Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-11-13

---

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XI - XIII

---

Index

• Question 11.1 The Unity of God
• Question 11.2
• Question 11.3
• Question 11.4

• Question 12.1 How God is known by us
• Question 12.2
• Question 12.3
• Question 12.4
• Question 12.5
• Question 12.6
• Question 12.7
• Question 12.8
• Question 12.9
• Question 12.10
• Question 12.11
• Question 12.12
• Question 12.13
• Question 13.1 The Names of God (in the main Logic Museum)
• Question 13.2
• Question 13.3
• Question 13.4
• Question 13.5
• Question 13.6
• Question 13.7
• Question 13.8
• Question 13.9
• Question 13.10
• Question 13.11
• Question 13.12

Latin	Latin
IЄ q. 11 pr. Post praemissa, considerandum est de divina unitate. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum unum addat aliquid supra ens. Secundo, utrum opponantur unum et multa. Tertio, utrum Deus sit unus. Quarto, utrum sit maxime unus.
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unum addat aliquid supra ens. Omne enim quod est in aliquo genere determinato, se habet ex additione ad ens, quod circuit omnia genera. Sed unum est in genere determinato, est enim principium numeri, qui est species quantitatis. Ergo unum addit aliquid supra ens.	Objection 1. It seems that "one" adds something to "being." For everything is in a determinate genus by addition to being, which penetrates all "genera." But "one" is a determinate genus, for it is the principle of number, which is a species of quantity. Therefore "one" adds something to "being."
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, quod dividit aliquod commune, se habet ex additione ad illud. Sed ens dividitur per unum et multa. Ergo unum addit aliquid supra ens.	Objection 2. Further, what divides a thing common to all, is an addition to it. But "being" is divided by "one" and by "many." Therefore "one" is an addition to "being."
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, si unum non addit supra ens, idem esset dicere unum et ens. Sed nugatorie dicitur ens ens. Ergo nugatio esset dicere ens unum, quod falsum est. Addit igitur unum supra ens.	Objection 3. Further, if "one" is not an addition to "being," "one" and "being" must have the same meaning. But it would be nugatory to call "being" by the name of "being"; therefore it would be equally so to call being "one." Now this is false. Therefore "one" is an addition to "being."
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, ult. cap. de Div. Nom., nihil est existentium non participans uno, quod non esset, si unum adderet supra ens quod contraheret ipsum. Ergo unum non habet se ex additione ad ens.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 5, ult.): "Nothing which exists is not in some way one," which would be false if "one" were an addition to "being," in the sense of limiting it. Therefore "one" is not an addition to "being."
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod unum non addit supra ens rem aliquam, sed tantum negationem divisionis, unum enim nihil aliud significat quam ens indivisum. Et ex hoc ipso apparet quod unum convertitur cum ente. Nam omne ens aut est simplex, aut compositum. Quod autem est simplex, est indivisum et actu et potentia. Quod autem est compositum, non habet esse quandiu partes eius sunt divisae, sed postquam constituunt et componunt ipsum compositum. Unde manifestum est quod esse cuiuslibet rei consistit in indivisione. Et inde est quod unumquodque, sicut custodit suum esse, ita custodit suam unitatem.	I answer that, "One" does not add any reality to "being"; but is only a negation of division; for "one" means undivided "being." This is the very reason why "one" is the same as "being." Now every being is either simple or compound. But what is simple is undivided, both actually and potentially. Whereas what is compound, has not being whilst its parts are divided, but after they make up and compose it. Hence it is manifest that the being of anything consists in undivision; and hence it is that everything guards its unity as it guards its being.
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum igitur dicendum quod quidam, putantes idem esse unum quod convertitur cum ente, et quod est principium numeri, divisi sunt in contrarias positiones. Pythagoras enim et Plato, videntes quod unum quod convertitur cum ente, non addit aliquam rem supra ens, sed significat substantiam entis prout est indivisa, existimaverunt sic se habere de uno quod est principium numeri. Et quia numerus componitur ex unitatibus, crediderunt quod numeri essent substantiae omnium rerum. E contrario autem Avicenna, considerans quod unum quod est principium numeri, addit aliquam rem supra substantiam entis (alias numerus ex unitatibus compositus non esset species quantitatis), credidit quod unum quod convertitur cum ente, addat rem aliquam supra substantiam entis, sicut album supra hominem. Sed hoc manifeste falsum est, quia quaelibet res est una per suam substantiam. Si enim per aliquid aliud esset una quaelibet res, cum illud iterum sit unum, si esset iterum unum per aliquid aliud, esset abire in infinitum. Unde standum est in primo. Sic igitur dicendum est quod unum quod convertitur cum ente, non addit aliquam rem supra ens, sed unum quod est principium numeri, addit aliquid supra ens, ad genus quantitatis pertinens.	Reply to Objection 1. Some, thinking that the "one" convertible with "being" is the same as the "one" which is the principle of number, were divided into contrary opinions. Pythagoras and Plato, seeing that the "one" convertible with "being" did not add any reality to "being," but signified the substance of "being" as undivided, thought that the same applied to the "one" which is the principle of number. And because number is composed of unities, they thought that numbers were the substances of all things. Avicenna, however, on the contrary, considering that "one" which is the principle of number, added a reality to the substance of "being" (otherwise number made of unities would not be a species of quantity), thought that the "one" convertible with "being" added a reality to the substance of beings; as "white" to "man." This, however, is manifestly false, inasmuch as each thing is "one" by its substance. For if a thing were "one" by anything else but by its substance, since this again would be "one," supposing it were again "one" by another thing, we should be driven on to infinity. Hence we must adhere to the former statement; therefore we must say that the "one" which is convertible with "being," does not add a reality to being; but that the "one" which is the principle of number, does add a reality to "being," belonging to the genus of quantity.
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil prohibet id quod est uno modo divisum, esse alio modo indivisum; sicut quod est divisum numero, est indivisum secundum speciem, et sic contingit aliquid esse uno modo unum, alio modo multa. Sed tamen si sit indivisum simpliciter; vel quia est indivisum secundum id quod pertinet ad essentiam rei, licet sit divisum quantum ad ea quae sunt extra essentiam rei, sicut quod est unum subiecto et multa secundum accidentia; vel quia est indivisum in actu, et divisum in potentia, sicut quod est unum toto et multa secundum partes, huiusmodi erit unum simpliciter, et multa secundum quid. Si vero aliquid e converso sit indivisum secundum quid, et divisum simpliciter; utpote quia est divisum secundum essentiam, et indivisum secundum rationem, vel secundum principium sive causam, erit multa simpliciter, et unum secundum quid; ut quae sunt multa numero et unum specie, vel unum principio. Sic igitur ens dividitur per unum et multa, quasi per unum simpliciter, et multa secundum quid. Nam et ipsa multitudo non contineretur sub ente, nisi contineretur aliquo modo sub uno. Dicit enim Dionysius, ult. cap. de Div. Nom., quod non est multitudo non participans uno, sed quae sunt multa partibus, sunt unum toto; et quae sunt multa accidentibus, sunt unum subiecto; et quae sunt multa numero, sunt unum specie; et quae sunt speciebus multa, sunt unum genere; et quae sunt multa processibus, sunt unum principio.	Reply to Objection 2. There is nothing to prevent a thing which in one way is divided, from being another way undivided; as what is divided in number, may be undivided in species; thus it may be that a thing is in one way "one," and in another way "many." Still, if it is absolutely undivided, either because it is so according to what belongs to its essence, though it may be divided as regards what is outside its essence, as what is one in subject may have many accidents; or because it is undivided actually, and divided potentially, as what is "one" in the whole, and is "many" in parts; in such a case a thing will be "one" absolutely and "many" accidentally. On the other hand, if it be undivided accidentally, and divided absolutely, as if it were divided in essence and undivided in idea or in principle or cause, it will be "many" absolutely and "one" accidentally; as what are "many" in number and "one" in species or "one" in principle. Hence in that way, being is divided by "one" and by "many"; as it were by "one" absolutely and by "many" accidentally. For multitude itself would not be contained under "being," unless it were in some way contained under "one." Thus Dionysius says (Div. Nom. cap. ult.) that "there is no kind of multitude that is not in a way one. But what are many in their parts, are one in their whole; and what are many in accidents, are one in subject; and what are many in number, are one in species; and what are many in species, are one in genus; and what are many in processions, are one in principle."
IЄ q. 11 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ideo non est nugatio cum dicitur ens unum, quia unum addit aliquid secundum rationem supra ens.	Reply to Objection 3. It does not follow that it is nugatory to say "being" is "one"; forasmuch as "one" adds an idea to "being."
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unum et multa non opponantur. Nullum enim oppositum praedicatur de suo opposito. Sed omnis multitudo est quodammodo unum, ut ex praedictis patet. Ergo unum non opponitur multitudini.	Objection 1. It seems that "one" and "many" are not mutually opposed. For no opposite thing is predicated of its opposite. But every "multitude" is in a certain way "one," as appears from the preceding article. Therefore "one" is not opposed to "multitude."
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullum oppositum constituitur ex suo opposito. Sed unum constituit multitudinem. Ergo non opponitur multitudini.	Objection 2. Further, no opposite thing is constituted by its opposite. But "multitude" is constituted by "one." Therefore it is not opposed to "multitude."
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, unum uni est oppositum. Sed multo opponitur paucum. Ergo non opponitur ei unum.	Objection 3. Further, "one" is opposed to "one." But the idea of "few" is opposed to "many." Therefore "one" is not opposed to "many."
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, si unum opponitur multitudini, opponitur ei sicut indivisum diviso, et sic opponetur ei ut privatio habitui. Hoc autem videtur inconveniens, quia sequeretur quod unum sit posterius multitudine, et definiatur per eam; cum tamen multitudo definiatur per unum. Unde erit circulus in definitione, quod est inconveniens. Non ergo unum et multa sunt opposita.	Objection 4. Further, if "one" is opposed to "multitude," it is opposed as the undivided is to the divided; and is thus opposed to it as privation is to habit. But this appears to be incongruous; because it would follow that "one" comes after "multitude," and is defined by it; whereas, on the contrary, "multitude" is defined by "one." Hence there would be a vicious circle in the definition; which is inadmissible. Therefore "one" and "many" are not opposed.
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, quorum rationes sunt oppositae, ipsa sunt opposita. Sed ratio unius consistit in indivisibilitate, ratio vero multitudinis divisionem continet. Ergo unum et multa sunt opposita.	On the contrary, Things which are opposed in idea, are themselves opposed to each other. But the idea of "one" consists in indivisibility; and the idea of "multitude" contains division. Therefore "one" and "many" are opposed to each other.
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod unum opponitur multis, sed diversimode. Nam unum quod est principium numeri, opponitur multitudini quae est numerus, ut mensura mensurato, unum enim habet rationem primae mensurae, et numerus est multitudo mensurata per unum, ut patet ex X Metaphys. Unum vero quod convertitur cum ente, opponitur multitudini per modum privationis, ut indivisum diviso.	I answer that, "One" is opposed to "many," but in various ways. The "one" which is the principle of number is opposed to "multitude" which is number, as the measure is to the thing measured. For "one" implies the idea of a primary measure; and number is "multitude" measured by "one," as is clear from Metaph. x. But the "one" which convertible with "being" is opposed to "multitude" by way of privation; as the undivided is to the thing divided.
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nulla privatio tollit totaliter esse, quia privatio est negatio in subiecto, secundum philosophum. Sed tamen omnis privatio tollit aliquod esse. Et ideo in ente, ratione suae communitatis, accidit quod privatio entis fundatur in ente, quod non accidit in privationibus formarum specialium, ut visus vel albedinis, vel alicuius huiusmodi. Et sicut est de ente, ita est de uno et bono, quae convertuntur cum ente, nam privatio boni fundatur in aliquo bono, et similiter remotio unitatis fundatur in aliquo uno. Et exinde contingit quod multitudo est quoddam unum, et malum est quoddam bonum, et non ens est quoddam ens. Non tamen oppositum praedicatur de opposito, quia alterum horum est simpliciter, et alterum secundum quid. Quod enim secundum quid est ens, ut in potentia, est non ens simpliciter, idest actu, vel quod est ens simpliciter in genere substantiae, est non ens secundum quid, quantum ad aliquod esse accidentale. Similiter ergo quod est bonum secundum quid, est malum simpliciter; vel e converso. Et similiter quod est unum simpliciter, est multa secundum quid; et e converso.	Reply to Objection 1. No privation entirely takes away the being of a thing, inasmuch as privation means "negation in the subject," according to the Philosopher (Categor. viii). Nevertheless every privation takes away some being; and so in being, by reason of its universality, the privation of being has its foundation in being; which is not the case in privations of special forms, as of sight, or of whiteness and the like. And what applies to being applies also to one and to good, which are convertible with being, for the privation of good is founded in some good; likewise the removal of unity is founded in some one thing. Hence it happens that multitude is some one thing; and evil is some good thing, and non-being is some kind of being. Nevertheless, opposite is not predicated of opposite; forasmuch as one is absolute, and the other is relative; for what is relative being (as a potentiality) is non-being absolutely, i.e. actually; or what is absolute being in the genus of substance is non-being relatively as regards some accidental being. In the same way, what is relatively good is absolutely bad, or vice versa; likewise what is absolutely "one" is relatively "many," and vice versa.
