Book III, Chapter 41
CAP. XLI. He sets out the diverse modes of seeing in the Word, according to diverse authors, and raises objections and resolves them.
783D CAP. XLI. Recitat diuersos modos secundum diuersos videndi in verbo, obijcitque et soluit.
Having shown that true complexes can be revealed to a rational creature in the Word, and in the very essence of God, it remains to inquire next into the manner of this revelation, that is, how such things can be revealed there. To know this more easily, it seems that we must first ask how incomplexes are revealed to the creature in the Word and the essence of God, and then proceed in order to complexes. 783E·1 1 In both cases diverse modes are assigned, by diverse persons in diverse ways. Some hold that in all such things revealed and seen, the Word of God takes the place of both a created habit and a created act, and is itself both the habit and the act of the creature that sees. Others 2 judge that in all such cases the Word takes the place of the species or habit, but not of the act. They hold rather that the creature sees by a created act of seeing what the Word presents to it as species, habit, or idea. 784E·1 3 These are further divided in three ways.
783D OStenso siquidem quod vera complexa possunt reuelari creaturae rationali in verbo, et in esseniia ipsa Dei, restat consequenter inquirere
783E de modo reuelationis istius; quomodo scilicet talia ibi valeant reuelari. Pro quo facilius cognoscendo primitus inquirendum videtur quomodo incomplexa reuelentur in verbo et Dei essentia creaturae, et sic ad complexa procedendum vlterius ordinate: 783E·1 In his nempe et in illis diuersi modi a diuersis diuersimode assignantur. Aliqui nam que putant quod in omnibus huiusmodi reuelatis et visis verbum Dei suppleat vicem tam habitus quam actus creati, et sit tā habitus quā actus creaturae videntis. Alij aestimant quod verbum in omnibus huiusmodi suppleat vicem speciei siue habitus, et non actus, imo quod creatura per actum videndi creatum videat, 784E·1 quod verbum velut species, habitus, seu idea ei praesentat; et hi vlterius tripliciter
Some of these hold that the creature sees distinctly each single thing it sees in the Word, whether incomplex or complex, A1 by one created, beatific, supernatural act, which presents each thing distinctly, immediately, and supernaturally. Others hold that by one created act it sees all the incomplexes in the Word, and by another created act all the complexes it sees. A2 Still others hold that it sees each single incomplex and complex that it sees in the Word by single and distinct created acts, corresponding to the single things seen. Each way of this threefold sect is further divided into two paths, as regards the number of things visible or seen. Some posit that the creature can see in the Word an infinity of things distinctly at once; others, only finitely many. A3 Pursuing the foregoing division still further, others judge that the Word takes the place neither of species or habit, nor of act, but that whatever incomplex or complex the creature sees in the Word it sees by a created species, habit, and act. By species or habit, I mean, mediating between the Word and the act of seeing. Yet these things are said to be seen in the Word, as material things seen are said to be seen in the Sun or in material light: namely, because the Word, like a kind of spiritual Sun and light, illuminates them and disposes them so that they can be seen in this way. These too have a threefold sect on the side of such a habit, as the former had on the side of the act. B1 For some affirm that all the incomplexes and complexes seen there are seen through a single habit; others, that incomplexes are seen through one and complexes through another; B2 some, that each single incomplex and complex seen is seen through its own single and distinct habit. B3 Further, all these divide in two ways, by the infinite and the finite, as to the multitude of things visible or seen, just as the former did, who all likewise hold opinions about acts corresponding to those about habits. There are besides others, mediating, who say that all the incomplexes seen in the Word are seen through the Word itself, with no creature, species, habit, or act mediating, as the first opinion says; but that all complexes are seen through some creature mediating. These too, like the former, are separated in many ways. Besides these mediators, C1 there are others who try to mediate among the later sects. They say that all incomplexes seen in the Word are seen through a created act, intermediate between the seeing creature and the Word, yet not through any habit or species mediating, since the Word itself takes the place of every such species and habit. The complexes seen there, they say, are seen with both a created habit and a created act mediating: a created habit mediating between the Word and the act of seeing, and a created act mediating between that habit and the one who sees, and both mediating between the one who sees and the Word. All of these also, like the former, can be divided in two ways as to the number of things seen in the Word, namely into the infinite and the finite. Which of these modes is truer, and better suited to philosophical and theological discipline, I leave to the diligence of students to inquire. For this might perhaps seem out of place here, or to some too laborious for my purpose, and because I hasten to other matters on the road I have begun,
