← Back to Distinction 8

Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus
p. 156

Articulus II. De immutabilitate Dei.

Consequenter secundo loco est quaestio de secunda proprietate divini esse, scilicet immutabilitate. De qua duo quaeruntur:

Primo quaeritur, utrum immutabilitas sit in Deo. Secundo, utrum sit Dei proprietas.

Quaestio I. Utrum Deus sit immutabilis.

Quod immutabilitas sit in Deo, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Omnis mutatio aut est secundum substantiam, aut secundum accidens1; sed Deus non mutatur secundum substantiam, quia omne tale est corruptibile, Deus autem sive divina substantia, cum non habeat principium, est incorruptibilis: ergo etc.

2. Item, nec secundum accidens, quia in Deo non est accidens: ergo nulla in eo est mutatio.

3. Item, omne quod mutatur, per prius est in potentia quam in actu2, et in tali differt actus a potentia; sed Deus est purus actus: ergo nullo modo mutatur.

4. Item, fiat deductio Richardi3. «Omnis mu-

p. 157

tatio aut est in statum meliorem aut deteriorem aut parem»; sed nullo istorum modorum mutatur divina natura, quia non in meliorem, quia verissime est; non in deteriorem, quia a semetipsa est; non in aequalem, quia perfecta est: ergo nullo modo convenit divino esse mutabilitas.

Contra:

1. Sapientiae septimo4: Omnibus mobilibus mobilior est sapientia: ergo etc. Si dicatur, quod sapientia dicitur mobilis per causam, eo quod facit alia moveri; contra: nihil dat quod non habet; sed Deus dat omnibus motum5: ergo motus vel mutatio maxime est in Deo.

2. Item, omne quod nunc est aliquid, quod non prius, est mutatum6: sed Filius Dei est homo, ab aeterno autem non fuit homo: ergo est mutatus. Si dicas, quod homo praedicatur de Filio Dei non per inhaerentiam, sed per unionem: et unio est relatio, et relatio advenit sine mutatione, ut de nummo fit pretium, ut dicit Augustinus in quinto de Trinitate7; contra: Ambrosius8 ita arguit contra haereticum, qui posuit Filium ex tempore genitum a Patre, quia si hoc, tunc Pater factus est de non-Patre Pater, ergo mutatur: ergo similiter in proposito.

3. Item, quicumque de non agente fit agens, mutatur mutatione, quae est ab otio in actum9; sed Deus de non creante factus est creans: ergo est mutatus. Si dicas, quod Deus de non agente fit agens non propter mutationem sui, sed propter mutationem effectus producti, sicut sol de non illuminante fit illuminans; contra: non quia creatura est, ideo Deus creat, sed quia Deus creat, creatura fit sive producitur. Per prius est ergo Deum agere, quam creaturam fieri: ergo cum posterius non sit causa prioris, non quia creatura fit de non ente ens, Deus fit de non creante creans, sed e converso; et ita mutatio est ratione agentis10, non effectus.

4. Item, Deus aliquid vult, quod prius non voluit, quia ex tempore voluit creare, quod non voluit ab aeterno; sed quicumque vult aliquid, quod non prius, mutatus est11: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod ab aeterno voluit creare mundum in illo instanti12, sicut ego volo audire missam cras; contra: voluntas Dei est causa rerum proxima et immediata; sed posita causa proxima et immediata, ponitur effectus: ergo si ab aeterno voluit, ab aeterno mundus fuit.

Conclusio.

Deus est omnino immutabilis et secundum locum, quia immensus, et secundum tempus, quia aeternus, et secundum formam, quia simplex; et quia immutabilis, ideo omnia movet.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Boethius13, «Deus stabilis manens dat cuncta moveri». Unde divina essentia est immutabilis. Non enim mutatur loco, quia ubique est; non tempore, quia aeternitas simul est; non forma, quia pure actus est. Unde mutationem secundum formam tollit simplicitas, secundum tempus tollit aeternitas, secundum locum tollit immensitas.

