COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. I, d. 8, P. I, a. II, q. 2: S. BONAVENTURAE

S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis	St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum	Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis	of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris
PRIMI LIBRI	BOOK ONE
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII
PARS I.	PART I
ARTICULUS II. Quaestio II.	ARTICLE II Question 2
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 158-162. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 158-162. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Quaestio II. Utrum solus Deus immutabilis sit.	Question 2 Whether God alone is immutable.
SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum immutabilitas sit divinae essentiae proprietas, ita quod nulli creaturae conveniat. Et quod sic, videtur.	SECONDLY THERE IS ASKED, whether immutability is a property of the Divine Essence, so that it convenes with no creature. And that (it is) so, it seems:
1. Primae ad Timotheum ultimo¹¹ dicitur de Deo, quod solus habet immortalitatem. Et Augustinus dicit contra Maximinum:¹² « In omni natura mutabili nonnulla mors est ipsa mutatio »: ergo si solus Deus habet immortalitatem, solus habet immutabilitatem.	1. In the last (chapter) of the First (Letter) to Timothy there is said of God, that He alone has immortality. And (St.) Augustine says Against Maximinus:¹² « In every mutable nature not every mutation is itself a death »: therefore if God alone has immortality, He alone has immutability.
2. Item, omne vertibile est mutabile; sed omnis creatura est vertibilis; unde Damascenus:¹³ « Omne quod a versione incipit, in versionem tendit »: ergo etc.	2. Likewise, every vertible is mutable; but every creature is vertible; whence (St. John) Damascene (says):¹³ « Everything which starts from being turned [a versione], tends towards being turned [in versionem] »: therefore etc..
¹¹ Vers. 16. ¹² Lib. II. c. 12. 2. ¹³ Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 3: Quorum enim esse a mutatione incepit, ea mutationi quoque subsint necesse est.	¹¹ Verse 16. ¹² Book II, ch. 12, n. 2. ¹³ On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, ch. 3: For of those which start to be by mutation, it is necessary also that they be subject [subsint] to that mutation. [Trans. note: here versio is used as a technical term meaning “a change in the order of being”: it is derived from that metaphor for creating, which has creatures “turned away from nothingness”; whence in English we say, “turned into”, for “became”: hence what is “able to be turned” is “vertible”.].

p. 159

3. Item, omne quod sibi relictum in nihilum cedit,¹ quantum est de se, est mutabile; sed omnis creatura est huiusmodi; unde Gregorius:² « Cuncta in nihilum tenderent, nisi manus Conditoris ea retineret »: ergo etc.	3. Likewise, everything which left to itself passes [cedit] into nothing,¹ as much as concerns itself, is mutable; but every creature is of this kind; whence (St.) Gregory (the Great says):² « All (things) would tend unto nothing, unless the Hand of the Founder retained them (in being) »: ergo etc..
4. Item, nullum accidens de se habet stabilitatem; sed esse omni creaturae accidit, sicut dicit Hilarius et habetur in littera,³ quia ab alio venit: ergo omnis creatura quantum ad esse est instabilis.	4. Likewise, no accident from itself has stability; but "to be" [esse] accedes to every creature, just as (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers) says and (as) it is had in the text,³ that it comes from another: therefore every creature as much as regards (its) "to be" is instable.
5. Item, omne vanum est subiectum variabilitati; sed omnis creatura vana, cum sit ex nihilo; unde ad Romanos octavo:⁴ Vanitati subiecta est creatura etc.: ergo si omnis creatura vana, nulla immutabilis.	5. Likewise, everything vain is subject to variability; but every creature (is) vain, since it is out of nothing; whence in the eighth (chapter) of (the Letter) to the Romans (there is written):⁴ Unto vanity is the creature subjected etc.; therefore if every creature (is) vain, none (is) immutable.
6. Item, omne mutatum habet in se mutabilitatem; sed omnis creatura facta est: ergo omnis creatura mutata, ergo nulla immutabilis.	6. Likewise, every changed thing [omne mutatum] has mutability in itself; but every creature has been made: therefore every creature (has) changed, therefore none (is) immutable.
CONTRA: Immutabilitas non dicitur nisi tripliciter. Dicitur enim immutabilitas aut invariabilitas, aut incorruptibilitas, aut invertibilitas.	ON THE CONTRARY: Immutability is not said except in a threefold manner. For immutability means either invariability, or incorruptibility, or invertibility.
1. Ostenditur autem, quod invariabilitas conveniat creaturis, utpote principiis. Nam Augustinus ostendit in duodecimo Confessionum,⁵ quod materia informis est invariabilis; quia quod caret forma, caret ordine, et quod caret ordine, caret vicissitudine, ergo variatione. Auctor autem sex Principiorum⁶ dicit hoc de forma, « quod est in simplici et invariabili essentia consistens ».	1. Moreover it is shown, that invariability convenes with creatures, as principles. For (St.) Augustine shows in the twelfth (book of his) Confessions,⁵ that formless matter [materia informis] is invariable; because what is without [caret] form, is without order, and what is without order, is without vicissitude, therefore without variation. Moreover the author of The Six Principles⁶ says this of form, « that it is consistent in a simple and invariable essence ».
2. Item videtur, quod invariabilitas conveniat Beatis, quia ubi perfecta beatitudo, ibi nulla deperditio, et ubi hoc,⁷ nulla variatio.	2. Likewise it seems, that invariability convenes with the Blessed, because where (there is) perfect beatitude, there is no loss [deperditio], and where (there is) this,⁷ (there is) no variation.