784A sunt diuisi. Hi namque ponunt quod creatura videt distincte singula siue incomplexa siue complexa quae videt hi verbo, A1 per vnicum actum creatum beatificum supernaturalem singula distincte, et immediate supernaturaliter praesentantem. Illi vero, quod per vnum actum creatum videt omnia incomplexa in verbo, et per alium actum creatum omnia complexa quae videt. A2 Isti autem, quoc videt singula incomplexa atque complexa quae videt in verbo per actus creatos singulos et distinctos, visis singulis respondentes. Huius autem sectae tripartitae quaeliber via in duas semitas bipartitur, quantum ad numerum visibilium seu visorum; Hi namque ponunt creaturam posse simul videre in verbo infinita distincte; illi vero tantum; finita. A3 Adhuc autem superiorem diuisionem vlterius prosequendo, Alij opinantur quod verbum non suppleat vicem specici habitus, neque actus, sed quod quicquid incomplexum
784B siue complexum creatura videt in verbo, videt per speciem, habitum atque actum creatam seu creatum; per speciem, inquam, seu habitum mediantem inter verbum et actum videndi; et tamen quod haec dicuntur videri in verbo, sicut visa materialia dicuntur videri in Sole seu luce materiali; quia videlicet verbum velut quidam Sol et lux spiritualisista illuminat, et disponit, vt valeant sic videri: et hi triplicem sectam habent ex parte huiusmodi habitus, B1 sicut et priores ex parte actus habebant. Quidam enim affirmant, quod per vnicum habitum omnia incomplexa et complexa ibi visa videntur: Alij quod incomplexa per vnum et complexa per alium: B2 Aliqui quod singula visa incomplexa atque complexa per habitus singulos proprios et distinctos. B3 Vlterius autem hi omnes bifariam partiuntur per infinitam et finitam quantum ad multitudinem visibilium seu visorum, sicuti et priores, qui et omnes deactibus correspondenter habitibus opinantur. Amplius autem sunt et alij mediantes qui dicunt, quod omnia incomplexa quae videntur in verbo, videntur per ipsummet verbum, nulla creatura, nulla specie, habitu, seu actu mediante, sicut opinio prima dicit, sed quaecunque
784C complexa per creataram aliquam mediantem; et hi vt priores multipliciter separantur. Adhuc autem praeter istos mediatores, C1 sunt et alij qui inter posteriores sectas satagunt mediare, dicentes quod omnia incomplexa, quae videntur in verbo, videntur per actum creatum medium inter creaturam videntem et verbum, non tamen per aliquem habitum aut speciem mediantem, sed ipsum verbum omnis huiusmodi speciei et habitus vicem supplet; complexa autem, quae ibi videntur, dicunt videri mediante tam habitu quam actu creato: habitu, inquam, creato mediante inter verbum et actum videndi, et actu creato mediante inter huiusmodi habitum et videntem, et vtroque mediante inter videntem et verbum. Qui insuper omnes, sicut priores, possunt dupliciter diuidi quantum ad numerum visorum in verbo, per infinita videlicet et finita. Quis autem horum modorum sit verior, et Philosophicae ac Theologicae disciplinae concinnior, studiosorum diligentiae inquirendum relinquo: hoc enim fortassis isto loco impertinens, vel operosius proposito aliquibus videretur, et quia ad alia propero
I shall nevertheless first touch briefly here on the arguments of those who oppose. Among all their arguments there are two on which they chiefly rely: one proceeding by distinction, the other by necessity. The first runs thus. If a creature saw distinctly in the Word that Antichrist will be, or that Antichrist will be contrary to Christ, or any such true complex, it would see distinctly the extremes of that proposition or true complex, and not by one and the same act. For by one and the same act alone it would in no way distinguish or discern between them, and that act would also be purely equivocal, and the same proposition true and false, along with other absurdities which are easy to see following from these. Their second argument runs thus. If any future contingent were revealed to a creature in the Word, it would come about necessarily. This they argue by reasons of the same kind as the earlier chapters brought against the earlier responses. But the first argument does not go through. For in the same way they could argue that the Father could not see such true complexes in the Word or in His essence, nor reveal them to the Son or to the Holy Spirit, against the sixth and seventh, the eighteenth and nineteenth of the first, and the thirty-fourth of this. God also sees all things most distinctly by His most unitary and simple, yet most infinite, power, as is clear from the seventh of the first. Why then, according to what was premised in the chapter next before this 4, if He wills, mercifully and omnipotently, though ineffably, to lend the eye of His power to a creature that is disposed, can the creature too not see in like manner in some way, not by its own power but by the divine? And does not a creature that knows or believes in its own kind 5 any true complex whatever, any proposition whatever with extremes however diverse, do this by one simple act of knowing or believing? Why then can it not likewise, by one simple act, see in the Word any true complex whatever, especially since the Word expresses any true complex incomparably more simply than any proposition, any habit, or any creature?
