|
Objection 1: It seems that the act of God's intellect is not His
substance. For to understand is an operation. But an operation
signifies something proceeding from the operator. Therefore the act of
God's intellect is not His substance.
Objection 2: Further, to understand one's act of understanding,
is to understand something that is neither great nor chiefly
understood, and but secondary and accessory. If therefore God be his
own act of understanding, His act of understanding will be as when we
understand our act of understanding: and thus God's act of
understanding will not be something great.
Objection 3: Further, every act of understanding means
understanding something. When therefore God understands Himself, if
He Himself is not distinct from this act of understanding, He
understands that He understands Himself; and so on to infinity.
Therefore the act of God's intellect is not His substance.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vii), "In God to
be is the same as to be wise." But to be wise is the same thing as to
understand. Therefore in God to be is the same thing as to
understand. But God's existence is His substance, as shown above
(Question 3, Article 4). Therefore the act of God's intellect
is His substance.
I answer that, It must be said that the act of God's intellect is
His substance. For if His act of understanding were other than His
substance, then something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph.
xii), would be the act and perfection of the divine substance, to
which the divine substance would be related, as potentiality is to
act, which is altogether impossible; because the act of understanding
is the perfection and act of the one understanding. Let us now
consider how this is. As was laid down above (Article 2), to
understand is not an act passing to anything extrinsic; for it remains
in the operator as his own act and perfection; as existence is the
perfection of the one existing: just as existence follows on the form,
so in like manner to understand follows on the intelligible species.
Now in God there is no form which is something other than His
existence, as shown above (Question 3). Hence as His essence
itself is also His intelligible species, it necessarily follows that
His act of understanding must be His essence and His existence.
Thus it follows from all the foregoing that in God, intellect, and
the object understood, and the intelligible species, and His act of
understanding are entirely one and the same. Hence when God is said
to be understanding, no kind of multiplicity is attached to His
substance.
Reply to Objection 1: To understand is not an operation proceeding
out of the operator, but remaining in him.
Reply to Objection 2: When that act of understanding which is not
subsistent is understood, something not great is understood; as when
we understand our act of understanding; and so this cannot be likened
to the act of the divine understanding which is subsistent.
Thus appears the Reply to the Third Objection. For the act of
divine understanding subsists in itself, and belongs to its very self
and is not another's; hence it need not proceed to infinity.
|
|