Super Boethium De Trinitate

Super Boethium De Trinitate

byThomas Aquinas

Questions 1-4, translated by Rose E. Brennan, S.H.N. (Herder, 1946) Questions 5-6, translated by Armand Mauer (Toronto, 1953)

CONTENTS

ST. THOMAS' INTRODUCTION BOETHIUS' PREFACE

St. Thomas' CommentaryQUESTION I: Concerning the knowledge of divine things

1. Whether the Human Mind in Order to Attain to a Knowledge of Truth Requires a New Illumination of Divine Light

2. Whether the Human Mind Can Arrive at an Idea of God

3. Whether God Is the First Object Known by the Mind

4. Whether the Human Mind Is Capable of Arriving at a Knowledge of the Divine Trinity Through Natural ReasonQUESTION II: Concerning the manifestation of knowledge of divine truth

1. Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Treated of by the Method of Inquiry

2. Whether There Can Be Any Science of Divine Truths Which Are Matters of Faith

3. Whether in the Science of Faith, Which Is Concerning God, it Is Permissible to Use the Rational Arguments of the Natural Philosophers

4. Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Concealed by New and Obscure WordsLECTIO 1

1. Boethius' Text

2. St. Thomas' CommentaryQUESTION III: Concerning Those Things That Pertain to the Knowledge Possessed by Faith

1. Whether Faith Is Necessary for Mankind

2. Whether Faith Should Be Distinguished from Religion

3. Whether the Christian Religion Is Aptly Called Catholic or Universal

4. Whether it Is a True Article of Faith, That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are One GodQUESTION IV: Concerning Those Things That Pertain to the Cause of Plurality

1. Whether Otherness Is the Cause of Plurality

2. Whether Variety of Accidents Produces Diversity According to Number

3. Whether Two Bodies Can Be, or Can Be Conceived of as Being Simultaneously in the Same Place

4. Whether Variety of Location Has Any Influence in Effecting Numerical DifferenceLECTIO 2

1. Boethius' Text

2. St. Thomas' CommentaryQUESTION FIVE: The division of speculative science

1. Is Speculative Science Appropriately Divided into these Three Parts: Natural, Mathematical, and Divine?

2. Does Natural Philosophy Treat of What Exists in Motion and Matter? 3. Does Mathematics Treat, Without Motion and Matter, of What Exists in Matter?

4. Does Divine Science Treat of What Exists Without Matter and Motion?QUESTION SIX: The methods of speculative science

1. Must we Proceed according to the Mode of Reason in Natural Science, according to the Mode of Learning in Mathematics, and according to the Mode of Intellect in Divine Science?

2. Should We Entirely Abandon the Imagination in Divine Science?

3. Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form Itself?

4. Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form by Means of Some Speculative Science?

Prooemium ST. THOMAS INTRODUCTION

Ab initio nativitatis investigabo et ponam in lucem scientiam illius, Sap. 6. I will seek her out from the beginning of her birth, and bring the knowledge of her to light (Wis. 6:24)

Naturalis mentis humanae intuitus pondere corruptibilis corporis aggravatus in primae veritatis luce, ex qua omnia sunt facile cognoscibilia, defigi non potest. Unde oportet ut secundum naturalis cognitionis progressum ratio a posterioribus in priora deveniat et a creaturis in Deum, Rom. 1: invisibilia ipsius a creatura mundi etc.; Sap. 13: a magnitudine speciei creaturae et cetera. Et hoc est quod dicitur Iob 36: omnes homines vident eum, scilicet Deum, unusquisque intuetur procul. The natural intuition of the human mind, burdened by the weight of a corruptible body, cannot fix its gaze in the prime light of First Truth, in which all things are easily knowable; whence it must be that, according to the progress of its natural manner of cognition, the reason advances from the things that are posterior to those that are prior, and from creatures to God. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Rom. 1:20) and For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby (Wis. 13:5); and this is what is said in Job 36:25: All men see Him, gazing from afar.

Creaturae enim, per quas naturaliter cognoscitur Deus, in infinitum ab ipso distant. Sed quia in his, quae procul videntur, facile visus decipitur, idcirco ex creaturis in Deum cognoscendum tendentes in errores multiplices inciderunt. Unde dicitur Sap. 14 quod creaturae Dei sunt muscipulae pedibus insipientium et in Psalmo: defecerunt scrutantes scrutinio. Et ideo Deus humano generi aliam tutam viam cognitionis providit, suam notitiam mentibus hominum per fidem infundens. Unde dicitur 1 Cor. 2: quae sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi spiritus Dei, nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. Et hic est spiritus, quo efficimur credentes, 2 Cor. 4: habentes eundem spiritum fidei credimus, propter quod et loquimur. For creatures, through whom God can be known by the natural light of reason, are at an infinite distance from Him. But since, in those who look at a thing from a great distance, vision may readily be deceived, therefore those striving to attain to a knowledge of God from creatures fell into many errors: wherefore it is said: The creatures of God are... a snare to the feet of the unwise (Wis. 14: 11), and: They have failed in their search (Ps. 63:7); and therefore God has provided for the human race another safe road of cognition, bestowing upon the minds of men, by faith, a knowledge of Himself. Therefore, it is said: The things also that are of God no man knows, but the Spirit of God: but to us God has revealed them by His Spirit (1 Cor. 2: 11): and this is the Spirit by whom we are enabled to be believers: Having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which cause I have spoken (Ps. 115: 10); we also believe, for which cause we speak also (2 Cor. 4:13)

Sicut ergo naturalis cognitionis principium est creaturae notitia a sensu accepta, ita cognitionis desuper datae principium est primae veritatis notitia per fidem infusa. Et hinc est quod diverso ordine hinc inde proceditur. Philosophi enim, qui naturalis cognitionis ordinem sequuntur, praeordinant scientiam de creaturis scientiae divinae, scilicet naturalem metaphysicae. Sed apud theologos proceditur e converso, ut creatoris consideratio considerationem praeveniat creaturae. Therefore, as the principle of our cognition is naturally the knowledge of created things, obtained by means of the senses, so the principle of supernatural cognition is that knowledge of First Truth conferred upon us, infused by faith; and hence it follows that in advancing one proceeds according to a diverse order. For philosophers, who follow along the way of natural cognition, place knowledge about created things before knowledge about divine things: natural science before metaphysics: but among theologians the procedure is in reverse order, so that study of the Creator comes before that of creatures.

Hunc ergo ordinem secutus Boethius ea quae sunt fidei tractare intendens in ipsa summa rerum origine principium suae considerationis instituit, scilicet Trinitate unius simplicis Dei. Unde ei competunt verba praemissa: ab initio nativitatis et cetera. This order, therefore, Boethius followed: intending to treat of those things which are of faith, he took as the starting point of his study that highest origin of things, namely, the Trinity of the one, simple God. Whence it is that the above-quoted words are applicable to him: I will seek her out from the beginning of her birth, and bring the knowledge of her to light.

In quibus circa praesens opusculum, quod ad Symmachum patricium urbis composuit, tria possunt notari, scilicet materia, modus et finis. In these words, as regards the present opusculum, which he addressed to Symmachus, a patrician of Rome, three things can be noted: namely, the matter, the mode, and the purpose.

Materia siquidem huius operis est in una divina essentia Trinitas personarum, quae consurgit ex prima nativitate, qua divina sapientia a patre aeternaliter generatur, Prov. 8: nondum erant abyssi, et ego iam concepta eram; in Psalmo: ego hodie genui te. The matter of this work is the Trinity of Persons in the one, divine Essence, that Trinity which has its source in the primal nativity in which divine wisdom is eternally generated by the Father. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived (Prov. 8:24), and: This day have I begotten you (Ps. 2:7)

Quae quidem nativitas initium est cuiuslibet nativitatis alterius, cum ipsa sola sit perfecte naturam capiens generantis; aliae vero omnes imperfectae sunt, secundum quas genitum aut partem substantiae generantis accipit aut substantiae similitudinem. Unde oportet quod a praedicta nativitate omnis alia nativitas per quandam imitationem derivetur, Eph. 3: ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur. Et propter hoc filius dicitur primogenitus omnis creaturae, Col. 1, ut nativitatis origo et imitatio designetur, non eadem generationis ratio. Unde convenienter dicit: ab initio nativitatis; Prov. 8: dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum. Nec solum creaturarum est initium praedicta nativitas, sed etiam spiritus sancti, qui a generante genitoque procedit. This nativity is the beginning of every other nativity, as it is the only one involving perfect participation in the nature of the generator: but all others are imperfect according as the one generated receives either a part of the substance of the generator, or only a similitude: from this it follows that from the aforesaid nativity, every other is derived by a kind of imitation; and thus: Of whom all paternity in heaven and in earth is named (Eph. 3: 15); and on this account the Son ,is called the first-born of every creature (Col. 1:15) so that the origin of nativity and its imitation might be designated, but not according to the same meaning of generation; and therefore it is aptly said: I will seek her out from the beginning of her birth. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways (Prov. 8:22); for not only of creatures is the aforesaid nativity the beginning, but even of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Generator and the Generated.

Per hoc autem quod non dicit: initium nativitatis investigabo, sed ab initio designatur quod in hoc nativitatis initio eius perscrutatio non finitur, sed ab hoc incipiens ad alia procedit. But in saying this, he does not say: I will seek out the beginning of nativity, but from the beginning signifies that his search is not limited by initiation of this kind of nativity, but that, beginning from this, he proceeds to others.

