Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-103-105

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS CIII - CV

Question 103 The government of things in general
Question 104 the specific effects of this government.
Question 105 How God changes creatures

Latin	Latin
IЄ q. 103 pr. Postquam praemissum est de creatione rerum et distinctione earum, restat nunc tertio considerandum de rerum gubernatione. Et primo, in communi; secundo, in speciali de effectibus gubernationis. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum mundus ab aliquo gubernetur. Secundo, quis sit finis gubernationis ipsius. Tertio, utrum gubernetur ab uno. Quarto, de effectibus gubernationis. Quinto, utrum omnia divinae gubernationi subsint. Sexto, utrum omnia immediate gubernentur a Deo. Septimo, utrum divina gubernatio cassetur in aliquo. Octavo, utrum aliquid divinae providentiae contranitatur.	Question 103. The government of things in generalIs the world governed by someone? What is the end of this government? Is the world governed by one? What are the effects of this government? Are all things subject to Divine government? Are all things immediately governed by God? Is the Divine government frustrated in anything? Is anything contrary to the Divine Providence?
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mundus non gubernetur ab aliquo. Illorum enim est gubernari, quae moventur vel operantur propter finem. Sed res naturales, quae sunt magna pars mundi, non moventur aut operantur propter finem, quia non cognoscunt finem. Ergo mundus non gubernatur.	Objection 1. It would seem that the world is not governed by anyone. For it belongs to those things to be governed, which move or work for an end. But natural things which make up the greater part of the world do not move, or work for an end; for they have no knowledge of their end. Therefore the world is not governed.
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, eorum est proprie gubernari, quae ad aliquid moventur. Sed mundus non videtur ad aliquid moveri, sed in se stabilitatem habet. Ergo non gubernatur.	Objection 2. Further, those things are governed which are moved towards an object. But the world does not appear to be so directed, but has stability in itself. Therefore it is not governed.
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, id quod in se habet necessitatem qua determinatur ad unum, non indiget exteriori gubernante. Sed principaliores mundi partes quadam necessitate determinantur ad unum in suis actibus et motibus. Ergo mundus gubernatione non indiget.	Objection 3. Further, what is necessarily determined by its own nature to one particular thing, does not require any external principle of government. But the principal parts of the world are by a certain necessity determined to something particular in their actions and movements. Therefore the world does not require to be governed.
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. XIV, tu autem, pater, gubernas omnia providentia. Et Boetius dicit, in libro de Consol., o qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas.	On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 14:3): "But Thou, O Father, governest all things by Thy Providence." And Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "Thou Who governest this universe by mandate eternal."
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam antiqui philosophi gubernationem mundo subtraxerunt, dicentes omnia fortuito agi. Sed haec positio ostenditur esse impossibilis ex duobus. Primo quidem, ex eo quod apparet in ipsis rebus. Videmus enim in rebus naturalibus provenire quod melius est, aut semper aut in pluribus, quod non contingeret, nisi per aliquam providentiam res naturales dirigerentur ad finem boni, quod est gubernare. Unde ipse ordo certus rerum manifeste demonstrat gubernationem mundi, sicut si quis intraret domum bene ordinatam, ex ipsa domus ordinatione ordinatoris rationem perpenderet; ut, ab Aristotele dictum, Tullius introducit in libro de natura deorum. Secundo autem apparet idem ex consideratione divinae bonitatis, per quam res in esse productae sunt, ut ex supra dictis patet. Cum enim optimi sit optima producere, non convenit summae Dei bonitati quod res productas ad perfectum non perducat. Ultima autem perfectio uniuscuiusque est in consecutione finis. Unde ad divinam bonitatem pertinet ut, sicut produxit res in esse, ita etiam eas ad finem perducat. Quod est gubernare.	I answer that, Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways. First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes]. Secondly, this is clear from a consideration of Divine goodness, which, as we have said above (44, 4; 65, 2), was the cause of the production of things in existence. For as "it belongs to the best to produce the best," it is not fitting that the supreme goodness of God should produce things without giving them their perfection. Now a thing's ultimate perfection consists in the attainment of its end. Therefore it belongs to the Divine goodness, as it brought things into existence, so to lead them to their end: and this is to govern.
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquid movetur vel operatur propter finem dupliciter. Uno modo, sicut agens seipsum in finem, ut homo et aliae creaturae rationales, et talium est cognoscere rationem finis, et eorum quae sunt ad finem. Aliquid autem dicitur moveri vel operari propter finem, quasi ab alio actum vel directum in finem, sicut sagitta movetur ad signum directa a sagittante, qui cognoscit finem, non autem sagitta. Unde sicut motus sagittae ad determinatum finem demonstrat aperte quod sagitta dirigitur ab aliquo cognoscente; ita certus cursus naturalium rerum cognitione carentium, manifeste declarat mundum ratione aliqua gubernari.	Reply to Objection 1. A thing moves or operates for an end in two ways. First, in moving itself to the end, as man and other rational creatures; and such things have knowledge of their end, and of the means to the end. Secondly, a thing is said to move or operate for an end, as though moved or directed by another thereto, as an arrow directed to the target by the archer, who knows the end unknown to the arrow. Wherefore, as the movement of the arrow towards a definite end shows clearly that it is directed by someone with knowledge, so the unvarying course of natural things which are without knowledge, shows clearly that the world is governed by some reason.
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in omnibus rebus creatis est aliquid stabile, ad minus prima materia; et aliquid ad motum pertinens, ut sub motu etiam operationem comprehendamus. Et quantum ad utrumque, res indiget gubernatione, quia hoc ipsum quod in rebus est stabile, in nihilum decideret (quia ex nihilo est), nisi manu gubernatoris servaretur, ut infra patebit.	Reply to Objection 2. In all created things there is a stable element, at least primary matter; and something belonging to movement, if under movement we include operation. And things need governing as to both: because even that which is stable, since it is created from nothing, would return to nothingness were it not sustained by a governing hand, as will be explained later (104, 1).
IЄ q. 103 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod necessitas naturalis inhaerens rebus quae determinantur ad unum, est impressio quaedam Dei dirigentis ad finem, sicut necessitas qua sagitta agitur ut ad certum signum tendat, est impressio sagittantis, et non sagittae. Sed in hoc differt, quia id quod creaturae a Deo recipiunt, est earum natura; quod autem ab homine rebus naturalibus imprimitur praeter earum naturam, ad violentiam pertinet. Unde sicut necessitas violentiae in motu sagittae demonstrat sagittantis directionem; ita necessitas naturalis creaturarum demonstrat divinae providentiae gubernationem.	Reply to Objection 3. The natural necessity inherent in those beings which are determined to a particular thing, is a kind of impression from God, directing them to their end; as the necessity whereby an arrow is moved so as to fly towards a certain point is an impression from the archer, and not from the arrow. But there is a difference, inasmuch as that which creatures receive from God is their nature, while that which natural things receive from man in addition to their nature is somewhat violent. Wherefore, as the violent necessity in the movement of the arrow shows the action of the archer, so the natural necessity of things shows the government of Divine Providence.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod finis gubernationis mundi non sit aliquid extra mundum existens. Illud enim est finis gubernationis rei, ad quod res gubernata perducitur. Sed illud ad quod res aliqua perducitur, est aliquod bonum in ipsa re, sicut infirmus perducitur ad sanitatem, quae est aliquod bonum in ipso. Ergo finis gubernationis rerum non est aliquod bonum extrinsecum, sed aliquod bonum in ipsis rebus existens.	Objection 1. It would seem that the end of the government of the world is not something existing outside the world. For the end of the government of a thing is that whereto the thing governed is brought. But that whereto a thing is brought is some good in the thing itself; thus a sick man is brought back to health, which is something good in him. Therefore the end of government of things is some good not outside, but within the things themselves.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, I Ethic., quod finium quidam sunt operationes, quidam opera, idest operata. Sed nihil extrinsecum a toto universo potest esse operatum, operatio autem est in ipsis operantibus. Ergo nihil extrinsecum potest esse finis gubernationis rerum.	Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 1): "Some ends are an operation; some are a work"--i.e. produced by an operation. But nothing can be produced by the whole universe outside itself; and operation exists in the agent. Therefore nothing extrinsic can be the end of the government of things.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, bonum multitudinis videtur esse ordo et pax, quae est tranquillitas ordinis. Ut Augustinus dicit XIX de Civ. Dei. Sed mundus in quadam rerum multitudine consistit. Ergo finis gubernationis mundi est pacificus ordo, qui est in ipsis rebus. Non ergo finis gubernationis rerum est quoddam bonum extrinsecum.	Objection 3. Further, the good of the multitude seems to consist in order, and peace which is the "tranquillity of order," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 13). But the world is composed of a multitude of things. Therefore the end of the government of the world is the peaceful order in things themselves. Therefore the end of the government of the world is not an extrinsic good.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. XVI, universa propter se operatus est dominus. Ipse autem est extra totum ordinem universi. Ergo finis rerum est quoddam bonum extrinsecum.	On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 16:4): "The Lord hath made all things for Himself." But God is outside the entire order of the universe. Therefore the end of all things is something extrinsic to them.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum finis respondeat principio, non potest fieri ut, principio cognito, quid sit rerum finis ignoretur. Cum igitur principium rerum sit aliquid extrinsecum a toto universo, scilicet Deus, ut ex supra dictis patet; necesse est quod etiam finis rerum sit quoddam bonum extrinsecum. Et hoc ratione apparet. Manifestum est enim quod bonum habet rationem finis. Unde finis particularis alicuius rei est quoddam bonum particulare, finis autem universalis rerum omnium est quoddam bonum universale. Bonum autem universale est quod est per se et per suam essentiam bonum, quod est ipsa essentia bonitatis, bonum autem particulare est quod est participative bonum. Manifestum est autem quod in tota universitate creaturarum nullum est bonum quod non sit participative bonum. Unde illud bonum quod est finis totius universi, oportet quod sit extrinsecum a toto universo.	I answer that, As the end of a thing corresponds to its beginning, it is not possible to be ignorant of the end of things if we know their beginning. Therefore, since the beginning of all things is something outside the universe, namely, God, it is clear from what has been expounded above (44, 1,2), that we must conclude that the end of all things is some extrinsic good. This can be proved by reason. For it is clear that good has the nature of an end; wherefore, a particular end of anything consists in some particular good; while the universal end of all things is the Universal Good; Which is good of Itself by virtue of Its Essence, Which is the very essence of goodness; whereas a particular good is good by participation. Now it is manifest that in the whole created universe there is not a good which is not such by participation. Wherefore that good which is the end of the whole universe must be a good outside the universe.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum aliquod consequimur multipliciter, uno modo, sicut formam in nobis existentem, ut sanitatem aut scientiam; alio modo, ut aliquid per nos operatum, sicut aedificator consequitur finem faciendo domum; alio modo, sicut aliquod bonum habitum vel possessum, ut ille qui emit, consequitur finem possidendo agrum. Unde nihil prohibet illud ad quod perducitur universum, esse quoddam bonum extrinsecum.	Reply to Objection 1. We may acquire some good in many ways: first, as a form existing in us, such as health or knowledge; secondly, as something done by us, as a builder attains his end by building a house; thirdly, as something good possessed or acquired by us, as the buyer of a field attains his end when he enters into possession. Wherefore nothing prevents something outside the universe being the good to which it is directed.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de finibus artium, quarum quaedam habent pro finibus operationes ipsas, sicut citharistae finis est citharizare; quaedam vero habent pro fine quoddam operatum, sicut aedificatoris finis non est aedificare, sed domus. Contingit autem aliquid extrinsecum esse finem non solum sicut operatum, sed etiam sicut possessum seu habitum, vel etiam sicut repraesentatum, sicut si dicamus quod Hercules est finis imaginis, quae fit ad eum repraesentandum. Sic igitur potest dici quod bonum extrinsecum a toto universo est finis gubernationis rerum sicut habitum et repraesentatum, quia ad hoc unaquaeque res tendit, ut participet ipsum, et assimiletur ei, quantum potest.	Reply to Objection 2. The Philosopher is speaking of the ends of various arts; for the end of some arts consists in the operation itself, as the end of a harpist is to play the harp; whereas the end of other arts consists in something produced, as the end of a builder is not the act of building, but the house he builds. Now it may happen that something extrinsic is the end not only as made, but also as possessed or acquired or even as represented, as if we were to say that Hercules is the end of the statue made to represent him. Therefore we may say that some good outside the whole universe is the end of the government of the universe, as something possessed and represented; for each thing tends to a participation thereof, and to an assimilation thereto, as far as is possible.
IЄ q. 103 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod finis quidem universi est aliquod bonum in ipso existens, scilicet ordo ipsius universi, hoc autem bonum non est ultimus finis, sed ordinatur ad bonum extrinsecum ut ad ultimum finem; sicut etiam ordo exercitus ordinatur ad ducem, ut dicitur in XII Metaphys.	Reply to Objection 3. A good existing in the universe, namely, the order of the universe, is an end thereof; this. however, is not its ultimate end, but is ordered to the extrinsic good as to the end: thus the order in an army is ordered to the general, as stated in Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod mundus non gubernetur ab uno. De causa enim per effectus iudicamus. Sed in gubernatione rerum apparet quod res non uniformiter moventur et operantur, quaedam enim contingenter, quaedam vero ex necessitate, et secundum alias diversitates. Ergo mundus non gubernatur ab uno.	Objection 1. It would seem that the world is not governed by one. For we judge the cause by the effect. Now, we see in the government of the universe that things are not moved and do not operate uniformly, but some contingently and some of necessity in variously different ways. Therefore the world is not governed by one.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ea quae gubernantur ab uno, a se invicem non dissentiunt nisi propter imperitiam aut impotentiam gubernantis, quae a Deo sunt procul. Sed res creatae a se invicem dissentiunt, et contra se invicem pugnant; ut in contrariis apparet. Non ergo mundus gubernatur ab uno.	Objection 2. Further, things which are governed by one do not act against each other, except by the incapacity or unskillfulness of the ruler; which cannot apply to God. But created things agree not together, and act against each other; as is evident in the case of contraries. Therefore the world is not governed by one.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, in natura semper invenitur quod melius est. Sed melius est simul esse duos quam unum, ut dicitur Eccle. IV. Ergo mundus non gubernatur ab uno, sed a pluribus.	Objection 3. Further, in nature we always find what is the better. But it "is better that two should be together than one" (Ecclesiastes 4:9). Therefore the world is not governed by one, but by many.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod unum Deum et unum dominum confitemur; secundum illud apostoli I ad Cor. VIII, nobis est unus Deus, pater, et dominus unus. Quorum utrumque ad gubernationem pertinet, nam ad dominum pertinet gubernatio subditorum; et Dei nomen ex providentia sumitur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo mundus gubernatur ab uno.	On the contrary, We confess our belief in one God and one Lord, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 8:6): "To us there is but one God, the Father . . . and one Lord": and both of these pertain to government. For to the Lord belongs dominion over subjects; and the name of God is taken from Providence as stated above (13, 8). Therefore the world is governed by one.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere quod mundus ab uno gubernetur. Cum enim finis gubernationis mundi sit quod est essentialiter bonum, quod est optimum, necesse est quod mundi gubernatio sit optima. Optima autem gubernatio est quae fit per unum. Cuius ratio est, quia gubernatio nihil aliud est quam directio gubernatorum ad finem, qui est aliquod bonum. Unitas autem pertinet ad rationem bonitatis; ut Boetius probat, in III de Consol., per hoc quod. Sicut omnia desiderant bonum, ita desiderant unitatem, sine qua esse non possunt. Nam unumquodque intantum est, inquantum unum est, unde videmus quod res repugnant suae divisioni quantum possunt, et quod dissolutio uniuscuiusque rei provenit ex defectu illius rei. Et ideo id ad quod tendit intentio multitudinem gubernantis, est unitas sive pax. Unitatis autem causa per se est unum. Manifestum est enim quod plures multa unire et concordare non possunt, nisi ipsi aliquo modo uniantur. Illud autem quod est per se unum, potest convenientius et melius esse causa unitatis, quam multi uniti. Unde multitudo melius gubernatur per unum quam per plures. Relinquitur ergo quod gubernatio mundi, quae est optima, sit ab uno gubernante. Et hoc est quod philosophus dicit in XII Metaphys., entia nolunt disponi male, nec bonum pluralitas principatuum, unus ergo princeps.	I answer that, We must of necessity say that the world is governed by one. For since the end of the government of the world is that which is essentially good, which is the greatest good; the government of the world must be the best kind of government. Now the best government is the government by one. The reason of this is that government is nothing but the directing of the things governed to the end; which consists in some good. But unity belongs to the idea of goodness, as Boethius proves (De Consol. iii, 11) from this, that, as all things desire good, so do they desire unity; without which they would cease to exist. For a thing so far exists as it is one. Whence we observe that things resist division, as far as they can; and the dissolution of a thing arises from defect therein. Therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. Now the proper cause of unity is one. For it is clear that several cannot be the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united. Furthermore, what is one in itself is a more apt and a better cause of unity than several things united. Therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several. From this it follows that the government of the world, being the best form of government, must be by one. This is expressed by the Philosopher (Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10): "Things refuse to be ill governed; and multiplicity of authorities is a bad thing, therefore there should be one ruler."
