translated by
James F. Anderson


  1. The connection between the following considerations and the preceding ones
  2. That the consideration of creatures is useful for instruction of faith
  3. That knowledge of the nature of creatures serves to destroy errors concerning God
  4. That the philosopher and the theologian consider creatures in different ways
  5. Order of procedure
  6. That it is proper to God to be the source of the being of other things
  7. That active power exists in God
  8. That God’s power is His substance
  9. That God’s power is His action
  10. How power is attributed to God
  11. That something is said of God in relation to creatures
  12. That relations predicated of God in reference to creatures do not really exist in Him
  13. How the aforesaid relations are predicated of God
  14. Continued
  15. That God is to all things the cause of being
  16. That God brought things into being from nothing
  17. That creation is neither motion nor change
  18. How objections against creation are solved
  19. That in creation no succession exists
  20. That no body is capable of creative action
  21. That the act of creating belongs to God alone
  22. That God is omnipotent
  23. That God does not act by natural necessity
  24. That God acts conformably to His wisdom
  25. How the omnipotent God is said to be incapable of certain things
  26. That the divine intellect is not confined to limited effects
  27. That the divine will is not restricted to certain effects
  28. How dueness is entailed in the production of things
  29. Continued
  30. How absolute necessity can exist in created things
  31. That it is not necessary for creatures to have always existed
  32. Arguments of those who wish to demonstrate the world’s eternity from the point of view of God
  33. Arguments of those who wish to prove the eternity of the world from the standpoint of creatures
  34. Arguments to prove the eternity of the world from the point of view of the making of things
  35. Solution of the foregoing arguments, and first of those taken from the standpoint of God
  36. Solution of the arguments proposed from the point of view of the things made
  37. Solution of the arguments taken from the point of view of the making of things
  38. Arguments by which some try to show that the world is not eternal
  39. That the distinction of things is not the result of chance
  40. That matter is not the first cause of the distinction of things
  41. That a contrariety of agents does not account for the distinction of things
  42. That the first cause of the distinction of things is not the world of secondary agents
  43. That the distinction of things is not caused by some secondary agent introducing diverse forms into matter
  44. That the distinction of things does not have its source in the diversity of merits or demerits
  45. The true first cause of the distinction of things
  46. That the perfection of the universe required the existence of some intellectual creatures
  47. That intellectual substances are endowed with will
  48. That intellectual substances have freedom of choice in acting
  1. That the intellectual substance is not a body
  2. That intellectual substances are immaterial
  3. That the intellectual substance is not a material form
  4. That in created intellectual substances, being and what is differ
  5. That in created intellectual substances there is act and potentiality
  6. That the composition of substance and being is not the same as the composition of matter and form
  7. That intellectual substances are incorruptible
  8. In what way an intellectual substance can be united to the body
  9. The position of Plato concerning the union of the intellectual soul with the body
  10. That in man there are not three souls, nutritive, sensitive, and intellective
  11. That man’s possible intellect is not a separate substance
  12. That man derives his specific nature, not from the passive, but from the possible, intellect
  13. That this theory is contrary to the teaching of Aristotle
  14. Against Alexander’s opinion concerning the possible intellect
  15. That the soul is not a temperament, as Galen maintained
  16. That the soul is not a harmony
  17. That the soul is not a body
  18. Against those who maintain that intellect and sense we the same
  19. Against those who hold that the possible intellect is the imagination
  20. How an intellectual substance can be the form of the body
  21. Solution of the arguments advanced above in order to show that an intellectual substance cannot be united to the body as its form
  22. That according to the words of Aristotle the intellect must be said to be united to the body as its form
  23. That the soul is united to the body without intermediation
  24. That the whole soul is in the whole body and in each of its parts
