ge Birra Quopiiser ‘common concept. be known per se by every sa common concept, then a whiteness isa color, 50 ibstractive cognition of God evi- the sense alluded to above) that God isa being, is on composed of abstrac- we sense alluded to above) ruth composed of noncomplex ly and naturally, still, the vision of God in as evident a way ean be} with the vision of God. And this is because the same truth is known more evidently when itis known tf through one means alone, cannot be known natural SECOND ARTICLE Thesis € question is understood in the second way, then I reply that God can this sort ately by God another in reality. /49 QuesTioN 5ri) Firtu Quopitper REPLY TO THE QUESTION fe] answer to this question is certain, and itcan be proved from ‘an abstract ina second way, ‘This second point is obvious. The frst poi ‘though it is impossible for the same cog} the one judgment [viz., that the Wi nonetheless not impossible fone judigment when the when it does since through an abstractive cogni resent. /497/ mit is mot apparent that a thing is 18. primary oF being, for example, Socrates exists! 19, The objector ap hat attributes existence to some absote that when 3 QuEsTION 5 onjEction 2 oBjEction 4 then God wou Therefore, etc. (498! REPLY TO OBJECTION 1 45 not be able to pro-#6 FIFTH QvODLIBET asserted to be by the proposition ‘an evident cognition of the proposition ‘The thit essary that the thing be present; otherwis ‘And now you posit that (the thing] is absent. And so from that assumption, together with the evident cognition, there follows an obvious contradiction, viz., that the thing is present and is [also] not present, And thus God cannot ‘cause an evident cognition ofthis sor Nonetheless, God can cause an act of ive. And through such an act of b but this cannot happen through an evident act. REPLY TO OBJECTION 2 ‘As for the next objection, I grant t remains when the thing does not ex be a partial cause of such an asser the other causes. And so, since the evident ass REPLY TO OBJECTION 4 ‘To the last objection 1 reply that God cannot produce an evident assent t0 because of the contradiction that would follow. For assent” connotes that as they are conveyed to be by the proposition 10 question 6 47 alone’. And fone case and in a difference act of judging?