Et ideo in Deo est summa stabilitas, et inde omnis motus causalitas; quia, sicut probat Augustinus14 et vult Philosophus, omnis motus procedit ab immobili; ut cum movetur manus, stat cubitus, et movetur cubitus, stante humero. Quia ergo Dei sapientia est stabilis15, ideo omnia movet.

Ad argumenta:

1. Quod ergo obiicitur de sapientia, quod dicitur mobilis; dicendum, quod mobile dicitur active de ea, quia facit moveri16, non passive, sicut sensibile de animali.

Et ad illud quod obiicitur, nihil dat alteri quod non habet; dicendum, quod tripliciter est aliquid habere, scilicet formaliter, exemplariter, causaliter17; et quolibet istorum modorum quod habet dare potest. Primo autem modo non habet Deus motum, sed secundo et tertio sic.

p. 158

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de relatione, dicendum, quod relatio, cum dicitur de novo18, de necessitate ponit mutationem in altero extremorum, nec oportet quod in utroque. Ideo ista relatio, quae est personae ad personam, ponit mutationem in altera personarum; et una mutata, mutatur et reliqua, quia eadem sunt essentia: ideo de necessitate, si19 de non-Patre fieret Pater, mutaretur. Relatio autem essentiae ad essentiam non de necessitate ponit mutationem, nisi in altero extremorum, quia cum diversae sint essentiae, potest unum mutari, altero non permutato20: et ideo in relatione ad creaturam semper intelligitur in creatura facta mutatio, non in Deo. Tamen proprie loquendo, sicut alibi patebit21, Deus non refertur ad creaturam, nisi secundum dici et modum loquendi.

Posset tamen aliter dici, sicut supra tactum est22, quod non est simile: quia relatio personalis dat personae existere, non sic autem relatio ad creaturam; et ideo sequitur: si incipit esse Pater, incipit esse; non autem sequitur: si23 Deus incipit esse homo, incipit esse. Et ideo bene valet argumentum Ambrosii, quod si Pater incepisset gignere, quod esset mutatus, quia incepisset esse, non quia ab uno statu in alterum mutatus esset.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quando de non agente etc; dicendum, quod est agens, quod est sua actio, et est agens, quod non est sua actio, sed actio est ab ipso24. Agens, quod non est sua actio, sic agit, quod inter ipsum et effectum cadit medium, quod disponit ipsum; et tale agens nunquam fit agens de non agente, quin mutetur, quia novum25 sibi advenit. Sed agens, quod est sua actio, agit se ipso; et ideo inter ipsum et effectum non cadit aliquod medium ipsum disponens; et ideo cum de non agente fit agens, quia nihil novum sibi accidit, ideo non mutatur. Tale agens Deus est.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de voluntate, dicendum, quod causa proxima et immediata dicitur tripliciter: aut respectu substantiae, aut dispositionis, aut actus; respectu substantiae, inter quam26 et effectum non cadit alia substantia media causans; respectu dispositionis, cui non additur nova dispositio ad effectum producendum; respectu actus, quando actui coniungitur. Dico ergo, quod Dei voluntas fuit causa proxima et immediata ab aeterno respectu substantiae et dispositionis, sed27 non respectu actus; quia actui non coniungitur voluntas nisi pro tempore, in quo vult agere, ut patet, cum dicitur: volo cras legere, voluntas non copulatur actui nisi pro tempore crastino.

Scholion.

I. Quoad diversas species mutationis et immutabilitatis cfr. q. seq., et quoad solut. ad 1. S. Thom., S. 1. q. 9. a. 1. ad 2.

II. Immutabilitas Dei iam in Nicaeno Concilio definita est. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 4. m. 1. a. 2. — Scot., hic q. 5; Report., hic q. 2. de rerum principio q. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 16. seqq.; S. p. I. tr. 4. q. 21. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 3. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. q.; S. a. 30. — Durand., de hac et seq. q.; hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q.; hic q. 4. — Biel, de hac et seq. q.; hic q. 7.

