Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 3
Quaestio III. Utrum homo in omni statu cognoscat Deum per creaturas.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum cognitio Dei per creaturas sit hominis quantum ad omnem1 statum. Quod sit hominis quantum ad primum statum, sic ostenditur.
1. Homo in statu innocentiae non cognoscebat Deum facie ad faciem: ergo si cognoscebat Deum, cognoscebat per effectum, ergo per vestigium, ergo per creaturam.
2. Item, in homine in statu innocentiae cognitio sensibilis non erat in impedimentum, sed in adminiculum cognitionis intellectivae; sed intellectiva cognitio, propter quam factus est homo, est cognitio Dei: ergo omnis cognitio sensibilis in primo homine ordinabatur ad hanc; sed cognitio Dei per adminiculum sensibilium est cognitio per creaturam: ergo etc.
Item, quod sit hominis quantum ad statum beatitudinis, videtur:
1. Quia Beati cognoscunt creaturam, sed non sistunt in illa, sed referunt ad Deum: ergo cognoscunt Deum per creaturam.
2. Item, beatae animae laudant Deum per creaturas; sed laudare Deum per creaturas est cognoscere per creaturas: ergo etc.
Sed contra: quod non sit hominis instituti, sic ostenditur.
1. Cognitio per vestigium est cognitio per medium; «sed mens, ut dicit Augustinus2, immediate ab ipsa veritate formatur»: ergo talis cognitio non convenit humanae naturae quantum ad illum statum, nec etiam quantum ad alium.
2. Item, non est rectus ordo, quod propinquius perveniat in finem per medium magis distans; sed homo in statu primo erat propinquior Deo ceteris aliis3 creaturis: ergo non conveniebat ei pervenire in cognitionem Dei per alias creaturas.
Item, quod non sit hominis talis cognitio quantum ad statum beatitudinis, videtur.
1. Quia cognitio per vestigium est cognitio per manuductionem: ergo non est cognitio perfecta, ergo est ex parte4: ergo non manet in Beatis, quia in ipsis evacuabitur quod est ex parte.
2. Item, vestigium sive creatura est sicut scala ad ascendendum vel sicut via ad perveniendum ad Deum; sed cum perventum est ad terminum, non est usus viae ulterius5: ergo similiter, cum homo sit sursum, non indiget scala; sed cognitio Beatorum immediate est in Deum: ergo non est per creaturas.
Conclusio.
Deus in creaturis cognoscitur a comprehensoribus perfecte, a viatoribus semiplene; sed per creaturas proprie cognoscitur a viatoribus, aliter autem ante, aliter post lapsum.
Respondeo: Ad intelligentiam6 praedictorum notandum, quod aliud est cognoscere Deum in creatura, aliud per creaturam. Cognoscere Deum in creatura est cognoscere ipsius praesentiam et influentiam in creatura7. Et hoc quidem est viatorum semiplene, sed comprehensorum perfecte; unde dicit Augustinus in fine libri de Civitate Dei8, quod tunc expresse Deus videbitur, quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus. Cognoscere autem Deum per creaturam est elevari a cognitione creaturae ad cognitionem Dei quasi per scalam mediam. Et hoc est proprie viatorum, sicut dicit Bernardus ad Eugenium9.
Aliter tamen convenit homini in statu naturae institutae, et10 naturae lapsae: quia in statu primo cognoscebat Deum per creaturam tanquam per speculum clarum; sed post lapsum cognovit tanquam per speculum et aenigma, sicut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio11, propter obnubilationem intellectus et peiorationem rerum.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de statu beatitudinis; dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, beatorum non est cognoscere per creaturas, sed potius in
creaturis. Et rationes, quae videntur probare contrarium, non probant, sed potius, quod cognoscatur ab eis in creaturis.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de statu innocentiae, quod mens immediate formatur etc.; dicendum, quod duplex est medium, scilicet efficiens et disponens. De primo medio debet intelligi quod dixit Augustinus, sed de secundo non12; quoniam Deus est medium efficiens et obiectum ipsius mentis. Illud autem verbum dicit Augustinus contra philosophos, quorum opinio erat, quod mens non coniungeretur primo13 immediate, sed mediante aliqua intelligentia.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est rectus ordo; dicendum, quod dupliciter potest considerari homo: vel ens in se, vel extra. Primo modo non pervenit per creaturas a se in Deum, sed ens extra se per cognitionem creaturarum recolligitur in se et elevatur supra se14.