784D via caepta. Primo tamen tangam hic breuiter aduersantium rationes: inter omnes autem rationes eorum duae sunt quibus potissime innituntur; vna per distinctionem, alia per necessitatem procedens. Prima est talis; Si creatura distincta videret in verbo Antichristum fore, aut quod Antichristus contrarius erit Christo, siue quodcunque tale verum complexum distincte videret extrema talis propositionis seu veri complexi, et non per eundem actum, quia per eundem actum praecise nequaquam distingueret aut discerneret inter illa, ille quoque actus esset pure aequiuocus, et eadem propositio vera et falsa, cum inconuenientijs alijs quas consequenter ex istis facile est videre. Secunda ratio eorum est talis; Si quicquam futurum contingens reuelaretur creaturae in verbo illud necessario eueniret, quod arguunt per huiusmodi rationes, cuiusmodi contra responsiones priores superiora capitula adducebant. Prima autem ratio non procedit. Sic enim possent arguere, quod Pater non posset in verbo aut in essentia sua talia vera complexa videre, neque Filio aut Sancto Spiritui reuelare, contra sextum
784E et septimum, decimum octauum, et decimum nonum primi, ac tricesimum quartum huius: Deus etiam ex vnissima et simplicissima sed infinitissima sua virtute distinctissime cuncta videt, sicut ex septimo primi patet; Cur ergo secundum proximo huius praemissa, si velit misericorditer, omnipotenter, licet ineffabiliter accommodare oculum suae virtutis creaturae dispositae, non potest et ipsa videre similiter quoquomodo, non virtute propria sed diuina? Nonne etiam creatura sciens aut credens in proprio genere quodcun que verū complexū, quā cunque propositionem extrema quantūcun que diuersa habentē, per vnū simplicē actum sciendi aut credendi hoc facit? Curergo non potest similiter per vnum actum simplicem videre in verbo quodcunque verum complexum, praesertim cum verbum incomparabiliter simplicius exprimat quodcun que verum complexum quam aliqua propositio, quam aliquis habitus,
The second argument likewise does not conclude. For if, because a future contingent is revealed to a creature in the Word, it therefore comes about of necessity, why not likewise because it is revealed to the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Word and the essence of God, as is clear from the thirty-fourth of this? Perhaps they will say that the revelation made to the Son can fail to be and can fail to have been made to him, but to the creature in no way. But if the revelation of a future contingent made to the Son, while the thing is still future, can fail to be and never have been made to him, it can do so likewise when the thing is present, or has passed into the past. Or if it then cannot, or will not be able, it never could; or else it can now 6, as can be made clear from the thirtieth and thirty-first of this. Moreover, if the necessity of what is revealed follows from the revelation of a creature in the Word, why would it not follow likewise from revelation in its own kind? Although I have run through the modes of seeing in the Word set out above with such lightness, it does no harm to have touched them, at least briefly. And though no one can at once see fully the mode of seeing in the Word, let him not on that account straightway recoil as unbelieving of the vision. For we see and know with certainty many marvels, and we hold many things by most certain faith, whose mode we cannot perfectly comprehend in our present blindness. But we shall comprehend perfectly both the thing and the mode when what is in part has been emptied out and what is perfect has come, when we shall know even as we are known, when we shall see face to face, as He is, the Word Himself most truly, the brightness of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the divine majesty, and the image of His goodness 7, in which all things and modes are most perfectly shown.
