| 15. QUID POSSIT AUT NON POSSIT DICI DE ILLA SUBSTANTIALITER.
| 15. What can and what cannot be predicated of the Supreme Being substantively.
|
| Iam non immerito valde moveor quam studiose possum inquirere, quid omnium quae de aliquo dici possum, huic tam admirabili naturae queat convenire substantialiter. Quamquam enim mirer, si possit in nominibus uel verbis quae aptamus rebus factis de nihilo reperiri, quod digne dicatur de creatrice universorum substantia: tentandum tamen est, ad quid hanc indagationem ratio perducet.
| Not without reason I am now strongly impelled to inquire as earnestly as I am able, which of all the statements that may be made regarding anything is substantially applicable to this so wonderful Nature. For, though I should be surprised if, among the names or words by which we designate things created from nothing, any should be found that could worthily be applied to the Substance which is the creator of all; yet, we must try and see to what end reason will lead this investigation.
|
| Itaque de relativis quidem nulli dubium, quia nullum eorum substantiale est illi de quo relative dicitur. Quare si quid de summa natura dicitur relative, non est eius significativum substantiae.
| As to relative expressions, at any rate, no one can doubt that no such expression describes what is essential to that in regard to which it is relatively employed. Hence, if any relative predication is made regarding the supreme Nature, it is not significant of its substance.
|
| Unde hoc ipsum quod summa omnium sive maior omnibus quae ab illa facta sunt, seu aliud aliquid similiter relative dici potest: manifestum est quondam non eius naturalem designat essentiam.
| Therefore, it is manifest that this very expression, that this Nature, is the highest of all beings, or greater than those which have been created by it; or any other relative term that can, in like manner, be applied to it, does not describe its natural essence.
|
| Si enim nulla earum rerum umquam esset, quarum relatione summa et maior dicitur, ipsa nec summa nec maior intelligeretur: nec tamen idcirco minus bona esset aut essentialis suae magnitudinis in aliquo detrimentum pateretur. Quod ex eo manifeste cognoscitur, quondam ipsa quidquid bond vel magni est, non est per aliud quam per seipsam. Si igitur summa natura sic potest intelligi non summa, ut tamen nequaquam sit maior aut minor quam cum intelligitur summa omnium: manifestum est quia 'summum' non simpliciter significat illam essentiam quae omnimodo maior et melior est, quam quidquid non est quod ipsa. Quod autem ratio docet de 'summo', non dissimiliter invenitur in similiter relativis.
| For, if none of those things ever existed, in relation to which it is called supreme or greater, it would not be conceived as either supreme or greater, yet it would not, therefore, be less good, or suffer detriment to its essential greatness in any degree. And this truth is clearly seen from the fact that this Nature exists through no other than itself, whatever there be that is good or great. If, then, the supreme Nature can be so conceived of as not supreme, that still it shall be in no wise greater or less than when it is conceived of as the highest of all beings, it is manifest that the term supreme, taken by itself, does not describe that Being which is altogether greater and better than whatever is not what it is. But, what these considerations show regarding the term supreme or highest is found to be true, in like manner, of other similar, relative expressions.
|
| Illis itaque quae relative dicuntur omissis, quia nullum eorum simpliciter demonstrat alicuius essentiam, ad alia discutienda se convertat intentio.
| Passing over these relative predications, then, since none of them taken by itself represents the essence of anything, let our attention be turned to the discussion of other kinds of predication.
|
| Equidem si quis singula diligenter intueatur: quidquid est praeter relativa, aut tale est, ut ipsum omnino melius sit quam non ipsum, aut tale ut non ipsum in aliquo melius sit quam ipsum. 'Ipsum' autem et 'non ipsum' non aliud hic intelligo quam verum, non verum; corpus, non corpus; et his similia. Melius quidem est omnino aliquid quam non ipsum, ut sapiens quam non ipsum sapiens, id est: melius est sapiens quam non sapiens. Quamvis enim iustus non sapiens melior videatur quam non iustus sapiens, non tamen est melius simpliciter non sapiens quam sapiens. Omne quippe non sapiens simpliciter, inquantum non sapiens est, minus est quam sapiens; /29/ quia omne non sapiens melius esset, si esset sapiens. Similiter omnino melius est verum quam non ipsum, id est quam non verum; et iustum quam non iustum; et vivit quam non vivit.
| Now, certainly if one diligently considers separately whatever there is that is not of a relative nature, either it is such that, to be it is in general better than not to be it, or such that, in some cases, not to be it is better than to be it. But I here understand the phrases, to be it and not to be it, in the same way in which I understand to be true and not to be true, to be bodily and not to be bodily, and the like. Indeed, to be anything is, in general, better than not to be it; as to be wise is better than not to be so; that is, it is better to be wise than not to be wise. For, though one who is just, but not wise, is apparently a better man than one who is wise, but not just, yet, taken by itself, it is not better not to be wise than to be wise. For, everything that is not wise, simply in so far as it is not wise, is less than what is wise, since everything that is not wise would be better if it were wise. In the same way, to be true is altogether better than not to be so, that is, better than not to be true; and just is better than not just; and to livethan not to live.
