REASONS FOR THE FAITH AGAINST MUSLIM OBJECTIONS (and one objection of the Greeks and Armenians) to the

Cantor of Antioch

THERE ARE SOME FRIENDLY COMMENTS ON A WORK ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS. THERE MAY BE SOME FLAWS IN THE COMMENT AND I HOPE THAT THEY MAY BE NEGLECTED AS I MAY ERR IN MY COMMENTS. HOW EVER IF THERE IS ANY FLAW IT CAN ONLY BE ASCRIBED TO THE AUTHER OF THE COMMENTS AND NONE OTHER THAN THE AUTHOR. SOME TYPING MISTAKES ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR. IT IS HOPED THAT IT WILL ASSUME NON THOMIST CHRISTANS RATHER THEN TO ANNOY THEM. EVEN IT MAY MOTIVATE THOMISTS TO THINK AGAIN.
by Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P. translated by Joseph Kenny, O.P.

Foreword Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: How to argue with unbelievers Chapter 3: How generation applies to God Chapter 4: How the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son Chapter 5: The reason for the incarnation of the Son of God Chapter 6: The meaning of "God became man" Chapter 7: The meaning of "The Word of God suffered"
1

Chapter 8: The meaning of "The faithful receive the body of Christ" Chapter 9: How there is a special place where souls are purified before receiving beatitude Chapter 10: That divine predestination does not impose necessity on human acts

FOREWORD This short tract, De rationibus fidei contra Saracenos, Graecos et Armenos ad Cantorem Antiochenum, was written by St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1276) at Orvieto, Italy, in 1264. It follows right on the heels of his longer Summa contra gentiles, completed that same year. We do not know who the Cantor of Antioch was, except that he must have been in charge of music in the cathedral. Perhaps his bishop, the Dominican Christian Elias, referred him to Thomas Aquinas. The questions the Cantor asks must have been the subject of lively discussions in a city where Latin Christians mixed with Eastern Christians and Muslims. The latter work, written at the request of St. Raymond of Peafort to help Dominicans preaching to Muslims and Jews in Spain and North Africa, concentrated on how Christian doctrine could be presented to people who do not accept the authority of the Bible. It said little about Islam directly, since Thomas Aquinas admitted that he knew very little about it (Book I, ch. 2). He therefore concentrated on explaining the Catholic Faith. The present work takes up Muslim objections never mentioned in the Contra gentiles. Thomas' answers use material already discussed in greater detail in that work. The originality of the present work is its concise brevity and its focus on the essential points where the Catholic Faith differs from and transcends Islam. In this work Thomas shows a good grasp of what these differences are: first of all, the Trinity and how God shares his life with us in the Incarnation, then the crucifixion of Jesus and the whole question of human force and power in religion. The objection to the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not a standard Muslim objection, but I have heard it. The final one, on determination, was much discussed in Muslim theology and philosophy; its theoretical and practical implications are greater than most Muslims or Christians realize, but it is very summarily treated here. This work is from the Middle Ages and does not reflect all the nuances of current Catholic teaching regarding Islam. An instance of this is the use of the term "unbelievers" which Thomas uses of Muslims. The Church today calls them believers, although they do not believe in all that Christians believe. In this translation, from the Marietti 1954 edition of the Opuscula theologica, I have given priority to clear plain English rather than literal fidelity. Yet I could not but retain some philosophical vocabulary, such as "substance", "accident", "hypostasis" and "predication". Chapter 1: Introduction

Blessed Peter the Apostle received a promise from the Lord that on his confession of faith the Church would be founded and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. That the faith of the Church entrusted to him would hold out inviolate against these gates of Hell, he address the faithful of Christ (1 Pet 3:15): "Proclaim the Lord Christ holy in your hearts," that is, by firmness of faith. With this foundation established in our hearts we can be safe against any attacks or ridicule of unbelievers against our Faith. Therefore Peter adds: "Always have your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you have." The Christian faith principally consists in acknowledging the holy Trinity, and it specially glories in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. For "the message of the cross", says Paul (1 Cor 1:18), "is folly for those who are on the way to ruin, but for those of us who are on the road to salvation it is the power of God." Our hope is directed to two things: (1) what we look forward to after death, and (2) the help of God which carries us through this life to future happiness merited by works done by free will. The following are the things you say the Muslims attack and ridicule: They ridicule the fact that we say Christ is the Son of God, when God has no wife (Qur'n 6:110; 72:3); and they think we are insane for professing three persons in God, even though we do not mean by this three gods.
[1. THE WORD SON IS CCNNECTED WITH A FATHER ,A MOTHER ,ANS A MAIL OFFSPRING. TO SAY A SON WITH OUT A MOTHER IS JUST LIKE TO SAY A SON WITH OUT A FATHER. RAITHER A SON CEASES TO BE A SON WITH OUT A MOTHER EVEN MORE THAN A SON CEASES TO BE A SON WITH OUT A FATHER IN TRINITICALDOGMANS. 2. GOD ACCORDING TO ATHANASIAN DOGMAS IS A TRINITY. THAT MAY BE EXPRESSED AS FOLLOW:_ a} THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL BEING. b} THIS BEING HAS ONLY ONE ESSENCE \ OUSIA. [AN ESSENCE \OUSIA IS A PER SE SUBSISTENT NATURE] c}THERE ARE THREE MUTUALLY DISTINCT HYPOSTASES IN THE ESSENCE \OUSIA OF THE BEING. d}THESE HYPOSTASES ARE INCOMMUNICABLE TO EACH OTHER. E}THE ESSENCE \OUSIA IS COMMUNICABLE TO EACH OF THE HYPOSTASES AND IS NOT DISTINCT FROM ANY ONE OF THE HYPOSTASES. THOMAS KNEW BETTER THEN OTHERS ABOUT THE DELICACIES OF INTER STRUCTURE OF GOD. SO IT IS NO THING BUT:A] THERE IS ONLY ONE BEING GOD B] THERE IS ONLY ONE OUSIAL GOD \ SUBSTANCIAL GOD / NATURAL GOD. C] THERE ARE THREE HYPOSTATIC GODS. D]THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD THE TRINITY OR TRIUNE GOD.

SINCE := BEING OF GOD IS GOD OUSIA \ ESSENCE \ PERSE SUBSISTENT NATURE OF GOD IS GOD EACH HYPOSTASIS OF GOD ID GOD THE ENTIRETY OF ESSENCE\OUSIA\ PERSE SUBSISTENT NATURE,BEING, HYPOSTASES IS A TRUNE BEING AND IS GOD. AT LEAST THERE ARE FIVE GODS OR THEY ARE IMLIED.

They also ridicule our saying that Christ the Son of God was crucified for the salvation of the human race (Qur'n 4:157-8), for if almighty God could save the human race without the Son's suffering he could also make man so that he could not sin.
IF GOD IS OMNIPOTENT THEN GOD CAN SAVE ALL THE RACES WITH OUT ANY SUFFERING SON IF HE HAS ANY. GOD CAN MAKE A HUMAN BEING WITH CAN NOT SIN OR DISLIKE SIN SO MUCH THAT IT NEVER SIN. THE WORD SIN MEANS ANY ACT AGAINST WHICH GOD DOES NOT LIKE. HOW EVER ANY OTHER MEANING IS TAKEN THE RESULT IS THE SAME. GOD DOES HAS POWER. NOT JUST POWER BUT OMNIPOTENCE.

They also hold against Christians their claim to eat God on the altar, and that if the body of Christ were even as big as a mountain, by now it should have been eaten up.
EVEN A NUMBER OF REFORMISTS NOW DO NOT BELIEVE IN EUCHRISTIC REAL PRESENCE. TRASUBSTANTIALITY IS DISBELIEVED DUE TO ITS IMPOSSIBLILITY.

On the state of souls after death, you say that the Greeks and Armenians hold the error that souls after death are neither punished nor rewarded until the day of judgement, but are in some waiting room, since they can receive no punishment or reward without the body. To back up their error they quote the Lord in the Gospel (Jn 14:2): "In my Father's house there are many places to live in."
NOT ALL THE MUSLIMS SAYS THIS. EVEN ORHTHODOX SUNNIS DO NOT SAY THAT OMNISCIENCE IS AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF WILL. THE VERSE OF GOSPEL QUOTATED ABOVE MAY BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE , AND NOT ACCORDING TO ITS LITERAL MEANING.

Concerning merit, which depends on free will, you assert that the Muslims and other nations hold that God's fore-knowledge or decree imposes necessity on human actions; thus they say that man cannot die or even sin unless God decrees this, and that every person has his
destiny written on his forehead. NOT ALL THE MUSLIMS SAYS THIS. EVEN ORHTHODOX SUNNIS DO NOT SAY THAT OMNISCIENCE IS AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF WILL.

On these questions you ask for moral and philosophical reasons which the Muslims can accept. For it would be useless to quote passages of Scripture against those who do not accept this authority.
THIS IS A CORRECT STATEMENT ASCRIBED TO THOMAS ,CORRECT IN REGARD TO MEANING THOUTH ONE MAY DOUBT ITS ASCIPTION TO RESPECTED THOMAS. QUOTING A VERSE FROM ARABIC SCRIPTURES SAY QURAN OR BUKHARI IS USELESS AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY. SIMILARLY QUOTING FROM APOCRYPHA OF CATHOLIC CANON IS USELESS AGAINST THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY.

I wish to satisfy your request, which seems to arise from pious desire, so that you may be prepared with apostolic doctrine to satisfy anyone who asks you for an explanation. On these questions I will make some explanations as easy as the subjects allow, since I have written more amply about them elsewhere [in the Summa contra gentiles].
RESPECTED THOMAS HAS A RIGHT TO EXPLAIN, BUT IF IT IS PROVED THAT THIS WORK IS EXACTLY AS IT IS AS WRITTEN BY RESPECTED THOMAS.

Chapter 2: How to argue with unbelievers

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT MUSLIMS ARE BELIEVERS . THEY ARE NEITHER DISBELIEVERS NOR UNBELIEVERS.

First of all I wish to warn you that in disputations with unbelievers about articles of the Faith, you should not try to prove the Faith by necessary reasons. This would belittle the sublimity of the Faith, whose truth exceeds not only human minds but also those of angels; we
believe in them only because they are revealed by God. RESPECTED THOMAS HAS SAID IN CORRECT IN MEANING IF THIS IS CORRECT TO ASCRIBE IT TO RESPECTED THOMAS. AN ORHTODOX OPENION AMONG MUSLIMS IS THE VERY SAME.

Yet whatever come from the Supreme Truth cannot be false, and what is not false cannot be repudiated by any necessary reason. Just as our Faith cannot be proved by necessary reasons, because it exceeds the human mind, so because of its truth it cannot be refuted by any necessary reason. So any Christian disputing about the articles of the Faith should not try to prove the Faith, but defend the Faith. ORTHODOX MUSLIM OPENION IS THE SAME. SO IT IS NOT TO BE DISPUTED.HOW RVER THIS IS THVERSION OF ATHANASIAN TRINITY. A GOOD NUMBER OF CHRISTIANS CHALLENGE THESE
ARTICLES OF ATHANASIAN FAITH ON THE GROUNDS OF HEBRAIC AND GREEK SCRIPTURES.

Thus blessed Peter (1 Pet 3:15) did not say: "Always have your proof", but "your answer ready," so that reason can show that what the Catholic Faith holds is not false.

UNCOMMENTED.

Chapter 3: How generation applies to God First of all we must observe that Muslims are silly in ridiculing us for holding that Christ is the Son of the living God, as if God had a wife. Since they are carnal, they can think only of what is flesh and blood. For any wise man can observe that the mode of generation is not the same for everything, but generation applies to each thing according to the special manner of its nature. In animals it is by copulation of male and female; in plants it is by pollination or generation, and in other things in other ways. IT MAY BE AN INTERPOLATION SINCE A PERSON LIKE THOMAS CAN NOT USE SUCH A WORD <<SILLY>>.A PRPPER RESPONSE I S GIVEN BELOW:-

God, however, is not of a fleshly nature, requiring a woman to copulate with to generate offspring, but he is of a spiritual or intellectual nature, much higher than every intellectual nature. So generation should be understood of God as it applies to an intellectual nature. Even though our own intellect falls far short of the divine intellect, we still have to speak of the divine intellect by comparing it with what we find in our own intellect.
THE TERMS LIKE SON,DAUGHTER, FATHER MOTHER ARE RELATIVE TERMS. A <<BOY>> DOES NOT IMPLY A FATHER BUT A <<SON>> DOES SINCE THE FORMER TERM IS NOT A RELATIVE TERM BUT THE LATTER IS A REALTIVE TERM. Even in trinitical dogmas the tern son is a relative term and the term father is also equally relative. THUS THERE IS NO CARNAL OR ORPOREAL CONCEPT INVOLVED. IF THER IS NO SON WITH OUT FATHER ( EVEN IN TRINITICAL DOGMAS) THEN ( BY SIMILARITY) THERE IS / CAN BE NO SON WITH OUT MOTHER.
IT IS VERY STRANGE TO SEE THAT RESPECTED THOMAS IS ARGUEING AS SUCH, WHICH MAKES THR TEXT S AUTHENTICITY AS DOUBTFUL , WHETHER IT IS A MANUPOLATION OR INTERPOLATION OR THIS PORTION IS INVENTED AND INSERTED BY SOME UNKNOWN PERSON.

IF THE RELATION OF FATHER AND SON DOES NOT IMPLIES ANY CARNALITY OR CORPOREALITY , THE RELATIONOF SON AND MOTHER ALSO DOES NOT IMPLY CARNALITY AND CORPOREALITY. THE TERM SON INVOLVES THREE RELATIONS EVEN IF THE CONCEPTS OF CORPOREALITY AND CARNALITY ARE DROPPED FROM THIS TERM. THE CONCEPT OF NON CARNAL MOTHER IS FAR MOR NECESSARY THEN THE CONCEPT OF NON CARNAL FATHER EVEN IN GODHEAD IF THE TERM IS PURIFIED FROM CORPOREALITY AND CARNALITY.

Our intellect understands sometimes potentially, sometimes actually.

THIS IS CORRECT AND THERE IS NO THING WRONG IN THIS STATEMENT ASCRIBED TO THOMAS.

Whenever it actually understands, it forms something intelligible, a kind of offspring, which is called a concept, something conceived by the mind.
THIS CLAIM IS INCORRECT .EVEN IF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CORRECT THEN IT CAN NOT BE ANALOGED TO THE DIVINE CASE. ACTUALLY THESE SENTENCES ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS MEANS WHEN HUMAN INTELLECT UNDER STANDS A POTENTIALITY OR AN ACTUALITY IT MAKES A THING TO PROCEED FROMIT WICH IS THE CONCEPT OR IDEA. BUT IF IT IS SO THEN THIS MEANS THAT THE SECOND HYPOSTASIS DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANY THING SINCE THERE IS NO SON OF SON, NO LOGOS OF LOGOS.

This is signified by an audible voice, so that as the audible voice is called the exterior word, the interior concept of the mind signified by the exterior audible word is called the word of the intellect or mind. A concept of our mind is not the very essence of our mind, but something accidental to it, because even our act of understanding is not the very being of our intellect; otherwise our intellect would have to be always in act.
THIS IS AN INCORRECT ANALOGY. IF THERE IS A CONCEPT IN MIND THEN IT MUST BE AN ATTRIBUTE OR A QUALITY. AT BEST A SECONDARY ATTRIBUTE OR A QUALITY. IT CAN NOT BE A HYPOSTASIS OR A HYPOSTATIC PERSON WHICH IS PER SE SUBSISTENT. NO CONCEPT IS PER SE SUBSISTENT . IF IT IS ASSUMED TO BE PERSE SUBSISTENT THEN THE ANALOGY BECOME WEAK AND IN ACTUAL INVALID. SINCE THE HUMAN IDEA IS NOT PERSE SUBSISTENT. IF THERE IS A DIVINE IDEA OR CONCEPT WHICH IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE \QUALITY BUT A PER SE SUBSISTENT HYPOSTATIC PERSON THEN THE VERY SAME ANALOGY IS INCORRECT. THE LAW THAT ANY THING IN THE BEING OF GOD IS PARSE SUBSISTENT IS FALSIFIED IF THIS ARGUMENT OF ANALOGY IS CURRECT.

