Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-25-26

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 23, 2024
< Directory:Logic Museum
Revision as of 14:33, 24 October 2009 by Ockham (talk | contribs) (New page: ----------------------- SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XXV - XXVI ----------------------- Index *[[#q25a1|Question 25.1 The Power of God...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XXV - XXVI

Index



Latin Latin


IЄ q. 25 pr. Post considerationem divinae scientiae et voluntatis, et eorum quae ad hoc pertinent, restat considerandum de divina potentia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum in Deo sit potentia. Secundo, utrum eius potentia sit infinita. Tertio, utrum sit omnipotens. Quarto, utrum possit facere quod ea quae sunt praeterita, non fuerint. Quinto, utrum Deus possit facere quae non facit, vel praetermittere quae facit. Sexto, utrum quae facit, possit facere meliora.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sit potentia. Sicut enim prima materia se habet ad potentiam, ita Deus, qui est agens primum, se habet ad actum. Sed prima materia, secundum se considerata, est absque omni actu. Ergo agens primum, quod est Deus, est absque potentia.
 Objection 1. It seems that power is not in God. For as primary matter is to power, so God, who is the first agent, is to act. But primary matter, considered in itself, is devoid of all act. Therefore, the first agent--namely, God--is devoid of power.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, secundum philosophum, in IX Metaphys., qualibet potentia melior est eius actus, nam forma est melior quam materia, et actio quam potentia activa; est enim finis eius. Sed nihil est melius eo quod est in Deo, quia quidquid est in Deo, est Deus, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo nulla potentia est in Deo. Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vi, 19), better than every power is its act. For form is better than matter; and action than active power, since it is its end. But nothing is better than what is in God; because whatsoever is in God, is God, as was shown above (3, 3). Therefore, there is no power in God.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, potentia est principium operationis. Sed operatio divina est eius essentia, cum in Deo nullum sit accidens. Essentiae autem divinae non est aliquod principium. Ergo ratio potentiae Deo non convenit. Objection 3. Further, Power is the principle of operation. But the divine power is God's essence, since there is nothing accidental in God: and of the essence of God there is no principle. Therefore there is no power in God.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, supra ostensum est quod scientia Dei et voluntas eius sunt causa rerum. Causa autem et principium idem sunt. Ergo non oportet in Deo assignare potentiam, sed solum scientiam et voluntatem. Objection 4. Further, it was shown above (14, 8; 19, 4) that God's knowledge and will are the cause of things. But the cause and principle of a thing are identical. We ought not, therefore, to assign power to God; but only knowledge and will.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo LXXXVIII, potens es, domine, et veritas tua in circuitu tuo. On the contrary, It is said: "Thou art mighty, O Lord, and Thy truth is round about Thee" (Psalm 88:9).
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est potentia, scilicet passiva, quae nullo modo est in Deo; et activa, quam oportet in Deo summe ponere. Manifestum est enim quod unumquodque, secundum quod est actu et perfectum, secundum hoc est principium activum alicuius, patitur autem unumquodque, secundum quod est deficiens et imperfectum. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est purus actus, et simpliciter et universaliter perfectus; neque in eo aliqua imperfectio locum habet. Unde sibi maxime competit esse principium activum, et nullo modo pati. Ratio autem activi principii convenit potentiae activae. Nam potentia activa est principium agendi in aliud, potentia vero passiva est principium patiendi ab alio, ut philosophus dicit, V Metaphys. Relinquitur ergo quod in Deo maxime sit potentia activa. I answer that, Power is twofold--namely, passive, which exists not at all in God; and active, which we must assign to Him in the highest degree. For it is manifest that everything, according as it is in act and is perfect, is the active principle of something: whereas everything is passive according as it is deficient and imperfect. Now it was shown above (3, 2; 4, 1 and 2), that God is pure act, simply and in all ways perfect, nor in Him does any imperfection find place. Whence it most fittingly belongs to Him to be an active principle, and in no way whatsoever to be passive. On the other hand, the notion of active principle is consistent with active power. For active power is the principle of acting upon something else; whereas passive power is the principle of being acted upon by something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, 17). It remains, therefore, that in God there is active power in the highest degree.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod potentia activa non dividitur contra actum, sed fundatur in eo, nam unumquodque agit secundum quod est actu. Potentia vero passiva dividitur contra actum, nam unumquodque patitur secundum quod est in potentia. Unde haec potentia excluditur a Deo, non autem activa. Reply to Objection 1. Active power is not contrary to act, but is founded upon it, for everything acts according as it is actual: but passive power is contrary to act; for a thing is passive according as it is potential. Whence this potentiality is not in God, but only active power.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, quandocumque actus est aliud a potentia, oportet quod actus sit nobilior potentia. Sed actio Dei non est aliud ab eius potentia, sed utrumque est essentia divina, quia nec esse eius est aliud ab eius essentia. Unde non oportet quod aliquid sit nobilius quam potentia Dei. Reply to Objection 2. Whenever act is distinct from power, act must be nobler than power. But God's action is not distinct from His power, for both are His divine essence; neither is His existence distinct from His essence. Hence it does not follow that there should be anything in God nobler than His power.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod potentia in rebus creatis non solum est principium actionis, sed etiam effectus. Sic igitur in Deo salvatur ratio potentiae quantum ad hoc, quod est principium effectus, non autem quantum ad hoc, quod est principium actionis, quae est divina essentia. Nisi forte secundum modum intelligendi, prout divina essentia, quae in se simpliciter praehabet quidquid perfectionis est in rebus creatis, potest intelligi et sub ratione actionis, et sub ratione potentiae; sicut etiam intelligitur et sub ratione suppositi habentis naturam, et sub ratione naturae. Reply to Objection 3. In creatures, power is the principle not only of action, but likewise of effect. Thus in God the idea of power is retained, inasmuch as it is the principle of an effect; not, however, as it is a principle of action, for this is the divine essence itself; except, perchance, after our manner of understanding, inasmuch as the divine essence, which pre-contains in itself all perfection that exists in created things, can be understood either under the notion of action, or under that of power; as also it is understood under the notion of "suppositum" possessing nature, and under that of nature. Accordingly the notion of power is retained in God in so far as it is the principle of an effect.
IЄ q. 25 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod potentia non ponitur in Deo ut aliquid differens a scientia et voluntate secundum rem, sed solum secundum rationem; inquantum scilicet potentia importat rationem principii exequentis id quod voluntas imperat, et ad quod scientia dirigit; quae tria Deo secundum idem conveniunt. Vel dicendum quod ipsa scientia vel voluntas divina, secundum quod est principium effectivum, habet rationem potentiae. Unde consideratio scientiae et voluntatis praecedit in Deo considerationem potentiae, sicut causa praecedit operationem et effectum. Reply to Objection 4. Power is predicated of God not as something really distinct from His knowledge and will, but as differing from them logically; inasmuch as power implies a notion of a principle putting into execution what the will commands, and what knowledge directs, which three things in God are identified. Or we may say, that the knowledge or will of God, according as it is the effective principle, has the notion of power contained in it. Hence the consideration of the knowledge and will of God precedes the consideration of His power, as the cause precedes the operation and effect.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod potentia Dei non sit infinita. Omne enim infinitum est imperfectum, secundum philosophum, in III Physic. Sed potentia Dei non est imperfecta. Ergo non est infinita.
