Ordinatio

[On the theology of necessary things] – To the question [n.217], therefore, I reply that since an elicited act of will is most truly action, even if no commanded act accompanies it (as is plain from the first article [nn.230, 232, 234-235]), and since extension of practical knowledge consists in conformity to action and in aptitudinal priority (this is plain from the second article [nn.236-237]), it follows that that knowledge is practical which is aptitudinally conform to right volition and is naturally prior to it; but the whole of theology necessary for a created intellect is thus conform to the act of the created will and prior to it; therefore etc. – The proof of the minor is because the first object of theology is virtually conform to right volition, because from the idea of it are taken the principles of rectitude in volition; it also determines the created intellect to knowledge of the determinate rectitude of the action as to all necessary theological things, naturally before any created will wills them, otherwise they would not be necessary; therefore from the first object follows both the conformity and the priority of theology to volition, and thus extension to action, from which extension knowledge itself must be called practical. A confirmation of this reason is because, since the first object of theology is the ultimate end, the principles too in the created intellect taken from the ultimate end are practical principles, therefore the principles of theology are practical; therefore the conclusions too are practical.

If objection be made against this from what was said in the preceding question, where it is said that God is not the first subject here as end but as this essence [nn.167, 195]; but the principles taken from the end as it is end are practical; therefore etc.

Again, knowledge of the ultimate end is not immediately conform to, nor of a nature to be conform to, the eliciting of action; therefore it is not proximately practical.

Again, the first object virtually includes conformity to right action, but not the knowledge thus conform alone; otherwise there could not be speculative science about it, which seems unacceptable. For how is this truth practical ‘God is triune’ or ‘the Father generates the Son’? Therefore, the first object includes some speculative knowledge. Therefore, from the virtual conformity of the first object to action it does not follow that theology is practical, since the truths most theological insofar as theology is distinguished from metaphysics are speculative.

Again, then the science of God, which is about the same first subject, would be practical, and it seems that the idea of the solution to the question [n.314] could be applied to the divine intellect just as to the created one.

To the first [n.315] I say that the respect of the end is not what the principles in any science are taken from, but the absolute subject is on which the respect is founded; that subject is ‘this essence’.

To the second [n.316] I say that what virtually contains conform knowledge is virtually conform, and thus is practical knowledge, because practical conclusions have practical principles; but the knowledge proximate to this one which is about the end is knowledge of enjoyment of the end, and it is of the nature to be formally conform to the action of enjoyment.

To the third [n.317] I say that the first object only includes knowledge conform to right volition, because by virtue of it nothing about it is known that is not either rectitude of some volition or virtually includes knowledge of such rectitude. And I concede what is inferred as unacceptable in the consequent, that about it there can be no speculative science; for necessarily knowledge of it and of anything intrinsic known through it is aptitudinally conform to action and prior, if what is known is necessary.

When objection is made about those truths, which seem to be most truly theological and not metaphysical, ‘God is triune’, ‘the Father generates the Son’ [n.317], I say that these truths are practical. The first indeed virtually includes knowledge of the rectitude of love tending toward the three persons, such that if an act were elicited about one of them alone, excluding another (as an unbeliever would elicit it), the act would not be right; the second includes knowledge of the rectitude of the act which is about two persons one of whom is thus from the other [Ord. I d.1 p.1 q.2 n.2, 5, 11].

And if it be objected against this, that nothing save an essential is reason for terminating an act of love; but theology is more properly about the personals than about the essentials, because many essentials can be known by the metaphysician; therefore theology as distinguished from metaphysics as to what is most proper to it is not practical. The proof of the first proposition is that otherwise there would be some idea of lovability in one person that would not be in another, which is false, because then no person would be blessed in himself. I reply: an essential is absolutely the idea of terminating an act of loving as ‘that because of which’, but the persons terminate an act of loving as whom are loved. For it is not sufficient for rectitude of the act that it have the fitting formal idea in the object, but there is also required that it have the fitting object in which such formal idea exists. So, besides the knowledge of rectitude which includes the essential in the act of loving God, the personals include the further proper knowledge of the required rectitude.