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod motus est actus mobilis a movente. Difformitas ergo motuum est ex diversitate mobilium, quam requirit perfectio universi, ut supra dictum est; non ex diversitate gubernantium.	Reply to Objection 1. Movement is "the act of a thing moved, caused by the mover." Wherefore dissimilarity of movements is caused by diversity of things moved, which diversity is essential to the perfection of the universe (47, 1,2; 48, 2), and not by a diversity of governors.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod contraria, etsi dissentiant quantum ad fines proximos, conveniunt tamen quantum ad finem ultimum, prout concluduntur sub uno ordine universi.	Reply to Objection 2. Although contraries do not agree with each other in their proximate ends, nevertheless they agree in the ultimate end, so far as they are included in the one order of the universe.
IЄ q. 103 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in particularibus bonis duo sunt meliora quam unum, sed ei quod est essentialiter bonum, non potest fieri aliqua additio bonitatis.	Reply to Objection 3. If we consider individual goods, then two are better than one. But if we consider the essential good, then no addition is possible.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus gubernationis mundi sit unus tantum, et non plures. Effectus enim gubernationis esse videtur id quod per gubernationem in rebus gubernatis causatur. Hoc autem est unum, scilicet bonum ordinis; ut in exercitu patet. Ergo gubernationis mundi est unus effectus.	Objection 1. It would seem that there is but one effect of the government of the world and not many. For the effect of government is that which is caused in the things governed. This is one, namely, the good which consists in order; as may be seen in the example of an army. Therefore the government of the world has but one effect.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, ab uno natum est unum tantum procedere. Sed mundus gubernatur ab uno, ut ostensum est. Ergo et gubernationis effectus est unus tantum.	Objection 2. Further, from one there naturally proceeds but one. But the world is governed by one as we have proved (3). Therefore also the effect of this government is but one.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, si effectus gubernationis non est unus tantum propter unitatem gubernantis, oportet quod multiplicetur secundum multitudinem gubernatorum. Haec autem sunt nobis innumerabilia. Ergo gubernationis effectus non possunt comprehendi sub aliquo certo numero.	Objection 3. Further, if the effect of government is not one by reason of the unity of the Governor, it must be many by reason of the many things governed. But these are too numerous to be counted. Therefore we cannot assign any definite number to the effects of government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, quod deitas providentia et bonitate perfecta omnia continet, et seipsa implet. Gubernatio autem ad providentiam pertinet. Ergo gubernationis divinae sunt aliqui determinati effectus.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii): "God contains all and fills all by His providence and perfect goodness." But government belongs to providence. Therefore there are certain definite effects of the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod effectus cuiuslibet actionis ex fine eius pensari potest, nam per operationem efficitur ut pertingatur ad finem. Finis autem gubernationis mundi est bonum essentiale, ad cuius participationem et assimilationem omnia tendunt. Effectus igitur gubernationis potest accipi tripliciter. Uno modo, ex parte ipsius finis, et sic est unus effectus gubernationis, scilicet assimilari summo bono. Alio modo potest considerari effectus gubernationis secundum ea quibus ad Dei assimilationem creatura perducitur. Et sic in generali sunt duo effectus gubernationis. Creatura enim assimilatur Deo quantum ad duo, scilicet quantum ad id quod Deus bonus est, inquantum creatura est bona; et quantum ad hoc quod Deus est aliis causa bonitatis, inquantum una creatura movet aliam ad bonitatem. Unde duo sunt effectus gubernationis, scilicet conservatio rerum in bono, et motio earum ad bonum. Tertio modo potest considerari effectus gubernationis in particulari, et sic sunt nobis innumerabiles.	I answer that, The effect of any action may be judged from its end; because it is by action that the attainment of the end is effected. Now the end of the government of the world is the essential good, to the participation and similarity of which all things tend. Consequently the effect of the government of the world may be taken in three ways. First, on the part of the end itself; and in this way there is but one effect, that is, assimilation to the supreme good. Secondly, the effect of the government of the world may be considered on the part of those things by means of which the creature is made like to God. Thus there are, in general, two effects of the government. For the creature is assimilated to God in two things; first, with regard to this, that God is good; and so the creature becomes like Him by being good; and secondly, with regard to this, that God is the cause of goodness in others; and so the creature becomes like God by moving others to be good. Wherefore there are two effects of government, the preservation of things in their goodness, and the moving of things to good. Thirdly, we may consider in the individual the effects of the government of the world; and in this way they are without number.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ordo universi includit in se et conservationem rerum diversarum a Deo institutarum, et motionem earum, quia secundum haec duo invenitur ordo in rebus, secundum scilicet quod una est melior alia, et secundum quod una ab alia movetur.	Reply to Objection 1. The order of the universe includes both the preservation of things created by God and their movement. As regards these two things we find order among them, inasmuch as one is better than another; and one is moved by another.
IЄ q. 103 a. 4 ad 2 Ad alia duo patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt.	From what has been said above, we can gather the replies to the other two objections.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnia divinae gubernationi subdantur. Dicitur enim Eccle. IX, vidi sub sole nec velocium esse cursum, nec fortium bellum, nec sapientium panem, nec doctorum divitias, nec artificum gratiam, sed tempus casumque in omnibus. Quae autem gubernationi alicuius subsunt, non sunt casualia. Ergo ea quae sunt sub sole, non subduntur divinae gubernationi.	Objection 1. It would seem that not all things are subject to the Divine government. For it is written (Ecclesiastes 9:11): "I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favor to the skillful, but time and chance in all." But things subject to the Divine government are not ruled by chance. Therefore those things which are under the sun are not subject to the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus, I ad Cor. IX, dicit quod non est Deo cura de bobus. Sed unicuique est cura eorum quae gubernantur ab ipso. Non ergo omnia subduntur divinae gubernationi.	Objection 2. Further, the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 9:9): "God hath no care for oxen." But he that governs has care for the things he governs. Therefore all things are not subject to the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod seipsum gubernare potest, non videtur alterius gubernatione indigere. Sed creatura rationalis seipsam gubernare potest, cum habeat dominium sui actus, et per se agat; et non solum agatur ab alio, quod videtur esse eorum quae gubernantur. Ergo non omnia subsunt divinae gubernationi.	Objection 3. Further, what can govern itself needs not to be governed by another. But the rational creature can govern itself; since it is master of its own act, and acts of itself; and is not made to act by another, which seems proper to things which are governed. Therefore all things are not subject to the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, V de Civ. Dei, quod Deus non solum caelum et terram, nec solum hominem et Angelum, sed nec exigui et contemptibilis animantis viscera, nec avis pennulam, nec herbae flosculum, nec arboris folium, sine suarum partium convenientia dereliquit. Omnia ergo eius gubernationi subduntur.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 11): "Not only heaven and earth, not only man and angel, even the bowels of the lowest animal, even the wing of the bird, the flower of the plant, the leaf of the tree, hath God endowed with every fitting detail of their nature." Therefore all things are subject to His government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum eandem rationem competit Deo esse gubernatorem rerum, et causam earum, quia eiusdem est rem producere, et ei perfectionem dare, quod ad gubernantem pertinet. Deus autem est causa non quidem particularis unius generis rerum, sed universalis totius entis, ut supra ostensum est. Unde sicut nihil potest esse quod non sit a Deo creatum, ita nihil potest esse quod eius gubernationi non subdatur. Patet etiam hoc idem ex ratione finis. Intantum enim alicuius gubernatio se extendit, inquantum se extendere potest finis gubernationis. Finis autem divinae gubernationis est ipsa sua bonitas, ut supra ostensum est. Unde cum nihil esse possit quod non ordinetur in divinam bonitatem sicut in finem, ut ex supra dictis patet; impossibile est quod aliquod entium subtrahatur gubernationi divinae. Stulta igitur fuit opinio dicentium quod haec inferiora corruptibilia, vel etiam singularia, aut etiam res humanae non gubernantur a Deo. Ex quorum persona dicitur Ezech. IX, dereliquit dominus terram.	I answer that, For the same reason is God the ruler of things as He is their cause, because the same gives existence as gives perfection; and this belongs to government. Now God is the cause not indeed only of some particular kind of being, but of the whole universal being, as proved above (44, 1,2). Wherefore, as there can be nothing which is not created by God, so there can be nothing which is not subject to His government. This can also be proved from the nature of the end of government. For a man's government extends over all those things which come under the end of his government. Now the end of the Divine government is the Divine goodness; as we have shown (2). Wherefore, as there can be nothing that is not ordered to the Divine goodness as its end, as is clear from what we have said above (44, 4; 65, 2), so it is impossible for anything to escape from the Divine government. Foolish therefore was the opinion of those who said that the corruptible lower world, or individual things, or that even human affairs, were not subject to the Divine government. These are represented as saying, "God hath abandoned the earth" (Ezekiel 9:9).
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sub sole dicuntur esse ea quae secundum motum solis generantur et corrumpuntur. In quibus omnibus casus invenitur; non ita quod omnia quae in eis fiunt, sint casualia; sed quia in quolibet eorum aliquid casuale inveniri potest. Et hoc ipsum quod aliquid casuale invenitur in huiusmodi rebus, demonstrat ea alicuius gubernationi esse subiecta. Nisi enim huiusmodi corruptibilia ab aliquo superiori gubernarentur, nihil intenderent, maxime quae non cognoscunt, et sic non eveniret in eis aliquid praeter intentionem, quod facit rationem casus. Unde ad ostendendum quod casualia secundum ordinem alicuius superioris causae proveniunt, non dicit simpliciter quod vidit casum esse in omnibus, sed dicit tempus et casum; quia scilicet secundum aliquem ordinem temporis, casuales defectus inveniuntur in his rebus.	Reply to Objection 1. These things are said to be under the sun which are generated and corrupted according to the sun's movement. In all such things we find chance: not that everything is casual which occurs in such things; but that in each one there is an element of chance. And the very fact that an element of chance is found in those things proves that they are subject to government of some kind. For unless corruptible things were governed by a higher being, they would tend to nothing definite, especially those which possess no kind of knowledge. So nothing would happen unintentionally; which constitutes the nature of chance. Wherefore to show how things happen by chance and yet according to the ordering of a higher cause, he does not say absolutely that he observes chance in all things, but "time and chance," that is to say, that defects may be found in these things according to some order of time.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod gubernatio est quaedam mutatio gubernatorum a gubernante. Omnis autem motus est actus mobilis a movente, ut dicitur in III Physic. Omnis autem actus proportionatur ei cuius est actus. Et sic oportet quod diversa mobilia diversimode moveantur, etiam secundum motionem unius motoris. Sic igitur secundum unam artem Dei gubernantis, res diversimode gubernantur, secundum earum diversitatem. Quaedam enim secundum suam naturam sunt per se agentia, tanquam habentia dominium sui actus, et ista gubernantur a Deo non solum per hoc quod moventur ab ipso Deo in eis interius operante, sed etiam per hoc quod ab eo inducuntur ad bonum et retrahuntur a malo per praecepta et prohibitiones, praemia et poenas. Hoc autem modo non gubernantur a Deo creaturae irrationales, quae tantum aguntur, et non agunt. Cum ergo apostolus dicit quod Deo non est cura de bobus, non totaliter subtrahit boves a cura gubernationis divinae; sed solum quantum ad modum qui proprie competit rationali creaturae.	Reply to Objection 2. Government implies a certain change effected by the governor in the things governed. Now every movement is the act of a movable thing, caused by the moving principle, as is laid down Phys. iii, 3. And every act is proportionate to that of which it is an act. Consequently, various movable things must be moved variously, even as regards movement by one and the same mover. Thus by the one art of the Divine governor, various things are variously governed according to their variety. Some, according to their nature, act of themselves, having dominion over their actions; and these are governed by God, not only in this, that they are moved by God Himself, Who works in them interiorly; but also in this, that they are induced by Him to do good and to fly from evil, by precepts and prohibitions, rewards and punishments. But irrational creatures which do not act but are acted upon, are not thus governed by God. Hence, when the Apostle says that "God hath no care for oxen," he does not wholly withdraw them from the Divine government, but only as regards the way in which rational creatures are governed.
IЄ q. 103 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod creatura rationalis gubernat seipsam per intellectum et voluntatem, quorum utrumque indiget regi et perfici ab intellectu et voluntate Dei. Et ideo supra gubernationem qua creatura rationalis gubernat seipsam tanquam domina sui actus, indiget gubernari a Deo.	Reply to Objection 3. The rational creature governs itself by its intellect and will, both of which require to be governed and perfected by the Divine intellect and will. Therefore above the government whereby the rational creature governs itself as master of its own act, it requires to be governed by God.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnia immediate gubernentur a Deo. Gregorius enim Nyssenus reprehendit opinionem Platonis, qui divisit providentiam in tria, primam quidem primi Dei, qui providet rebus caelestibus, et universalibus omnibus; secundam vero providentiam esse dixit secundorum deorum, qui caelum circumeunt, scilicet respectu eorum quae sunt in generatione et corruptione; tertiam vero providentiam dixit quorundam Daemonum, qui sunt custodes circa terram humanarum actionum. Ergo videtur quod omnia immediate a Deo gubernentur.	Objection 1. It would seem that all things are governed by God immediately. For Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom.) reproves the opinion of Plato who divides providence into three parts. The first he ascribes to the supreme god, who watches over heavenly things and all universals; the second providence he attributes to the secondary deities, who go the round of the heavens to watch over generation and corruption; while he ascribes a third providence to certain spirits who are guardians on earth of human actions. Therefore it seems that all things are immediately governed by God.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, melius est aliquid fieri per unum quam per multa, si sit possibile, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Sed Deus potest per seipsum absque mediis causis omnia gubernare. Ergo videtur quod omnia immediate gubernet.	Objection 2. Further, it is better that a thing be done by one, if possible, than by many, as the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, 6). But God can by Himself govern all things without any intermediary cause. Therefore it seems that He governs all things immediately.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, nihil in Deo est deficiens et imperfectum. Sed ad defectum gubernatoris pertinere videtur quod mediantibus aliquibus gubernet, sicut rex terrenus, quia non sufficit ad omnia agenda, nec ubique est praesens in suo regno, propter hoc oportet quod habeat suae gubernationis ministros. Ergo Deus immediate omnia gubernat.	Objection 3. Further, in God nothing is defective or imperfect. But it seems to be imperfect in a ruler to govern by means of others; thus an earthly king, by reason of his not being able to do everything himself, and because he cannot be everywhere at the same time, requires to govern by means of ministers. Therefore God governs all things immediately.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in III de Trin., quemadmodum corpora crassiora et inferiora per subtiliora et potentiora quodam ordine reguntur; ita omnia corpora per spiritum vitae rationalem, et spiritus vitae rationalis desertor atque peccator per spiritum vitae rationalem pium et iustum, et ille per ipsum Deum.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4): "As the lower and grosser bodies are ruled in a certain orderly way by bodies of greater subtlety and power; so all bodies are ruled by the rational spirit of life; and the sinful and unfaithful spirit is ruled by the good and just spirit of life; and this spirit by God Himself."