 Objection 1. It seems that the power of God is not infinite. For everything that is infinite is imperfect according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6). But the power of God is far from imperfect. Therefore it is not infinite.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis potentia manifestatur per effectum, alias frustra esset. Si igitur potentia Dei esset infinita, posset facere effectum infinitum. Quod est impossibile. Objection 2. Further, every power is made known by its effect; otherwise it would be ineffectual. If, then, the power of God were infinite, it could produce an infinite effect, but this is impossible.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus probat in VIII Physic., quod si potentia alicuius corporis esset infinita, moveret in instanti. Deus autem non movet in instanti, sed movet creaturam spiritualem per tempus, creaturam vero corporalem per locum et tempus, secundum Augustinum, VIII super Genesim ad litteram. Non ergo est eius potentia infinita. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 79) that if the power of any corporeal thing were infinite, it would cause instantaneous movement. God, however, does not cause instantaneous movement, but moves the spiritual creature in time, and the corporeal creature in place and time, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. 20,22,23). Therefore, His power is not infinite.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Hilarius, VIII de Trin., quod Deus est immensae virtutis, vivens, potens. Omne autem immensum est infinitum. Ergo virtus divina est infinita. On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii), that "God's power is immeasurable. He is the living mighty one." Now everything that is immeasurable is infinite. Therefore the power of God is infinite.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, secundum hoc potentia activa invenitur in Deo, secundum quod ipse actu est. Esse autem eius est infinitum, inquantum non est limitatum per aliquid recipiens; ut patet per ea quae supra dicta sunt, cum de infinitate divinae essentiae ageretur. Unde necesse est quod activa potentia Dei sit infinita. In omnibus enim agentibus hoc invenitur, quod quanto aliquod agens perfectius habet formam qua agit, tanto est maior eius potentia in agendo. Sicut quanto est aliquid magis calidum, tanto habet maiorem potentiam ad calefaciendum, et haberet utique potentiam infinitam ad calefaciendum, si eius calor esset infinitus. Unde, cum ipsa essentia divina, per quam Deus agit, sit infinita, sicut supra ostensum est, sequitur quod eius potentia sit infinita. I answer that, As stated above (1), active power exists in God according to the measure in which He is actual. Now His existence is infinite, inasmuch as it is not limited by anything that receives it, as is clear from what has been said, when we discussed the infinity of the divine essence (7, 1). Wherefore, it is necessary that the active power in God should be infinite. For in every agent is it found that the more perfectly an agent has the form by which it acts the greater its power to act. For instance, the hotter a thing is, the greater the power has it to give heat; and it would have infinite power to give heat, were its own heat infinite. Whence, since the divine essence, through which God acts, is infinite, as was shown above (7, 1) it follows that His power likewise is infinite.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de infinito quod est ex parte materiae non terminatae per formam; cuiusmodi est infinitum quod congruit quantitati. Sic autem non est infinita divina essentia, ut supra ostensum est; et per consequens nec eius potentia. Unde non sequitur quod sit imperfecta. Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher is here speaking of an infinity in regard to matter not limited by any form; and such infinity belongs to quantity. But the divine essence is otherwise, as was shown above (7, 1); and consequently so also His power. It does not follow, therefore, that it is imperfect.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia agentis univoci tota manifestatur in suo effectu, potentia enim generativa hominis nihil potest plus quam generare hominem. Sed potentia agentis non univoci non tota manifestatur in sui effectus productione, sicut potentia solis non tota manifestatur in productione alicuius animalis ex putrefactione generati. Manifestum est autem quod Deus non est agens univocum, nihil enim aliud potest cum eo convenire neque in specie, neque in genere, ut supra ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod effectus eius semper est minor quam potentia eius. Non ergo oportet quod manifestetur infinita potentia Dei in hoc, quod producat effectum infinitum. Et tamen, etiam si nullum effectum produceret, non esset Dei potentia frustra. Quia frustra est quod ordinatur ad finem, quem non attingit, potentia autem Dei non ordinatur ad effectum sicut ad finem, sed magis ipsa est finis sui effectus. Reply to Objection 2. The power of a univocal agent is wholly manifested in its effect. The generative power of man, for example, is not able to do more than beget man. But the power of a non-univocal agent does not wholly manifest itself in the production of its effect: as, for example, the power of the sun does not wholly manifest itself in the production of an animal generated from putrefaction. Now it is clear that God is not a univocal agent. For nothing agrees with Him either in species or in genus, as was shown above (3, 5; 4, 3). Whence it follows that His effect is always less than His power. It is not necessary, therefore, that the infinite power of God should be manifested so as to produce an infinite effect. Yet even if it were to produce no effect, the power of God would not be ineffectual; because a thing is ineffectual which is ordained towards an end to which it does not attain. But the power of God is not ordered toward its effect as towards an end; rather, it is the end of the effect produced by it.
IЄ q. 25 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod philosophus in VIII Physic., probat, quod si aliquod corpus haberet potentiam infinitam, quod moveret in non tempore. Et tamen ostendit, quod potentia motoris caeli est infinita, quia movere potest tempore infinito. Relinquitur ergo secundum eius intentionem, quod potentia infinita corporis si esset, moveret in non tempore, non autem potentia incorporei motoris. Cuius ratio est, quia corpus movens aliud corpus, est agens univocum. Unde oportet quod tota potentia agentis manifestetur in motu. Quia igitur quanto moventis corporis potentia est maior, tanto velocius movet, necesse est quod si fuerit infinita, moveat improportionabiliter citius, quod est movere in non tempore. Sed movens incorporeum est agens non univocum. Unde non oportet, quod tota virtus eius manifestetur in motu ita, quod moveat in non tempore. Et praesertim, quia movet secundum dispositionem suae voluntatis. Reply to Objection 3. The Philosopher (Phys. viii, 79) proves that if a body had infinite power, it would cause a non-temporal movement. And he shows that the power of the mover of heaven is infinite, because it can move in an infinite time. It remains, therefore, according to his reckoning, that the infinite power of a body, if such existed, would move without time; not, however, the power of an incorporeal mover. The reason of this is that one body moving another is a univocal agent; wherefore it follows that the whole power of the agent is made known in its motion. Since then the greater the power of a moving body, the more quickly does it move; the necessary conclusion is that if its power were infinite, it would move beyond comparison faster, and this is to move without time. An incorporeal mover, however, is not a univocal agent; whence it is not necessary that the whole of its power should be manifested in motion, so as to move without time; and especially since it moves in accordance with the disposition of its will.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit omnipotens. Moveri enim et pati aliquid omnium est. Sed hoc Deus non potest, est enim immobilis, ut supra dictum est. Non igitur est omnipotens.
