Part, Question

 1001   1, 13  |        univocal sense. For we can name God only ~from creatures (A[
 1002   1, 13  |               Thus whatever is said of God and creatures, is ~said
 1003   1, 13  |              relation of a creature to God as its principle and ~cause,
 1004   1, 13  |            likeness of the creature to God is imperfect, for it ~does
 1005   1, 13  |               3 Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 3: God is not the measure proportioned
 1006   1, 13  |               it is not necessary that God and creatures should be
 1007   1, 13  |               predicated univocally of God and creatures; yet they
 1008   1, 13  |            Whether names predicated of God are predicated primarily
 1009   1, 13  |              creatures rather ~than of God. For we name anything accordingly
 1010   1, 13  |               creatures before we know God. Therefore the names imposed
 1011   1, 13  |               creatures rather than of God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1012   1, 13  |                 Div. Nom. i): "We name God from ~creatures." But names
 1013   1, 13  |          transferred from creatures to God, are said ~primarily of
 1014   1, 13  |               creatures rather than of God, as "lion," "stone," and
 1015   1, 13  |         Therefore all names applied to God and creatures are applied ~
 1016   1, 13  |               creatures rather than to God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1017   1, 13  |               names equally applied to God and creatures, are ~applied
 1018   1, 13  |             creatures, are ~applied to God as the cause of all creatures,
 1019   1, 13  |               creatures rather than of God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1020   1, 13  |             the other names applied to God ~and creatures. Therefore
 1021   1, 13  |               are applied primarily to God rather ~than to creatures.~
 1022   1, 13  |              applied metaphorically to God, are ~applied to creatures
 1023   1, 13  |               primarily rather than to God, because when said of ~God
 1024   1, 13  |             God, because when said of ~God they mean only similitudes
 1025   1, 13  |              name of "lion" applied to God means only that God ~manifests
 1026   1, 13  |         applied to God means only that God ~manifests strength in His
 1027   1, 13  |              is clear that ~applied to God the signification of names
 1028   1, 13  |             other names not applied to God in a ~metaphorical sense,
 1029   1, 13  |           apply if they were spoken of God ~as the cause only, as some
 1030   1, 13  |        supposed. For when it is said, "God is ~good," it would then
 1031   1, 13  |               it would then only mean "God is the cause of the creature'
 1032   1, 13  |               the term good applied to God would included in its ~meaning
 1033   1, 13  |               creatures rather than to God. But as was shown above (
 1034   1, 13  |            these names ~are applied to God not as the cause only, but
 1035   1, 13  |          essentially. For the ~words, "God is good," or "wise," signify
 1036   1, 13  |              are applied ~primarily to God rather than to creatures,
 1037   1, 13  |           these perfections flow ~from God to creatures; but as regards
 1038   1, 13  |           these names were applied ~to God only as cause, and not also
 1039   1, 13  |            creatures are predicated of God ~temporally?~Aquin.: SMT
 1040   1, 13  |       creatures are not ~predicated of God temporally. For all such
 1041   1, 13  |                signifies the action of God, which is His essence. Now
 1042   1, 13  |              names are ~not applied to God temporally, but eternally.~
 1043   1, 13  |              to ~make does no apply to God. Therefore nothing can be
 1044   1, 13  |           nothing can be predicated of God ~temporally. ~Aquin.: SMT
 1045   1, 13  |               any names are applied to God temporally as implying ~
 1046   1, 13  |               some names are spoken of God implying relation ~of God
 1047   1, 13  |              God implying relation ~of God to creatures from eternity;
 1048   1, 13  |               Creator," are applied to God from ~eternity.~Aquin.:
 1049   1, 13  |          relation must be something in God, or in the creature only.
 1050   1, 13  |        creature only, for in that case God would ~be called "Lord"
 1051   1, 13  |         relation must be ~something in God also. But nothing temporal
 1052   1, 13  |             nothing temporal can be in God, for He is ~above time.
 1053   1, 13  |               names are not applied to God temporally.~Aquin.: SMT
 1054   1, 13  |              lordship is not really in God, but only in idea, it follows
 1055   1, 13  |               in idea, it follows that God is ~not really Lord, which
 1056   1, 13  |               things which are said of God and creatures are not simultaneous
 1057   1, 13  |          relation can be predicated of God to the creature ~even without
 1058   1, 13  |             Creator" are predicated of God from eternity, and not temporally.~
 1059   1, 13  |       appellation "Lord" is applied to God temporally.~Aquin.: SMT
 1060   1, 13  |              creatures are applied ~to God temporally, and not from
 1061   1, 13  |              Para. 5/5~Since therefore God is outside the whole order
 1062   1, 13  |        creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God
 1063   1, 13  |                God Himself; whereas in God there is no ~real relation
 1064   1, 13  |               from being predicated of God ~temporally, not by reason
 1065   1, 13  |            these signify the action of God, ~which is His essence.
