%” eA amas ‘eae otal qn ato cs aT ST sl ew “£10 Al aie rine agus dear god i, {gta ued sme qt stab sco eee cnr abso por srceacer ee ene een ct pee ons a tra ays nas 4.9 lion mci pie: rd onda cast x agit, scam a st ob age er gee ha {USI ea gens unde nn rere st ci pres Poa ee ubcautuacnnin omen cin et agi respi staid span | 12 quo caumtur et Kleo, bee ext vera 421 Af line aie: com qu maior tin fi sees (ie estar a agente qin na op ual ass mans el ac eee eta ore tl cn on st nabs aa set den ot pone “cus pi pets Magid Adon tn Patiala of Medians Sic Pi 90 1821 oa a 4 6 ste tm od sien eta a, ure cds se ee a St. Thomas and Eternal Truths ARMAND MAURER GS. NE of the mow portant legacies of mediaeval thesogy to modern ‘hilowpiy i Ue notion of eternal tala The notion appears a varius gu ia the sytem of Dears, Malebranche, Spinor, ad Talis end through them it beeame a commonplace in mode thought. [Aldaough exenive roach bas been done on the meng o the notion ihe seventeenth century casi! piloopber, the Ite medieval ackound ofthe doctrine tl ensice lage unexplored need the ry ofthe notion oth in the Mile Ager sl remain oe writen. In tis complee and iniate histry the divergent conepton of the temity of uth would sopra prominent plex Up tothe psn, historians have examined late mediaeval dotine of te eternity of ath many in eomneeon with the philosphy of Des farts It well kiown thi be identied the eteoal truths with the Comes of retire and made them totaly dependent on the divine srl? According to Decartey, tema rus, as taught for example Uy metaphysics tnd mathematic, have been Seely established by God; they could have been crested herve had he o wied. Te was fee, for example to make ie untue tha the chee anges oa iange be equal {0 two right angle, Te et, e willed this mathematical tah eo be seceuily toe but he dd nt nce wil eto be ue, And becaase 1 wil i mutable cuts of Us sort are alo immutable. They are ‘teal becaueeterally ental by Go a by the supreme legato ‘Deca eiiced at Hasphemos the the that etereal Wuths are Independent of the divine inlet od wil 0 that even If Ged id not * rr iting he ae Dn ti of ted in| vee stem ature, Baopae oan al ‘ame tt 90 Hag 18 Tohono on a ts wy tre Bey Pe frm Se a 17) ‘tg th Dr is Pg at119, 988,Bo Ceey Pak git ee (hy 9) 18 SET con gi ona er Conneaut T ce er Bae ae Romy, ‘Deu Ett Nw Aur Pe 44, {Lae td 15 Rs so etn i 1 19h‘sit thee truths woud sil be rue The ths wat abo rejected fy eibos, who atbuted it seme Scott. ecieng to hty i he divine understanding that goes realty to the eteral verte, Without the divine will having anyhing to dowiththemn® Fer many yeas hitraay searched without sucess inthe works of Dune Sentra othe late median, ‘al tts fir the thes that even if God nat exat mathemati wa ed ail be ey tl Ere i nnd the eta the fpr Parsi of Dae Soma Fries tenth ne laa im might woerh oer olen hed nde been fee or tance, ccing to Heres Sats eee on sherawat nl a and atl oe ese thy hve a eee ince, ‘of any intellect. oe rot TC at eta whether Dest sha ent etry hw login but he tow Sasi Spe, cats {he eal ea do ace fn Gtr fe iy seal te protic of hi wil and ess they wold recede Bet zl not nearly eft acento Sms Cel sa epee tera peer f teh He Kno em mec asd Strate inlet prenpyncs the thy ftw ie a des a take then. Prope sng snl ui arta hea they are known by Ge tthe ay te knw Fy hi bea ‘eve ~a hah teldeny reed y Door? Snes ences “Ei Tim 18 an BM. Hugs (Leadon, 18), 218 ‘pen, prinpne gd Doty rd pt ee ‘estan aarti tng Sn Pos Ps insane (Fa 0 yp 3h On tp we One nr a a Rees gat ro at ten tbe bea ne spy ne et he (Qed 1 (en, 11) Pm Sw he cuneate Tay Pal {Re Naif Ta en Sia om 0), Bos, Yon Quebec tn aon genres po st. ToS AND ATeANAL TRUTI a that de ternal rts havea certain independence ofthe divine intellect nd will propstion expening them, hein, have eternal eth not {lym thoy erat in the divin inlet but alin themselves, preinging fon that Snes: abet frum ert, nov ste fa io Sly ed tion cadet ae prasad b i” Move prey, proportions are ceraly tre In the conditional