  25. That there is not one possible intellect in all men
  26. Concerning the theory of Avicenna, who said that intelligible forms are not preserved in the possible intellect
  27. Solution of the seemingly demonstrative arguments for the unity of the possible intellect
  28. That the agent intellect is not a separate substance, but part of the soul
  29. That it is not impossible for the possible and agent intellect to exist together in the one substance of the soul
  30. That Aristotle held not that the agent intellect is a separate substance, but that it is a part of the soul
  31. That the human soul does not perish when the body is corrupted
  32. Arguments to prove that the corruption of the body entails that of the soul [and their solution]
  33. Continued
  34. That the souls of brute animals are not immortal
  35. That the human soul begins to exist when the body does
  36. Solution of the preceding arguments
  37. That the soul is not made of God’s substance
  38. That the human soul is not transmitted with the semen
  39. That the human soul is brought into being through the creative action of God
  40. Arguments designed to prove that the human soul is formed from the semen
  41. Solution of the preceding arguments
  42. That an intellectual substance is united only to a human body as its form
  43. That there are some intellectual substances which are not united to bodies
  44. Concerning the great number of separate substances
  45. Of the non-existence of a plurality of separate substances of one species
  46. That the separate substance and the soul are not of the same species
  47. How in separate substances genus and species are to be taken
  48. That separate substances do not receive their knowledge from sensible things
  49. That the intellect of a separate substance is always in act of understanding
  50. How one separate substance understands another
  51. That separate substances know material things
  52. That separate substances know singulars
  53. Whether separate substances have natural knowledge of all things at the same time

Caput 1 Chapter 1
Meditatus sum in omnibus operibus tuis, et in factis manuum tuarum meditabar. Psalm. 142-5. “I meditated upon Your works: I meditated upon the works of Your hands” (Ps. 142-5).
Rei cuiuslibet perfecta cognitio haberi non potest nisi eius operatio cognoscatur. Ex modo enim operationis et specie mensura et qualitas virtutis pensatur, virtus vero naturam rei monstrat: secundum hoc enim unumquodque natum est operari quod actu talem naturam sortitur. [1] Of no thing whatever can a perfect knowledge be obtained unless its operation is known, because the measure and quality of a thing’s power is judged from the manner and type of its operation, and its power, in turn, manifests its nature; for a thing’s natural aptitude for operation follows upon its actual possession of a certain kind of nature.
Est autem duplex rei operatio, ut philosophus tradit, in IX metaphysicae: una quidem quae in ipso operante manet et est ipsius operantis perfectio, ut sentire, intelligere et velle; alia vero quae in exteriorem rem transit, quae est perfectio facti quod per ipsam constituitur, ut calefacere, secare et aedificare. [2] There are, however, two sorts of operation, as Aristotle teaches in Metaphysics IX [8]: one that remains in the agent and is a perfection of it, as the act of sensing, understanding, and willing; another that passes over into an external thing, and is a perfection of the thing made as a result of that operation, the acts of heating, cutting and building, for example.
Utraque autem dictarum operationum competit Deo: prima quidem in eo quod intelligit, vult, gaudet et amat; alia vero in eo quod res in esse producit, et eas conservat et regit. Quia vero prima operatio perfectio operantis est, secunda vero perfectio facti; agens autem naturaliter prius est facto et causa ipsius: oportet quod prima dictarum operationum sit ratio secundae et eam praecedat naturaliter, sicut causa effectum. Quod quidem in rebus humanis manifeste apparet: consideratio enim et voluntas artificis principium est et ratio aedificationis. [3] Now, both kinds of operation belong to God: the former, in that He understands, wills, rejoices, and loves; the latter, in that He brings things into being, preserves them, and governs them. But, since the former operation is a perfection of the operator, the latter a perfection of the thing made, and since the agent is naturally prior to the thing made and is the cause of it, it follows that the first of these types of operation is the ground of the second, and naturally precedes it, as a cause precedes its effect. Clear evidence of this fact, indeed, is found in human affairs; for in the thought and will of the craftsman lie the principle and plan of the work of building.