 1066   1, 13  |             Yet both names are said of God temporarily so far ~as they
 1067   1, 13  |                As relations applied to God temporally are only in God
 1068   1, 13  |             God temporally are only in God in ~our idea, so, "to become"
 1069   1, 13  |                be made" are applied to God only in ~idea, with no change
 1070   1, 13  |                or will, are applied to God from eternity; whereas those ~
 1071   1, 13  |        external effects are applied to God temporally, as "Saviour," ~"
 1072   1, 13  |             names which are applied to God ~temporally, are in God
 1073   1, 13  |                God ~temporally, are in God only in idea; but the opposite
 1074   1, 13  |             Nor is it incongruous that God should be denominated ~from
 1075   1, 13  |             the opposite ~relations in God should also be understood
 1076   1, 13  |               time; in the ~sense that God is spoken of relatively
 1077   1, 13  |                 1/1~Reply OBJ 5: Since God is related to the creature
 1078   1, 13  |              creature, it follows that God is Lord not in idea only,
 1079   1, 13  |              it is known. Thus, though God is prior to the creature,
 1080   1, 13  |        simultaneous ~by nature. Hence, God was not "Lord" until He
 1081   1, 13  |                 1/1~Whether this name "God" is a name of the nature?~
 1082   1, 13  |              It seems that this name, "God," is not a name of the nature.
 1083   1, 13  |                 De Fide Orth. 1) that "God {Theos} is so called from
 1084   1, 13  |               that is to burn, for our God is a fire consuming all
 1085   1, 13  |        operation. Therefore this name "God" signifies His ~operation
 1086   1, 13  |               us. Therefore this name "God" does not signify the ~divine
 1087   1, 13  |         Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "God" is a name of the ~nature.~
 1088   1, 13  |            Para. 2/2~Because therefore God is not known to us in His
 1089   1, 13  |              in A[1]; hence this name "God" is a name of operation
 1090   1, 13  |                 since all who speak of God intend ~to name God as exercising
 1091   1, 13  |           speak of God intend ~to name God as exercising providence
 1092   1, 13  |             this operation, this name "God" is imposed to ~signify
 1093   1, 13  |             signification of the name "God."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1094   1, 13  |                 A[12]). Thus the name "God" signifies the divine ~nature,
 1095   1, 13  |            things; for ~those who name God intend to signify all this. ~(
 1096   1, 13  |                 1/1~Whether this name "God" is communicable?~Aquin.:
 1097   1, 13  |               It seems that this name "God" is communicable. For whosoever ~
 1098   1, 13  |                itself. But ~this name "God" signifies the divine nature,
 1099   1, 13  |               4). Therefore this name "God" ~can be communicated to
 1100   1, 13  |          communicable. Now this name ~"God" is not a proper, but an
 1101   1, 13  |               6). Therefore this name "God" is communicable.~Aquin.:
 1102   1, 13  |             OBJ 3: Further, this name "God" comes from operation, as
 1103   1, 13  |              But ~other names given to God from His operations or effects
 1104   1, 13  |             like. Therefore this name "God" is ~communicable.~Aquin.:
 1105   1, 13  |            name. Therefore ~this name "God" is incommunicable.~Aquin.:
 1106   1, 13  |                Since, then, this name "God" is given to signify the
 1107   1, 13  |                follows that this name "God" is ~incommunicable in reality,
 1108   1, 13  |                Nevertheless this name "God" is ~communicable, not in
 1109   1, 13  |             name were given to signify God not as to His nature but
 1110   1, 13  |                Reply OBJ 2: This name "God" is an appellative name,
 1111   1, 13  |                the possessor; although God ~Himself in reality is neither
 1112   1, 13  |            perfections proceeding from God to creatures; but they do
 1113   1, 13  |               to many. But ~this name "God" is given to God from His
 1114   1, 13  |            this name "God" is given to God from His own proper operation,
 1115   1, 13  |                1/1 ~Whether this name "God" is applied to God univocally
 1116   1, 13  |               name "God" is applied to God univocally by nature, by ~
 1117   1, 13  |               It seems that this name "God" is applied to God univocally
 1118   1, 13  |               name "God" is applied to God univocally by ~nature, by
 1119   1, 13  |             who ~says: "An idol is not God," contradicts a pagan who
 1120   1, 13  |           pagan who says: "An idol is ~God." Therefore GOD in both
 1121   1, 13  |               idol is ~God." Therefore GOD in both senses is spoken
 1122   1, 13  |                 Further, as an idol is God in opinion, and not in truth,
 1123   1, 13  |              Therefore also this name "God" is ~applied univocally
 1124   1, 13  |         applied univocally to the true God, and to God also in opinion.~
 1125   1, 13  |                to the true God, and to God also in opinion.~Aquin.:
 1126   1, 13  |           Catholic says: "There is one God," he understands by the