Eius namque doctrina in tres partes dividitur. Prima namque est de Trinitate personarum, ex quarum processione omnis alia nativitas vel processio derivatur, in hoc quidem libro, qui prae manibus habetur, quantum ad id quod de Trinitate et unitate sciendum est, in alio vero libro, quem ad Iohannem diaconum Ecclesiae Romanae scribit, de modo praedicandi, quo utimur in personarum Trinitate, qui sic incipit: quaero, an pater. For his doctrine is divided into three parts. The first part, concerning the Trinity of Persons, from the procession of whom every other nativity and procession are derived, is contained in that book which we possess at hand, so far as anything can be known about the Trinity and Unity. But in another book which he wrote to John, a deacon of the Roman Church, we find what he says about the mode of predication which we employ in the distinction of Persons and unity of essence; and this book begins: I inquire whether the Father.

Secunda vero pars est de processione bonarum creaturarum a Deo bono in libro, qui ad eundem Iohannem conscribitur de hebdomadibus, qui sic incipit: postulas a me. The second part, which is about the procession of good creatures from a good God, is in a book that is written to the same John (De hebdomadibus), and this begins: You ask of me.

Tertia vero pars est de reparatione creaturarum per Christum. Quae quidem in duo dividitur. Primo namque proponitur fides, quam Christus docuit qua iustificamur, in libro qui intitulatur de fide Christiana, qui sic incipit: Christianam fidem. Secundo explanatur, quid de Christo sentiendum sit, quomodo scilicet duae naturae in una persona conveniant, et hoc in libro de duabus naturis in una persona Christi ad Iohannem praedictum conscripto, qui sic incipit: anxie te quidem. The third part is about the separation of creatures through Christ. This is divided into two parts: For first, there is set forth the faith which Christ taught by which we are justified, in that book entitled De fide Christiana, which begins: The Christian faith. In the second part, an explanation is given of what must be held about Christ: namely, how two natures are united in one person. This discussion of the two natures and the one person in Christ is also in a book written to the same John, which begins: You, indeed, solicitously.

Modus autem de Trinitate tractandi duplex est, ut dicit Augustinus in I de Trinitate, scilicet per auctoritates et per rationes, quem utrumque modum Augustinus complexus est, ut ipsemet dicit. Now the mode employed in treating of the Trinity is twofold, as St. Augustine says in I De Trinitate, namely, through truths known on the basis of authority, and through those known by reason, both of which modes Augustine combined, as he himself says.

Quidam vero sanctorum patrum, ut Ambrosius et Hilarius, alterum tantum modum prosecuti sunt, scilicet per auctoritates. Boethius vero elegit prosequi per alium modum, scilicet per rationes, praesupponens hoc quod ab aliis per auctoritates fuerat prosecutum. Et ideo modus huius operis designatur in hoc quod dicit: investigabo, in quo rationis inquisitio designatur, Eccli. 39: sapientiam, scilicet Trinitatis notitiam, antiquorum, scilicet quam antiqui sola auctoritate asseruerunt, exquiret sapiens, id est ratione investigabit. Some of the holy Fathers, as Ambrose and Hilary, employed but one mode of explanation: namely, by setting forth those truths founded upon authority. But Boethius chose to proceed according to the other mode; namely, according to reasoned arguments, presupposing what had been concluded by others on the grounds of authority. Hence also the method of his work is indicated in what he says: I shall investigate, in which an inquiry of reason is signified. In Sirach 39:1 we read: Wisdom, namely, knowledge of the Trinity; of all the ancients, that is, which the ancients affirmed solely on the grounds of authority; the wise man will seek out, that is, he will investigate by reason.

Unde in prooemio praemittit: investigatam diutissime quaestionem. Wherefore, in the preface he speaks of An investigation carried on for a very long time.

Finis vero huius operis est, ut occulta fidei manifestentur, quantum in via possibile est, Eccli. 24: qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt. Et ideo dicit: ponam in lucem scientiam illius, Iob 28: profunda fluviorum scrutatus est, et abscondita produxit in lucem. The purpose of this work is: that hidden things may be made manifest, so far as that is possible in this life. They that explain me shall have life everlasting (Sirach 24:31); and therefore, he says: I will bring the knowledge of her to light (Wis. 6:24). The depths also of rivers he searched, and hidden things he brought forth to light (Job 2 8: 11).

Pars 2

LECTIO 1Prooemium: Boethius Text

Christianae religionis reverentiam plures usurpant, 1.1.1.1 There are many who claim as theirs the dignity of the Christian religion;

sed ea fides pollet maxime ac solitarie quae cum propter universalium praecepta regularum, quibus eiusdem religionis intellegatur auctoritas, tum propterea, quod eius cultus per omnes paene mundi terminos emanarit, catholica vel universalis vocatur. 1.1.1.2 but that form of faith has supreme authority, and has it exclusively, which, both on account of the universal character of the rules and doctrines affirming its authority, and because the worship in which they are expressed has spread throughout the world, is called catholic or universal.

Cuius haec de trinitatis unitate sententia est: "Pater," inquiunt, "deus filius deus spiritus sanctus deus". 1.1.2 The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity is as follows: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

Igitur pater filius spiritus sanctus unus non tres dii. 1.2.1 Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not three Gods.

Cuius coniunctionis ratio est indifferentia. 1.2.2.1 The nature of Their Unity is such that there is no difference.

Eos enim differentia comitatur qui vel augent vel minuunt, ut Arriani qui gradibus meritorum trinitatem variantes distrahunt atque in pluralitatem diducunt. 1.2.2.2 Difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Unity, as for instance the Arians, who by graduating the Trinity according to merit, break it up and convert it to Plurality.

Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est; 1.2.3.1.1 For the essence of plurality is otherness;

praeter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit intellegi potest. 1.2.2.1.2 apart from otherness plurality is unintelligible.

Trium namque rerum vel quotlibet tum genere tum specie tum numero diversitas constat; 1.2.3.2 In fact, the difference between things is to be found in genus or species or number.

quotiens enim idem dicitur, totiens diversum etiam praedicatur. 2.1 In as many ways as things are the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse.

Idem vero dicitur tribus modis: aut genere ut idem homo quod equus, quia his idem genus ut animal; vel specie ut idem Cato quod Cicero, quia eadem species ut homo; vel numero ut Tullius et Cicero, quia unus est numero. Quare diversum etiam vel genere vel specie vel numero dicitur. 2.2 Sameness is predicated in three ways: by genus; e.g., a man and a horse, because of their common genus, animal. By species; e.g., Cato and Cicero, because of their common species, man. By number; e.g., Tullius and Cicero, because they are numerically one. Similarly difference is expressed by genus, species, and number.

Sed numero differentiam accidentium varietas facit. Nam tres homines neque genere neque specie sed suis accidentibus distant; nam vel si animo cuncta ab his accidentia separemus, tamen locus cunctis diversus est quem unum fingere nullo modo possumus; duo enim corpora unum locum non obtinebunt, qui est accidens. Atque ideo sunt numero plures, quoniam accidentibus plures fiunt. 2.3 But a variety of accidents brings about numerical difference; three men differ neither by genus nor species, but by their accidents, for if we mentally remove from them all other accidents, still each one occupies a different place which cannot possibly be regarded as the same for each, since two bodies cannot occupy the same place, and place is an accident. Wherefore it is because men are plural by their accidents that they are plural in number.

St. Thomas Commentary

Post prooemium hic Boethius tractatum suum incipit de Trinitate personarum et unitate divinae essentiae. Et dividitur liber iste in duas partes. In prima prosequitur ea quae pertinent ad unitatem essentiae contra Arianos. In secunda prosequitur ea quae pertinent ad Trinitatem personarum contra Sabellium, ibi: sed hoc interim ad eam. Hereupon, after the Prooemium, Boethius begins his treatise De Trinitate Personarum, et Unitate divinae essentiae: and this book is divided into two parts. First, he discusses those things which pertain to the unity of the divine essence, making opposition the Arians. Secondly, he treats of those things which pertain to the Trinity of persons, in opposition to Sabellius, beginning: In as many ways as things are the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse.

Prima pars dividitur in duas. In prima proponit Catholicae fidei sententiam de unitate divinae essentiae. In secunda investigat propositae sententiae veritatem, ibi: age igitur, ingrediamur. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima describit fidei condicionem, cuius sententiam prosequi intendit. In secunda proponit descriptae fidei sententiam de proposito, ibi: cuius haec de Trinitatis. The first part is also divided into two sections. In the first, he proposes the doctrine of the Catholic faith in regard to the unity of the divine essence. Secondly, he investigates the truth of the doctrine proposed when he says: Therefore... In the first section he treats of two things. First, he represents the condition of that faith whose doctrine he intends to explain. Secondly, he sets forth the doctrine of the faith he has described concerning this proposition, saying: The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity.

Describit autem eam dupliciter, scilicet ex comparatione haeresum, quibus praepollet, et ex proprio nomine, quia Catholica vel universalis vocatur. Dicit ergo: plures, id est diversarum haeresum sectae, usurpant, id est indebite sibi attribuunt, reverentiam Christianae religionis, id est quae Christianae religioni debetur, ut scilicet ei omnes subdantur, secundum illud 1 Ioh. 3: haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, fides nostra. Vel reverentiam quam Christiana religio Deo exhibet credendo his quae divinitus sunt praedicata. 1.1.1.1 He describes this religion in a twofold manner, namely, by comparison with heretical cutis, which it excels, and also in its own name since it is called catholic or universal. He says, therefore, that there are many, that is, many sects of diverse heresies, who make unlawful claims, since they unduly attribute to themselves the honor of the Christian religion, that is, the honor which ought to be paid to it: namely, that all others should be subject to it. 1 John 5:4: This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith. Or, again, they claim the dignity which belongs to the Christian religion in that it manifests the glory of God by believing those truths which have been divinely revealed.

