Part I (Prima Pars) Part 38 (2/2)
(3) Whether divine providence is immediately concerned with all things?
(4) Whether divine providence imposes any necessity upon things foreseen?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 22, Art. 1]
Whether Providence Can Suitably Be Attributed to G.o.d?
Objection 1: It seems that providence is not becoming to G.o.d. For providence, according to Tully (De Invent. ii), is a part of prudence. But prudence, since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
vi, 5, 9, 18), it gives good counsel, cannot belong to G.o.d, Who never has any doubt for which He should take counsel. Therefore providence cannot belong to G.o.d.
Obj. 2: Further, whatever is in G.o.d, is eternal. But providence is not anything eternal, for it is concerned with existing things that are not eternal, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29).
Therefore there is no providence in G.o.d.
Obj. 3: Further, there is nothing composite in G.o.d. But providence seems to be something composite, because it includes both the intellect and the will. Therefore providence is not in G.o.d.
_On the contrary,_ It is said (Wis. 14:3): ”But Thou, Father, governest all things by providence [*Vulg. But 'Thy providence, O Father, governeth it.'].”
_I answer that,_ It is necessary to attribute providence to G.o.d. For all the good that is in created things has been created by G.o.d, as was shown above (Q. 6, A. 4). In created things good is found not only as regards their substance, but also as regards their order towards an end and especially their last end, which, as was said above, is the divine goodness (Q. 21, A. 4). This good of order existing in things created, is itself created by G.o.d. Since, however, G.o.d is the cause of things by His intellect, and thus it behooves that the type of every effect should pre-exist in Him, as is clear from what has gone before (Q. 19, A. 4), it is necessary that the type of the order of things towards their end should pre-exist in the divine mind: and the type of things ordered towards an end is, properly speaking, providence. For it is the chief part of prudence, to which two other parts are directed--namely, remembrance of the past, and understanding of the present; inasmuch as from the remembrance of what is past and the understanding of what is present, we gather how to provide for the future. Now it belongs to prudence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 12), to direct other things towards an end whether in regard to oneself--as for instance, a man is said to be prudent, who orders well his acts towards the end of life--or in regard to others subject to him, in a family, city or kingdom; in which sense it is said (Matt. 24:45), ”a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family.” In this way prudence or providence may suitably be attributed to G.o.d. For in G.o.d Himself there can be nothing ordered towards an end, since He is the last end. This type of order in things towards an end is therefore in G.o.d called providence. Whence Boethius says (De Consol. iv, 6) that ”Providence is the divine type itself, seated in the Supreme Ruler; which disposeth all things”: which disposition may refer either to the type of the order of things towards an end, or to the type of the order of parts in the whole.
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 9, 10), ”Prudence is what, strictly speaking, commands all that 'ebulia' has rightly counselled and 'synesis' rightly judged” [*Cf. I-II, Q. 57, A. 6]. Whence, though to take counsel may not be fitting to G.o.d, from the fact that counsel is an inquiry into matters that are doubtful, nevertheless to give a command as to the ordering of things towards an end, the right reason of which He possesses, does belong to G.o.d, according to Ps. 148:6: ”He hath made a decree, and it shall not pa.s.s away.” In this manner both prudence and providence belong to G.o.d.
Although at the same time it may be said that the very reason of things to be done is called counsel in G.o.d; not because of any inquiry necessitated, but from the cert.i.tude of the knowledge, to which those who take counsel come by inquiry. Whence it is said: ”Who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11).
Reply Obj. 2: Two things pertain to the care of providence--namely, the ”reason of order,” which is called providence and disposition; and the execution of order, which is termed government. Of these, the first is eternal, and the second is temporal.
Reply Obj. 3: Providence resides in the intellect; but presupposes the act of willing the end. n.o.body gives a precept about things done for an end; unless he will that end. Hence prudence presupposes the moral virtues, by means of which the appet.i.tive faculty is directed towards good, as the Philosopher says. Even if Providence has to do with the divine will and intellect equally, this would not affect the divine simplicity, since in G.o.d both the will and intellect are one and the same thing, as we have said above (Q. 19).
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 22, Art. 2]
Whether Everything Is Subject to the Providence of G.o.d?
Objection 1: It seems that everything is not subject to divine providence. For nothing foreseen can happen by chance. If then everything was foreseen by G.o.d, nothing would happen by chance. And thus hazard and luck would disappear; which is against common opinion.
Obj. 2: Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, G.o.d cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.
Obj. 3: Further, whatever happens of necessity does not require providence or prudence. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
vi, 5, 9, 10, 11): ”Prudence is the right reason of things contingent concerning which there is counsel and choice.” Since, then, many things happen from necessity, everything cannot be subject to providence.
Obj. 4: Further, whatsoever is left to itself cannot be subject to the providence of a governor. But men are left to themselves by G.o.d in accordance with the words: ”G.o.d made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel” (Ecclus. 15:14). And particularly in reference to the wicked: ”I let them go according to the desires of their heart” (Ps. 80:13). Everything, therefore, cannot be subject to divine providence.
Obj. 5: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9): ”G.o.d doth not care for oxen [*Vulg. 'Doth G.o.d take care for oxen?']”: and we may say the same of other irrational creatures. Thus everything cannot be under the care of divine providence.
_On the contrary,_ It is said of Divine Wisdom: ”She reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly” (Wis. 8:1).
_I answer that,_ Certain persons totally denied the existence of providence, as Democritus and the Epicureans, maintaining that the world was made by chance. Others taught that incorruptible things only were subject to providence and corruptible things not in their individual selves, but only according to their species; for in this respect they are incorruptible. They are represented as saying (Job 22:14): ”The clouds are His covert; and He doth not consider our things; and He walketh about the poles of heaven.” Rabbi Moses, however, excluded men from the generality of things corruptible, on account of the excellence of the intellect which they possess, but in reference to all else that suffers corruption he adhered to the opinion of the others.
We must say, however, that all things are subject to divine providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual selves. This is made evident thus. For since every agent acts for an end, the ordering of effects towards that end extends as far as the causality of the first agent extends. Whence it happens that in the effects of an agent something takes place which has no reference towards the end, because the effect comes from a cause other than, and outside the intention of the agent. But the causality of G.o.d, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to const.i.tuent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles; not only of things incorruptible, but also of things corruptible.
<script>