Vel dicendum, quod aliae creaturae possunt considerari ut res, vel ut signa. Primo modo sunt inferiores homine, secundo modo sunt media in deveniendo sive in via, non in termino, quia illae non perveniunt, sed per illas pervenit homo ad Deum, illis post se relictis.
I. Quoad distinctionem inter cognoscere Deum in creatura et per creaturam, quae habetur in corp., cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; Itinerar. mentis, c. 1. Consentiunt Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Item verba in fine corp. occurrentia: «propter obnubilationem intellectus et peiorationem rerum» approbantur et amplius explicantur a S. Thom., S. I. q. 94. a. 1. ad 3. et ab Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 4.
De duplici medio, scil. efficiente et disponente (in solut. ad 2.), clarius mentem suam explicat Seraphicus II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. his verbis: «Augustinus vult, quod inter mentem et Deum non cadit medium, scil. in ratione causae efficientis vel influentis, cadit tamen medium manuductionis, quod tamen non habet rationem medii proprie, quia magis subservit potentiae cognoscenti, quam praesit». Plura de triplici medio Deum videndi invenies II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. ad 7. Concordant S. Thom., S. q. 94. a. 1. ad 3. et Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 3. a. 1. ad 3.
II. Quoad ordinem argumentorum et solutionem notandum, quod S. Doctor hic non tenet consuetum modum, quia pro triplici statu etiam triplex responsio datur, ita ut nonnulla argumenta respectu unius status sint vera, respectu aliorum falsa. Argumenta prima affirmativa recte probant illam conclusionem, quod homo in statu innocentiae cognovit Deum per creaturas; duo argg. sequentia ab ipso S. Doctore in solut. prima quoad beatos reprobantur; item argg. 1. et 2. sub Contra in solutione ultima refelluntur. Duo vero ultima vera sunt quoad beatos.
III. De tota quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 4. et m. 3. a. 1. et p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1. et 2. — S. Thom., S. I. q. 12. a. 11. et q. 94. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic. a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. (de beatis); II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. (de statu innocentiae); ibid. d. 24. a. 3. q. 5. (de praesenti statu). — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. ult.
---
Question III. Whether the human being in every state knows God through creatures.
Thirdly it is asked, whether the knowledge of God through creatures belongs to the human being in respect to every1 state. That it belongs to the human being in respect to the first state, is shown thus.
1. The human being in the state of innocence did not know God face to face: therefore if he knew God, he knew through effect, therefore through vestige, therefore through creature.
2. Likewise, in the human being in the state of innocence sensible knowledge was not an impediment, but an aid to intellective knowledge; but intellective knowledge, on account of which the human being was made, is the knowledge of God: therefore all sensible knowledge in the first human being was ordered to this; but knowledge of God through the aid of sensibles is knowledge through creature: therefore etc.
Likewise, that it belongs to the human being in respect to the state of beatitude, is shown:
1. Because the Blessed know the creature, but do not rest in it, but refer it to God: therefore they know God through the creature.
2. Likewise, blessed souls praise God through creatures; but to praise God through creatures is to know through creatures: therefore etc.
On the contrary: that it does not belong to the human being as instituted [in the state of innocence], is shown thus.
1. Knowledge through vestige is knowledge through a medium; «but the mind, as Augustine2 says, is formed immediately by truth itself»: therefore such knowledge does not befit human nature in respect to that state, nor even in respect to another.
2. Likewise, it is not a right order, that what is nearer should reach the end through a more distant medium; but the human being in the first state was nearer to God than other3 creatures: therefore it did not befit him to attain the knowledge of God through other creatures.
Likewise, that such knowledge does not belong to the human being in respect to the state of beatitude, is shown.
1. Because knowledge through vestige is knowledge through leading-by-the-hand: therefore it is not perfect knowledge, therefore it is in part4: therefore it does not remain in the Blessed, because in them what is in part shall be done away.
2. Likewise, the vestige or creature is like a ladder for ascending or like a way for arriving at God; but when the terminus is reached, there is no further5 use of the way: therefore likewise, since the human being is above, he does not need a ladder; but the knowledge of the Blessed is immediately into God: therefore it is not through creatures.
Conclusio.
God is known in creatures by the comprehensors perfectly, by the wayfarers half-fully; but he is properly known through creatures by the wayfarers, otherwise however before, otherwise after the fall.