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est totum, quoddam homogeneum, quod componitur ex similibus partibus; quoddam vero heterogeneum, quod componitur ex dissimilibus partibus. In quolibet autem toto homogeneo, totum constituitur ex partibus habentibus formam totius, sicut quaelibet pars aquae est aqua, et talis est constitutio continui ex suis partibus. In quolibet autem toto heterogeneo, quaelibet pars caret forma totius, nulla enim pars domus est domus, nec aliqua pars hominis est homo. Et tale totum est multitudo. Inquantum ergo pars eius non habet formam multitudinis, componitur multitudo ex unitatibus, sicut domus ex non domibus, non quod unitates constituant multitudinem secundum id quod habent de ratione indivisionis, prout opponuntur multitudini; sed secundum hoc quod habent de entitate, sicut et partes domus constituunt domum per hoc quod sunt quaedam corpora, non per hoc quod sunt non domus.	Reply to Objection 2. A "whole" is twofold. In one sense it is homogeneous, composed of like parts; in another sense it is heterogeneous, composed of dissimilar parts. Now in every homogeneous whole, the whole is made up of parts having the form of the whole; as, for instance, every part of water is water; and such is the constitution of a continuous thing made up of its parts. In every heterogeneous whole, however, every part is wanting in the form belonging to the whole; as, for instance, no part of a house is a house, nor is any part of a man a man. Now multitude is such a kind of a whole. Therefore inasmuch as its part has not the form of the multitude, the latter is composed of unities, as a house is composed of not houses; not, indeed, as if unities constituted multitude so far as they are undivided, in which way they are opposed to multitude; but so far as they have being, as also the parts of a house make up the house by the fact that they are beings, not by the fact that they are not houses.
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod multum accipitur dupliciter. Uno modo, absolute, et sic opponitur uni. Alio modo, secundum quod importat excessum quendam, et sic opponitur pauco. Unde primo modo duo sunt multa; non autem secundo.	Reply to Objection 3. "Many" is taken in two ways: absolutely, and in that sense it is opposed to "one"; in another way as importing some kind of excess, in which sense it is opposed to "few"; hence in the first sense two are many but not in the second sense.
IЄ q. 11 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod unum opponitur privative multis, inquantum in ratione multorum est quod sint divisa. Unde oportet quod divisio sit prius unitate, non simpliciter, sed secundum rationem nostrae apprehensionis. Apprehendimus enim simplicia per composita, unde definimus punctum, cuius pars non est, vel principium lineae. Sed multitudo, etiam secundum rationem, consequenter se habet ad unum, quia divisa non intelligimus habere rationem multitudinis, nisi per hoc quod utrique divisorum attribuimus unitatem. Unde unum ponitur in definitione multitudinis, non autem multitudo in definitione unius. Sed divisio cadit in intellectu ex ipsa negatione entis. Ita quod primo cadit in intellectu ens; secundo, quod hoc ens non est illud ens, et sic secundo apprehendimus divisionem; tertio, unum; quarto, multitudinem.	Reply to Objection 4. "One" is opposed to "many" privatively, inasmuch as the idea of "many" involves division. Hence division must be prior to unity, not absolutely in itself, but according to our way of apprehension. For we apprehend simple things by compound things; and hence we define a point to be, "what has no part," or "the beginning of a line." "Multitude" also, in idea, follows on "one"; because we do not understand divided things to convey the idea of multitude except by the fact that we attribute unity to every part. Hence "one" is placed in the definition of "multitude"; but "multitude" is not placed in the definition of "one." But division comes to be understood from the very negation of being: so what first comes to mind is being; secondly, that this being is not that being, and thus we apprehend division as a consequence; thirdly, comes the notion of one; fourthly, the notion of multitude.
IЄ q. 11 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit unus. Dicitur enim I ad Cor. VIII, siquidem sunt dii multi et domini multi.	Objection 1. It seems that God is not one. For it is written "For there be many gods and many lords" (1 Corinthians 8:5).
IЄ q. 11 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, unum quod est principium numeri, non potest praedicari de Deo, cum nulla quantitas de Deo praedicetur. Similiter nec unum quod convertitur cum ente, quia importat privationem, et omnis privatio imperfectio est, quae Deo non competit. Non est igitur dicendum quod Deus sit unus.	Objection 2. Further, "One," as the principle of number, cannot be predicated of God, since quantity is not predicated of God; likewise, neither can "one" which is convertible with "being" be predicated of God, because it imports privation, and every privation is an imperfection, which cannot apply to God. Therefore God is not one.
IЄ q. 11 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. VI, audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus unus est.	On the contrary, It is written "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).
IЄ q. 11 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse unum, ex tribus demonstratur. Primo quidem ex eius simplicitate. Manifestum est enim quod illud unde aliquod singulare est hoc aliquid, nullo modo est multis communicabile. Illud enim unde Socrates est homo, multis communicari potest, sed id unde est hic homo, non potest communicari nisi uni tantum. Si ergo Socrates per id esset homo, per quod est hic homo, sicut non possunt esse plures Socrates, ita non possent esse plures homines. Hoc autem convenit Deo, nam ipse Deus est sua natura, ut supra ostensum est. Secundum igitur idem est Deus, et hic Deus. Impossibile est igitur esse plures deos. Secundo vero, ex infinitate eius perfectionis. Ostensum est enim supra quod Deus comprehendit in se totam perfectionem essendi. Si ergo essent plures dii, oporteret eos differre. Aliquid ergo conveniret uni, quod non alteri. Et si hoc esset privatio, non esset simpliciter perfectus, si autem hoc esset perfectio, alteri eorum deesset. Impossibile est ergo esse plures deos. Unde et antiqui philosophi, quasi ab ipsa coacti veritate, ponentes principium infinitum, posuerunt unum tantum principium. Tertio, ab unitate mundi. Omnia enim quae sunt, inveniuntur esse ordinata ad invicem, dum quaedam quibusdam deserviunt. Quae autem diversa sunt, in unum ordinem non convenirent, nisi ab aliquo uno ordinarentur. Melius enim multa reducuntur in unum ordinem per unum, quam per multa, quia per se unius unum est causa, et multa non sunt causa unius nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet sunt aliquo modo unum. Cum igitur illud quod est primum, sit perfectissimum et per se, non per accidens, oportet quod primum reducens omnia in unum ordinem, sit unum tantum. Et hoc est Deus.	I answer that, It can be shown from these three sources that God is one. First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (3, 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist. Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (4, 2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle. Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
IЄ q. 11 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dicuntur dii multi secundum errorem quorundam qui multos deos colebant, existimantes planetas et alias stellas esse deos, vel etiam singulas partes mundi. Unde subdit, nobis autem unus Deus, et cetera.	Reply to Objection 1. Gods are called many by the error of some who worshipped many deities, thinking as they did that the planets and other stars were gods, and also the separate parts of the world. Hence the Apostle adds: "Our God is one," etc.
IЄ q. 11 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unum secundum quod est principium numeri, non praedicatur de Deo; sed solum de his quae habent esse in materia. Unum enim quod est principium numeri, est de genere mathematicorum; quae habent esse in materia, sed sunt secundum rationem a materia abstracta. Unum vero quod convertitur cum ente, est quoddam metaphysicum, quod secundum esse non dependet a materia. Et licet in Deo non sit aliqua privatio, tamen, secundum modum apprehensionis nostrae, non cognoscitur a nobis nisi per modum privationis et remotionis. Et sic nihil prohibet aliqua privative dicta de Deo praedicari; sicut quod est incorporeus, infinitus. Et similiter de Deo dicitur quod sit unus.	Reply to Objection 2. "One" which is the principle of number is not predicated of God, but only of material things. For "one" the principle of number belongs to the "genus" of mathematics, which are material in being, and abstracted from matter only in idea. But "one" which is convertible with being is a metaphysical entity and does not depend on matter in its being. And although in God there is no privation, still, according to the mode of our apprehension, He is known to us by way only of privation and remotion. Thus there is no reason why a certain kind of privation should not be predicated of God; for instance, that He is incorporeal and infinite; and in the same way it is said of God that He is one.
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit maxime unus. Unum enim dicitur secundum privationem divisionis. Sed privatio non recipit magis et minus. Ergo Deus non dicitur magis unus quam alia quae sunt unum.	Objection 1. It seems that God is not supremely "one." For "one" is so called from the privation of division. But privation cannot be greater or less. Therefore God is not more "one" than other things which are called "one."
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil videtur esse magis indivisibile quam id quod est indivisibile actu et potentia, cuiusmodi est punctus et unitas. Sed intantum dicitur aliquid magis unum, inquantum est indivisibile. Ergo Deus non est magis unum quam unitas et punctus.	Objection 2. Further, nothing seems to be more indivisible than what is actually and potentially indivisible; such as a point and unity. But a thing is said to be more "one" according as it is indivisible. Therefore God is not more "one" than unity is "one" and a point is "one."
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod est per essentiam bonum, est maxime bonum, ergo quod est per essentiam suam unum, est maxime unum. Sed omne ens est unum per suam essentiam, ut patet per philosophum in IV Metaphys. Ergo omne ens est maxime unum. Deus igitur non est magis unum quam alia entia.	Objection 3. Further, what is essentially good is supremely good. Therefore what is essentially "one" is supremely "one." But every being is essentially "one," as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv). Therefore every being is supremely "one"; and therefore God is not "one" more than any other being is "one."
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Bernardus, quod inter omnia quae unum dicuntur, arcem tenet unitas divinae Trinitatis.	On the contrary, Bernard says (De Consid. v): "Among all things called one, the unity of the Divine Trinity holds the first place."
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum unum sit ens indivisum, ad hoc quod aliquid sit maxime unum, oportet quod sit et maxime ens et maxime indivisum. Utrumque autem competit Deo. Est enim maxime ens, inquantum est non habens aliquod esse determinatum per aliquam naturam cui adveniat, sed est ipsum esse subsistens, omnibus modis indeterminatum. Est autem maxime indivisum, inquantum neque dividitur actu neque potentia, secundum quemcunque modum divisionis, cum sit omnibus modis simplex, ut supra ostensum est. Unde manifestum est quod Deus est maxime unus.	I answer that, Since "one" is an undivided being, if anything is supremely "one" it must be supremely being, and supremely undivided. Now both of these belong to God. For He is supremely being, inasmuch as His being is not determined by any nature to which it is adjoined; since He is being itself, subsistent, absolutely undetermined. But He is supremely undivided inasmuch as He is divided neither actually nor potentially, by any mode of division; since He is altogether simple, as was shown above (3, 7). Hence it is manifest that God is "one" in the supreme degree.
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet privatio secundum se non recipiat magis et minus, tamen secundum quod eius oppositum recipit magis et minus, etiam ipsa privativa dicuntur secundum magis et minus. Secundum igitur quod aliquid est magis divisum vel divisibile, vel minus, vel nullo modo, secundum hoc aliquid dicitur magis et minus vel maxime unum.	Reply to Objection 1. Although privation considered in itself is not susceptive of more or less, still according as its opposite is subject to more or less, privation also can be considered itself in the light of more and less. Therefore according as a thing is more divided, or is divisible, either less or not at all, in the degree it is called more, or less, or supremely, "one."
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod punctus et unitas quae est principium numeri, non sunt maxime entia, cum non habeant esse nisi in subiecto aliquo. Unde neutrum eorum est maxime unum. Sicut enim subiectum non est maxime unum, propter diversitatem accidentis et subiecti, ita nec accidens.	Reply to Objection 2. A point and unity which is the principle of number, are not supremely being, inasmuch as they have being only in some subject. Hence neither of them can be supremely "one." For as a subject cannot be supremely "one," because of the difference within it of accident and subject, so neither can an accident.
IЄ q. 11 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet omne ens sit unum per suam substantiam, non tamen se habet aequaliter substantia cuiuslibet ad causandam unitatem, quia substantia quorundam est ex multis composita, quorundam vero non.	Reply to Objection 3. Although every being is "one" by its substance, still every such substance is not equally the cause of unity; for the substance of some things is compound and of others simple.
IЄ q. 12 pr. Quia in superioribus consideravimus qualiter Deus sit secundum seipsum, restat considerandum qualiter sit in cognitione nostra, idest quomodo cognoscatur a creaturis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tredecim. Primo, utrum aliquis intellectus creatus possit videre essentiam Dei. Secundo, utrum Dei essentia videatur ab intellectu per aliquam speciem creatam. Tertio, utrum oculo corporeo Dei essentia possit videri. Quarto, utrum aliqua substantia intellectualis creata ex suis naturalibus sufficiens sit videre Dei essentiam. Quinto, utrum intellectus creatus ad videndam Dei essentiam indigeat aliquo lumine creato. Sexto, utrum videntium essentiam Dei unus alio perfectius videat. Septimo, utrum aliquis intellectus creatus possit comprehendere Dei essentiam. Octavo, utrum intellectus creatus videns Dei essentiam, omnia in ipsa cognoscat. Nono, utrum ea quae ibi cognoscit, per aliquas similitudines cognoscat. Decimo, utrum simul cognoscat omnia quae in Deo videt. Undecimo, utrum in statu huius vitae possit aliquis homo essentiam Dei videre. Duodecimo, utrum per rationem naturalem Deum in hac vita possimus cognoscere. Tertiodecimo, utrum, supra cognitionem naturalis rationis, sit in praesenti vita aliqua cognitio Dei per gratiam.
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nullus intellectus creatus possit Deum per essentiam videre. Chrysostomus enim, super Ioannem, exponens illud quod dicitur Ioan. I, Deum nemo vidit unquam, sic dicit, ipsum quod est Deus, non solum prophetae, sed nec Angeli viderunt nec Archangeli, quod enim creabilis est naturae, qualiter videre poterit quod increabile est? Dionysius etiam, I cap. de Div. Nom., loquens de Deo, dicit, neque sensus est eius, neque phantasia, neque opinio, nec ratio, nec scientia.	Objection 1. It seems that no created intellect can see the essence of God. For Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Joan.) commenting on Jn. 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time," says: "Not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?" Dionysius also says (Div. Nom. i), speaking of God: "Neither is there sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him."
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne infinitum, inquantum huiusmodi, est ignotum. Sed Deus est infinitus, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo secundum se est ignotus.	Objection 2. Further, everything infinite, as such, is unknown. But God is infinite, as was shown above (7, 1). Therefore in Himself He is unknown.
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, intellectus creatus non est cognoscitivus nisi existentium, primum enim quod cadit in apprehensione intellectus, est ens. Sed Deus non est existens, sed supra existentia. Ut dicit Dionysius. Ergo non est intelligibilis; sed est supra omnem intellectum.	Objection 3. Further, the created intellect knows only existing things. For what falls first under the apprehension of the intellect is being. Now God is not something existing; but He is rather super-existence, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore God is not intelligible; but above all intellect.
