as some have erroneously thought. We demonstrated above that God is simple and indivisible. Therefore He does not join the rational soul to a body as though He had first severed it from His own substance.
Item. Ostensum est supra quod impossibile est Deum esse formam alicuius corporis. Anima autem rationalis unitur corpori ut forma. Non igitur est de substantia Dei. Furthermore, we pointed out above that God cannot be the form of any body. But the rational soul is united to the body as the latter’s form. Hence it is not derived from the substance of God.
Adhuc. Ostensum est supra quod Deus non movetur neque per se neque per accidens, cuius contrarium in anima rationali apparet: mutatur enim de ignorantia ad scientiam, et de vitio ad virtutes. Non est igitur de substantia Dei. Besides, we showed above that God is not moved either in Himself or by reason of some other thing that is moved. But the contrary of this is observed to take place in the rational soul, which is moved from ignorance to knowledge, from vice to virtue. Accordingly the soul is not of the substance of God.

Caput 95

Quod illa quae dicuntur inesse a virtute extrinseca, sunt immediate a Deo

Ex his autem quae supra ostensa sunt, ex necessitate concluditur, quod illa quae non possunt produci in esse nisi per creationem, a Deo immediate sint. Manifestum est autem quod corpora caelestia non possunt produci in esse nisi per creationem. Non enim potest dici quod ex materia aliqua praeiacenti sunt facta, quia sic essent generabilia et corruptibilia et contrarietati subiecta, quod eis non competit, ut motus eorum declarat: moventur enim circulariter, motus autem circularis non habet contrarium. Relinquitur igitur quod corpora caelestia sint immediate in esse a Deo producta. The doctrine established above necessarily leads to the conclusion that things that cannot be brought into existence except by creation, come immediately from God. Thus the heavenly bodies ‘92 as is manifest, cannot be produced except by creation. They cannot be said to be made from some preexisting matter, for then they would be capable of generation and corruption, and would also be subject to contrariety. But they are not, as their motion proves. For they move in circles, and circular motion has no contrary. Consequently the heavenly bodies were produced immediately by God.
Similiter etiam elementa secundum se tota non sunt ex aliqua materia praeiacenti, quia illud quod praeexisteret, haberet aliquam formam; et sic oporteret quod aliquod corpus aliud ab elementis esset prius eis in ordine causae materialis. Si tamen materia praeexistens elementis haberet formam aliam, oporteret quod unum eorum esset aliis prius in eodem ordine, si materia praecedens formam elementi haberet formam aliam. Oportet igitur etiam ipsa elementa immediate esse a Deo producta. Similarly the elements, regarded as complete units, do not come from any pre-existing matter. Anything that would thus pre-exist would have some form. And thus some body, other than the elements, would exist prior to them in the order of material cause. But if the matter existing prior to the elements had a distinct form, one of the elements would have to be prior to the others in the same order, supposing that the pre-existing matter had the form of an element. Therefore the very elements must have been produced immediately by God.
Multo igitur magis impossibile est substantias incorporeas et invisibiles ab aliquo alio creari: omnes enim huiusmodi substantiae immateriales sunt. Non enim potest esse materia nisi dimensioni subiecta, secundum quam materia distinguitur, ut ex una materia fieri possint. Unde impossibile est quod ex materia praeiacenti causentur. Relinquitur igitur quod per creationem solum a Deo producuntur in esse: et propter hoc fides Catholica confitetur Deum esse creatorem caeli et terrae, et omnium visibilium, nec non etiam invisibilium. It is even more impossible for incorporeal and invisible substances to be created by some one else, for all such substances are immaterial. Matter cannot exist unless it is subject to dimension, whereby it is capable of being marked off, so that many things can be made from the same matter. Hence immaterial substances cannot be made from pre-existing matter. Consequently they can be produced only by God through creation. For this reason the Catholic faith professes that God is the “Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible,” and also “of all things invisible.”

Caput 96

Quod Deus non agit naturali necessitate, sed a voluntate

Ex hoc autem ostenditur quod Deus res in esse produxerit non naturali necessitate, sed voluntate. Ab uno enim naturali agente non est immediate nisi unum; agens autem voluntarium diversa producere potest: quod ideo est, quia omne agens agit per suam formam. Forma autem naturalis, per quam naturaliter aliquid agit, unius una est; formae autem intellectivae, per quas aliquid voluntate agit, sunt plures. Cum igitur a Deo immediate plura producantur in esse, ut iam ostensum est, manifestum est quod Deus in esse res produxit voluntate, et non naturali necessitate. The truth set forth in the preceding chapter also discloses the fact that God has brought things into existence not through any necessity of His nature but by His will. A single natural agent produces immediately but one effect, whereas a voluntary, agent can produce a variety of effects. The reason for this is that every agent acts in virtue of its form. The natural form, whereby a cause operates naturally, is limited to one for each agent. But intellectual forms, whereby an agent operates through his will, are many. Therefore, since many things are immediately produced by God, as we have just shown, God evidently produces things by His will, and not under the impulse of natural necessity.
Adhuc. Agens per intellectum et voluntatem est prius in ordine agentium agente per necessitatem naturae: nam agens per voluntatem praestituit sibi finem propter quem agit; agens autem naturale agit propter finem sibi ab alio praestitutum. Manifestum est autem ex praemissis, Deum esse primum agens. Est igitur agens per voluntatem, et non per necessitatem naturae. Besides, in the order of causes, an agent operating through intellect and will is prior to an agent operating by the necessity of its nature. For an agent operating through his will predetermines for himself the end for the sake of which he acts, whereas a natural cause operates on account of an end predetermined for it by another. But, as is clear from all that has gone before, God is the first agent. Hence He acts through His will, and not by a necessity of His nature.
Item. Ostensum est in superioribus, Deum esse infinitae virtutis. Non igitur determinatur ad hunc effectum vel illum, sed indeterminate se habet ad omnes. Quod autem indeterminate se habet ad diversos effectus, determinatur ad unum producendum per desiderium, vel per determinationem voluntatis; sicut homo qui potest ambulare et non ambulare, quando vult ambulat. Oportet igitur quod effectus a Deo procedant secundum determinationem voluntatis. Non igitur agit per necessitatem naturae, sed per voluntatem. Inde est quod fides Catholica Deum omnipotentem non solum creatorem, sed etiam factorem nominat: nam facere proprie est artificis qui per voluntatem operatur. Et quia omne agens voluntarium, per conceptionem sui intellectus agit, quae verbum ipsius dicitur, ut supra ostensum est, verbum autem Dei filius est: ideo fides Catholica confitetur de filio, quod per eum omnia facta sunt. Moreover, we demonstrated above that God is infinite in power. Consequently He is not determined to this or that effect, but is undetermined with regard to all effects. But what is undetermined regarding various effects, is determined to produce one of them by desire or by the determination of the will. Thus a man who is free to walk or not to walk, walks when he wills. Hence effects proceed from God according to the determination of His will. And so He acts, not by a necessity of His nature, but by His will. This is why the Catholic faith calls the omnipotent God not only “Creator,” but also “Maker.” For making is properly the action of an artificer who operates by his will. And since every voluntary agent acts in virtue of the conception of his intellect, which is called his word, as we indicated above, and since the Word of God is His Son, the Catholic faith professes that “all things were made” by the Son.

Caput 97

Quod Deus in sua actione est immutabilis

Ex hoc autem quod voluntate res in esse producit, manifestum est quod absque sui mutatione res de novo in esse producere potest. Haec est enim differentia inter agens naturale et agens voluntarium: quod agens naturale eodem modo agit quamdiu eodem modo se habet, eo quod quale est, talia agit; agens autem voluntarium agit qualia vult. Potest autem contingere absque eius mutatione quod velit nunc agere, et prius non agere. Nihil enim prohibet adesse alicui voluntatem de operando in posterum, etiam quando non operatur, absque sui mutatione. Ita absque Dei mutatione contingere potest quod Deus, quamvis sit aeternus, res in esse produxerit non ab aeterno. The fact that God produces things by His will clearly shows that He can produce new things without any change in Himself. The difference between a natural agent and a voluntary agent is this: a natural agent acts consistently in the same manner as long as it is in the same condition. Such as it is, thus does it act. But a voluntary agent acts as he wills. Accordingly it may well be that, without any change in himself, he wishes to act now and not previously. For there is nothing to prevent a person from willing to perform an action later, even though he is not doing it now; and this without any change in himself. Thus it can happen, without any change in God, that God, although He is eternal, did not bring things into existence from eternity.

Caput 98

Ratio probans motum ab aeterno fuisse, et solutio eius

Videtur autem quod si Deus voluntate aeterna et immutabili novum effectum producere possit, tamen oporteat quod novum effectum aliquis motus praecedat. Non enim videmus quod voluntas illud quod vult facere, retardet, nisi propter aliquid quod nunc est et cessat in posterum, vel quod non est, et expectatur futurum; sicut homo in aestate habet voluntatem ut induat se aliquo indumento, quod tamen ad praesens induere non vult, sed in futurum, quia nunc est calor, qui cessabit frigore adveniente in posterum. We might imagine that, although God can produce a new effect by His eternal and immutable will, some sort of motion would have to precede the newly produced effect. For we observe that the will does not delay doing what it wishes to do, unless because of some motive that is operative now but will cease later, or because of some motive that is inoperative now but is expected to become operative in the future. In summer a man has the will to clothe himself with a warm garment, which, however, he does not wish to put on at present, but in the future; for now the weather is warm, although it will cease to be warm with the advent of a cold wave later in the year.
Si igitur Deus ab aeterno voluit aliquem effectum producere, et non ab aeterno produxit, videtur quod vel aliquid expectaretur futurum quod nondum erat, vel esset aliud auferendum, quod tunc erat. Neutrum autem horum sine motu contingere potest. Videtur igitur quod a voluntate praecedente non posset effectus aliquis produci in posterum nisi aliquo motu praecedente: et sic si voluntas Dei fuit aeterna de rerum productione, et res non sunt ab aeterno productae, oportet quod earum productionem praecedat motus, et per consequens mobilia; quae si a Deo producta sunt, et non ab aeterno, iterum oportet praeexistere alios motus et mobilia usque in infinitum. Accordingly, if God wished from eternity to produce some effect, but did not produce it from eternity, it seems either that something was expected to happen in the future that had not yet occurred, or else that some obstacle had to be removed that was then present. Neither of these alternatives can take place without motion. Thus it seems that a subsequent effect cannot be produced by a preceding will unless some motion previously occurs. And so, if God’s will relative to the production of things was eternal, and nevertheless things were not produced from eternity, their production must have been preceded by motion, and consequently by mobile objects. And if the latter were produced by God, but not from eternity, yet other motions and mobile objects must have preceded, and so on, in infinite recession.
Huius autem obiectionis solutio facile potest perpendi, si quis differentiam consideret universalis et particularis agentis. Nam agens particulare habet actionem proportionatam regulae et mensurae quam agens universale praestituit, quod quidem in civilibus apparet. Nam legislator proponit legem quasi regulam et mensuram, secundum quam iudicari oportet ab aliquo particulari iudice. Tempus autem est mensura actionum quae fiunt in tempore. Agens enim particulare habet actionem tempori proportionatam, ut scilicet nunc et non prius agat propter aliquam determinatam rationem. Agens autem universale, quod Deus est, huiusmodi mensuram, quae tempus est, instituit, et secundum suam voluntatem. Inter res igitur productas a Deo etiam tempus est. Sicut igitur talis est uniuscuiusque rei quantitas et mensura, qualem Deus ei tribuere voluit, ita et talis est quantitas temporis qualem ei Deus dare voluit: ut scilicet tempus et ea quae sunt in tempore tunc inciperent quando Deus ea esse voluit. The solution to this objection readily comes to mind if we but attend to the difference between a universal and a particular agent. A particular agent has an activity that conforms to a norm and measure prescribed by the universal agent. This is clear even in civil government. The legislator enacts a law which is to serve as a norm and measure. Any particular judge must base his decisions on this law. Again, time is the measure of actions which occur in time. A particular agent is endowed with activity regulated by time, so that he acts for some definite reason now, and not before. But the universal agent, God, instituted this measure, which is time, and He did so in accord with His will. Hence time also is to be numbered among the things produced by God. Therefore, just as the quantity and measure of each object are such as God wishes to assign to it, so the quantity of time is such as God wished to mete out; that is, time and the things existing in time began just when God wished them to begin.
Obiectio autem praemissa procedit de agente quod praesupponit tempus et agit in tempore, non autem instituit tempus. Quaestio ergo qua quaeritur quare voluntas aeterna producit effectum nunc, et non prius, praesupponit tempus praeexistens, nam nunc et prius partes sunt temporis. Circa universalem igitur rerum productionem, inter quas etiam consideratur tempus, non est quaerendum quare nunc et non prius, sed quare huius temporis voluit esse mensuram: quod ex divina voluntate dependet, cui indifferens est vel hanc quantitatem vel aliam tempori assignare. Quod quidem et circa quantitatem dimensivam mundi considerari potest. Non enim quaeritur quare Deus corporalem mundum in tali situ constituit et non supra vel subtus vel secundum aliam positionis differentiam, quia non est locus extra mundum; sed hoc ex divina voluntate provenit quod talem quantitatem mundo corporali tribueret, ut nihil eius esset extra hunc situm secundum quamcumque positionis differentiam. Licet autem ante mundum tempus non fuerit, nec extra mundum sit locus, utimur tamen tali modo loquendi, ut si dicamus, quod antequam mundus esset, nihil erat nisi Deus, et quod extra mundum non est aliquod corpus, non intelligentes per ante et extra, tempus aut locum nisi secundum imaginationem tantum. The objection we are dealing with argues from the standpoint of an agent that presupposes time and acts in time, but did not institute time. Hence the question, why God’s eternal will produces an effect now and not earlier, presupposes that time exists; for “now” and “earlier” are segments of time. With regard to the universal production of things, among which time is also to be counted, we should not ask: “Why now and not earlier?” Rather we should ask: “Why did God wish this much time to intervene?” And this depends on the divine will, which is perfectly free to assign this or any other quantity to time. The same may be noted with respect to the dimensional quantity of the world. No one asks why God located the material world in such and such a place rather than higher up or lower down or in some other position; for there is no place outside the world. The fact that God portioned out so much quantity to the world that no part of it would be beyond the place occupied in some other locality, depends on the divine will. However, although there was no time prior to the world and no place outside the world, we speak as if there were. Thus we say that before the world existed there was nothing except God, and that there is no body lying outside the world. But in thus speaking of “before” and “outside,” we have in mind nothing but time and place as they exist in our imagination.

Caput 99

Rationes ostendentes quod est necessarium materiam ab aeterno creationem mundi praecessisse, et solutiones earum

Videtur autem quod etsi rerum perfectarum productio ab aeterno non fuerit, quod materiam necesse sit ab aeterno fuisse. Omne enim quod habet esse post non esse, mutatur de non esse ad esse. Si igitur res creatae, ut puta caelum et terra et alia huiusmodi, ab aeterno non fuerint, sed inceperunt esse postquam non fuerant, necesse est dicere eas mutatas esse de non esse ad esse. Omnis autem mutatio et motus subiectum aliquod habet: est enim motus actus existentis in potentia; subiectum autem mutationis per quam aliqua res in esse producitur, non est ipsa res producta, hoc enim est terminus motus; non est autem idem motus terminus et subiectum; sed subiectum praedictae mutationis est id quo res producitur, quod materia dicitur. Videtur ergo, si res in esse productae sint postquam non fuerant, quod oporteat eis materiam praeextitisse: quae si iterum producta est postquam non fuerat, oportet quod habeat aliam materiam praecedentem. Non autem est procedere in infinitum. Relinquitur igitur quod oporteat devenire ad aliquam materiam aeternam, quae non sit producta postquam non fuerat. However, even though finished products were not in existence from eternity, we might be inclined to think that matter had to exist from eternity. For everything that has being subsequent to non-being, is changed from non-being to being. Therefore if created things, such as heaven and earth and the like, did not exist from eternity, but began to be after they had not been, we must admit that they were changed from non-being to being. But all change and motion have some sort of subject; for motion is the act of a thing existing in potency. However, the subject of the change whereby a thing is brought into existence, is not the thing itself that is produced, because this thing is the terminus of the motion, and the terminus and subject of motion are not the same. Rather, the subject of the change is that from which the thing is produced, and this is called matter. Accordingly, if things are brought into being after a state of non-being, it seems that matter had to exist prior to them. And if this matter is, in turn, produced subsequent to a period of non-existence, it had to come from some other, pre-existing matter. But infinite procession along these lines is impossible. Therefore we must eventually come to eternal matter, which was not produced subsequent to a period of non-existence.
Item. Si mundus incepit postquam non fuerat, antequam mundus esset, aut erat possibile mundum esse vel fieri, aut non possibile. Si autem non possibile erat esse vel fieri, ergo ab aequipollenti impossibile erat mundum esse vel fieri. Quod autem impossibile est fieri, necesse est non fieri. Necesse est igitur mundum non esse factum. Quod cum manifeste sit falsum, necesse est dicere, quod si mundus incepit esse postquam non fuerat, quod possibile erat antequam esset, ipsum esse vel fieri. Erat igitur aliquid in potentia ad fieri et esse mundi. Quod autem est in potentia ad fieri et esse alicuius, est materia eius, sicut lignum se habet ad scamnum. Sic igitur videtur quod necesse est materiam semper fuisse, etiam si mundus semper non fuit. Again, if the world began to exist after it had first not existed, then, before the world actually existed, it was either possible for the world to be or become, or it was not possible. If it was not possible for the world to be or to become, then, by equipollence, it was impossible for the world to be or to become. But if it is impossible for a thing to become, it is necessary for that thing not to become. In that case we must conclude that the world was not made. Since this conclusion is patently false, we are forced to admit that if the world began to be after it had first not been, it was possible for it to be or to become before it actually existed. Accordingly there was something in potency with regard to the becoming and being of the world. But what is thus in potency to the becoming and existence of something, is the matter of that something, as we see exemplified in the case of wood relative to a bench. Apparently, therefore, matter must have existed always, even if the world did not exist always.
Sed cum ostensum sit supra quod etiam materia non est nisi a Deo, pari ratione fides Catholica non confitetur materiam esse aeternam, sicut nec mundum aeternum. Oportet enim hoc modo exprimi in ipsis rebus causalitatem divinam, ut res ab eo productae esse inciperent postquam non fuerant. Hoc enim evidenter et manifeste ostendit eas non a se ipsis esse, sed ab aeterno auctore. As against this line of reasoning, we showed above that the very matter of the world has no existence except from God. Catholic faith does not admit that matter is eternal any more than it admits that the world is eternal. We have no other way of expressing the divine causality in things themselves than by saying that things produced by God began to exist after they had previously not existed. This way of speaking evidently and clearly brings out the truth that they have existence not of themselves, but from the eternal Author.
Non autem praemissis rationibus arctamur ad ponendum aeternitatem materiae: non enim universalis rerum productio proprie mutatio dici potest. In nulla enim mutatione subiectum mutationis per mutationem producitur, quia non est idem subiectum mutationis et terminus, ut dictum est. Cum igitur universalis productio rerum a Deo, quae creatio dicitur, se extendat ad omnia quae sunt in re, huiusmodi productio rationem mutationis proprie habere non potest, etiam si res creatae producantur in esse postquam non fuerant. Esse enim post non esse non sufficit ad veram rationem mutationis, nisi supponatur quod subiectum nunc sit sub privatione, et nunc sub forma: unde in quibusdam invenitur hoc post illud, in quibus proprie ratio motus aut mutationis non est, sicut cum dicitur quod ex die fit nox. Sic igitur etsi mundus esse inceperit postquam non fuerat, non oportet quod hoc per aliquam mutationem sit factum, sed per creationem, quae vere mutatio non est, sed quaedam relatio rei creatae, a creatore secundum suum esse dependentis, cum ordine ad non esse praecedens. In omni enim mutatione oportet esse aliquid idem, aliter et aliter se habens, utpote quod nunc sit sub uno extremo, et postmodum sub alio: quod quidem in creatione secundum rei veritatem non invenitur, sed solum secundum imaginationem, prout imaginamur unam et eamdem rem prius non fuisse, et postmodum esse: et sic secundum quamdam similitudinem creatio mutatio dici potest. The arguments just reviewed do not compel us to postulate the eternity of matter, for the production of things in their totality cannot properly be called change. In no change is the subject of the change produced by the change, for the reason rightly alleged by the objector, namely, that the subject of change and the terminus of the change are not identical. Consequently, since the total production of things by God, which is known as creation, extends to all the reality that is found in a thing, production of this kind cannot properly verify the idea of change, even though the things created are brought into existence subsequently to non-existence. Being that succeeds to non-being, does not suffice to constitute real change, unless we suppose that a subject is first in a state of privation, and later under its proper form. Hence “this” is found coming after “that” in certain things in which motion or change do not really occur, as when we say that day turns into night. Accordingly, even though the world began to exist after having not existed, this is not necessarily the result of some change. In fact, it is the result of creation, which is not a true change, but is rather a certain relation of the created thing, as a being that is dependent on the Creator for its existence and that connotes succession to previous non-existence. In every change there must be something that remains the same although it undergoes alteration in its manner of being, in the sense that at first it is under one extreme and subsequently under another. In creation this does not take place in objective reality, but only in our imagination. That is, we imagine that one and the same thing previously did not exist, and later existed. And so creation can be called change, because it has some resemblance to change.
Similiter etiam secunda obiectio non cogit. Licet enim verum sit dicere quod antequam mundus esset, possibile erat mundum esse vel fieri, non tamen oportet hoc secundum aliquam potentiam dici. Dicitur enim possibile in enuntiabilibus quod significat aliquem modum veritatis: quod scilicet neque est necessarium neque impossibile: unde huiusmodi possibile non secundum aliquam potentiam dicitur, ut philosophus docet in VII Metaphysic. Si autem secundum aliquam potentiam dicitur possibile mundum esse, non est necessarium quod dicatur secundum potentiam passivam, sed secundum potentiam activam: ut quod dicitur, quod mundum possibile fuit esse antequam esset, sic intelligatur quod Deus potuit mundum in esse producere antequam produceret: unde non cogimur ponere materiam praeextitisse mundo. Sic ergo fides Catholica nihil Deo coaeternum ponit, et propter hoc creatorem et factorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium confitetur. The second objection, too, lacks cogency. Although we can truly say that before the world was, it was possible for the world to be or to become, this possibility need not be taken to mean potentiality. In propositions, that which signifies a certain modality of truth, or in other words, that which is neither necessary nor impossible, is said to be possible. What is possible in this sense does not involve any potentiality, as the Philosopher teaches in Book V of his Metaphysics [12, 1019 b 19]. However, if anyone insists on saying that it was possible for the world to exist according to some potency, we reply that this need not mean a passive potency, but can mean active potency; and so if we say that it was possible for the world to be before it actually was, we should understand this to mean that God could have brought the world into existence before He actually produced it. Hence we are not forced to postulate that matter existed before the world. Thus Catholic faith acknowledges nothing to be co-eternal with God, and for this reason professes that He is the “Creator and Maker of all things visible and invisible.”

Caput 100

Quod Deus operatur omnia propter finem

Quoniam autem supra ostensum est quod Deus res in esse produxit non per necessitatem naturae, sed per intellectum et voluntatem, omne autem tale agens agit propter finem, operativi enim intellectus finis principium est: necesse est igitur omnia quae a Deo sunt facta, propter finem esse. We showed above that God has brought things into existence, not through any necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and Will. Any agent that works in this way, acts for an end: the end is a principle for the operative intellect. Accordingly everything that is made by God necessarily exists for an end.
Adhuc. Productio rerum a Deo optime facta est: optimi enim est optime facere unumquodque. Melius est autem fieri aliquid propter finem quam absque finis intentione: ex fine enim est ratio boni in his quae fiunt. Sunt igitur res a Deo factae propter finem. Moreover, things were produced by God in a supremely excellent way; for the most perfect Being does everything in the most perfect way. But it is better for a thing to be made for an end than to be made without the intention of achieving an end; for the goodness that is in things which are made comes from their end. Hence things were made by God for an end.
Huius etiam signum apparet in his quae a natura aguntur, quorum nihil in vanum est, sed propter finem unumquodque. Inconveniens autem dicere est, magis ordinata esse quae fiunt a natura quam ipsa institutio naturae a primo agente, cum totus ordo naturae exinde derivetur. Manifestum est igitur res a Deo productas esse propter finem. An indication of this is seen in effects produced by nature. None of them is in vain, all are for an end. But it is absurd to say that things produced by nature are in better order than is the very constituting of nature by the first Agent, since the entire order of nature is derived from the latter. Clearly, therefore, things produced by God exist for an end.

Caput 101

Quod ultimus finis omnium est divina bonitas

The Divine Goodness as the Ultimate End
Oportet autem ultimum finem rerum divinam bonitatem esse. Rerum enim factarum ab aliquo agente per voluntatem, ultimus finis est quod est primo et per se volitum ab agente, et propter hoc agit agens omne quod agit. Primum autem volitum divinae voluntatis est eius bonitas, ut ex superioribus patet. Necesse est igitur omnium rerum factarum a Deo, ultimum finem divinam bonitatem esse. The ultimate end of things is necessarily the divine goodness. For the ultimate end of things produced by one who works through his will is that which is chiefly and for its own sake willed by the agent. It is for this that the agent does all that he does. But the first object willed by the divine will is God’s goodness, as is clear from a previous discussion. Hence the ultimate end of all things made by God must necessarily be the divine goodness.
Item. Finis generationis uniuscuiusque rei generatae est forma eiusdem, hac enim adepta generatio quiescit. Unumquodque enim generatum, sive per artem sive per naturam, secundum suam formam similatur aliquo modo agenti, nam omne agens agit aliqualiter sibi simile. Domus enim quae est in materia, procedit a domo quae est in mente artificis. In naturalibus etiam homo generat hominem; et si aliquid sit genitum vel factum secundum naturam, quod non sit simile generanti secundum speciem, similatur tamen suis agentibus sicut imperfectum perfecto. Ex hoc enim contingit quod generatum generanti secundum speciem non similatur, quia ad eius perfectam similitudinem non possit pervenire, sed aliqualiter eam imperfecte participat; sicut animalia et plantae quae generantur ex virtute solis. Omnium igitur quae fiunt, finis generationis sive perfectionis est forma facientis vel generantis, ut scilicet ad eius similitudinem perveniatur. Forma autem primi agentis, scilicet Dei, non est aliud quam eius bonitas. Propter hoc igitur omnia facta sunt ut divinae bonitati assimilentur. Furthermore, the end of the generation of everything that is generated is its form. Once this is achieved, generation ceases. For everything that is generated, whether by art or by nature, is in some way rendered similar to the agent in virtue of its form, since every agent produces an effect that has some resemblance to the agent himself. Thus the house that is realized in matter proceeds from the house existing ideally in the mind of the architect. In the realm of nature, likewise, man begets man. And if anything that is generated or effected by natural processes is not like its generating cause according to species, it is at any rate likened to its efficient causes as imperfect to perfect. The fact that a generated product is not assimilated to its generating cause according to species, is explained by its inability to rise to perfect likeness with its cause; but it does participate in that cause to some extent, however imperfectly. This occurs, for example, in animals and plants that are generated by the power of the sun. Hence in all things that are made, the end of their generation or production is the form of their maker or generator, in the sense that they are to achieve a likeness of that form. But the form of the first agent, who is God, is nothing else than His goodness. This, then, is the reason why all things were made: that they might be assimilated to the divine goodness.

Caput 102

Quod divina assimilatio est causa diversitatis in rebus

Ex hoc igitur accipienda est ratio diversitatis et distinctionis in rebus. Quia enim divinam bonitatem perfecte repraesentari impossibile fuit propter distantiam uniuscuiusque creaturae a Deo, necessarium fuit ut repraesentaretur per multa, ut quod deest ex uno, suppleretur ex alio. Nam et in conclusionibus syllogisticis quando per unum medium non sufficienter demonstratur conclusio, oportet media multiplicari ad conclusionis manifestationem, ut in syllogismis dialecticis accidit. Nec tota tamen universitas creaturarum perfecte divinam bonitatem repraesentat per aequiparantiam, sed secundum perfectionem creaturae possibilem. This enables us to grasp the reason for diversity and distinction in things. Since the divine goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, on account of the distance that separates each creature from God, it had to be represented by many creatures, so that what is lacking to one might be supplied by another. Even in syllogistic conclusions, when the conclusion is not sufficiently demonstrated by one means of proof, the means must be multiplied in order to make the conclusion clear, as happens in dialectic syllogisms. Of course, not even the entire universe of creatures perfectly represents the divine goodness by setting it forth adequately, but represents it only in the measure of perfection possible to creatures.
Item. Illud quod inest causae universali simpliciter et unite, invenitur in effectibus multipliciter et distincte: nobilius est enim aliquid in causa quam in effectibus. Divina autem bonitas una et simplex principium est et radix totius bonitatis quae in creaturis invenitur. Necesse est igitur sic creaturas divinae bonitati assimilari sicut multa et indistincta assimilantur uni et simplici. Sic igitur multitudo et distinctio provenit in rebus non casualiter aut fortuito, sicut nec rerum productio est a casu vel a fortuna, sed propter finem. Ex eodem enim principio est esse et unitas et multitudo in rebus. Moreover, a perfection existing in a universal cause simply and in a unified manner, is found to be multiple and discrete in the effects of that cause. For a perfection has a nobler existence in a cause than in its effects. But the divine goodness is one, and is the simple principle and root of all the goodness found in creatures. Hence creatures must be assimilated to the divine goodness in the way that many and distinct objects are assimilated to what is one and simple. Therefore multiplicity and distinction occur in things not by chance or fortune but for an end, just as the production of things is not the result of chance or fortune, but is for an end. For existence, unity, and multiplicity in things all come from the same principle.
Neque enim distinctio rerum causatur ex materia: nam prima rerum institutio est per creationem, quae materiam non requirit. Similiter quae solum ex necessitate materiae proveniunt, casualia esse videntur. The distinction among things is not caused by matter; for things were originally constituted in being by creation, which does not require any matter. Moreover, things which issue purely from the necessity of matter have the appearance of being fortuitous.
Similiter autem neque multitudo in rebus causatur propter ordinem mediorum agentium, puta quod ab uno primo simplici procedere immediate non potuerit nisi unum, distans tamen a primo in simplicitate, ita quod ex eo iam procedere potuerit multitudo, et sic deinceps quanto magis a primo simplici receditur, tanto numerosior multitudo invenitur, ut aliqui posuerunt. Iam enim ostensum est quod plura sunt quae in esse prodire non potuerunt nisi per creationem, quae solius Dei est, ut supra ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod ab ipso Deo sunt plura immediate creata. Manifestum est etiam quod secundum hanc positionem, rerum multitudo et distinctio casualis esset, quasi non intenta a primo agente. Est enim multitudo rerum et distinctio ab intellectu divino excogitata et instituta in rebus ad hoc quod diversimode divina bonitas a rebus creatis repraesentetur, et eam secundum diversos gradus diversa participarent, ut sic ex ipso diversarum rerum ordine quaedam pulchritudo resultet in rebus quae divinam sapientiam commendaret. Furthermore, multiplicity in things is not explained by the order obtaining among intermediate agents, as though from one, simple first being, there could proceed directly only one thing that would be far removed from the first being in simplicity, so that multitude could issue from it, and thus, as the distance from the first, simple being increased, the more numerous a multitude would be discerned. Some have suggested this explanation. But we have shown that there are many things that could not have come into being except by creation, which is exclusively the work of God, as has been proved. Hence we conclude that many things have been created directly by God Himself. It is likewise evident that, according to the view under criticism, the multiplicity and distinction among things would be fortuitous, as not being intended by the first agent. Actually, however, the multiplicity and distinction existing among things were devised by the divine intellect and were carried out in the real order so that the divine goodness might be mirrored by created things in variety, and that different things might participate in the divine goodness in varying degree. Thus the very order existing among diverse things issues in a certain beauty, which should call to mind the divine wisdom.

Caput 103

Quod non solum divina bonitas est causa rerum, sed etiam omnis motus et operationis

Non solum autem institutionis rerum finis est divina bonitas, sed etiam omnis operationis et motus creaturae cuiuslibet necesse est divinam bonitatem finem esse. Unumquodque enim quale est talia agit, sicut calidum calefacit. Quaelibet autem res creata secundum suam formam similitudinem quamdam participat divinae bonitatis, ut ostensum est. Ergo et omnis actio et motus creaturae cuiuslibet in divinam bonitatem ordinatur sicut in finem. The divine goodness is not only the end of the creation of things; it must also be the end of every operation and movement of any creature whatever. The action of every being corresponds to its nature; for example, what is hot, causes heat. But every created thing has, in keeping with its form, some participated likeness to the divine goodness, as we have pointed out. Therefore, too, all actions and movements of every creature are directed to the divine goodness as their end.
Praeterea. Omnis motus et operatio rei cuiuslibet in aliquid perfectum tendere videtur. Perfectum autem habet rationem boni, perfectio enim cuiuslibet rei est bonitas eius. Omnis igitur motus et actio rei cuiuslibet ad bonum tendit. Bonum autem quodlibet est similitudo quaedam summi boni, sicut et ens quodlibet est similitudo primi entis. Igitur motus et actio cuiuslibet rei tendit in assimilationem bonitatis divinae. Besides, all movements and operations of every being are seen to tend to what is perfect. Perfect signifies what is good, since the perfection of anything is its goodness. Hence every movement and action of anything whatever tend toward good. But all good is a certain imitation of the supreme Good, just as all being is an imitation of the first Being. Therefore the movement and action of all things tend toward assimilation with the divine goodness.
Praeterea. Si sint multa agentia ordinem habentia, necesse est quod omnium agentium actiones et motus ordinentur in bonum primi agentis sicut in finem ultimum. Cum enim a superiori agente inferiora agentia moveantur, et omne movens moveat ad finem proprium, oportet quod actiones et motus inferiorum agentium tendant in finem primi agentis: sicut in exercitu omnium ordinum actiones ordinantur sicut in ultimum ad victoriam, quae est finis ducis. Ostensum autem est supra quod primum movens et agens est Deus; finis autem eius non est aliud quam sua bonitas, ut etiam supra ostensum est. Necesse est igitur quod omnes actiones et motus quarumcumque creaturarum sint propter divinam bonitatem, non quidem causandam, neque augendam, sed suo modo acquirendam, participando siquidem aliquam similitudinem eius. Moreover, if there are many agents arranged in order, the actions and movements of all the agents must be directed to the good of the first agent as to their ultimate end. For lower agents are moved by the higher agent, and every mover moves in the direction of his own end. Consequently the actions and movements of lower agents must tend toward the end of the first agent. Thus in an army the actions of all the subordinate units are directed, in the last instance, to victory, which is the end intended by the commander-in-chief. But we showed above that the first mover and agent is God, and that His end is nothing else than His goodness. Therefore all the actions and movements of all creatures exist on account of the divine goodness, not, of course, in the sense that they are to cause or increase it, but in the sense that they are to acquire it in their own way, by sharing to some extent in a likeness of it.
Divinae autem bonitatis similitudinem res creatae per suas operationes diversimode consequuntur, sicut et diversimode secundum suum esse ipsam repraesentant: unumquodque enim operatur secundum quod est. Quia igitur omnibus creaturis commune est ut divinam bonitatem repraesentent inquantum sunt, ita omnibus commune est ut per operationes suas consequantur divinam similitudinem in conservatione sui esse et communicatione sui esse ad alterum. Unaquaeque enim creatura in sua operatione primo quidem se in esse perfecto secundum quod est possibile conservare nititur, in quo suo modo tendit in similitudinem divinae perpetuitatis. Secundo vero per suam operationem unaquaeque creatura suum esse perfectum alteri communicare conatur secundum suum modum, et per hoc tendit in similitudinem divinae causalitatis. Created things attain to the divine likeness by their operations in different ways, as they also represent it in different ways conformably to their being. For each of them acts in a manner corresponding to its being. Therefore, as all creatures in common represent the divine goodness to the extent that they exist, so by their actions they all in common attain to the divine likeness in the conservation of their being and in the communication of their being to others. For every creature endeavors, by its activity, first of all to keep itself in perfect being, so far as this is possible. In such endeavor it tends, in its own way, to an imitation of the divine permanence. Secondly, every creature strives, by its activity, to communicate its own perfect being, in its own fashion, to another; and in this it tends toward an imitation of the divine causality.
Sed creatura rationalis per suam operationem tendit in divinam similitudinem singulari quodam modo prae ceteris, sicut et prae ceteris creaturis nobilius esse habet: esse enim creaturarum ceterarum, cum sit per materiam constrictum, est finitum, ut infinitatem non habeat nec actu nec potentia. Omnis vero natura rationalis infinitatem habet vel actu vel potentia, secundum quod intellectus continet in se intelligibilia. In nobis igitur intellectualis natura in suo primo esse considerata est in potentia ad sua intelligibilia, quae cum sint infinita, infinitatem quamdam habent in potentia. Unde intellectus est species specierum, quia non habet tantum speciem determinatam ad unum, ut lapis, sed speciem omnium specierum capacem. Natura vero intellectualis in Deo infinita est in actu, utpote in se praehabens totius entis perfectionem, ut supra ostensum est. Creaturae vero aliae intellectuales medio modo se habent inter potentiam et actum. Tendit igitur intellectualis creatura per suam operationem in divinam similitudinem, non in hoc solum quod se in esse conservet, vel suum esse quodammodo communicando multiplicet, sed ut in se habeat actu quod per naturam in potentia habet. Est igitur finis intellectualis creaturae, quem per suam operationem consequitur, ut intellectus eius totaliter efficiatur in actu secundum omnia intelligibilia quae in potentia habet: secundum hoc enim maxime Deo similis erit. The rational creature tends, by its activity, toward the divine likeness in a special way that exceeds the capacities of all other creatures, as it also has a nobler existence as compared with other creatures. The existence of other creatures is finite, since it is hemmed in by matter, and so lacks infinity both in act and in potency. But every rational nature has infinity either in act or in potency, according to the way its intellect contains intelligibles. Thus our intellectual nature, considered in its first state, is in potency to its intelligibles; since these are infinite, they have a certain potential infinity. Hence the intellect is the species of species, because it has a species that is not determined to one thing alone, as is the case with a stone, but that has a capacity for all species. But the intellectual nature of God is infinite in act, for prior to every consideration it has within itself the perfection of all being, as was shown above. Accordingly intellectual creatures occupy a middle position between potency and act. By its activity, therefore, the intellectual creature tends toward the divine likeness, not only in the sense that it preserves itself in existence, or that it multiplies its existence, in a way, by communicating it; it also has as its end the possession in act of what by nature it possesses in potency. Consequently the end of the intellectual creature, to be achieved by its activity, is the complete actuation of its intellect by all the intelligibles for which it has a potency. In this respect it will become most like to God.

Caput 104

De duplici potentia, cui in rebus respondet duplex intellectus, et quis sit finis intellectualis creaturae

Est autem aliquid in potentia dupliciter: uno modo naturaliter, respectu eorum scilicet quae per agens naturale possunt reduci in actum; alio modo respectu eorum quae reduci non possunt in actum per agens naturale, sed per aliquod aliud agens, quod quidem in rebus corporalibus apparet. Quod enim ex puero fiat vir, est in potentia naturali, vel quod ex semine fiat animal. Sed quod ex ligno fiat scamnum, vel ex caeco fiat videns, non est in potentia naturali. A thing may be in potency in two ways: either naturally, that is, with respect to perfections that can be reduced to act by a natural agent; or else with respect to perfections that cannot be reduced to act by a natural agent but require some other agent. This is seen to take place even in corporeal beings. The boy grows up to be a man; the spermatozoon develops into an animal. This is within the power of nature. But that lumber becomes a bench or that a blind man receives sight, is not within the power of nature.
Sic autem et circa intellectum nostrum accidit. Est enim intellectus noster in potentia naturali respectu quorumdam intelligibilium, quae scilicet reduci possunt in actum per intellectum agentem, qui est principium innatum nobis, ut per ipsum efficiamur intelligentes in actu. Est autem impossibile nos ultimum finem consequi per hoc quod intellectus noster sic reducatur in actum: nam virtus intellectus agentis est ut phantasmata, quae sunt intelligibilia in potentia, faciat intelligibilia in actu, ut ex superioribus patet. Phantasmata autem sunt accepta per sensum. Per intellectum igitur agentem intellectus noster in actum reducitur respectu horum intelligibilium tantum in quorum notitiam per sensibilia possumus devenire. Impossibile est autem in tali cognitione ultimum hominis finem consistere. The same is the case with our minds. Our intellect has a natural potency with regard to certain intelligible objects, namely, those that can be reduced to act by the agent intellect. We possess this faculty as an innate principle that enables us to understand in actuality. However, we cannot attain our ultimate end by the actuation of our intellect through the instrumentality of the agent intellect. For the function of the agent intellect consists in rendering actually intelligible the phantasms that of themselves are only potentially intelligible. This was explained above. These phantasms are derived from the senses. Hence the efficacy of the agent intellect in reducing our intellect to act is restricted to intelligible objects of which we can gain knowledge by way of sense perception. Man’s last end cannot consist in such cognition.
Nam ultimo fine adepto, desiderium naturale quiescit. Quantumcumque autem aliquis proficiat intelligendo secundum praedictum modum cognitionis quo a sensu scientiam percipimus, adhuc remanet naturale desiderium ad alia cognoscenda. Multa enim sunt ad quae sensus pertingere non potest, de quibus per sensibilia non nisi modicam notitiam accipere possumus, ut forte sciamus de eis quod sint, non autem quid sint, eo quod substantiarum immaterialium quidditates alterius generis sunt a quidditatibus rerum sensibilium, et eas quasi improportionabiliter transcendentes. The reason is that, once the ultimate end has been reached, natural desire ceases. But no matter how much we may advance in this kind of understanding, whereby we derive knowledge from the senses, there still remains a natural desire to know other objects. For many things are quite beyond the reach of the senses. We can have but a slight knowledge of such things through information based on sense experience. We may get to know that they exist, but we cannot know what they are, for the natures of immaterial substances belong to a different genus from the natures of sensible things and excel them, we may say, beyond all proportion.
Circa ea etiam quae sub sensum cadunt, multa sunt quorum rationem cognoscere per certitudinem non possumus, sed quorumdam quidem nullo modo, quorumdam vero debiliter. Unde semper remanet naturale desiderium respectu perfectioris cognitionis. Impossibile est autem naturale desiderium esse vanum. Moreover, as regards objects that fall under sense experience, there are many whose nature we cannot know with any certainty. Some of them, indeed, elude our knowledge altogether; others we can know but vaguely. Hence our natural desire for more perfect knowledge ever remains. But a natural desire cannot be in vain.
Consequimur igitur ultimum finem in hoc quod intellectus noster fiat in actu, aliquo sublimiori agente quam sit agens nobis connaturale, quod quiescere faciat desiderium quod nobis inest naturaliter ad sciendum. Tale est autem in nobis sciendi desiderium, ut cognoscentes effectum, desideremus cognoscere causam, et in quacumque re cognitis quibuscumque eius circumstantiis, non quiescit nostrum desiderium, quousque eius essentiam cognoscamus. Non igitur naturale desiderium sciendi potest quietari in nobis, quousque primam causam cognoscamus, non quocumque modo, sed per eius essentiam. Prima autem causa Deus est, ut ex superioribus patet. Est igitur finis ultimus intellectualis creaturae, Deum per essentiam videre. Accordingly we reach our last end when our intellect is actualized by some higher agent than an agent connatural to us, that is, by an agent capable of gratifying our natural, inborn craving for knowledge. So great is the desire for knowledge within us that, once we apprehend an effect, we wish to know its cause. Moreover, after we have gained some knowledge of the circumstances investing a thing, our desire is not satisfied until we penetrate to its essence. Therefore our natural desire for knowledge cannot come to rest within us until we know the first cause, and that not in any way, but in its very essence. This first cause is God. Consequently the ultimate end of an intellectual creature is the vision of God in His essence.

Caput 105

Quomodo finis ultimus intellectualis creaturae est Deum per essentiam videre, et quomodo hoc possit

Hoc autem quomodo possibile sit considerandum est. Manifestum est autem quod cum intellectus noster nihil cognoscat nisi per aliquam speciem eius, impossibile est quod per speciem rei unius cognoscat essentiam alterius; et quanto magis species per quam cognoscit intellectus, plus distat a re cognita, tanto intellectus noster imperfectiorem cognitionem habet de essentia rei illius, ut puta, si cognosceret bovem per speciem asini, cognosceret eius essentiam imperfecte, scilicet quantum ad genus tantum; magis autem imperfecte si cognosceret per lapidem, quia cognosceret per genus magis remotum. Si autem cognosceret per speciem alicuius rei quae nulli bovi communicaret in genere, nullo modo essentiam bovis cognosceret. The possibility of such knowledge must be investigated. Manifestly, since our intellect knows nothing except through an intelligible species of the thing known, the species of one thing cannot disclose the essence of another thing. In proportion as the species, whereby the mind knows, is remote from the thing known, the less perfect is the knowledge our intellect has of that thing’s essence. For example, if we should know an ox by the species of an ass, we would have an imperfect knowledge of the essence of the ox, for our concept would be limited to its genus. Our knowledge would be still more defective if we were to know the ox through the medium of a stone, because then we would know it by a more remote genus. And if our knowledge were gained through the species of a thing that did not agree with the ox in any genus, we could not know the essence of the ox at all.
Manifestum est autem ex superioribus quod nullum creatum communicat cum Deo in genere. Per quamcumque igitur speciem creatam non solum sensibilem, sed intelligibilem, Deus cognosci per essentiam non potest. Ad hoc igitur quod ipse Deus per essentiam cognoscatur, oportet quod ipse Deus fiat forma intellectus ipsum cognoscentis, et coniungatur ei non ad unam naturam constituendam, sed sicut species intelligibilis intelligenti. Ipse enim sicut est suum esse, ita est sua veritas, quae est forma intellectus. Previous discussion has brought out the fact that no creature is associated with God in genus. Hence the essence of God cannot be known through any created species whatever, whether sensible or intelligible. Accordingly, if God is to be known as He is, in His essence, God Himself must become the form of the intellect knowing Him and must be joined to that intellect, not indeed so as to constitute a single nature with it, but in the way an intelligible species is joined to the intelligence. For God, who is His own being, is also His own truth, and truth is the form of the intellect.
Necesse est autem quod omne quod consequitur aliquam formam, consequatur dispositionem aliquam ad formam illam. Intellectus autem noster non est ex ipsa sua natura in ultima dispositione existens respectu formae illius quae est veritas, quia sic a principio ipsam assequeretur. Oportet igitur quod cum eam consequitur, aliqua dispositione de novo addita elevetur, quam dicimus gloriae lumen: quo quidem intellectus noster a Deo perficitur, qui solus secundum suam naturam hanc propriam formam habet, sicut nec dispositio caloris ad formam ignis potest esse nisi ab igne: et de hoc lumine in Psal. XXXV, 10, dicitur: in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Whatever receives a form, must first acquire the disposition requisite to the reception of that form. Our intellect is not equipped by its nature with the ultimate disposition looking to that form which is truth; otherwise it would be in possession of truth from the beginning. Consequently, when it does finally attain to truth, it must be elevated by some disposition newly conferred on it. And this we call the light of glory, whereby our intellect is perfected by God, who alone by His very nature has this form properly as His own. In somewhat the same way the disposition which heat has for the form of fire can come from fire alone. This is the light that is spoken of in Psalm 35: 10: “In Your light we shall see light.”

Caput 106

Quomodo naturale desiderium quiescit ex divina visione per essentiam, in qua beatitudo consistit

Hoc autem fine adepto, necesse est naturale desiderium quietari, quia essentia divina, quae modo praedicto coniungetur intellectui Deum videntis, est sufficiens principium omnia cognoscendi, et fons totius bonitatis, ut nihil restare possit ad desiderandum. Et hic etiam est perfectissimus modus divinam similitudinem consequendi, ut scilicet ipsum cognoscamus eo modo quo se ipse cognoscit, scilicet per essentiam suam, Once this end is reached, natural desire must find its full fruition. The divine essence thus united to the intellect of the one who sees God, is the adequate principle for knowing everything, and is the source of all good, so that nothing can remain to be desired. This, too, is the most perfect way of attaining likeness with God: to know God in the way He knows Himself, by His own essence.
licet non comprehendamus ipsum sicut ipse se comprehendit: non quod aliquam partem eius ignoremus, cum partem non habeat, sed quia non ita perfecte ipsum cognoscemus sicut cognoscibilis est, cum virtus intellectus nostri in intelligendo non possit adaequari veritati ipsius secundum quam cognoscibilis est, cum eius claritas seu veritas sit infinita, intellectus autem noster finitus. Intellectus autem eius infinitus est, sicut et veritas eius, et ideo ipse tantum se cognoscit quantum cognoscibilis est. Sicut conclusionem demonstrabilem ille comprehendit qui eam per demonstrationem cognoscit, non autem qui cognoscit eam imperfectiori modo, scilicet per rationem probabilem. Of course, we shall never comprehend Him as He comprehends Himself. This does not mean that we shall be unaware of some part of Him, for He has no parts. It means that we shall not know Him as perfectly as He can be known, since the capacity of our intellect for knowing cannot equal His truth, and so cannot exhaust His knowability. God’s knowability or truth is infinite, whereas our intellect is finite. But His intellect is infinite, just as His truth is; and so He alone knows Himself to the full extent that He is knowable; just as a person comprehends a demonstrable conclusion if he knows it through demonstration, but not if he knows it only in an imperfect way, on merely probable grounds.
Et quia ultimum finem hominis dicimus beatitudinem, in hoc consistit hominis felicitas, sive beatitudo, quod Deum videat per essentiam, licet in perfectione beatitudinis multum distet a Deo, cum hanc beatitudinem Deus per suam naturam habeat, homo vero eam consequatur per divini luminis participationem, ut supra dictum est. This ultimate end of man we call beatitude. For a man’s happiness or beatitude consists in the vision whereby he sees God in His essence. Of course, man is far below God in the perfection of his beatitude. For God has this beatitude by His very nature, whereas man attains beatitude by being admitted to a share in the divine light, as we said in the previous chapter.

Caput 107

Quod motus in Deum ad beatitudinem consequendam assimilatur motui naturali, et quod beatitudo est in actu intellectus

Considerandum est autem, quod cum procedere de potentia in actum vel sit motus, vel sit simile motui, circa processum huius beatitudinis consequendum similiter se habet sicut in motu vel in mutatione naturali. In motu enim naturali primo quidem consideratur aliqua proprietas per quam proportionatur vel inclinatur mobile ad talem finem, sicut gravitas in terra ad hoc quod feratur deorsum: non enim moveretur aliquid naturaliter ad certum finem, nisi haberet proportionem ad illum. Secundo autem consideratur ipse motus ad finem. Tertio autem ipsa forma vel locus. Quarto autem quies in forma vel in loco. We should note that, since advance from potency to act is motion, or at least is similar to motion, the process of arriving at beatitude has points of resemblance with natural motion or change. In natural motion we may consider, first, a certain property whereby the mobile object has a proportion to such and such an end, or is inclined in its direction. We observe this, for instance, in the earth’s gravity with respect to whatever is borne downward. No object would move naturally toward a definite end unless it had a proportion to that end. We may consider, secondly, the motion itself toward its end; thirdly, the form or place toward which there is motion; and fourthly, the repose in the form educed or in the place reached.
Sic igitur in intellectuali motu ad finem, primum quidem est amor inclinans in finem; secundum autem est desiderium, quod est quasi motus in finem, et operationes ex tali desiderio provenientes; tertium autem est ipsa forma, quam intellectus consequitur; quartum autem est delectatio consequens, quae nihil est aliud quam quietatio voluntatis in fine adepto. Similarly, with regard to intellectual movement toward an end, there is, first, the love inclining toward the end; secondly, the desire which is a sort of motion toward the end, and the actions issuing from such desire; thirdly, the form which the intellect receives; and fourthly, the resulting delight, which is nothing else than the repose of the will in the end as reached.
Sicut igitur naturalis generationis finis, est forma et motus localis locus, non autem quies in forma vel loco, sed hoc est consequens finem, et multo minus motus est finis, vel proportio ad finem: ita ultimus finis creaturae intellectualis est videre Deum, non autem delectari in ipso, sed hoc est comitans finem, et quasi perficiens ipsum. Et multo minus desiderium vel amor possunt esse ultimus finis, cum etiam hoc ante finem habeatur. In the same way, the end of natural generation is a form and the end of local motion is a place. However, repose in a form or a place is not the end, but follows upon the attainment of the end; and much less does the end consist in motion or in proportion to the end. Likewise the ultimate end of an intellectual creature is the direct vision of God, but not delight in God. Such delight accompanies attainment of the end and, as it were, perfects it. Much less can desire or love be the ultimate end, because they are present even before the end is reached.

Caput 108

De errore ponentium felicitatem in creaturis

Manifestum est ergo quod felicitas falso a quibusdam quaeritur, in quibuscumque praeter Deum quaeratur, sive in voluptatibus corporalibus, quae sunt et brutis communes; sive in divitiis, quae ad conservationem habentium proprie ordinantur, quae est communis finis omnis entis creati; sive in potestatibus, quae ordinantur ad communicandam perfectionem suam aliis, quod etiam diximus omnibus esse commune; sive in honoribus vel fama, quae alicui debentur secundum quod finem iam habet, vel ad finem bene dispositus est; sed nec in cognitione quarumcumque rerum etiam supra hominem existentium, cum in sola divina cognitione desiderium hominis quietetur. Clearly, therefore, they are in error who seek happiness in various things outside of God. Some look for happiness in carnal pleasures, which are shared even by brute animals. Others seek happiness in wealth, which is rightly directed to the sustenance of those who have such possessions; this is an end common to every created being. Others place their happiness in power, which is ordained to the communication of one’s own perfection to others; this, too, we said, is common to all beings. Yet others seek happiness in honors or reputation, which are due to a person because of the end he has already reached, or because of the noble dispositions which equip him to reach an end. Finally, happiness does not consist in the knowledge of any created things whatever, even though they may be far above man; for man’s desire comes to rest in the knowledge of God alone.

Caput 109

Quod solus Deus est bonus per essentiam, creaturae vero per participationem

Ex praemissis igitur apparet quod diversimode se habent ad bonitatem Deus et creaturae, secundum duplicem modum bonitatis quae in creaturis potest considerari. Cum enim bonum habeat rationem perfectionis et finis, secundum duplicem perfectionem et finem creaturae attenditur duplex eius bonitas. Attenditur enim quaedam creaturae perfectio secundum quod in sua natura persistit, et haec est finis generationis aut factionis ipsius. Alia vero perfectio ipsius attenditur, quam consequitur per suum motum vel operationem, et haec est finis motus vel operationis ipsius. All this brings to light the different relationship that God and creatures have to goodness. We may examine this difference from the standpoint of the two kinds of goodness discerned in creatures. Since the good has the nature of perfection and of end, the twofold perfection and end of the creature disclose its twofold goodness. A certain perfection is observed in the creature inasmuch as it persists in its nature. This perfection is the end of its generation or formation. The creature has a further perfection which it reaches by its motion or activity. This perfection is the end of its movement or operation.
Secundum utramque vero creatura deficit a bonitate divina: nam cum forma et esse rei sit bonum et perfectio ipsius secundum quod in sua natura consideratur, substantia composita neque est sua forma neque suum esse; substantia vero simplex creata etsi sit ipsa forma, non tamen est suum esse. Deus vero est sua essentia et suum esse, ut supra ostensum est. In both kinds of perfection the creature falls short of the divine goodness. The form and existence of a thing are its good and perfection when considered from the standpoint of the thing’s nature. But a composite substance is neither its own form nor its own existence; and a simple substance, although it is its own form, is not its own existence. God, however, is His own essence and His own existence, as was shown above.
Similiter etiam omnes creaturae consequuntur perfectam bonitatem ex fine extrinseco. Perfectio enim bonitatis consistit in adeptione finis ultimi. Finis autem ultimus cuiuslibet creaturae est extra ipsam, qui est divina bonitas, quae quidem non ordinatur ad ulteriorem finem. Relinquitur igitur quod Deus modis omnibus est sua bonitas, et est essentialiter bonus; non autem creaturae simplices, tum quia non sunt suum esse, tum quia ordinantur ad aliquid extrinsecum sicut ad ultimum finem. In substantiis vero compositis manifestum est quod nullo modo sunt sua bonitas. Solus igitur Deus est sua bonitas et essentialiter bonus; alia vero dicuntur bona secundum participationem aliquam ipsius. Likewise, all creatures receive their perfect goodness from an end extrinsic to them. For the perfection of goodness consists in attainment of the ultimate end. But the ultimate end of any creature is outside the creature. This end is the divine goodness, which is not ordained to any ulterior end. Consequently God is His own goodness in every way and is essentially good. This cannot be said of simple creatures, because they are not their own existence, and also because they are ordained to something external as to their ultimate end. As for composite substances, clearly they are not their own goodness in any way. Hence God alone is His own goodness, and He alone is essentially good. All other beings are said to be good according as they participate, to some extent, in Him.

Caput 110

Quod Deus non potest suam bonitatem amittere

Per hoc autem apparet quod Deus nullo modo potest deficere a bonitate. Quod enim alicui essentialiter inest, non potest ei abesse, sicut animal non potest ab homine removeri. Neque igitur Deum possibile est non esse bonum. Et ut magis proprio utamur exemplo, sicut non potest esse quod homo non sit homo, ita non potest esse quod Deus non sit perfecte bonus. The foregoing account clearly shows that God cannot in any way be deficient in goodness. For what is essential to a being cannot be lacking; animality, for instance, cannot be dissociated from man. Hence it is impossible for God not to be good. We can use a more appropriate example to illustrate this: as it is impossible for a man not to be a man, so it is impossible for God not to be perfectly good.

Caput 111

Quod creatura possit deficere a sua bonitate

In creaturis autem considerandum est, qualiter possit esse bonitatis defectus. Manifestum est autem quod duobus modis aliqua bonitas inseparabiliter inest creaturae: uno modo ex hoc quod ipsa bonitas est de essentia eius; alio modo ex hoc quod est determinata ad unum. Let us consider how goodness may be wanting in creatures. In two respects goodness is clearly inseparable from the creature: first, goodness pertains to the creature’s very essence; secondly, the creature’s goodness is something determinate.
Primo ergo modo in substantiis simplicibus ipsa bonitas, quae est forma, inseparabiliter se habet ad ipsas, cum ipsae essentialiter sint formae. Secundo autem modo bonum quod est esse, amittere non possunt. Non enim forma est sicut materia, quae se habet ad esse et non esse, sed forma consequitur esse, etsi etiam non sit ipsum esse. As regards the first point of view, the goodness which is the form of simple substances is inseparable from them, since they are essentially forms. As regards the second point of view, such substances cannot lose the good which is existence. For form is not like matter, which is indifferent to existence and nonexistence. On the contrary, form goes with existence, even though it is not existence itself.
Unde patet quod substantiae simplices bonum naturae in qua subsistunt amittere non possunt, sed immutabiliter se habent in illo. Substantiae vero compositae, quia non sunt suae formae nec suum esse, bonum naturae amissibiliter habent, nisi in illis in quibus potentia materiae non se habet ad diversas formas, neque ad esse et non esse, sicut in corporibus caelestibus patet. Therefore simple substances cannot lose the good of nature wherein they subsist, but are immutably established in such good. But composite substances, which are neither their own forms nor their own existence, possess the good of nature in such a way that they can lose it. This is not true, however, of those things whose matter is not in potency to various forms or to being and non-being; such is the case with heavenly bodies.

Caput 112

Quomodo deficiunt a bonitate secundum suas operationes

Et quia bonitas creaturae non solum consideratur secundum quod in sua natura subsistit, sed perfectio bonitatis ipsius est in hoc quod ordinatur ad finem, ad finem autem ordinatur per suam operationem, restat considerare quomodo creaturae deficiant a sua bonitate secundum suas operationes, quibus ordinantur ad finem. The goodness of a creature may also be regarded otherwise than as the creature’s subsistence in its nature; for the perfection of its goodness is realized in its destiny to its end. And since creatures are to attain their end by their activity, we have still to inquire how creatures may be lacking in goodness from the point of view of their actions, whereby they are destined to attain their end.
Ubi primo considerandum est, quod de operationibus naturalibus idem est iudicium sicut et de natura, quae est earum principium: unde quorum natura defectum pati non potest, nec in operationibus eorum naturalibus defectus accidere potest; quorum autem natura defectum pati potest, etiam operationes eorum deficere contingit. In this connection we should first note that a judgment concerning natural operations is equivalent to a judgment concerning the nature which is the principle of these operations. Therefore in beings whose nature cannot suffer defect, no defect in natural operations can develop; but in beings whose nature can admit of defect, a defect in activity can occur.
Unde in substantiis incorruptibilibus, sive incorporeis sive corporeis, nullus defectus naturalis actionis contingere potest: in Angelis enim semper virtus naturalis manet potens ad suas operationes exercendas; similiter motus corporum caelestium nunquam exorbitare invenitur. In corporibus vero inferioribus multi defectus naturalium actionum contingunt propter corruptiones et defectus in naturis eorum accidentes. Ex defectu enim alicuius naturalis principii contingit plantarum sterilitas, monstruositas in generatione animalium, et aliae huiusmodi inordinationes. Hence in incorruptible substances, whether incorporeal or corporeal, no defect in natural activity can take place. Thus angels forever retain their natural power of exercising their proper activity. Likewise the movements of heavenly bodies are found never to leave their appointed orbits. But in lower bodies many defects in natural activity result from the corruptions and defects incidental to their natures. Thus from a defect in some natural principle come the sterility of plants, monstrosities in the generation of animals, and other such disorders.

Caput 113

De duplici principio actionis, et quomodo aut in quibus potest defectus esse

Sunt autem quaedam actiones quarum principium non est natura, sed voluntas, cuius obiectum est bonum, et finis quidem principaliter, secundario autem quod est ad finem. Sic igitur se habet operatio voluntaria ad bonum, sicut se habet naturalis operatio ad formam per quam res agit. Sicut igitur defectus naturalium actionum accidere non potest in illis quae non patiuntur defectum secundum suas formas, sed solum in corruptibilibus, quorum formae deficere possunt: ita voluntariae actiones deficere possunt in illis in quibus voluntas potest a fine deficere. There are certain actions whose principle is not nature but the will. The object of the will is the good, which consists primarily in the end, secondarily in whatever leads to the end. Voluntary action is related to the good as natural action is related to the form by which a thing acts. Consequently, just as a defect in natural activity cannot ensue in things that do not admit of defect in their forms, but can occur only in corruptible things whose forms are defectible, so voluntary actions can be deficient only in beings whose will can deflect from their proper end. Hence, if the will cannot deflect from its proper end, deficiency in voluntary action is clearly impossible.
Sicubi autem non potest voluntas a fine deficere, manifestum est quod ibi defectus voluntariae actionis esse non potest. Voluntas autem deficere non potest respectu boni quod est ipsius volentis natura: quaelibet enim res suo modo appetit suum esse perfectum, quod est bonum uniuscuiusque; respectu boni vero exterioris deficere potest bono sibi connaturali contenta. Cuius igitur volentis natura est ultimus finis voluntatis ipsius, in hoc defectus voluntariae actionis contingere non potest. The will cannot be deficient with regard to the good which is the very nature of the being that wills; for every being seeks in its own way its perfection, which is each one’s good. But as regards an external good the will can be deficient, by resting content with a good connatural to it. Therefore if the nature of the being that wills is the ultimate end of its will, no deficiency in voluntary action can arise.
Hoc autem solius Dei est: nam eius bonitas, quae est ultimus finis rerum, est sua natura. Aliorum autem volentium natura non est ultimus finis voluntatis eorum: unde potest in eis defectus voluntariae actionis contingere per hoc quod voluntas remanet fixa in proprio bono non tendendo ulterius in summum bonum, quod est ultimus finis. In omnibus igitur substantiis intellectualibus creatis potest defectus voluntariae actionis contingere. Such is the case with God alone. For His goodness, which is the ultimate end of things, is His very nature. But the nature of other beings endowed with will is not the ultimate end of their will. Hence a defect in voluntary action can occur in them, if their will remains fixed on their own good and does not push on to the supreme good, which is the last end. Therefore in all created intellectual substances a deficiency in voluntary action is possible.

