Skip to the text

Chapter 3 — In what way it is possible to make known the divine truth

Since, however, not every truth should be made known in the same way, and it is the part of an educated man to seek for conviction in each subject only so far as the nature of the subject allows, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.3, 1094b22–25.) as the Philosopher most rightly observes, as quoted by Boethius, (Boethius, On the Trinity, ch. 2.) it is necessary to show first of all in what way it is possible to make known the aforesaid truth.

Now, in those things which we hold about God there is truth in two ways. For certain things that are true about God wholly surpass the capability of human reason: for instance, that God is three and one. But there are certain things to which even natural reason can attain, for instance, that God is, that God is one, and others like these, which even the philosophers, being guided by the light of natural reason, proved demonstratively about God.

That certain divine truths wholly surpass the capability of human reason is most clearly evident.

For, since the principle of all the knowledge which the reason acquires about a thing is the understanding of that thing’s essence—because, according to the Philosopher’s teaching (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 2.3, 90b24–32.) the principle of a demonstration is what a thing is—it follows that our knowledge about a thing will be in proportion to our understanding of its essence. Therefore, if the human intellect comprehends the essence of a particular thing, such as a stone or a triangle, no truth about that thing will surpass the capability of human reason. But this does not happen to us in relation to God, because the human intellect is incapable by its natural power of attaining to the comprehension of his essence. For our intellect’s knowledge, according to the mode of the present life, originates from the senses: and thus things which are not objects of sense cannot be comprehended by the human intellect except insofar as knowledge of them is gathered from sensibles. Now sensibles cannot lead our intellect to see in them what God is, because they are effects unequal to the power of their cause. And yet our intellect is led by sensibles to the divine knowledge so as to know about God that he is, and other such truths which need to be ascribed to the first principle. Accordingly, some divine truths are attainable by human reason, while others altogether surpass the power of human reason.

Again, the same is easy to see from the degrees of intellects. For if one of two men perceives a thing with his intellect with greater subtlety, the one whose intellect is of a higher degree understands many things which the other is altogether unable to grasp, as instanced in a yokel who is utterly incapable of grasping the subtleties of philosophy. Now the angelic intellect surpasses the human intellect more than the intellect of the cleverest philosopher surpasses that of the most ignorant idiot: becuase this distance is contained within the limits of the human species, which the angelic intellect surpasses. For an angel knows God through a more excellent effect than does man, as much as the angel’s essence, through which he is led to know God by natural knowledge, is more excellent than sensible things, even than the soul itself, by which the human intellect mounts to the knowledge of God. And the divine intellect surpasses the angelic intellect much more than the angelic surpasses the human. For the divine intellect by its capacity equals the divine essence: hence God perfectly understands of himself what he is, and he knows all things that can be understood about him. But the angel does not know what God is by his natural knowledge, because the angel’s essence, by which he is led to the knowledge of God, is an effect unequal to the power of its cause. Consequently, an angel is unable to grasp by his natural knowledge all that God understands about himself, neither is human reason capable of grasping all that an angel understands by his natural power. Accordingly, just as a man would show himself to be a most insane fool if he declared the assertions of a philosopher to be false because he was unable to understand them, much more so would a man would be exceedingly foolish if he were to suspect of falsehood the things revealed by God through the ministry of his angels, because they cannot be the object of reason’s investigations.

Furthermore, the same is made abundantly clear by the deficiency which we experience every day in our knowledge of things. For we are ignorant of many of the properties of sensible things, and in many cases we are unable to discover the nature of those properties which we perceive by our senses. Much less, therefore, is human reason capable of investigating all the truths about that most sublime essence.

This agrees with the saying of the Philosopher, where he says that our intellect is like the eye of a bat in relation to the sun in relation to those primary things which are most evident in nature. (Aristotle, Metaphysics 2.1, 993b8–11; Aristotle actually refers to the eye of an owl.)

To this truth Holy Writ also bears witness. For it is written: can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? (Job 11:7), and: behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge (Job 36:26), and: we know in part (1 Cor 13:9).

Therefore, all that is said about God, though it cannot be investigated by reason, must not be immediately rejected as false, as the Manicheans and many unbelievers have thought. (St. Augustine, De utilitate credendi 1.2; Retractiones 14.1.)

Chapter 3 of 463