Sed ea fides pollet maxime ac solitarie. Haec duo adiungit, ut discretionem faciat eius quod est secundum veritatem et eius quod est secundum opinionem. Secundum enim rei veritatem haeretici Christiani non sunt, cum a doctrina Christi recedant, et quantum ad hoc Catholica fides solitarie pollet; sed secundum apparentiam et hominum opinionem haeretici Christiani dicuntur, quia saltem vel voce nomen Christi confitentur, et quantum ad hoc fides Catholica non sola, sed maxime pollet. 1.1.1.2 But that form of faith has supreme authority, and has it exclusively. Here he adds the two things that make it distinct both according to truth and according to reputation. Now according to the truth of the matter, heretics are not Christians, since they cut themselves off from the teachings of Christ, and in this respect the Catholic faith alone is valid. But according to appearances and in the opinion of men, heretics are called Christians because they do indeed still, at least in word, confess the name of Christ; and according to this aspect, the Catholic faith is not the only one, but holds the place of greater authority.

Ipsa enim communius et diffusius est recepta, unde subdit: quae vocatur Catholica in Graeco vel universalis in Latino, quod idem est; Catholicum enim Graece Latine universale dicitur. Cuius nominis assignat duas rationes, dicens: tum propter praecepta universalium regularum. Praecepta enim, quae fides Catholica proponit, non uni tantum genti observanda, sed omnibus proponit, in quo praecipue differt a lege Moysi, quae uni tantum populo praecepta proponebat. Similiter etiam singulae haereses suis tantum sectatoribus praecepta accomoda tradunt, sed fides Catholica de omnibus curam gerens omnibus praecepta accomoda tribuit, non solum continentibus, ut Manichaei, sed etiam coniugatis; non solum innocentibus, ut Novatiani, sed etiam paenitentibus quibus illi salutem denegant. Unde subdit: quibus, scilicet universalibus regulis, intelligitur auctoritas eiusdem religionis, qua omnes ei subditi esse debent. That this religion is the more common and the more widely diffused is understood when he says, is called catholic or universal. Now this is the same thing; for catholic in the Greek, means the same as the Latin universal. For the use of this name, he assigns two reasons, saying: On account of the precepts of its universal rules, for the precepts which the Catholic religion sets forth are not to be observed by one race alone, but by all: and in this respect it differs especially from the Law of Moses which gave precepts to one people alone. Likewise even individual heresies propose rules that are accommodated to their own members only; while the Catholic faith, having the care of all, gives its precepts to all: not to the unmarried alone, as do the Manichaeans, but also to the married; not to the innocent alone, as do the Novatians, but to sinners as well, for whom that sect would make salvation impossible. Wherefore he adds: the authority of this religion is evident because of its universal rules, on account of which all ought to be subject to it.

Vel dicuntur universales regulae, quia eis nihil falsitatis, nihil iniquitatis admiscetur in quocumque articulo sive in quocumque casu. Deinde subiungit aliam causam dicens: tum propterea quod eius cultus et cetera. Planum est secundum illud Psalmi: in omnem terram exivit et cetera. Or they may be called universal rules since there is in them no falsity or any admixture of evil, neither in any essential article or accidentally. Then he adds another reason, saying: Because the worship in which they are expressed has spread throughout the world, a thing which is evidently in accord with that saying of Ps. 18:5: Their sound has gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world.

Cuius haec de Trinitatis et cetera. Hic ponitur praenotatae fidei sententia de proposita quaestione. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit Catholicae fidei sententiam de unitate Trinitatis. Secundo eiusdem sententiae rationem, ibi: cuius coniunctionis et cetera. Tertio ostendit praedictae rationis convenientiam, ibi: principium enim pluralitatis. 1.1.2 Hereupon he next sets forth the doctrine of the Catholic faith concerning the question proposed: The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity. Concerning this, he does three things: First, he presents the teaching of the Catholic faith on the unity of the Trinity. Secondly, the reason for this opinion: The principle of this unity. Thirdly, he shows the fitness of the reason, saying: Now the essence of plurality.

Proponit autem fidei Catholicae sententiam per modum argumenti, eo quod fides argumentum non apparentium dicitur Hebr. 11. In quo quidem argumento ex hoc, quod deitas singulis personis uniformiter attribuitur, concluditur quod de omnibus non pluraliter, sed singulariter hoc nomen Deus praedicatur. 1.1.2.1 Moreover, he proposes the opinion of Catholic faith in a certain argumentative form, because faith is called the evidence of things that appear not (Heb. 11:1). In the same argument, indeed, from the fact that divinity is attributed equally to each of the Persons, he concludes that of all three the name God is predicated not plurally, as taken together, but individually.

Deinde huius sententiae rationem assignat. Et primo ponit rationem, secundo per contrarium exponit, ibi: eos enim et cetera. 1.1.2.2 Next he assigns the reason for this belief. First, he states the reason, and secondly, he explains it by its contrary where he says: Difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Unity.

Dicit ergo: cuius quidem coniunctionis, id est coniunctae argumentationis, ratio est indifferentia, scilicet deitatis in tribus personis, quam fides Catholica confitetur. Ex hoc enim est quod ex praemissis praedicta conclusio sequitur, quia indifferens deitas tribus personis non differenter attribuitur. Quam quidem rationem per contrarium exponit, dicens: eos enim comitatur differentia, deitatis scilicet, qui vel augent vel minuunt, id est qui ponunt unam personam maiorem vel minorem alia, ut Ariani dicentes patrem esse maiorem filio. Unde subdit: qui, scilicet Ariani, variantes Trinitatem gradibus meritorum, id est dignitatum, dum filium patri subiciunt et spiritum sanctum utrique, distrahunt, id est in diversa trahunt deitatem in eis dividendo, atque in pluralitatem deducunt. Ex divisione enim sequitur pluralitas. E contrario vero Catholici aequalitatem personarum confitentes indifferentiam profitentur et per consequens unitatem. 1.1.2.2.1 Therefore he says: The nature of Their Unity is such that there is no difference, namely, the Unity of Deity in the three Persons, as confessed by the Catholic faith. From this the conclusion following upon the foregoing words is that Deity without difference is attributed to each of the three Persons; (1.1.2.2.2) and this reasoning he explains by its contrary saying: Difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Unity (of the Deity): that is, who hold that one Person is greater or less than the others, as the Arians, who make the Father greater than the Son. Wherefore he continues: As for instance the Arians, who by graduating the Trinity, break it up; that is, by graduating the Trinity according to dignity, since they make the Son subject to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both Father and Son, and so convert it to Plurality; that is, produce diversity by dividing the Deity among the Persons. For from division there follows plurality. Conversely, Catholics who confess an equality of the Persons, an equality without difference, make profession of consequent Unity.

Deinde cum dicit: principium enim etc., ostendit rationem praemissam esse convenientem. Et dividitur in duas partes. In prima demonstrat praeassignatae rationis necessitatem. In secunda quiddam, quod in sua demonstratione supposuit, probat, ibi: omnium namque et cetera. Circa primum proponit duo. Primo quod alteritas est principium pluralitatis, alteritatem intelligens differentiam qua aliqua inter se altera constituuntur. Et maluit dicere alteritatem quam alietatem, quia non solum substantiales differentiae pluralitatem constituunt, quarum est facere aliud, sed etiam accidentales, quarum est facere alterum; ad alietatem vero sequitur alteritas, sed non e converso. Ex hoc autem habetur ratio Arianicae deductionis. Si enim alteritas est principium pluralitatis et posita causa ponitur effectus, ergo ponentibus alteritatem per augmentum et diminutionem sequitur pluralitas deitatis. 1.2.3.1.1 Next, he shows that the foregoing reasoning is valid, saying: For the essence of plurality is otherness, and first he points out the necessity possessed by this reasoning. Secondly, what in the demonstration itself had been supposed is made clear: In fact, the difference between three or more things lies in genus or species or number. Regarding the first point he does two things. First he shows that otherness is the principle of plurality, understanding by otherness any difference by which things can be constituted among themselves as other. And he prefers to say otherness rather than separateness because not only substantial differences constitute plurality, since they make another thing, but accidental differences also constitute plurality, since they make for otherness: they make a thing other. Now otherness follows upon separateness; but the converse is not true. And the reason for the deduction of the Arians follows from this supposition. For if otherness is the principle of plurality, and positing a cause posits its effect, then supposing in them that otherness is by augmentation and diminution, plurality of divinity would follow.

Secundo proponit alteritatem esse proprium principium pluralitatis, quia praeter eam pluralitas intelligi non potest. Ex quo habetur ratio Catholicae coniunctionis. Remota enim propria causa tollitur effectus. Si ergo in tribus personis non est alteritas aliqua deitatis, non erit pluralitas, sed unitas. 1.2.3.1.2 Secondly, he proposes that otherness is properly the principle of plurality, because, except for it, understanding of plurality is impossible; and according to this principle is the Catholic explanation of divine unity: for if a proper cause is taken away, so also is the effect. If, therefore, in the three Persons there is no otherness of Deity, there will be no plurality, but unity.

Deinde cum dicit: omnium namque rerum etc., probat quod supposuerat, scilicet alteritatem esse proprium principium pluralitatis. Et est ratio sua talis. Omnium rerum genere vel specie vel numero differentium est aliqua alteritas sive differentia causa diversitatis. Sed omnes res plures, sive sint tres sive quotlibet, sunt diversae vel genere vel specie vel numero. Ergo omnium plurium principium est aliqua alteritas. 1.2.3.2 Next, he proves what was supposed, namely, that otherness is the proper principle of plurality, when he says, In fact, the difference between three or more things. And the reason is that in all things that differ in genus or species or number, there is some otherness or difference which is the cause of plurality or, diversity. But all plural things, whether three or more, are diverse either generically, specifically, or numerically; therefore some kind of otherness is the principle of all plurality.