A DETAIL DISCUSSION IS GIVEN AT THE END OF THID SECTION SEE IT THERE.PELEASE

So the word of our intellect can be likened to a concept or offspring,

THIS IS A WEAK LIKNESS. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE OFSPRING IN IT. BUT IF IT IS SO THEN IT IS MORE CLOSE TO THE CONCEPT OF CONCEPTION RATHER THAN THE CONCEPT OF BEGETTING. SINCE IN THE ACRT OF BEGETTING THE BEGETTER IS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVES WHILE ONE WHO CONCIEVES IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE CONCIEVED ONE.

especially when the intellect understands itself and the concept is a likeness of the intellect coming from its intellectual power, just as a son has a likeness to his father, from whose generative power he comes forth.THIS SPECIAL CASE DOES NOT EXIST ATLEAST IN THE DIVINE CASE. FURTHER
CONCEPT IS NO THING BUT A SECONDARY ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY. EITHER THIS QUALITY IS HELD IN DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OUSIA OR NOT. BUT IT CAN NOT BE A HYPOSTASIS OR A HYPOSTATIC PERSON.

The word of our intellect is not properly an offspring or son, because it is not of the same nature as our intellect.

THIS CONFESSION INVALIDATE THE ANALOGY IT SELF. EVEN IN THE SUPPOSED CAE THE NATURE IS NOTHING BUT PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE OR OUSIA. THOMAS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORLD SUBSTANCE CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO GOD IN PROPER SENSE OR MEANING. SO HE WAS IN A SENSE WAS DENOUNCER OF HOMOOUSIA SINCE NO SUBSTANCE [ OUSIA] IMPLIES NO HOMOOUSIA. SO HOW CAN ONE ANALOGUE FROM SUBSTANCE TO SOME THING WHICH IS NOT A SUBSTANCE IN PROPER MEANING \ SENSE.

Not everything that comes forth from another, even if it is similar to its source, is called a son; otherwise a painted picture of someone would be a son. To be a son, it is required that the one coming forth from the other must not only resemble its source but also be of the same nature with it.
THESE CONDITIONS ARE ACCEPTED IN THE SENTENCES ASCRIBED TO THOMAS. FIRST LET THESE CONDITIONS BE DROPPED FOR SKE OF AN ARGUMENT . THEN EVERY THING CAN BE CALLED A SON. SECOND LET IMPOSES SOME MORE CONDITIONS THEY THE CONDITION OF THREE RELATIONS MENSIONED ABOVE THEN IT CAN NOT BE CALLED A SON. RESPECTED THOMAS IF REALLY SAID THESE WORD THEN IT IS NOT NECEESARY TO ACCEPT THE CONDITION WHICH HE SUPPOSINGLY ACCEPTS. AND NOT TO ACCEPT WHICH HE DID NOT ACCEPT. ONE MAY DO OTHER WISE AS WELL. FIRHTER ACT OF BEGETTING IS AN INDIRECT ACT AND ACT OF CONCEPTION IS A DIRECT ACT. THE ANALOGY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE STRONG IF THE ACT OF CONCEPTION WAS ANALOGED.

FURTHER THE WORD NATURE IS PROBLEMATIC SINCE IN THE DIVINE CASE IT IS NOT JUST NATURE BUT PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OUSIA. AN OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT A OFFSPRING OR BEGTTEN ONE IN THE HUMAN CASE IS AN ESSENCE OR A OUSIA AND THIS IS NOT SO IN THE ALLEGES \SO CALLED DIVINE CASE. SO THIS ANALOGY IS PURELY IN CORRECT.

IF RESPECTED THOMAS IS TALKING ABOUT HUMANS THEN THE ONE WHO\WHICH IS BEGOTTEN IS A DIFFERENT ESSENCE AND THE ONE WHO DOES BEGET IS A DIFFERENT ESSENCE. IF RESPECTED THOMAS IS TALKING ABOUT GOD IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONE WHO IS BEGOTTEN AND THE ONE WHO DOES BEGET ARE ONE IN PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE.\ OUSIA.

But in God understanding is not different from his being. DIFFERENCE OR NON-DIFFERENCE DOES NOT
MAKE IT A HYPOSTASIS. IT IS VERY STRANGE TO SEE THAT THE VERY ATTRIBUTE IS OF INTELLECT IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS BUT AN ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE IS A HYPOSTASIS. FURTHER AN OTHER WEAKNESS IN THE ANALOGY IS THAT THE ACT OF BEGETTING OR CONCEPTION ARE NOT IMMENANT ACTS WHILE IN THIS CASE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN IMMENANT ACT. THIS THING FURTHER WEAKENS THE ANALOGY. IN FACT REPECTED ARIAN USED THIS ARGUMENT TO PROVE THAT SON\LOGOS HAS A BEGENING. HIS ANALOGY WAS FAR MORE POWERFUL IN THIS REGARD. BUT WAS REJECTED IN COUNCILS OF NICAEA.

AN OTHER WEAKNESS IN THIS ANALOGY IS THAT IN HUMAN BEINGS UNDERSTANDING IS NOT THE BEING OF THE HUMAN BEING. IF THIS UNDERSTANDING IS THE BEING OF GOD THEN THE ANALOGY IS FURTHER WEAKENED. ANY HOW IF UNDERSTANDING IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE BEING THEN IT IS AN ATTRIBUTE OR AN ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE AND IN ANY CASE ITS HYPOSTASY IS NOT IMPLIED. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT NONE OF THE REST OF ATTRIBUTES OF GOD ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE BEING OF GOD\ DEITY WHETHER THEY ARE ABSOLUTE ATTRIBUTESAS|QUALITIES OR RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF SPECIAL TYPES\KINDS SAY OMNIPOTENCE,OMNISCIENCE,OMNI-WILL THE ATTRIBUTE\ QUALITY OF ABILITY TO SAY, THE ATTRIBUTE OF ABILITY OF SEEING ETC.

Consequently the word which is conceived in his intellect is not something accidental to him or alien from his nature but, by the very fact that it is a word, it must be coming forth from another and must be a likeness of its source. All this is true even of our own word.

ALL THE CONSEQUENCES ARE BASED ON WEAK ANLOGIES ,THERE FOR ONE MUST NOT CONSIDER THEM AS CONSEQIENCES WITH CERTAINITY AND CERTITUDE. IT IS MAY BE CORRECT THAT WORD CONCIEVED IS MORE CLOSE TO ACT OF CONCEPTION RATHER THAN THE ACT OF BEGETTING. THE WORD \LOGOS IS NOT IN LIKENESS TO THE ALLEGED SOURCE. 1] IT IS NOT UNISSUED, WHILE THE ALLGED SOURE IS ISSUED. 2]ITS INTELLECT DOES NOT IMPLY AN OTHER TERM WHICH IS IMPLIED BY ITS ALLEGED SOURCE.

But besides this, the Word of God is not an accident or a part of God, who is simple, nor something extrinsic to the divine nature, but is something complete, subsisting in the divine nature and coming forth from another, as any word must be.WORD OF HUMAN BEINGS ARE ACCIDENTS .
THUS ONCE AGAIN A DIS-SIMILARITY IS FOUND. IT IS MENSIONED ABOVE THAT IF THIS ANALOGY IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT THEN THE LAW THAT ANY THING IN GOD IS SUBSISTENT BECOMES INCORECT. THE PART OF THE SENTENCE ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS

, as any word must be

ACCEPTS THAT THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS WHICH CAN NOT BE DROPPED FROM THE MEANING OF THE WORD. one may dispute and deney them.

In our human way of talking, this is called a son, because it comes forth from another in its likeness and subsists in the same nature with it.
TO CALL A WORD AS A SON IS JUST A METAPHOR OR A FIGURE. IT CAN NOT BE IN THEREAL SENCE. IT IS JUST THE VERTUAL SENSE OR MEANING. CALLING A WORD AS A SON IN VERTUAL MEANING CAN NOT MAKE THE WORD A SON IN THE REAL MEANING. IN HUMAN WAY OF TALKING THIS CANNOT BE CALLED A SON , SINCE IT IS A DIFFERENT ESSENCE . ESSENCE OF SON IS DISTINCT FROM THE ESSENCE OF FATHER OTHER WISE FATHER AND SON MUST BE TWO HYPOSTASIS IN A SINGLE ESSENCE. THIS IS NOT TRUE ATLEAST IN THE HUMAN CASE .

THERE FORE IN THE HUMAN CASE OF TALKING IT CAN NOT BE CALLED A SON. THE ANALOGY UPON WHICH THIS EXPLANATION IS BASED IS WEAK .

Therefore, as far as divine things can be represented by human words, we call the Word of the divine intellect the Son of God, while God, whose Word he is, we call the Father.
THIS TYPE OF REPRESENTATION IS A WEAK REPRESENTATION. THE WORD CAN NOT BE CALLED A SON , AND IF IT IS CALLED IT CAN NOT BE CALLED IN THE REAL MEANING KNOWN TO THE SPEAKERS OF A LANGUAGE SAY GREEK. THAT IS WHY FROM IESOUS TO AUGUTINE NO ONE KNEW THESE MEANINGS. IT WAS AUGUSTINE WHO INVENTED THESE MEANINGS . GREEK ORTHODOX DID NOT USE THE MEANINGS INVENTED BY AUGUSTINE, AND EVEN DO NOT AGRREE WITH AUGUSTINE EVEN NOW. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT AUGUSTINE IS NOT THE SOLE REPRESENTATIVE OF ATHNASIAN CHRISTIANITY , GREEK ORTHODOX HVE THERE OWN VERSION OF REPRESENTATION. ANY HOW SPEAKER OR UTTERER OR SAYER OF A WORD CAN NOT BE CALLED THE FATHER OF THE WORD.

AN OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT NOT ONLY MALE HUMAN BEINGS SPEAK,SAY AND UTTER WORDS BUT FEMALE HUMAN BEINGS ALSO SPEAK,UTTERAND SAY WORDS. IF A SPEAKER/SAYER\UTTERER OF A WORD IS CALLED A FATHER OF THE WORD IN HUMAN CASES THE EVEN A FEMALE HUMAN BEING CAN BE CLLED A FATHER OF HER SPOKEN\SSAID\ UTTERED WORD. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR SUCH A CLAIM. THAT IS THE REASON IT CAN NOT BE SAID EVEN IN DIVINE CASE AS A MATTER OF AN ANALOGY. IT IS JUST AN AUGUSTINIAN INVENTED MEANING\SENSE WHICH IS BORROWED IN THE ABOVE SENTENCES,ALLGEDLY ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS.

We say that the coming forth of the Word is an immaterial generation of a son, not a carnal one, as carnal men surmise.

DROPPING THE CONDITION OF MATTERIALITY , ONE GET RID OF MATTER , MATTERIALITISM, CORPOREALITY AND CARNALITY. BUT THREE RELATIONS REMAINS AND ARE CONCERVED. RATHER THESE THREE RELATIONS BECOME IMMATERIAL ,NON CORPOREAL ANDNON- CARNAL RELATIONS. IT IS STRANGE TO SE THAT TO ACCEPT THE NECESSARY RELATION IS CARNALISM\CARPOREALISMAND MATTERILISM AND TO ACCEPT THE REST OF THE TWO RELATIONS IS NONE OF THEM. IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT THE ALLEGED PORTION OF THE WORK ASCRIBED TO REPECTED THOMAS ACCUSE OTHERS AS INCARNALS AND DOES NOT ACCEPT ATHANASIANS AS INCARNALS WHO BELIEVE IN INCARNATION.

There is another way that this generation of the Son of God surpasses every human generation, whether material, as when one man is born from another, or intelligible, as when a word is brought forth in the human mind. In either of these cases what is born is younger than its source. A father does not generate as soon as he begins to exist, but he must first mature.
THIS SUPASSING MENTIONED IN THE TEXT ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS DOES ACCEPT THAT UPTIL NOW ALL THE ANALOGIES AND SIMILARITIES ARE WEAK AND UNACCEPTABLE. AS A FATHER DOES NOT GENERATEA SON AS SOON AS HE BEGEINS TO EXIST ,THIS MEANS THAT IF THERE IS NO ANALOGY B\W A FATHER AND A UTTERER \SPEAKER\SAYER\PRCCEDER\ISSUER OF AN ETERNAL WORD [IF IT IS SUPPOESED THAT THERE IS ANY FOR THE SKE OF AN ARGUMENT]

Even the act of generation takes time before a son is born, because carnal generation is a matter of stages.
IF THERE IS A BEYOND CARNAL GENERATION IT MUST ALSO BE NOT TEMPORAL LIKE ALL DIVINE ACTS AND DOINGS. OTHER WISE IT IS NOT A GENERATION. A CAUSATION IS A BETTER WORD FOR THAT.

Likewise the human intellect is not ready to form intelligible concepts as soon as a man is born, but when he matures.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORDS\ATTRIBUTES\QUALITIES WHICH ARE FOUND IN HUMANS AND AS WELL AS IN GOD, AND THERE ARE WORDS\ATTRIBUTES\QUALITIES WHICH ARE FOUND IN HUMAN BUT NOT IN GOD. THE FORMER ARE CALLED COMMUNICABLE ATTRRIBUTES\QUALITIES AND LATTER ARE CALLED INCOMMUNICABLE QUALITIES\QUALITIES OF CREATED BEINGS.THE QUALITIES \ ATTRIBUTES FOUND IN GOD AND NOT IN CREATED BEINGS ARE CALLED DIVINE INCOMMUNICABLE QUALITIES.

So he does not always actually understand, but after potentially understanding he actually understands and again stops actually understanding and remains understanding only in potency or with habitual knowledge. So a human word is younger than a man and sometimes stops existing before the man.
WORDS OF CREATED BEINGS ARE NOT THE ATTRIBUTES OF GODS BUT ACTS OF GOD. BUT IF IT IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD THEN IT IS ETERNAL IN THE CASE OF ABSOLUTE ATTRIBUTES\QUALITES OR IN THE SPECIAL CASES OF RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES. BUT IT CAN NOT BE MADE A GENERAL RULE WHEN INFERING FROM AN ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF A CREATED BEING TO THE HIGHER ATTRIBUTE OF SAME KIND OF GOD

10

{{{{ MORE DISCUSSION SHALL BE AT THE END OF THIS SECTION}}}}.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

But these two limitations cannot apply to God, who has no imperfection or change, or going from potency to act, since he is pure and first act. The Word of God, therefore, is coeternal with God.
THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS ONE IS BIBLICAL AND OTHER IS RATIONAL. FIRST:

IN THE VERY BEGENING OF GENISIS WE FIND GOD DAYING LET THERE BE LIGHT. THIS IS A SUFFICIENT PROO THAT NOT ONLY GOD SPEAKS\SAYS BUT EACH AND EVRY WORD OF THE DIVINE SENTENCE IS A WORD OF GOD .

BUT THEY ARE NOT ETERNAL.

SECOND: THESE WORDS ARE NOT IMMENANT ACTS OF INTELLECT OTHER WISE DIVINE INTELLECT WOULD BE WITH OUT WORDS IN ETERNITY IMPLYING NO ETERNAL INTELLECT. THIS MEANS THAT THESE ACTS OF INTELLECT ARE NOT ONLY VOLUNTARY BUT ALSO NOT IMMENANT. THEY DO EMANATE NOT IMMENANTLY AS AS ACCORDING TO DIVINE WILL.