 1127   1, 13  |                understands by the name God an omnipotent being, and
 1128   1, 13  |              when he says: "An idol is God." Therefore this name ~"
 1129   1, 13  |                  Therefore this name ~"God" is applied univocally to
 1130   1, 13  |       equivocal. Therefore this name ~"God" applied to the true God
 1131   1, 13  |               God" applied to the true God and to God in opinion is
 1132   1, 13  |         applied to the true God and to God in opinion is applied ~equivocally.~
 1133   1, 13  |                when he says an idol is God, he does not ~signify the
 1134   1, 13  |              he says that there is one God. Therefore this name "God"
 1135   1, 13  |              God. Therefore this name "God" is ~not applied univocally,
 1136   1, 13  |                equivocally to the true God, and to God ~according to
 1137   1, 13  |                to the true God, and to God ~according to opinion.~Aquin.:
 1138   1, 13  |                answer that, This name "God" in the three aforesaid
 1139   1, 13  |               at issue. For this name "God," as ~signifying the true
 1140   1, 13  |                as ~signifying the true God, includes the idea of God
 1141   1, 13  |              God, includes the idea of God when it is used to ~denote
 1142   1, 13  |             when it is used to ~denote God in opinion, or participation.
 1143   1, 13  |                For when we name anyone god by ~participation, we understand
 1144   1, 13  |              understand by the name of god some likeness of the true ~
 1145   1, 13  |             some likeness of the true ~God. Likewise, when we call
 1146   1, 13  |         Likewise, when we call an idol god, by this name god we understand ~
 1147   1, 13  |              an idol god, by this name god we understand ~and signify
 1148   1, 13  |           something which men think is God; thus it is manifest that ~
 1149   1, 13  |             saying that an idol is not God contradicts the pagan asserting
 1150   1, 13  |            pagan asserting that it is ~God; because each of them uses
 1151   1, 13  |            each of them uses this name GOD to signify the true God.
 1152   1, 13  |                GOD to signify the true God. For ~when the pagan says
 1153   1, 13  |              the pagan says an idol is God, he does not use this name
 1154   1, 13  |              use this name as meaning ~God in opinion, for he would
 1155   1, 13  |               knows the very nature of God ~as it is in itself; but
 1156   1, 13  |             pagan can take ~this name "God" in the same way when he
 1157   1, 13  |                when he says an idol is God, as the ~Catholic does in
 1158   1, 13  |               in saying an idol is not God. But if anyone should be
 1159   1, 13  |           should be quite ~ignorant of God altogether, he could not
 1160   1, 13  |                the most proper name of God?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1161   1, 13  |                the most proper name of God. For this name "God" is
 1162   1, 13  |            name of God. For this name "God" is an incommunicable name.
 1163   1, 13  |                the most proper name of God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1164   1, 13  |       manifests all the processions of God." But it especially ~belongs
 1165   1, 13  |              it especially ~belongs to God to be the universal principle
 1166   1, 13  |                 is supremely proper to God, and not this name HE WHO
 1167   1, 13  |            relation to creatures, ~for God is known to us only through
 1168   1, 13  |                 the most applicable to God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1169   1, 13  |               most properly belongs to God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1170   1, 13  |               most properly applied to God, for ~three reasons:~Aquin.:
 1171   1, 13  |           Hence since the existence of God is His essence ~itself,
 1172   1, 13  |              one specially denominates God, for everything is ~denominated
 1173   1, 13  |             cannot know the essence of God itself in this life, as
 1174   1, 13  |             what it ~understands about God, it falls short of the mode
 1175   1, 13  |              short of the mode of what God is in ~Himself. Therefore
 1176   1, 13  |          properly they are applied to ~God. Hence Damascene says (De
 1177   1, 13  |                of all names applied to God; for comprehending all in
 1178   1, 13  |                all properly applies to God, whose existence knows not ~
 1179   1, 13  |               HE WHO IS is the name of God more properly than ~this
 1180   1, 13  |              properly than ~this name "God," as regards its source,
 1181   1, 13  |                by the name, this name "God" is more proper, ~as it
 1182   1, 13  |               signify the substance of God itself, ~incommunicable
 1183   1, 13  |               is the principal name of God in so far as ~He is a cause,
 1184   1, 13  |               perfections flowing from God to creatures. Among these
 1185   1, 13  |       propositions can be formed about God?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1186   1, 13  |                cannot be formed about ~God. For Dionysius says (Coel.