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in gubernatione duo sunt consideranda, scilicet ratio gubernationis, quae est ipsa providentia; et executio. Quantum igitur ad rationem gubernationis pertinet, Deus immediate omnia gubernat, quantum autem pertinet ad executionem gubernationis, Deus gubernat quaedam mediantibus aliis. Cuius ratio est quia, cum Deus sit ipsa essentia bonitatis, unumquodque attribuendum est Deo secundum sui optimum. Optimum autem in omni genere vel ratione vel cognitione practica, qualis est ratio gubernationis, in hoc consistit, quod particularia cognoscantur, in quibus est actus, sicut optimus medicus est, non qui considerat sola universalia, sed qui potest etiam considerare minima particularium; et idem patet in ceteris. Unde oportet dicere quod Deus omnium etiam minimorum particularium rationem gubernationis habeat. Sed cum per gubernationem res quae gubernantur sint ad perfectionem perducendae; tanto erit melior gubernatio, quanto maior perfectio a gubernante rebus gubernatis communicatur. Maior autem perfectio est quod aliquid in se sit bonum, et etiam sit aliis causa bonitatis, quam si esset solummodo in se bonum. Et ideo sic Deus gubernat res, ut quasdam aliarum in gubernando causas instituat, sicut si aliquis magister discipulos suos non solum scientes faceret, sed etiam aliorum doctores.	I answer that, In government there are two things to be considered; the design of government, which is providence itself; and the execution of the design. As to the design of government, God governs all things immediately; whereas in its execution, He governs some things by means of others. The reason of this is that as God is the very essence of goodness, so everything must be attributed to God in its highest degree of goodness. Now the highest degree of goodness in any practical order, design or knowledge (and such is the design of government) consists in knowing the individuals acted upon; as the best physician is not the one who can only give his attention to general principles, but who can consider the least details; and so on in other things. Therefore we must say that God has the design of the government of all things, even of the very least. But since things which are governed should be brought to perfection by government, this government will be so much the better in the degree the things governed are brought to perfection. Now it is a greater perfection for a thing to be good in itself and also the cause of goodness in others, than only to be good in itself. Therefore God so governs things that He makes some of them to be causes of others in government; as a master, who not only imparts knowledge to his pupils, but gives also the faculty of teaching others.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod opinio Platonis reprehenditur, quia etiam quantum ad rationem gubernationis, posuit Deum non immediate omnia gubernare. Quod patet per hoc, quod divisit in tria providentiam, quae est ratio gubernationis.	Reply to Objection 1. Plato's opinion is to be rejected, because he held that God did not govern all things immediately, even in the design of government; this is clear from the fact that he divided providence, which is the design of government, into three parts.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, si solus Deus gubernaret, subtraheretur perfectio causalis a rebus. Unde non totum fieret per unum, quod fit per multa.	Reply to Objection 2. If God governed alone, things would be deprived of the perfection of causality. Wherefore all that is effected by many would not be accomplished by one.
IЄ q. 103 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod non solum pertinet ad imperfectionem regis terreni quod executores habeat suae gubernationis, sed etiam ad regis dignitatem, quia ex ordine ministrorum potestas regia praeclarior redditur.	Reply to Objection 3. That an earthly king should have ministers to execute his laws is a sign not only of his being imperfect, but also of his dignity; because by the ordering of ministers the kingly power is brought into greater evidence.
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquid praeter ordinem divinae gubernationis contingere possit. Dicit enim Boetius, in III de Consol., quod Deus per bonum cuncta disponit. Si ergo nihil in rebus contingit praeter ordinem divinae gubernationis, sequeretur quod nihil esset malum in rebus.	Objection 1. It would seem possible that something may occur outside the order of the Divine government. For Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that "God disposes all for good." Therefore, if nothing happens outside the order of the Divine government, it would follow that no evil exists.
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil est casuale quod evenit secundum praeordinationem alicuius gubernantis. Si igitur nihil accidit in rebus praeter ordinem gubernationis divinae, sequitur quod nihil in rebus sit fortuitum et casuale.	Objection 2. Further, nothing that is in accordance with the pre-ordination of a ruler occurs by chance. Therefore, if nothing occurs outside the order of the Divine government, it follows that there is nothing fortuitous and casual.
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, ordo divinae gubernationis est certus et immutabilis, quia est secundum rationem aeternam. Si igitur nihil possit contingere in rebus praeter ordinem divinae gubernationis, sequitur quod omnia ex necessitate eveniant, et nihil sit in rebus contingens, quod est inconveniens. Potest igitur in rebus aliquid contingere praeter ordinem gubernationis divinae.	Objection 3. Further, the order of Divine Providence is certain and unchangeable; because it is in accordance with the eternal design. Therefore, if nothing happens outside the order of the Divine government, it follows that all things happen by necessity, and nothing is contingent; which is false. Therefore it is possible for something to occur outside the order of the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Esther XIII, domine Deus, rex omnipotens, in ditione tua cuncta sunt posita, et non est qui possit resistere tuae voluntati.	On the contrary, It is written (Esther 13:9): "O Lord, Lord, almighty King, all things are in Thy power, and there is none that can resist Thy will."
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod praeter ordinem alicuius particularis causae, aliquis effectus evenire potest; non autem praeter ordinem causae universalis. Cuius ratio est, quia praeter ordinem particularis causae nihil provenit nisi ex aliqua alia causa impediente, quam quidem causam necesse est reducere in primam causam universalem, sicut indigestio contingit praeter ordinem virtutis nutritivae, ex aliquo impedimento, puta ex grossitie cibi, quam necesse est reducere in aliquam aliam causam, et sic usque ad causam primam universalem. Cum igitur Deus sit prima causa universalis non unius generis tantum, sed universaliter totius entis; impossibile est quod aliquid contingat praeter ordinem divinae gubernationis, sed ex hoc ipso quod aliquid ex una parte videtur exire ab ordine divinae providentiae qui consideratur secundum aliquam particularem causam, necesse est quod in eundem ordinem relabatur secundum aliam causam.	I answer that, It is possible for an effect to result outside the order of some particular cause; but not outside the order of the universal cause. The reason of this is that no effect results outside the order of a particular cause, except through some other impeding cause; which other cause must itself be reduced to the first universal cause; as indigestion may occur outside the order of the nutritive power by some such impediment as the coarseness of the food, which again is to be ascribed to some other cause, and so on till we come to the first universal cause. Therefore as God is the first universal cause, not of one genus only, but of all being in general, it is impossible for anything to occur outside the order of the Divine government; but from the very fact that from one point of view something seems to evade the order of Divine providence considered in regard to one particular cause, it must necessarily come back to that order as regards some other cause.
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil invenitur in mundo quod sit totaliter malum, quia malum semper fundatur in bono, ut supra ostensum est. Et ideo res aliqua dicitur mala, per hoc quod exit ab ordine alicuius particularis boni. Si autem totaliter exiret ab ordine gubernationis divinae, totaliter nihil esset.	Reply to Objection 1. There is nothing wholly evil in the world, for evil is ever founded on good, as shown above (48, 3). Therefore something is said to be evil through its escaping from the order of some particular good. If it wholly escaped from the order of the Divine government, it would wholly cease to exist.
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod aliqua dicuntur esse casualia in rebus, per ordinem ad causas particulares, extra quarum ordinem fiunt. Sed quantum ad divinam providentiam pertinet, nihil fit casu in mundo, ut Augustinus dicit in libro octoginta trium quaest.	Reply to Objection 2. Things are said to be fortuitous as regards some particular cause from the order of which they escape. But as to the order of Divine providence, "nothing in the world happens by chance," as Augustine declares (QQ. 83, qu. 24).
IЄ q. 103 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod dicuntur aliqui effectus contingentes, per comparationem ad proximas causas, quae in suis effectibus deficere possunt, non propter hoc quod aliquid fieri possit extra totum ordinem gubernationis divinae. Quia hoc ipsum quod aliquid contingit praeter ordinem causae proximae, est ex aliqua causa subiecta gubernationi divinae.	Reply to Objection 3. Certain effects are said to be contingent as compared to their proximate causes, which may fail in their effects; and not as though anything could happen entirely outside the order of Divine government. The very fact that something occurs outside the order of some proximate cause, is owing to some other cause, itself subject to the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquid possit reniti contra ordinem gubernationis divinae. Dicitur enim Isaiae III, lingua eorum et adinventiones eorum contra dominum.	Objection 1. It would seem possible that some resistance can be made to the order of the Divine government. For it is written (Isaiah 3:8): "Their tongue and their devices are against the Lord."
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus rex iuste punit eos qui eius ordinationi non repugnant. Si igitur nihil contraniteretur divinae ordinationi, nullus iuste puniretur a Deo.	Objection 2. Further, a king does not justly punish those who do not rebel against his commands. Therefore if no one rebelled against God's commands, no one would be justly punished by God.
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, quaelibet res est subiecta ordini divinae gubernationis. Sed una res ab alia impugnatur. Ergo aliqua sunt quae contranituntur divinae gubernationi.	Objection 3. Further, everything is subject to the order of the Divine government. But some things oppose others. Therefore some things rebel against the order of the Divine government.
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Boetius, in III de Consol., non est aliquid quod summo huic bono vel velit vel possit obsistere. Est igitur summum bonum quod regit cuncta fortiter, suaviterque disponit; ut dicitur Sap. VIII, de divina sapientia.	On the contrary, Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "There is nothing that can desire or is able to resist this sovereign good. It is this sovereign good therefore that ruleth all mightily and ordereth all sweetly," as is said (Wisdom 8) of Divine wisdom.
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ordo divinae providentiae dupliciter potest considerari, uno modo in generali, secundum scilicet quod progreditur a causa gubernativa totius; alio modo in speciali, secundum scilicet quod progreditur ex aliqua causa particulari, quae est executiva divinae gubernationis. Primo igitur modo, nihil contranititur ordini divinae gubernationis. Quod ex duobus patet. Primo quidem, ex hoc quod ordo divinae gubernationis totaliter in bonum tendit, et unaquaeque res in sua operatione et conatu non tendit nisi ad bonum, nullus enim respiciens ad malum operatur, ut Dionysius dicit. Alio modo apparet idem ex hoc quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnis inclinatio alicuius rei vel naturalis vel voluntaria, nihil est aliud quam quaedam impressio a primo movente, sicut inclinatio sagittae ad signum determinatum, nihil aliud est quam quaedam impressio a sagittante. Unde omnia quae agunt vel naturaliter vel voluntarie, quasi propria sponte perveniunt in id ad quod divinitus ordinantur. Et ideo dicitur Deus omnia disponere suaviter.	I answer that, We may consider the order of Divine providence in two ways: in general, inasmuch as it proceeds from the governing cause of all; and in particular, inasmuch as it proceeds from some particular cause which executes the order of the Divine government. Considered in the first way, nothing can resist the order of the Divine government. This can be proved in two ways: firstly from the fact that the order of the Divine government is wholly directed to good, and everything by its own operation and effort tends to good only, "for no one acts intending evil," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): secondly from the fact that, as we have said above (1, ad 3; 5, ad 2), every inclination of anything, whether natural or voluntary, is nothing but a kind of impression from the first mover; as the inclination of the arrow towards a fixed point is nothing but an impulse received from the archer. Wherefore every agent, whether natural or free, attains to its divinely appointed end, as though of its own accord. For this reason God is said "to order all things sweetly."
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dicuntur aliqui vel cogitare vel loqui vel agere contra Deum, non quia totaliter renitantur ordini divinae gubernationis, quia etiam peccantes intendunt aliquod bonum, sed quia contranituntur cuidam determinato bono, quod est eis conveniens secundum suam naturam aut statum. Et ideo puniuntur iuste a Deo.	Reply to Objection 1. Some are said to think or speak, or act against God: not that they entirely resist the order of the Divine government; for even the sinner intends the attainment of a certain good: but because they resist some particular good, which belongs to their nature or state. Therefore they are justly punished by God.
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 ad 2 Et per hoc patet solutio ad secundum.	Reply to Objection 2 is clear from the above.
IЄ q. 103 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc quod una res alteri contrapugnat, ostenditur quod aliquid reniti potest ordini qui est ex aliqua causa particulari, non autem ordini qui dependet a causa universali totius.	Reply to Objection 3. From the fact that one thing opposes another, it follows that some one thing can resist the order of a particular cause; but not that order which depends on the universal cause of all things.
IЄ q. 104 pr. Deinde considerandum est de effectibus divinae gubernationis in speciali. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum creaturae indigeant ut conserventur in esse a Deo. Secundo, utrum conserventur a Deo immediate. Tertio, utrum Deus possit aliquid redigere in nihilum. Quarto, utrum aliquid in nihilum redigatur.	Question 104. The special effects of the divine governmentDo creatures need to be kept in existence by God? Are they immediately preserved by God? Can God reduce anything to nothingness? Is anything reduced to nothingness?
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod creaturae non indigeant ut a Deo conserventur in esse. Quod enim non potest non esse, non indiget ut conservetur in esse, sicut quod non potest abscedere, non indiget ut conservetur ne abscedat. Sed quaedam creaturae sunt quae secundum sui naturam non possunt non esse. Ergo non omnes creaturae indigent ut a Deo conserventur in esse. Probatio mediae. Quod per se inest alicui, necesse est ei inesse, et oppositum eius impossibile est ei inesse, sicut necessarium est binarium esse parem, et impossibile est eum esse imparem. Esse autem per se consequitur ad formam, quia unumquodque secundum hoc est ens actu, quod habet formam. Quaedam autem creaturae sunt, quae sunt formae quaedam subsistentes, sicut de Angelis dictum est; et sic per se inest eis esse. Et eadem ratio est de illis quorum materia non est in potentia nisi ad unam formam, sicut supra dictum est de corporibus caelestibus. Huiusmodi ergo creaturae secundum suam naturam ex necessitate sunt, et non possunt non esse, potentia enim ad non esse non potest fundari neque in forma, quam per se sequitur esse; neque in materia existente sub forma quam non potest amittere, cum non sit in potentia ad aliam formam.	Objection 1. It would seem that creatures do not need to be kept in being by God. For what cannot not-be, does not need to be kept in being; just as that which cannot depart, does not need to be kept from departing. But some creatures by their very nature cannot not-be. Therefore not all creatures need to be kept in being by God. The middle proposition is proved thus. That which is included in the nature of a thing is necessarily in that thing, and its contrary cannot be in it; thus a multiple of two must necessarily be even, and cannot possibly be an odd number. Now form brings being with itself, because everything is actually in being, so far as it has form. But some creatures are subsistent forms, as we have said of the angels (50, 2,5): and thus to be is in them of themselves. The same reasoning applies to those creatures whose matter is in potentiality to one form only, as above explained of heavenly bodies (66, 2). Therefore such creatures as these have in their nature to be necessarily, and cannot not-be; for there can be no potentiality to not-being, either in the form which has being of itself, or in matter existing under a form which it cannot lose, since it is not in potentiality to any other form.
