Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book IV: Grace and Free Choice in Natural and Civil Works
Chapter 2: That it can be known by the powers of nature that God exists, and is one, and other things of that kind
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book IV. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The first question, then, offers itself to be treated: Whether the human mind has been so wounded through sin that it cannot, by the powers of nature alone, know any mechanical truth, or natural theoretical truth. For of moral and supernatural truth we shall discourse afterwards.
Now it is the common opinion of all that many theoretical and mechanical truths, which are contained in the human and natural sciences and arts, can be known by the light of nature alone — which even Calvin confesses in book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 2, and in book 2, chapter 2. One controversy alone remains: Whether that God exists, and is one, can be known by the light of reason without the special help of grace.
For John Calvin, in the place noted, writes that the heathen by the light of nature alone knew in a general way that there is some God, yet did not arrive at the knowledge of the true God, who is one and alone. Tilman Heshusius also, in the book on the errors of the Pontificians, under the title of free choice, number 11, places among the errors that which is had in the Roman Catechism: that it can be known by the natural light that God exists, and is one. From our own also, Peter of Ailly, on 1 Sentences, question 3, wrote that nothing can be known of God without the special aid of grace.
But almost all the Theologians think the contrary, and especially St. Thomas, book 1 against the Gentiles, chapters 12 and 43, where he does not hesitate to call an error the opinion of those who teach that it cannot be demonstrated by natural reason that God exists. And certainly what is demonstrated by natural reason is known by the natural light; nor is there need of the help of special grace to assent to those things which are demonstrated by natural reason, since we assent to them without labor — nay rather, we can by no means not assent.
This truth is proved, then, first from the divine writings. Job 36: All men see him, but every one beholdeth afar off. In which place men are said to see God, because all have the natural light by which they can reach to the knowledge of the true God; yet they are said to behold him afar off, because they can know only certain common things — as that he is, and is one, and is good, etc. — which are gathered from created things. St. Gregory, book 27 of the Morals, chapter 2, and Bede, book 3 on Job, chapter 5, so expound this place.
The second place is Wisdom 13: For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world, how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof? From which place we learn that the true and one God can be naturally known — and not only God in general, as is said of the true God and false gods. For if anyone should think the sun or the moon to be gods, or should honor dead men as gods, such as Jupiter and Mars, he cannot be said to have found the Lord of the world, neither simply, nor according to the opinion of the author of the book of Wisdom: not simply, because in truth neither the sun, nor the moon, nor Jupiter, nor Mars is the Lord of the world; nor according to the opinion of this sacred author, because he himself confesses that by those whom he reprehends, because they did not find the Lord of the world, the sun and moon and dead men were held for gods.
The third place is Acts 17: That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us. For the sense of this place, as Chrysostom and Oecumenius interpret, is that the knowledge of God from created things is so easy and so ready to hand that it can almost be felt and handled, in the way those things are handled which lie before our feet and eyes.
The fourth place is Romans 1: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God.” In this place the Apostle signifies that the wise men of the world knew the true God from created things. For if they had not known the true God, they would not be said to have detained the truth in iniquity; nor would the Apostle pronounce absolutely, When they knew God, they have not glorified him as God; nor, on account of a knowledge of divinity in general, would they be said to be inexcusable concerning the sin of idolatry. For they would not be inexcusable in worshipping idols for gods, if they had known, or could have known, no other God.
Moreover, from this place we understand that God manifested his Deity to the Philosophers not through a special revelation, but through the species of created things. For when blessed Paul had said, God hath manifested it unto them, he straightway explains how he manifested it, and says: For the invisible things of him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. And in this way Chrysostom, Ambrose, and others expound that place in their commentary, and besides Augustine in many places, which will be adduced a little later.
Finally, from this place we gather that the philosophers knew not only that God exists, but also that he acts freely, and provides for human affairs. For otherwise they would not be reprehended for not having given thanks. For the giving of thanks is not owed to one who works from the necessity of nature, but to one who bestows benefits on us when it is in his power not to bestow them.
The same truth is proved, secondly, from the testimonies of the Fathers. St. Justin Martyr, in the Apology to the Emperor, past the middle, writes that Socrates and certain others so knew the true God that they could almost be called Christians.
St. Irenaeus, book 2 against Heresies, chapter 5, has these words: “Although no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, yet this very thing all know, since reason, fixed in their minds, moves them and reveals it: that there is one God, the Lord of all.”