Circa hanc rationem tria facit. Primo ponit minorem, secundo ibi: quotiens enim etc. probationem minoris, quae talis est. Quotiens dicitur idem, totiens dicitur diversum. Sed idem dicitur tribus modis: genere, specie et numero. Ergo et diversum. Primam supponit ex hoc quod dicitur in I topicorum quod quotiens dicitur unum oppositorum, totiens dicitur et reliquum, et ex hoc quod dicitur X metaphysicae quod idem et diversum sunt opposita. 2.1 In explaining this, he does three things. First, he states the minor; secondly its proof, beginning, In as many ways as things are the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse. This is [the demonstration of] the proof: In as many ways as things are said to be the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse. But things are said to be the same in three ways, namely, in genus, species, and number. Therefore things are said to be diverse in the same number of ways. The first is supposed from what is stated in I Topic., that as much is said of one of two opposites as is said of the other: and from the saying of X Metaph., that the same and different are opposites.

Secundam manifestat per exempla et supponit eam ex I topicorum. 2.2 The second is made clear by examples and supposes what is said in I Topic.

Tertio vero probat maiorem quantum ad id quod poterat esse dubium, ibi: sed numero differentiam et cetera. Quod enim diversitatis illorum, quae sunt diversa genere vel specie, principium sit aliqua alteritas, manifestum est ex ipso nomine. Ex hoc enim aliqua sunt diversa genere, quod est eis genus alterum, et diversa specie, quod sub altera specie continentur. Sed in his, quae dicuntur diversa esse numero, non est manifestum ex ipso nomine quod aliqua alteritas sit principium diversitatis et pluralitatis, immo magis videtur e converso secundum nomen quod pluralitas quae in numero designatur sit principium diversitatis, cum ita dicantur aliqua esse diversa numero secundum nomen, sicut genere vel specie. Et ideo ad verificandum maiorem sui syllogismi ostendit quod hanc etiam differentiam, qua aliqua dicuntur differre numero, facit aliqua alteritas sive varietas. Quod probat per hoc quod in tribus hominibus, qui conveniunt genere et specie, inveniuntur altera accidentia, sicut in homine et bove altera species et in homine et lapide genus alterum. Unde sicut homo et bos distant specie, ita duo homines distant accidentibus. 2.3 Thirdly, he proves the major in regard to that point which might be held in doubt, saying: But a variety of accidents brings about numerical difference. That the diversity of those things which are diverse according to genus or species must have as principle some otherness, is evident from the name itself. For from the fact that things are of different genera it is evident that a different, or other, genus belongs to each; and if they differ in species, it is because they are contained under other species. But in the case of things which are said to be diverse numerically, it is not evident from the name itself that otherness is the principle of plurality. Furthermore, it might rather appear to be the converse according to the name and that plurality, which is designated by number, might be the principle of diversity, since things numerically different are different according to the same name employed when difference is by genus or species: Therefore, to prove the major of his syllogism, he shows that this difference by which things are said to differ numerically is produced by a certain kind of otherness or variety. He proves this by the fact that in three men who agree in genus and species, but who differ numerically, there is found accidental otherness, just as between man and ox there is specific otherness and between man and stone generic otherness. Wherefore, as man and ox differ specifically, so two men differ accidentally.

Et quia posset aliquis dicere quod varietas accidentium non est causa pluralitatis secundum numerum, quia remotis accidentibus vel secundum rem, scilicet separabilibus, vel animo sive cogitatione, sicut inseparabilibus, adhuc remanent subiecta, cum accidens sit quod adest et abest praeter subiecti corruptionem, ideo huic responsioni obviat dicens quod quamvis omnia accidentia possint saltem animo separari, tamen alicuius accidentis diversitas nullo modo potest nec etiam animo a diversis individuis separari, scilicet diversitas loci. Duo enim corpora non patiuntur eundem locum nec secundum rem nec secundum animi fictionem, quia hoc non intelligi nec imaginari potest. Unde concludit quod ex hoc sunt aliqui homines plures numero, quod sunt accidentibus plures, id est diversi, et in hoc terminatur sententia huius partis. And because some one might be able to say that accidental variety is not the cause of numerical plurality since, if accidents are done away with-either removed actually, as when separable, or by the mind and in thought, as when inseparablesubstance still remains, since accident is that which can be present or absent without corruption of the substance: therefore he forestalls this objection, saying that, although all accidents might indeed be separated from a substance by the mind, nevertheless the diversity of one accident could in no way, even by the mind, be separated from diverse individuals, namely, diversity of place. For two individuals cannot be in the same place either according to fact or according to any fiction of the mind, since this cannot be understood or imagined. Wherefore he concludes that from the fact that men are plural in number they are plural by reason of accidents; that is, they are for this reason diversified; and with this is terminated the teaching of this part of the treatise.

Quaestio 3 QUESTION IIIConcerning Those Things That Pertain to the Knowledge Possessed by Faith

Hic duplex est quaestio. Prima de his quae pertinent ad fidei commendationem. Secunda de his quae pertinent ad causam pluralitatis. This question is twofold. First, there is consideration of those things that pertain to the communion of faith: secondly, of those that pertain to the cause of plurality.

Circa primum quaeruntur quattuor.

1. Primo. Utrum humano generi sit fides necessaria.

2. Secundo. Quomodo se habet fides ad religionem.

3. Tertio. Utrum convenienter vera fides Catholica vel universalis nominetur.

4. Quarto. Utrum haec sit verae fidei confessio quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus singulus est Deus, et tres sunt unus Deus absque omni inaequalitatis distantia. In regard to the first, four questions are asked:

1. Whether faith is necessary for mankind.

2. How faith is related to religion.

3. Whether the true faith is aptly called Catholic or universal.

4. Whether this is the, confession of the true faith: that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each is God, and that the Three are one God without any difference owing to inequality.

Article 1Whether Faith Is Necessary for Mankind

Articulus 1 Objections

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium humano generi fidem habere. Ut enim dicitur Eccl. 7, quid necesse est homini maiora se quaerere? Quasi dicat: nihil. Sed ea quae per fidem traduntur sunt homine maiora, utpote rationem eius excedentia; alias ad ea cognoscenda sufficeret ratio causans scientiam nec requireretur fides. Ergo non fuit necessarium homini, ut ea quae sunt fidei extra doceretur. 1. It seems that faith should not be considered necessary for mankind. As is said in Eccles. 7:1, Why does a man need to seek things that are above him? This is to say, there is no need. But those things that are believed by faith are above man, as exceeding his reason; otherwise ~his reason, which is the cause of science, would suffice. Therefore it was not necessary for man that, over and above the truths of reason, he should be taught those of faith.

Praeterea, Deus naturam humanam in sua conditione perfecte instituit, unde dicitur Deut. 32: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Sed ex his, quae menti humanae in sua conditione sunt indita, non potest homo pertingere ad cognoscendum ea quae sunt fidei; alias possent per scientiam haberi, quae causatur ex hoc quod conclusiones resolvuntur in principia naturaliter nota. Cum igitur perfectum dicatur aliquid, cui nihil deest eorum quae debet habere, ut dicitur in V metaphysicae, videtur quod homo fide non indigeat. 2. God established human nature as something perfect when He created it. Deut. 32:4, The works of God are perfect. But from the ability bestowed upon the human mind according to its original condition, man cannot attain to those things which must be known by faith; otherwise he would be able to possess scientific knowledge of them, a knowledge which is caused by the fact that conclusions are resolved into naturally known principles. Since, therefore, a thing is called perfect if it lacks nothing that it ought to possess, as is said in V Metaph., it seems that man does not require faith.

Praeterea, unusquisque sapiens ad perveniendum ad finem viam eligit levissimam et ab impedimentis remotissimam. Sed difficillimum videtur credere ea quae supra rationem sunt et valde hominibus periculosum, cum multi a salutis statu decidant propter hoc quod non credunt. Ergo videtur quod Deus qui est sapientissimus non debuerit viam fidei praeparare hominibus ad salutem. 3. Every wise man makes choice of the shorter way to reach a goal: but it would appear exceedingly difficult for a creature to believe truths which are above reason and, in the case of men, extremely dangerous, since many fall away from the state of salvation because they do not believe; therefore, it seems that God, who is all-wise, ought not to have established faith as the way of salvation for men.

Praeterea, ubicumque est acceptio aliquorum cognitorum sine iudicio, est via facilis ad errorem. Sed non habemus aliquid in nobis, per quod possimus iudicare de his quae per fidem accipimus, cum iudicatorium naturale se ad huiusmodi non extendat, utpote supra rationem exsistentia. Ergo patet via facilis ad errorem. Et ita videtur esse homini potius noxium quam utile, ut dirigatur in Deum per fidem. 4. Whenever there is acceptance of knowledge without judgment, the road to error is easy; but we have in ourselves no ability by which we are able to judge of the things which we accept by faith, since our natural judgment does not extend to truths of this kind, as they exceed reason; therefore evidently the road to error is an easy one for us, and so it would appear rather harmful than useful for man that he should be directed to God by the way of faith.

Praeterea, ut dicit Dionysius, malum hominis est praeter rationem esse. Sed homo fidei inhaerens a ratione discedit, et in hoc etiam assuescit rationem contemnere. Ergo videtur quod via ista sit hominibus noxia. 5. As Dionysius says, it is an evil for man to exist apart from reason; but man in adhering to faith departs from reason, and in this he is even accustomed to despise reason; therefore it seems that such a way is evil for men.