As to the fourth [n.318], it could be conceded that the theology of God about necessary things is practical, because in his intellect the first theological object is of a nature as it were to generate the knowledge conform to right volition that is naturally prior to the volition. That it is conform is plain. That it is also prior is proved because the intellect first naturally understands the first object before the will wills it; therefore naturally prior to volition it can have all the knowledge sufficient for it virtually included in the understanding of the first object; of such sort is any necessary knowledge whatever of the first object. The consequence supposed is plain, both because, with all will per impossibile excluded, the intellect could have all sufficient knowledge virtually included in the understanding of the first object, since that understanding precedes all volition; – and because the divine intellect is not discursive; so it does not naturally understand the first object before it understands anything virtually included in it as to knowledge; therefore, if it understands the first object before the will wills anything, it understands anything as to knowledge that is included in the first object before the will wills (this second proof of the consequence is less strong).

If it be objected that the divine will will not be the first rule of itself in its act if its act is preceded by the knowledge to which it should be conformed in acting so as to act rightly; the consequent seems unacceptable, because it takes away the supreme freedom of the divine will if it is determined by another, and not first by itself, to its first act. But if all its acts are preceded by practical knowledge, it will be determined to its first act by the intellect, because it cannot dissent from it; for then it could sin.

Again, it was said above [nn.300-301] that the Philosopher consequently speaks well if the intelligence naturally loves God when seen; therefore a knowledge that shows God is not practical. Let there be a like consequence about God naturally loving himself.

Again, what directs is a cause in respect of what is directed, so there is a real distinction between them; but there is no such distinction of God’s intellection to his willing. A confirmation of the reason is because, when it is understood that an act of will has already been elicited, the intellect is not directing, for it only directs about something to be elicited as if prior to it; but in God the willing of himself does not follow the will’s existence, so his willing is never there something as it were to be elicited but is always as it were elicited; therefore etc.

It seems here that, in consequence of what has been said [nn.274-277, 310-312, 314, 319-320, 322-323], one must say that, when one takes rule for what gives right guidance in action, the first rule is the ultimate end, which virtually first includes the knowledge of the necessary rectitude of any action, just as the first object of speculative science first includes knowledge of truths of speculation. But this first rule, which is the end, makes right in ordered way the intellect and will as these powers are of a nature to act rightly in ordered way, such that it first as it were generates knowledge conform to right action before right action, or before it makes action right; and thus, while the power is acting, there will be another power previously right, so that the consequent inferred in the first reason [n.325] seems it must be conceded. When it is rejected [n.325], one could say that, just as universally freedom stands along with previous apprehension, so supreme freedom stands along with the most perfect previous apprehension; but the most perfect apprehension of action includes knowledge of the conformity when it necessarily belongs to action.

When it is further argued that it would be determined by something else [n.325], one must deny this by speaking of the determination that is done by a sufficient agent. For although it could not disagree with knowledge that is right and prior to action, yet this is not as if the intellect be by its knowledge a sufficient cause actively determining the will to act, but is from the perfection of the will, that it is only of a nature to act in conformity with the prior power in acting, when that prior power acts first perfectly about its object, that is, when it knows first as much as it can know. But I say this for contingent things, of which the divine intellect does not have all the knowledge possible to it before all act of the will; therefore, as to those contingent things, it is not necessary that it act in conformity with the prior power, because it does not first conformably know such object. But as to knowables necessary of themselves it always happens otherwise, because they contain the most perfect knowledge of themselves without an act of will.¹

Now although this response [n.328-329] seem to avoid the argument [n.325], and although the subsequent arguments [n.326-327] could be avoided, yet one must say otherwise, that necessary theology in the divine intellect is not practical, because there is no natural priority of intellection to volition that is, as it were, of the conformative to what needs to be conformed or of directive to something that needs to be directed: because once any knowledge whatever of rectitude of the action has been posited, although it could of itself conform a conformable or directable power from elsewhere, yet not the divine will with respect to its first object, because it is rectified of itself alone with respect to the object, for either it naturally tends toward it or, if it tends freely, it is not of itself in any way as it were indifferent to rectitude or as it were in any way from elsewhere possessed of it, such that determinate knowledge of rectitude is not necessarily prior to volition as if the volition require it so as to be rightly elicited; but it only pre-requires the ostension of the object; and the knowledge that is of itself directive it does not pre-require as directive but only as ostensive, such that if ostension alone of the object could precede volition and knowledge of the necessary rectitude of the action could follow (as will be said of action about contingents [n.333]), volition would be equally rightly elicited then and now. Therefore, intellection is not now prior and conformative or regulative.