Tertullian, in the Apologeticus, chapter 17: “Would you,” says he, “that we prove it from the testimony of the soul itself? — which, though pressed by the prison of the body, though hedged about by depraved trainings, though enervated by lusts and concupiscences, though enslaved to false gods, yet, when it comes to itself, and enjoys its health, names God alone, because this one is properly the true God: ‘God is good,’ and ‘God is great,’ and ‘what God shall give’ is the voice of all. It attests him also as judge: ‘God sees,’ and ‘I commend to God,’ and ‘God will repay me.’ O testimony of the soul naturally Christian! Finally, pronouncing these things, it looks not to the Capitol, but to heaven.” And in the book On the Spectacles: “No one,” says he, “denies — because no one is ignorant of — what nature of her own accord suggests: that God is the maker of the universe.”
St. Cyprian, in the fourth treatise, On the Vanity of Idols: “What is this height of offence,” says he, “to be unwilling to acknowledge him of whom you cannot be ignorant?” And again in the same place: “Therefore he is one, and diffused everywhere. For even the common people in many things naturally confess God, when the mind and soul is admonished of its author and prince. We hear it often said: ‘O God,’ and ‘God sees,’ and ‘I commend to God,’ etc.”
Lactantius, book 1 of the Divine Institutes, chapter 3: “There is no one,” says he, “who has wisdom and considers the matter with himself, who does not understand that there is one God.”
St. Hilary, on the first verse of Psalm 52: “Who,” says he, “beholding the world, does not perceive that God exists?”
St. Ambrose, in the commentary on chapter 1 to the Romans — or whoever was the author of those commentaries: “That God,” says he, “who by nature is invisible, might be able to be known from visible things, he made a work which by its visibility manifested its maker.”
St. Gregory of Nyssa, book 8 of the Philosophy, chapter 7: “It is no light conjecture,” says he, “that singular things are governed by providence, that the knowledge of it has been naturally implanted in men. For, overwhelmed by some necessity, we straightway flee for refuge to the divine power and to prayers — as though nature, without a teacher, taught us the divine help.”
St. Jerome, in the commentary on chapter 1 to the Galatians: “From which,” says he, “it is made clear that the knowledge of God is in all by nature.”
St. John Chrysostom, homily 9 to the people of Antioch: “God,” says he, “hath manifested it unto them. In what way? Sending what Prophet? What Evangelist? What Doctor, if the Scriptures did not yet exist? The invisible things of him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, etc.” In which place St. John Chrysostom copiously teaches that the wise men of the world could know by the light of nature that God is the maker and governor of the globe of the earth.
St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 12: “You see,” says he, “how he did not call them ignorant of the truth, but said that they detained the truth in iniquity; and because it occurred to the mind to ask whence they could have had the knowledge of the truth, to whom God had not given the law, neither was he silent on this — whence they could have had it: for he said that through the visible things of the creature they arrived at the understanding of the invisible things of the creator. For in very truth, as great minds persisted in inquiring, so they were able to find.” Likewise, sermon 35 on the words of the Lord: “Whence,” says he, “do those impious men detain the truth? Did God speak to any of them? Did they receive the law, as the Israelites through Moses? Hear how God manifested it to them: The invisible things of him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Question the world, the adornment of the heaven, the brightness and disposition of the stars, and see if, in their own fashion, they do not answer you, as it were: ‘God made us.’ These things the noble Philosophers also sought, and from the art they knew the artificer.” Likewise, tractate 106 on John: “This,” says he, “is the power of the true divinity: that it cannot be altogether and utterly hidden from the rational creature once it uses reason. For, excepting a few in whom nature has been too much depraved, the whole human race confesses God to be the author of this world.” Likewise, book 8 On the City of God, chapter 6: “And so,” says he, “that which is known of God he himself manifested to them, when by them his invisible things were beheld, understood through the things that are made.” Where St. Augustine, in many other words, teaches that the Philosophers, by reasoning, and by ascending step by step through created things, arrived little by little at the knowledge of the one God.