form (for example, "rman exit, he ian animal”), fra such they ave no efficent case, being the truth of pombe and nt of actual or eal eset. As posible Coen, thee truths by their ature are ao subject to creation ‘Drawing upon hit wide sequnintance with the weeks of his echohatc pweleceo, Sater reviews thelr opinions about etna tuths before Fring his com. Among shore ia fiver of eterally ue propositions, ccs Albert the Gres with the anon Arabian, St Thomas, Capea, Soncinae, Henry of Ghent, Herves, Scots, Cajtan and Sivetr of eran Their iste commonly reeived opinion, he a, but this docs fot exempt the fron bis erical appraisal; and in this tonncetion his mments on St Thamar doce ofthe eternity of rath are of set Itteres to the prot paper. Soarer relies that his own position on Clea tae aot exacly the rte a that of the Angelis Doctor. He line wanting in Se Thomas an awareness of the eternity of truth that elon to necemary propos in hemacves and oe only i the vine finds” St Thomas, he complains, teles the whole eenty of eat (0 the vine intel: stm lane pein refeat (lS. Thomas) a alien ina "The male It imposible for St Thomas adequately to meet the objection of eertala “modern theslogiars™ who clam that Proportions concerning ereatres are not eternally tue Dut begin to be true when things come to be aod love Ue wath when things pes Tis hardly adequate to reply with Se Thomas (Suarez protest) that nen eer cee to ei these propotios are tru, not in themselves, Sutin the divine infor in hiaeae even ontngent tuts ext ers Inthe rind of Code” How oan St Thoms datingush betwen the tat tf mcemary and coatngent propodions necasary ths are not ‘teal in themwehes but only in the mind of God? Iti to anure this ‘Utne hat Sues hel nits the erally true propenons have ‘eral truth not only inthe divine mind but alo in tamales, ‘Some ae led tsk what exactly Se Thora taught roaring the tray "Se, Dip Mat, lg Le maT, 36 cevegoreft, Did bein face reste the vine mind and age with moder, ‘Beologiaes” onthe evanescence of eeated tra? | Wen 5 Thana twp the pole of ah fr he i in cme a he Seda, fe gis by leg whee ul ea! wh he ene of thing She png ua 2 Gree etry thesogaa wre, Dee 8 Agu te es Xena heap ni hat ho cl anos ees Stamncn?* Falling nthe Agutian fn, 8 Boson ‘ee att oper of enn Tht is cof tat eons’ to peal rghit tee Mie Sod i was lave nthe mio Sater a Dore. S Thoma! Sang it quion and tig te peng on ah ae Sat comic fh pope ~ ceed yr grap Wiis et Tena ang how poles and Ghenng ow wo lng aoe “Freh STaas contend tone of how nto that ave aude in realty bt citer Cac andcompeoa fa OF te lst Ties vente ther apn che pe ok oso They donot eit uh xt th id tah ey hve tet all The acy of then a oss he al Compl he soo o th te apc af ing they are” More prs, th ota he sine pec oft mccoy tains pen, Sige by» prope. Ade jatgent Gee te beng (cst of ings where apprteion te oi eee St Theat ‘Sead at ith ted upon beg rae ts gps comet at ‘iy sits fre mas cm se Oe he ps | {Eee Vrs Foun sua on™ Se Tham Se 1% 8a Mado Pt, 88, 4 ua fra aia 18 Fuse Wa. ee en Te Cie le ‘apa an tpt Eye Ny a, 18, °F Smee a Sy yea 1 mai 1S ‘Win Ton Fin apy fas YP De sng Ma nw, 2» Deo, ied aS ettig ay sen G2. aan, {SNE Sein te oun Sd 1 0, 1. Raed es ‘Ste Poe nab so Sr. mows an erent taUTHS 5 “The word “ew accordingly apie primariy othe ntl judg someting tobe whats and othe propaion tha expres thi judg fren. Secondarly it apple beng itl atthe exe ofthe rth of [gnent; for i the being of «thing tat the ease of tach pum (Site awe sats. “The ft principle of orga roe of tt (Sao that anything elated to tah art i elated oe wneud (nih hae a srt se a "The eae ofS Thema’ Sma cannot fil to be srk by the constant sfeence to ut in his resolution ofthe question Cam yas en Jak The erm one plays the key role here. And lst tere be any doubt Show is menting, St Thomas explains tat he i wig i in the seve tithe being that signed by the copula a the jdgment, notin the sense of ence sit was wed by some af his contemporaries Ta shor, ‘Sens uodertond by St Thomas ther tha eneace; athe set of exitng {ous even) Clarty St Thomas shits dhe dicason af uth Hom esence to exitence —a good example uf the zlormaton he brought about in tnetphysics when be “began to tamale all the problens concerning Ting om the language of exenes into that of extenea.