Part I (Prima Pars) Part 17 (2/2)
_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend G.o.d; yet ”for the mind to attain to G.o.d in some degree is great beat.i.tude,” as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. x.x.xviii).
In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof, it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable.
But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable.
Which thus appears--Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But G.o.d, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Q. 7), is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know G.o.d infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know G.o.d in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 1: ”Comprehension” is twofold: in one sense it is taken strictly and properly, according as something is included in the one comprehending; and thus in no way is G.o.d comprehended either by intellect, or in any other way; forasmuch as He is infinite and cannot be included in any finite being; so that no finite being can contain Him infinitely, in the degree of His own infinity. In this sense we now take comprehension. But in another sense ”comprehension”
is taken more largely as opposed to ”non-attainment”; for he who attains to anyone is said to comprehend him when he attains to him.
And in this sense G.o.d is comprehended by the blessed, according to the words, ”I held him, and I will not let him go” (Cant. 3:4); in this sense also are to be understood the words quoted from the Apostle concerning comprehension. And in this way ”comprehension” is one of the three prerogatives of the soul, responding to hope, as vision responds to faith, and fruition responds to charity. For even among ourselves not everything seen is held or possessed, forasmuch as things either appear sometimes afar off, or they are not in our power of attainment. Neither, again, do we always enjoy what we possess; either because we find no pleasure in them, or because such things are not the ultimate end of our desire, so as to satisfy and quell it. But the blessed possess these three things in G.o.d; because they see Him, and in seeing Him, possess Him as present, having the power to see Him always; and possessing Him, they enjoy Him as the ultimate fulfilment of desire.
Reply Obj. 2: G.o.d is called incomprehensible not because anything of Him is not seen; but because He is not seen as perfectly as He is capable of being seen; thus when any demonstrable proposition is known by probable reason only, it does not follow that any part of it is unknown, either the subject, or the predicate, or the composition; but that it is not as perfectly known as it is capable of being known. Hence Augustine, in his definition of comprehension, says the whole is comprehended when it is seen in such a way that nothing of it is hidden from the seer, or when its boundaries can be completely viewed or traced; for the boundaries of a thing are said to be completely surveyed when the end of the knowledge of it is attained.
Reply Obj. 3: The word ”wholly” denotes a mode of the object; not that the whole object does not come under knowledge, but that the mode of the object is not the mode of the one who knows. Therefore he who sees G.o.d's essence, sees in Him that He exists infinitely, and is infinitely knowable; nevertheless, this infinite mode does not extend to enable the knower to know infinitely; thus, for instance, a person can have a probable opinion that a proposition is demonstrable, although he himself does not know it as demonstrated.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 8]
Whether Those Who See the Essence of G.o.d See All in G.o.d?
Objection 1: It seems that those who see the essence of G.o.d see all things in G.o.d. For Gregory says (Dialog. iv): ”What do they not see, who see Him Who sees all things?” But G.o.d sees all things. Therefore those who see G.o.d see all things.
Obj. 2: Further, whoever sees a mirror, sees what is reflected in the mirror. But all actual or possible things s.h.i.+ne forth in G.o.d as in a mirror; for He knows all things in Himself. Therefore whoever sees G.o.d, sees all actual things in Him, and also all possible things.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever understands the greater, can understand the least, as is said in _De Anima_ iii. But all that G.o.d does, or can do, are less than His essence. Therefore whoever understands G.o.d, can understand all that G.o.d does, or can do.
Obj. 4: Further, the rational creature naturally desires to know all things. Therefore if in seeing G.o.d it does not know all things, its natural desire will not rest satisfied; thus, in seeing G.o.d it will not be fully happy; which is incongruous. Therefore he who sees G.o.d knows all things.
_On the contrary,_ The angels see the essence of G.o.d; and yet do not know all things. For as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), ”the inferior angels are cleansed from ignorance by the superior angels.”
Also they are ignorant of future contingent things, and of secret thoughts; for this knowledge belongs to G.o.d alone. Therefore whosoever sees the essence of G.o.d, does not know all things.
_I answer that,_ The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence, does not see in it all that G.o.d does or can do. For it is manifest that things are seen in G.o.d as they are in Him. But all other things are in G.o.d as effects are in the power of their cause. Therefore all things are seen in G.o.d as an effect is seen in its cause. Now it is clear that the more perfectly a cause is seen, the more of its effects can be seen in it. For whoever has a lofty understanding, as soon as one demonstrative principle is put before him can gather the knowledge of many conclusions; but this is beyond one of a weaker intellect, for he needs things to be explained to him separately. And so an intellect can know all the effects of a cause and the reasons for those effects in the cause itself, if it comprehends the cause wholly. Now no created intellect can comprehend G.o.d wholly, as shown above (A. 7). Therefore no created intellect in seeing G.o.d can know all that G.o.d does or can do, for this would be to comprehend His power; but of what G.o.d does or can do any intellect can know the more, the more perfectly it sees G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 1: Gregory speaks as regards the object being sufficient, namely, G.o.d, who in Himself sufficiently contains and shows forth all things; but it does not follow that whoever sees G.o.d knows all things, for he does not perfectly comprehend Him.
Reply Obj. 2: It is not necessary that whoever sees a mirror should see all that is in the mirror, unless his glance comprehends the mirror itself.
Reply Obj. 3: Although it is more to see G.o.d than to see all things else, still it is a greater thing to see Him so that all things are known in Him, than to see Him in such a way that not all things, but the fewer or the more, are known in Him. For it has been shown in this article that the more things are known in G.o.d according as He is seen more or less perfectly.
Reply Obj. 4: The natural desire of the rational creature is to know everything that belongs to the perfection of the intellect, namely, the species and the genera of things and their types, and these everyone who sees the Divine essence will see in G.o.d. But to know other singulars, their thoughts and their deeds does not belong to the perfection of the created intellect nor does its natural desire go out to these things; neither, again, does it desire to know things that exist not as yet, but which G.o.d can call into being. Yet if G.o.d alone were seen, Who is the fount and principle of all being and of all truth, He would so fill the natural desire of knowledge that nothing else would be desired, and the seer would be completely beatified. Hence Augustine says (Confess. v): ”Unhappy the man who knoweth all these” (i.e. all creatures) ”and knoweth not Thee! but happy whoso knoweth Thee although he know not these. And whoso knoweth both Thee and them is not the happier for them, but for Thee alone.”
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 12, Art. 9]
Whether What Is Seen in G.o.d by Those Who See the Divine Essence, Is Seen Through Any Similitude?
Objection 1: It seems that what is seen in G.o.d by those who see the Divine essence, is seen by means of some similitude. For every kind of knowledge comes about by the knower being a.s.similated to the object known. For thus the intellect in act becomes the actual intelligible, and the sense in act becomes the actual sensible, inasmuch as it is informed by a similitude of the object, as the eye by the similitude of color. Therefore if the intellect of one who sees the Divine essence understands any creatures in G.o.d, it must be informed by their similitudes.
Obj. 2: Further, what we have seen, we keep in memory. But Paul, seeing the essence of G.o.d whilst in ecstasy, when he had ceased to see the Divine essence, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 28,34), remembered many of the things he had seen in the rapture; hence he said: ”I have heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:4). Therefore it must be said that certain similitudes of what he remembered, remained in his mind; and in the same way, when he actually saw the essence of G.o.d, he had certain similitudes or ideas of what he actually saw in it.
<script>