3. Item, variatio attenditur, sicut dicit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram,⁸ aut secundum locum, aut secundum tempus; sed aliqua creatura caret determinato loco et tempore, ut universale, quod est semper et ubique,⁹ et caelum empyreum, quod est extra tempus et locum: ergo etc.	3. Likewise, variation is tended towards, just as (St.) Augustine says in On a Literal Exposition of Genesis,⁸ either according to place, or according to time; but some creature is without a determinate place and time, (such) as a universal, which is always and everywhere,⁹ and the empyrean Heaven, which is outside of time and place: therefore etc.
4. Item, si immutabilitas dicatur incorruptibilitas, idem ostenditur. « Nam omnis corruptio naturalis venit ex contrarietate », sicut dicit Philosophus in libro de Morte et vita;¹⁰ sed multae creaturae carent contrarietate: ergo et corruptibilitate.	4. Likewise, if immutability means incorruptibility, the same is shown. « For every natural corruption comes out of a contrariety », just as the Philosopher says in his book On Death and Life;¹⁰ but many creatures are without contrariety: therefore also without corruptibility.
5. Item, omnis corruptio est in aliquid prius se, quia corruptio naturalis in aliquid est;¹¹ sed principia non habent aliquid prius, utpote materia: ergo sunt incorruptibilia.	5. Likewise, every corruption is in something prior to itself, because natural corruption is in a something;¹¹ but principles, as matter, do not have something prior: therefore they are incorruptible.
6. Item, omne perpetuum incorruptibile;¹² sed aliqua creatura naturaliter est perpetua: ergo etc. Minor probari potest sic: perpetuitas est de ratione imaginis; unde Augustinus:¹³ « Non esset anima imago, si mortis termino clauderetur »; cum ergo anima naturaliter sit imago, ergo naturaliter est immortalis sive perpetua.	6. Likewise, every perpetual (is) incorruptible;¹² but some creature is naturally perpetual: ergo etc.. The minor can be proved in this manner: perpetuity concerns the reckoning of an image; whence (St.) Augustine (says):¹³ « The soul would not be an image, if it were enclosed [clauderetur] by death's terminus »; therefore since the soul is naturally an image, therefore it is naturally immortal or perpetual.
7. Item, ostenditur, quod creatura sit invertibilis, sic: vertibilitas est in non esse; sed nihil est, quod possit creaturam aliquam vertere in non esse, quia a se non vertitur, cum nihil se corrumpat;¹⁴ ab alio non, quia actio creaturae in id terminatur, ex quo incipit; sed nullius creaturae actio incipit a non esse: ergo etc. Praeterea, distantia infinita est inter esse creaturae et nihil; sed inter extrema in infinitum distantia non potest fieri mutatio per virtutem finitam: ergo nihil potest cedere in nihil, nisi Deo faciente.	7. Likewise, it is shown, that a creature is invertible, in this manner: there is vertibility into ‘non being’ [in non esse]; but there is nothing, which can turn any creature into ‘non being’, because (the creature) is not turned by itself [a se], when nothing corrupts it;¹⁴ not by another, because the action of a creature is terminated upon that, out of which it starts; but the action of no creature starts from ‘non being’: ergo etc.. Besides, there is an infinite distance between the ‘to be’ of a creature and nothing; but between extremes infinite in distance [in infinitum distantia] there cannot come to be a mutation through a finite virtue: therefore nothing can pass into nothing, except by God causing it.
8. Item, vertibilitas dicitur per corruptionem in non esse omnino; sed nihil, quod corrumpitur, secedit omnino in non ens:¹⁵ ergo nullum corruptiblile vertibile. Si tu dicas, quod invertibilitatem non habet creatura per naturam, sed solum per gratiam;¹⁶ contra: quod omnibus inest, est naturale,	8. Likewise, vertibility is said through a corruption entirely into ‘non being’; but nothing, which is corrupted, secedes entirely into a non being [non ens]:¹⁵ therefore no corruptible (is) vertible. If you say, that a creature does not have invertibility through (its) nature, but only through grace;¹⁶ on the contrary: what is in all (things), is natural,
¹ Nonnulli codd. ut D F K X ee cum ed. 1 tendit. ² Libr. XVI. Moral. c. 37: Cuncta quippe ex nihilo facta sunt, eorumque essentia rursum ad nihilum tenderet, nisi eam auctor omnium regiminis manu retineret. ³ Cap. 1 in fine. ⁴ Vers. 10. — Mox in fine argumenti codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 omittunt est additum a Vat. ⁵ Cap. 9. n. 9. ⁶ Gilbert. Poreetan., c. 1: Forma est compositioni contingens, simplici et invariabili essentia consistens. — Post quem textum cod. O addit et ita nec forma nec materia variatur. ⁷ Ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 pro haec substituimus hoc, quod sensus expostulat. Paulo ante plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt ibi, qui et in fine argumenti ponunt mutatio loco variatio. ⁸ Libr. VIII. c. 20. ⁹ Aristot., I. Poster. c. 24. (c. 31.). — Mox nomine caeli empyrei intellige ultimam sphaeram, quae iuxta opinionem tunc communiter receptam est immodbilis et uniformis, quia eius intrinseca principia, scil. materia et forma, sunt « ita bona coniunctione coniuncta, quod nulla cadit in illud contrarietas », ut ait S. Doctor infra ad 4. obiectionem. Cfr. supra d. 1. a. 3. q. 2. opp. 1., et Aristot., I. de Caelo text. 100 (c. 9.). ¹⁰ Melius poneretur: in libro de Longitudine et brevitate vitae. Aristoteles siquidem duo scripsit opuscula, quorum uni titulus: de Iuventute et senectute, de vita et morte; alteri autem: de Logitudine et brevitate vitae. In priore opusculo perpauca occurunt de re, quam S. Doctor hic proponit; in posteriore tamen, c. 2 et seq., fusius de hac re tractatur, et inter cetera inveniuntur hoc: Quare, cui non est contrarium et ubi non est, impossibile utique erit corrumpi. ¹¹ Cfr. Aristot., I. Phys. text. 42. et 82. (c. 6. et 9. in fine), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 14. seqq. (c. 3.), ubi et propos. minor