 Objection 1. It seems that God is not omnipotent. For movement and passiveness belong to everything. But this is impossible with God, for He is immovable, as was said above (2, 3). Therefore He is not omnipotent.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccare aliquid agere est. Sed Deus non potest peccare, neque seipsum negare, ut dicitur II Tim. II. Ergo Deus non est omnipotens. Objection 2. Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, de Deo dicitur quod omnipotentiam suam parcendo maxime et miserando manifestat. Ultimum igitur quod potest divina potentia, est parcere et misereri. Aliquid autem est multo maius quam parcere et misereri; sicut creare alium mundum, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Ergo Deus non est omnipotens. Objection 3. Further, it is said of God that He manifests His omnipotence "especially by sparing and having mercy" [Collect, 10th Sunday after Pentecost]. Therefore the greatest act possible to the divine power is to spare and have mercy. There are things much greater, however, than sparing and having mercy; for example, to create another world, and the like. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, super illud I Cor. I, stultam fecit Deus sapientiam huius mundi, dicit Glossa, sapientiam huius mundi fecit Deus stultam, ostendendo possibile, quod illa impossibile iudicabat. Unde videtur quod non sit aliquid iudicandum possibile vel impossibile secundum inferiores causas, prout sapientia huius mundi iudicat; sed secundum potentiam divinam. Si igitur Deus sit omnipotens, omnia erunt possibilia. Nihil ergo impossibile. Sublato autem impossibili, tollitur necessarium, nam quod necesse est esse, impossibile est non esse. Nihil ergo erit necessarium in rebus, si Deus est omnipotens. Hoc autem est impossibile. Ergo Deus non est omnipotens. Objection 4. Further, upon the text, "God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world" (1 Corinthians 1:20), a gloss says: "God hath made the wisdom of this world foolish [Vulg.: 'Hath not God', etc.] by showing those things to be possible which it judges to be impossible." Whence it would seem that nothing is to be judged possible or impossible in reference to inferior causes, as the wisdom of this world judges them; but in reference to the divine power. If God, then, were omnipotent, all things would be possible; nothing, therefore impossible. But if we take away the impossible, then we destroy also the necessary; for what necessarily exists is impossible not to exist. Therefore there would be nothing at all that is necessary in things if God were omnipotent. But this is an impossibility. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. I, non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. On the contrary, It is said: "No word shall be impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod communiter confitentur omnes Deum esse omnipotentem. Sed rationem omnipotentiae assignare videtur difficile. Dubium enim potest esse quid comprehendatur sub ista distributione, cum dicitur omnia posse Deum. Sed si quis recte consideret, cum potentia dicatur ad possibilia, cum Deus omnia posse dicitur, nihil rectius intelligitur quam quod possit omnia possibilia, et ob hoc omnipotens dicatur. Possibile autem dicitur dupliciter, secundum philosophum, in V Metaphys. Uno modo, per respectum ad aliquam potentiam, sicut quod subditur humanae potentiae, dicitur esse possibile homini. Non autem potest dici quod Deus dicatur omnipotens, quia potest omnia quae sunt possibilia naturae creatae, quia divina potentia in plura extenditur. Si autem dicatur quod Deus sit omnipotens, quia potest omnia quae sunt possibilia suae potentiae, erit circulatio in manifestatione omnipotentiae, hoc enim non erit aliud quam dicere quod Deus est omnipotens, quia potest omnia quae potest. Relinquitur igitur quod Deus dicatur omnipotens, quia potest omnia possibilia absolute, quod est alter modus dicendi possibile. Dicitur autem aliquid possibile vel impossibile absolute, ex habitudine terminorum, possibile quidem, quia praedicatum non repugnat subiecto, ut Socratem sedere; impossibile vero absolute, quia praedicatum repugnat subiecto, ut hominem esse asinum. Est autem considerandum quod, cum unumquodque agens agat sibi simile, unicuique potentiae activae correspondet possibile ut obiectum proprium, secundum rationem illius actus in quo fundatur potentia activa, sicut potentia calefactiva refertur, ut ad proprium obiectum, ad esse calefactibile. Esse autem divinum, super quod ratio divinae potentiae fundatur, est esse infinitum, non limitatum ad aliquod genus entis, sed praehabens in se totius esse perfectionem. Unde quidquid potest habere rationem entis, continetur sub possibilibus absolutis, respectu quorum Deus dicitur omnipotens. Nihil autem opponitur rationi entis, nisi non ens. Hoc igitur repugnat rationi possibilis absoluti, quod subditur divinae omnipotentiae, quod implicat in se esse et non esse simul. Hoc enim omnipotentiae non subditur, non propter defectum divinae potentiae; sed quia non potest habere rationem factibilis neque possibilis. Quaecumque igitur contradictionem non implicant, sub illis possibilibus continentur, respectu quorum dicitur Deus omnipotens. Ea vero quae contradictionem implicant, sub divina omnipotentia non continentur, quia non possunt habere possibilium rationem. Unde convenientius dicitur quod non possunt fieri, quam quod Deus non potest ea facere. Neque hoc est contra verbum Angeli dicentis, non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. Id enim quod contradictionem implicat, verbum esse non potest, quia nullus intellectus potest illud concipere. I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent. Now according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 17), a thing is said to be possible in two ways. First in relation to some power, thus whatever is subject to human power is said to be possible to man. Secondly absolutely, on account of the relation in which the very terms stand to each other. Now God cannot be said to be omnipotent through being able to do all things that are possible to created nature; for the divine power extends farther than that. If, however, we were to say that God is omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible to His power, there would be a vicious circle in explaining the nature of His power. For this would be saying nothing else but that God is omnipotent, because He can do all that He is able to do. It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey. It must, however, be remembered that since every agent produces an effect like itself, to each active power there corresponds a thing possible as its proper object according to the nature of that act on which its active power is founded; for instance, the power of giving warmth is related as to its proper object to the being capable of being warmed. The divine existence, however, upon which the nature of power in God is founded, is infinite, and is not limited to any genus of being; but possesses within itself the perfection of all being. Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus dicitur omnipotens secundum potentiam activam, non secundum potentiam passivam, ut dictum est. Unde, quod non potest moveri et pati, non repugnat omnipotentiae. Reply to Objection 1. God is said to be omnipotent in respect to His active power, not to passive power, as was shown above (1). Whence the fact that He is immovable or impassible is not repugnant to His omnipotence.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccare est deficere a perfecta actione, unde posse peccare est posse deficere in agendo, quod repugnat omnipotentiae. Et propter hoc, Deus peccare non potest, qui est omnipotens. Quamvis philosophus dicat, in IV Topic., quod potest Deus et studiosus prava agere. Sed hoc intelligitur vel sub conditione cuius antecedens sit impossibile, ut puta si dicamus quod potest Deus prava agere si velit, nihil enim prohibet conditionalem esse veram, cuius antecedens et consequens est impossibile; sicut si dicatur, si homo est asinus, habet quatuor pedes. Vel ut intelligatur quod Deus potest aliqua agere, quae nunc prava videntur; quae tamen si ageret, bona essent. Vel loquitur secundum communem opinionem gentilium, qui homines dicebant transferri in deos, ut Iovem vel Mercurium. Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says (Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible--as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: "If man is a donkey, he has four feet." Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Dei omnipotentia ostenditur maxime in parcendo et miserando, quia per hoc ostenditur Deum habere summam potestatem, quod libere peccata dimittit, eius enim qui superioris legi astringitur, non est libere peccata condonare. Vel quia, parcendo hominibus et miserando, perducit eos ad participationem infiniti boni, qui est ultimus effectus divinae virtutis. Vel quia, ut supra dictum est, effectus divinae misericordiae est fundamentum omnium divinorum operum, nihil enim debetur alicui nisi propter id quod est datum ei a Deo non debitum. In hoc autem maxime divina omnipotentia manifestatur, quod ad ipsam pertinet prima institutio omnium bonorum. Reply to Objection 3. God's omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has supreme power, that He freely forgives sins. For it is not for one who is bound by laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free will. Or, because by sparing and having mercy upon men, He leads them on to the participation of an infinite good; which is the ultimate effect of the divine power. Or because, as was said above (21, 4), the effect of the divine mercy is the foundation of all the divine works. For nothing is due to anyone, except on account of something already given him gratuitously by God. In this way the divine omnipotence is particularly made manifest, because to it pertains the first foundation of all good things.