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus est potentior quolibet creato agente. Sed aliquod creatum agens potest communicare suo effectui ut conservetur in esse, etiam eius operatione cessante, sicut cessante actione aedificatoris, remanet domus; et cessante actione ignis, remanet aqua calefacta per aliquod tempus. Ergo multo magis Deus potest suae creaturae conferre quod conservetur in esse, sua operatione cessante.	Objection 2. Further, God is more powerful than any created agent. But a created agent, even after ceasing to act, can cause its effect to be preserved in being; thus the house continues to stand after the builder has ceased to build; and water remains hot for some time after the fire has ceased to heat. Much more, therefore, can God cause His creature to be kept in being, after He has ceased to create it.
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullum violentum potest contingere absque aliqua causa agente. Sed tendere ad non esse est innaturale et violentum cuilibet creaturae, quia quaelibet creatura naturaliter appetit esse. Ergo nulla creatura potest tendere in non esse, nisi aliquo agente ad corruptionem. Sed quaedam sunt ad quorum corruptionem nihil agere potest; sicut spirituales substantiae, et corpora caelestia. Ergo huiusmodi creaturae non possunt tendere in non esse, etiam Dei operatione cessante.	Objection 3. Further, nothing violent can occur, except there be some active cause thereof. But tendency to not-being is unnatural and violent to any creature, since all creatures naturally desire to be. Therefore no creature can tend to not-being, except through some active cause of corruption. Now there are creatures of such a nature that nothing can cause them to corrupt; such are spiritual substances and heavenly bodies. Therefore such creatures cannot tend to not-being, even if God were to withdraw His action.
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, si Deus conservat res in esse, hoc erit per aliquam actionem. Per quamlibet autem actionem agentis, si sit efficax, aliquid fit in effectu. Oportet igitur quod per actionem Dei conservantis aliquid fiat in creatura. Sed hoc non videtur. Non enim per huiusmodi actionem fit ipsum esse creaturae, quia quod iam est, non fit. Neque iterum aliquid aliud superadditum, quia vel non continue Deus conservaret creaturam in esse, vel continue aliquid adderetur creaturae, quod est inconveniens. Non igitur creaturae conservantur in esse a Deo.	Objection 4. Further, if God keeps creatures in being, this is done by some action. Now every action of an agent, if that action be efficacious, produces something in the effect. Therefore the preserving power of God must produce something in the creature. But this is not so; because this action does not give being to the creature, since being is not given to that which already is: nor does it add anything new to the creature; because either God would not keep the creature in being continually, or He would be continually adding something new to the creature; either of which is unreasonable. Therefore creatures are not kept in being by God.
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. I, portans omnia verbo virtutis suae.	On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 1:3): "Upholding all things by the word of His power."
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere, et secundum fidem et secundum rationem, quod creaturae conservantur in esse a Deo. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod aliquid conservatur ab altero dupliciter. Uno modo, indirecte et per accidens, sicut ille dicitur rem conservare, qui removet corrumpens; puta si aliquis puerum custodiat ne cadat in ignem, dicitur eum conservare. Et sic etiam Deus dicitur aliqua conservare, sed non omnia, quia quaedam sunt quae non habent corrumpentia, quae necesse sit removere ad rei conservationem. Alio modo dicitur aliquid rem aliquam conservare per se et directe, inquantum scilicet illud quod conservatur, dependet a conservante, ut sine eo esse non possit. Et hoc modo omnes creaturae indigent divina conservatione. Dependet enim esse cuiuslibet creaturae a Deo, ita quod nec ad momentum subsistere possent, sed in nihilum redigerentur, nisi operatione divinae virtutis conservarentur in esse, sicut Gregorius dicit. Et hoc sic perspici potest. Omnis enim effectus dependet a sua causa, secundum quod est causa eius. Sed considerandum est quod aliquod agens est causa sui effectus secundum fieri tantum, et non directe secundum esse eius. Quod quidem contingit et in artificialibus, et in rebus naturalibus. Aedificator enim est causa domus quantum ad eius fieri, non autem directe quantum ad esse eius. Manifestum est enim quod esse domus consequitur formam eius, forma autem domus est compositio et ordo, quae quidem forma consequitur naturalem virtutem quarundam rerum. Sicut enim coquus coquit cibum adhibendo aliquam virtutem naturalem activam, scilicet ignis; ita aedificator facit domum adhibendo caementum, lapides et ligna, quae sunt susceptiva et conservativa talis compositionis et ordinis. Unde esse domus dependet ex naturis harum rerum, sicut fieri domus dependet ex actione aedificatoris. Et simili ratione est considerandum in rebus naturalibus. Quia si aliquod agens non est causa formae inquantum huiusmodi, non erit per se causa esse quod consequitur ad talem formam, sed erit causa effectus secundum fieri tantum. Manifestum est autem quod, si aliqua duo sunt eiusdem speciei, unum non potest esse per se causa formae alterius, inquantum est talis forma, quia sic esset causa formae propriae, cum sit eadem ratio utriusque. Sed potest esse causa huiusmodi formae secundum quod est in materia, idest quod haec materia acquirat hanc formam. Et hoc est esse causa secundum fieri; sicut cum homo generat hominem, et ignis ignem. Et ideo quandocumque naturalis effectus est natus impressionem agentis recipere secundum eandem rationem secundum quam est in agente, tunc fieri effectus dependet ab agente, non autem esse ipsius. Sed aliquando effectus non est natus recipere impressionem agentis secundum eandem rationem secundum quam est in agente, sicut patet in omnibus agentibus quae non agunt simile secundum speciem; sicut caelestia corpora sunt causa generationis inferiorum corporum dissimilium secundum speciem. Et tale agens potest esse causa formae secundum rationem talis formae, et non solum secundum quod acquiritur in hac materia, et ideo est causa non solum fiendi, sed essendi. Sicut igitur fieri rei non potest remanere, cessante actione agentis quod est causa effectus secundum fieri; ita nec esse rei potest remanere, cessante actione agentis quod est causa effectus non solum secundum fieri, sed etiam secundum esse. Et haec est ratio quare aqua calefacta retinet calorem, cessante actione ignis; non autem remanet aer illuminatus, nec ad momentum, cessante actione solis. Quia scilicet materia aquae susceptiva est caloris ignis secundum eandem rationem qua est in igne, unde si perfecte perducatur ad formam ignis, retinebit calorem semper; si autem imperfecte participet aliquid de forma ignis secundum quandam inchoationem, calor non semper remanebit, sed ad tempus, propter debilem participationem principii caloris. Aer autem nullo modo natus est recipere lumen secundum eandem rationem secundum quam est in sole, ut scilicet recipiat formam solis, quae est principium luminis, et ideo, quia non habet radicem in aere, statim cessat lumen, cessante actione solis. Sic autem se habet omnis creatura ad Deum, sicut aer ad solem illuminantem. Sicut enim sol est lucens per suam naturam, aer autem fit luminosus participando lumen a sole, non tamen participando naturam solis; ita solus Deus est ens per essentiam suam, quia eius essentia est suum esse; omnis autem creatura est ens participative, non quod sua essentia sit eius esse. Et ideo, ut Augustinus dicit IV super Gen. ad Litt., virtus Dei ab eis quae creata sunt regendis si cessaret aliquando, simul et illorum cessaret species, omnisque natura concideret. Et in VIII eiusdem libri dicit quod, sicut aer praesente lumine fit lucidus, sic homo, Deo sibi praesente, illuminatur, absente autem, continuo tenebratur.	I answer that, Both reason and faith bind us to say that creatures are kept in being by God. To make this clear, we must consider that a thing is preserved by another in two ways. First, indirectly, and accidentally; thus a person is said to preserve anything by removing the cause of its corruption, as a man may be said to preserve a child, whom he guards from falling into the fire. In this way God preserves some things, but not all, for there are some things of such a nature that nothing can corrupt them, so that it is not necessary to keep them from corruption. Secondly, a thing is said to preserve another 'per se' and directly, namely, when what is preserved depends on the preserver in such a way that it cannot exist without it. In this manner all creatures need to be preserved by God. For the being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the Divine power, as Gregory says (Moral. xvi). This is made clear as follows: Every effect depends on its cause, so far as it is its cause. But we must observe that an agent may be the cause of the "becoming" of its effect, but not directly of its "being." This may be seen both in artificial and in natural beings: for the builder causes the house in its "becoming," but he is not the direct cause of its "being." For it is clear that the "being" of the house is a result of its form, which consists in the putting together and arrangement of the materials, and results from the natural qualities of certain things. Thus a cook dresses the food by applying the natural activity of fire; thus a builder constructs a house, by making use of cement, stones, and wood which are able to be put together in a certain order and to preserve it. Therefore the "being" of a house depends on the nature of these materials, just as its "becoming" depends on the action of the builder. The same principle applies to natural things. For if an agent is not the cause of a form as such, neither will it be directly the cause of "being" which results from that form; but it will be the cause of the effect, in its "becoming" only. Now it is clear that of two things in the same species one cannot directly cause the other's form as such, since it would then be the cause of its own form, which is essentially the same as the form of the other; but it can be the cause of this form for as much as it is in matter--in other words, it may be the cause that "this matter" receives "this form." And this is to be the cause of "becoming," as when man begets man, and fire causes fire. Thus whenever a natural effect is such that it has an aptitude to receive from its active cause an impression specifically the same as in that active cause, then the "becoming" of the effect, but not its "being," depends on the agent. Sometimes, however, the effect has not this aptitude to receive the impression of its cause, in the same way as it exists in the agent: as may be seen clearly in all agents which do not produce an effect of the same species as themselves: thus the heavenly bodies cause the generation of inferior bodies which differ from them in species. Such an agent can be the cause of a form as such, and not merely as existing in this matter, consequently it is not merely the cause of "becoming" but also the cause of "being." Therefore as the becoming of a thing cannot continue when that action of the agent ceases which causes the "becoming" of the effect: so neither can the "being" of a thing continue after that action of the agent has ceased, which is the cause of the effect not only in "becoming" but also in "being." This is why hot water retains heat after the cessation of the fire's action; while, on the contrary, the air does not continue to be lit up, even for a moment, when the sun ceases to act upon it, because water is a matter susceptive of the fire's heat in the same way as it exists in the fire. Wherefore if it were to be reduced to the perfect form of fire, it would retain that form always; whereas if it has the form of fire imperfectly and inchoately, the heat will remain for a time only, by reason of the imperfect participation of the principle of heat. On the other hand, air is not of such a nature as to receive light in the same way as it exists in the sun, which is the principle of light. Therefore, since it has not root in the air, the light ceases with the action of the sun. Now every creature may be compared to God, as the air is to the sun which enlightens it. For as the sun possesses light by its nature, and as the air is enlightened by sharing the sun's nature; so God alone is Being in virtue of His own Essence, since His Essence is His existence; whereas every creature has being by participation, so that its essence is not its existence. Therefore, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 12): "If the ruling power of God were withdrawn from His creatures, their nature would at once cease, and all nature would collapse." In the same work (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) he says: "As the air becomes light by the presence of the sun, so is man enlightened by the presence of God, and in His absence returns at once to darkness."
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod esse per se consequitur formam creaturae, supposito tamen influxu Dei, sicut lumen sequitur diaphanum aeris, supposito influxu solis. Unde potentia ad non esse in spiritualibus creaturis et corporibus caelestibus, magis est in Deo, qui potest subtrahere suum influxum, quam in forma vel in materia talium creaturarum.	Reply to Objection 1. "Being" naturally results from the form of a creature, given the influence of the Divine action; just as light results from the diaphanous nature of the air, given the action of the sun. Wherefore the potentiality to not-being in spiritual creatures and heavenly bodies is rather something in God, Who can withdraw His influence, than in the form or matter of those creatures.
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non potest communicare alicui creaturae ut conservetur in esse, sua operatione cessante; sicut non potest ei communicare quod non sit causa esse illius. Intantum enim indiget creatura conservari a Deo, inquantum esse effectus dependet a causa essendi. Unde non est simile de agente quod non est causa essendi, sed fieri tantum.	Reply to Objection 2. God cannot grant to a creature to be preserved in being after the cessation of the Divine influence: as neither can He make it not to have received its being from Himself. For the creature needs to be preserved by God in so far as the being of an effect depends on the cause of its being. So that there is no comparison with an agent that is not the cause of 'being' but only of "becoming."
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de conservatione quae est per remotionem corrumpentis; qua non indigent omnes creaturae, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. This argument holds in regard to that preservation which consists in the removal of corruption: but all creatures do not need to be preserved thus, as stated above.
IЄ q. 104 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod conservatio rerum a Deo non est per aliquam novam actionem; sed per continuationem actionis qua dat esse, quae quidem actio est sine motu et tempore. Sicut etiam conservatio luminis in aere est per continuatum influxum a sole.	Reply to Objection 4. The preservation of things by God is a continuation of that action whereby He gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the preservation of light in the air is by the continual influence of the sun.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus immediate omnem creaturam conservet. Eadem enim actione Deus est conservator rerum, qua et creator, ut dictum est. Sed Deus immediate est creator omnium. Ergo immediate est etiam conservator.	Objection 1. It would seem that God preserves every creature immediately. For God creates and preserves things by the same action, as above stated (1, ad 4). But God created all things immediately. Therefore He preserves all things immediately.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, unaquaeque res magis est proxima sibi, quam rei alteri. Sed non potest communicari alicui creaturae quod conservet seipsam. Ergo multo minus potest ei communicari quod conservet aliam. Ergo Deus omnia conservat absque aliqua media causa conservante.	Objection 2. Further, a thing is nearer to itself than to another. But it cannot be given to a creature to preserve itself; much less therefore can it be given to a creature to preserve another. Therefore God preserves all things without any intermediate cause preserving them.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, effectus conservatur in esse ab eo quod est causa eius non solum secundum fieri, sed etiam secundum esse. Sed omnes causae creatae, ut videtur, non sunt causae suorum effectuum nisi secundum fieri, non sunt enim causae nisi movendo, ut supra habitum est. Ergo non sunt causae conservantes suos effectus in esse.	Objection 3. Further, an effect is kept in being by the cause, not only of its "becoming," but also of its being. But all created causes do not seem to cause their effects except in their "becoming," for they cause only by moving, as above stated (45, 3). Therefore they do not cause so as to keep their effects in being.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod per idem conservatur res, per quod habet esse. Sed Deus dat esse rebus mediantibus aliquibus causis mediis. Ergo etiam res in esse conservat mediantibus aliquibus causis.	On the contrary, A thing is kept in being by that which gives it being. But God gives being by means of certain intermediate causes. Therefore He also keeps things in being by means of certain causes.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, dupliciter aliquid rem aliquam in esse conservat, uno modo, indirecte et per accidens, per hoc quod removet vel impedit actionem corrumpentis; alio modo, directe et per se, quia ab eo dependet esse alterius, sicut a causa dependet esse effectus. Utroque autem modo aliqua res creata invenitur esse alterius conservativa. Manifestum est enim quod etiam in rebus corporalibus multa sunt quae impediunt actiones corrumpentium, et per hoc dicuntur rerum conservativa; sicut sal impedit carnes a putrefactione, et simile est in multis aliis. Invenitur etiam quod ab aliqua creatura dependet aliquis effectus secundum suum esse. Cum enim sunt multae causae ordinatae, necesse est quod effectus dependeat primo quidem et principaliter a causa prima; secundario vero ab omnibus causis mediis. Et ideo principaliter quidem prima causa est effectus conservativa; secundario vero omnes mediae causae, et tanto magis quanto causa fuerit altior et primae causae proximior. Unde superioribus causis, etiam in corporalibus rebus, attribuitur conservatio et permanentia rerum, sicut philosophus dicit, in XII Metaphys., quod primus motus, scilicet diurnus, est causa continuitatis generationis; secundus autem motus, qui est per zodiacum, est causa diversitatis quae est secundum generationem et corruptionem. Et similiter astrologi, attribuunt Saturno, qui est supremus planetarum; res fixas et permanentes. Sic igitur dicendum est quod Deus conservat res quasdam in esse, mediantibus aliquibus causis.	I answer that, As stated above (1), a thing keeps another in being in two ways; first, indirectly and accidentally, by removing or hindering the action of a corrupting cause; secondly, directly and "per se," by the fact that that on it depends the other's being, as the being of the effect depends on the cause. And in both ways a created thing keeps another in being. For it is clear that even in corporeal things there are many causes which hinder the action of corrupting agents, and for that reason are called preservatives; just as salt preserves meat from putrefaction; and in like manner with many other things. It happens also that an effect depends on a creature as to its being. For when we have a series of causes depending on one another, it necessarily follows that, while the effect depends first and principally on the first cause, it also depends in a secondary way on all the middle causes. Therefore the first cause is the principal cause of the preservation of the effect which is to be referred to the middle causes in a secondary way; and all the more so, as the middle cause is higher and nearer to the first cause. For this reason, even in things corporeal, the preservation and continuation of things is ascribed to the higher causes: thus the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 6), that the first, namely the diurnal movement is the cause of the continuation of things generated; whereas the second movement, which is from the zodiac, is the cause of diversity owing to generation and corruption. In like manner astrologers ascribe to Saturn, the highest of the planets, those things which are permanent and fixed. So we conclude that God keeps certain things in being, by means of certain causes.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus immediate omnia creavit, sed in ipsa rerum creatione ordinem in rebus instituit, ut quaedam ab aliis dependerent, per quas secundario conservarentur in esse; praesupposita tamen principali conservatione, quae est ab ipso.	Reply to Objection 1. God created all things immediately, but in the creation itself He established an order among things, so that some depend on others, by which they are preserved in being, though He remains the principal cause of their preservation.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum propria causa sit conservativa effectus ab ea dependentis; sicut nulli effectui praestari potest quod sit causa sui ipsius, potest tamen ei praestari quod sit causa alterius; ita etiam nulli effectui praestari potest quod sit sui ipsius conservativus, potest tamen ei praestari quod sit conservativus alterius.	Reply to Objection 2. Since an effect is preserved by its proper cause on which it depends; just as no effect can be its own cause, but can only produce another effect, so no effect can be endowed with the power of self-preservation, but only with the power of preserving another.