huius argum. insinuatur. ¹² Vide Aristot., I. de Caelo, text. 110. seqq. (c. 11. et 12.). ¹³ Libr. XIV. de Trin. d. 2-4. n. 4-6., ex quo loco propositio ista colligi potest, sed quoad litteram habetur in libro de Spiritu et anima c. 18, et in M. Aurelii Cassiodori libro de Anima, c. 2: Nam quemadmodum poterat esse imago aut similitudo Dei, si animae hominum mortis termino clauderentur? — Paulo infra post ergo anima Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, naturalis pro naturaliter. ¹⁴ Cfr. Aristot., I. Phys. text. 81. (c. 9.). et Boeth., III. de Consol. Prosa 11. — Mox ope plurimum mss. ut H I L O S U etc. substituimus a non esse (i. e. a nihilo) pro ante esse, quod Vat. habet quodque non ita correspondet modo loquendi Scholasticorum; multi codd. propter compendiosam scripturam sunt dubiae lectionis. ¹⁵ Hinc Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 17. (c. 3.): Huius corruptio alterius est generatio. ¹⁶ Vat. cum multis codd. hic omittit solum et transponit, / paulo supra legendo ergo nullum corruptibile vertibile solum; quae lectio falsa est, nisi fiat transpositio terminorum v. g. ergo nullum solum corruptibile, vertibile; vel ergo nullum vertibile corruptibile solum. Codd. E H Z ii omittunt solum utrobique; codd. P Q ee vero ponunt eo loco, quo nos posuimus. Gratiam accipias hic sensu largo, quo Ioan. Damas., II. de Fide orthod. c. 3. de Angelo ait: Immortalis est non quidem natura, sed Dei munere et gratia.	¹ Not a few codices as D F K X and ee together with edition 1 have tends [tendit]. ² Morals, Book XVI, ch. 37: All things [cuncta] indeed have been made out of nothing, and their essence would again tend toward nothing, unless the Author of all things [omnium] retained it (in being) with the Hand of (His) governance [regiminis manu]. ³ Chapter 1, at the end. ⁴ Verse 10. — Then at the end of the argument the codices together with editions 1, 2, 3 and 6 omit the is [est] added by the Vatican text. ⁵ Chapter 9, n. 9. [Tr. note: here invertibility is inability to be turned, rather than ability to be turned upside down.] ⁶ Gibert of Porretain, ch. 1: Form is contingent to composition, consistent with a simple and invariable essence. — After which text codex O adds and thus it is varied neither in form nor in matter. ⁷ From the ancient manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted the neuter this [hoc] for the feminine this [haec], which is demanded by the sense. A little before this very many codices together with edition 1 omit there [ibi], and also at the end of the argument put mutation [mutatio] in place of variation [variatio]. ⁸ Book VIII, ch. 20. ⁹ Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Bk. I, ch. 24 (ch. 31). — Then by the noun empyrean Heaven [caelum empyreum] understand the last sphere, which according to the opinion then commonly received is immobile and uniform, because its intrinsic principle, namely matter and form, are « goods so conjoined by conjunction, that there falls no contrariety in it », as the Seraphic Doctor says below at objection n. 4. Cr. above d. 1, a, 3, q. 2, op. 1, and Aristotle, On Heaven, Bk. I, text 100 (ch. 9). ¹⁰ It would be better to put: in the book On the Length and Brevity of Life. Aristotle did indeed write two small works, of which one title is: On Youth and Old Age, On Life and Death; the other: On the Length and Brevity of Life. In the former work very few things occur on the matter, which the Seraphic Doctor here proposes; in the latter, however, in ch. 2 ff., this matter is more broadly treated, and among all the others there is found these words: Wherefore, to that to which there is not a contrary and where it is not, it will be indeed impossible for it to be corrupted. ¹¹ Cf. Aristotle, Physics, Bk. I, texts 42 and 82 (chs. 6 and 9 at the end), and On Generation, Bk. I, text 11 ff. (ch. 3), where the minor of this proposition is also hinted at. ¹² See Aristotle, On Heaven, Bk. I, text 110 ff. (chs. 11 and 12). ¹³ On the Trinity, Bk. XIV, chs. 2-4, nn. 4-6, from which text that proposition of his can be gathered, but it is literally found in the book On Spirit and Soul, ch. 18, and in M. Aurelius Cassiodorus' book On the Soul, ch. 2: For in accord with what manner could it have been an image or similitude of God, if the souls of men were enclosed by death's terminus? — A little below this after therefore when [cum ergo], the Vatican text together with codex cc, withstanding however the other codices and edition 1, has the natural soul is [anima naturalis est] in place of soul is naturally [anima est naturaliter]. ¹⁴ Cf. Aristotle, Physics, Bk. I, text 81 (ch. 9) and (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, Bk. III, prose 11. — Then with the help of very many manuscripts as H I L O S U etc. we have substituted from ’non being’ [a non esse], i. e. from nothing, in place of before (its) "to be" [ante esse], which the Vatican text has and which does not correspond with the manner of speaking of the Scholastics; many codices on account of their abbreviated writing are of a doubtful reading. ¹⁵ Hence Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, Bk. I, text 17 (ch. 3): The corruption of this is the generation of the other. ¹⁶ The Vatican text together with many codices here omits only [solum] and transposes, a little above this by reading therefore no corruptible (is) only vertible [ergo nullum corruptibile vertibile solum]; which reading is false, unless one makes a transposition of terms, v. g. therefore no solely corruptible (is) vertible [ergo nullum solum corruptible vertibile]; and/or therefore no vertible is only corruptible [ergo nullum vertibile corruptible solum]. Codices E H Z and ii omit only [solum] in both places; codices P Q and ee, however, put it where we have put it. — Grace is here accepted in the broad sense, which (St.) John Damascene uses, On the Orthdox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 3, "On the Angel", where he says: Indeed a nature is not immortal, but by the gift and grace of God.