|
| Melius autem est in aliquo non ipsum quam ipsum, ut non aurum quam aurum. Nam melius est homini esse non aurum quam aurum, quamvis forsitan alicui melius esset aurum esse quam non aurum, ut plumbo. Cum enim utrumque, scilicet homo et plumbum, sit non aurum: tanto melius aliquid est homo quam aurum, quanto inferioris esset naturae, si esset aurum; et plumbum tanto uilius est, quanto pretiosius esset, si aurum esset.
| But, in some cases, not to bea certain thing is better than to be it, as not to be gold may be better than to be gold. For it is better for man not to be gold, than to be gold; although it might be better for something to be gold, than not to be gold—lead, for instance. For though both, namely, man and lead are not gold, man is something as much better than gold, as he would be of inferior nature, were he gold; while lead is something as much more base than gold, as it would be more precious, were it gold.
|
| Patet autem ex eo quod summa natura sic intelligi potest non summa, ut nec summum omnino melius sit quam non summum, nec non summum alicui melius quam summum: multa relativa esse, quae nequaquam hac contineantur divisione. Utrum vero aliqua contineantur, inquirere supersedeo, cum ad propositum sufficiat, quod de illis notum est: nullum scilicet eorum designare simplicem summae naturae substantiam.
| But, from the fact that the supreme Nature may be so conceived of as not supreme, that supreme is neither in general better than not supreme, nor not supreme better, in any case, than supreme—from this fact it is evident that there are many relative expressions which are by no means included in this classification. Whether, however, any are so included, I refrain from inquiring; since it is sufficient, for my purpose, that undoubtedly none of these, taken by itself, describes the substance of the supreme Nature.
|
| Cum igitur quidquid aliud est, si singula dispiciantur, aut sit melius quam non ipsum, aut non ipsum in aliquo sit melius quam ipsum: sicut nefas est putare quod substantia supremae naturae sit aliquid, quo melius sit aliquomodo non ipsum, sic necesse est ut sit quidquid omnino melius est quam non ipsum. Illa enim sola est qua penitus nihil est melius, et quae melior est omnibus quae non sunt quod ipsa est.
| Since, then, it is true of whatever else there is, that, if it is taken independently, to be it is better than not to be it; as it is impious to suppose that the substance of the supreme Nature is anything, than which what is not it is in any way better, it must be true that this substance is whatever is, in general, better than what is not it. For, it alone is that, than which there is nothing better at all, and which is better than all things, which are not what it is.
|
| Non est igitur corpus vel aliquid eorum, quae corporei sensus discemunt. Quippe his omnibus melius est aliquid, quod non est quod ipsa sunt. Mens enim rationalis, quae nullo corporeo sensu quid vel qualis vel quanta sit percipitur: quanto minor esset, si esset aliquid eorum quae corporeis sensibus subiacent, tanto maior est quam quodlibet eorum. Penitus enim ipsa summa essentia tacenda est esse aliquid eorum quibus est aliquid, quod non est, quod ipsa sunt superius; et est omnino, sicut ratio docet, dicenda quodlibet eorum, quibus est omne quod non est quod ipsa sunt, inferius.
| It is not a material body, then, or any of those things which the bodily senses discern. For, than all these there is something better, which is not what they themselves are. For, the rational mind, as to which no bodily sense can perceive what, or of what character, or how great, it is—the less this rational mind would be if it were any of those things that are in the scope of the bodily senses, the greater it is than any of these. For by no means should this supreme Being be said to be any of those things to which something, which they themselves are not, is superior; and it should by all means, as our reasoning shows, be said to be any of those things to which everything, which is not what they themselves are, is inferior.
|
| Quare necesse est eam esse viventem, sapientem, potentem et omnipotentem, veram, iustam, beatam, aeternam, et quidquid similiter absolute melius est quam non ipsum. Quid ergo quaeratur amplius quid summa illa sit natura, si manifestum est quid omnium sit aut quid non sit? /30/
| Hence, this Being must be living, wise, powerful, and all-powerful, true, just, blessed, eternal, and whatever, in like manner, is absolutely better than what is not it. Why, then, should we make any further inquiry as to what that supreme Nature is, if it is manifest which of all things it is, and which it is not?
|
| 16. QUOD IDEM SIT ILLI ESSE IUSTAM, QUOD EST ESSE IUSTITIAM; ET EODEM MODO DE IIS QUAE SIMILITER DE ILLA DICI POSSUM; ET QUOD NIHIL HORUM MONSTRET, QUALIS ILLA vel QUANTA SIT SED QUID SIT.