---

English Translation
p. 156

Article II. On the immutability of God.

Consequently, in the second place, there is a question concerning the second property of the divine being, namely immutability. Concerning which two things are asked:

First it is asked, whether immutability is in God. Second, whether it is a property of God.

Question I. Whether God is unchangeable.

That immutability is in God, is shown in this way.

1. Every change is either according to substance, or according to accident1; but God is not changed according to substance, because every such thing is corruptible, but God, or the divine substance, since it has no beginning, is incorruptible: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, nor according to accident, because in God there is no accident: therefore there is no change in him.

3. Likewise, everything that is changed is prior in potency than in act2, and in such a thing act differs from potency; but God is pure act: therefore he is in no way changed.

4. Likewise, let Richard's deduction be made3: "Every change

p. 157

is either into a better state, or worse, or equal"; but the divine nature is changed in none of these ways, because not into a better, because it is most truly; not into a worse, because it is from itself; not into an equal, because it is perfect: therefore mutability in no way befits the divine being.

On the contrary:

1. Wisdom, chapter seven4: Wisdom is more mobile than all mobile things: therefore etc. If it be said that wisdom is called mobile by way of cause, in that it makes other things to be moved; on the contrary: nothing gives what it does not have; but God gives motion to all things5: therefore motion or change is most of all in God.

2. Likewise, everything which is now something which it was not before, has been changed6: but the Son of God is man, and from eternity was not man: therefore he has been changed. If you say that "man" is predicated of the Son of God not by inherence, but by union: and union is a relation, and relation comes about without change, as a coin becomes a price, as Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity7; on the contrary: Ambrose8 thus argues against the heretic, who held that the Son was begotten by the Father in time, because if so, then the Father was made Father out of non-Father, therefore he is changed: therefore likewise in the case proposed.

3. Likewise, whoever from non-agent becomes agent, is changed by the change which is from rest into act9; but God from non-creating became creating: therefore he has been changed. If you say that God from non-agent becomes agent not on account of a change of himself, but on account of a change of the effect produced, just as the sun from non-illuminating becomes illuminating; on the contrary: it is not because the creature is, that therefore God creates, but because God creates, the creature comes to be or is produced. Therefore for God to act is prior to the creature's coming to be: therefore since the posterior is not the cause of the prior, it is not because the creature comes to be from non-being into being, that God comes to be from non-creating into creating, but the converse; and thus the change is by reason of the agent10, not of the effect.

4. Likewise, God wills something which he did not previously will, because in time he willed to create, which he did not will from eternity; but whoever wills something which he did not previously, has been changed11: therefore etc. If you say that from eternity he willed to create the world at that instant12, as I will to hear Mass tomorrow; on the contrary: the will of God is the proximate and immediate cause of things; but when the proximate and immediate cause is posited, the effect is posited: therefore if from eternity he willed, from eternity the world was.

Conclusion.

God is wholly unchangeable, both as regards place, because he is immense, and as regards time, because he is eternal, and as regards form, because he is simple; and because he is unchangeable, therefore he moves all things.

I respond: It must be said that, as Boethius says13, "God, remaining stable, gives all things to be moved." Hence the divine essence is unchangeable. For it is not changed in place, because he is everywhere; not in time, because eternity is all at once; not in form, because he is purely act. Hence simplicity removes change according to form, eternity removes it according to time, immensity removes it according to place.

And therefore in God is the highest stability, and thence the causality of all motion; because, as Augustine proves14 and the Philosopher holds, all motion proceeds from the immobile; as when the hand is moved, the elbow stands still, and the elbow is moved while the shoulder stands. Therefore because the wisdom of God is stable15, therefore it moves all things.