™ ‘The consequences ofthe "exientil” perpeetie on tate fr the woblem of te erty are staring. St Thomas has delineated two fete nering into the notion of eth he aa of a thing and the perception (irs) of dhe Knoming fcuk proportioned to thi ene Both mart be taken ito consideration in anlving the qurtion whether there fy eteral math and if wo wheter thee are many sachets. Now, StThomas has already shown in his Swims thatthe divine beng alone ‘eternal (Bk. Id 0,¢ 2,02). And sce thet is only one eterna being, ‘here only one eternal thy aamay the vie. The sume eonetsion flows fr the immutabity of wu. Tn prevaus aries St Thomas showed dat the divine being alone I abscately immutable (BE yd 8, 4.3,4.23)- IF flows dhat theres oly one absolutly immutable rth, Mamely the divine. "The ave of other things changeable, Material things have ane hat vaiable snd contingent; the ar of spi being ie mutable only inthe sense shat ils subject to anatin® If left to thenlvy, without the divine help hey woud ape Into aching es. In oth eas, dhe, the rah of thee bigs it ehangeale: i ‘lable and contingent in material ching and i sil beings i at 2 Dasa yp tS ap, Wanner, De Tiny, 2 Pe 8, npencnes te Pee, Ww Py Hi, 1896 sma Test hat 2 tendency to lap nto aothingnes. rom the penpectie of the boing of things ten, clear that dere i no peery tat in eater ll ware meri i et ‘St Thomas teacher the tame eoacason when he views truth frm the perpentive ofthe ntl. Only the avine illo i by nate eter 2nd unchangeable, Hence there are not many eternal tats: aly the fone trath that rin God ad ehat iden with him eternal and ‘mmaable™ "Although he ates i postion onthe etry of erat in ieent way 4 ater wetings, St Thomas’ views onthe subject show no esental change His decrne throughout hi Iie ir contant and ancquvosals propel speaking there ir no eral trth exept that of God ine, Tx the De Vortate Se Thomas approuches the sobject of the eternity truth rom the viewpoint of rth ata meaeure or conformity. Something S clled ue, be sys Deease Its measured or conformed. Now the ‘eamure may be ete ite or extra, at & body may be meatired fnwinically by is sure or line, or extiicaly by i Ue or place re tke truth to be the inerentmenare of tbe things (le tru we find indhing and in cented intellects and ce propontioc), then tah is not eera, fr nether the things Shemslen aor the tlle in which ‘rath oheres ext fr all eer. On the ober ard if we take tah {o mean the cxine mete of things inlets and thet propeitions, then truth ermal. Bat thie eternal uth which i the exis ease ‘ofall other trate the divine uth All things and inlet ae tre through tis primary, ema tat as St Anselm wrote in hi ow De Vor. And the eternal truth of God ison, for be knows all things by swing hima, adhe tne. Henge thee are not macy eteroal ta ‘but oa alone" '3¢ Thomas’ final dtcusion of che question whether there are mavy ternal rts isin his Siena Thea, 16,7. His weatment of he fubjeein this works betas besa compendium for begianersot theology. ‘Aer explinng hat truth is found properly peaking in the prposions ofthe Intellect, and chat other things ate called wue fen dhe euth of the ntl, be argues that ce there only coe cereal intel, nately the dine, erly of wath is ound inf aloe. Nothing ele i tesa ‘enept Gol One othe objection to this poston Is taken ows St Angur tinct dicum chat dhe is nothing more eeral than the deniton of 1 I Sn 1 0 0.39.0, Fh ini fp ees, Ove, “gitar ad Yn” Mead Bae 3, t. THOWNS a erERKAL TmUTHS ” a cel, or tat two and dice are five. Sine these ate created ets, Fe ould acm that ected trath canbe eternal. To thie St Thomas reper Simply tat the defision of ete andthe propasion tha wo and three freve ate etersal in the divine mind ‘When St Thomas attsbuts