| 16. For the Supreme Being to be just is the same as for it to be justice. The case is the same regarding that which can be predicated of it in a way similar [to the way in which "just” is predicated]. None of these [predicates] indicate what kind of thing it is or of what magnitude it is; instead, [they indicate] what it is.
|
| Sed fortasse cum dicitur iusta vel magna vel aliquid similium, non ostenditur quid sit sed potius qualis vel quanta sit. Per qualitatem quippe vel quantitatem quodlibet horum dici videtur. Omne namque quod iustum est, per iustitiam iustum est. Et alia huiusmodi similiter. Quare ipsa summa natura eon est iusta nisi per iustitiam.
| But perhaps, when this Being is called just, or great, or anything like these, it is not shown what it is, but of what character, or how great it is. For every such term seems to be used with reference to quantity or magnitude; because everything that is just is so through justness, and so with other like cases, in the same way. Hence, the supreme Nature itself is not just, except through justness.
|
| Videtur igitur participatione qualitatis, iustitiae scilicet, iusta dici summe bona substantia. Quod si ita est, per aliud est iusta, non per se.
| It seems, then, that by participation in this quality, that is, justness, the supremely good Substance is called just. But, if this is so, it is just through another, and not through itself.
|
| At hoc contrarium est veritati perspectae, quia bona vel magna vel subsistens quod est, omnino per se est, non per aliud. Si igitur non est iusta nisi per iustitiam, nec iusta potest esse nisi per se: quid magis conspicuum, quid magis necessarium, quam quod eadem natura est ipsa iustitia; et cum dicitur esse iusta per iustitiam, idem est quod per se; et cum iusta per se dicitur esse, non aliud intelligitur quam per iustitiam? Quapropter si quaeratur quid sit ipsa summa natura de qua agitur: quid verius respondetur, quam: iustitia?
| But this is contrary to the truth already established, that it is good, or great or whatever it is at all, through itself and not through another. So, if it is not just, except through justness, and cannot be just, except through itself, what can be more clear than that this Nature is itself justness? And, when it is said to be just through justness, it is the same as saying that it is just through itself. And, when it is said to be just through itself, nothing else is understood than that it is just through justness. Hence, if it is inquired what the supreme Nature, which is in question, is in itself, what truer answer can be given, than Justness?
|
| Videndum igitur quomodo intelligendum sit, quando illa natura, quae est ipsa iustitia, dicitur iusta. Quoniam enim homo non potest esse iustitia sed habere potest iustitiam, non intelligitur; iustus homo existens iustitia sed habens iustitiam. Quoniam igitur summa natura non proprie dicitur quia habet iustitiam sed existit iustitia: cum dicitur iusta, proprie intelligitur existens iustitia, non autem habens iustitiam. Quare si, cum dicitur existens iustitia, non dicitur qualis est sed quid est, consequitur ut, cum dicitur iusta, non dicatur qualis sit sed quid sit.
| We must observe, then, how we are to understand the statement, that the Nature which is itself justness is just. For, since a man cannot be justness, but can possess justness, we do not conceive of a just man as being justness, but as possessing justness. Since, on the other hand, it cannot properly be said of the supreme Nature that it possesses justness, but that it is justness, when it is called just it is properly conceived of as being justness, but not as possessing justness. Hence, if, when it is said to be justness, it is not said of what character it is, but what it is, it follows that, when it is called just, it is not said of what character it is, but what it is.
|
| Deinde, quondam de illa supreme essentia idem est dicere: quia est iusta, et: quia est existens iustitia; et cum dicitur: est existens iustitia, non est aliud quam: est iustitia: nihil differs in illa sive dicatur: est iusta, sive: est iustitia. Quapropter cum quaeritur de illa quid est, non minus congrue respondetur: iusta, quam: iustitia.
| Therefore, seeing that it is the same to say of the supreme Being, that it is just and that it is justness; and, when it is said that it is justness, it is nothing else than saying that it is just; it makes no difference whether it is said to be justness or to be just. Hence, when one is asked regarding the supreme Nature, what it is, the answer, Just, is not less fitting than the answer, Justness.
|
| Quod vero in exemplo iustitiae ratum esse conspicitur, hoc de omnibus quae similiter de ipsa summa natura dicuntur, intellectus sentire per /31/ rationem constringitur. Quidquid igitur eorum de illa dicatur: non qualis vel quanta sed magis quid sit monstratur.
| Moreover, what we see to have been proved in the case of justness, the intellect is compelled to acknowledge as true of all attributes which are similarly predicated of this supreme Nature. Whatever such attribute is predicated of it, then, it is shown, not of what character, or how great, but what it is.