Prima igitur dictarum operationum, tanquam simplex operantis perfectio, operationis vindicat sibi nomen, vel etiam actionis: secunda vero, eo quod sit perfectio facti, factionis nomen assumit; unde manufacta dicuntur quae per actionem huiusmodi ab artifice in esse procedunt. [4] Therefore, as a simple perfection of the operator, the first type of operation claims for itself the name of operation, or, again, of action; the second, as being a perfection of the thing made, is called making so that the things which a craftsman produces by action of this kind are said to be his handiwork.
De prima quidem Dei operatione in praecedenti libro iam diximus, ubi est actum de cognitione et voluntate divina. Unde, ad completam divinae veritatis considerationem, restat nunc de secunda operatione tractare, per quam scilicet res producuntur et gubernantur a Deo. [5] Of the first type of operation in God we have already spoken in the preceding Book of this work, where we treated of the divine knowledge and will. Hence, for a complete study of the divine truth, the second operation, whereby things are made and governed by God, remains to be dealt with.
Quem quidem ordinem ex praemissis verbis sumere possumus. Praemittit namque primae operationis meditationem, cum dicit, meditatus sum in omnibus operibus tuis: ut operatio ad divinum intelligere et velle referatur. Subiungit vero de factionis meditatione, cum dicit, et in factis manuum tuarum meditabar: ut per facta manuum ipsius intelligamus caelum et terram, et omnia quae procedunt in esse a Deo sicut ab artifice manufacta procedunt. [6], In fact, this order we can gather from the words quoted above. For the Psalmist first speaks of meditation upon the first type of operation, when he says: “I have meditated on all your operations”; thus, operation is here referred to the divine act of understanding and will. Then he refers to meditation on God’s works: “and I meditated on the works of Your hands”; so that by “the works of Your hands” we understand heaven and earth, and all that is brought into being by God, as the handiwork produced by a craftsman.

Caput 2 Chapter 2
Quod consideratio creaturarum utilis est ad fidei instructionem THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF CREATURES IS USEFUL FOR INSTRUCTION OF FAITH
Huiusmodi quidem divinorum factorum meditatio ad fidem humanam instruendam de Deo necessaria est. [1] This sort of meditation on the divine works is indeed necessary for instruction of faith in God.
Primo quidem, quia ex factorum meditatione divinam sapientiam utcumque possumus admirari et considerare. Ea enim quae arte fiunt, ipsius artis sunt repraesentativa, utpote ad similitudinem artis facta. Deus autem sua sapientia res in esse produxit: propter quod in Psalmo dicitur: omnia in sapientia fecisti. Unde ex factorum consideratione divinam sapientiam colligere possumus, sicut in rebus factis per quandam communicationem suae similitudinis sparsam. Dicitur enim Eccli. 1-10: effudit illam, scilicet sapientiam, super omnia opera sua. Unde, cum Psalmus diceret, mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me: confortata est, et non potero ad eam: et adiungeret divinae illuminationis auxilium cum dicit. Nox illuminatio mea etc.; ex consideratione divinorum operum se adiutum ad divinam sapientiam cognoscendam confitetur, dicens: mirabilia opera tua, et anima mea cognoscet nimis. [2] First, because meditation on His works enables us in game measure to admire and reflect upon His wisdom. For things made by art are representative of the art itself, being made in likeness to the art. Now, God brought things into being by His wisdom; wherefore the Psalm (103:24) declares: “You made all things in wisdom.” Hence, from reflection upon God’s works we are able to infer His wisdom, since, by a certain communication of His likeness, it is spread abroad in the things He has made. For it is written: “He poured her out,” namely, wisdom, “upon all His works” (Eccl. 1:10). Therefore, the Psalmist, after saying: “Your knowledge is become wonderful to me: it is high, and I cannot reach it,” and after referring to the aid of the divine illumination, when he says: “Night shall be my light,” etc., confesses that he was aided in knowing the divine wisdom by reflection upon God’s works, saying: “Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows right well” (Ps. 138:6, 11, 14).