To the argument, therefore, that proves the priority of knowledge of rightness to right action [n.324], it can be replied that though there be some priority of intellection to volition, yet it is not in such way prior that it require right cognition to be prior to action, because such priority is of rule to ruled, of which sort there cannot be when the will is in every way rule of itself in acting. The sum of this controversy about the science of God with respect to himself, whether it be practical, consists in this: if the knowledge, which of itself would be directive in action (given that the rectifying or acting power in the knower were directable in acting), be practical from the fact alone that thus it would be directive, or not practical from the fact that the doing power in the knower is not directable – let him who holds either one of the sides speak accordingly.

[About the theology of contingents] – From this is introduced the second article of the question, namely about the theology of contingents, whether it be practical [nn.314, 324, 330; 1 d.38 q. un. nn.1-4]. I say that in that intellect alone can the theology of contingent things be practical which can have determinate knowledge of the rectitude of action before all volition of the understander or before the elicited action, because only there is this theology of contingent things able to be or is conform to action and prior to it. Of such sort is every created intellect, because of no created understander does the will first determine the contingent rectitude befitting its action.

But in the divine intellect contingent theology cannot be practical if one holds onto these two points, namely that practical knowledge and the action to which it is extended ought necessarily to belong to the same supposit,² and that of God as operating there is no action save volition (not positing in him a third power other than intellect and will), for no knowledge conform to action or to contingent right volition precedes in the divine intellect its right action or the volition of God, because by volition is such rectitude first determined to such action.

The first point is true, for if any knowledge at all about the action of another be practical, then my knowledge about this, which is ‘God creates the world’ or about this, which is ‘an intelligence moves the heavens’, will be practical. At least this seems to prove that practical knowledge cannot belong to a lower intelligence or understander when something else is operating according to that action or, by parity of reasoning, belong to a higher or an equal if it do nothing for the action of the operator; but if it do do something, already does the superior have its proper action with respect to which its knowledge is practical.

Again, if practical knowledge has any causality with respect to the action to which it is extended, and is not of a nature to have such causality save first in respect of the action that is in the one who understands, the thing proposed [n.333] seems to follow.

On the contrary: therefore, about the same thing one intellect would have practical knowledge and another speculative, if action were possible to one intellect and not the other. It can be said that perfect rectitude of action includes the circumstance of the one operating and also the other circumstances, so that without it there is no rectitude. For if ‘God is to be loved’ is taken, unless it be added by what, namely by the will, it is not a practical truth completely, because God is not to be loved by a brute; therefore this perfect truth ‘God is to be loved by God’ is practical in any intellect whatever; thus too this one, ‘man should sometimes fast’, is practical not only to a man who knows it but also to an angel and to God; so also is this practical for man and God ‘the heaven is to be moved by an angel’, – and I concede as unacceptable what the first proof infers [n.334].

And if it be objected that the priority of practical knowledge to action is not preserved – for love with respect to himself is right before a man or an angel could understand ‘God is to be loved by God’ – I reply: this priority ought to be from the object and the intellect, that is, that it naturally determine the intellect to knowledge of determinate rectitude of action, namely as far as it is of itself in advance of action; in this way this object is of a nature to determine any intellect whatever to the knowledge ‘God is to be loved by God’ as far as it is of itself in advance of action, although some intellect, because of its own imperfection, is not determined before the acting power, because of its own perfection, acts.

To the other objection [n.336] I say that just as the will can be a superior cause with respect to the action of the moving power, not however any will at all with respect to any power at all, for example, not my will with respect to the motive power of an angel, but when it is in the same subject, so that if it be a practical cause with respect to action, this is in the same understander and the same operator; nor is it necessary that in another it be non-practical, save by taking practical strictly for what is immediately applicable to a work to the extent it depends on the identity of supposit of knower and doer, which sort of immediacy is denoted by the infinitive that signifies action when construed with the verb ‘to know’ – for in this way it is conceded that only God knows that he loves himself infinitely, although an angel may know that he is to be infinitely loved by himself.