p. 160

quoniam gratia speciale est; sed naturale est quod est idem apud omnes;¹ sed fere omnis creatura est invertibilis, quia nulla redigitur in nihilum: ergo hoc est naturale.	since it is by a special grace; but the natural is what is the same among all;¹ but nearly every creature is invertible, because none is driven back into nothing: therefore this is (something) natural.
9. Item, ostenditur, quod nec per gratiam; quia gratia est perfectio naturae: ergo quod repugnat naturae, non datur per gratiam: ergo si invertibilitas est contra naturam creaturae, ergo non datur per gratiam.	9. Likewise, it is shown, that neither (does a creature have invertiblility) through grace; because grace is the perfection of nature: therefore what is repugnant to nature, is not given through grace: therefore if invertibility is contrary to the nature of a creature, therefore it is not given through grace.
10. Item, obiicitur de illa gratia, quia si est creatura, est² vertibilis; si ergo conveniat ei invertibilitas, oportet quod per aliam gratiam; et sic erit abire in infinitum. Si ergo oportet stare, patet quod non per gratiam. Si dicas, quod gratia illa non dicitur habitus, sed Deus gratis conservens; hoc nihil est, quia sine Deo operante³ nulla creatura operatur: ergo sicut nulla creatura operatur nisi per gratiam: ergo nulla operatio est naturalis, quod stultum est dicere.	10. Likewise, it is objected concerning that grace, because if a creature is, it is² vertible; and therefore if invertibility convenes with it, it is proper that (it be) through an other grace; and thus there will be an infinite regress [abire in infinitum]. Therefore if it is proper that it stand, it is clear that (it cannot be) through grace. If you say, that that grace is not meant as a habit, but as God conserving by graces; this is nothing, because without God operating³ no creature operates: therefore just as no creature operates except by grace: therefore no operation is natural, which is a foolish (thing) to say.
CONCLUSIO. Immutabilitas, accepta ut invariabilitas, est propria solis Dei, accepta ut incorruptibilitas aut invertibilitas, a Deo communicatur aliquibus creaturis vel per naturam vel per gratiam.	CONCLUSION Immutability, accepted as invariability, is proper to God alone, accepted as incorruptibility or invertibility, it is communicated by God to some creatures by nature and/or by grace.
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod immutabilitas dicitur per privationem mutabilitatis. Mutatio autem dicitur tripliciter: uno modo ab ente in ens; et haec est mutatio secundum accidens⁴ et dicitur variatio; alio modo ab ente simpliciter in ens potentia sive secundum quid; et haec est mutatio secundum formam et dicitur corruptio; alio modo est mutatio ab ente in simpliciter non ens; et haec est secundum totam rei substantiam et dicitur versio. Secundum hoc intelligendum, quod immutabilitatis dicitur tripliciter: uno modo invariabilitas, alio modo incorruptibilitas, et tertio modo invertibilitas.	I RESPOND: It must be said, that immutability is said through a privation of mutability. Moreover mutation is said in a threefold manner: in one manner from a being into a being; and this is mutation according to accident⁴ and is called variation; in another manner from a being simply into a being by potency or according to something [secundum quid]; and this is mutation according to form and is called corruption; in another manner there is mutation from a being into simply a non being; and this is according to the whole substance of a thing and is called version [versio]. According to this it must be understood, that immutability is said in a threefold manner: in one manner as invariability, in another manner as incorruptibility, and in a third manner as invertibility.
Si ergo immutabilitas dicatur invariabilitas, sic dico, quod in nulla omnino est creatura neque per naturam neque per gratiam; nam omne creatum aut est accidens, aut habet accidens, et ita variabile; et haec⁵ est proprie proprium ipsius Dei.	Therefore if immutability be called invariability, thus I say, that it is entirely in no creature neither through nature nor through grace; for every created (thing) is either an accident, or has an accident, and is thus variable; and this (invariability)⁵ is properly proper to God Himself.
Si autem dicatur immutabilitas incorruptibilitas, sic dico, quod in aliquibus est creaturis: in quibusdam per naturam, ut puta in simplicibus, in quibusdam per gratiam, ut puta in glorificatis corporibus. Nec sic est proprie proprium divinae essentiae.	Moreover if immutability be called incorruptibility, thus I say, that it is in some creatures: in certain ones through nature, as for example [ut puta] in simple (things), in certain ones through grace, as for example in glorified bodies. Nor it is in this manner properly proper to the Divine Essence.