Secundo, haec consideratio in admirationem altissimae Dei virtutis ducit: et per consequens in cordibus hominum reverentiam Dei parit. Oportet enim quod virtus facientis eminentior rebus factis intelligatur. Et ideo dicitur Sap. 13-4: si virtutem et opera eorum, scilicet caeli et stellarum et elementorum mundi, mirati sunt, scilicet philosophi, intelligant quoniam qui fecit haec, fortior est illis. Et Rom. 1-20 dicitur: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur: sempiterna quoque virtus eius et divinitas. Ex hac autem admiratione Dei timor procedit et reverentia. Unde dicitur Ierem. 10-6 magnum est nomen tuum in fortitudine. Quis non timebit te, o rex gentium? [3] Secondly, this consideration [of God’s works] leads to admiration of God’s sublime power, and consequently inspires in men’s hearts reverence for God. For the power of the worker is necessarily understood to transcend the things made. And so it is said: “If they,” namely, the philosophers, “admired their power and effects,” namely of the heavens, stars, and elements of the world, “let them understand that He that made them is mightier than they” (Wis. 13:4). Also it is written: “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: His eternal power also and divinity” (Rom. 1:20). Now, the fear and reverence of God result from this admiration. Hence, it is said: “Great is Your name in might. Who shall not fear You, O King of Nations?” (Jer. 10:6-7).
Tertio, haec consideratio animas hominum in amorem divinae bonitatis accendit. Quicquid enim bonitatis et perfectionis in diversis creaturis particulariter distributum est, totum in ipso universaliter est adunatum, sicut in fonte totius bonitatis, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Si igitur creaturarum bonitas, pulchritudo et suavitas sic animos hominum allicit, ipsius Dei fontana bonitas, rivulis bonitatum in singulis creaturis repertis diligenter comparata, animas hominum inflammatas totaliter ad se trahet. Unde in Psalmo dicitur: delectasti me, domine, in factura tua, et in operibus manuum tuarum exsultabo. Et alibi de filiis hominum dicitur: inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus tuae, quasi totius creaturae, et sicut torrente voluptatis tuae potabis eos: quoniam apud te est fons vitae. Et Sap. 13-1, dicitur contra quosdam: ex his quae videntur bona, scilicet creaturis, quae sunt bona per quandam participationem, non potuerunt intelligere eum qui est, scilicet vere bonus, immo ipsa bonitas, ut in primo ostensum est. [4] Thirdly, this consideration incites the souls of men to the love of God’s goodness. For whatever goodness and perfection is distributed to the various creatures, in partial or particular measure, is united together in Him universally, as in the source of all goodness, as we proved in Book I. If, therefore, the goodness, beauty, and delightfulness of creatures are so alluring to the minds of men, the fountainhead of God’s own goodness, compared with the rivulets of goodness found in creatures, will draw the enkindled minds of men wholly to Itself. Hence it is said in the Psalm (91:5): “You have given me, O Lord, a delight in Your doings, and in the works of Your hands I shall rejoice.” And elsewhere it is written concerning the children of men: “They shall be inebriated with the plenty of Your house,” that is, of all creatures, “and You shall make them drink of the torrent of Your pleasure: for with You is the fountain of life” (Ps. 35:9-10). And, against certain men, it is said: “By these good things that are seen,” namely, creatures, which are good by a kind of participation, “they could not understand Him that is” (Wis. 13:1), namely, truly good; indeed, is goodness itself, as was shown in Book I.