Paul Orosius, book 6, chapter 1: “The Philosophers,” says he, “while with intent study they seek and scrutinize all things, found one God, the author of all. Whence even now the Pagans, whom the truth now declared convicts of contumacy rather than of ignorance, when they are examined by us, confess that they do not follow many gods, but venerate, under one great God, many ministers. There remains, therefore, concerning the understanding of the true God, a confused dissension through many surmises of understanding; for concerning one God there is almost one opinion of all. Thus far human scrutiny, though with labor, has been able to deliberate. But where reasoning fails, faith comes to the rescue.”
Theodoret, in the second discourse On the Curing of the Affections of the Greeks, teaches that Plato knew the one God, from the token which he had given to Dionysius in the epistle written to him. For Plato wrote that the epistle would be serious if at its beginning were written “God,” but playful if there were written “Gods.” For this token declares openly enough that with Plato the multitude of gods was fabulous.
St. Gregory, book 27 of the Morals, chapter 2: “Every man,” says he, “by the very fact that he was created rational, ought by reason to gather that he who created him is God. To see him now, namely, is to behold his dominion by reasoning. But since it is said, All men see him, it is rightly subjoined, every one beholdeth afar off — for to behold him afar off is not yet to discern him by his species, but still to weigh him from the sole admiration of his works.”
Finally, the venerable Bede, book 3 on Job, chapter 5, speaks thus: “Through the good of nature, the knowledge of the creator is in the hearts of men.” And below: “Every man naturally receives this power of wisdom, that he cannot be ignorant of God, unless he either contemn or neglect it.”
It is proved, last, by reason. For if that God is one could not be known without the special grace of God, that would come to pass either because the object is supernatural, or because the action of understanding the unity of God is very difficult, or even impossible, to the powers of nature alone. But neither of these can be said. For that the unity of God is a natural object, and that no revelation is needed for this, the Wise Man testifies, chapter 13, when he says: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. The very many demonstrations also bear witness, drawn from natural effects, by which John Damascene, book 1 On the Faith, chapter 5, Richard of St. Victor, books 1 and 2 On the Trinity, and St. Thomas, book 1 against the Gentiles, chapter 43, prove that God is one. But what can be demonstrated by natural reasons is certainly not supernatural, nor does it surpass the power of the natural intelligence. And where a demonstration is brought forward, it is not difficult to assent; but contrariwise it is rather difficult, or impossible, not to assent. Wherefore special help is not required for producing this act — especially since neither the vehemence of the perturbations nor any other cause can hinder the theoretical judgment, though they hinder the practical judgment and the actions of the will.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Posse cognosci viribus naturae Deum esse . et esse unum , et alia id genus. Prima igitur quaestio tractanda se otxert : Utrum ita laesa s:t mens humana per pec¬ catum, ut non possit solis naturae viribus cognoscere aliquod verum mechanicum, vel theoricum naturale. Nam de vero morali et supernaturali postea disseremus. Est autem communis omnium sententia, posse cognosci solo lumine naturae multas veritates theoricas et mechanicas, quae in scientis, et artibus humanis et naturalibus continentur. Id quod etiam Calvinus, fatetur in i. lib. Instit. cap. 2. et in lib. ii. cap. 2. Lua solum controversia remanet, Utrum Deum esse, et esse unum, cognosci possit lu¬ mine rationis absque speciali gratiae au- •xilio. Nam Joannes Calvinus loco notato scribit, ethnicos solo lumine naturae cognovisse ge- neratim, Deum esse aliquem, non tamen in veri Dei notitiam, qui unus et solus est, de¬ venisse. Tilmannus etiam Heshusius in lib. de erroribus Pontificiorum, titul. de libero arbitrio num. 11. inter errores ponit id, quod habetur in Catechismo romano, lumine naturali cognosci posse, Deum esse, et esse unum. Ex nostris quoque Petrus ab Alliaco in 1. sentent. quaest. 