Si vero tertio modo dicatur immutabilitas,⁶ sic omnibus creaturis inest per gratiam, nulli autem per naturam nisi soli Deo. Invertibile enim per naturam est, quod ex se ipso habet, ut possit stare; hoc autem est, in quo nulla est vanitas⁷ et in quo omnino nulla essentiae mutatio nec ad esse, nec ad non esse; et hoc est solum aeternum. Ideo haec invertibilitas est in solo Deo et est proprie proprium eius. Invertibilitas autem per gratiam inest omnibus vel pluribus creaturis, quia Deus sua gratuita bonitate cetera continet, ne in nihil cedant; et loquor de creaturis, quae dicunt quid completum et per se existens.	However if immutability be said in the third manner,⁶ it is thus in all creatures through grace, but in none through nature except God alone. For the invertible through nature is, that which out of its very self it has, so that it can stand; but it is this, in which there is no vanity⁷ and in which (there is) no mutation of essence as regards (its) ‘being’ [esse], nor as regards (its) ‘being not’ [non esse]; and this is the Eternal One alone. For that reason this invertibility is in God alone and is properly proper to Him. But invertibility through grace is in all and/or very many creatures, because God by His gratuitous goodness contains all other (things), lest they pass into nothing; and I am speaking of creatures, which they call “something completed and per se existing” [quid completum et per se existens].
Concedendum igitur, quod immutabilitas, prout privat variationem secundum accidens quantum ad actum⁸ et potentiam, solius Dei est. Similiter prout privat mutationem in non esse secundum actum et potentiam, quantum est de natura, solius Dei est, licet per gratiam conveniat multis creaturis; et sic procedunt rationes ad primam partem, unde concedendae sunt.	Therefore it must be conceded, that immutability, insofar as it frees from [privat] a variation according to accident, as much as regards act⁸ and potency, belongs to God alone. Similarly insofar as it frees from a mutation in ‘non being’ according to act and potency, as much as it is from nature, belongs to God alone, though through grace it does convene with many creatures; and thus do the reasons for the first part proceed, whence they are to be conceded.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod principia rerum sunt invariabilia; dicendum, quod verum est, si considerentur secundum essentiam abstractam; sed si considerentur secundum esse naturae, sic de necessitate habent accidentia coniuncta et possunt variari; variatio autem⁹ accidentalis respicit esse.	1. To that which, therefore, is objected in the contrary, that the principles of things are invariable; it must be said, that it is true, if they are considered according to abstract essence; but if they are considered according the ‘being of their nature’ [esse naturae], they thus from necessity have accidents conjoined and can be varied; moreover⁹ accidental variation respects the ‘being’ (of a creature).
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in Beatis non potest esse variatio; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad substantiam praemii sive quantum ad praemium substantiale; cadit tamen quantum ad conversionem ad inferius, tum quantum ad affectiones, sicut patet in Angelis, tum quantum ad actiones. Unde Beati erunt agiles et poterunt moveri.	2. To that which is objected, that in the Blessed there cannot be variation; it must be said, that it is true as much as regards the substance of the reward or as much as regards the substantial reward; however (the argument) fails [cadit] as much as regards conversion toward the inferior, both as much as regards affections, just as is clear among the Angels, and as much as regards actions. Whence the Blessed shall be agile and able to be moved.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de universali et de empyreo, dicendum, quod utrumque recipit variationem; sed universale ratione eius in quo est; quia, « motis¹⁰ nobis, moventur ea quae in nobis / sunt » . . .	3. To that which is objected concerning the universal and concerning the empyrean (Heaven), it must be said, that each receives variation; but the universal by the reckoning of that in which it is; because, « with us moved,¹⁰ there are moved those (things) which are in us » . . .
¹ Vide Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1. — In fine argumenti post hoc supplevimus ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 est. ² Cod. T cum ed. 1 ergo pro est. ³ Cod. A cooperante. ⁴ Multi codd. ut A B C D E F G L R S T U etc. actus loco accidens, minus bene, ut patet ex paulo infra positis de invariabilitate. — De primis duabus mutationis speciebus vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. seqq. (c. 1.) ac I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 23. et 24. (c. 4.). ⁵ Supple: invariabilitas. Vat. Sic accepta immutabilitas loco et haec, sed contra plurimos codd., quorum tamen aliqui ut A F T etc. cum ed. 1 pro haec ponunt minus bene hoc. ⁶ In cod. T ab altera manu hic additur invertibilitas. ⁷ Vat. contra plurimos codd. ut A F G H I S T Z etc. cum ed. 1 addit hic vel varietas, et mox post nulla verbum est. ⁸ Vat. naturam loco actum, sed falso et contra mss. et ed. 1. ⁹ Ed. 1 enim. ¹⁰ Substituimus motis pro moventibus, rationem vide supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 1. argum. 3. ad opp.	¹ See Aristotle, On Interpretation, Bk. I, ch. 1. — At the end of the argument after this [hoc] we have supplied from the older manuscripts and edition 1 is [est]. ² Codex T together with edition 1 has therefore (it is) [ergo] in place of it is [est]. ³ Codex A has cooperating [cooperante]. ⁴ Many codices as A B C D E F G L R S T U etc. have act [actus] in place of accident [accidens], less well, as is clear from what is put a little below this concerning invariability. — Concerning the first two species of mutation see Aristotle, Physics, Bk. V, text 7 ff. (ch. 1), and On Generation and Corruption, Bk. I, text 23 and 24 (ch. 4). ⁵ Supply: invariability. The Vatican text reads Accepted in this manner immutability in place of and this (invariability), but contrary to very many codices, some of which, however, as A F T etc. together with edition 1 put in this manner (invariability) [hoc] in place of this (invariability) [haec], less well. ⁶ In codex T there is here added by another hand invertability [invertabilitas]. ⁷ The Vatican text contrary to very many codices as A F G H I S T Z etc. together with edition 1 adds here and/or variety [vel varietas], and then at no [nulla] the word there is [est]. ⁸ The Vatican text has nature [naturam] in place of act [actum], but falsely and contrary to the manuscripts and edition 1. ⁹ Edition 1 reads for [enim]. ¹⁰ We have substituted moved [motis] in place of moving [moventibus], for the reason above in d. 5, a. 2, q. 1, argum. 3 ad opp.