IЄ q. 25 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod possibile absolutum non dicitur neque secundum causas superiores, neque secundum causas inferiores sed secundum seipsum. Possibile vero quod dicitur secundum aliquam potentiam, nominatur possibile secundum proximam causam. Unde ea quae immediate nata sunt fieri a Deo solo, ut creare, iustificare, et huiusmodi, dicuntur possibilia secundum causam superiorem, quae autem nata sunt fieri a causis inferioribus, dicuntur possibilia secundum causas inferiores. Nam secundum conditionem causae proximae, effectus habet contingentiam vel necessitatem, ut supra dictum est. In hoc autem reputatur stulta mundi sapientia, quod ea quae sunt impossibilia naturae, etiam Deo impossibilia iudicabat. Et sic patet quod omnipotentia Dei impossibilitatem et necessitatem a rebus non excludit. Reply to Objection 4. The absolute possible is not so called in reference either to higher causes, or to inferior causes, but in reference to itself. But the possible in reference to some power is named possible in reference to its proximate cause. Hence those things which it belongs to God alone to do immediately--as, for example, to create, to justify, and the like--are said to be possible in reference to a higher cause. Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity, as was shown above (14, 1, ad 2). Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus possit facere quod praeterita non fuerint. Quod enim est impossibile per se, magis est impossibile quam quod est impossibile per accidens. Sed Deus potest facere id quod est impossibile per se, ut caecum illuminare, vel mortuum resuscitare. Ergo multo magis potest Deus facere illud quod est impossibile per accidens. Sed praeterita non fuisse, est impossibile per accidens, accidit enim Socratem non currere esse impossibile, ex hoc quod praeteriit. Ergo Deus potest facere quod praeterita non fuerint.
 Objection 1. It seems that God can make the past not to have been. For what is impossible in itself is much more impossible than that which is only impossible accidentally. But God can do what is impossible in itself, as to give sight to the blind, or to raise the dead. Therefore, and much more can He do what is only impossible accidentally. Now for the past not to have been is impossible accidentally: thus for Socrates not to be running is accidentally impossible, from the fact that his running is a thing of the past. Therefore God can make the past not to have been.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, quidquid Deus facere potuit, potest, cum eius potentia non minuatur. Sed Deus potuit facere, antequam Socrates curreret, quod non curreret. Ergo, postquam cucurrit, potest Deus facere quod non cucurrerit. Objection 2. Further, what God could do, He can do now, since His power is not lessened. But God could have effected, before Socrates ran, that he should not run. Therefore, when he has run, God could effect that he did not run.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, caritas est maior virtus quam virginitas. Sed Deus potest reparare caritatem amissam. Ergo et virginitatem. Ergo potest facere quod illa quae corrupta fuit, non fuerit corrupta. Objection 3. Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than virginity. But God can supply charity that is lost; therefore also lost virginity. Therefore He can so effect that what was corrupt should not have been corrupt.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, cum Deus omnia possit, non potest de corrupta facere incorruptam. Ergo eadem ratione non potest facere de quocumque alio praeterito quod non fuerit. On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.): "Although God can do all things, He cannot make a thing that is corrupt not to have been corrupted." Therefore, for the same reason, He cannot effect that anything else which is past should not have been.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sub omnipotentia Dei non cadit aliquid quod contradictionem implicat. Praeterita autem non fuisse, contradictionem implicat. Sicut enim contradictionem implicat dicere quod Socrates sedet et non sedet, ita, quod sederit et non sederit. Dicere autem quod sederit, est dicere quod sit praeteritum, dicere autem quod non sederit, est dicere quod non fuerit. Unde praeterita non fuisse, non subiacet divinae potentiae. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, quisquis ita dicit, si Deus omnipotens est, faciat ut quae facta sunt, facta non fuerint, non videt hoc se dicere, si Deus omnipotens est, faciat ut ea quae vera sunt, eo ipso quod vera sunt, falsa sint. Et philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod hoc solo privatur Deus, ingenita facere quae sunt facta. I answer that, As was said above (7, 2), there does not fall under the scope of God's omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction. Now that the past should not have been implies a contradiction. For as it implies a contradiction to say that Socrates is sitting, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did not sit. But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did not happen. Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the scope of divine power. This is what Augustine means when he says (Contra Faust. xxix, 5): "Whosoever says, If God is almighty, let Him make what is done as if it were not done, does not see that this is to say: If God is almighty let Him effect that what is true, by the very fact that it is true, be false": and the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2): "Of this one thing alone is God deprived--namely, to make undone the things that have been done."
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet praeterita non fuisse sit impossibile per accidens, si consideretur id quod est praeteritum, idest cursus Socratis; tamen, si consideretur praeteritum sub ratione praeteriti, ipsum non fuisse est impossibile non solum per se, sed absolute, contradictionem implicans. Et sic est magis impossibile quam mortuum resurgere, quod non implicat contradictionem, quod dicitur impossibile secundum aliquam potentiam, scilicet naturalem. Talia enim impossibilia divinae potentiae subduntur. Reply to Objection 1. Although it is impossible accidentally for the past not to have been, if one considers the past thing itself, as, for instance, the running of Socrates; nevertheless, if the past thing is considered as past, that it should not have been is impossible, not only in itself, but absolutely since it implies a contradiction. Thus, it is more impossible than the raising of the dead; in which there is nothing contradictory, because this is reckoned impossible in reference to some power, that is to say, some natural power; for such impossible things do come beneath the scope of divine power.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut Deus, quantum est ad perfectionem divinae potentiae, omnia potest, sed quaedam non subiacent eius potentiae, quia deficiunt a ratione possibilium; ita, si attendatur immutabilitas divinae potentiae, quidquid Deus potuit, potest; aliqua tamen olim habuerunt rationem possibilium, dum erant fienda, quae iam deficiunt a ratione possibilium, dum sunt facta. Et sic dicitur Deus ea non posse, quia ea non possunt fieri. Reply to Objection 2. As God, in accordance with the perfection of the divine power, can do all things, and yet some things are not subject to His power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God could do, He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be done.
IЄ q. 25 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnem corruptionem mentis et corporis Deus auferre potest a muliere corrupta, hoc tamen ab ea removeri non poterit, quod corrupta non fuerit. Sicut etiam ab aliquo peccatore auferre non potest quod non peccaverit, et quod caritatem non amiserit. Reply to Objection 3. God can remove all corruption of the mind and body from a woman who has fallen; but the fact that she had been corrupt cannot be removed from her; as also is it impossible that the fact of having sinned or having lost charity thereby can be removed from the sinner.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit facere nisi ea quae facit. Deus enim non potest facere quae non praescivit et praeordinavit se facturum. Sed non praescivit neque praeordinavit se facturum, nisi ea quae facit. Ergo non potest facere nisi ea quae facit.