Another difference of our word from the divine is that our intellect does not simultaneously understand everything, or with one act, but by many different acts; therefore the words of our intellect are many. But God understands everything simultaneously by one single act, because his understanding must be one, since it is his very being. It follows therefore that in God there is only one word. THIS OBJECTION IS MADE ON THE INCORRECT ANALOGY AS WELL AS A CONFUSION
B/W AN ATTRIBUTE \A QUALITY AND AN ACT \A DOING .DIVINE KNOWLIDGE IS OMNISCIENCE ,INFINITE AND ABSOLUTE. GOD KNOWS BY THE VERY SELF OF THIS ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF KNOWLIDGE. THERE IS NO ACT OF THIS KNOWLIDGE. IF IT IS SUPPOSED THAT THERE IS SUCH AN ACT THEN THIS ACT IS EITHER THE VERY SELF OF DIVINE KNOWLIDGE \OMNISCIENCE OR SOME THING WHICH IS NOT THAT KNOWLIDGE\OMNISCIENCE. IN THE FIRST CASE THERE IS NO ACT BUT SELF OF THE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY, AND NOTHING ELSE. IN THE OTHER CASE. IN THE NEXT CASE THERE MUST BE AN OTHER ACT TO ACTUALIZE AND ACTIVATE THIS ACT. IF GOD UNDERSTAND EVERY THING FROM A SINGLE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY THEN EITHER THIS ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY IS THE UNDERSTANDING ITSELF OR IT IS AN OTHER ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OR ACT\DOING.IN THE FIST CASE DIVINE KNOWLIDGE AND DIVINE UNDERSTANDING ARE TWO DIVINE ATTRIBUTES\QUALITIES. IS SO THEN AS THE DIVINE KNOWLIDGE IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS, THE OTHER ATTRIBUTE IS ALSO NOT A HYPOSTASIS. OTHER WISE THERE MUST NECESSARY BE MORE THAN THREE HYPOSTASIS IH DIVINE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSNCE.

There is yet another difference: The word of our intellect does not measure up to the power of our intellect, because when we mentally conceive one thing we can still conceive many other things; thus the word of our intellect is imperfect and can be composed, when several imperfect notions are put together to form a more perfect word, as happens in the process of formulating a definition. But the divine Word measures up to the power of God, because

11

by his essence he understands himself and everything else. So the Word he conceives by his essence, when he understands himself and everything else, is as great as his essence. It is therefore perfect, simple and equal to God.{ WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE B/W GOD AND EQUAL TO GOD????} We call this Word of God a Son, as said above, because he is of the same nature with the Father, and we profess that he is co-eternal with the Father, only-begotten and perfect. A DETAIL DISCUSSION ON THE WHOLE PROBLEM. ANAYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS ALLEGELY ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS.
ACCORDING TO THIS PORTION OF WORK WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS, IT APPEARS THAT:_ 1] BEGETTING AND INTELLECT ARE NOT IMMENANT IN HUMAN BEINGS DUE TO LIMITATIONS AND IMPERFECTIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS. 2] EACH ONE OF THEM CAN NOT EXIST WITH OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GRAMMATICAL\MORPHOLOGICALPASSIVE PARTICIPLE, EG BELOVED AND IDEA OF INTELLECT. 3] IN THE CASE OF GOD\DEITY NOT ONLY THESE TWO ACTS/ATTRIBUTES ARE ETERNAL AND IMMENANT BUT THEIR GRAMMATICAL \ MORPHOLOGICAL PASSIVE PARTICIPLES ARE ALSO ETERANAL AND IMMENANT. 4] THIS IS DUE TO THE PERFECTION AND LIMITLESS-NESS OF DIVINE BEING\GOD\DEITY. RESPECTED THOMAS HAS NEGLECTED A NUMBER OF ISSUES WHICH ARE CONCERNED AND WHICH ARE IN CONCERN TO BE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES \QUALITIES.

Chapter 4: How the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son We must also observe that every act of knowledge is followed by an act of the appetite.
[ THIS MEANS THAT THERE ARE 4 THINGS a) ATTRIBUTE \QUALITY KNOWLIDGE b) ACT OF KNOWLIDGE c) APPETITE. d) ACT OF APPETITLE. THE BASIC QUESTION IS << IS THIS DIVINE APPETITE AN ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF GOD\DEITY AND IF SO THEN WHAT IS THE KIND OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY] Of

all appetitive acts love is the principle. [ THIS SHEWS THAT LOVE IS AN ACT OF THE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF APPETITE OF GOD\DEITY
, IF SO THEN IT IS POSTERIOR TO THE ATTRIBUTE OF APPETITE OF GOD \DEITY, WHICH IS ALSO THE PROGENETOR

Without it there is no joy at gaining something one does not love, or sadness at missing something one does not love - that is, if love is taken away; likewise all other appetitive acts would go, since they are all somehow related to sadness and joy. Therefore, since God has perfect knowledge, he must also have perfect love, which arises as the expression of an appetitive act, as a word arises as the expression of an intellective act.[ IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT DIVINE KNOWLOWDGE SOME HOW IMPLICATES DIVINE LOVE. IF IS IS SO
OF THIS ACT OF LOVE] EVEN THEN OMNISCIENCE,CONSCIENCE,LOVE,WILL ALL ARE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. THE TERM OF AN ATTRIBUTE IS NO THING BUT AN ATTRIBUTE. IF EACH AND EVERY ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF GOD\DEITY HAS A TERM THEN THE NUMBERS OF TERMS GOES FAR BEYOUND THE NUMBER THREE ]

But there is a difference between an intellectual and an appetitive act.[BUT THERE IS ALSO A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ATTRIBUTE\AQUALITY AND AN ACT\ A DOING]. For an intellectual act and any other act of knowledge takes place by the knowable thing somehow existing in the knowing power, namely, sensible things in the sense and intelligible things in the intellect.

12

[THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BUT IN REAL AN ACT OF AN ATTRIBUTE IS AN ATTRIBUTE AT BEST LAZIM OF LAZIM
AND NOT AT BEST AN OTHER ATTRIBUTE. BUT KNOWLIDGE IS A SPECIAL CASE AND KNOWABLE THINGS MAY BE NON EXISTENCES SINCE GOD\DEITY DOES KNOW IMPOSSIBILITIES AND POSSIBILITIES . SO A KOWABLE THING IS

But an appetitive act takes place by an orientation and movement of the appetitive power to the things exposed to the appetite. Things that have a hidden source of their motion are called spirits. For instance, winds are called spirits because their origin is not apparent. Likewise breath, which is a motion from an intrinsic source, is called spirit. So, as divine things are expressed in human terms, the very love coming from God is called a spirit.
ACTUALLY A GRAMMATICAL THING WHICH IS EITHER AN EXISTENT OR A NON EXISTENNT. ]

But in us love comes from two different sources[ LOVE IN THE CASE OF GOD IS AN ATTRIBUTE] Sometimes it comes from a bodily and material principle, which is impure love, since it disturbs the purity of the mind. Sometimes it comes from the a pure spiritual principle, as when we love intelligible goods and what is in accord with reason; this is pure love. God cannot have a material love [ BUT THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT LOVE OF GOD IS A HYPOSTASIS]. Therefore we fittingly call his love not simply Spirit, but the Holy Spirit, since holiness refers to his purity.[LOVE IS AN ATTRIBUTE AMONG SEVERAL ATTRIBUTES
OF GOD. IF ANY ONE OF REQUIRES A SPIRIT\PNEUMA THEN THE SAME IS TRUE FOR EACH AND EVERY ATTRIBUTE OF GOD. SECOND LOVE IS AN ATTRIBUTE BUT TO CLAIM THAT THIS ATTRIBUTE IS A HYPOSTASIS IS THE PROBLEMATIC ISSUE. IF SIME ONE LIKES TO CALL SOME OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AS SPIRITS HE OR SHE MAY CALL IT BUT CALLING ATTRIBUTES\QUALITIES AS A SPIRIT S IS ONE THING AND TO BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE HYPOSTASES IN ANOTHER THING]

It is clear that we cannot love anything with an intelligible and holy love unless we conceive it through an act of the intellect.[ THIS IS TRUE FOR ALL THE ATTRIBUTES AND RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES] The conception of the intellect is a word; so love must arise from a word.[ IF SO
THEN LOGOS\WORD IS AN ATTRIBUTE AND NOT A HYPOSTASIS. IT IS VERY STRANGE TO CLAIM THAT THE VERY ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS AND ONE THAT IS PROCCEDED FROM THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE BUT A HYPOSTASIS. AT LEAST IT IS AN OTHER ATTRIBUTE OF GOD\DEILTY AND ATMOST IT IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD. IF SOME ONE LIKES TO CALL THIS ATTRIBUTE OF ATTRIBUTE AS AN ACT OF ATTRIBUTE HE \/ SHE MAY CALL IT SO BUT EVEN THEN IT IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS AS THE ORIGINAL ATTRIBUTE IS ALSO NOT A HYPOSTASIS].We

call the Word of God the Son; so it is clear that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son. Just as God's act of knowledge is his very being, so also is his act of loving.[ IF DIVINE ACT OF KNOWLIDGE IS AN ATTRIBUTE LIKE KNOWLIDGE THEN
NEITHER OF THEM IS A HYPOSTASIS , IF THIS ACT IS NOT A ATTRIBUTE EVEN THEN ACT OF AN ATTRIBUTE IS ALWAYS LESS THAN THE ATTRIBUTE. SO IF THE ATTRIBUTE IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS THEN ITS ACTS IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS.BUT THERE ARE INFINITE ATTRIBUTESOF GOD. IF OMNISCIENCE AND INTELLECT ARE JUST TWO NAMES OF ONE AND SAME ATTRIBUTE EVEN THEN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER KNOWN DIVINE ATTRIBUTES\QUALITIES. DOES EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE HAS A HYPOSTATIC TERM? IF THE ARE TWO DISTINGUISED ATTRIBUTE JUST LIKE INTEELECT AND LOVE THEN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE HUST HAVE A TERM. SO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ISSUED HYPOSTATIC TERMS GOES TO THREE,IN ADDITION TO THE UNISSUED

And just as God is always actually understanding, so also he is always actually loving himself and everything else by loving his own goodness.IF GOD\DEITY LOVES HIMSELF THEN THE LOVER AND THE BELOVED ARE ONE AND THE
HYPOSTASIS. THUS AT LEAST FOUR HYPOSTATIC TERMS] SAME THING . IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE LIVER IS A DISTNCT HYPOSTASIS AND THE BELOVED IS THE DISTINCT HYPOSTAIS. THIS IS JUST LIKE GOD SEES HIMSELF. THIS DOES NOT MEANS THAT THE SEER AND THE

Therefore, as the Son of God, who is the Word of God, subsists in the divine nature and is co-eternal with the Father and perfect and unique, likewise we must profess the same about the Holy Spirit. [ IT IS ONCE AGAIN SEEN IN THE
SEEN ARE TWO DMUTUALLY DISTINCT HYPOSTASIS. TEXT ALLEGELY ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED THOMAS THAT IT CLAIMS THAT THE LOGOS\WORD SUBSISSTIN DIVINE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \ NATURE\OUSIA. BUT IF THIS WORD IS A TERM OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT THEN THIS ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF GOD\DEITY MUST ALSO SUBSIST IN GOD\DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE WHICH IS ALSO CALLED NATURE. NOW IF THE VERY ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF INTELLECT WHICH IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ISSUED\PROCEEDED TERM CALLED LOGOS IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS THEN THE LOGOS\WORD WHICH IS PROCEEDED TERM OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF INNTELLECT CANNOT BE A HYPOSTSIS. THESE TEXTS COMPELL US TO POINT OUT THIS THING MORE THAN ONE TIME].

13

Since everything that subsists with an intelligent nature we call a "person", which is equivalent to the Greek "hypostasis", it is necessary to say that the Word of God, whom we call Son, is a hypostasis or person.[ THE SIMPLE QUESTION MAY BE ASKED IS AS FOLLOW: DOES THE
DIVINE ATTRIBUTE \QUALITY OF INTELLECT NOT SUBSIST IN THE DIVINE SER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE? AND IF IT DOES NOT THEN THE WORD\LOGOS PROCCEDS FROM IT IS ALSO NOT A HYPOSTASIS\HYPOSTATIC

No one doubts that God, from whom a word and a love comes forth, is a subsistent reality, and can also be called a hypostasis or a person. Thus we fittingly posit three persons in God: the person of the Father, the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit. [ THIS PORTION OF THE TEXT WHICH IS ASCRIBED TO RESPECTED
[PERSON\PERSONAL HYPOSTASIS WHAT SO EVER.] THOMAN USES THE WORD GOD AMBIGOUSLY AND EQUATIVELY. ATLEAST ONE HAS GOD A RIGHT TO ASK FOR THE ADDITIONS OF CLEARIFICATIONS TO THE TERM GOD. IN GENERAL A TRINITARIAN USES THE WORD GOD\DEITY IN TE FOLLOWING MEANINGS. 1] GOD THE BEING. 2] GOD THE TRINITY [ THE BEING OF GOD WITH ALL THE HYPOSTTIC PERSONS WHICH ARE IN THE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE OF THE BEING AND WHICH IS COMMUNICABLE TO EACH OF THE HYPOSTASIS IN IT] 3] ANY ONE OF THE HYPOSTATIC PERSON \ HYPOSTASIS IN THE PER SE SUBSISTENT OUSIA \ ESSENCE OF THE GOD THE BEING. 4] A COMMON TERM FOR EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE MEANING. THE AUTHOR MUST HAVE TO CLEARIFY THE MEANING SOMEHOW IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFUSIONEQUVOCATION AND CONFUSION. SO THE SENTENCE MENSIONED ABOVE MAY MEAN:1) 2) 3) 4) NO ONE DOUBT THAT GOD THE BEING FROM WHOM A WORD AND A LOVE. NO ONE DOUBT THAT GOD THE THE TRINITY FROM WHOM A WORD AND A LOVE. NO ONE DOUBT THAT GOD THE HYPOSTASIS FROM WHOM A WORD AND A LOVE

IN THE LAST CASE QUANTIFIERS,AND CLRERIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED ONES AGAIN.

5)

NO ONE DOUBT THAT GOD AS A COMMON WORD FOR ALL THE ABOVE SENSE

We do not say that these three persons or hypostases are distinct by essence, since, just as God's act of knowing and loving is his very being [ IF ACT OF KNOWING IS THE VERY BEING OF GOD
THEN THE ACT OF BEING IS THE BEING. SIMILARLY IF THE ACT OF LOVING IS THE VERY BEING OF THE GOD THEN THIS ACT IS THE BEING OF GOD. THEN BOTH ARE THE SAME BEING AND THE BEING IS THE TRINITY THEN EACH ONE OF THE ACT IS A TRINITY, so also his Word and Love are the very essence of God [ THIS IS INCORRECT AND IS AN EVIDENCE THAT THESE ARE ATLEAST A LATTER INTERPOLATION. SINCE WHO CAN KNOW BETTER THAN THOMAS THAT LOGOS AND PNEUMA ARE TWO HYPOSTASES AND NOT TWO PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCES,AND THE DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OUSIA IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS..

Whatever is absolutely asserted of God is nothing other than his essence {a)THE TEXT ASCRIBED TO a)THE
THOMAS EQUIVOCATES THE WORD "GOD. SINCE" ACCORDING ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY, GOD IS A TRINITY AND THE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OSIA of THE BEING OF GOD IS SHARED BY THREE HYPOSTATIC PERSONS. IF THE DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OUSIA IS A HYPOSTASIS THEN THERE ARE FOUR HYPOSTASIS THREE MUTUALLY DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER AND ONE WHICH IS COMMUNICABLE TO EACH OTHER. BYUT TO TRINITARIAN SAYS SO. IF THOMAS HAD REALLY WRITTEN THESE LINE HE WOULD NOT HAVE SAID HYPOSTASES ARE THE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE. IF EACH HYPOSTASIS IS A PER SE SUBSISTRENT ESSENCE\ OUSIA THEN THERE ARE THREE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCES \OUSIAS. b) IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE IS NOT A HYPOSTATIC

PERSON\HYPOSTASIS,SINCE IT IS HIGHLY COMMUNICABLE TO EACH ONE OF THE HYPOSTATIC PERSON\HYPOSTASIS. SIMILARLY THE DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OUSIA IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS\HYPOSTATIC PERSON SINCE IT IS PRIOR TO EACH ONE OF THE HYPOSTASIS, IT IS COMMENLY

14

SHARED BY EACH ONE OF THE HYPOSTASIS WITH OUT DIVISION AND DISTRIBUTION, , AND IT IS ULTERIOR TO EACH ONE OF THE HYPOSTATIC PERSON.THUS TO SAY ALL OF THE HYPOSTATIC PERSONS ARE THE PERSESUBSISTENT ESSENCE\OUSIA WHEN NONE OF THEM IS THE PERSE SUSBSISTENT ESSENCE IS INCORRECT. HOW EVER ONE MAY INTERPRET THIS TEXT AS ALL THE HYPOSTATIC PERSONS ARE UNITED BY THE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE OF GOD.