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, cognoscentis ad cognitum oportet esse aliquam proportionem, cum cognitum sit perfectio cognoscentis. Sed nulla est proportio intellectus creati ad Deum, quia in infinitum distant. Ergo intellectus creatus non potest videre essentiam Dei.	Objection 4. Further, there must be some proportion between the knower and the known, since the known is the perfection of the knower. But no proportion exists between the created intellect and God; for there is an infinite distance between them. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. III, videbimus eum sicuti est.	On the contrary, It is written: "We shall see Him as He is" (1 John 2:2).
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum unumquodque sit cognoscibile secundum quod est in actu, Deus, qui est actus purus absque omni permixtione potentiae, quantum in se est, maxime cognoscibilis est. Sed quod est maxime cognoscibile in se, alicui intellectui cognoscibile non est, propter excessum intelligibilis supra intellectum, sicut sol, qui est maxime visibilis, videri non potest a vespertilione, propter excessum luminis. Hoc igitur attendentes, quidam posuerunt quod nullus intellectus creatus essentiam Dei videre potest. Sed hoc inconvenienter dicitur. Cum enim ultima hominis beatitudo in altissima eius operatione consistat, quae est operatio intellectus, si nunquam essentiam Dei videre potest intellectus creatus, vel nunquam beatitudinem obtinebit, vel in alio eius beatitudo consistet quam in Deo. Quod est alienum a fide. In ipso enim est ultima perfectio rationalis creaturae, quia est ei principium essendi, intantum enim unumquodque perfectum est, inquantum ad suum principium attingit. Similiter etiam est praeter rationem. Inest enim homini naturale desiderium cognoscendi causam, cum intuetur effectum; et ex hoc admiratio in hominibus consurgit. Si igitur intellectus rationalis creaturae pertingere non possit ad primam causam rerum, remanebit inane desiderium naturae. Unde simpliciter concedendum est quod beati Dei essentiam videant.	I answer that, Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light. Therefore some who considered this, held that no created intellect can see the essence of God. This opinion, however, is not tenable. For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void. Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod utraque auctoritas loquitur de visione comprehensionis. Unde praemittit Dionysius immediate ante verba proposita, dicens, omnibus ipse est universaliter incomprehensibilis, et nec sensus est, et cetera. Et Chrysostomus parum post verba praedicta subdit, visionem hic dicit certissimam patris considerationem et comprehensionem, tantam quantam pater habet de filio.	Reply to Objection 1. Both of these authorities speak of the vision of comprehension. Hence Dionysius premises immediately before the words cited, "He is universally to all incomprehensible," etc. Chrysostom likewise after the words quoted says: "He says this of the most certain vision of the Father, which is such a perfect consideration and comprehension as the Father has of the Son."
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod infinitum quod se tenet ex parte materiae non perfectae per formam, ignotum est secundum se, quia omnis cognitio est per formam. Sed infinitum quod se tenet ex parte formae non limitatae per materiam, est secundum se maxime notum. Sic autem Deus est infinitus, et non primo modo, ut ex superioribus patet.	Reply to Objection 2. The infinity of matter not made perfect by form, is unknown in itself, because all knowledge comes by the form; whereas the infinity of the form not limited by matter, is in itself supremely known. God is Infinite in this way, and not in the first way: as appears from what was said above (7, 1).
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus non sic dicitur non existens, quasi nullo modo sit existens, sed quia est supra omne existens, inquantum est suum esse. Unde ex hoc non sequitur quod nullo modo possit cognosci, sed quod omnem cognitionem excedat, quod est ipsum non comprehendi.	Reply to Objection 3. God is not said to be not existing as if He did not exist at all, but because He exists above all that exists; inasmuch as He is His own existence. Hence it does not follow that He cannot be known at all, but that He exceeds every kind of knowledge; which means that He is not comprehended.
IЄ q. 12 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod proportio dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, certa habitudo unius quantitatis ad alteram; secundum quod duplum, triplum et aequale sunt species proportionis. Alio modo, quaelibet habitudo unius ad alterum proportio dicitur. Et sic potest esse proportio creaturae ad Deum, inquantum se habet ad ipsum ut effectus ad causam, et ut potentia ad actum. Et secundum hoc, intellectus creatus proportionatus esse potest ad cognoscendum Deum.	Reply to Objection 4. Proportion is twofold. In one sense it means a certain relation of one quantity to another, according as double, treble and equal are species of proportion. In another sense every relation of one thing to another is called proportion. And in this sense there can be a proportion of the creature to God, inasmuch as it is related to Him as the effect of its cause, and as potentiality to its act; and in this way the created intellect can be proportioned to know God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod essentia Dei ab intellectu creato per aliquam similitudinem videatur. Dicitur enim I Ioan. III, scimus quoniam, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et videbimus eum sicuti est.	Objection 1. It seems that the essence of God is seen through an image by the created intellect. For it is written: "We know that when He shall appear, we shall be like to Him, and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2).
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, IX de Trin., cum Deum novimus, fit aliqua Dei similitudo in nobis.	Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Trin. v): "When we know God, some likeness of God is made in us."
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, intellectus in actu est intelligibile in actu, sicut sensus in actu est sensibile in actu. Hoc autem non est nisi inquantum informatur sensus similitudine rei sensibilis, et intellectus similitudine rei intellectae. Ergo, si Deus ab intellectu creato videtur in actu, oportet quod per aliquam similitudinem videatur.	Objection 3. Further, the intellect in act is the actual intelligible; as sense in act is the actual sensible. But this comes about inasmuch as sense is informed with the likeness of the sensible object, and the intellect with the likeness of the thing understood. Therefore, if God is seen by the created intellect in act, it must be that He is seen by some similitude.
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, XV de Trin., quod cum apostolus dicit videmus nunc per speculum et in aenigmate, speculi et aenigmatis nomine, quaecumque similitudines ab ipso significatae intelligi possunt, quae accommodatae sunt ad intelligendum Deum. Sed videre Deum per essentiam non est visio aenigmatica vel specularis, sed contra eam dividitur. Ergo divina essentia non videtur per similitudines.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv) that when the Apostle says, "We see through a glass and in an enigma [Douay: 'in a dark manner']," "by the terms 'glass' and 'enigma' certain similitudes are signified by him, which are accommodated to the vision of God." But to see the essence of God is not an enigmatic nor a speculative vision, but is, on the contrary, of an opposite kind. Therefore the divine essence is not seen through a similitude.
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ad visionem, tam sensibilem quam intellectualem, duo requiruntur, scilicet virtus visiva, et unio rei visae cum visu, non enim fit visio in actu, nisi per hoc quod res visa quodammodo est in vidente. Et in rebus quidem corporalibus, apparet quod res visa non potest esse in vidente per suam essentiam, sed solum per suam similitudinem, sicut similitudo lapidis est in oculo, per quam fit visio in actu, non autem ipsa substantia lapidis. Si autem esset una et eadem res, quae esset principium visivae virtutis, et quae esset res visa, oporteret videntem ab illa re et virtutem visivam habere, et formam per quam videret. Manifestum est autem quod Deus et est auctor intellectivae virtutis, et ab intellectu videri potest. Et cum ipsa intellectiva virtus creaturae non sit Dei essentia, relinquitur quod sit aliqua participata similitudo ipsius, qui est primus intellectus. Unde et virtus intellectualis creaturae lumen quoddam intelligibile dicitur, quasi a prima luce derivatum, sive hoc intelligatur de virtute naturali, sive de aliqua perfectione superaddita gratiae vel gloriae. Requiritur ergo ad videndum Deum aliqua Dei similitudo ex parte visivae potentiae, qua scilicet intellectus sit efficax ad videndum Deum. Sed ex parte visae rei, quam necesse est aliquo modo uniri videnti per nullam similitudinem creatam Dei essentia videri potest. Primo quidem, quia, sicut dicit Dionysius, I cap. de Div. Nom., per similitudines inferioris ordinis rerum nullo modo superiora possunt cognosci, sicut per speciem corporis non potest cognosci essentia rei incorporeae. Multo igitur minus per speciem creatam quamcumque potest essentia Dei videri. Secundo, quia essentia Dei est ipsum esse eius, ut supra ostensum est, quod nulli formae creatae competere potest. Non potest igitur aliqua forma creata esse similitudo repraesentans videnti Dei essentiam. Tertio, quia divina essentia est aliquod incircumscriptum, continens in se supereminenter quidquid potest significari vel intelligi ab intellectu creato. Et hoc nullo modo per aliquam speciem creatam repraesentari potest, quia omnis forma creata est determinata secundum aliquam rationem vel sapientiae, vel virtutis, vel ipsius esse, vel alicuius huiusmodi. Unde dicere Deum per similitudinem videri, est dicere divinam essentiam non videri, quod est erroneum. Dicendum ergo quod ad videndum Dei essentiam requiritur aliqua similitudo ex parte visivae potentiae, scilicet lumen gloriae, confortans intellectum ad videndum Deum, de quo dicitur in Psalmo, in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Non autem per aliquam similitudinem creatam Dei essentia videri potest, quae ipsam divinam essentiam repraesentet ut in se est.	I answer that, Two things are required both for sensible and for intellectual vision--viz. power of sight, and union of the thing seen with the sight. For vision is made actual only when the thing seen is in a certain way in the seer. Now in corporeal things it is clear that the thing seen cannot be by its essence in the seer, but only by its likeness; as the similitude of a stone is in the eye, whereby the vision is made actual; whereas the substance of the stone is not there. But if the principle of the visual power and the thing seen were one and the same thing, it would necessarily follow that the seer would receive both the visual power and the form whereby it sees, from that one same thing. Now it is manifest both that God is the author of the intellect power, and that He can be seen by the intellect. And since the intellective power of the creature is not the essence of God, it follows that it is some kind of participated likeness of Him who is the first intellect. Hence also the intellectual power of the creature is called an intelligible light, as it were, derived from the first light, whether this be understood of the natural power, or of some perfection superadded of grace or of glory. Therefore, in order to see God, there must be some similitude of God on the part of the visual faculty, whereby the intellect is made capable of seeing God. But on the part of the object seen, which must necessarily be united to the seer, the essence of God cannot be seen by any created similitude. First, because as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), "by the similitudes of the inferior order of things, the superior can in no way be known;" as by the likeness of a body the essence of an incorporeal thing cannot be known. Much less therefore can the essence of God be seen by any created likeness whatever. Secondly, because the essence of God is His own very existence, as was shown above (3, 4), which cannot be said of any created form; and so no created form can be the similitude representing the essence of God to the seer. Thirdly, because the divine essence is uncircumscribed, and contains in itself super-eminently whatever can be signified or understood by the created intellect. Now this cannot in any way be represented by any created likeness; for every created form is determined according to some aspect of wisdom, or of power, or of being itself, or of some like thing. Hence to say that God is seen by some similitude, is to say that the divine essence is not seen at all; which is false. Therefore it must be said that to see the essence of God, there is required some similitude in the visual faculty, namely, the light of glory strengthening the intellect to see God, which is spoken of in the Ps. 35:10, "In Thy light we shall see light." The essence of God, however, cannot be seen by any created similitude representing the divine essence itself as it really is.
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa loquitur de similitudine quae est per participationem luminis gloriae.	Reply to Objection 1. That authority speaks of the similitude which is caused by participation of the light of glory.
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur de cognitione Dei quae habetur in via.	Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks of the knowledge of God here on earth.
IЄ q. 12 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod divina essentia est ipsum esse. Unde, sicut aliae formae intelligibiles quae non sunt suum esse, uniuntur intellectui secundum aliquod esse quo informant ipsum intellectum et faciunt ipsum in actu; ita divina essentia unitur intellectui creato ut intellectum in actu, per seipsam faciens intellectum in actu.	Reply to Objection 3. The divine essence is existence itself. Hence as other intelligible forms which are not their own existence are united to the intellect by means of some entity, whereby the intellect itself is informed, and made in act; so the divine essence is united to the created intellect, as the object actually understood, making the intellect in act by and of itself.
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod essentia Dei videri possit oculo corporali. Dicitur enim Iob XIX, in carne mea videbo Deum, etc.; et XLII, auditu auris audivi te, nunc autem oculus meus videt te.	Objection 1. It seems that the essence of God can be seen by the corporeal eye. For it is written (Job 19:26): "In my flesh I shall see . . . God," and (Job 42:5), "With the hearing of the ear I have heard Thee, but now my eye seeth Thee."
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, ultimo de civitate Dei, cap. XXIX, vis itaque praepollentior oculorum erit illorum (scilicet glorificatorum), non ut acutius videant quam quidam perhibentur videre serpentes vel aquilae (quantalibet enim acrimonia cernendi eadem animalia vigeant, nihil aliud possunt videre quam corpora), sed ut videant et incorporalia. Quicumque autem potest videre incorporalia, potest elevari ad videndum Deum. Ergo oculus glorificatus potest videre Deum.	Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxix, 29): "Those eyes" (namely the glorified) "will therefore have a greater power of sight, not so much to see more keenly, as some report of the sight of serpents or of eagles (for whatever acuteness of vision is possessed by these creatures, they can see only corporeal things) but to see even incorporeal things." Now whoever can see incorporeal things, can be raised up to see God. Therefore the glorified eye can see God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Deus potest videri ab homine visione imaginaria, dicitur enim Isaiae VI, vidi dominum sedentem super solium, et cetera. Sed visio imaginaria a sensu originem habet, phantasia enim est motus factus a sensu secundum actum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo Deus sensibili visione videri potest.	Objection 3. Further, God can be seen by man through a vision of the imagination. For it is written: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne," etc. (Isaiah 6:1). But an imaginary vision originates from sense; for the imagination is moved by sense to act. Therefore God can be seen by a vision of sense.