Caput 114

Quid nomine boni vel mali intelligatur in rebus

Est igitur considerandum, quod sicut nomine boni intelligitur esse perfectum, ita nomine mali nihil aliud intelligitur quam privatio esse perfecti. Quia vero privatio proprie accepta, est eius quod natum est, et quando natum est, et quomodo natum est haberi, manifestum est quod ex hoc aliquid dicitur malum quod caret perfectione quam debet habere. Unde homo si visu careat, malum est ei, non autem malum est lapidi, quia non est natus visum habere. A question worthy of consideration arises at this point. As the term “good” signifies perfect being, so the term “evil” signifies nothing else than privation of perfect being. In its proper acceptation, privation is predicated of that which is fitted by its nature to be possessed, and to be possessed at a certain time and in a certain manner. Evidently, therefore, a thing is called evil if it lacks a perfection it ought to have. Thus if a man lacks the sense of sight, this is an evil for him. But the same lack is not an evil for a stone, for the stone is not equipped by nature to have the faculty of sight.

Caput 115

Quod impossibile est esse aliquam naturam malum

Impossibile est autem malum esse aliquam naturam. Nam omnis natura vel est actus, vel potentia, aut compositum ex utroque. Quod autem est actus, perfectio est, et boni obtinet rationem, cum id quod est in potentia, appetat naturaliter esse actu: bonum vero est quod omnia appetunt. Unde et compositum ex actu et potentia, inquantum participat actum, participat bonitatem. Potentia autem inquantum ordinatur ad actum, bonitatem habet: cuius signum est quod quanto potentia est capacior actus et perfectionis, tanto magis commendatur. Relinquitur igitur quod nulla natura secundum se sit malum. Evil cannot be a nature. Every nature is either act or potency or a. composite of the two. Whatever is act, is a perfection and is good in its very concept. And what is in potency has a natural appetite for the reception of act; but what all beings desire is good. Therefore, too, what is composed of act and potency participates in goodness to the extent that it participates in act. And potency possesses goodness inasmuch as it is ordained to act; an indication of this is the fact that potency is esteemed in proportion to its capacity for act and perfection. Consequently no nature is of itself an evil.
Item. Unumquodque secundum hoc completur quod fit in actu, nam actus est perfectio rei. Nullum autem oppositorum completur per admixtionem alterius, sed magis destruitur vel minuitur, et sic neque malum completur per participationem boni. Omnis autem natura completur per hoc quod habet esse in actu: et sic cum esse bonum sit ab omnibus appetibile, omnis natura completur per participationem boni. Nulla igitur natura est malum. Likewise, every being achieves its fulfillment according as it is realized in act, for act is the perfection of a thing. However, neither of a pair of opposites achieves fulfillment by being mixed with the other, but is rather destroyed or weakened thereby. Therefore evil does not realize its full capacity by sharing in good. But every nature realizes its full capacity by having existence in act; and so, since to be good is the object of every being’s natural tendency, a nature achieves fulfillment by participating in good. Accordingly no nature is an evil.
Adhuc. Quaelibet natura appetit conservationem sui esse, et fugit destructionem quantum potest. Cum igitur bonum sit quod omnia appetunt, malum vero e contrario quod omnia fugiunt, necesse est dicere, quod esse unamquamque naturam sit bonum secundum se, non esse vero malum. Esse autem malum non est bonum, sed magis non esse malum sub boni comprehenditur ratione. Nulla igitur natura est malum. Moreover, any nature whatever desires the preservation of its being, and shuns destruction to the full extent of its power. Consequently, since good is that which all desire, and evil, on the contrary, is that which all shun, we must conclude that for any nature existence is in itself good, and non-existence is evil. To be evil, however, is not good; in fact, not to be evil is included in the notion of good. Therefore no nature is an evil.

Caput 116

Qualiter bonum et malum sunt differentiae entis, et contraria, et genera contrariorum

Considerandum igitur restat quomodo bonum et malum dicantur contraria, et contrariorum genera, et differentiae aliquas species, scilicet habitus morales, constituentes. Contrariorum enim utrumque est aliqua natura. Non ens enim non potest esse neque genus neque differentia, cum genus praedicetur de re in eo quod quid, differentia vero in eo quod quale quid. We have next to inquire how good and evil may be regarded as contraries and genera of contraries and differences constituting species of a sort, namely, moral habits. Each member of a pair of contraries is some kind of nature. For non-being can be neither genus nor specific difference, since genus is predicated of a thing according to what it is (in eo quod quid) and difference according to what sort of thing it is (in eo quod quale quid).
Sciendum est igitur, quod sicut naturalia consequuntur speciem a forma, ita moralia a fine, qui est voluntatis obiectum, a quo omnia moralia dependent. Sicut autem in naturalibus uni formae adiungitur privatio alterius, puta formae ignis privatio formae aeris, ita in moralibus uni fini adiungitur privatio finis alterius. Cum igitur privatio perfectionis debitae sit malum in naturalibus, formam accipere cui adiungitur privatio formae debitae, malum est, non propter formam, sed propter privationem ei adiunctam: sicut igniri malum est ligno. Et in moralibus etiam inhaerere fini cui adiungitur privatio finis debiti, malum est, non propter finem, sed propter privationem adiunctam; et sic duae actiones morales, quae ad contrarios fines ordinantur, secundum bonum et malum differunt, et per consequens contrarii habitus differunt bono et malo quasi differentiis existentibus, et contrarietatem ad invicem habentibus, non propter privationem ex qua dicitur malum, sed propter finem cui privatio adiungitur. We must note that, as physical entities receive their species from their form, so moral entities receive their species from the end which is the object of the will and on which all morality depends, In physical entities, moreover, the presence of one form entails the privation of another, as, for instance, the form of fire entails the privation of the form of air. In moral entities, similarly, one end involves the privation of another end. Since the privation of a due perfection is an evil in physical entities, the reception of a form which implies the privation of the form that ought to be possessed, is an evil; not, indeed, because of the form itself, but because of the privation its presence involves. In this sense, to be on fire is an evil for a log of wood. In the field of morality, likewise, the pursuit of an end that entails the privation of the right end is an evil, not on account of the end itself, but because of the privation necessarily implied. It is in this way that two moral actions, directed to contrary ends, differ as good and evil. Consequently the corresponding contrary habits differ in good and evil as by specific differences, and as being contrary to each other. This is so, not on account of the privation from which evil receives its designation, but on account of the end which involves the privation.
Per hunc etiam modum quidam intelligunt ab Aristotele dictum, quod bonum et malum sunt genera contrariorum, scilicet moralium. Sed si recte attendatur, bonum et malum in genere moralium magis sunt differentiae quam species. Unde melius videtur dicendum, quod bonum et malum dicuntur genera secundum positionem Pythagorae, qui omnia reduxit ad bonum et malum sicut ad prima genera: quae quidem positio habet aliquid veritatis, inquantum omnium contrariorum unum est perfectum, et alterum diminutum, ut patet in albo et nigro, dulci et amaro, et sic de aliis. Semper autem quod perfectum est, pertinet ad rationem boni, quod autem diminutum ad rationem mali. This is the sense in which some philosophers understand Aristotle’s assertion, that good and evil are genera of contraries [ Categories, XI, 14 a 25], namely, of moral contraries. But if we examine the matter closely, we shall find that in the sphere of morals, good and evil are differences rather than species. Hence it seems better to say that good and evil are called genera according to the opinion of Pythagoras, who reduced everything to good and evil as to supreme genera. This position does, indeed, contain some truth, in the sense that in all contraries one member is perfect, whereas the other is deficient. This is clear in the case of white and black, sweet and bitter, and so on. But invariably, what is perfect, pertains to good, and what is deficient, pertains to evil.

Caput 117

Quod nihil potest esse essentialiter malum, vel summe, sed est corruptio alicuius boni

Habito igitur quod malum est privatio perfectionis debitae, iam manifestum est qualiter malum bonum corrumpit, inquantum scilicet est eius privatio, sicut et caecitas dicitur corrumpere visum, quia est ipsa visus privatio. Nec tamen totum bonum corrumpit: quia supra dictum est quod non solum forma est bonum, sed etiam potentia ad formam, quae quidem potentia est subiectum privationis, sicut et formae. Unde oportet quod subiectum mali sit bonum, non quidem quod est oppositum malo, sed quod est potentia ad ipsum. Ex quo etiam patet quod non quodlibet bonum potest esse subiectum mali, sed solum bonum quod est in potentia respectu alicuius perfectionis qua potest privari: unde in his quae solum actus sunt, vel in quibus actus a potentia separari non potest, quantum ad hoc non potest esse malum. Knowing that evil is the privation of a due perfection, we can easily understand how evil corrupts good; this it does to the extent that it is the privation of good. Thus blindness is said to corrupt sight because it is the privation of sight. However, evil does not completely corrupt good, because, as we remarked above, not only form, but also potency to form, is good; and potency is the subject of privation as well as of form. Therefore the subject of evil must be good, not in the sense that it is opposed to evil, but in the sense that it is a potency for the reception of evil. This brings out the fact that not every good can be the subject of evil, but only such a good as is in potency with respect to some perfection of which it can be deprived. Hence in beings which are exclusively act, or in which act cannot be separated from potency, there can, to this extent, be no evil.
Patet etiam ex hoc, quod non potest esse aliquid quod sit essentialiter malum, cum semper oporteat malum in alio subiecto bono fundari: ac per hoc nihil potest esse summe malum, sicut est summe bonum, quod est essentialiter bonum. As a result, nothing can be essentially evil, since evil must always have as its foundation some subject, distinct from it, that is good. And so there cannot be a being that is supremely evil, in the way that there is a being that is supremely good because it is essentially good.
Secundum idem etiam patet quod malum non potest esse desideratum, nec aliquid agere nisi virtute boni adiuncti. Desiderabile enim est perfectio et finis, principium autem actionis est forma. Quia vero uni perfectioni vel formae adiungitur privatio alterius perfectionis aut formae, contingit per accidens quod privatio seu malum desideratur, et est alicuius actionis principium, non inquantum est malum, sed propter bonum adiunctum, sicut musicus aedificat non inquantum musicus, sed inquantum domificator. Further, we see clearly that evil cannot be the object of desire, and that it cannot act except in virtue of the good connected with it. For only perfection and end are desirable; and the principle of action is form. However, since a particular perfection or form involves the privation of some other perfection or form, it can happen incidentally that privation or evil may be desired and may be the principle of some action; not precisely because of the evil, but because of the good connected with it. An example of what I here mean by “incidentally” is the musician who constructs a house, not in his capacity of musician, but in the capacity of being also a builder.
Ex quo etiam patet quod impossibile est malum esse primum principium, eo quod principium per accidens est posterius eo quod est per se. From this we may also infer that evil cannot be a first principle, for a principle per accidens is subsequent to a principle that is such per se.

Caput 118

Quod malum fundatur in bono sicut in subiecto

Si quis autem contra praedicta obiicere velit, quod bonum non potest esse subiectum mali, et quod unum oppositorum non sit subiectum alterius, nec unquam in aliis oppositis invenitur quod sint simul, considerare debet, quod alia opposita sunt alicuius generis determinati, bonum autem et malum communia. Nam omne ens, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum est; omnis autem privatio, inquantum talis, est mala. Unde sicut subiectum privationis oportet esse ens, ita et bonum; non autem subiectum privationis oportet esse album, aut dulce, aut videns, quia haec non dicuntur de ente inquantum huiusmodi; et ideo nigrum non est in albo, nec caecitas in vidente; sed malum est in bono, sicut et caecitas est in subiecto visus; sed quod subiectum visus non dicatur videns, hoc est quia videns non est commune omni enti. Some may feel impelled to lodge a difficulty against this presentation: good cannot be the substratum of evil, for one of a pair of opposites cannot be the substratum of the other, nor do extremes ever exist together in other kinds of opposition. But let such quibblers reflect that other kinds of opposition belong to some definite genus, whereas good and evil are common to all genera. Every being, as such, is good; and every privation, as such, is evil. The substratum of a privation must be a being, hence good. But the subject of a privation need not be white or sweet or endowed with sight, because none of these predicates belongs to being as such. And so black is not in white, nor blindness in the person who sees; but evil is in good, just as blindness is in the sense that is the subject of sight. The reason why the subject of sight, in the case of a blind man, is not called “seeing,” is that “seeing” is not a predicate common to every being.

Caput 119

De duplici genere mali

Quia igitur malum est privatio et defectus; defectus autem, ut ex dictis patet, potest contingere in re aliqua non solum secundum quod in natura sua consideratur, sed etiam secundum quod per actionem ordinatur ad finem, consequens est ut malum utroque modo dicatur, scilicet secundum defectum in ipsa re, prout caecitas est quoddam malum animalis, et secundum defectum in actione prout claudicatio significat actionem cum defectu. Malum igitur actionis ad aliquem finem ordinatae, ad quem non debito modo se habet, peccatum dicitur tam in voluntariis quam in naturalibus. Peccat enim medicus in actione sua, dum non operatur convenienter ad sanitatem; et natura etiam peccat in sua operatione, dum ad debitam dispositionem et formam rem generatam non perducit, sicut cum accidunt monstra in natura. Since evil is privation and defect, and since defect, as is clear from what we said above, can occur in a thing both as regarded in its nature and as regarded in its relation to an end by its action, we may speak of evil in both senses: that is, by reason of a defect in the thing itself (thus blindness is a certain evil in an animal), and by reason of a defect in a creature’s action (thus lameness connotes action with a defect). Evil in an action that is directed to an end in such a way that it is not rightly related to the end, is called fault (peccatum) both in voluntary agents and in natural agents. A physician is faulty (peccat) in his action, when he does not proceed in such a way as to procure health. Nature, too, is faulty in its activity when it fails to advance a generated being, to its proper disposition and form; this is why monsters occur in nature.

Caput 120

De triplici genere actionis, et de malo culpae

Et sciendum, quod aliquando est actio in potestate agentis, ut sunt omnes voluntariae actiones. Voluntariam autem actionem dico, cuius principium est in agente sciente ea in quibus actio consistit. Aliquando vero actiones non sunt voluntariae: huiusmodi sunt actiones violentae, quarum principium est extra, et actiones naturales, vel quae per ignorantiam aguntur, quia non procedunt a principio cognoscitivo. Si igitur in actionibus non voluntariis ordinatis ad finem defectus accidat, peccatum tantum dicitur; si autem in voluntariis, dicitur non solum peccatum, sed culpa, eo quod agens voluntarium, cum sit dominus suae actionis, vituperio dignus est et poena. Si quae vero actiones sunt mixtae, habentes scilicet aliquid de voluntario et aliquid de involuntario, tanto ibi minoratur culpa, quanto plus de involuntario admiscetur. We should observe that sometimes action is in the power of the agent. Such are all voluntary actions. By voluntary action I mean an action that has its principle in an agent who is conscious of the various factors constituting his action. Sometimes actions are not voluntary. In this class are violent actions, whose principle is outside the agent; also natural actions, and actions performed in ignorance. These do not proceed from a conscious principle. If a defect occurs in non-voluntary actions that are directed to an end, it is called simply a fault (peccatum). But if such a defect occurs in voluntary actions, it is called not only fault, but sin (culpa). For in this case the voluntary agent, being master of his own action, deservedly draws blame and punishment on himself. If actions are mixed, that is, are partly voluntary and partly involuntary, the sin is diminished in proportion to the admixture of the involuntary element.
Quia vero naturalis actio naturam rei consequitur, manifestum est quod in rebus incorruptibilibus, quarum natura transmutari non potest, naturalis actionis peccatum accidere non potest. Voluntas autem intellectualis creaturae defectum pati potest in voluntaria actione, ut supra ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod licet carere malo naturae omnibus incorruptibilibus sit commune, carere tamen ex necessitate suae naturae malo culpae, cuius sola rationalis natura est capax, solius Dei proprium invenitur. Since natural action follows the nature of a being, a fault in natural activity clearly cannot occur in incorruptible things, for their nature is incapable of change. But the will of an intellectual creature can suffer defect in voluntary action, as was shown above. Consequently freedom from evil in nature is common to all incorruptible things. But freedom, in virtue of natural necessity, from the evil of sin, of which rational nature alone is capable, is found to be an exclusive property of God.

Caput 121

Quod aliquod malum habet rationem poenae, et non culpae

Sicut autem defectus actionis voluntariae constituit rationem peccati et culpae, ita defectus cuiuslibet boni pro culpa illatus contra voluntatem eius cui infertur, poenae obtinet rationem. Poena enim infertur ut medicina culpae, et ut ordinativa eius. Ut medicina quidem, inquantum homo propter poenam retrahitur a culpa dum ne patiatur quod est suae contrarium voluntati, dimittit agere inordinatam actionem, quae suae foret placita voluntati. Est etiam ordinativa ipsius, quia per culpam homo transgreditur metas ordinis naturalis, plus suae voluntati tribuens quam oportet. Unde ad ordinem iustitiae fit reductio per poenam, per quam subtrahitur aliquid voluntati. Unde patet quod conveniens poena pro culpa non redditur, nisi plus contrarietur voluntati poena quam placeat culpa. Just as defect in voluntary action constitutes fault and sin, so the withdrawing of some good, in consequence of sin, against the will of him on whom such privation is inflicted, has the character of punishment. Punishment is inflicted as a medicine that is corrective of the sin, and also to restore right order violated by the sin. Punishment functions as a medicine inasmuch as fear of punishment deters a man from sinning; that is, a person refrains from performing an inordinate action, which would be pleasing to his will, lest he have to suffer what is opposed to his will. Punishment also restores right order; by sinning, a man exceeds the limits of the natural order, indulging his will more than is right. Hence a return to the order of justice is effected by punishment, whereby some good is withdrawn from the sinner’s will. As is quite clear, a suitable punishment is not assigned for the sin unless the punishment is more galling to the will than the sin was attractive to it.

Caput 122

Quod non eodem modo omnis poena contrariatur voluntati

Non eodem autem modo omnis poena est contra voluntatem. Quaedam enim poena est contra id quod homo actu vult, et haec poena maxime sentitur. Quaedam vero non contrariatur voluntati in actu, sed in habitu, sicut cum aliquis privatur re aliqua, puta filio, vel possessione, eo ignorante. Unde per hoc non agitur actu aliquid contra eius voluntatem, esset autem contrarium voluntati, si sciret. Quandoque vero poena contrariatur voluntati secundum naturam ipsius potentiae. Voluntas enim naturaliter ordinatur ad bonum. Unde si aliquis privatur virtute, quandoque quidem non est contra actualem voluntatem eius, quia virtutem forte contemnit, neque contra habitualem, quia forte est dispositus secundum habitum ad volendum contraria virtuti; est tamen contra naturalem rectitudinem voluntatis, qua homo naturaliter appetit virtutem. Not all punishment is opposed to the will in the same way. Some punishments are opposed to what man actually wills; and this kind of punishment is felt most keenly. Some punishments are opposed not to the actual but to the habitual tendency of the will, as when a person is deprived of something, for instance, his son or his property, without his knowledge. In this case, nothing actually thwarts his will; but the withdrawal of the good would be against his will if he were aware of what was happening. At times a punishment is opposed to the will according to the very nature of that faculty. For the will is naturally turned to what is good. Thus if a person is lacking in a virtue, this need not always be opposed to his actual will, for he may, perhaps, despise this virtue; nor need it be against his habitual will, for he may, perhaps, have a habitual disposition of will toward what is contrary to the virtue. Nevertheless such a privation is opposed to the natural rectitude of the will, whereby man naturally desires virtue.
Ex quo etiam patet quod gradus poenarum dupliciter mensurari possunt: uno modo secundum quantitatem boni quod per poenam privatur; alio modo secundum quod magis vel minus est contrarium voluntati: est enim magis contrarium voluntati maiori bono privari quam privari minori. Consequently, as is evident, the degrees of punishment may be measured by two standards: first, by the quantity of the good of which a man is deprived for his punishment; secondly, by the greater or less opposition it arouses in the will. For the withdrawal of a greater good is more opposed to the will than the withdrawal of a lesser good.

Caput 123

Quod omnia reguntur divina providentia

Ex praedictis autem manifestum esse potest quod omnia divina providentia gubernantur. Quaecumque enim ordinantur ad finem alicuius agentis, ab illo agente diriguntur in finem, sicut omnes qui sunt in exercitu, ordinantur ad finem ducis, qui est victoria, et ab eo diriguntur in finem. Supra autem ostensum est quod omnia suis actibus tendunt in finem divinae bonitatis. Ab ipso igitur Deo, cuius hic finis proprius est, omnia diriguntur in finem. Hoc autem est providentia alicuius regi et gubernari. Omnia igitur divina providentia reguntur. We can see from the foregoing that all things are governed by divine providence. Whatever is set in motion toward the end intended by any agent, is directed by that agent to the end. Thus all the soldiers in an army are subordinated to the end intended by the commander, which is victory, and are directed by him to that end. We showed above that all things tend by their actions to the divine goodness as their end. Hence all things are directed to this end by God Himself, to whom this end pertains. To be thus directed is the same as to be ruled and governed by providence. Therefore all things are ruled by divine providence.
Adhuc. Ea quae deficere possunt, et non semper eodem modo se habent, ordinari inveniuntur ab his quae semper eodem modo se habent, sicut omnes motus corporum inferiorum, qui defectibiles sunt, ordinem habent secundum invariabilem motum caelestis corporis. Omnes vero creaturae mutabiles et defectibiles sunt. Nam in creaturis intellectualibus, quantum ex eorum natura est, defectus voluntariae actionis inveniri potest; creaturae vero aliae motum participant vel secundum generationem et corruptionem, vel secundum locum tantum: solus autem Deus est in quem nullus defectus cadere potest. Relinquitur igitur quod omnia alia ordinantur ab ipso. Moreover, things that are subject to failure and that do not always remain constant, are found to be under the direction of beings that do remain constant. Thus all the movements of lower bodies, being defectible, are regulated in accordance with the undeviating movement of a heavenly body. But all creatures are changeable and defectible. As regards intellectual creatures, their very nature is such that deficiency in voluntary action can develop in them. Other creatures have some part in movement, either by way of generation and corruption, or at least according to place. God Himself is the only being in whom no defect can arise. Consequently all creatures are kept in order by Him.
Item. Ea quae sunt per participationem, reducuntur in id quod est per essentiam, sicut in causam: omnia enim ignita suae ignitionis ignem causam habent aliquo modo. Cum igitur solus Deus per essentiam sit bonus, cetera vero omnia per quamdam participationem complementum obtineant bonitatis, necesse est quod omnia ad complementum bonitatis perducantur a Deo. Hoc autem est regi et gubernari; secundum hoc enim aliqua gubernantur vel reguntur, quod in ordine boni statuuntur. Omnia ergo gubernantur et reguntur a Deo. Furthermore, whatever has existence by way of participation, is traced back, as to its cause, to that which exists in virtue of its own essence; for example, what is on fire has, in some way or other, fire as the cause that ignited it. Since God alone is good by His very essence, and all other things receive their complement of goodness by some sort of participation, all beings must be brought to their complement of goodness by God. This, again, involves rule and government; for things are governed or ruled by being established in the order of good. And so all things are governed and ruled by God.

Caput 124

Quod Deus per superiores creaturas regit inferiores

Secundum hoc autem apparet quod inferiores creaturae a Deo per superiores reguntur. Secundum hoc enim aliquae creaturae superiores dicuntur quod in bonitate perfectiores existunt: ordinem autem boni creaturae consequuntur a Deo inquantum reguntur ab ipso. Sic igitur superiores creaturae plus participant de ordine gubernationis divinae quam inferiores. Quod autem magis participat quamcumque perfectionem comparatur ad id quod minus ipsam participat, sicut actus ad potentiam, et agens ad patiens. Superiores igitur creaturae comparantur ad inferiores in ordine divinae providentiae sicut agens ad patiens. Per superiores igitur creaturae inferiores gubernantur. We can see from this that lower creatures are ruled by God through the agency of higher creatures. Some creatures are said to be higher, because they are more perfect in goodness. Creatures receive their order of good from God, inasmuch as they are under His rule. Consequently higher creatures have a greater share in the order of divine government than lower creatures. But what has a greater share in any perfection is related to what has a smaller share in that perfection, as act is related to potency, and agent to patient. Therefore higher creatures are related to lower creatures in the order of divine providence as agent is related to patient. Accordingly lower creatures are governed by higher creatures.
Item. Ad divinam bonitatem pertinet quod suam similitudinem communicet creaturis; sic enim propter suam bonitatem Deus omnia dicitur fecisse, ut ex supradictis patet. Ad perfectionem autem divinae bonitatis pertinet et quod in se bonus sit, et quod alia ad bonitatem reducat. Utrumque igitur creaturae communicat: et quod in se bona sit, et quod una aliam ad bonum inducat. Sic igitur per quasdam creaturas, alias ad bonum inducit: has autem oportet esse superiores creaturas. Nam quod participat ab aliquo agente similitudinem formae et actionis, perfectius est eo quod participat similitudinem formae, et non actionis, sicut luna perfectius recipit lumen a sole, quae non solum fit lucida, sed etiam illuminat, quam corpora opaca, quae illuminantur tantum, et non illuminant. Deus igitur per creaturas superiores inferiores gubernat. Divine goodness has this characteristic, that it communicates a likeness of itself to creatures. This is the sense in which God is said to have made all things for the sake of His goodness, as is clear from a previous chapter. The perfection of divine goodness entails the double truth that God is good in Himself, and that He leads other beings to goodness. He communicates goodness to creatures under both aspects: they are good in themselves, and some lead others to goodness. In this way God brings some creatures to goodness through ‘cither creatures. The latter must be higher creatures; for what receives a likeness of both form and action from some agent, is more perfect than what receives a likeness of form but not of action. Thus the moon, which not only glows with light but also illuminates other bodies, receives light from the sun more perfectly than do opaque bodies, which are merely illuminated but do not illuminate. Accordingly God governs lower creatures by higher creatures.
Adhuc. Bonum multorum melius est quam bonum unius tantum, et per consequens est magis divinae bonitatis repraesentativum, quae est bonum totius universi. Si autem creatura superior, quae abundantiorem bonitatem a Deo participat, non cooperaretur ad bonum inferiorum creaturarum, illa abundantia bonitatis esset unius tantum: per hoc autem fit communis multorum quod ad bonum multorum cooperatur. Pertinet igitur hoc ad divinam bonitatem ut Deus per superiores creaturas inferiores regat. Likewise, the good of many is better than the good of an individual, and so is more representative of the divine goodness, which is the good of the whole universe. If a higher creature, which receives more abundant goodness from God, did not cooperate in procuring the good of lower creatures, that abundance of goodness would be confined to one individual. But it becomes common to many by the fact that the more richly endowed creature cooperates in procuring the good of many. Hence the divine goodness requires that God should rule lower creatures by higher creatures.

Caput 125

Quod inferiores substantiae intellectuales reguntur per superiores

Quia igitur intellectuales creaturae ceteris creaturis sunt superiores, ut ex praemissis patet, manifestum est quod per creaturas intellectuales omnes aliae creaturae gubernantur a Deo. Item. Cum inter ipsas creaturas intellectuales quaedam aliis sint superiores, per superiores inferiores reguntur a Deo. Unde fit ut homines, qui infimum locum secundum naturae ordinem in substantiis intellectualibus tenent, gubernantur per superiores spiritus, qui ex eo quod divina hominibus nuntiant, Angeli vocantur, idest nuntii. Ipsorum etiam Angelorum inferiores per superiores reguntur, secundum quod in ipsis diversae hierarchiae, idest sacri principatus, et in singulis hierarchiis diversi ordines distinguuntur. Since intellectual creatures excel other creatures, as is clear from what was said above, we can readily understand that God governs all other creatures through the agency of intellectual creatures. Likewise, since some intellectual creatures excel others, God rules the lower through the higher. Accordingly men, who occupy the lowest place in the order of nature among intellectual substances, are governed by the higher spirits. These are called angels, that is, messengers, because they announce divine messages to men. Among angels, too, the lower are directed by the higher. For they are distributed among various hierarchies, or sacred principalities; and each hierarchy is divided into different orders.

Caput 126


Et quia omnis substantiae intellectualis operatio, inquantum huiusmodi, ab intellectu procedit, oportet quod secundum diversum intelligentiae modum diversitas operationis et praelationis et ordinis in substantiis intellectualibus inveniatur. Intellectus autem quanto est sublimior seu dignior, tanto magis in altiori et universaliori causa rationes effectuum considerare potest. Superius etiam dictum est quod superior intellectus species intelligibiles universaliores habet. Since every action of an intellectual substance, as such, proceeds from the intellect, diversity of operation, of prelature, and of order among intellectual substances follows diversity in their manner of understanding. In proportion to its eminence or dignity, the intellect can contemplate the natures of effects in their higher and more universal cause. Also, as we remarked above, the intelligible species of a higher intellect are more universal.
Primus igitur intelligendi modus substantiis intellectualibus conveniens est, ut in ipsa prima causa, scilicet Deo, effectuum rationes participent, et per consequens suorum operum, cum per eas Deus inferiores effectus dispensat. Et hoc est proprium primae hierarchiae, quae in tres ordines dividitur secundum tria quae in qualibet operativa arte considerantur: quorum primum est finis, ex quo rationes operum sumuntur; secundum est rationes operum in mente artificis existentes; tertium est applicationes operum ad effectus. Primi ergo ordinis est in ipso summo bono, prout est ultimus finis, rerum de effectibus edoceri: unde ab ardore amoris Seraphim dicuntur, quasi ardentes vel incendentes: amoris enim obiectum est bonum. Secundi vero ordinis est effectus Dei in ipsius rationibus intelligibilibus contemplari, prout sunt in Deo: unde Cherubim dicuntur a plenitudine scientiae. Tertii vero ordinis est considerare in ipso Deo, quomodo a creaturis participetur rationibus intelligibilibus ad effectus applicatis: unde ab habendo in se Deum insidentem throni sunt dicti. The first way of understanding suitable to intellectual substances is the knowledge imparted to them of effects, and hence of their own works, in the first cause itself, namely in God; for it is through them that God carries out lower effects. This knowledge is proper to the first hierarchy, which is divided into orders corresponding to the three characteristics discerned in any operative art. The first of these is the end from which the exemplars of the works are derived; the second is the exemplars of the works as existing in the mind of the artificer; the third is the application of the work to the effects. Consequently the first order has the privilege of being instructed about the effects of things in the supreme Good itself, regarded as the last end. For this reason angels of the first order are called seraphim, as though they were aflame or on fire, with reference to the fire of love; for the object of love is the good. The second order has the function of contemplating God’s effects in their intelligible exemplars as they exist in God. Hence angels of this order are called cherubim, from the fullness of their knowledge. The third order has the office of meditating, in God Himself, how creatures share in intelligible exemplars as adapted to effects. And so angels of this order are called thrones, from the fact that God resides in them.
Secundus autem intelligendi modus est rationes effectuum prout sunt in causis universalibus considerare, et hoc est proprium secundae hierarchiae, quae etiam in tres ordines dividitur secundum tria quae ad universales causas, et maxime secundum intellectum agentes pertinent. Quorum primum est praeordinare quae agenda sunt, unde in artificibus supremae artes praeceptivae sunt, quae architectonicae vocantur: et ex hoc primus ordo hierarchiae huius dicuntur dominationes: domini enim est praecipere et praeordinare. Secundum vero quod in causis universalibus invenitur, est aliquid primo movens ad opus quasi principatum executionis habens, et ex hoc secundus ordo huius hierarchiae principatus vocatur, secundum Gregorium, vel virtutes secundum Dionysium, ut virtutes intelligantur ex eo quod primo operari maxime est virtuosum. Tertium autem quod in causis universalibus invenitur, est aliquid impedimenta executionis removens, unde tertius ordo huius hierarchiae est potestatum, quarum officium est omne quod possit obviare executioni divini imperii, coercere; unde et Daemones arcere dicuntur. The second way of understanding is to contemplate the exemplars of effects as they exist in universal causes. This is suitable to the second hierarchy, which is likewise divided into three orders, corresponding to the three characteristics that pertain to universal causes, especially such as operate under the guidance of the intellect. The first of these characteristics is to plan beforehand what is to be done. Thus among artificers the highest arts are directive, and are called architectonic. From this fact angels belonging to the first order of this hierarchy are known as dominations; for direction and planning are functions of a master or dominus. The second characteristic observed in universal causes is the initiating of action for an undertaking, with authority to oversee its execution. For this reason angels belonging to the second order of this hierarchy are called principalities, according to Gregory [ In Evangelia, 11, hom. xxxiv, 7], or virtues, according to Dionysius [ Coel. hierarch., VIII, 1], understanding virtues in the sense that to take the initiative in action is virtuosity in a high degree. The third characteristic discerned in universal causes is the removal of obstacles to execution. And so the third order of this hierarchy is that of the powers, whose office is to constrain whatever could impede the execution of the divine command; hence, also, the powers are said to hold demons in check.
Tertius vero modus intelligendi est rationes effectuum in ipsis effectibus considerare, et hoc est proprium tertiae hierarchiae, quae immediate nobis praeficitur, qui ex effectibus cognitionem de ipsis effectibus accipimus: et haec etiam tres ordines habet. Quorum infimus Angeli dicuntur, ex eo quod hominibus nuntiant ea quae ad eorum gubernationem pertinent, unde et hominum custodes dicuntur. Supra hunc autem est ordo Archangelorum, per quem hominibus ea quae sunt supra rationem nuntiantur, sicut mysteria fidei. Supremus autem huius hierarchiae ordo secundum Gregorium virtutes dicuntur, ex eo quod ea quae sunt supra naturam operantur, in argumentum eorum quae nobis supra rationem nuntiantur: unde ad virtutes pertinere dicitur miracula facere. Secundum Dionysium vero supremus ordo huius hierarchiae principatus dicitur, ut principes intelligamus qui singulis gentibus praesunt, Angelos qui singulis hominibus, Archangelos qui singularibus hominibus ea quae sunt ad communem salutem pertinentia denuntiant. The third way of understanding is to contemplate the exemplars of effects in the effects themselves. And this is proper to the third hierarchy, which is placed in immediate charge of us, who obtain knowledge of effects from effects themselves. This hierarchy, too, has three orders. The lowest of these is that of the angels, who are so called because they announce to men details that pertain to their government; hence they are also called guardians of men. Above this order is that of the archangels. The office of this order is to announce to men matters that transcend reason, such as the mysteries of faith. The highest order of this hierarchy is said by Gregory to be that of the virtues, for the reason that they perform deeds beyond the power of nature, in proof of the messages, transcending reason, they announce to us. Consequently the working of miracles is said to pertain to the virtues. According to Dionysius, however, the highest order of this hierarchy is that of the principalities; in his reckoning we are to understand that the princes are they who have charge over individual peoples, while the angels have charge over individual men, and the archangels announce to individual men those affairs that pertain to the salvation of all.
Et quia inferior potentia in virtute superioris agit, inferior ordo ea quae sunt superioris exercet, inquantum agit eius virtute; superiores vero ea quae sunt inferiorum propria excellentius habent. Unde omnia sunt in eis quodammodo communia, tamen propria nomina sortiuntur ex his quae unicuique secundum se conveniunt. Infimus autem ordo commune nomen sibi retinuit quasi in virtute omnium agens. Et quia superioris est in inferiorem agere, actio vero intellectualis est instruere vel docere, superiores Angeli inquantum inferiores instruunt, dicuntur eos purgare, illuminare, et perficere. Since a lower power acts in virtue of a higher power, a lower order performs actions proper to a higher order by acting in virtue of that higher power. But the higher orders possess in a more eminent way whatever is proper to the lower orders. Thus all things are in a certain sense common to the various orders. However, they receive their proper names from properties that are characteristic of each order. Nevertheless the lowest order of all retains the common name of angels for itself, for the reason that it acts, as it were, in virtue of all the rest. Furthermore, since the higher naturally influences the lower, and since intellectual action consists in instructing or teaching, the higher angels, in instructing the lower angels, are said to purify, illuminate, and perfect them.
Purgare quidem, inquantum nescientiam removent; illuminare vero, inquantum suo lumine inferiorum intellectus confortant ad aliquid altius capiendum; perficere vero, inquantum eos ad superioris scientiae perfectionem perducunt. Nam haec tria ad assumptionem scientiae pertinent, ut Dionysius dicit. Higher angels purify the lower angels by removing what is wanting to their knowledge. They illuminate them by fortifying the intellects of the lower angels with their own light, thus enabling them to comprehend higher objects. And higher angels perfect lower angels by guiding them to the perfection of higher knowledge. These three operations pertain to the acquisition of knowledge, as Dionysius remarks.
Nec tamen per hoc removetur quin omnes Angeli, etiam infimi, divinam essentiam videant. Licet enim unusquisque beatorum spirituum Deum per essentiam videat, unus tamen alio perfectius eum videt, ut ex superioribus potest patere. Quanto autem aliqua causa perfectius cognoscitur, tanto plures effectus eius cognoscuntur in ea. De effectibus igitur divinis quos superiores Angeli cognoscunt in Deo prae aliis, inferiores instruunt, non autem de essentia divina, quam immediate vident omnes. This inequality does not prevent all the angels, even the lowest, from seeing the divine essence. Even though each of the blessed spirits sees God in His essence, some may behold Him more perfectly than others. This should be clear from a previous chapter. However, the more perfectly a cause is known, the more numerous are the effects discerned in it. The divine effects which the higher angels perceive in God more clearly than the other angels, constitute the subject matter in which they instruct the lower angels. But higher angels do not instruct lower angels concerning the divine essence, which they all perceive directly.

Caput 127

Quod per superiora corpora, inferiora, non autem intellectus humanus, disponuntur

Sicut igitur intellectualium substantiarum una per aliam divinitus gubernatur, inferior scilicet per superiorem, ita etiam inferiora corpora per superiora divinitus disponuntur. Unde omnis motus inferiorum a motibus corporum caelestium causatur, et ex virtute caelestium corporum haec inferiora formas et species consequuntur, sicut et rationes rerum intelligibiles ad inferiores spiritus per superiores deveniunt. Among intellectual substances, therefore, some are divinely governed by others, that is, the lower by the higher. Similarly lower bodies are controlled, in God’s plan, by higher bodies. Hence every movement of lower bodies is caused by the movements of heavenly bodies. Lower bodies acquire forms and species from the influence thus exercised by heavenly bodies, just as the intelligible exemplars of things descend to lower spirits through higher spirits.
Cum autem intellectualis substantia in ordine rerum omnibus corporibus praeferatur, non est conveniens secundum praedictum providentiae ordinem ut per aliquam corporalem substantiam intellectualis quaecumque substantia regatur a Deo. Cum igitur anima humana sit intellectualis substantia, impossibile est secundum quod est intelligens et volens, ut secundum motus corporum caelestium disponatur. Neque igitur in intellectum humanum neque in voluntatem corpora caelestia directe agere possunt vel imprimere. However, since an intellectual substance is superior to all bodies in the hierarchy of beings, the order of providence has suitably disposed matters in such a way that no intellectual substance is ruled by God through a corporeal substance. Accordingly, since the human soul is an intellectual substance, it cannot, so far as it is endowed with intelligence and will, be subject to the movements of heavenly bodies. Heavenly bodies cannot directly act upon or influence either the human intellect or the human will.
Item. Nullum corpus agit nisi per motum. Omne igitur quod ab aliquo corpore patitur, movetur ab eo. Animam autem humanam secundum intellectivam partem, in qua est voluntas, impossibile est motu corporali moveri, cum intellectus non sit actus alicuius organi corporalis. Impossibile igitur est quod anima humana secundum intellectum aut voluntatem a corporibus caelestibus aliquid patiatur. Again, no body acts except by movement. Hence whatever is acted upon by a body, is moved by it. But the human soul, regarded as intellectual, according as it is the principle of the will, cannot be moved by bodily movement, since the intellect is not the act of any bodily organ. Therefore the human soul cannot be subject, in its intellect or will, to any influence emanating from heavenly bodies.
Adhuc. Ea quae ex impressione corporum caelestium in istis inferioribus proveniunt, naturalia sunt. Si igitur operationes intellectus et voluntatis ex impressione caelestium provenirent, ex naturali instinctu procederent, et sic homo non differret in suis actibus ab aliis animalibus, quae naturali instinctu moventur ad suas actiones, et periret liberum arbitrium et consilium et electio, et omnia huiusmodi quae homo prae ceteris animalibus habet. Furthermore, impressions left in lower bodies from the impact of heavenly bodies are natural. Therefore, if the operations of the intellect and will resulted from the impression made by heavenly bodies, they would proceed from natural instinct. And so man would not differ in his activity from other animals, which are moved to their actions by natural instinct. And thus free will and deliberation and choice and all perfections of this sort, which distinguish man from other animals, would perish.

Caput 128

Quomodo intellectus humanus perficitur mediantibus potentiis sensitivis, et sic indirecte subditur corporibus caelestibus

Est autem considerandum, quod intellectus humanus a potentiis sensitivis accipit suae cognitionis originem: unde perturbata phantastica et imaginativa vel memorativa parte animae, perturbatur cognitio intellectus, et praedictis potentiis bene se habentibus, convenientior fit acceptio intellectus. Similiter etiam immutatio appetitus sensitivi aliquid operatur ad mutationem voluntatis, quae est appetitus rationis, ex ea parte qua bonum apprehensum est obiectum voluntatis. Ex eo enim quod diversimode dispositi sumus secundum concupiscentiam, iram et timorem, et alias passiones, diversimode nobis aliquid bonum vel malum videtur. Nevertheless we should not lose sight of the fact that the human intellect is indebted to the sense powers for the origin of its knowledge. This is why intellectual knowledge is thrown into confusion when the soul’s faculties of phantasm, imagination, or memory are impaired. On the other hand, when these powers are in good order, intellectual apprehension becomes more efficient. Likewise, a modification in the sensitive appetite tends to bring about a change in the will, which is a rational appetite, as we know from the fact that the object of the will is the good as apprehended. According as we are variously disposed in the matter of concupiscence, anger, fear and other passions, a thing will at different times appear to us as good or evil.
Omnes autem potentiae sensitivae partis, sive sint apprehensivae, seu appetitivae, quarumdam corporalium partium actus sunt, quibus immutatis, necesse est per accidens ipsas quoque potentias immutari. Quia igitur immutatio inferiorum corporum subiacet motui caeli, eidem etiam motui potentiarum sensitivarum operationes, licet per accidens, subduntur, et sic indirecte motus caelestis aliquid operatur ad actum intellectus et voluntatis humanae, inquantum scilicet per passiones voluntas ad aliquid inclinatur. On the other hand, all the powers of the sensitive part of our soul, whether they are apprehensive or appetitive, are the acts of certain bodily organs. If these undergo modification, the faculties themselves must, indirectly, undergo some change. Therefore, since change in lower bodies is influenced by the movement of the heavens, the operations of the sensitive faculties are also subject to such movement, although only per accidens. And thus heavenly movement has some indirect influence on the activity of the human intellect and will, so far as the will may be inclined this way or that by the passions.
Sed quia voluntas passionibus non subditur ut earum impetum ex necessitate sequatur, sed magis in potestate sua habet reprimere passiones per iudicium rationis, consequens est ut nec etiam impressionibus corporum caelestium voluntas humana subdatur, sed liberum iudicium habet eas sequi et resistere, cum videbitur expedire, quod tantum sapientium est. Sequi vero passiones corporales et inclinationes est multorum, qui scilicet sapientia et virtute carent. Nevertheless, since the will is not subject to the passions in such a way as necessarily to follow their enticement, but on the contrary has it in its power to repress passion by the judgment of reason, the human will is not subject to impressions emanating from heavenly bodies. It retains free judgment either to follow or to resist their attractions, as may seem to it expedient. Only the wise act thus; the masses follow the lead of bodily passions and urgings. For they are wanting in wisdom and virtue.

Caput 129

Quod solus Deus movet voluntatem hominis, non res creata

Cum autem omne mutabile et multiforme, in aliquod primum immobile et unum reducatur sicut in causam, hominis autem intellectus et voluntas mutabilis et multiformis appareat, necesse est quod in aliquam superiorem causam immobilem et uniformem reducantur. Et quia non reducuntur sicut in causam in corpora caelestia, ut ostensum est, oportet eas reducere in causas altiores. Everything that is changeable and multiform is traced back, as to its cause, to some first principle that is immobile and is one. Since man’s intellect and will are clearly changeable and multiform, they must be reduced to some higher cause that is immobile and uniform. The heavenly bodies are not the cause to which they are reduced, as we have shown; therefore they must be reduced to yet higher causes.
Aliter autem se habet circa intellectum et voluntatem: nam actus intellectus est secundum quod res intellectae sunt in intellectu, actus autem voluntatis attenditur secundum inclinationem voluntatis ad res volitas. Intellectus igitur natus est perfici ab aliquo exteriori, quod comparatur ad ipsum sicut ad potentiam: unde homo ad actum intellectus adiuvari potest a quolibet exteriori, quod est magis perfectum secundum esse intelligibile, non solum a Deo, sed etiam ab Angelo, et etiam ab homine magis instructo, aliter tamen et aliter. Homo enim adiuvatur ab homine ad intelligendum per hoc quod unus eorum alteri proponit intelligibile quod non considerabat, non autem ita quod lumen intellectus unius hominis ab altero homine perficiatur, quia utrumque lumen naturale est unius speciei. In this matter the case of the intellect differs from that of the will. The act of the intellect is brought about by the presence of the things understood in the intellect; but the act of the will is accounted for by the inclination of the will toward the things willed. Thus the intellect is adapted by its nature to be perfected by something external that is related to it as act to potency. Hence man can be aided to elicit an act of the intellect by anything external that is more perfect in intelligible being: not only by God but also by an angel or even by a man who is better informed; but differently in each instance. A man is helped to understand by a man when one of them pro. poses to the other an intelligible object not previously contemplated; but not in such a way that the light of the intellect of one man is perfected by the other, because each of these natural lights is in one and the same species.
Sed quia lumen naturale Angeli est secundum naturam sublimius naturali lumine hominis, homo ab Angelo potest iuvari ad intelligendum non solum ex parte obiecti quod ei ab Angelo proponitur, sed etiam ex parte luminis, quod per lumen Angeli confortatur. Non tamen lumen naturale hominis ab Angelo est, cum natura rationalis animae, quae per creationem esse accepit, non nisi a Deo instituta sit. But the natural light of an angel is by nature of a higher excellence than the natural light of man, and so an angel can aid a man to understand, not only on the part, of the object proposed to him by the angel, but also on the part of the light that is strengthened by the angel’s light. However, man’s natural light does not come from an angel, for the nature of the rational soul, which receives existence through creation, is produced by God alone.
Deus autem ad intelligendum hominem iuvat non solum ex parte obiecti, quod homini proponitur a Deo, vel per additionem luminis, sed etiam per hoc quod lumen naturale hominis, quo intellectualis est, a Deo est, et per hoc etiam quod cum ipse sit veritas prima, a qua omnis alia veritas certitudinem habet, sicut secundae propositiones a primis in scientiis demonstrativis, nihil intellectui certum fieri potest nisi virtute divina, sicut nec conclusiones fiunt certae in scientiis nisi secundum virtutem primorum principiorum. God helps man to understand, not only on the part of the object proposed by God to man, or by an increase of light, but also by the very fact that man’s natural light, which is what makes him intellectual, is from God. Moreover, God Himself is the first truth from which all other truth has its certitude, just as secondary propositions in demonstrative sciences derive their certitude from primary propositions. For this reason nothing can become certain for the intellect except through God’s influence, just as conclusions do not achieve certitude in science except in virtue of primary principles.
Sed cum actus voluntatis sit inclinatio quaedam ab interiori ad exterius procedens, et comparetur inclinationibus naturalibus, sicut inclinationes naturales rebus naturalibus solum insunt a causa suae naturae, ita actus voluntatis a solo Deo est, qui solus causa est naturae rationalis voluntatem habentis. Unde patet quod non est contra arbitrii libertatem, si Deus voluntatem hominis movet, sicut non est contra naturam quod Deus in rebus naturalibus operatur, sed tam inclinatio naturalis quam voluntaria a Deo est, utraque proveniens secundum conditionem rei cuius est: sic enim Deus res movet secundum quod competit earum naturae. With regard to the will, its act is a certain impulse flowing from the interior to the exterior, and has much in common with natural tendencies. Accordingly, as natural tendencies are placed in natural things exclusively by the cause of their nature, the act of the will is from God alone, for He alone is ‘the cause of a rational nature endowed with will. Therefore, if God moves man’s will, this is evidently not opposed to freedom of choice, just as God’s activity in natural things is not contrary to their nature. Both the natural inclination and the voluntary inclination are from God; each of them issues in action according to the condition of the thing to which it pertains. God moves things in a way that is consonant with their nature.
Patet igitur ex praedictis quod in corpus humanum et virtutes eius corporeas imprimere possunt corpora caelestia, sicut et in alia corpora, non autem in intellectum, sed hoc potest creatura intellectualis. In voluntatem autem solus Deus imprimere potest. This exposition brings out the fact that heavenly bodies can exert an influence on the human body and its bodily powers, as they can in the case of other bodies. But they cannot do the same with regard to the intellect, although an intellectual creature can. And God alone can touch the will.

Caput 130

Quod Deus omnia gubernat, et quaedam movet mediantibus causis secundis

Quia vero causae secundae non agunt nisi virtute primae causae, sicut instrumenta agunt per directionem artis, necesse est quod omnia alia agentia, per quae Deus ordinem suae gubernationis adimplet, virtute ipsius Dei agant. Agere igitur cuiuslibet ipsorum a Deo causatur, sicut et motus mobilis a motione moventis. Movens autem et motum oportet simul esse. Oportet igitur quod Deus cuilibet agenti adsit interius quasi in ipso agens, dum ipsum ad agendum movet. Second causes do not act except through the power of the first cause; thus instruments operate under the direction of art. Consequently all the agents through which God carries out the order of His government, can act only through the power of God Himself. The action of any of them is caused by God, just as the movement of a mobile object is caused by the motion of the mover. In such event the mover and the movement must be simultaneous. Hence God must be inwardly present to any agent as acting therein whenever He moves the agent to act.
Adhuc. Non solum agere agentium secundorum causatur a Deo, sed ipsum eorum esse, sicut in superioribus ostensum est. Non autem sic intelligendum est quod esse rerum causetur a Deo sicut esse domus causatur ab aedificatore, quo remoto adhuc remanet esse domus. Aedificator enim non causat esse domus nisi inquantum movet ad esse domus, quae quidem motio est factio domus, unde directe est causa fieri ipsius domus, quod quidem cessat aedificatore remoto. Deus autem est per se causa directe ipsius esse, quasi esse communicans omnibus rebus, sicut sol communicat lumen aeri, et aliis quae ab ipso illuminantur. Et sicut ad conservationem luminis in aere requiritur perseverans illuminatio solis, ita ad hoc quod res conserventur in esse, requiritur quod Deus esse incessanter tribuat rebus, et sic omnia non solum inquantum esse incipiunt, sed etiam inquantum in esse conservantur, comparantur ad Deum sicut factum ad faciens. Faciens autem et factum oportet esse simul, sicut movens et motum. Oportet igitur Deum adesse omnibus rebus inquantum esse habent. Esse autem est id quod rebus omnibus intimius adest. Igitur oportet Deum in omnibus esse. Another point: not only the action of secondary agents but their very existence is caused by God, as was shown above. However, we are not to suppose that the existence of things is caused by God in the same way as the existence of a house is caused by its builder. When the builder departs, the house still remains standing. For the builder causes the existence of the house only in the sense that be works for the existence of the house as a house. Such activity is, indeed, the constructing of the house, and thus the builder is directly the cause of the becoming of the house, a process that ceases when he desists from his labors. But God is directly, by Himself, the cause of very existence, and communicates existence to all things just as the sun communicates light to the air and to whatever else is illuminated by the sun. The continuous shining of the sun is required for the preservation of light in the air; similarly God must unceasingly confer existence on things if they are to persevere in existence. Thus all things are related to God as an object made is to its maker, and this not only so far as they begin to exist, but so far as they continue to exist. But a maker and the object made must be simultaneous, just as in the case of a mover and the object moved. Hence God is necessarily present to all things to the extent that they have existence. But existence is that which is the most intimately present in all things. Therefore God must be in all things.
Item. Quicumque exequitur suae providentiae ordinem per aliquas medias causas, necesse est quod effectus illarum mediarum causarum cognoscat et ordinet, alioquin extra ordinem suae providentiae caderent: et tanto perfectior est providentia gubernantis, quanto eius cognitio et ordinatio magis descendit ad singularia, quia si aliquid singularium a cognitione gubernantis subtrahitur, determinatio ipsius singularis eius providentia diffugiet. Ostensum est autem supra quod necesse est omnia divinae providentiae subdi; et manifestum est quod divina providentia perfectissima est, quia quidquid de Deo dicitur, secundum maximum convenit ei. Oportet igitur quod ordinatio providentiae ipsius se extendat usque ad minimos effectus. Moreover, whoever, through the agency of intermediate causes, carries out the order he has foreseen, must know and arrange the effects of these intermediate causes. Otherwise the effects would occur outside the order he has foreseen. The prearranged plan of a governor is more perfect in proportion as his knowledge and design descend to details. For if any detail escapes the advertence of the governor, the disposition of that detail will elude his foresight. We showed above that all things are necessarily subject to divine providence; 130 and divine providence must evidently be most perfect, because whatever is predicated of God must befit Him in the highest possible degree. Consequently the ordinations of His providence must extend to the most minute effects.

Caput 131

Quod Deus omnia disponit immediate, nec diminuit suam sapientiam

Secundum hoc igitur patet quod licet rerum gubernatio fiat a Deo mediantibus causis secundis, quantum pertinet ad providentiae executionem, tamen ipsa dispositio seu ordinatio divinae providentiae immediate se extendit ad omnia. Non enim sic prima et ultima ordinat ut ultima et singularia aliis disponenda committat: hoc enim apud homines agitur propter debilitatem cognitionis ipsorum, quae non potest simul vacare pluribus: unde superiores gubernatores disponunt de magnis et minima aliis committunt disponenda; sed Deus simul multa potest cognoscere, ut supra ostensum est, unde non retrahitur ab ordinatione maximorum per hoc quod dispensat minima. In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that, although God’s government of things is effected through the agency of secondary causes, as far as the carrying out of His providence is concerned, yet the plan itself or ordination of divine providence extends directly to all details. In arranging all matters from first to last, God does not turn over to others the disposal of the final particulars. Men act thus because of the limitations of their knowledge, which cannot at any one time take in many items. This is why higher rulers personally take charge of great concerns, and entrust the management of unimportant affairs to others. But God can take cognizance of a multitude of things simultaneously, as was indicated above. Hence the fact that He attends to the slightest details does not keep Him from organizing the weightiest matters.

Caput 132

Rationes quae videntur ostendere quod Deus non habet providentiam de particularibus

Posset tamen alicui videri quod singularia non disponantur a Deo. Nullus enim per suam providentiam disponit nisi quae cognoscit. Deo autem cognitio singularium videri potest deesse, ex hoc quod singularia non intellectu, sed sensu cognoscuntur. In Deo autem, qui omnino incorporeus est, non potest esse sensitiva, sed solum intellectiva cognitio. Potest igitur alicui videri ex hoc quod singularia a divina providentia non ordinentur. Some may think that details are not regulated by God. For no one disposes anything in his planning unless he has knowledge thereof. But knowledge of particulars may well seem to be lacking in God, for the reason that particulars are known, not by the intellect, but by the senses. God, who is wholly incorporeal, can have no sense knowledge, but only intellectual knowledge. Consequently details may seem to lie outside the scope of divine providence.
Item. Cum singularia sint infinita, infinitorum autem non possit esse cognitio (infinitum enim ut sic est ignotum), videtur quod singularia divinam cognitionem et providentiam effugiant. Moreover, details are infinite, and knowledge of infinity is impossible, since the infinite as such is unknown. Therefore details seemingly escape the divine knowledge and providence.
Adhuc. Singularium multa contingentia sunt. Horum autem non potest esse certa scientia. Cum igitur scientiam Dei oporteat esse certissimam, videtur quod singularia non cognoscantur, nec disponantur a Deo. Again, many particulars are contingent. But certain knowledge of such objects is out of the question. Accordingly, since God’s knowledge must be absolutely certain, it seems that details are not known or regulated by God.
Praeterea. Singularia non omnia simul sunt, quia quibusdam succedentibus alia corrumpuntur. Eorum autem quae non sunt, non potest esse scientia. Si igitur singularium Deus scientiam habeat, sequitur quod quaedam scire incipiat et desinat, ex quo sequitur eum esse mutabilem. Non igitur videtur singularium cognitor et dispositor esse. Besides, particulars do not all exist simultaneously, for some things decay only to have others take their place. But there can be no knowledge of non-existent things. Hence, if God has knowledge of details, there must be some things which He begins and ceases to know, and this involves the further consequence that He is mutable. Apparently, therefore, He does not know and dispose particulars.

Caput 133

Solutio praedictarum rationum

Sed haec facile solvuntur, si quis rei veritatem consideret. Cum enim Deus seipsum perfecte cognoscat, oportet quod cognoscat omne quod in ipso est quocumque modo. Cum autem ab eo sit omnis essentia et virtus entis creati, quod autem est ab aliquo, virtute in ipso est, necesse est quod seipsum cognoscens cognoscat essentiam entis creati et quidquid in eo virtute est; et sic cognoscit omnia singularia quae virtute sunt in ipso et in aliis suis causis. These objections are easily answered if we but penetrate to the truth of the matter. God knows Himself perfectly, and therefore He must have knowledge of all that exists in Himself in any manner whatever. Since every essence and power of created being is from Him, and since whatever comes from anyone exists virtually in him, we necessarily conclude that in knowing Himself He knows the essence of created being and whatever is virtually contained in the latter. And thus He knows all particulars that are virtually in Himself and in all His other causes.
Nec est simile de cognitione intellectus divini et nostri, ut prima ratio procedebat. Nam intellectus noster cognitionem de rebus accipit per species abstractas, quae sunt similitudines formarum, et non materiae, nec materialium dispositionum, quae sunt individuationis principia: unde intellectus noster singularia cognoscere non potest, sed solum universalia. Intellectus autem divinus cognoscit res per essentiam suam, in qua sicut in primo principio virtute continentur non solum forma, sed etiam materia; et ideo non solum universalium, sed etiam singularium cognitor est. The knowledge possessed by the divine intellect is not like our knowledge, as the first objection urged. Our intellect derives knowledge of things through the species it abstracts, and these are the likenesses of forms and not of matter or of material dispositions, which are principles of individuation. Therefore our intellect cannot know particulars, but only universals. But the divine intellect knows things through its own essence, in which, as in the first principle of being, is virtually contained not only form, but matter. And so God knows not only universals but also particulars.
Similiter etiam non est inconveniens Deum infinita cognoscere, quamvis intellectus noster infinita cognoscere non possit. Intellectus enim noster non potest simul actu plura considerare, et sic si infinita cognosceret, considerando ea, oporteret quod numeraret infinita unum post unum, quod est contra rationem infiniti; sed virtute et potentia intellectus noster infinita cognoscere potest, puta omnes species numerorum vel proportionum, inquantum habet sufficiens principium ad omnia cognoscenda. Deus autem multa simul cognoscere potest, ut supra ostensum est, et id per quod omnia cognoscit, scilicet sua essentia, sufficiens est principium omnia cognoscendi non solum quae sunt, sed quae esse possunt. Sicut igitur intellectus noster potentia et virtute cognoscit infinita, quorum cognitionis principium habet, ita Deus omnia infinita actu considerat. Likewise God is able to know an infinite number of objects, even though our intellect cannot know the infinite. Our intellect cannot actually contemplate many things at the same time. Hence, if it knew an infinite number of objects, it would have to review them one after another as it contemplated them, which is contrary to the very notion of infinity. However, our intellect can know infinity virtually and potentially, for example, it can know all the species of numbers or of proportions, seeing that it possesses an adequate principle for knowing all things. But God can know many things simultaneously, as was indicated above; and that whereby He knows all things, namely, His essence, is an adequate principle for knowing, not only all that is, but all that can be. Therefore, as our intellect potentially and virtually knows those infinite objects for which it has a principle of cognition, so God actually contemplates all infinities.
Manifestum est etiam quod licet singularia corporalia et temporalia non simul sint, tamen simul eorum Deus cognitionem habet: cognoscit enim ea secundum modum sui esse, quod est aeternum et sine successione. Sicut igitur materialia immaterialiter, et multa per unum cognoscit, sic et quae non simul sunt, uno intuitu conspicit: et sic non oportet quod eius cognitioni aliquid addatur vel subtrahatur, per hoc quod singularia cognoscit. Furthermore, although corporeal and temporal particulars do not exist simultaneously, God surely has simultaneous knowledge of them. For He knows them according to His manner of being, which is eternal and without succession. Consequently, as He knows material things in an immaterial way, and many things in unity, so in a single glance He beholds objects that do not exist at the same time. And so His knowledge of particulars does not involve the consequence that anything is added to, or subtracted from, His cognition.
Ex quo etiam manifestum fit quod de contingentibus certam cognitionem habet, quia etiam antequam fiant, intuetur ea prout sunt actu in suo esse, et non solum prout sunt futura et virtute in suis causis, sicut nos aliqua futura cognoscere possumus. Contingentia autem licet prout sunt in suis causis virtute futura existentia, non sunt determinata ad unum, ut de eis certa cognitio haberi possit, tamen prout sunt actu in suo esse, iam sunt determinata ad unum, et potest de eis certa haberi cognitio. Nam Socratem sedere dum sedet, per certitudinem visionis cognoscere possumus. Et similiter per certitudinem Deus cognoscit omnia, quaecumque per totum discursum temporis aguntur, in suo aeterno: nam aeternitas sua praesentialiter totum temporis decursum attingit, et ultra transcendit, ut sic consideremus Deum in sua aeternitate fluxum temporis cognoscere, sicut qui in altitudine speculae constitutus totum transitum viatorum simul intuetur. This also makes it clear that He has certain knowledge of contingent things. Even before they come into being, He sees them as they actually exist, and not merely as they will be in the future and as virtually present in their causes, in the way we are able to know some future things. Contingent things, regarded as virtually present in their causes with a claim to future existence, are not sufficiently determinate to admit of certain knowledge about them; but, regarded as actually possessing existence, they are determinate, and hence certain knowledge of them is possible. Thus we can know with the certitude of ocular vision that Socrates is sitting while he is seated. With like certitude God knows, in His eternity, all that takes place throughout the whole course of time. For His eternity is in present contact with the whole course of time, and even passes beyond time. We may fancy that God knows the flight of time in His eternity, in the way that a person standing on top of a watchtower embraces in a single glance a whole caravan of passing travelers.

Caput 134

Quod Deus solus cognoscit singularia futura contingentia

Manifestum est autem quod hoc modo futura contingentia cognoscere, prout sunt actu in suo esse, quod est certitudinem de ipsis habere, solius Dei proprium est, cui proprie et vere competit aeternitas: unde futurorum praenuntiatio certa ponitur esse divinitatis signum, secundum illud Isaiae XLI, 23: annuntiate quae ventura sunt in futurum, et sciemus quia dii estis vos. Sed cognoscere futura in suis causis etiam aliis competere potest; sed haec cognitio non est certa, sed coniecturalis magis, nisi circa effectus qui de necessitate ex suis causis sequuntur: et per hunc modum medicus praenuntiat infirmitates futuras, et nauta tempestates. To know contingent futures in this way, as being actually in. existence, that is, to have certitude about them, is evidently restricted to God alone, of whom eternity is truly and properly predicated. For this reason, certain prediction of future events is accounted a proof of divinity. This accords with Isaiah 41:23: “Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods.” Knowledge of future events in their causes is, indeed, possible for others. Such knowledge, however, is not certain, but is rather conjectural, except as regards effects that necessarily flow from their causes. In this way a physician foretells future illnesses, and a sailor predicts storms.