 1187   1, 13  |              ii) that "negations about God are ~true; but affirmations
 1188   1, 13  |             cannot ~be a subject." But God is the most absolutely simple
 1189   1, 13  |     proposition cannot be formed about God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1190   1, 13  |           otherwise than as it is. But God has existence without any
 1191   1, 13  |         affirmative ~proposition about God cannot be made.~Aquin.:
 1192   1, 13  |     propositions are of faith; as that God is Three and One; and that
 1193   1, 13  |      propositions can be formed about ~God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[13] A[
 1194   1, 13  |       propositions can be formed about God. To ~prove this we must
 1195   1, 13  |               13] A[12] Body Para. 2/2~God, however, as considered
 1196   1, 13  |            that the affirmations about God are vague ~or, according
 1197   1, 13  |                name ~can be applied to God according to its mode of
 1198   1, 13  |            forming a proposition about God, does ~not affirm that He
 1199   1, 13  |               in its ideas concerning ~God.~
 1200   1, 14  |                14] Out. Para. 1/2 - OF GOD'S KNOWLEDGE (SIXTEEN ARTICLES)~
 1201   1, 14  |               we have now to ~treat of God's operation. And since one
 1202   1, 14  |            afterwards of ~the power of God, the principle of the divine
 1203   1, 14  |           existing in the knowledge of God are called ideas, to the
 1204   1, 14  |          Whether there is knowledge in God?~(2) Whether God understands
 1205   1, 14  |          knowledge in God?~(2) Whether God understands Himself?~(3)
 1206   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?~(8) Whether
 1207   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?~(
 1208   1, 14  |           cause of things?~(9) Whether God has knowledge of non-existing
 1209   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is variable?~(16) Whether
 1210   1, 14  |              is variable?~(16) Whether God has speculative or practical
 1211   1, 14  |                OBJ 1: It seems that in God there is not knowledge.
 1212   1, 14  |               habit does not belong to God, since it is the mean between ~
 1213   1, 14  |          Therefore knowledge is not in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1214   1, 14  |               But nothing is caused in God; therefore science is not
 1215   1, 14  |            therefore science is not in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1216   1, 14  |       universal, or particular. But in God ~there is no universal or
 1217   1, 14  |                3], A[5]). Therefore in God there ~is not knowledge.~
 1218   1, 14  |                and of the knowledge of God" (Rm. 11:33). ~Aquin.: SMT
 1219   1, 14  |            Para. 1/1~I answer that, In God there exists the most perfect
 1220   1, 14  |             Anima iii. Since therefore God is in ~the highest degree
 1221   1, 14  |               perfections flowing from God to creatures exist in ~a
 1222   1, 14  |            exist in ~a higher state in God Himself (Q[4], A[2]), whenever
 1223   1, 14  |            perfection is attributed to God, it must be separated in
 1224   1, 14  |          knowledge is not a quality of God, nor a habit; but ~substance
 1225   1, 14  |                in creatures exists in ~God simply and unitedly (Q[13],
 1226   1, 14  |                what is to be done. But God knows all these by one simple
 1227   1, 14  |                the simple knowledge of God can ~be named by all these
 1228   1, 14  |            knowledge does not exist in God after the mode of ~created
 1229   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God understands Himself?~Aquin.:
 1230   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not understand Himself.
 1231   1, 14  |               to his own essence." But God does not go out from His ~
 1232   1, 14  |              own ~likeness." Therefore God does not understand Himself.~
 1233   1, 14  |                Further, we are like to God chiefly in our intellect,
 1234   1, 14  |           because we ~are the image of God in our mind, as Augustine
 1235   1, 14  |                De Anima iii. Therefore God understands Himself ~only
 1236   1, 14  |                 The things that are of God no man ~knoweth, but the
 1237   1, 14  |             knoweth, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11).~Aquin.:
 1238   1, 14  |               Para. 1/2~I answer that, God understands Himself through
 1239   1, 14  |              Para. 2/2~Since therefore God has nothing in Him of potentiality,
 1240   1, 14  |             intellect itself, and thus God understands Himself ~through
 1241   1, 14  |               it ~supremely belongs to God to be self-subsisting. Hence
 1242   1, 14  |              intellectual faculty. But God ~is a pure act in the order
 1243   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God comprehends Himself?~Aquin.:
 1244   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not comprehend Himself.
 1245   1, 14  |               as ~regards itself." But God is in all ways infinite.