euenity to the divine ruth alone, be is wing the word “eterlty" in ts mow pefet seat, as designating the ghost mode of being: atta dt exe emo liom mon This ibe meaning of eternity nt formulated by Boe in bi cai def on: istrinii tea sima o frfeta poe” Undertod in this ‘Ens, eterisy bar hace characteristics, aceording to St Thomas. Fs, {ti oterminable, lasing » beginning aad amend. Scond, i without ccs; Sn other wordy what i eral exit ll together atthe se Tie (atm sal) Eerie i ceodingly mele and changles. This ‘eludes ll erporalmateral thing but otprtal exetares ke angel, thor ooo of raion isnot time bat every. ‘Their Belg (e) "oui time and dus fom sia, but it not eral in the pret ‘neaning of the teen, ‘The eiteraity of angel i oly 9 participation teri As mode of vaio, evterity lle short of eerity beens ‘Nematkice a fandasental termination inion: the being of angels 5 dlimted by thir enene, and hence thee being cannot be sid to be solely unterminted. Add to thi the fat that alongwith their erly of blog, angele change in thee thought ations snd paces ‘Thee areas of matali bring a sor of pit) and psteroiy nto ‘he angele I, thoagh tie not scly Speaking lived tn time. Oaly the bring of God interminable ad change in every sease of the term, fad eorsequenty he alone fives in eters. ‘When the tm "tera i wed inthis mort pect sexe, i dearly plies to God aud to hi tru alone, Buti ere not a Hau pevfct easing of de term that appiable to creature? Se Thomas points fue tht Serica speaks of the “tera” mosis and the eral” fre of el. ‘The term dow not have Re stiet meaning in thee cus ‘sinply means that belle ends and tha the mentine sem Jat forever2” Ta Engh we we “eral” this road sense, a the Latina 2 Sone T1157, Se Ain, Dr iene 8 2021 (2, sia 9 te er am ming em Se Tham es a ae Sapte mee a ea pre eo LES Be Ge gn V8 ee 2), SMa, Bd, 1ey A sane wed aterm, St Thomas sometimes prefs the word tun to deseibe sorncthing that i lating or abiding but no ewsnal in the prop eae © Ue finds a justicaton fo the metaphorical or analog we Ofte ter ‘tama in the fact that centres may parSeipae in some spect of the vine eemity. For example, be grant chat God could have ested ‘universe without beganing or end in tm, std tat ich «world coe be called etcnal because im» sere itwould be lateriinable, Bat he inst Oat is univene would not be cteteral with Gad, fer wool not have We divine mode of duration or intemal." ‘nthe analogous mering ofthe erm St Thomas wie toy kaowed, ‘als trate eternal inthe commentary on the Stands in the Sarma Cones Gtilr In both eases the context sna St Thomas is ‘scuning the pomibiity of proving te nara or eeriy ofthe seul fiom the fact that it knows the tlh. The Augurnian baekgrovnd of the dacusion i evident at once, andi help to explain Se Thomas an ‘ruse. Tei inded exceptional for him to speak of etecnal tat his natant and formal language that here ony oe eternal truth namely ‘vine rath, An examination ofthese eo nasal pasmges Wil hw light om his conepion a the etry of tra "The cation for St Thoma’ calling truth eeroal in the comunestry| om the Smt a objection to isa hat hee are ot any eter treated tats. The objection appeals to St Auguste’ pot fr hein ‘mortality ofthe sul based on the fet that tah, which eer, resdes init: Since te wath in our intellect i not extetlly the divine truth — 50 the argument rans i follows tat there are ny elena truth [As for the eerie of eth, thie can be sows by the fact that the ery ‘eal ofthe existence of tut imple fw alrmaton. or if rth does Dot exis ie fe that truth exist, But if the aficatzon fly the Degetion er, and contequetl there some tah Hence truth ext andi eternal ‘St Thomas begins his weply w ie jection by pointing ont that if thre were no created intellect oe soul there wold fe no crested truth, Insofar ap erth i an actity of the intlece” Only the basi of tah ‘would remain in really. OF eoune, in this ese truth would ao teat jn God's mind. But de human soa or mind not eternal, aid hence there was no created tra before it