3. scripsit, non posse de Deo quicquam cognosci sine speciali ad¬ jutorio gratiae. At contra sentiunt fere omnes Theologi, ac praesertim S. Thomas lib. i. contra gen¬ tes cap. 12. et 43. ubi non dubitat, errorem appellare sententiam eorum, qui docent, aon posse naturali ratione demonstrari , Deum esse. Et certe quod naturali ratione demonstratur, naturali lumine cognoscitur ; aeque opus est ad assentiendum iis, quaena- urali ratione demonstrantur, auxilio gratiae pedali, cum sine labore iis assentiamur, quin etiam non assentiri nulla ratione ossimus. > Probatur igitur haec veritas primum ex di¬ vidis litteris ; Job xxxvi. Omnes homines vi¬ dent eum, sed unusquisque intuetur procul (1). Quo loco dicuntur homines videre Deum , quia omnes habent lumen naturale, quo pertingere possunt ac cognitionem veri Dei : tamen procul eum intueri dicuntur, quia non possunt cognoscere nisi communia quaedam, ut esse, et esse unum, esse bonum etc. quae ex rebus creatis colliguntur. S. Gregorius lib. xxvii. Moralium cap. 2. et Beda lib. m. in Job, cap. v. ita hunc locum exponunt, Alter locus est Sap. xm. Si tantum potue- ■ runt scire, ut possent aestimare saeculum , quomo¬ do hujus Dominum non facilius invenerunt (2)? Ex quo loco discimus, verum et unum Deum naturaliter posse cognosci, et non solum Deum in communi, ut dicitur de vero Deo, et falsis Diis. Nam si quis existimet solem aut lunam esse Deos, aut homine3 mortuos, ut Jovem et Martem tamquam Deos honoret, is non potest dici invenisse mundi Dominum, neque simpliciter, neque ex sententia aucto¬ ris libri Sapientiae; non simpliciter, quia vere, neque sol, neque luna, neque Jupi- ter, neque Mars, est mundi Dominus, non etiam ex sententia hujus sacri auctoris. Quia ipse fatetur ab iis, quos reprenhendit, quod mundi Dominum non invenerint, habitos fuisse pro Diis solem et lunam, et homines mortuos. Tertius locus est Actorum xvn. Quaerere Deum , si forte attrectent eum , aut inveniant, quamvisnon longe sit ab unoquoque nostrum (3). Est enim sententia hujus loci, interprete Chrysostomo et OEcumenio, tam esse faci¬ lem, et obviam Dei notitiam ex rebus crea¬ tis, ut fere palpari et attrectari queat, quo¬ modo tractantur ea, qua? ante pedes et ocu¬ los jacent. Quartus locus est Rom. i. « Revelatur ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem ; et injustitiam hominum eorum, qui veritatem „ Dei in injustitia detinent, quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis, Deus enim illis manifestavit. Invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea, qua? facta sunt, in¬ tellecta conspiciuntur : sempiterna quoque ejus virtus et divinitas, ita ut sint inexcusa¬ biles. Quia cum cognovissent Deum, non si¬ cut Deum glorificaverunt. » Hoc loco signi¬ ficat Apostolus sapientes mundi ex rebus creatis verum Deum cognovisse. Nam si non cognovissent verum Deum, non dicerentur veritatem in iniquitate detinuisse, neque ab¬ solute pronunciaret Apostolus : Cum Deum cognovissent , non sicut Deum glorificave- nunt; neque propter cognitionem numinis ft) Job. XXVI. 25. — C2) Sap. XII. 9. - (3) Act, XXVJl, 27. CAPUT II. 9 in genere dicerentur inexcusabiles, circa pec¬ catum idololatriae. Non enim inexcusabiles essent colentes idola pro Diis, si nullum alium Deum cognovissent, aut cognoscere potuissent. Praeterea ex hoc loco intelligimus, Deum manifestasse Deitatem suam Philosophis, non per revelationem specialem, sed per species rerum creatarum ; nam cum dixisset B. Paulus : Deus illis manifestavit , continuo ex¬ plicat, quemadmodum manifestaverit, ac dicit : Invisibilia enim ipsius per ea , qux facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Et hoc modo locum istum