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro de videndo Deum ad Paulinam, Deum nemo vidit unquam, vel in hac vita, sicut ipse est; vel in Angelorum vita, sicut visibilia ista quae corporali visione cernuntur.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii): "No one has ever seen God either in this life, as He is, nor in the angelic life, as visible things are seen by corporeal vision."
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est Deum videri sensu visus, vel quocumque alio sensu aut potentia sensitivae partis. Omnis enim potentia huiusmodi est actus corporalis organi, ut infra dicetur. Actus autem proportionatur ei cuius est actus. Unde nulla huiusmodi potentia potest se extendere ultra corporalia. Deus autem incorporeus est, ut supra ostensum est. Unde nec sensu nec imaginatione videri potest, sed solo intellectu.	I answer that, It is impossible for God to be seen by the sense of sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power. For every such kind of power is the act of a corporeal organ, as will be shown later (78). Now act is proportional to the nature which possesses it. Hence no power of that kind can go beyond corporeal things. For God is incorporeal, as was shown above (3, 1). Hence He cannot be seen by the sense or the imagination, but only by the intellect.
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur in carne mea videbo Deum, salvatorem meum, non intelligitur quod oculo carnis sit Deum visurus, sed quod in carne existens, post resurrectionem, visurus sit Deum. Similiter quod dicitur, nunc oculus meus videt te, intelligitur de oculo mentis, sicut Ephes. I dicit apostolus, det vobis spiritum sapientiae in agnitione eius, illuminatos oculos cordis vestri.	Reply to Objection 1. The words, "In my flesh I shall see God my Saviour," do not mean that God will be seen with the eye of the flesh, but that man existing in the flesh after the resurrection will see God. Likewise the words, "Now my eye seeth Thee," are to be understood of the mind's eye, as the Apostle says: "May He give unto you the spirit of wisdom . . . in the knowledge of Him, that the eyes of your heart" may be "enlightened" (Ephesians 1:17-18).
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur inquirendo in verbis illis, et sub conditione. Quod patet ex hoc quod praemittitur, longe itaque potentiae alterius erunt (scilicet oculi glorificati), si per eos videbitur incorporea illa natura. Sed postmodum hoc determinat, dicens, valde credibile est sic nos visuros mundana tunc corpora caeli novi et terrae novae, ut Deum ubique praesentem, et universa etiam corporalia gubernantem, clarissima perspicuitate videamus; non sicut nunc invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur; sed sicut homines, inter quos viventes motusque vitales exerentes vivimus, mox ut aspicimus, non credimus vivere, sed videmus. Ex quo patet quod hoc modo intelligit oculos glorificatos Deum visuros, sicut nunc oculi nostri vident alicuius vitam. Vita autem non videtur oculo corporali, sicut per se visibile, sed sicut sensibile per accidens, quod quidem a sensu non cognoscitur, sed statim cum sensu ab aliqua alia virtute cognoscitiva. Quod autem statim, visis corporibus, divina praesentia ex eis cognoscatur per intellectum, ex duobus contingit, scilicet ex perspicacitate intellectus; et ex refulgentia divinae claritatis in corporibus innovatis.	Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks as one inquiring, and conditionally. This appears from what he says previously: "Therefore they will have an altogether different power (viz. the glorified eyes), if they shall see that incorporeal nature;" and afterwards he explains this, saying: "It is very credible, that we shall so see the mundane bodies of the new heaven and the new earth, as to see most clearly God everywhere present, governing all corporeal things, not as we now see the invisible things of God as understood by what is made; but as when we see men among whom we live, living and exercising the functions of human life, we do not believe they live, but see it." Hence it is evident how the glorified eyes will see God, as now our eyes see the life of another. But life is not seen with the corporeal eye, as a thing in itself visible, but as the indirect object of the sense; which indeed is not known by sense, but at once, together with sense, by some other cognitive power. But that the divine presence is known by the intellect immediately on the sight of, and through, corporeal things, happens from two causes--viz. from the perspicuity of the intellect, and from the refulgence of the divine glory infused into the body after its renovation.
IЄ q. 12 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in visione imaginaria non videtur Dei essentia, sed aliqua forma in imaginatione formatur, repraesentans Deum secundum aliquem modum similitudinis, prout in Scripturis divinis divina per res sensibiles metaphorice describuntur.	Reply to Objection 3. The essence of God is not seen in a vision of the imagination; but the imagination receives some form representing God according to some mode of similitude; as in the divine Scripture divine things are metaphorically described by means of sensible things.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis intellectus creatus per sua naturalia divinam essentiam videre possit. Dicit enim Dionysius, cap. IV de Div. Nom., quod Angelus est speculum purum, clarissimum, suscipiens totam, si fas est dicere, pulchritudinem Dei. Sed unumquodque videtur dum videtur eius speculum. Cum igitur Angelus per sua naturalia intelligat seipsum, videtur quod etiam per sua naturalia intelligat divinam essentiam.	Objection 1. It seems that a created intellect can see the Divine essence by its own natural power. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "An angel is a pure mirror, most clear, receiving, if it is right to say so, the whole beauty of God." But if a reflection is seen, the original thing is seen. Therefore since an angel by his natural power understands himself, it seems that by his own natural power he understands the Divine essence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod est maxime visibile, fit minus visibile nobis propter defectum nostri visus, vel corporalis vel intellectualis. Sed intellectus Angeli non patitur aliquem defectum. Cum ergo Deus secundum se sit maxime intelligibilis, videtur quod ab Angelo sit maxime intelligibilis. Si igitur alia intelligibilia per sua naturalia intelligere potest, multo magis Deum.	Objection 2. Further, what is supremely visible, is made less visible to us by reason of our defective corporeal or intellectual sight. But the angelic intellect has no such defect. Therefore, since God is supremely intelligible in Himself, it seems that in like manner He is supremely so to an angel. Therefore, if he can understand other intelligible things by his own natural power, much more can he understand God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sensus corporeus non potest elevari ad intelligendam substantiam incorpoream, quia est supra eius naturam. Si igitur videre Deum per essentiam sit supra naturam cuiuslibet intellectus creati, videtur quod nullus intellectus creatus ad videndum Dei essentiam pertingere possit, quod est erroneum, ut ex supradictis patet. Videtur ergo quod intellectui creato sit naturale divinam essentiam videre.	Objection 3. Further, corporeal sense cannot be raised up to understand incorporeal substance, which is above its nature. Therefore if to see the essence of God is above the nature of every created intellect, it follows that no created intellect can reach up to see the essence of God at all. But this is false, as appears from what is said above (1). Therefore it seems that it is natural for a created intellect to see the Divine essence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. VI, gratia Dei vita aeterna. Sed vita aeterna consistit in visione divinae essentiae, secundum illud Ioan. XVII, haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et cetera. Ergo videre Dei essentiam convenit intellectui creato per gratiam, et non per naturam.	On the contrary, It is written: "The grace of God is life everlasting" (Romans 6:23). But life everlasting consists in the vision of the Divine essence, according to the words: "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God," etc. (John 17:3). Therefore to see the essence of God is possible to the created intellect by grace, and not by nature.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est quod aliquis intellectus creatus per sua naturalia essentiam Dei videat. Cognitio enim contingit secundum quod cognitum est in cognoscente. Cognitum autem est in cognoscente secundum modum cognoscentis. Unde cuiuslibet cognoscentis cognitio est secundum modum suae naturae. Si igitur modus essendi alicuius rei cognitae excedat modum naturae cognoscentis, oportet quod cognitio illius rei sit supra naturam illius cognoscentis. Est autem multiplex modus essendi rerum. Quaedam enim sunt, quorum natura non habet esse nisi in hac materia individuali, et huiusmodi sunt omnia corporalia. Quaedam vero sunt, quorum naturae sunt per se subsistentes, non in materia aliqua, quae tamen non sunt suum esse, sed sunt esse habentes, et huiusmodi sunt substantiae incorporeae, quas Angelos dicimus. Solius autem Dei proprius modus essendi est, ut sit suum esse subsistens. Ea igitur quae non habent esse nisi in materia individuali, cognoscere est nobis connaturale, eo quod anima nostra, per quam cognoscimus, est forma alicuius materiae. Quae tamen habet duas virtutes cognoscitivas. Unam, quae est actus alicuius corporei organi. Et huic connaturale est cognoscere res secundum quod sunt in materia individuali, unde sensus non cognoscit nisi singularia. Alia vero virtus cognoscitiva eius est intellectus, qui non est actus alicuius organi corporalis. Unde per intellectum connaturale est nobis cognoscere naturas, quae quidem non habent esse nisi in materia individuali; non tamen secundum quod sunt in materia individuali, sed secundum quod abstrahuntur ab ea per considerationem intellectus. Unde secundum intellectum possumus cognoscere huiusmodi res in universali, quod est supra facultatem sensus. Intellectui autem angelico connaturale est cognoscere naturas non in materia existentes. Quod est supra naturalem facultatem intellectus animae humanae, secundum statum praesentis vitae, quo corpori unitur. Relinquitur ergo quod cognoscere ipsum esse subsistens, sit connaturale soli intellectui divino, et quod sit supra facultatem naturalem cuiuslibet intellectus creati, quia nulla creatura est suum esse, sed habet esse participatum. Non igitur potest intellectus creatus Deum per essentiam videre, nisi inquantum Deus per suam gratiam se intellectui creato coniungit, ut intelligibile ab ipso.	I answer that, It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iste modus cognoscendi Deum, est Angelo connaturalis, ut scilicet cognoscat eum per similitudinem eius in ipso Angelo refulgentem. Sed cognoscere Deum per aliquam similitudinem creatam, non est cognoscere essentiam Dei, ut supra ostensum est. Unde non sequitur quod Angelus per sua naturalia possit cognoscere essentiam Dei.	Reply to Objection 1. This mode of knowing God is natural to an angel--namely, to know Him by His own likeness refulgent in the angel himself. But to know God by any created similitude is not to know the essence of God, as was shown above (2). Hence it does not follow that an angel can know the essence of God by his own power.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus Angeli non habet defectum, si defectus accipiatur privative, ut scilicet careat eo quod habere debet. Si vero accipiatur negative, sic quaelibet creatura invenitur deficiens, Deo comparata, dum non habet illam excellentiam quae invenitur in Deo.	Reply to Objection 2. The angelic intellect is not defective, if defect be taken to mean privation, as if it were without anything which it ought to have. But if the defect be taken negatively, in that sense every creature is defective, when compared with God; forasmuch as it does not possess the excellence which is in God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod sensus visus, quia omnino materialis est, nullo modo elevari potest ad aliquid immateriale. Sed intellectus noster vel angelicus, quia secundum naturam a materia aliqualiter elevatus est, potest ultra suam naturam per gratiam ad aliquid altius elevari. Et huius signum est, quia visus nullo modo potest in abstractione cognoscere id quod in concretione cognoscit, nullo enim modo potest percipere naturam, nisi ut hanc. Sed intellectus noster potest in abstractione considerare quod in concretione cognoscit. Etsi enim cognoscat res habentes formam in materia, tamen resolvit compositum in utrumque, et considerat ipsam formam per se. Et similiter intellectus Angeli, licet connaturale sit ei cognoscere esse concretum in aliqua natura, tamen potest ipsum esse secernere per intellectum, dum cognoscit quod aliud est ipse, et aliud est suum esse. Et ideo, cum intellectus creatus per suam naturam natus sit apprehendere formam concretam et esse concretum in abstractione, per modum resolutionis cuiusdam, potest per gratiam elevari ut cognoscat substantiam separatam subsistentem, et esse separatum subsistens.	Reply to Objection 3. The sense of sight, as being altogether material, cannot be raised up to immateriality. But our intellect, or the angelic intellect, inasmuch as it is elevated above matter in its own nature, can be raised up above its own nature to a higher level by grace. The proof is, that sight cannot in any way know abstractedly what it knows concretely; for in no way can it perceive a nature except as this one particular nature; whereas our intellect is able to consider abstractedly what it knows concretely. Now although it knows things which have a form residing in matter, still it resolves the composite into both of these elements; and it considers the form separately by itself. Likewise, also, the intellect of an angel, although it naturally knows the concrete in any nature, still it is able to separate that existence by its intellect; since it knows that the thing itself is one thing, and its existence is another. Since therefore the created intellect is naturally capable of apprehending the concrete form, and the concrete being abstractedly, by way of a kind of resolution of parts; it can by grace be raised up to know separate subsisting substance, and separate subsisting existence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus creatus ad videndum essentiam Dei aliquo lumine creato non indigeat. Illud enim quod est per se lucidum in rebus sensibilibus, alio lumine non indiget ut videatur, ergo nec in intelligibilibus. Sed Deus est lux intelligibilis. Ergo non videtur per aliquod lumen creatum.	Objection 1. It seems that the created intellect does not need any created light in order to see the essence of God. For what is of itself lucid in sensible things does not require any other light in order to be seen. Therefore the same applies to intelligible things. Now God is intelligible light. Therefore He is not seen by means of any created light.
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, cum Deus videtur per medium, non videtur per suam essentiam. Sed cum videtur per aliquod lumen creatum, videtur per medium. Ergo non videtur per suam essentiam.	Objection 2. Further, if God is seen through a medium, He is not seen in His essence. But if seen by any created light, He is seen through a medium. Therefore He is not seen in His essence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod est creatum, nihil prohibet alicui creaturae esse naturale. Si ergo per aliquod lumen creatum Dei essentia videtur, poterit illud lumen esse naturale alicui creaturae. Et ita illa creatura non indigebit aliquo alio lumine ad videndum Deum, quod est impossibile. Non est ergo necessarium quod omnis creatura ad videndum Dei essentiam lumen superadditum requirat.	Objection 3. Further, what is created can be natural to some creature. Therefore if the essence of God is seen through any created light, such a light can be made natural to some other creature; and thus, that creature would not need any other light to see God; which is impossible. Therefore it is not necessary that every creature should require a superadded light in order to see the essence of God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, in lumine tuo videbimus lumen.	On the contrary, It is written: "In Thy light we shall see light" (Psalm 35:10).