IЄ q. 104 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nulla creatura potest esse causa alterius, quantum ad hoc quod acquirat novam formam vel dispositionem, nisi per modum alicuius mutationis, quia semper agit praesupposito aliquo subiecto. Sed postquam formam vel dispositionem induxit in effectu, absque alia immutatione effectus, huiusmodi formam vel dispositionem conservat. Sicut in aere, prout illuminatur de novo, intelligitur quaedam mutatio; sed conservatio luminis est absque aeris immutatione, ex sola praesentia illuminantis.	Reply to Objection 3. No created nature can be the cause of another, as regards the latter acquiring a new form, or disposition, except by virtue of some change; for the created nature acts always on something presupposed. But after causing the form or disposition in the effect, without any fresh change in the effect, the cause preserves that form or disposition; as in the air, when it is lit up anew, we must allow some change to have taken place, while the preservation of the light is without any further change in the air due to the presence of the source of light.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit aliquid in nihilum redigere. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod Deus non est causa tendendi in non esse. Hoc autem contingeret, si aliquam creaturam redigeret in nihilum. Ergo Deus non potest aliquid in nihilum redigere.	Objection 1. It would seem that God cannot annihilate anything. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 21) that "God is not the cause of anything tending to non-existence." But He would be such a cause if He were to annihilate anything. Therefore He cannot annihilate anything.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus est causa rerum ut sint, per suam bonitatem, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de Doct. Christ., inquantum Deus bonus est, sumus. Sed Deus non potest non esse bonus. Ergo non potest facere ut res non sint. Quod faceret, si eas in nihilum redigeret.	Objection 2. Further, by His goodness God is the cause why things exist, since, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 32): "Because God is good, we exist." But God cannot cease to be good. Therefore He cannot cause things to cease to exist; which would be the case were He to annihilate anything.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Deus in nihilum aliqua redigeret, oporteret quod hoc fieret per aliquam actionem. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia omnis actio terminatur ad aliquod ens; unde etiam actio corrumpentis terminatur ad aliquid generatum, quia generatio unius est corruptio alterius. Ergo Deus non potest aliquid in nihilum redigere.	Objection 3. Further, if God were to annihilate anything it would be by His action. But this cannot be; because the term of every action is existence. Hence even the action of a corrupting cause has its term in something generated; for when one thing is generated another undergoes corruption. Therefore God cannot annihilate anything.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. X, corripe me, domine, verumtamen in iudicio, et non in furore tuo, ne forte ad nihilum redigas me.	On the contrary, It is written (Jeremiah 10:24): "Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment; and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me to nothing."
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt quod Deus res in esse produxit agendo de necessitate naturae. Quod si esset verum, Deus non posset rem aliquam in nihilum redigere; sicut non potest a sua natura mutari. Sed, sicut supra est habitum, haec positio est falsa, et a fide Catholica penitus aliena, quae confitetur Deum res libera voluntate produxisse in esse, secundum illud Psalmi, omnia quaecumque voluit dominus, fecit. Hoc igitur quod Deus creaturae esse communicat, ex Dei voluntate dependet. Nec aliter res in esse conservat, nisi inquantum eis continue influit esse. Ut dictum est. Sicut ergo antequam res essent, potuit eis non communicare esse, et sic eas non facere; ita postquam iam factae sunt, potest eis non influere esse, et sic esse desisterent. Quod est eas in nihilum redigere.	I answer that, Some have held that God, in giving existence to creatures, acted from natural necessity. Were this true, God could not annihilate anything, since His nature cannot change. But, as we have said above (19, 4), such an opinion is entirely false, and absolutely contrary to the Catholic faith, which confesses that God created things of His own free-will, according to Psalm 134:6: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done." Therefore that God gives existence to a creature depends on His will; nor does He preserve things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them, as we have said. Therefore, just as before things existed, God was free not to give them existence, and not to make them; so after they are made, He is free not to continue their existence; and thus they would cease to exist; and this would be to annihilate them.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non esse non habet causam per se, quia nihil potest esse causa nisi inquantum est ens; ens autem, per se loquendo, est causa essendi. Sic igitur Deus non potest esse causa tendendi in non esse; sed hoc habet creatura ex seipsa, inquantum est de nihilo. Sed per accidens Deus potest esse causa quod res in nihilum redigantur, subtrahendo scilicet suam actionem a rebus.	Reply to Objection 1. Non-existence has no direct cause; for nothing is a cause except inasmuch as it has existence, and a being essentially as such is a cause of something existing. Therefore God cannot cause a thing to tend to non-existence, whereas a creature has this tendency of itself, since it is produced from nothing. But indirectly God can be the cause of things being reduced to non-existence, by withdrawing His action therefrom.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bonitas Dei est causa rerum, non quasi ex necessitate naturae, quia divina bonitas non dependet ex rebus creatis; sed per liberam voluntatem. Unde sicut potuit sine praeiudicio bonitatis suae, res non producere in esse; ita absque detrimento suae bonitatis, potest res in esse non conservare.	Reply to Objection 2. God's goodness is the cause of things, not as though by natural necessity, because the Divine goodness does not depend on creatures; but by His free-will. Wherefore, as without prejudice to His goodness, He might not have produced things into existence, so, without prejudice to His goodness, He might not preserve things in existence.
IЄ q. 104 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, si Deus rem aliquam redigeret in nihilum, hoc non esset per aliquam actionem; sed per hoc quod ab agendo cessaret.	Reply to Objection 3. If God were to annihilate anything, this would not imply an action on God's part; but a mere cessation of His action.
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquid in nihilum redigatur. Finis enim respondet principio. Sed a principio nihil erat nisi Deus. Ergo ad hunc finem res perducentur, ut nihil sit nisi Deus. Et ita creaturae in nihilum redigentur.	Objection 1. It would seem that something is annihilated. For the end corresponds to the beginning. But in the beginning there was nothing but God. Therefore all things must tend to this end, that there shall be nothing but God. Therefore creatures will be reduced to nothing.
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis creatura habet potentiam finitam. Sed nulla potentia finita se extendit ad infinitum, unde in VIII Physic. probatur quod potentia finita non potest movere tempore infinito. Ergo nulla creatura potest durare in infinitum. Et ita quandoque in nihilum redigetur.	Objection 2. Further, every creature has a finite power. But no finite power extends to the infinite. Wherefore the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 10) that, "a finite power cannot move in infinite time." Therefore a creature cannot last for an infinite duration; and so at some time it will be reduced to nothing.
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, forma et accidentia non habent materiam partem sui. Sed quandoque desinunt esse. Ergo in nihilum rediguntur.	Objection 3. Further, forms and accidents have no matter as part of themselves. But at some time they cease to exist. Therefore they are reduced to nothing.
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccle. III. Didici quod omnia opera quae fecit Deus, perseverant in aeternum.	On the contrary, It is written (Ecclesiastes 3:14): "I have learned that all the works that God hath made continue for ever."
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 c. Respondeo dicendum quod eorum quae a Deo fiunt circa creaturam, quaedam proveniunt secundum naturalem cursum rerum; quaedam vero miraculose operatur praeter ordinem naturalem creaturis inditum, ut infra dicetur. Quae autem facturus est Deus secundum ordinem naturalem rebus inditum, considerari possunt ex ipsis rerum naturis, quae vero miraculose fiunt, ordinantur ad gratiae manifestationem, secundum illud apostoli I ad Cor. XII, unicuique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem; et postmodum, inter cetera, subdit de miraculorum operatione. Creaturarum autem naturae hoc demonstrant, ut nulla earum in nihilum redigatur, quia vel sunt immateriales, et sic in eis non est potentia ad non esse; vel sunt materiales, et sic saltem remanent semper secundum materiam, quae incorruptibilis est, utpote subiectum existens generationis et corruptionis. Redigere etiam aliquid in nihilum, non pertinet ad gratiae manifestationem, cum magis per hoc divina potentia et bonitas ostendatur, quod res in esse conservat. Unde simpliciter dicendum est quod nihil omnino in nihilum redigetur.	I answer that, Some of those things which God does in creatures occur in accordance with the natural course of things; others happen miraculously, and not in accordance with the natural order, as will be explained (105, 6). Now whatever God wills to do according to the natural order of things may be observed from their nature; but those things which occur miraculously, are ordered for the manifestation of grace, according to the Apostle, "To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit, unto profit" (1 Corinthians 12:7); and subsequently he mentions, among others, the working of miracles. Now the nature of creatures shows that none of them is annihilated. For, either they are immaterial, and therefore have no potentiality to non-existence; or they are material, and then they continue to exist, at least in matter, which is incorruptible, since it is the subject of generation and corruption. Moreover, the annihilation of things does not pertain to the manifestation of grace; since rather the power and goodness of God are manifested by the preservation of things in existence. Wherefore we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated.
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc quod res in esse productae sunt, postquam non fuerunt, declarat potentiam producentis. Sed quod in nihilum redigerentur, huiusmodi manifestationem impediret, cum Dei potentia in hoc maxime ostendatur, quod res in esse conservat, secundum illud apostoli Heb. I, portans omnia verbo virtutis suae.	Reply to Objection 1. That things are brought into existence from a state of non-existence, clearly shows the power of Him Who made them; but that they should be reduced to nothing would hinder that manifestation, since the power of God is conspicuously shown in His preserving all things in existence, according to the Apostle: "Upholding all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3).
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia creaturae ad essendum est receptiva tantum; sed potentia activa est ipsius Dei, a quo est influxus essendi. Unde quod res in infinitum durent, sequitur infinitatem divinae virtutis. Determinatur tamen quibusdam rebus virtus ad manendum tempore determinato, inquantum impediri possunt ne percipiant influxum essendi qui est ab eo, ex aliquo contrario agente, cui finita virtus non potest resistere tempore infinito, sed solum tempore determinato. Et ideo ea quae non habent contrarium, quamvis habeant finitam virtutem, perseverant in aeternum.	Reply to Objection 2. A creature's potentiality to existence is merely receptive; the active power belongs to God Himself, from Whom existence is derived. Wherefore the infinite duration of things is a consequence of the infinity of the Divine power. To some things, however, is given a determinate power of duration for a certain time, so far as they may be hindered by some contrary agent from receiving the influx of existence which comes from Him Whom finite power cannot resist, for an infinite, but only for a fixed time. So things which have no contrary, although they have a finite power, continue to exist for ever.
IЄ q. 104 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod formae et accidentia non sunt entia completa, cum non subsistant, sed quodlibet eorum est aliquid entis, sic enim ens dicitur, quia eo aliquid est. Et tamen eo modo quo sunt, non omnino in nihilum rediguntur; non quia aliqua pars eorum remaneat, sed remanent in potentia materiae vel subiecti.	Reply to Objection 3. Forms and accidents are not complete beings, since they do not subsist: but each one of them is something "of a being"; for it is called a being, because something is by it. Yet so far as their mode of existence is concerned, they are not entirely reduced to nothingness; not that any part of them survives, but that they remain in the potentiality of the matter, or of the subject.
IЄ q. 105 pr. Deinde considerandum est de secundo effectu gubernationis divinae qui est mutatio creaturarum. Et primo, de mutatione creaturarum a Deo; secundo, de mutatione unius creaturae ab alia. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum Deus immediate possit movere materiam ad formam. Secundo, utrum immediate possit movere aliquod corpus. Tertio, utrum possit movere intellectum. Quarto, utrum possit movere voluntatem. Quinto, utrum Deus operetur in omni operante. Sexto, utrum possit aliquid facere praeter ordinem rebus inditum. Septimo, utrum omnia quae sic Deus facit, sint miracula. Octavo, de diversitate miraculorum.	Question 105. The change of creatures by GodCan God move immediately the matter to the form? Can He immediately move a body? Can He move the intellect? Can He move the will? Does God work in every worker? Can He do anything outside the order imposed on things? Is all that God does miraculous? The diversity of miracles
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit immediate movere materiam ad formam. Sicut enim probat philosophus in VII Metaphys., formam in hac materia nihil facere potest nisi forma quae est in materia, quia simile facit sibi simile. Sed Deus non est forma in materia. Ergo non potest causare formam in materia.	Objection 1. It would seem that God cannot move the matter immediately to receive the form. For as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. vii, Did. vi, 8), nothing can bring a form into any particular matter, except that form which is in matter; because, like begets like. But God is not a form in matter. Therefore He cannot cause a form in matter.
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, si aliquod agens se habeat ad multa, nullum eorum producet, nisi determinetur ad ipsum per aliquid aliud, ut enim in III de anima dicitur, universalis opinio non movet nisi mediante aliqua particulari apprehensione. Sed virtus divina est universalis causa omnium. Ergo non potest producere aliquam particularem formam, nisi mediante aliquo particulari agente.	Objection 2. Further, any agent inclined to several effects will produce none of them, unless it is determined to a particular one by some other cause; for, as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 11), a general assertion does not move the mind, except by means of some particular apprehension. But the Divine power is the universal cause of all things. Therefore it cannot produce any particular form, except by means of a particular agent.
