RESPONSE:
RESPONSE:
It should be said that just as the real relation consists of an order of thing to thing, so the relation of reason consists in an order among things conceived, which can come about in two ways: in one way, insofar as this order is discovered by intellect and attributed to that which is said relatively, and relations of this kind are attributed to things understood insofar as they are understood, like the relation of genus and species, for reason discovers these relations in considering the order of that which is in the intellect to things which are outside it, or also the order of things understood to one another.
In another way, insofar as such relations follow on the mode of understanding, namely that intellect understands something as ordered to another, although intellect is not fashioned by intellect but rather it follows with necessity on the mode of understanding. Intellect does not attribute relations of this kind to that which is in the intellect, but to that which is in things.
And this indeed comes about insofar as some things which do not have an order in themselves are understood as ordered, although the intellect does not understand them to have the order, because this would be false. In order for things to have an order, it is necessary that both be beings and distinct (for there is no order between a thing and itself) and orderable to the other.
Sometimes, however, intellect takes two things as beings, of which one alone or neither is a being, as when it considers two future events, or one present and the other future, and understands the one as ordered to the other, saying one is prior to the other. Such relations are of reason alone, as following on the mode of understanding.
Sometimes it takes one as two, and understands it with some order, as when something is said to be the same as itself, and thus such a relation is of reason alone.
Sometimes it takes two as orderable to one another, between which no mediate order exists – indeed one of them essentially is order, as when a relation is said to be an accident of the subject. Hence this relation of reason to whatever other things is of reason alone.
Sometimes it takes something as ordered to another, insofar as it is the term of the ordering of the other to itself, although it is not itself ordered to the other, as when taking the knowable as the term of the order of knowing to it and thus with some order to knowledge: thus the word knowable signifies relatively, and it is a relation of reason alone. And similarly, our intellect attributes some relative names to God insofar as it takes God as the term of the relations of creatures to him, and such relations are of reason alone.
Ad 1. It should be said that something on the side of the thing answers to such relations, namely the relation of the creature to God. For just as the knowable is said relatively, not because it is related to knowledge, but because knowledge is related to it, as is said in Metaphysics 5, so God is said relatively because creatures are related to him.
Ad 2. It should be said that the argument proceeds from those relations of reason which are fashioned by reason and are attributed to things existing in the intellect. But these relations are not like that, but consequent on the mode of understanding.
Ad 3. It should be said that just as someone is really the same as himself and not just according to reason, although the relation is of reason alone, because of the fact that the cause of the relation is real, namely, the unity of the substance which intellect understands as a relation, so the power of coercing subordinates is in God really, which the intellect understands as an order to subordinates because of the order of subordinates to him. Because of this he is said to be really Lord, although the relation is of reason alone, and in the same way it is clear that he would be Lord even if no intellect existed.
From which the solution to the fourth is obvious.
Ad 5. It should be said that God’s knowledge is not related to the creature first and as such, as was said before, but to the essence of the creator, through which God knows all things.