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod omne quod elevatur ad aliquid quod excedit suam naturam, oportet quod disponatur aliqua dispositione quae sit supra suam naturam, sicut, si aer debeat accipere formam ignis, oportet quod disponatur aliqua dispositione ad talem formam. Cum autem aliquis intellectus creatus videt Deum per essentiam, ipsa essentia Dei fit forma intelligibilis intellectus. Unde oportet quod aliqua dispositio supernaturalis ei superaddatur, ad hoc quod elevetur in tantam sublimitatem. Cum igitur virtus naturalis intellectus creati non sufficiat ad Dei essentiam videndam, ut ostensum est, oportet quod ex divina gratia superaccrescat ei virtus intelligendi. Et hoc augmentum virtutis intellectivae illuminationem intellectus vocamus; sicut et ipsum intelligibile vocatur lumen vel lux. Et istud est lumen de quo dicitur Apoc. XXI, quod claritas Dei illuminabit eam, scilicet societatem beatorum Deum videntium. Et secundum hoc lumen efficiuntur deiformes, idest Deo similes; secundum illud I Ioan. III, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et videbimus eum sicuti est.	I answer that, Everything which is raised up to what exceeds its nature, must be prepared by some disposition above its nature; as, for example, if air is to receive the form of fire, it must be prepared by some disposition for such a form. But when any created intellect sees the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible form of the intellect. Hence it is necessary that some supernatural disposition should be added to the intellect in order that it may be raised up to such a great and sublime height. Now since the natural power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the essence of God, as was shown in the preceding article, it is necessary that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the name of light of illumination. And this is the light spoken of in the Apocalypse (Apocalypse 21:23): "The glory of God hath enlightened it"--viz. the society of the blessed who see God. By this light the blessed are made "deiform"--i.e. like to God, according to the saying: "When He shall appear we shall be like to Him, and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 2:2).
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod lumen creatum est necessarium ad videndum Dei essentiam, non quod per hoc lumen Dei essentia intelligibilis fiat, quae secundum se intelligibilis est, sed ad hoc quod intellectus fiat potens ad intelligendum, per modum quo potentia fit potentior ad operandum per habitum, sicut etiam et lumen corporale necessarium est in visu exteriori, inquantum facit medium transparens in actu, ut possit moveri a colore.	Reply to Objection 1. The created light is necessary to see the essence of God, not in order to make the essence of God intelligible, which is of itself intelligible, but in order to enable the intellect to understand in the same way as a habit makes a power abler to act. Even so corporeal light is necessary as regards external sight, inasmuch as it makes the medium actually transparent, and susceptible of color.
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod lumen istud non requiritur ad videndum Dei essentiam quasi similitudo in qua Deus videatur, sed quasi perfectio quaedam intellectus, confortans ipsum ad videndum Deum. Et ideo potest dici quod non est medium in quo Deus videatur, sed sub quo videtur. Et hoc non tollit immediatam visionem Dei.	Reply to Objection 2. This light is required to see the divine essence, not as a similitude in which God is seen, but as a perfection of the intellect, strengthening it to see God. Therefore it may be said that this light is to be described not as a medium in which God is seen, but as one by which He is seen; and such a medium does not take away the immediate vision of God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod dispositio ad formam ignis non potest esse naturalis nisi habenti formam ignis. Unde lumen gloriae non potest esse naturale creaturae, nisi creatura esset naturae divinae, quod est impossibile. Per hoc enim lumen fit creatura rationalis deiformis, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. The disposition to the form of fire can be natural only to the subject of that form. Hence the light of glory cannot be natural to a creature unless the creature has a divine nature; which is impossible. But by this light the rational creature is made deiform, as is said in this article.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod videntium essentiam Dei unus alio perfectius non videat. Dicitur enim I Ioan. III, videbimus eum sicuti est. Sed ipse uno modo est. Ergo uno modo videbitur ab omnibus. Non ergo perfectius et minus perfecte.	Objection 1. It seems that of those who see the essence of God, one does not see more perfectly than another. For it is written (1 John 3:2): "We shall see Him as He is." But He is only in one way. Therefore He will be seen by all in one way only; and therefore He will not be seen more perfectly by one and less perfectly by another.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium qq., quod unam rem non potest unus alio plus intelligere. Sed omnes videntes Deum per essentiam, intelligunt Dei essentiam, intellectu enim videtur Deus, non sensu, ut supra habitum est. Ergo videntium divinam essentiam unus alio non clarius videt.	Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xxxii): "One person cannot see one and the same thing more perfectly than another." But all who see the essence of God, understand the Divine essence, for God is seen by the intellect and not by sense, as was shown above (3). Therefore of those who see the divine essence, one does not see more clearly than another.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod aliquid altero perfectius videatur, ex duobus contingere potest, vel ex parte obiecti visibilis; vel ex parte potentiae visivae videntis. Ex parte autem obiecti, per hoc quod obiectum perfectius in vidente recipitur, scilicet secundum perfectiorem similitudinem. Quod in proposito locum non habet, Deus enim non per aliquam similitudinem, sed per eius essentiam praesens est intellectui essentiam eius videnti. Relinquitur ergo quod, si unus alio perfectius eum videat, quod hoc sit secundum differentiam potentiae intellectivae. Et ita sequitur quod cuius potentia intellectiva naturaliter est sublimior, clarius eum videat. Quod est inconveniens, cum hominibus promittatur in beatitudine aequalitas Angelorum.	Objection 3. Further, That anything be seen more perfectly than another can happen in two ways: either on the part of the visible object, or on the part of the visual power of the seer. On the part of the object, it may so happen because the object is received more perfectly in the seer, that is, according to the greater perfection of the similitude; but this does not apply to the present question, for God is present to the intellect seeing Him not by way of similitude, but by His essence. It follows then that if one sees Him more perfectly than another, this happens according to the difference of the intellectual power; thus it follows too that the one whose intellectual power is higher, will see Him the more clearly; and this is incongruous; since equality with angels is promised to men as their beatitude.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod vita aeterna in visione Dei consistit, secundum illud Ioan. XVII, haec est vita aeterna, et cetera. Ergo, si omnes aequaliter Dei essentiam vident, in vita aeterna omnes erunt aequales. Cuius contrarium dicit apostolus, I Cor. XV, stella differt a stella in claritate.	On the contrary, Eternal life consists in the vision of God, according to Jn. 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God," etc. Therefore if all saw the essence of God equally in eternal life, all would be equal; the contrary to which is declared by the Apostle: "Star differs from star in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:41).
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod videntium Deum per essentiam unus alio perfectius eum videbit. Quod quidem non erit per aliquam Dei similitudinem perfectiorem in uno quam in alio, cum illa visio non sit futura per aliquam similitudinem, ut ostensum est. Sed hoc erit per hoc, quod intellectus unius habebit maiorem virtutem seu facultatem ad videndum Deum, quam alterius. Facultas autem videndi Deum non competit intellectui creato secundum suam naturam, sed per lumen gloriae, quod intellectum in quadam deiformitate constituit, ut ex superioribus patet. Unde intellectus plus participans de lumine gloriae, perfectius Deum videbit. Plus autem participabit de lumine gloriae, qui plus habet de caritate, quia ubi est maior caritas, ibi est maius desiderium; et desiderium quodammodo facit desiderantem aptum et paratum ad susceptionem desiderati. Unde qui plus habebit de caritate, perfectius Deum videbit, et beatior erit.	I answer that, Of those who see the essence of God, one sees Him more perfectly than another. This, indeed, does not take place as if one had a more perfect similitude of God than another, since that vision will not spring from any similitude; but it will take place because one intellect will have a greater power or faculty to see God than another. The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the created intellect naturally, but is given to it by the light of glory, which establishes the intellect in a kind of "deiformity," as appears from what is said above, in the preceding article. Hence the intellect which has more of the light of glory will see God the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory who has more charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur videbimus eum sicuti est, hoc adverbium sicuti determinat modum visionis ex parte rei visae ut sit sensus, videbimus eum ita esse sicuti est, quia ipsum esse eius videbimus, quod est eius essentia. Non autem determinat modum visionis ex parte videntis, ut sit sensus, quod ita erit perfectus modus videndi, sicut est in Deo perfectus modus essendi.	Reply to Objection 1. In the words,"We shall see Him as He is," the conjunction "as" determines the mode of vision on the part of the object seen, so that the meaning is, we shall see Him to be as He is, because we shall see His existence, which is His essence. But it does not determine the mode of vision on the part of the one seeing; as if the meaning was that the mode of seeing God will be as perfect as is the perfect mode of God's existence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 ad 2 Et per hoc etiam patet solutio ad secundum. Cum enim dicitur quod rem unam unus alio melius non intelligit, hoc habet veritatem si referatur ad modum rei intellectae, quia quicumque intelligit rem esse aliter quam sit, non vere intelligit. Non autem si referatur ad modum intelligendi, quia intelligere unius est perfectius quam intelligere alterius.	Thus appears the answer to the Second Objection. For when it is said that one intellect does not understand one and the same thing better than another, this would be true if referred to the mode of the thing understood, for whoever understands it otherwise than it really is, does not truly understand it, but not if referred to the mode of understanding, for the understanding of one is more perfect than the understanding of another.
IЄ q. 12 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod diversitas videndi non erit ex parte obiecti, quia idem obiectum omnibus praesentabitur, scilicet Dei essentia, nec ex diversa participatione obiecti per differentes similitudines, sed erit per diversam facultatem intellectus, non quidem naturalem, sed gloriosam, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. The diversity of seeing will not arise on the part of the object seen, for the same object will be presented to all--viz. the essence of God; nor will it arise from the diverse participation of the object seen by different similitudes; but it will arise on the part of the diverse faculty of the intellect, not, indeed, the natural faculty, but the glorified faculty.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod videntes Deum per essentiam ipsum comprehendant. Dicit enim apostolus, Philipp. III, sequor autem si quo modo comprehendam. Non autem frustra sequebatur, dicit enim ipse, I Cor. IX, sic curro, non quasi in incertum. Ergo ipse comprehendit, et eadem ratione alii, quos ad hoc invitat, dicens, sic currite, ut comprehendatis.	Objection 1. It seems that those who see the divine essence, comprehend God. For the Apostle says (Philippians 3:12): "But I follow after, if I may by any means comprehend [Douay: 'apprehend']." But the Apostle did not follow in vain; for he said (1 Corinthians 9:26): "I . . . so run, not as at an uncertainty." Therefore he comprehended; and in the same way, others also, whom he invites to do the same, saying: "So run that you may comprehend."
