Here is a bit of what I worked on today of Question 4 of Saint Thomas’ Summa Theologiae. Overall I feel as though I have been taught to use many carpentry tools in my basement and someone has shoved me out into the yard and told me to build a house. That is, I am having a hard time bringing everything together.
The following piece I translated with a mind toward both accuracy (insert laughter here) and speed. If I took more time on this piece I think it would be much better. But, as the test is timed I need to work on both aspects. I also spend some time doing slow translations and also try
simply reading the Latin without “translating” per se. This piece took me approximately 45 minutes.
Enough disclaimers. Anyone feel free to leave helpful comments of what I may try to do for the first steps of sharpening the tools.
Thank You.
Al.
Quaestio 4
Prooemium
[28381] Iª q. 4 pr. Post considerationem divinae simplicitatis, de perfectione ipsius Dei dicendum est. Et quia unumquodque, secundum quod perfectum est, sic dicitur bonum, primo agendum est de perfectione divina; secundo de eius bonitate. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Deus sit perfectus. Secundo, utrum Deus sit universaliter perfectus omnium in se perfectiones habens. Tertio, utrum creaturae similes Deo dici possint.
Articulus 1
[28382] Iª q. 4 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse perfectum non conveniat Deo. Perfectum enim dicitur quasi totaliter factum. Sed Deo non convenit esse factum. Ergo nec esse perfectum.
[28383] Iª q. 4 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus est primum rerum principium. Sed principia rerum videntur esse imperfecta, semen enim est principium animalium et plantarum. Ergo Deus est imperfectus.
[28384] Iª q. 4 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, ostensum est supra quod essentia Dei est ipsum esse. Sed ipsum esse videtur esse imperfectissimum, cum sit communissimum, et recipiens omnium additiones. Ergo Deus est imperfectus.
[28385] Iª q. 4 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matt. V, estote perfecti, sicut et pater vester caelestis perfectus est.
[28386] Iª q. 4 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus narrat in XII Metaphys., quidam antiqui philosophi, scilicet Pythagorici et Speusippus, non attribuerunt optimum et perfectissimum primo principio. Cuius ratio est, quia philosophi antiqui consideraverunt principium materiale tantum, primum autem principium materiale imperfectissimum est. Cum enim materia, inquantum huiusmodi, sit in potentia, oportet quod primum principium materiale sit maxime in potentia; et ita maxime imperfectum. Deus autem ponitur primum principium, non materiale, sed in genere causae efficientis, et hoc oportet esse perfectissimum. Sicut enim materia, inquantum huiusmodi, est in potentia; ita agens, inquantum huiusmodi, est in actu. Unde primum principium activum oportet maxime esse in actu, et per consequens maxime esse perfectum. Secundum hoc enim dicitur aliquid esse perfectum, secundum quod est actu, nam perfectum dicitur, cui nihil deest secundum modum suae perfectionis.
After the consideration of the simplicity of the divine, it is spoken of the perfection of God himself. And because each thing, as it is perfect, in this way is called good, the first to be considered is of divine perfection; secondly of his goodness. Concerning the first there are three things to be inquired. First, whether God is perfect. Secondly, whether God is universally perfect having the perfection of all things in himself. Third, whether it is possible to say of creatures that they are similar to God.
Article One:
To the first it is proceeded in this way. It seems that perfection is not brought together in God. For it is said that perfection is just as that which is totally made. But God is not suitable for God to be made. Therefore, God is not perfect.
Further, God is the first principle thing. But principle things seem to be imperfect, for the seed is the principally animal and plant. Therefore God is imperfect.
Further, it is clear from above that the essence of God is being itself. But it seems that being itself is the most imperfect since it is the most common and receptive of all additions. Therefore, God is imperfect.
But against this it is said in Matthew 5 that, (estote?) of perfect things, and just as your father of heaven is perfect.
I respond that (what is dicendum here?), just as the philosopher says in Metaphysics 12, some ancient philosophers, clearly the Pythagoreans and Leucippus, did not attribute the best and the most perfect to the first principle. Reason is his, because the ancient philosophers considered only a material principle. For the first principle material is the most imperfect. Since indeed matter, precisely of this mode, is in potential, it is clear that the first material principle is the most in potential and thus the most imperfect. However, God is appointed the first principle, not material, but of the efficient cause in general, and it is clear that this is the greatest perfection. For just as material, as such, is in potential, so acts, as such, are in actuality. Hence the first active principle must be most in actuality and consequently be the greatest in perfection. For just as it is said of all perfect, as what is actual, for it is said of perfection, that which lacks nothing as the mode of its own perfection.
)is said to be perfect according to its/the (i think its is better) actualitty, for perfect is said to be that which lacks nothing according to the mode of it perfection