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut esse commune dependet a prima causa universali, ita esse determinatum dependet a determinatis causis particularibus, ut supra habitum est. Sed determinatum esse alicuius rei est per propriam eius formam. Ergo propriae rerum formae non producuntur a Deo, nisi mediantibus causis particularibus.	Objection 3. As universal being depends on the first universal cause, so determinate being depends on determinate particular causes; as we have seen above (104, 2). But the determinate being of a particular thing is from its own form. Therefore the forms of things are produced by God, only by means of particular causes.
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. II, formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae.	On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:7): "God formed man of the slime of the earth."
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Deus immediate potest movere materiam ad formam. Quia ens in potentia passiva reduci potest in actum, a potentia activa quae eam sub sua potestate continet. Cum igitur materia contineatur sub potestate divina, utpote a Deo producta, potest reduci in actum per divinam potentiam. Et hoc est moveri materiam ad formam, quia forma nihil aliud est quam actus materiae.	I answer that, God can move matter immediately to form; because whatever is in passive potentiality can be reduced to act by the active power which extends over that potentiality. Therefore, since the Divine power extends over matter, as produced by God, it can be reduced to act by the Divine power: and this is what is meant by matter being moved to a form; for a form is nothing else but the act of matter.
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod effectus aliquis invenitur assimilari causae agenti dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum eandem speciem; ut homo generatur ab homine, et ignis ab igne. Alio modo, secundum virtualem continentiam, prout scilicet forma effectus virtualiter continetur in causa, et sic animalia ex putrefactione generata, et plantae et corpora mineralia assimilantur soli et stellis, quorum virtute generantur. Sic igitur effectus causae agenti similatur secundum totum illud ad quod se extendit virtus agentis. Virtus autem Dei se extendit ad formam et materiam, ut supra habitum est. Unde compositum quod generatur, similatur Deo secundum virtualem continentiam, sicut similatur composito generanti per similitudinem speciei. Unde sicut compositum generans potest movere materiam ad formam generando compositum sibi simile, ita et Deus. Non autem aliqua alia forma non in materia existens, quia materia non continetur in virtute alterius substantiae separatae. Et ideo Daemones et Angeli operantur circa haec visibilia, non quidem imprimendo formas, sed adhibendo corporalia semina.	Reply to Objection 1. An effect is assimilated to the active cause in two ways. First, according to the same species; as man is generated by man, and fire by fire. Secondly, by being virtually contained in the cause; as the form of the effect is virtually contained in its cause: thus animals produced by putrefaction, and plants, and minerals are like the sun and stars, by whose power they are produced. In this way the effect is like its active cause as regards all that over which the power of that cause extends. Now the power of God extends to both matter and form; as we have said above (14, 2; 44, 2); wherefore if a composite thing be produced, it is likened to God by way of a virtual inclusion; or it is likened to the composite generator by a likeness of species. Therefore just as the composite generator can move matter to a form by generating a composite thing like itself; so also can God. But no other form not existing in matter can do this; because the power of no other separate substance extends over matter. Hence angels and demons operate on visible matter; not by imprinting forms in matter, but by making use of corporeal seeds.
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si Deus ageret, ex necessitate naturae. Sed quia agit per voluntatem et intellectum, qui cognoscit rationes proprias omnium formarum, et non solum universales; inde est quod potest determinate hanc vel illam formam materiae imprimere.	Reply to Objection 2. This argument would hold if God were to act of natural necessity. But since He acts by His will and intellect, which knows the particular and not only the universal natures of all forms, it follows that He can determinately imprint this or that form on matter.
IЄ q. 105 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc ipsum quod causae secundae ordinantur ad determinatos effectus est illis a Deo. Unde Deus, quia alias causas ordinat ad determinatos effectus, potest etiam determinatos effectus producere per seipsum.	Reply to Objection 3. The fact that secondary causes are ordered to determinate effects is due to God; wherefore since God ordains other causes to certain effects He can also produce certain effects by Himself without any other cause.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit immediate movere aliquod corpus. Cum enim movens et motum oporteat esse simul, ut probatur in VII Physic., oportet esse contactum quendam moventis et moti. Sed non potest esse contactus Dei, et corporis alicuius, dicit enim Dionysius, in I cap. de Div. Nom., quod Dei non est aliquis tactus. Ergo Deus non potest immediate movere aliquod corpus.	Objection 1. It would seem that God cannot move a body immediately. For as the mover and the moved must exist simultaneously, as the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, 2), it follows that there must be some contact between the mover and moved. But there can be no contact between God and a body; for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 1): "There is no contact with God." Therefore God cannot move a body immediately.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus est movens non motum. Tale autem est appetibile apprehensum. Movet igitur Deus sicut desideratum et apprehensum. Sed non apprehenditur nisi ab intellectu, qui non est corpus, nec virtus corporis. Ergo Deus non potest movere aliquod corpus immediate.	Objection 2. Further, God is the mover unmoved. But such also is the desirable object when apprehended. Therefore God moves as the object of desire and apprehension. But He cannot be apprehended except by the intellect, which is neither a body nor a corporeal power. Therefore God cannot move a body immediately.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus probat in VIII Physic., quod potentia infinita movet in instanti. Sed impossibile est aliquod corpus in instanti moveri, quia, cum omnis motus sit inter opposita, sequeretur quod duo opposita simul inessent eidem; quod est impossibile. Ergo corpus non potest immediate moveri a potentia infinita. Potentia autem Dei est infinita, ut supra habitum est. Ergo Deus non potest immediate movere aliquod corpus.	Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 10) that an infinite power moves instantaneously. But it is impossible for a body to be moved in one instant; for since every movement is between opposites, it follows that two opposites would exist at once in the same subject, which is impossible. Therefore a body cannot be moved immediately by an infinite power. But God's power is infinite, as we have explained (25, 2). Therefore God cannot move a body immediately.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, opera sex dierum Deus fecit immediate; in quibus continetur motus corporum, ut patet per hoc quod dicitur Gen. I, congregentur aquae in locum unum. Ergo Deus immediate potest movere corpus.	On the contrary, God produced the works of the six days immediately among which is included the movements of bodies, as is clear from Genesis 1:9 "Let the waters be gathered together into one place." Therefore God alone can move a body immediately.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod erroneum est dicere Deum non posse facere per seipsum omnes determinatos effectus qui fiunt per quamcumque causam creatam. Unde cum corpora moveantur immediate a causis creatis, nulli debet venire in dubium quin Deus possit movere immediate quodcumque corpus. Et hoc quidem consequens est ad ea quae supra dicta sunt. Nam omnis motus corporis cuiuscumque vel consequitur ad aliquam formam, sicut motus localis gravium et levium consequitur formam quae datur a generante, ratione cuius generans dicitur movens, vel est via ad formam aliquam, sicut calefactio est via ad formam ignis. Eiusdem autem est imprimere formam, et disponere ad formam, et dare motum consequentem formam, ignis enim non solum generat alium ignem, sed etiam calefacit, et sursum movet. Cum igitur Deus possit immediate formam materiae imprimere, consequens est ut possit, secundum quemcumque motum, corpus quodcumque movere.	I answer that, It is erroneous to say that God cannot Himself produce all the determinate effects which are produced by any created cause. Wherefore, since bodies are moved immediately by created causes, we cannot possibly doubt that God can move immediately any bodies whatever. This indeed follows from what is above stated (1). For every movement of any body whatever, either results from a form, as the movements of things heavy and light result from the form which they have from their generating cause, for which reason the generator is called the mover; or else tends to a form, as heating tends to the form of heat. Now it belongs to the same cause, to imprint a form, to dispose to that form, and to give the movement which results from that form; for fire not only generates fire, but it also heats and moves things upwards. Therefore, as God can imprint form immediately in matter, it follows that He can move any body whatever in respect of any movement whatever.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod duplex est tactus, scilicet corporalis, sicut duo corpora se tangunt; et virtualis, sicut dicitur quod contristans tangit contristatum. Secundum igitur primum contactum, Deus, cum sit incorporeus, nec tangit nec tangitur. Secundum autem virtualem contactum, tangit quidem movendo creaturas, sed non tangitur, quia nullius creaturae virtus naturalis potest ad ipsum pertingere. Et sic intellexit Dionysius quod non est tactus Dei, ut scilicet tangatur.	Reply to Objection 1. There are two kinds of contact; corporeal contact, when two bodies touch each other; and virtual contact, as the cause of sadness is said to touch the one made sad. According to the first kind of contact, God, as being incorporeal, neither touches, nor is touched; but according to virtual contact He touches creatures by moving them; but He is not touched, because the natural power of no creature can reach up to Him. Thus did Dionysius understand the words, "There is no contact with God"; that is, so that God Himself be touched.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod movet Deus sicut desideratum et intellectum. Sed non oportet quod semper moveat sicut desideratum et intellectum ab eo quod movetur; sed sicut desideratum et notum a seipso; quia omnia operatur propter suam bonitatem.	Reply to Objection 2. God moves as the object of desire and apprehension; but it does not follow that He always moves as being desired and apprehended by that which is moved; but as being desired and known by Himself; for He does all things for His own goodness.
IЄ q. 105 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod philosophus in VIII Physic. intendit probare quod virtus primi motoris non sit virtus in magnitudine, tali ratione, virtus primi motoris est infinita (quod probat per hoc quod potest movere tempore infinito); virtus autem infinita, si esset in aliqua magnitudine, moveret in non tempore, quod est impossibile; ergo oportet quod infinita virtus primi motoris sit non in magnitudine. Ex quo patet quod corpus moveri in non tempore, non consequitur nisi virtutem infinitam in magnitudine. Cuius ratio est, quia omnis virtus quae est in magnitudine, movet secundum se totam, cum moveat per necessitatem naturae. Potentia autem infinita improportionabiliter excedit quamlibet potentiam finitam. Quanto autem maior est potentia moventis, tanto est maior velocitas motus. Cum igitur potentia finita moveat tempore determinato, sequitur quod potentia infinita non moveat in aliquo tempore, quia cuiuscumque temporis ad aliud tempus est aliqua proportio. Sed virtus quae non est in magnitudine, est virtus alicuius intelligentis, qui operatur in effectibus secundum quod eis convenit. Et ideo, cum corpori non possit esse conveniens moveri in non tempore, non sequitur quod moveat in non tempore.	Reply to Objection 3. The Philosopher (Phys. viii, 10) intends to prove that the power of the first mover is not a power of the first mover "of bulk," by the following argument. The power of the first mover is infinite (which he proves from the fact that the first mover can move in infinite time). Now an infinite power, if it were a power "of bulk," would move without time, which is impossible; therefore the infinite power of the first mover must be in something which is not measured by its bulk. Whence it is clear that for a body to be moved without time can only be the result of an infinite power. The reason is that every power of bulk moves in its entirety; since it moves by the necessity of its nature. But an infinite power surpasses out of all proportion any finite power. Now the greater the power of the mover, the greater is the velocity of the movement. Therefore, since a finite power moves in a determinate time, it follows that an infinite power does not move in any time; for between one time and any other time there is some proportion. On the other hand, a power which is not in bulk is the power of an intelligent being, which operates in its effects according to what is fitting to them; and therefore, since it cannot be fitting for a body to be moved without time, it does not follow that it moves without time.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non moveat immediate intellectum creatum. Actio enim intellectus est ab eo in quo est, non enim transit in exteriorem materiam, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys. Actio autem eius quod movetur ab alio, non est ab eo in quo est, sed a movente. Non ergo intellectus movetur ab alio. Et ita videtur quod Deus non possit movere intellectum.	Objection 1. It would seem that God does not immediately move the created intellect. For the action of the intellect is governed by its own subject; since it does not pass into external matter; as stated in Metaph. ix, Did. viii, 8. But the action of what is moved by another does not proceed from that wherein it is; but from the mover. Therefore the intellect is not moved by another; and so apparently God cannot move the created intellect.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, id quod habet in se principium sufficiens sui motus, non movetur ab alio. Sed motus intellectus est ipsum intelligere eius, sicut dicitur quod intelligere vel sentire est motus quidam, secundum philosophum, in III de anima. Sufficiens autem principium intelligendi est lumen intelligibile inditum intellectui. Ergo non movetur ab alio.	Objection 2. Further, anything which in itself is a sufficient principle of movement, is not moved by another. But the movement of the intellect is its act of understanding; in the sense in which we say that to understand or to feel is a kind of movement, as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 7). But the intellectual light which is natural to the soul, is a sufficient principle of understanding. Therefore it is not moved by another.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut sensus movetur a sensibili, ita intellectus ab intelligibili. Sed Deus non est intelligibilis nobis, sed nostrum intellectum excedit. Ergo Deus non potest movere nostrum intellectum.	Objection 3. Further, as the senses are moved by the sensible, so the intellect is moved by the intelligible. But God is not intelligible to us, and exceeds the capacity of our intellect. Therefore God cannot move our intellect.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, docens movet intellectum addiscentis. Sed Deus docet hominem scientiam, sicut dicitur in Psalmo. Ergo Deus movet intellectum hominis.	On the contrary, The teacher moves the intellect of the one taught. But it is written (Psalm 93:10) that God "teaches man knowledge." Therefore God moves the human intellect.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in motibus corporalibus movens dicitur quod dat formam quae est principium motus; ita dicitur movere intellectum, quod causat formam quae est principium intellectualis operationis, quae dicitur motus intellectus. Operationis autem intellectus est duplex principium in intelligente, unum scilicet quod est ipsa virtus intellectualis, quod quidem principium est etiam in intelligente in potentia; aliud autem est principium intelligendi in actu, scilicet similitudo rei intellectae in intelligente. Dicitur ergo aliquid movere intellectum, sive det intelligenti virtutem ad intelligendum, sive imprimat ei similitudinem rei intellectae. Utroque autem modo Deus movet intellectum creatum. Ipse enim est primum ens immateriale. Et quia intellectualitas consequitur immaterialitatem, sequitur quod ipse sit primum intelligens. Unde cum primum in quolibet ordine sit causa eorum quae consequuntur, sequitur quod ab ipso sit omnis virtus intelligendi. Similiter cum ipse sit primum ens, et omnia entia praeexistant in ipso sicut in prima causa, oportet quod sint in eo intelligibiliter secundum modum eius. Sicut enim omnes rationes rerum intelligibiles primo existunt in Deo, et ab derivantur in alios intellectus, ut actu intelligant; sic etiam derivantur in creaturas ut subsistant. Sic igitur Deus movet intellectum creatum, inquantum dat ei virtutem ad intelligendum, vel naturalem vel superadditam; et inquantum imprimit ei species intelligibiles; et utrumque tenet et conservat in esse.	I answer that, As in corporeal movement that is called the mover which gives the form that is the principle of movement, so that is said to move the intellect, which is the cause of the form that is the principle of the intellectual operation, called the movement of the intellect. Now there is a twofold principle of intellectual operation in the intelligent being; one which is the intellectual power itself, which principle exists in the one who understands in potentiality; while the other is the principle of actual understanding, namely, the likeness of the thing understood in the one who understands. So a thing is said to move the intellect, whether it gives to him who understands the power of understanding; or impresses on him the likeness of the thing understood. Now God moves the created intellect in both ways. For He is the First immaterial Being; and as intellectuality is a result of immateriality, it follows that He is the First intelligent Being. Therefore since in each order the first is the cause of all that follows, we must conclude that from Him proceeds all intellectual power. In like manner, since He is the First Being, and all other beings pre-exist in Him as in their First Cause, it follows that they exist intelligibly in Him, after the mode of His own Nature. For as the intelligible types of everything exist first of all in God, and are derived from Him by other intellects in order that these may actually understand; so also are they derived by creatures that they may subsist. Therefore God so moves the created intellect, inasmuch as He gives it the intellectual power, whether natural, or superadded; and impresses on the created intellect the intelligible species, and maintains and preserves both power and species in existence.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod operatio intellectualis est quidem ab intellectu in quo est, sicut a causa secunda, sed a Deo sicut a causa prima. Ab ipso enim datur intelligenti quod intelligere possit.	Reply to Objection 1. The intellectual operation is performed by the intellect in which it exists, as by a secondary cause; but it proceeds from God as from its first cause. For by Him the power to understand is given to the one who understands.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod lumen intellectuale, simul cum similitudine rei intellectae, est sufficiens principium intelligendi; secundarium tamen, et a primo principio dependens.	Reply to Objection 2. The intellectual light together with the likeness of the thing understood is a sufficient principle of understanding; but it is a secondary principle, and depends upon the First Principle.