exponunt, Chrysostomus, Ambrosius et alii in commentario, et praet¬ erea Augustinus multis in locis, quae paulo post adferentur. Denique ex hoc loco colligimus philoso¬ phos cognovisse non solum Deum esse, sed etiam libere agere, et providere rebus hu¬ manis. Nam alioqui non reprehenderentur, quod gratias non egissent. Non enim debe¬ tur gratiarum actio ei, qui ex necessitate naturae operatur, sed ei qui beneficia nobis praestat, cum in ejus potestate non praestare. Probatur secundo eadem veritas ex testi¬ moniis Patrum. S. Justinus Martyr in Apo- logia ad Imperatorem ultra medium, scribit Socratem, et alios quosdam Deum verum ita cognovisse, ut fere Christiani dici po¬ tuerint. S. Ircnaeus lib. ii. adversus haercses c. 5. habet haec verba : a Etiamsi nemo novit pa¬ trem nisi filius, neque filium nisi pater, ta¬ men hoc ipsum omnia cognoscunt, quando ratio mentibus infixa moveat ea, et revelet, quoniam est unus Deus omnium Dominus. » Tertullianus in Apologetico c. xvn. «Vultis, inquit, testimonio comprobemus? quse licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumsepta, licet libidinibus et con¬ cupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis Diis exan¬ cillata, cum tamen x'esipiscit, et sanitatem suam patitur, et Deum nominat solum, quia proprie verus hic unus Deus, et bonus, et magnus, et quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est, judicem quoque contestatur illum, Deus videt, et Deo commendo, et Deus mihi reddet. 0 testimonium anima; naturaliter Christianas. Denique' pronuncians haxe, non ad Capito¬ lium, sed ad coelum respicit. » Et in lib. de spectaculis : « Nemo, inquit, negat, quia ne¬ mo ignorat, quod ultro natura suggerit, Deum esse universitatis conditorem. » S. Cyprianus tractatu 4. de Idolorum va- To». VI. nitate : « Qute est, inquit, hsec summa de¬ licti, nolle agnoscere, quem ignorare non possis? » Et rursus ibidem : « Ergo unus est, et ubique diffusus est. Nam et vulgus in mul¬ tis Deum naturaliter confitetur, cum mens, et anima sui auctoris, et principis admone¬ tur. Dici frequenter audimus, o Deus, et Deus videt, et Deo commendo etc. » Lactantius lib. i. divinarum institutionum cap. 3: «Nemo, inquit, est, qui sapiat, ratio¬ nemque secum putet, qui non unum Deum esse intelligat. » S. Hilarius in primum versum Psalmi lii. « Quis, inquit, mundum intuens, Deum esse non sentiat ? » S. Ambrosius in commentario capitis l.ad ltom. vel quicumque fuit eorum commenta¬ riorum auctor : « Ut Deus, inquit, qui na¬ tura invisibilis est, a visibilibus cognosci posset, opus fecit, quod opificem sua visibi¬ litate manifestavit. » S. Gregorius Nyssenus lib. vm. Philoso¬ phia; cap. 7. « Non levis, inquit, conjectura existit, singularia gubernari providentia, quod ejus cognitio sit hominibus naturaliter inserta. Necessitate enim aliqua obruti con- festim ad divinum numen, et orationes con¬ fugimus, quasi natura nos absque praece¬ ptore divinum auxilium edocente. » S. Hieronymus in comment. cap. 1. ad Gal. « Ex quo, inquit, perspicuum fit, na¬ tura omnibus inesse Dei notitiam. » S. Joanncs Chrysostomus hom. 9. ad po¬ pulum Antiochenum : « Deus, inquit, illis manifestavit. Quo pacto ? quem Prophetam mittens? quem Evangelistam? quem Docto- rem, si Scripturas nondum erant? Invisibilia ipsius, per ea, qua; facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, etc. » Quo loco S. Joannes Chrysostomus copiose docet, potuisse mundi sapientes natura; lumine cognoscere, Deum orbis terrae conditorem et moderatorem esse. S. Augustinus in lib. de spiritu et littera cap. 12. « Vides, inquit, quomodo, non cos dixerit veritatis ignaros, sed quod veritatem in iniquitate detinuerint : et quia occurrebat animo ut quateretur, unde illis esse potuerit cognitio veritatis, quibus Deus legem non dederat : neque hoc tacuit, unde habere potuerint; per. visibilia namque creatura; pervenisse eos dixit ad intelligentiam invisi¬ bilium creatoris. Quoniam revera sicut ma¬ gna ingenia quatere perstiterunt, sic inve¬ nire potuerunt. » Itemscrm. 