Disputed Questions on Truth (De Veritate)

 QUESTION ONE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 QUESTION TWO

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 QUESTION THREE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION FOUR

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION FIVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 QUESTION SIX

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 QUESTION SEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION EIGHT

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 ARTICLE XVI

 ARTICLE XVII

 QUESTION NINE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 REFERENCES

 QUESTION TEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 QUESTION ELEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 QUESTION TWELVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 QUESTION THIRTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION FOURTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 QUESTION FIFTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION SIXTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 QUESTION SEVENTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION EIGHTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION NINETEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 QUESTION TWENTY

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 REFERENCES

 QUESTION TEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 QUESTION ELEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 QUESTION TWELVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 QUESTION THIRTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION FOURTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 QUESTION FIFTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 QUESTION SIXTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 QUESTION SEVENTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION EIGHTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION NINETEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 QUESTION TWENTY

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 QUESTION TWENTY-ONE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 QUESTION TWENTY-TWO

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 QUESTION TWENTY-THREE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION TWENTY-FOUR

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 QUESTION TWENTY-FIVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 QUESTION TWENTY-SIX

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 QUESTION TWENTY-SEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 QUESTION TWENTY-EIGHT

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 QUESTION TWENTY-NINE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

ARTICLE II

In the Second Article We Ask: DO THE INTELLECTS OF BEATIFIED ANGELS AND MEN COMPREHEND THE DIVINE ESSENCE?

Difficulties:

It seems that they do, for

1. If what is simple is seen, the whole of it is seen. Now, the divine essence is simple. Therefore, when a beatified angel sees it, he sees the entire essence and consequently comprehends it.

2. It was said, however, that even though the entire essence is seen, it is not seen entirely.--On the contrary, entirely signifies a certain mode, but every mode of the divine essence is the essence itself. Therefore, if the entire essence is seen, it will be seen entirely.

3. The effectiveness of an action is measured by the form, which is the principle of action on the part of the agent. This is clear from the case of heat and the process of heating. Now, the form by which the intellect understands is the principle of intellectual vision. Consequently, the effectiveness of the intellect in seeing God will be as great as the perfection of the divine essence. Therefore, the intellect will comprehend the divine essence.

4. Just as the most perfect way of knowing composite intelligible objects is to know them by demonstration, so also the most perfect way of knowing the incomposite is to know what they are.

Now, every composite intelligible object known by demonstration is comprehended. Consequently, if one knows what a thing is, he comprehends it. But those who know God through His essence know what He is, since to know what a thing is, is to know its essence. Angels, therefore, comprehend the divine essence.

5. In the Epistle to the Philippians (3:12), we read: "But I follow after, hoping I may comprehend as I am also comprehended." But God perfectly comprehended the Apostle. The Apostle, therefore, was moving to a stage wherein he would perfectly comprehend God.

6. The gloss on the passage cited immediately above says: "'If I may comprehend,--that is, that I may know the immensity of God that surpasses any intellect." Now, God is incomprehensible only by reason of His immensity. Therefore, the blessed perfectly comprehend the divine essence.

To the Contrary:

1'. In his commentary on Luke, Ambrose says: "No one has looked upon the abundance of goodness which lives in God. Neither mind nor eye has comprehended it."

2'. In his treatment of the vision of God, Augustine says: "No one has ever comprehended the fullness of God, either with his bodily eyes or with his mind."

3'. According to Augustine in the same work: "A thing is comprehended if its limits can be seen." Now, this is impossible in the case of God, for He is infinite. Consequently, He cannot be comprehended.

REPLY:

Properly speaking, one thing is said to be comprehended by another if it is included within it, for to comprehend means to apprehend something in all its parts simultaneously. This is, as it were, to include it in all its aspects. Now, what is included by another thing does not exceed it; instead, it is less than or at most equal to it. These principles pertain to quantity. Consequently, there are two modes of comprehension according to the two kinds of quantity, namely, dimensional (or extensive) quantity and virtual (or intensive) quantity. According to dimensional quantity, a cask comprehends wine; according to virtual quantity, matter is said to comprehend form when nothing remains in the matter which has not been perfected by the form. It is in this latter manner that a knowing power is said to comprehend its object, namely, in so far as what is known lies perfectly under its cognition. When the thing known exceeds its grasp, then the knowing power falls short of comprehension.