He who thus responds must from the beginning concede that every truth about the actions of created agents is known by some acting intellect, because all of them, whether by the object if they are necessary or by something else if they are contingent, are of a nature to be first conform to actions or first to determine the rectitude of action before actions be elicited. But all truths about divine volition, when necessary indeed are practical, but not when contingent, because before the elicited action to which they are extended, they do not have conformity, because no determination of rectitude; for example, God knows practically that man should repent and the angel should move, but not that God must wish a holy man to repent or an angel to move.

If you ask of what sort theology of contingents is in itself, when not compared with this intellect or that, it can be said that it is such in itself as it is from its object; but it is not from its object conform to action in advance of every action, because from the object no determinate knowledge of contingent rectitude is of a nature to be had; therefore from its object it is not practical, therefore it is speculative, if these sufficiently divide knowledge [n.303]. Congruent with this is that in the divine intellect it is denied to be practical [n.333]; for a thing seems to be such in itself as it is in a perfect instance in the genus, not as it is in an imperfect one.

If it be objected that then knowledge speculative in itself is practical for someone, to wit for a created intellect, therefore the practical is not repugnant to the speculative, I reply: to be speculative from the object is to be per se speculative; so, to be practical from an object that sufficiently determines the intellect to knowledge of rectitude – and if sufficiently then prior to volition – is to be per se practical. In this way are these two opposed, as also these ‘not-extendable to action’ and ‘extendable to action’. But to be practical from something other than the object, to wit from an extrinsic cause, as from the will determining the intellect to knowledge of action, is to be accidentally practical; so I concede that the theology of contingent things is practical for us, though in itself it is speculative.

Against this: that to which one opposite per se belongs the other opposite belongs to neither per se nor per accidens; therefore knowledge per se speculative is not practical either per se or per accidens. I reply: although the antecedent could be expounded of per se in the first or the second mode, not however in the third mode insofar as it states the same as the solitary [Posterior Analytics 1.4.73a-34-b10], yet I concede that in no mode of inhering does the opposite inhere of this predicate which is ‘per se practical’ or of this predicate ‘per se speculative’, because contingent theology per se in the second mode is per se practical or speculative, such that both the inherence is per se and the predicate is determined by the ‘per se’. But per accidens to be practical per accidens is not opposed to that, just as to be black simply and to be white in some respect are not opposed; for ‘in some respect’ and ‘simply’ determine predicates as denominative. If it is argued ‘it per se is per se speculative, therefore it per se is speculative’, I concede it, nor to this predicate is the predicate ‘per accidens practical’ opposed.

But if the other of these two [n.333] that this response holds [n.340] be not held, then it can be conceded that contingent theology, although it not be in itself practical because not so from its object, yet in every intellect created and uncreated it would be practical per accidens, because it can in the divine intellect be conform to action before the action be elicited by a created will; for the intellect of God knew that the adult sinner in the New Law ought to be ground down before the sinner is ground down. And by not holding to the first of those, the knowledge of God about the action of some other actor is practical; by not holding also to the second of them, to wit by positing the acting of God extrinsically to be an action of his different from the volition of God formally, although the divine intellect did not know that a must be created before his will will it, yet he did know before he create, and so conform knowledge precedes the external action, although it is not conform from the object but from elsewhere.

This at any rate I hold to, that the theology of contingents is not per se practical or from its object; yet for a created intellect it can be per accidens practical, and this in the intellect doing the understanding to which it belongs to act according to the action for which rectitude is determined by the divine will. But as to whether it is practical for the divine intellect, it is plain by holding those two positions [n.333] or the opposites [n.343] what should be said as a consequence. These three things, however, seem probable: first, that the practical is regulative in the action of what is contingent, and second that it is regulative of the power of the doer who is rectifiable from elsewhere than from himself, and third that in God there is no power of doing save will. From the first and third it follows that if divine knowledge were practical, it would be rectificative or regulative in divine volition; but this is false from the second of them [n.333], because the will of itself first rightly elicits willing with respect to the first object, but with respect to second ones, which it is of contingently, it is determined from itself alone, not by any preceding knowledge of rectitude.