35. de verbis Domini ; « Unde, . o 10 LIBER IV. inquit, illi impii veritatem detinent ? num- quid Deus ad quemquam illorum locutus est? numquid legem acceperunt, sicut Is- raelitseper Mosem? Audi quomodo illis Deus manifestavit. Invisibilia ejus per ea qua; fa¬ cta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Interroga mundum, ornatum coeli, fulgorem, disposi¬ tionemque syderum, et vide si non sensu suo, tamquam tibi respondent : Deus nos fecit. Haec, et Philosophi nobiles quaesierunt, et ex arte artificem cognoverunt. » Item tractatu 106. in Joannem : <1 Haec, inquit, est vis vera; divinitatis, ut creaturae rationali, jam ratione utenti non omnino, ac penitus possit abscondi. Exceptis enim pau¬ cis, in quibus natura nimium depravata est, universum genus humanum Deum mundi hujus fatetur auctorem. » Item lib. viii. de civit. Dei cap. 6. « Ita¬ que, inquit, quod notum est Dei, ipse mani¬ festavit eis, cum adi eis invisibilia ejus per ea, qua; facta sunt intellecta conspecta sunt.» Ubi S. Augustinus multis aliis verbis docet, Philosophos ratiocinando, perque res crea¬ tas gradatim ascendendo paulatim ad unius Dei notitiam pervenisse. Paulus Orosius lib. vi. cap. 1 : « Philoso¬ phis, inquit, dum intento studio quairunt, scrutanturque omnia, unum Deum auctorem omnium repererunt. Unde etiam nunc Pa¬ gani, quos jam declarata veritas de contu¬ macia magis, quam de ignorantia convincit, cum a nobis discutiuntur , non se plures Deos sequi, sed sub uno Deo magno plures ministros venerari fatentur. Restat igitur de intelligentia veri Dei, permultas intelligendi suspiciones confusa dissensio. Quia de uno Deo omnium pene una opinio est. Hucusque humana scrutatio, etsi cum labore, delibe¬ rare potuit. At ubi ratiocinatio deficit, fides subvenit. » Thcodoretus sermon. 2. de curandis Grae¬ corum affectionibus docet, Platonem cogno¬ visse unum Deum ex tessera, quam Diony¬ sio in epistola, ad eum scripta, dederat. Scripsit enim Plato epistolam fore seriam, si initio adscribatur, Deus ; ludicram au¬ tem, si adscribatur, Dii. Hsec enim tessera satis aperte declarat apud Platonem, fabu¬ losam fuisse multitudinem Deorum. S. Gregorius lib. xxvn. Moralium cap. 2. « Omnis, inquit, homo eo ipso, quo rationa¬ lis est conditus, debet ex ratione colligere, eum, qui se condidit, Deum esse. Quem vi¬ delicet jam videre, est dominationem illius ratrocinando conspicere. Gum vero dictum sit, omnes homines vident eum, recte sub¬ jungitur, unusquisque intuetur procul, pro¬ cul quippe eum intueri est. Non jam illum per speciem cernere ; sed adhuc ex sola operum suorum admiratione pensare. » Denique venerabilis Beda lib. m. in Job cap. 5. sic ait : « Per naturae bonum, notitia creatoris inest cordibus hominum. » Et in¬ fra : « Omnis homo hanc vim sapientiae na¬ turaliter accipit, ut Deum ignorare non pos¬ sit, nisi aut contemnat, aut negligat. » Probatur ultimo ratione. Nam si Deum esse unum, non posset cognosci sine gratia Dei speciali, id fieret, vel quia objectum sit supernaturale ; vel quia actio intelligendi unitatem Dei sit valde difficilis, aut etiam impossibilis viribus solius natura; : neutrum autem horum dici potest. Nam unitatem Dei esse objectum naturale, et nulla ad hoc opus esse revelatione, testatur Sapiens cap. xiii. cum ait : « A magnitudine speciei , et creatu - ree cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator vi - deri (1). Testantur etiam demonstrationes plurima; a naturalibus effectis ducta;, quibus Deum esse unum probant Joannes Dama¬ scenus lib. i. de fide cap. 5. Richardus de S, Victore lib. i. et ii. de Trinitate, et S. Thomas lib. i. contra gentes cap. 43. Quod autem demonstrari potest naturalibus ratio¬ nibus, certe non est supernaturale, nec su¬ perat vim intelligentia; naturalis. Ubi vero demonstratio adfertur, non est difficile as- sentiri, sed contra potius difficile, vel impos¬ sibile est non assentiri. Quare non requiri¬ tur auxilium speciale ad hunc actum produ¬ cendum. Pra;sertim cum nec vehementia perturbationum, neque alia causa judicium theoricum impedire possit, licet impediant judicium practicum, et actiones voluntatis.