Quarto, haec consideratio homines in quadam similitudine divinae perfectionis constituit. Ostensum est enim in primo libro quod Deus, cognoscendo seipsum, in se omnia alia intuetur. Cum igitur Christiana fides hominem de Deo principaliter instruit, et per lumen divinae revelationis eum creaturarum cognitorem facit, fit in homine quaedam divinae sapientiae similitudo. Hinc est quod dicitur 2 Cor. 3-18: nos vero omnes, revelata facie gloriam domini speculantes, in eandem imaginem transformamur. [5] Fourthly, this consideration endows men with a certain likeness to God’s perfection. For it was shown in Book I that, by knowing Himself, God beholds all other things in Himself. Since, then, the Christian faith teaches man principally about God, and makes him know creatures by the light of divine revelation, there arises in man a certain likeness of God’s wisdom. So it is said: “But we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image” (2 Cor. 3:18).
Sic igitur patet quod consideratio creaturarum pertinet ad instructionem fidei Christianae. Et ideo dicitur Eccli. 42-15: memor ero operum domini, et quae vidi annuntiabo: in sermonibus domini opera eius. [6] It is therefore evident that the consideration of creatures has its part to play in building the Christian faith. And for this reason it is said: “I will remember the works of the Lord, and I will declare the things I have seen: by the words of the Lord are His works” (Sirach 42:15).

Caput 3 Chapter 3
Quod cognoscere naturam creaturarum valet ad destruendum errores qui sunt circa Deum THAT KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF CREATURES SERVES TO DESTROY ERRORS CONCERNING GOD
Est etiam necessaria creaturarum consideratio non solum ad veritatis instructionem, sed etiam ad errores excludendos. Errores namque qui circa creaturam sunt, interdum a fidei veritate abducunt, secundum quod verae Dei cognitioni repugnant. Hoc autem multipliciter contingit. [1] The consideration of creatures is further necessary, not only for the building up of truth, but also for the destruction of errors. For errors about creatures sometimes lead one astray from the truth of faith, so far as the errors are inconsistent with true knowledge of God. Now, this happens in many ways.
Primo quidem, ex hoc quod creaturarum naturam ignorantes in hoc pervertuntur quandoque quod id quod non potest nisi ab alio esse, primam causam et Deum constituunt, nihil ultra creaturas quae videntur aestimantes: sicut fuerunt illi qui corpus quodcumque Deum aestimaverunt; de quibus dicitur Sap. 13-2: qui aut ignem, aut spiritum, aut citatum aerem, aut gyrum stellarum, aut nimiam aquam, aut solem et lunam, deos putaverunt. [2] First, because through ignorance of the nature of creatures men are sometimes so far perverted as to set up as. the first cause and as God that which can only receive its being from something else; for they think that nothing exists beyond the realm of visible creatures. Such were those who identified God with this, that, and the other kind of body; and of these it is said: “Who have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon to be the gods” (Wis. 13: 2).
Secundo, ex hoc quod id quod Dei solius est creaturis aliquibus adscribunt. Quod etiam ex errore circa creaturas contingit. Quod enim natura rei alicuius non patitur, ei non attribuitur nisi quia eius natura ignoratur: sicut si homini attribueretur habere tres pedes. Quod autem solius Dei est natura creaturae non patitur: sicut quod solius hominis est non patitur alterius rei natura. Ex hoc ergo quod natura creaturae ignoratur, praedictus error contingit. Et contra hunc errorem dicitur Sap. 14-21: incommunicabile nomen lignis et lapidibus imposuerunt. In hunc errorem labuntur qui rerum creationem, vel futurorum cognitionem, vel miraculorum operationem, aliis causis quam Deo adscribunt. [3] Secondly, because they attribute to certain creatures that which belongs only to God. This also results from error concerning creatures. For what is incompatible with a thing’s nature is not ascribed to it except through ignorance of its nature—as if man were said to have three feet. Now, what belongs solely to God is incompatible with the nature of a created thing, just as that which is exclusively man’s is incompatible with another thing’s nature. Thus, it is from ignorance of the creature’s nature that the aforesaid error arises. And against this error it is said: “They gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood” (Wis. 14:21). Into this error fell those who attribute the creation of things, or knowledge of the future, or the working of miracles to causes other than God.