IЄ q. 105 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod intelligibile movet intellectum nostrum, inquantum quodammodo imprimit ei suam similitudinem, per quam intelligi potest. Sed similitudines quas Deus imprimit intellectui creato, non sufficiunt ad ipsum Deum intelligendum per essentiam, ut supra habitum est. Unde movet intellectum creatum, cum tamen non sit ei intelligibilis, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. The intelligible object moves our human intellect, so far as, in a way, it impresses on it its own likeness, by means of which the intellect is able to understand it. But the likenesses which God impresses on the created intellect are not sufficient to enable the created intellect to understand Him through His Essence, as we have seen above (12, 2; 56, 3). Hence He moves the created intellect, and yet He cannot be intelligible to it, as we have explained (12, 4).
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit movere voluntatem creatam. Omne enim quod movetur ab extrinseco, cogitur. Sed voluntas non potest cogi. Ergo non movetur ab aliquo extrinseco. Et ita non potest moveri a Deo.	Objection 1. It would seem that God cannot move the created will. For whatever is moved from without, is forced. But the will cannot be forced. Therefore it is not moved from without; and therefore cannot be moved by God.
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus non potest facere quod contradictoria sint simul vera. Hoc autem sequeretur, si voluntatem moveret, nam voluntarie moveri est ex se moveri, et non ab alio. Ergo Deus non potest voluntatem movere.	Objection 2. Further, God cannot make two contradictories to be true at the same time. But this would follow if He moved the will; for to be voluntarily moved means to be moved from within, and not by another. Therefore God cannot move the will.
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, motus magis attribuitur moventi quam mobili, unde homicidium non attribuitur lapidi, sed proiicienti. Si igitur Deus moveat voluntatem, sequitur quod opera voluntaria non imputentur homini ad meritum vel demeritum. Hoc autem est falsum. Non igitur Deus movet voluntatem.	Objection 3. Further, movement is attributed to the mover rather than to the one moved; wherefore homicide is not ascribed to the stone, but to the thrower. Therefore, if God moves the will, it follows that voluntary actions are not imputed to man for reward or blame. But this is false. Therefore God does not move the will.
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur ad Philipp. II, Deus est qui operatur in nobis velle et perficere.	On the contrary, It is written (Philippians 2:13): "It is God who worketh in us [Vulgate--'you'] both to will and to accomplish."
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut intellectus, ut dictum est, movetur ab obiecto, et ab eo qui dedit virtutem intelligendi; ita voluntas movetur ab obiecto, quod est bonum, et ab eo qui creat virtutem volendi. Potest autem voluntas moveri sicut ab obiecto, a quocumque bono; non tamen sufficienter et efficaciter nisi a Deo. Non enim sufficienter aliquid potest movere aliquod mobile, nisi virtus activa moventis excedat, vel saltem adaequet virtutem passivam mobilis. Virtus autem passiva voluntatis se extendit ad bonum in universali, est enim eius obiectum bonum universale, sicut et intellectus obiectum est ens universale. Quodlibet autem bonum creatum est quoddam particulare bonum, solus autem Deus est bonum universale. Unde ipse solus implet voluntatem, et sufficienter eam movet ut obiectum. Similiter autem et virtus volendi a solo Deo causatur. Velle enim nihil aliud est quam inclinatio quaedam in obiectum voluntatis, quod est bonum universale. Inclinare autem in bonum universale est primi moventis cui proportionatur ultimus finis, sicut in rebus humanis dirigere ad bonum commune est eius qui praeest multitudini. Unde utroque modo proprium est Dei movere voluntatem, sed maxime secundo modo, interius eam inclinando.	I answer that, As the intellect is moved by the object and by the Giver of the power of intelligence, as stated above (3), so is the will moved by its object, which is good, and by Him who creates the power of willing. Now the will can be moved by good as its object, but by God alone sufficiently and efficaciously. For nothing can move a movable thing sufficiently unless the active power of the mover surpasses or at least equals the potentiality of the thing movable. Now the potentiality of the will extends to the universal good; for its object is the universal good; just as the object of the intellect is the universal being. But every created good is some particular good; God alone is the universal good. Whereas He alone fills the capacity of the will, and moves it sufficiently as its object. In like manner the power of willing is caused by God alone. For to will is nothing but to be inclined towards the object of the will, which is universal good. But to incline towards the universal good belongs to the First Mover, to Whom the ultimate end is proportionate; just as in human affairs to him that presides over the community belongs the directing of his subjects to the common weal. Wherefore in both ways it belongs to God to move the will; but especially in the second way by an interior inclination of the will.
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod movetur ab altero dicitur cogi, si moveatur contra inclinationem propriam, sed si moveatur ab alio quod sibi dat propriam inclinationem, non dicitur cogi; sicut grave, cum movetur deorsum a generante, non cogitur. Sic igitur Deus, movendo voluntatem, non cogit ipsam, quia dat ei eius propriam inclinationem.	Reply to Objection 1. A thing moved by another is forced if moved against its natural inclination; but if it is moved by another giving to it the proper natural inclination, it is not forced; as when a heavy body is made to move downwards by that which produced it, then it is not forced. In like manner God, while moving the will, does not force it, because He gives the will its own natural inclination.
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod moveri voluntarie est moveri ex se, idest a principio intrinseco, sed illud principium intrinsecum potest esse ab alio principio extrinseco. Et sic moveri ex se non repugnat ei quod movetur ab alio.	Reply to Objection 2. To be moved voluntarily, is to be moved from within, that is, by an interior principle: yet this interior principle may be caused by an exterior principle; and so to be moved from within is not repugnant to being moved by another.
IЄ q. 105 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, si voluntas ita moveretur ab alio quod ex se nullatenus moveretur, opera voluntatis non imputarentur ad meritum vel demeritum. Sed quia per hoc quod movetur ab alio, non excluditur quin moveatur ex se, ut dictum est; ideo per consequens non tollitur ratio meriti vel demeriti.	Reply to Objection 3. If the will were so moved by another as in no way to be moved from within itself, the act of the will would not be imputed for reward or blame. But since its being moved by another does not prevent its being moved from within itself, as we have stated (ad 2), it does not thereby forfeit the motive for merit or demerit.
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non operetur in omni operante. Nulla enim insufficientia est Deo attribuenda. Si igitur Deus operatur in omni operante, sufficienter in quolibet operatur. Superfluum igitur esset quod agens creatum aliquid operaretur.	Objection 1. It would seem that God does not work in every agent. For we must not attribute any insufficiency to God. If therefore God works in every agent, He works sufficiently in each one. Hence it would be superfluous for the created agent to work at all.
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, una operatio non est simul a duobus operantibus, sicut nec unus numero motus potest esse duorum mobilium. Si igitur operatio creaturae est a Deo in creatura operante, non potest esse simul a creatura. Et ita nulla creatura aliquid operatur.	Objection 2. Further, the same work cannot proceed at the same time from two sources; as neither can one and the same movement belong to two movable things. Therefore if the creature's operation is from God operating in the creature, it cannot at the same time proceed from the creature; and so no creature works at all.
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, faciens dicitur esse causa operationis facti, inquantum dat ei formam qua operatur. Si igitur Deus est causa operationis rerum factarum ab ipso, hoc erit inquantum dat eis virtutem operandi. Sed hoc est a principio, quando rem facit. Ergo videtur quod ulterius non operetur in creatura operante.	Objection 3. Further, the maker is the cause of the operation of the thing made, as giving it the form whereby it operates. Therefore, if God is the cause of the operation of things made by Him, this would be inasmuch as He gives them the power of operating. But this is in the beginning, when He makes them. Thus it seems that God does not operate any further in the operating creature.
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae XXVI, omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, domine.	On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 26:12): "Lord, Thou hast wrought all our works in [Vulgate: 'for'] us."
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Deum operari in quolibet operante aliqui sic intellexerunt, quod nulla virtus creata aliquid operaretur in rebus, sed solus Deus immediate omnia operaretur; puta quod ignis non calefaceret, sed Deus in igne, et similiter de omnibus aliis. Hoc autem est impossibile. Primo quidem, quia sic subtraheretur ordo causae et causati a rebus creatis. Quod pertinet ad impotentiam creantis, ex virtute enim agentis est, quod suo effectui det virtutem agendi. Secundo, quia virtutes operativae quae in rebus inveniuntur, frustra essent rebus attributae, si per eas nihil operarentur. Quinimmo omnes res creatae viderentur quodammodo esse frustra, si propria operatione destituerentur, cum omnis res sit propter suam operationem. Semper enim imperfectum est propter perfectius, sicut igitur materia est propter formam, ita forma, quae est actus primus, est propter suam operationem, quae est actus secundus; et sic operatio est finis rei creatae. Sic igitur intelligendum est Deum operari in rebus, quod tamen ipsae res propriam habeant operationem. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod, cum sint causarum quatuor genera, materia quidem non est principium actionis, sed se habet ut subiectum recipiens actionis effectum. Finis vero et agens et forma se habent ut actionis principium, sed ordine quodam. Nam primo quidem, principium actionis est finis, qui movet agentem; secundo vero, agens; tertio autem, forma eius quod ab agente applicatur ad agendum (quamvis et ipsum agens per formam suam agat); ut patet in artificialibus. Artifex enim movetur ad agendum a fine, qui est ipsum operatum, puta arca vel lectus; et applicat ad actionem securim quae incidit per suum acumen. Sic igitur secundum haec tria Deus in quolibet operante operatur. Primo quidem, secundum rationem finis. Cum enim omnis operatio sit propter aliquod bonum verum vel apparens; nihil autem est vel apparet bonum, nisi secundum quod participat aliquam similitudinem summi boni, quod est Deus; sequitur quod ipse Deus sit cuiuslibet operationis causa ut finis. Similiter etiam considerandum est quod, si sint multa agentia ordinata, semper secundum agens agit in virtute primi, nam primum agens movet secundum ad agendum. Et secundum hoc, omnia agunt in virtute ipsius Dei; et ita ipse est causa actionum omnium agentium. Tertio, considerandum est quod Deus movet non solum res ad operandum, quasi applicando formas et virtutes rerum ad operationem, sicut etiam artifex applicat securim ad scindendum, qui tamen interdum formam securi non tribuit; sed etiam dat formam creaturis agentibus, et eas tenet in esse. Unde non solum est causa actionum inquantum dat formam quae est principium actionis, sicut generans dicitur esse causa motus gravium et levium; sed etiam sicut conservans formas et virtutes rerum; prout sol dicitur esse causa manifestationis colorum, inquantum dat et conservat lumen, quo manifestantur colores. Et quia forma rei est intra rem, et tanto magis quanto consideratur ut prior et universalior; et ipse Deus est proprie causa ipsius esse universalis in rebus omnibus, quod inter omnia est magis intimum rebus; sequitur quod Deus in omnibus intime operetur. Et propter hoc in sacra Scriptura operationes naturae Deo attribuuntur quasi operanti in natura; secundum illud Iob X, pelle et carnibus vestisti me, ossibus et nervis compegisti me.	I answer that, Some have understood God to work in every agent in such a way that no created power has any effect in things, but that God alone is the ultimate cause of everything wrought; for instance, that it is not fire that gives heat, but God in the fire, and so forth. But this is impossible. First, because the order of cause and effect would be taken away from created things: and this would imply lack of power in the Creator: for it is due to the power of the cause, that it bestows active power on its effect. Secondly, because the active powers which are seen to exist in things, would be bestowed on things to no purpose, if these wrought nothing through them. Indeed, all things created would seem, in a way, to be purposeless, if they lacked an operation proper to them; since the purpose of everything is its operation. For the less perfect is always for the sake of the more perfect: and consequently as the matter is for the sake of the form, so the form which is the first act, is for the sake of its operation, which is the second act; and thus operation is the end of the creature. We must therefore understand that God works in things in such a manner that things have their proper operation. In order to make this clear, we must observe that as there are few kinds of causes; matter is not a principle of action, but is the subject that receives the effect of action. On the other hand, the end, the agent, and the form are principles of action, but in a certain order. For the first principle of action is the end which moves the agent; the second is the agent; the third is the form of that which the agent applies to action (although the agent also acts through its own form); as may be clearly seen in things made by art. For the craftsman is moved to action by the end, which is the thing wrought, for instance a chest or a bed; and applies to action the axe which cuts through its being sharp. Thus then does God work in every worker, according to these three things. First as an end. For since every operation is for the sake of some good, real or apparent; and nothing is good either really or apparently, except in as far as it participates in a likeness to the Supreme Good, which is God; it follows that God Himself is the cause of every operation as its end. Again it is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first; for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. Thirdly, we must observe that God not only moves things to operated, as it were applying their forms and powers to operation, just as the workman applies the axe to cut, who nevertheless at times does not give the axe its form; but He also gives created agents their forms and preserves them in being. Therefore He is the cause of action not only by giving the form which is the principle of action, as the generator is said to be the cause of movement in things heavy and light; but also as preserving the forms and powers of things; just as the sun is said to be the cause of the manifestation of colors, inasmuch as it gives and preserves the light by which colors are made manifest. And since the form of a thing is within the thing, and all the more, as it approaches nearer to the First and Universal Cause; and because in all things God Himself is properly the cause of universal being which is innermost in all things; it follows that in all things God works intimately. For this reason in Holy Scripture the operations of nature are attributed to God as operating in nature, according to Job 10:11: "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh: Thou hast put me together with bones and sinews."
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus sufficienter operatur in rebus ad modum primi agentis, nec propter hoc superfluit operatio secundorum agentium.	Reply to Objection 1. God works sufficiently in things as First Agent, but it does not follow from this that the operation of secondary agents is superfluous.
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod una actio non procedit a duobus agentibus unius ordinis, sed nihil prohibet quin una et eadem actio procedat a primo et secundo agente.	Reply to Objection 2. One action does not proceed from two agents of the same order. But nothing hinders the same action from proceeding from a primary and a secondary agent.
IЄ q. 105 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus non solum dat formas rebus, sed etiam conservat eas in esse, et applicat eas ad agendum, et est finis omnium actionum, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. God not only gives things their form, but He also preserves them in existence, and applies them to act, and is moreover the end of every action, as above explained.
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit facere aliquid praeter ordinem rebus inditum. Dicit enim Augustinus, XXVI contra Faustum, Deus, conditor et creator omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit. Sed hoc videtur esse contra naturam, quod est praeter ordinem naturaliter rebus inditum. Ergo Deus non potest facere aliquid praeter ordinem rebus inditum.	Objection 1. It would seem that God cannot do anything outside the established order of nature. For Augustine (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3) says: "God the Maker and Creator of each nature, does nothing against nature." But that which is outside the natural order seems to be against nature. Therefore God can do nothing outside the natural order.
