Dist. 8, Part 1, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 8
## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Deum in formis corporalibus apparuisse. Videtur enim, quod talis apparitio potius sit occasio erroris quam veritatis. Deus enim caret forma et figura in corpore et corporeitate secundum veritatem, et qui credit vel opinatur contrarium, errat. Si ergo frequenter opinamur1 quae apparent sensibus, videtur, quod talis apparitio sit erroris occasio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod forma et figura corporalis non ducit immediate in cognitionem Dei, sed mediante spiritu rationali, cuius ministerio fiebat illa apparitio. Et quia in ascendendo prius fit abstractio a corporali forma et figura, quam perveniatur ad Deum, dum a corpore ad Deum ascenditur mediante spiritu incorporeo; ideo talis apparitio potius scala est perducens ad cognitionem veritatis, quam sit occasio deviandi. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod illa opinamur interius, quae apparent exterius; dicendum, quod illud verum est, si opinio vel ratio descendat ad sensum et ei innitatur; cum autem a sensu abstrahit et innititur fidei et revelationi, non habet occasionem errandi2, sed potius veritatem inquirendi3.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non videbit me homo, et vivet. Contrarium huius habetur Exodi trigesimo tertio4: Loquebatur Dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem. Et Numerorum duodecimo: Palam et non per figuras et aenigmata Deum videt; dicitur de eodem Moyse.
Respondeo: Dicendum est ad hoc, quod in prima auctoritate significatur, quod Deus non potest videri a viatore in sui essentia et claritate5; sed in duabus sequentibus insinuatur familiaritas Dei ad Moysen, quantum ad apparitionem et quantum ad contemplationem, in quarum utraque Prophetas alios excellebat. Familiaritas apparitionis notatur, cum dicitur, quod loquebatur ei facie ad faciem — subintelligendum est in subiecta creatura — eminentia contemplationis, cum dicitur: Palam et non per figuras et aenigmata Deum videt, quia non tantum fulgebat visione corporali, aut imaginaria, sed etiam intellectuali6.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Visibile enim quidquam non est, quod non est mutabile. Corpus enim caeli empyrei visibile est, et tamen non est mutabile. — Item, quaero, de qua mutatione intelligat; aut de mutatione ad situm, aut de mutatione ad formam7. Si de mutatione ad situm, hoc nihil est, quia ista nihil facit ad visum; si de mutatione ad formam, illud similiter falsum est, quia corpora supercaelestia sunt incorruptibilia et inalterabilia, et tamen sunt visibilia.
Quaestio incidens. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur etiam, de quo visu intelligat; aut enim intelligit de visu mentali, aut de visu corporali. Si de visu mentali, falsum est; si de visu
corporali, quaeritur, quae necessitas sit, quod visibile sit mutabile, cum ita bene sensus iste percipiat corpora incorruptibilia, sicut corruptibilia.
Respondeo: Ad quaestionem incidentem. — Dicendum, quod Augustinus8 intellexit de visu corporali, et de hoc verum est quod dicit, quod omne visibile est mutabile. Nihil enim potest videre sensus corporalis sine extensione quantitatis9; ubicumque autem est extensio quantitatis, ibi est compositio; ubi vero est compositio, possibilis est resolutio et mutatio ad minus, quantum est de natura rei. Solum enim omnino simplex est immutabile simpliciter; et ideo necessario sequitur, quod si aliquid videtur sensu corporeo, quod sit mutabile.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de empyreo et de aliis corporibus caelestibus, dicendum, quod nec empyreum nec aliud corpus caeleste nec corpus, quod est vel possit esse, omnino est immutabile. Quamvis enim non mutentur mutatione, quae est de esse in aliud esse sive de una forma in aliam: mutata10 tamen sunt mutatione, quae est de non-esse in esse, et mutabilia sunt per naturam mutatione, quae est in non-esse; et hoc, quia sunt composita, et ideo non sunt suum esse. Nullum enim ens est suum esse nisi summe simplex, sicut nullum agens est suum agere nisi summe simplex. Et propter hoc, quia mendicat suum esse aliunde, dicit Hilarius11, quod omnibus creatis accidit esse; et ideo per naturam suam omnia sunt possibilia ad non-esse. Et sic patet responsio ad totum.
---
## Doubts on the Text of the Master.
Doubt I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: that God appeared in corporeal forms. For it seems that such an appearing is more an occasion of error than of truth. For God lacks form and figure in body and corporeity in truth, and he who believes or supposes the contrary, errs. If therefore we frequently form opinions1 of what appears to the senses, it seems that such an appearing is an occasion of error.