Sed contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Hebr. 11: sine fide impossibile est placere Deo. Sed hoc est homini maxime opportunum, ut Deo placeat, sine quo nihil boni facere aut habere potest. Ergo fides est homini maxime necessaria. But on the contrary, it is said in Heb. 11:6, Without faith it is impossible to please God; but it is supremely necessary for man that he be pleasing to God, since otherwise he can neither do nor possess any good; therefore faith is most necessary for man.

Praeterea, homini maxime necessarium est veritatem cognoscere, cum gaudium de veritate cognita sit beatitudo, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed, sicut dicit Dionysius 7 c. de divinis nominibus, fides collocat credentes in veritate et in eis veritatem. Ergo fides est homini maxime necessaria. Again, it is most necessary for man to know the truth, since beatitude is joy in knowing the truth, as Augustine says; but faith establishes believers in truth and establishes truth in them, as Dionysius says (De div. nom., chap. 7); therefore faith is most necessary for man.

Praeterea, illud, sine quo non potest conservari humana societas, est humano generi maxime necessarium, cum homo sit naturaliter animal politicum, ut dicitur in VIII Ethicorum. Sed sine fide humana societas non potest conservari, quia oportet quod unus homo alii credat in promissis et in testimoniis et in aliis huiusmodi quae sunt necessaria hominibus ad commanendum. Ergo fides humano generi est maxime necessaria. Again, that without which human society cannot be conserved is especially necessary for man, since man is a political animal, as is said in VIII Ethic.; but without faith human society cannot be preserved, since it is requisite that one man believe in the promises of another and in his testimony and the like, for this is necessary if they are to live together; therefore faith is most necessary for mankind.

Responsio. Dicendum quod fides habet aliquid commune cum opinione et aliquid cum scientia et intellectu, ratione cuius ponitur media inter scientiam et opinionem ab Hugone de sancto Victore. Cum scientia siquidem et intellectu commune habet certum et fixum assensum, in quo ab opinione differt, quae accipit alterum contrariorum cum formidine alterius, et a dubitatione quae fluctuat inter duo contraria. Sed cum opinione commune habet quod est de rebus quae non sunt intellectui pervia, in quo differt a scientia et intellectu. Response. I answer that it must be said that faith has something in common with opinion, and something in common with knowledge and understanding, by reason of which it holds a position midway between opinion and understanding or science, according to Hugh of St. Victor. In common with understanding and knowledge, it possesses certain and fixed assent; and in this it differs from opinion, which accepts one of two opposites, though with fear that the other may be true, and on account of this doubt it fluctuates between two contraries. But, in common with opinion, faith is concerned with things that are not naturally possible to our understanding, and in this respect it differs from science and intellection.

Quod autem aliquid non sit patens humanae cognitioni, potest ex duobus contingere, ut dicitur in II metaphysicae, scilicet ex defectu ipsarum rerum cognoscibilium et ex defectu intellectus nostri. That a thing should not be apparent to human understanding can arise for two reasons, as is said in II Metaph.: namely, because of lack of knowability in things themselves, and because of lack of intellectual ability on our part.

Ex defectu quidem rerum, sicut in rebus singularibus et contingentibus quae a nostris sensibus sunt remotae, sicut sunt facta hominum et dicta et cogitata, quae quidem talia sunt, ut uni homini possint esse nota et alii incognita. Et quia in convictu hominum oportet quod unus utatur altero sicut se ipso in his, in quibus sibi non sufficit, ideo oportet ut stet illis quae alius scit et sunt sibi ignota, sicut his quae ipse cognoscit. Et exinde est quod in conversatione hominum est fides necessaria, qua unus homo dictis alterius credat, et hoc est iustitiae fundamentum, ut Tullius dicit in libro de officiis. Et inde est quod mendacium nullum sine peccato est, cum per omne mendacium huic fidei tam necessariae derogetur. 1. It may be due to lack on the part of things, as in the case of singular and contingent things which are remote from our senses, like the deeds and words and thoughts of men; for these are of such a nature that they may be known to one man, but unknown to others. And since among men dwelling together one man should deal with another as with himself in what he is not self-sufficient, therefore it is needful that he be able to stand with as much certainty on what another knows, but of which he himself is ignorant, as upon the truths which he himself knows. Hence it is that in human society faith is necessary in order that one man give credence to the words of another, and this is the foundation of justice, as Tullius says in his book, De officiis. Hence also it is that no lie is without sin, since every lie derogates from that faith which is so necessary.

Ex defectu vero nostro sunt non apparentia res divinae et necessariae, quae sunt secundum naturam maxime notae. Unde ad harum inspectionem non sumus statim a principio idonei, cum oporteat nos ex minus notis et posterioribus secundum naturam in magis nota et priora naturaliter pervenire. Sed quia ex vi illorum, quae ultimo cognoscimus, sunt nota illa quae primo cognoscimus, oportet etiam a principio aliquam nos habere notitiam de illis quae sunt per se magis nota; quod fieri non potest nisi credendo. Et etiam hoc patet in ordine scientiarum, quia scientia quae est de causis altissimis, scilicet metaphysica, ultimo occurrit homini ad cognoscendum, et tamen in scientiis praeambulis oportet quod supponantur quaedam quae in illa plenius innotescunt; unde quaelibet scientia habet suppositiones, quibus oportet addiscentem credere. 2. The truth of things may also not be evident because of defect on our part, as in the case of divine and necessary things which, according to their own nature, are most knowable. Wherefore, to understand them, we are not capable of immediate intellection, from the very beginning, since it is in accordance with our nature to attain from things less knowable and posterior in themselves, to knowledge of those that are themselves more knowable and prior. But since from none of those things that we know last do we have any knowledge of those that we know first, it is needful for us even at first to have some notion of those things that are most knowable in themselves; but this cannot be except by believing. And this is evident even in the order of the sciences; since that science which is concerned with highest causes, namely, metaphysics, comes last in human knowledge; yet in sciences that are preambles to it there must be supposed certain truths which only in it are more fully revealed; therefore every science has some suppositions that must be believed in order to carry on the process of learning.

Cum ergo finis humanae vitae sit beatitudo, quae consistit in plena cognitione divinorum, necessarium est ad humanam vitam in beatitudinem dirigendam statim a principio habere fidem divinorum, quae plene cognoscenda exspectantur in ultima perfectione humana. Since, therefore, the end of human life is beatitude, which consists in the full cognition of divine truths, it is necessary that human life be directed to this beatitude by an initial possession of divine truths by faith, truths which man can hope to know fully in the ultimate state of human perfection.

Ad quorum quaedam plene cognoscenda possibile est homini pervenire per viam rationis etiam in statu huius vitae. Et horum quamvis possit haberi scientia et a quibusdam habeatur, tamen necessarium est habere fidem propter quinque rationes, quas Rabbi Moyses ponit. Certain of these truths that must be known can be attained by reason even in this life: however, although knowledge of them is possible and even possessed by certain men, nevertheless faith is necessary for five reasons, which Rabbi Moses enumerates:

Prima scilicet propter profunditatem et subtilitatem materiae, per quam occultantur divina ab hominum intellectu. Unde ne sit homo sine eorum qualicumque cognitione, provisum est ei ut saltem per fidem divina cognoscat, Eccl. 7: alta profunditas, quis cognoscet illam? 1. First, on account of the depth and subtlety of the matter, by which divine truths are hidden from human understanding. Therefore, lest any man be without some knowledge of them, provision is made that through faith, at least, he know divine truths. Therefore, in Eccles. 7:25 it is said: It is a great depth, who shall find it out?

Secunda propter imbecillitatem intellectus humani a principio. Non enim provenit ei sua perfectio nisi in fine; et ideo ut nullum tempus sit ei vacuum a divina cognitione, indiget fide, per quam ab ipso principio divina accipiat. 2. Secondly, on account of the weakness of the human intellect from the beginning. For perfection of knowledge does not belong to the human intellect except at the end; therefore, that it should at no time lack a knowledge of God, it requires faith by which it may accept divine truths from the very beginning.

Tertio propter multa praeambula, quae exiguntur ad habendam cognitionem de Deo secundum viam rationis. Requiritur enim ad hoc fere omnium scientiarum cognitio, cum omnium finis sit cognitio divinorum; quae quidem praeambula paucissimi consequuntur. Unde ne multitudo hominum a divina cognitione vacua remaneret, provisa est ei divinitus via fidei. 3. Thirdly, because of the many preambles that are required for a knowledge of God according to reason. For this there is needed knowledge of almost all the sciences, since cognition of divine things is the end of them all. But few indeed would comprehend these preambulatory truths or investigate them completely. Therefore, lest large numbers of men should be left without knowledge of divine things, the way of faith has been provided by God Himself.

Quarto, quia multi hominum ex naturali complexione sunt indispositi ad perfectionem intellectus consequendam per viam rationis; unde ut hi etiam divina cognitione non careant, provisa est fidei via. 4. In the fourth place, many men on account of their natural constitution are unfitted for perfect intellectual investigation according to reason; therefore, that these might not lack knowledge of divine truths, the way of faith has been provided.

Quinto propter occupationes plurimas, quibus oportet homines occupari; unde impossibile est quod omnes consequantur per viam rationis illud quod est de Deo necessarium ad cognoscendum, et propter hoc est via fidei procurata, et hoc quantum ad illa quae sunt ab aliquibus scita et aliis proponuntur ut credenda. 5. In the fifth place, because of numerous occupations with which men are busied, it would be impossible for all of them to discover, by way of reason, necessary truth in regard to God, and on this account the way of faith has been established, both as regards things that might in some way be known and as regards those that required revelation in order that they be believed.