p. 161

sunt »; empyreum vero ratione contenti. Post enim aliquid continere, quod non continet, et aliquid non continere, quod continet.	but the empyrean by a reckoning of the contained. For after containing something, which it does not contain, and (after) not containing something, which it does contain (it receives variation).
4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de incorruptibilitate, dicendum, sicut praetactum est, quod convenit creaturis; aliquae enim creaturae sunt ita simplices et ita bona coniunctione coniunctae, quod nulla cadit in eis contrarietas, nec est in eis maior ratio corruptionis quam in principiis. Unde sicut principia non sunt resolubilia in aliquid, tamen cederent in nihil, si sibi relinquerentur; sic intelligendum in aliquibus substantiis. Unde non est dicendum, quod sit verum, quod omne compositum sit resolubile secundum rem; sed sicut dicit Anselmus,¹ « est resolubile re, vel intellectu ». Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.	4. 5. 6. To that which is objected concerning incorruptibility, it must be said, just as it has been touched upon before, that it does convene with creatures; for there are some creatures so simple and so conjoined by a good conjunction, that there falls in them no contrariety, nor is there in them a reckoning of corruption greater than in (their) principles. Whence just as principles are not resolvable into something, they would, nevertheless [tamen], pass into nothing, if they were left to themselves; thus it must be understood in some substances. Whence it must not be said, that it is true, that every composite is resolvable according to thing; but just as (St.) Anselm says,¹ « it is resolvable according to thing, and/or according to understanding ». Whence the reasons induced for this are to be conceded.
7. 8. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de vertibilitate, dicendum, quod quaelibet creatura vertibilis est per naturam, si sibi relinquatur.	7. 8. To that, however, which is objected concerning vertibility, it must be said, that any creature is vertible through nature, if it is left to itself.
Si quaeritur causa huius, dicendum, quod huius versionis, cum sit defectus purus, non est reddenda causa efficiens vel reducens in non esse, sed solum deficiens. Propter quod notandum, quod natura dicitur naturalis origo. Origo autem creaturae et est ex nihilo et est ex suis principiis: secundum hoc dupliciter aliquid ipsi creaturae naturale, vel quia inest ei ex eo, quod est ex nihilo, vel quia inest ei ex eo, quod est ex suis principiis. Et quia nihil nullius est causa efficiens, sed deficiens, ideo proprietates, quae insunt creaturae ratione eius, quod est ex nihilo, non sunt positiones, sed defectus, nec sunt a virtue, sed a defectu virtutis, nec habet causam efficientem, sed deficientem: et tales sunt vanitas, instabilitas, vertibilitas. Si igitur quaeratur, a quo est vertibilis creatura,² dico, quod non ab aliquo efficiente, sed per defectum in se ipsa. Secundum autem quod naturale dicitur quod inest³ rei per propria et intrinseca principia, sic non dicuntur naturaliter inesse privationes vel defectus, sed habilitates: et ideo hoc modo accipiendo naturale, nulla creatura est vertibilis in non esse; nec tamen dicitur vertibilis naturaliter, quia naturale est in quod potest natura; sed principia rei non possunt in rei conservationem nec conservationem sui; et ideo invertibilitas non est huiusmodi naturalis. Nec tamen est contra naturam, immo est ei consona; quia omnis natura⁴ appetit salvari, quamvis ex se non possit, et maxime illa creatura, quae appetit beatificare, et haec est illa quae ad Dei imaginem facta est. Et quia desiderium naturae non est frustra,⁵ ubi deficit natura, supplet Dei gratuita influentia. Et sic patet, quod vertibilitas inest per naturam, sed invertibilitas per gratiam.	If one asks for [quaeritur] the cause of this, it must be said, that of this version, since it is a pure defect, (its) cause is not to be reckoned as an efficient one and/or as one reducing into ‘non being’, but only as deficient one. On account of which it must be noted, that nature is called a natural origin. Moreover the origin of a creature is both from nothing and is from its principles: according to this something is said in a twofold manner to be natural to a creature itself, because it is in it out of that, which is out of nothing, and/or because it is in it out of that which is out of its own principles. And because nothing is the efficient cause of no thing [nullius], but (rather) the deficient (cause of it), for that reason the properties, which are in a creature by the reckoning of that, which is out of nothing, are not positions, but (rather) defects, nor are they by virtue, but by a defect of virtue, nor have they an efficient cause, but (rather) a deficient one: and such are vanity, instability, vertibility. If therefore it be asked, from what is the creature vertible,² I say, that (it is) not by something effecting, but through a defect in its very self. Moreover according to which the natural is said (to be) what is in³ a thing through (its) proper and intrinsic principles, thus not privations and/or defects, but abilities [habilitates], are said to be naturally in (a thing): and for this reason when accepting in this manner the natural, no creature is vertible into ‘non being’; nor, however, is it said (to be) naturally invertible, because the natural is in what nature can (do); but the principles of a thing cannot (be) the conservation in a thing nor the conservation of itself; and for that reason invertibility does not belong to this kind of natural. Nor however is it contrary to nature, nay rather it is consonant with it; because every nature⁴ seeks to be saved [appetit salvari], although it cannot out of itself (do this), and most of all [maxime] that creature, which seeks to be beatified, and this is that which has been made to the image of God. And because the desire of nature is not by a trick [frustra],⁵ where nature is deficient, the gratuitous influence of God supplies. And thus it is clear, that vertibility is in (a creature) through nature, but invertibility through grace.
