200. The explanation is, of course, that St. Thomas does not pretend that further impositions cancel cut oarlier ones. Having secured a new meaning, he does not hesitate to employ the same word in other ways, depending upon the context. Thus he spoke of “ens divinum, quod abstrohitur a materia et motu." 5 Does the Do Trinitate render this abstractio ob- solate? In light of this, the crucial import thot Father Geiger attributes to the autograph text remains somewhat questiona- ble as for os the present subject Is concarned. This Is not lf--we ore to depreciate the worth of the manuscript In it: indeed fortunate to hove it--nor Its contribution to our know= ledge of how St. Thomas worked, Notwithstending the Impor- tance of the first redactions, our concern is with the one thot St. Thomas finolly settled on, ond more precisely, with the several discorded the doctrine contained therein. To attempts at composition os indicating o genuine uncertainty ‘on the part of St. Thomas regarding the mental process needed to justify the objectivity of each of the sclences Is on assump tion that squares badly with the motophysical or sapientiat sAbstrahare contingit duplicitar. Uno modo, ver modum compositionis et divisionis; sleut cum intalliqgimus aliquid non @i30 im alia, val @ss0 separotum ab a0, Alio mode, per modum simplicis ef absotutae cansiderationis, gicut cum intelligimys wnum, nihil considerando de allo, * la, q. 68, a. t, ad T. + Ig USent., dist, 1, q. 2, a. 2, ad 4,201, character of the whole question. ft is difficult to explain why 5#. Thomas would have undertaken the question of al! if he were In doubt as to the validity of the science of meta~ physics or the manner in which it attains its object. Delibe= Fotion as to tho most officacious means of manifestiag how the scionces attain their objects is something quite different and not in any woy out of line with Fespect to the goneral scope of the work. All of which leads us to conclude that the prominence imputed to separation ts actuolly @ misplaced emphasis, os- tensibly influenced by « prior contention: thet erticle three Fepresoats a doctrinal development wherein St. Thomos comes to discover, In torms of subjective operations, a way to gua- fantea the objective validity of the sciences divided in ore ticle one according te the mind of Aristotle.® Be be Me Régis The ability t0 discern, within the question, tho adop= tion by Thames of his own point of view, as distinguished from thot of Aristotle, is cise claimed by Father Régis, but in a mora explicit manner. de ic question ¥, $3, Thomas reeegioe Je pojnt de vue ‘aspect de A Derticle or iso ies steictement qristetéliciene et c'est202, non-séparation ou de séparation de la matidre sensible qui ast le critérs de distinction. Dons les articles H1-1V de la méme question, il éla- bore son point do vue; et alors qua le mot abs~ traction n'stoit méme pas prononcé dans I'arti- cle ler, ici, au contraire, i! est le centre méme do I'Slaboration. 7 It is not surprising thot St. Thomas should in this place assume an approach other than that of Aristotle, ac- cording to Father Régis, since this Is characteristic of their divergent points of view. Allowing thot St. Thomos uses elements borrowed From Aristotle, and that he integrates the latter's thought apropos of the systematizction of human knowing, all of this is accomplished, in the words of Father Régis, “dans une position de probléme presque 3 I"opposs de colle du Stogyrite; car tandis que ce dernier ne s'applique qu'd manifestor lobjectivité réaliste de cotte hiérarchie de notre sovoir, I'Angélique concentre tout son effort & faire valoir le comment de cette objectivite par une anolyse des opérotions de lesprit." 9 Aport from questioning Father Rigis's interpretation of the order of this question, whot makes us most wary is the fact thot St. Thomas himself gives no Indication that he Is aware of this suggested opposition. {f this were the nagging conzern that Fother Régis alieges It to be, what better oppar- tunity than the present to bring to light his own point of ‘ba philoseghie de la nature", p. 132, note 2. p- 182. cf, nm. 185. 2)