Quaedam vero divinorum sunt, ad quae plene cognoscenda nullatenus ratio humana sufficit, sed eorum plena cognitio exspectatur in futura vita, ubi erit plena beatitudo, sicut unitas et Trinitas unius Dei. Et ad hanc cognitionem homo perducetur non ex debito suae naturae, sed ex sola divina gratia. Unde oportet quod huius etiam perfectae scientiae quaedam suppositiones primo ei credendae proponantur, ex quibus dirigatur in plenam cognitionem eorum quae a principio credit, sicut et in aliis scientiis accidit, ut dictum est; et ideo dicitur Is. 7 secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Et huiusmodi suppositiones sunt illa quae sunt credita quantum ad omnes et a nullo in hac vita scita vel intellecta. But in the case of certain divine truths, for a complete understanding of them the human mind in no way suffices, but full knowledge of them is to be awaited in that future life when there will be complete beatitude: such is the truth of the Trinity and the unity of one God; and man is led to knowledge of this, not in accordance with anything due his nature, but by divine grace alone. Therefore it is necessary that, for a perfection of knowledge of this kind, certain suppositions be proposed which must be believed at first, and from these one is directed into full cognition of those truths which at the outset he held on faith, even as in other sciences also, as has been said. Hence in Is. 7:9 it is said, according to one translation: Unless you believed, you would not understand. And suppositions of this sort are those that must be believed by all, since in this life they are neither known nor understood by, any one.

Answers to objections

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod licet ea quae sunt fidei sint maiora homine naturae viribus consideratis, non sunt tamen maiora homine divino lumine elevato. Et ideo non est necesse homini, ut huiusmodi propria virtute quaerat, sed est ei necesse, ut divina revelatione ea cognoscat. 1. It may be said: Although matters of faith considered according to mans natural powers are above him, they are not above man when he is illuminated by divine light; hence it is not necessary for man that he seek out such truths by his own power, but it is necessary for him to know them by divine revelation.

Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus in prima rerum conditione hominem perfectum instituit perfectione naturae, quae quidem in hoc consistit, ut homo habeat omnia quae sunt naturae debita. Sed supra debitum naturae adduntur postmodum humano generi aliquae perfectiones ex sola divina gratia, inter quas est fides quae est Dei donum, ut patet Eph. 2. 2. It may be said: God, in the first creation of things, established man as perfect in accordance with the perfection of his nature, and this consisted in the fact that man had all things due to his nature. But over and above that due to nature there were added afterward to the human race certain other perfections owing their source to divine grace alone, and among these was faith, as is evident from Eph. 2:8, where it is said of faith that it is the gift of God.

Ad tertium dicendum quod cuilibet in beatitudinem tendenti necessarium est cognoscere in quibus beatitudinem quaerere debeat, et qualiter. Quod quidem facilius fieri non poterat quam per fidem, cum rationis inquisitio ad talia pervenire non possit nisi multis praecognitis quae non est facile scire. Nec etiam potuit cum minori periculo, cum humana inquisitio propter imbecillitatem intellectus nostri sit facilis ad errorem, et hoc aperte ostenditur ex ipsis philosophis, qui per viam rationis finem humanae vitae quaerentes et modum perveniendi in ipsum in errores multiplices et turpissimos inciderunt, adeo sibi invicem dissentientes, ut vix duorum aut trium esset de his per omnia una concors sententia, cum tamen per fidem videamus in unam sententiam etiam plurimos populos convenire. 3. It may be said: For anyone striving to attain beatitude it is necessary to know in what he ought to seek this beatitude, and in what way. But this, indeed, can be done in no easier way than through faith, since investigation by reason cannot attain to such knowledge except after a previous knowledge of many other things, things not easy to know. Nor can one attain to such knowledge without danger, since human investigation, because of the weakness of our intellect, is prone to error; and this is clearly shown by reference to those philosophers who, in attempting to find out the purpose of human life by way of reason, did not find in themselves the true method, and so fell into many and shameful errors; and so greatly did they differ among themselves that scarcely two or three among them all were in agreement on any one question; yet, on the other hand, we see that by faith many peoples are brought to the acceptance of one common belief.

Ad quartum dicendum quod quandocumque acceptis aliquo modo assentitur, oportet esse aliquid quod inclinet ad assensum, sicut lumen naturaliter inditum in hoc quod assentitur primis principiis per se notis et ipsorum principiorum veritas in hoc quod assentitur conclusionibus scitis et aliquae verisimilitudines in hoc quod assentimus his quae opinamur; quae si fuerint aliquantulum fortiores, inclinant ad credendum, prout fides dicitur opinio iuvata rationibus. Sed illud, quod inclinat ad assentiendum principiis intellectis aut conclusionibus scitis, est sufficiens inductivum et ideo etiam cogit ad assensum et est sufficiens ad iudicandum de illis quibus assentitur. Quod vero inclinat ad opinandum qualitercumque vel etiam fortiter, non est sufficiens inductivum, unde nec cogit, nec per hoc potest perfectum haberi iudicium de his quibus assentitur. Unde et in fide qua in Deum credimus non solum est acceptio rerum quibus assentimus, sed aliquid quod inclinat ad assensum; et hoc est lumen quoddam, quod est habitus fidei, divinitus menti humanae infusum. Quod quidem sufficientius est ad inducendum quam aliqua demonstratio, per quam etsi numquam falsum concludatur, frequenter tamen in hoc homo fallitur, quod putat esse demonstrationem quae non est. Est sufficientius etiam quam ipsum lumen naturale quo assentimus principiis, cum lumen illud frequenter impediatur ex corporis infirmitate, ut patet in mente captis. Lumen autem fidei, quod est quasi quaedam sigillatio primae veritatis in mente, non potest fallere, sicut nec Deus potest decipi vel mentiri, unde hoc lumen sufficit ad iudicandum. 4. It may be said: Whenever there is acceptance of a truth, by whatever mode of assent, there must be something which moves the mind to assent: just as the naturally possessed light of the intellect causes assent to first principles, and the truth of those first principles causes assent to conclusions made from them; while in other ways we assent to things of which we have an opinion, though, if motives were a little stronger, they would incline us to belief, in so far as faith is said to be opinion. But that which inclines the mind to assent to the first principles of understanding or to conclusions known from these principles is a sufficient induction which forces assent, and is sufficient to judge of those things to which the mind gives its assent. On the other hand, whatever inclines one to form an opinion, even though with a good amount of conviction, is not that sufficient form of induction whereby assent is forced, nor by reason of it can there be perfect judgment of the things to which assent is given. Therefore also in faith by which we believe in God, not only is there acceptance of the truths to which we give assent, but also something which inclines us to that assent; and this is the special light which is the habit of faith, divinely infused into the human mind. This, moreover, is more sufficient for inducing belief than any demonstration, for, though from the latter no false conclusions are reached, still man frequently errs in this: that he thinks something is a demonstration which is not. The light of faith is also more sufficient than the natural light of reason by which we assent to first principles, since this natural light is often impeded by bodily infirmity, as is evident in the case of the. insane. But the light of faith, which is, as it were, a kind of impression of the First Truth in our minds, cannot fail, any more than God can deceive us or lie; therefore this light suffices for making judgment.

Hic tamen habitus non movet per viam intellectus, sed magis per viam voluntatis; unde non facit videre illa quae creduntur nec cogit assensum, sed facit voluntarie assentire. Et sic patet quod fides ex duabus partibus est a Deo, scilicet et ex parte interioris luminis quod inducit ad assensum et ex parte rerum quae exterius proponuntur, quae ex divina revelatione initium sumpserunt. Et haec se habent ad cognitionem fidei sicut accepta per sensum ad cognitionem principiorum, quia utrisque fit aliqua cognitionis determinatio. Unde sicut cognitio principiorum accipitur a sensu et tamen lumen quo principia cognoscuntur est innatum, ita fides est ex auditu, et tamen habitus fidei est infusus. This habit of faith, nevertheless, does not move us by way of intellectual understanding, but more by way of the will; therefore it does not make us comprehend those truths which we believe, nor does it force assent, but it causes us to assent to them voluntarily. And thus it is evident that faith comes in two ways: namely, from God by reason of the interior light which induces assent, and also by reason of those truths which are proposed exteriorly and take their source from divine revelation. These latter are related to the knowledge which is of faith as things known by the senses are to knowledge of first principles, because in both cases there is a certain determination given to cognition. Therefore, as cognition of first principles is received by way of sense experience, and yet the light by which those principles are known is innate, so faith comes by way of hearing, and yet the habit of faith is infused.

Ad quintum dicendum quod vivere secundum rationem est bonum hominis in quantum est homo, vivere autem praeter rationem potest uno modo sonare in defectum, sicut est in illis qui vivunt secundum sensum, et hoc est hominis malum. Alio modo potest sonare in excessum, ut cum homo divina gratia adducitur in id quod est supra rationem; et sic praeter rationem vivere non est hominis malum, sed bonum supra hominem. Et talis est cognitio eorum quae sunt fidei, quamvis et ipsa fides non omnibus modis sit praeter rationem; hoc enim naturalis ratio habet, quod assentiendum est his quae a Deo dicuntur. 5. It may be said: To live in accordance with reason is the good of man inasmuch as he is man. Now, to live apart from reason, according to one meaning, can be understood as a defect, as it is in those who live according to sense; and this is an evil in man. But in another way, it may mean to live above reason as when, by divine grace, a man is led to that which exceeds reason: and in this case, to live apart from reason is not an evil in man, but a good above that which is human. And such is the cognition of truths of faith, although faith itself is not in every way outside reason; for, it is the natural reason which holds that assent ought to be given to truths declared by God.