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, ut dicit Augustinus in libro de videndo Deum ad Paulinam, illud comprehenditur, quod ita totum videtur, ut nihil eius lateat videntem. Sed si Deus per essentiam videtur, totus videtur, et nihil eius latet videntem; cum Deus sit simplex. Ergo a quocumque videtur per essentiam, comprehenditur.	Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii): "That is comprehended which is so seen as a whole, that nothing of it is hidden from the seer." But if God is seen in His essence, He is seen whole, and nothing of Him is hidden from the seer, since God is simple. Therefore whoever sees His essence, comprehends Him.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 arg. 3 Si dicatur quod videtur totus, sed non totaliter, contra, totaliter vel dicit modum videntis, vel modum rei visae. Sed ille qui videt Deum per essentiam, videt eum totaliter, si significetur modus rei visae, quia videt eum sicuti est, ut dictum est. Similiter videt eum totaliter, si significetur modus videntis, quia tota virtute sua intellectus Dei essentiam videbit. Quilibet ergo videns Deum per essentiam, totaliter eum videbit. Ergo eum comprehendet.	Objection 3. Further, if we say that He is seen as a "whole," but not "wholly," it may be contrarily urged that "wholly" refers either to the mode of the seer, or to the mode of the thing seen. But he who sees the essence of God, sees Him wholly, if the mode of the thing seen is considered; forasmuch as he sees Him as He is; also, likewise, he sees Him wholly if the mode of the seer is meant, forasmuch as the intellect will with its full power see the Divine essence. Therefore all who see the essence of God see Him wholly; therefore they comprehend Him.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. XXXII, fortissime, magne, potens, dominus exercituum nomen tibi; magnus consilio, et incomprehensibilis cogitatu. Ergo comprehendi non potest.	On the contrary, It is written: "O most mighty, great, and powerful, the Lord of hosts is Thy Name. Great in counsel, and incomprehensible in thought" (Jeremiah 32:18-19). Therefore He cannot be comprehended.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod comprehendere Deum impossibile est cuicumque intellectui creato, attingere vero mente Deum qualitercumque, magna est beatitudo, ut dicit Augustinus. Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod illud comprehenditur, quod perfecte cognoscitur. Perfecte autem cognoscitur, quod tantum cognoscitur, quantum est cognoscibile. Unde si id quod est cognoscibile per scientiam demonstrativam, opinione teneatur ex aliqua ratione probabili concepta, non comprehenditur. Puta, si hoc quod est triangulum habere tres angulos aequales duobus rectis, aliquis sciat per demonstrationem, comprehendit illud, si vero aliquis eius opinionem accipiat probabiliter, per hoc quod a sapientibus vel pluribus ita dicitur, non comprehendet ipsum, quia non pertingit ad illum perfectum modum cognitionis, quo cognoscibilis est. Nullus autem intellectus creatus pertingere potest ad illum perfectum modum cognitionis divinae essentiae, quo cognoscibilis est. Quod sic patet. Unumquodque enim sic cognoscibile est, secundum quod est ens actu. Deus igitur, cuius esse est infinitum, ut supra ostensum est, infinite cognoscibilis est. Nullus autem intellectus creatus potest Deum infinite cognoscere. Intantum enim intellectus creatus divinam essentiam perfectius vel minus perfecte cognoscit, inquantum maiori vel minori lumine gloriae perfunditur. Cum igitur lumen gloriae creatum, in quocumque intellectu creato receptum, non possit esse infinitum, impossibile est quod aliquis intellectus creatus Deum infinite cognoscat. Unde impossibile est quod Deum comprehendat.	I answer that, It is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend God; yet "for the mind to attain to God in some degree is great beatitude," as Augustine says (De Verb. Dim., Serm. xxxvii). In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof, it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable. But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable. Which thus appears--Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (7) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod comprehensio dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, stricte et proprie, secundum quod aliquid includitur in comprehendente. Et sic nullo modo Deus comprehenditur, nec intellectu nec aliquo alio, quia, cum sit infinitus, nullo finito includi potest, ut aliquid finitum eum infinite capiat, sicut ipse infinite est. Et sic de comprehensione nunc quaeritur. Alio modo comprehensio largius sumitur, secundum quod comprehensio insecutioni opponitur. Qui enim attingit aliquem, quando iam tenet ipsum, comprehendere eum dicitur. Et sic Deus comprehenditur a beatis, secundum illud Cant. III, tenui eum, nec dimittam. Et sic intelliguntur auctoritates apostoli de comprehensione. Et hoc modo comprehensio est una de tribus dotibus animae, quae respondet spei; sicut visio fidei, et fruitio caritati. Non enim, apud nos, omne quod videtur, iam tenetur vel habetur, quia videntur interdum distantia, vel quae non sunt in potestate nostra. Neque iterum omnibus quae habemus, fruimur, vel quia non delectamur in eis; vel quia non sunt ultimus finis desiderii nostri, ut desiderium nostrum impleant et quietent. Sed haec tria habent beati in Deo, quia et vident ipsum; et videndo, tenent sibi praesentem, in potestate habentes semper eum videre; et tenentes, fruuntur sicut ultimo fine desiderium implente.	Reply to Objection 1. "Comprehension" is twofold: in one sense it is taken strictly and properly, according as something is included in the one comprehending; and thus in no way is God comprehended either by intellect, or in any other way; forasmuch as He is infinite and cannot be included in any finite being; so that no finite being can contain Him infinitely, in the degree of His own infinity. In this sense we now take comprehension. But in another sense "comprehension" is taken more largely as opposed to "non-attainment"; for he who attains to anyone is said to comprehend him when he attains to him. And in this sense God is comprehended by the blessed, according to the words, "I held him, and I will not let him go" (Canticles 3:4); in this sense also are to be understood the words quoted from the Apostle concerning comprehension. And in this way "comprehension" is one of the three prerogatives of the soul, responding to hope, as vision responds to faith, and fruition responds to charity. For even among ourselves not everything seen is held or possessed, forasmuch as things either appear sometimes afar off, or they are not in our power of attainment. Neither, again, do we always enjoy what we possess; either because we find no pleasure in them, or because such things are not the ultimate end of our desire, so as to satisfy and quell it. But the blessed possess these three things in God; because they see Him, and in seeing Him, possess Him as present, having the power to see Him always; and possessing Him, they enjoy Him as the ultimate fulfilment of desire.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non propter hoc Deus incomprehensibilis dicitur, quasi aliquid eius sit quod non videatur, sed quia non ita perfecte videtur, sicut visibilis est. Sicut cum aliqua demonstrabilis propositio per aliquam probabilem rationem cognoscitur, non est aliquid eius quod non cognoscatur, nec subiectum, nec praedicatum, nec compositio, sed tota non ita perfecte cognoscitur, sicut cognoscibilis est. Unde Augustinus, definiendo comprehensionem, dicit quod totum comprehenditur videndo, quod ita videtur, ut nihil eius lateat videntem; aut cuius fines circumspici possunt, tunc enim fines alicuius circumspiciuntur, quando ad finem in modo cognoscendi illam rem pervenitur.	Reply to Objection 2. God is called incomprehensible not because anything of Him is not seen; but because He is not seen as perfectly as He is capable of being seen; thus when any demonstrable proposition is known by probable reason only, it does not follow that any part of it is unknown, either the subject, or the predicate, or the composition; but that it is not as perfectly known as it is capable of being known. Hence Augustine, in his definition of comprehension, says the whole is comprehended when it is seen in such a way that nothing of it is hidden from the seer, or when its boundaries can be completely viewed or traced; for the boundaries of a thing are said to be completely surveyed when the end of the knowledge of it is attained.
IЄ q. 12 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod totaliter dicit modum obiecti, non quidem ita quod totus modus obiecti non cadat sub cognitione; sed quia modus obiecti non est modus cognoscentis. Qui igitur videt Deum per essentiam, videt hoc in eo, quod infinite existit, et infinite cognoscibilis est, sed hic infinitus modus non competit ei, ut scilicet ipse infinite cognoscat, sicut aliquis probabiliter scire potest aliquam propositionem esse demonstrabilem, licet ipse eam demonstrative non cognoscat.	Reply to Objection 3. The word "wholly" denotes a mode of the object; not that the whole object does not come under knowledge, but that the mode of the object is not the mode of the one who knows. Therefore he who sees God's essence, sees in Him that He exists infinitely, and is infinitely knowable; nevertheless, this infinite mode does not extend to enable the knower to know infinitely; thus, for instance, a person can have a probable opinion that a proposition is demonstrable, although he himself does not know it as demonstrated.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod videntes Deum per essentiam omnia in Deo videant. Dicit enim Gregorius, in IV Dialog. quid est quod non videant, qui videntem omnia vident? Sed Deus est videns omnia. Ergo qui vident Deum, omnia vident.	Objection 1. It seems that those who see the essence of God see all things in God. For Gregory says (Dialog. iv): "What do they not see, who see Him Who sees all things?" But God sees all things. Therefore those who see God see all things.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 arg. 2 Item, quicumque videt speculum, videt ea quae in speculo resplendent. Sed omnia quaecumque fiunt vel fieri possunt, in Deo resplendent sicut in quodam speculo, ipse enim omnia in seipso cognoscit. Ergo quicumque videt Deum, videt omnia quae sunt et quae fieri possunt.	Objection 2. Further, whoever sees a mirror, sees what is reflected in the mirror. But all actual or possible things shine forth in God as in a mirror; for He knows all things in Himself. Therefore whoever sees God, sees all actual things in Him, and also all possible things.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, qui intelligit id quod est maius, potest intelligere minima, ut dicitur III de anima. Sed omnia quae Deus facit vel facere potest, sunt minus quam eius essentia. Ergo quicumque intelligit Deum, potest intelligere omnia quae Deus facit vel facere potest.	Objection 3. Further, whoever understands the greater, can understand the least, as is said in De Anima iii. But all that God does, or can do, are less than His essence. Therefore whoever understands God, can understand all that God does, or can do.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 arg. 4 Praeterea, rationalis creatura omnia naturaliter scire desiderat. Si igitur videndo Deum non omnia sciat, non quietatur eius naturale desiderium, et ita, videndo Deum non erit beata. Quod est inconveniens. Videndo igitur Deum, omnia scit.	Objection 4. Further, the rational creature naturally desires to know all things. Therefore if in seeing God it does not know all things, its natural desire will not rest satisfied; thus, in seeing God it will not be fully happy; which is incongruous. Therefore he who sees God knows all things.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod Angeli vident Deum per essentiam, et tamen non omnia sciunt. Inferiores enim Angeli purgantur a superioribus a nescientia, ut dicit Dionysius, VII cap. Cael. Hier. Ipsi etiam nesciunt futura contingentia et cogitationes cordium, hoc enim solius Dei est. Non ergo quicumque vident Dei essentiam, vident omnia.	On the contrary, The angels see the essence of God; and yet do not know all things. For as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), "the inferior angels are cleansed from ignorance by the superior angels." Also they are ignorant of future contingent things, and of secret thoughts; for this knowledge belongs to God alone. Therefore whosoever sees the essence of God, does not know all things.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod intellectus creatus, videndo divinam essentiam, non videt in ipsa omnia quae facit Deus vel facere potest. Manifestum est enim quod sic aliqua videntur in Deo, secundum quod sunt in ipso. Omnia autem alia sunt in Deo, sicut effectus sunt virtute in sua causa. Sic igitur videntur alia in Deo, sicut effectus in sua causa. Sed manifestum est quod quanto aliqua causa perfectius videtur, tanto plures eius effectus in ipsa videri possunt. Qui enim habet intellectum elevatum, statim uno principio demonstrativo proposito, ex ipso multarum conclusionum cognitionem accipit, quod non convenit ei qui debilioris intellectus est, sed oportet quod ei singula explanentur. Ille igitur intellectus potest in causa cognoscere omnes causae effectus, et omnes rationes effectuum, qui causam totaliter comprehendit. Nullus autem intellectus creatus totaliter Deum comprehendere potest, ut ostensum est. Nullus igitur intellectus creatus, videndo Deum, potest cognoscere omnia quae Deus facit vel potest facere, hoc enim esset comprehendere eius virtutem. Sed horum quae Deus facit vel facere potest, tanto aliquis intellectus plura cognoscit, quanto perfectius Deum videt.	I answer that, The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence, does not see in it all that God does or can do. For it is manifest that things are seen in God as they are in Him. But all other things are in God as effects are in the power of their cause. Therefore all things are seen in God as an effect is seen in its cause. Now it is clear that the more perfectly a cause is seen, the more of its effects can be seen in it. For whoever has a lofty understanding, as soon as one demonstrative principle is put before him can gather the knowledge of many conclusions; but this is beyond one of a weaker intellect, for he needs things to be explained to him separately. And so an intellect can know all the effects of a cause and the reasons for those effects in the cause itself, if it comprehends the cause wholly. Now no created intellect can comprehend God wholly, as shown above (7). Therefore no created intellect in seeing God can know all that God does or can do, for this would be to comprehend His power; but of what God does or can do any intellect can know the more, the more perfectly it sees God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius loquitur quantum ad sufficientiam obiecti, scilicet Dei, quod, quantum in se est, sufficienter continet omnia et demonstrat. Non tamen sequitur quod unusquisque videns Deum omnia cognoscat, quia non perfecte comprehendit ipsum.	Reply to Objection 1. Gregory speaks as regards the object being sufficient, namely, God, who in Himself sufficiently contains and shows forth all things; but it does not follow that whoever sees God knows all things, for he does not perfectly comprehend Him.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod videns speculum, non est necessarium quod omnia in speculo videat, nisi speculum visu suo comprehendat.	Reply to Objection 2. It is not necessary that whoever sees a mirror should see all that is in the mirror, unless his glance comprehends the mirror itself.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet maius sit videre Deum quam omnia alia, tamen maius est videre sic Deum quod omnia in eo cognoscantur, quam videre sic ipsum quod non omnia, sed pauciora vel plura cognoscantur in eo. Iam enim ostensum est quod multitudo cognitorum in Deo, consequitur modum videndi ipsum vel magis perfectum vel minus perfectum.	Reply to Objection 3. Although it is more to see God than to see all things else, still it is a greater thing to see Him so that all things are known in Him, than to see Him in such a way that not all things, but the fewer or the more, are known in Him. For it has been shown in this article that the more things are known in God according as He is seen more or less perfectly.
IЄ q. 12 a. 8 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod naturale desiderium rationalis creaturae est ad sciendum omnia illa quae pertinent ad perfectionem intellectus; et haec sunt species et genera rerum, et rationes earum, quae in Deo videbit quilibet videns essentiam divinam. Cognoscere autem alia singularia, et cogitata et facta eorum, non est de perfectione intellectus creati, nec ad hoc eius naturale desiderium tendit, nec iterum cognoscere illa quae nondum sunt, sed fieri a Deo possunt. Si tamen solus Deus videretur, qui est fons et principium totius esse et veritatis, ita repleret naturale desiderium sciendi, quod nihil aliud quaereretur, et beatus esset. Unde dicit Augustinus, V Confess., infelix homo qui scit omnia illa (scilicet creaturas), te autem nescit, beatus autem qui te scit, etiam si illa nesciat. Qui vero te et illa novit, non propter illa beatior est, sed propter te solum beatus.	Reply to Objection 4. The natural desire of the rational creature is to know everything that belongs to the perfection of the intellect, namely, the species and the genera of things and their types, and these everyone who sees the Divine essence will see in God. But to know other singulars, their thoughts and their deeds does not belong to the perfection of the created intellect nor does its natural desire go out to these things; neither, again, does it desire to know things that exist not as yet, but which God can call into being. Yet if God alone were seen, Who is the fount and principle of all being and of all truth, He would so fill the natural desire of knowledge that nothing else would be desired, and the seer would be completely beatified. Hence Augustine says (Confess. v): "Unhappy the man who knoweth all these" (i.e. all creatures) "and knoweth not Thee! but happy whoso knoweth Thee although he know not these. And whoso knoweth both Thee and them is not the happier for them, but for Thee alone."
IЄ q. 12 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ea quae videntur in Deo, a videntibus divinam essentiam per aliquas similitudines videantur. Omnis enim cognitio est per assimilationem cognoscentis ad cognitum, sic enim intellectus in actu fit intellectum in actu, et sensus in actu sensibile in actu, inquantum eius similitudine informatur, ut pupilla similitudine coloris. Si igitur intellectus videntis Deum per essentiam intelligat in Deo aliquas creaturas, oportet quod earum similitudinibus informetur.	Objection 1. It seems that what is seen in God by those who see the Divine essence, is seen by means of some similitude. For every kind of knowledge comes about by the knower being assimilated to the object known. For thus the intellect in act becomes the actual intelligible, and the sense in act becomes the actual sensible, inasmuch as it is informed by a similitude of the object, as the eye by the similitude of color. Therefore if the intellect of one who sees the Divine essence understands any creatures in God, it must be informed by their similitudes.