exited. Consequently therein ‘tera rete truth, OWNS ss rea TRUS * ‘aor he argument tht 3 ath dos 20 ex be 1 ay tat sede an net aegtion rue here aayrsone th 8 Thomas Xho at ths do llr when the no thse ere “od Unto tee cit ened ells here an be alee tor tee judge, td nce te cated lst not eee ‘Soe'can be op ermal crned toh or chord pia atrophy St Tomas hrc 2 ior ditnson setwcen be mening (tt) 2 thor ied and ese Neti a dsncton tat he Mento at tetesn = eral od ‘Senos in a ject, Boch a salvo wich mano or, and = Srv lion enn be ues in two way sy St Thoma: thr in'damslven wih the ow esagy Cin), or sx nga nwthng. Gonsdred in thammives they ae not nije to change ot Given, tnd hence they em be eld Incoryptle and tral ‘They are eset only prove tough lng the etn "Tite tno Angie's prot he mortality a he ol contin ST, The human lect an rasp he mening ul) ‘teach nivel ate man and cole ie the bly bees which ‘Shony peeve uae men an nr Teen slo grap the aang Chetty wich someting the sees cat da They can have the peep, Bu ty eat uadegand the menting of eth The bet hn Geils can pap the meaning of vera se of is was which ae la themes adele sod eral pool tht te fet itt wa oa by o dependent on one Hesoe 103 imeem moral “Tin bot the ne t comment onthe Artin tur St Thomas sive tothe Angutin prov te morally of esa! bated {Suh More uit ror praet pps dtnebon berms fhe meaning of truth conre el ant eae ft ind, sich sure ote Gc beeen tre form ait eine Tra nije Ie var Avicnon who tug 8 Tha to diferente Maven tse Gr wae of reug ste rears According ‘cera an came tan be conde er ably in Saal oft itor way inthe ln Inthe fine way enacted om hss & 1 aa to HI SS fas Rares yo eB ay 7 ti Pay ofS aut, cme 1a ya or a 5, i ya nh Mon nh {Ene ad nl When nh eat eet Tema ‘hence tome teed sod soe! te eee em se ‘SoA te togan nd ee ing "Gm100 sum, sca extence and retnins only what belongs to i in ite of dele tion. Tn the senna way the esence i regarded ax exiting, eter with individuality lathe parca of the real world or with universality in the mind” As eariy as his De Buea Bune St Thomas opted this ‘wold consideration ofan esence, hough bi interpretation of i wat somewhat diferent fom the of Aviznna.® Se Thoma neers wi Hin that an esence ean be comidered jn in el op abso, aetacting fiom being and all modes of being; but waite the Muli philosopher Ihe doer not ascribe to the enence abuoltly considered being ois ‘way a ee prfrism* Se Thomas speaks of an absolute onsderation fo an esenee, not of «proper being of an esc a though sn een Dponesed a being ois own, a een being, dine rom extent being. ‘Similarly, St Thomas contends that we cat think about tra oF fakchood jst i tea, considering i meaning in abstrction fc wheter for a0 entertained by anyone, Ta his language uth oF flrcods fe then covsidered sean ities nts Bathe doe not mean ta then they ae that comidere they ave Kind ef being i themes, ‘ny more tan esences do when thought fj a themectes. The oa bing or existence tah oF ay has sn a mind either the divine mind for eeated mind. "Thus, wea he eal ath incorapee and eral he doesnot intend to acibe ternal or incorapibe beng to them, ‘Ther is nly one etemal and completly immutable being, ad that God, Traths are properly eteral a the senue of having eral being, ‘nly in the divine mind, where they are one with each oter aad with The ane mind ill Clery, St Thomas wing the term “eternal” in a dicen sense fiom this when he ys in he commentary on the Sr tht tate, lke uve ae eterealconidered ned inti) me. A peg ‘fom his Sine Thaw erhap enable wt understate ening ofthe term in the contet. Inthe question "Wheter Crested Teuth Eteral? one of the arguments fr the posite side runt as follows ‘That which is alway is eternal, But univers ae alway and every fe Ma 818, i eh De a Pf ty 308 Ran ey Hy 5, 248 Su lean tag 6 26 Lar a ad eng ppt eee 1 os tnon he bg of ae (tana 2 een ‘hen 8 ary 8 Fr sao om B Se (ten, DH Ono wy Coan Mags one, ! AVEMARIACOLLEGE | [peice sr rious > area mers 1 here; therfre they are eternal. S0 thee i tah, which