I respond: For the understanding6 of the foregoing it must be noted, that it is one thing to know God in a creature, another through a creature. To know God in a creature is to know his presence and influence in the creature7. And this indeed belongs to the wayfarers half-fully, but to the comprehensors perfectly; whence Augustine says at the end of the book On the City of God8, that then God will be expressly seen, when God will be all in all. But to know God through a creature is to be elevated from the knowledge of the creature to the knowledge of God as it were by an intermediate ladder. And this is properly of the wayfarers, as Bernard says to Eugenius9.
Otherwise however it befits the human being in the state of instituted nature, and10 of fallen nature: because in the first state he knew God through a creature as through a clear mirror; but after the fall he knew as through a mirror and in a riddle, as the Apostle says in First Corinthians thirteen11, on account of the clouding of the intellect and the worsening of things.
Therefore to that which is objected concerning the state of beatitude; it must be said, that, as has been said, it does not belong to the Blessed to know through creatures, but rather in
creatures. And the reasons which seem to prove the contrary, do not prove it, but rather that he is known by them in creatures.
1. To that which is objected concerning the state of innocence, that the mind is immediately formed etc.; it must be said, that the medium is twofold, namely efficient and disposing. Of the first medium that which Augustine said must be understood, but not12 of the second; because God is the efficient medium and the object of the mind itself. But Augustine speaks that word against the philosophers, whose opinion was, that the mind was not first13 joined immediately, but mediated by some intelligence.
2. To that which is objected, that it is not a right order; it must be said, that the human being can be considered in two ways: either as a being in itself, or outside [itself]. In the first way he does not arrive through creatures from himself into God, but as a being outside himself through the knowledge of creatures he is gathered back into himself and elevated above himself14.
Or it must be said, that other creatures can be considered as things, or as signs. In the first way they are inferior to the human being, in the second way they are media in the journeying or on the way, not at the terminus, because they do not arrive, but through them the human being arrives at God, they being left behind.
I. As to the distinction between knowing God in a creature and through a creature, which is found in the body of the article, cf. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; Itinerary of the Mind, c. 1. Petrus a Tarantasia agrees, here q. 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Likewise the words occurring at the end of the body: «on account of the clouding of the intellect and the worsening of things» are approved and more amply explained by St. Thomas, Summa I. q. 94. a. 1. ad 3. and by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 4.
Concerning the twofold medium, namely efficient and disposing (in the solution ad 2.), the Seraphic Doctor explains his mind more clearly in II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. in these words: «Augustine wills, that between the mind and God no medium falls, namely in the account of efficient or influencing cause, yet there falls a medium of leading-by-the-hand, which however does not properly have the account of a medium, because it serves the cognitive power more than presides over it». More on the threefold medium of seeing God you will find in II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. ad 7. St. Thomas concurs, Summa q. 94. a. 1. ad 3., and Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I. q. 2. m. 3. a. 1. ad 3.
II. As to the order of the arguments and the solution it must be noted, that the Holy Doctor here does not hold his customary mode, because for the threefold state a threefold response is also given, so that some arguments are true with respect to one state, false with respect to the others. The first affirmative arguments rightly prove that conclusion, that the human being in the state of innocence knew God through creatures; the two following arguments are reproved by the Holy Doctor himself in the first solution as regards the Blessed; likewise arguments 1. and 2. under Contra are refuted in the last solution. But the two final ones are true as regards the Blessed.
III. On the whole question: Alex. Hal., Summa p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 4. and m. 3. a. 1. and p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1. and 2. — St. Thomas, Summa I. q. 12. a. 11. and q. 94. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 13. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. (on the Blessed); II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. (on the state of innocence); ibid. d. 24. a. 3. q. 5. (on the present state). — Aegidius Romanus, here 2. princ. q. ult.
---
- Sola Vat. praemittit omnes.Only the Vatican edition prefixes omnes [all].
- Vide supra q. 2. ad 4. — In quo textu cod. Y post ipsa addit prima.See above q. 2. ad 4. — In which text codex Y, after ipsa, adds prima.
- Fide plurimorum codd. ut ACFHIKLNOSTU etc. et ed. 1 addidimus aliis, et mox post pervenire substituimus in loco ad.On the faith of very many codices, such as ACFHIKLNOSTU etc. and ed. 1, we have added aliis [other], and shortly after pervenire we have substituted in in place of ad.