IЄ q. 12 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, ea quae prius vidimus, memoriter tenemus. Sed Paulus, videns in raptu essentiam Dei, ut dicit Augustinus XII super Gen. ad litteram, postquam desiit essentiam Dei videre, recordatus est multorum quae in illo raptu viderat, unde ipse dicit quod audivit arcana verba, quae non licet homini loqui, II Cor. XII. Ergo oportet dicere quod aliquae similitudines eorum quae recordatus est, in eius intellectu remanserint. Et eadem ratione, quando praesentialiter videbat Dei essentiam, eorum quae in ipsa videbat, aliquas similitudines vel species habebat.	Objection 2. Further, what we have seen, we keep in memory. But Paul, seeing the essence of God whilst in ecstasy, when he had ceased to see the Divine essence, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 28,34), remembered many of the things he had seen in the rapture; hence he said: "I have heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter" (2 Corinthians 12:4). Therefore it must be said that certain similitudes of what he remembered, remained in his mind; and in the same way, when he actually saw the essence of God, he had certain similitudes or ideas of what he actually saw in it.
IЄ q. 12 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod per unam speciem videtur speculum, et ea quae in speculo apparent. Sed omnia sic videntur in Deo sicut in quodam speculo intelligibili. Ergo, si ipse Deus non videtur per aliquam similitudinem, sed per suam essentiam; nec ea quae in ipso videntur, per aliquas similitudines sive species videntur.	On the contrary, A mirror and what is in it are seen by means of one likeness. But all things are seen in God as in an intelligible mirror. Therefore if God Himself is not seen by any similitude but by His own essence, neither are the things seen in Him seen by any similitudes or ideas.
IЄ q. 12 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod videntes Deum per essentiam, ea quae in ipsa essentia Dei vident, non vident per aliquas species, sed per ipsam essentiam divinam intellectui eorum unitam. Sic enim cognoscitur unumquodque, secundum quod similitudo eius est in cognoscente. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Cum enim quaecumque uni et eidem sunt similia, sibi invicem sint similia, virtus cognoscitiva dupliciter assimilari potest alicui cognoscibili. Uno modo, secundum se, quando directe eius similitudine informatur, et tunc cognoscitur illud secundum se. Alio modo, secundum quod informatur specie alicuius quod est ei simile, et tunc non dicitur res cognosci in seipsa, sed in suo simili. Alia enim est cognitio qua cognoscitur aliquis homo in seipso, et alia qua cognoscitur in sua imagine. Sic ergo, cognoscere res per earum similitudines in cognoscente existentes, est cognoscere eas in seipsis, seu in propriis naturis, sed cognoscere eas prout earum similitudines praeexistunt in Deo, est videre eas in Deo. Et hae duae cognitiones differunt. Unde secundum illam cognitionem qua res cognoscuntur a videntibus Deum per essentiam in ipso Deo, non videntur per aliquas similitudines alias; sed per solam essentiam divinam intellectui praesentem, per quam et Deus videtur.	I answer that, Those who see the divine essence see what they see in God not by any likeness, but by the divine essence itself united to their intellect. For each thing is known in so far as its likeness is in the one who knows. Now this takes place in two ways. For as things which are like one and the same thing are like to each other, the cognitive faculty can be assimilated to any knowable object in two ways. In one way it is assimilated by the object itself, when it is directly informed by a similitude, and then the object is known in itself. In another way when informed by a similitude which resembles the object; and in this way, the knowledge is not of the thing in itself, but of the thing in its likeness. For the knowledge of a man in himself differs from the knowledge of him in his image. Hence to know things thus by their likeness in the one who knows, is to know them in themselves or in their own nature; whereas to know them by their similitudes pre-existing in God, is to see them in God. Now there is a difference between these two kinds of knowledge. Hence, according to the knowledge whereby things are known by those who see the essence of God, they are seen in God Himself not by any other similitudes but by the Divine essence alone present to the intellect; by which also God Himself is seen.
IЄ q. 12 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectus videntis Deum assimilatur rebus quae videntur in Deo, inquantum unitur essentiae divinae, in qua rerum omnium similitudines praeexistunt.	Reply to Objection 1. The created intellect of one who sees God is assimilated to what is seen in God, inasmuch as it is united to the Divine essence, in which the similitudes of all things pre-exist.
IЄ q. 12 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquae potentiae cognoscitivae sunt, quae ex speciebus primo conceptis alias formare possunt. Sicut imaginatio ex praeconceptis speciebus montis et auri, format speciem montis aurei, et intellectus ex praeconceptis speciebus generis et differentiae, format rationem speciei. Et similiter ex similitudine imaginis formare possumus in nobis similitudinem eius cuius est imago. Et sic Paulus, vel quicumque alius videns Deum, ex ipsa visione essentiae divinae potest formare in se similitudines rerum quae in essentia divina videntur, quae remanserunt in Paulo etiam postquam desiit Dei essentiam videre. Ista tamen visio, qua videntur res per huiusmodi species sic conceptas, est alia a visione qua videntur res in Deo.	Reply to Objection 2. Some of the cognitive faculties form other images from those first conceived; thus the imagination from the preconceived images of a mountain and of gold can form the likeness of a golden mountain; and the intellect, from the preconceived ideas of genus and difference, forms the idea of species; in like manner from the similitude of an image we can form in our minds the similitude of the original of the image. Thus Paul, or any other person who sees God, by the very vision of the divine essence, can form in himself the similitudes of what is seen in the divine essence, which remained in Paul even when he had ceased to see the essence of God. Still this kind of vision whereby things are seen by this likeness thus conceived, is not the same as that whereby things are seen in God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 10 arg. 1 Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod videntes Deum per essentiam non simul videant omnia quae in ipso vident. Quia, secundum philosophum, contingit multa scire, intelligere vero unum. Sed ea quae videntur in Deo, intelliguntur, intellectu enim videtur Deus. Ergo non contingit a videntibus Deum simul multa videri in Deo.	Objection 1. It seems that those who see the essence of God do not see all they see in Him at one and the same time. For according to the Philosopher (Topic. ii): "It may happen that many things are known, but only one is understood." But what is seen in God, is understood; for God is seen by the intellect. Therefore those who see God do not see all in Him at the same time.
IЄ q. 12 a. 10 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, VIII super Gen. ad litteram, quod Deus movet creaturam spiritualem per tempus, hoc est per intelligentiam et affectionem. Sed creatura spiritualis est Angelus, qui Deum videt. Ergo videntes Deum, successive intelligunt et afficiuntur, tempus enim successionem importat.	Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 22,23), "God moves the spiritual creature according to time"--i.e. by intelligence and affection. But the spiritual creature is the angel who sees God. Therefore those who see God understand and are affected successively; for time means succession.
IЄ q. 12 a. 10 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, ultimo de Trin., non erunt volubiles nostrae cogitationes, ab aliis in alia euntes atque redeuntes; sed omnem scientiam nostram uno simul conspectu videbimus.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xvi): "Our thoughts will not be unstable, going to and fro from one thing to another; but we shall see all we know at one glance."
IЄ q. 12 a. 10 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae videntur in verbo, non successive, sed simul videntur. Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est, quod ideo nos simul non possumus multa intelligere, quia multa per diversas species intelligimus; diversis autem speciebus non potest intellectus unus simul actu informari ad intelligendum per eas, sicut nec unum corpus potest simul diversis figuris figurari. Unde contingit quod, quando aliqua multa una specie intelligi possunt, simul intelliguntur, sicut diversae partes alicuius totius, si singulae propriis speciebus intelligantur, successive intelliguntur, et non simul; si autem omnes intelligantur una specie totius, simul intelliguntur. Ostensum est autem quod ea quae videntur in Deo, non videntur singula per suas similitudines, sed omnia per unam essentiam Dei. Unde simul, et non successive videntur.	I answer that, What is seen in the Word is seen not successively, but at the same time. In proof whereof, we ourselves cannot know many things all at once, forasmuch as understand many things by means of many ideas. But our intellect cannot be actually informed by many diverse ideas at the same time, so as to understand by them; as one body cannot bear different shapes simultaneously. Hence, when many things can be understood by one idea, they are understood at the same time; as the parts of a whole are understood successively, and not all at the same time, if each one is understood by its own idea; whereas if all are understood under the one idea of the whole, they are understood simultaneously. Now it was shown above that things seen in God, are not seen singly by their own similitude; but all are seen by the one essence of God. Hence they are seen simultaneously, and not successively.
IЄ q. 12 a. 10 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sic unum tantum intelligimus, inquantum una specie intelligimus. Sed multa una specie intellecta simul intelliguntur, sicut in specie hominis intelligimus animal et rationale, et in specie domus parietem et tectum.	Reply to Objection 1. We understand one thing only when we understand by one idea; but many things understood by one idea are understood simultaneously, as in the idea of a man we understand "animal" and "rational"; and in the idea of a house we understand the wall and the roof.
IЄ q. 12 a. 10 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angeli, quantum ad cognitionem naturalem qua cognoscunt res per species diversas eis inditas, non simul omnia cognoscunt, et sic moventur, secundum intelligentiam, per tempus. Sed secundum quod vident res in Deo, simul eas vident.	Reply to Objection 2. As regards their natural knowledge, whereby they know things by diverse ideas given them, the angels do not know all things simultaneously, and thus they are moved in the act of understanding according to time; but as regards what they see in God, they see all at the same time.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 arg. 1 Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis in hac vita possit Deum per essentiam videre. Dicit enim Iacob, Gen. XXXII, vidi Deum facie ad faciem. Sed videre facie ad faciem, est videre per essentiam, ut patet per illud quod dicitur I Cor. XIII, videmus nunc per speculum et in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Ergo Deus in hac vita per essentiam videri potest.	Objection 1. It seems that one can in this life see the Divine essence. For Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face" (Genesis 32:30). But to see Him face to face is to see His essence, as appears from the words: "We see now in a glass and in a dark manner, but then face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12).
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 arg. 2 Praeterea, Num. XII dicit dominus de Moyse, ore ad os loquor ei, et palam, et non per aenigmata et figuras, videt Deum. Sed hoc est videre Deum per essentiam. Ergo aliquis in statu huius vitae potest Deum per essentiam videre.	Objection 2. Further, the Lord said to Moses: "I speak to him mouth to mouth, and plainly, and not by riddles and figures doth he see the Lord" (Numbers 12:8); but this is to see God in His essence. Therefore it is possible to see the essence of God in this life.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud in quo alia omnia cognoscimus, et per quod de aliis iudicamus, est nobis secundum se notum. Sed omnia etiam nunc in Deo cognoscimus. Dicit enim Augustinus, XII Conf., si ambo videmus verum esse quod dicis, et ambo videmus verum esse quod dico, ubi quaeso illud videmus? Nec ego in te, nec tu in me, sed ambo in ipsa quae supra mentes nostras est, incommutabili veritate. Idem etiam, in libro de vera religione, dicit quod secundum veritatem divinam de omnibus iudicamus. Et XII de Trin. dicit quod rationis est iudicare de istis corporalibus secundum rationes incorporales et sempiternas, quae nisi supra mentem essent, incommutabiles profecto non essent. Ergo et in hac vita ipsum Deum videmus.	Objection 3. Further, that wherein we know all other things, and whereby we judge of other things, is known in itself to us. But even now we know all things in God; for Augustine says (Confess. viii): "If we both see that what you say is true, and we both see that what I say is true; where, I ask, do we see this? neither I in thee, nor thou in me; but both of us in the very incommutable truth itself above our minds." He also says (De Vera Relig. xxx) that, "We judge of all things according to the divine truth"; and (De Trin. xii) that, "it is the duty of reason to judge of these corporeal things according to the incorporeal and eternal ideas; which unless they were above the mind could not be incommutable." Therefore even in this life we see God Himself.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 arg. 4 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, XII super Gen. ad Litt., visione intellectuali videntur ea quae sunt in anima per suam essentiam. Sed visio intellectualis est de rebus intelligibilibus, non per aliquas similitudines, sed per suas essentias, ut ipse ibidem dicit. Ergo, cum Deus sit per essentiam suam in anima nostra, per essentiam suam videtur a nobis.	Objection 4. Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 24, 25), those things that are in the soul by their essence are seen by intellectual vision. But intellectual vision is of intelligible things, not by similitudes, but by their very essences, as he also says (Gen. ad lit. xiii, 24,25). Therefore since God is in our soul by His essence, it follows that He is seen by us in His essence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXXIII, non videbit me homo et vivet. Glossa, quandiu hic mortaliter vivitur, videri per quasdam imagines Deus potest; sed per ipsam naturae suae speciem non potest.	On the contrary, It is written, "Man shall not see Me, and live" (Exodus 32:20), and a gloss upon this says, "In this mortal life God can be seen by certain images, but not by the likeness itself of His own nature."