, since God is not great or powerful or good accidentally, but by his essence. So we do not say the three persons or hypostases are distinct absolutely, but by mere relations which arise from the coming forth of the word and the love. [BUT THEY ARE ALSO BELIEVED TO BE PER SE
SUBSISTENT. THUS THIS IMPLY THAT THERE ARE NUMARICALLY FOUR PER SE SUBSISTENT THINGS ,THREE OF WHICH ARE HYPOSTATIC PERSONS AND ONE IS A PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE.

Since we call the coming forth of the word generation, and from generation result the relationships of fatherhood and sonship, [MERE CALLING A RELATION AS GENERATION DOES NOT
PROVE THAT THIS RELATION IS A GENERATION. IT IS STRANGE ONCE AGAIN THAT ON WHAT GROUNDS THE TEXT ALLEGES THAT THIS RELATION IS A GENERATION. IF ON REGULAR GROUND THEN IT IS A WEAK ANALOGY. IF ON HIGHER GROUNDS THEN THEIR KNOWLIDGE IS NOT IN HUMAN REASONS, THUS MAKING A WEAKER ANALOGYU.

we say that the person of the Son is distinct from the person of the Father only by fatherhood and sonship, [ IF SONSHIP IS NOTHING BUT SON AND FATHERHOOD IS NOTHING BUT FATHER
THEN THIS REDUCES TO THE BELIEF THAT THESE TWO HYPOSTASES ARE SELF DISTINT FROM EACH OTHER WITH OUT ANY THING.]while

all else belongs to both commonly and without distinction. Just as we call the Father true God, almighty, eternal and whatever else, so also the Son, and for the same reason the Holy Spirit. [ THE WORD GOD\DEITY IN TRINITARIAN TERMONOLOGY ARE USED IN
DIFFERENCT MEANINGS EG A] A HYPOSTATIC PERSONB] A SUBSTANTIAL ESSENCE\ PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE\OUSIA3] GOD THE TRINITYOR TRIUNE GOD. SO

Therefore, since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not distinct in their divine nature, but only by relationship, we are right in saying that the three persons are not three gods, but one true and perfect God. [ [ BUT THE MEANING OF GOD VARIES FROM THE DIVINE TRIUNE
BEING TO A HYPOSTASIS IN THE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE IN DIVINE TRIUNE BEING. OTHER WISE IF LOGOS IS GOD AND GOD ID TRINITY THEN LOGOS IS TRINITY.]

Three human persons are three men and not one man, because the nature of humanity, which is common to them, belongs to each separately because they are materially distinct, which does not apply to God [ THIS SHEWS THAT THE ENTIRE HUMAN ANALOGY IS A WEAK ANALOGY. SO WHY IT IS USED AT OTHER PLACES IN THE TEXT SEE ABOVE AND BELOW]. So in three men there are three numerically different human natures, while only the essence of humanity is common to them. But in the divine persons there are not three numerically different divine natures, but necessarily only one simple divine nature, since the essence of God's word and of his love is not different from the essence of God. So we profess not three gods, but one God, because of the one simple divine nature in three persons.[ ONE GOD AND THAT ONE IS TRINITY].
A DETAIL DISCUSSION ON THE TERM OF ATTRIBUTE OF INEELECT AND ACT OF INTELLECT. 1]WHEN THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS WHICH IS THE SOURCE \PROGENETER OF THE TERM AND ACT OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF INTELLECT THEN NEITHER THE ACT OF THE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT NOR THE TERM OF THE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT CAN BE A HYPOSTASIS. 2]ACCORDING TO RESPECTED THOMAS THE SECOND HYPOSTASIS \HYPOSTATIC PERSON IN THE DIVINE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE\OUSIA NAMELY GODHEAD IS A TERM OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF INTELLECT PROCEEDED FROM THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF INTELLECT\INTELLEGENCE BY AN ACT OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT.

15

ANSELM TRULY FOUND A FLAW IN IT. ACCORDING TO HIM AS ALL THE HYPOSTASIS IN THE DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTEN ESSENCE\OUSIA HAS A COMMON OUSIAL MIND [ THE INTELLEGENT OUSIA\INTELLECT OUSIA] THEN IT MUST FOLLOWTHAT IN CASE OF EACH HYPOSTASIS THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT ASCRIBED TO THE PER SE SUBSISTENT OUSIA \ESSENCE MUST PROCEED A HYPOSTASIS \HYPOSTATIC PERSON, THUS A SON MUST HAVE A SON , A LOGOS MUST HAVE A LOGOS AND SO ON. TO ANSWER THIS VERY POWERFUL OBJECTION OF RESPECTED ANSELM , RESPECTED THOMAS WAS COMPELLED TO TAKE A PURE DEFENCIVE AND A PURE APOLOGISTIC POSITION. AS AN APOLOGIST HE CONFESSED THAT PROCEEDING OF A TERMFROM THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE\QUALITY OF INTELLECT\INTELLEGENCE [ ASCRIBED TO THE PER SE SUBSISTENT OUSIA\ESSENCE] HAS NO GROUND IN REASON AND RATIONALITY. NOW IF RESPECTED THOMAS ACCEPTS THAT THERE IS NO GROUND IN REASON AND RATIONALITY THEN ANY EXPLANATION BASED ON THE SUPPOSITION OF THE TERM IS NEITHER A WEAK ANALOGY NOR A STRONG ANALOGY BUT JUST A GROUNDLESS SET OF STATEMENTS WHICH ARE AT BEAST WEAK A EXPLANATIONAND NOT AT BEST AN INVALID EXPLANANATION.

Chapter 5: The reason for the incarnation of the Son of God A similar blindness makes Muslims ridicule the Christian Faith by which we profess that the Son of God died, since they do not understand the depth of such a great mystery [ IT DOES
APPEAR THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE TEXT WHO SO EVER HE IS DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH OF NEGATION OF THE ALLEGED DEATH OF THE SECOND HYPOSTASIS WITH RESPECT TO NON PER SE SUBSISTENT AQUIRED/

. First of all, lest the death of the Son of God be misinterpreted, we must first say something about the incarnation of the Son of God. For we do not say that the Son of God underwent death according to his divine nature, in which he is equal to the Father who is the foundational life of everything, but according to our own nature which he adopted into the unity of his person.[ IT IS INORRECT TO CLAIM THAT GOD HAS DIVINE AND NON DIVINE
ASSUMED HUNAN NATURES. TO SAY GOD OR ANY ONE OF THE HYPOSTASIS IN THE SUPPOSED TRINITY CAN DIE WITH RESPECT TO NON PER SE SUBSISTENT NATURE NAMELY NON DIVINE NATUE AND CAN NOT DIE WITH RESPECT DO DIVINE PERSESUBSISTENT NATURE WHICH IS NOTHING BUT PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE \OUSIA IS MORE INCORRECT THEN TO SAY GOD CAN DI SIN WITH RESPECT TO NON DIVINE AND NOT PERSE SUBSISTENT NATURE AND CANNOT DO SIN WITH RESPECT TO PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE WHICH IS ALSO DIVINETHE PERSE SUBSISTENT NATURE AS WELL]

To say something about the mystery of the divine incarnation, we must observe that any intellectual agent operates through a conception of his intellect, which we call a word, as is clear in the case of a builder or any craftsman who operates outwardly according to the form that he conceives in his mind. [ BUT IF THE VERY DIVINE ATTRIBITE OF INTELLECT IS NOT A
HYPOSTASIS IT IS INCORRECT TO CLAIM THAT THE CONCEPTION OF THIS DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS A HYPOSTASIS SECOND THE WORD OF THE ATTRIBUTE IS NOT THE ATTRIBUTE BUT SOME THING PROCEEDED FRON IT. THEN IT IS NEXT TO ATTRIBUTE AND THE ATTRIBUTE OF INTELLECT OF GOD IS GREATER THAN THIS CONCEPTION] Since

the Son of God is the very Word of God, it follows that God made everything through the Son. [ ONCE AGAIN THE TERM GOD IDS EQUIVOCATED. SINCE THE WORD OF GOD IS ALSO GOD AS ACCORDING
TO THE TRINITICAL DOGMAS. BUT IS SON IS THE CONCEPTION OF INTELLECT THEN INTELLECT IS GREATER THAN IT AND IS ITS PROGINETOR AND SOURCE AS WELL SO EVERY THING IS ULTIMATELY MADE BY THE DIVINE ATTIBUTE\QUALITY OF INTELLECT WHICH IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS]

It is a rule that the principles which make something are also the principles for repairing it. If a house falls down, it is restored according to the plan by which it was first made. [ THIS EXAMPLE WAS NOT REQUIRED[ Among the creatures created through God's Word, rational creatures hold the first rank, since all other creatures serve them and seem ordered to them. That is reasonable, because a rational creature has mastery over his action through free will, while other creatures do not act from free judgement but by force of nature.
16

Universally what is free is higher than what is in bondage; slaves serve the free and are governed by them. Therefore the fall of a rational creature is truly considered more serious than the defect of any irrational creature [ BUT THIS IS IN A SENSE AND NOT IN ALL SENSES]. Nor is there any doubt that God judges things according to their real value [GOD JUDGS ACCORDNG TO SEVERAL FACTORS AND ONE OF THEM IS MENSIONED ABOVE. DIVINE WISDOM IS AN OTHER FACTOR]. So it was fitting for Divine Wisdom to repair the fall of human nature, much more than to step in if the heavens were to fall or any other catastrophe occur in bodily things. Rational or intellectual creatures are of two kinds: one separated from a body, which we call an angel, and the other joined to a body, which is the human soul. In either one there can be a fall because of freedom of the will[ I PERSONALLY DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE]. By a fall, I do not mean that they fall out of existence, but that they lapse from righteousness of the will. A fall or a defect refers specially to a principle of operation, as we say that a craftsman has gone wrong because he is deficient in the skill he needs to do his job, and we say that a natural thing is deficient or spoiled if the natural power by which it acts is corrupted, for example if a plant lacks the power of germinating or a piece of land lacks the power to be fruitful [ A DEFECT ALSO MEANS LACK OF PERFECTION OR BADNESS OR NOT GOOD. SO THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER]. A rational creature operates by its will, where it has freedom of choice. Therefore the fall of a rational creature is a defect of righteousness of the will, which takes place by sin. The defect of sin, which is nothing other than perversity of the will, is something especially for God to remove, and that by his Word by which he created all creatures. [IF BY WORD THEN GOD COULD SAY EASILY LET PERVERSITY
OF THE WILL BE REMOVED AND THE PERVERSITY OF SIN MUST HAVE REMOVED INSTANTLY AND SIMULTANIOUSLY]

The sin of angels, however, could not be corrected [ THIS IS THE DINEIAL OF DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE.
IT IS VERY STRANGE TO SEE THAT AN ATHANASIAN GOD IS SO POWERFUL THAT HE CAN EVEN BECOME A MALE HUMAN BEING YET IT IS SO WEAK THAT HE WITH HIS OMNIPOTENCE IS HELPLESS TO CORRECT THE SIN OF AN ANGEL],

because the immutability of their nature makes them impenitent from any direction they once take [ THEY ARE NOT IMMUTABLE IN THE VERY SENSE\MEANING GOD IS IMMUTABLE THEY ARE
IMMUTABLE ONLY IN THE SENSE \ MEANING THAT NO ONE EXCEPT GOD CAN MUTATE THEM. ONE MAY USE THE TERMS ABSOLUTE IMMUTIBILITY AND RELATIVE IMMUTIBILITY TO CLEARIFY THE IMMUTIBILITIES OF GOD\DEITY AND ANGELS RESPECTIVIELY].

But men's will is changeable by nature [ SO ARE THE ANGEL ,YET GOD DID NOT MUTATE THEM THAT IS AN OTHER ISSUE], so that they are not only able to choose different things, good or evil, but also abandon one choice and turn to another. This changeableness of the will remains in man as long as he is united to his body which is subject to variation. When the soul is separated from the body it will have the same immutability as an angel naturally has; so that after death the soul is impenitent, and cannot turn from good to evil or from evil to good. [ NOT NECESSARIRY TRUE .
THE TEXT ALLEGELY ASCRIBED TO THOMAS NEGLECTS THE DIFFERENCE B\W OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD AND

Therefore it was fitting for God's goodness to restore fallen human nature through his Son [ FIRST IT WAS MORE FITTING FOR GOD TO DI IT DIRECTLY THAT IS THE FIRST HYPOSTATIC
PRACTICE OF GOD]
T

PERSON HIMSELF WOULD HAVE INCARNATED. SECOND THE WORD GOD IS ONCE AGAIN EQUIVOCATED IN THE TEXT . IT IS NOT KNOWN WHERE THE WORD GOD IS USED IN THE MEANING OF AN HYPOSTASIS IN THE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE OR THE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE OR THE TRIUNE GOD OR GOD THE TRINITY. UNLESS IT IS CLEARIFIED THIS SENTENCE IS OF LITTLE VALUE]

The way of restoring should correspond to the nature being restored and to its sickness. The nature to be restored was man's rational nature endowed with free will, who should not be subject to exterior power but be recalled to the state of righteousness according to his own

17

will. His sickness, being a perversity of the will, demanded that the will should be called back to righteousness. Righteousness of the human will consists in the proper ordering of love, which is its principal act. Rightly ordered love is to love God above all things as our supreme good, and to refer to him everything that we love as our ultimate goal, and to observe the proper order in loving other things by preferring spiritual to bodily goods. To excite our love towards God, there was no more powerful way than that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, should assume our human nature in order to restore it, so that he would be both God and man[ THIS CLAIM IS WHO EVER IN CORRECT. SINCE 1

ST

THE WORD GOD IS AMBIGUISLY USED. IT IS NOT KNOW WHETHER THE WORD GOD IS USED IN THE MEANING OF TRIUNE DIVINE BEING OR A HYPOSTASIS IN THE TRIUNE DIVINE BEING OR WHICH HYPOSTASIS IF THE LATTER MEANING IS INTENDED, OR THE PER SE SUBSISTENT OUSIA\ESSENCE OR THE TRINITINESS. SO UNTILL ALL THESES ARE CLEARIFIED THE TEXT IS AMBIGOUS AND ONE MAY LEAVE THE TEXT SINCE THERE IS NO DEFINITE MEANING OF THIS PORTION OF THE TEXT. REFUTING THE TEXT UNDER THE SUPPOSITION OF DIFFERENT POSSIBLE MEANING

] . First of all, because the strongest way God could show how much he loves man was his willing to become man for his salvation [THIS ALSO SHEWS THAT GOD THE BEING OES NOT LOVE HIS OTHER CREATIONS THUS A LIMIT TI DIVINE LOVE SINCE UNLIMITED LOVE MEANS EQUALITY AND NOT DISCREMINATION]; and nothing can provoke love more than to know that one is loved.[ IT IS NOT THE STRONGEST WAY BUT NOT THE
IS TO MAKE THIS REFUTATION LENGTHIER AND IS LEFT FOR SAKE OF BRIVITY STRONGEST WAY IN TRUTH EVEN IF GOD CAN BECOME A MALE HUMAN BEING. ONE MAY ASK WHY GOD DID NOT ASSUME A FEMALE HUMAN NATURE AND WHAT THE WEAKNESS WAS IN THIS FEMALE HUMAN NATURE. IF NO THING THEN TO ASSUME THE MALE HUMAN NATURE S ASSUPTION IS NOT THE MOST STRONGEST WAY. IS IT AN TERNAL DISCREMINATION WHICH MAY BE PRESENTED TO DISCARD THIS OBJECTION OR IT IS SOME WEAKNESS IN THE FEMALE HUMAN NATURE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE SRTONGEST WAY I. E TO ASSUME A MALE HUMAN NATURE.]

Then also, man whose intellect and affections are weighed down towards bodily things cannot easily turn to things that are above himself. It is easy for any man to know and love another man, but to think of the divine highness and be carried to it by the proper affection of love is not for everyone, but only for those who, by God's help and with great effort and labour, are lifted up from bodily to spiritual things. Therefore, to open the way to God for everyone, God willed to become man, so that even children could know and love God as someone like themselves; and so by what they can grasp they can progress little by little to perfection. [ THIS IS WHAT A NUMBER OF POLYTHIESTIC RELIGIONS SAY FOR THEIR MULTI INCARNATIONS
BELIEVES AND IDOL WORSIPPING AS WELL. PERHAPS THE AUTHOR WHO SO EVER HE MAY BE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT ABOUT A NUMBER OF OTHER RELIGIONS WHICH USE THE VERY SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS. INCARNATION OF GOD IN HINDUNISM SANATHAN DHARMA { WHICH IS THE ATHANASIANISM OF HINDUNISM} USE THE SAME ARGUMENT FOR THE DIVINE INCARNATION OF RAMA, CRISHNA,MOHNI ETC. SO IF THIS EXPLANATION CAN BE USED BY A NUMBER OF RELIGIONS IT IS AWEAK EXPLANATION. A DETAIL DISCUSSION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF TIS REFUTATION BUT ONE WE SHALL PRESENT SOME OF THE BASIC POINTS LATTER]

Also, for God to become man gave man the hope of eventually participating in perfect happiness, which only God naturally has. If man, knowing his weakness, were promised the eventual happiness of which angels are hardly capable, since it consists in the vision and enjoyment of God, he could hardly hope to reach it unless the dignity of human nature was demonstrated in another way, namely, by God valuing it so highly that he became man for his salvation. So God's becoming man gave us hope that man can eventually be united to God in blessed enjoyment. [ IF THIS IS TRUE THEN IT IS NOT ONLY TRUE FOR THE ATHANASIAN TRINITY BUT FOR ANY RELIGION
WHICH BELIEVE IN THE INCARNATION THEORIES AND MULTI INCARNATIONR THEORIES.] WHICH

18

Man's knowledge of his dignity, coming from God's assuming a human nature, helps to keep him from subjecting his affections to any creature, whether by worshipping demons or any creatures through idolatry or by subjecting himself to bodily creatures through disordered affection. For if man has such a great dignity by God's judgement and he is so close to him that God wanted to become man, it is unworthy of man to subject himself improperly to things inferior to God. [ IF THIS IS CORRECT THEN AS MENSIONED ABOVE MULTI
INCARNATION IS FAR MORE BETTER WAY RITHER THE STRONGES POSSIBLE WAY. SINCE HUMANITY NEEDS GOD TIME AFTER TIME NOT THAT THE ENTIRE HUMANITY NEEDED GOD ONLY ONCE IN AN ALLEGED INCARNATION.]

Chapter 6: The meaning of "God became man" When we say that God became man, let no one take this to mean that God was converted into a man, as air becomes fire when it is turned into fire. For God's nature is unchangeable THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF BECOMING 1] CONVERSION TRANSFORMATION TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND ATHANASIAN BECOMING. TO DEISCUSS THIS PART OF THE TEXT ONE DOES NEED TO DISCUSS THE DOGMA OF ASSUMPTION. THIS DOGMA MEANS TO BECOME SOME THING WITH OUT CEASING TO BE WHAT THE BECOMER WAS, AND TO BECOME SOME THING WHAT THE BECOMER WAS NOT BEFORE THE ACT OF BECOMING BY ASSUMING A NON DIVINE NON ( PER SE) SUBSISTENT NATURE. THE DIVINE NATURE IS THE DIVINE OUSIA\ESSENCE ( PER SE SUBSISTENT) AND THE NON DIVINE ASSUMABLE NATURE IS NOT NON DIVINE OUSIA \ESSENCE [ PERSE SUBSISTENT]. .. Only bodily things can be changed from one thing into another. A spiritual nature cannot be changed into a bodily nature [ [THIS IS INCORRECT. IT IS AT
BEST RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE AND NOT AT BEST NOT EVEN NOT RLATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE. THUS PURE POSSIBLE WHICH IS NEITHER RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE NOR ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.],

but can be united to it somehow by the strength of its power [ THIS IS POSSIBLE], as a soul is united to a body. Although human nature consists of soul and body, the soul is not of a bodily but a spiritual nature. But the distance between any spiritual creature and God's simplicity is much more than the distance between a bodily creature and the simplicity of a spiritual nature. Therefore, as a spiritual nature can be united to a body by the strength of its power, so God can be united to a spiritual or a bodily nature [ IF GOD CAN BE UNITED TO ANY NATURE THEN GOD CAN BECOME ANY ANIMAL BEING , A WOMAN AN ANGEL ETC]. And in that way we say that God was united to a human nature. We should observe that everything seems most properly identified with what is principal in it, while other aspects seem to adhere to what is principal and are taken up and used by it as it disposes. Thus in civil society the king seems to envelop the whole kingdom and he uses others as he disposes as if they were parts of his own body joined to him naturally. Although man is naturally both soul and body, he seems more principally a soul, since the body adheres to it and the soul uses the body to serve its own activity. Likewise, therefore, in the union of God with a creature, the divinity is not dragged down to human nature, but the human nature is assumed by God, not to be converted into God, but to adhere to God.
[ THIS IS WHAT WE CALL ATHANASIAN BECOMING. BUT SUCH SENTENCES CAN BE SAID FOR ANY OTHER NATURE AS WELL WHICH ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT ACCEPT AT ALL.]

The body and soul thus

19

assumed are somehow the body and soul of God himself, just as the parts of a body assumed by a soul are somehow members of the soul itself. There is, however, a difference. Although the soul is more perfect than the body, it does not possess the total perfection of human nature. Thus it has a body so that the body and soul together form one human nature, of which the soul and body are parts. But God is perfect in his nature and nothing can be added to the fullness of his nature. So another nature cannot be united to the divine nature so as to make a common nature from them both. For it would be repugnant to the perfection of the divine nature to be a part of that common nature. The Word of God therefore assumed a human nature consisting of a soul and a body in such a way that neither becomes the other, nor are the two melted into one nature, but after being united the two natures remain distinct, each with their own properties. [THIS
SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE NON DIVINE NON(PER SE) SUBSISTENT NATURE IS SOME HOW ASSOCIATED WITH THE HYPOSTASIS OF GOD NAMELY LOGOS AND RENAMED AS VERBUM MENTALE]

It should also be observed that, since a spiritual nature is united to a bodily one by spiritual power, the greater the power of the spiritual nature the more perfectly and firmly it assumes a lower nature. God's power is infinite, with every creature subject to him and he uses each as he wishes. He could not use them unless he were somehow united with them by the strength of his power. [ THIS DOES MEAN THAT EVEN GOD HAS SOME LIMITS AND EVEN GOD CAN NOT USE THEM WITH OUT UNION. ] The more he exercises his power on them, the more perfectly he is united with them. [ EXERCISE OF POWER is CONFUSED WITH UNION,BUT IN REALITY UNION AND EXERCISE OF POWER ARE TWO DIIFERENT THINGS] Among all creatures he exercises his power by giving them existence and moving them to their proper operations; in this way he is said to be in everything in a common way. But he exercises his power in a special way in holy minds, whom he not only conserves them in existence and moves them in their actions like other creatures, but also converts them to know and love him [ THE QUESTION IS DOES THE OMNIPOTENT
GOD HAS POWER TO EXERCISE IN THIS VERY SPECIAL WAY IN MINDS WHICH ARE AT BEST NOT SO HOLY AND AT WORST UNHOLY];

thus he is said to dwell especially in holy minds, and holy minds are said to

be full of God. [ THESE WORDS ALSO CONVEY VERY INCORRECT SENSES OR MEANINGS SO ATBEST THE MUST
BE AVOIDED AND NOT AT BEST BE BE EXPLAINED EACH TIME TO NULLIFY THEIR INCORRECT MEANINGS AND SENSES].

Since God is said to be more or less united to a creature according to the amount of power he exercises in it [ THIS MEANS IN EVIL BEINGS GOD EXERCISES LESS AMOUNT OF HIS POWER, OTHER WISE
HE IS ALSO UNITED WITH THEM, BUT THE QUESTION IS CAN GOD EXERCISE MORE AMOUNT OF POWER TO THEM . IF NOT THEN OMNIPOTENCE CEASES TO BE , AND IF SO THEN GOD CAN UNITE WITH THEM AS WELL],

it is clear that, since the strength of divine power cannot be comprehended by the human intellect, God can be united to a creature in a higher way than the human intellect can grasp. Therefore we say that God is united to a human nature in Christ in an incomprehensible and ineffable way, not only by indwelling as is true of other saints, but in a singular way, so that a human nature belongs to the Son of God, and that the Son of God, who has from eternity a divine nature from the Father, from a point of time has wonderfully assumed a human nature of our race. Thus each and every part of the human nature of the Son of God can be called God [IT IS CLEAR THAT ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY USE THE WORD GOD IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT MEANINGS AND SENSES. 1] A HYPOSTATIC PERSON IN THE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENC\OUSIA OF GOD THE TRINITY. 2] AN ALMIGHTY BEING REGARDLESS OF BEING TRUNE OR NOT. 3] ATRIUNE BEING OR AN ALMIGHTY TERIUNE BEING. 4] THE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE\OUSIA IN THE TRIUNE BEING.

20

45] THE VERY TRINITINESS OF THR TRIUNE BEING. NOW THIS TEXT EQUIVOCATE THE WORD \/TERM GOD . UNLESS THETHE EQUIVOCALNESS IS REMOVED IT IS USELESS TO RESPONSE. FOR AN EXAMPLE LET THE WORD GOD MEAN A HYPOSTATIC PERSON IN GOD THE TRINITY. THEN NO PART OF THE NON DIVINE MALE HUMAN HUMAN NATURE CAN BE CALLED GOD. IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUANTIFIER TO DECIDE THE MEANING THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING IS TO CHOOSE THE DIFFERENT POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE WORD GODOR THEIR DIFFERENT POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS IN THIS PORTION OF TEXT AND DISCUSS EACH ONE OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY. THIS WILL INCREASE THE LENGTH OF THE PRESENT RESPONSE WHICH IS ALREADY SOME WHAT LEANGTHY.]

, and whatever any part of his human nature does or suffers can be attributed to the onlybegotten Word of God. Thus we fittingly say that not just his soul and body are the Son of God, but also his eyes and hands, and that the Son of God sees bodily with the sight of his eyes and hears by the hearing of his ears; the same applies to the activities proper to the other parts of his soul or body.[[ THE QUESTION IS << IS THE SECOND HYPOSTASIS NAMELY LOGOS IS THE
HYPOSTATIC UNION NAMELY IESOUS OR NOT>> ANY HOW A PART OF THE ASSUMED NARUE CAN NOT BE CALLED THE ENTIRE HYPOSTASIS]

There is no better comparison of this admirable union than the union of a body and a rational soul[ EVEN THIS IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE]. It is also a suitable comparison because our word remains hidden in our heart and becomes sensible by being vocalized and written. But these comparisons fall short of representing the union of the divine and human natures, just as any other comparison of human things with divine. For the Divinity is not united to a human nature so as to be a part of a nature, nor is it united to a human nature as an expression, as the word of the heart is signified by a voice or writing, but the Son of God truly has a human nature and can be called a man. It is clear therefore that we do not say God is united to a bodily nature as a force in the body after the manner of material and bodily forces, because not even the intellect of a soul united to a body is a bodily power. Much less therefore is the Word of God, who assumed for himself a human nature in an ineffable and more sublime way. It is also clear from the foregoing that the Son of God has both a divine and a human nature, the one from eternity, the other assumed from a point of time. Many things can be had by the same person in different ways, but the principal element is always said to "have", while the less principal elements are "had". Thus the whole has many parts, as a man has hands and feet; we do not say the inverse: that hands and feet have a man. Likewise one subject has many accidents, as an apple has colour and smell, the inverse. Only in the case of essential parts is something said both to have and to be had, as the soul has the body and the body has the soul. And in marriage a man has a wife and a wife has a husband. The same in the case of things united by relationship: thus we say that a father has a son and a son has a father. [ THERE IS AN OTHER RELATION OF MATHER. IF FATHERHOOD
DOES NOT INVOLVE CORPOREALITY AND CARNALITY THEN MOTHERHOOD ALSO DOES NOT INVOLVE THM AS WELL. BUT THE AUTHOR OF THE TEXT DISCARDS MOTHERHOOD AS CARNALITY AND DOES NOT DISCARD FATHERHOOD AS CARNALITY, WHY??]

Were God united to a human nature as a soul to a body so as to make one common nature, we could say that God has a human nature and a human nature has God, just as a soul has a body and the inverse. [ DIVINE NATURE IS NOTHING BUT THE PERSE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE\OUSIA AND

21

But because the divine and human natures cannot be made one nature because of the divine perfection, as said above, and because the principal factor in the union is on the side of God, it clearly follows that we must say that God has a human nature.[ PNE CAMN SAY SAME THING ABOUT ANGELIC NATURE
HUMAN NATURE IS NOT A PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE\OUSIA] ,SUPERMUNDALIC NATURE, (LOWER) SPIRITUAL NATURE, FEMALE HUMAN NATURE AS WELL THERE IS NO THING THAT CONFINE THIS STATEMENT FOR MALE HUMAN NATURE. THIS SHALL BE DISCUSSED LATTER].

Whatever is said to exist by a nature is called a subject or hypostasis of that nature, just as what has the nature of a horse is called a hypostasis or a subject with a horse-nature. In the case of an intellectual nature such a hypostasis is called a person; thus we call Peter a person because he has a human nature, which is intellectual. Since the Son of God, the only-begotten Word of God, has assumed a human nature, as said above, it follows that he is a hypostasis, subject or person with a human nature. And since he has a divine nature from eternity, not by way of composition but by simple identity, he is also called a hypostasis or person of divine nature, as far as divine things can be expressed by human words. Therefore the only-begotten Word of God is a hypostasis or person with two natures, divine and human, and he subsists in these two natures. But if anyone objects that human nature, even in Christ, is not accidental, but a substance, and not a universal substance but a particular one which is called a hypostasis, it would seem that Christ's human nature would be a hypostasis apart from the hypostasis of the Word of God, and that in Christ there would be two hypostases. The one who makes this objection should observe that not every particular substance is called a hypostasis, but only that which does not belong to something more principal. For instance, the hand of a man is a particular substance, but is not called a hypostasis or a person, because it belongs to a more principal substance which is man; otherwise in every man there would be as many hypostases or persons as there are members or parts. Therefore Christ's human nature is not accidental but a substance [ A SUBSTANCE DOES NOT
EXIST IN ALIO AND THIS NATURE EXIST IN ALIO THERE FORE IT IS NEITHER A PERSON\HYPOSTASIS NOR A SUBSTANCE \OUSIA]; it is not universal but particular; nevertheless it cannot be called

hypostasis [ IT CAN ALSO BE NOT CALLED A SUBSTANCE EITHER], because it is assumed by something more principal, namely, the Word of God. Therefore Christ is one because of the unity of his person or hypostasis, and he cannot be called two; rather he is properly said to have two natures. Although the divine nature can be predicated of the hypostasis of Christ, which is the hypostasis of the Word of God, which is his essence, nevertheless human nature cannot be predicated of him abstractly, just as it cannot in the case of anyone having a human nature: Just as we cannot say that Peter is human nature, but is a man having a human nature, so we cannot say the Word of God is a human nature, but that it has taken on a human nature and for this reason can be called a man. [ THIS SAME CAN BE SAID TO ANY ONE WHO CLAIMETH GODHEAD OR GODHOOD, NOT JUST FOR
IESOUS. IF THIS POSSIBILITY IS ACCEPTED FOR IESOUS THEN THEN THEIR CAN NOT BE ANY RATIONAL GROUNG TO REFUTE ANUY ONE ELSE IF HE OR SHE CLAIMS SO.]

Therefore each nature is predicated of the Word of God, but the human nature only concretely, as when we say that the Son of God is a man. But the divine nature can be predicated both abstractly and concretely: thus the Word of God is the divine essence or

22

nature and is God. But since God has a divine nature and man has a human nature, these two names signify the two natures that are had, but only one person has both of them. Since the one having the nature is a hypostasis, when we call Christ God we understand the hypostasis of the Word of God; likewise when we call him a man we understand the Word of God. So we call Christ God and man, but do not say that he is two, but one in two natures. Whatever belongs to a nature can be attributed to the hypostasis of that nature [ YES BUT DIRECTLY TO THE NATURE\ESSENCE\OUSIA AND THROUGH IT TO HYPOSTASIS] while a HYPOSTASIS], hypostasis of both a human and a divine nature is supposed in a name signifying the divine nature as well as in a name signifying the human nature; this hypostasis is single having both natures. Consequently both human and divine things can be predicated by that hypostasis, whether it is referred to by a name signifying the divine nature or by a name signifying the human nature. Thus we can say that God, the Word of God, was conceived and born of the Virgin, suffered, died and buried, attributing to the hypostasis of the Word human things because of the human nature. Inversely we can say that man [ HYPOSTATIC MAN ] is one with the Father [ THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS], that he is from eternity and that he created the world, because of the divine nature. In predicating such diverse things of Christ a distinction can be made according to which nature they are predicated. Some things are said according to his human nature and others according to his divine nature. But if we consider whom they are said about, they apply indistinctly, since it is the same hypostasis of which divine and human things are said. It is like saying that the same man sees and hears, but not according to the same power; he sees with his eyes and hears with his ears. Likewise the same apple is seen and smelt, in the first case by its colour, in the second by its smell. For this reason we can say that the seeing person hears and the hearing person sees, and that what is seen is smelt and what is smelt is seen. Similarly we can say that God is born of the Virgin, because of his human nature, and that man is eternal, because of the divine nature. [ WHICH GOD GOD THE FATHER, OR GOD THE HOLY
GHOST OR GOD THE TRINITY OR GOD THE LOGOD???] ALL THESE CAN BE USED BY OTHER RELIGIONS AS WELL

ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY BELIEVES THAT GOD CANASSUME A MALE HUMAN NATURE BY ASSUMING A MALE HUMAN NATURE AND NOT BY CONVERSION. BUT EVEN ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD CAN ASSUME ANY OTHER NATURE BESIDE MALE HUMAN NATURE. TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARA ONLY TWO BASIC ARTICLES OF TWO DIFFERENT FAITHSWHICH DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER CONTRRILY. A] GOD\DEITY CANNOT ASSUME ANY NON DIVINE NON(PER SE ) SUBSISTENT NATUE. B] GOD\DEITY CAN ASSUME ANY NON DIVINE NON SUBSITENT NATURE.
WHERE DIVINE NATURE IS DIVINE [ PER SE SUBSITENT ] ESSENCE\OUSIA . NON DIVINE ( ASSUMEABLE) NATURE IS NOT NON DIVINE ( PER SE SUBSISTENT) ESSENCE \OUSIA.

23

SINCE ESSENCE \OUSIA NEITHER SUBSISTENT IN ALIO NOR EXIST IN ALIO ( WHETHER DIVINE OR DIVINE) DIVINE). FOR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY LLET IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE NON DIVINE [ NON ( PER SE) SUBSISTENT ] NATURE IS RATIONAL\INTELLEGENT.

IF GOD \DEITY CAN NOT ASSUME ANY NON-DIVINE NATURE THEN GOD \DEITY CANNOT ASSUME ANY NON ETERNAL NATURE WHETHER IT BE AN ANGELIC NATURE, OR (LOWER) SPIRITUAL NATURE OR SUPERMUNDALIC NATURE OR CHERUBIC NATU NATURE OR MALE HUMAN NATURE OR FEMALE HUMAN NATURE OR ANY OTHER POSSIBLE L RATIONAL \ INTELLEGENT NATURE. HENCE GOD \DEITY CANNOT BECOME ANY NON ETERNAL THIONG NEITHER WITH CEASING WHAT GOD \DEITY ETERNALLY WAS NOR WITH OUT CEASING TO BE WHAT GOD\DEITY ETERNALLY WAS. BUT IF GOD CAN ASSUME ANY NON DIVINE NON (PER SE) SUBSISTENT NATURE (SAY AN ANGELIC NATURE, A SUPERMUNDALIC NATURE, A CHERUBIC NATURE, A (LOWER) SPIRITUAL NATURE, A HUMANOIDIC NATURE, A HEMI HUMAN NATURE, A MALE HUMAN NATURE OR A FEMALE HUMAN NATURE)THEN THEN GOD CAN BECOME ANY NON ETERNAL THING WITH OUT CEASING TO BE WHAT GOD WAS BEFORE THE ACT OF ASSUMING THE NATURE WHAT SO EVER THE NATURE MAY BE. LIKE AN ANGEL,A SUPERMUNDALE , ACHERUB, A (LOWWER) SPIRIT, A HUMANOID, A HEMIHUMAN, A MAN OR A WOMAN. IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT HIGHER NATURES [ NATURESOF AN ANGEL NATURE OF A SUPERMUNDALE ETC] CANNOT ANGEL, BE ASSUMED SINCE THEIR SINS ARE IRREMEDIABLE AND THEIR NATURES ARE IMMUTABLE THEN THIS IS A WEAK ORGUMENT.FIRST:-IF GOD IS OMNIPOTENT THEN GOD CAN ASSUME ANY NON DIVINE NON (PER SE ) SUBSISTENT FIRST:-IF NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING WHICH LIMITS THE OMNIPOTENCE, CANHOOD\CANNESS OF GOD. SECOND:- DIVINE POWER DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE POSSIBILITY OR IMPOSSIBILITY OF REMEDIABLITY AND MUTABLITY OF CREATED NATURE . THIRD:- IF THERE IS IMPOSSIBILITY OF REMEDIABLITY AND MUTABLITY THEN IT IS RELATIVE IMPOSSIBILITY AND NOT ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY. ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MUTABLITY OF AN EXISTENT IS ONLY IN GOD . BUT ARGUMENTS FOR THE RELATIVE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MUTABLITY ARE ALSO WEAK AND NOT CONVINCING. SO IF ONE CAN SUPPOSE THAT GOD ASSUMES A FEMALE HUMAN NATURE OR AN ANGELIC NATURE OR BEGENS TO INTERPRET CASES OF THEOPHANY AS ASSUMPTION OF NON DIVINE HIGHER INTTELEGENT \ RATIONAL NATURE HE CAN WRITE A LIST OF MERITS OF THESE SUPPOSED ASSUMPTIONS BUT NONE OF THEM CAN PROVE THEIR OCCURRANCES. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF MALE HUMAN NATURE AS WELL. SO IT IOS NEED LESS TO REFUTE THE MERITST LISTED SINCE NEITHER THEY PROVE ITS POSSIBILITY OR OCCURRENCE . THEY ARE JUST THE CONSEQUENCES OF A SUPPOSED CASE.

Chapter 7: The meaning of "The Word of God suffered" The foregoing shows that there is no contradiction in our professing that the only-begotten Word of God suffered and died. We do not attribute this to him according to his divine nature but according to his human nature, which he assumed into the unity of his person for our salvation.[ GOD IS OF SINGLE AND UNIQUE ESSENCE AND NATURE OF THE ESSENCE IS ALSO SINGLE AND
UNIQUE. PLURALITY OF ESSENCE OF GOD, NATURES OF GOD ARE IMPOSSIBLE.IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO DIE WITH RESPECT TO HIS NON DIVINE NATURE. JUST AS GOD CAN NOT ASSUME AN ANGELIC NATURE , AN ANIMAL NATURE , A FEMALE HUMAN NATURE GOD CAN NOT ASSUME A MALE HUMAN NATURE SINSE THE MALE HUMAN NATURE DOES NOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTION , FROM THE BASIC DIVINE PRINCIPLE , THAT ASSUMPTION OF ANY NON-DIVINE NATURE OE ESSENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD]

But if someone objects that, since God is almighty, he could have saved the human race otherwise than by the death of his only-begotten Son, such a person ought to observe that in God's deeds we must consider what was the most fitting way of acting, even if he could have acted otherwise; otherwise we will be faced with this question in everything he made.

24

Thus if it is asked why God made the heaven of a certain size and why he made the stars in such a number, a wise thinker will look for what was fitting for God to do, even if he could have done otherwise. [ ONE MUST NOTE THE FOLLOWING PRIMILINARIES WHICH ARE PREREQUSITE
FOR UNDERSTANDING THE WHOLE DISCUSSION. A}} ALL THE REASON AND RATIONALITY IMPLIES THAT GOD DOES NOT DO A NUMBER OF IRRATIONAL THINGS OTHER WISE GOD MUST BE ASSOCIATED WITH IRRATIONAL ATTRIBUTES. FOR EXAMPLE GOD DOES NOT ORDER HUMAN BEINGS TO WERSHIP OTHER GODS BESIDE HIM. BUT GOD IS OMNIPOTENT AND MUST HAVE POWER TO TO THAT. SIMILARLY GOD DOES NOT SCOLD ETC. GOD DOES NOT DO HIS OWN DISGRACE. IT IT IS ASSUMED THAT GOD HAS POWER TO BECOME A THING WHICH HE IS ETERNALLY NOT BY THE PROCESS OF ATHANASIAN BECOMING [ AND NOT BY CONVERSION, TRANSFORMATION,TRANSUBSTANTIATION ETC] EVEN THEN GOD NEITHER DISGRACES HIMSEL NOR ANY ONE CAN DISGRACE GOD. IF DISGRACE OF GOD BY GOD HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER CREATED BEING THROUGH HIS SUPPOSED NON DIVINE ASSUMED NATURE IS NOT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE THEN IT IS RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE ON REASONAL AND RATIONAL BASES. IF IT IS NOT RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE THEN THERE CAN BE NO THING WHICH IS RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE ON REASONAL AND RATIONAL BASES. EVEN IF IT IS SAID THAT TO CHOOSE THE BEST POSSIBLLE ACT \ DOING \OPERATION IS RELATIVELY NECESSARY AND NOT TO THE BEST POSSIBLE IS A RELATIVE IMPOSSIBILITY THEN IN THE CASE THIS PRINCIPLE BECOME INVALID. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. SINCE IF SO THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WORST POSSIBLE THING / ACT\DOING AND NOT THE BEST POSSIBLE ACT\DOING \ETC. ALSO IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ATLEAST NOT THE WORST POSSIBLE THING OR ATMOST THE BEST POSSIBLE ACT IT MUST HAVE BEEN ON REASONAL AND RATIONAL BASES BUT THEREIS NO GROUND ON REASON AND IN RATIONALITY. CONCLUSION: IT MUST BE NOTED THAT ANY POSSIBLE WAY TO DO A THING SAY TO REMOVE SINS FROM MANKIND WHICH INVOLVES THE DISGRACE OF GOD THE GLORIOUS MUST BE AT MOST THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY AND AT LEAST NOT THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY , AND CERTAINLY NOT THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY. THUS GOD MUST NEVER HAVE DONE IT SINCE IT IS A RELATIVE IMPOSSIBILITY. THE DIFFERENCE OF THE DIVINE NATURE [ THE PERSE SUBSISTENT DIVINE ESSENCE] AND THE SUPPOSED NON DIVINE NATURE CAN ONLY MAKE IT A RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE ACT IF IT CAN NOT MAKE IT AN ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE ACT. B}}IF GOD CAN BECOME AHUMAN BEING BY ASSUMING THE NON DIVINE NATURE OF A HUMAN BEING NAMELY THE HYMAN NATURE EVEN THEN ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY SUGGESTS THAT GOD CAN NOT DO SIN BUT CAN SUFFER WITH RESPECT TO THIS NATURE. BUT IF GOD IS INFALLABLE WITH RESPECT TO HIS DIVINE NATURE [ WHICH IS THE DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE]\OUSIA ] AND ITS EFFECT ON THE NON DIVINE MALE HUMAN NATURE IS THAT IT IS ALSO INFALLABLE THE SAME MUST BE TRUE FOR THE ASSUMED \SUPPOSED ACT S OF SUFFERINGS. THE DIVINE NATURE [ WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE PERSE SUBSISTENT DIVINE ESSENCE \OUSIA] IS INSUFFERABLE THEN ITS EFFECT ON THE SUPPOSED ASSUMMED NATURE IS THAT IT MUST ALSO BE INSUFFERABLE. THUS GOD MUST BE NOT ONLY INFALLABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSUMED ASSUMED NON DIVINE MALE HUMAN NATURE BUT ALSO INSUFFERABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPPOSED ASSUMED NON GIVINE MALE HUMAN NATURE. HOW EVER IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT IF GOD CAN NOT DO SINS EVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSUMED\SUPPOSED ASSUMED NON DIVINE HUMAN NATURE EVEN THEN SINS CAN BE COMMITED NOT ONLY AGAINST GOD BUT ALSO ON GOD WITH REASPECT TO THE ASSUMED NON DIVINE HUMAN NATURE. FOR EXAMPLE GOD CAN BE DISECTED AND BISECTED WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSUMED \SUPPOSED ASSUMED NON DIVINE HUMAN NATURE, PARTS OF GOD CAN BE CHOPPED OF WITH RESPECT TO THE NON DIVINE HUMAN NATURE ,GOD CAN BE BLINDED WITH RESPECT TO THE NON DIVINE HUMAN NATURE , GOD CAN BE BEHEADED WITH RESPECT TO HIS HUMAN NATURE . THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ACTS WHICH IF NOT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD THEN RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE IN THIS CASE .THEY ARE ALL RELATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO THE DIVINE DISGRACE AND THE ACT TO BECOME SOME THING WHICH GOD IS ETERNALLY NOT BY ASSUMING THE NATURE OF THE THING IS THE FUNDAMENT ACT OF DISGRACE AND HENCE MUST BE RELATIVLY IMPOSSIBLE IF NOT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE]

I say this supposing our belief that the whole disposition of nature and all human acts are subject to Divine Providence. Take this belief away and all worship of the Divinity is excluded. Yet we argue presently against those who say they are worshippers of God, whether Muslims or Christians or Jews. As for those who say that everything comes necessarily from God, we argued at length elsewhere [Contra gentiles, II, c. 23]. Therefore if someone considers with a pious intention the fittingness of the suffering and death of Christ, he will find such a depth of knowledge that any time he thinks about it he will find more and greater things, so that he can experience as true what the Apostle says (1 Cor 1:23-24): "We are preaching a crucified Christ: to the Jews an obstacle they cannot get

25

over, to the gentiles foolishness, but to those who have been called, whether they are Jews or Greeks, a Christ who is both the power of God and the wisdom of God." He continues (v. 25): "God's folly is wiser than human wisdom."[ DEPTH OF KNOWLIDGES CAN ALSO BE FOUND IN
THE DEATHS OF RAMA ,CRISHNA ETC. BUT IF THESE DEPTHS CAN NOT PRVOE THESE INCARNATIONS , ANY DEPTH CAN NOT PROVE THE INCARNATION OF ATHANASIANISM]

First of all, we must observe that Christ assumed a human nature to repair the fall of man, as we have said. Therefore, according to his human nature, Christ should have suffered and done whatever would serve as a remedy for sin [ HOW IS CHRIST THE SECOND HYPOSTASIS NAMELY LOGOS OR THE HYPOSTATIC UNION??? THIS IS NOT CLEARIFIED IN THIS TEXT}. The sin of man consists in cleaving to bodily things and neglecting spiritual goods. Therefore the Son of God in his human nature fittingly showed by what he did and suffered that men should consider temporal goods or evils as nothing, lest a disordered love for them impede them from being dedicated to spiritual things. Thus Christ chose poor parents, although perfect in virtue, lest anyone glory in mere nobility of flesh and in the wealth of his parents. He led a poor life to teach us to despise riches. He lived without titles or office so as to withdraw men from a disordered desire for these things. He underwent labour, thirst, hunger and bodily afflictions so that men would not be fixed on pleasure and delights and be drawn away from the good of virtue because of the hardships of this life. In the end he underwent death, so that no one would desert the truth because of fear of death. And lest anyone fear a shameful death for the sake of the truth, he chose the most horrible kind of death, that of the cross. Thus it was fitting that the Son of God made man should suffer and by his example provoke men to virtue, so as to verify what Peter said (1 Pet 2:21): "Christ suffered for you, and left an example for you to follow in his steps." Then, because not only good conduct and avoiding sins is necessary for salvation, but also the knowledge of truth so as to avoid error, it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the only-begotten Word of God who assumed a human nature should ground people in truth by a sure knowledge of it. Truth taught by men is not so firmly believed, because man can deceive. Only by God can knowledge of the truth be confirmed without any doubt.[ NO NEED TO DISCASS EACH AND EVERY SENTENCE. PRINCIPALLY IT IS NOT VALID AS AN
ARGUMENT . AS AN EXPLANANION IT IS A WEAK EXPLANATION. IF IT IS AN ARGUMENT THEN IT SHOULD BE VALID IN THE CASE OF RAMA, CRISHNA AND MOHNI AS WELL, IT IT KIS AN EXPLANATION THEN A WEAK ONE SINCE SIMILAR EXPLANATIONS CAN BE GIVEN FOR OTHER INCARNATIONS OF GOD, AS WELL. THUS UNIQUENESS IS ALMOST LOST .]

So the Son of God made man had to propose the teaching of divine truth to men, showing them that it came from God and not from man. [ FIRST: THE WORD GOD IS EQIVOCATED IN THE TEXT,
SECOND THIS MEANS THAT THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS IS INNERT AND EVER RESTING.THIRD THIS MEANS THAT 2/3 OF GOD DID NOT INCARNATE ONLY I/3 OF GOD INCARNATED. IF WE ADD DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE AND

He did this by many miracles. Since he did things that only God can do, such as raising the dead, giving sight to the blind etc., people had to believe that he spoke with God's authority.
THE TRINITY THEN 4/5 OF GOD DID NOT INCARTATE AND ONLY 1/5 OF GOD INCARNATED].

Those who were present could see his miracles, but later generations might say they were made up. Therefore Divine Wisdom provided a remedy against this in Christ's state of weakness. For if he were rich, powerful and established in high dignity, it could be thought that his teaching and his miracles were received on account of his favour and human power. So to make the work of divine power apparent, he chose everything that was

26

rejected and low in the world, a poor mother and a poor life, illiterate disciples and messengers, and allowed himself to be rebuked and condemned even to death by the magnates of this world. This made it apparent that his miracles and teaching were not received because of human power, but should be attributed to divine power. Thus in what he did or suffered, human weakness and divine power were joined together at the same time. Thus at his nativity he was wrapped in cloth and put in a manger, but praised by the angels and adored by the Magi led by a star. He was tempted by the devil, but ministered to by angels. He lived without money as a beggar, but raised the dead and gave sight to the blind. He died fixed to the cross and numbered among thieves, but at his death the sun darkened, the earth trembled, stones split, graves opened and the bodies of the dead were raised. [ SIMILAR THINGSCAN BE SAID FOR OTHER GOD INCARNATES LIKE CRISHNA, RAMA,MOHNI ETC. SO THIS
DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOD WAS INCARNATED IN IESOUS. ALL THESE MENSIONED ABOVE MERITS OF INCARNATION AND MENIFESTATION OF GOD IN IESOUS DOES NOT PROVE THEM. ONE CAN WRITE SEVERAL MERITS OF INCARNATION OF GOD IN CRISHNA, RAMA, MOHNI [ INCARNATION IN FEMALE HUMAN BEING] BUT ALL THOSE MERITS CAN N NOT PROVE THESE INCARNATIONS TO A THOMIST , THEN THESE ALLEGED MERITS CAN NOT PROVE ANY THING. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF MERITS OF A SUPPOSED INCARNATION DOES NOT PROVE THE INCARNATION]

Therefore if anyone considers the great fruit of such beginnings, namely, the conversion of peoples over the world to Christ, (1) and wants further signs in order to believe, he must be considered harder than a stone, since at Christ's death even stones were shattered. Thus the Apostle says (1 Cor 1:18): "The message of the cross is folly for those who are on the way to ruin, but for those of us who are on the road to salvation it is the power of God." There is a related point we should make here. The same reason of Providence which led the Son of God made man to suffer weakness in himself, let him to desire his disciples, whom he established as ministers of human salvation, to be abject in the world. Thus he did not choose the well educated and noble, but illiterate and ignoble men, that is, poor fishermen. Sending them to work for the salvation of men, he commanded them to observe poverty, to suffer persecutions and insults, and even to undergo death for the truth; this was so that their preaching might not seem fabricated for the sake of earthly comfort, and that the salvation of the world might not be attributed to human wisdom or power, but only to God's wisdom and power. Thus they did not lack divine power to work miracles as they appeared abject according to the world. For the restoration of man it was necessary for men to learn not to trust proudly in themselves, but in God. For the perfection of human justice requires that man should subject himself totally to God, from whom he also hopes to gain every good, and should thank him for what he has received. In order to train his disciples to despise the present goods of this world and to sustain all sorts of adversity even to death, there was no better way than for Christ to suffer and die. Thus he himself told them (Jn 15:20): "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you too." Then we must observe that in the order of justice sin should be punished by a penalty. We see how cases of injustice are handled in human courts, that the judge takes from the one who has too much through grabbing what belongs to another and gives it to the one who has less. Anyone who sins over-indulges his appetite, and in satisfying it transgresses the order of reason and of divine law. For that person to be brought back to the order of justice something must be taken from what he wants; that is done by punishing him or by but not

27

the inverse. Man also has exterior things, like possessions and clothing, but not taking the goods he wanted to have or by imposing the bad things he refused to suffer. This restoration of justice by penalty sometimes is done by the will of the one who is punished, when he imposes the penalty on himself so as to return to justice [ THIS IS NOT
JUSTICE AT ALL. IF THIS IS A JUSTICE THEN ONE MAY DEFINE THE MEANING OF THE TERM JUSTICE IN THIS SENTENCE OF CONTENT OF TEXT ASCRIBED TO THOMAS.].

Other times it is done against his will, and in that case he does not return to a state of justice, but justice is carried out in him. The whole human race was subject to sin. To be restored to the state of justice, there would have to be a penalty which man would take upon himself [ THIS IS NOT JUSTICE] in order to fulfil the order of divine justice [[ DEFINATION OF JUSTICE IS NEEDED ONCE AGAIN IN THIS SENTENCE]. But no mere man could satisfy God sufficiently by accepting some voluntary punishment, even for his own sin, to say nothing of the sin of the whole human race. For when man sins he transgresses the law of God and tries, were he able, to do injury to the God of infinite majesty [DIVINE MAJESTY CAN NOT BE INJURED] The greater the person offended, the greater the INJURED]. crime; we see, for instance, that someone who strikes a soldier is punished more than someone who strikes a farmer, and much more if he strikes a king or prince. Therefore a sin committed against the law of God is somehow an infinite offence [A FINITE ACT IS NOT
INFINITE].

Again we must observe that the dignity of the person making reparation is also to be considered. For example, one word of a king asking for pardon of an offence is considered greater than if someone lower went on his knees and showed any other sign of humiliation to beg pardon from the one who suffered the injury. But no mere man has the infinite dignity required to satisfy justly an offence against God. Therefore there had to be a man of infinite dignity who would undergo the penalty for all so as to satisfy fully for the sins of the whole world. Therefore the only-begotten Word of God, true God and Son of God, assumed a human nature and willed to suffer death in it so as to purify the whole human race indebted by sin [ IN WHAT MEANING OF THE WORD THIS IS JUSTICE, DEFINATION REQUIRED AND CITATION NEEDED.]. Thus Peter says (1 Pet 3:18): "Christ himself died once and for all for sins, the upright for the sake of the guilty." Therefore it was not fitting, as Muslims think, for God to wipe away human sins without satisfaction, or even to have never permitted man to fall into sin. That would first be contrary to the order of justice, and secondly to the order of human nature, by which man has free will and can choose good or evil. [ IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IS IS A VERY INCORRECT VIEW OF INFINITE JUSTIVE.] God's Providence does not destroy the nature and order of things, but preserves them. So God's wisdom was most evident in his preserving the order of justice and of nature, and at the same time mercifully providing man a saving remedy in the incarnation and death of his Son.[ IT IS NOT JUSTICE TO PUNISH SOME ONE ELSE WHO HAD NOT DONE THE
ACT OF SIN IN LIEU OF A PERSON WHO HAD COMMITED IT, EVEN IF THE FORMER VOLUNTARILY OFFERS TO BE PUNISHED INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL SINNER. EVEN IF THE FORMER HAS SOMEHOW TAKEN THE BURDEN OF SIN SINCE JUSTIVE DEMANDS TO PUNISH THE ONE WHO HAS COMMITED THE SIN AND NOT THE ONE WHO HAS TAKEN THE BURDEN. IF TO TAKE THE BURDEN OF THE SINS OF OTHERS IS A SIN THEN THE MALE HUMAN NATURE AND THE HYPOSTATIC UNION ARE NO LONGER INFALLABLE. IF IT IS NOT A SIN THEN TO PUNISH ANY ONE OR BOTH OF THEM WITH OUT ANY SIN IS NOT JUSTICE NOT AT ALL. HOW EVER IF SOME ONE REDIFI REDIFINE JUSTIVE THEN IT CAN NOT BE A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE DEFINATION AND IN THIS CASE ONE HAS A RIGHT TO DIFFER FROM IT. AS ALL THE PROBLEMS OF DIVINE JUSTIVE IN THIS REGARD DEPEND UPON THE DEFINATION OF JUSTICE THEN ONE MUST BE CAREFUL IN ARGUEING FROM DIVINE JUSTICE OR DIVINE INJUSTICE]

28

Chapter 8: The meaning of "The faithful receive the body of Christ" Since people are cleansed of sin through the suffering and death of Christ [ IT MUST BE NOTED
THAT THIS IS A SIN WHICH THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED , THUS THIS TEXT IS MAKING HUMAN BEINGS GUILTY OF A SIN WHICH THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED. IS IT A JUSTICE TO PUNISH A PERSON OF A SIN WHICH HE / SHE HAS NOT COMMITTED.],

in order to preserve constantly in us the memory of such an immense gift, when the time of his suffering was drawing near [ IF THERE IS NO SUCH SIN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THIS GIFT], the Son of God left his faithful a memorial of his suffering and death that would be constantly recalled, giving his disciples his own body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. The Church of Christ continues celebrating this memorial of his venerable suffering up to the present day all over the world [ DID IESOUS SAID\ ORDERED TO
CELEBRATE IT , CITATION NEEDED]

Anyone even slightly instructed in the Christian religion can see how unreasonably unbelievers ridicule this sacrament. For we do not say that the body of Christ is cut into parts and distributed for consumption by the faithful in the Sacrament, so that it would have to run out, even if his body were as big as a mountain, as they say. But we say that by the conversion of bread into the body of Christ the very body of Christ exists in this Sacrament of the Church and is eaten by the faithful. Because the body of Christ is not divided, but something is changed into it, there is no way that by eating it its quantity could be reduced.
[ THIS IS VERY PROBLEMATIC CONCEPT AND IS KNOWN AS TRASUBSTANTIANISM. A NUMBER OF CHRISTIAN SECTS DISBELIEVE IN IT. ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DOGMA IS ANOTHER DOGMA OF MULTI-LOCATION OF A THING. THE LATTER DOGMA WAS BORRWED BY MAULIVI RAZA OF BARAILI WHEN HE CLAIMED THAT A SINGLE MAN CAN BE PRESENT AT SEVERAL DIFFERET PLACES. BUT REST OF PEOPLE DISBELIEVE IN THE POSSIBILITY OF MULTI LOCATION. AS FOR THE PROBLEM ONE MAY DISCUSS IT PROPERLY:SUPPOSE THAT A THING [ SAY ] IS A AND IT BECOMES B BY TRANSUBSTANTIATION. NOW THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES. 1] THE THING [ SAY ] DOES CEASE TO BE A. 2] ] THE THING [ SAY ] DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A. IF IT DOES CEASE TO BE A THEN ONE THAT IS CONSUMED IS B THEN B IS CONSUMED. AS ONE THAT IS CONSUMED IS NOT A THEN A IS NOT CONSUMED BUT A NO LONGERRR EXISED BEFORE THE CONSUPTION. IF IT DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A THEN IF A IS COSUMED B IS CONSUMED. FURTHER IF WHAT SO EVER IS CONSUMED IS BE THEN THIS BE IS ALSO A AND A IS CONSUMED. THIS IS VERY CLEAR PICTURE OF THE PROBLEM. UNLESS AND OTHER WISE B IS UNCONSUMABLE OR IT IS NOT CONSUMED AT ALL IT IS VERY PROBLEMATIC TO ACCEPT. WHEN SECTS OF ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANITY FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT HOW CAN PEOPLE OF OTHER RELIGIONS FIND IT ACCEPTABLE. BUT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT ENDS HERE. IF BREADS CAN BE CONVERTED \TRANSUBSTANTIATED INTO BODY OF CHRIST THEN A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS CAN ALSO BE TRANSUBSTANTIATE INTO BODY OF CHRIST EVEN A HUMAN BEING CAN BE TRANSUBSTANTIATE INTO CHRISTS BODY. A PIECE OF STONE CAN ALSO TRANSUBSTANTIATE INTO THE BODY AND THIS IS A GREATER PROBLEM. PEOPLE MAY START CLAIMING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSUBSTANTIATED INTO BODY OF CHRIST , AND THERE SHALL BE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST SUCH A CLAIM]

But if an unbeliever wants to say that this conversion is impossible, let him think of the omnipotence of God. He will agree that by the power of nature one thing can be converted into another by taking on another form. Thus air is converted into fire when the matter which previously was under the form of air later becomes subject to the form of fire. Much more, therefore, the power of almighty God, which brings the whole substance of a thing

29

into existence, can not only change something by form, as nature does, but also convert the whole thing, so that bread is converted into the body of Christ and wine into his blood. [ NOT ONLY BREAD BUT EVERY BODY CAN BE CONVERTED INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST INCLUDING A HUMAN BEING,IT IT IS SAID THAT THIS IS .NOT POSSIBLE THEN ONE MAY REPEAT THE FOLLOWING WORDS<< if an unbeliever wants to say that this conversion is impossible, let him think of the omnipotence of God>>

If anyone objects to this conversion on the grounds of what appears to the senses, where there is no difference, let him observe that divine things are offered to us under the veil of visible things. That we may have the spiritual and divine refreshment of the body and blood of Christ, and not take it as ordinary food and drink, it is taken under the form of bread and wine; that avoids the horror of eating human flesh and drinking blood. Nevertheless, we do not say that the forms that appear in the Sacrament are just in the imagination of the viewer, as happens in magical tricks, because any deceit is unworthy of this Sacrament. But God, who is the creator of substance and accidents, can preserve sensible accidents in existence even when the substance is changed into something else.[ IF THIS IS POSSIBLE THEN
THEN THE VERY CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE AND ESSENCE BECOMES RATIONALLY UNPROVABLE. ONE CAN SAY THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE AND NO ESSENCE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. THERE ARE ONLY ACCIDENTS WHICH ARE PRESERVRED BY GOD. ]

For he can produce and preserve in existence the effects of secondary causes by his omnipotence without secondary causes. [ IF IT IS ALL THEN ONE HAS TO ADMIT GOD
CAN ASSUME AN ANGELIC NATURE JUST BECAUSE HE IS OMNIPOTENT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE TEST USES OMNIPOTENCE WHERE IT SUITS TO THE AUTHOR OF THE TEXT AND NEGLECTS OMNIPOTENCE WHERE IT DOES NOT]

But if someone does not admit the omnipotence of God, we do not attempt to argue with him in this work. We are here arguing against Muslims and others who admit the omnipotence of God. There are further mysteries in this Sacrament which should not be discussed here, since the sacred things of faith should not be exposed to unbelievers.

Chapter 9: How there is a special place where souls are purified before receiving beatitude We must now consider the opinion of those who say there is no purgatory after death. Some hold this opinion by over-reaction, as happens in many other questions. Trying to avoid one error they fall into the contrary. Thus Arius wanted to avoid the error of Sabellius who merged the persons of the Holy Trinity, but he wound up dividing the divine essence [ ARIUS TRIED TO CORRECT TRINITARIAN HERECY WHICH WAS CLAIMING TO BE ORTHODOX
CHRISTIANITY ACTUALLY ATHANASIANS TRIED TO DIVINITIZE IESOUS AND SABELLIUS WAS ITS LOGICLA CHRISTIANITY. EXTREME. JEOCHRISTIANITY ALSO DID NOT ACCETED THE UNITY OF ESSENCE AND PLURALITY OF HYPOSTASES , NETHER JUDAISM EVER BELIEVED THIS DOGMA FROM MOSES TO IOHN OF NON SYNOPTIC GOSPEL. IT IS A LATTER HERECY]. ]

Likewise Eutyches wanted to avoid the error of Nestorius who divided the person of God and man in Christ, but went over to the contrary error of saying that he had a single divine and human nature. So some, wishing to avoid the error of Origen who said that the

30

pains of Hell would eventually purify all its occupants, assert that there is no purifying pain after death. [ THESE ARE THE LATTER INTERNAL DISPUTES OF TRINITARIANS OF POST NICAEA PERIOD] The Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church treads carefully between contrary errors. It distinguishes the persons in the Trinity against Sabellius, without leaning towards the error of Arius, but professes only one essence of the persons. In the mystery of the incarnation it distinguishes the two natures against Eutyches, but does not join Nestorius in making two persons. Likewise, regarding the state of souls after death, it professes that those who leave this life without mortal sin and have the gift of love may undergo some purifying pain, but it does not agree with Origen in saying that all pain after death is purifying; rather it professes that those who die with mortal sin are tortured with the devil and his angels with eternal punishment.[WE LEAVE THIS PART UNCOMMENTED EXCEPT THE ONE WHICH SHALL BE THE LAST COMMENT ON THIS PART OF THE TEXT] As for the truth of the matter, we must first of all say that those who die in mortal sin are immediately carried away to hellish punishment. This is clear from the Gospel; thus Luke states the words of the Lord (16:22) that "the rich man died and was buried; in hell he looked up..." He describes his own torture (v. 24): "for I am in agony in these flames." Job also says of the wicked (21:13): "They enjoy life and then go down suddenly to Sheol." See also Job 22:17: "They say to God, 'Go away from us'." Not only are the wicked in hell for their own sins, but before the suffering of Christ even the just went down at death to the underworld for the sin of our first parent. Thus Jacob said (Gen 37:35): "I will go down to Sheol in mourning." Thus Christ himself at death went down to the underworld, as the Creed says, and as the Prophet [David] foretold (Ps 16:10): "You will not leave my soul in Sheol," which Peter, in Acts (2:25), applies to Christ. Christ however went to the underworld in a different way, not laden with sin but alone "free among the dead" [Latin for Ps 88:6]; he descended to disarm principalities and powers (1 Cor 15:24) and take captives (Ps 68:19), as Zechariah predicted (9:11): "As for you, because of the blood of your covenant I have released your prisoners from the pit in which there is no water." [ BOOKS OF HEBRAIC BIBLE HAS TWO TYPES OF INTERPRETATIONS a) JEWISH,b) CHRISTIAN. SO ONE CAN NOT
ACCEPT ANY ONE OF THEM WITH OUT COMPAIRING BOTH BELIEVERS OF THE SAME HEBRAIC BIBLE. I PERSONALLAY THINK THAT THOSE WHO ACCEPT CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS NEGLECT THE OTHER SIDE. THIS IS NOT A CORECT WAY. BUT TO STUDY THE PROBLEM FROM THIS ASPECT IS A VERY LENGTHY TOPIC AND CAN NOT BE DISCUSSED IN THIS LIMITED SCOPE].

But because God's acts of compassion are above all his works, we believe still more that those who die without stain receive immediately the reward due to them for eternity. This is proven by clear texts; with reference to the sufferings of the saints, the Apostle says (2 Cor 5:1): "We are well aware that when the tent that houses us on earth is folded up, there is a house for us from God, not made by human hands but everlasting, in the heavens." These words appear at first sight to indicate that as soon as the mortal body is dissolved man is clothed with heavenly glory. But to make the meaning plainer, let us examine the following verses. Since he referred to two things: the dissolution of our earthly dwelling and the gaining of a heavenly dwelling, he shows how man's desire regards each, with an explanation of each. So, regarding the

31

desire for a heavenly dwelling, he says (v. 2) that "we groan" because we are delayed from reaching our desire, and "we yearn to be clothed over with our heavenly dwelling." These words indicate that the heavenly dwelling he is talking about is not something separated from man, but something attached to him. For we do not say that a man puts on a house, but a garment; rather we say that someone dwells in a house. So, when he combines the two concepts "to be clothed over with our heavenly dwelling", he shows that what we first desire is something attached, because it is put on, and it is also containing and exceeding, since it is dwelt in. Exactly what this object of desire is the following verses make clear. Because he did not simply say "clothed" but "clothed over", he explains this (v. 3): "provided we are found clothed and not naked," as if to say: If the soul puts on an eternal dwelling without taking off its earthly dwelling, the acquisition of that dwelling is being clothed over. But because the earthly dwelling must be taken off in order to put on the heavenly one, we cannot speak simply of being clothed over. Therefore someone could ask the Apostle: Why did you say "yearning to be clothed over"? He answers that by saying (v. 4): "While we are in our present tent," that is, clothed with our present transitory dwelling, not having a permanent dwelling, "we groan, weighed down" as by something happening against our desire, since by our natural desire "we do not wish to be stripped naked" from our earthly tent, "but to be clothed over with a heavenly tent, so that what is mortal may be absorbed by life," that is, that we may go into immortal life without tasting death. Someone could again ask the Apostle why, as it seems reasonable, should we want not to be stripped of our earthly dwelling which is natural to us in order to put on a heavenly dwelling? He answers (v. 5): "God has designed us for this," that is, to desire heavenly things. How God does this, he adds: "He has given us the Spirit as a pledge." For the Holy spirit, whom we receive from God, makes us certain and eager to gain our heavenly dwelling, like claiming something owed to us because of the pledge we hold. Because of this certainty we are lifted up to desire a heavenly dwelling. So we have two kinds of desire: the first is natural, which is not to abandon our earthly dwelling, and the second is from grace, which is to gain a heavenly dwelling. But both desires cannot be fulfilled, since we cannot reach our heavenly dwelling without leaving our earthly one. So with a firm trust and boldness we prefer the desire that comes from grace to our natural desire, and wish to leave our earthly dwelling and go to our heavenly one. That is what he adds (vv. 6-8): "Therefore we continue to be confident. We know that while we dwell in the body we are away from the Lord. We walk by faith, not by sight. I repeat, we are full of confidence and would much rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." It is now clear that the Apostle meant the corruptible body by the term "the tent that houses us on earth"; this body is like a garment to the soul. It is also clear that what he meant by "a house not made by human hands, but everlasting in the heavens" is God himself, whom men put on or dwell in, when they are present to him

32

face to face, that is, seeing him as he is. But they are on the road, away from him, when they hold by faith what they do not yet see. Therefore the saints desire to travel away from the body, that their souls may be separated from their bodies by death, so that, having left the body, they may be present to the Lord. It is therefore clear that the souls of the saints, separated from the body, have reached their heavenly dwelling. Therefore the glory of holy souls, which consists in the vision of God, is not deferred to the day of judgement when bodies are raised. This is also clear from what the Apostle says to the Philippians (1:23): "I long to be freed from this life and to be with Christ." This desire would be frustrated if, after his body was dissolved, he was not with Christ, who is in heaven. The Lord also clearly said to the penitent thief on the cross (Lk 23:43): "Today you will be with me in paradise," meaning by paradise the enjoyment of glory. So it is not to be believed that Christ defers the reward of his faithful, as far as the glory of their souls is concerned, until the resurrection of the body. The words of the Lord (Jn 14:2), "In my Father's house there are many places to live in," refer to different degrees of rewards given to the saints in heavenly happiness, not outside the heavenly home but in it. From this it also follows that there is a place for purifying souls after death. Many passages of Scripture clearly say that no one can enter heavenly glory with any stain. Speaking about participation in Divine Wisdom, Wisdom 7:25 says: "Nothing impure can find its way into her." But heavenly happiness consists in the perfect participation in Wisdom, by which we see God face to face. Therefore those who are brought into this must be completely without stain. This is also supposed in Isaiah, 35:8: "It will be called the Sacred Way; the unclean will not be allowed to use it," and in Revelation 21:7: "Nothing unclean may come into it." Some people, at the hour of death, happen to have some stains of sin which do not merit the eternal damnation of hell, such as venial sins, like idle words etc. Those who die with such stains cannot go straight to heavenly happiness, although they would if they did not have these stains, as we have seen. Therefore, after death they at least suffer a delay in entering glory. There is no reason why our objectors should concede that souls after death suffer this penalty rather than any other, especially since the lack of the vision of God and separation from him is a greater pain, even for those in hell, than the punishment of fire which they suffer there. Therefore the souls of those who die with venial sins undergo a purifying fire. If someone says that these venial sins will wait to be purified by the fire that will burn up the world before the coming of the Judge, this cannot hold. It has been shown above that the souls of the saints which have no stain gain heavenly happiness as soon as they die, and at the same time souls with venial sins cannot enter glory. In that case their entrance into glory would be deferred because of venial sins until the day of judgement, which is most improbable, since this would be too great a penalty for light sins. Another reason for purgatory is that some people did not finish making due penance for the [mortal] sins they repented of before death, and it would not befit God's justice to let them off; otherwise those who die suddenly would be in a better position than those who spend a long time in this life doing penance. Therefore they suffer something after death. This

33

cannot be in hell, where people are punished for mortal sins, since the mortal sins of these people have been forgiven by their repentance. Nor would it be fitting, as a penalty, to defer the glory due to them until the day of judgement. Therefore there should be some temporal purifying punishment after this life before the day of judgement. Church rites established by the Apostles agree with this. For the whole Church prays for the faithful departed. It is clear that it does not pray for those who are in hell, where there is no redemption, nor for those who have reached heavenly glory. It remains therefore that there are some temporal purifying pains after this life, for whose remission the Church prays. Thus even the Apostle says (1 Cor 3:13-15): "Each person's handiwork will be shown for what it is. The Day which dawns in fire will make it clear and the fire itself will test the quality of each person's work. The one whose work stands up to it will be given his wages; the one whose work is burnt down will suffer the loss of it, though he himself will be saved, but only as one fleeing through fire." This cannot be understood of the fire of hell, because those who suffer that fire are not saved. Therefore it must be understood of a purifying fire. It may be said that this should be understood of the fire that will precede the coming of the Judge, especially since the passage says, "The Day will make it clear", while the day of the Lord is understood as the day of his last coming for the universal judgement of the whole world, as the Apostle says in 1 Thessalonians (5:2): "The Day of the Lord is going to come like a thief in the night." In reply we must point out that as the day of judgement is called the day of the Lord, because it is the day of his coming for the universal judgement of the whole world, so the day of each person's death can also be called the day of the Lord, because then Christ comes to each person to reward or condemn him. With reference to rewarding the good, Christ said to his disciples (Jn 14:3): "After I have gone and prepared you a place, I shall return to take you to myself." With reference to the damnation of the evil it is said in Revelation 2:5: "Repent and behave as you did at first, or else, if you will not repent, I shall come to you and take your lamp-stand from its place." Therefore the day of the Lord on which the universal judgement takes place will be revealed in the fire which will precede the coming of the Judge, when the reprobate will be pulled to judgement, and the just who are left alive will be purified, but the day of the Lord on which he will judge each person at his death will be revealed by a fire that will purify the good and condemn the wicked. Therefore it is clear that there is a purgatory after death.

Chapter 10: That divine predestination does not impose necessity on human acts Last of all we come to the question whether, because of divine ordination or predestination, human acts become necessary. This question requires caution so as to defend the truth and avoid falsity or error.

34

It is erroneous to say that human acts and events escape God's fore-knowledge and ordination. It is no less erroneous to say that God's fore-knowledge and ordination imposes necessity on human acts; otherwise free will would be removed, as well as the value of taking counsel, the usefulness of laws, the care to do what is right and the justice of rewards and punishments. We must observe that God knows things differently from man. Man is subject to time and therefore knows things temporally, seeing some things as present, recalling others as past, and fore-seeing others as future. But God is above the passage of time, and his existence is eternal. So his knowledge is not temporal, but eternal. Eternity is compared to time as something indivisible to what is continuous. Thus in time there is a difference of successive parts according to before and after, but eternity has no before and after, because eternal things are free from any change. Thus eternity is totally at once, just as a point lacks parts that are distinct in location. For a point can be compared to a line in two ways: first as included in the line, whether at the beginning, middle or end, secondly as existing outside a line. A point within a line cannot be present to all the parts of the line, but in different parts of the line different points must be designated. But a point outside the line can view all parts of the line equally, as in a circle, whose central point is indivisible and faces all the parts of the circumference and all of them are somehow present to it, although not to one another. An instant, which is a limit of time, is comparable to the point included in a line. It is not present to all parts of time, but in different parts of time different instances are designated. Eternity is something like the point outside a line, like the centre of a circle. Since it is simple and indivisible, it comprehends the whole passage of time and each part of time is equally present to it, although one part of time follows another. Thus God, who looks at everything from the high point of eternity, views as present the whole passage of time and everything that is done in time. Therefore, when I see Socrates sitting, my knowledge is infallible and certain, but no necessity is imposed on Socrates to be seated. Thus God, seeing everything that is past, future or present to us as present to himself, knows all this infallibly and certainly, yet without imposing on contingent things any necessity of existing. This comparison can be accepted, if we compare the passage of time to travel over a road. If someone is on a road over which many people pass, he sees those who are just ahead of him, but cannot certainly know those who come after him. But if someone stands in a high place where he can see the whole road, he sees at once all who are moving on the road. Thus man, who is in time, cannot see the whole course of time at once, but only thinks that just in front of him, namely the present, and a few things of the past, but he cannot know future things for certain. But God, from the high point of his eternity sees with certitude and as present all that is done through the whole course of time, without imposing necessity on contingent things.

35

Just as God's knowledge does not impose necessity on contingent things, neither does his ordination, by which he providentially orders the universe. For he orders things the way he acts on things; his ordination does not violate but brings to effect by his power what he planned in his Wisdom. As for the action of God's power, we should observe that he acts in everything and moves each single thing to its actions according to the manner proper to each thing, so that some things, by divine motion, act from necessity, as the motion of heavenly bodies [according to ancient cosmology], while others contingently, which sometimes fail in their proper action because of their corruptibility. A tree, for example, sometimes is impeded from producing fruit and an animal from generating offspring. Thus Divine Wisdom orders things so that they happen after the manner of their proper causes. In the case of man, it is natural for him to act freely, not forced, because rational powers can turn in opposite directions. Thus God orders human actions in a way that these actions are not subject to necessity, but come from free will.

These, then are what I can write at present about the questions you sent to me. They are treated in greater detail elsewhere [in the Summa contra gentiles]. [ CHAPTER 10 : DIVINE KNOWLIDEGE OR DIVINE OMNIPSCIECE DOES NOT LIMIT DIVINE INTENSION\WILL. THIS IS THE BELIEF OF ALL SUNNI SECTS NAMELY ASHARITES,MUTURIDITES AND SLAFITES. HOW EVER JAHMITES AND QADRITES TWO HERETIC SECTS DID BELIEVE THAT DIVINE OMNISCIENCE CONTRADICTS NOT ONLY FREEDOM OF HUMANS BUT ALSO DIVINE FREEDOM OF WILL. THAT IS WHY THE DENIED OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. TO DAY A NUMBER OF PHILOSOPHERS A DENEY DIVINE OMNISCIENCE FOR THE VERY SAME REASON. BUT IN ESSENCE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION , SO A DETAIL COMMENT IS NOT NEEDED]

1. Literally, "of nearly the whole world to

36