 Objection 1. It seems that God cannot do other than what He does. For God cannot do what He has not foreknown and pre-ordained that He would do. But He neither foreknew nor pre-ordained that He would do anything except what He does. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus non potest facere nisi quod debet, et quod iustum est fieri. Sed Deus non debet facere quae non facit, nec iustum est ut faciat quae non facit. Ergo Deus non potest facere nisi quae facit. Objection 2. Further, God can only do what ought to be done and what is right to be done. But God is not bound to do what He does not; nor is it right that He should do what He does not. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, Deus non potest facere nisi quod bonum est, et conveniens rebus factis. Sed rebus factis a Deo non est bonum nec conveniens aliter esse quam sint. Ergo Deus non potest facere nisi quae facit. Objection 3. Further, God cannot do anything that is not good and befitting creation. But it is not good for creatures nor befitting them to be otherwise than as they are. Therefore God cannot do except what He does.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matt. XXVI, an non possum rogare patrem meum, et exhibebit mihi modo plus quam duodecim legiones Angelorum? Neque autem ipse rogabat, neque pater exhibebat ad repugnandum Iudaeis. Ergo Deus potest facere quod non facit. On the contrary, It is said: "Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). But He neither asked for them, nor did His Father show them to refute the Jews. Therefore God can do what He does not.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc quidam dupliciter erraverunt. Quidam enim posuerunt Deum agere quasi ex necessitate naturae; ut sicut ex actione rerum naturalium non possunt alia provenire nisi quae eveniunt, utpote ex semine hominis homo, ex semine olivae oliva; ita ex operatione divina non possint aliae res, vel alius ordo rerum effluere, nisi sicut nunc est. Sed supra ostendimus Deum non agere quasi ex necessitate naturae, sed voluntatem eius esse omnium rerum causam; neque etiam ipsam voluntatem naturaliter et ex necessitate determinari ad has res. Unde nullo modo iste cursus rerum sic ex necessitate a Deo provenit, quod alia provenire non possent. Alii vero dixerunt quod potentia divina determinatur ad hunc cursum rerum, propter ordinem sapientiae et iustitiae divinae, sine quo Deus nihil operatur. Cum autem potentia Dei, quae est eius essentia, non sit aliud quam Dei sapientia, convenienter quidem dici potest quod nihil sit in Dei potentia, quod non sit in ordine divinae sapientiae, nam divina sapientia totum posse potentiae comprehendit. Sed tamen ordo a divina sapientia rebus inditus, in quo ratio iustitiae consistit, ut supra dictum est, non adaequat divinam sapientiam, sic ut divina sapientia limitetur ad hunc ordinem. Manifestum est enim quod tota ratio ordinis, quam sapiens rebus a se factis imponit, a fine sumitur. Quando igitur finis est proportionatus rebus propter finem factis, sapientia facientis limitatur ad aliquem determinatum ordinem. Sed divina bonitas est finis improportionabiliter excedens res creatas. Unde divina sapientia non determinatur ad aliquem certum ordinem rerum, ut non possit alius cursus rerum ab ipsa effluere. Unde dicendum est simpliciter quod Deus potest alia facere quam quae facit. I answer that, In this matter certain persons erred in two ways. Some laid it down that God acts from natural necessity in such way that as from the action of nature nothing else can happen beyond what actually takes place--as, for instance, from the seed of man, a man must come, and from that of an olive, an olive; so from the divine operation there could not result other things, nor another order of things, than that which now is. But we showed above (19, 3) that God does not act from natural necessity, but that His will is the cause of all things; nor is that will naturally and from any necessity determined to those things. Whence in no way at all is the present course of events produced by God from any necessity, so that other things could not happen. Others, however, said that the divine power is restricted to this present course of events through the order of the divine wisdom and justice without which God does nothing. But since the power of God, which is His essence, is nothing else but His wisdom, it can indeed be fittingly said that there is nothing in the divine power which is not in the order of the divine wisdom; for the divine wisdom includes the whole potency of the divine power. Yet the order placed in creation by divine wisdom, in which order the notion of His justice consists, as said above (21, 2), is not so adequate to the divine wisdom that the divine wisdom should be restricted to this present order of things. Now it is clear that the whole idea of order which a wise man puts into things made by him is taken from their end. So, when the end is proportionate to the things made for that end, the wisdom of the maker is restricted to some definite order. But the divine goodness is an end exceeding beyond all proportion things created. Whence the divine wisdom is not so restricted to any particular order that no other course of events could happen. Wherefore we must simply say that God can do other things than those He has done.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in nobis, in quibus est aliud potentia et essentia a voluntate et intellectu, et iterum intellectus aliud a sapientia, et voluntas aliud a iustitia, potest esse aliquid in potentia, quod non potest esse in voluntate iusta, vel in intellectu sapiente. Sed in Deo est idem potentia et essentia et voluntas et intellectus et sapientia et iustitia. Unde nihil potest esse in potentia divina, quod non possit esse in voluntate iusta ipsius, et in intellectu sapiente eius. Tamen, quia voluntas non determinatur ex necessitate ad haec vel illa, nisi forte ex suppositione, ut supra dictum est; neque sapientia Dei et iustitia determinantur ad hunc ordinem, ut supra dictum est; nihil prohibet esse aliquid in potentia Dei, quod non vult, et quod non continetur sub ordine quem statuit rebus. Et quia potentia intelligitur ut exequens, voluntas autem ut imperans, et intellectus et sapientia ut dirigens, quod attribuitur potentiae secundum se consideratae, dicitur Deus posse secundum potentiam absolutam. Et huiusmodi est omne illud in quo potest salvari ratio entis, ut supra dictum est. Quod autem attribuitur potentiae divinae secundum quod exequitur imperium voluntatis iustae, hoc dicitur Deus posse facere de potentia ordinata. Secundum hoc ergo, dicendum est quod Deus potest alia facere, de potentia absoluta, quam quae praescivit et praeordinavit se facturum, non tamen potest esse quod aliqua faciat, quae non praesciverit et praeordinaverit se facturum. Quia ipsum facere subiacet praescientiae et praeordinationi, non autem ipsum posse, quod est naturale. Ideo enim Deus aliquid facit, quia vult, non tamen ideo potest, quia vult, sed quia talis est in sua natura. Reply to Objection 1. In ourselves, in whom power and essence are distinct from will and intellect, and again intellect from wisdom, and will from justice, there can be something in the power which is not in the just will nor in the wise intellect. But in God, power and essence, will and intellect, wisdom and justice, are one and the same. Whence, there can be nothing in the divine power which cannot also be in His just will or in His wise intellect. Nevertheless, because His will cannot be determined from necessity to this or that order of things, except upon supposition, as was said above (19, 3), neither are the wisdom and justice of God restricted to this present order, as was shown above; so nothing prevents there being something in the divine power which He does not will, and which is not included in the order which He has place in things. Again, because power is considered as executing, the will as commanding, and the intellect and wisdom as directing; what is attributed to His power considered in itself, God is said to be able to do in accordance with His absolute power. Of such a kind is everything which has the nature of being, as was said above (3). What is, however, attributed to the divine power, according as it carries into execution the command of a just will, God is said to be able to do by His ordinary power. In this manner, we must say that God can do other things by His absolute power than those He has foreknown and pre-ordained He would do. But it could not happen that He should do anything which He had not foreknown, and had not pre-ordained that He would do, because His actual doing is subject to His foreknowledge and pre-ordination, though His power, which is His nature, is not so. For God does things because He wills so to do; yet the power to do them does not come from His will, but from His nature.