Caput 135

Quod Deus omnibus adest per potentiam, essentiam et praesentiam, et omnia immediate disponit

Sic igitur nihil impedit quin Deus etiam singularium effectuum cognitionem habeat, et eos immediate ordinet per seipsum, licet per causas medias exequatur. Sed etiam in ipsa executione quodammodo immediate se habet ad omnes effectus, inquantum omnes causae mediae agunt in virtute causae primae, ut quodammodo ipse in omnibus agere videatur, et omnia opera secundarum causarum ei possunt attribui, sicut artifici attribuitur opus instrumenti: convenientius enim dicitur quod faber facit cultellum quam martellus. Habet etiam se immediate ad omnes effectus, inquantum ipse est per se causa essendi, et omnia ab ipso servantur in esse. Thus there is no reason why God should not have knowledge of individual effects, or why He should not directly regulate them by Himself, even though He may carry them out through intermediate causes. However, in the very execution He is, in some fashion, in immediate touch with all effects, to the extent that all intermediate causes operate in virtue of the first cause, so that in a certain way He Himself appears to act in them all. Thus all the achievements of secondary causes can be attributed to Him, as the effect produced by a tool is ascribed to the artisan; when we say that a smith makes a knife, we are more correct than when we say that a hammer did it. God is also in immediate contact with all effects so far as He is per se the cause of their existence, and so far as everything is kept in being by Him.
Et secundum hos tres immediatos modos dicitur Deus in omnibus esse per essentiam, potentiam et praesentiam. Per essentiam quidem, inquantum esse cuiuslibet est quaedam participatio divini esse, et sic essentia divina cuilibet existenti adest, inquantum habet esse, sicut causa proprio effectui; per potentiam vero, inquantum omnia in virtute ipsius agunt; per praesentiam vero, inquantum ipse immediate omnia ordinat et disponit. Corresponding to these three immediate modes of influence, God is said to be in everything by essence, power, and presence. He is in everything by His essence inasmuch as the existence of each thing is a certain participation in the divine essence; the divine essence is present to every existing thing, to the extent that it has existence, as a cause is present to its proper effect. God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things operate in virtue of Him. And God is in all things by His presence, inasmuch as He directly regulates and disposes all things.

Caput 136

Quod soli Deo convenit miracula facere

Quia igitur totus ordo causarum secundarum et virtus earum est a Deo, ipse autem non producit suos effectus per necessitatem, sed liberam voluntatem, ut supra ostensum est, manifestum est quod praeter ordinem causarum secundarum agere potest, sicut quod sanet illos qui secundum operationem naturae sanari non possunt, vel faciat aliqua huiusmodi quae non sunt secundum ordinem naturalium causarum, sunt tamen secundum ordinem divinae providentiae, quia hoc ipsum quod aliquando a Deo fiat praeter ordinem naturalium causarum, a Deo dispositum est propter aliquem finem. Cum autem aliqua huiusmodi divinitus fiunt praeter ordinem causarum secundarum, talia facta miracula dicuntur: quia mirum est, cum effectus videtur, et causa ignoratur. Cum igitur Deus sit causa simpliciter nobis occulta, cum aliquid ab eo fit praeter ordinem causarum secundarum nobis notarum, simpliciter miracula dicuntur. Si autem fiat aliquid ab aliqua alia causa occulta huic vel illi, non est simpliciter miraculum, sed quoad illum qui causam ignorat: unde contingit quod aliquid apparet mirum uni, quod non est alii mirum, qui causam cognoscit. The entire order of secondary causes, as well as their power, comes from God. He Himself, however, produces His effects not out of necessity, but by free will, as was shown above. Clearly, then, He can act outside the order of secondary causes, as when He cures those who are incurable from the standpoint of natural causality, or when He does something else of this kind that is not within the sphere of natural causes but is nevertheless consonant with the order of divine providence. What God occasionally does in this way, independently of the order of natural causes, is designed by Him for a definite end. When effects are thus wrought by divine power outside the order of secondary causes, they are called miracles; for when we perceive an effect without knowing its cause, our wonder is excited (mirum est). God is a cause that is completely hidden from us. Therefore, when some effect is wrought by Him outside the order of secondary causes known to us, it is called simply a miracle. But if an effect is produced by some other cause that is unknown to this or that person, it is not a miracle simply as such, but only with regard to him who is ignorant of the cause. Thus an event may appear marvelous to one person without seeming marvelous to another who is acquainted with its cause.
Sic autem praeter ordinem causarum secundarum operari solius Dei est, qui est huius ordinis institutor, et huic ordini non obligatur. Alia vero omnia huic ordini subduntur, unde miracula facere, solius Dei est, secundum illud Psalmistae: qui facit mirabilia magna solus. Cum igitur ab aliqua creatura miracula fieri videntur, vel non sunt vera miracula, quia fiunt per aliquas virtutes naturalium rerum, licet nobis occultas, sicut est de miraculis Daemonum, quae magicis artibus fiunt; vel si sunt vera miracula, impetrantur per aliquem a Deo, ut scilicet talia operetur. Quia igitur huiusmodi miracula solum divinitus fiunt, convenienter in argumentum fidei assumuntur, quae soli Deo innititur. Quod enim aliquid prolatum ab homine auctoritate divina dicatur, nunquam convenientius ostenditur quam per opera quae solus Deus facere potest. To act in this way, outside the order of secondary causes, is possible for God alone, who is the founder of this order and is not confined to it. All other beings are subject to this order; and so God alone can work miracles, as the Psalmist says: “Who alone doth wonderful things” (Ps. 71:18). Therefore, when miracles are apparently worked by some creature, either they are not true miracles, but are effects produced by the power of natural agents, which may be concealed from us, as happens in the case of miracles wrought by demons with their magical arts; or else, if they are true miracles, someone obtains the power to work them by praying to God. Since such miracles are wrought exclusively by divine power, they are rightly appealed to in proof of the faith, which has God alone as its author. For a pronouncement issued by a man with a claim to divine authority, is never more fittingly attested than by works which God alone can perform.
Huiusmodi autem miracula, quamvis praeter ordinem causarum secundarum fiant, tamen non sunt simpliciter dicenda contra naturam, quia hoc ipsum naturalis ordo habet ut inferiora actionibus superiorum subdantur. Unde quae in corporibus inferioribus ex impressione caelestium corporum proveniunt, non dicuntur simpliciter esse contra naturam, licet forte sint quandoque contra naturam particularem huius vel illius rei, sicut patet de motu aquae in fluxu et refluxu maris, qui accidit ex lunae actione. Sic igitur et ea quae in creaturis accidunt Deo agente, licet videantur esse contra particularem ordinem causarum secundarum, sunt tamen secundum ordinem universalem naturae. Non igitur miracula sunt contra naturam. Although such miracles occur outside the order of secondary causes, we should not simply say that they are against nature. The natural order makes provision for the subjection of the lower to the activity of the higher. Thus effects brought about in lower bodies in consequence of the influence emanating from the heavenly bodies, are not said to be simply against nature, although they may at times be against the particular nature of this or that thing, as we observe in the movement of water in the ebb and flow of the tide, which is produced by the action of the moon. In the same way, effects produced in creatures by the action of God may seem to be against some particular order of secondary causes; yet they are in accord with the universal order of nature. Therefore miracles are not contrary to nature.

Caput 137

Quod dicantur esse aliqua casualia et fortuita

Quamvis autem omnia etiam minima divinitus dispensentur, ut ostensum est, nihil tamen prohibet aliqua accidere a casu et fortuna. Contingit enim aliquid respectu inferioris causae esse fortuitum vel casuale, dum praeter eius intentionem aliquid agitur, quod tamen non est fortuitum vel casuale respectu superioris causae, praeter cuius intentionem non agitur; sicut patet de domino, qui duos servos ad eumdem locum mittit, ita quod unus ignoret de alio: horum concursus casualis est quantum ad utrumque, non autem quantum ad dominum. Although all events, even the most trifling, are disposed according to God’s plan, as we have shown, there is nothing to prevent some things from happening by chance or accident. An occurrence may be accidental or fortuitous with respect to a lower cause when an effect not intended is brought about, and yet not be accidental or fortuitous with respect to a higher cause, inasmuch as the effect does not take place apart from the latter’s intention. For example, a master may send two servants to the same place, but in such a way that neither is aware of the mission of the other. Their meeting is accidental so far as each of them is concerned, but not as regards the master.
Sic igitur cum aliqua accidunt praeter intentionem causarum secundarum, fortuita sunt vel casualia habito respectu ad illas causas, et simpliciter casualia dici possunt, quia effectus simpliciter denominantur secundum conditionem proximarum causarum. Si vero habeatur respectus ad Deum, non sunt fortuita, sed provisa. So, when certain events occur apart from the intention of secondary causes, they are accidental or fortuitous with respect to those causes; and they may be said without further ado to be fortuitous, because effects are described simply in terms of their proximate causes. But if God’s point of view is considered, they are not fortuitous, but foreseen.

Caput 138

Utrum fatum sit aliqua natura, et quid sit

Ex hoc autem apparet quae sit ratio fati. Cum enim multi effectus inveniantur casualiter provenire secundum considerationem secundarum causarum, quidam huiusmodi effectus in nullam superiorem causam ordinantem eos reducere volunt, quos totaliter negare fatum necesse est. Quidam vero hos effectus qui videntur casuales et fortuiti, in superiorem causam ordinantem eos reducere voluerunt, sed corporalium ordinem non transcendentes, attribuerunt ordinationem corporibus primis, scilicet caelestibus: et hi fatum esse dixerunt vim positionis siderum, ex qua huiusmodi effectus contingere dicebant. Sed quia ostensum est, quod intellectus et voluntas, quae sunt propria principia humanorum actuum, proprie corporibus caelestibus non subduntur, non potest dici, quod ea quae casualiter vel fortuito in rebus humanis accidere videntur, reducantur in corpora caelestia sicut in causam ordinantem. This suggests what we ought to think of fate. Many effects are found to occur haphazard if they are regarded from the standpoint of secondary causes. Some thinkers are unwilling to refer such effects to a higher cause that ordains them. In consequence, they must utterly reject fate. On the other hand, others have desired to trace back these seemingly accidental and fortuitous effects to a higher cause that plans them. But, failing to rise above the order of corporeal entities, they attributed such devising to the highest bodies, namely, the heavenly bodies. And so they contended that fate is a force deriving from the position of the stars, and that this accounts for happenings of this kind. But we showed above that the intellect and will, which are the true principles of human acts, are not in any proper sense subject to heavenly bodies. Hence we cannot maintain that events which seemingly occur at random and by chance in human affairs, are to be referred to heavenly bodies as to the cause that charts them.
Fatum autem non videtur esse nisi in rebus humanis, in quibus est et fortuna. De his enim solent aliqui quaerere, futura cognoscere volentes, et de his a divinantibus responderi consuevit: unde et fatum a fando est appellatum, et ideo sic fatum ponere est alienum a fide. Sed quia non solum res naturales, sed etiam res humanae divinae providentiae subduntur, quae casualiter in rebus humanis accidere videntur, in ordinationem divinae providentiae reducere oportet. Et sic necesse est ponere fatum ponentibus divinae providentiae omnia subiacere. Fatum enim sic acceptum se habet ad divinam providentiam sicut proprius eius effectus. Est enim explicatio divinae providentiae rebus adhibita, secundum quod Boetius dicit, quod fatum est dispositio, idest ordinatio immobilis rebus mobilibus inhaerens. There seems to be no place for fate except in human affairs, in which hazard has a part to play. It is only about such events that men are accustomed to inquire in their craving to know the future, and it is also about these that an answer is usually given by fortunetellers. Hence fate (fatum) is a word formed from the Latin verb fari, to foretell. To acknowledge fate thus understood is opposed to faith. Since, however, not only natural things but also human affairs are under divine providence, those events that seem to happen at random in men’s lives must be referred to the ordination of divine providence. Consequently those who hold that all things are subject to divine providence, must admit the existence of fate. Fate taken in this sense is related to divine providence as a real effect of the latter. For it is an explanation of divine providence as applied to things, and is in agreement with the definition given by Boethius, who says that fate is a “disposition,” that is, an unchangeable ordination, “inherent in changeable things” [ De consolatione philosophiae, IV, pros. 6].
Sed quia cum infidelibus quantum possumus, nec nomina debemus habere communia, ne a non intelligentibus erroris occasio sumi possit, cautius est fidelibus ut fati nomen reticeant, propter hoc quod fatum convenientius et communius secundum primam acceptionem sumitur. Unde et Augustinus dicit V de civitate Dei, quod si quis secundo modo fatum esse credat, sententiam teneat et linguam corrigat. Yet, since we ought not to have even words in common with infidels, so far as possible, lest an occasion for going astray be taken by those who do not understand, it is more prudent for the faithful to abstain from the word “fate,” for the reason that fate is more properly and generally used in the first sense. Therefore Augustine says that if anyone believes in the existence of fate in the second sense, he may keep to his opinion but should correct his language [ De civitate Dei, V, 1].

Caput 139

Quod non omnia sunt ex necessitate

Quamvis autem ordo divinae providentiae rebus adhibitus certus sit, ratione cuius Boetius dicit quod fatum est dispositio immobilis rebus mobilibus inhaerens, non tamen propter hoc sequitur omnia de necessitate accidere. Nam effectus necessarii vel contingentes dicuntur secundum conditionem proximarum causarum. Manifestum est enim quod si causa prima fuerit necessaria, et causa secunda fuerit contingens, effectus sequitur contingens, sicut prima causa generationis in rebus corporalibus inferioribus est motus caelestis corporis, qui licet ex necessitate proveniat, generatio tamen et corruptio in istis inferioribus provenit contingenter, propter hoc quod causae inferiores contingentes sunt, et deficere possunt. Ostensum est autem quod Deus suae providentiae ordinem per causas inferiores exequitur. Erunt igitur aliqui effectus divinae providentiae contingentes secundum conditionem inferiorum causarum. The order of divine providence as carried out in things is certain. This is why Boethius could say that fate is an unchangeable disposition inherent in changeable things [ De consolatione philosophiae, IV, pros. 6]. But we may not conclude from this that all things happen of necessity. For effects are said to be necessary or contingent according to the condition of proximate causes. Evidently, if the first cause is necessary and the second cause is contingent, a contingent effect will follow. Thus in the case of lower bodies, the first cause of generation is the movement of a heavenly body; although this movement takes place necessarily, generation and corruption in those lower bodies occur contingently, because the lower causes are contingent and can fail. As we demonstrated above, God carries out the order of His providence through the intermediacy of lower causes. Therefore some of the effects of divine providence will be contingent, in keeping with the condition of the lower causes.

Caput 140

Quod divina providentia manente, multa sunt contingentia

Nec tamen effectuum contingentia vel causarum, certitudinem divinae providentiae perturbare potest. Tria enim sunt quae providentiae certitudinem praestare videntur: scilicet infallibilitas divinae praescientiae, efficacia divinae voluntatis, et sapientia divinae dispositionis, quae vias sufficientes ad effectum consequendum adinvenit, quorum nullum contingentiae rerum repugnat. The contingency of effects or of causes cannot upset the certainty of divine providence. Three things seem to guarantee the certainty of providence: the infallibility of divine foreknowledge, the efficaciousness of the divine will, and the wisdom. of the divine management, which discovers adequate ways of procuring an effect. None of these factors is opposed to the contingency of things.
Nam scientia Dei infallibilis est etiam contingentium futurorum, inquantum Deus intuetur in suo aeterno futura, prout sunt actu in suo esse, ut supra expositum est. God’s infallible knowledge embraces even contingent futures, inasmuch as God beholds in His eternity future events as actually existing. But we dealt with this question above.
Voluntas etiam Dei, cum sit universalis rerum causa, non solum est de hoc quod aliquid fiat, sed ut sic fiat. Hoc igitur ad efficaciam divinae voluntatis pertinet non solum ut fiat quod Deus vult, sed ut hoc modo fiat quomodo illud fieri vult. Vult autem quaedam fieri necessario et quaedam contingenter, quia utrumque requiritur ad completum esse universi. Ut igitur utroque modo res provenirent, quibusdam adaptat necessarias causas, quibusdam vero contingentes, ut sic dum quaedam fiunt necessario, quaedam contingenter, divina voluntas efficaciter impleatur. Moreover, God’s will, since it is the universal cause of things, decides not only that something will come to pass, but that it will come about in this or that manner. The efficaciousness of the divine will demands not only that what God wishes will happen, but that it will happen in the way He wishes. But He wills that some things should happen necessarily and that other things should happen contingently; both are required for the perfection of the universe. That events may occur in both ways, He applies necessary causes to some things and contingent causes to others. In this manner, with some things happening necessarily and other things happening contingently, the divine will is efficaciously carried out.
Manifestum est etiam quod per sapientiam divinae dispositionis, providentiae certitudo servatur, contingentia rerum manente. Nam si hoc per providentiam hominis fieri potest ut causae quae deficere potest ab effectu, sic ferat auxilium ut interdum indeficienter sequatur effectus, sicut patet in medico sanante, et in vineae cultore contra sterilitatem vitis adhibendo remedium, multo magis hoc ex sapientia divinae dispositionis contingit, ut quamvis causae contingentes deficere possint quantum est de se ab effectu, tamen quibusdam adminiculis adhibitis indeficienter sequatur effectus, quod eius contingentiam non tollit. Sic ergo patet quod rerum contingentia divinae providentiae certitudinem non excludit. Furthermore, it is clear that the certainty of providence is safeguarded by the wisdom of the divine dispensation, without prejudice to the contingency of things. Even the providence exercised by man can enable him so to bolster up a cause which can fail to produce an effect that, in some cases, the effect will inevitably follow. We find that a physician acts thus in exercising his healing art, as also does the vine-dresser who employs the proper remedy against barrenness in his vines. Much more, then, does the wisdom of the divine economy bring it about that, although contingent causes left to themselves can fail to produce an effect, the effect will inevitably follow when certain supplementary measures are employed; nor does this do away with the contingency of the effect. Evidently, therefore, contingency in things does not exclude the certainty of divine providence.

Caput 141

Quod divinae providentiae certitudo non excludit mala a rebus

Eodem etiam modo perspici potest, quod divina providentia manente, mala in mundo accidere possunt propter defectum causarum secundarum. Videmus enim in causis ordinatis accidere malum in effectu ex defectu causae secundae, qui tamen defectus a causa prima nullo modo causatur, sicut malum claudicationis causatur a curvitate cruris, non autem a virtute animae motiva. Unde quidquid est in claudicatione de motu, refertur in virtutem motivam sicut in causam, quod autem est ibi de obliquitate, non causatur a virtute motiva, sed a cruris curvitate. Et ideo quidquid malum in rebus accidit, quantum ad hoc quod esse vel speciem vel naturam aliquam habet, reducitur in Deum sicut in causam: non enim potest esse malum nisi in bono, ut ex supradictis patet. Quantum vero ad id quod habet de defectu, reducitur in causam inferiorem defectibilem. Et sic licet Deus sit universalis omnium causa, non tamen est causa malorum inquantum sunt mala, sed quidquid boni eis adiungitur, causatur a Deo. The same process of reasoning enables us to perceive that, without prejudice to divine providence, evil can arise in the world because of defects in secondary causes. Thus in causes that follow one another in order, we see that evil finds its way into an effect owing to some fault in a secondary cause, although this fault is by no means the product of the first cause. For example, the evil of lameness is caused by a curvature in the leg, not by the motive power of the soul. Whatever movement there is in the progress of a lame man, is attributed to the motive power as to its cause; but the unevenness of the progress is caused by the curvature of the leg, not by the motive power. Similarly the evil that arises in things, so far as it has existence or species or a certain nature, is referred to God as to its cause; for there can be no evil unless it resides in something good,. as is clear from what we said above. But with regard to the defect that disfigures it, the evil is referred to a lower, defectible cause. Accordingly’ although God is the universal cause of all things, He is not the cause of evil as evil. But whatever good is bound up with the evil, has God as its cause.

Caput 142

Quod non derogat bonitati Dei, quod mala permittat

Nec tamen hoc divinae bonitati repugnat quod mala esse permittit in rebus ab eo gubernatis. Primo quidem quia providentiae non est naturam gubernatorum perdere, sed salvare. Requirit autem hoc perfectio universi ut sint quaedam in quibus malum non possit accidere, quaedam vero quae defectum mali pati possint secundum suam naturam. Si igitur malum totaliter excluderetur a rebus, providentia divina non regerentur res secundum earum naturam, quod esset maior defectus quam singulares defectus qui tollerentur. God’s permission of evil in the things governed by Him is not inconsistent with the divine goodness. For, in the first place, the function of providence is not to destroy but to save the nature of the beings governed. The perfection of the universe requires the existence of some beings that are not subject to evil, and of other beings that can suffer the defect of evil in keeping with their nature. If evil were completely eliminated from things, they would not be governed by divine providence in accord with their nature; and this would be a greater defect than the particular defects eradicated.
Secundo, quia bonum unius non potest accidere sine malo alterius, sicut videmus quod generatio unius non est sine corruptione alterius, et nutrimentum leonis non est sine occisione alterius animalis, et patientia iusti non est sine persecutione iniusti. Si igitur malum totaliter excluderetur a rebus, sequeretur quod multa etiam bona tollerentur. Non igitur pertinet ad divinam providentiam ut malum totaliter excludatur a rebus, sed ut mala quae proveniunt, ad aliquod bonum ordinentur. Secondly, the good of one cannot be realized without the suffering of evil by another. For instance, we find that the generation of one being does not take place without the corruption of another being, and that the nourishment of a lion is impossible without the destruction of some other animal, and that the patient endurance of the just involves persecution by the unjust. If evil were completely excluded from things, much good would be rendered impossible. Consequently it is the concern of divine providence, not to safeguard all beings from evil, but to see to it that the evil which arises is ordained to some good.
Tertio, quia ex ipsis malis particularibus commendabiliora redduntur bona dum eis comparantur, sicut ex obscuritate nigri magis declaratur claritas albi. Et sic per hoc quod permittit mala esse in mundo, divina bonitas magis declaratur in bonis, et sapientia in ordinatione malorum ad bona. Thirdly, good is rendered more estimable when compared with particular evils. For example, the brilliance of white is brought out more clearly when set off by the dinginess of black. And so, by permitting the existence of evil in the world, the divine goodness is more emphatically asserted in the good, just as is the divine wisdom when it forces evil to promote good.

Caput 143

Quod Deus specialiter homini providet per gratiam

Quia igitur divina providentia rebus singulis secundum earum modum providet, creatura autem rationalis per liberum arbitrium est domina sui actus prae ceteris creaturis, necesse est ut et ei singulari modo provideatur quantum ad duo. Primo quidem quantum ad adiumenta operis, quae ei dantur a Deo; secundo quantum ad ea quae pro suis operibus ei redduntur. Creaturis enim irrationabilibus haec solum adiumenta dantur divinitus ad agendum quibus naturaliter moventur ad agendum; creaturis vero rationabilibus dantur documenta et praecepta vivendi. Non enim praeceptum dari competit nisi ei qui est dominus sui actus, quamvis etiam creaturis irrationabilibus praecepta per quamdam similitudinem Deus dare dicatur, secundum illud Psal. CXLVIII, 6: praeceptum posuit et non praeteribit: quod quidem praeceptum nihil aliud est quam dispositio divinae providentiae movens res naturales ad proprias actiones. Accordingly, divine providence governs individual beings in keeping with their nature. Since rational creatures, because of the gift of free will, enjoy dominion over their actions in a way impossible to other creatures, a special providence must be exercised over them in two respects. First, with regard to the aids God gives to rational creatures in their activity, secondly, with regard to the recompense allotted for their works. God gives to irrational creatures only those aids by which they are naturally moved to act. But to rational creatures are issued instructions and commands regulating their lives. A precept is not fittingly given except to a being that is master of his actions, although in an analogous sense God is said to give commands to irrational creatures also, as is intimated in Psalm 148:6: “He made a decree, and it shall not pass away.” But this sort of decree is nothing else than the dispensation of divine providence moving natural things to their proper actions.
Similiter etiam actiones creaturarum rationalium imputantur eis ad culpam vel ad laudem, pro eo quod habent dominium sui actus, non solum hominibus ab homine praesidente, sed etiam a Deo, cum homines non solum regantur ab homine, sed etiam a Deo. Cuiuscumque autem regimini aliquis subditur, ab eo sibi imputatur quod laudabiliter vel culpabiliter agit. Et quia pro bene actis debetur praemium, culpae vero debetur poena, ut supra dictum est, creaturae rationales secundum iustitiam divinae providentiae et puniuntur pro malis, et praemiantur pro bonis. In creaturis autem irrationabilibus non habet locum poena nec praemium, sicut nec laudari nec culpari. The deeds of rational creatures are imputed to them in blame or in praise, because they have dominion over their acts. The actions of men are ascribed to them not only by a man who is placed over them, but also by God. Thus any praiseworthy or blameworthy action that a man performs is imputed to him by the person to whose rule he is subject. Since good actions merit a reward and sin calls for punishment, as was said above, rational creatures are punished for the evil they do and are rewarded for the good. they do, according to the measure of justice fixed by divine providence. But there is no place for reward or punishment in dealing with irrational creatures, just as there is none for praise or blame.
Quia vero ultimus finis creaturae rationalis facultatem naturae ipsius excedit, ea vero quae sunt ad finem, debent esse fini proportionata secundum rectum providentiae ordinem, consequens est ut creaturae rationali etiam adiutoria divinitus conferantur, non solum quae sunt proportionata naturae, sed etiam quae facultatem naturae excedunt. Unde supra naturalem facultatem rationis imponitur homini divinitus lumen gratiae, per quod interius perficitur ad virtutem et quantum ad cognitionem, dum elevatur mens hominis per lumen huiusmodi ad cognoscendum ea quae rationem excedunt, et quantum ad actionem et affectionem, dum per lumen huiusmodi affectus hominis supra creata omnia elevatur ad Deum diligendum, et sperandum in ipso, et ad agendum ea quae talis amor requirit. Since the last end of rational creatures exceeds the capacity of their nature and since whatever conduces to the end must be proportionate to the end according to the right order of providence, rational creatures are given divine aids that are not merely proportionate to nature but that transcend the capacity of nature. God infuses into man, over and above the natural faculty of reason, the light of grace whereby he is internally perfected for the exercise of virtue, both as regards knowledge, inasmuch as man’s mind is elevated by this light to the knowledge of truths surpassing reason, and as regards action and affection, inasmuch as man’s affective power is raised by this light above all created things to the love of God, to hope in Him, and to the performance of acts that such love imposes.
Huiusmodi autem dona, sive auxilia supernaturaliter homini data, gratuita vocantur duplici ratione. Primo quidem quia gratis divinitus dantur: non enim potest in homine aliquid inveniri cui condigne huiusmodi auxilia debeantur, cum haec facultatem humanae naturae excedant. Secundo vero quia speciali quodam modo per huiusmodi dona homo efficitur Deo gratus. Cum enim dilectio Dei sit causa bonitatis in rebus non a praeexistente bonitate provocata, sicut est dilectio nostra, necesse est quod quibus aliquos speciales effectus bonitatis largitur, respectu horum specialis ratio dilectionis divinae consideretur. Unde eos maxime et simpliciter diligere dicitur quibus tales bonitatis effectus largitur per quos ad ultimum finem veniant, quod est ipse, qui est fons bonitatis. These gifts or aids supernaturally given to man are called graces for two reasons. First, because they are given by God gratis. Nothing is discoverable in man that would constitute a right to aids of this sort, for they exceed the capacity of nature. Secondly, because in a very special way man is made gratus, or pleasing to God, by such gifts. Since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things and is not called forth by any pre-existing goodness, as our love is, a special intensity of divine love must be discerned in those whom He showers with such extraordinary effects of His goodness. Therefore God is said chiefly and simply to love those whom He endows with these effects of His love by which they are enabled to reach their last end, which is He Himself, the fountainhead of all goodness.

Caput 144

Quod Deus per dona gratuita remittit peccata, quae etiam gratiam interimunt

Et quia peccata contingunt ex hoc quod actiones deficiunt a recto ordine ad finem, ad finem autem ordinatur homo non solum per naturalia auxilia, sed per gratuita, necesse est quod peccata hominum non solum naturalibus auxiliis, sed etiam gratuitis contrarientur. Contraria autem se invicem expellunt. Unde sicut per peccata huiusmodi auxilia gratuita ab homine tolluntur, ita per gratuita dona peccata homini remittuntur: alioquin malitia hominis in peccando plus posset dum removet gratiam divinam, quam divina bonitas ad removendum peccata per gratiae dona. Sins arise when actions deflect from the right course leading to the end. Since man is conducted to his end not only by natural aids, but by the aids of grace, the sins men commit must be counteracted not by natural aids alone, but also by the as helps which grace confers. Contraries exclude each other; therefore, as the aids of grace are taken from man by sin, so sins are forgiven by the gifts of grace. Otherwise man’s malice in committing sin would be more powerful in banishing divine grace than the divine goodness is in expelling sin by the gifts of grace.
Item. Deus rebus providet secundum earum modum. Hic autem est modus mutabilium rerum, ut in eis contraria alternari possint, sicut generatio et corruptio in materia corporali, et album et nigrum in corpore colorato. Homo autem est mutabilis secundum voluntatem quamdiu in hac vita vivit. Sic igitur divinitus gratuita dona homini dantur, ut ea possit per peccatum amittere: et sic peccata perpetrat, ut ea per gratuita dona remitti possint. Furthermore, God’s providence over things is in harmony with their mode of being. Changeable things are so constituted that contraries can succeed each other in them; examples are generation and corruption in corporeal matter, and white and black in a colored object. Man is changeable in will as long as he lives his earthly life. Hence man receives from God the gifts of grace in such a way that he is able to forfeit them by sin; and the sins man commits are such that they can be remitted by the gifts of grace.
Praeterea. In iis quae supra naturam aguntur, possibile et impossibile attenditur secundum potentiam divinam, non secundum potentiam naturalem: quod enim caecus illuminari possit vel mortuus resurgere, non est naturalis potentiae, sed divinae. Dona autem gratuita sunt supernaturalia. Quod igitur ea aliquis consequi possit, ad divinam potentiam pertinet. Dicere igitur quod aliquis post peccatum gratuita dona consequi non possit, est divinae potentiae derogare. Gratuita autem dona simul cum peccato esse non possunt, cum per gratuita dona homo ordinetur ad finem, a quo per peccatum avertitur. Dicere igitur peccata remissibilia non esse, divinae potentiae contrariatur. Besides, in supernatural acts, possible and impossible are regarded from the standpoint of divine power, not from the standpoint of natural power. The fact that a blind man can be made to see or that a dead man can rise, is owing not to natural power but to divine power. But the gifts of grace are supernatural. Therefore a person’s capacity to receive them depends on divine power. To say that, once a person has sinned, he cannot receive the gifts of grace, is derogatory to the power of God. Of course, grace cannot co-exist with sin; for by grace man is rightly ordered to his end, from which he is turned away by sin. But the contention that sin is irremissible, impugns the power of God.

Caput 145

Quod peccata non sunt irremissibilia

Si quis autem dicat peccata irremissibilia esse non propter divinam impotentiam, sed quia hoc habet divina iustitia ut qui cadit a gratia, ulterius non revertatur ad ipsam; hoc patet esse falsum. Non enim hoc habet ordo divinae iustitiae quod quandiu aliquis est in via, sibi detur quod pertinet ad terminum viae. Immobiliter autem se habere vel in bono vel in malo pertinet ad terminum viae: immobilitas enim et quies est terminus motus, tota autem praesens vita est status viae, quod demonstrat mutabilitas hominis et quantum ad corpus et quantum ad animam. Non igitur hoc habet divina iustitia ut homo post peccatum immobiliter maneat in eo. The suggestion might be put forward that sins are unforgivable, not through any lack of power on God’s part, but because divine justice has decided that anyone who falls from grace shall never more be restored to it. But such a position is clearly erroneous. There is no provision in the order of divine justice to the effect that, while a person is on the road, he should have assigned to him what belongs to the end of the journey, But unyielding adherence to good or to evil pertains to the end of life’s course; immobility and cessation from Activity are the terminus of movement. On the other hand, the whole of our present life is a time of wayfaring, as is shown by man’s changeableness both in body and in soul. Accordingly divine justice does not determine that after sinning a man must remain immovably in the state of sin.
Adhuc. Ex divinis beneficiis periculum homini non irrogatur, et praecipue ex maximis. Esset autem periculosum homini mutabilem vitam agenti gratiam accipere, si post gratiam peccare posset, et iterum redire ad gratiam non posset, praesertim cum peccata quae gratiam praecedunt, remittantur per gratiam, quae interdum maiora sunt his quae post gratiam susceptam homo committit. Non est igitur dicendum quod peccata hominis irremissibilia sint, sive ante sive post committantur. Moreover, divine benefits do not expose man to danger, particularly in affairs of supreme moment. But it would be dangerous for man, while leading a life subject to change, to accept grace if, after receiving grace, he could sin but could not again be restored to grace. This is so especially in view of the fact that sins preceding grace are remitted by the infusion of grace; and at times such sins are more grievous than those man commits after receiving grace. Therefore we may not hold that man’s sins are unforgivable either before or after they are committed.

Caput 146

Quod solus Deus potest remittere peccata

Peccata vero remittere solus Deus potest. Culpa enim contra aliquem commissa ille solus remittere potest contra quem committitur. Peccata enim imputantur homini ad culpam non solum ab homine, sed etiam a Deo, ut supra dictum est. Sic autem nunc agimus de peccatis, prout imputantur homini a Deo. Deus igitur solus peccata remittere potest. God alone can forgive sin. For only the one against whom an offense is directed can forgive the offense. Sin is imputed to man as an offense not only by another man, but also by God, as we said above. However, we are now considering sin as imputed to man by God. Accordingly, God alone can forgive sin.
Adhuc. Cum per peccata homo deordinetur ab ultimo fine, remitti non possunt, nisi homo reordinetur in finem. Hoc autem fit per gratuita dona, quae sunt solum a Deo, cum excedant facultatem naturae. Solus igitur Deus potest peccata remittere. Again, since by sin man is deflected from his last end, sins cannot be forgiven unless man is again rightly ordered to his end. This is accomplished through the gifts of grace which come from God alone, since they transcend the power of nature. Therefore only God can remit sin.
Item. Peccatum homini imputatur ad culpam, inquantum voluntarium. Voluntatem autem immutare solus Deus potest. Solus igitur ipse vere potest remittere peccata. Further, sin is imputed to man as an offense because it is voluntary. But only God can effect a change in the will. Consequently He alone can truly forgive sins.

Caput 147

De quibusdam articulis fidei qui sumuntur penes effectus divinae gubernationis

Hic est igitur secundus Dei effectus, gubernatio rerum, et specialiter creaturarum rationalium, quibus et gratiam tribuit et peccata remittit: qui quidem effectus in symbolo fidei tangitur et quantum ad hoc quod omnia in finem divinae bonitatis ordinantur, per hoc quod spiritum sanctum profitemur Deum, nam Deo est proprium ad finem suos subditos ordinare; et quantum ad hoc quod omnia movet, per hoc quod dicit, et vivificantem. Sicut enim motus qui est ab anima in corpus, est vita corporis, ita motus quo universum movetur a Deo, est quasi quaedam vita universi. This, then, is the second of God’s effects, namely, the government of things, and especially of rational creatures, to whom God gives grace and whose sins He forgives. This effect is touched on in the Creed. When we profess that the Holy Spirit is God, we imply that all things are ordained to the end of divine goodness, since it belongs to God to order His subjects to their end. And the words of the Creed which express our belief that the Holy Spirit is “the Life-giver,” suggest that God moves all things. For, as the movement flowing from the soul to the body is the life of the body, so the movement, whereby the universe is moved by God is, so to speak, a certain life of the universe.
Et quia tota ratio divinae gubernationis a bonitate divina sumitur, quae spiritui sancto appropriatur, qui procedit ut amor, convenienter effectus divinae providentiae circa personam spiritus sancti ponuntur. Further, since the entire process of divine government is derived from the divine goodness, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, who proceeds as love, the effects of divine providence are fittingly thought of in connection with the person of the Holy Spirit.
Quantum autem ad effectum supernaturalis cognitionis, quam per fidem in hominibus Deus facit, dicitur, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam: nam Ecclesia congregatio fidelium est. Quantum vero ad gratiam quam hominibus communicat, dicitur, sanctorum communionem. Quantum vero ad remissionem culpae dicitur, peccatorum remissionem. As regards the effect of supernatural knowledge, which God produces in men through faith, the Creed proclaims: “I believe in... the Holy, Catholic Church”; for the Church is the congregation of the faithful. Concerning the grace which God communicates to men the Creed states: “I believe in... the communion of saints.” And with respect to the remission of sin it says: “I believe in... the forgiveness of sins.”

Caput 148

Quod omnia sunt facta propter hominem

Cum autem omnia, sicut ostensum est, in divinam bonitatem ordinentur sicut in finem, eorum autem quae ad hunc finem ordinantur, quaedam aliis propinquiora sunt fini, quae plenius divinam bonitatem participant, consequens est ut ea quae sunt inferiora in rebus creatis, quae minus de bonitate divina participant, ordinentur quodammodo sicut in fines in entia superiora. In omni enim ordine finium, quae sunt propinquiora ultimo fini, sunt etiam fines eorum quae sunt magis remota: sicut potio medicinae est propter purgationem, purgatio autem propter maciem, macies autem propter sanitatem, et sic macies finis est quodammodo purgationis, sicut etiam potionis purgatio. Et hoc rationabiliter accidit. Sicut enim in ordine causarum agentium virtus primi agentis pervenit ad ultimos effectus per medias causas, ita in ordine finium, quae sunt magis remota a fine, pertingunt ad ultimum finem mediantibus his quae sunt magis propinqua fini: sicut potio non ordinatur ad sanitatem nisi per purgationem. Unde et in ordine universi inferiora consequuntur praecipue ultimum finem inquantum ordinantur ad superiora. All things are directed to the divine goodness as to their end, as we have shown. Among things ordained to this end, some are closer to the end than others, and so participate in the divine goodness most abundantly. Therefore lesser creatures, which have a smaller share in the divine goodness, are in some way subordinated to higher beings as to their ends. In any hierarchy of ends, beings that are closer to the ultimate end are also ends with respect to beings that are more remote. For instance, a dose of medicine is administered to procure a purge, the purge is designed to promote slimness, and slimness is desirable for health; and thus slimness is, in a sense, the purpose of the purging, as the purging is the purpose of the medicine. And such subordination is reasonable. As in the order of efficient causes, the power of the first agent reaches the ultimate effects through intermediate causes, so in the order of ends, whatever is farther removed from the end attains to the ultimate end through the intermediacy of beings that are closer to the end. Thus, in our example, the medicine has no relation to health except through purging. Similarly, in the order of the universe, lower beings realize their last end chiefly by their subordination to higher beings.
Hoc etiam manifeste apparet ipsum rerum ordinem consideranti. Cum enim ea quae naturaliter fiunt, sicut nata sunt agi, sic agantur, videmus autem imperfectiora cedere ad usum nobiliorum, utpote quod plantae nutriuntur ex terra, animalia ex plantis, haec autem ad usum hominis cedunt, consequens est ut inanimata sint propter animata, et plantae propter animalia, et haec propter hominem. Cum autem ostensum sit quod natura intellectualis sit superior corporali, consequens est ut tota natura corporalis ad intellectualem ordinetur. Inter naturas autem intellectuales, quae maxime corpori est vicina, est anima rationalis, quae est hominis forma. Igitur quodammodo propter hominem, inquantum est rationabile animal, tota natura corporalis esse videtur. Ex consummatione igitur hominis consummatio totius naturae corporalis quodammodo dependet. The same conclusion is manifest if we turn our attention to the order of things in itself. Things that come into being by a natural process, act as they are equipped by nature to act. As we observe, however, imperfect beings serve the needs of more noble beings; plants draw their nutriment from the earth, animals feed on plants, and these in turn serve man’s use. We conclude, then, that lifeless beings exist for living beings, plants for animals, and the latter for men. And since, as we have seen, intellectual nature is superior to material nature, the whole of material nature is subordinate to intellectual nature. But among intellectual natures, that which has the closest ties with the body is the rational soul, which is the form of man. In a certain sense, therefore, we may say that the whole of corporeal nature exists for man, inasmuch as he is a rational animal. And so the consummation of the whole of corporeal nature depends, to some extent, on man’s consummation.

Caput 149

Quis est ultimus finis hominis

Consummatio autem hominis est in adeptione ultimi finis, qui est perfecta beatitudo sive felicitas, quae consistit in divina visione, ut supra ostensum est. Visionem autem divinam consequitur immutabilitas intellectus et voluntatis. Intellectus quidem: quia cum perventum fuerit ad primam causam in qua omnia cognosci possunt, inquisitio intellectus cessat. Mobilitas autem voluntatis cessat, quia adepto fine ultimo, in quo est plenitudo totius bonitatis, nihil est quod desiderandum restet. Ex hoc autem voluntas mutatur quia desiderat aliquid quod nondum habet. Manifestum est igitur quod ultima consummatio hominis in perfecta quietatione vel immobilitate consistit et quantum ad intellectum, et quantum ad voluntatem Man’s consummation consists in the attainment of his last end, which is perfect beatitude or happiness, and this consists in the vision of God, as was demonstrated above. The beatific vision entails immutability in the intellect and will. As regards the intellect, its questing ceases when at last it comes to the first cause, in which all truth can be known. The will’s variability ceases, too; for, when it reaches its last end, in which is contained the fullness of all goodness, it finds nothing further to be desired. The will is subject to change because it craves what it does not possess. Clearly, therefore, the final consummation of man consists in perfect repose or unchangeableness as regards both intellect and will.

Caput 150

Quomodo homo ad aeternitatem pervenit ut ad consummationem

Ostensum est autem in praemissis, quod aeternitatis ratio ex immobilitate consequitur. Sicut enim ex motu causatur tempus, in quo prius et posterius invenitur, ita oportet quod remoto motu cesset prius et posterius, et sic aeternitatis ratio relinquitur, quae est tota simul. In ultima igitur sua consummatione homo aeternitatem vitae consequitur non solum quantum ad hoc quod immortaliter secundum animam vivat, quod habet anima rationalis ex sua natura, ut supra ostensum est, sed etiam ad hoc quod ad perfectam immobilitatem perducatur. We showed in an earlier chapter that the idea of eternity involves immutability. As motion causes time, in which priority and posteriority are discerned, so the cessation of motion puts a stop to priority and posteriority; and so nothing remains but eternity, which is simultaneously whole. Therefore in his final consummation man attains eternal life, not only in the sense that he lives an immortal life in his soul, for this is a property of the rational soul by its very nature, as was shown above, but also in the sense that he is brought to the perfection of immobility.

Caput 151

Quomodo ad perfectam beatitudinem animae rationalis oportet eam corpori reuniri

Considerandum est autem, quod non potest esse omnimoda immobilitas voluntatis, nisi naturale desiderium totaliter impleatur. Quaecumque autem nata sunt uniri secundum naturam suam, naturaliter sibi uniri appetunt: unumquodque enim appetit id quod est sibi conveniens secundum suam naturam. Cum igitur anima humana naturaliter corpori uniatur, ut supra ostensum est, naturale ei desiderium inest ad corporis unionem. Non poterit igitur esse perfecta quietatio voluntatis, nisi iterato anima corpori coniungatur: quod est hominem a morte resurgere. We should note that the disquiet of the will cannot be wholly overcome unless natural desire is completely satisfied. Elements that are by nature destined for union, naturally desire to be united to each other; for any being seeks what is suited to it by nature. Since, therefore, the natural condition of the human soul is to be united to the body, as was pointed out above, it has a natural desire for union with the body. Hence the will cannot be perfectly at rest until the soul is again joined to the body. When this takes place, man rises from the dead.
Item. Finalis perfectio requirit perfectionem primam. Prima autem perfectio uniuscuiusque rei est ut sit perfectum in sua natura, finalis vero perfectio consistit in consecutione ultimi finis. Ad hoc igitur quod anima humana omnimode perficiatur in fine, necesse est quod sit perfecta in sua natura: quod non potest esse nisi sit corpori unita. Natura enim animae est ut sit pars hominis ut forma. Nulla autem pars perfecta est in sua natura nisi sit in suo toto. Requiritur igitur ad ultimam hominis beatitudinem ut anima rursum corpori uniatur. Besides, final perfection requires possession of a being’s original perfection. But the first perfection of anything requires that it be perfect in its nature, and final perfection consists in attainment of the last end. In order, therefore, that the human soul may be brought to complete perfection with regard to its end, it must be perfect in its nature. This is impossible unless the soul is united to the body. For by nature the soul is a part of man as his form. But no part is perfect in its nature unless it exists in its whole. Therefore man’s final happiness requires the soul to be again united to the body.
Adhuc. Quod est per accidens et contra naturam, non potest esse sempiternum. Necesse est autem hoc quod est animam a corpore separatam esse, per accidens esse et contra naturam, si hoc per se et naturaliter inest animae ut corpori uniatur. Non igitur anima erit in perpetuum a corpore separata. Cum igitur eius substantia sit incorruptibilis, ut supra ostensum est, relinquitur quod sit iterato corpori unienda. Moreover, the accidental and all that is contrary to nature cannot be everlasting. But a state wherein the soul is separated from the body is surely per accidens and contrary to nature, if naturally and per se the soul has a longing for union with the body. Therefore the soul will not be forever separated from the body. Accordingly, since the soul’s substance is incorruptible, as was shown above, we conclude that the soul is to be reunited to the body.

Caput 152

Quomodo separatio animae a corpore sit secundum naturam, et quomodo contra naturam

Videtur autem animam a corpore separari non esse per accidens, sed secundum naturam. Corpus enim hominis ex contrariis compositum est. Omne autem huiusmodi naturaliter corruptibile est. Corpus igitur humanum est naturaliter corruptibile. Corrupto autem corpore est necesse animam separatam remanere, si anima immortalis est, ut supra ostensum est. Videtur igitur animam a corpore separari esse secundum naturam. We may have a suspicion that separation of the soul from the body is not per accidens but is in accord with nature. For man’s body is made up of contrary elements. Everything of this sort is naturally corruptible. Therefore the human body is naturally corruptible. But when the body corrupts the soul must survive as a separate entity if the soul is immortal, as in fact it is. Apparently, then, separation of the soul from the body is in accord with nature.
Considerandum est ergo quomodo sit secundum naturam, et quomodo contra naturam. Ostensum est enim supra quod anima rationalis praeter modum aliarum formarum excedit totius corporalis materiae facultatem, quod eius operatio intellectualis demonstrat, quam sine corpore habet. Ad hoc igitur quod materia corporalis convenienter ei aptata fuerit, necesse fuit quod aliqua dispositio corpori superadderetur, per quam fieret conveniens materia talis formae. Et sicut haec forma a solo Deo exit in esse per creationem, ita illa dispositio naturam corpoream excedens, a solo Deo corpori humano attributa fuit, quae videlicet ipsum corpus incorruptum conservaret, ut sic perpetuitati animae conveniret. Et haec quidem dispositio in corpore hominis mansit, quamdiu anima hominis Deo adhaesit. In view of these considerations, we must take up the question, how this separation is according to nature, and how it is opposed to nature. We showed above that the rational soul exceeds the capacity of all corporeal matter in a measure impossible to other forms. This is demonstrated by its intellectual activity, which it exercises without the body. To the end that corporeal matter might be fittingly adapted to the soul, there had to be added to the body some disposition that would make it suitable matter for such a form. And in the same way that this form itself receives existence from God alone through creation, that disposition, transcending as it does corporeal nature, was conferred on the human body by God alone, for the purpose of preserving the body itself in a state of incorruption, so that it might match the soul’s perpetual existence. This disposition remained in man’s body as long as man’s soul cleaved to God.
Aversa autem anima hominis per peccatum a Deo, convenienter et corpus humanum illam supernaturalem dispositionem perdidit per quam immobiliter animae subdebatur, et sic homo necessitatem moriendi incurrit. But when man’s soul turned from God by sin, the human body deservedly lost that supernatural disposition whereby it was unrebelliously subservient to the soul. And hence man incurred the necessity of dying.
Si igitur ad naturam corporis respiciatur, mors naturalis est; si vero ad naturam animae, et ad dispositionem quae propter animam supernaturaliter humano corpori a principio indita fuit, est per accidens et contra naturam, cum naturale sit animae corpori esse unitam. Accordingly, if we regard the nature of the body, death is natural. But if we regard the nature of the soul and the disposition with which the human body was supernaturally endowed in the beginning for the sake of the soul, death is per accidens and contrary to nature, inasmuch as union with the body is natural for the soul.

Caput 153

Quod anima omnino idem corpus resumet, et non alterius naturae

Cum autem anima corpori uniatur ut forma, unicuique autem formae propria materia respondeat, necesse est quod corpus cui iterato anima unietur sit eiusdem rationis et speciei cum corpore quod deponit per mortem. Non enim resumet anima in resurrectione corpus caeleste vel aereum, vel corpus alicuius alterius animalis, ut quidam fabulantur, sed corpus humanum ex carnibus et ossibus compositum, organicum eisdem organis ex quibus nunc consistit. Since the soul is united to the body as its form, and since each form has the right matter corresponding to it, the body to which the soul will be reunited must be of the same nature and species as was the body laid down by the soul at death. At the resurrection the soul will not resume a celestial or ethereal body, or the body of some animal, as certain people fancifully prattle [Origen, Peri Archon, III, 6]. No, it will resume a human body made up of flesh and bones, and equipped with the same organs it now possesses.
Rursus. Sicut eidem formae secundum speciem debetur eadem materia secundum speciem, ita eidem formae secundum numerum debetur eadem materia secundum numerum: sicut enim anima bovis non potest esse anima corporis equi, ita anima huius non potest esse anima alterius bovis. Oportet igitur quod cum eadem numero anima rationalis remaneat, quod corpori eidem numero in resurrectione rursus uniatur. Furthermore, just as the same specific form ought to have the same specific matter, so the same numerical form ought to have the same numerical matter. The soul of an ox cannot be the soul of a horse’s body, nor can the soul of this ox be the soul of any other ox. Therefore, since the rational soul, that survives remains numerically the same, at the resurrection it must be reunited to numerically the same body.

Caput 154

Quod resumet idem numero corpus sola Dei virtute

Ea vero quae secundum substantiam corrumpuntur, non reiterantur eadem numero secundum operationem naturae, sed solum secundum speciem: non enim eadem numero nubes est ex qua pluvia generatur, et quae iterum ex pluente aqua et rursus evaporante generatur. Cum igitur corpus humanum per mortem substantialiter corrumpatur, non potest operatione naturae idem numero reparari. Cum igitur hoc exigat resurrectionis ratio, ut ostensum est, consequens est quod resurrectio hominum non fiet per actionem naturae, ut quidam posuerunt, post multa annorum curricula redeuntibus corporibus ad eumdem situm, rursus eosdem numero homines redire, sed resurgentium reparatio sola virtute divina fiet. When substances corrupt, the survival of the species, but not the restoration of the individual, is effected by the action of nature. The cloud from which rain is produced and the cloud which is again formed by evaporation from the fallen rain water, are not numerically the same. Accordingly, since the human body substantially dissolves in death, it cannot be restored to numerical identity by the action of nature. But the concept of resurrection requires such identity, as we have just shown. Consequently the resurrection of man will not be brought about by the action of nature, as some philosophers [Empedocles] have held in their theory that, when all bodies return to the position formerly occupied after untold cycles of years, then also men will return to life in the same numerical identity. No, the restoration of all who rise will be effected solely by divine power.
Item. Manifestum est quod sensus privati restitui non possunt per operationem naturae, nec aliquid eorum quae solum per generationem accipiuntur, eo quod non sit possibile idem numero pluries generari. Si autem aliquid huiusmodi restituatur alicui, puta oculus erutus, aut manus abscissa, hoc erit virtute divina, quae supra naturae ordinem operatur, ut supra ostensum est. Cum igitur per mortem omnes hominis sensus et omnia membra depereant, impossibile est hominem mortuum rursus reparari ad vitam nisi operatione divina. Moreover, it is clear that senses once destroyed, and anything possessed as a result of generation, cannot be restored by the activity of nature, for the simple reason that the same numerical being cannot be generated several times. If any such perfection is restored to anyone, for example, an eye that has been torn out or a hand that has been cut off, it will be through divine power which operates beyond the order of nature, as we said above. Therefore, since all the senses and all the members of man corrupt in death, a dead man cannot be brought back to life except by divine action.
Ex hoc autem quod resurrectionem ponimus divina virtute futuram, de facili videri potest quomodo corpus idem numero reparetur. Cum enim supra ostensum sit quod omnia, etiam minima, sub divina providentia continentur, manifestum est quod materia huius humani corporis, quamcumque formam post mortem hominis accipiat, non effugit neque virtutem neque cognitionem divinam: quae quidem materia eadem numero manet, inquantum intelligitur sub dimensionibus existens, secundum quas haec materia dici potest, et est individuationis principium. Hac igitur materia eadem manente, et ex ea virtute divina corpore reparato humano, nec non et anima rationali, quae cum sit incorruptibilis, eadem manet eidem corpori unita, consequens fit ut homo idem numero reparetur. The fact that, as we hold, the resurrection will be effected by divine power, enables us to perceive readily how the same numerical body will be revived. Since all things, even the very least, are included under divine providence, as we showed above, the matter composing this human body of ours, whatever form it may take after man’s death, evidently does not elude the power or the knowledge of God. Such matter remains numerically the same, in the sense that it exists under quantitative dimensions, by reason of which it can be said to be this particular matter, and is the principle of individuation. If then, this matter remains the same, and if the human body is again fashioned from it by divine power, and if also the rational soul which remains the same in its incorruptibility is united to the same body, the result is that identically the same man is restored to life.
Nec potest identitas secundum numerum impediri, ut quidam obiiciunt, per hoc quod non sit humanitas eadem numero. Nam humanitas, quae dicitur forma totius, secundum quosdam nihil est aliud quam forma partis, quae est anima, quae quidem dicitur forma corporis secundum quod dat speciem toti. Quod si verum est, manifestum est humanitatem eandem numero remanere, cum anima rationalis eadem numero maneat. Numerical identity cannot be impeded, as some object, by the consideration that the humanity is not numerically the same as before. In the view of some philosophers, humanity, which is said to be the form of the whole, is nothing else than the form of a part, namely, the soul, and they admit that humanity is the form of the body also, in the sense that it confers species on the whole.”“” If this is true, evidently the humanity remains numerically the same, since the rational soul remains numerically the same.
Sed quia humanitas est quam significat definitio hominis, sicut et essentia cuiuslibet rei est quam significat sua definitio, definitio autem hominis non solum significat formam, sed etiam materiam, cum in definitione rerum materialium necesse sit materiam poni, convenientius secundum alios dicitur, quod in ratione humanitatis et anima et corpus includatur, aliter tamen quam in definitione hominis. Nam in ratione humanitatis includuntur essentialia principia hominis sola cum praecisione aliorum. Cum enim humanitas dicatur qua homo est homo, manifestum est quod omnia de quibus non est verum dicere de eis quod homo sit homo, ab humanitate praeciduntur. Cum vero homo dicatur qui humanitatem habet, per hoc vero quod humanitatem habet, non excluditur quin alia habeat, puta albedinem, aut aliquid huiusmodi, hoc nomen homo significat sua essentialia principia, non tamen cum praecisione aliorum, licet alia non includantur actu in eius ratione, sed potentia tantum: unde homo significat per modum totius, humanitas vero per modum partis, nec de homine praedicatur. In Socrate vero aut Platone includitur haec materia et haec forma, ut sicut est ratio hominis ex hoc quod componitur ex anima et corpore, ita si Socrates definiretur, ratio eius esset quod esset compositus ex iis carnibus et iis ossibus et hac anima. Cum igitur humanitas non sit aliqua alia forma praeter animam et corpus, sed sit aliquid compositum ex utroque, manifestum est quod eodem corpore reparato, et eadem anima remanente, eadem numero humanitas erit. Humanity, however, is that which is signified by the definition of man, as the essence of anything whatever is that which is signified by its definition. But the definition of man signifies not form alone but also matter, since matter must be comprised in the definition of material things. Hence we shall do better to say, with others, that both soul and body are included in the notion of humanity, although otherwise than in the definition of man. The notion of humanity embraces only the essential principles of man, prescinding from all other factors. For, since humanity is understood to be that whereby man is man, whatever cannot truly be said to constitute man as man, is evidently cut off from the notion of humanity. But when we speak of man, who has humanity, the fact that he has humanity does not exclude the possession of other attributes, for instance, whiteness, and the like. The term “man” signifies man’s essential principles, but not to the exclusion of other factors, even though these other factors are not actually, but only potentially, contained in the notion of man. Hence “man” signifies as a whole, per modum totius, whereas “humanity” signifies as a part, per modum partis, and is not predicated of man. In Socrates, then, or in Plato, this determinate matter and this particular form are included. just as the notion of man implies composition of matter and form, so if Socrates were to be defined, the notion of him would imply that he is composed of this flesh and these bones and this soul. Consequently, since humanity is not some third form in addition to soul and body, but is composed of both, we see clearly that, if the same body is restored and if the same soul remains, the humanity will be numerically the same.
Neque etiam praedicta identitas secundum numerum impeditur ex hoc quod corporeitas non redeat eadem numero, cum corrupto corpore corrumpatur. Nam si per corporeitatem intelligatur forma substantialis, per quam aliquid in genere substantiae corporeae ordinatur, cum non sit unius nisi una forma substantialis, talis corporeitas non est aliud quam anima. Nam hoc animal per hanc animam non solum est animal, sed animatum corpus, et corpus, et etiam hoc aliquid in genere substantiae existens: alioquin anima adveniret corpori existenti in actu, et sic esset forma accidentalis. Subiectum enim substantialis formae non est actu hoc aliquid, sed potentia tantum: unde cum accipit formam substantialem, non dicitur tantum generari secundum quid hoc aut illud, sicut dicitur in formis accidentalibus, sed dicitur simpliciter generari, quasi simpliciter esse accipiens, et sic corporeitas accepta eadem numero manet, rationali anima eadem existente. The numerical identity in question is not frustrated on the ground that the corporeity recovered is not numerically the same, for the reason that it corrupts when the body corrupts. If by corporeity is meant the substantial form by which a thing is classified in the genus of corporeal substance, such corporeity is nothing else than the soul, seeing that there is but one substantial form for each thing. In virtue of this particular soul, this animal is not only animal, but is animated body, and body, and also this thing existing in the genus of substance. Otherwise the soul would come to a body already existing in act, and so would be an accidental form. The subject of a substantial form is something existing only in potency, not in act. When it receives the substantial form it is not said to be generated merely in this or that respect, as is the case with accidental forms, but is said to be generated simply, as simply receiving existence. And therefore the corporeity that is received remains numerically the same, since the same rational soul continues to exist.
Si vero corporeitatis nomine forma quaedam intelligatur, a qua denominatur corpus, quod ponitur in genere quantitatis, sic est quaedam forma accidentalis, cum nihil aliud significet quam trinam dimensionem. Unde licet non eadem numero redeat, identitas subiecti non impeditur, ad quam sufficit unitas essentialium principiorum. Eadem ratio est de omnibus accidentibus, quorum diversitas identitatem secundum numerum non tollit. Unde cum unio sit quaedam relatio, ac per hoc sit accidens, eius diversitas secundum numerum non tollit identitatem subiecti. Similiter nec diversitas potentiarum secundum numerum animae sensitivae et vegetativae, si tamen corrumpi ponantur: sunt enim in genere accidentis potentiae naturales coniuncti existentes, nec a sensu sumitur sensibile secundum quod est differentia constitutiva animalis, sed ab ipsa substantia animae sensitivae, quae in homine est eadem secundum substantiam cum rationali. If, however, the word “corporeity” is taken to mean a form designating body (corpus), which is placed in the genus of quantity, such a form is accidental, since it signifies nothing else than three-dimensional existence. Even though the same numerical form, thus understood, is not recovered, the identity of the subject is not thereby impeded, for unity of the essential principles suffices for this. The same reasoning holds for all the accidents, the diversity among which does not destroy numerical identity. Consequently, since union is a kind of relation, and therefore an accident, its numerical diversity does not prevent the numerical identity of the subject; nor, for that matter, does numerical diversity among the powers of the sensitive and vegetative soul, if they are supposed to have corrupted. For the natural powers existing in the human composite are in the genus of accident; and what we call “sensible” is derived, not from the senses according as sense is the specific difference constituting animal, but from the very substance of the sensitive soul, which in man is essentially identical with the rational soul.

Caput 155

Quod non resurgemus ad eundem modum vivendi

Quamvis autem homines iidem numero resurgent, non tamen eundem modum vivendi habebunt. Nunc enim corruptibilem vitam habent, tunc vero incorruptibilem. Si enim natura in generatione hominis perpetuum esse intendit, multo magis Deus in hominis reparatione. Quod enim natura perpetuum esse intendat, habet ex hoc quod a Deo movetur. Non autem in reparatione hominis resurgentis attenditur perpetuum esse speciei, quia hoc per continuam generationem poterat obtineri. Relinquitur igitur quod intendatur perpetuum esse individui. Homines igitur resurgentes in perpetuum vivent. Although men will rise as the same individuals, they will not have the same kind of life as before. Now their life is corruptible; then it will be incorruptible. If nature aims at. perpetual existence in the generation of man, much more so does God in the restoration of man. Nature’s tendency toward never-ending existence comes from an impulse implanted by God. The perpetual existence of the species is not in question in the restoration of risen man, for this could be procured by repeated generation. Therefore what is intended is the perpetual existence of the individual. Accordingly risen men will live forever.
Praeterea. Si homines resurgentes moriantur, animae a corporibus separatae non in perpetuum absque corpore remanebunt: hoc enim est contra naturam animae, ut supra dictum est. Oportebit igitur ut iterato resurgant, et hoc idem continget, si post secundam resurrectionem iterum moriantur. Sic igitur in infinitum mors et vita circulariter circa eundem hominem reiterabuntur, quod videtur esse vanum. Convenientius est igitur ut stetur in primo, scilicet ut in prima resurrectione homines immortales resurgant. Besides, if men once risen were to die, the souls separated from their bodies would not remain forever deprived of the body, for this would be against the nature of the soul, as we said above. Therefore they would have to rise again; and the same thing would happen if they were to die again after the second resurrection. Thus death and life would revolve around each man in cycles of infinite succession; which seems futile. Surely a halt is better called at the initial stage, so that men might rise to immortal life at the first resurrection.
Nec tamen mortalitatis ablatio diversitatem vel secundum speciem vel secundum numerum inducet. Mortale enim secundum propriam rationem differentia specifica hominis esse non potest, cum passionem quamdam designet, sed ponitur loco differentiae hominis, ut per hoc quod dicitur mortale, designetur natura hominis, quod scilicet est ex contrariis compositus, sicut per hoc quod dicitur rationale, designatur propria forma eius: res enim materiales non possunt sine materia definiri. Non autem aufertur mortalitas per ablationem propriae materiae: non enim resumet anima corpus caeleste vel aereum, ut supra habitum est, sed corpus humanum ex contrariis compositum. Incorruptibilitas tamen adveniet ex virtute divina, per quam anima supra corpus usque ad hoc dominabitur quod corrumpi non possit. Tandiu enim res conservatur in esse, quandiu forma supra materiam dominatur. However, the conquest of mortality will not induce any diversity either in species or in number. The idea of mortality contains nothing that could make it a specific difference of man, since it signifies no more than a passion. It is used to serve as a specific difference of man in the sense that the nature of man is designated by calling him mortal, to bring out the fact that he is composed of contrary elements, just as his proper form is designated by the predicate “rational”; material things cannot be defined without including matter. However, mortality is not overcome by taking away man’s proper matter. For the soul will not resume a celestial or ethereal body, as was mentioned above; it will resume a human body made up of contrary elements. Incorruptibility will come as an effect of divine power, whereby the soul will gain dominion over the body to the point that the body cannot corrupt. For a thing continues in being as long as form has dominion over matter.

Caput 156

Quod post resurrectionem usus cibi et generationis cessabunt

Quia vero subtracto fine removeri oportet ea quae sunt ad finem, oportet quod remota mortalitate a resurgentibus, etiam ea subtrahantur quae ad statum vitae mortalis ordinantur. Huiusmodi autem sunt cibi et potus, qui ad hoc sunt necessarii ut mortalis vita sustentetur, dum id quod per calorem naturalem resolvitur, per cibos restauratur. Non igitur post resurrectionem erit usus cibi vel potus. When an end is removed, the means leading to that end must also be removed. Therefore, after mortality is done away with in those who have risen, the means serving the condition of mortal life must cease to have any function. Such are food and drink, ‘which are necessary for the sustenance of mortal life, during which what is dissolved by natural heat has to be restored by food. Consequently there will be no consumption of food or drink after the resurrection.
Similiter etiam nec vestimentorum: cum vestimenta ad hoc homini necessaria sint ne corpus ab exterioribus corrumpatur per calorem vel frigus. Similiter etiam necesse est venereorum usum cessare, cum ad generationem animalium ordinetur: generatio autem mortali vitae deservit, ut quod secundum individuum conservari non potest, conservetur saltem in specie. Cum igitur homines iidem numero in perpetuum conservabuntur, generatio in eis locum non habebit, unde nec venereorum usus. Nor will there be any need of clothing. Clothes are necessary for man so that the body may not suffer harm from heat or cold, which beset him from outside. Likewise, exercise of the reproductive functions, which is designed for the generation of animals, must cease. Generation serves the ends of mortal life, so that what cannot be preserved in the individual may be preserved at least in the species. Since the same individual men will continue in eternal existence, generation will have no place among them; nor, consequently, will the exercise of reproductive power.
Rursus. Cum semen sit superfluum alimenti, cessante usu ciborum necesse est etiam ut venereorum usus cesset. Non autem potest convenienter dici, quod propter solam delectationem remaneat usus cibi et potus et venereorum. Nihil enim inordinatum in illo finali statu erit, quia tunc omnia suo modo perfectam consummationem accipient. Inordinatio autem perfectioni opponitur. Et cum reparatio hominum per resurrectionem sit immediate a Deo, non poterit in illo statu aliqua inordinatio esse: quia quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt, ut dicitur Roman. XIII, I. Est autem hoc inordinatum ut usus cibi et venereorum propter solam delectationem quaeratur, unde et nunc apud homines vitiosum reputatur. Non igitur propter solam delectationem in resurgentibus usus cibi et potus et venereorum esse poterit. Again, since semen is the superfluous part of nourishment, cessation of the use of food necessarily entails cessation of the exercise of the reproductive functions. On the other hand, we cannot maintain with propriety that the use of food, drink, and the reproductive powers will remain solely for the sake of pleasure. Nothing inordinate will occur in that final state, because then all things will receive their perfect consummation, each in its own way. But de-ordination is opposed to perfection. Also, since the restoration of man through resurrection will be effected directly by God, no de-ordination will be able to find its way into that state; whatever is from God is well ordered. But desire for the use of food and the exercise of the reproductive powers for pleasure alone, would be inordinate; indeed, even during our present life people regard such conduct as vicious. Among the risen, consequently, the use of food, drink, and the reproductive functions for mere pleasure, can have no place.