Replies:

1. To that which is objected concerning wisdom, that it is called mobile; it must be said that "mobile" is said of it actively, because it makes [things] to be moved16, not passively, as "sensible" is said of an animal.

And to that which is objected, that nothing gives to another what it does not have; it must be said that something is "had" in three ways, namely formally, exemplarily, causally17; and in any of these modes that which one has, one can give. In the first mode God does not have motion, but in the second and third he does.

p. 158

2. To that which is objected concerning relation, it must be said that relation, when it is said anew18, necessarily posits change in one of the extremes, but it is not necessary that in both. Therefore that relation which is of person to person posits change in one of the persons; and one being changed, the other is also changed, because they are the same essence: therefore necessarily, if19 from non-Father he became Father, he would be changed. But a relation of essence to essence does not necessarily posit change, except in one of the extremes, because since the essences are diverse, one can be changed while the other is not changed20: and therefore in the relation toward the creature the change is always understood as made in the creature, not in God. Yet properly speaking, as will appear elsewhere21, God is not related to the creature, except according to manner of speaking.

It could however be said otherwise, as was touched on above22, that it is not similar: because a personal relation gives existence to the person, whereas a relation to a creature does not so; and therefore it follows: if he begins to be Father, he begins to be; but it does not follow: if23 God begins to be man, he begins to be. And therefore Ambrose's argument is valid, that if the Father had begun to beget, he would have been changed, because he would have begun to be, not because he would have been changed from one state into another.

3. To that which is objected, when "from non-agent" etc.; it must be said that there is an agent which is its own action, and there is an agent which is not its own action, but the action is from it24. The agent which is not its own action so acts that between itself and the effect there falls a medium which disposes it; and such an agent never becomes agent from non-agent without being changed, because something new25 comes to it. But the agent which is its own action acts by itself; and therefore between itself and the effect there does not fall any medium disposing it; and therefore when from non-agent it becomes agent, because nothing new accrues to it, therefore it is not changed. Such an agent is God.

4. To that which is objected concerning the will, it must be said that "proximate and immediate cause" is said in three ways: either with respect to substance, or to disposition, or to act; with respect to substance, between which26 and the effect there falls no other substance as mediating cause; with respect to disposition, to which no new disposition is added for producing the effect; with respect to act, when it is joined to the act. I say therefore that the will of God was the proximate and immediate cause from eternity with respect to substance and disposition, but27 not with respect to act; because the will is not joined to act except for the time in which it wills to act, as is plain, when one says: "I will to read tomorrow," the will is not coupled to the act except for tomorrow's time.

Scholion.

I. Concerning the diverse species of change and immutability, see the following question, and concerning the solution to argument 1, S. Thomas, Summa I, q. 9, a. 1, ad 2.