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non debet aliquid alicui nisi sibi. Unde, cum dicitur quod Deus non potest facere nisi quod debet nihil aliud significatur nisi quod Deus non potest facere nisi quod ei est conveniens et iustum. Sed hoc quod dico conveniens et iustum, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, sic quod hoc quod dico conveniens et iustum, prius intelligatur coniungi cum hoc verbo est, ita quod restringatur ad standum pro praesentibus; et sic referatur ad potentiam. Et sic falsum est quod dicitur, est enim sensus, Deus non potest facere nisi quod modo conveniens est et iustum. Si vero prius coniungatur cum hoc verbo potest, quod habet vim ampliandi, et postmodum cum hoc verbo est, significabitur quoddam praesens confusum, et erit locutio vera, sub hoc sensu, Deus non potest facere nisi id quod, si faceret, esset conveniens et iustum. Reply to Objection 2. God is bound to nobody but Himself. Hence, when it is said that God can only do what He ought, nothing else is meant by this than that God can do nothing but what is befitting to Himself, and just. But these words "befitting" and "just" may be understood in two ways: one, in direct connection with the verb "is"; and thus they would be restricted to the present order of things; and would concern His power. Then what is said in the objection is false; for the sense is that God can do nothing except what is now fitting and just. If, however, they be joined directly with the verb "can" (which has the effect of extending the meaning), and then secondly with "is," the present will be signified, but in a confused and general way. The sentence would then be true in this sense: "God cannot do anything except that which, if He did it, would be suitable and just."
IЄ q. 25 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet iste cursus rerum sit determinatus istis rebus quae nunc sunt, non tamen ad hunc cursum limitatur divina sapientia et potestas. Unde, licet istis rebus quae nunc sunt, nullus alius cursus esset bonus et conveniens, tamen Deus posset alias res facere, et alium eis imponere ordinem. Reply to Objection 3. Although this order of things be restricted to what now exists, the divine power and wisdom are not thus restricted. Whence, although no other order would be suitable and good to the things which now are, yet God can do other things and impose upon them another order.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit meliora facere ea quae facit. Quidquid enim Deus facit, potentissime et sapientissime facit. Sed tanto fit aliquid melius, quanto fit potentius et sapientius. Ergo Deus non potest aliquid facere melius quam facit.
 Objection 1. It seems that God cannot do better than He does. For whatever God does, He does in a most powerful and wise way. But a thing is so much the better done as it is more powerfully and wisely done. Therefore God cannot do anything better than He does.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus, contra Maximinum, sic argumentatur, si Deus potuit, et noluit, gignere filium sibi aequalem, invidus fuit. Eadem ratione, si Deus potuit res meliores facere quam fecerit, et noluit, invidus fuit. Sed invidia est omnino relegata a Deo. Ergo Deus unumquodque fecit optimum. Non ergo Deus potest aliquid facere melius quam fecit. Objection 2. Further, Augustine thus argues (Contra Maximin. iii, 8): "If God could, but would not, beget a Son His equal, He would have been envious." For the same reason, if God could have made better things than He has done, but was not willing so to do, He would have been envious. But envy is far removed from God. Therefore God makes everything of the best. He cannot therefore make anything better than He does.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, id quod est maxime et valde bonum, non potest melius fieri, quia maximo nihil est maius. Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit in Enchirid., bona sunt singula quae Deus fecit, sed simul universa valde bona, quia ex omnibus consistit universitatis admirabilis pulchritudo. Ergo bonum universi non potest melius fieri a Deo. Objection 3. Further, what is very good and the best of all cannot be bettered; because nothing is better than the best. But as Augustine says (Enchiridion 10), "each thing that God has made is good, and, taken all together they are very good; because in them all consists the wondrous beauty of the universe." Therefore the good in the universe could not be made better by God.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 arg. 4 Praeterea, homo Christus est plenus gratia et veritate, et spiritum habet non ad mensuram, et sic non potest esse melior. Beatitudo etiam creata dicitur esse summum bonum, et sic non potest esse melius. Beata etiam virgo Maria est super omnes choros Angelorum exaltata, et sic non potest esse melior. Non igitur omnia quae fecit Deus, potest facere meliora. Objection 4. Further, Christ as man is full of grace and truth, and has the Spirit without measure; and so He cannot be better. Again created happiness is described as the highest good, and thus cannot be better. And the Blessed Virgin Mary is raised above all the choirs of angels, and so cannot be better than she is. God cannot therefore make all things better than He has made them.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur ad Ephes. III, quod Deus potens est omnia facere abundantius quam petimus aut intelligimus. On the contrary, It is said (Ephesians 3:20): "God is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand."
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod bonitas alicuius rei est duplex. Una quidem, quae est de essentia rei; sicut esse rationale est de essentia hominis. Et quantum ad hoc bonum, Deus non potest facere aliquam rem meliorem quam ipsa sit, licet possit facere aliquam aliam ea meliorem. Sicut etiam non potest facere quaternarium maiorem, quia, si esset maior, iam non esset quaternarius, sed alius numerus. Sic enim se habet additio differentiae substantialis in definitionibus, sicut additio unitatis in numeris, ut dicitur in VIII Metaphys. Alia bonitas est, quae est extra essentiam rei; sicut bonum hominis est esse virtuosum vel sapientem. Et secundum tale bonum, potest Deus res a se factas facere meliores. Simpliciter autem loquendo, qualibet re a se facta potest Deus facere aliam meliorem. I answer that, The goodness of anything is twofold; one, which is of the essence of it--thus, for instance, to be rational pertains to the essence of man. As regards this good, God cannot make a thing better than it is itself; although He can make another thing better than it; even as He cannot make the number four greater than it is; because if it were greater it would no longer be four, but another number. For the addition of a substantial difference in definitions is after the manner of the addition of unity of numbers (Metaph. viii, 10). Another kind of goodness is that which is over and above the essence; thus, the good of a man is to be virtuous or wise. As regards this kind of goodness, God can make better the things He has made. Absolutely speaking, however, God can make something else better than each thing made by Him.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur Deum posse aliquid facere melius quam facit, si ly melius sit nomen, verum est, qualibet enim re potest facere aliam meliorem. Eandem vero potest facere meliorem quodammodo, et quodammodo non, sicut dictum est. Si vero ly melius sit adverbium, et importet modum ex parte facientis, sic Deus non potest facere melius quam sicut facit, quia non potest facere ex maiori sapientia et bonitate. Si autem importet modum ex parte facti, sic potest facere melius, quia potest dare rebus a se factis meliorem modum essendi quantum ad accidentalia, licet non quantum ad essentialia. Reply to Objection 1. When it is said that God can make a thing better than He makes it, if "better" is taken substantively, this proposition is true. For He can always make something else better than each individual thing: and He can make the same thing in one way better than it is, and in another way not; as was explained above. If, however, "better" is taken as an adverb, implying the manner of the making; thus God cannot make anything better than He makes it, because He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness. But if it implies the manner of the thing done, He can make something better; because He can give to things made by Him a better manner of existence as regards the accidents, although not as regards the substance.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod de ratione filii est quod aequetur patri, cum ad perfectum venerit, non est autem de ratione creaturae alicuius, quod sit melior quam a Deo facta est. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 2. It is of the nature of a son that he should be equal to his father, when he comes to maturity. But it is not of the nature of anything created, that it should be better than it was made by God. Hence the comparison fails.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod universum, suppositis istis rebus, non potest esse melius; propter decentissimum ordinem his rebus attributum a Deo, in quo bonum universi consistit. Quorum si unum aliquod esset melius, corrumperetur proportio ordinis, sicut, si una chorda plus debito intenderetur, corrumperetur citharae melodia. Posset tamen Deus alias res facere, vel alias addere istis rebus factis, et sic esset illud universum melius. Reply to Objection 3. The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation; and then there would be another and a better universe.