I respond: It must be said that bodily form and figure does not lead immediately to the knowledge of God, but by means of the rational spirit, by whose ministry that appearing took place. And since in ascending there is first an abstraction from bodily form and figure before one comes to God — while one ascends from body to God through the medium of an incorporeal spirit — therefore such an appearing is rather a ladder leading to the knowledge of truth than an occasion of going astray. — And as to what is objected, that we suppose inwardly what appears outwardly: it must be said that this is true if the opinion or reasoning descends to sense and leans upon it; but when it abstracts from sense and leans upon faith and revelation, it has no occasion of erring2, but rather of seeking the truth3.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about what he says: No man shall see me, and live. The contrary of this is had in the thirty-third [chapter] of Exodus4: The Lord spoke to Moses face to face. And in the twelfth of Numbers: Openly, and not by figures and riddles, does he see God; which is said of the same Moses.
I respond: It must be said to this that in the first authority it is signified that God cannot be seen by the wayfarer in his essence and brightness5; but in the two following ones is hinted the familiarity of God toward Moses, both as to appearing and as to contemplation, in each of which he excelled the other Prophets. The familiarity of appearing is noted when it is said that he spoke to him face to face — wherein it must be understood, in the underlying creature —; the eminence of contemplation, when it is said: Openly, and not by figures and riddles, does he see God, because he shone not only with bodily or imaginative vision, but also with intellectual6.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about what he says: For nothing is visible which is not changeable. For the body of the empyrean heaven is visible, and yet it is not changeable. — Likewise, I ask, of what change he understands it; either of change as to position, or of change as to form7. If of change as to position, this is nothing, because that does nothing for vision; if of change as to form, that likewise is false, because the supercelestial bodies are incorruptible and unalterable, and yet they are visible.
An incidental question. — Along with this it is also asked of what sight he understands it; for either he understands it of mental sight, or of bodily sight. If of mental sight, it is false; if of bodily
sight, the question is, what necessity there is that the visible be changeable, since this sense perceives incorruptible bodies just as well as corruptible ones.
I respond: To the incidental question. — It must be said that Augustine8 understood it of bodily sight, and concerning this what he says is true, that everything visible is changeable. For the bodily sense cannot see anything without extension of quantity9; but wherever there is extension of quantity, there is composition; and where there is composition, resolution and change to less is possible, so far as concerns the nature of the thing. For only what is altogether simple is unchangeable absolutely; and therefore it follows of necessity that if anything is seen by the bodily sense, it is changeable.
To the objection then about the empyrean and the other celestial bodies, it must be said that neither the empyrean nor any other celestial body, nor any body which is or can be, is altogether unchangeable. For although they are not changed by the change which is from being into another being, or from one form into another, yet they were once changed10 by the change which is from non-being into being, and they are by their nature changeable by the change which is into non-being; and this, because they are composite, and therefore are not their own being. For no being is its own being except the supremely simple, just as no agent is its own acting except the supremely simple. And on account of this, because it begs its being from elsewhere, Hilary11 says, to all created things being befalls as an accident; and therefore by their nature all things are possible to non-being. And so the answer to the whole is clear.
---
- Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 3; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 6; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4; Aegid. R., hic circa lit.Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. I, q. 2, m. 2, a. 3; St. Thomas, here, q. I, a. 6; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 1, a. 4; Giles of Rome, here, on the text [circa litteram].
- In codd. O cc et ed. 1 additur interius, quod etiam infra in solutione habetur.In codices O, cc, and edition 1 there is added interius ("inwardly"), which also is had below in the solution.
- Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 2. ad 4.Cf. I Sent., d. 3, p. I, q. 2, ad 4.
- Vers. 11. — Sequens textus est Num. 12. 8, ubi Vulgata Dominum pro Deum.Verse 11. — The following text is Num. 12:8, where the Vulgate has Dominum in place of Deum.
- Cod. cc et ed. 1 deitate.Codex cc and edition 1 read deitate ("deity").
- Eodem modo solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 1. a. 4; B. Albert., S. p. I. tract. 3. q. 13. m. 4.In the same way Alexander of Hales solves it, Summa, p. I, q. 2, m. 1, a. 4; and Blessed Albert, Summa, p. I, tract. 3, q. 13, m. 4.
- Cfr. supra pag. 31, nota 9. et tom. 1. pag. 663, nota 8.Cf. above, page 31, note 9, and tom. 1, page 663, note 8.
- Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. circa finem, ubi sunt verba Augustini, de quibus hoc dubium instituitur.See here the text of the Master, c. 3, near the end, where are the words of Augustine on which this doubt is raised.
- Cfr. Aristot., de Sensu et sensib. c. 3. — De seqq. I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. et p. II. q. 2.Cf. Aristotle, On Sense and the Sensible, c. 3. — On what follows, see I Sent., d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, and p. II, q. 2.
- Vat. mutabilia.The Vatican reads mutabilia.
- Libr. VII. de Trin. n. 11, ubi per oppositionem de Deo dicit: omne quod aliunde subsistit, accidens est ei accipere quod sit.Book VII of On the Trinity, n. 11, where by opposition concerning God he says: Everything which subsists from elsewhere — for it, to-be is something received as an accident. ---