Caput 157

Quod tamen omnia membra resurgent

Quamvis autem usus talium resurgentibus desit, non tamen eis deerunt membra ad usus tales, quia sine iis corpus resurgentis integrum non esset. Conveniens est autem ut in reparatione hominis resurgentis, quae erit immediate a Deo, cuius perfecta sunt opera, natura integre reparetur. Erunt ergo huiusmodi membra in resurgentibus propter integritatem naturae conservandam, et non propter actus quibus deputantur. Although risen men will not occupy themselves with activities of this sort, they will not lack the organs requisite for such functions. Without the organs in question the risen body would not be complete. But it is fitting that nature should be completely restored at the renovation of risen man, for such renovation will be accomplished directly by God, whose works are perfect. Therefore all the members of the body will have their place in the risen, for the preservation of nature in its entirety rather than for the exercise of their normal functions.
Item. Si in illo statu homines pro actibus quos nunc agunt, poenam vel praemium consequuntur, ut postea manifestabitur, conveniens est ut eadem membra homines habeant quibus peccato vel iustitiae deservierunt in hac vita, ut in quibus peccaverunt vel meruerunt, puniantur vel praemientur. Moreover, as we shall bring out later, men will receive punishment or reward in that future state for the acts they perform now. This being the case, it is no more than right that men should keep the organs with which they served the reign of sin or of justice during the present life, so that they may be punished or rewarded in the members they employed for sin or for merit.

Caput 158

Quod non resurgent cum aliquo defectu

Similiter autem conveniens est ut omnes naturales defectus a corporibus resurgentium auferantur. Per omnes enim huiusmodi defectus integritati naturae derogatur. Si igitur conveniens est ut in resurrectione natura humana integraliter reparetur a Deo, consequens est ut etiam huiusmodi defectus tollantur. In like manner, it is fitting that all natural defects should be corrected in the risen body. Any defect of this sort is prejudicial to the integrity of nature. And so, if human nature is to be completely renewed by God at the resurrection, such defects must be rectified.
Praeterea. Huiusmodi defectus ex defectu virtutis naturalis, quae fuit generationis humanae principium, provenerunt. In resurrectione autem non erit virtus agens nisi divina, in quam defectus non cadit. Non igitur huiusmodi defectus, qui sunt in hominibus generatis, erunt in hominibus per resurrectionem reparatis. Besides, these defects arose from a deficiency in the natural power which is the principle of human generation. But in the resurrection there will be no active causality other than the divine, which does not admit of deficiency. Therefore such defects as are found in men naturally begotten, will have no place in men restored by the resurrection.

Caput 159

Quod resurgent solum quae sunt de veritate naturae

Quod autem est dictum de integritate resurgentium, referri oportet ad id quod est de veritate humanae naturae. Quod enim de veritate humanae naturae non est, in resurgentibus non resumetur, alioquin oporteret immoderatam esse magnitudinem resurgentium, si quidquid ex cibis in carnem et sanguinem est conversum, in resurgentibus resumetur. Veritas autem uniuscuiusque naturae secundum suam speciem et formam attenditur. Partes igitur hominis quae secundum speciem et formam attenduntur, omnes integraliter in resurgentibus erunt, non solum partes organicae, sed etiam partes consimiles, ut caro, nervus et huiusmodi, ex quibus membra organica componuntur. These remarks about the integrity of risen men should be understood as referring to whatever pertains to the true state of human nature. What is not required for the reality of human nature, will not be resumed by risen man. Thus, if all the accretion of matter from the food that has been changed into flesh and blood were to be resumed, the size of risen man would exceed all bounds. The proper condition of any nature is regulated by its species and form. Accordingly all the parts that are consonant with the human species and form will be integrally present in risen man: not only organic parts, but other parts of like nature, such as flesh and sinews, which enter into the composition of the various organs. Of course, not all the matter that was ever contained in those parts during man’s natural life will again be taken up, but only so much as will be enough to constitute the species of the parts in integrity.
Non autem totum quidquid naturaliter fuit sub iis partibus, resumetur, sed quantum sufficiens erit ad speciem partium integrandam. Nec tamen propter hoc homo idem numero aut integer non erit, si totum quidquid in eo materialiter fuit, non resurget. Manifestum est enim in statu huius vitae quod a principio usque ad finem homo idem numero manet. Id tamen quod materialiter in eo est sub specie partium, non idem manet, sed paulatim fluit et refluit, ac si idem ignis conservaretur consumptis et appositis lignis, et est integer homo, quando species et quantitas speciei debita conservatur. Even though not all the material elements ever possessed by man will arise, we cannot say on this account that man will not be the same individual, or that he will not be complete. During the course of the present life, man evidently remains numerically the same from birth to death. Nevertheless the material composition of his parts does not remain the same, but undergoes gradual flux and reflux, in somewhat the way that the same fire is kept up although some logs are consumed and others are fed to the blaze. Man is whole when his species and the quantity due to his species are preserved intact.

Caput 160

Quod Deus omnia supplebit in corpore reformato, aut quidquid deficiet de materia

Sicut autem non totum quod materialiter fuit in corpore hominis, ad reparationem corporis resurgentis Deus resumet, ita etiam si quid materialiter defuit, Deus supplebit. Si enim hoc officio naturae fieri potest ut puero qui non habet debitam quantitatem, ex aliena materia per assumptionem cibi et potus tantum addatur quod ei sufficiat ad perfectam quantitatem habendam, nec propter hoc desinit esse idem numero qui fuit, multo magis hoc virtute divina fieri potest ut suppleatur minus habentibus de extrinseca materia, quod eis in hac vita defuit ad integritatem membrorum naturalium, vel debitae quantitatis. Sic igitur licet aliqui in hac vita aliquibus membris caruerint, vel perfectam quantitatem nondum attigerint, in quantacumque quantitate defuncti, virtute divina in resurrectione perfectionem debitam consequentur et membrorum et quantitatis. For the same reason that God, in restoring the risen body, does not reclaim all the material elements once possessed by man’s body, He will supply whatever is wanting to the proper amount of matter. Nature itself has such power. In infancy we do not as yet possess our full quantity; but by assimilating food and drink we receive enough matter from outside sources to round out our perfect quantity; nor on this account does a man cease to be the same individual he was before. Surely, then, divine power can do the same thing much more easily, so that those who do not have sufficient quantity may be supplied from outside matter with whatever was lacking to them in this life as regards integrity of natural members or suitable size. Consequently, although some may have lacked certain of their members during this life, or may not have attained to perfect size, the amount of quantity possessed at the moment of death makes no difference; at the resurrection they will receive, through God’s power, the due complement of members and quantity.

Caput 161

Solutio ad quaedam quae obiici possunt

Ex hoc autem solvi potest quod quidam contra resurrectionem hanc obiiciunt. Dicunt enim possibile esse quod aliquis homo carnibus humanis vescatur, et ulterius sic nutritus filium generet, qui simili cibo utatur. Si igitur nutrimentum convertitur in substantiam carnis, videtur quod sit impossibile integraliter utrumque resurgere, cum carnes unius conversae sint in carnes alterius: et quod difficilius videtur, si semen est ex nutrimenti superfluo, ut philosophi tradunt, sequitur quod semen unde natus est filius, sit sumptum ex carnibus alterius, et ita impossibile videtur puerum ex tali semine genitum resurgere, si homines quorum carnes pater ipsius et ipse comederant, integraliter resurgunt. This enables us to answer the objections that some raise against the resurrection. For instance, they say that a cannibal may have eaten human flesh, and later, thus nourished, may beget a son, who eats the same kind of food. If what is eaten is changed into the substance of the eater’s flesh, it seems impossible for both to rise in their full integrity, for the flesh of one has been changed into the flesh of the other. The difficulty apparently grows if semen is the product of surplus food, as the philosophers teach [Aristotle, De generatione animalium, I, 18, 726 a 26; for the semen whereby the son is begotten would then be derived from the flesh of another person. And so it seems impossible for a boy begotten from such seed to rise, if the men whose flesh the father and the son himself devoured rise intact.
Sed haec communi resurrectioni non repugnat. Dictum est enim supra quod non est necessarium quidquid materialiter fuit in aliquo homine, in ipso resurgente resumi, sed tantum quantum sufficit ad modum debitae quantitatis servandum. Dictum est etiam quod si alicui aliquid defuit de materia ad quantitatem perfectam, supplebitur divina virtute. But this state of affairs is not incompatible with a general resurrection. As was pointed out above, not all the material elements ever present in any man need be resumed when he rises; only so much matter is required as suffices to keep up the amount of quantity he ought to have. We also pointed out that if anyone is lacking in the matter required for perfect quantity, divine power will supply what is needed.
Considerandum est insuper, quod aliquid materialiter in corpore hominis existens secundum diversos gradus ad veritatem naturae humanae invenitur pertinere. Nam primo et principaliter quod a parentibus sumitur, sub veritate humanae speciei tanquam purissimum perficitur ex virtute formativa; secundario autem quod ex cibis generatum est, necessarium est ad debitam quantitatem membrorum, quia semper admixtio extranei debilitat virtutem rei, unde et finaliter necesse est augmentum deficere, et corpus senescere et dissolvi, sicut et vinum per admixtionem aquae tandem redditur aquosum. We should note, moreover, that the material elements existing in man’s body are found to pertain to true human nature in various degrees. First and foremost, what is received from one’s parents, is brought to perfection within the reality of the human species, as its purest element ‘ by the parents’ formative causality. Secondly, what is contributed by food, is necessary for the proper quantity of the body’s members and lastly, since the introduction of a foreign substance always weakens a thing’s energy, growth must eventually cease and the body must become old and decay, just as wine eventually becomes watery if water is mixed in with it.
Ulterius autem ex cibis aliquae superfluitates in corpore hominis generantur, quarum quaedam sunt necessariae ad aliquem usum, ut semen ad generationem, et capilli ad tegumentum et ornatum; quaedam vero omnino ad nihil, ut quae expelluntur per sudorem et varias egestiones, vel interius retinentur in gravamen naturae. Furthermore, certain superfluities are engendered in man’s body from food. Some of these are required for special purposes, for instance, semen for reproduction and hair for covering and adornment. But other superfluities serve no useful end, and these are expelled through perspiration and other eliminating processes, or else are retained in the body, not without inconvenience to nature.
Hoc igitur in communi resurrectione secundum divinam providentiam attendetur, quod si idem numero materialiter in diversis hominibus fuit, in illo resurget in quo principaliorem gradum obtinuit. Si autem in duobus extitit secundum unum et eundem modum, resurget in eo in quo primo fuit, in alio vero supplebitur ex divina virtute. Et sic patet quod carnes hominis comestae ab aliquo, non resurgent in comedente, sed in eo cuius prius fuerunt, resurgent tamen in eo qui ex tali semine generatus est, quantum ad id quod in eis fuit de humido nutrimentali; aliud vero resurget in primo, Deo unicuique supplente quod deest. At the general resurrection all this will be adjusted in accord with divine providence. If the same matter existed in different men, it will rise in that one in whom it fulfilled the higher function. If it existed in two men in exactly the same way, it will rise in him who had it first; in the other, the lack will be made up by divine power. And so we can see that the flesh of a man that was devoured by another, will rise not in the cannibal, but in him to whom it belonged originally. But as regards the nutritive fluid present in it, it will rise in the son begotten of semen formed from that flesh. The rest of it will rise in the first man in this series, and God will supply what is wanting to each of the three.

Caput 162

Quod resurrectio mortuorum in articulis fidei exprimitur

Ad hanc igitur fidem resurrectionis confitendam, in symbolo apostolorum positum est: carnis resurrectionem. Nec sine ratione additum est, carnis: quia fuerunt quidam etiam tempore apostolorum, qui carnis resurrectionem negabant, solam spiritualem resurrectionem confitentes, per quam homo a morte peccati resurget: unde apostolus, II ad Timoth. II, dicit de quibusdam, qui a veritate exciderunt, dicentes resurrectionem iam factam, et subverterunt quorumdam fidem, ad quorum removendum errorem, ut resurrectio futura crederetur, dicitur in symbolo patrum: exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. That we may give expression to our faith in the resurrection, we are instructed to say in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe... in the resurrection of the body.” The word “body” was inserted not without reason: even in the age of the Apostles there were some who denied the resurrection of the body, and admitted no more than a spiritual resurrection, whereby a man rises from the death of sin. Therefore the Apostle, in 2 Timothy 2:18, has occasion to refer to certain individuals: “Who have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some.” To abolish this error, so that belief in the future resurrection may be professed, the Creed of the Fathers proclaims: “I look for the resurrection of the dead.”

Caput 163

Qualis erit resurgentium operatio

Oportet autem considerare ulterius qualis sit operatio resurgentium. Necesse enim est cuiuslibet viventis esse aliquam operationem cui principaliter intendit, et in hoc dicitur vita eius consistere: sicut qui voluptatibus principaliter vacant, dicuntur vitam voluptuosam agere; qui vero contemplationi, contemplativam; qui vero civitatibus gubernandis, civilem. Ostensum est autem quod resurgentibus neque ciborum neque venereorum aderit usus, ad quem omnia corporalia exercitia ordinari videntur. Subtractis autem corporalibus exercitiis remanent spirituales operationes, in quibus ultimum hominis finem consistere diximus: quem quidem finem adipisci resurgentibus competit a statu corruptionis et mutabilitatis liberatis, ut ostensum est. Non autem in quibuscumque spiritualibus actibus ultimus finis hominis consistit, sed in hoc quod Deus per essentiam videatur, ut supra ostensum est. Deus autem aeternus est: unde oportet quod intellectus aeternitati coniungatur. Sicut igitur qui voluptati vacant, voluptuosam vitam agere dicuntur, ita qui divina potiuntur visione, aeternam obtinent vitam, secundum illud Ioan. XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. We go on to consider the nature of the activity exercised by risen men. Each living being must have some activity that mainly engrosses its attention, and its life is said to consist in this occupation. Thus those who cultivate pleasure more than anything else, are said to lead a voluptuous life; those who give their time to contemplation, are said to lead a contemplative life; and those who devote their energies to civil government, are said to lead a political life. We have shown that risen men will have no occasion to use food or the reproductive functions, although all bodily activity seems to tend in the direction of such use. But, even if the exercise of bodily functions ceases, there remain spiritual activities, in which man’s ultimate end consists, as we have said; and the risen are in a position to achieve this end once they are freed from their former condition of corruption and changeableness. Of course, man’s last end consists, not in spiritual acts of any sort whatever, but in the vision of God according to His essence, as was stated above. And God is eternal; hence the intellect must be in contact with eternity. Accordingly, just as those who give their time to pleasure are said to lead a voluptuous life, so those who enjoy the vision of God possess eternal life, as is indicated in John 17:3: “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.”

Caput 164

Quod Deus per essentiam videbitur, non per similitudinem

Videbitur autem Deus per essentiam ab intellectu creato, non per aliquam sui similitudinem, qua in intellectu praesente, res intellecta possit distare, sicut lapis per similitudinem suam praesens est oculo, per substantiam vero absens, sed, sicut supra ostensum est, ipsa Dei essentia intellectui creato coniungitur quodammodo, ut Deus per essentiam videri possit. Sicut igitur in ultimo fine videbitur quod prius de Deo credebatur, ita quod sperabatur ut distans tenebitur ut praesens, et hoc comprehensio nominatur, secundum illud apostoli Philip. III, v. 12: sequor autem, si quo modo comprehendam: quod non est intelligendum secundum quod comprehensio inclusionem importat, sed secundum quod importat praesentialitatem et tentionem quandam eius quod dicitur comprehendi. The created intellect will see God in His essence, and not in any mere likeness. In the latter kind of vision, the object understood may be at a distance from the present intellect; for example, a stone is present to the eye by its likeness, but is absent in substance. But, as was shown above, God’s very essence is in some mysterious way united to the created intellect, so that God may be seen just as He is. Thus, when we arrive at our last end, what was formerly believed about God will be seen, and what was hoped for as absent will be closely embraced as present. This is called comprehension, according to the expression used by the Apostle in Philippians 3:12: “I press on, that I may grasp it.” This is not to be understood in the sense that comprehension implies all-inclusive knowledge, but in the sense that it denotes the presence and a certain clasping of what is said to be comprehended.

Caput 165

Quod videre Deum est summa perfectio et delectatio

Rursus considerandum est, quod ex apprehensione convenientis, delectatio generatur, sicut visus delectatur in pulchris coloribus, et gustus in suavibus saporibus. Sed haec quidem delectatio sensuum potest impediri propter organi indispositionem: nam oculis aegris odiosa est lux, quae puris est amabilis. Sed quia intellectus non intelligit per organum corporale, ut supra ostensum est, delectationi quae est in consideratione veritatis, nulla tristitia contrariatur. Potest tamen per accidens ex consideratione intellectus tristitia sequi, inquantum id quod intelligitur, apprehenditur ut nocivum, ut sic delectatio quidem adsit intellectui de cognitione veritatis, tristitia autem in voluntate sequatur de re quae cognoscitur, non inquantum cognoscitur, sed inquantum suo actu nocet. Deus autem hoc ipsum quod est, veritas est. Non potest igitur intellectus Deum videns, in eius visione non delectari. We should further understand that delight is engendered by the apprehension of a suitable good. Thus sight rejoices in beautiful colors, and taste in sweet savors. But this delight of the senses can be prevented if the organ is indisposed; the same light that is charming to healthy eyes is annoying to sore eyes. However, since the intellect does not understand by employing a bodily organ, as we showed above, no sorrow mars the delight that consists in the contemplation of truth. Of course, sadness can indirectly attend the mind’s contemplation, when the object of truth is apprehended as harmful. Thus knowledge of truth may cause pleasure in ‘the intellect, while at the same time the object known may engender sorrow in the will, not precisely because the object is known, but because its action is pernicious. God, however, by the very fact that He exists, is truth. Therefore the intellect that sees God cannot but rejoice in the vision of Him.
Iterum. Deus est ipsa bonitas, quae est ratio dilectionis, unde necesse est ipsam diligi ab omnibus apprehendentibus ipsam. Licet enim aliquid quod bonum est, possit non diligi, vel etiam odio haberi, hoc non est inquantum apprehenditur ut bonum, sed inquantum apprehenditur ut nocivum. In visione igitur Dei, qui est ipsa bonitas et veritas, oportet sicut comprehensionem, ita dilectionem, seu delectabilem fruitionem adesse, secundum illud Isaiae ult., 14: videbitis, et gaudebit cor vestrum. Besides, God is goodness itself, and goodness is the cause of love. Hence God’s goodness must necessarily be loved by all who apprehend it. Although an object that is good may fail to call forth love, or may even be hated, the reason is not that it is apprehended as good, but that it is apprehended as harmful. Consequently in the vision of God, who is goodness and truth itself, there must be love or joyous fruition, no less than comprehension. This accords with Isaiah 66:14: “You shall see and your heart shall rejoice.”

Caput 166

Quod omnia videntia Deum confirmata sunt in bono

Ex hoc autem apparet quod anima videns Deum vel quaecumque alia spiritualis creatura habet voluntatem confirmatam in ipso, ut ad contrarium de cetero non flectatur. Cum enim obiectum voluntatis sit bonum, impossibile est voluntatem inclinari in aliquid nisi sub aliqua ratione boni. Possibile est autem in quocumque particulari bono aliquid deficere, quod ipsi cognoscenti relinquitur in alio quaerendum. Unde non oportet voluntatem videntis quodcumque bonum particulare in illo solo consistere, ut extra eius ordinem non divertat. Sed in Deo, qui est bonum universale et ipsa bonitas, nihil boni deest quod alibi quaeri possit, ut supra ostensum est. Quicumque igitur Dei essentiam videt, non potest voluntatem ab eo divertere, quin in omnia secundum rationem ipsius tendat. This enables us to understand that the soul which sees God—and the same is true of any other spiritual creature—has its will firmly fixed in Him, so that it can never turn to what is opposed to Him. For, since the object of the will is the good, the will cannot incline to anything whatever unless it exhibits some aspect of good. Any particular good may be wanting in some perfection, which the knower is then free to seek in another quarter. Therefore the will of him who beholds some particular good need not rest content with its possession, but may search farther afield beyond its orbit. But God, who is universal good and very goodness itself, is not lacking in any good that may be sought elsewhere, as was shown above. And so those who enjoy the vision of God’s essence cannot turn their will from Him, but must rather desire all things in subordination to Him.
Est etiam hoc videre per simile in intelligibilibus. Intellectus enim noster potest dubitando hac atque illac divertere, quousque ad primum principium perveniatur, in quo necesse est intellectum firmari. Quia igitur finis in appetibilibus est sicut principium in intelligibilibus, potest quidem voluntas ad contraria flecti quousque ad cognitionem vel fruitionem ultimi finis veniatur, in qua necesse est ipsam firmari. Esset etiam contra rationem perfectae felicitatis, si homo in contrarium converti posset: non enim totaliter excluderetur timor de amittendo, et sic non esset totaliter desiderium quietatum: unde Apocalypsis III, 12, dicitur de beato: foras non egredietur amplius. Something similar is observed in the process of understanding. Our mind, when in doubt, can turn this way and that, until it reaches a first principle; then the intellect must come to a halt. Since the end has the same function in the field of desire that a principle has in the matter of understanding, the will can veer in opposite directions until it comes to the knowledge or fruition of the last end, in which it must rest. The nature of perfect happiness would be contradicted if man, after achieving it, could turn to what is opposed to it. For then fear of losing happiness would not be wholly excluded, and so desire would not be completely satisfied. Hence the Apocalypse 3:12 says of the blessed person, that “he shall go out no more.”

Caput 167

Quod corpora erunt omnino obedientia animae

Quia vero corpus est propter animam, sicut materia propter formam, et organum propter artificem, animae vitam praedictam consecutae tale corpus in resurrectione adiungetur divinitus, quale competat beatitudini animae: quae enim propter finem sunt, disponi oportet secundum exigentiam finis. Animae autem ad summum operationis intellectualis pertingenti non convenit corpus habere per quod aliqualiter impediatur aut retardetur. Corpus autem humanum ratione suae corruptibilitatis impedit animam et retardat, ut nec continuae contemplationi insistere valeat, neque ad summum contemplationis pervenire: The body is for the soul, as matter is for form and a tool for the craftsman. At the resurrection, therefore, when the life we have been speaking of is attained, God will join to the soul a body such as befits the beatitude of the soul; for whatever exists for the sake of an end, must be duly disposed in accord with the demands of the end. A soul that has arrived at the peak of intellectual activity cannot appropriately have a body that would in any way prove an impediment or a burden to it. But the human body, by reason of its corruptibility, does obstruct and slow down the soul, so that the soul can neither devote itself to uninterrupted contemplation nor reach the heights of contemplation.
unde per abstractionem a sensibus corporis homines aptiores ad divina quaedam capienda redduntur. Nam propheticae revelationes dormientibus vel in aliquo excessu mentis existentibus manifestantur, secundum illud Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad eum. Corpora igitur resurgentium beatorum non erunt corruptibilia et animam retardantia, ut nunc, sed magis incorruptibilia, et totaliter obedientia ipsi animae, ut in nullo ei resistant. This is why men are able to grasp divine truths more readily when they rise above the bodily senses. And so prophetic revelations are made to men when asleep, or when they are lost in mental ecstasy, as we read in Numbers 12:6: “If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream.” Therefore the bodies of risen saints will not be corruptible and will not burden down the soul, as they do now. On the contrary, they will be incorruptible and will be wholly obedient to the soul, so as not to resist it in any way whatever.

Caput 168

De dotibus corporum glorificatorum

Ex hoc autem perspici potest, qualis sit dispositio corporum beatorum. Anima enim est corporis forma et motor. Inquantum est forma, non solum est principium corporis quantum ad esse substantiale, sed etiam quantum ad propria accidentia, quae causantur in subiecto ex unione formae ad materiam. Quanto autem forma fuerit fortior, tanto impressio formae in materia minus potest impediri a quocumque exteriori agente, sicut patet in igne, cuius forma, quae dicitur esse nobilissima inter elementares formas, hoc confert igni ut non de facili transmutetur a sua naturali dispositione patiendo ab aliquo agente. This doctrine gives us an insight into the condition of the bodies of the blessed. The soul is both the form and the motive force of the body. In its function as form, the soul is the principle of the body, not only as regards the body’s substantial being, but also as regards its proper accidents, which arise in the subject from the union of form with matter. The more dominant the form is, the less can any outside cause interfere with the impression made by the form on matter. We see this verified in the case of fire, whose form, generally accounted the noblest of all elementary forms, confers on fire the power of not being easily diverted from its natural disposition by the influence emanating from any cause.
Quia igitur anima beata in summo nobilitatis et virtutis erit, utpote rerum primo principio coniuncta, confert corpori sibi divinitus unito, primo quidem esse substantiale nobilissimo modo, totaliter ipsum sub se continendo, unde subtile et spirituale erit; dabit etiam sibi qualitatem nobilissimam, scilicet gloriam claritatis; et propter virtutem animae a nullo agente a sua dispositione poterit transmutari, quod est ipsum impassibile esse; et quia obediet totaliter animae, ut instrumentum motori, agile reddetur. Erunt igitur hae quatuor conditiones corporum beatorum: subtilitas, claritas, impassibilitas et agilitas. Since the blessed soul, owing to its union with the first principle of all things, will be raised to the pinnacle of nobility and power, it will communicate substantial existence in the most perfect degree to the body that has been joined to it by divine action. And thus, holding the body completely under its sway, the soul will render the body subtle and spiritual. The soul will also bestow on the body a most,noble quality, namely, the radiant beauty of clarity. Further, because of the influence emanating from the soul, the body’s stability will not be subject to alteration by any cause; which means that the body will be impassible. Lastly, since the body will be wholly submissive to the soul, as a tool is to him who plies it, it will be endowed with agility. Hence the properties of the bodies belonging to the blessed will be these four: subtlety, clarity, impassibility, and agility.
Unde apostolus I ad Corinth. XV, 42-44, dicit: corpus quod per mortem seminatur in corruptione, surget in incorruptione quantum ad impassibilitatem; seminatur in ignobilitate, surget in gloria, quantum ad claritatem; seminatur in infirmitate, surget in virtute, quantum ad agilitatem; seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spirituale, quantum ad subtilitatem. This is the sense of the Apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:42 ff.: In death the body “is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption;” this refers to impassibility. “It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory;” this refers to clarity. “It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power,” and hence will have agility. “It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body;” in other words, it will be endowed with subtlety.

Caput 169

Quod homo tunc innovabitur, et omnis creatura corporalis

Manifestum est autem quod ea quae sunt ad finem, disponuntur secundum exigentiam finis, unde si id propter quod sunt aliqua, varietur secundum perfectum et imperfectum, ea quae ad ipsum ordinantur, diversimode disponi oportet, ut ei deserviant secundum utrumque statum: cibus enim et vestimentum aliter praeparantur puero, et aliter viro. Ostensum est autem supra quod creatura corporalis ordinatur ad rationalem naturam quasi ad finem. Oportet igitur quod homine accipiente ultimam perfectionem per resurrectionem, creatura corporalis diversum statum accipiat, et secundum hoc dicitur innovari mundus, homine resurgente, secundum illud, Apoc. XXI, 1: vidi caelum novum et terram novam; et Isaiae LXV, 17: ecce ego creo caelos novos et terram novam. It is manifest that all things existing for some definite end are disposed in an order required by the end. Therefore, if that to which other things are related as means can vary from perfect to imperfect, the means subordinated to it must be subject to parallel variation, so as to serve the end in either state. Food and clothing, for instance, are prepared otherwise for a child than for a grown man. We have already called attention to the fact that material creation is subordinated to rational nature as to its end. Consequently, when man is admitted to his final perfection after the resurrection, material creation must take on a new condition. This is why we are told that the world is to undergo renovation when man rises, as is taught in the Apocalypse 21:1: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” and in Isaiah 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth.”

Caput 170

Quae creaturae innovabuntur, et quae manebunt

Considerandum tamen est, quod diversa genera creaturarum corporalium secundum diversam rationem ad hominem ordinantur. Manifestum est enim quod plantae et animalia deserviunt homini in auxilium infirmitatis ipsius, dum ex eis habet victum et vestitum et vehiculum et huiusmodi, quibus infirmitas humana sustentatur. In statu tamen ultimo per resurrectionem tolletur ab homine omnis infirmitas talis: neque enim indigebunt ulterius homines cibis ad vescendum, cum sint incorruptibiles, ut supra ostensum est; neque vestimentis ad operiendum, utpote qui claritate gloriae vestientur; neque animalibus ad vehiculum, quibus agilitas aderit; neque aliquibus remediis ad sanitatem conservandam, utpote qui impassibiles erunt. Igitur huiusmodi corporeas creaturas, scilicet plantas et animalia et alia huiusmodi corpora mixta, conveniens est in statu illius ultimae consummationis non remanere. However, we should remember that the different kinds of material creatures are subordinated to man in different ways. Plants and animals serve man by aiding him in his weakness, in the sense that they supply him with food and clothing and transportation and like conveniences, whereby human feebleness is strengthened. But in the final state that comes after the resurrection all such defects will be eliminated from man. Men will no longer need food to eat, since they will be incorruptible, as we have pointed out. Nor will men need garments to cover their nakedness, because they will be clothed with the radiance of glory. Nor will they require animals to carry them, as they will be endowed with agility. Nor will they need medicines to keep them in health, since they will be impassible. In that state of final consummation, therefore, as we should expect, there will be no material creatures of this kind, namely, plants and animals and other like mixed bodies.
Quatuor vero elementa, scilicet ignis, aer et aqua et terra, ordinantur ad hominem non solum quantum ad usum corporalis vitae, sed etiam quantum ad constitutionem corporis eius: nam corpus humanum ex elementis constitutum est. Sic igitur essentialem ordinem habent elementa ad corpus humanum. Unde homine consummato in corpore et anima, conveniens est ut etiam elementa remaneant, sed in meliorem dispositionem mutata. But, the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth are for man not only as regards the utility of bodily life, but also as regards the composition of his body. The human body is made up of these elements. And so the elements have an essential ordination to the human body. Hence, when man is glorified in body and soul, the elements have to remain also, although they will be changed to a better condition of existence.
Corpora vero caelestia quantum ad sui substantiam neque in usu corruptibilis vitae ab homine assumuntur, neque corporis humani substantiam intrant, deserviunt tamen homini inquantum ex eorum specie et magnitudine excellentiam sui creatoris demonstrant: unde frequenter in Scripturis homo movetur ad considerandum caelestia corpora, ut ex eis adducatur in reverentiam divinam, ut patet Isai. XL, 26: levate in excelsum oculos vestros, et videte quis creavit haec. Et quamvis in statu perfectionis illius homo ex creaturis sensibilibus in Dei notitiam non adducatur, cum Deum videat in se ipso, tamen delectabile est et iucundum etiam cognoscenti causam, considerare qualiter eius similitudo resplendeat in effectu: unde et sanctis cedet ad gaudium considerare refulgentiam divinae bonitatis in corporibus, et praecipue in caelestibus, quae aliis praeeminere videntur. Habent etiam corpora caelestia essentialem quodammodo ordinem ad corpus humanum secundum rationem causae agentis, sicut elementa rationem causae materialis. Homo enim generat hominem et sol: unde et hac ratione convenit etiam corpora caelestia remanere. As for the heavenly bodies, their substance is not utilized for the support of man’s corruptible life, and does not enter into the substance of the human frame. However, they serve man in the sense that by their beauty and enormous size they show forth the excellence of their Creator. For this reason man is often exhorted in Sacred Scripture to contemplate the heavenly bodies, so as to be moved by them to sentiments of reverence toward God. This is exemplified in Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things.” And although, in the state of consummated perfection, man is not brought to the knowledge of God by a consideration of sensible creatures, since he sees God as He is in Himself, still it is pleasing and enjoyable for one who knows the cause to observe how the likeness of the cause shines forth in the effect. Thus a consideration of the divine goodness as mirrored in bodies, and particularly in the heavenly bodies, which appear to have a pre-eminence over other bodies, gives joy to the saints. Moreover, the heavenly bodies have some sort of essential relationship with the human body under the aspect of efficient causality, just as the elements have under the aspect of material causality: man generates man, and the sun, too, has some part in this operation. This, then, is another reason why the heavenly bodies should remain in existence.
Non solum ex comparatione ad hominem, sed etiam ex praedictis corporearum creaturarum naturis idem apparet. Quod enim secundum nihil sui est incorruptibile, non debet remanere in illo incorruptionis statu. Corpora quidem caelestia incorruptibilia sunt secundum totum et partem; elementa vero secundum totum, sed non secundum partem; homo vero secundum partem, scilicet animam rationalem, sed non secundum totum, quia compositum per mortem dissolvitur; animalia vero et plantae et omnia corpora mixta neque secundum totum neque secundum partem incorruptibilia sunt. Convenienter igitur in illo ultimo incorruptionis statu remanebunt quidem homines et elementa et corpora caelestia, non autem alia animalia, neque plantae, aut corpora mixta. The doctrine here advocated follows, not only from the relationship which various bodies have with man, but also from an examination of the natures of the material creatures we have been discussing. No object wanting in an intrinsic principle of incorruptibility ought to remain in the state that is characterized by incorruption. The heavenly bodies are incorruptible in whole and in part. The elements are incorruptible as wholes, but not as parts. Man is incorruptible in part, namely, in his rational soul, but not as a whole because the composite is dissolved by death. Animals and plants and all mixed bodies are incorruptible neither in whole nor in part. In the final state of incorruption, therefore, men and the elements and the heavenly bodies will fittingly remain, but not other animals or plants or mixed bodies.
Rationabiliter etiam idem apparet ex ratione universi. Cum enim homo pars sit universi corporei, in ultima hominis consummatione necesse est universum corporeum remanere: non enim videtur esse pars perfecta, si fuerit sine toto. Universum autem corporeum remanere non potest nisi partes essentiales eius remaneant. Sunt autem partes eius essentiales corpora caelestia et elementa, utpote ex quibus tota mundi machina consistit; cetera vero ad integritatem corporei universi pertinere non videntur, sed magis ad quendam ornatum et decorem ipsius, qui competit statui mutabilitatis, secundum quod ex corpore caelesti ut agente, et elementis ut materialibus, generantur animalia et plantae et corpora mineralia. In statu autem ultimae consummationis alius ornatus elementis attribuetur qui deceat incorruptionis statum. Remanebunt igitur in illo statu homines, elementa et corpora caelestia, non autem animalia et plantae et corpora mineralia. We can argue reasonably to the same conclusion from the nature of the universe. Since man is a part of the material universe, the material universe should remain when man is brought to his final consummation; a part would seem to lack its proper perfection if it were to exist without the whole. On the other hand, the material universe cannot remain in existence without its essential parts. But the essential parts of the universe are the heavenly bodies and the elements, for the entire world machine is made up of them. Other bodies do not, apparently, pertain to the integrity of the material universe, but contribute rather to its adornment and beauty. They befit its changeable state in the sense that, with a heavenly body acting as efficient cause, and with the elements as material causes, animals and plants and minerals are brought into being. But in the state of final consummation another kind of adornment will be given to the elements, in keeping with their condition of incorruption. In that state, accordingly, there will remain men, elements, and heavenly bodies, but not animals or plants or minerals.

Caput 171

Quod corpora caelestia cessabunt a motu

Sed cum corpora caelestia continue moveri videantur, potest alicui videri quod si eorum substantia maneat, quod tunc et in illo consummationis statu moveantur. Et quidem si ea ratione motus corporibus caelestibus adesset qua ratione adest elementis, rationabilis esset sermo. Motus enim elementalis gravibus vel levibus adest propter eorum perfectionem consequendam. Tendunt enim suo motu naturali in proprium locum sibi convenientem, ubi melius est eis esse: unde in illo ultimo consummationis statu unumquodque elementum et quaecumque pars eius in suo proprio loco erit. Since the heavenly bodies are in constant motion, so far as we can judge, it may seem that if their substance remains, they will keep on moving also in the state of consummation. And, indeed, if motion were possessed by heavenly bodies for the same reason as that for which it is possessed by elements, such an assertion would be logical. Motion is found in heavy or light elements to promote the perfection they are to attain: by their natural motion they tend to the place that suits them, where they are in a better condition. Hence in the ultimate state of consummation each element and each part thereof will be in its own proper place.
Sed hoc de motu corporum caelestium dici non potest, cum corpus caeleste nullo loco obtento quiescat, sed sicut naturaliter movetur ad quodcumque ubi, ita et naturaliter discedit ab eo. Sic ergo non deperit aliquid a corporibus caelestibus, si motus eis auferatur, ex quo motus eis non inest ut ipsa perficiantur. Ridiculum etiam est dicere, quod sicut corpus leve per suam naturam movetur sursum, ita corpus caeleste per suam naturam circulariter moveatur sicut per activum principium. Manifestum est enim quod natura semper intendit ad unum: unde illud quod ex sui ratione unitati repugnat, non potest esse finis ultimus naturae. Motus autem unitati repugnat, inquantum id quod movetur, alio et alio modo se habet dum movetur. Natura igitur non producit motum propter se ipsum, sed causat motum intendens terminum motus, But this cannot be maintained of the motion of heavenly bodies, for a heavenly body does not come to rest in any place it may occupy; as it travels naturally to any particular place, it no less naturally departs thence. Therefore heavenly bodies suffer no loss if they are deprived of motion, because motion is riot found in them for their own perfection. Also, it would be ridiculous to contend that a heavenly body is moved in circles by its nature as an active principle, in the way that a light body is impelled upward by its nature. For, as is evident, nature tends invariably in the direction of unity; and therefore that which by its very concept opposes unity cannot be the ultimate goal of nature. But motion is opposed to unity, in the sense that what moves varies in its mode of being by the very fact that it is in motion. Therefore nature does not produce motion just for the sake of motion, but in causing motion has in view the terminus to be reached by motion.
sicut natura levis intendit locum sursum in ascensu, et sic de aliis. Cum igitur circularis caelestis corporis motus non sit ad aliquod ubi determinatum, non potest dici quod motus circularis corporis principium activum sit natura, sicut est principium motus gravium et levium. Unde manente eadem natura corporum caelestium, nihil prohibet ipsa quiescere, licet ignem impossibile est quiescere extra proprium locum existentem, dummodo remaneat eadem natura ipsius. Dicitur tamen motus caelestis corporis naturalis, non propter principium activum motus, sed propter ipsum mobile, quod habet aptitudinem ut sic moveatur. Relinquitur ergo quod motus corporis caelestis sit ab aliquo intellectu. For instance, a body that is naturally light seeks an elevated place in its ascent; and so of other bodies. Consequently, since the circular motion of a heavenly body does not tend to a definite position, we cannot say that the active principle of a heavenly body’s circular motion is nature, in the sense that nature is the principle of the motion of heavy and light bodies. Accordingly there is no reason why heavenly bodies should not come to rest, without any change in their nature, even though fire, if its nature is to remain constant, cannot cease from its restlessness as long as it exists outside its proper sphere. Nevertheless we say that the motion of a heavenly body is natural; but it is natural not by reason of an active principle of motion in it, but by reason of the mobile body itself that has an aptitude for such motion. We conclude, therefore, that motion is communicated to a heavenly body by some intellect.
Sed cum intellectus non moveat nisi ex intentione finis, considerare oportet quis sit finis motus corporum caelestium. Non autem potest dici quod ipse motus sit finis: motus enim cum sit via ad perfectionem, non habet rationem finis, sed magis eius quod est ad finem. Similiter etiam non potest dici quod renovatio situum sit terminus motus caelestis corporis, ut scilicet propter hoc caeleste corpus moveatur, ut omne ubi ad quod est in potentia, adipiscatur in actu, quia hoc infinitum est, infinitum autem repugnat rationi finis. However, since an intellect does not impart movement except in view of some end, we must inquire what is the end of the motion of heavenly bodies. The motion itself cannot be said to be this end. For motion is the way leading to perfection, and so does not verify the concept of end, but rather pertains to that which is tending toward an end. Likewise we cannot maintain that a succession of locations is the term of the movement of a heavenly body, as though a heavenly body moved for the purpose of actually occupying every position for which it has a potency; this would entail endless wandering, and what is endless contradicts the notion of end.
Oportet igitur hinc considerare finem motus caeli. Manifestum est enim quod omne corpus motum ab intellectu est instrumentum ipsius. Finis autem motus instrumenti est forma a principali agente concepta, quae per motum instrumenti in actum reducitur. Forma autem divini intellectus, quam per motum caeli complet, est perfectio rerum per viam generationis et corruptionis. Generationis autem et corruptionis ultimus finis est nobilissima forma, quae est anima humana, cuius ultimus finis est vita aeterna, ut supra ostensum est. Est igitur ultimus finis motus caeli multiplicatio hominum producendorum ad vitam aeternam. We ought to think of the end of the heaven’s motion somewhat as follows. Any body set in motion by an intellect is evidently an instrument of the latter. But the end of an instrument’s motion is a form conceived by the principal agent, a form that is reduced to act by the motion of the instrument. The form conceived by the divine intellect, to be realized by the motion of the heavens, is the perfection of things. as achieved by way of generation and corruption. But the ultimate end of generation and corruption is the noblest of all forms, the human soul; and the soul’s ultimate end is eternal life, as we said above. Accordingly the ultimate end of the movement of the heavens is the multiplication of men, who are to be brought into being for eternal life.
Haec autem multitudo non potest esse infinita: nam intentio cuiuslibet intellectus stat in aliquo finito. Completo igitur numero hominum ad vitam aeternam producendorum, et eis in vita aeterna constitutis, motus caeli cessabit, sicut motus cuiuslibet instrumenti cessat postquam fuerit opus perfectum. Cessante autem motu caeli cessabit per consequens motus in inferioribus corporibus, nisi solum motus qui erit ab anima in hominibus: et sic totum universum corporeum habebit aliam dispositionem et formam, secundum illud I Corinth. VII, 31: praeterit figura huius mundi. Such a multitude cannot be infinite; the intention to be realized by any intellect comes to rest in something definite. Consequently, once the number of men who are to be brought into being for eternal life is filled out, and they are actually established in the possession of eternal life, the movement of the heavens will cease, just as the motion of any instrument ceases after a project has been carried through to completion. And when the movement of the heavens ceases, all movement in lower bodies will cease by way of consequence, excepting only the movement that will be in men as flowing from their souls. And thus the entire material universe will have a different arrangement and form, in accordance with the truth proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 7:31: “The shape of this world passes away.”

Caput 172

De praemio hominis secundum eius opera, vel miseria

Considerandum est autem, quod si est determinata via perveniendi ad aliquem finem, illum consequi non possunt qui per contrariam viam incedunt, aut a via recta deficiunt. Non enim sanatur aeger, si contrariis utatur, quae medicus prohibet, nisi forte per accidens. This leads to our next point. If there is a definite way of reaching a fixed end, they who travel along a road leading in the opposite direction or who turn aside from the right road, will never reach the goal. A sick man is not cured by using the wrong medicines, forbidden by the doctor, except, perhaps, quite by accident.
Est autem determinata via perveniendi ad felicitatem, per virtutem scilicet. Non enim consequitur aliquid finem suum, nisi quod sibi proprium est bene operando: neque enim planta fructum faceret, si naturalis operationis modus non servaretur in ipsa; neque cursor perveniret ad bravium, aut miles ad palmam, nisi uterque secundum proprium officium operaretur. Recte autem operari hominem propriam operationem est operari ipsum secundum virtutem: nam virtus uniuscuiusque rei est quae bonum facit habentem, et opus eius bonum reddit, ut dicitur II Ethic. Cum igitur ultimus finis hominis sit vita aeterna, de qua dictum est, non omnes ad eam perveniunt, sed soli qui secundum virtutem operantur. There is such a definite way of arriving at happiness, namely, the practice of virtue. Nothing will reach its end unless it performs well the operations proper to it. A plant will not bear fruit if the procedure natural to it is not followed. A runner will not win a trophy or a soldier a citation, unless each of them carries out his proper functions. To say that a man discharges his proper office is equivalent to saying that he acts virtuously; for the virtue of any being is that which makes its possessor good and also makes his work good, as is stated in the second book of the Ethics [II, 6, 1106 a 15]. Accordingly, since the ultimate end of man is eternal life, of which we spoke previously, 182 not all attain it, but only those who act as virtue requires.
Praeterea. Est ostensum supra sub divina providentia contineri non solum naturalia, sed etiam res humanas, non in universali tantum, sed etiam in singulari. Ad eum autem qui singularium hominum curam habet, pertinet praemia virtuti reddere et poenas peccato: quia poena est medicina culpae et ordinativa ipsius, ut supra habitum est. Virtutis autem praemium felicitas est, quae ex bonitate divina homini datur. Pertinet ergo ad Deum his qui contra virtutem agunt, non felicitatem, sed contrarium in poenam reddere, scilicet extremam miseriam. Besides, as we said above, not natural things alone, but also human affairs, are contained under divine providence, and this not only in general but in particular. But He who has care of individual men has disposal of the rewards to be assigned for virtue and of the punishments to be inflicted for sin. For punishment has a medicinal value with regard to sin and restores right order when violated by sin, as we stated above; and the reward of virtue is happiness, to be granted to man by God’s goodness. Therefore God will not grant happiness to those who act against virtue, but will assign as punishment the opposite of happiness, namely, extreme wretchedness.

Caput 173

Quod praemium hominis est post hanc vitam, et similiter miseria

Considerare autem oportet, quod contrariorum contrarii sunt effectus. Operationi autem secundum virtutem contraria est operatio secundum malitiam. Oportet igitur quod miseria, ad quam per operationem malitiae pervenitur, contraria sit felicitati, quam meretur operatio virtutis. Contraria autem sunt unius generis. Cum igitur felicitas ultima, ad quam pervenitur per operationem virtutis, non sit aliquod bonum huius vitae, sed post hanc vitam, ut ex supra dictis patet, consequens est ut ultima miseria, ad quam malitia perducit, sit aliquod malum post hanc vitam. In this matter we should note that contrary causes beget contrary effects. Thus action that proceeds from malice is contrary to action that proceeds from virtue. Accordingly wretchedness, in which evil action issues, is the opposite of happiness, which virtuous action merits. Furthermore, contraries pertain to the same genus. Therefore, since final happiness, which is reached by virtuous action, is a good that belongs not to this life but to the next life, as is clear from an earlier discussion, final wretchedness, also, to which vice leads, must be an evil belonging to the next world.
Praeterea. Omnia bona vel mala huius vitae inveniuntur ad aliquid ordinari. Bona enim exteriora, et etiam bona corporalia organice deserviunt ad virtutem, quae est directe via perveniendi ad beatitudinem apud eos qui praedictis rebus bene utuntur; sicut et apud eos qui male eis utuntur, sunt instrumenta malitiae, per quam ad miseriam pervenitur, et similiter mala his opposita, ut puta infirmitas, paupertas et huiusmodi, quibusdam sunt ad profectum virtutis, aliis autem ad malitiae augmentum, secundum quod eis diversimode utuntur. Quod autem ordinatur ad aliud, non est ultimus finis, quia neque ultimum praemium neque poena. Non igitur ultima felicitas, neque ultima miseria in bonis vel malis huius vitae consistit. Besides, all goods and ills of this life are found to serve some purpose. External goods, and also bodily goods, are organically connected with virtue, which is the way leading directly to beatitude, for those who use such goods well. But for those who use these goods ill, they are instruments of vice, which ends up in misery. Similarly the ills opposed to such goods, as sickness, poverty, and the like, are an occasion of progress in virtue for some but aggravate the viciousness of others, according as men react differently to such conditions. But what is ordained to something else cannot be the final end, because it is not the ultimate in reward or punishment. Therefore neither ultimate happiness nor ultimate misery consists in the goods or ills of this life.

Caput 174

In quo est miseria hominis quantum ad poenam damni

Quia igitur miseria, ad quam ducit malitia, contrariatur felicitati, ad quam ducit virtus, oportet ea quae ad miseriam pertinent, sumere per oppositum eorum quae de felicitate sunt dicta. Dictum est autem superius quod ultima hominis felicitas, quantum ad intellectum quidem, consistit in plena Dei visione, quantum ad affectum vero in hoc quod voluntas hominis in prima bonitate sit immobiliter firmata. Erit igitur extrema miseria hominis in hoc quod intellectus totaliter divino lumine privetur, et affectus a Dei bonitate obstinate avertatur: et haec est praecipua miseria damnatorum, quae vocatur poena damni. Since the wretchedness to which vice leads is opposed to the happiness to which virtue leads, whatever pertains to wretchedness must be understood as being the opposite of all we have said about happiness. We pointed out above that man’s ultimate happiness, as regards his intellect, consists in the unobstructed vision of God. And as regards man’s affective life, happiness consists in the immovable repose of his will in the first Good. Therefore man’s extreme unhappiness will consist in the fact that his intellect is completely shut off from the divine light, and that his affections are stubbornly turned against God’s goodness. And this is the chief suffering of the damned. It is known as the punishment of loss.
Considerandum tamen est, quod, ut ex supradictis patet, malum non potest totaliter excludere bonum, cum omne malum in aliquo bono fundetur. Miseria igitur quamvis felicitati, quae ab omni malo erit immunis, opponatur, oportet tamen quod in bono naturae fundetur. Bonum autem intellectualis naturae in hoc consistit quod intellectus respiciat verum, et voluntas tendat in bonum. Omne autem verum et omne bonum derivatur a primo et summo bono, quod Deus est. Unde oportet quod intellectus hominis in illa extrema miseria constituti, aliquam Dei cognitionem habeat, et aliquam Dei dilectionem; secundum scilicet quod est principium naturalium perfectionum, quae est naturalis dilectio, non autem secundum quod in se ipso est, neque secundum quod est principium virtutum, seu etiam gratiarum, et quorumcumque bonorum quibus intellectualis natura ab ipso perficitur, quae est perfectio virtutis et gloriae. However, as should be clear from what we said on a previous occasion, evil cannot wholly exclude good, since every evil has its basis in some good. Consequently, although suffering is opposed to happiness, which will be free from all evil, it must be rooted in a good of nature. The good of an intellectual nature consists in the contemplation of truth by the intellect, and in the inclination to good on the part of the will. But all truth and all goodness are derived from the first and supreme good, which is God. Therefore the intellect of a man situated in the extreme misery of hell must have some knowledge of God and some love of God, but only so far as He is the principle of natural perfections. This is natural love. But the soul in hell cannot know and love God as He is in Himself, nor so far as He is the principle of virtue or of grace and the other goods through which intellectual nature is brought to perfection by Him; for this is the perfection of virtue and glory.
Nec tamen homines in tali miseria constituti, libero arbitrio carent, quamvis habeant voluntatem immobiliter firmatam in malo, sicut nec beati, licet habeant voluntatem firmatam in bono. Libertas enim arbitrii proprie ad electionem se extendit, electio autem est eorum quae sunt ad finem, ultimus autem finis naturaliter appetitur ab unoquoque: unde omnes homines ex hoc quod sunt intellectuales, appetunt naturaliter felicitatem tanquam ultimum finem, et adeo immobiliter, quod nullus potest velle fieri miser. Nec hoc libertati repugnat arbitrii, quae non se extendit nisi ad ea quae sunt ad finem. Quod autem in hoc particulari hic homo ultimam suam felicitatem, ille autem in illo ponat, non convenit huic aut illi inquantum est homo, cum in tali aestimatione et appetitu homines differant, sed unicuique hoc competit secundum quod est in se aliqualis. Dico autem aliqualem, secundum aliquam passionem vel habitum: unde si transmutetur, aliud ei optimum videbitur. Nevertheless men buried in the misery of hell are not deprived of free choice, even though their will is immovably attached to evil. In the same way the blessed retain the power of free choice, although their will is fixed on the Good. Freedom of choice, properly speaking, has to do with election. But election is concerned with the means leading to an end. The last end is naturally desired by every being. Hence all men, by the very fact that they are intellectual, naturally desire happiness as their last end, and they do so with such immovable fixity of purpose that no one can wish to be unhappy. But this is not incompatible with free will, which extends only to means leading to the end. The fact that one man places his happiness in this particular good while another places it in that good, is not characteristic of either of these men so far as he is a man, since in such estimates and desires men exhibit great differences. This variety is explained by each man’s condition. By this I mean each man’s acquired passions and habits; and so if a man’s condition were to undergo change, some other good would appeal to him as most desirable.
Et hoc maxime patet in his qui ex passione appetunt aliquid ut optimum, cessante autem passione, ut irae, vel concupiscentiae, non similiter iudicant illud bonum, ut prius. This appears most clearly in men who are led by passion to crave some good as the best. When the passion, whether of anger or lust, dies down, they no longer have the same estimate of that good as they had before.
Habitus autem permanentiores sunt, unde firmius perseverant in his quae ex habitu prosequuntur. Tamen quandiu habitus mutari potest, etiam appetitus et aestimatio hominis de ultimo fine mutatur. Hoc autem convenit tantum hominibus in hac vita, in qua sunt in statu mutabilitatis: anima enim post hanc vitam intransmutabilis est secundum alterationem, quia huiusmodi transmutatio non competit ei nisi per accidens secundum aliquam transmutationem factam circa corpus. Habits are more permanent, and so men persevere more obstinately in seeking goods to which habit impels them. Yet, so long as habit is capable of change, man’s desire and his judgment as to what constitutes the last end are subject to change. This possibility is open to men only during the present life, in which their state is changeable. After this life the soul is not subject to alteration. No change can affect it except indirectly, in consequence of some change undergone by the body.
Resumpto vero corpore non sequetur ipsa mutatio corporis, sed potius e converso. Nunc enim anima infunditur corpori seminato, et ideo convenienter transmutationes corporis sequitur; tunc vero corpus unietur animae praeexistenti, unde totaliter sequetur eius conditiones. Anima igitur quemcumque finem sibi ultimum praestituisse invenitur in statu mortis, in eo fine perpetuo permanebit, appetens illud ut optimum, sive sit bonum sive sit malum, secundum illud Eccle. XI, v. 3: si ceciderit lignum ad Austrum, aut ad Aquilonem, in quocumque loco ceciderit, ibi erit. Sic igitur post hanc vitam qui boni in morte inveniuntur, habebunt perpetuo voluntatem firmatam in bono, qui autem mali tunc invenientur, erunt perpetuo obstinati in malo. However, when the body is resumed, the soul will not be governed by changes occurring in the body.”“ Rather, the contrary will take place. During our present life the soul is infused into a body that has been generated of seed, and therefore, as we should expect, is affected by changes experienced in the body. But in the next world the body will be united to a pre-existing soul, and so will be completely governed by the latter’s conditions. Accordingly the soul will remain perpetually in whatever last end it is found to have set for itself at the time of death, desiring that state as the most suitable, whether it is good or evil. This is the meaning of Ecclesiastes 11:3: “If the tree fall to the south or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be.” After this life, therefore, those who are found good at the instant of death will have their wills forever fixed in good. But those who are found evil at that moment will be forever obstinate in evil.

Caput 175

Quod peccata mortalia non dimittuntur post hanc vitam, sed bene venialia

Ex hoc autem considerari potest, quod peccata mortalia post hanc vitam non dimittuntur, venialia vero dimittuntur. Nam peccata mortalia sunt per aversionem a fine ultimo, circa quem homo immobiliter firmatur post mortem, ut dictum est, peccata vero venialia non respiciunt ultimum finem, sed viam ad finem ultimum. This enables us to perceive that mortal sins are not forgiven in the next world. But venial sins are forgiven. Mortal sins are committed by turning away from our last end, in which man is irrevocably settled after death, as we have just said. Venial sins, however, do not regard our last end, but rather the road leading to that end.
Sed si voluntas malorum post mortem obstinate firmatur in malo, semper appetent ut optimum quod prius appetierunt. Non ergo dolebunt se peccasse: nullus enim dolet se prosecutum esse quod aestimat esse optimum. If the will of evil men is obstinately fettered to evil after death, they forever continue to desire what they previously desired, in the conviction that this is the best. Therefore they are not sorry they have sinned; for no one is sorry he has achieved what he judges to be the best.
Sed sciendum est, quod damnati ad ultimam miseriam, ea quae appetierant ut optima, habere post mortem non poterunt: non enim ibi dabitur luxuriosis facultas luxuriandi, aut invidis facultas offendendi et impediendi alios, et idem est de singulis vitiis. Cognoscent autem, eos qui secundum virtutem vixerunt, se obtinere quod appetierant ut optimum. Dolent ergo mali quia peccata commiserunt, non propter hoc quia peccata eis displiceant, quia etiam tunc mallent peccata illa committere, si facultas daretur, quam Deum habere; sed propter hoc quod illud quod elegerunt, habere non possunt, et illud quod respuerunt, possent habere. Sic igitur et voluntas eorum perpetuo manebit obstinata in malo, et tamen gravissime dolebunt de culpa commissa, et de gloria amissa: et hic dolor vocatur remorsus conscientiae, qui metaphorice in Scripturis vermis nominatur, secundum illud Isaiae ult. 24: vermis eorum non morietur. But we should understand that those who are condemned to final misery cannot have after death what they craved as the best. Libertines in hell will have no opportunity to gratify their passions; the wrathful and the envious will have no victims to offend or obstruct; and so of all the vices in turn. But the condemned will be aware that men who have lived a virtuous life in conformity with the precepts of virtue obtain what they desired as best. Therefore the wicked regret the sins they have committed, not because sin displeases them, for even in hell they would rather commit those same sins, if they had the chance, than possess God; but because they cannot have what they have chosen, and can have only what they have detested. Hence their will must remain forever obstinate in evil, and at the same time they will grieve most agonizingly for the sins they have committed and the glory they have lost. This anguish is called remorse of conscience, and in Scripture is referred to metaphorically as a worm, as we read in Isaiah 66:24: “Their worm shall not die.”

Caput 176

Quod corpora damnatorum erunt passibilia et tamen integra, et sine dotibus

Sicut autem in sanctis beatitudo animae quodammodo ad corpora derivatur, ut supra dictum est, ita etiam miseria animae derivabitur ad corpora damnatorum: hoc tamen observato, quod sicut miseria bonum naturae non excludit ab anima, ita nec etiam a corpore. Erunt igitur corpora damnatorum integra in sui natura, non tamen illas conditiones habebunt quae pertinent ad gloriam beatorum: non enim erunt subtilia et impassibilia, sed magis in sua grossitie et passibilitate remanebunt, et augebuntur in eis; non erunt agilia, sed vix ab anima portabilia; non erunt clara, sed obscura, ut obscuritas animae in corporibus demonstretur, secundum illud Isaiae XIII, 8: facies combustae vultus eorum. As we said above, in speaking of the saints, the beatitude of the soul will in some manner flow over to the body. In the same way the suffering of lost souls will flow over to their bodies. Yet we must observe that suffering does not exclude the good of nature from the body, any more than it does from the soul. Therefore the bodies of the damned will be complete in their kind, although they will not have those qualities that go with the glory of the blessed. That is, they will not be subtle and impassible; instead, they will remain in their grossness and capacity for suffering, and, indeed, these defects will be heightened in them. Nor will they be agile, but will be so sluggish as scarcely to be maneuverable by the soul. Lastly, they will not be radiant but will be ugly in their swarthiness, so that the blackness of the soul may be mirrored in the body, as is intimated in Isaiah 13:8: “Their countenances shall be as faces burnt.”

Caput 177

Quod corpora damnatorum, licet passibilia, erunt tamen incorruptibilia

Sciendum tamen est, quod licet damnatorum corpora passibilia sint futura, non tamen corrumpentur, quamvis hoc esse videatur contra rationem eorum quae nunc experimur, nam passio magis facta abiicit a substantia. Erit tamen tunc duplex ratio quare passio in perpetuum continuata passibilia corpora non corrumpet. Although the bodies of the damned will be capable of suffering, they will not be subject to corruption. This is a fact we have to admit, even though it may seem to disagree with present experience, according to which heightened suffering tends to deteriorate substance. In spite of this, there are two reasons why suffering that lasts forever will not corrupt the bodies undergoing it.
Prima quidem quia cessante motu caeli, ut supra dictum est, necesse est omnem mutationem naturae cessare. Non igitur aliquod alterari poterit alteratione naturae, sed solum alteratione animae. Dico autem alterationem naturae, sicut cum aliquid ex calido fit frigidum, vel qualitercumque variatur secundum naturale esse qualitatum. Alterationem autem animae dico, sicut cum aliquid recipit qualitatem non secundum esse ipsius spirituale, sicut pupilla non recipit formam coloris ut sit colorata, sed ut colorem sentiat. Sic igitur et corpora damnatorum patientur ab igne, vel a quocumque alio corporeo, non ut alterentur ad speciem vel qualitatem ignis, sed ut sentiant excellentias qualitatum eius: et hoc erit afflictivum, inquantum huiusmodi excellentiae contrariantur harmoniae, in qua consistit et delectantur sensus; non tamen erit corruptivum, quia spiritualis receptio formarum naturam corporis non transmutat, nisi forte per accidens. First, when the movement of the heavens ceases, as we said above, all transformation of nature must come to a stop. Nothing will be capable of alteration in its nature; only the soul will be able to admit some alteration. In speaking of an alteration of nature, I mean, for instance, a change from hot to cold in a thing, or any other such variation in the line of natural qualities. And by alteration of the soul, I mean the modification that takes place when a thing receives a quality, not according to the quality’s natural mode of being, but according to its own spiritual mode of being; for example, the pupil of the eye receives the form of a color, not that it may be colored itself, but that it may perceive color. In this way the bodies of the damned will suffer from fire or from some other material agent, not that they may be transformed into the likeness or quality of fire, but that they may experience the effects characteristic of its qualities. And this experience will be painful, because the effects produced by the action of fire are opposed to the harmony in which the pleasure of sense consists. Yet the action of hell-fire will not cause corruption, because spiritual reception of forms does not modify bodily nature, except, it may be, indirectly.
Secunda ratio erit ex parte animae, ad cuius perpetuitatem corpus trahetur divina virtute: unde anima damnati, inquantum est forma et natura talis corporis, dabit ei esse perpetuum; non tamen dabit ei ut pati non possit, propter suam imperfectionem. Sic igitur semper patiuntur illa corpora, non tamen corrumpuntur. The second reason is drawn from a consideration of the soul, in whose perpetual duration the body will be forced, by divine power, to share. The condemned person’s soul, so far as it is the form and nature of such a body, will confer never-ending existence on the latter. But because of its imperfection, the soul will not be able to bestow on the body immunity from suffering. Consequently the bodies of the damned will suffer forever, but will not undergo dissolution.