 1246   1, 14  |              OBJ 2: If it is said that God is infinite to us, and finite
 1247   1, 14  |           contrary, that everything in God is truer than it ~is in
 1248   1, 14  |                 is in us. If therefore God is finite to Himself, but
 1249   1, 14  |              but infinite to us, then ~God is more truly finite than
 1250   1, 14  |                 Q[7], A[1]). Therefore God does not comprehend Himself.~
 1251   1, 14  |               comprehends itself." But God ~understands Himself. Therefore
 1252   1, 14  |               Para. 1/1~I answer that, God perfectly comprehends Himself,
 1253   1, 14  |                Now it is manifest that God knows Himself as perfectly ~
 1254   1, 14  |          Metaph. ~ix. Now the power of God in knowing is as great as
 1255   1, 14  |          matter and potentiality, that God is cognitive, as shown above (
 1256   1, 14  |              included in another. But ~God is not said to be comprehended
 1257   1, 14  |               way of ~negation. But as God is said to be in Himself,
 1258   1, 14  |               OBJ 2: When it is said, "God is finite to Himself," this
 1259   1, 14  |        exceeding finite intellect. But God is not to be called finite ~
 1260   1, 14  |                 1/1~Whether the act of God's intellect is His substance?~
 1261   1, 14  |               It seems that the act of God's intellect is not His substance. ~
 1262   1, 14  |         operator. Therefore the act of God's intellect is not ~His
 1263   1, 14  |                accessory. If therefore God be his own act of ~understanding,
 1264   1, 14  |                understanding: and thus God's act of understanding will
 1265   1, 14  |              something. When therefore God understands Himself, if
 1266   1, 14  |         infinity. Therefore the act of God's ~intellect is not His
 1267   1, 14  |               says (De Trin. vii), "In God to be is the ~same as to
 1268   1, 14  |              understand. ~Therefore in God to be is the same thing
 1269   1, 14  |            thing as to understand. But God's ~existence is His substance,
 1270   1, 14  |                  Therefore the ~act of God's intellect is His substance.~
 1271   1, 14  |                be said that the act of God's intellect is His ~substance.
 1272   1, 14  |           intelligible species. Now in God there is no form which is
 1273   1, 14  |              all the foregoing that in God, intellect, and the ~object
 1274   1, 14  |               and the same. Hence when God is said to be ~understanding,
 1275   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God knows things other than
 1276   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not know things besides
 1277   1, 14  |              For all ~other things but God are outside of God. But
 1278   1, 14  |          things but God are outside of God. But Augustine says (Octog.
 1279   1, 14  |                Quaest. qu. xlvi) that "God does not behold anything
 1280   1, 14  |              understands. If therefore God understands other things
 1281   1, 14  |              will be the perfection of God, and will be nobler than
 1282   1, 14  |                object understood. ~But God is His own intellectual
 1283   1, 14  |         intellectual act. If therefore God understands ~anything other
 1284   1, 14  |               other than Himself, then God Himself is specified by
 1285   1, 14  |               Para. 1/3~I answer that, God necessarily knows things
 1286   1, 14  |                aforesaid (Q[2], A[3]), God must necessarily know things
 1287   1, 14  |           first effective cause - viz. God - is His own act of ~understanding.
 1288   1, 14  |          whatever effects pre-exist in God, as in the first ~cause,
 1289   1, 14  |               Now in order to know how God knows things other than
 1290   1, 14  |               Para. 3/3~So we say that God sees Himself in Himself,
 1291   1, 14  |               in which it is said that God "sees ~nothing outside Himself"
 1292   1, 14  |             taken in such a way, as if God saw ~nothing outside Himself,
 1293   1, 14  |            things which are other than God are understood by God, inasmuch
 1294   1, 14  |             than God are understood by God, inasmuch as the ~essence
 1295   1, 14  |            inasmuch as the ~essence of God contains their images as
 1296   1, 14  |            thing ~understood, which in God is nothing but His own essence
 1297   1, 14  |            intellectual act, or rather God Himself, is specified by
 1298   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God knows things other than
 1299   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not know things other
 1300   1, 14  |              For, as was shown (A[5]), God knows things other than ~
 1301   1, 14  |                cause, and are known by God as in their ~first and universal
 1302   1, 14  |            proper knowledge. Therefore God knows things besides Himself
 1303   1, 14  |                divine essence. Thus as God knows only by His essence,
 1304   1, 14  |              its ~proper ratio. But as God knows all things by His
 1305   1, 14  |              diverse things. Therefore God has not a ~proper knowledge
 1306   1, 14  |          distinct from each other. Now God ~knows things in that manner.
 1307   1, 14  |                this point, saying that God knows ~things other than
 1308   1, 14  |               far as ~they are hot; so God, through knowing Himself
 1309   1, 14  |             therefore the knowledge of God regarding things other than
 1310   1, 14  |              must ~therefore hold that God knows things other than
 1311   1, 14  |              some wishing to show that God knows many things by one,
 1312   1, 14  |              only in a general way. In God, however, it is otherwise. ~
 1313   1, 14  |         pre-exists and is contained in God in an excelling ~manner.