II. The immutability of God was already defined in the Council of Nicaea. Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 4, m. 1, a. 2. — Scotus, here q. 5; Reportata, here q. 2; De rerum principio q. 5. — S. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1; Summa loc. cit. — B. Albert, here a. 16 ff.; Summa p. I, tr. 4, q. 21, m. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here 3. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following question; Summa a. 30. — Durandus, on this and the following question; here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question; here q. 4. — Biel, on this and the following question; here q. 7.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 1. seqq. ac XI. Metaph. c. 10. (X. c. 11.).
    See Aristotle, Physics V, text 1 ff., and Metaphysics XI, c. 10 (X, c. 11).
  2. Aristot., XII. Metaph. text. 8. (XI. c. 2.): Omne [movetur] ex potentia ente in actu ens.
    Aristotle, Metaphysics XII, text 8 (XI, c. 2): "Everything [is moved] from being in potency into being in act."
  3. Libr. II. de Trin. c. 3: Sciendum itaque, quia [omnis] mutatio est aut de statu in statum meliorem, aut de statu in statum deteriorem, aut de statu in statum priori aequalem; ubi autem nihil horum esse potest, vera incommutabilitas inest. — Mox ed. 1 optima pro verissime, et cod. K in fine argumenti divinae essentiae pro divini esse.
    Book II On the Trinity, c. 3: "It must therefore be known that [every] change is either from a state into a better state, or from a state into a worse state, or from a state into a state equal to the prior; but where none of these can be, there is true incommutability." — Just below, ed. 1 reads optima for verissime, and codex K at the end of the argument reads divinae essentiae for divini esse. <!-- p. 157 -->
  4. Vers. 24.
    Verse 24.
  5. Ed. 1 moveri, quo alluditur ad illud Boethii, III. de Consol. Metro 9: Stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri.
    Edition 1 reads moveri, by which is alluded that of Boethius, On the Consolation III, Metre 9: "And remaining stable you give all things to be moved."
  6. Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. et VI. text. 32. et 73. (c. 3. et 8.).
    See Aristotle, Physics V, text 7, and VI, text 32 and 73 (cc. 3 and 8).
  7. Cap. 16. n. 17: Nummus autem cum dicitur pretium, relative dicitur nec tamen mutatus est, cum esse coepit pretium. — Nota tamen, quod relatio pretii in nummo est tantum accidentalis, relatio vero, quae est in unione hypostatica, est substantialis. Explicationem huius exempli vide infra d. 30. dub. 3.
    Chapter 16, n. 17: "A coin, however, when it is called a price, is so called relatively, nor is it changed when it began to be a price." — Note, however, that the relation of price in a coin is only accidental, but the relation which is in the hypostatic union is substantial. For an explanation of this example see below d. 30, dub. 3.
  8. Libr. 1. de Fide, c. 9: Nam si Pater esse coepit, Deus ergo primo erat, postea Pater factus est. — Vat. cum cod. cc post tunc contra alios codd. et ed. 1 omittit Pater. Ed. 1 post si hoc addit esset.
    Book 1 On the Faith, c. 9: "For if the Father began to be, then God first was, and afterwards became Father." — The Vatican edition with codex cc, after tunc, against the other codices and ed. 1, omits Pater. Edition 1 after si hoc adds esset.
  9. Simile habetur Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 7, et II. de Anima, text. 43. (c. 4.), ubi sic: Faber autem mutatur solum in actum ex otio.
    A similar passage is found in Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 7, and On the Soul II, text 43 (c. 4), where thus: "The craftsman, however, is changed only into act from rest."
  10. Aliqui codd. ut KV efficientis.
    Some codices, such as K and V, read efficientis [of the efficient].
  11. Averroes in libro Destructio Destructionum, disput. 1. dub. 1. et in Comment. super VIII. Physic. text. 15. ex hac propositione impossibilitatem creationis deducere conatur. — Paulo ante post ex tempore voluit codd. aa bb satis bene addunt mundum.
    Averroes in the book Destruction of the Destruction, disputation 1, dub. 1, and in his Commentary on Physics VIII, text 15, from this proposition attempts to deduce the impossibility of creation. — A little before, after ex tempore voluit, codices aa and bb add, well enough, mundum.
  12. Cod. W addit in quo creatus est.
    Codex W adds in quo creatus est [in which it was created].
  13. Libr. III. de Consol. Metro 9, post quem textum cod. Z addit Psalmus (101, 28.): mutabis res et mutabuntur etc. Paulo infra cum plerisque codd. ut ASTVW etc. et ed. 1 legimus pure loco purus, quod habet Vat.
