Monologium, on the Being of God4 Chapter IV. The same subject continued.

St Anselm († 1109) · Monologion · 1075-1076

Chapter IV. The same subject continued.

Furthermore, if one observes the nature of things he perceives, whether he will or no, that not all are embraced in a single degree of dignity; but that certain among them are distinguished by inequality of degree. For, he who doubts that the horse is superior in its nature to wood, and man more excellent than the horse, assuredly does not deserve the name of man. Therefore, although it cannot be denied that some natures are superior to others, nevertheless reason convinces us that some nature is so preeminent among these, that it has no superior. For, if the distinction of degrees is infinite, so that there is among them no degree, than which no higher can be found, our course of reasoning reaches this conclusion: that the multitude of natures themselves is not limited by any bounds. But only an absurdly foolish man can fail to regard such a conclusion as absurdly foolish. There is, then, necessarily some nature which is so superior to some nature or natures, that there is none in comparison with which it is ranked as inferior.

Now, this nature which is such, either is single, or there are more natures than one of this sort, and they are of equal degree.

But, if they are more than one and equal, since they cannot be equal through any diverse causes, but only through some cause which is one and the same, that one cause, through which they are equally so great, either is itself what they are, that is, the very essence of these natures; or else it is another than what they are.

But if it is nothing else than their very essence itself, just as they have not more than one essence, but a single essence, so they have not more than one nature, but a single nature. For I here understand nature as identical with essence.

If, however, that through which these natures are so great is another than that which they are, then, certainly, they are less than that through which they are so great. For, whatever is great through something else is less than that through which it is great. Therefore, they are not so great that there is nothing else greater than they.

But if, neither through what they are nor through anything other than themselves, can there be more such natures than one, than which nothing else shall be more excellent, then in no wise can there be more than one nature of this kind. We conclude, then, that there is some nature which is one and single, and which is so superior to others that it is inferior to none. But that which is such is the greatest and best of all existing beings. Hence, there is a certain nature which is the highest of all existing beings. This, however, it cannot be, unless it is what it is through itself, and all existing beings are what they are through it.

For since, as our reasoning showed us not long since, that which exists through itself, and through which all other things exist, is the highest of all existing beings; either conversely, that which is the highest exists through itself, and all others through it; or, there will be more than one supreme being. But it is manifest that there cannot be more than one supreme being. There is, therefore, a certain Nature, or Substance, or Essence, which is through itself good and great, and through itself is what it is; and through which exists whatever is truly good, or great, or has any existence at all; and which is the supreme good being, the supreme great being, being or subsisting as supreme, that is, the highest of all existing beings.

Amplius: Si quis intendat rerum naturas, velit, nolit, sentit non eas omnes contineri una dignitatis paritate; sed quasdam earum distingui graduum imparitate. Qui enim dubitat quod in natura sua ligno melior sic equus, et equo praestantior homo, is profecto non est dicendus homo. Cum igitur naturarum aliae aliis negari non possint meliores, nihilominus persuadet ratio aliquam in eis sic supereminere, ut non habeat se superiorem. Si enim hujusmodi graduum distinctio sic est infinita, ut nullus sit ibi gradus superior, quo superior alius non inveniatur; ad hoc ratio deducitur, ut ipsarum multitudo naturarum nullo fine claudatur. Hoc autem nemo non putat absurdum, nisi qui nimis est absurdus. Est igitur ex necessitate aliqua natura, quae sic est alicui vel aliquibus superior, ut nulla sit cui ordinetur inferior. Haec vero natura quae talis est, aut sola est, aut plures hujusmodi et aequales sunt: verum si plures sunt et aequales, cum aequales esse non possint, per diversa quaedam, sed per idem aliquid, illud unum, per quod aequaliter tam magnae sunt, aut est idipsum quod ipsae sunt, id est, ipsa rerum essentia, aut aliud quam quod ipsae sunt. Sed si nihil est aliud quam ipsa earum essentia, sicut earum essentiae non sunt plures, sed una; ita et naturae non sunt plures, sed una. Idem namque naturam hic intelligo, quod essentiam. Si vero id, per quod plures ipsae naturae tam magnae sunt, aliud est quam quod ipsae sunt, pro certo minores sunt, quam id per quod magnae sunt. Quidquid enim per aliud est magnum, minus est quam id per quod est magnum. Quare non sunt sic magnae, ut illis nihil aliud sit majus. Quod si nec per hoc quod sunt, nec per aliud possibile est tales esse plures naturas, quibus nihil sit praestantius; nullo modo possunt esse naturae plures hujusmodi. Restat igitur unam et solam naturam aliquam esse, quae sic est aliis superior, ut nulli sit inferior; sed quod tale est, maximum et optimum est omnium quae sunt. Est igitur quaedam natura, quae est summum omnium quae sunt. Hoc autem esse non potest, nisi ipsa sit per se id quod est; et cuncta quae sunt, sint per ipsam id quod sunt. Nam cum paulo ante ratio docuerit id quod per se est, et per quod alia cuncta sunt, esse summum omnium existentium; aut e converso id quod est summum, est per se, et cuncta alia per illud; aut erunt plura summa. Sed plura summa non esse manifestum est. Quare est quaedam natura, vel substantia, vel essentia, quae est per se bona et magna, et per se est id quod est, et per quam est quidquid vere aut bonum, aut magnum, aut aliquid est, et quae est summum bonum, summum magnum, summum eus sive subsistens, id est, summum omnium quae sunt.

Sidney Norton Deane (1878–1943), Chicago: Open Court, 1903. Digital text: English Wikisource transcription of the 1903 edition (each chapter checked against the OCR of the Internet Archive scan stanselmeproslog00anseuoft). Original text: Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich) TEI of the Patrologia Latina, via the CatholicCorpus mirror. Public domain in the US and Canada: published 1903; translator died 1943. Latin: Migne, PL 158 (1853), public domain.

Save for later

Enter your email and we will send you a sign-in link. No password. What you save (articles, verses, chapters, documents) follows you to any device.