 1314   1, 14  |                all things pre-exist in God, ~not only as regards what
 1315   1, 14  |              another. And therefore as God contains all ~perfections
 1316   1, 14  |                Himself, the essence of God is compared to all other ~
 1317   1, 14  |               therefore the essence of God contains in itself all the
 1318   1, 14  |             other being, and far more, God can know ~in Himself all
 1319   1, 14  |                divine ~perfection. Now God could not be said to know
 1320   1, 14  |              Hence it is manifest that God knows all things with ~proper
 1321   1, 14  |                must say therefore that God not only knows that all
 1322   1, 14  |             compared to the essence of God as ~the imperfect to the
 1323   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?~Aquin.: SMT
 1324   1, 14  |            seems that the knowledge of God is discursive. For the ~
 1325   1, 14  |      discursive. For the ~knowledge of God is not habitual knowledge,
 1326   1, 14  |              at a ~time." Therefore as God knows many things, Himself
 1327   1, 14  |                through its ~cause. But God knows things through Himself;
 1328   1, 14  |              Para. 1/1~OBJ 3: Further, God knows each creature more
 1329   1, 14  |              that the ~same applies to God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1330   1, 14  |         Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "God does not see all ~things
 1331   1, 14  |           discursion ~cannot belong to God. For many things, which
 1332   1, 14  |                things in a mirror. Now God sees all things in ~one (
 1333   1, 14  |            which is Himself. Therefore God sees all things together, ~
 1334   1, 14  |       discursion cannot be ~applied to God. First, because this second
 1335   1, 14  |            discursion ceases. Hence as God ~sees His effects in Himself
 1336   1, 14  |               2 Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: God does not know by their cause,
 1337   1, 14  |               3 Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: God sees the effects of created
 1338   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?~
 1339   1, 14  |            seems that the knowledge of God is not the cause of things. ~
 1340   1, 14  |                will happen not because God knows it as future; but ~
 1341   1, 14  |               on that account known by God, before it ~exists."~Aquin.:
 1342   1, 14  |         follows. But the knowledge ~of God is eternal. Therefore if
 1343   1, 14  |          Therefore if the knowledge of God is the cause of ~things
 1344   1, 14  |             Therefore the knowledge of God is not the ~cause of things.~
 1345   1, 14  |                because they are, ~does God know all creatures spiritual
 1346   1, 14  |          answer that, The knowledge of God is the cause of things.
 1347   1, 14  |          things. For the ~knowledge of God is to all creatures what
 1348   1, 14  |                Now it is manifest that God causes things by His intellect, ~
 1349   1, 14  |                Hence the ~knowledge of God as the cause of things is
 1350   1, 14  |            when he says the reason why God foreknows some things is
 1351   1, 14  |                future, it follows that God knows them; but not that
 1352   1, 14  |                things is the cause why God knows them.~Aquin.: SMT
 1353   1, 14  |                OBJ 2: The knowledge of God is the cause of things according
 1354   1, 14  |               not in ~the knowledge of God; hence although the knowledge
 1355   1, 14  |              although the knowledge of God is eternal, it ~does not
 1356   1, 14  |               between the knowledge of God and ~our knowledge: for
 1357   1, 14  |               natural things, of which God ~is the cause by His knowledge.
 1358   1, 14  |          measure, so, the knowledge of God ~is prior to natural things,
 1359   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God has knowledge of things
 1360   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God has not knowledge of things
 1361   1, 14  |             not. For ~the knowledge of God is of true things. But "
 1362   1, 14  |             Therefore the knowledge of God is not of things that ~are
 1363   1, 14  |           cannot have any likeness to ~God, Who is very being. Therefore
 1364   1, 14  |                not, cannot be known by God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1365   1, 14  |              Further, the knowledge of God is the cause of what is
 1366   1, 14  |                has no cause. Therefore God has no knowledge of things
 1367   1, 14  |               Para. 1/2~I answer that, God knows all things whatsoever
 1368   1, 14  |             are in the power either of God Himself or of a ~creature,
 1369   1, 14  |               can do, all are known to God, although they are ~not
 1370   1, 14  |             were, or they will be; and God is said to know all these ~
 1371   1, 14  |         knowledge of vision: for since God's act of understanding,
 1372   1, 14  |            time, the present glance of God extends ~over all time,
 1373   1, 14  |              there are other things in God's power, or the ~creature'
 1374   1, 14  |                 such they are known by God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1375   1, 14  |                 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: Since God is very being everything
 1376   1, 14  |        participates in the likeness of God; as everything is hot in
 1377   1, 14  |              potentiality are known by God, ~although they are not
 1378   1, 14  |                OBJ 3: The knowledge of God, joined to His will is the
 1379   1, 14  |               necessary that what ever God knows, is, or was, ~or will
 1380   1, 14  |              it is in the knowledge of God not that they be, ~but that
 1381   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God knows evil things?~Aquin.:
 1382   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not know evil things.