|
| Sed palam est quia quodlibet bonum summa natura sit, summe illud est. Illa igitur est summa essentia, summa vita, summa ratio, summa salus, summa iustitia, summa sapientia, summa veritas, summa bonitas, summa magnitudo, summa pulchritudo, summa imrnortalitas, summa incorruptibilitas, summa immutabilitas, summa beatitudo, summa aeternitas, summa potestas, summa unites, quod non est aliud quam summe ens, summe vivens, et alia similiter.
| But it is obvious that whatever good thing the supreme Nature is, it is in the highest degree. It is, therefore, supreme Being, supreme Justness, supreme Wisdom, supreme Truth, supreme Goodness, supreme Greatness, supreme Beauty, supreme Immortality, supreme Incorruptibility, supreme Immutability, supreme Blessedness, supreme Eternity, supreme Power, supreme Unity; which is nothing else than supremely being, supremely living, etc.
|
| 17. QUOD ITA SIT SIMPLEX, UT OMNIA QUAE DE EIUS ESSENTIA DICI POSSUM, UNUM IDEMQUE IN ILLA SINT, ET NIHIL DE EA DICI POSSIT SUBSTANTIALITER NISI IN EO QUOD QUID EST.
| 17. [The Supreme Being] is so simple that whatever things can be predicated of its essence are one and the same thing in it. And something can be predicated substantively of the Supreme Being only with respect to what [this Being] is.
|
| Quid ergo? Si illa summa natura tot bona est: eritne composite tam pluribus bonds, an potius non sunt plura bona sed unum bonum, tam pluribus nominibus significatum? Omne enim compositum ut subsistat, indiget ifs ex quibus componitur, et illis debet quod est; quia quidquid est, per illa est, et illa quod sunt, per illud non sunt; et idcirco penitus summum non est. Si igitur illa natura composite est pluribus bonds, haec omnia quae omni composito insunt, in illam incidere necesse est.
| Is it to be inferred, then, that if the supreme Nature is so many goods, it will therefore be compounded of more goods than one? Or is it true, rather, that there are not more goods than one, but a single good described by many names? For, everything which is composite requires for its subsistence the things of which it is compounded, and, indeed, owes to them the fact of its existence, because, whatever it is, it is through these things; and they are not what they are through it, and therefore it is not at all supreme. If, then, that Nature is compounded of more goods than one, all these facts that are true of every composite must be applicable to it.
|
| Quod nefas falsitatis aperta ratione destruit et obruit tote quae supra patuit necessitas veritatis.
| But this impious falsehood the whole cogency of the truth that was shown above refutes and overthrows, through a clear argument.
|
| Cum igitur illa natura nullo modo composite sit, et tamen omnimodo tot illa bona sit, necesse est ut illa omnia non plura sed unum sint. Idem igitur est quodlibet unum eorum quod omnia, sive simul sive singula. Ut cum dicitur iustitia vel essentia, idem significat quod alia, vel omnia simul vel singula. Quemadmodum itaque unum est quidquid essentialiter de summa substantia dicitur, ita ipsa uno modo, una consideratione est quidquid est essentialiter. Cum enim aliquis homo dicatur et corpus et rationalis et homo, non uno modo vel consideratione haec tria dicitur. Secundum aliud enim est corpus, et secundum aliud rationalis, et singulum horum non est totum hoc quod est homo.
| Since, then, that Nature is by no means composite and yet is by all means those so many goods, necessarily all these are not more than one, but are one. Any one of them is, therefore, the same as all, whether taken all at once or separately. Therefore, just as whatever is attributed to the essence of the supreme Substance is one; so this substance is whatever it is essentially in one way, and by virtue of one consideration. For, when a man is said to be a material body, and rational, and human, these three things are not said in one way, or in virtue of one consideration. For, in accordance with one fact, he is a material body; and in accordance with another, rational; and no one of these, taken by itself, is the whole of what man is.
|
| Illa vero summa essentia nullo modo sic est aliquid, ut illud idem secundum alium modum aut secundum aliam considerationem non sit; quia quidquid aliquo /32/ modo essentialiter est, hoc est totum quod ipsa est. Nihil igitur quod de eius essentia vere dicitur, in eo quod qualis vel quanta sed in eo quod quid sit accipitur. Quidquid enim est quale vel quantum, est etiam aliud in eo quod quid est; unde non simplex sed compositum est.
| That supreme Being, however, is by no means anything in such a way that it is not this same thing, according to another way, or another consideration; because, whatever it is essentially in any way, this is all of what it is. Therefore, nothing that is truly said of the supreme Being is accepted in terms of quality or quantity, but only in terms of what it is. For, whatever it is in terms of either quality or quantity would constitute still another element, in terms of what it is; hence, it would not be simple, but composite.
|