Caput 178

Quod poena damnatorum est in malis ante resurrectionem

Sic igitur secundum praedicta patet quod tam felicitas quam miseria principaliter consistit in anima; secundario autem et per quamdam derivationem in corpore. Non igitur felicitas vel miseria animae dependet ex felicitate vel miseria corporis, sed magis e converso. Cum igitur post mortem animae remaneant ante resumptionem corporum, quaedam quidem cum merito beatitudinis, quaedam autem cum merito miseriae, manifestum est quod etiam ante resumptionem, animae quorumdam praedicta felicitate potiuntur, secundum illud apostoli II Corinth. V, 1: scimus quoniam si terrestris domus nostra huius habitationis dissolvatur, quod aedificationem ex Deo habemus domum non manufactam, sed aeternam in caelis; et infra: audemus autem, et bonam voluntatem habemus magis peregrinari a corpore, et praesentes esse ad dominum. Quorumdam vero animae in miseria vivent, secundum illud Luc. XVI, 22: mortuus est dives, et sepultus in Inferno. This discussion makes it clear that both happiness and wretchedness are experienced chiefly in the soul. They affect the body secondarily and by a certain derivation. Hence the happiness or misery of the soul will not depend on the well-being or suffering of the body; rather, the reverse is true. Souls remain in existence after death and prior to the resumption of the body, some adorned with the merit of beatitude, others disfigured by deserved wretchedness. Therefore we can see that even before the resurrection the souls of some men enjoy the happiness of heaven, as the Apostle indicates in 2 Corinthians 5:1: “For we know, if our earthly house of this habitation is dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven.” A little below, in verse 8, he adds: “But we are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body and to be present with the Lord.” But the souls of some will live in torment, as is intimated in Luke 16:22: “The rich man also died, and he was buried in hell.”

Caput 179

Quod poena damnatorum est in malis tam spiritualibus, quam corporalibus

Considerandum tamen est, quod sanctarum animarum felicitas, in solis bonis spiritualibus erit, poena vero animarum damnatarum ante resurrectionem non solum erit in malis spiritualibus, ut aliqui putaverunt, sed etiam poenas corporeas sustinebunt. We should realize that the happiness enjoyed by the souls of the saints will consist exclusively in spiritual goods. On the other hand, the punishment inflicted on the souls of the damned, even before the resurrection, will not consist solely in spiritual evils, as some have thought; lost souls will also undergo corporal punishment.
Cuius diversitatis ratio est, quia animae sanctorum dum in hoc mundo fuerunt corporibus unitae, suum ordinem servaverunt, se rebus corporalibus non subiiciendo, sed soli Deo, in cuius fruitione tota eorum felicitas consistit, non autem in aliquibus corporalibus bonis; malorum autem animae, naturae ordine non servato, se per affectum rebus corporalibus subdiderunt, divina et spiritualia contemnentes. Unde consequens est ut puniantur non solum ex privatione spiritualium bonorum, sed etiam per hoc quod rebus corporalibus subdantur. Et ideo si qua in Scripturis sacris inveniantur quae sanctis animabus corporalium bonorum retributionem promittant, mystice sunt exponenda, secundum quod in praedictis Scripturis spiritualia sub corporalium similitudine designari solent. Quae vero animabus damnatorum praenuntiant poenas corporeas, utpote quod ab igne Inferni cruciabuntur, sunt secundum litteram intelligenda. The reason for this difference is as follows. When the souls of the saints were united to their bodies here in this world, they observed right order, not subjecting themselves to material things but serving God alone. And so their whole happiness consists in the enjoyment of Him, not in any material goods. But the souls of the wicked, in violation of the order of nature, set their affections on material things, scorning divine and spiritual goods. In consequence, they are punished not only by being deprived of spiritual goods, but by being subjected to the tyranny of material things. Accordingly, if Sacred Scripture is found to promise a reward of material goods to the souls of the saints, such passages are to be interpreted in a mystical sense; for spiritual things are often described in Scripture in terms of their likeness to material things. But texts that portend the corporal punishments of the souls of the damned, specifying that they will be tormented by the fires of hell, are to be understood literally.

Caput 180

Utrum anima possit pati ab igne corporeo

Ne autem alicui absurdum videatur, animam a corpore separatam ab igne corporeo pati, considerandum est, non esse contra naturam spiritualis substantiae alligari corpori. Hoc enim et per naturam fit, sicut patet in unione animae ad corpus, et per magicas artes, per quas aliquis spiritus imaginibus aut anulis, aut aliquibus huiusmodi alligatur. Hoc igitur ex divina virtute fieri potest ut aliquae spirituales substantiae, quamvis secundum suam naturam sint super omnia corporalia elevatae, aliquibus corporibus alligentur, utputa igni infernali, non ita quod ipsum vivificent, sed quod eo quodammodo adstringantur: et hoc ipsum considerandum a spirituali substantia, quod scilicet creaturae infimae quodammodo subditur, ei est afflictivum. The assertion that a soul separated from its body can be tortured by corporeal fire should not seem nonsensical when we reflect that it is not contrary to the nature of a spiritual substance to be confined to a body. This happens in the ordinary course of nature, as we see in the union of the soul with the body. The same effect is sometimes produced by the arts of black magic, by which a spirit is imprisoned in images or amulets or other such objects. The power of God can undoubtedly bring it about that spiritual substances, which are raised above the material world by their nature, may nevertheless be tied down to certain bodies, such as hell-fire; not in the sense that they animate the body in question, but that they are in some way fettered to it. And this very fact, brought home to the consciousness of a spiritual substance, namely, that it is thus subjected to the dominion of a lowly creature, is grievous to it.
Inquantum igitur huiusmodi consideratio est spiritualis substantiae afflictiva, verificatur quod dicitur, quod anima eo ipso quod se aspicit cremari crematur; et iterum quod ille ignis spiritualis sit, nam immediatum affligens est ignis apprehensus ut alligans. Inquantum vero ignis cui alligatur, corporeus est, sic verificatur quod dicitur a Gregorio, quod anima non solum videndo, sed etiam experiendo ignem patitur. Inasmuch as this awareness is distressing to the spiritual substance, the contention that the soul “burns by the very fact that it perceives itself to be in fire” [ Dialogi, IV, 29], is substantiated. Thus understood, the fire is plainly spiritual, for what directly causes the distress is the fire apprehended as imprisoning. But inasmuch as the fire in which the spirit is incarcerated is corporeal fire, the further statement made by Gregory is borne out, namely, that “the soul is in agony not only because its perceives, but also because it experiences, the fire.”
Et quia ignis ille non ex sua natura, sed ex virtute divina habet quod spiritualem substantiam alligare possit, convenienter dicitur a quibusdam, quod ignis ille agit in animam ut instrumentum divinae iustitiae vindicantis, non quidem ita quod agat in spiritualem substantiam, sicut agit in corpora calefaciendo, desiccando, dissolvendo, sed alligando, ut dictum est. Et quia proximum afflictivum spiritualis substantiae, est apprehensio ignis alligantis in poenam, manifeste perpendi potest, quod afflictio non cessat, etiam si ad horam dispensative contingat spiritualem substantiam igne non ligari, sicut aliquis qui esset ad perpetua vincula damnatus, ex hoc continuam afflictionem non minus sentiret, etiam si ad horam a vinculis solveretur. Furthermore, since this fire has the power of imprisoning the spiritual substance, not of its own nature, but by the might of God, the view is fittingly expressed by some that the fire acts on the soul as an instrument of God’s vindictive justice. This does not mean that the fire acts on the spiritual substance as it acts on bodies, by heating, parching, and consuming; its action is restrictive, as we said. And since that which directly afflicts the spiritual substance is the awareness that the fire incarcerates it for its punishment, we can reasonably suppose that the suffering does not cease even if, by God’s dispensation, the spiritual substance should happen for a time to be released from the fire. In the same way a criminal who has been sentenced to perpetual irons feels no dimunition of his unremitting pain even though the chains should be struck off for an hour.

Caput 181

Quod post hanc vitam sunt quaedam purgatoriae poenae non aeternae, ad implendas poenitentias de mortalibus non impletas in vita

Licet autem aliquae animae statim cum a corporibus absolvuntur, beatitudinem aeternam consequantur, ut dictum est, aliquae tamen ab hac consecutione retardantur ad tempus. Contingit enim quandoque aliquos pro peccatis commissis, de quibus tamen finaliter poenitent, poenitentiam non implevisse in hac vita. Et quia ordo divinae iustitiae habet ut pro culpis poenae reddantur, oportet dicere, quod post hanc vitam animae poenam exsolvunt quam in hoc mundo non exsolverunt: non autem ita quod ad ultimam miseriam damnatorum deveniant, cum per poenitentiam ad statum caritatis sint reductae, per quam Deo sicut ultimo fini adhaeserunt, per quod vitam aeternam meruerunt: unde relinquitur post hanc vitam esse quasdam purgatorias poenas, quibus poenitentiae implentur non impletae. Although some souls may be admitted to eternal beatitude as soon as they are released from their bodies, others may be held back from this happiness for a time. For it sometimes happens that during their lives people have not done full penance for the sins they have committed, but for which they have been sorry in the end. Since the order of divine justice demands that punishment be undergone for sins, we must hold that souls pay after this life the penalty they have not paid while on earth. This does not mean that they are banished to the ultimate misery of the damned, since by their repentance they have been brought back to the state of charity, whereby they cleave to God as their last end, so that they have merited eternal life. Hence we conclude that there are certain purgatorial punishments after this life, by which the debt of penalty not previously paid is discharged.

Caput 182

Quod sunt aliquae poenae purgatoriae etiam venialium

Similiter etiam contingit aliquos ex hac vita decedere sine peccato mortali, sed tamen cum peccato veniali, per quod ab ultimo fine non avertuntur, licet circa ea quae sunt ad finem, indebite inhaerendo peccaverint: quae quidem peccata in quibusdam viris perfectis ex fervore caritatis purgantur. In aliis autem oportet per aliquam poenam huiusmodi peccata purgari, quia ad vitam aeternam consequendam non perducitur nisi qui ab omni peccato et defectu fuerit immunis. Oportet igitur ponere purgatorias poenas post hanc vitam. It also happens that some men depart this life free from mortal sin but nevertheless stained with venial sin. The commission of such sins does not, indeed, turn them from their last end; but by committing them they have erred with regard to the means leading to the end, out of undue attachment to those means. In the case of some perfect men sins of this kind are expiated by the fervor of their love. But in others these sins must be atoned for by punishment of some sort; no one is admitted to the possession of eternal life unless he is free from all sin and imperfection. Therefore we must acknowledge the existence of purgatorial punishment after this life.
Habent autem istae poenae quod sint purgatoriae ex conditione eorum qui eas patiuntur, in quibus est caritas per quam voluntatem suam divinae voluntati conformant, ex cuius caritatis virtute poenae quas patiuntur, eis ad purgationem prosunt: Such punishments derive their cleansing power from the condition of those who suffer them. For the souls in purgatory are adorned with charity, by which their wills are conformed to the divine will; it is owing to this charity that the punishments they suffer avail them for cleansing.
unde in iis qui sine caritate sunt, sicut in damnatis, poenae non purgant, sed semper imperfectio peccati remanet, et ideo semper poena durat. This is why punishment has no cleansing force in those who lack charity, such as the damned. The defilement of their sin remains forever, and so their punishment endures forever.

Caput 183

Utrum aeternam poenam pati repugnet iustitiae divinae, cum culpa fuerit temporalis

Non autem est contra rationem divinae iustitiae ut aliquis poenam perpetuam patiatur, quia nec secundum leges humanas hoc exigitur ut poena commensuretur culpae in tempore. Nam pro peccato adulterii vel homicidii, quod in tempore brevi committitur, lex humana infert quandoque perpetuum exilium, aut etiam mortem, per quae aliquis in perpetuum a societate civitatis excluditur: et quod exilium non in perpetuum duret, hoc per accidens contingit, quia vita hominis non est perpetua, sed intentio iudicis ad hoc esse videtur ut eum, sicut potest, perpetuo puniat. Unde etiam non est iniustum, si pro momentaneo peccato et temporali Deus aeternam poenam infert. The suffering of eternal punishment is in no way opposed to divine justice. Even in the laws men make, punishment need not correspond to the offense in point of time. For the crime of adultery or murder, either of which may be committed in a brief span of time, human law may prescribe lifelong exile or even death, by both of which the criminal is banned forever from the society of the state. Exile, it is true, does not last forever, but this is purely accidental, owing to the fact that man’s life is not everlasting; but the intention of the judge, we may assume, is to sentence the criminal to perpetual punishment, so far as he can. In the same way it is not unjust for God to inflict eternal punishment for a sin committed in a moment of time.
Similiter etiam considerandum est, quod peccatori poena aeterna infertur, quem de peccato non poenitet, et sic in ipso usque ad mortem perdurat. Et quia in suo aeterno peccat, rationabiliter a Deo in aeternum punitur. Habet etiam et quodlibet peccatum contra Deum commissum quandam infinitatem ex parte Dei, contra quem committitur. Manifestum est enim quod quanto maior persona est contra quam peccatur, tanto peccatum est gravius, sicut qui dat alapam militi, gravius reputatur quam si daret rustico, et adhuc multo gravius si principi vel regi. Et sic cum Deus sit infinite magnus, offensa contra ipsum commissa est quodammodo infinita, unde et aliqualiter poena infinita ei debetur. Non autem potest esse poena infinita intensive, quia nihil creatum sic infinitum esse potest. Unde relinquitur quod peccato mortali debetur poena infinita duratione. We should also take into consideration the fact that eternal punishment is inflicted on a sinner who does not repent of his sin, and so he continues in his sin up to his death. And since he is in sin for eternity, he is reasonably punished by God for all eternity. Furthermore, any sin committed against God has a certain infinity when regarded from the side of God, against whom it is committed. For, clearly, the greater the person who is offended, the more grievous is the offense. He who strikes a soldier is held more gravely accountable than if he struck a peasant; and his offense is much more serious if he strikes a prince or a king. Accordingly, since God is infinitely great, an offense committed against Him is in a certain respect infinite; and so a punishment that is in a certain respect infinite is duly attached to it. Such a punishment cannot be infinite in intensity, for nothing created can be infinite in this way. Consequently a punishment that is infinite in duration is rightly inflicted for mortal sin.
Item. Ei qui corrigi potest, poena temporalis infertur ad eius correctionem vel purgationem. Si igitur aliquis a peccato corrigi non potest, sed voluntas eius obstinate firmata est in peccato, sicut supra de damnatis dictum est, eius poena terminari non debet. Moreover, while a person is still capable of correction, temporal punishment is imposed for his emendation or cleansing. But if a sinner is incorrigible, so that his will is obstinately fixed in sin, as we said above is the case with the damned, his punishment ought never to come to an end.

Caput 184

Quod praedicta conveniunt etiam aliis spiritualibus substantiis, sicut animabus

Quia vero homo in natura intellectuali cum Angelis convenit, in quibus etiam potest esse peccatum, sicut et in hominibus, ut supra dictum est, quaecumque dicta sunt de poena vel gloria animarum, intelligenda etiam sunt de gloria bonorum et poena malorum Angelorum. Hoc tamen solum inter homines et Angelos differt, quod confirmationem voluntatis in bono et obstinationem in malo, animae quidem humanae habent cum a corpore separantur, sicut supra dictum est, Angeli vero quando primo cum voluntate deliberata sibi finem praestituerunt vel Deum vel aliquid creatum, et ex tunc beati vel miseri facti sunt. In animabus enim humanis mutabilitas esse potest non solum ex libertate voluntatis, sed etiam ex mutabilitate corporis, in Angelis vero ex sola libertate arbitrii. Et ideo Angeli ex prima electione immutabilitatem consequuntur, animae vero non nisi cum fuerint a corporibus exutae. In his intellectual nature man resembles the angels, who are capable of sin, as also man is. We spoke of this above. Hence all that has been set forth about the punishment or glory of souls should be understood also of the glory of good angels and the punishment of bad angels. Men and angels exhibit only one point of difference in this regard: the wills of human souls receive confirmation in good or obstinacy in evil when they are separated from their bodies, as was said above; whereas angels were immediately made blessed or eternally wretched as soon as, with full deliberation of will, they fixed upon God or some created good as their end. The variability found in human souls can be accounted for, not only by the liberty of their wills, but also by the modifications their bodies undergo; but in the angels such variability comes from the freedom of will alone. And so angels achieve immutability at the very first choice they make; but souls are not rendered immutable until they leave their bodies.
Ad ostendendum igitur remunerationem bonorum, in symbolo fidei dicitur, vitam aeternam: quae quidem non est intelligenda aeterna solum propter durationem, sed magis propter aeternitatis fruitionem. Sed quia circa hoc etiam alia multa credenda occurrunt quae dicta sunt de poenis damnatorum et de finali statu mundi, ut omnia hic comprehenderentur, in symbolo patrum positum est: vitam futuri saeculi: futurum enim saeculum omnia huiusmodi comprehendit. To express the reward of the good, we say in the Creed: “I believe... in life everlasting.” This life is to be understood as eternal not because of its duration alone, but much more because it is the fruition of eternity. Since in this connection there are proposed for our belief many other truths that concern the punishments of the damned and the final state of the world, the Creed of the Fathers 1" sums up the whole doctrine in this proposition: “I look for... the life of the world to come.” This phrase, “the world to come,” takes in all these points.


Caput 185

De fide ad humanitatem Christi

Quia vero, sicut in principio dictum est, Christiana fides circa duo praecipue versatur, scilicet circa divinitatem Trinitatis, et circa humanitatem Christi, praemissis his quae ad divinitatem pertinent et effectus eius, considerandum restat de his quae pertinent ad humanitatem Christi. As was remarked in the beginning of this work, the Christian faith revolves about two main doctrines: the divinity of the Trinity and the humanity of Christ., In the foregoing treatise we reviewed the truths that pertain to the divinity and its effects. We now turn to a consideration of matters pertaining to the humanity of Christ.
Et quia, ut dicit apostolus, I ad Timoth. I, 15: Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere, praemittendum videtur quomodo humanum genus in peccatum incidit, ut sic evidentius agnoscatur quomodo per Christi humanitatem homines a peccatis liberantur. Since, however, as the Apostle remarks in 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners,” we shall do well to inquire first how the human race fell into sin, so that we may understand more clearly how men are freed from their sins through Christ’s humanity.


Caput 186

De praeceptis datis primo homini, et eius perfectione in primo statu
Sicut supra dictum est, homo in sui conditione taliter institutus fuit a Deo, ut corpus omnino esset animae subiectum: rursumque inter partes animae, inferiores vires rationi absque repugnantia subiicerentur, et ipsa ratio hominis esset Deo subiecta. Ex hoc autem quod corpus erat animae subiectum, contingebat quod nulla passio in corpore posset accidere quae dominio animae super corpus repugnaret, unde nec mors nec infirmitas in homine locum habebat. Ex subiectione vero inferiorum virium ad rationem erat in homine omnimoda mentis tranquillitas, quia ratio humana nullis inordinatis passionibus turbabatur. Ex hoc vero quod voluntas hominis erat Deo subiecta, homo referebat omnia in Deum sicut in ultimum finem, in quo eius iustitia et innocentia consistebat. We saw above that man was originally constituted by God in such a condition that his body was completely subject to his Soul. Further, among the faculties of the soul, the lower powers were subject to reason without any rebelliousness, and man’s reason itself was subject to God. In consequence of the perfect subjection of the body to the soul, no passion could arise in the body that would in any way conflict with the soul’s dominion over the body. Therefore neither death nor illness had any place in man. And from the subjection of the lower powers to reason there resulted in man complete peace of mind, for the human reason was troubled by no inordinate passions. Finally, owing to the submission of man’s will to God, man referred all things to God as to his last end, and in this his justice and innocence consisted.
Horum autem trium ultimum erat causa aliorum. Non enim hoc erat ex natura corporis, si eius componentia considerentur, quod in eo dissolutio sive quaecumque passio vitae repugnans locum non haberet, cum esset ex contrariis elementis compositum. Similiter etiam non erat ex natura animae quod vires etiam sensibiles absque repugnantia rationi subiicerentur, cum vires sensibiles naturaliter moveantur in ea quae sunt delectabilia secundum sensum, quae multoties rectae rationi repugnant. Of these three subordinations, the last was the cause of the other two. Surely man’s freedom from dissolution or from any suffering that would be a threat to his life, did not come from the nature of his body, as we see if we regard its component parts; for the body was made up of contrary elements. Similarly, the fact that man’s sense faculties were subservient to reason without any rebelliousness did not come from the nature of the soul, since the sense powers naturally tend toward objects that cause pleasure in the senses, even when, as often happens, delights of this sort are at odds with right reason.
Erat igitur hoc ex virtute superiori, scilicet Dei, qui sicut animam rationabilem corpori coniunxit, omnem proportionem corporis et corporearum virtutum, cuiusmodi sunt vires sensibiles, transcendentem, ita dedit animae rationali virtutem ut supra conditionem corporis ipsum continere posset et vires sensibiles, secundum quod rationali animae competebat. Ut igitur ratio inferiora sub se firmiter contineret, oportebat quod ipsa firmiter sub Deo contineretur, a quo virtutem praedictam habebat supra conditionem naturae. Fuit ergo homo sic institutus ut nisi ratio eius subduceretur a Deo, neque corpus eius subduci poterat a nutu animae, neque vires sensibiles a rectitudine rationis: unde quaedam immortalis vita et impassibilis erat, quia scilicet nec mori nec pati poterat, si non peccaret. Peccare vero poterat voluntate eius nondum confirmata per adeptionem ultimi finis, et sub hoc eventu poterat mori et pati. This harmony came from a higher power, the power of God. It was God who, in the first instance, united to the body the rational soul that so immeasurably surpasses the body and the bodily faculties, such as the sense powers. Likewise it was God who gave to the rational soul the power to control the body itself in a manner that exceeded the natural condition of the body, and also to govern the sense faculties so that they would function in a way befitting a rational soul. In order, therefore, that reason might firmly hold the lower faculties’ under its sway, reason itself had to be firmly kept under the dominion of God, from whom it received this power so greatly surpassing the condition of nature. Accordingly man was so constituted that, unless his reason was subservient to God, his body could not be made subject to the beck of the, soul, nor his sense powers be brought under the rule of reason. Hence in that state life was in a certain way immortal and impassible; that is, man could neither die nor suffer, so long as he did not sin. Nevertheless he retained the power to sin, since his will was not yet confirmed in good by the attainment of the last end; in the event that this happened, man could suffer and die.
Et in hoc differt impassibilitas et immortalitas quam primus homo habuit, ab ea quam in resurrectione sancti habebunt, qui nunquam poterunt nec pati nec mori, voluntate eorum omnino confirmata in Deum, sicut supra dictum est. Differebat etiam quoad aliud, quia post resurrectionem homines nec cibis nec venereis utentur, primus autem homo sic conditus fuit ut necesse haberet vitam cibis sustentare, et ei incumberet generationi operam dare, ut genus humanum multiplicaretur ex uno. Unde duo praecepta accepit in sui conditione. Ad primum pertinet quod ei dictum est: de omni ligno quod est in Paradiso comede; ad secundum quod ei dictum est: crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram. It is precisely in this respect that the impassibility and immortality possessed by the first man differ from the impassibility and immortality to be enjoyed after the resurrection by the saints, who will never be subject to suffering and death, since their wills will be wholly fixed upon God, as we said above. There is another difference: after the resurrection men will have no use for food or the reproductive functions; but the first man was so constituted that he had to sustain his life with food, and he had a mandate to perform the work of generation; for the human race was to be multiplied from this one parent. Hence he received two commands, in keeping with his condition. The first is that mentioned in Genesis 2:16: “Of every tree of Paradise may eat.” The other is reported in Genesis 1:28: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.”


Caput 187

Quod ille perfectus status nominabatur originalis iustitia, et de loco in quo homo positus est
Hic autem hominis tam ordinatus status, originalis iustitia nominatur, per quam et ipse suo superiori subditus erat, et ei omnia inferiora subiiciebantur, secundum quod de eo dictum est: et praesit piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli: et inter partes eius etiam inferior absque repugnantia superiori subdebatur. Qui quidem status primo homini fuit concessus non ut cuidam personae singulari, sed ut primo humanae naturae principio, ita quod per ipsum simul cum natura humana traduceretur in posteros. This wonderfully ordered state of man is called original justice. By it man himself was subject to God on high, and all lower creatures were subordinate to man, as is indicated in Genesis 1:26: “Let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air.” And among the component parts of man, the lower were subservient to the higher without any conflict. This state was granted to man, not as to a private individual, but as to the first principle of human nature, so that through him it was to be handed down to his descendants together with human nature.
Et quia unicuique debetur locus secundum convenientiam suae conditionis, homo sic ordinate institutus positus est in loco temperatissimo et delicioso, ut non solum interiorum molestiarum, sed etiam aliorum exteriorum omnis ei vexatio tolleretur. Moreover, since every one ought to have a habitation befitting his condition, man thus harmoniously constituted was placed in a most temperate and delightful region, so that all inconvenience, not only of internal annoyance, but also of external surroundings, might be far removed from him.


Caput 188

De ligno scientiae boni et mali, et primo hominis praecepto
Quia vero praedictus status hominis ex hoc dependebat quod humana voluntas Deo subiiceretur, ut homo statim a principio assuefieret ad Dei voluntatem sequendam, proposuit Deus homini quaedam praecepta, ut scilicet ex omnibus aliis lignis Paradisi vesceretur, prohibens sub mortis comminatione ne de ligno scientiae boni et mali vesceretur, cuius quidem ligni esus non ideo prohibitus est quia secundum se malus esset, sed ut homo saltem in hoc modico aliquid observaret ea sola ratione quia esset a Deo praeceptum: unde praedicti ligni esus factus est malus, quia prohibitus. Dicebatur autem lignum illud scientiae boni et mali, non quia haberet virtutem scientiae causativam, sed propter eventum sequentem, quia scilicet homo per eius esum experimento didicit quid intersit inter obedientiae bonum et inobedientiae malum. This state enjoyed by man depended on the submission of the human will to God. That man might be accustomed from the very beginning to follow God’s will, God laid certain precepts on him. Man was permitted to eat of all the trees in Paradise, with one exception: he was forbidden under pain of death to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating of the fruit of this tree was prohibited, not because it was evil in itself, but that at least in this slight matter man might have some precept to observe for the sole reason that it was so commanded by God. Hence eating of the fruit of this tree was evil because it was forbidden. The tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not because it had the power to cause knowledge, but because of the sequel: by eating of it man learned by experience the difference between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience.


Caput 189

De seductione Diaboli ad Evam
Diabolus igitur, qui iam peccaverat, videns hominem taliter institutum ut ad perpetuam felicitatem pervenire posset, a qua ipse deciderat, et nihilominus posset peccare, conatus est a rectitudine iustitiae abducere, aggrediens hominem ex parte debiliori, tentans feminam, in qua minus vigebat sapientiae donum vel lumen: et ut in transgressionem praecepti facilius inclinaret, exclusit mendaciter metum mortis, et ei illa promisit quae homo naturaliter appetit, scilicet vitationem ignorantiae, dicens: aperientur oculi vestri, et excellentiam dignitatis, dicens: scientes bonum et malum. Homo enim ex parte intellectus naturaliter fugit ignorantiam, et scientiam appetit; ex parte vero voluntatis, quae naturaliter libera est, appetit celsitudinem et perfectionem, ut nulli, vel quanto paucioribus potest, subdatur. The devil, who had already fallen into sin, saw that man was so equipped that he could arrive at everlasting happiness, from which the devil himself had been cast out. Yet, as he knew, man could still sin. So he sought to lead man astray from the straight path of justice, by attacking him on his weaker side; that is, he tempted the woman, in whom the gift of light or wisdom shone with a lesser brilliance. The more easily to induce her to break the command, he lyingly drove from her mind the fear of death, and promised her what man naturally desires, namely, the overcoming of ignorance. “Your eyes shall be opened,” he said (Gen. 3:5); and in adding: “You shall be as gods,” he held out to her the excellence of greatness. He further promised perfect knowledge, with the words: “knowing good and evil.” On the part of his intellect man naturally shuns ignorance and desires knowledge; and on the part of his will, which is naturally free, he desires high station and perfection, so that he may be subject to no one, or at any rate to as few as possible.


Caput 190

Quid fuit inductivum mulieris
Mulier igitur repromissam celsitudinem simul et perfectionem scientiae concupivit. Accessit etiam ad hoc pulchritudo et suavitas fructus, alliciens ad edendum, et sic metu mortis contempto, praeceptum Dei transgressa est, de vetito ligno edendo, The woman craved both the promised exaltation and the perfection of knowledge. Added to this were the beauty and sweetness of the fruit, which attracted her to eat of it. And so, scorning the fear of death, she violated God’s command, and ate of the forbidden tree.
et sic eius peccatum multiplex invenitur. Primo quidem superbiae, qua inordinate excellentiam appetiit. Secundo curiositatis, qua scientiam ultra terminos sibi praefixos concupivit. Tertio gulae, qua suavitate cibi permota est ad edendum. Quarto infidelitatis, per falsam aestimationem de Deo, dum credidit verbis Diaboli contra Deum loquentis. Quinto inobedientiae, praeceptum Dei transgrediendo. Upon analysis, her sin is found to have many aspects. First, there was a sin of pride, whereby she inordinately desired her own excellence. Her second sin was one of curiosity, whereby she coveted knowledge beyond the limits fixed for her. The third sin was that of gluttony, whereby the sweetness of the fruit enticed her to eat. A fourth sin was infidelity, growing out of a false estimate of God, so that she believed the words of the devil who gave the lie to God. Fifthly, there was a sin of disobedience, consisting in a transgression of God’s command.


Caput 191

Quomodo pervenit peccatum ad virum
Ex persuasione autem mulieris peccatum usque ad virum pervenit, qui tamen, ut apostolus dicit, non est seductus ut mulier, in hoc scilicet quod crederet verbis Diaboli contra Deum loquentis. Non enim in eius mente cadere poterat, Deum mendaciter aliquid comminatum esse, neque inutiliter a re utili prohibuisse. Allectus tamen fuit promissione Diaboli, excellentiam et scientiam indebite appetendo. Ex quibus cum voluntas eius a rectitudine iustitiae discessisset, uxori suae morem gerere volens, in transgressione divini praecepti eam secutus est, edendo de fructu ligni vetiti. The sin came to the man through the woman’s blandishments. He, however, as the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 2:14, “ was not seduced,” as the woman was. That is, he did not believe the words the devil spoke against God. The thought could not cross his mind that God would utter a lying threat or that He would forbid the use of a thing for no good purpose. Yet he was drawn by the devil’s promise to an undue desire of excellence and knowledge. As a result, his will fell away from the right pursuit of justice and, consenting to his wife’s importunities, he followed her in transgressing the divine command, and ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree.


Caput 192

De effectu sequente culpam quantum ad rebellionem virium inferiorum rationi
Quia igitur dicti status tam ordinata integritas tota causabatur ex subiectione humanae voluntatis ad Deum, consequens fuit ut subducta humana voluntate a subiectione divina, deperiret illa perfecta subiectio inferiorum virium ad rationem et corporis ad animam: unde consecutum est ut homo sentiret in inferiori appetitu sensibili, concupiscentiae et irae et ceterarum passionum inordinatos motus non secundum ordinem rationis, sed magis ei repugnantes, et eam plerumque obnubilantes, et quasi perturbantes: et haec est repugnantia carnis ad spiritum, de qua Scriptura loquitur. Nam quia appetitus sensitivus, sicut et ceterae sensitivae vires, per instrumentum corporeum operatur, ratio autem absque aliquo organo corporali, convenienter quod ad appetitum sensitivum pertinet, carni imputatur; quod vero ad rationem, spiritui, secundum quod spirituales substantiae dici solent quae sunt a corporibus separatae. The harmonious integrity of the original state depended entirely on the submission of man’s will to God. Consequently, as soon as the human will threw off the yoke of subjection to God, the perfect subjection of the lower powers to reason and of the body to the soul likewise disintegrated. As a result, man experienced in his lower, sensitive appetite the inordinate stirrings of concupiscence, anger, and all the other passions. These movements no longer followed the order set by reason but rather resisted reason, frequently darkening the mind and, so to speak, throwing it into confusion. This is that rebellion of the flesh against the spirit which Scripture mentions. For, since the sensitive appetite, like all the other sense powers, operates through a bodily instrument, whereas reason functions without any bodily organ, what pertains to the sensitive appetite is rightly ascribed to the flesh, and what pertains to reason is attributed to the spirit. This is why substances that are without bodies are commonly called spiritual substances.


Caput 193

Quomodo fuit poena illata quantum ad necessitatem moriendi
Consecutum est etiam, ut in corpore sentiretur corruptionis defectus, ac per hoc homo incurreret necessitatem moriendi, quasi animatum non valens corpus in perpetuum continere, vitam ei praebendo: unde homo factus est passibilis et mortalis, non solum quasi potens pati et mori ut antea, sed quasi necessitatem habens ad patiendum et moriendum. A further consequence was that the defect which consists in corruption was experienced in the body, and so man incurred the necessity of dying; his soul was no longer able to sustain the body forever by conferring life on it. Thus man became subject to suffering and death, not only in the sense that he was capable of suffering and dying as before, but in the sense that he was now under the necessity of suffering and dying.


Caput 194

De aliis defectibus qui consequuntur in intellectu et voluntate
Consecuti sunt in homine per consequens multi alii defectus. Abundantibus enim in appetitu inferiori inordinatis motibus passionum, simul etiam et in ratione deficiente lumine sapientiae, quo divinitus illustrabatur voluntas dum erat Deo subiecta, per consequens affectum suum rebus sensibilibus subdidit, in quibus oberrans a Deo multipliciter peccavit, Many other defects began to appear in man. Inordinate stirrings of passion quickly followed one another in the lower appetites, and at the same time the light of wisdom, which supernaturally illuminated man as long as his will was submissive to God, grew dim in his intellect. The result of this was that man turned his love to sensible objects. Immersed in these, he wandered far from God and fell into repeated sins.
et ulterius immundis spiritibus se subdidit per quos credidit in huiusmodi rebus agendis acquirendis sibi auxilium praestari, et sic in humano genere idolatria et diversa peccatorum genera processerunt: et quo magis in his homo corruptus fuit, eo amplius a cognitione et desiderio bonorum spiritualium et divinorum recessit. Furthermore, he gave his allegiance to unclean spirits who he thought would help him to live a life of sensual pleasure and to acquire material goods. Through this process, idolatry and various kinds of sins arose in the human race. The more man yielded to their baneful influence, the farther he left behind him the knowledge and desire of spiritual and divine goods.


Caput 195

Quomodo isti defectus derivati sunt ad posteros
Et quia praedictum originalis iustitiae bonum sic humano generi in primo parente divinitus attributum fuit, ut tamen per ipsum derivaretur in posteros, remota autem causa removetur effectus, consequens fuit ut primo homine praedicto bono per proprium peccatum privato, omnes posteri privarentur, et sic de cetero, scilicet post peccatum primi parentis, omnes absque originali iustitia et cum defectibus consequentibus sunt exorti. The blessing of original justice was conferred by God on the human race in the person of its first parent, in such a way that it was to be transmitted to his posterity through him. But when a cause is removed, the effect cannot follow. Therefore, when the first man stripped himself of this good by his sin, all his descendants were likewise deprived of it. And so for all time, that is, ever since the sin of the first parent, all men come into the world bereft of original justice and burdened with the defects that attend its loss.
Nec hoc est contra ordinem iustitiae, quasi Deo puniente in filiis quod primus parens deliquit, quia ista poena non est nisi subtractio eorum quae supernaturaliter primo homini divinitus sunt concessa, per ipsum in alios derivanda: unde aliis non debebantur, nisi quatenus per primum parentem in eos erant transitura. Sicut si rex det feudum militi, transiturum per ipsum ad heredes, si miles contra regem peccat, ut feudum mereatur amittere, non potest postmodum ad eius heredes devenire: unde iuste privantur posteri per culpam parentis. This is in no way against the order of justice, as though God were punishing the sons for the crime of their first father. For the punishment in question is no more than the withdrawing of goods that were supernaturally granted by God to the first man for transmission, through him, to others. These others had no right to such goods, except so far as the gifts were to be passed on to them through their first parent. In the same way a king may reward a soldier with the grant of an estate, which is to be handed on by him to his heirs. If the soldier then commits a crime against the king, and so is adjudged to forfeit the estate, it cannot afterwards pass to his heirs. In this case the sons are justly dispossessed in consequence of their father’s crime.


Caput 196

Utrum defectus originalis iustitiae habeat rationem culpae in posteris
Sed remanet quaestio magis urgens: utrum defectus originalis iustitiae in his qui ex primo parente prodierunt, rationem culpae possit habere. Hoc enim ad rationem culpae pertinere videtur, sicut supra dictum est, ut malum quod culpabile dicitur, sit in potestate eius cui imputatur in culpam. Nullus enim culpatur de eo quod non est in eo facere vel non facere. Non est autem in potestate eius qui nascitur, ut cum originali iustitia nascatur, vel sine ea: unde videtur quod talis defectus rationem culpae habere non possit. But there remains a more pressing question: whether the privation of original justice can have the nature of sin in those who descend from the first parent. The notion of sin seems to require, as we said above, that the evil known as culpable should be in the power of him to whom it is imputed as fault. No one is blamed for that which is beyond his power to do or not to do. But it is not in the power of the person begotten, to be born with original justice or without it. Hence we might be inclined to judge that such a privation cannot have the character of sin.
Sed haec quaestio de facili solvitur, si distinguatur inter personam et naturam. Sicut enim in una persona multa sunt membra, ita in una humana natura multae sunt personae, ut participatione speciei multi homines intelligantur quasi unus homo, ut Porphyrius dicit. Est autem hoc advertendum in peccato unius hominis, quod diversis membris diversa peccata exercentur, nec requiritur ad rationem culpae quod singula peccata sint voluntaria voluntate membrorum quibus exercentur, sed voluntate eius quod est in homine principale, scilicet intellectivae partis. Non enim potest manus non percutere aut pes non ambulare voluntate iubente. This question is easily solved if we but distinguish between person and nature. As there are many members in one person, so there are many persons in one human nature. Thus, by sharing in the same species, many men may be thought of as one man, as Porphyry remarks. In this connection we should note that in the sin of one man different sins are committed by different members. Nor does the notion of sin require that the various sins be voluntary by the wills of the members whereby they are committed, for it is enough that they be voluntary by the will of that which is most excellent in man, that is, his intellectual part. For the hand cannot but strike and the foot cannot help walking, when the will so commands.
Per hunc igitur modum defectus originalis iustitiae est peccatum naturae, inquantum derivatur ex inordinata voluntate primi principii in natura humana, scilicet primi parentis, et sic est voluntarium habito respectu ad naturam, voluntate scilicet primi principii naturae, et sic transit in omnes qui ab ipso naturam humanam accipiunt, quasi in quaedam membra ipsius, In this way, then, the privation of original justice is a sin of nature, in the sense that it has its origin in the inordinate will of the first principle in human nature, namely, of the first parent. Thus it is voluntary with respect to nature, that is, by the will of the first principle of nature. And so it is transmitted to all who receive human nature from him, for they are all, as it were, his members.
et propter hoc dicitur originale peccatum, quia per originem a primo parente in posteros derivatur: unde cum alia peccata, scilicet actualia, immediate respiciant personam peccantem, hoc peccatum directe respicit naturam. Nam primus parens suo peccato infecit naturam, et natura infecta inficit personam filiorum, qui ipsam a primo parente suscipiunt. This is why it is called original sin, for it is transferred from the first parent to his descendants by their origin from him. Other sins, that is, actual sins, pertain immediately to the person who commits them; this sin directly touches nature. The first parent infected nature by his sin, and nature thus contaminated thereupon infects the persons of the children who receive their nature from the first parent.


Caput 197

Quod non omnia peccata traducuntur in posteros
Nec tamen oportet quod omnia peccata alia vel primi parentis, vel etiam ceterorum, traducantur in posteros, quia primum peccatum primi parentis sustulit donum totum quod supernaturaliter erat collatum in humana natura personae primi parentis, et sic dicitur corrupisse vel infecisse naturam: unde peccata consequentia non inveniunt aliquid huiusmodi quod possint subtrahere a tota natura humana, sed auferunt ab homine aut diminuunt aliquod bonum particulare, scilicet personale, nec corrumpunt naturam, nisi inquantum pertinet ad hanc vel illam personam. Homo autem non generat sibi similem in persona, sed in natura: et ideo non traducitur a parente in posteros peccatum quod vitiat personam, sed primum peccatum quod vitiavit naturam. It does not follow, however, that all other sins, either of the first parent or of other parents, are handed down to posterity. For only the first sin of the first parent extirpated in its entirety the gift that had been supernaturally granted to human nature in the person of the first father. This is the reason why sin is said to have corrupted or infected nature. Subsequent sins do not encounter anything of this sort that they can uproot from the whole of human nature. Such sins do, indeed, take away from man, or at least tarnish, some particular good, namely, a personal good; but they do not corrupt nature except so far as nature pertains to this or that person. Since man begets his like not in person but only in nature, the sin that defiles the person is not handed down from a parent to his descendants. Only the first sin that defiled nature as such, is thus transmitted.


Caput 198

Quod meritum Adae non profuit posteris ad reparationem
Quamvis autem peccatum primi parentis totam humanam naturam infecerit, non tamen potuit per eius poenitentiam vel quodcumque eius meritum tota natura reparari. Manifestum est enim quod poenitentia Adae, vel quodcumque aliud eius meritum, fuit actus singularis personae, actus autem alicuius individui non potest in totam naturam speciei. Causae enim quae possunt in totam speciem, sunt causae aequivocae, et non univocae. Sol enim est causa generationis in tota specie humana, sed homo est causa generationis huius hominis. Singulare ergo meritum Adae, vel cuiuscumque puri hominis, sufficiens esse non poterat ad totam naturam reintegrandam. Quod autem per actum singularem primi hominis tota natura est vitiata, per accidens est consecutum, inquantum eo privato innocentiae statu, per ipsum in alios derivari non potuit. Although the sin of the first parent infected the whole of human nature, neither his repentance nor any merit of his was able to restore nature in its entirety. Adam’s repentance or any other merit of his was clearly the act of an individual person. But no act of any individual can affect the entire nature of the species. Causes that can affect a whole species are equivocal causes, not univocal. The sun is a cause of generation in the whole human species, but a man is only the cause of the generation of a particular man. Hence the individual merit of Adam, or of any other mere man, could not suffice to re-establish the whole of nature. True, all nature was defiled by a single act of the first man; but this effect followed only indirectly, in the sense that, once the state of innocence had been devastated in him, it could not be conveyed through him to others.
Et quamvis per poenitentiam redierit ad gratiam, non tamen redire potuit ad pristinam innocentiam, cui divinitus praedictum originalis iustitiae donum concessum erat. Similiter etiam manifestum est quod praedictus originalis iustitiae status fuit quoddam speciale donum gratiae, gratia autem meritis non acquiritur, sed gratis a Deo datur. Sicut igitur primus homo a principio originalem iustitiam non ex merito habuit, sed ex divino dono, ita etiam, et multo minus, post peccatum eam mereri potuit poenitendo, vel quodcumque aliud opus agendo. Even though Adam were to recover grace through penance, he could not return to his pristine innocence, in view of which God had granted the gift of original justice. Moreover, the state of original justice was manifestly a very special gift of grace. Grace, however, is not acquired by merits, but is given gratis by God. Therefore the original justice which the first man had from the beginning was not the result of his merit, but was a gift of God. Much less, after his sin, could Adam merit it by his repentance, or by the performance of any other work.


Caput 199

De reparatione humanae naturae per Christum
Oportebat autem quod humana natura praedicto modo infecta, ex divina providentia repararetur. Non enim poterat ad perfectam beatitudinem pervenire, nisi tali infectione remota: quia beatitudo cum sit perfectum bonum, nullum defectum patitur, et maxime defectum peccati, quod aliquo modo virtuti opponitur, quae est via in ipsam, ut dictum est. Et sic cum homo propter beatitudinem factus sit, quia ipsa est ultimus eius finis, sequeretur quod opus Dei in tam nobili creatura frustraretur, quod reputat inconveniens Psalmista, cum dicit, Psal. LXXXVIII, v. 48: nunquid enim vane constituisti omnes filios hominum? Sic igitur oportebat humanam naturam reparari. Nevertheless in the plan of divine providence it was decreed that human nature, which had been ravaged in the manner described, should be restored. It could not be admitted to perfect beatitude unless it were freed of its defilement. Beatitude, being a perfect good, tolerates no defect, especially the defect of sin; for sin is, in its own way, opposed to virtue, which is the path leading to beatitude, as was established above. And so, since man was made for beatitude, seeing that beatitude is his ultimate end, one might conclude that God’s work in creating so noble a being was doomed to frustration. But this the Psalmist holds to be inadmissible, for he says in Psalm 88:48: “Hast You made all the children of men in vain?” Accordingly it was fitting that human nature should be restored.
Praeterea. Bonitas divina excedit potentiam creaturae ad bonum. Patet autem ex supra dictis quod talis est hominis conditio quandiu in hac mortali vita vivit, quod sicut nec confirmatur in bono immobiliter, ita nec immobiliter obstinatur in malo. Pertinet igitur hoc ad conditionem humanae naturae ut ab infectione peccati possit purgari. Non fuit igitur conveniens quod divina bonitas hanc potentiam totaliter dimitteret vacuam, quod fuisset, si ei reparationis remedium non procurasset. Furthermore, divine goodness exceeds the creature’s capacity for good. As long as man leads a mortal life in this world, we know that his condition is such that he is neither immovably confirmed in good nor immovably obstinate in evil. Hence the very condition of human nature implies that it is capable of being cleansed from the contamination of sin. Surely the divine goodness would hardly allow this capacity to remain forever unrealized; but this would have been so had God not provided a remedy devised for man’s restoration.


Caput 200

Quod per solum Deum incarnatum debuit natura reparari
Ostensum est autem quod neque per Adam neque per aliquem alium hominem purum poterat reparari: tum quia nullus singularis homo praeeminebat toti naturae, tum quia nullus purus homo potest esse gratiae causa. Eadem ergo ratione nec per Angelum potuit reparari, quia nec Angelus potest esse gratiae causa, nec etiam praemium hominis quantum ad ultimam beatitudinem perfectam, ad quam oportebat hominem revocari, quia in ea sunt pares. Relinquitur igitur quod per solum Deum talis reparatio fieri poterat. We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.
Sed si Deus hominem sola sua voluntate et virtute reparasset, non servaretur divinae iustitiae ordo, secundum quam exigitur satisfactio pro peccato. In Deo autem satisfactio non cadit, sicut nec meritum, hoc enim est sub alio existentis. Sic igitur neque Deo competebat satisfacere pro peccato totius naturae humanae, nec purus homo poterat, ut ostensum est. Conveniens igitur fuit Deum hominem fieri, ut sic unus et idem esset qui et reparare et satisfacere posset. Et hanc causam divinae incarnationis assignat apostolus, I Tim. I, 15: Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who is subject to another. Thus God was not in a position to satisfy for the sin of the whole of human nature; and a mere man was unable to do so, as we have just shown. Hence divine Wisdom judged it fitting that God should become man, so that thus one and the same person would be able both to restore man and to offer satisfaction. This is the reason for the divine Incarnation assigned by the Apostle in 1 Timothy 1:15: “Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners.”


Caput 201

De aliis causis incarnationis filii Dei
Sunt tamen et aliae rationes incarnationis divinae. Quia enim homo a spiritualibus recesserat, et totum se rebus corporalibus dederat, ex quibus in Deum per se ipsum redire non poterat, divina sapientia, quae hominem fecerat, per naturam corpoream assumptam hominem in corporalibus iacentem visitavit, ut per sui corporis mysteria eum ad spiritualia revocaret. There are also other reasons for the divine Incarnation. Man had withdrawn from spiritual things and had delivered himself up wholly to material things, from which he was unable by his own efforts to make his way back to God. Therefore divine Wisdom, who had made man, took to Himself a bodily nature and visited man immersed in things of the body, so that by the mysteries of His bodily life He might recall man to spiritual life.
Fuit etiam necessarium humano generi ut Deus homo fieret, ad demonstrandum naturae humanae dignitatem, ut sic homo neque Daemonibus subderetur, neque corporalibus rebus. Furthermore, the human race had need that God should become man to show forth the dignity of human nature, so that man might not be subjugated either by devils or by things of the body.
Simul etiam per hoc quod Deus homo fieri voluit, manifeste ostendit immensitatem sui amoris, ut ex hoc iam homines Deo subderentur non propter metum mortis, quam primus homo contempsit, sed per caritatis affectum. At the same time, by willing to become man, God clearly displayed the immensity of His love for men, so that henceforth men might serve God, no longer out of fear of death, which the first man had scorned, but out of the love of charity.
Datur etiam per hoc homini quoddam exemplum illius beatae unionis qua intellectus creatus increato spiritui intelligendo unietur. Non enim restat incredibile quin intellectus creaturae Deo uniri possit, eius essentiam videndo, ex quo Deus homini unitus est, naturam eius assumendo. Moreover, the Incarnation holds up to man an ideal of that blessed union whereby the created intellect is joined, in an act of understanding, to the uncreated Spirit. It is no longer incredible that a creature’s intellect should be capable of union with God by beholding the divine essence, since the time when God became united to man by taking a human nature to Himself.
Perficitur etiam per hoc quodammodo totius operis divini universitas, dum homo, qui est ultimo creatus, circulo quodam in suum redit principium, ipsi rerum principio per opus incarnationis unitus. Lastly, the Incarnation puts the finishing touch to the whole vast work envisaged by God. For man, who was the last to be created, returns by a sort of circulatory movement to his first beginning, being united by the work. of the Incarnation to the very principle of all things.


Caput 202

De errore Photini circa incarnationem filii Dei
Hoc autem divinae incarnationis mysterium Photinus, quantum in se est, evacuavit. Nam Ebionem et Cerinthum et Paulum Samosatenum sequens, dominum Iesum Christum fuisse purum hominem asseruit, nec ante Mariam virginem extitisse, sed quod per beatae vitae meritum, et patientiam mortis, gloriam divinitatis promeruit, ut sic Deus diceretur non per naturam, sed per adoptionis gratiam. Sic igitur non esset facta unio Dei et hominis, sed homo esset per gratiam deificatus, quod non singulare est Christo, sed commune omnibus sanctis, quamvis in hac gratia aliqui excellentiores aliis habeantur. This mystery of the divine Incarnation, Photinus set aside, so far as he could. Following Ebion, Cerinthus and Paul of Samosata, he asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ was no more than a man and that He did not exist before the Virgin Mary, but earned the glory of divinity by the merit of a blessed life and by patiently enduring death; and thus He was called God, not on account of His nature, but by the grace of adoption. In this event no union of God with man would have been effected; only a man would be deified by grace. Elevation of this sort is not peculiar to Christ, but is common to all the saints, although some may be considered more highly endowed with such grace than others.
Hic autem error auctoritatibus divinae Scripturae contradicit. Dicitur enim Ioan. I, 1: in principio erat verbum; et postea subdit: verbum caro factum est. Verbum ergo quod erat in principio apud Deum, carnem assumpsit, non autem homo, qui ante fuerat, per gratiam adoptionis deificatus. This error contradicts the authority of Sacred Scripture. In John 1:1 we read: “In the beginning was the Word.” Shortly after the Evangelist adds: “And the Word was made flesh.” Hence the Word that in the beginning was with God assumed flesh. But Scripture does not say that a man who lacked previous existence was deified by the grace of adoption.
Item dominus dicit Ioan. VI, 38: descendi de caelo non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me. Secundum autem Photini errorem non conveniret Christo descendisse, sed solum ascendisse, cum tamen apostolus dicat, Ephes. IV, 9: quod autem ascendit, quid est nisi quia et descendit primum in inferiores partes terrae? Ex quo manifeste datur intelligi, quod in Christo non haberet locum ascensio, nisi descensio praecessisset. Likewise, in John 6:38 the Lord says: “I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.” According to the error of Photinus, Christ could not come down from heaven, but could only go up to heaven. Against him is the Apostle, who says in Ephesians 4:9: “That He ascended, what is it but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?” This enables us to understand clearly that the Ascension would have no place in Christ unless His descent from heaven had preceded.


Caput 203

Error Nestorii circa incarnationem et eius improbatio
Hoc igitur volens declinare Nestorius, partim quidem a Photini errore discessit, quia posuit Christum filium Dei non solum per adoptionis gratiam, sed per naturam divinam, in qua patri extitit coaeternus; partim vero cum Photino concordat, dicens, filium Dei non sic esse unitum homini ut una persona fieret Dei et hominis, sed per solam inhabitationem in ipso, et sic homo ille, sicut secundum Photinum per solam gratiam Deus dicitur, sic et secundum Nestorium Dei filius dicitur, non quia ipse vere sit Deus, sed propter filii Dei inhabitationem in ipso, quae est per gratiam. Nestorius wished to avoid this contradiction. In part he disagreed with the error of Photinus; for Nestorius held that Christ was the Son of God not only by the grace of adoption, but by the divine nature in which He existed coeternal with the Father. In part, however, he sided with Photinus, because he taught that the Son of God was united to man by mere habitation in him, but not in such a way that there was only one person who was both God and man. And so that man who, according to Photinus, is called God through grace alone, is called the son of God by Nestorius, not because he is truly God, but because the Son of God dwells in him through the inhabitation effected by grace.
Hic autem error auctoritati sacrae Scripturae repugnat. Hanc enim unionem Dei et hominis apostolus exinanitionem nominat, dicens, Philip. II, 6, de filio Dei: qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens. Non est autem exinanitio Dei quod creaturam rationalem inhabitet per gratiam, alioquin et pater et spiritus sanctus exinanirentur, quia et ipsi creaturam rationalem per gratiam inhabitant, dicente domino de se et de patre, Ioan. XIV, 23: ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus, et apostolo de spiritu sancto, I Cor. III, 16: spiritus Dei habitat in vobis. This error is likewise opposed to the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the union of God with man is called by the Apostle an “emptying”; in Philippians 2:6 he says of the Son of God: “Who, being in the form of God, thought is not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.” But there is no emptying of God when He dwells in a rational creature by grace. Otherwise the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptied out also, since they too dwell in the rational creature by grace. Thus in John 14:23 our Lord says of Himself and the Father: “We will come to him and will make our abode with him.” And in 1 Corinthians 3:16 the Apostle says of the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit of God dwells in you.”
Item non conveniret homini illi voces divinitatis emittere, si personaliter Deus non esset. Praesumtuosissime ergo dixisset: ego et pater unum sumus: et: antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Ego enim personam loquentis demonstrat: homo autem erat qui loquebatur. Est igitur persona eadem Dei et hominis. Moreover, the man in question could hardly use words signifying divinity unless He were personally God. He would have been guilty of supreme presumption in saying, as He does in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one,” and also in 8:58: “Before Abraham was made, I am.” For the pronoun “I” indicates the person of the speaker; but He who uttered these words was a man. Hence the person of God and this man are one and the same.
Ad hos ergo errores excludendos, in symbolo tam apostolorum quam patrum, facta mentione de persona filii, subditur: qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus, passus, mortuus et resurrexit. Non enim ea quae sunt hominis, de filio Dei praedicarentur, nisi eadem esset persona filii Dei et hominis, quia quae uni personae conveniunt, non ex hoc ipso de altera praedicantur: sicut quae conveniunt Paulo, non ex hoc ipso praedicantur de Petro. To preclude such errors, both the Apostles’ Creed and the Creed of the Nicene Fathers, after mentioning the person of the Son, add that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, was born, suffered, died, and rose. Surely what pertains to the man would not be predicated of the Son of God unless the person of the Son of God and of the man were the same. What is proper to one person is, by that very fact, not said of another person; for example, what is proper to Paul is, for that precise reason, not predicated of Peter.


Caput 204

De errore Arii circa incarnationem et improbatio eius
Ut ergo unitatem Dei et hominis confiterentur quidam haeretici in partem contrariam diverterunt, dicentes, Dei et hominis esse unam non solum personam, sed etiam naturam. Cuius quidem erroris principium fuit ab Ario, qui ut ea quae in Scripturis dicuntur de Christo, quibus ostenditur minor patre, non nisi ad ipsum Dei filium possent referri secundum assumentem naturam, posuit in Christo non aliam animam esse quam Dei verbum, quod dixit corpori Christi fuisse pro anima: ut sic cum dicit: pater maior me est, vel cum orasse legitur, aut tristatus, ad ipsam naturam filii Dei sit referendum. Hoc autem posito, sequitur quod unio filii Dei ad hominem facta sit non solum in persona, sed etiam in natura. Manifestum est enim quod ex anima et corpore constituitur unitas humanae naturae. In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.
Et huius quidem positionis falsitas quantum ad id quod filium minorem patre asserit, supra est declarata, cum ostendimus filium patri aequalem. Quantum vero ad id quod dicit, verbum Dei in Christo fuisse pro anima, huius erroris ex praemissis falsitas ostendi potest. Ostensum est enim supra, animam corpori uniri ut formam, Deum autem impossibile est formam corporis esse, sicut supra ostensum est. Et ne forte Arius hoc diceret de summo Deo patre intelligendum, idem et de Angelis ostendi potest, quod secundum naturam corpori non possunt uniri per modum formae, cum sint secundum naturam suam a corporibus separati. Multo igitur minus filius Dei, per quem facti sunt Angeli, ut etiam Arius confitetur, corporis forma esse potest. The falsity of this position, so far as regards the assertion that the Son is less than the Father, was brought out above, when we showed that the Son is equal to the Father. And with respect to the theory that the Word of God took the place of the soul in Christ, the absurdity of this error can be shown by reverting to a point previously set forth. For, as we demonstrated above, the soul is united to the body as the latter’s form. But God cannot be the form of a body, as we also demonstrated above. Arius could not counter by maintaining that this is to be understood of God the Father on high, since the same can be proved even of the angels, namely, that they cannot, of their very nature, be united to a body in the manner of a form, seeing that by nature they are separated from bodies. Much less, then, can the Son of God, by whom the angels were made, as even Arius admits, be the form of a body.
Praeterea. Filius Dei etiam si sit creatura, ut Arius mentitur, tamen secundum ipsum in beatitudine praecedit omnes spiritus creatos. Est autem tanta Angelorum beatitudo, quod tristitiam habere non possunt. Non enim esset vera et plena felicitas, si aliquid eorum votis deficeret: est enim de ratione beatitudinis ut sit finale et perfectum bonum totaliter appetitum quietans. Multo igitur minus Dei filius tristari potest aut timere secundum suam naturam. Legitur autem tristatus, cum dicitur: coepit Iesus pavere et taedere, et moestus esse; et ipse etiam suam tristitiam profitetur, dicens: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. Manifestum est autem tristitiam non esse corporis, sed alicuius apprehensivae substantiae. Oportet igitur praeter verbum et corpus in Christo aliam fuisse substantiam quae tristitiam pati posset, et hanc dicimus animam. Besides, even if the Son of God were a creature, as Arius falsely teaches, He nevertheless excels all created spirits in beatitude, according to the heresiarch himself. But the beatitude of the angels is so great that they can suffer no sadness. Their happiness would not be true and complete if anything were wanting to their desires, since the very notion of beatitude requires that it be the ultimate and perfect good wholly satisfying all desire. Much less can the Son of God be subject to sadness or fear in His divine nature. Yet we read that He was sad: “He began to fear and to be heavy,” “and to be sad” (Mark 14:33; Matt. 26:37). And He Himself gave witness of His sorrow, saying, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death” (Mark 14:34). Sadness, assuredly, pertains not to the body, but to some substance capable of apprehension. Therefore, besides the Word and the body, there must have been in Christ another substance that could suffer sadness; and this we call the soul.
Rursus. Si Christus propterea assumpsit quae nostra sunt, ut nos a peccatis mundaret, magis autem necessarium erat nobis mundari secundum animam, a qua origo peccati processerat, et quae est subiectum peccati: non igitur corpus assumpsit sine anima, sed quia principalius animam, et corpus cum anima. Moreover, if Christ assumed what is ours for the purpose of cleansing us of sin, and if our greater need was to be cleansed in soul, from which sin arises and which is the subject of sin, we must conclude that He assumed not a body without a soul, but a body together with its soul, since the soul was the more important part for Him to assume.


Caput 205

De errore Apollinaris circa incarnationem et improbatio eius
Ex quo etiam excluditur error Apollinaris, qui primo quidem Arium secutus, in Christo non aliam animam esse posuit quam Dei verbum. Sed quia non sequebatur Arium in hoc quod filium Dei diceret creaturam, multa autem dicuntur de Christo quae nec corpori attribui possunt, nec creatori convenire, ut tristitia, timor et huiusmodi, coactus tandem fuit ponere quidem aliquam animam in Christo, quae corpus sensificaret, et quae harum passionum posset esse subiectum, quae tamen ratione et intellectu carebat, ipsum autem verbum homini Christo pro intellectu et ratione fuisse. These considerations also refute the error of Apollinaris, who at first followed Arius in refusing to admit any soul in Christ other than the Word of God. However, he did not follow Arius in teaching that the Son of God was a creature; for many things are narrated of Christ which cannot be ascribed to the body, and which are inadmissible in the Creator, such as sadness, fear, and the like. He was, then, at length driven to acknowledge the existence in Christ of some soul which gave sense life to the body and could be the subject of such passions. Yet this soul was without reason and intellect, and the Word Himself took the place of intellect and reason in the man Christ.
Hoc autem multipliciter falsum esse ostenditur. Primo quidem, quia hoc est contra naturae rationem ut anima non rationalis sit forma hominis, cum tamen formam corporis habeat. Nihil autem monstruosum et innaturale in Christi incarnatione fuisse putandum est. Secundo, quia fuisset contra incarnationis finem, qui est reparatio humanae naturae, quae quidem principalius indiget reparari quantum ad intellectivam partem, quae particeps peccati esse potest. Unde praecipue conveniens fuit ut intellectivam hominis partem assumeret. Dicitur etiam Christus admiratus fuisse, admirari autem non est nisi animae rationalis, Deo vero omnino convenire non potest. Sicut igitur tristitia cogit in Christo ponere animam sensitivam, sic admiratio cogit ponere in Christo partem animae intellectivam. This theory is shown to be false on many grounds. In the first place, the very concept of nature is incompatible with the opinion that a non-rational soul is the form of man, whose body nevertheless must have some form. But nothing monstrous or unnatural can be thought of in connection with Christ’s incarnation. Secondly, this hypothesis would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Incarnation, namely, the reparation of human nature. Above all, human nature needs to be restored in the intellectual sphere, for that which can have part in sin is precisely the rational soul. Hence it chiefly befitted God’s Son to assume man’s intellectual nature. Besides, Christ is said to have marveled. But surprise cannot be experienced without a rational soul, and of course is wholly inadmissible in God. Therefore, as the sorrow Christ experienced forces us to admit that He had a sensitive soul, so the wonderment He expressed compels us to acknowledge the existence of a rational soul in Him.


Caput 206

De errore Eutychetis ponentis unionem in natura
Hos autem quantum ad aliquid Eutyches secutus est. Posuit enim unam naturam fuisse Dei et hominis post incarnationem, non tamen posuit quod Christo deesset vel anima vel intellectus, vel aliquid eorum quae ad integritatem spectant naturae. To some extent, Eutyches embraced the error of these heresiarchs. He taught that there was one nature common to both God and man after the Incarnation. However, he did not hold that Christ was lacking in soul or in intellect or in anything pertaining to the integrity of nature.
Sed et huius opinionis falsitas manifeste apparet. Divina enim natura in se perfecta et incommutabilis est. Natura enim quae in se perfecta est, cum altera non potest in unam naturam convenire, nisi vel ipsa convertatur in alteram, sicut cibus in cibatum, vel alterum convertatur in ipsum, sicut in ignem ligna; vel utrumque transmutetur in tertium, sicut elementa in corpus mixtum. Haec autem omnia removet divina immutabilitas. Non enim immutabile est neque quod in alterum convertitur, neque in quod alterum converti potest. Cum ergo natura divina in se sit perfecta, nullo modo potest esse quod simul cum aliqua natura in unam naturam conveniat. The erroneousness of this theory is plainly apparent. The divine nature is perfect in itself, and is incapable of change. But a nature that is perfect in itself cannot combine with another nature to form a single nature unless it is changed into that other nature (as food is changed into the eater), or unless the other nature is changed into it (as wood is changed into fire), or unless both natures are transformed into a third nature (as elements are when they combine to form a mixed body). The divine immutability excludes all these alternatives. For neither that which is changed into another thing, nor that into which another thing can be changed, is immutable. Since, therefore, the divine nature is perfect in itself, it can in no way combine with some other nature to form a single nature.
Rursum. Si quis rerum ordinem consideret, additio maioris perfectionis variat naturae speciem: alterius enim speciei est quod est et vivit tantum, ut planta, quam quod est tantum. Quod autem est et vivit et sentit, ut animal, est alterius speciei quam quod est et vivit tantum, ut planta. Item quod est, vivit, sentit et intelligit, ut homo, est alterius speciei quam quod est, vivit et sentit tantum, ut animal brutum. Si igitur illa una natura quae ponitur esse Christi, supra haec omnia habuit quod divinum est, consequens est quod illa natura alterius fuerit speciei a natura humana, sicut natura humana a natura bruti animalis. Neque Christus igitur fuit homo eiusdem speciei: quod falsum esse ostenditur ex hoc quod ab hominibus secundum carnem progenitus fuit, sicut Matthaeus ostendit in principio Evangelii sui dicens: liber generationis Iesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham. Moreover, as we see if we reflect on the order of things, the addition of a greater perfection causes variation in the species of a nature. Thus a thing that not only exists but lives, for example, a plant, differs in species from a thing that merely exists. And that which exists and lives and feels, for instance, an animal, differs in species from the plant, which merely exists and lives. Likewise a being that exists, lives, feels, and understands, namely, a man, differs in species from the brute animal, which merely exists, lives, and feels. Accordingly, if the single nature which the Eutychean theory ascribes to Christ has the perfection of divinity in addition to all these other perfections, that nature necessarily differs in species from human nature, in the way that human nature differs specifically from the nature of a brute animal. On this supposition, consequently, Christ would not be a man of the same species as other men, a conclusion shown to be false by Christ’s descent from men according to the flesh. This is brought out by Matthew in his Gospel, which begins with the words: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” and so on.