This excess must be considered differently in the different powers. To the sensitive powers, the object is related not merely according to virtual quantity but also according to dimensional quantity; for, inasmuch as a sense is in space, the sensibles move it, not only in virtue of the quality of the proper sensibles, but also according to dimensional quantity. This is clear in the case of the common sensibles. As a result, comprehension by sense can be impeded in two ways. First, it can be impeded by an excess in the object considered from the standpoint of virtual quantity. For example, the eye is kept from comprehending the sun because the intensity of the sun's brightness, by which it is visible, exceeds the proportion of the eye's ability to see it. Second, it can be impeded by an excess according to dimensional quantity. For example, the eye is kept from comprehending the entire mass of the earth. Part of it the eye sees, part of it it does not. This, however, is not true of the first example given, for we see all the parts of the sun alike, but none of them as perfectly as they might be seen.

Now, the intelligible is related to intellect only indirectly according to dimensional or natural quantity, that is, only inasmuch as the intellect receives something from sense. Consequently, our intellect is similarly kept from comprehending what is infinite according to dimensional quantity, so that some of the infinite comes into the intellect, but some of it remains outside. The intelligible is not, however, directly related to the intellect according to dimensional quantity, since the intellect is a power that does not use a physical organ. Instead, the intelligible is related to intellect according to virtual quantity. Consequently, the intellectual comprehension of those things which are understood in themselves without dependence on sense is impeded only because of an excess according to virtual quantity. This occurs, for example, when what is known can be understood in a more perfect way than the intellect understands it. For example, a person can understand the following conclusion: "A triangle has three angles equal to two right angles," merely because of a probable reason, namely, the authority of another or because the proposition is commonly accepted. Such a person does not comprehend the proposition, not because he is ignorant of one part of it and knows another, but because that conclusion can be known by a demonstration which he does not yet know. Consequently, he does not comprehend the proposition simply because he has not grasped it perfectly.

Now, it is clear that there is no place for dimensional quantity in an angelic intellect, especially in its relation to the vision of God. Consequently, any equality or excess occurring here must be taken as involving virtual quantity only. Moreover, the perfection of the intelligibility of the divine essence lies beyond the grasp of angelic and all created intellects in so far as they have the power of knowing, because the truth by which the divine essence is knowable surpasses the light by which any created intellect knows. Consequently, it is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend the divine essence, not because it does not know some part of the essence, but because it cannot attain the perfect manner of knowing it.

Answers to Difficulties:

1. The entire divine essence is seen by an angel, for there is nothing in it which he does not see. Consequently, the term entire is to be explained in a privative sense, not in a sense that would suppose parts. He does not, however, see the essence perfectly. Therefore, it does not follow that he comprehends it.

2. We can consider three modes in any vision. The first mode is that of the person who sees, taken absolutely; and it means the extent of his capacity. According to this, the intellect of an angel sees God entirely; for this statement means simply that an angel uses all the force of his intellect in seeing God. The second mode is that of the thing seen; and this mode is nothing other than the thing's quality. But, since quality in God is nothing other than His substance, His mode is His very essence. Consequently, angels see God entirely in this sense, too, for they see God's entire mode in the same way in which they see the entire essence. The third mode is that of the vision itself, which is a medium between the one seeing and the thing seen; and therefore it signifies the mode of the one seeing in his relation to the thing seen. In this sense, one person is said to see another entirely when his vision is total, as occurs when the mode of the vision is as perfect as the mode of the thing's visibility. As is clear from what was said above,* one cannot see the divine essence entirely in this sense. In this respect, we are like one who knows that a proposition can be demonstrated but does not know the demonstration. Such a person knows the entire mode of its cognition, but he does not know it according to the complete mode in which it is knowable.

3. That reasoning follows when the form which is the principle of an action is united to the agent according to its complete mode. Such a union is necessarily true of all non-subsistent forms, whose very existence is to be in another. But, even though the divine essence is, in some way, like a form of the intellect, still, because it is seized by the intellect only according to the manner of the intellect seizing it, and because the action here is not only that of the form but also that of the agent, the action cannot be as perfect as the form which is the principle of the action, because of the defect on the part of the agent.

4. A thing whose definition is known is comprehended only if the definition itself is comprehended. It is possible, however, to know a thing or its definition without comprehending either; consequently, the thing itself is not comprehended. Moreover, even though an angel knows in some way what God is, still he does not comprehend this.

5. Vision of God had through His essence can be called comprehension in comparison with the vision had in this life, which does not attain God's essence. It is not, however, comprehension simply speaking, for the reason already given.* Consequently, in the statements, "Hoping I may comprehend as I am also comprehended" and "I shall know even as I have been known," the word as signifies a comparison of likeness, not of equality.

6. God's immeasurableness will be seen, but not in an immeasurable manner; for, as was said previously, His entire mode will be seen, but not entirely.