- Praeferimus succinctiorem lectionem mss. et ed. 1 lectioni Vat., in qua post perfecta additur et si non est cognitio perfecta et post parte adiungitur et si est ex parte. Argumentum hoc innititur verbis Apostoli I. Cor. 13, 10: Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.We prefer the more succinct reading of the manuscripts and ed. 1 to the Vatican reading, in which after perfecta is added et si non est cognitio perfecta, and after parte is joined et si est ex parte. This argument relies on the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13:10: But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
- Mendum Vat. alterius loco ulterius correximus ex mss. et ed. 1, sicut et paulo post substituimus sit pro est et sed pro nam. — In hoc argumento alluditur ad verba S. Bernard., V. de Consid. c. 1: Sane hac scala cives non indigent, sed exules.We have corrected the Vatican misprint alterius in place of ulterius from the manuscripts and ed. 1, just as a little later we substituted sit for est and sed for nam. — In this argument allusion is made to the words of St. Bernard, On Consideration V, c. 1: Surely the citizens do not need this ladder, but the exiles do.
- Vat. contra mss. intellectum.The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts, reads intellectum.
- Codd. L O creaturam. Mox cod. W post quidem addit cognoscere, ed. 1 autem post est addit viatorum et comprehensorum.Codices L O read creaturam. Shortly after, codex W, following quidem, adds cognoscere; but ed. 1, following est, adds viatorum et comprehensorum.
- Libr. 22. c. 30. n. 4: Vacabimus in aeternum, videntes quia ipse est Deus, quo pleni erimus, quando ipse erit omnia in omnibus. — In quo textu plures mss. ut A I T etc. cum ed. 1 quomodo pro quando.Book 22, c. 30, n. 4: We shall be at rest forever, seeing that he himself is God, with whom we shall be filled, when he himself shall be all in all. — In which text several manuscripts, such as A I T etc., with ed. 1, [read] quomodo [how] in place of quando [when].
- Libr. V. de Consid. c. 1.Book V On Consideration, c. 1.
- Cod. X quam loco et.Codex X reads quam in place of et.
- Vers. 12.Verse 12.
- Ita cod. F; Vat. autem, transpositis verbis disponens et efficiens, consequenter habet De primo medio non debet intelligi quod dicit Augustinus, sed de secundo, quoniam. Praeferimus lectionem cod. F, quia ceteri codd. et edd. 2, 3, 6 cum ipso F legunt De primo medio debet... de secundo non, licet cum Vat. in transpositione verborum disponens et efficiens conveniant; sed in lectione codd. sensus est falsus, uti tum ex subnexis tum ex aliis locis S. Doctoris in Scholio citatis colligitur.Thus codex F; but the Vatican edition, having transposed the words disponens and efficiens, consequently has De primo medio non debet intelligi quod dicit Augustinus, sed de secundo, quoniam. We prefer the reading of codex F, because the other codices and editions 2, 3, 6, together with F itself, read De primo medio debet... de secundo non, although they agree with the Vatican edition in the transposition of the words disponens and efficiens; but in the reading of the codices the sense is false, as is gathered both from what is subjoined and from other places of the Holy Doctor cited in the Scholion.
- Supple: principio. — Vat., refragantibus mss. et ed. 1, aeternae veritati pro primo.Supply: principio [in principle/in the first place]. — The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads aeternae veritati [to eternal truth] in place of primo.
- Sensus est: homo consideratus ut ens in se, i. e. substantia, immediate refertur ad Deum eiusque cognitionem, quia, ut in praecedentis obiectionis solutione et supra q. 2. ad 4. dictum est, inter substantiam animae et Deum nullum cadit medium. Homo consideratus ut ens extra se, i. e. res exteriores percipiens, recolligitur in se, i. e. res exteriores percipiendo trahit ipsas intra se et ad reflexionem excitatur, et per mentales suas operationes tum respectu sui tum respectu rerum exteriorum cognitarum elevatur supra se i. e. ad Dei cognitionem.The sense is: the human being considered as a being in himself, i. e. as substance, is immediately referred to God and to his knowledge, because, as has been said in the solution of the preceding objection and above q. 2. ad 4., between the substance of the soul and God no medium falls. The human being considered as a being outside himself, i. e. as perceiving exterior things, is gathered back into himself, i. e. by perceiving exterior things he draws them within himself and is excited to reflection, and through his mental operations, both with respect to himself and with respect to the exterior things known, is elevated above himself, i. e. to the knowledge of God.