785A quam aliqua creatura? Secunda similiter ratio non concludit. Si enim quia futurum contingens reueletur creaturae in verbo, ideo de necessitate eueniet, cur non similiter quia Filio, et Spiritui Sancto in verbo et Dei essentia reuelatur, sicut pater ex tricesimo quarto huius? Dicent fortassis, quia reuelatio facta filio potest non esse et non fuisse ei facta, creaturae autem nequaquam. Sed si reuelatio de futuro contingenti facta filio, re existente futura, potest non esse nec vnquam fuisse ei facta; potest similiter et re existente praesente, in praeteritumue transmissa; aut si tunc non potest aut poterit, nec vnquam hoc potuit, aut nunc potest, sicut potest patere ex tricesimo et tricesimo primo huius. Si etiam ex reuelatione creaturae in verbo sequatur necessitas reuelati, cur non ex reuelatione in proprio genere similiter consequetur? Modos autem videndi in verbo praemissos quanquam tanta leuitate transcurrerim, non nocet ipsos saltem breuiter tetigisse. Et licet quisquam modum videndi in verbo nequaquam statim possit videre ad plenum, non ideo statim resiliat tanquam incredulus
785B visioni: multa namque mirabilia videmus et scimus certissime, multa quoque certissima fide tenemus, quorum modum in caecitate praesenti perfecte comprehendere non valemus: comprehendemus autem perfecte tam rem quam modum cum euacuato quod ex parte est, venerit quod perfectum est, cum cognouerimus, sicut et cogniti sumus, cum videtimus facie ad faciem, sicuti est verissime ipsum verbum, candorem lucis aeternae, speculum sine macula maiestatis diuinae, et imaginem bonitatis illius, in qua omnes res et modi perfectissime demonstrantur.
Notes
- 1
Incomplexum / complexum are the scholastic terms for what is grasped as a simple term or thing (a being, Antichrist, Christ) and what is grasped as composed, i.e. a proposition or "true complex" (that Antichrist will be). I keep "incomplex" and "complex" throughout. Habitus is "habit" (a standing disposition of the intellect), species the intelligible form or likeness by which an object is present to the mind, actus the act of seeing. The margins of this chapter are not citations but Savile's labels for the branches of the division. "2i." and "3i." stand for secundi, tertii: they mean "of the second [principal mode]" and "of the third", and I render them "Of the 2nd", "Of the 3rd".
↩ - 2
The print also has a margin "Secundus." (Second [mode]) at 783E, beside the line beginning "Alij aestimant". The keyed text omits it. I do not insert a marker for it, since the base numbering has none. The keyed marker 784E·1 stands, as given, on the first line of the next page (784A). That page has the margin "2i. Modus primus."
↩ - 3
The 1618 text has a catchword "videat," at the foot of 783 and again at the head of 784. The English reads the sentence once.
↩ - 4
secundum proximo huius praemissa: literally "according to what was premised in the nearest of this [book]". I take it to mean the chapter immediately preceding (c. 40), on God lending the creature the power of vision. The Latin gives no number, and it is left unexpanded (Conventions §5.4).
↩ - 5
in proprio genere: "in its own kind", that is, by the creature's natural way of knowing, as distinct from revelation in the Word. The phrase becomes technical in the next chapter's heading ("revelation in its own kind").
↩ - 6
The sentence aut si tunc non potest aut poterit, nec vnquam hoc potuit, aut nunc potest is compressed, and the Latin leaves its subject and the verb "be otherwise" unexpressed. I give it literally. The sense seems to be a dilemma. Either the revelation to the Son, once the thing is present or past, could never not have been made, in which case it never could (and the objection from fixity falls even for the Son); or it can be otherwise now, as ch. 30–31 show. Either way the adversaries' distinction between Son and creature fails.
↩ - 7
An allusion to Wis 7:26 ("the brightness of eternal light, the spotless mirror of God's majesty, and the image of His goodness"), here applied to the Word. The preceding clauses allude to 1 Cor 13:10–12 and 1 Jn 3:2.
↩
Errata: where the keyed text and the 1618 print differ (11)
| Savile | Keyed text (TCP) | 1618 print |
|---|---|---|
| 783D | esseniia | essentia |
| 783E | (margin "Secundus." at 783E not keyed; 784E·1 margin stands at 784A) | print margin "Secundus." at 783E |
| 784A | quae videt hi verbo | quae videt in verbo |
| 784A | quaeliber via | quaelibet via |
| 784A | quoc videt | quod videt |
| 784A | specici | speciei |
| 784B | spiritualisista | spiritualis ista |
| 784B | deactibus | de actibus |
| 784C | creataram | creaturam |
| 785A | sicut pater | sicut patet |
| 785B | videtimus | videbimus |