Article 2Whether Faith Should Be Distinguished from Religion

Articulus 2 Objections

Ad secundum sic proceditur, videtur quod fides a religione distinguenda non sit, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in Enchiridion, fide, spe et caritate colendus est Deus. Sed cultus Dei est actus religionis, ut patet per diffinitionem Tullii qui dicit quod religio est quae cuidam superiori naturae, quam divinam vocant, cultum caerimoniamque affert. Ergo fides ad religionem pertinet. 1. It seems that faith ought not to be distinguished from religion, because, as Augustine says in Ench., God is to be worshiped by faith, hope, and charity; but worship of God is an act of religion, as is evident from the definition of Tullius, which says: Religion is that which offers to a superior nature, which men call divine, worship and ceremony; therefore faith pertains to religion.

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro de vera religione quod vera religio est qua unus Deus colitur et purgatissima pietate cognoscitur. Sed cognoscere Deum est fidei. Ergo fides sub religione continetur. 2. Augustine says in De vera religione: The true religion is that by which the one God is honored and known with a most unsullied piety or purity. But to know God is a thing which belongs to faith; therefore, faith is contained under religion.

Praeterea, offerre Deo sacrificium est actus religionis. Sed hoc pertinet ad fidem, quia, ut dicit Augustinus in V de civitate Dei, verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo. Prima autem inhaesio hominis ad Deum est per fidem. Ergo fides ad religionem praecipue pertinet. 3. To offer sacrifice to God is a function or act of religion, but this pertains to faith, as Augustine says in IV De civ. Dei: True sacrifice is any work done in order that we may adhere to God in holy association; but the first adherence of man to God is by faith; therefore faith pertains principally to religion.

Praeterea, ut dicitur Ioh. 4, spiritus est Deus, et eos, qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet. Magis ergo proprie adoratur Deus, cum ei prosternitur intellectus, quam cum ei prosternitur corpus. Sed per fidem ei prosternitur intellectus, dum se intellectus totaliter subicit ad assentiendum his quae a Deo dicuntur. Ergo fides ad religionem maxime pertinet. 4. In John 4:24 it is said: God is a Spirit, and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth. Now, God is adored more when one submits his intellect to Him than when a bodily prostration is made; but through faith the intellect is submitted to God, since it subjects itself entirely in assenting to the truths revealed by God; therefore faith pertains especially to religion.

Praeterea, omnis virtus, quae habet Deum pro obiecto, est virtus theologica. Sed religio habet Deum pro obiecto; non enim nisi Deo cultum debitum affert. Ergo est virtus theologica. Sed magis videtur pertinere ad fidem quam ad aliquam aliarum, cum non dicantur esse extra religionem Christianam nisi qui sunt extra fidem. Ergo religio videtur idem esse quod fides. 5. Every virtue having God as its object is a theological virtue: but religion has God as its object, since it is nothing else than the offering of due reverence to God; therefore it is a theological virtue. But it appears to belong more to faith than to any of the others, since only those are said to be outside the Christian religion who are outside [i.e., without] faith; therefore religion seems to be the same as faith.

Sed contra

Sed contra est quod Tullius in II veteris rhetoricae ponit religionem partem iustitiae, quae est virtus cardinalis. Ergo cum fides sit virtus theologica, religio erit alterius generis quam fides. On the contrary is what Tullius says in II Veteris Rhetoricae, where he makes religion a part of justice, which is a moral virtue. Therefore, since faith is a theological virtue, religion is of a genus other than that of faith.

Praeterea, religio consistit etiam in actu qui est ad proximum, ut patet Iac. 2: religio munda et immaculata et cetera. Sed fides non habet actum nisi qui est ad Deum. Ergo religio est omnino a fide distincta. Again, religion consists also in activity regarding the neighbor, as is evident in Jas. 1:27: Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation; faith has no act except that which is referred to God; therefore religion is altogether distinct from faith.

Praeterea, religiosi dicuntur communiter, qui quibusdam specialibus votis astringuntur. Non solum autem ipsi dicuntur fideles. Ergo non est idem fidelis et religiosus. Ergo nec idem fides et religio. Again, those are commonly called religious who are bound by special vows, but they are not the only ones called 1. the faithful. Since, therefore, one of the faith and a religious are not the same thing, faith and religion are not the same.

Responsio. Dicendum quod, sicut patet per Augustinum X de civitate Dei, theosebia quae cultus Dei dicitur, religio, pietas et latria ad idem pertinere intelliguntur, scilicet ad Deum colendum. Cultus autem cuilibet rei impensus nihil aliud esse videtur quam debita operatio circa illud adhibita. Et ex hoc dicuntur aliqui diversimode colere agros, parentes, patriam et alia huiusmodi, quia diversis diversae operationes coaptantur. Deus autem non hoc modo colitur, quod ei nostra operatio aliquid prosit aut subveniat, sicut est in praedictis, sed solum in quantum nos ei subdimus et subditos demonstramus. Hic ergo cultus divinus absolute nomine theosebiae designatur. Sed religio importat quandam ligationem, secundum quod homo quodammodo se astringit ad cultum istum; unde, ut dicit Augustinus in libro de vera religione, religio a religando dicta creditur, vel etiam a reeligendo, ut dicit in X de civitate Dei. Ex propria enim electione aliquis ligatur ad aliquid faciendum. Oportet autem nos eum reeligere quem amiseramus neglegentes, ut ibidem dicit. Et inde est quod illi, qui vitam suam totam et se ipsos ad divinum obsequium votis quibusdam obligant, religiosi dicuntur. Sed pietas animum colentis respicit, qui non ficte nec mercennario affectu obsequitur. Response. I answer that it must be said that, as is evident from Augustine (X De civ. Dei), theosebia, which the worship of God is called, includes as pertaining to it in the same way, religion, piety and latria, since all have as their purpose the worship of God. Reverence paid to anything, however, seems to be nothing else than a due operation performed with regard to it; and consequently men are said to cherish in various ways their fields, their parents, their country, and other like things because different works are fitting to each. But God is not cherished in this same way: that any operation of ours would be of benefit or assistance to Him, as in the case of the above-mentioned instances; but it implies only that we submit ourselves to Him and show ourselves to be His subjects. Therefore this reverence which is absolutely divine is designated by the name of theosebia. But religion implies a certain binding, back according to which man obliges himself in some manner to this worship of God; wherefore Augustine says in his book, De vera religione: The word religion is thought to be derived from the religare (to bind back), or from recte eligere (to choose rightly), as is said in IV De civ. Dei. For it is by proper choice that a person binds himself to do something that must be done. We must also reelect those things which by negligence we have lost, as he also says. Therefore it is that those who consecrate their whole lives and themselves to the service of God by certain vows are called religious; but piety regards the mind of the worshiper, that it be not insincere or moved by desire of gain.

Et quia his, quae supra nos sunt, quasi quaedam divina veneratio debetur, beneficia etiam quae miseris exhibentur sunt quasi quaedam Dei sacrificia, secundum illud Hebr. ultimo: communionis et beneficentiae nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus, hinc est quod nomen pietatis et religionis ad opera misericordiae transfertur et maxime ad beneficia quae in parentes et patriam exhibentur. Sed latria importat debitum colendi sive rationem cultus, ex hoc scilicet quod eius sumus servi quem colimus, non hoc modo, quo homo servus hominis dicitur propter quodcumque accidentale debitum, sed quia totum, quod sumus, ei debemus tamquam creatori. Unde et latria servitus dicitur non quaelibet, sed illa tantum, qua homo Dei servus est. Sic ergo religio consistit in operatione, qua homo Deum colit se ei subdendo. Quae quidem operatio debet esse conveniens et ei, qui colitur, et colenti. Since also a certain divine veneration, as it were, is due to those above us, even the acts of kindness which are done for the unfortunate are in a way sacrifices to God, according to the last part of the Epistle to the Hebrews (13: 16): And do not forget to do good and to impart: for by such sacrifices Gods favor is obtained. Hence it is that the name of piety and of religion are transferred to works of mercy, and especially to benefits done to parents and country. But latria implies a reverence that is of obligation, or worship in its essence; and this is so because we are, indeed, the subjects of Him whom we honor, not after the manner in which one man is said to be the servant of another, because of some accidental debt to him, but because all that we are we owe to Him as our Creator. Therefore latria is not any kind of service, but that by which man acknowledges his subjection to God. Thus, therefore, religion consists in an operation by which man honors God by submitting to Him; and this operation ought to be in harmony with Him who is honored, and with the one offering homage.

Ipse autem qui colitur, cum sit spiritus, non potest corpore, sed sola mente contingi. Et sic cultus ipsius principaliter in mentis actibus consistit, quibus mens ordinatur in Deum. Et hi sunt praecipue actus theologicarum virtutum, et secundum hoc dicit Augustinus quod Deus colitur fide, spe et caritate; et his adiunguntur actus donorum tendentium in Deum, ut sapientiae et timoris. Now since He who is reverenced is a spirit, He cannot be approached by the body, but only by the mind; and so worship of Him consists chiefly in acts of the mind by which the mind itself is ordained to God. These acts are principally those of the theological virtues; and in accordance with this, Augustine says that God is worshiped by faith, hope, and charity, to which are added also the acts of the gifts ordained toward God, such as those of wisdom and of fear.