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ab homine puro Deus videri per essentiam non potest, nisi ab hac vita mortali separetur. Cuius ratio est quia, sicut supra dictum est, modus cognitionis sequitur modum naturae rei cognoscentis. Anima autem nostra, quandiu in hac vita vivimus, habet esse in materia corporali, unde naturaliter non cognoscit aliqua nisi quae habent formam in materia, vel quae per huiusmodi cognosci possunt. Manifestum est autem quod per naturas rerum materialium divina essentia cognosci non potest. Ostensum est enim supra quod cognitio Dei per quamcumque similitudinem creatam, non est visio essentiae ipsius. Unde impossibile est animae hominis secundum hanc vitam viventis, essentiam Dei videre. Et huius signum est, quod anima nostra, quanto magis a corporalibus abstrahitur, tanto intelligibilium abstractorum fit capacior. Unde in somniis et alienationibus a sensibus corporis, magis divinae revelationes percipiuntur, et praevisiones futurorum. Quod ergo anima elevetur usque ad supremum intelligibilium, quod est essentia divina, esse non potest quandiu hac mortali vita utitur.	I answer that, God cannot be seen in His essence by a mere human being, except he be separated from this mortal life. The reason is because, as was said above (4), the mode of knowledge follows the mode of the nature of the knower. But our soul, as long as we live in this life, has its being in corporeal matter; hence naturally it knows only what has a form in matter, or what can be known by such a form. Now it is evident that the Divine essence cannot be known through the nature of material things. For it was shown above (2, 9) that the knowledge of God by means of any created similitude is not the vision of His essence. Hence it is impossible for the soul of man in this life to see the essence of God. This can be seen in the fact that the more our soul is abstracted from corporeal things, the more it is capable of receiving abstract intelligible things. Hence in dreams and alienations of the bodily senses divine revelations and foresight of future events are perceived the more clearly. It is not possible, therefore, that the soul in this mortal life should be raised up to the supreme of intelligible objects, i.e. to the divine essence.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. Cael. Hier., sic in Scripturis dicitur aliquis Deum vidisse, inquantum formatae sunt aliquae figurae, vel sensibiles vel imaginariae, secundum aliquam similitudinem aliquod divinum repraesentantes. Quod ergo dicit Iacob, vidi Deum facie ad faciem, referendum est, non ad ipsam divinam essentiam, sed ad figuram in qua repraesentabatur Deus. Et hoc ipsum ad quandam prophetiae eminentiam pertinet, ut videatur persona Dei loquentis, licet imaginaria visione, ut infra patebit, cum de gradibus prophetiae loquemur. Vel hoc dicit Iacob ad designandam quandam eminentiam intelligibilis contemplationis, supra communem statum.	Reply to Objection 1. According to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv) a man is said in the Scriptures to see God in the sense that certain figures are formed in the senses or imagination, according to some similitude representing in part the divinity. So when Jacob says, "I have seen God face to face," this does not mean the Divine essence, but some figure representing God. And this is to be referred to some high mode of prophecy, so that God seems to speak, though in an imaginary vision; as will later be explained (II-II, 174) in treating of the degrees of prophecy. We may also say that Jacob spoke thus to designate some exalted intellectual contemplation, above the ordinary state.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Deus miraculose aliquid supernaturaliter in rebus corporeis operatur, ita etiam et supernaturaliter, et praeter communem ordinem, mentes aliquorum in hac carne viventium, sed non sensibus carnis utentium, usque ad visionem suae essentiae elevavit; ut dicit Augustinus, XII super Genes. ad Litt., et in libro de videndo Deum de Moyse, qui fuit magister Iudaeorum, et Paulo, qui fuit magister gentium. Et de hoc plenius tractabitur, cum de raptu agemus.	Reply to Objection 2. As God works miracles in corporeal things, so also He does supernatural wonders above the common order, raising the minds of some living in the flesh beyond the use of sense, even up to the vision of His own essence; as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 26,27,28) of Moses, the teacher of the Jews; and of Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles. This will be treated more fully in the question of rapture (II-II, 175).
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnia dicimur in Deo videre, et secundum ipsum de omnibus iudicare, inquantum per participationem sui luminis omnia cognoscimus et diiudicamus, nam et ipsum lumen naturale rationis participatio quaedam est divini luminis; sicut etiam omnia sensibilia dicimus videre et iudicare in sole, idest per lumen solis. Unde dicit Augustinus, I Soliloquiorum, disciplinarum spectamina videri non possunt, nisi aliquo velut suo sole illustrentur, videlicet Deo. Sicut ergo ad videndum aliquid sensibiliter, non est necesse quod videatur substantia solis, ita ad videndum aliquid intelligibiliter, non est necessarium quod videatur essentia Dei.	Reply to Objection 3. All things are said to be seen in God and all things are judged in Him, because by the participation of His light, we know and judge all things; for the light of natural reason itself is a participation of the divine light; as likewise we are said to see and judge of sensible things in the sun, i.e., by the sun's light. Hence Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 8), "The lessons of instruction can only be seen as it were by their own sun," namely God. As therefore in order to see a sensible object, it is not necessary to see the substance of the sun, so in like manner to see any intelligible object, it is not necessary to see the essence of God.
IЄ q. 12 a. 11 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod visio intellectualis est eorum quae sunt in anima per suam essentiam sicut intelligibilia in intellectu. Sic autem Deus est in anima beatorum, non autem in anima nostra; sed per praesentiam, essentiam, et potentiam.	Reply to Objection 4. Intellectual vision is of the things which are in the soul by their essence, as intelligible things are in the intellect. And thus God is in the souls of the blessed; not thus is He in our soul, but by presence, essence and power.
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 arg. 1 Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per naturalem rationem Deum in hac vita cognoscere non possimus. Dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Consol., quod ratio non capit simplicem formam. Deus autem maxime est simplex forma, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo ad eius cognitionem ratio naturalis pervenire non potest.	Objection 1. It seems that by natural reason we cannot know God in this life. For Boethius says (De Consol. v) that "reason does not grasp simple form." But God is a supremely simple form, as was shown above (3, 7). Therefore natural reason cannot attain to know Him.
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 arg. 2 Praeterea, ratione naturali sine phantasmate nihil intelligit anima, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed Dei, cum sit incorporeus, phantasma in nobis esse non potest. Ergo cognosci non potest a nobis cognitione naturali.	Objection 2. Further, the soul understands nothing by natural reason without the use of the imagination. But we cannot have an imagination of God, Who is incorporeal. Therefore we cannot know God by natural knowledge.
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 arg. 3 Praeterea, cognitio quae est per rationem naturalem, communis est bonis et malis, sicut natura eis communis est. Sed cognitio Dei competit tantum bonis, dicit enim Augustinus, I de Trin., quod mentis humanae acies in tam excellenti luce non figitur, nisi per iustitiam fidei emundetur. Ergo Deus per rationem naturalem cognosci non potest.	Objection 3. Further, the knowledge of natural reason belongs to both good and evil, inasmuch as they have a common nature. But the knowledge of God belongs only to the good; for Augustine says (De Trin. i): "The weak eye of the human mind is not fixed on that excellent light unless purified by the justice of faith." Therefore God cannot be known by natural reason.
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. I, quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis, idest, quod cognoscibile est de Deo per rationem naturalem.	On the contrary, It is written (Romans 1:19), "That which is known of God," namely, what can be known of God by natural reason, "is manifest in them."
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 co. Respondeo dicendum quod naturalis nostra cognitio a sensu principium sumit, unde tantum se nostra naturalis cognitio extendere potest, inquantum manuduci potest per sensibilia. Ex sensibilibus autem non potest usque ad hoc intellectus noster pertingere, quod divinam essentiam videat, quia creaturae sensibiles sunt effectus Dei virtutem causae non adaequantes. Unde ex sensibilium cognitione non potest tota Dei virtus cognosci, et per consequens nec eius essentia videri. Sed quia sunt eius effectus a causa dependentes, ex eis in hoc perduci possumus, ut cognoscamus de Deo an est; et ut cognoscamus de ipso ea quae necesse est ei convenire secundum quod est prima omnium causa, excedens omnia sua causata. Unde cognoscimus de ipso habitudinem ipsius ad creaturas, quod scilicet omnium est causa; et differentiam creaturarum ab ipso, quod scilicet ipse non est aliquid eorum quae ab eo causantur; et quod haec non removentur ab eo propter eius defectum, sed quia superexcedit.	I answer that, Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God "whether He exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him. Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio ad formam simplicem pertingere non potest, ut sciat de ea quid est, potest tamen de ea cognoscere, ut sciat an est.	Reply to Objection 1. Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to know "what it is"; but it can know "whether it is."
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus naturali cognitione cognoscitur per phantasmata effectus sui.	Reply to Objection 2. God is known by natural knowledge through the images of His effects.
IЄ q. 12 a. 12 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod cognitio Dei per essentiam, cum sit per gratiam, non competit nisi bonis, sed cognitio eius quae est per rationem naturalem, potest competere bonis et malis. Unde dicit Augustinus, in libro Retractationum, non approbo quod in oratione dixi, Deus, qui non nisi mundos verum scire voluisti, responderi enim potest, multos etiam non mundos multa scire vera, scilicet per rationem naturalem.	Reply to Objection 3. As the knowledge of God's essence is by grace, it belongs only to the good; but the knowledge of Him by natural reason can belong to both good and bad; and hence Augustine says (Retract. i), retracting what he had said before: "I do not approve what I said in prayer, 'God who willest that only the pure should know truth.' For it can be answered that many who are not pure can know many truths," i.e. by natural reason.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 arg. 1 Ad decimumtertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod per gratiam non habeatur altior cognitio Dei, quam ea quae habetur per naturalem rationem. Dicit enim Dionysius, in libro de mystica theologia, quod ille qui melius unitur Deo in hac vita, unitur ei sicut omnino ignoto, quod etiam de Moyse dicit, qui tamen excellentiam quandam obtinuit in gratiae cognitione. Sed coniungi Deo ignorando de eo quid est, hoc contingit etiam per rationem naturalem. Ergo per gratiam non plenius cognoscitur a nobis Deus, quam per rationem naturalem.	Objection 1. It seems that by grace a higher knowledge of God is not obtained than by natural reason. For Dionysius says (De Mystica Theol. i) that whoever is the more united to God in this life, is united to Him as to one entirely unknown. He says the same of Moses, who nevertheless obtained a certain excellence by the knowledge conferred by grace. But to be united to God while ignoring of Him "what He is," comes about also by natural reason. Therefore God is not more known to us by grace than by natural reason.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 arg. 2 Praeterea, per rationem naturalem in cognitionem divinorum pervenire non possumus, nisi per phantasmata, sic etiam nec secundum cognitionem gratiae. Dicit enim Dionysius, I cap. de Cael. Hier., quod impossibile est nobis aliter lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum. Ergo per gratiam non plenius cognoscimus Deum, quam per rationem naturalem.	Objection 2. Further, we can acquire the knowledge of divine things by natural reason only through the imagination; and the same applies to the knowledge given by grace. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that "it is impossible for the divine ray to shine upon us except as screened round about by the many colored sacred veils." Therefore we cannot know God more fully by grace than by natural reason.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 arg. 3 Praeterea, intellectus noster per gratiam fidei Deo adhaeret. Fides autem non videtur esse cognitio, dicit enim Gregorius, in Homil., quod ea quae non videntur fidem habent, et non agnitionem. Ergo per gratiam non additur nobis aliqua excellentior cognitio de Deo.	Objection 3. Further, our intellect adheres to God by grace of faith. But faith does not seem to be knowledge; for Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Ev.) that "things not seen are the objects of faith, and not of knowledge." Therefore there is not given to us a more excellent knowledge of God by grace.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, I Cor. II, nobis revelavit Deus per spiritum suum, illa scilicet quae nemo principum huius saeculi novit, idest philosophorum, ut exponit Glossa.	On the contrary, The Apostle says that "God hath revealed to us His spirit," what "none of the princes of this world knew" (1 Corinthians 2:10), namely, the philosophers, as the gloss expounds.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 co. Respondeo dicendum quod per gratiam perfectior cognitio de Deo habetur a nobis, quam per rationem naturalem. Quod sic patet. Cognitio enim quam per naturalem rationem habemus, duo requirit, scilicet, phantasmata ex sensibilibus accepta, et lumen naturale intelligibile, cuius virtute intelligibiles conceptiones ab eis abstrahimus. Et quantum ad utrumque, iuvatur humana cognitio per revelationem gratiae. Nam et lumen naturale intellectus confortatur per infusionem luminis gratuiti. Et interdum etiam phantasmata in imaginatione hominis formantur divinitus, magis exprimentia res divinas, quam ea quae naturaliter a sensibilibus accipimus; sicut apparet in visionibus prophetalibus. Et interdum etiam aliquae res sensibiles formantur divinitus, aut etiam voces, ad aliquid divinum exprimendum; sicut in Baptismo visus est spiritus sanctus in specie columbae, et vox patris audita est, hic est filius meus dilectus.	I answer that, We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reason. Which is proved thus. The knowledge which we have by natural reason contains two things: images derived from the sensible objects; and the natural intelligible light, enabling us to abstract from them intelligible conceptions. Now in both of these, human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of grace. For the intellect's natural light is strengthened by the infusion of gratuitous light; and sometimes also the images in the human imagination are divinely formed, so as to express divine things better than those do which we receive from sensible objects, as appears in prophetic visions; while sometimes sensible things, or even voices, are divinely formed to express some divine meaning; as in the Baptism, the Holy Ghost was seen in the shape of a dove, and the voice of the Father was heard, "This is My beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17).
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet per revelationem gratiae in hac vita non cognoscamus de Deo quid est, et sic ei quasi ignoto coniungamur; tamen plenius ipsum cognoscimus, inquantum plures et excellentiores effectus eius nobis demonstrantur; et inquantum ei aliqua attribuimus ex revelatione divina, ad quae ratio naturalis non pertingit, ut Deum esse trinum et unum.	Reply to Objection 1. Although by the revelation of grace in this life we cannot know of God "what He is," and thus are united to Him as to one unknown; still we know Him more fully according as many and more excellent of His effects are demonstrated to us, and according as we attribute to Him some things known by divine revelation, to which natural reason cannot reach, as, for instance, that God is Three and One.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ex phantasmatibus, vel a sensu acceptis secundum naturalem ordinem, vel divinitus in imaginatione formatis, tanto excellentior cognitio intellectualis habetur, quanto lumen intelligibile in homine fortius fuerit. Et sic per revelationem ex phantasmatibus plenior cognitio accipitur, ex infusione divini luminis.	Reply to Objection 2. From the images either received from sense in the natural order, or divinely formed in the imagination, we have so much the more excellent intellectual knowledge, the stronger the intelligible light is in man; and thus through the revelation given by the images a fuller knowledge is received by the infusion of the divine light.
IЄ q. 12 a. 13 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod fides cognitio quaedam est, inquantum intellectus determinatur per fidem ad aliquod cognoscibile. Sed haec determinatio ad unum non procedit ex visione credentis, sed a visione eius cui creditur. Et sic, inquantum deest visio, deficit a ratione cognitionis quae est in scientia, nam scientia determinat intellectum ad unum per visionem et intellectum primorum principiorum.	Reply to Objection 3. Faith is a kind of knowledge, inasmuch as the intellect is determined by faith to some knowable object. But this determination to one object does not proceed from the vision of the believer, but from the vision of Him who is believed. Thus as far as faith falls short of vision, it falls short of the knowledge which belongs to science, for science determines the intellect to one object by the vision and understanding of first principles.