i the Tet tnheral= Stora roply deer tobe quoted fl "That emching i ala sd evr cn e ded in wa 1 eat vay m hava oe te pec to cen vane ww ob cata bag ole cps ae noe a at cee urn ty ato ts par ate Ea oe oe ot Waren se Sin man by ey {Se Bo nyt scr oft gig en Ta an ‘Cheat aw ait te epee sd ey Str a wera ara on pce sad tne dn ne howercy fal on at ye 1 il be ote that here inthe Sama, une the commentary on the Stace, St Thomas does not we the term “etenal™ of univers find general trthy Neither, incidentally, doc he we the term when ‘eplyng tothe same argument in bie DeVore there the term sed [bib Tn the Sona he roerver the term “teoal” for 6 most proper meaning, which apie 10 God alone. He does concede, however, {hat universal tay he ai eo be “ara and everywhere” Dense they "atuc from all patel times and places Tater scholast, Uke John f8t Thoma, wil ell tis absractes of uve nd necesary tuts “hetive eternity” in const to the "postive seri” of Cod™ This iam the langage of St Thomay, but perhape i expremes well excugh 5 tn ye i ge hn a i, ma ‘Ser iene nribe nm ge cr oe ‘i ma le eon ero, wt Se Fd ih rad nfo snares nt le nee ‘ote ch re ay rn enn ‘Siocon en pce er PP ats 8 ye Le Rem 1, en, gd i ge or, nel ere me tina Ane sue pt Si a pn ape ne SRS ei ian aap oe ety wc cee 0 Senn Sui (We, 28 1a Sun sr Tae CMe om np pron a 2 leon tho Bp oer dn tay1 sna hat he had in mind. Universal ad abstract th onside in thems Selves, may be sald wo be "always and every" nthe purely negative ‘ease oot being determined to plac oie. This because they abetract {om beng and every mode o ring, including spatial ane vemporal being. But in it most perfect sene eternity isnot a negative notion, nor doe ie abtract fo being. As we have Sen, i the higher meds of beg (ce sends alixinam mado), which blogs to Gor lone” Thllening the eternity” of uth to that of waver ns commentaey fon the Seu, S€ Thomas does net mean to ply that tat ke ‘ently are eences of fem We have already scm him deny that tit ‘Wan esence Sil he sa in he De Vere that truth expres 1 Frm (er mom jomar*When a niveral eat thought of in ite no account taken whether or noi iseatertained by a itd it ineligible content understoed simply in ie, abstracting tn the subject in which iemay esl Formal expresioa i then evento the tat in proportion. Te is aid to be incorupile ot lnnuable in the see in which an eseoce or farm enn be sai o be indeteuctible or mutable, ‘The subject in which i inkere may change though receiving olin i but ies not the sujet of ange. a ee abtracts rom change 438i alo abstract fom tine and place, ence fs incerpttiy ane ‘mutabiey, tke ies “eeriy,” oul om ie abeacten. It not immutable inthe seae that Ie has immutabe being, anymore than eternal beau He pomewes eteral beng Incidentally, the reader wil nodee that S¢ Thomas cals flsehoode 98 well a truth incorupsble and eteraal® Thiet beeaae they too have ' frmal intelligible cotent or meaning that can be wdersood at Fuel abtracing ftom whether or ot they are entertained by & tind, A sch, they share wide tuts an abstracts that removes thes fon {he conditions of change and temporal or spl determination, Hence, Ue rth, they ae imtable “tera” “The dsoction between the objective and subjective conderation of truth (Ge, between the eonertion of them in themselves and a ty ‘xi in = mind) fb abo made by Thomas fn his Sime Car Gals ‘when trating ofthe pontbilsy of proving the eet ofthe woul fom {he it that it ows the rath. At Bet sight ft might soem that the salt ‘semity ean be proved on this basis, not the rath of neigble mates SLE toe " tows as erEReAL TmUTHS 109 to impertble and eternal in uel? For such tuths are neces, Shi what ir nessary cannot be bers, and hence iti eternal It ‘ould seen, then, thatthe souls owe ofthese truths ean be the Tb of demonstrating noe ony it immorality bata its eer. * 'StThomas dee not find thi line of argument convincing. He pointe cut thatthe cteity of tt ean refer ether to the thing understood {he the objec) ort that by whieh Se understood (Le the