 1383   1, 14  |         Therefore, as the intellect of God is never in ~potentiality,
 1384   1, 14  |       foregoing (A[2]~), it seems that God does not know evil things.~
 1385   1, 14  |               it. But the knowledge of God is not the cause of evil, ~
 1386   1, 14  |              caused by evil. Therefore God does not know evil things.~
 1387   1, 14  |             its opposite. But whatever God knows, He knows through
 1388   1, 14  |               Civ. Dei xii). Therefore God ~does not know evil things.~
 1389   1, 14  |               But evil is not known by God; for the thing known must ~
 1390   1, 14  |              be, for ~the knowledge of God is not imperfect. Therefore
 1391   1, 14  |               not imperfect. Therefore God does not know evil ~things.~
 1392   1, 14  |                destruction are ~before God [Vulg: 'the Lord']."~Aquin.:
 1393   1, 14  |               may be accidental. Hence God would not know good things ~
 1394   1, 14  |              of good, by the fact that God knows good things, He ~knows
 1395   1, 14  |                 says (Div. Nom. vii): "God through Himself receives
 1396   1, 14  |                by separate substances. God therefore ~knows evil, not
 1397   1, 14  |                OBJ 2: The knowledge of God is not the cause of evil;
 1398   1, 14  |              opposed to the effects of God, which He ~knows by His
 1399   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God knows singular things?~Aquin.:
 1400   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not know singular things.
 1401   1, 14  |            singular things." Therefore God does not know singular things.~
 1402   1, 14  |            material conditions. But in God ~things are in the highest
 1403   1, 14  |                materiality. ~Therefore God does not know singular things.~
 1404   1, 14  |                 does not seem to be in God; for the principle of singularity
 1405   1, 14  |            only, is altogether unlike ~God, Who is pure act. Therefore
 1406   1, 14  |             Who is pure act. Therefore God cannot know singular things.~
 1407   1, 14  |               Para. 1/4~I answer that, God knows singular things. For
 1408   1, 14  |                 creatures pre-exist in God in a higher way, as is clear
 1409   1, 14  |              of our ~perfection. Hence God must know singular things.
 1410   1, 14  |               us should be unknown to ~God; and thus against Empedocles
 1411   1, 14  |               i and Metaph. iii) ~that God would be most ignorant if
 1412   1, 14  |                simply and ~unitedly in God; hence, although by one
 1413   1, 14  |         material things, ~nevertheless God knows both by His simple
 1414   1, 14  |             how this can be, said that God knows singular ~things by
 1415   1, 14  |       according to the aforesaid mode, God would not know ~singular
 1416   1, 14  |            hand, others have said that God knows singular things by ~
 1417   1, 14  |            said otherwise, that, since God is the cause of ~things
 1418   1, 14  |           Hence as the active power of God extends ~not only to forms,
 1419   1, 14  |                A[2]), the knowledge of God ~must extend to singular
 1420   1, 14  |               which is the essence of ~God, is immaterial not by abstraction,
 1421   1, 14  |               individual; hence by it ~God knows not only universal,
 1422   1, 14  |              recedes from ~likeness to God, yet, even in so far as
 1423   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God can know infinite things?~
 1424   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God cannot know infinite things.
 1425   1, 14  |       comprehended by the knowledge of God. ~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1426   1, 14  |              themselves are finite ~in God's knowledge, against this
 1427   1, 14  |           infinite cannot be finite in God's knowledge, which ~is infinite.~
 1428   1, 14  |              Further, the knowledge of God is the measure of what is
 1429   1, 14  |              things cannot be known by God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1430   1, 14  |               1/2~I answer that, Since God knows not only things actual
 1431   1, 14  |         attentively, we must hold that God knows infinite ~things even
 1432   1, 14  |               knowledge of vision. For God knows even the thoughts ~
 1433   1, 14  |         follows that ~the knowledge of God extends to infinite things,
 1434   1, 14  |            something else outside. But God does not know the infinite
 1435   1, 14  |            finite to the ~knowledge of God as comprehended; but not
 1436   1, 14  |                OBJ 3: The knowledge of God is the measure of things,
 1437   1, 14  |             imitates the ~knowledge of God, as the thing made by art
 1438   1, 14  |               regards the knowledge of God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1439   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is of future contingent
 1440   1, 14  |            seems that the knowledge of God is not of future contingent ~
 1441   1, 14  |          effect. But the ~knowledge of God is the cause of things known,
 1442   1, 14  |             Therefore the knowledge of God is not of contingent things.~
 1443   1, 14  |          conditional proposition, "If ~God knew that this thing will
 1444   1, 14  |              be," for the knowledge of God ~is only of true things.