IЄ q. 25 a. 6 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod humanitas Christi ex hoc quod est unita Deo, et beatitudo creata ex hoc quod est fruitio Dei, et beata virgo ex hoc quod est mater Dei, habent quandam dignitatem infinitam, ex bono infinito quod est Deus. Et ex hac parte non potest aliquid fieri melius eis, sicut non potest aliquid melius esse Deo. Reply to Objection 4. The humanity of Christ, from the fact that it is united to the Godhead; and created happiness from the fact that it is the fruition of God; and the Blessed Virgin from the fact that she is the mother of God; have all a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God. And on this account there cannot be anything better than these; just as there cannot be anything better than God.
IЄ q. 26 pr. Ultimo autem, post considerationem eorum quae ad divinae essentiae unitatem pertinent, considerandum est de divina beatitudine. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum beatitudo Deo competat. Secundo, secundum quid dicitur Deus esse beatus, utrum secundum actum intellectus. Tertio, utrum sit essentialiter beatitudo cuiuslibet beati. Quarto, utrum in eius beatitudine omnis beatitudo includatur.
IЄ q. 26 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo Deo non conveniat. Beatitudo enim, secundum Boetium, in III de Consol., est status omnium bonorum aggregatione perfectus. Sed aggregatio bonorum non habet locum in Deo, sicut nec compositio. Ergo Deo non convenit beatitudo.
 Objection 1. It seems that beatitude does not belong to God. For beatitude according to Boethius (De Consol. iv) "is a state made perfect by the aggregation of all good things." But the aggregation of goods has no place in God; nor has composition. Therefore beatitude does not belong to God.
IЄ q. 26 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, beatitudo, sive felicitas, est praemium virtutis, secundum philosophum, in I Ethic. Sed Deo non convenit praemium, sicut nec meritum. Ergo nec beatitudo. Objection 2. Further, beatitude or happiness is the reward of virtue, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 9). But reward does not apply to God; as neither does merit. Therefore neither does beatitude.
IЄ q. 26 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, I ad Tim. ultimo, quem suis temporibus ostendet Deus beatus et solus potens, rex regum et dominus dominantium. On the contrary, The Apostle says: "Which in His times He shall show, who is the Blessed and only Almighty, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords." (1 Timothy 6:15).
IЄ q. 26 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo maxime Deo competit. Nihil enim aliud sub nomine beatitudinis intelligitur, nisi bonum perfectum intellectualis naturae; cuius est suam sufficientiam cognoscere in bono quod habet; et cui competit ut ei contingat aliquid vel bene vel male, et sit suarum operationum domina. Utrumque autem istorum excellentissime Deo convenit, scilicet perfectum esse, et intelligentem. Unde beatitudo maxime convenit Deo. I answer that, Beatitude belongs to God in a very special manner. For nothing else is understood to be meant by the term beatitude than the perfect good of an intellectual nature; which is capable of knowing that it has a sufficiency of the good which it possesses, to which it is competent that good or ill may befall, and which can control its own actions. All of these things belong in a most excellent manner to God, namely, to be perfect, and to possess intelligence. Whence beatitude belongs to God in the highest degree.
IЄ q. 26 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aggregatio bonorum est in Deo non per modum compositionis, sed per modum simplicitatis, quia quae in creaturis multiplicia sunt, in Deo praeexistunt simpliciter et unite, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Aggregation of good is in God, after the manner not of composition, but of simplicity; for those things which in creatures is manifold, pre-exist in God, as was said above (4, 2; 13, 4), in simplicity and unity.
IЄ q. 26 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod esse praemium virtutis accidit beatitudini vel felicitati, inquantum aliquis beatitudinem acquirit, sicut esse terminum generationis accidit enti, inquantum exit de potentia in actum. Sicut igitur Deus habet esse, quamvis non generetur; ita habet beatitudinem, quamvis non mereatur. Reply to Objection 2. It belongs as an accident to beatitude or happiness to be the reward of virtue, so far as anyone attains to beatitude; even as to be the term of generation belongs accidentally to a being, so far as it passes from potentiality to act. As, then, God has being, though not begotten; so He has beatitude, although not acquired by merit.
IЄ q. 26 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non dicatur beatus secundum intellectum. Beatitudo enim est summum bonum. Sed bonum dicitur in Deo secundum essentiam, quia bonum respicit esse, quod est secundum essentiam, secundum Boetium, in libro de Hebdomad. Ergo et beatitudo dicitur in Deo secundum essentiam, et non secundum intellectum.
 Objection 1. It seems that God is not called blessed in respect to His intellect. For beatitude is the highest good. But good is said to be in God in regard to His essence, because good has reference to being which is according to essence, according to Boethius (De Hebdom.). Therefore beatitude also is said to be in God in regard to His essence, and not to His intellect.
IЄ q. 26 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, beatitudo habet rationem finis. Finis autem est obiectum voluntatis, sicut et bonum. Ergo beatitudo dicitur in Deo secundum voluntatem, et non secundum intellectum. Objection 2. Further, Beatitude implies the notion of end. Now the end is the object of the will, as also is the good. Therefore beatitude is said to be in God with reference to His will, and not with reference to His intellect.
IЄ q. 26 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, XXXII Moralium, ipse gloriosus est, qui, dum seipso perfruitur, accedentis laudis indigens non est. Esse autem gloriosum significat esse beatum. Cum igitur Deo fruamur secundum intellectum, quia visio est tota merces, ut dicit Augustinus, videtur quod beatitudo dicatur in Deo secundum intellectum. On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxii, 7): "He is in glory, Who whilst He rejoices in Himself, needs not further praise." To be in glory, however, is the same as to be blessed. Therefore, since we enjoy God in respect to our intellect, because "vision is the whole of the reward," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii), it would seem that beatitude is said to be in God in respect of His intellect.
IЄ q. 26 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo, sicut dictum est, significat bonum perfectum intellectualis naturae. Et inde est quod, sicut unaquaeque res appetit suam perfectionem, ita et intellectualis natura naturaliter appetit esse beata. Id autem quod est perfectissimum in qualibet intellectuali natura, est intellectualis operatio, secundum quam capit quodammodo omnia. Unde cuiuslibet intellectualis naturae creatae beatitudo consistit in intelligendo. In Deo autem non est aliud esse et intelligere secundum rem, sed tantum secundum intelligentiae rationem. Attribuenda ergo est Deo beatitudo secundum intellectum, sicut et aliis beatis, qui per assimilationem ad beatitudinem ipsius, beati dicuntur. I answer that, Beatitude, as stated above (1), is the perfect good of an intellectual nature. Thus it is that, as everything desires the perfection of its nature, intellectual nature desires naturally to be happy. Now that which is most perfect in any intellectual nature is the intellectual operation, by which in some sense it grasps everything. Whence the beatitude of every intellectual nature consists in understanding. Now in God, to be and to understand are one and the same thing; differing only in the manner of our understanding them. Beatitude must therefore be assigned to God in respect of His intellect; as also to the blessed, who are called blesses [beati] by reason of the assimilation to His beatitude.
IЄ q. 26 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex illa ratione probatur quod Deus sit beatus secundum suam essentiam, non autem quod beatitudo ei conveniat secundum rationem essentiae, sed magis secundum rationem intellectus. Reply to Objection 1. This argument proves that beatitude belongs to God; not that beatitude pertains essentially to Him under the aspect of His essence; but rather under the aspect of His intellect.
IЄ q. 26 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod beatitudo, cum sit bonum, est obiectum voluntatis. Obiectum autem praeintelligitur actui potentiae. Unde, secundum modum intelligendi, prius est beatitudo divina, quam actus voluntatis in ea requiescentis. Et hoc non potest esse nisi actus intellectus. Unde in actu intellectus attenditur beatitudo. Reply to Objection 2. Since beatitude is a good, it is the object of the will; now the object is understood as prior to the act of a power. Whence in our manner of understanding, divine beatitude precedes the act of the will at rest in it. This cannot be other than the act of the intellect; and thus beatitude is to be found in an act of the intellect.