sje). TF the uth tetera inthe fst way, we ean argu tothe etemity of the thing understood but not to the one who wndemtands i But dhe trath eternal in the second way — with respect tothe means by which it FE undentood or the aubjct who ‘undertands Ie den i foows that {he sol betel, Now the meaty which we know he rath ae not Heol: thee sens ae the ineligible spelen that begin text ins ‘Group the act of the agent itellet pon phantms, So we eat elu that the sale eternal, but we ean infer tha the tas we udet- Stand are pounded in something eter, namely inthe peary ru ‘thick the universal eae ong al tah This eral tah the {lou Intell sok; and since i soda vo an eter nd must {ve the capacity of enduring forever. Thus the eternity of ineligible truth ea ground on which we can prove the immorality ofthe sol but fot i tera "We cel not with for & more fictous expression of St Thoma! on- cys ofthe eeaty of tthe in hi commentary on the Sexes fe rane that ineligible tut can be eld eternal because they have th objective bain someting cera Tt bai the eternal uth of ‘God; whch the primary truth and the univer cause contig all ‘rat Ts all alk about feral trth meaning nly Un elerence to him, Ache Beginning ofthis paper we st Suarez make certain reservations sho the adogsaey of Se Thoma’ doctrine of the eternity of truth. We tre no ina pation toevalate his elam and to undemtand why Bis tren views onthe jee were somewhat diferent om thos ofthe Angeli Doce. "Tian burden of Sure? ercln is that St Thomas refs the whole testy a tat tthe vine mind has aig to account for the eter Saree11 A msc Teuth neceuary truth have In themselves, precnding om the divine sind, "As we have sen, St Thomar dor fo fat tech tat there only ‘ve eternal truth, wheter thie the truth of beng or of intellect. “This fone eternal truth i Wena) wih God. Allee trae have sternal ‘eu only Inthe divine mind where they ae ena with each other nd with the divine mind. ‘The reson for this imitation of eternal tats to the mind of Ge easy to see. Since thre i no other ternal being or intllet aeep his, ad since trth either the tra of ng ora Smelt, there can be no other eteral truth bees hy Creted ruth, ‘wheter of being o ofitllet, nite ternal nor etrely unchangeable ‘But docs not St Thomas grant that necrmary rath have an tery in thasehves oti the vit see of the tery at east in the nega or analogous sense of abating fom ime and place We should fel that it 8 ony feldentlly in reply to bjecton fo bis ovtine, at he wes the term “eternal of cbatact aecemary tithe, Moreover Be does so only inthe commentary the Senne andthe Cnr Goes 1 the Inter Somme Thais he seems deliberately to avoid the tem ue, for Thomas properly a mode of duration of blag, nd as such Belongs co God alone In an analogous or nope sees tat, lke ner may be eiledeteraal boca they abut fern place ad time; but even this we of the term is connected wil prope we, forall truths are tre beease they are rounded la the eter! vine ‘tut, which the universal canoe containing all the ‘Sui? erin reac to. St Thonn’ ctine t understandable ‘cnt Sues himself aleribed more than 4 negative sence tthe eet of necenary truths ake in themiees Ete rhs for hi, erally poses in the divine mind « powble bring thst nat the beng of God inset Though they actualy exist forall eerey only in the Givin ‘mind, in themselves ey have eteroal pou being, for ith aft om Alleteriy tae the enentl priate ofan enence an be tly predicated if it aod every truth is based upon a eetain being. The kd of beng ‘pon which the eternal tats ae grounded, scoring to Sua te seal being (esr emi) that belay to an ence jit in ielE ‘This » ope of real being, in the seme of being now-etitons, wake the being ofa chimera, though i no el inthe fl ese of beng a sctual extent. From ll eemnity euenes have this typo poe beng ‘in themsclve, Independent of any extrinie ficient cally. In other Fah tg wry Baia hg Tas ‘a Gon Tv isin Psp ns K Se ay Voy Soe, Din Mu Bie 96 seinem man se, site 105 vor eens ae steed by Godin tes mere pony bt