9. Ad illud quod obiicitur de comparatione gratiae ad naturam, intelligendum est, quod gratia dicitur adiutorium, veniens a superiori, respectu eius quod est supra posse naturae. Hoc autem adiutorium est duplex: aut respectu esse simpliciter, aut respectu esse perfecti.	9. To that which is objected concerning the comparison of grace to nature, it must be understood, that grace is said to be a help [adiutorium], coming from the Superior, in respect of that which is above the ability of nature [posse naturae]. Moreover this help is twofold: either in respect of ‘being’ simply, or in respect of the ‘being’ of the perfect.
Si respectu esse simpliciter, ut puta conservationis esse, quia nulla principia, cum sint vana,⁶ de se possunt se ipsa conservare, sic non est mediante aliquo habitu infuso vel dato. Quia respicit esse, et quia⁷ esse est commune omnibus, ideo haec gratia est omnibus communis. Unde haec est gratia habens modum naturae, et haec est gratia, qua dicuntur cetera invertibilia.⁸	If in respect of ‘being’ simply, as one supposes belongs to conservation, because no principles, since they are vain,⁶ from themselves can conserve their very selves, thus it is not by means of any infused and/or given habit. Because it respects the ‘to be’, and because⁷ ‘to be’ is common to all (things), for that reason this grace is common to all (things). Whence this is a grace having the manner of nature, and this is the grace, by which all the others are called invertibles.⁸
Alio modo dicitur gratia adiutorium respectu perfecti esse, et quia perfectio esse est in his quae ad beatitudinem ordinantur, respicit bene esse et⁹ quod non est omnium. Ideo haec est habitus specialis aliquorum, non omnium, et haec est gratia per modum gratiae. Ex his patet quod obiicit¹⁰ de gratia: obiicit enim secundum quod gratia est specialis habitus divisus contra naturam, quia sic dicit aliquid de novo creatum; sed gratia praedicto modo non.	In another manner grace is said to be a help in respect of the ‘being’ of the perfect, and because the perfection of ‘being’ [perfectio esse] is in those which are ordered toward beatitude, it respects ‘well being’ [bene esse] and⁹ what does not belong to all. For that reason this is a special habit of some, not all, and this is a grace through a manner of grace. From these it is clear that it objects¹⁰ of grace: for it objects according to which grace is a special habit divided against nature, because in this manner it means something created from (something) new; but grace in the aforesaid manner (does) not.
10. Et ex hoc patet ultimo obiectum: quia gratia dicitur adiutorium respectu eius quod est supra posse naturae; et quia conservatio principiorum est supra possse naturae, non autem egressus actionum, immo infra, ideo patet etc.	10. And from this is clear the last objection: because grace is called a help in respect of that which is above the ability of nature; and because the conservation of principles is above the ability of nature, but the egress of actions (is) not, nay rather (it is) below (it), for that reason it is clear etc..
¹ Libr. de Fide Trin. c. 3: Quoniam omne compositum necesse est aut actu aut intellectu posse disiungi. — Mox plerique codd. ut A G H S T X cum ed. 1 adductae loco inductae. ² Codd. P Q bene vertibilitas creaturae. ³ Vat. minus distincte ac contra mss. et ed. 1 inesse loco quod inest. ⁴ Cod. Z cum ed. 1 creatura. — Vide Boeth., III. de Consol. Prosa 11, ubi haec propositio probatur. ⁵ Vide Aristot., I. de Caelo. text. 32. (c. 4. in fine) et III. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 9.). — Codd. V X in vanum loco frustra. ⁶ Plerique codd. ut F G H I K P Q S T etc. minus bene varia; cod. X variabilia. — Paulo infra post sic non est subaudi: adiutorium vel gratia. ⁷ Vat. prater fidem mss. et ed. 1. in principio huius propositionis ponit Et, deinde hic pro et qua habet quod, quo vis rationis debilitatur. ⁸ Vat. incongrue dantur cetera vertibilia; omnes codd. cum ed. 1 invertibilia; cod. cc dantur, antiquiores autem codd. dicuntur, licit aliqui propter abbreviationem dubiae sint lectionis. ⁹ Vat. vel esse loco et, quod maior pars codd. habet; aliqui codd. ut O T cum ed. 1 omittunt insuper particulam et, pro qua cod. cc habet vel. Paulo post aliqui codd. ut A M T aa cum ed. 1 bis hic loco haec. ¹⁰ Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 obiicitur, sed propter subnexa minus bene. Mox Vat. cum cod. cc et loco quia, at minus distincte et praeter fidem ceterorum mss. et ed. 1.	¹ On the Faith of the Trinity, ch. 3: Since it is necessary that every composite be able either in act or in understanding to be disjoined. — Then the greater part of the codices as A G H S T X together with edition 1 have adduced [adductae] in place of induced [inductae]. ² Codices P and Q do well to have the vertibility of a creature. ³ The Vatican text less distinctly and contrary to the manuscripts and edition 1 has to be in [inesse] in place of (to be) what is in [quod inest]. ⁴ Codex Z together with edition 1 reads creature [creatura]. ⁵ See Aristotle, On Heaven, Bk. I, text 32 (ch. 4 at the end), and On the Soul, Bk. III, text 45 (ch. 9). — Codices V and X have in vain [in vanum] in place of by a trick [frustra]. ⁶ A greater part of the codices as F G H I K P Q S T etc. have less well various [varia]; codex X has variables [variabilia]. — A little below this at thus it is not, understand help and/or grace. ⁷ The Vatican text not trusting in the manuscript and edition 1 puts at the beginning of this proposition And [Et], then here in place of and because [et quia] it has which [quod], which reading weakens the force of the reasoning. ⁸ The Vatican text incongruously has there are given all other vertibles [dantur cetera vertibilia]; all the codices together with edition 1 have invertibles [invertibilia]; codex cc has there are given [dantur], but the more ancient codices have are called [dicuntur], though some on account of abbreviation are of a doubtful reading. ⁹ The Vatican text has and/or the “being” which [vel esse] in place of and what [et], which a greater part of the codices have; other codices as O and T together with edition 1 omit moreover the particle and [et], in place of which codex cc has and/or [vel]. A little after this some codices as A M T and aa together with edition 1 twice has here [hic] in place of this [haec]. ¹⁰ The Vatican text contrary to the more ancient codices and edition 1 has it is objected [obiicitur], but less well on account of what is subjoined. Then the Vatican text together with codex cc has and [et] in place of because [quia], but less distinctly and contrary to the testimony of all the other manuscripts and edition 1.