    Book III On the Consolation, Metre 9, after which text codex Z adds the Psalm (101:28): "You shall change things and they shall be changed," etc. A little below, with most codices such as A, S, T, V, W etc. and ed. 1 we read pure in place of purus, which the Vatican edition has.
  14. Libr. VIII. de Genes. ad lit. c. 21. — Verba Aristotelis in libro de Motu animalium c. 1. haec sunt: Verumtamen principium, in quantum principium, quiescit, mota particula, quae subest: veluti brachio moto, cubitus, toto autem membro, humerus (ed. Ven. 1584).
    Book VIII On Genesis literally, c. 21. — The words of Aristotle in the book On the Motion of Animals, c. 1, are these: "Nevertheless the principle, insofar as it is principle, rests, the part beneath being moved: as, the arm being moved, the elbow [rests]; but, the whole limb [moved], the shoulder [rests]" (Venice ed. 1584).
  15. Cod. W addit et immobilis. Mox cod. F Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur.
    Codex W adds et immobilis [and immobile]. Just after, codex F reads Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur [To that, therefore, which is objected].
  16. Vat. cum cod. cc motum, sed contra ceteros mss. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads motum, but against the other manuscripts and ed. 1.
  17. Cfr. Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 5. — Mox codd. inter se dissentiunt; alii siquidem habent quodlibet pro quolibet, alii cum ed. 1 dari loco dare, alii ut A T bb cc ponunt quodlibet et dari; melius legeretur et quod quolibet istorum modorum habet, dare potest.
    Cf. Dionysius, On the Divine Names, c. 5. — Just after, the codices disagree among themselves; some have quodlibet for quolibet, others with ed. 1 dari in place of dare, others such as A, T, bb, cc place quodlibet and dari; it would better be read et quod quolibet istorum modorum habet, dare potest. <!-- p. 158 -->
  18. Plures codd. ut ACLRUVX omittunt de novo, sed male. Cod. W de duobus et ed. 1 de persona divina loco de novo, sed inepte. Cod. G cum de novo advenit.
    Several codices, such as A, C, L, R, U, V, X, omit de novo, but wrongly. Codex W reads de duobus and ed. 1 de persona divina in place of de novo, but ineptly. Codex G reads cum de novo advenit.
  19. Codd. aa bb addunt Deus.
    Codices aa and bb add Deus.
  20. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 una mutari, altera non permutata, ac immediate post omittit et; aliqui codd. ut A aa bb cum ed. 1 mutato pro permutato.
    The Vatican edition, contrary to the witness of the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads una mutari, altera non permutata, and immediately after omits et; some codices such as A, aa, bb, with ed. 1 read mutato for permutato.
  21. Infra d. 30. q. 3. — Mox post dici ed. 1 vel secundum modum loquendi.
    Below, d. 30, q. 3. — Just after dici, ed. 1 reads vel secundum modum loquendi [or according to the manner of speaking].
  22. Dist. 7. dub. 4. Vide etiam infra d. 26. q. 3. — Immediate post Vat. omittit quod non est, quae lectio corrupta resarcitur ope mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3.
    Distinction 7, dub. 4. See also below d. 26, q. 3. — Immediately after, the Vatican edition omits quod non est, a corrupt reading restored by the help of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3.
  23. Vat. cum cod. cc hic loco si, et post homo addit igitur, sed obstat auctoritas aliorum mss. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads hic in place of si, and after homo adds igitur, but the authority of the other manuscripts and ed. 1 stands against it.
  24. Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 omittit non bene sed actio est ab ipso, pro quo cod. Q sed actio est aliquid ab ipso. Paulo ante post obiicitur in cod. V et ed. 1 deest quando.
    The Vatican edition, against nearly all codices and ed. 1, omits non bene sed actio est ab ipso; for which codex Q reads sed actio est aliquid ab ipso. A little before, after obiicitur, in codex V and ed. 1, quando is missing.
  25. Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic additum quid.
    By the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have here expunged the added quid.
  26. Ex mss. et ed. 1 hic substituimus inter quam loco cum inter eam et paulo infra cui pro cum.
    From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have here substituted inter quam in place of cum inter eam, and a little below cui for cum.
  27. Vat. cum cod. cc contra alios codd. et ed. 1 minus clare et pro sed.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other codices and ed. 1, less clearly reads et in place of sed.
← Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2→