Caput 207

Contra errorem Manichaei dicentis, Christum non habuisse verum corpus, sed phantasticum
Sicut autem Photinus evacuavit incarnationis mysterium, divinam naturam a Christo auferendo, sic Manichaeus auferendo humanam. Quia enim ponebat totam creaturam corpoream a Diabolo fuisse creatam, nec erat conveniens ut boni Dei filius assumeret Diaboli creaturam, ideo posuit Christum non habuisse veram carnem, sed phantasticam tantum, et omnia quae in Evangelio de Christo narrantur ad humanam naturam pertinentia, in phantasia, et non in veritate facta fuisse asserebat. Photinus emptied the mystery of the Incarnation of all meaning by denying Christ’s divine nature. The Manichaean did the same by denying Christ’s human nature. He held that the whole of material creation was the work of the devil and that the Son of the good God could not becomingly take to Himself a creature of the devil. Therefore he taught that Christ did not have real flesh but only phantom flesh. Consequently he asserted that everything narrated in the Gospel as pertaining to the human nature of Christ, was done in appearance only and not in very truth.
Haec autem positio manifeste sacrae Scripturae contradicit, quae Christum asserit de virgine natum, circumcisum, esuriisse, comedisse et alia pertulisse quae pertinent ad humanae carnis naturam. Falsa igitur esset Evangeliorum Scriptura, haec narrans de Christo. This theory plainly gives the lie to Sacred Scripture, which relates that Christ was born of the Virgin, that He was circumcised, that He was hungry, that He ate, and that He had other experiences common to the nature of human flesh. Hence in recording such things of Christ, what is written in the Gospels would be false.
Rursus. Ipse Christus de se dicit Ioan. XVIII, 37: in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Non fuisset autem veritatis testis, sed magis falsitatis, si in se demonstrasset quod non erat: praesertim cum praedixerit se passurum quae sine vera carne pati non potuisset, scilicet quod traderetur in manus hominum, quod conspueretur, flagellaretur, crucifigeretur. Dicere ergo Christum veram carnem non habuisse, nec huiusmodi in veritate, sed solum in phantasia eum fuisse perpessum, est Christo imponere falsitatem. Besides, Christ says of Himself: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth” (John 18:37). If He had displayed in Himself what really did not exist, He would have been a witness not of truth but rather of error; especially since He foretold that He would suffer that which He could not suffer without a body, namely, that He would be betrayed into the hands of men, that He would be spat upon, scourged, and crucified. Accordingly, to say that Christ did not have true flesh and that He suffered such indignities not in truth but only in appearance, is to accuse Him of lying.
Adhuc. Veram opinionem a cordibus hominum removere, est hominis fallacis. Christus autem hanc opinionem a cordibus discipulorum removit. Cum enim post resurrectionem discipulis apparuit qui eum spiritum vel phantasma esse existimabant, ad huiusmodi suspicionem de cordibus eorum tollendam, dixit: palpate, et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere; et in alio loco, cum supra mare ambularet, existimantibus eum discipulis esse phantasma, et ob hoc eis in timore constitutis, dominus dixit: ego sum, nolite timere. Si igitur haec opinio vera est, necesse est dicere Christum fuisse fallacem. Christus autem veritas est, ut ipse de se dicit. Haec opinio igitur est falsa. Furthermore, to banish true conviction from men’s minds is the act of a liar. Christ did expel a certain notion from the minds of His disciples. After His resurrection He appeared to the disciples, who thought that He was a spirit or a specter. To banish suspicion of this kind from their hearts, He said to them: “Handle and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have” (Luke 24:39). On another occasion, when He was walking on the sea, to the consternation of His disciples who thought He was an apparition, our Lord said: “It is I, fear ye not” (Matt. 14:27). If the opinion entertained by the disciples about a spectral body is true, we have to concede that Christ was deceitful. But Christ is the Truth, as He testified of Himself. Therefore the Manichaean theory is false.


Caput 208

Quod Christus verum corpus habuit, non de caelo, contra Valentinum
Valentinus autem etsi verum corpus Christum habuisse confiteretur, dicebat tamen eum carnem non assumpsisse de virgine, sed attulisse corpus de caelo formatum, quod transivit per virginem, nihil ex ea accipiens, sicut aqua transit per canalem. Valentinus admitted that Christ had a real body. However, he insisted that our Lord did not take flesh from the Blessed Virgin, but rather brought down with Him a body formed of celestial matter. This body passed through the Virgin without receiving anything from her, much as water passes through a canal.
Hoc etiam veritati Scripturae contradicit. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem, et ad Gal. IV, 4, dicit: misit Deus filium suum unigenitum factum ex muliere. Matthaeus autem I, 16, dicit: et Iacob genuit Ioseph virum Mariae, de qua natus est Iesus, qui vocatur Christus, et postmodum eam eius matrem nominat subdens: cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph. Haec autem vera non essent, si Christus de virgine carnem non assumpsisset. Falsum est igitur quod corpus caeleste attulerit. This hypothesis, too, contradicts the truth of Scripture. In Romans 1:3 the Apostle says that God’s Son “was made to Him of the seed of David, according to the flesh.” And in Galatians 4:4 St. Paul writes: “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” Matthew likewise relates: “And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matt. 1:16). A little later Matthew refers to her as Christ’s mother: “When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,” etc. None of this would be true if Christ had not received His flesh from the Virgin. Accordingly the doctrine that Christ brought with Him a celestial body is false.
Sed quod apostolus I ad Corinth. XV, 47, dicit: secundus homo de caelo caelestis, intelligendum est quod de caelo descendit secundum divinitatem, non autem secundum substantiam corporis. True, in 1 Corinthians 15:47 the Apostle states that “the second man” [Christ, as contrasted with Adam, the first man] was “from heaven, heavenly.” But this is to be understood in the sense that He came down from heaven in His divinity, not according to the substance of His body.
Adhuc. Nulla ratio esset quare corpus de caelo afferens Dei filius, uterum virginis introisset, si ex ea nil assumeret, sed magis videretur esse fictio quaedam, dum ex utero matris egrediens demonstraret se ab ea accepisse carnem quam non acceperat. Cum igitur omnis falsitas a Christo sit aliena, simpliciter confitendum est, quod Christus sic processit ex utero virginis quod ex ea carnem accepit. Moreover, there would be no reason why the Son of God, bringing His body from heaven, should have entered the Virgin’s womb, if He were to receive nothing from her. Such a procedure would seem to be a kind of deceit if, coming forth from His mother’s womb, He were to intimate that He had received from her a body which in fact He had not received. Since, therefore, all falsehood is foreign to Christ, we must acknowledge without reservation that He came forth from the Virgin’s womb in such a way that He really took His flesh from her.


Caput 209

Quae sit sententia fidei circa incarnationem
Ex praemissis igitur colligere possumus, quod in Christo secundum veritatem Catholicae fidei fuit verum corpus nostrae naturae, vera anima rationalis, et simul cum hoc perfecta deitas. Hae autem tres substantiae in unam personam conveniunt, non autem in unam naturam. Ad cuius etiam veritatis expositionem aliqui per quasdam vias erroneas processerunt. We can gather together the various points established in the foregoing chapters and assert that, according to the true teaching of Catholic faith, Christ had a real body of the same nature as ours, a true rational soul, and, together with these, perfect deity. These three substances are united in one person, but do not combine to form one nature.
Considerantes enim quidam, quod omne quod advenit alicui post esse completum, accidentaliter ei adiungitur, ut homini vestis, posuerunt quod humanitas accidentali unione fuerit in persona filii divinitati coniuncta, ita scilicet quod natura assumpta se haberet ad personam filii Dei sicut vestis ad hominem. Ad cuius confirmationem inducebant quod apostolus dicit ad Philip. de Christo, quod habitu inventus est ut homo. Rursus considerabant quod ex unione animae et corporis efficitur individuum quoddam rationalis naturae, quod nominatur persona. Si igitur anima in Christo fuisset corpori unita, videre non poterant quin sequeretur quod ex tali unione constitueretur persona. Sequeretur ergo in Christo duas esse personas, scilicet personam assumentem, et personam assumptam: in homine enim induto non sunt duae personae, quia indumentum rationem personae non habet. Si autem vestis esset persona, sequeretur in homine vestito duas esse personas. Ad hoc igitur excludendum, posuerunt quidam animam Christi unitam nunquam fuisse corpori, sed quod persona filii Dei animam et corpus separatim assumpsit. In undertaking to explain this truth, some theologians have taken the wrong path. Persuaded that every perfection accruing to a being subsequent to its complete existence is joined to it accidentally, as a garment is joined to a man, certain theologians taught that humanity was joined to divinity in the person of the Son by an accidental union, in such a way that the assumed nature would be related to the person of God’s Son as clothing is related to a man. To bolster up this view, they brought forward what the Apostle says of Christ in Philippians 2:7, that He was “in habit found as a man.” Likewise, they reflected that from the union of soul and body an individual possessed of rational nature is formed, and that such an individual is called a person. If, therefore, the soul was united to the body in Christ, they were unable to see how they could escape the conclusion that a person would be constituted by such a union. In this event there would be two persons in Christ, the person who assumes and the person who is assumed. On the other hand, there are not two persons in a man who is clothed, because clothing does not possess what is required for the notion of a person. If, however, the clothes were a person, there would be two persons in a clothed man. To avoid this conclusion, therefore, some proposed that Christ’s soul was never united to His body, but that the person of God’s Son assumed soul and body separately.
Sed haec opinio dum unum inconveniens vitare nititur, incidit in maius. Sequitur enim ex necessitate, quod Christus non fuerit verus homo. Veritas enim humanae naturae requirit animae et corporis unionem, nam homo est qui ex utroque componitur. Sequeretur etiam quod Christi non fuerit vera caro, nec aliquod membrum eius habuit veritatem. Remota enim anima non est oculus, aut manus, aut caro et os, nisi aequivoce, sicut pictus aut lapideus. Sequeretur etiam quod Christus vere mortuus non fuerit. Mors enim est privatio vitae. Manifestum est enim quod divinitatis vita per mortem privari non potuit, corpus autem vivum esse non potuit, si ei anima coniuncta non fuit. Sequeretur etiam ulterius quod Christi corpus sentire non potuit, non enim sentit corpus nisi per animam sibi coniunctam. This view, while trying to escape one absurdity, falls into a greater, for it entails the necessary consequence that Christ would not be true man. Surely true human nature requires the union of soul and body; a man is a being made up of both. A further consequence is that Christ would not be true flesh, and that none of His members would be a true member. For if the soul is taken away, there is no eye or hand or flesh and bone, except in an equivocal sense, as when these parts of the body are depicted in paint or fashioned in stone. Further, it would follow that Christ did not really die. Death is the privation of life. Obviously the divinity could not be deprived of life by death, and the body could not be alive if a soul were not united to it. A final consequence would be that Christ’s body could not experience sensation; for the body has no sensation except through the soul united to it.
Adhuc autem haec opinio in errorem Nestorii relabitur, quem tamen declinare intendit. In hoc enim erravit Nestorius, quod posuit verbum Dei homini Christo fuisse unitum secundum inhabitationem gratiae, ita quod verbum Dei fuerit in illo homine sicut in templo suo. Nihil autem refert dicere, quantum ad propositum pertinet, quod verbum est in homine sicut in templo, et quod natura humana verbo adveniat ut vestimentum vestito: nisi quod in tantum haec opinio est deterior, quia Christum verum hominem confiteri non potest. Est igitur haec opinio non immerito condemnata. Adhuc autem homo vestitus non potest esse persona vestis aut indumenti, nec aliquo modo dici potest quod sit in specie indumenti. Si igitur filius Dei humanam naturam ut vestimentum assumpsit, nullo modo dici poterit persona humanae naturae, nec etiam dici poterit quod filius Dei sit eiusdem speciei cum aliis hominibus, de quo tamen apostolus dicit quod est in similitudinem hominum factus. Unde patet hanc opinionem esse totaliter evitandam. This theory falls back into the heresy of Nestorius, which it set out to overthrow. The error of Nestorius consisted in holding that the Word of God was united to Christ the man by the indwelling of grace, so that the Word of God would reside in that man as in His temple. It makes no difference, with regard to the doctrine proposed, whether we say that the Word is in the man as in a temple, or whether we say that human nature is joined to the Word as a garment to the person wearing it, except that the second opinion is the worse, inasmuch as it cannot admit that Christ was true man. Accordingly this view is condemned, and deservedly so. Moreover, the man who is clothed cannot be the person of the clothes or garment, nor can he in any way be said to be in the species of clothing. If, therefore, the Son of God took human nature to Himself, He cannot in any sense be called the person of the human nature, nor can He be said to pertain to the same species as the rest of men. Yet the Apostle says of Him that He was “made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). Clearly, therefore, this theory is to be utterly rejected.


Caput 210

Quod in ipso non sunt duo supposita
Alii vero praedicta inconvenientia vitare volentes, posuerunt quidem in Christo animam corpori fuisse unitam, et ex tali unione quendam hominem constitutum fuisse, quem dicunt a filio Dei in unitatem personae assumptum, ratione cuius assumptionis illum hominem dicunt esse filium Dei, et filium Dei dicunt esse illum hominem. Et quia assumptionem praedictam ad unitatem personae dicunt esse terminatam, confitentur quidem in Christo unam personam Dei et hominis, sed quia hic homo, quem ex anima et corpore constitutum dicunt, est quoddam suppositum vel hypostasis humanae naturae, ponunt in Christo duo supposita et duas hypostases: unum naturae humanae, creatum et temporale; aliud divinae naturae, increatum et aeternum. Other theologians, wishing to avoid these absurdities, proposed that in Christ the soul was indeed united to the body, and that this union constituted a certain man who, they maintained, was assumed by the Son of God in unity of person. By reason of this assumption they said that the man in question was the Son of God and that the Son of God was that man. Further, since this assumption had unity of person as its terminus, they admitted that in Christ there was one person of God and man. But since this man who, they maintain, is composed of soul and body, is a certain suppositum or hypostasis of human nature, they place two supposita and two hypostases in Christ: one of human nature, created and temporal; the other of divine nature, uncreated and eternal.
Haec autem positio licet ab errore Nestorii verbotenus recedere videatur, tamen si quis eam interius perscrutetur, in idem cum Nestorio labitur. Manifestum est enim quod persona nihil aliud est quam substantia individua rationalis naturae, humana autem natura rationalis est: unde et ex hoc ipso quod ponitur in Christo aliqua hypostasis vel suppositum naturae humanae, temporale et creatum, ponitur etiam aliqua persona in Christo, temporalis creata: hoc enim est quod nomine suppositi vel hypostasis significatur, scilicet individua substantia. Ponentes ergo in Christo duo supposita vel duas hypostases, si quod dicunt intelligunt, necesse habent ponere duas personas. As far as words go, this view appears to recede from the error of Nestorius. But if we examine it a little more closely, we find that it slips into the heresy identified with Nestorius. For a person, clearly, is nothing else than an individual substance possessed of rational nature. But human nature is rational. Therefore by the very fact that a hypostasis or suppositum of human nature, temporal and created, is admitted in Christ, a person that is temporal and created is also admitted in Him. This is precisely what the name of suppositum. or hypostasis signifies, namely, an individual substance. Accordingly, if these people understand what they are saying, they must place two persons in Christ when they place two supposita or two hypostases in Him.
Item. Quaecumque supposito differunt, ita se habent, quod ea quae sunt propria unius, alteri convenire non possunt. Si ergo non est idem suppositum filius Dei et filius hominis, sequitur quod ea quae sunt filii hominis, non possunt attribui filio Dei, nec e converso. Non ergo poterit dici Deus crucifixus, aut natus ex virgine: quod est Nestorianae impietatis. Another consideration is the following. Things that differ as supposita exist in such a way that what is proper to one cannot belong to another. Therefore, if the Son of God is not the same suppositum as the son of man, it follows that what belongs to the son of man cannot be attributed to the Son of God, and vice versa. Hence we could not say that God was crucified or born of the Virgin: which is characteristic of the Nestorian infamy.
Si quis autem ad haec dicere velit, quod ea quae sunt hominis illius, filio Dei attribuuntur, et e converso propter unitatem personae, quamvis sint diversa supposita, hoc omnino stare non potest. Manifestum est enim quod suppositum aeternum filii Dei non est aliud quam ipsa eius persona. Quaecumque igitur dicuntur de filio Dei ratione suae personae, dicerentur de ipso ratione sui suppositi. Sed ea quae sunt hominis, non dicuntur de eo ratione suppositi, quia ponitur filius Dei a filio hominis supposito differre. Neque igitur ratione personae de filio Dei dici poterunt quae sunt propria filii hominis, ut nasci de virgine, mori, et similia. If anyone should undertake to protest, in reply to this, that what pertains to the man in question is ascribed to the Son of God, and conversely, because of the unity of person, even though the supposita may be different, his answer simply cannot stand. Evidently the eternal suppositum of the Son of God is nothing else than His very person. Hence whatever is said of the Son of God by reason of His person, would also be said of Him by reason of His suppositum. But what pertains to the man is not said of Him by reason of His suppositum, for the Son of God is represented as differing from the son of man in suppositum. Therefore what is proper to the son of man, such as his birth from the Virgin, his death, and the like, cannot be said of the Son of God by reason of the person.
Adhuc. Si de supposito aliquo temporali Dei nomen praedicetur, hoc erit recens et novum. Sed omne quod recenter et de novo dicitur Deus, non est Deus, nisi quia factum est Deus. Quod autem est factum Deus, non est naturaliter Deus, sed per adoptionem solum. Sequitur ergo quod ille homo non fuerit vere et naturaliter Deus, sed solum per adoptionem: quod etiam ad errorem Nestorii pertinet. Furthermore, if the name of God is predicated of a temporal suppositum, this will be something recent and new. But any being that is recently and newly called God, is not God unless he has been made God. What is made God, however, is God not by nature, but only by adoption. Consequently the man in question would be God, not in fact and by nature, but merely by adoption: which, again, pertains to the error of Nestorius.


Caput 211

Quod in Christo est unum tantum suppositum et est una tantum persona
Sic igitur oportet dicere, quod in Christo non solum sit una persona Dei et hominis, sed etiam unum suppositum et una hypostasis: natura autem non una, sed duae. Accordingly we must say that in Christ there is not only one person of God and man, but also that there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. There is not, however, only one nature, but two natures.
Ad cuius evidentiam considerare oportet, quod haec nomina persona, hypostasis et suppositum, integrum quoddam designant. Non enim potest dici quod manus aut caro aut quaecumque aliarum partium sit persona vel hypostasis aut suppositum, sed hoc totum, quod est hic homo. Ea vero nomina quae sunt communia individuis substantiarum et accidentium, ut individuum et singulare, possunt et toti et partibus aptari. Nam partes cum accidentibus aliquid habent commune: scilicet quod non per se existunt, sed aliis insunt, licet secundum modum diversum. Potest igitur dici quod manus Socratis et Platonis est quoddam individuum, vel singulare quoddam, licet non sit hypostasis vel suppositum vel persona. To see that this is so, we have but to reflect that the names “person,” “hypostasis,” and “suppositum” signify a whole of a certain kind. We cannot say that a hand or flesh or any of the other parts is a person or a hypostasis or a suppositum; but this whole, which is this man, is such. But names that are common to individuals in the line of substance and accident, such as “individual” and “singular,” can be applied both to a whole and to its parts. Parts have something in common with accidents, in the sense that they do not exist by themselves, but inhere in other things, although in a different way. We can say that the hand of Socrates or Plato is a certain kind of individual or singular thing, even though it is not a hypostasis or a suppositum or a person.
Est etiam considerandum ulterius, quod aliquorum coniunctio per se considerata, quandoque quidem facit aliquod integrum, quae in alio propter additionem alterius non constituit aliquod integrum, sicut in lapide commixtio quatuor elementorum facit aliquod integrum: unde illud quod est ex elementis constitutum, in lapide potest dici suppositum vel hypostasis, quod est hic lapis, non autem persona, quia non est hypostasis naturae rationalis. Compositio autem elementorum in animali non constituit aliquod integrum, sed constituit partem, scilicet corpus: quia necesse est aliquid aliud advenire ad completionem animalis, scilicet animam; unde compositio elementorum in animali non constituit suppositum vel hypostasim, sed hoc animal totum est hypostasis vel suppositum. Nec tamen propter hoc minus est efficax in animali elementorum compositio quam in lapide, sed multo amplius, quia est ordinata ad rem nobiliorem. Furthermore, we should note that sometimes a union of various ingredients, considered just in itself, constitutes an integral whole, although in another being it does not constitute an integral whole, because the addition of some other component is needed. Thus in a stone the combination of the four elements constitutes an integral whole; and so the object composed of the elements can, in the stone, be called a suppositum or hypostasis, which is this stone. It cannot, of course, be called a person, because it is not a hypostasis endowed with rational nature. But the combination of elements in an animal constitutes, not an integral whole, but only a part, namely, the body. Something else must be added to make up the complete animal, and this is the soul. Hence the combination of elements in an animal does not constitute a suppositum or hypostasis; rather, this whole animal is the hypostasis or suppositum. Nevertheless the combination~ of the elements is not, on this account, any less effectual in an animal than in a stone, but is rather more so, because it is ordained to the formation of a nobler being.
Sic igitur in aliis hominibus unio animae et corporis constituit hypostasim et suppositum, quia nihil aliud est praeter haec duo. In domino autem Iesu Christo praeter animam et corpus advenit tertia substantia, scilicet divinitas. Non ergo est seorsum suppositum vel hypostasis, sicut nec persona, id quod est ex corpore et anima constitutum, sed suppositum, hypostasis vel persona est id quod constat ex tribus substantiis, corpore scilicet et anima et divinitate, et sic in Christo sicut est una tantum persona, ita unum suppositum et una hypostasis. Alia autem ratione advenit anima corpori, et divinitas utrique. Nam anima advenit corpori ut forma eius existens, unde his duobus constituitur una natura, quae dicitur humana natura. Divinitas autem non advenit animae et corpori per modum formae, neque per modum partis: hoc enim est contra rationem divinae perfectionis. Unde ex divinitate et anima et corpore non constituitur una natura, sed ipsa natura divina in seipsa integra et pura existens sibi quodam modo incomprehensibili et ineffabili humanam naturam ex anima et corpore constitutam assumpsit, quod ex infinita virtute eius processit. Videmus enim quod quanto aliquod agens est maioris virtutis, tanto magis sibi applicat aliquod instrumentum ad aliquod opus perficiendum. Sicut igitur virtus divina propter sui infinitatem est infinita et incomprehensibilis, ita modus quo sibi univit humanam naturam Christus, quasi organum quoddam ad humanae salutis effectum, est nobis ineffabilis, et excedens omnem aliam unionem Dei ad creaturam. In all men save one the union of soul and body constitutes a hypostasis and suppositum, because in their case the hypostasis or suppositum is nothing else but these two components. But in our Lord Jesus Christ, besides soul and body, a third substance enters in, namely, the Godhead. In Him, therefore, the composite of body and soul is not a separate suppositum or hypostasis, nor is it a person. The suppositum, hypostasis, or person is that which is made up of three substances, namely, the body, the soul, and the divinity. In Christ, accordingly, just as there is but one person, so there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But the way His soul is joined to His body differs from the way His divinity is united to both. His soul comes to the body as its self-existing form, so that one nature, which is called human nature, is composed of these two. But the Godhead does not come to the soul and body as a form or as a part; this is against the very concept of divine perfection. Therefore the divinity and the soul and the body do not constitute one nature; but the divine nature, complete in itself and existing in its purity, took to itself, in a way that is incomprehensible and indescribable, the human nature composed of soul and body. This called for an exercise of God’s infinite power. For we know from experience that, in proportion to an agent’s power, the more effectively he avails himself of the instrument he uses to carry out an undertaking. Therefore, as the divine power, because of its infinity, is infinite and incomprehensible, the way Christ united human nature to Himself, as a sort of organ to effect man’s salvation, is beyond human expression and surpasses every other union of God with creatures.
Et quia, sicut iam diximus, persona, hypostasis et suppositum designant aliquid integrum, si divina natura in Christo est ut pars, et non ut aliquid integrum, sicut anima in compositione hominis, una persona Christi non se teneret tantum ex parte naturae divinae, sed esset quoddam constitutum ex tribus, sicut et in homine persona, hypostasis et suppositum est quod ex anima et corpore constituitur. Sed quia divina natura est aliquid integrum, quod sibi assumpsit per quandam ineffabilem unionem humanam naturam, persona se tenet ex parte divinae naturae, et similiter hypostasis et suppositum; anima vero et corpus trahuntur ad personalitatem personae divinae, ut sit persona filii Dei, sicut etiam persona filii hominis et hypostasis et suppositum. We pointed out above that person, hypostasis, and suppositum signify an integral whole. Hence if the divine nature in Christ had the function of a part, like the soul in the composition of a man, and were not something whole, then the one person of Christ would not be accounted for by the divine nature alone, but would be a certain composite of three elements, just as in man the person, hypostasis, and suppositum is a composite of soul and body. However, since the divine nature is an integral whole that took human nature to itself by a mysterious, ineffable union, the person is accounted for by the divine nature, as also is the hypostasis and suppositum. Yet the soul and body are drawn to the personality of the divine person, so that He is the person of the Son of God and is likewise the person and the hypostasis and suppositum of the Son of man.
Potest autem huiusmodi exemplum aliquale in creaturis inveniri. Subiectum enim et accidens non sic uniuntur ut ex eis aliquod tertium constituatur, unde subiectum in tali unione non se habet ut pars, sed est integrum quoddam, quod est persona, hypostasis et suppositum. Accidens autem trahitur ad personalitatem subiecti, ut sit persona eadem hominis et albi, et similiter eadem hypostasis et idem suppositum. Sic igitur secundum similitudinem quandam persona, hypostasis et suppositum filii Dei est persona, hypostasis et suppositum humanae naturae in Christo. Unde quidam propter huiusmodi similitudinem dicere praesumpserunt, quod humana natura in Christo degenerat in accidens, et quod accidentaliter Dei filio uniretur, veritatem a similitudine non discernentes. Some sort of example of this can be found in creatures. Thus subject and accident are not united in such a way that some third thing is formed from them. In a union of this kind, the subject does not have the function of a part, but is an integral whole, which is a person, hypostasis, and suppositum. But the accident is drawn to the personality of the subject, so that the person of the man and of the color of whiteness is one and the same, and the hypostasis or suppositum is likewise the same. In a somewhat similar fashion the person, hypostasis, and suppositum of the Son of God is the person, hypostasis, and suppositum of the human nature in Christ. Influenced by comparisons of this sort, some theologians went so far as to say that the human nature in Christ deteriorates into an accident and is accidentally united to the Son of God; they were unable to discriminate between literal truth and analogy.
Patet igitur ex praemissis quod in Christo non est alia persona nisi aeterna, quae est persona filii Dei, nec alia hypostasis aut suppositum; unde cum dicitur hic homo, demonstrato Christo, importatur suppositum aeternum. Nec tamen propter hoc aequivoce dicitur hoc nomen homo de Christo et de aliis hominibus. Aequivocatio enim non attenditur secundum diversitatem suppositionis, sed secundum diversitatem significationis. Nomen autem hominis attributum Petro et Christo idem significat, scilicet naturam humanam, sed non idem supponit: quia hic supponit suppositum aeternum filii Dei, ibi autem suppositum creatum. In any case, the foregoing exposition makes it clear that there is no other person in Christ but the eternal person, who is the person of the Son of God. Nor is there any other hypostasis or suppositum. Hence when we say, “this man,” pointing to Christ, we mean the eternal suppositum. Nevertheless the name “man” is not for that reason predicated equivocally of Christ and of other men. Equivocation does not follow diversity of supposition, but follows diversity of signification. The name of man, as attributed to Peter and to Christ, signifies the same thing, namely, human nature. But it does not have the same supposition; for in the one case it stands for the eternal suppositum of the Son of God, in the other case it stands for a created suppositum.
Quia vero de unoquoque supposito alicuius naturae possunt dici ea quae competunt illi naturae cuius est suppositum, idem autem est suppositum in Christo humanae et divinae naturae, manifestum est quod de hoc supposito utriusque naturae, sive supponatur per nomen significans divinam naturam aut personam, sive humanam, possunt dici indifferenter et quae sunt divinae, et quae sunt humanae naturae, utputa, si dicamus, quod filius Dei est aeternus, et quod filius Dei est natus de virgine, et similiter dicere possumus, quod hic homo est Deus, et creavit stellas, et est natus, mortuus et sepultus. Since, however, we can predicate of a suppositum of any nature all that is proper to that nature to which the suppositum pertains, and since in Christ the suppositum of the human nature is the same as the suppositum of the divine nature, it is evident that everything belonging to the divine nature and everything belonging to the human nature can be predicated indifferently of this suppositum which pertains to both natures. This is true both when the name we use signifies the divine nature or person, and when it signifies the human nature. We can say, for example, that the Son of God is eternal, and that the Son of God was born of the Virgin. Likewise we can say that this man is God, that He created the stars, and that He was born, died, and was buried.
Quod autem praedicatur de aliquo supposito, praedicatur de eo secundum aliquam formam vel materiam, sicut Socrates est albus secundum albedinem, et est rationalis secundum animam. Dictum est autem supra quod in Christo sunt duae naturae et unum suppositum. Si ergo referatur ad suppositum, indifferenter sunt praedicanda de Christo humana et divina. Est tamen discernendum secundum quid utrumque dicatur, quia divina dicuntur de Christo secundum divinam naturam, humana vero secundum humanam. What is predicated of a suppositum, is predicated of it according to some form or matter. Thus Socrates is white according to the whiteness of his skin and is rational according to his soul. But, as we pointed out in the beginning of this chapter, in Christ there are two natures and one suppositum. Therefore, if reference is made to the suppositum, human and divine attributes are to be predicated indifferently of Christ. Yet we must heed the sense in which each attribute is predicated; that is, divine attributes are predicated of Christ according to His divine nature, and human attributes are predicated of Him according to His human nature.


Caput 212

De his quae dicuntur in Christo unum vel multa
Quia igitur in Christo est una persona et duae naturae, ex horum convenientia considerandum est, quid in Christo unum dici debeat, et quid multa. Since there are in Christ one person and two natures, we have to examine the relationship between them to determine what is to be spoken of as one, and what is to be spoken of as multiple in Him.
Quaecumque enim secundum naturae diversitatem multiplicantur, necesse est quod in Christo plura esse confiteamur. Inter quae primo considerandum est, quod cum per generationem sive per nativitatem natura recipiatur, necesse est quod sicut in Christo sunt duae naturae, ita etiam duas esse generationes sive nativitates: una aeterna, secundum quam accepit naturam divinam a patre; alia temporalis, secundum quam accepit humanam naturam a matre. Similiter etiam quaecumque Deo et homini convenienter attribuuntur ad naturam pertinentia, necesse est plura dicere in Christo. Attribuitur autem Deo intellectus et voluntas et horum perfectiones, puta scientia seu sapientia, et caritas, sive iustitia, quae homini etiam attribuuntur ad humanam naturam pertinentia. Nam voluntas et intellectus sunt partes animae, horum autem perfectiones sunt sapientia et iustitia et huiusmodi. Necesse est ergo in Christo ponere duos intellectus, humanum scilicet et divinum, et similiter duas voluntates, duplicem etiam scientiam sive caritatem, creatam scilicet et increatam. Whatever is multiplied in accord with the diversity of Christ’s natures, must be acknowledged to be plural in Him. -In this connection we must consider, first of all, that nature is received by generation or birth. Consequently, as there are two natures in Christ, there must also be two generations or births: one that is eternal, whereby He received divine nature from His Father, and one that occurred in time, whereby He received human nature from His mother. Likewise, whatever is rightly attributed to God and man as pertaining to nature, must be predicated of Christ in the plural. To God are ascribed intellect and will and their perfections, such as knowledge or wisdom, and charity, and justice. These are also attributed to man as pertaining to human nature; for’ will and intellect are faculties of the soul, and their perfections are wisdom, justice, and the like. Therefore we must acknowledge two intellects in Christ, one human and one divine, and likewise two wills, as well as a double knowledge and charity, namely, the created and the uncreated.
Ea vero quae ad suppositum sive hypostasim pertinent, unum tantum in Christo confiteri oportet: unde si esse accipiatur secundum quod unum esse est unius suppositi, videtur dicendum quod in Christo sit tantum unum esse. Manifestum est enim quod partes divisae singulae proprium esse habent, secundum autem quod in toto considerantur, non habent suum esse, sed omnes sunt per esse totius. Si ergo consideremus ipsum Christum ut quoddam integrum suppositum duarum naturarum, eius erit unum tantum esse, sicut et unum suppositum. But whatever belongs to the suppositum or hypostasis, must be declared to be one in Christ. Hence if existence is taken in the sense that one suppositum has one existence, we are forced, it appears, to assert that there is but one existence in Christ. Of course, as is evident, when a whole is divided, each separate part has its own proper existence; but according as parts are considered in a whole, they do not have their own existence, for they all exist with the existence of the whole. Therefore, if we look upon Christ as an integral suppositum having two natures, His existence will be but one, just as the suppositum, too, is one.
Quia vero operationes suppositorum sunt, visum est aliquibus quod sicut in Christo non est nisi unum suppositum, ita non esset nisi una operatio. Sed non recte consideraverunt: nam in quolibet individuo reperiuntur multae operationes, si sunt plura operationum principia, sicut in homine alia est operatio intelligendi, alia sentiendi, propter differentiam sensus et intellectus: sicut in igne alia est operatio calefactionis, alia ascensionis, propter differentiam caloris et levitatis. Natura autem comparatur ad operationem ut eius principium. Non ergo est una operatio in Christo propter unum suppositum, sed duae propter duas naturas, sicut e converso in sancta Trinitate est una operatio trium personarum propter unam naturam. Since actions belong to supposita, some have thought that, as there is but one suppositum in Christ, so there is only one kind of action in Him. But they did not rightly weigh the matter. For many actions are discerned in any individual, if there are many principles of activity in him. Thus in man the action of understanding differs from the action of sense perception, because of the difference between sense and intellect. Likewise in fire the action of heating differs from the action of soaring upward, because of the difference between heat and lightness. Nature is related to action as its principle. Therefore it is not true that Christ has only one kind of activity because of the one suppositum. Rather, there are two kinds of action in Him, because of the two natures, just as, conversely, there is in the Holy Trinity but one activity of the three persons because of the one nature.
Participat tamen operatio humanitatis in Christo aliquid de operatione virtutis divinae. Omnium enim eorum quae conveniunt in unum suppositum, ei quod principalius est, cetera instrumentaliter deserviunt, sicut ceterae partes hominis sunt instrumenta intellectus. Sic igitur in Christo humanitas quasi quoddam organum divinitatis censetur. Patet autem quod instrumentum agit in virtute principalis agentis. Unde in actione instrumenti non solum invenitur virtus instrumenti, sed etiam principalis agentis, sicut per actionem securis fit arca, inquantum securis dirigitur ab artifice. Ita ergo et operatio humanae naturae in Christo quandam vim ex deitate habebat supra virtutem humanam. Quod enim tangeret leprosum, humanitatis actio fuit, sed quod tactus ille curaret a lepra, ex virtute divinitatis procedebat. Et per hunc modum omnes eius actiones et passiones humanae virtute divinitatis salutares fuerunt: et ideo Dionysius vocat humanam Christi operationem theandricam, idest deivirilem, quia scilicet sic procedebat ex humanitate, quod tamen in ea vigebat divinitatis virtus. Nevertheless the activity of Christ’s humanity has some part in the activity proper to His divine power. For of all the factors that come together in a suppositum, that which is the most eminent is served by the rest in an instrumental capacity, just as all the lesser faculties of man are instruments of his intellect. Thus in Christ the human nature is held to be, as it were, the organ of His divine nature. But it is clear that an instrument acts in virtue of the principal agent. This is why, in the action of an instrument, we are able to discern not only the power of the instrument, but also that of the principal agent. A chest is made by the action of an axe, but only so far as the axe is directed by the carpenter. In like manner the activity of the human nature in Christ received a certain efficacy from the divine nature, over and above its human power. When Christ touched a leper, the action belonged to His human nature; but the fact that the touch cured the man of his leprosy, is owing to the power of the divine nature. In this way all the human actions and sufferings of Christ were efficacious for our salvation in virtue of His divinity. For this reason Dionysius calls the human activity of Christ “theandric,” that is, divine-human, because actions of this sort proceeded from His human nature in such a way that the power of the divinity was operative in them.
Vertitur etiam a quibusdam in dubium de filiatione, an sit una tantum in Christo propter unitatem suppositi, vel duae propter dualitatem nativitatis. Videtur autem quod sint duae, quia multiplicata causa, multiplicatur effectus: est autem causa filiationis nativitas. Cum igitur sint duae nativitates Christi, consequens videtur quod etiam sint duae filiationes. A doubt is raised by some theologians concerning sonship, whether there is only one filiation in Christ because of the oneness of the suppositum, or two filiations because of the duality of His nativity. It may seem that there are two filiations; for when a cause is multiplied the effect is multiplied, and the cause of sonship is nativity. Since, therefore, there are two nativities of Christ, the consequence may seem to follow that there are also two filiations.
Nec obstat quod filiatio est relatio personalis, idest personam constituens: hoc enim verum est de filiatione divina, filiatio vero humana non constituit personam, sed accidit personae constitutae. Similiter etiam non obstat quod unus homo una filiatione refertur ad patrem et matrem, quia eadem nativitate nascitur ab utroque parente. Ubi autem est eadem causa relationis, relatio est una realiter, quamvis multiplicentur respectus. Nihil enim prohibet aliquid habere respectum ad alterum absque hoc quod realiter insit ei relatio, sicut scibile refertur ad scientiam relatione in eo non existente: ita etiam nihil prohibet quod una realis relatio plures respectus habeat. Nam sicut relatio ex causa sua habet quod sit res quaedam, ita etiam quod sit una vel multiplex; et sic cum Christus non eadem nativitate nascatur ex patre et matre, duae filiationes reales in eo esse videntur propter duas nativitates. This view is not rejected by the fact that filiation is a personal relation, that is, that it constitutes a person. In the case of Christ, this is true of the divine filiation; the human filiation does not constitute a person, but comes to a person already constituted as such. In the same way there is no reason why one man should not be related to his father and mother by a single filiation; he is born of both parents by the same nativity. Wherever the cause of a relation is the same, the relation is in reality but one, even though it may have many respects. There is nothing to prevent a thing from having a reference to another thing, even though no relation is really in it. Thus the knowable is referred to knowledge, although no relation exists in it. So, too, there is no reason why a single real relation should not have a number of respects. just as a relation depends on its cause for its existence as a certain thing, so it also depends on its cause for the fact that it is one or multiple. Therefore, since Christ does not proceed from His Father and His mother by the same nativity, there may seem to be in Him two real filiations because of the two nativities.
Sed est aliud quod obviat propter quod non possunt esse plures filiationes reales in Christo. Non enim omne quod nascitur ex aliquo, filius eius dici potest, sed solum completum suppositum. Manus enim alicuius hominis non dicitur filia, nec pes filius, sed totum singulare quod est Petrus vel Ioannes. Proprium igitur subiectum filiationis est ipsum suppositum. Ostensum est autem supra quod in Christo non est aliud suppositum quam increatum, cui non potest ex tempore aliqua realis relatio advenire; sed, sicut supra diximus, omnis relatio Dei ad creaturam est secundum rationem tantum. Oportet igitur quod filiatio, qua suppositum aeternum filii refertur ad virginem matrem, non sit realis relatio, sed respectus rationis tantum. But there is one reason why several real filiations cannot be attributed to Christ. Not everything that is generated by another can be called a son; only a complete suppositum can be called a son. Not a man’s hand or foot, but the whole individual, Peter or John, is called son. Hence the proper subject of filiation is the suppositum itself. But we have shown that the only suppositum in Christ is the uncreated suppositum, which cannot receive any real relation beginning in time; as we intimated above, every relation of God to creatures is purely mental. Consequently the filiation whereby the eternal suppositum of the Son is related to His virgin mother cannot be a real relation, but must be a purely mental relation.
Nec propter hoc impeditur quin Christus sit vere et realiter filius virginis matris, quia realiter ab ea natus est, sicut etiam Deus vere et realiter est dominus creaturae, quia habet realem potentiam coercendi creaturam, et tamen dominii relatio solum secundum rationem Deo attribuitur. Si autem in Christo essent plura supposita, ut quidam posuerunt, nihil prohiberet ponere in Christo duas filiationes, quia filiationi temporali subiiceretur suppositum creatum. However, this does not prevent Christ from being really and truly the Son of His virgin mother, because He was truly born of her. In the same way God is really and truly the Lord of His creatures, because He possesses real power to coerce them; yet the relation of dominion is attributed to God only by a mental operation. Of course, if there were several supposita in Christ, as some theologians have taught, there would be nothing to keep us from admitting two filiations in Christ, for in that case the created suppositum would be subject to temporal sonship.


Caput 213

Quod oportuit Christum esse perfectum in gratia et sapientia veritatis
Quia vero, sicut iam dictum est, humanitas Christi se habet ad divinitatem eius quasi quoddam organum eius, organorum autem dispositio et qualitas pensatur praecipue quidem ex fine, et etiam ex decentia instrumento utentis, secundum hos modos consequens est ut consideremus qualitatem humanae naturae a verbo Dei assumptae. Finis autem assumptionis humanae naturae a verbo Dei, est salus et reparatio humanae naturae. Talem igitur oportuit esse Christum secundum humanam naturam ut convenienter esse possit auctor humanae salutis. Salus autem humana consistit in fruitione divina, per quam homo beatus efficitur: et ideo oportuit Christum secundum humanam naturam fuisse perfecte Deo fruentem. Principium enim in unoquoque genere oportet esse perfectum. Fruitio autem divina secundum duo existit, secundum voluntatem, et secundum intellectum: secundum voluntatem quidem Deo perfecte per amorem inhaerentem; secundum intellectum autem perfecte Deum cognoscentem. As was mentioned in the preceding chapter, the humanity of Christ is related to His divinity as a sort of organ belonging to it. The disposition and quality of organs are gauged chiefly by the purpose, though also by the dignity, of the person using them. Consequently we are to esteem the quality of the human nature assumed by the Word of God in accord with these norms. The purpose the Word of God had in assuming human nature was the salvation and reparation of human nature. Therefore Christ had to be of such excellence in His human nature that He could fittingly be the author of man’s salvation. But the salvation of man consists in the enjoyment of God, whereby man is beatified; and so Christ must have had in His human nature a perfect enjoyment of God. For the principle in any genus must be perfect. But fruition of God has a twofold aspect: it requires the satisfaction of the will and of the intellect. The will must adhere unreservedly to God by love, the intellect must know God perfectly.
Perfecta autem inhaesio voluntatis ad Deum per amorem est per gratiam, per quam homo iustificatur, secundum illud Rom. III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam eius. Ex hoc enim homo iustus est, quod Deo per amorem inhaeret. Perfecta autem cognitio Dei est per lumen sapientiae, quae est cognitio divinae veritatis. Oportuit igitur verbum Dei incarnatum perfectum in gratia et in sapientia veritatis existere; unde Ioan. I, 14, dicitur: verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis: et vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Perfect attachment of the will to God is brought about by love and by grace, whereby man is justified, according to Romans 3:24: “Being justified freely by His grace.” For man is made just by union with God through love. Perfect knowledge of God is effected by the light of wisdom, which is the knowledge of divine truth. Therefore the incarnate Word of God had to be perfect in grace and in the wisdom of truth. Hence we read in John 1:14: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”


Caput 214

De plenitudine gratiae Christi
Primo autem videndum est de plenitudine gratiae ipsius. Circa quod considerandum est, quod nomen gratiae a duobus assumi potest. Uno modo ex eo quod est gratum esse: dicimus enim aliquem alicuius habere gratiam quia est ei gratus. Alio modo ex eo quod est gratis dari: dicitur enim aliquis alicui gratiam facere, quando ei aliquod beneficium gratis confert. First we shall deal with the question of the fullness of grace in Christ. In this matter we should observe that the term, grace, may be understood in two senses. According to one usage, it means to be pleasing (gratum): we say that someone is in the good graces of another because he is pleasing to him. In another sense, it means that something is given gratis: a person is said to grant a grace to another when he confers gratis a benefit on that other.
Nec istae duae acceptiones gratiae penitus separatae sunt. Ex eo enim aliquid alteri gratis datur, quia is cui datur, gratus est danti vel simpliciter vel secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem quando ad hoc recipiens gratus est danti, ut eum sibi coniungat secundum aliquem modum. Hos enim quos gratos habemus, nobis pro posse attrahimus secundum quantitatem et modum quo nobis grati existunt. Secundum quid autem, quando ad hoc recipiens gratus est danti, ut aliquid ab eo recipiat, non autem ad hoc ut assumatur ab ipso. Unde patet quod omnis qui habet gratiam, aliquid habet gratis datum; non autem omnis qui habet aliquid gratis datum, gratus danti existit. Et ideo duplex gratia distingui solet: una scilicet quae solum gratis est data, alia quae etiam gratum facit. Gratis autem dari dicitur quod nequaquam est debitum. These two meanings of grace are not wholly unconnected. A thing is given gratis to another because he to whom it is given is pleasing (gratus) to the giver, either simply or in some respect. The recipient is simply pleasing to the giver, when he is pleasing to such an extent that the giver associates him with himself in some way. For those whom we hold dear (quos gratos habemus) we attract to ourselves as far as we can, according to the quantity and degree in which they are dear to us. But the recipient is pleasing to the giver only in some respect when he is pleasing to the extent that he receives something from him, although not to the extent that he is taken into association by the donor. Clearly, therefore, everyone who has favor (qui habet gratiam) with another, has something given to him gratis; but not everyone who has something given to him gratis is pleasing (gratus) to the donor. Hence we ordinarily distinguish between two kinds of grace: one, namely, which is only given gratis, and the other which, in addition, makes pleasing (gratum facit). A thing is said to be given gratis if it is in no way due.
Dupliciter autem aliquid debitum existit: uno quidem modo secundum naturam, alio modo secundum operationem. Secundum naturam quidem debitum est rei quod ordo naturalis illius rei exposcit, sicut debitum est homini quod habeat rationem et manus et pedes. Secundum operationem autem, sicut merces operanti debetur. Illa ergo dona sunt hominibus divinitus gratis data quae et ordinem naturae excedunt, et meritis non acquiruntur, quamvis et ea quae pro meritis divinitus dantur, interdum gratiae nomen vel rationem non amittant: tum quia principium merendi fuit a gratia, tum etiam quia superabundantius dantur quam merita humana requirant, sicut dicitur Rom. VI, 23: gratia Dei vita aeterna. A thing may be due in two ways, either according to nature or according to operation. According to nature, whatever the natural order of a thing requires, is due to it; thus the possession of reason and hands and feet is due to man. According to operation, a thing is due in the way that a recompense is due to a worker. Therefore those gifts are given gratis by God to men, which exceed the order of nature and are not acquired by merits; although even gifts that are conferred by God because of merits sometimes retain the name and character of grace, because the principle of meriting comes from grace, and also because rewards are given over and above what human merits require, as we learn from Romans 6:23: “The grace of God, life everlasting.”
Huiusmodi autem donorum quaedam quidem et naturae humanae facultatem excedunt, et meritis non redduntur, nec tamen ex hoc ipso quod homo ea habet, redditur Deo gratus, sicut donum prophetiae, miraculorum operationis, scientiae et doctrinae, vel si qua talia divinitus conferuntur. Per haec enim et huiusmodi homo non coniungitur Deo, nisi forte per similitudinem quandam, prout aliquid de eius bonitate participat, per quem modum omnia Deo similantur. Quaedam vero hominem Deo gratum reddunt et ei coniungunt, et huiusmodi dona non solum gratiae dicuntur ex eo quod gratis dantur, sed etiam ex eo quod hominem faciant Deo gratum. Among such gifts, some exceed the capacity of human nature and are not given for merits. However, the fact that a man has these gifts does not prove that he is thereby rendered pleasing to God. Examples are the gifts of prophecy, of working miracles, of knowledge, of teaching, or any other such gifts divinely conferred. By these and like gifts man is not united to God, except, perhaps, by a certain similarity, so far as he shares to some extent in His goodness; but everything is assimilated to God in this way. Yet some gifts do render man pleasing to God, and join man to Him. Such gifts are called graces, not only because they are given gratis, but also because they make man pleasing to God.
Coniunctio autem hominis ad Deum est duplex. Una quidem per affectionem, et haec est per caritatem, quae quodammodo facit per affectionem hominem unum cum Deo, secundum illud I Corinth. VI, 17: qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est. Per hoc etiam Deus hominem inhabitat, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Facit etiam hominem esse in Deo, secundum illud I Ioan. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet et Deus in eo. Ille igitur per acceptum donum gratuitum efficitur Deo gratus qui usque ad hoc perducitur quod per caritatis amorem unus spiritus fiat cum Deo, quod ipse in Deo sit, et Deus in eo: unde apostolus dicit I Corinth. XIII quod sine caritate cetera dona hominibus non prosunt: quia gratum Deo facere non possunt, nisi caritas adsit. The union of man with God is twofold. One way is by affection, and this is brought about by charity, which in a certain sense makes man one with God in affection, as is said in 1 Corinthians 6:17: “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Through this virtue God dwells in man, according to John 14:23: “If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and will make Our abode with him.” It also causes man to be in God, according to I John 4: 16: “He who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him.” By receiving this gratuitous gift, therefore, man is made pleasing to God, and he is brought so far that by the love of charity he becomes one spirit with God: he is in God and God is in him. Hence the Apostle teaches, in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, that without charity the other gifts do not profit men: they cannot make men pleasing to God unless charity is present.
Haec autem gratia est omnium sanctorum communis. Unde hanc gratiam homo Christus discipulis orando impetrans, dicit, Ioan. XVII, 21: ut sint unum, scilicet per connexionem amoris, sicut et nos unum sumus. This grace is common to all the saints. And so the man Christ, when asking for this grace for His disciples in prayer, begs: “That they may be one,” namely, by the bond of love, as We also are one” (John 17:22).
Alia vero coniunctio est hominis ad Deum non solum per affectum aut inhabitationem, sed etiam per unitatem hypostasis seu personae, ut scilicet una et eadem hypostasis seu persona, sit Deus et homo. Et haec quidem coniunctio hominis ad Deum est propria Iesu Christi, de qua coniunctione plura iam dicta sunt. Haec etiam est hominis Christi gratia singularis quod est Deo unitus in unitate personae: et ideo gratis datum est, quia et naturae facultatem excedit, et hoc donum merita nulla praecedunt. Sed et gratissimum Deo facit, ita quod de ipso singulariter dicatur: hic est filius meus dilectus in quo mihi complacui, Matth. There is another conjunction of man with God that is brought about, not only by affection or inhabitation, but also by the unity of hypostasis or person, so that one and the same hypostasis or person is both God and man. And this conjunction of man with God is proper to Jesus Christ. We have already spoken at length of this union. In truth, this is a singular grace of the man Christ, that He is united to God in unity of person. Clearly the grace was given gratis, for it exceeds the capacity of nature, and besides, there were no merits to precede this gift. But it also makes Him supremely pleasing to God, so that the Father says of Him in a unique sense: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3: 17; 17: 5),
Hoc tamen interesse videtur inter utramque gratiam, quod gratia quidem per quam homo Deo unitur per affectum, aliquid habituale existit in anima: quia cum per actum amoris sit coniunctio ista, actus autem perfecti procedunt ab habitu, consequens est ut ad istum perfectissimum habitum, quo anima Deo coniungitur per amorem, aliqua habitualis gratia animae infundatur. Esse autem personale vel hypostaticum, non est per aliquem habitum, sed per naturas, quarum sunt hypostases vel personae. Unio igitur humanae naturae ad Deum in unitate personae non fit per aliquam habitualem gratiam, sed per ipsarum naturarum coniunctionem in persona una. The difference between these two graces seems to be as follows. The grace whereby man is united to God by affection exists in the soul as something habitual. For that union is accomplished through an act of love, and perfect acts issue from habit; consequently some habitual grace is infused into the soul to produce that eminently perfect habit whereby the soul is united to God by love. On the other hand, personal or hypostatic being is constituted, not by any habit, but by the natures to which the hypostases or persons pertain. Therefore the union of human nature with God in unity of person is brought about, not by some habitual grace, but by the conjunction of the natures themselves in one person.
Inquantum autem creatura aliqua magis ad Deum accedit, intantum de bonitate eius magis participat, et abundantioribus donis ex eius influentia repletur, sicut et ignis calorem magis participat qui ei magis appropinquat. Nullus autem modus esse aut excogitari potest, quo aliqua creatura propinquius Deo adhaereat, quam quod ei in unitate personae coniungatur. Ex ipsa igitur unione naturae humanae ad Deum in unitate personae, consequens est ut anima Christi donis gratiarum habitualibus prae ceteris fuerit plena, et sic habitualis gratia in Christo non est dispositio ad unionem, sed magis unionis effectus, The closer any creature draws to God, the more it shares in His goodness, and the more abundantly it is filled with gifts infused by Him. Thus he who comes closer to a fire, shares to a greater extent in its heat. But there can be no way, nor can any be imagined, by which a creature more closely adheres to God, than by being united to Him in unity of person. Therefore, in consequence of the very union of His human nature with God in unity of person, Christ’s soul was filled with habitual gifts of graces beyond all other souls. And so habitual grace in Christ is not a disposition for union, but is rather an effect of union.
quod ex ipso modo loquendi, quo Evangelista utitur in verbis praemissis, manifeste apparet, cum dicit: vidimus eum quasi unigenitum a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Est autem unigenitus a patre homo Christus, inquantum verbum caro factum est. Ex hoc ergo quod verbum caro factum est, hoc effectum est ut esset plenum gratiae et veritatis. In his autem quae aliqua bonitate replentur vel perfectione, illud magis plenum esse invenitur ex quo etiam in alia redundat, sicut plenius lucet quod illuminare potest alia. Quia igitur homo Christus summam plenitudinem gratiae obtinuit quasi unigenitus a patre, consequens fuit ab ipso in alios redundaret, ita quod filius Dei factus homo, homines faceret deos et filios Dei, secundum illud apostoli ad Galat. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. This appears clearly in the very way of speaking used by the Evangelist when he says, in words previously quoted: “We saw [Him as it were] the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The man Christ is, indeed, the only-begotten of the Father, inasmuch as the Word was made flesh. The very fact that the Word was made flesh entailed the consequence that He was full of grace and truth. But among things that are filled with any goodness or perfection, the one from which goodness or perfection flows out upon other things is found to be filled to greater repletion; for example, what can shed light on other objects, shines more brilliantly than they. Therefore, since the man Christ possessed supreme fullness of grace, as being the only-begotten of the Father, grace overflowed from Him to others, so that the Son of God, made man, might make men gods and sons of God, according to the Apostle’s words in Galatians 4:4 ff.: “God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Ex hoc autem quod a Christo ad alios gratia et veritas derivantur, convenit ei ut sit caput Ecclesiae. Nam a capite ad alia membra, quae sunt ei conformia in natura, quodammodo sensus et motus derivatur. Sic a Christo et gratia et veritas ad alios homines derivantur: unde ad Ephes. I, 22: et ipsum dedit caput supra omnem Ecclesiam, quae est corpus eius. Dici etiam potest caput non solum hominum, sed etiam Angelorum, quantum ad excellentiam et influentiam, licet non quantum ad conformitatem naturae secundum eandem speciem. Unde ante praedicta verba apostolus praemittit quod Deus constituit illum, scilicet Christum, ad dexteram suam in caelestibus supra omnem principatum, potestatem et virtutem et dominationem. Because of the fact that grace and truth come to others from Christ, it is fitting that He should be the head of the Church. Sensation and movement are, in a way, conveyed from the head to the other members that are conformed to the head in nature. In like manner grace and truth are conveyed from Christ to other men. Hence we are told in Ephesians 1:22 ff., that God “made Him head over all the Church, which is His body.” Christ is not the head of men alone; He can also be called the head of the angels, at least with respect to His excellence and influence, if not with respect to conformity of nature in the same species. This is why, before the words just quoted, the Apostle says that God set Him, namely Christ, “on His right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality and power and virtue and dominion.”
Sic igitur secundum praemissa triplex gratia consuevit assignari in Christo. Primo quidem gratia unionis, secundum quod humana natura nullis meritis praecedentibus hoc donum accepit ut uniretur Dei filio in persona. Secundo gratia singularis, qua anima Christi prae ceteris fuit gratia et veritate repleta. Tertio gratia capitis, secundum quod ab ipso in alios gratia redundat: quae tria Evangelista congruo ordine prosequitur. Nam quantum ad gratiam unionis dicit: verbum caro factum est. Quantum ad gratiam singularem dicit: vidimus eum quasi unigenitum a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Quantum ad gratiam capitis subdit: et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. In accord with this doctrine, a threefold grace is usually pointed out in Christ. The first is the grace of union, whereby the human nature, with no merits preceding, received the gift of being united in person to the Son of God. The second is the singular grace whereby the soul of Christ was filled with grace and truth beyond all other souls. The third is the grace of being head, in virtue of which grace flows from Him to others. The Evangelist presents these three kinds of grace in due order (John 1:14, 16). Regarding the grace of union he says: “The Word was made flesh.” Regarding Christ’s singular grace he says: “We saw [Him as it were] the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Regarding the grace of head he adds: “And of His fullness we all have received.”


Caput 215

De infinitate gratiae Christi
Est autem proprium Christi quod eius gratia sit infinita, quia secundum testimonium Ioannis Baptistae, non ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum homini Christo, ut dicitur Ioan. III; aliis autem datur spiritus ad mensuram, secundum illud ad Ephes. IV, 7: unicuique nostrum data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi. Et quidem si hoc referatur ad gratiam unionis, nullam dubitationem habet quod dicitur. Nam aliis quidem sanctis datum est deos aut filios Dei esse per participationem ex influentia alicuius doni, quod quia creatum est, necesse est ipsum, sicut et ceteras creaturas, esse finitum. Sed Christo secundum humanam naturam datum est ut sit Dei filius non per participationem, sed per naturam. Naturalis autem divinitas est infinita. Ex ipsa igitur unione accepit donum infinitum: unde gratia unionis absque omni dubitatione est infinita. The possession of infinite grace is restricted to Christ. According to the testimony of John the Baptist, “God doth not give the Spirit by measure” to the man Christ (John 3:34). But to others the Spirit is given in measure, as we read in Ephesians 4:7: “To everyone of us is given grace ‘according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” If this refers to the grace of union, no doubt can arise about what is here stated. To other saints is given the grace of being gods or sons of God by participation, through the infusion of some gift. Such a gift, being created, must itself be finite, just as all other creatures are. To Christ, on the contrary, is given, in His human nature, the grace to be the Son of God not by participation, but by nature. But natural divinity is infinite. Through that union, therefore, He received an infinite gift. Hence beyond all doubt the grace of union is infinite.
Sed de gratia habituali dubium esse potest, an sit infinita. Cum enim huiusmodi gratia sit etiam donum creatum, confiteri oportet quod habeat essentiam finitam. Potest tamen dici infinita triplici ratione. Concerning habitual grace, however, a doubt can be raised as to whether it is infinite. Since such grace is a created gift, we have to acknowledge that it has a finite essence. Yet it can be said to be infinite for three reasons.
Primo quidem ex parte recipientis. Manifestum est enim uniuscuiusque naturae creatae capacitatem esse finitam, quia etsi infinitum bonum recipere possit cognoscendo et fruendo, non tamen ipsum recipit infinite. Est igitur cuiuslibet creaturae secundum suam speciem et naturam determinata capacitatis mensura, quae tamen divinae potestati non praeiudicat quin possit aliam creaturam maioris capacitatis facere. Sed iam non esset eiusdem naturae secundum speciem, sicut si ternario addatur unitas, iam erit alia species numeri. Quando igitur alicui non tantum datur de bonitate divina quanta est capacitas naturalis speciei suae, videtur ei secundum aliquam mensuram donatum. Cum vero tota naturalis capacitas impletur, non videtur ei secundum mensuram donatum, quia etsi sit mensura ex parte recipientis, non tamen est mensura ex parte dantis, qui totum est paratus dare: sicut si aliquis vas ad fluvium deferens, absque mensura invenit aquam praeparatam, quamvis ipse cum mensura accipiat propter vasis determinatam quantitatem. Sic igitur gratia Christi habitualis finita quidem est secundum essentiam, sed infinite et non secundum mensuram dari dicitur, quia tantum datur, quantum natura creata potest esse capax. First, on the part of the recipient. The capacity of any created nature is evidently finite. Even though it is able to receive an infinite good by way of knowledge and fruition, it does not receive that good infinitely. Each creature has a definite measure of capacity in keeping with its species and nature. This does not prevent the divine power from being able to make another creature with a greater capacity; but such a creature would no longer be of the same nature with regard to species. Thus if one is added to three, a different species of number will result. Consequently, when the divine goodness that is bestowed on anyone does not completely exhaust the natural capacity of his nature, we judge that what is given to him has been apportioned according to some measure. But when the whole of his natural capacity is filled up, We conclude that what he receives is not parceled out to him according to measure. For although there is a measure on the part of the recipient, there is no measure on the part of the giver, who is ready to give all; if a person, for instance, takes a pitcher down to the river, he finds water at hand without measure, although he himself receives with measure because of the limited size of the vessel. In this way Christ’s habitual grace is finite in its essence, but may be said to be given infinitely and not according to measure, because as much is given as created nature is able to receive.
Secundo vero ex parte ipsius doni recepti. Considerandum enim est, quod nihil prohibet aliquid secundum essentiam finitum esse, quod tamen secundum rationem alicuius formae infinitum existit. Infinitum enim secundum essentiam est quod habet totam essendi plenitudinem, quod quidem soli Deo convenit, qui est ipsum esse. Si autem ponatur esse aliqua forma specialis non in subiecto existens, puta albedo vel calor, non quidem haberet essentiam infinitam, quia essentia eius esset limitata ad genus vel speciem, sed tamen plenitudinem illius speciei possideret: unde secundum rationem speciei, absque termino vel mensura esset, habens quidquid ad illam speciem pertinere potest. Si autem in aliquo subiecto recipiatur albedo vel calor, non habet semper totum quidquid pertinet ad rationem huius formae de necessitate et semper, sed solum quando sic perfecte habetur sicut perfecte haberi potest, ita scilicet quod modus habendi adaequet rei habitae potestatem. Sic igitur gratia Christi habitualis finita quidem fuit secundum essentiam: sed tamen dicitur absque termino et mensura fuisse, quia quidquid ad rationem gratiae poterat pertinere, totum Christus accepit. Alii autem non totum accipiunt, sed unus sic, alius autem sic: divisiones enim gratiarum sunt, ut dicitur I ad Corinth. XII, 4. Secondly, grace may be said to be infinite on the part of the gift itself that is received. Surely we realize that there is nothing to prevent a thing that is finite in its essence, from being infinite by reason of some, form. Infinite according to essence is that which possesses the whole fullness of being; this, of course, is proper to God alone, who is being itself. But if we suppose that there is some particular form not existing in a subject, such as whiteness or heat, it would not, indeed, have an infinite essence, for its essence would be confined to a genus or species; but it would possess the entire fullness of that species. With respect to the species in question, it would be without limit or measure, because it would have whatever could pertain to that species. But if whiteness or heat is received into some subject, the latter does not always possess everything that necessarily and invariably pertains to the nature of that form, but does so only when the form is possessed as perfectly as it can be possessed, that is, when the manner of possessing is equal to the thing’s capacity for being possessed. In this way, then, Christ’s habitual grace was finite in its essence; but it is said to have been without limit and measure because Christ received all that could pertain to the nature of grace. Other men do not receive the whole: one man receives grace in this measure, another in that. “There are diversities of graces,” as we learn from 1 Corinthians 12:4.
Tertio autem ex parte causae. In causa enim quodammodo habetur effectus. Cuicumque ergo adest causa infinitae virtutis ad influendum, habet quod influitur absque mensura, et quodammodo infinite: puta si quis haberet fontem qui aquas in infinitum effluere posset, aquam absque mensura et infinite quodammodo diceretur habere. Sic igitur anima Christi infinitam et absque mensura gratiam habet ex hoc ipso quod habet verbum sibi unitum, quod est totius emanationis creaturarum indeficiens et infinitum principium. In the third place, grace may be called infinite on the part of its cause. For in a cause is contained, in some way, its effect. Therefore, if a cause with infinite power to influence is at hand, it is able to influence without measure and, in a certain sense, infinitely; for example, if a person had a fountain capable of pouring forth water infinitely, he could be said to possess water without measure and, in a sense, infinitely. In this way Christ’s soul has grace that is infinite and without measure, owing to the fact that it possesses, as united to itself, the Word who is the inexhaustible and infinite principle of every emanation of creatures.
Ex hoc autem quod gratia singularis animae Christi est modis praedictis infinita, evidenter colligitur quod gratia ipsius secundum quod est Ecclesiae caput, est etiam infinita. Ex hoc enim quod habet, effundit: unde quia absque mensura spiritus dona accepit, habet virtutem absque mensura effundendi, quod ad gratiam capitis pertinet, ut scilicet sua gratia non solum sufficiat ad salutem hominum aliquorum, sed etiam totius mundi, secundum illud I Ioan. II, 2: et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, et non solum pro nostris, sed etiam pro totius mundi. Addi autem et potest plurium mundorum, si essent. From the fact that the singular grace of Christ’s soul is infinite in the ways described, we readily infer that the grace which is His as head of the Church is likewise infinite. For the very reason that He possesses it, He pours it forth. And since He has received the gifts of the Spirit without measure, He has the power of pouring forth without measure all that pertains to the grace of the head, so that His grace is sufficient for the salvation, not of some men only, but of the whole world, according to 1 John 2:2: “And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world”; and, we may add, of many worlds, if such existed.


