Part I (Prima Pars) Part 25 (2/2)
Obj. 4: Further, what is known through another and not through itself, is imperfectly known. But evil is not known by G.o.d; for the thing known must be in the knower. Therefore if evil is known through another, namely, through good, it would be known by Him imperfectly; which cannot be, for the knowledge of G.o.d is not imperfect. Therefore G.o.d does not know evil things.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 15:11), ”h.e.l.l and destruction are before G.o.d [Vulg: 'the Lord'].”
_I answer that,_ Whoever knows a thing perfectly, must know all that can be accidental to it. Now there are some good things to which corruption by evil may be accidental. Hence G.o.d would not know good things perfectly, unless He also knew evil things. Now a thing is knowable in the degree in which it is; hence since this is the essence of evil that it is the privation of good, by the fact that G.o.d knows good things, He knows evil things also; as by light is known darkness. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): ”G.o.d through Himself receives the vision of darkness, not otherwise seeing darkness except through light.”
Reply Obj. 1: The saying of the Philosopher must be understood as meaning that the intellect which is not in potentiality, does not know privation by privation existing in it; and this agrees with what he said previously, that a point and every indivisible thing are known by privation of division. This is because simple and indivisible forms are in our intellect not actually, but only potentially; for were they actually in our intellect, they would not be known by privation. It is thus that simple things are known by separate substances. G.o.d therefore knows evil, not by privation existing in Himself, but by the opposite good.
Reply Obj. 2: The knowledge of G.o.d is not the cause of evil; but is the cause of the good whereby evil is known.
Reply Obj. 3: Although evil is not opposed to the divine essence, which is not corruptible by evil; it is opposed to the effects of G.o.d, which He knows by His essence; and knowing them, He knows the opposite evils.
Reply Obj. 4: To know a thing by something else only, belongs to imperfect knowledge, if that thing is of itself knowable; but evil is not of itself knowable, forasmuch as the very nature of evil means the privation of good; therefore evil can neither be defined nor known except by good.
_______________________
ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 11]
Whether G.o.d Knows Singular Things?
Objection 1: It seems that G.o.d does not know singular things. For the divine intellect is more immaterial than the human intellect. Now the human intellect by reason of its immateriality does not know singular things; but as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), ”reason has to do with universals, sense with singular things.” Therefore G.o.d does not know singular things.
Obj. 2: Further, in us those faculties alone know the singular, which receive the species not abstracted from material conditions. But in G.o.d things are in the highest degree abstracted from all materiality.
Therefore G.o.d does not know singular things.
Obj. 3: Further, all knowledge comes about through the medium of some likeness. But the likeness of singular things in so far as they are singular, does not seem to be in G.o.d; for the principle of singularity is matter, which, since it is in potentiality only, is altogether unlike G.o.d, Who is pure act. Therefore G.o.d cannot know singular things.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 16:2), ”All the ways of a man are open to His eyes.”
_I answer that,_ G.o.d knows singular things. For all perfections found in creatures pre-exist in G.o.d in a higher way, as is clear from the foregoing (Q. 4, A. 2). Now to know singular things is part of our perfection. Hence G.o.d must know singular things. Even the Philosopher considers it incongruous that anything known by us should be unknown to G.o.d; and thus against Empedocles he argues (De Anima i and _Metaph._ iii) that G.o.d would be most ignorant if He did not know discord. Now the perfections which are divided among inferior beings, exist simply and unitedly in G.o.d; hence, although by one faculty we know the universal and immaterial, and by another we know singular and material things, nevertheless G.o.d knows both by His simple intellect.
Now some, wis.h.i.+ng to show how this can be, said that G.o.d knows singular things by universal causes. For nothing exists in any singular thing, that does not arise from some universal cause. They give the example of an astrologer who knows all the universal movements of the heavens, and can thence foretell all eclipses that are to come. This, however, is not enough; for singular things from universal causes attain to certain forms and powers which, however they may be joined together, are not individualized except by individual matter. Hence he who knows Socrates because he is white, or because he is the son of Sophroniscus, or because of something of that kind, would not know him in so far as he is this particular man. Hence according to the aforesaid mode, G.o.d would not know singular things in their singularity.
On the other hand, others have said that G.o.d knows singular things by the application of universal causes to particular effects. But this will not hold; forasmuch as no one can apply a thing to another unless he first knows that thing; hence the said application cannot be the reason of knowing the particular, for it presupposes the knowledge of singular things.
Therefore it must be said otherwise, that, since G.o.d is the cause of things by His knowledge, as stated above (A. 8), His knowledge extends as far as His causality extends. Hence as the active power of G.o.d extends not only to forms, which are the source of universality, but also to matter, as we shall prove further on (Q. 44, A. 2), the knowledge of G.o.d must extend to singular things, which are individualized by matter. For since He knows things other than Himself by His essence, as being the likeness of things, or as their active principle, His essence must be the sufficing principle of knowing all things made by Him, not only in the universal, but also in the singular. The same would apply to the knowledge of the artificer, if it were productive of the whole thing, and not only of the form.
Reply Obj. 1: Our intellect abstracts the intelligible species from the individualizing principles; hence the intelligible species in our intellect cannot be the likeness of the individual principles; and on that account our intellect does not know the singular. But the intelligible species in the divine intellect, which is the essence of G.o.d, is immaterial not by abstraction, but of itself, being the principle of all the principles which enter into the composition of things, whether principles of the species or principles of the individual; hence by it G.o.d knows not only universal, but also singular things.
Reply Obj. 2: Although as regards the species in the divine intellect its being has no material conditions like the images received in the imagination and sense, yet its power extends to both immaterial and material things.
Reply Obj. 3: Although matter as regards its potentiality recedes from likeness to G.o.d, yet, even in so far as it has being in this wise, it retains a certain likeness to the divine being.
_______________________
TWELFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 14, Art. 12]
Whether G.o.d Can Know Infinite Things?
Objection 1: It seems that G.o.d cannot know infinite things. For the infinite, as such, is unknown; since the infinite is that which, ”to those who measure it, leaves always something more to be measured,”
<script>