 1445   1, 14  |         necessary. Therefore ~whatever God knows, is necessary; and
 1446   1, 14  |                and so the knowledge of God is not of ~contingent things.~
 1447   1, 14  |           Further, everything known by God must necessarily be, because ~
 1448   1, 14  |              course, the ~knowledge of God is much more certain than
 1449   1, 14  |              future thing is known ~by God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
 1450   1, 14  |               to free will. ~Therefore God knows future contingent
 1451   1, 14  |                was shown above (A[9]), God knows all things; ~not only
 1452   1, 14  |      contingent to us, it follows that God ~knows future contingent
 1453   1, 14  |       conjectural knowledge of it. Now God knows all contingent things
 1454   1, 14  |            successively, ~nevertheless God knows contingent things
 1455   1, 14  |             are in time are present to God from eternity, ~not only
 1456   1, 14  |                are infallibly known by God, inasmuch as they are subject
 1457   1, 14  |               likewise things known by God are contingent on ~account
 1458   1, 14  |                 while the knowledge of God, which is ~the first cause,
 1459   1, 14  |             say that this antecedent, "God knew this contingent to ~
 1460   1, 14  |            purpose; for when we ~say, "God knew this contingent to
 1461   1, 14  |                 said Socrates runs, or God is: and the same applies
 1462   1, 14  |                 Likewise if I say, "If God knew anything, it will ~
 1463   1, 14  |          successively ~in time, but by God (are known) in eternity,
 1464   1, 14  |              but (they are certain) to God alone, whose understanding ~
 1465   1, 14  |               Whereas what is known by God must be ~necessary according
 1466   1, 14  |      proposition, "Everything known by God must ~necessarily be," is
 1467   1, 14  |            sense is, "Everything which God knows is necessary." If ~
 1468   1, 14  |                 that which is known by God is' is necessary." ~Aquin.:
 1469   1, 14  |              false. Now to be known by God is ~inseparable from the
 1470   1, 14  |            thing; for what is known by God cannot be known. ~This objection,
 1471   1, 14  |                Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether God knows enunciable things?~
 1472   1, 14  |               1/1~OBJ 1: It seems that God does not know enunciable
 1473   1, 14  |              no composition. Therefore God does ~not know enunciable
 1474   1, 14  |         through some likeness. ~But in God there is no likeness of
 1475   1, 14  |           altogether simple. Therefore God does not know enunciable
 1476   1, 14  |            thoughts of men. ~Therefore God knows enunciable things.~
 1477   1, 14  |                enunciations, and since God knows whatever is in His
 1478   1, 14  |              follows of necessity that God ~knows all enunciations
 1479   1, 14  |            divine ~intellect, which is God's essence, suffices to represent
 1480   1, 14  |             understanding His essence, God knows the essences of all
 1481   1, 14  |               objection would avail if God knew enunciable things ~
 1482   1, 14  |        existence of a ~thing; and thus God by His existence, which
 1483   1, 14  |               Whether the knowledge of God is variable?~Aquin.: SMT
 1484   1, 14  |            seems that the knowledge of God is variable. For knowledge
 1485   1, 14  |                 creature is applied to God from time, and varies according
 1486   1, 14  |             Therefore the knowledge of God is variable ~according to
 1487   1, 14  |               OBJ 2: Further, whatever God can make, He can know. But
 1488   1, 14  |             can make, He can know. But God can make ~more than He does.
 1489   1, 14  |              Para. 1/1~OBJ 3: Further, God knew that Christ would be
 1490   1, 14  |              in the ~future. Therefore God does not know everything
 1491   1, 14  |             and thus the ~knowledge of God is variable.~Aquin.: SMT
 1492   1, 14  |          contrary, It is said, that in God "there is no change nor
 1493   1, 14  |                 Since the knowledge of God is His substance, as is
 1494   1, 14  |       themselves. But the knowledge of God ~imports relation to creatures
 1495   1, 14  |               in so far as they are in God; because ~everything is
 1496   1, 14  |              Now created things are in God in an invariable manner;
 1497   1, 14  |            relations are attributed to God variously, ~according to
 1498   1, 14  |               are understood ~to be in God; and therefore these are
 1499   1, 14  |                these are predicated of God in an invariable ~manner.~
 1500   1, 14  |               2 Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: God knows also what He can make,