oly {Pine actealexnnce "And terse the peta ote i the cs eel oe tS pfu hh ae tpecatr of them. If be id produce them, they wold Sem ‘Gand conequenty they would no be nsesary ba contngeat tah Tei bate of thins we haves, tha Soe cline hat sceway trib are ecraly ey no ol as cain inte eine md, It Sivin themes Sod retin os at tind Tei presely onthe pot that Stare art omy wih St Tomas We have alendy remafed that the later dos notte a enti Fogo exon tie us ences, ‘Thug he rant ta coenss ty he conidered in themaclve,he de ot beleve they ave & blag {renin ems, ‘The ny beng they have Unto he abject Ih wich hy easy in desche they are sinply sng Sina, tru can be ought of hens, the ol bag or ey they Sr ha fem wh nyo a 1 ht ad fave ec ting te nd matey Hae lp bog “oral thy de un rom fn St Tha hugh fo eae sterol th, fr ie wold ply tat God Cold ge abe carl ‘Sing which ik moowed br hin sone Neer me 4 place fbi teaching fr aera eal rt, which wos ave cal pose {ing hemi indent of Cod and hatan minh On on the sppetion tnt crue Raye» nd of ent hermes deste Ite metacal and ely mode phoephia dicuson con ‘Sting tc pone aeaon or oration, an het pou nen teach dine nnd aad wl ate seme, Tse ques ae ln ‘ted tom te oe one St Toma extent po of i ope. Sra eee ree Sateen aa meee ES cari ee eee ee En re rtm re a enti emt ‘ast ty eyed y Seb tron rv ee106 acon ‘ut 2 the same time does this not eliminate the dtnton between eceaary and cotngent tthe? If exeacer per wih the extenos lthings — ihey have no essential being of ther own tint rm the ‘sient being ~ 90 too do neceaarypropostions, in which cei predicates ae atibuted toa subject "Thee propositions, they ate nt ‘emal or necesary but coatngent cut, This conclusion, which Suarer Bade 0 wnpalatabl, St Thoms au no hesitation in accepting. “There i” he sa, "ho heey tah i ‘rentures™" This Dente nothing rete ext eternally outa ot even ru in human mind They are coningent on the extent of dese minds and subject to this temporal vicsitides. The dosvery elf of Guth has a temporal ad historia! diealon, sf seen inthe Tice that the ancent phaophers gradally ad st wee top by sep (pauatin ot quai pin) progres in the knowlege of the oigin t Tings" Aad sometimes we mnt be coiteat with hypotheres whith are not neces tre though they “save the appearance,” Ta the tle ‘male sjtem of astronomy, according to st Thoman eves the ap ‘pearanc," but the eck Phevomena might conceivably be “raved” nail another way not yet knowa to man [all eested minds eee {0 exis oto would the wuts vesiiag in them. They would the exe ‘only in the mind of God, where hey would be ential with hi and I exraty “Accordingly, whea crated rad are considered from the pspestive oftheir being‘ exiteney they canoe be sid to ext ntcemarily. But these tus an be coridored jut in themalic abstracting fost thet bing or existence. They ean then be distinguished nto neenry and centngea wal, depending on wheter oi hy an be eer ‘nrary Guth one tat cannot be otherwit for example» ath of mathematics or a piniple ich ar “Every whole le grester than i part" A contingent truth can be otherwise; fr example, "Sorat i siting." Nor sds dtncton destroyed by the fact that God eternally Know all tru; for he knows necessary teal to be necestry ad eno Linge tras to be contingent" 2 Sh 2 Fo Ai! eo hy ng wih ely ‘my Owe "Agusta Pec dF No, 3 Gao ae Sit Ga ina wey nyo ie ht he ction Neen mer gt I Pd 8 = Eee ee — |r Tons 00 ETERNAL, TRUTHS 1 ‘hs the diicuisried by Saaes regarding the saility of ncesary nul and tee dition fom contingent ttl can be adequately met in Thome rounds These ground, however, are qe diferent fm ‘hoe upon whieh Suarer ise along wits ode ate scbolastis, based the decrine of eternal the, The originality of St Thomas own Views (rte nubjeet ave traceable to the novelty af his tion of ee ands ‘Shion to truth, Dut it was he Sureian metaphysis of ence rather {ha the Thome doctine ofa at influenced the carly modern die io of he ature of eternal rsh! Posie! tint of Medio! Sai + cine of Sen mar tap, Fim i Por reo 0 8 8