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut ordo iustitiae est a Deo, ita et ordo naturae. Sed Deus non potest facere aliquid praeter ordinem iustitiae, faceret enim tunc aliquid iniustum. Ergo non potest facere aliquid praeter ordinem naturae.	Objection 2. Further, as the order of justice is from God, so is the order of nature. But God cannot do anything outside the order of justice; for then He would do something unjust. Therefore He cannot do anything outside the order of nature.
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, ordinem naturae Deus instituit. Si igitur praeter ordinem naturae Deus aliquid faciat, videtur quod ipse sit mutabilis. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 3. Further, God established the order of nature. Therefore it God does anything outside the order of nature, it would seem that He is changeable; which cannot be said.
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XXVI contra Faustum, quod Deus aliquando aliquid facit contra solitum cursum naturae.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3): "God sometimes does things which are contrary to the ordinary course of nature."
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod a qualibet causa derivatur aliquis ordo in suos effectus, cum quaelibet causa habeat rationem principii. Et ideo secundum multiplicationem causarum, multiplicantur et ordines, quorum unus continetur sub altero, sicut et causa continetur sub causa. Unde causa superior non continetur sub ordine causae inferioris, sed e converso. Cuius exemplum apparet in rebus humanis, nam ex patrefamilias dependet ordo domus, qui continetur sub ordine civitatis, qui procedit a civitatis rectore, cum et hic contineatur sub ordine regis, a quo totum regnum ordinatur. Si ergo ordo rerum consideretur prout dependet a prima causa, sic contra rerum ordinem Deus facere non potest, sic enim si faceret, faceret contra suam praescientiam aut voluntatem aut bonitatem. Si vero consideretur rerum ordo prout dependet a qualibet secundarum causarum, sic Deus potest facere praeter ordinem rerum. Quia ordini secundarum causarum ipse non est subiectus, sed talis ordo ei subiicitur, quasi ab eo procedens non per necessitatem naturae, sed per arbitrium voluntatis, potuisset enim et alium ordinem rerum instituere. Unde et potest praeter hunc ordinem institutum agere, cum voluerit; puta agendo effectus secundarum causarum sine ipsis, vel producendo aliquos effectus ad quos causae secundae non se extendunt. Unde et Augustinus dicit, XXVI contra Faustum, quod Deus contra solitum cursum naturae facit; sed contra summam legem tam nullo modo facit, quam contra seipsum non facit.	I answer that, From each cause there results a certain order to its effects, since every cause is a principle; and so, according to the multiplicity of causes, there results a multiplicity of orders, subjected one to the other, as cause is subjected to cause. Wherefore a higher cause is not subjected to a cause of a lower order; but conversely. An example of this may be seen in human affairs. On the father of a family depends the order of the household; which order is contained in the order of the city; which order again depends on the ruler of the city; while this last order depends on that of the king, by whom the whole kingdom is ordered. If therefore we consider the order of things depending on the first cause, God cannot do anything against this order; for, if He did so, He would act against His foreknowledge, or His will, or His goodness. But if we consider the order of things depending on any secondary cause, thus God can do something outside such order; for He is not subject to the order of secondary causes; but, on the contrary, this order is subject to Him, as proceeding from Him, not by a natural necessity, but by the choice of His own will; for He could have created another order of things. Wherefore God can do something outside this order created by Him, when He chooses, for instance by producing the effects of secondary causes without them, or by producing certain effects to which secondary causes do not extend. So Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3): "God acts against the wonted course of nature, but by no means does He act against the supreme law; because He does not act against Himself."
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum aliquid contingit in rebus naturalibus praeter naturam inditam, hoc potest dupliciter contingere. Uno modo, per actionem agentis qui inclinationem naturalem non dedit, sicut cum homo movet corpus grave sursum, quod non habet ab eo ut moveatur deorsum, et hoc est contra naturam. Alio modo, per actionem illius agentis a quo dependet actio naturalis. Et hoc non est contra naturam, ut patet in fluxu et refluxu maris, qui non est contra naturam, quamvis sit praeter motum naturalem aquae, quae movetur deorsum; est enim ex impressione caelestis corporis, a quo dependet naturalis inclinatio inferiorum corporum. Cum igitur naturae ordo sit a Deo rebus inditus, si quid praeter hunc ordinem faciat, non est contra naturam. Unde Augustinus dicit, XXVI contra Faustum, quod id est cuique rei naturale, quod ille fecerit a quo est omnis modus, numerus et ordo naturae.	Reply to Objection 1. In natural things something may happen outside this natural order, in two ways. It may happen by the action of an agent which did not give them their natural inclination; as, for example, when a man moves a heavy body upwards, which does not owe to him its natural inclination to move downwards; and that would be against nature. It may also happen by the action of the agent on whom the natural inclination depends; and this is not against nature, as is clear in the ebb and flow of the tide, which is not against nature; although it is against the natural movement of water in a downward direction; for it is owing to the influence of a heavenly body, on which the natural inclination of lower bodies depends. Therefore since the order of nature is given to things by God; if He does anything outside this order, it is not against nature. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3): "That is natural to each thing which is caused by Him from Whom is all mode, number, and order in nature."
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ordo iustitiae est secundum relationem ad causam primam, quae est regula omnis iustitiae. Et ideo praeter hunc ordinem, Deus nihil facere potest.	Reply to Objection 2. The order of justice arises by relation to the First Cause, Who is the rule of all justice; and therefore God can do nothing against such order.
IЄ q. 105 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus sic rebus certum ordinem indidit, ut tamen sibi reservaret quid ipse aliquando aliter ex causa esset facturus. Unde cum praeter hunc ordinem agit, non mutatur.	Reply to Objection 3. God fixed a certain order in things in such a way that at the same time He reserved to Himself whatever he intended to do otherwise than by a particular cause. So when He acts outside this order, He does not change.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnia quae Deus facit praeter ordinem naturalem rerum, sint miracula. Creatio enim mundi, et etiam animarum, et iustificatio impii fiunt a Deo praeter ordinem naturalem, non enim fiunt per actionem alicuius causae naturalis. Et tamen haec miracula non dicuntur. Ergo non omnia quae facit Deus praeter ordinem naturalem rerum, sunt miracula.	Objection 1. It would seem that not everything which God does outside the natural order of things, is miraculous. For the creation of the world, and of souls, and the justification of the unrighteous, are done by God outside the natural order; as not being accomplished by the action of any natural cause. Yet these things are not called miracles. Therefore not everything that God does outside the natural order is a miracle.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, miraculum dicitur aliquid arduum et insolitum supra facultatem naturae et spem admirantis proveniens. Sed quaedam fiunt praeter naturae ordinem, quae tamen non sunt ardua, sunt enim in minimis rebus, sicut in restauratione gemmarum, vel sanatione aegrorum. Nec etiam sunt insolita, cum frequenter eveniant, sicut cum infirmi in plateis ponebantur ut ad umbram Petri sanarentur. Nec etiam sunt supra facultatem naturae, ut cum aliqui sanantur a febribus. Nec etiam supra spem, sicut resurrectionem mortuorum omnes speramus, quae tamen fiet praeter ordinem naturae. Ergo non omnia quae fiunt praeter naturae ordinem, sunt miracula.	Objection 2. Further, a miracle is "something difficult, which seldom occurs, surpassing the faculty of nature, and going so far beyond our hopes as to compel our astonishment" [St. Augustine, De utilitate credendi xvi.]. But some things outside the order of nature are not arduous; for they occur in small things, such as the recovery and healing of the sick. Nor are they of rare occurrence, since they happen frequently; as when the sick were placed in the streets, to be healed by the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15). Nor do they surpass the faculty of nature; as when people are cured of a fever. Nor are they beyond our hopes, since we all hope for the resurrection of the dead, which nevertheless will be outside the course of nature. Therefore not all things are outside the course of natur are miraculous.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, miraculi nomen ab admiratione sumitur. Sed admiratio est de rebus sensui manifestis. Sed quandoque aliqua accidunt praeter ordinem naturalem in rebus sensui non manifestis, sicut cum apostoli facti sunt scientes, neque invenientes neque discentes. Ergo non omnia quae fiunt praeter ordinem naturae, sunt miracula.	Objection 3. Further, the word miracle is derived from admiration. Now admiration concerns things manifest to the senses. But sometimes things happen outside the order of nature, which are not manifest to the senses; as when the Apostles were endowed with knowledge without studying or being taught. Therefore not everything that occurs outside the order of nature is miraculous.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XXVI contra Faustum, quod cum Deus aliquid facit contra cognitum nobis cursum solitumque naturae, magnalia, vel mirabilia nominantur.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3): "Where God does anything against that order of nature which we know and are accustomed to observe, we call it a miracle."
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen miraculi ab admiratione sumitur. Admiratio autem consurgit, cum effectus sunt manifesti et causa occulta; sicut aliquis admiratur cum videt eclipsim solis et ignorat causam, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys. Potest autem causa effectus alicuius apparentis alicui esse nota, quae tamen est aliis incognita. Unde aliquid est mirum uni, quod non est mirum aliis; sicut eclipsim solis miratur rusticus, non autem astrologus. Miraculum autem dicitur quasi admiratione plenum, quod scilicet habet causam simpliciter et omnibus occultam. Haec autem est Deus. Unde illa quae a Deo fiunt praeter causas nobis notas, miracula dicuntur.	I answer that, The word miracle is derived from admiration, which arises when an effect is manifest, whereas its cause is hidden; as when a man sees an eclipse without knowing its cause, as the Philosopher says in the beginning of his Metaphysics. Now the cause of a manifest effect may be known to one, but unknown to others. Wherefore a thing is wonderful to one man, and not at all to others: as an eclipse is to a rustic, but not to an astronomer. Now a miracle is so called as being full of wonder; as having a cause absolutely hidden from all: and this cause is God. Wherefore those things which God does outside those causes which we know, are called miracles.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod creatio, et iustificatio impii, etsi a solo Deo fiant, non tamen, proprie loquendo, miracula dicuntur. Quia non sunt nata fieri per alias causas, et ita non contingunt praeter ordinem naturae, cum haec ad ordinem naturae non pertineant.	Reply to Objection 1. Creation, and the justification of the unrighteous, though done by God alone, are not, properly speaking, miracles, because they are not of a nature to proceed from any other cause; so they do not occur outside the order of nature, since they do not belong to that order.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod arduum dicitur miraculum, non propter dignitatem rei in qua fit; sed quia excedit facultatem naturae. Similiter etiam insolitum dicitur, non quia frequenter non eveniat sed quia est praeter naturalem consuetudinem. Supra facultatem autem naturae dicitur aliquid, non solum propter substantiam facti sed etiam propter modum et ordinem faciendi. Supra spem etiam naturae miraculum esse dicitur; non supra spem gratiae, quae est ex fide, per quam credimus resurrectionem futuram.	Reply to Objection 2. An arduous thing is called a miracle, not on account of the excellence of the thing wherein it is done, but because it surpasses the faculty of nature: likewise a thing is called unusual, not because it does not often happen, but because it is outside the usual natural course of things. Furthermore, a thing is said to be above the faculty of nature, not only by reason of the substance of the thing done, but also on account of the manner and order in which it is done. Again, a miracle is said to go beyond the hope "of nature," not above the hope "of grace," which hope comes from faith, whereby we believe in the future resurrection.
IЄ q. 105 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod scientia apostolorum, quamvis secundum se non fuerit manifesta, manifestabatur tamen in effectibus, ex quibus mirabilis apparebat.	Reply to Objection 3. The knowledge of the Apostles, although not manifest in itself, yet was made manifest in its effect, from which it was shown to be wonderful.
IЄ q. 105 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unum miraculum non sit maius alio. Dicit enim Augustinus, in epistola ad Volusianum, in rebus mirabiliter factis tota ratio facti est potentia facientis. Sed eadem potentia, scilicet Dei, fiunt omnia miracula. Ergo unum non est maius alio.	Objection 1. It would seem that one miracle is not greater than another. For Augustine says (Epist. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "In miraculous deeds, the whole measure of the deed is the power of the doer." But by the same power of God all miracles are done. Therefore one miracle is not greater than another.
IЄ q. 105 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, potentia Dei est infinita. Sed infinitum improportionabiliter excedit omne finitum. Ergo non magis est mirandum quod faciat hunc effectum, quam illum. Ergo unum miraculum non est maius altero.	Objection 2. Further, the power of God is infinite. But the infinite exceeds the finite beyond all proportion; and therefore no more reason exists to wonder at one effect thereof than at another. Therefore one miracle is not greater than another.
IЄ q. 105 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. XIV, de operibus miraculosis loquens, opera quae ego facio, et ipse faciet, et maiora horum faciet.	On the contrary, The Lord says, speaking of miraculous works (John 14:12): "The works that I do, he also shall do, and greater than these shall he do."
IЄ q. 105 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nihil potest dici miraculum ex comparatione potentiae divinae, quia quodcumque factum, divinae potentiae comparatum, est minimum; secundum illud Isaiae XL, ecce gentes quasi stilla situlae, et quasi momentum staterae reputatae sunt. Sed dicitur aliquid miraculum per comparationem ad facultatem naturae, quam excedit. Et ideo secundum quod magis excedit facultatem naturae, secundum hoc maius miraculum dicitur. Excedit autem aliquid facultatem naturae tripliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad substantiam facti, sicut quod duo corpora sint simul, vel quod sol retrocedat, aut quod corpus humanum glorificetur; quod nullo modo natura facere potest. Et ista tenent summum gradum in miraculis. Secundo aliquid excedit facultatem naturae, non quantum ad id quod fit, sed quantum ad id in quo fit, sicut resuscitatio mortuorum, et illuminatio caecorum, et similia. Potest enim natura causare vitam, sed non in mortuo, et potest praestare visum, sed non caeco. Et haec tenent secundum locum in miraculis. Tertio modo excedit aliquid facultatem naturae, quantum ad modum et ordinem faciendi, sicut cum aliquis subito per virtutem divinam a febre curatur absque curatione et consueto processu naturae in talibus, et cum statim aer divina virtute in pluvias densatur absque naturalibus causis, sicut factum est ad preces Samuelis et Eliae. Et huiusmodi tenent infimum locum in miraculis. Quaelibet tamen horum habent diversos gradus, secundum quod diversimode excedunt facultatem naturae.	I answer that, Nothing is called a miracle by comparison with the Divine Power; because no action is of any account compared with the power of God, according to Isaiah 40:15: "Behold the Gentiles are as a drop from a bucket, and are counted as the smallest grain of a balance." But a thing is called a miracle by comparison with the power of nature which it surpasses. So the more the power of nature is surpassed, the greater the miracle. Now the power of nature is surpassed in three ways: firstly, in the substance of the deed, for instance, if two bodies occupy the same place, or if the sun goes backwards; or if a human body is glorified: such things nature is absolutely unable to do; and these hold the highest rank among miracles. Secondly, a thing surpasses the power of nature, not in the deed, but in that wherein it is done; as the raising of the dead, and giving sight to the blind, and the like; for nature can give life, but not to the dead; and such hold the second rank in miracles. Thirdly, a thing surpasses nature's power in the measure and order in which it is done; as when a man is cured of a fever suddenly, without treatment or the usual process of nature; or as when the air is suddenly condensed into rain, by Divine power without a natural cause, as occurred at the prayers of Samuel and Elias; and these hold the lowest place in miracles. Moreover, each of these kinds has various degrees, according to the different ways in which the power of nature is surpassed.
IЄ q. 105 a. 8 ad arg. Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta, quae procedunt ex parte divinae potentiae.	From this is clear how to reply to the objections, arguing as they do from the Divine power.