Caput 216

De plenitudine sapientiae Christi
Oportet autem consequenter dicere de plenitudine sapientiae Christi. Ubi primo considerandum occurrit, quod, cum in Christo sint duae naturae, divina scilicet et humana, quidquid ad utramque naturam pertinet, necesse est quod geminetur in Christo, ut supra dictum est. Sapientia autem et divinae naturae convenit et humanae. Dicitur enim de Deo Iob IX, 4: sapiens corde est, et fortis robore. Sed etiam homines interdum Scriptura sapientes appellat seu secundum sapientiam mundanam, secundum illud Ier. IX, 23: non glorietur sapiens in sapientia sua; sive secundum sapientiam divinam, secundum illud Matth. XXIII, 34: ecce ego mitto ad vos prophetas et sapientes et Scribas. Ergo oportet confiteri duas esse in Christo sapientias secundum duas naturas, sapientiam scilicet increatam, quae ei competit secundum quod est Deus, et sapientiam creatam, quae ei competit secundum quod est homo. We treat next of the fullness of wisdom in Christ. In this matter, the first point that comes up for consideration is the truth that, since Christ has two natures, the divine and the human, whatever pertains to both natures must be twofold in Christ, as was stated above. But wisdom appertains to both the divine nature and the human nature. The assertion of Job 9:4: “He is wise in heart and mighty in strength,” is spoken of God. At times Scripture also calls men wise, whether with reference to worldly wisdom, as in Jeremiah 9:23: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,” or with reference to divine wisdom, as in Matthew 23:34: “Behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes.” Hence we must acknowledge a twofold wisdom in Christ, conformably with His two natures: uncreated wisdom, which pertains to Him as God, and created wisdom, which pertains to Him as man.
Et secundum quidem quod Deus est et verbum Dei, est genita sapientia patris, secundum illud I ad Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Nihil enim est aliud verbum interius uniuscuiusque intelligentis nisi conceptio sapientiae eius. Et quia verbum Dei supra diximus esse perfectum et unitum, necesse est quod Dei verbum sit perfecta conceptio sapientiae Dei patris, ut scilicet quidquid in sapientia Dei patris continetur per modum ingeniti, totum in verbo contineatur per modum geniti et concepti. Et inde est quod dicitur, quod in ipso, scilicet Christo, sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi. Inasmuch as Christ is God and the Word of God, He is the begotten Wisdom of the Father, as is indicated in 1 Corinthians 1:24: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” For the interior word of any intellectual being is nothing else than the conception of wisdom. And since, as we said above, the Word of God is perfect and is one with God, He must be the perfect conception of the wisdom of God the Father. Consequently, whatever is contained in the wisdom of God the Father as unbegotten, is contained wholly in the Word as begotten and conceived. And so we are told, in Colossians 2:3, that in Him, namely, in Christ, “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Hominis autem Christi est duplex cognitio. Una quidem deiformis, secundum quod Deum per essentiam videt, et alia videt in Deo, sicut et ipse Deus intelligendo seipsum, intelligit omnia alia, per quam visionem et ipse Deus beatus est, et omnis creatura rationalis perfecte Deo fruens. Quia igitur Christum dicimus esse humanae salutis auctorem, necesse est dicere, quod talis cognitio sic animae Christi conveniat ut decet auctorem. Principium autem et immobile esse oportet, et virtute praestantissimum. Conveniens igitur fuit ut illa Dei visio in qua beatitudo hominum et salus aeterna consistit, excellentius prae ceteris Christo conveniat, et tanquam immobili principio. Haec autem differentia invenitur mobilium ad immobilia, quod mobilia propriam perfectionem non a principio habent, inquantum mobilia sunt, sed eam per successionem temporis assequuntur; immobilia vero, inquantum huiusmodi, semper obtinent suas perfectiones ex quo esse incipiunt. Indeed, even as man, Christ has a twofold knowledge. The one is godlike, whereby He sees God in His essence, and other things in God, just as God Himself, by knowing Himself, knows all other things. Through this vision God Himself is happy, as is every rational creature admitted to the perfect fruition of God. Therefore, since we hold that Christ is the author of man’s salvation, we must also hold that such knowledge as befits the author of salvation pertains to the soul of Christ. But a principle must be immovable and must also be pre-eminent in power. Hence that vision of God in which men’s beatitude and eternal salvation consist, ought to be found to be more excellent in Christ than in others, and, indeed, ought to be found in Him as in an immovable principle. The difference between what is movable and what is immovable comes to this: movable things, so far as they are movable, do not possess their proper perfection from the beginning, but acquire it in the course of time; but immovable things, as such, always possess their perfections from the first moment of their existence. Accordingly Christ, the author of man’s salvation, should rightly have possessed the full vision of God from the very beginning of His incarnation; propriety would not allow Him to have attained to it in the course of time, as other saints do.
Conveniens igitur fuit Christum humanae salutis auctorem ab ipso suae incarnationis principio plenam Dei visionem possedisse, non autem per temporis successionem pervenisse ad ipsam, ut sancti alii perveniunt. Conveniens etiam fuit ut prae ceteris creaturis illa anima divina visione beatificaretur quae Deo propinquius coniungebatur, in qua quidem visione gradus attenditur secundum quod aliqui aliis clarius Deum vident, qui est omnium rerum causa. Quanto autem aliqua causa plenius cognoscitur, tanto in ipsa plures eius effectus perspici possunt. Non enim magis cognoscitur causa, nisi virtus eius plenius cognoscatur, cuius virtutis cognitio sine cognitione effectuum esse non potest: nam quantitas virtutis secundum effectus mensurari solet. Et inde est quod eorum qui essentiam Dei vident, aliqui plures effectus vel rationes divinorum operum in ipso Deo inspiciunt, quam alii qui minus clare vident: et secundum hoc inferiores Angeli a superioribus instruuntur, ut supra iam diximus. It was also appropriate that that soul which was united to God more closely than all others, should be beatified by the vision of God beyond the rest of creatures. Gradation is possible in this vision, according as some see God, the cause of all things, more clearly than others. The more comprehensively a cause is known, the more numerous are the effects that can be discerned in it. For a more perfect knowledge of a cause entails a fuller knowledge of its power, and there can be no knowledge of this power without a knowledge of its effects, since the magnitude of a power is ordinarily gauged from its effects. This is why, among those who behold the essence of God, some perceive more effects in God Himself or more exemplars of the divine works than do others who see less clearly. It is because of this fact that lower angels are instructed by higher angels, as we have previously observed.
Anima igitur Christi summam perfectionem divinae visionis obtinens inter creaturas ceteras, omnia divina opera et rationes ipsorum, quaecumque sunt, erunt vel fuerunt, in ipso Deo plene intuetur, ut non solum homines, sed etiam supremos Angelorum illuminet, et ideo apostolus dicit ad Coloss. II, 3, quod in ipso sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei absconditi: et ad Hebr. IV, 13, quod omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius. Accordingly the soul of Christ, possessing the highest perfection of the divine vision among all creatures, clearly beholds in God Himself all the divine works and the exemplars of all things that are, will be, or have been; and so He enlightens not only men, but also the highest of the angels. Hence the Apostle says, in Colossians 2:3, that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” of God; and in Hebrews 4:13 he points out that “all things are naked and open to His eyes.”
Non tamen anima Christi ad comprehensionem divinitatis pertingere potest. Nam, ut supra dictum est, illud cognoscendo comprehenditur quod tantum cognoscitur quantum cognoscibile est. Unumquodque enim cognoscibile est inquantum est ens et verum, esse autem divinum est infinitum, similiter et veritas eius. Infinite igitur Deus cognoscibilis est. Nulla autem creatura infinite cognoscere potest, etsi infinitum sit quod cognoscit. Nulla igitur creatura Deum videndo comprehendere potest. Est autem anima Christi creatura, et quidquid in Christo ad humanam naturam tantum pertinet, creatum est, alioquin non erit in Christo alia natura humanitatis a natura divinitatis, quae sola increata est. Hypostasis autem Dei verbi sive persona increata est, quae una est in duabus naturis: ratione cuius Christum non dicimus creaturam, loquendo simpliciter, quia nomine Christi importatur hypostasis, dicimus tamen animam Christi vel corpus Christi esse creaturam. Anima igitur Christi Deum non comprehendit, sed Christus Deum comprehendit sua sapientia increata, secundum quem modum dominus dicit Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit filium nisi pater, neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, de comprehensionis eius notitia loquens. Of course the soul of Christ cannot attain to a comprehension of the divinity. For, as we said above, a thing is comprehended by knowledge when it is known to the full extent that it is knowable. Any object is knowable to the degree that it is a being and is true; but the divine being is infinite, as likewise is its truth. Therefore God is infinitely knowable. But no creature can know infinitely, even if what it knows is infinite. Hence no creature can comprehend God by seeing Him. But Christ’s soul is a creature, and whatever in Christ pertains exclusively to His human nature is created. Otherwise the nature of Christ’s humanity would not differ from the nature of His divinity, which alone is uncreated. However, the hypostasis or person of the Word of God, which is one in two natures, is uncreated. For this reason we do not call Christ a creature, speaking absolutely, because the hypostasis is connoted by the name of Christ. But we do say that the soul of Christ or the body of Christ is a creature. Therefore Christ’s soul does not comprehend God, but Christ comprehends God by His uncreated wisdom. Our Lord had this uncreated wisdom in mind when, speaking of His knowledge of comprehension, He said in Matthew 11:27: “No one knows the Son but the Father; neither doth anyone know the Father but the Son.”
Est autem considerandum, quod eiusdem rationis est comprehendere essentiam alicuius rei, et virtutem ipsius: unumquodque enim potest agere inquantum est ens actu. Si igitur anima Christi essentiam divinitatis comprehendere non valet, ut ostensum est, impossibile est ut divinam virtutem comprehendat. Comprehenderet autem, si cognosceret quidquid Deus facere potest, et quibus rationibus effectus producere possit. Hoc autem est impossibile. Non igitur anima Christi cognoscit quidquid Deus facere potest, vel quibus rationibus possit operari. In this connection we may note that comprehension of a thing’s essence and comprehension of its power are of the same nature; a thing is able to act so far as it is a being in act. Therefore, if Christ’s soul is incapable of comprehending the essence of the divinity, as we have shown is the case, it cannot comprehend the divine power. But it would comprehend the divine power if it knew all that God is able to accomplish and the ways in which He can produce His effects. But this is impossible. Therefore Christ’s soul does not know all that God can do, nor all the modes of activity open to Him.
Sed quia Christus etiam secundum quod homo, omni creaturae a Deo patre praepositus est, conveniens est ut omnium quae a Deo qualitercumque facta sunt, in ipsius divinae essentiae visione plenam cognitionem percipiat: et secundum hoc anima Christi omnisciens dicitur, quia plenam notitiam habet omnium quae sunt, erunt, vel fuerunt. Aliarum vero creaturarum Deum videntium quaedam plenius et quaedam minus plene praedictorum effectuum in ipsa Dei visione cognitionem percipiunt. However, since Christ, even as man, is placed by God the Father over every creature, it is fitting that in His vision of the divine essence He should perceive with full knowledge all things that in any way have been wrought by God. In this sense the soul of Christ is said to be omniscient, for it has complete knowledge of all things that are, will be, or have been. Among the other creatures that see God, some enjoy, in their vision of God, a more perfect knowledge, others a less perfect knowledge, of these effects.
Praeter hanc autem rerum cognitionem, qua res ab intellectu creato cognoscuntur ipsius divinae essentiae visione, sunt alii modi cognitionis, quibus a creaturis habetur rerum cognitio. Nam Angeli praeter cognitionem matutinam, qua res in verbo cognoscunt, habent cognitionem vespertinam, qua cognoscunt res in propriis naturis. Huiusmodi autem cognitio aliter competit hominibus secundum naturam suam, atque aliter Angelis. Nam homines secundum naturae ordinem intelligibilem rerum veritatem a sensibus colligunt, ut Dionysius dicit, ita scilicet quod species intelligibiles in eorum intellectibus actione intellectus agentis a phantasmatibus abstrahuntur; Angeli vero per influxum divini luminis rerum scientiam acquirunt, ut scilicet sicut a Deo res in esse prodeunt, ita etiam in intellectu angelico a Deo rerum rationes sive similitudines imprimantur. In utrisque autem, tam hominibus quam Angelis, supra rerum cognitionem quae competit eis secundum naturam, invenitur quaedam supernaturalis cognitio mysteriorum divinorum, de quibus et Angeli illuminantur ab Angelis, et homines etiam de his prophetica revelatione instruuntur. In addition to this knowledge, whereby things are known by the created intellect in the vision of the divine essence itself, there are other kinds of cognition by which a knowledge of things comes to creatures. The angels, besides “morning” knowledge, whereby they know things in the Word, also have “evening” knowledge, whereby they know things in their proper natures. This kind of knowledge pertains to men in one way, in keeping with their nature, and to angels in another way. For men, consistent with the order of nature, derive the intelligible truth of things from their senses, as Dionysius observes [ De divinis nominibus, VII, 3], in such a way that the intelligible species in their intellects are abstracted from phantasms under the action of the agent intellect. But angels acquire knowledge of things through an influx of divine light; in the same way that things themselves come forth into being from God, representations or likenesses of things are imprinted on the angelic intellect by God. In men and angels alike, however, over and above the knowledge of things they have by nature, there is found a certain supernatural knowledge of divine mysteries, about which angels are enlightened by angels, and men, for their part, are instructed by prophetic revelation.
Et quia nulla perfectio creaturis exhibita, animae Christi, quae est creaturarum excellentissima, deneganda est, convenienter praeter cognitionem qua Dei essentiam videt et omnia in ipsa, triplex alia cognitio est ei attribuenda. Una quidem experimentalis, sicut aliis hominibus, inquantum aliqua per sensus cognovit, ut competit humanae naturae. Alia vero divinitus infusa, ad cognoscenda omnia illa ad quae naturalis cognitio hominis se extendit vel extendere potest. Conveniens enim fuit ut humana natura a Dei verbo assumpta in nullo a perfectione deficeret, utpote per quam tota humana natura restauranda esset. Est autem imperfectum omne quod in potentia existit antequam reducatur in actum. Intellectus autem humanus est in potentia ad intelligibilia quae naturaliter homo intelligere potest. Omnium igitur horum scientiam divinitus anima Christi per species influxas accepit, per hoc quod tota potentia intellectus humani fuit reducta ad actum. Sed quia Christus secundum humanam naturam non solum fuit reparator naturae, sed et gratiae propagator, affuit ei etiam tertia cognitio, qua plenissime cognovit quidquid ad mysteria gratiae potest pertinere, quae naturalem hominis cognitionem excedunt, sed cognoscuntur ab hominibus per donum sapientiae, vel per spiritum prophetiae. Nam ad huiusmodi cognoscenda est in potentia intellectus humanus, licet ab altiori agente reducatur in actum. Nam ad naturalia cognoscenda reducitur in actum per lumen intellectus agentis; horum autem cognitionem consequitur per lumen divinum. Accordingly, since no perfection vouchsafed to creatures may be withheld from Christ’s soul, which is the most excellent of creatures, a threefold knowledge is fittingly to be attributed to Him, in addition to the knowledge whereby He beholds the essence of God and all things in that essence. One kind of knowledge is experimental, as in other men, so far as Christ knew some things through the senses, in keeping with His human nature. A second knowledge is divinely infused, granted to Christ so that He might know all truths to which man’s natural knowledge extends or can extend. The human nature assumed by the Word of God ought not to have been lacking in any perfection whatever, since through it the whole of human nature was to be restored. But everything that exists in potency is imperfect before it is reduced to act. Thus the human intellect is in potency to the intelligibles which man can know naturally. Hence the soul of Christ received knowledge of all such objects through species divinely infused: the entire potency of His human intellect was reduced to act. Furthermore, since Christ in His human nature was not only the restorer of our nature, but was also the fountainhead of grace, He was endowed with a third knowledge whereby He knew most perfectly all that can pertain to the mysteries of grace, which transcend man’s natural knowledge, although they are known by men through the gift of wisdom or through the spirit of prophecy. The human intellect is in potency with regard to the acquisition of such knowledge, even though an agency belonging to a higher sphere is required to reduce it to act. When there is question of knowing natural things, the mind is reduced to act by the light of the agent intellect; but it acquires knowledge of these mysteries through divine light.
Patet igitur ex praedictis, quod anima Christi summum cognitionis gradum inter ceteras creaturas obtinuit quantum ad Dei visionem, qua Dei essentia videtur, et alia in ipsa; etiam similiter quantum ad cognitionem mysteriorum gratiae, nec non quantum ad cognitionem naturalium scibilium: unde in nulla harum trium cognitionum Christus proficere potuit. Sed manifestum est quod res sensibiles per temporis successionem magis ac magis sensibus corporis experiendo cognovit, et ideo solum quantum ad cognitionem experimentalem Christus potuit proficere, secundum illud Luc. II, 52: puer proficiebat sapientia et aetate: quamvis posset et hoc aliter intelligi, ut profectus sapientiae Christi dicatur non quo ipse fit sapientior, sed quo sapientia proficiebat in aliis, quia scilicet per eius sapientiam magis ac magis instruebantur. Quod dispensative factum est, ut se aliis hominibus conformem ostenderet, ne si in puerili aetate perfectam sapientiam demonstrasset, incarnationis mysterium phantasticum videretur. This discussion clearly shows that the soul of Christ reached the highest degree of knowledge among all creatures, as regards the vision of God, whereby the essence of God is seen, and other things in it; likewise as regards knowledge of the mysteries, and also as regards knowledge of things naturally knowable. Consequently Christ could not advance in any of these three kinds of knowledge. But obviously He knew sensible things more and more perfectly with the passing of time, as He gained experience of them through the bodily senses. Therefore Christ could advance only with respect to experimental knowledge. That He actually did so we learn from Luke 2:52: the boy “advanced in wisdom and age.” However, this can be understood also in another way, so that Christ’s increase of wisdom would mean, not that He Himself became wiser, but that wisdom increased in others, in the sense that they were more and more instructed by His wisdom. This was done for a good reason: that He might show that He was like other men. If He had made a display of His perfect wisdom at a tender age, the mystery of the Incarnation might well have seemed phantastic.


Caput 217

De materia corporis Christi
Secundum praemissa igitur evidenter apparet qualis debuit esse corporis Christi formatio. Poterat siquidem Deus corpus Christi ex limo terrae formare, vel ex quacumque materia, sicut formavit corpus primi parentis, sed hoc humanae restaurationi, propter quam filius Dei, ut diximus, carnem assumpsit, congruum non fuisset. Non enim sufficienter natura humani generis ex primo parente derivata, quae sananda erat, in pristinum honorem restituta esset, si aliunde corpus assumeret Diaboli victor et mortis triumphator, sub quibus humanum genus captivum tenebatur propter peccatum primi parentis. Dei autem perfecta sunt opera, et ad perfectum perducit quod reparare intendit, ut etiam plus adiiciat quam fuerat subtractum, secundum illud apostoli Rom. V, 20: gratia Dei per Christum amplius abundavit quam delictum Adae. Conveniens igitur fuit ut Dei filius corpus assumeret de natura propagatum ab Adam. The foregoing exposition clearly indicates the way the formation of Christ’s body ought to have taken place. God could, indeed, have fashioned Christ’s body from the dust of the earth or from any other matter, in the way He fashioned the body of our first parent. But this would not have been in keeping with the restoration of man, which is the reason why the Son of God assumed flesh, as we have pointed out. The nature of the human race, which was derived from the first parent and which was to be healed, would not have been so well restored to its pristine honor if the victor over the devil and the conqueror of death, under which the human race was held captive because of the sin of the first father, had taken His body from some other source. The works of God are perfect, and what He means to restore He brings to perfection. He even adds more than had been taken away: through Christ the grace of God has abounded more than the offense of Adam, as the Apostle teaches in Romans 5:15, 20. Hence it was fitting that the Son of God should assume a body from the nature propagated by Adam.
Adhuc. Incarnationis mysterium hominibus proficuum per fidem redditur. Nisi enim homines crederent Dei filium esse qui homo videbatur, non sequerentur eum homines ut salutis auctorem, quod Iudaeis accidit, qui ex incarnationis mysterio propter incredulitatem, damnationem potius quam salutem sunt consecuti. Ut ergo hoc ineffabile mysterium facilius crederetur, filius Dei sic omnia dispensavit ut se verum hominem esse ostenderet, quod non ita videretur, si aliunde naturam sui corporis acciperet quam ex natura humana. Conveniens igitur fuit ut corpus a primo parente propagatum assumeret. Moreover, the mystery of the Incarnation becomes profitable to men by faith. Unless men believed that He who appeared in the guise of a man was the Son of God, they would not follow Him as the author of salvation. This was the case with the Jews, who drew upon themselves damnation rather than salvation from the mystery of the Incarnation, because of their unbelief. In order, therefore, that this ineffable mystery might more readily be believed, the Son of God disposed all things in such a way as to show that He was a true man. This would not have seemed to be so if He had taken His bodily nature from some other source than from human nature. Fittingly, therefore, He assumed a body stemming from the first parent.
Item. Filius Dei homo factus humano generi salutem adhibuit, non solum conferendo gratiae remedium, sed etiam praebendo exemplum, quod repudiari non potest. Alterius enim hominis et doctrina et vita in dubium verti potest propter defectum humanae cognitionis et veritatis. Sed sicut quod filius Dei docet, indubitanter creditur verum, ita quod operatur, creditur indubitanter bonum. Oportuit autem ut in eo exemplum acciperemus et gloriae quam speramus, et virtutis qua ipsam meremur: utrumque enim exemplum minus efficax esset, si aliunde naturam corporis assumpsisset quam unde alii homines assumunt. Si cui enim persuaderetur quod toleraret passiones, sicut Christus sustinuit, quod speraret se resurrecturum, sicut Christus resurrexit, posset excusationem praetendere ex diversa corporis conditione. Ut igitur exemplum Christi efficacius esset, conveniens fuit ut non aliunde corporis naturam assumeret quam de natura quae a primo parente propagatur. Furthermore, the Son of God, made man, brought salvation to the human race, not only by conferring the remedy of grace, but also by giving an example that cannot be ignored. Doubts may be raised about the teaching and the life of any other man because of a defect in his human knowledge and his mastery of truth. But what the Son of God teaches is believed without hesitation to be true and what He does is accepted without misgiving as good. In Him we ought to have an example of the glory we hope for and of the virtue whereby we may merit it. In both instances the example would have been less telling if He had taken His bodily nature from another source than that from which the rest of men receive theirs. Otherwise, if we tried to persuade a man that he should endure sufferings as Christ endured them, and that he should hope to rise as Christ rose, he could allege as an excuse the different condition of his body. Therefore, to give greater effectiveness to His example, Christ ought to have assumed His bodily nature from no other source than from the nature that comes down from the first parent.


Caput 218

De formatione corporis Christi, quae non est ex semine
Non tamen fuit conveniens ut eodem modo formaretur corpus Christi in humana natura, sicut formantur aliorum hominum corpora. Cum enim ad hoc naturam assumeret ut ipsam a peccato mundaret, oportebat ut tali modo assumeret quod nullum contagium peccati incurreret. Homines autem peccatum originale incurrunt ex hoc quod generantur per virtutem activam humanam, quae est in virili semine, quod est secundum seminalem rationem in Adam peccante praeextitisse. Sicut enim primus homo originalem iustitiam transfudisset in posteros simul cum transfusione naturae, ita etiam originalem culpam transfudit transfundendo naturam, quod est per virtutem activam virilis seminis. Oportuit igitur absque virili semine Christi formari corpus. Nevertheless the body of Christ could not becomingly have been fashioned in human nature in the same way as the bodies of other men are formed. Since He assumed this nature for the purpose of cleansing it from sin, He ought to have assumed it in such a way that He would incur no contagion of sin. Men incur original sin by the fact that they are begotten through the active human power residing in the male seed; which implies pre-existence, according to seminal principle, in Adam the sinner. just as the first man would have transmitted original justice to his posterity along with the transmission of nature, so he actually transmitted original sin by transmitting nature; and this is brought about by the active power of the male seed. Hence the body of Christ ought to have been formed without male seed.
Item. Virtus activa virilis seminis naturaliter agit, et ideo homo qui ex virili semine generatur, non subito perducitur ad perfectum, sed determinatis processibus. Omnia enim naturalia per determinata media ad determinatos fines procedunt. Oportebat autem corpus Christi in ipsa assumptione perfectum esse, et anima rationali informatum, quia corpus est assumptibile a Dei verbo inquantum est animae rationali unitum, licet non esset perfectum secundum debitam quantitatem. Non ergo corpus Christi formari debuit per virilis seminis virtutem. Moreover, the active power of the male seed operates naturally, and so man, who is begotten of male seed, is brought to perfection, not at once, but by definite processes. For all natural things advance to fixed ends through fixed intermediary stages. But Christ’s body ought to have been perfect and informed by a rational soul at its very assumption; for a body is capable of being assumed by the Word of God so far as it is united to a rational soul, even though it was not at first perfect with regard to its full measure of quantity. Accordingly the body of Christ ought not to have been formed through the power of the male seed.


Caput 219

De causa formationis corporis Christi
Cum autem corporis humani formatio naturaliter sit ex virili semine, quocumque alio modo corpus Christi formatum fuerit, supra naturam fuit talis formatio. Solus autem Deus institutor naturae est, qui supernaturaliter in rebus naturalibus operatur, ut supra dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod solus Deus illud corpus miraculose formavit ex materia humanae naturae. Sed cum omnis Dei operatio in creatura sit tribus personis communis, tamen per quandam convenientiam formatio corporis Christi attribuitur spiritui sancto: est enim spiritus sanctus amor patris et filii, quo se invicem et nos diligunt. Deus autem, ut apostolus ad Ephesios II dicit, propter nimiam caritatem suam qua dilexit nos, filium suum incarnari constituit. Convenienter igitur carnis formatio spiritui sancto attribuitur. Since the formation of the human body is naturally effected by the male seed, any other way of fashioning the body of Christ was above nature. God alone is the author of nature, and He works supernaturally in natural things, as was remarked above. Hence we conclude that God alone miraculously formed that body from matter supplied by human nature. However, although every action of God in creation is common to the three divine persons, the formation of Christ’s body is, by a certain appropriation, attributed to the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, who love each other and us in Him. Since God decreed that His Son should become incarnate because of “His exceeding charity with which He loved us,” as the Apostle says in Ephesians 2:4, the formation of Christ’s flesh is fittingly ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
Item. Spiritus sanctus omnium gratiarum est auctor, cum sit primum in quo omnia dona gratis donantur. Hoc autem fuit superabundantis gratiae ut humana natura in unitatem divinae personae assumeretur, ut ex supradictis patet. Ad demonstrandum igitur huiusmodi gratiam formatio corporis Christi spiritui sancto attribuitur. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the author of all grace, since He is the first in whom all gifts are given gratis. But the taking up of human nature into the unity of a divine person was a communication of superabundant grace, as is clear from what was said above. Accordingly, to emphasize the greatness of this grace, the formation of Christ’s body is attributed to the Holy Spirit.
Convenienter etiam hoc dicitur secundum similitudinem humani verbi et spiritus. Verbum enim humanum in corde existens, similitudinem gerit aeterni verbi secundum quod existit in patre. Sicut autem humanum verbum vocem assumit, ut sensibiliter hominibus innotescat, ita et verbum Dei carnem assumpsit, ut visibiliter hominibus appareret. Vox autem humana per hominis spiritum formatur. Unde et caro verbi Dei per spiritum verbi formari debuit. Another reason for the appropriateness of this teaching is the relationship between the human word and spirit. The human word, as existing in the heart, bears a resemblance to the eternal Word as existing in the Father. And as the human word takes voice that it may become sensibly perceptible to men, so the Word of God took flesh that it might appear visibly to men. But the human voice is formed by man’s breath or spirit. In the same way the flesh of the Word of God ought to have been formed by the Spirit of the Word.


Caput 220

Expositio articuli in symbolo positi de conceptione et nativitate Christi
Ad excludendum igitur errorem Ebionis et Cerinthi, qui corpus Christi ex virili semine formatum dixerunt, dicitur in symbolo apostolorum: qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto. Loco cuius in symbolo patrum dicitur: et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, ut non phantasticum corpus secundum Manichaeos, sed veram carnem assumpsisse credatur. Additum est autem in symbolo patrum, propter nos homines, ad excludendum Origenis errorem, qui posuit virtute passionis Christi etiam Daemones liberandos. Additum est etiam in eodem, propter nostram salutem, ut mysterium incarnationis Christi sufficiens ad humanam salutem ostendatur, contra haeresim Nazaraeorum, qui fidem Christi sine operibus legis ad salutem humanam non sufficere putabant. Additum etiam est, descendit de caelis, ad excludendum errorem Photini, qui Christum purum hominem asserebat, dicens eum ex Maria sumpsisse initium, ut magis per bonae vitae meritum in terris habens principium ad caelum ascenderet, quam caelestem habens originem assumendo carnem descendisset ad terram. Additur etiam, et homo factus est, ad excludendum errorem Nestorii, secundum cuius positionem filius Dei, de quo symbolum loquitur, magis inhabitator hominis quam homo esse diceretur. To exclude the error of Ebion and Cerinthus, who taught that Christ’s body was formed from male seed, the Apostles’ Creed states: “Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.” In place of this, the Creed of the Nicene Fathers has: “He was made flesh by the Holy Spirit,” so that we may believe that He assumed true flesh and not a phantastic body, as the Manichaeans claimed. And the Creed of the Fathers adds: “For us men,” to exclude the error of Origen, who alleged that by the power of Christ’s passion even the devils were to be set free. In the same Creed the phrase, “for our salvation,” is appended, to show that the mystery of Christ’s incarnation suffices for men’s salvation, against the heresy of the Nazarenes, who thought that faith was not enough for human salvation apart from the works of the Law. The words, “He came down from heaven” were added to exclude the error of Photinus, who asserted that Christ was no more than a man and that He took His origin from Mary. In this heresy the false teaching that Christ had an earthly beginning and later ascended to heaven by the merit of a good life, replaces the truth that He had a heavenly origin and descended to earth by assuming flesh. Lastly, the words, “And He was made man,” were added to exclude the error of Nestorius, according to whose contention the Son of God, of whom the Creed speaks, would be said rather to dwell in man than to be man.


Caput 221

Quod conveniens fuit Christum nasci ex virgine
Cum autem ostensum sit quod de materia humanae naturae conveniebat filium Dei carnem assumere, materiam autem in humana generatione ministrat femina, conveniens fuit ut Christus de femina carnem assumeret, secundum illud apostoli ad Galat. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere. Femina autem indiget viri commixtione, ad hoc quod materia quam ipsa ministrat, formetur in corpus humanum. Formatio autem corporis Christi fieri non debuit per virtutem virilis seminis, ut supra iam dictum est. Unde absque commixtione virilis seminis illa femina concepit ex qua filius Dei carnem assumpsit. Tanto autem aliquis magis spiritualibus donis repletur, quanto magis a carnalibus separatur. Nam per spiritualia homo sursum trahitur, per carnalia vero deorsum. Cum autem formatio corporis Christi fieri debuerit per spiritum sanctum, oportuit illam feminam de qua Christus corpus assumpsit maxime spiritualibus donis repleri, ut per spiritum sanctum non solum anima fecundaretur virtutibus, sed etiam venter prole divina. Unde oportuit non solum mentem eius esse immunem a peccato, sed etiam corpus eius ab omni corruptela carnalis concupiscentiae elongari. Unde non solum ad concipiendum Christum virilem commixtionem non est experta, sed nec ante nec postea. Since, as we have shown, the Son of God was to take flesh from matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” A woman needs the cooperation of a man in order that the matter she supplies may be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ’s body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above. Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more such a person is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual goods, whereas he is dragged down by carnal attractions. Accordingly, since the formation of Christ’s body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it behooved that woman from whom Christ took His body to be filled to repletion with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb would be made fruitful with divine offspring. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence. And so she had no association with a man at the conception of Christ; nor did she ever have such experience, either before or after.
Hoc etiam conveniebat ei qui nascebatur ex ipsa. Ad hoc enim Dei filius veniebat in mundum carne assumpta ut nos ad resurrectionis statum promoveret, in quo neque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt homines sicut Angeli in caelo. Unde et continentiae et integritatis doctrinam introduxit, ut in fidelium vita resplendeat aliqualiter gloriae futurae imago. Conveniens ergo fuit ut etiam in suo ortu vitae integritatem commendaret nascendo ex virgine; et ideo in symbolo apostolorum dicitur: natus ex virgine Maria. In symbolo autem patrum ex virgine Maria dicitur incarnatus, per quod Valentini error excluditur, ceterorumque, qui corpus Christi dixerunt aut esse phantasticum, aut esse alterius naturae, et non esse ex corpore virginis sumptum atque formatum. This was also due to Him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world for the purpose of raising us to the state of resurrection, in which men “shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). This is why He inculcated the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity, that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Consequently He did well to extol purity of life at His very birth, by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles’ Creed says that He was “born of the Virgin Mary.” In the Creed of the Fathers He is said to have been made flesh of the Virgin Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastic or was of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin.


Caput 222

Quod beata virgo sit mater Christi
Error autem Nestorii ex hoc excluditur, qui beatam Mariam matrem Dei confiteri nolebat. In utroque autem symbolo dicitur, filius Dei est natus vel incarnatus ex virgine Maria. Femina autem ex qua aliquis homo nascitur, mater illius dicitur ex eo quod materiam ministrat humano conceptui. Unde beata virgo Maria, quae materiam ministravit conceptui filii Dei, vera mater filii Dei dicenda est. Non enim refert ad rationem matris, quacumque virtute materia ministrata ab ipsa formetur. Non igitur minus mater est quae materiam ministravit spiritu sancto formandam, quam quae materiam ministrat formandam virtute virilis seminis. Si quis autem dicere velit, beatam virginem Dei matrem non debere dici, quia non est ex ea assumpta divinitas, sed caro sola, sicut dicebat Nestorius, manifeste vocem suam ignorat. Non enim ex hoc aliqua dicitur alicuius mater, quia totum quod in ipso est, ex ea sumatur. Homo enim constat ex anima et corpore, magisque est homo id quod est secundum animam, quam id quod est secundum corpus. Anima autem nullius hominis a matre sumitur, sed vel a Deo immediate creatur, ut veritas habet; vel si esset ex traductione, ut quidam posuerunt, non sumeretur a matre, sed magis a patre, quia in generatione ceterorum animalium, secundum philosophorum doctrinam, masculus dat animam, femina vero corpus. The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.
Sicut igitur cuiuslibet hominis mater aliqua femina dicitur ex hoc quod ab ea corpus eius assumitur, ita Dei mater beata virgo Maria dici debet, si ex ea assumptum est corpus Dei. Oportet autem dicere, quod sit corpus Dei, si assumitur in unitatem personae filii Dei, qui est verus Deus. Confitentibus igitur humanam naturam esse assumptam a filio Dei in unitatem personae, necesse est dicere, quod beata virgo Maria sit mater Dei. Sed quia Nestorius negabat unam personam esse Dei et hominis Iesu Christi, ideo ex consequenti negabat virginem Mariam esse Dei matrem. Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.


Caput 223

Quod spiritus sanctus non sit pater Christi
Licet autem filius Dei dicatur de spiritu sancto et ex Maria virgine incarnatus et conceptus, non tamen dicendum est, quod spiritus sanctus sit pater hominis Christi, licet beata virgo eius mater dicatur. Although the Son of God is said to have been made flesh and to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, we are not to conclude that the Holy Spirit is the father of the man Christ, even though the Blessed Virgin is called His mother.
Primo quidem, quia in beata Maria virgine invenitur totum quod pertinet ad matris rationem. Materiam enim ministravit Christi conceptui spiritu sancto formandam, ut requirit matris ratio. Sed ex parte spiritus sancti non invenitur totum quod ad rationem patris exigitur. Est enim de ratione patris ut ex sua natura filium sibi connaturalem producat. Unde si fuerit aliquod agens quod facit aliquid non ex sua substantia, nec producat ipsum in similitudinem suae naturae, pater eius dici non poterit. Non enim dicimus quod homo sit pater eorum quae facit per artem, nisi forte secundum metaphoram. Spiritus autem sanctus est quidem Christo connaturalis secundum divinam naturam, secundum quam pater Christi non est, sed magis ab ipso procedens; secundum autem naturam humanam non est Christo connaturalis: est enim alia natura humana et divina in Christo, ut supra dictum est. Neque in naturam humanam est versum aliquid de natura divina, ut supra dictum est. Relinquitur ergo quod spiritus sanctus pater hominis Christi dici non possit. The first reason for this is that everything pertaining to the idea of mother is verified in the Blessed Virgin Mary. She furnished the matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit for the conception of Christ, as the idea of motherhood requires. But not all the elements required for the idea of fatherhood are found on the part of the Holy Spirit. The idea of fatherhood requires that the father produce from his nature a son who is of like nature with himself. Therefore if some agent would make a thing that is not derived from its own substance, and would not produce such a thing unto the likeness of its own nature, that agent could not be called the thing’s father. We do not say that a man is the father of things he makes by plying an art, unless perhaps in a metaphorical sense. The Holy Spirit is, indeed, connatural with Christ as regards the divine nature; in this respect, however, He is not the father of Christ, but rather proceeds from Him. With respect to the human nature, the Holy Spirit is not connatural with Christ. For the human nature in Christ is other than the divine nature, as we said above. Nor is anything of the divine nature changed into human nature, as we also said above. Consequently the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of the man Christ.
Item. In unoquoque filio id quod est principalius in ipso, est a patre; quod autem secundarium, a matre. In aliis enim animalibus anima est a patre, corpus vero a matre. In homine autem etsi anima rationalis a patre non sit, sed a Deo creata, virtus tamen paterni seminis dispositive operatur ad formam. Id autem quod principalius est in Christo, est persona verbi, quae nullo modo est a spiritu sancto. Relinquitur ergo quod spiritus sanctus pater Christi dici non possit. Moreover, that which is of greater moment in any son comes from his father, and what is secondary comes from his mother. Thus in other animals the soul is from the father, and the body from the mother. In man, of course, the rational soul does not come from the father, but is created by God; yet the power of the paternal seed operates dispositively toward the form. But that which is the greater in Christ, is the person of the Word, who is in no way derived from the Holy Spirit. We conclude, therefore, that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ.


Caput 224

De sanctificatione matris Christi
Quia igitur, ut ex praedictis apparet, beata virgo Maria mater filii Dei facta est, de spiritu sancto concipiens, decuit ut excellentissima puritate mundaretur, per quam congrueret tanto filio: et ideo credendum est eam ab omni labe actualis peccati immunem fuisse non tantum mortalis, sed etiam venialis, quod nulli sanctorum convenire potest post Christum, cum dicatur I Ioan. I, 8: si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. Sed de beata virgine matre Dei intelligi potest quod Cant. IV, 7, dicitur: tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te. As appears from the foregoing exposition, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the mother of God’s Son by conceiving of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity, that she might be made conformable to such a Son. And so we are to believe that she was free from every stain of actual sin—not only of mortal sin but of venial sin. Such freedom from sin can pertain to none of the saints after Christ, as we know from 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But what is said in the Canticle of Canticles 4:7, “You are all fair, my love, and there is no spot in you,” can well be understood of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God.
Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali, speciali privilegio mundata. Oportuit siquidem quod cum peccato originali conciperetur, utpote quae ex utriusque sexus commixtione concepta fuit. Hoc enim privilegium sibi soli servabatur ut virgo conciperet filium Dei. Commixtio autem sexus, quae sine libidine esse non potest post peccatum primi parentis, transmittit peccatum originale in prolem. Similiter etiam quia si cum peccato originali concepta non fuisset, non indigeret per Christum redimi, et sic non esset Christus universalis hominum redemptor, quod derogat dignitati Christi. Est ergo tenendum, quod cum peccato originali concepta fuit, sed ab eo quodam speciali modo purgata fuit. Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.
Quidam enim a peccato originali purgantur post nativitatem ex utero, sicut qui in Baptismo sanctificantur. Quidam autem quodam privilegio gratiae etiam in maternis uteris sanctificati leguntur, sicut de Ieremia dicitur Ierem. I, 5: priusquam te formarem in utero, novi te, et antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te; et de Ioanne Baptista Angelus dicit: spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae. Quod autem praestitum est Christi praecursori et prophetae, non debet credi denegatum esse matri ipsius: et ideo creditur in utero sanctificata, ante scilicet quam ex utero nasceretur. Some men are cleansed from original sin after their birth from the womb, as is the case with those who are sanctified in baptism. Others are reported to have been sanctified in the wombs of their mothers, in virtue of an extraordinary privilege of grace. Thus we are told with regard to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb of you mother I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you” (Jer. 1:5). And in Luke 1:15 the angel says of John the Baptist: “He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb.” We cannot suppose that the favor granted to the precursor of Christ and to the prophet was denied to Christ’s own mother. Therefore we believe that she was sanctified in her mother’s womb, that is, before she was born.
Non autem talis sanctificatio praecessit infusionem animae. Sic enim nunquam fuisset peccato originali subiecta, et redemptione non indiguisset. Non enim subiectum peccati esse potest nisi creatura rationalis. Similiter etiam gratia sanctificationis per prius in anima radicatur, nec ad corpus potest pervenire nisi per animam: unde post infusionem animae credendum est eam sanctificatam fuisse. Eius autem sanctificatio amplior fuit quam aliorum in utero sanctificatorum. Alii namque sanctificati in utero sunt quidem a peccato originali mundati, non tamen est eis praestitum ut postea non possent peccare, saltem venialiter. Yet such sanctification did not precede the infusion of her soul. In that case she would never have been subject to original sin, and so would have had no need of redemption. For only a rational creature can be the subject of sin. Furthermore, the grace of sanctification is rooted primarily in the soul, and cannot extend to the body except through the soul. Hence we must believe that Mary was sanctified after the infusion of her soul.
Sed beata virgo Maria tanta abundantia gratiae sanctificata fuit, ut deinceps ab omni peccato conservaretur immunis non solum mortali, sed etiam veniali. Et quia veniale peccatum interdum ex surreptione contingit, ex hoc scilicet quod aliquis inordinatus concupiscentiae motus insurgit, aut alterius passionis, praeveniens rationem, ratione cuius primi motus dicuntur esse peccata, consequens est quod beata virgo Maria nunquam peccavit venialiter, eo quod inordinatos passionum motus non sensit. Contingunt autem huiusmodi motus inordinati ex hoc quod appetitus sensitivus, qui est harum passionum subiectum, non sic subiicitur rationi quin interdum ad aliquid praeter ordinationem rationis moveatur, et quandoque contra rationem, in quo consistit motus peccati. Sic igitur fuit in beata virgine appetitus sensitivus rationi subiectus per virtutem gratiae ipsum sanctificantis, quod nunquam contra rationem movebatur, sed secundum ordinem rationis; poterat tamen habere aliquos motus subitos non ordinatos ratione. But her sanctification was more ample than that of others who were sanctified in the wombs of their mothers. Others thus sanctified in the womb were, it is true, cleansed from original sin; but the grace of being unable to sin later on, even venially, was not granted to them. The Blessed Virgin Mary, however, was sanctified with such a wealth of grace that thenceforth she was preserved free from all sin, and not only from mortal sin, but also from venial sin. Moreover venial sin sometimes creeps up on us unawares, owing to the fact that an inordinate motion of concupiscence or of some other passion arises prior to the advertence of the mind, yet in such a way that the first motions are called sins. Hence we conclude that the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed a venial sin, for she did not experience such inordinate motions of passion. Inordinate motions of this kind arise because the sensitive appetite, which is the subject of these passions, is not so obedient to reason as not sometimes to move toward an object outside the order of reason, or even, occasionally, against reason; and this is what engenders the sinful impulse. In the Blessed Virgin, accordingly, the sensitive appetite was rendered so subject to reason by the power of the grace which sanctified it, that it was never aroused against reason, but was always in conformity with the order of reason. Nevertheless she could experience some spontaneous movements not ordered by reason.
In domino autem Iesu Christo aliquid amplius fuit. Sic enim inferior appetitus in eo rationi subiiciebatur ut ad nihil moveretur nisi secundum ordinem rationis, secundum scilicet quod ratio ordinabat, vel permittebat appetitum inferiorem moveri proprio motu. Hoc autem videtur ad integritatem primi status pertinuisse ut inferiores vires totaliter rationi subderentur: quae quidem subiectio per peccatum primi parentis est sublata non solum in ipso, sed etiam in aliis qui ab eo contrahunt peccatum originale, in quibus etiam postquam a peccato mundantur per gratiae sacramentum, remanet rebellio vel inobedientia inferiorum virium ad rationem, quae dicitur fomes peccati, quae in Christo nullatenus fuit secundum praedicta. In our Lord Jesus Christ there was something more. In Him the lower appetite was so perfectly subject to reason that it did not move in the direction of any object except in accord with the order of reason, that is, so far as reason regulated the lower appetite or permitted it to go into action of its own accord. So far as we can judge, a characteristic pertaining to the integrity of the original state was the complete subjection of the lower powers to reason. This subjection was destroyed by the sin of our first parent, not only in himself, but in all the others who contract original sin from him. In all of these the rebellion or disobedience of the lower powers to reason, which is called concupiscence (fomes peccati), remains even after they have been cleansed from sin by the sacrament of grace. But such was by no means the case with Christ, according to the explanation given above.
Sed quia in beata virgine Maria non erant inferiores vires totaliter rationi subiectae, ut scilicet nullum motum haberent a ratione non praeordinatum, et tamen sic cohibebantur per virtutem gratiae ut nullo modo contra rationem moverentur, propter hoc solet dici, quod in beata virgine post sanctificationem remansit quidem fomes peccati secundum substantiam, sed ligatus. In the Blessed Virgin Mary, however, the lower powers were not so completely subject to reason as never to experience any movement not preordained by reason. Yet they were so restrained by the power of grace that they were at no time aroused contrary to reason. Because of this we usually say that after the Blessed Virgin was sanctified concupiscence remained in her according to its substance, but that it was shackled.


Caput 225

De perpetua virginitate matris Christi
Si autem per primam sanctificationem sic fuit contra omnem motum peccati munita, multo magis in ea excrevit gratia, fomesque peccati in ea est debilitatus, vel etiam totaliter sublatus, spiritu sancto in ipsa secundum verbum Angeli superveniente, ad corpus Christi ex ea formandum. Unde postquam facta est sacrarium spiritus sancti et habitaculum filii Dei, nefas est credere non solum aliquem motum peccati in ea fuisse, sed nec etiam carnalis concupiscentiae delectationem eam fuisse expertam. Et ideo abominandus error est Helvidii, qui etiamsi asserat Christum ex virgine conceptum et natum, dixit tamen eam postmodum ex Ioseph alios filios genuisse. If Mary was thus strengthened against every movement of sin by her first sanctification, much more did grace grow in her and much more was concupiscence weakened or even completely uprooted in her, when the Holy Spirit came upon her, according to the angel’s word, to form of her the body of Christ. After she had been made the shrine of the Holy Spirit and the tabernacle of the Son of God, we may not believe that there was ever any inclination to sin in her, or that she ever experienced any pleasurable feeling of carnal concupiscence. And so we must view with revulsion the error of Helvidius who, while admitting that Christ was conceived and born of the Virgin, asserted that she later bore other sons to Joseph.
Nec hoc eius suffragatur errori quod Matthaei I, 25, dicitur, quod non cognovit eam Ioseph, scilicet Mariam, donec peperit filium suum primogenitum, quasi postquam peperit Christum, eam cognoverit, quia donec in hoc loco non significat tempus finitum, sed indeterminatum. Est enim consuetudo sacrae Scripturae ut usque tunc specialiter asserat aliquid factum vel non factum, quousque in dubium poterat venire, sicut dicitur in Psal. CIX, 1: sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Dubium enim esse poterat an Christus sederet ad dexteram Dei, quandiu non viderentur ei inimici esse subiecti, quod postquam innotuerit, nullus remanebit dubitandi locus. Similiter etiam dubium esse poterat, an ante partum filii Dei Ioseph Mariam cognoverit. Unde hoc Evangelista removere curavit, quasi indubitabile relinquens quia post partum non fuit cognita. Certainly this error finds no support in Matthew’s statement that Joseph “knew her not” namely, Mary, “till she brought forth her first-born Son” (Matt. 1:25); as though he knew her after she gave birth to Christ. The word “till” in this text does not signify definite time but indicates indeterminate time. Sacred Scripture frequently asserts with emphasis that something was done or not done up to a certain time, as long as the issue could remain in doubt. Thus we read in Psalm 109:1: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” There could be some doubt whether Christ would sit at the right hand of God as long as His enemies did not seem to be subject to Him; but once we know that they are, no room for doubt could remain. Similarly there could be some doubt as to whether Joseph knew Mary before the birth of God’s Son. The Evangelist took pains to remove this doubt, thus giving us to understand beyond all question that she was not known after giving birth.
Nec etiam ei suffragatur quod Christus dicitur eius primogenitus, quasi post ipsum alios genuerit filios. Solet enim in Scriptura primogenitus dici ante quem nullus genitus, etiamsi post ipsum nullus sequatur, sicut patet de primogenitis qui secundum legem sanctificabantur domino, et sacerdotibus offerebantur. Nor does the fact that Christ is called Mary’s first-born give any support to the error, as though she bore other sons after Him. For in scriptural usage the son before whom no other is born is called the first-born, even though no other should follow him. This is clear from the case of the first-born sons who according to the Law were consecrated to the Lord and offered to the priests.
Nec etiam ei suffragatur quod in Evangelio aliqui dicuntur fratres Christi fuisse, quasi mater eius alios habuerit filios. Solet enim Scriptura fratres dicere omnes qui sunt eiusdem cognationis, sicut Abraham Loth suum fratrem nominavit, cum tamen esset nepos eius. Et secundum hoc nepotes Mariae, et alii eius consanguinei, fratres Christi dicuntur, et etiam consanguinei Ioseph, qui pater Christi putabatur. Again, the error of Helvidius receives no support from the Gospel narrative that certain individuals are called the brethren of Christ, as though His mother had other sons. Scripture is accustomed to apply the name brethren to all who belong to the same relationship. For example, Abraham called Lot his brother, although Lot was his nephew. In the same way Mary’s nephews and other relatives are called Christ’s brethren, as also are the relatives of Joseph, who was reputed to be the father of Christ.
Et ideo in symbolo dicitur: qui natus est de virgine Maria: quae quidem virgo dicitur absolute, quia et ante partum, et in partu, et post partum virgo permansit. Et quidem quod ante partum et post partum eius virginitati derogatum non fuerit, satis iam dictum est. Sed nec in partu eius virginitas fuit violata. Corpus enim Christi, quod ad discipulos ianuis clausis intravit, potuit eadem potestate de utero clauso matris exire. Non enim decebat ut integritatem nascendo tolleret, qui ad hoc nascebatur ut corrupta in integrum reformaret. Accordingly the Creed states: “Who was born of the Virgin Mary.” And, indeed, she is called a virgin without any qualification, for she remained a virgin before the birth, at the birth, and after the birth of Christ. That there was no impairment of her virginity before and after Christ’s birth, is clear from what has been said. More than that: her virginity was not violated even in the act of giving birth. Christ’s body, which appeared to the disciples when the doors were closed, could by the same power come forth from the closed womb of His mother. It was not seemly that He, who was born for the purpose of restoring what was corrupt to its pristine integrity, should destroy integrity in being born.


Caput 226

De defectibus assumptis a Christo
Sicut autem conveniens fuit ut filius Dei naturam assumens humanam propter humanam salutem, in natura assumpta salutis humanae finem ostenderet per gratiae et sapientiae perfectionem, ita etiam conveniens fuit quod in humana natura assumpta a Dei verbo conditiones aliquae existerent quae congruerent decentissimo liberationis modo humani generis. Fuit autem congruentissimus modus ut homo, qui per iniustitiam perierat, per iustitiam repararetur. Exigit autem hoc iustitiae ordo ut qui poenae alicuius peccando factus est debitor, per solutionem poenae liberetur. Quia vero quae per amicos facimus aut patimur, aliqualiter nos ipsi facere aut pati videmur, eo quod amor est mutua virtus ex duobus se amantibus quodammodo faciens unum, non discordat a iustitiae ordine, si aliquis liberetur, amico eius satisfaciente pro ipso. In assuming human nature for the salvation of man, the Son of God appropriately showed in the nature He assumed, by the perfection of its grace and wisdom, what was to be the goal of human salvation. No less appropriately was the human nature assumed by the Word of God characterized by certain conditions befitting the most suitable way of redeeming the human race. The most suitable way was that man, who had perished through his iniquity, should be restored by satisfying justice. But the order of justice requires that the one who has become liable to some punishment by sinning, should be freed by paying the penalty. Since, however, what we do or suffer through our friends, we ourselves are considered in some fashion to do or to suffer, inasmuch as love is a mutual force that in a way makes two lovers one, the order of justice is not violated if a person is set free by the satisfaction his friend offers for him.
Per peccatum autem primi parentis perditio in totum humanum genus devenerat, nec alicuius hominis poena sufficere poterat, ut totum genus humanum liberaret. Non enim erat condigna satisfactio aequivalens, ut uno homine puro satisfaciente omnes homines liberarentur. Similiter etiam nec sufficiebat secundum iustitiam ut Angelus ex amore humani generis pro ipso satisfaceret: Angelus enim non habet dignitatem infinitam, ut satisfactio eius pro infinitis et infinitorum peccatis sufficere posset. Solus autem Deus est infinitae dignitatis, qui carne assumpta pro homine sufficienter satisfacere poterat, ut supra iam diximus. Talem igitur oportuit ut humanam naturam assumeret in qua pati posset pro homine ea quae homo peccando meruit ut pateretur, ad satisfaciendum pro homine. By the sin of the first parent ruin had come upon the entire human race. No punishment undergone by any man could suffice to liberate the whole human race. No worthy satisfaction was available; no satisfaction offered by any mere man was great enough in value to free all men. Similarly, justice would not be fully met if even an angel, out of love for the human race, were to offer satisfaction for it. An angel does not possess infinite dignity, and hence any satisfaction he offered would not be capable of sufficing for indefinitely many people and their sins. God alone is of infinite dignity, and so He alone, in the flesh assumed by Him, could adequately satisfy for man, as has already been noted. Therefore it behooved Him to assume a human nature so constituted that in it He could suffer for man what man himself deserved to suffer on account of his sin, and thus offer satisfaction on man’s behalf.
Non autem omnis poena quam homo peccando incurrit, est ad satisfaciendum idonea. Provenit enim peccatum hominis ex hoc quod a Deo avertitur conversus ad commutabilia bona. Punitur autem homo pro peccato in utrisque. Nam et privatur gratia, et ceteris donis, quibus Deo coniungitur, et meretur etiam pati molestiam et defectum in eo propter quod est a Deo aversus. Ille igitur ordo satisfactionis requirit ut per poenas quas peccator in bonis commutabilibus patitur, revocetur ad Deum. However, not every punishment incurred for sin is suitable for making satisfaction. Man’s sin comes from the fact that in turning to transient goods he turns away from God. And man is punished for sin on both counts. He is deprived of grace and the other gifts by which union with God is effected, and besides this he deserves to suffer chastisement and loss with respect to the object for whose sake he turned away from God. Therefore the order of satisfaction requires that the sinner should be led back to God by punishments that are to be endured in transient goods.
Huic autem revocationi contrariae sunt illae poenae quibus homo separatur a Deo. Nullus igitur per hoc Deo satisfacit quod privatur gratia, vel quod ignorat Deum, vel quod habet inordinatam animam, quamvis hoc sit poena peccati, sed per hoc quod in se ipso aliquem dolorem sentit, et in exterioribus rebus damnum. Unfortunately the punishments which keep man back from God continue to stand in the way of such recall. No one offers satisfaction to God by being deprived of grace, or by being ignorant of God, or by the fact that his soul is in a state of disorder, even though such afflictions are punishment for sin; man can satisfy only by enduring some pain in himself and by undergoing loss in external goods.
Non igitur Christus illos defectus assumere debuit quibus homo separatur a Deo, licet sint poena peccati, sicut privatio gratiae, ignorantia et huiusmodi. Per hoc enim minus idoneus ad satisfaciendum redderetur; quinimmo ad hoc quod esset auctor humanae salutis, requirebatur ut plenitudinem gratiae et sapientiae possideret, sicut iam dictum est. Sed quia homo per peccatum in hoc positus erat ut necessitatem moriendi haberet, et ut secundum corpus et animam esset passibilis, huiusmodi defectus Christus suscipere voluit, ut mortem pro hominibus patiendo genus humanum redimeret. Accordingly Christ ought not to have assumed those defects which separate man from God, such as privation of grace, ignorance, and the like, although they are punishment for sin. Defects of this kind would but render Him less apt for offering satisfaction. Indeed, to be the author of man’s salvation, He had to possess fullness of grace and wisdom, as we pointed out above. Yet, since man by sinning was placed under the necessity of dying and of being subjected to suffering in body and soul, Christ wished to assume the same kind of defects, so that by undergoing death for men He might redeem the human race.
Est tamen attendendum, quod huiusmodi defectus sunt Christo et nobis communes. Alia tamen ratione inveniuntur in Christo et in nobis: huiusmodi enim defectus, ut dictum est, poena sunt primi peccati. Quia igitur nos per vitiatam originem culpam originalem contrahimus, per consequens hos defectus dicimur contractos habere. Christus autem ex sua origine nullam maculam peccati contraxit, hos autem defectus ex sua voluntate accepit, unde dici non debet quod habuit hos defectus contractos, sed magis assumptos. Illud enim contrahitur quod cum alio ex necessitate trahitur. Christus autem potuit assumere humanam naturam sine huiusmodi defectibus, sicut sine culpae foeditate assumpsit: et hoc rationis ordo poscere videbatur ut qui fuit immunis a culpa, esset immunis a poena. Et sic patet quod nulla necessitate neque vitiatae originis, neque iustitiae, huiusmodi defectus fuerunt in eo: unde relinquitur quod non contracti, sed voluntarie assumpti fuerunt in eo. Defects of this kind, we should note, are common to Christ and to us. Nevertheless they are found in Christ otherwise than in us. For, as we have remarked, such defects are the punishment of the first sin. Since we contract original sin through our vitiated origin, we are in consequence said to have contracted these defects. But Christ did not contract any stain in virtue of His origin. He accepted the defects in question of His own free will. Hence we should not say that He contracted these defects, but rather that He assumed them; for that is contracted (contrahitur) which is necessarily drawn along with (cum trahitur) some other thing. Christ could have assumed human nature without such defects, just as He actually did assume it without the defilement of sin; and indeed the order of reason would seem to demand that He who was free from sin should also be free from punishment. Thus it is clear that defects of this sort were not in Him by any necessity either of vitiated origin or of justice. Therefore in Him they were not contracted but were voluntarily assumed.
Quia vero corpus nostrum praedictis defectibus subiacet in poenam peccati, nam ante peccatum ab his eramus immunes, convenienter Christus, inquantum huiusmodi defectus in sua carne assumpsit, dicitur similitudinem peccati gessisse, secundum illud apostoli ad Roman. VIII, 3: Deus misit filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Unde et ipsa Christi passibilitas vel passio ab apostolo peccatum nominatur, cum subditur: et de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, et Rom. VI, 10: quod mortuus est peccato, mortuus est semel. Et quod est mirabilius, hac etiam ratione dicit apostolus ad Galat. III, 13, quod est factus pro nobis maledictum. Hac etiam ratione dicitur simplam nostram necessitatem assumpsisse, scilicet poenae, ut duplam nostram consumeret, scilicet culpae et poenae. Yet, since our bodies are subject to the aforesaid defects in punishment for sin—for prior to sin we were immune from them—Christ, so far as He assumed such defects in His flesh, is rightly deemed to have borne the likeness of sin, as the Apostle says in Romans 8:3: “God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Hence Christ’s very passibility or suffering is called sin by the Apostle, when he adds that God “hath condemned sin in the flesh,” and observes in Romans 6:10: “In that He died to sin, He died once.” For the same reason the Apostle uses an even more astonishing expression in Galatians 3:13, saying that Christ was “made a curse for us.” This is also why Christ is said to have assumed one of our obligations, that of punishment, in order to relieve us of our double burden, namely, sin and punishment.
Est autem considerandum ulterius, quod defectus poenales in corpore duplices inveniuntur. Quidam communes omnibus, ut esuries, sitis, lassitudo post laborem, dolor, mors et huiusmodi. Quidam vero non sunt omnibus communes, sed quorundam hominum proprii, ut caecitas, lepra, febris, membrorum mutilatio, et huiusmodi. Horum autem defectuum haec est differentia: quia defectus communes in nobis ab alio traducuntur, scilicet ex primo parente, qui eos pro peccato incurrit; defectus autem proprii ex particularibus causis in singulis hominibus innascuntur. Christus autem ex seipso nullam causam defectus habebat nec ex anima, quae erat gratia et sapientia plena, et verbo Dei unita, nec ex corpore, quod erat optime organizatum et dispositum, omnipotenti virtute spiritus sancti compactum, sed sua voluntate dispensative ad nostram salutem procurandam, aliquos defectus suscepit. We should call to mind, further, that the penal defects afflicting our bodies are of two kinds. Some are common to all men, such as hunger, thirst, weariness after labor, pain, death, and the like. Others, however, are not common to all, but are peculiar to certain individuals, such as blindness, leprosy, fever, mutilation of the members, and similar ills. The difference between these defects is this: common defects are passed on to us from another, namely, our first parent, who incurred them through sin, but personal defects are produced in individual men by particular causes. But Christ had no cause of defect in Himself, either in His soul, which was full of grace and wisdom and was united to the Word of God, or in His body, which was excellently organized and disposed, having been fashioned by the omnipotent power of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, He took upon Himself certain defects by the free decision of His own will, with a view to procuring our salvation.
Illos igitur suscipere debuit qui ab alio derivantur ad alios, scilicet communes, non proprios, qui in singulis ex causis propriis innascuntur. Similiter etiam quia principaliter venerat ad restaurandum humanam naturam, illos defectus suscipere debuit qui in tota natura inveniebantur. Patet etiam secundum praedicta quod, ut Damascenus dicit, Christus assumpsit defectus nostros indetractabiles, idest quibus detrahi non potest. Si enim defectum scientiae vel gratiae suscepisset, aut etiam lepram, aut caecitatem, aut aliquid huiusmodi, hoc ad derogationem dignitatis Christi pertinere videretur, et esset hominibus detrahendi occasio, quae nulla datur ex defectibus totius naturae. Accordingly, Christ judged it well to take upon Himself those defects that are handed down from one man to others, namely, the common defects, but not the special defects that arise in individuals from particular causes. Again, since He came chiefly to restore human nature, He fittingly assumed those defects that are found universally in nature. The doctrine thus set forth also makes it clear that, as Damascene points out, Christ assumed our irreprehensible defects, that is, those which are not open to slander. If Christ had taken to Himself a deficiency in knowledge or in grace, or such ills as leprosy or blindness, this would seem to detract from His dignity, and might provide men with an occasion for defaming Him. But no such occasion is given by defects attaching to the whole of nature.