P. 162

SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Triplex illa distinctio mutationis, cui correspondet triplex immutabilitas, sumta est ex Damasceno (de Fide orthod. I. c. 3.). Prima mutatio, quae a S. Doctor vocatur variatio, tunc fit, quando subiectum de aliquo accidente mutatur in aliud accidens; haec nunc communiter vocatur motus sive mutatio accidentalis. Secunda est corruptio sive mutatio ab esse substantiali formae in materia ad non esse eiusdem, manet tamen materia in potentia ad actum. Tertia est annihilatio, a S. Bonav. vocato versio, qua fit de ente simpliciter non ens; cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. in corp. Aristoteles (V. Phys. c. 1.), omittendo hoc ultimum membrum, mutationes sic distinguit: ex subiecto in subiectum (alteratio, augmentatio), ex subiecto in non-subiectum (corruptio), ex non-subiecto in subiectum (generatio).	I. That threefold distinction of mutation, to which corresponds a threefold immutability, has been taken from (St. John) Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 3. The first mutation, which is called variation by the Seraphic Doctor, comes to be, when a subject is changed [mutatur] from some accident into another accident; this now is commonly called a movement or accidental mutation. The second is a corruption or a mutation from the substantial ‘being’ of a form in matter towards the ‘non being’ of the same, the matter, however, remains in potency to act. The third is annihilation, called version by the Seraphic Doctor, by which there comes to be from a being simply a non being; cf. Sent., Bk. II, d. 1, p. I, a. 3, q. 2, in the body. Aristotle, Physics, Bk. V., ch. 1, by omitting this last member, distinguishes the mutations in this manner: out of a subject into a subject {alteration, augmentation}, out of a subject into a non-subject {corruption}, out of a non-subject into a subject {generation}.
II. S. Doctor non sibi contradicit hic asserendo, quibusdam creaturis, ut Angelis, inesse incorruptibilitatem per naturam, et alibi dicendo, solius Dei esse incorruptibilitatem. Nam in primo loco sermo est de incorruptione respectu suae particularis naturae, non respectu dependentiae a causa prima; in secundo loco loquitur de illa proprietate, quae soli primae causae competit, quae potest creare et annihilare. Cfr. St. Thom., S. I. q. 9. a. 2. in corp. — Notanda est egregria doctrina in solut. ad 6. 7. 8. exposita. Circa causam effecientem et deficientem, cfr. II. Sent. d. 34. a. 1. q. 2.	II. The Seraphic Doctor does not contradict himself by asserting here, that in certain creatures, as Angels, incorruptibility is through their nature, and elsewhere by saying, that incorruptibility belongs to God alone. For in the first place the discourse concerns incorruption in respect of their own particular nature, not in respect of dependence from a first cause; in the second place he speaks of that property, which befits [competit] the First Cause alone, which can create and annihilate. Cf. St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 9, a. 2 in the body. — To be noted is the egregious doctrine (of the Seraphic Doctor) expounded in the solution to n. 6, 7, and 8. About the efficient and deficient cause, cf. Sent., Bk. II, d. 34, a. 1, q. 2.
III. Quoad conclusionem: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. a. 4. m. 3. et p. II. q. 13. m. 2. 3. 4. — Scot., hic q. 5; et Report. hic q. 3. — S. Thom., q. 3. a. 1. et 2; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 16 et seqq.; S. p. I. tr. 4. q. 21. m. 3. — Petr. a. Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 3. princ. q. 2.	III. In regard to the conclusion: Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, a. 4, m. 3, and p. II, q. 13, m. 2, 3, 4. —(Bl. John Duns) Scotus, here in q. 5; and Reportatio., here in q. 3. — St. Thomas, q. 3, aa. 1 and 2; Summa., loc. cit.. Bl. (now St.) Albert (the Great), here in a. 16 ff.; Summa., p. I, tr. 4, q. 21, m. 3. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 2. — Giles the Roman, here in 3. princ., q. 2.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII