that d#teraiJled the .ther to the nature ot man. Upon this dJDil.t1-ity (not opnfondty) ot relationa intriBlio to diver •• natures, analogy- is based. It i, beoauae the relation ot ... utah to it. existenoe bears 'OM ... , cold'o~ t)' to the relation .t .an to hi,e~'tenoe, being. A conformity ot this kind is not a tixed proportion. that both oan be termed 'Jhe being ot JnOUJlta~B ia va.tly ditterent trom the being ot man. What is _re, it is "OUJ1ta:t.n !!. being that is similar to the beil' ot man. The unity that make, ~em similar is not that ot a detiDed relation, it i. that ot a .taila~ity ot relations in the mid.t ot .s.ential dittereBces. 'lhis relation i. intrin.ic t. the object in which it i. tound but it i. not tor that r#ason equal to the relation ot the object to which it i. analogou •• In t"ao.c;, it can not be equal; it it were, the predication would be univocal not aB~logical. 'Jhere i' in every being, tinite or Inf'1Bite, an intrinsic relation betweet' tAat 'being and its 1IILDIler ot erl.tence. God is related to H1I Being aa Pare Act i. to Pure Act; the creature i. related to it. being a8 potency ~. to act, or as enence 11 related to exi.tence.6 !he intrin.ic relation between God and Hi. Being, absolutely .imple, is not one with the I 6 st. !ho..., Contra GeBt., II, chap. liii, p. 126, Whatsoever participate. a thing is ccmpared to the thing participa. ted a8 potentiality to acta aince by that which i. participated the participator is _de to b. actually such. Bow it ..... shown abcv. (chap. 16) that CJod al(1ne is ... entially 'being,lIld all other thinga participate being. !her.t"~re every created substance i. compared to its being as potentiality to act,
49 relation of the oreature to its ezistenoe. 6 Still, there is betweeh these relations a at.ilaritT, or, to speak more technioally, a proportionality. Upon this proportionality are based our analogioal predioation. of the perf.otions ot God as .anitestedbJ His ettects • . We have said, God is intelligent, all iD~ledge is Hia. !be oonoept ie analogioal. We have experience of huan knowledge, whioh denoted apprehension ot the intelligible or, union of the ,ing knOWl'l and the knower. Human knowledge is dependent on sensible data, it must ditfer elsentially trom the knowledse predioated ot an ab.olutely .imple and t.mutable Being. What i. BtOre, .... use the word knowledge analogically whenever we u.e it to reter to sen.ation, it too 11 a union ot the thing known with the knower, but bJ ... n. ot a .ensible speoies. !be difterence between sensation and intellection is an e •• ential ditterenoel one require. a material, the other an immaterial tacul ty • Still, both are oorreotly named knowledge, tor both reter to union between a oogni tive taoul tJ and it. proper objeot, the re-. • ul t ot whioh ie knowledge. '!hie union or knowledge exists aleo in God, but in a way that ditter. trom huan knowledge, by a. much a. God ditters fro. 6 st. !bemas, Contra Gent., I, ohap. xxxii, p. TT: I Bow nothing is predioated in the .ame order ot God and other things, but, acoording to priority and poeterioritJl sinoe all predioates of God are e.sential tor He is oalled being beoau.e He il very e •• enoe, and good because He is goodness itaelt. whereas predicate. are applied to others by part1oipation ••• !heretore it is impossible tor any thing to be predioated uni"oca1l7 ot God and other things.
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eC
., . ·. ..., !ABLE OF COIl!'.DTS I