Caput 227

Quare Christus mori voluit
Manifestum igitur est secundum praedicta, quod Christus aliquos defectus nostros suscepit non ex necessitate, sed propter aliquem finem, scilicet propter salutem nostram. Omnis autem potentia et habitus sive habilitas ordinatur ad actum sicut ad finem: unde passibilitas ad satisfaciendum vel merendum non sufficit sine passione in actu. Non enim aliquis dicitur bonus vel malus ex eo quod potest talia agere, sed ex eo quod agit, nec laus et vituperium debentur potentiae, sed actui. Unde et Christus non solum passibilitatem nostram suscepit ut nos salvaret, sed etiam ut pro peccatis nostris satisfaceret, voluit pati. Passus est autem pro nobis ea quae ut nos pateremur ex peccato primi parentis meruimus, quorum praecipuum est mors, ad quam omnes aliae passiones humanae ordinantur sicut ad ultimum. Stipendia enim peccati mors est, ut apostolus dicit ad Rom. VI, 23. Evidently, therefore, as we see from this discussion, Christ took some of our defects on Himself, not out of necessity, but for a definite purpose, namely, for our salvation. But every potency and every habit or capacity are ordained toward act as their end. Hence capacity to suffer is not enough for satisfaction or merit apart from actual suffering. A person is called good or evil, not because he is able to perform good or evil actions, but because he performs them; praise and blame are duly rendered not for power to act but for acting. To save us, consequently, Christ was not content merely to make our passibility His portion, but He willed actually to suffer that He might satisfy for our sins. He endured for us those sufferings which we deserved to suffer in consequence of the sin of our first parent. Of these the chief is death, to which all other human sufferings are ordered as to their final term. “For the wages of sin is death,” as the Apostle says in Romans 6:23.
Unde et Christus pro peccatis nostris voluit mortem pati, ut dum poenam nobis debitam ipse sine culpa susciperet, nos a reatu mortis liberaret, sicut aliquis debito poenae liberaretur, alio pro eo poenam sustinente. Mori etiam voluit, ut non solum mors eius esset nobis satisfactionis remedium, sed etiam salutis sacramentum ut ad similitudinem mortis eius nos carnali vitae moriamur, in spiritualem vitam translati, secundum illud I Petri III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, iustus pro iniustis, ut nos offerret Deo, mortificatos quidem carne, vivificatos autem spiritu. Accordingly Christ willed to submit to death for our sins so that, in taking on Himself without any fault of His own the punishment charged against us, He might free us from the death to which we had been sentenced, in the way that anyone would be freed from a debt of penalty if another person undertook to pay the penalty for him. Another reason why He wished to die was that His death might be for us not only a remedy of satisfaction but also a sacrament of salvation, so that we, transferred to a spiritual life, might die to our carnal life, in the likeness of His death. This is in accord with 1 Peter 3:18: “Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might offer us to God, being put to death in deed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit.”
Mori etiam voluit, ut nobis mors eius esset perfectae virtutis exemplum. Quantum ad caritatem quidem, quia maiorem caritatem nemo habet quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis, ut dicitur Ioan. XV, 13. Tanto enim quisque magis amare ostenditur, quanto plura et graviora pro amico pati non refugit. Omnium autem humanorum malorum gravius est mors, per quam tollitur vita humana, unde nullum magis signum dilectionis esse potest quam quod homo pro amico vero se morti exponat. Christ also wished to die that His death might be an example of perfect virtue for us. He gave an example of charity, for “greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). The more numerous and grievous are the sufferings a person does not refuse to bear for his friend, the more strikingly his love is shown forth. But of all human ills the most grievous is death, by which human life is snuffed out. Hence no greater proof of love is possible than that a man should expose himself to death for a friend.
Quantum ad fortitudinem vero, quae propter adversa a iustitia non recedit, quia maxime ad fortitudinem pertinere videtur ut etiam nec timore mortis aliquis a virtute recedat, unde dicit apostolus Hebr. II, 14, de passione Christi loquens: ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium, idest Diabolum, et liberaret eos qui timore mortis per totam vitam obnoxii erant servituti. Dum enim pro veritate mori non recusavit, exclusit timorem moriendi, propter quem homines servituti peccati plerumque subduntur. By His death Christ also gave an example of fortitude, which does not abandon justice in the face of adversity; refusal to give up the practice of virtue even under fear of death seems to pertain most emphatically to fortitude. Thus the Apostle says in Hebrews 2:14 ff., with reference to Christ’s passion: “That through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and might deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude.” In not refusing to die for truth, Christ overcame the fear of dying, which is the reason men for the most part are subject to the slavery of sin.
Quantum ad patientiam vero, quae in adversis tristitiam hominem absorbere non sinit, sed quanto sunt maiora adversa, tanto magis in his relucet patientiae virtus: unde in maximo malorum, quod est mors, perfectae patientiae datur exemplum, si absque mentis turbatione sustineatur, quod de Christo propheta praedixit dicens Isai. LIII, 7: tanquam agnus coram tondente se obmutescet, et non aperiet os suum. Further, He gave an example of patience, a virtue that prevents sorrow from overwhelming man in time of adversity; the greater the trials, the more splendidly does the virtue of patience shine forth in them. Therefore an example of perfect patience is afforded in the greatest of evils, which is death, if it is borne without distress of mind. Such tranquillity the prophet foretold of Christ: He “shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and He shall not open His mouth” (Is. 53:7).
Quantum ad obedientiam vero, quia tanto laudabilior est obedientia, quanto in difficilioribus quis obedit: omnium autem difficillimum est mors. Unde ad perfectam obedientiam Christi commendandam, dicit apostolus ad Philip. II, 8, quod factus est obediens patri usque ad mortem. Lastly, our Lord gave an example of obedience; for the more difficult are the precepts one obeys, the more praiseworthy is the obedience. But the most difficult of all the objects of obedience is death. Hence, to commend the perfect obedience of Christ, the Apostle says, in Philippians 2:8, that He was obedient to the Father even unto death.


Caput 228

De morte crucis
Ex eisdem autem causis apparet quare mortem crucis voluit pati. Primo quidem quia hoc convenit quantum ad remedium satisfactionis: convenienter enim homo punitur per ea in quibus peccavit. Per quae enim peccat quis, per haec et torquetur, ut dicitur sapientiae XI, 17. Peccatum autem hominis primum fuit per hoc quod pomum arboris ligni scientiae boni et mali contra praeceptum Dei comedit, loco cuius Christus se ligno affigi permisit, ut exsolveret quae non rapuit, sicut de eo Psalmista dicit in Psal. LXVIII. The same reasons reveal why Christ willed to suffer the death of the cross. In the first place, such a death was suitable as a salutary means of satisfaction. Man is fittingly punished in the things wherein he has sinned, as is said in Wisdom 1:17: “The things by which a man sins, by the same also he is tormented. But the first sin of man was the fact that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, contrary to God’s command. In his stead Christ permitted Himself to be fastened to a tree, so that He might pay for what He did not carry off, as the Psalmist says of Him in Psalm 58:5.
Convenit etiam quantum ad sacramentum. Voluit enim Christus ostendere sua morte, ut sic moreremur vita carnali quod spiritus noster in superna elevaretur, unde et ipse dicit Ioan. XII, 32: ego si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Death on the cross was also appropriate as a sacrament. Christ wished to make clear by His death that we ought so to die in our carnal life that our spirit might be raised to higher things. Hence He Himself says, in John 12:32: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.”
Convenit etiam quantum ad exemplum perfectae virtutis. Homines enim quandoque non minus refugiunt vituperabile genus mortis quam mortis acerbitatem, unde ad perfectionem virtutis pertinere videtur ut propter bonum virtutis etiam aliquis vituperabilem mortem non refugiat pati. Unde apostolus ad commendandam perfectam obedientiam Christi, cum dixisset de eo quod factus est obediens usque ad mortem, subdidit: mortem autem crucis: quae quidem mors turpissima videbatur, secundum illud sapientiae II, 20: morte turpissima condemnemus eum. This kind of death was likewise fitting as an example of perfect virtue. Sometimes men shrink no less from a disgraceful kind of death than from the painfulness of death. Accordingly, the perfection of virtue seems to require that a person ‘should not refuse to suffer even a disgraceful death for the good of virtue. Therefore, to commend the perfect obedience of Christ, the Apostle, after saying of Him that He was “obedient unto death,” added: “even to the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). This sort of death was looked on as the most ignominious of all, in the words of Wisdom 2:20: “Let us condemn him to a most shameful death.”


Caput 229

De morte Christi
Cum autem in Christo conveniant in unam personam tres substantiae, scilicet corpus, anima, et divinitas verbi, quarum duae, scilicet anima et corpus, unitae sunt in unam naturam, in morte quidem Christi separata est unio corporis et animae. Aliter enim corpus vere mortuum non fuisset: mors enim corporis nihil est aliud quam separatio animae ab ipso. In Christ three substances, the body, the soul, and the divinity of the Word, are joined together in one person. Two of these, the soul and the body, are united to form one nature. Accordingly at the death of Christ the union between body and soul was dissolved. Otherwise the body would not have been truly dead, since death of the body is nothing else than the separation of the soul from it.
Neutrum tamen separatum est a Dei verbo quantum ad unionem personae. Ex unione autem animae et corporis resultat humanitas: unde separata anima a corpore Christi per mortem, in triduo mortis homo dici non potuit. Dictum est autem supra quod propter unionem in persona humanae naturae ad Dei verbum, quidquid dicitur de homine Christo, potest et convenienter de Dei filio praedicari. Unde cum in morte manserit unio personalis filii Dei tam ad animam quam ad corpus Christi, quidquid de utroque eorum dicitur, poterat de Dei filio praedicari. Unde et in symbolo dicitur de filio Dei, quod sepultus est, propter hoc quod corpus sibi unitum in sepulcro iacuit, et quod descendit ad Inferos, anima descendente. But neither soul nor body was separated from the Word of God, as far as union with the person is concerned. Human nature results from the union of soul and body; hence Christ could not be said to be a man during the three days of His death, when His soul remained separated from His body by death. However, as was shown above, on account of the union of the human nature with the Word of God in one person, whatever is said of the man Christ can rightly be predicated also of the Son of God. Consequently, since the personal union of the Son of God both with the soul and with the body of Christ remained in death, whatever is said of either of them could be predicated of the Son of God. Hence the Creed asserts that the Son of God was buried, for the reason that the body united to Him lay in the tomb, and likewise that He descended into hell, because His soul descended.
Est etiam considerandum, quod masculinum genus designat personam, neutrum vero naturam: unde in Trinitate dicimus, quod filius est alius a patre, non aliud. Secundum hoc ergo in triduo mortis Christus fuit totus in sepulcro, totus in Inferno, totus in caelo, propter personam, quae unita erat et carni in sepulcro iacenti, et animae Infernum expolianti, et subsistebat in natura divina in caelo regnante; sed non potest dici quod totum in sepulcro aut in Inferno fuerit, quia non tota humana natura, sed pars in sepulcro aut in Inferno fuit. We should also recall that the masculine gender designates a person, and that the neuter gender designates nature. Thus in speaking of the Trinity we say that the Son is another person (alius) than the Father, but not that He is another thing (aliud). Accordingly, during the three days of His death the whole (totus) Christ was in the sepulcher and in hell and in heaven, because of His person which remained united to His flesh reposing in the tomb and to His soul which was emptying hell, and which continued to subsist in the divine nature reigning in heaven. But we cannot say that the whole (totum) of Christ was in the sepulcher or in hell, because only a part of the human nature and not the whole of it was in the sepulcher or in hell.


Caput 230

Quod mors Christi fuit voluntaria
Fuit igitur mors Christi nostrae morti conformis quantum ad id quod est de ratione mortis, quod est animam a corpore separari, sed quantum ad aliquid mors Christi a nostra morte differens fuit. Nos enim morimur quasi morti subiecti ex necessitate vel naturae, vel alicuius violentiae nobis illatae; Christus autem mortuus est non necessitate, sed potestate, et propria voluntate. Unde ipse dicebat, Ioan. X, 18: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et iterum sumendi eam. Christ’s death was like our death as regards the essence of death, which consists in the separation of the soul from the body. But in another respect the death of Christ was different from ours. We die for the reason that we are subject to death by a necessary law of nature, or in consequence of some violence done to us. But Christ did not die because of any necessity. He gave up His life by His power and His own will, as He Himself attested: “I have power to lay it [My life] down, and I have power to take it up again” (John 10:18).
Huius autem differentiae ratio est, quia naturalia voluntati nostrae non subiacent: coniunctio autem animae ad corpus est naturalis, unde voluntati nostrae non subiacet quod anima corpori unita remaneat, vel quod a corpore separetur, sed oportet hoc ex virtute alicuius agentis provenire. Quidquid autem in Christo secundum humanam naturam erat naturale, totum eius voluntati subiacebat propter divinitatis virtutem, cui subiacet tota natura. Erat igitur in potestate Christi ut quandiu vellet, anima eius corpori unita remaneret, et statim cum vellet, separaretur ab ipso. Huiusmodi autem divinae virtutis indicium centurio cruci Christi assistens sensit, dum eum vidit clamantem expirare, per quod manifeste ostendebatur, quod non sicut ceteri homines ex defectu naturae moriebatur. Non enim possunt homines cum clamore spiritum emittere, cum in illo mortis articulo vix etiam possint palpitando linguam movere: unde quod Christus clamans expiravit, in eo divinam manifestavit virtutem, et propter hoc centurio dixit: vere filius Dei erat iste. The reason for this difference is that physical things are not subject to our will. But the joining of the soul to the body is physical. Hence the fact that the soul remains united to the body or that it is separated from the body, is not subject to our will, but must be brought about by the power of some agent. But whatever was physical in Christ as regards His human nature, was completely subject to His will, because of the power of His divinity, to which all nature is subject. Therefore Christ had it in His power that so long as He willed, His soul would remain united to His body, and that the instant He willed, the soul would depart from the body. The centurion standing near the cross of Christ felt the presence of this divine power when he saw Him expire with a loud cry. By this Christ clearly showed that He was not dying like other men, from the breaking down of nature. For men cannot send forth their last breath with a loud cry; in the moment of death they can scarcely move their tongue in a quavering whisper. Hence the fact that Christ died uttering a loud cry gave evidence of the divine power in Him. It was for this reason that the centurion said: “Indeed, this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54).
Non tamen dicendum est quod Iudaei non occiderint Christum, vel quod Christus ipse se occiderit. Ille enim dicitur aliquem occidere qui ei causam mortis inducit, non tamen mors sequitur nisi causa mortis naturam vincat, quae vitam conservat. Erat autem in potestate Christi ut natura causae corrumpenti cederet, vel resisteret quantum ipse vellet: ideo et ipse Christus voluntarie mortuus fuit, et tamen Iudaei occiderunt eum. Yet we may not aver that the Jews did not kill Christ, or that Christ took His own life. For the one who brings the cause of death to bear on a person is said to kill him. But death does not ensue unless the cause of death prevails over nature, which conserves life. Christ had it in His power either to submit His nature to the destructive cause or to resist that influence, just as He willed. Thus Christ died voluntarily, and yet the Jews killed Him.


Caput 231

De passione Christi quantum ad corpus
Non solum autem Christus mortem pati voluit, sed et alia quae ex peccato primi parentis in posteros proveniunt, ut dum poenam peccati integraliter susciperet, nos perfecte a peccato satisfaciendo liberaret. Horum autem quaedam praecedunt mortem, quaedam mortem subsequuntur. Praecedunt quidem mortem corporis passiones tam naturales, ut fames, sitis, lassitudo et huiusmodi, quam etiam violentae, ut vulneratio, flagellatio et similia: quae omnia Christus pati voluit tanquam provenientia ex peccato. Si enim homo non peccasset, nec famis aut sitis aut lassitudinis vel frigoris afflictionem sensisset, nec ab exterioribus pertulisset violentam passionem. Has tamen passiones alia ratione Christus pertulit quam alii homines patiantur. In aliis enim hominibus non est aliquid quod iis passionibus repugnare possit. In Christo autem erat unde iis passionibus resisteretur, non solum virtus divina increata, sed etiam animae beatitudo, cuius tanta vis est, ut Augustinus dicit, ut eius beatitudo suo modo redundet in corpus: unde post resurrectionem ex hoc ipso quod anima glorificata erit per visionem Dei, et apertam et plenam fruitionem, corpus gloriosae animae unitum gloriosum reddetur, impassibile et immortale. Cum igitur anima Christi perfecta visione Dei frueretur, quantum est ex virtute huius visionis, consequens erat ut corpus impassibile et immortale redderetur per redundantiam gloriae ab anima in corpus; sed dispensative factum est ut anima Dei visione fruente simul corpus pateretur, nulla redundantia gloriae ab anima in corpus facta. Suberat enim, ut dictum est, quod erat naturale Christo secundum humanam naturam, eius voluntati: unde poterat naturalem redundantiam a superioribus partibus ad inferiores pro suo libito impedire, ut sineret unamquamque partem pati aut agere quod sibi proprium esset absque alterius partis impedimento, quod in aliis hominibus esse non potest. Christ wished to suffer not only death, but also the other ills that flow from the sin of the first parent to his posterity, so that, bearing in its entirety the penalty of sin, He might perfectly free us from sin by offering satisfaction. Of these ills, some precede death, others follow death. Prior to the death of the body come natural sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, and weariness, and also sufferings inflicted by violence, such as wounding, scourging, and the like. Christ wished to endure all these sufferings, since they stem from sin. If man had not sinned, he would not have experienced the affliction of hunger or of thirst or of fatigue or of cold, and he would not have had to undergo the suffering caused by external violence. Christ bore these sufferings for a different reason from that on account of which other men endure them. In other men there is nothing that can resist these sufferings. But Christ had at His disposal means to withstand evils of this sort: not only the uncreated power of His divinity, but also the beatitude of His soul, which is so powerful that, as Augustine says [ Epist. CXVIII, ad Dioscorum, 3], its happiness in its own way flows over into the body. Thus after the resurrection, by the very fact that the soul will be glorified by the vision of God in unrestricted and full fruition, the body united to the glorified soul will be rendered glorious, impassible, and immortal. Therefore, since the soul of Christ enjoyed the vision of God in the highest degree of perfection, His body should in consequence, so far as the power of this vision is concerned, have been rendered impassible and immortal by an overflowing of glory from the soul to the body. But divine wisdom so disposed matters that Christ’s body would suffer at the very time His soul was enjoying the vision of God, with no overflow of glory from the soul to the body. For, as we have said, all that was physical in Christ’s human nature was subject to His Will. Hence at His good pleasure He could prevent natural redundance from His higher to His lower parts, and so could allow any part to suffer or do whatever would be proper to it without interference from any other part. This, of course, is impossible in other men.
Inde etiam est quod in passione Christus maximum corporis dolorem sustinuit, quia corporalis dolor in nullo mitigabatur per superius gaudium rationis, sicut nec e converso dolor corporis rationis gaudium impediebat. This also accounts for the fact that during His passion Christ suffered most excruciating pain of body. For His bodily pain was in no way lessened by the higher joy of His rational soul, just as, conversely, pain of body did not obstruct the joy of His rational soul.
Hinc etiam apparet quod solus Christus viator et comprehensor fuit. Sic enim divina visione fruebatur (quod ad comprehensorem pertinet) ut tamen corpus passionibus subiectum remaneret, quod pertinet ad viatorem. Et quia proprium est viatoris ut per bona quae ex caritate agit, mereatur vel sibi vel aliis, inde est quod Christus quamvis comprehensor esset, meruit tamen per ea quae fecit et passus est, et sibi et nobis. This reveals, too, that Christ alone was both a viator and a comprehensor. He enjoyed the vision of God, which characterizes the comprehensor, but in such a way that His body remained subject to sufferings, which characterizes the wayfarer. And since a wayfarer has power to merit, either for himself or for others, by the good works he performs from the motive of charity, Christ too, although He was a comprehensor, merited both for Himself and for others by His works and sufferings.
Sibi quidem non gloriam animae, quam a principio suae conceptionis habuerat, sed gloriam corporis, ad quam patiendo pervenit. Nobis etiam suae singulae passiones et operationes fuerunt proficuae ad salutem, non solum per modum exempli, sed etiam per modum meriti, inquantum propter abundantiam caritatis et gratiae nobis potuit gratiam promereri, ut sic de plenitudine capitis membra acciperent. For Himself Christ merited, not indeed glory of soul, which He had from the first instant of His conception, but glory of body, which He won by suffering. For us, too, each of His sufferings and actions was profitable unto salvation, not only by way of example, but also by way of merit; owing to the abundance of His charity and grace, He could merit grace for us, so that thus the members might receive of the fullness of the head.
Erat siquidem quaelibet passio eius, quantumcumque minima, sufficiens ad redimendum humanum genus, si consideretur dignitas patientis. Quanto enim aliqua passio in personam digniorem infertur, tanto videtur maior iniuria: puta si quis percutiat principem quam si percutiat quendam de populo. Cum igitur Christus sit dignitatis infinitae, quaelibet passio eius habet infinitam existimationem, ut sic sufficeret ad infinitorum peccatorum abolitionem. Non tamen fuit per quamlibet consummata humani generis redemptio, sed per mortem, quam propter rationes supra positas ad hoc pati voluit, ut genus humanum redimeret a peccatis. In emptione enim qualibet non solum requiritur quantitas valoris, sed deputatio pretii ad emendum. Any suffering of His, however slight, was enough to redeem the human race, if the dignity of the sufferer is considered. For the more exalted the person on whom suffering is inflicted, the greater is the injury judged to be; for instance, a greater outrage is committed if one strikes a prince than if one strikes a common man of the people. Consequently, since Christ is a person of infinite dignity, any suffering of His has an infinite value, and so suffices for the atonement of infinitely many sins. Yet the redemption of the human race was accomplished, not by this or that slight suffering, but by Christ’s death, which, for reasons listed above, He chose to endure to redeem the human race from its sins. For in any purchasing transaction there is required, not only a stipulated amount of appreciable commodity, but also the application of the price to the purchase.


Caput 232

De passibilitate animae Christi
Quia vero anima est forma corporis, consequens est ut patiente corpore, et anima quodammodo patiatur: unde pro statu illo quo Christus corpus passibile habuit, etiam anima eius passibilis fuit. Since the soul is the form of the body, any suffering undergone by the body must in some way affect the soul. Therefore in that state in which the body of Christ was passible, His soul was passible also.
Est autem considerandum, quod duplex est animae passio. Una quidem ex parte corporis, alia vero ex parte obiecti, quod in una aliqua potentiarum considerari potest. Sic enim se habet anima ad corpus sicut pars animae ad partem corporis. Potentia autem visiva patitur quidem ab obiecto, sicut cum ab excellenti fulgido visus obtunditur; ex parte vero organi, sicut cum laesa pupilla hebetatur visus. We may note that the suffering of the soul is of two kinds. One kind of suffering arises from the body, the other from the object that causes suffering, and this can be observed in any one of the faculties. For the soul is related to the body in the same way that a part of the soul is related to a part of the body. Thus suffering may be caused in the faculty of sight by some object, as when vision is dimmed by an excessively bright light; suffering can also arise from the organ itself, as when vision is dulled because of an injured pupil.
Si igitur consideretur passio animae Christi ex parte corporis, sic tota anima patiebatur corpore patiente. Est enim anima forma corporis secundum suam essentiam, in essentia vero animae omnes potentiae radicantur: unde relinquitur quod corpore patiente quaelibet potentia animae quodammodo pateretur. Si vero consideretur animae passio ex parte obiecti, non omnis potentia animae patiebatur, secundum quod passio proprie sumpta nocumentum importat: non enim ex parte obiecti cuiuslibet potentiae poterat aliquid esse nocivum. Iam enim supra dictum est quod anima Christi perfecta Dei visione fruebatur. Superior igitur ratio animae Christi, quae rebus aeternis contemplandis et consulendis inhaeret, nihil habebat adversum aut repugnans, ex quo aliqua nocumenti passio in ea locum haberet. Accordingly, if the suffering of Christ’s soul is regarded as arising from the body, the whole soul suffered when the body suffered. For the soul in its essence is the form of the body, and the faculties, too, are all rooted in the essence of the soul. Consequently, if the body suffers every power of the soul suffers in some way. But if the suffering of the soul is considered as arising from an object, not every power of Christ’s soul suffered, understanding suffering in the proper sense as connoting harm. For nothing that arose from the object of any of these powers could be harmful, since, as we saw above, the soul of Christ enjoyed the perfect vision of God. Thus the higher reason of Christ’s soul, which is immersed in the contemplation and meditation of eternal things, embraced nothing adverse or repugnant that could cause it to suffer any harm.
Potentiae vero sensitivae, quarum obiecta sunt res corporeae, habere poterant aliquod nocumentum ex corporis passione: unde sensibilis dolor in Christo fuit corpore patiente. Et quia laesio corporis sicut a sensu sentitur noxia, ita etiam interior imaginatio eam ut nocivam apprehendit, inde sequitur interior tristitia etiam cum dolor in corpore non sentitur: et hanc passionem tristitiae dicimus in anima Christi fuisse. Non solum autem imaginatio, sed etiam ratio inferior nociva corporis apprehendit: et ideo etiam ex apprehensione inferioris rationis, quae circa temporalia versatur, poterat passio tristitiae habere locum in Christo, inquantum scilicet mortem et aliam corporis laesionem inferior ratio apprehendebat ut noxiam, et appetitui naturali contrariam. But the sense faculties, whose objects are material things, could receive some injury from the suffering of the body; and so Christ experienced pain of sense when His body suffered. Furthermore, just as laceration of the body is felt by the senses to be injurious, so the inner imagination apprehends it as harmful; hence interior distress follows even when pain is not felt in the body. We assert that suffering of such distress was experienced by the soul of Christ. More than this: not the imagination alone, but also the lower reason apprehends objects harmful to the body; and so, as a result of such apprehension by the lower reason, which is concerned with temporal affairs, the suffering of sorrow could have place in Christ, so far as the lower reason apprehended death and other maltreatment of the body as injurious and as contrary to natural appetite.
Contingit autem ex amore, qui facit duos homines quasi unum, ut aliquis tristitiam patiatur non solum ex iis quae per imaginationem vel per inferiorem rationem apprehendit ut sibi nociva, sed etiam ex iis quae apprehendit ut noxia aliis quos amat: unde ex hoc tristitiam Christus patiebatur, secundum quod aliis, quos ex caritate amabat, periculum imminere cognoscebat culpae vel poenae, unde non solum sibi, sed etiam aliis doluit. Moreover, in consequence of love, which makes two persons, as it were, one, a man may be afflicted with sadness not only on account of objects he apprehends through his imagination or his lower reason as harmful to himself, but also on account of objects he apprehends as harmful to others whom he loves. Thus Christ suffered sadness from His awareness of the perils of sin or of punishment threatening other men whom He loved with the love of charity. And so He grieved for others as well as for Himself.
Et quamvis dilectio proximi ad superiorem rationem quodammodo pertineat, inquantum proximus ex caritate diligitur propter Deum, superior tamen ratio in Christo de proximorum defectibus tristitiam habere non potuit, sicut in nobis habere potest. Quia enim ratio superior Christi plena Dei visione fruebatur, hoc modo apprehendebat quidquid ad aliorum defectus pertinet, secundum quod in divina sapientia continetur, secundum quam decenter ordinatum existit et quod aliquis peccare permittatur, et quod pro peccato punietur. Et ideo nec anima Christi, nec aliquis beatus Deum videns, ex defectibus proximorum tristitiam pati potest. Secus autem est in viatoribus, qui ad rationem sapientiae videndam non attingunt: hi enim etiam secundum rationem superiorem de defectibus aliorum tristantur, dum ad honorem Dei et exaltationem fidei pertinere existimant quod aliqui salventur, qui tamen damnantur. However, although the love of our fellow men pertains in a certain way to the higher reason, inasmuch as our neighbor is loved out of charity for God’s sake, the higher reason in Christ could not experience sorrow on account of the defects of His fellow men, as it can in us. For, since Christ’s higher reason enjoyed the full vision of God, it apprehended all that pertains to the defects of others as contained in the divine wisdom, in the light of which the fact that a person is permitted to sin and is punished for his sin, is seen to be in accord with becoming order. And so neither the soul of Christ nor of any of the blessed who behold God can be afflicted with sadness by the defects of their neighbors. But the case is otherwise with wayfarers who do not rise high enough to perceive the plan of wisdom. Such persons arc saddened by the defects of others even in their higher reason, when they think that it pertains to the honor of God and the exaltation of the faith that some should be saved who nevertheless are damned.
Sic igitur de eisdem de quibus dolebat secundum sensum, imaginationem et rationem inferiorem, secundum superiorem gaudebat, inquantum ea ad ordinem divinae sapientiae referebat. Et quia referre aliquid ad alterum est proprium opus rationis, ideo solet dici quod mortem ratio Christi refugiebat quidem si consideretur ut natura, quia scilicet naturaliter est mors odibilis: volebat tamen eam pati, si consideretur ut ratio. Thus, with regard to the very things for which He was suffering in sense, imagination, and lower reason, Christ was rejoicing in His higher reason, so far as He referred them to the order of divine wisdom. And since the referring of one thing to another is the proper task of reason, we generally say that Christ’s reason, if it is considered as nature, shrank from death, meaning that death is naturally abhorrent, but that if it is considered as reason, it was willing to suffer death.
Sicut autem in Christo fuit tristitia, ita etiam et aliae passiones quae ex tristitia oriuntur, ut timor, ira et huiusmodi. Ex iis enim quae tristitiam praesentia ingerunt, timor in nobis causatur, dum futura mala existimantur, et dum aliquo laedente contristati sumus, contra eum irascimur. Hae tamen passiones aliter fuerunt in Christo quam in nobis. In nobis enim plerumque iudicium rationis praeveniunt, interdum modum rationis excedunt. In Christo nunquam praeveniebant iudicium rationis, nec modum a ratione taxatum excedebant, sed tantum movebatur inferior appetitus, qui est subiectus passioni, quantum ratio ordinabat eum debere moveri. Poterat igitur contingere quod secundum inferiorem partem anima Christi refugiebat aliquid, quod secundum superiorem optabat, non tamen erat contrarietas appetituum in ipso, vel rebellio carnis ad spiritum, quae in nobis contingit ex hoc quod appetitus inferior iudicium et modum rationis transcendit. Sed in Christo movebatur secundum iudicium rationis, inquantum permittebat unicuique inferiorum virium moveri proprio motu, secundum quod ipsum decebat. Just as Christ was afflicted with sadness, so He experienced other passions that stem from sadness, such as fear, wrath, and the like. Fear is caused in us by those things whose presence engenders sorrow, when they are thought of as future evils; and when we are grieved by someone who is hurting us, we become angry at him. Such passions existed otherwise in Christ than in us. In us they frequently anticipate the judgment of reason, and sometimes pass the bounds of reason. In Christ they never anticipated the judgment of reason, and never exceeded the moderation imposed by reason; His lower appetite, which was subject to passion, was moved just so far as reason decreed that it should be moved. Therefore Christ’s soul could desire something in its higher part that it shrank from in its lower part, and yet there was no conflict of appetites in Him or rebellion of the flesh against the spirit, such as occurs in us owing to the fact that the lower appetite exceeds the judgment and measure of reason. In Christ this appetite was moved in accord with the judgment of reason, to the extent that He permitted each of His lower powers to be moved by its own impulse, in keeping with propriety.
Iis igitur consideratis manifestum est quod superior ratio Christi tota quidem fruebatur et gaudebat per comparationem ad suum obiectum (non enim ex hac parte aliquid ei occurrere poterat quod esset tristitiae causa); sed etiam tota patiebatur ex parte subiecti, ut supra dictum est. Nec illa fruitio minuebat passionem, nec passio impediebat fruitionem, cum non fieret redundantia ex una potentia in aliam, sed quaelibet potentiarum permitteretur agere quod sibi proprium erat, sicut iam supra dictum est. In the light of all this we see clearly that Christ’s higher reason was completely happy and full of joy in respect to its proper object. On the part of this object, nothing that might engender sorrow could arise in Him. But on the part of the subject it was full of suffering, as we indicated in the beginning of this chapter. Yet that enjoyment did not lessen the suffering, nor did the suffering prevent the enjoyment, since no overflowing from one power to another took place; each of the powers was allowed to exercise the function proper to it, as we mentioned above.


Caput 233

De oratione Christi
Quia vero oratio est desiderii expositiva, ex diversitate appetituum ratio sumi potest orationis quam Christus imminente passione proposuit dicens, Matth. XXVI, 39: pater mi, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste: verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu. In hoc enim quod dixit, transeat a me calix iste, motum inferioris appetitus et naturalis designat, quo naturaliter quilibet mortem refugit, et appetit vitam. In hoc autem quod dicit, verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis, exprimit motum superioris rationis omnia considerantis prout sub ordinatione divinae sapientiae continentur. Ad quod etiam pertinet quod dicit, si non potest, hoc solum fieri posse demonstrans quod secundum ordinem divinae voluntatis procedit. Since prayer manifests desire, the nature of the prayer Christ offered when His passion was upon Him may be gathered from the different desires He expressed. In Matthew 26:39 He begs: “My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as You wilt.” In saying, “Let this chalice pass from Me,” He indicates the movement of His lower appetite and natural desire, whereby all naturally shrink from death and desire life. And in saying, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as You wilt,” He gives,expression to the movement of His higher reason, which looks on all things as comprised under the ordinations of divine wisdom. The same is the bearing of the added words, “If this chalice may not pass away” (Matt. 26:42), whereby He showed that only those events can occur which take place according to the order of the divine will.
Et quamvis calix passionis non transivit ab eo quin ipsum biberit, non tamen dici debet quod eius oratio exaudita non fuerit. Nam secundum apostolum ad Hebr. V, 7, in omnibus exauditus est pro sua reverentia. Cum enim oratio, ut dictum est, sit desiderii expositiva, illud simpliciter oramus quod simpliciter volumus: unde et desiderium iustorum, orationis vim obtinet apud Deum, secundum illud Psal. IX, 17: desiderium pauperum exaudivit dominus. Illud autem simpliciter volumus quod secundum rationem superiorem appetimus ad quam solam pertinet consentire in opus. Illud autem simpliciter oravit Christus ut patris voluntas fieret, quia hoc simpliciter voluit, non autem quod calix ab eo transiret, quia nec hoc simpliciter voluit, sed secundum inferiorem rationem, ut dictum est. Although the chalice of the passion did not pass from Him, but He had to drink it, we may not say that His prayer went unheard. For, as the Apostle assures us in Hebrews 5:7, in all things Christ “was heard for His reverence.” Since prayer, as we have remarked, is expressive of desire, we pray unconditionally for what we wish unconditionally; and so the very desires of the just have the force of prayer with God, according to Psalm 9:17: “The Lord hath heard the desire of the poor.” But we wish unconditionally only what we desire with our higher reason, which alone has the power of assenting to an undertaking. Christ prayed absolutely that the Father’s will might be done, for this was what He wished absolutely. But He did not thus pray that the chalice might pass from Him, because He wished this, not absolutely, but according to His lower reason, as we have stated.


Caput 234

De sepultura Christi
Consequuntur autem hominem ex peccato post mortem alii defectus et ex parte corporis, et ex parte animae. Ex parte corporis quidem, quod corpus redditur terrae, ex qua sumptum est. Hic autem defectus corporis in nobis quidem secundum duo attenditur, scilicet secundum positionem, et secundum resolutionem. Secundum positionem quidem, inquantum corpus mortuum sub terra ponitur sepultum; secundum resolutionem vero, inquantum corpus in elementa solvitur, ex quibus est compactum. In consequence of sin, other defects, both on the part of the body and on the part of the soul, overtake man after death. With regard to defects on the part of the body, the body returns to the earth from which it was taken. This defect on the part of the body has two phases in the case of ourselves: it is laid away and it corrupts. It is laid away, inasmuch as the dead body is placed beneath the earth in burial; and it corrupts, inasmuch as the body is resolved into the elements of which it was composed.
Horum autem defectuum primum quidem Christus pati voluit, ut scilicet corpus eius sub terra poneretur. Alium autem defectum passus non fuit, ut scilicet corpus eius in terram resolveretur: unde de ipso Psal. XV, 10, dicit: non dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem, idest corporis putrefactionem. Huius autem ratio est, quia corpus Christi materiam sumpsit de natura humana, sed formatio eius non fuit virtute humana, sed virtute spiritus sancti. Et ideo propter substantiam materiae subterraneum locum, qui corporibus mortuis deputari consuevit, voluit pati: locus enim corporibus debetur secundum materiam praedominantis elementi. Sed dissolutionem corporis per spiritum sanctum fabricati pati non voluit, quia quantum ad hoc ab aliis hominibus differebat. Christ wished to be subject to the first of these defects, namely, the placing of His body beneath the earth. But He did not submit to the other defect, the dissolving of His body into dust. Thus Psalm 15:10 says of Him: “Nor will you let your holy one to see corruption,” that is, decay of the body. The reason for this is plain: although Christ’s body received matter from human nature, its formation was accomplished not by any human power but by the power of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the substance of His matter being what it was, He wished to be subject to the place beneath the earth usually given over to dead bodies; for that place which is in keeping with the matter of the predominant element in bodies is rightly assigned to them. But He did not wish the body that had been formed by the Holy Spirit to undergo dissolution, since in this respect He was different from other men.


Caput 235

De descensu Christi ad Inferos
Ex parte vero animae sequitur in hominibus ex peccato post mortem, ut ad Infernum descendant non solum quantum ad locum, sed etiam quantum ad poenam. Sicut autem corpus Christi fuit quidem sub terra secundum locum, non autem secundum communem resolutionis defectum, ita et anima Christi descendit quidem ad Inferos secundum locum, non autem ut ibi poenam subiret, sed magis ut alios a poena absolveret, qui propter peccatum primi parentis illic detinebantur, pro quo plene iam satisfecerat mortem patiendo: unde post mortem nihil patiendum restabat, sed absque omni poenae passione localiter ad Infernum descendit, ut se vivorum et mortuorum liberatorem ostenderet. Ex hoc etiam dicitur quod solus inter mortuos fuit liber, quia anima eius in Inferno non subiacuit poenae, nec corpus eius corruptioni in sepulcro. On the part of the soul, death among men is followed, in consequence of sin, by descent into hell, not only as a place, but as a state of punishment. However, just as Christ’s body was buried beneath the earth regarded as a place but not with respect to the common defect of dissolution, so His soul went down to hell as a place, not to undergo punishment there, but rather to release from punishment others who were detained there because of the sin of the first parent for which He had already made full satisfaction by suffering death. Hence nothing remained to be suffered after death, and so without undergoing any punishment He descended locally into hell that He might manifest Himself as the Savior of the living and the dead. For this reason He alone among the dead is said to have been free, since His soul was not subject to punishment in hell and His body was not subject to corruption in the grave.
Quamvis autem Christus descendens ad Inferos, eos liberavit qui pro peccato primi parentis ibi tenebantur, illos tamen reliquit qui pro peccatis propriis ibidem poenis erant addicti: et ideo dicitur momordisse Infernum, non absorbuisse, quia scilicet partem liberavit, et partem dimisit. When Christ descended into hell He freed those who were detained there for the sin of our first parent, but left behind those who were being punished for their own sins. And so He is said to have bitten into hell but not to have swallowed it, for He freed a part and left a part.
Hos igitur Christi defectus symbolum fidei tangit, cum dicit: passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus, descendit ad Inferos. The Creed of our faith touches on the various defects of Christ when it states: “He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell.”


Caput 236

De resurrectione et tempore resurrectionis Christi
Quia ergo per Christum humanum genus liberatum est a malis quae ex peccato primi parentis derivata erant, oportuit quod sicut ipse mala nostra sustinuit ut ab eis nos liberaret, ita etiam reparationis humanae per ipsum factae in eo primitiae apparerent, ut utroque modo Christus proponeretur nobis in signum salutis, dum ex eius passione consideramus quid pro peccato incurrimus, et quod nobis patiendum est ut a peccato liberemur, et per eius exaltationem consideramus quid nobis per ipsum sperandum proponitur. Since the human race was freed by Christ from the evils flowing from the sin of our first parent, it was fitting that, as He bore our ills to free us from them, the first fruits of man’s restoration effected by Him should make their appearance in Him. This was done that Christ might be held up to us as a sign of salvation in two ways. First, we learn from His passion what we brought down on ourselves by sin and what suffering had to be undergone for us to free us from sin. Secondly, we see in His exaltation what is proposed to us to hope for through Him.
Superata igitur morte, quae ex peccato primi parentis provenerat, primus ad immortalem vitam resurrexit: ut sicut Adam peccante primo mortalis vita apparuit, ita Christo pro peccato satisfaciente, primo immortalis vita in Christo appareret. Redierant quidem ad vitam alii ante Christum vel ab eo vel a prophetis suscitati, tamen iterum morituri, sed Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur: unde quia primus necessitatem moriendi evasit, dicitur princeps mortuorum et primitiae dormientium, scilicet quia primus a somno mortis surrexit, iugo mortis excusso. In triumph over death, which resulted from our first parent’s sin, Christ was the first of all men to rise to immortal life. Thus, as life first became mortal through Adam’s sin, immortal life made its first appearance in Christ through the atonement for sin He offered. Others, it is true, raised up either by Christ or by the prophets, had returned to life before Him; yet they had to die a second time. But “Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more” (Rom. 6:9). As He was the first to escape the necessity of dying, He is called “the first begotten of the dead” (Apoc. 1:5) and “the first fruits of those who sleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). Having thrown off the yoke of death, He was the first to rise from the sleep of death.
Eius autem resurrectio non tardari debuit, nec statim post mortem esse. Si enim statim post mortem rediisset ad vitam, mortis veritas comprobata non fuisset. Si vero diu resurrectio tardaretur, signum superatae mortis in eo non appareret, nec hominibus daretur spes ut per ipsum liberarentur a morte. Unde resurrectionem usque ad tertium diem distulit, quia hoc tempus sufficiens videbatur ad mortis veritatem comprobandam, nec erat nimis prolixum ad spem liberationis tollendam. Nam si amplius dilata fuisset, iam fidelium spes dubitationem pateretur, unde et quasi deficiente iam spe quidam dicebant tertia die, Lucae ult., 21: nos sperabamus quod ipse redempturus esset Israel. Christ’s resurrection was not to be long delayed, nor, on the other hand, was it to take place immediately after death. If He had returned to life immediately after death, the fact of His death would not have been well established; and if the resurrection had been long delayed, the sign of vanquished death would not have appeared in Him, and men would not have been given the hope that they would be rescued from death by Him. Therefore He put off the resurrection until the third day, for this interval was judged sufficient to establish the truth of His death, and was not too long to wither away the hope of liberation. If it had been delayed for a longer time, the hope of the faithful might have begun to suffer doubt. Indeed, on the third day, as though hope were already running out, some were saying: “We hoped that it was He that should have redeemed Israel” (Luke 24:21).
Non tamen per tres integros dies Christus mortuus remansit. Dicitur tamen tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in corde terrae fuisse illo modo locutionis quo pars pro toto poni solet. Cum enim ex die et nocte unus dies naturalis constituatur, quacumque parte diei vel noctis computata Christus fuit in morte, tota illa dicitur in morte fuisse. However, Christ did not remain dead for three full days. He is said to have been in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, according to that figure of speech whereby a part is often taken for the whole. For, since one natural day is made up of a day and a night, Christ is said to have been dead during the whole of any part of a day or a night that is counted while He was lying in death.
Secundum autem Scripturae consuetudinem nox cum sequenti die computatur, eo quod Hebraei tempora secundum cursum lunae observant, quae de sero incipit apparere. Fuit autem Christus in sepulcro ultima parte sextae feriae quae si cum nocte praecedenti computetur, erit quasi dies unus naturalis. Nocte vero sequente sextam feriam cum integra die sabbati fuit in sepulcro, et sic sunt duo dies. Iacuit etiam mortuus in sequenti nocte, quae praecedit diem dominicum, in qua resurrexit, vel media nocte secundum Gregorium, vel diluculo secundum alios: unde si computetur vel tota nox, vel pars eius cum sequenti die dominico, erit tertius dies naturalis. Moreover, in the usual practice of Scripture, night is figured in with the following day, because the Hebrews reckon time by the course of the moon, which begins to shine in the evening. Christ was in the sepulcher during the latter part of the sixth day, and if this is counted along with the preceding night, it will be more or less one natural day. He reposed in the tomb during the night following the sixth day, together with the whole of the Sabbath day, and so we have two days. He lay dead also during the next night, which preceded the Lord’s Day, on which He rose, and this occurred either at midnight, according to Gregory [ In Evangelia, II, hom. 21], or at dawn, as others think [Augustine, De Trinitate, IV, 6]. Therefore, if either the whole night, or a part of it together with the Lord’s Day following, is taken into our calculation, we shall have the third natural day.
Nec vacat a mysterio quod tertia die resurgere voluit, ut per hoc manifestetur quod ex virtute totius Trinitatis resurrexit: unde et quandoque dicitur pater eum resuscitasse, quandoque autem quod ipse propria virtute resurrexit, quod non est contrarium, cum eadem sit divina virtus patris et filii et spiritus sancti; et etiam ut ostenderetur quod reparatio vitae non fuit facta prima die saeculi, idest sub lege naturali, nec secunda die, idest sub lege Mosaica, sed tertia die, idest tempore gratiae. The fact that Christ wished to rise on the third day is not without mysterious significance; for so He was able to show that He rose by the power of the whole Trinity. Sometimes the Father is said to have raised Him up, and sometimes Christ Himself is said to have risen by His own power. These two statements do not contradict each other, for the divine power of the Father is identical with that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Another purpose was to show that the restoration of life was accomplished, not on the first day of the world, that is, under the natural law, nor on the second day, that is, under the Mosaic law, but on the third day, that is, in the era of grace.
Habet etiam rationem quod Christus una die integra et duabus noctibus integris iacuit in sepulcro: quia Christus una vetustate quam suscepit, scilicet poenae, duas nostras vetustates consumpsit, scilicet culpae et poenae, quae per duas noctes significantur. The fact that Christ lay in the sepulcher for one whole day and two whole nights also has its meaning: by the one ancient debt Christ took on Himself, that of punishment, He blotted out our two ancient debts, sin and punishment, which are represented by the two nights.


Caput 237

De qualitate Christi resurgentis
Non solum autem Christus recuperavit humano generi quod Adam peccando amiserat, sed etiam hoc ad quod Adam merendo pervenire potuisset. Multo enim maior fuit Christi efficacia ad merendum quam hominis ante peccatum. Incurrit siquidem Adam peccando necessitatem moriendi, amissa facultate qua mori non poterat, si non peccaret. Christus autem non solum necessitatem moriendi exclusit, sed etiam necessitatem non moriendi acquisivit: unde corpus Christi post resurrectionem factum est impassibile et immortale, non quidem sicut primi hominis, potens non mori, sed omnino non potens mori, quod in futurum de nobis ipsis expectamus. Christ recovered for the human race not merely what Adam had lost through sin, but all that Adam could have attained through merit. For Christ’s power to merit was far greater than that of man prior to sin. By sin Adam incurred the necessity of dying, because he lost the power which would have enabled him to avoid death if he had not sinned. Christ not only did away with the necessity of dying, but even gained the power of not being able to die. Therefore His body after the resurrection was rendered impassible and immortal. Thus Christ’s body was not like that of the first man, which had the power not to die, but was absolutely unable to die. And this is what we await in the future life for ourselves.
Et quia anima Christi ante mortem passibilis erat secundum passionem corporis, consequens est ut corpore impassibili facto, etiam anima impassibilis redderetur. Another consideration: Christ’s soul before His death was capable of suffering in company with the suffering of His body. Consequently, when His body became incapable of suffering, His soul also became incapable of suffering.
Et quia iam impletum erat humanae redemptionis mysterium, propter quod dispensative continebatur fruitionis gloria in superiori animae parte, ne fieret redundantia ad inferiores partes et ad ipsum corpus, sed permitteretur unumquodque aut agere aut pati quod sibi proprium erat, consequens fuit ut iam per redundantiam gloriae a superiori animae parte totaliter corpus glorificaretur, et inferiores vires: et inde est quod cum ante passionem Christus esset comprehensor propter fruitionem animae, et viator propter corporis passibilitatem, iam post resurrectionem, viator ultra non fuit, sed solum comprehensor. Furthermore, the mystery of man’s redemption was now accomplished. To enable Christ to achieve that end, the glory of fruition had, in God’s dispensation, been restricted to the higher regions of His soul, so that no overflowing to the lower parts and to the body itself would occur, but each faculty would be allowed to do or suffer what was proper to it. But now the body and the lower powers were wholly glorified by an overflow of glory from the higher regions of the soul. Accordingly Christ, who before the passion had been a comprehensor because of the fruition enjoyed by His soul and a wayfarer because of the passibility of His body, was now, after the resurrection, no longer a wayfarer, but exclusively a comprehensor.


Caput 238

Quomodo convenientibus argumentis Christi resurrectio demonstratur
Et quia, ut dictum est, Christus resurrectionem anticipavit, ut eius resurrectio argumentum nobis spei existeret, ut nos etiam resurgere speraremus, oportuit ad spem resurrectionis suadendam, ut eius resurrectio, nec non et resurgentis qualitas, congruentibus indiciis manifestaretur. Non autem omnibus indifferenter suam resurrectionem manifestavit, sicut humanitatem et passionem, sed solum testibus praeordinatis a Deo, scilicet discipulis, quos elegerat ad procurandum humanam salutem. Nam status resurrectionis, ut dictum est, pertinet ad gloriam comprehensoris, cuius cognitio non debetur omnibus, sed iis tantum qui se dignos efficiunt. Manifestavit autem eis Christus et veritatem resurrectionis, et gloriam resurgentis. As we stated above, Christ anticipated the general resurrection in order that His resurrection might bolster up our hope of our own resurrection. To foster our hope of resurrection, Christ’s resurrection and the qualities of His risen nature had to be made known by suitable proofs. He manifested His resurrection, not to all alike, in the way that He manifested His human nature and His passion, but only “to witnesses preordained by God” (Acts 10:41), namely, the disciples whom He had selected to bring about man’s salvation. For the state of resurrection, as was mentioned above, belongs to the glory of the comprehensor, and knowledge of this is not due to all, but only to such as make themselves worthy. To the witnesses He had chosen Christ revealed both the fact of His resurrection and the glory of His risen nature.
Veritatem quidem resurrectionis, ostendendo quod idem ipse qui mortuus fuerat, resurrexit et quantum ad naturam, et quantum ad suppositum. Quantum ad naturam quidem, quia se verum corpus humanum habere demonstravit, dum ipsum palpandum et videndum discipulis praebuit, quibus dixit Luc. ult., 39: palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Manifestavit etiam exercendo actus qui naturae humanae conveniunt, cum discipulis suis manducans et bibens, et cum eis multoties loquens et ambulans, qui sunt actus hominis viventis, quamvis illa comestio necessitatis non fuerit: non enim incorruptibilia resurgentium corpora ulterius cibo indigebunt, cum in eis nulla fiat deperditio, quam oportet per cibum restaurari. Unde et cibus a Christo assumptus non cessit in corporis eius nutrimentum, sed fuit resolutum in praeiacentem materiam. Verumtamen ex hoc ipso quod comedit et bibit, se verum hominem demonstravit. He made known the fact of His resurrection by showing that He, the very one who had died, rose again both in His nature and in His suppositum. As regards nature, He showed that He had a true human body when He offered Himself to be touched and seen by the disciples, to whom He said: “Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have” (Luke 24:39). He gave further evidence of the same by performing actions that belong to human nature, eating and drinking with His disciples, and often conversing with them and walking about. These are the actions of a living man. Of course such eating was not dictated by necessity. The incorruptible bodies of the risen will have no further need of food, for there occurs in them no deterioration that has to be repaired by nourishment. Hence the food consumed by Christ did not become nourishment for His body but was dissolved into pre-existing matter. Yet He proved that He was a true man by the very fact that He ate and drank.
Quantum vero ad suppositum, ostendit se esse eundem qui mortuus fuerat, per hoc quod indicia suae mortis eis in suo corpore demonstravit, scilicet vulnerum cicatrices; unde dicit Thomae, Ioan. XX, 27: infer digitum tuum huc et vide manus meas, et affer manum tuam, et mitte in latus meum, et Luc. ult., 39, dixit: videte manus meas et pedes meos, quia ego ipse sum. Quamvis hoc etiam dispensationis fuerit quod cicatrices vulnerum in suo corpore reservavit, ut per eas resurrectionis veritas probaretur: corpori enim incorruptibili resurgenti debetur omnis integritas. Licet etiam dici possit, quod in martyribus quaedam indicia praecedentium vulnerum apparebunt cum quodam decore in testimonium virtutis. Ostendit etiam se esse idem suppositum, et ex modo loquendi, et ex aliis consuetis operibus, ex quibus homines recognoscuntur: unde et discipuli recognoverunt eum in fractione panis, Luc. ult., et ipse in Galilaea aperte se eis demonstravit ubi cum eis erat solitus conversari. As regards His suppositum, Christ showed that He was the same person who had died, by displaying to His disciples the marks of His death on His body, namely, the scars of His wounds. In John 20:27 He says to Thomas: “Put your finger here and see My hands; and bring your hand here and put it into My side.” And in Luke 24:39 He says: “See My hands and feet, that it is I Myself.” It was by divine dispensation that He kept the scars of His wounds in His body, so that the truth of the resurrection might be demonstrated by them; for complete integrity is the proper condition of the incorruptible risen body, although we may say that in the case of the martyrs some indications of the wounds they bore will appear with a certain splendor, in testimony of their virtue. Christ further showed that He was the same suppositum by His manner of speech and by other familiar actions whereby men are recognized. Thus the disciples knew Him “in the breaking of bread” (Luke 24:35). Also, He openly showed Himself to them in Galilee, where He was accustomed to converse with them.
Gloriam vero resurgentis manifestavit dum ianuis clausis ad eos intravit, Ioan. XX, et dum ab oculis eorum evanuit, Luc. ult. Hoc enim pertinet ad gloriam resurgentis, ut in potestate habeat apparere oculo glorioso quando vult, vel non apparere quando voluerit. Quia tamen resurrectionis fides difficultatem habebat, propterea per plura indicia tam veritatem resurrectionis quam gloriam resurgentis corporis demonstravit. Nam si inusitatam conditionem glorificati corporis totaliter demonstrasset, fidei resurrectionis praeiudicium attulisset, quia immensitas gloriae opinionem excussisset eiusdem naturae. Hoc etiam non solum visibilibus signis, sed etiam intelligibilibus documentis manifestavit, dum aperuit eorum sensum, ut Scripturas intelligerent, et per Scripturas prophetarum se resurrecturum ostendit. Christ manifested the glory of His risen nature when He came among them, “the doors being shut” (John 20:26), and when “He vanished out of their sight” (Luke 24:31). For the glory of risen man gives him the power to be seen in glorious vision when he wishes, or not to be seen when he so wishes. The reason why Christ demonstrated the truth of His resurrection and the glory of His risen body by so many proofs, was the difficulty that faith in the resurrection presents. If He had displayed the extraordinary condition of His glorified body in its full splendor, He would have engendered prejudice against faith in the resurrection: the very immensity of its glory would have excluded belief that it was the same nature. Further, He manifested the truth not only by visible signs, but also by proofs appealing to the intellect, as when “He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45), and showed that according to the writings of the prophets He was to rise again.


Caput 239

De duplici vita reparata in homine per Christum
Sicut autem Christus sua morte mortem nostram destruxit, ita sua resurrectione vitam nostram reparavit. Est autem hominis duplex mors et duplex vita. Una quidem mors est corporis per separationem ab anima; alia per separationem a Deo. Christus autem, in quo secunda mors locum non habuit, per primam mortem quam subiit, scilicet corporalem, utramque in nobis mortem destruxit, scilicet corporalem et spiritualem. As Christ destroyed our death by His death, so He restored our life by His resurrection. Man has a twofold death and a twofold life. The first death is the death of the body, brought about by separation from the soul; the second death is brought about by separation from God. Christ, in whom the second death had no place, destroyed both of these deaths in us, that is, the bodily and the spiritual, by the first death He underwent, namely, that of the body.
Similiter etiam per oppositum intelligitur duplex vita: una quidem corporis ab anima, quae dicitur vita naturae; alia a Deo, quae dicitur vita iustitiae, vel vita gratiae: et haec est per fidem, per quam Deus inhabitat in nobis, secundum illud Habacuc II, 4: iustus autem meus in fide sua vivet, Similarly, opposed to this twofold death, we are to understand that there is a twofold life. One is a life of the body, imparted by the soul, and this is called the life of nature. The other comes from God, and is called the life of justice or the life of grace. This life is given to us through faith, by which God dwells in us, according to Habakkuk 2:4: “The just shall live in his faith.”
et secundum hoc duplex est resurrectio: una corporalis, qua anima iterato coniungitur corpori; alia spiritualis, qua iterum coniungitur Deo. Et haec quidem secunda resurrectio locum in Christo non habuit, quia nunquam eius anima fuit per peccatum separata a Deo. Per resurrectionem igitur suam corporalem utriusque resurrectionis, scilicet corporalis et spiritualis, nobis est causa. Accordingly, resurrection is also twofold: one is a bodily resurrection, in which the soul is united to the body for the second time; the other is a spiritual resurrection, in which the soul is again united to God. This second resurrection had no place in Christ, because His soul was never separated from God by sin. By His bodily resurrection, therefore, Christ is the cause of both the bodily and the spiritual resurrection in us.
Considerandum tamen est, quod, ut dicit Augustinus super Ioannem, verbum Dei resuscitat animas, sed verbum caro factum resuscitat corpora. Animam enim vivificare solius Dei est. Quia tamen caro est divinitatis eius instrumentum, instrumentum autem agit in virtute causae principalis, utraque resurrectio nostra, et corporalis et spiritualis, in corporalem Christi resurrectionem refertur ut in causam. Omnia enim quae in Christi carne facta sunt, nobis salutaria fuerunt virtute divinitatis unitae, unde et apostolus resurrectionem Christi causam nostrae spiritualis resurrectionis ostendens, dicit ad Rom. IV, 25, quod traditus est propter delicta nostra, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Quod autem Christi resurrectio nostrae corporalis resurrectionis sit causa, ostendit I ad Cor. XV, 12: si autem Christus praedicatur quod resurrexit, quomodo quidam dicunt in vobis quoniam resurrectio mortuorum non est? However, as Augustine says in his commentary on St. John [ In Joannis Evangelium, XIX, 15], we are to understand that the Word of God raises up souls, but that the Word as incarnate raises up bodies. To give life to the soul belongs to God alone. Yet, since the flesh is the instrument of His divinity, and since an instrument operates in virtue of the principal cause, our double resurrection, bodily and spiritual, is referred to Christ’s bodily resurrection as cause. For everything done in Christ’s flesh was salutary for us by reason of the divinity united to that flesh. Hence the Apostle, indicating the resurrection of Christ as the cause of our spiritual resurrection, says, in Romans 4:25, that Christ “was delivered up for our sins and rose again for our justification.” And in 1 Corinthians 15:12 he shows that Christ’s resurrection is the cause of our bodily resurrection: “Now if Christ be preached, that He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”
Pulchre autem apostolus peccatorum remissionem Christi attribuit morti, iustificationem vero nostram resurrectioni, ut designetur conformitas et similitudo effectus ad causam. Nam sicut peccatum deponitur cum remittitur, ita Christus moriendo deposuit passibilem vitam, in qua erat similitudo peccati. Cum autem aliquis iustificatur, novam vitam adipiscitur: ita Christus resurgendo novitatem gloriae consecutus est. Sic igitur mors Christi est causa remissionis peccati nostri et effectiva instrumentaliter, et exemplaris sacramentaliter et meritoria. Resurrectio autem Christi fuit causa resurrectionis nostrae effectiva quidem instrumentaliter et exemplaris sacramentaliter, non autem meritoria: tum quia Christus iam non erat viator, ut sibi mereri competeret, tum quia claritas resurrectionis fuit praemium passionis, ut per apostolum patet Philipp. II. Most aptly does the Apostle attribute remission of sins to Christ’s death and our justification to His resurrection, thus tracing out conformity and likeness of effect to cause. As sin is discarded when it is remitted, so Christ by dying laid aside His passible life, in which the likeness of sin was discernible. But when a person is justified, he receives new life; in like manner Christ, by rising, obtained newness of glory. Therefore Christ’s death is the cause of the remission of our sin: the efficient cause instrumentally, the exemplary cause sacramentally, and the meritorious cause. In like manner Christ’s resurrection was the cause of our resurrection: the efficient cause instrumentally and the exemplary cause sacramentally. But it was not a meritorious cause, for Christ was no longer a wayfarer, and so was not in a position to merit; and also because the glory of the resurrection was the reward of His passion, as the Apostle declares in Philippians 2:9 ff.
Sic igitur manifestum est quod Christus potest dici primogenitus resurgentium ex mortuis, non solum ordine temporis, quia primus resurrexit secundum praedicta, sed etiam ordine causae, quia resurrectio eius est causa resurrectionis aliorum, et in ordine dignitatis, quia prae cunctis gloriosior resurrexit. Thus we see clearly that Christ can be called the first-born of those who rise from the dead. This is true not only in the order of time, inasmuch as Christ was the first to rise, as was said above, 85 but also in the order of causality, because His resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of other men, and in the order of dignity, because He rose more gloriously than all others.
Hanc igitur fidem resurrectionis Christi symbolum fidei continet dicens: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. This belief in Christ’s resurrection is expressed in the words of the Creed: “The third day He arose again from the dead.”


Caput 240

De duplici praemio humiliationis, scilicet resurrectione et ascensione
Quia vero secundum apostolum exaltatio Christi praemium fuit humiliationis ipsius, consequens fuit ut duplici eius humiliationi duplex exaltatio responderet. According to the Apostle, the exaltation of Christ was the reward of His humiliation. Therefore a twofold exaltation had to correspond to His twofold humiliation.
Humiliaverat namque se primo secundum mortis passionem in carne passibili quam assumpserat; secundo quantum ad locum, corpore posito in sepulcro, et anima ad Inferos descendente. Primae igitur humiliationi respondet exaltatio resurrectionis, in qua a morte ad vitam rediit immortalem; secundae humiliationi respondet exaltatio ascensionis: unde apostolus dicit Ephes. IV, 10: qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes caelos. Christ had humbled Himself, first, by suffering death in the passible flesh He had assumed; secondly, He had undergone humiliation with reference to place, when His body was laid in the sepulcher and His soul descended into hell. The exaltation of the resurrection, in which He returned from death to immortal life, corresponds to the first humiliation. And the exaltation of the ascension corresponds to the second humiliation. Hence the Apostle says, in Ephesians 4:10: “He who descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens.”
Sicut autem de filio Dei dicitur quod est natus, passus et sepultus, et quia resurrexit, non tamen secundum naturam divinam, sed secundum humanam: ita et de Dei filio dicitur quod ascendit in caelum, non quidem secundum divinam naturam, sed secundum humanam. Nam secundum divinam naturam nunquam a caelo discessit, semper ubique existens. Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. III, 13: nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis qui est in caelo. Per quod datur intelligi, quod sic de caelo descendisse dicitur naturam assumendo terrenam, quod tamen in caelo semper permansit. Ex quo etiam considerandum est, quod solus Christus propria virtute caelos ascendit. Locus enim ille debebatur ei qui de caelo descenderat ratione suae originis. Alii vero per se ipsos ascendere non possunt, sed per Christi virtutem, eius membra effecti. However, as it is narrated of the Son of God that He was born, suffered and was buried, and rose again, not in His divine nature but in His human nature, so also, we are told, He ascended into heaven, not in His divine nature but in His human nature. In His divine nature He had never left heaven, as He is always present everywhere. He indicates this Himself when He says: “No man has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heav