IЄ q. 26 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus sit beatitudo cuiuslibet beati. Deus enim est summum bonum, ut supra ostensum est. Impossibile est autem esse plura summa bona, ut etiam ex superioribus patet. Cum igitur de ratione beatitudinis sit, quod sit summum bonum, videtur quod beatitudo non sit aliud quam Deus.
 Objection 1. It seems that God is the beatitude of each of the blessed. For God is the supreme good, as was said above (6, 2 and 4). But it is quite impossible that there should be many supreme goods, as also is clear from what has been said above (11, 3). Therefore, since it is of the essence of beatitude that it should be the supreme good, it seems that beatitude is nothing else but God Himself.
IЄ q. 26 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, beatitudo est finis rationalis naturae ultimus. Sed esse ultimum finem rationalis naturae, soli Deo convenit. Ergo beatitudo cuiuslibet beati est solus Deus. Objection 2. Further, beatitude is the last end of the rational nature. But to be the last end of the rational nature belongs only to God. Therefore the beatitude of every blessed is God alone.
IЄ q. 26 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, beatitudo unius est maior beatitudine alterius, secundum illud I Cor. XV, stella differt a stella in claritate. Sed Deo nihil est maius. Ergo beatitudo est aliquid aliud quam Deus. On the contrary, The beatitude of one is greater than that of another, according to 1 Cor. 15:41: "Star differeth from star in glory." But nothing is greater than God. Therefore beatitude is something different from God.
IЄ q. 26 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo intellectualis naturae consistit in actu intellectus. In quo duo possunt considerari, scilicet obiectum actus, quod est intelligibile; et ipse actus, qui est intelligere. Si igitur beatitudo consideretur ex parte ipsius obiecti, sic solus Deus est beatitudo, quia ex hoc solo est aliquis beatus, quod Deum intelligit; secundum illud Augustini, in V libro Confess., beatus est qui te novit, etiam si alia ignoret. Sed ex parte actus intelligentis, beatitudo est quid creatum in creaturis beatis, in Deo autem est etiam secundum hoc, aliquid increatum. I answer that, The beatitude of an intellectual nature consists in an act of the intellect. In this we may consider two things, namely, the object of the act, which is the thing understood; and the act itself which is to understand. If, then, beatitude be considered on the side of the object, God is the only beatitude; for everyone is blessed from this sole fact, that he understands God, in accordance with the saying of Augustine (Confess. v, 4): "Blessed is he who knoweth Thee, though he know nought else." But as regards the act of understanding, beatitude is a created thing in beatified creatures; but in God, even in this way, it is an uncreated thing.
IЄ q. 26 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beatitudo, quantum ad obiectum, est summum bonum simpliciter, sed quantum ad actum, in creaturis beatis, est summum bonum, non simpliciter, sed in genere bonorum participabilium a creatura. Reply to Objection 1. Beatitude, as regards its object, is the supreme good absolutely, but as regards its act, in beatified creatures it is their supreme good, not absolutely, but in that kind of goods which a creature can participate.
IЄ q. 26 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod finis est duplex, scilicet cuius et quo, ut philosophus dicit, scilicet ipsa res, et usus rei, sicut avaro est finis pecunia, et acquisitio pecuniae. Creaturae igitur rationalis est quidem Deus finis ultimus ut res; beatitudo autem creata ut usus, vel magis fruitio, rei. Reply to Objection 2. End is twofold, namely, "objective" and "subjective," as the Philosopher says (Greater Ethics i, 3), namely, the "thing itself" and "its use." Thus to a miser the end is money, and its acquisition. Accordingly God is indeed the last end of a rational creature, as the thing itself; but created beatitude is the end, as the use, or rather fruition, of the thing.
IЄ q. 26 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo divina non complectatur omnes beatitudines. Sunt enim quaedam beatitudines falsae. Sed in Deo nihil potest esse falsum. Ergo divina beatitudo non complectitur omnem beatitudinem.
 Objection 1. It seems that the divine beatitude does not embrace all other beatitudes. For there are some false beatitudes. But nothing false can be in God. Therefore the divine beatitude does not embrace all other beatitudes.
IЄ q. 26 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, quaedam beatitudo, secundum quosdam, consistit in rebus corporalibus, sicut in voluptatibus, divitiis, et huiusmodi, quae quidem Deo convenire non possunt, cum sit incorporeus. Ergo beatitudo eius non complectitur omnem beatitudinem. Objection 2. Further, a certain beatitude, according to some, consists in things corporeal; as in pleasure, riches, and such like. Now none of these have to do with God, since He is incorporeal. Therefore His beatitude does not embrace all other beatitudes.
IЄ q. 26 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod beatitudo est perfectio quaedam. Divina autem perfectio complectitur omnem perfectionem, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo divina beatitudo complectitur omnem beatitudinem. On the contrary, Beatitude is a certain perfection. But the divine perfection embraces all other perfection, as was shown above (4, 2 ). Therefore the divine beatitude embraces all other beatitudes.
IЄ q. 26 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidquid est desiderabile in quacumque beatitudine, vel vera vel falsa, totum eminentius in divina beatitudine praeexistit. De contemplativa enim felicitate, habet continuam et certissimam contemplationem sui et omnium aliorum, de activa vero, gubernationem totius universi. De terrena vero felicitate, quae consistit in voluptate, divitiis, potestate, dignitate et fama, secundum Boetium, in III de Consol., habet gaudium de se et de omnibus aliis, pro delectatione, pro divitiis, habet omnimodam sufficientiam, quam divitiae promittunt, pro potestate, omnipotentiam, pro dignitate, omnium regimen, pro fama vero, admirationem totius creaturae. I answer that, Whatever is desirable in whatsoever beatitude, whether true or false, pre-exists wholly and in a more eminent degree in the divine beatitude. As to contemplative happiness, God possesses a continual and most certain contemplation of Himself and of all things else; and as to that which is active, He has the governance of the whole universe. As to earthly happiness, which consists in delight, riches, power, dignity, and fame, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii, 10), He possesses joy in Himself and all things else for His delight; instead of riches He has that complete self-sufficiency, which is promised by riches; in place of power, He has omnipotence; for dignities, the government of all things; and in place of fame, He possesses the admiration of all creatures.
IЄ q. 26 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beatitudo aliqua secundum hoc est falsa, secundum quod deficit a ratione verae beatitudinis, et sic non est in Deo. Sed quidquid habet de similitudine, quantumcumque tenui, beatitudinis, totum praeexistit in divina beatitudine. Reply to Objection 1. A particular kind of beatitude is false according as it falls short of the idea of true beatitude; and thus it is not in God. But whatever semblance it has, howsoever slight, of beatitude, the whole of it pre-exists in the divine beatitude.
IЄ q. 26 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bona quae sunt in corporalibus corporaliter, in Deo sunt spiritualiter, secundum modum suum. Et haec dicta sufficiant de his quae pertinent ad divinae essentiae unitatem. Reply to Objection 2. The good that exists in things corporeal in a corporeal manner, is also in God, but in a spiritual manner. We have now spoken enough concerning what pertains to the unity of the divine essence.


Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Logic_Museum/Aquinas_Summa-I-25-26&oldid=95592"