Sed quia nos, qui Deum colimus, corporei sumus et per corporeos sensus cognitionem accipimus, inde est quod ex parte nostra requiruntur ad cultum praedictum etiam aliquae corporales actiones, tum ut ex toto quod sumus Deo serviamus, tum ut per huiusmodi corporalia nos ipsos et alios excitemus ad actus mentis ordinatos in Deum. Unde dicit Augustinus in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda: orantes de membris sui corporis faciunt quod supplicantibus congruit, cum genua figunt, cum extendunt manus vel prosternuntur solo et si quid aliud visibiliter faciunt, quamvis eorum invisibilis voluntas et cordis intentio Deo nota sit nec ille indigeat his indiciis, ut animus pandatur humanus; sed hinc magis se ipsum excitat homo ad orandum gemendumque humilius atque ferventius. But because we who honor God are also possessed of bodies and receive our knowledge through bodily senses, there is the necessity that certain physical actions accompany the worship of God, not only that we may render service to God with our whole being, but also that by these bodily actions we may arouse in ourselves and in others acts of the mind ordained to God. Wherefore Augustine says in his book, De cura pro mortuis habenda: Those who pray make the members of their bodies conform to their acts of supplication when they genuflect, extend their hands, or prostrate themselves upon the ground, or perform any other visible action; and although it is their invisible will and the intention of the heart that is known to God, it is not unseemly that the human soul should so express itself, but rather by so doing man stirs himself to pray and to lament his sins the more humbly and fervently.

Sic ergo omnes actus, quibus homo se Deo subdit, sive sint mentis sive corporis, ad religionem pertinent. Sed quia ea, quae proximis propter Deum impenduntur, ipsi Deo impenduntur, constat quod pertinent ad eandem subiectionem, in qua cultus religionis consistit. Et sic diligenter consideranti apparet omnem actum huiusmodi ad religionem pertinere. Unde Augustinus dicit quod verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo. Tamen quodam ordine. Primo namque et principaliter ad cultum praedictum pertinent actus mentis ordinati in Deum. Secundo actus corporis qui ad hos excitandos et designandos fiunt, ut prostrationes, sacrificia et huiusmodi. Tertio ad eundem cultum pertinent omnes alii actus in proximum ordinati propter Deum. Hence, all acts by which man subjects himself to God, whether they are acts of mind or of body, pertain to religion. But because those things that are rendered to the neighbor on account of God are rendered to God Himself, it is evident that they also pertain to this same subjection in which religious worship consists; and so to one diligently considering the matter it is apparent that every good act pertains to religion. Hence Augustine says (loc. cit.): True sacrifice is every work done that we may adhere to God in holy companionship; however, in a certain order. First and foremost, those acts of the mind ordained to God pertain to the worship which we are speaking of. Secondly, there are acts of the body intended to arouse reverence of mind or to give expression to it, such as prostrations, sacrifices, and the like. Thirdly, there also pertain to divine worship all other acts ordained to the neighbor for the sake of God.

Et tamen sicut magnanimitas est specialis virtus, quamvis omnium virtutum actibus utatur secundum specialem rationem obiecti, utpote coniectans magnum in actibus omnium virtutum, ita et religio est specialis virtus, in actibus omnium virtutum specialem rationem obiecti considerans, scilicet Deo debitum; sic enim est iustitiae pars. Illi tamen actus specialiter religioni assignantur, qui nullius alterius virtutis sunt, sicut prostrationes et huiusmodi, in quibus secundario Dei cultus consistit. Nevertheless, as magnanimity is a certain special virtue, although it uses the acts of all virtues, since it bestows a grandeur in the exercise of them all and so regards its object under a certain special aspect; so also religion is a special virtue in the acts of all the virtues, considering a special aspect of its object, namely, that which is due to God; and thus it forms a part of justice. There are, moreover, special acts assigned to religion, which pertain to no other virtue, such as prostrations and the like, in which the worship of God consists secondarily.

Ex quo patet quod actus fidei pertinet quidem materialiter ad religionem, sicut et actus aliarum virtutum, et magis, in quantum actus fidei est primus motus mentis in Deum. Sed formaliter a religione distinguitur, utpote aliam rationem obiecti considerans. Convenit etiam fides cum religione praeter hoc, in quantum fides est religionis causa et principium. Non enim aliquis eligeret cultum Deo exhibere, nisi fide teneret Deum esse creatorem, gubernatorem et remuneratorem humanorum actuum. From this it is evident that acts of faith pertain, indeed, materially to religion, as do the acts of other virtues, and the more so inasmuch as acts of faith are the first motions of the mind toward God; but formally faith is distinguished from religion, as regarding another aspect of its object. Faith agrees with religion also because faith is the cause and principle, of religion. For no one would elect to manifest reverence to God unless by faith he held that God was the Creator, Ruler, and Rewarder of human actions.

Ipsa tamen religio non est virtus theologica. Habet enim pro materia quasi ipsos actus vel fidei vel alterius virtutis, quos Deo tamquam debitos offert. Sed Deum habet pro fine. Colere enim Deum est huiusmodi actus ut debitos Deo offerre. Nevertheless religion is not a theological virtue: for it has as its matter all acts, as those of faith or of any other virtue inasmuch as these are offered as due to God; but it has God as its end. For to worship God is to offer acts of this kind as due to God.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad omnia obiecta. From what has been said, the response to all the objections is evident.

Article 3Whether the Christian Religion Is Aptly Called Catholic or Universal

Articulus 3 Objections

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides Christiana Catholica nominari non debeat, quia cognitio debet esse cognoscibili proportionata. Non enim quidlibet modo cognoscitur. Sed fides est cognitio Dei, qui neque est universalis neque particularis, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de Trinitate. Ergo nec fides debet universalis dici. 1. It seems that the Christian religion ought not be called Catholic, because knowledge must be proportionate to the knowability of a thing. Now an indefinite thing is not known in any way at all: but faith is a knowledge of God who is neither universal nor particular, as Augustine says in his book, De Trinitate; therefore this religion cannot be called universal.

Praeterea. De singularibus non potest esse nisi singularis cognitio. Sed fide quaedam singularia facta tenemus, ut passionem Christi, resurrectionem et huiusmodi. Ergo fides non debet dici universalis. 2. One can have only singular knowledge about singular things; but by faith we hold the truth of certain singular facts, as the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and the like; therefore the Christian faith cannot be called universal.

Praeterea, ab eo quod est commune multis non debet proprium nomen alicui eorum imponi, cum nomen causa innotescendae rei imponatur. Sed quaelibet traditio vel secta proponit ea quae tradit ut universaliter ab omnibus credenda vel observanda et ut universaliter vera. Ergo non debet fides Christiana specialiter Catholica dici. 3. From what is common to many, it is not permissible to impose a name as proper to any one of them, since a name is given in order that a thing may be known as distinct: but every school or sect proposes certain things that must be universally held by all its followers, or certain doctrines that must be universally affirmed as true; therefore the Christian religion has no special right to be called Catholic.

Praeterea, idolatria ad omnes mundi angulos pervenit. Sed Christiana fides nondum invenitur ad omnes mundi fines pervenisse, cum aliqui barbari sint, qui fidem Christi non cognoscant. Ergo idolatriae secta magis debet dici Catholica quam Christiana fides. 4. Idolatry extends to every corner of the earth; but the Christian religion has not yet been brought to all the regions of the world, since there are yet some barbarians who do not know the faith of Christ; therefore these idolatrous sects, rather than the Christian religion, deserve the name of Catholic.

Praeterea, quod non convenit omnibus, non potest dici universale. Sed fides Christiana a multis non recipitur. Ergo inconvenienter Catholica vel universalis dicitur. 5. What does not include all should not be called universal; but the Christian religion is not accepted by many; therefore it is inaptly called universal or Catholic.

Sed contra

Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus in libro de vera religione: tenenda est nobis Christiana religio et eius Ecclesiae communicatio, quae Catholica est et Catholica nominatur non solum a suis, verum etiam ab omnibus inimicis. On the contrary is that which Augustine says in De vera religione: The Christian religion must be held by us, and the communication of that Church which is catholic and which is called Catholic, not only by its own members, but even by its enemies.

Praeterea, universale et commune idem esse videtur. Sed fides Christiana ab apostolo communis fides dicitur, ut patet Tit. 1: Tito dilecto filio secundum communem fidem et cetera. Ergo convenienter potest dici universalis vel Catholica. Again, universal and common appear to be the same; but the Christian faith is called the common faith by the Apostle (Titus 1:4): To Titus, my beloved son according to the common faith; therefore it is rightly called Catholic.

Praeterea, illud, quod universaliter omnibus proponitur, maxime debet dici universale. Sed fides Christiana omnibus proponitur, ut patet Matth. ultimo: docete omnes gentes et cetera. Ergo ipsa merito debet dici Catholica vel universalis. Again what is universally proposed to all should in a special way be called universal; but the Christian faith is universally proposed to all, as is evident in the last chapter of Matthew (28:19), Teach all nations, etc.; therefore it is deservedly called Catholic or universal.

Responsio. Dicendum quod fides sicut et quaelibet alia cognitio duplicem habet materiam, scilicet in qua, id est ipsos credentes, et de qua, id est res creditas, et ex parte utriusque materiae fides Christiana Catholica dici potest. Response. I answer that it must be said that faith, just as any other cognition, has a twofold matter: namely, that in which it exists (the believers themselves) and that about which it is concerned (the truths believed); and as regards both types of matter, the Christian religion can be called Catholic.

Ex parte quidem credentium, quia illam fidem veram asserit apostolus Rom. 3, quae est testificata a lege et prophetis. Cum autem prophetarum tempore diversae gentes diversorum deorum cultibus insisterent, solus autem populus Israel Deo vero cultum debitum exhiberet, et sic non esset una universalis religio, praedixit per eos spiritus sanctus cultum veri Dei ab omnibus esse assumendum. Unde dicitur Is. 45: mihi curva