Tertio vero, ex hoc quod divinae virtuti in creaturas operanti aliquid detrahitur per hoc quod creaturae natura ignoratur. Sicut patet in his qui duo rerum principia constituunt; et qui res non ex divina voluntate, sed ex necessitate naturae a Deo procedere asserunt; et illi etiam qui res, vel omnes vel quasdam, divinae providentiae subtrahunt; aut eam posse praeter solitum cursum operari negant. Haec enim omnia divinae derogant potestati. Contra quos dicitur Iob 22-17: quasi nihil possit facere omnipotens, aestimabant eum; et Sap. 12-17: virtutem ostendis tu, qui non crederis esse in virtute consummatus. [4] Thirdly, because through ignorance of the creature’s nature something is subtracted from God’s power in its working upon creatures. This is evidenced in the case of those who set up two principles of reality; in those who assert that things proceed from God, not by the divine will, but by natural necessity; and again, in those who withdraw either all or some things from the divine providence, or who deny that it can work outside the ordinary course of things. For all these notions are derogatory to God’s power. Against such persons it is said: “Who looked upon the Almighty as if He could do nothing” (Job 22:17), and: “You show Your power, when men will not believe You to be absolute in power” (Wis..12: 17).
Quarto. Homo, qui per fidem in Deum ducitur sicut in ultimum finem, ex hoc quod ignorat naturas rerum, et per consequens gradum sui ordinis in universo, aliquibus creaturis se putat esse subiectum quibus superior est: ut patet in illis qui voluntates hominum astris supponunt, contra quos dicitur Ierem. 10-2, a signis caeli nolite metuere, quae gentes timent; et in illis qui Angelos creatores animarum existimant; et animas hominum esse mortales; et si qua similia hominum derogant dignitati. [5] Fourthly, through ignorance of the nature of things, and, consequently, of his own place in the order of the universe, this rational creature, man, who by faith is led to God as his last end, believes that he is subject to other creatures to which he is in fact superior. Such is evidently the case with those who subject human wills to the stars, and against these it is said: “Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathens fear” (Jer. 10:2); and this is likewise true of those who think that angels are the creators of souls, that human souls are mortal, and, generally, of persons who hold any similar views derogatory to the dignity of man.
Sic ergo patet falsam esse quorundam sententiam qui dicebant nihil interesse ad fidei veritatem quid de creaturis quisque sentiret, dummodo circa Deum recte sentiatur, ut Augustinus narrat in libro de origine animae: nam error circa creaturas redundat in falsam de Deo sententiam, et hominum mentes a Deo abducit, in quem fides dirigere nititur, dum ipsas quibusdam aliis causis supponit. [6] It is, therefore, evident that the opinion is false of those who asserted that it made no difference to the truth of the faith what anyone holds about creatures, so long as one thinks rightly about God, as Augustine tells us in his book On the Origin of the Soul [ De anima et ejus origine, IV, 4]. For error concerning creatures, by subjecting them to causes other than God, spills over into false opinion about God, and takes men’s minds away from Him, to whom faith seeks to lead them.
Et ideo illis qui circa creaturas errant poenas sicut infidelibus Scriptura comminatur, dicens in Psalmo: quoniam non intellexerunt opera domini et in opera manuum eius, destrues illos et non aedificabis eos; et Sap. 2-21 haec cogitaverunt et erraverunt, et subiungit, 22 non iudicaverunt honorem animarum sanctarum. [7] For this reason Scripture threatens punishment to those who err about creatures, as to unbelievers, in the words of the Psalm (27:5): “Because they have not understood the works of the Lord and the operations of His hands, You shall destroy them, and shall not build them up”; and: “These things they thought and were deceived,” and further on: “They did not esteem the honor of holy Souls” (Wis. 7:2122).

Caput 4 Chapter 4
Quod aliter considerat de creaturis philosophus et theologus THAT THE PHILOSOPHER AND THE THEOLOGIAN CONSIDER CREATURES IN DIFFERENT WAYS
Manifestum est autem ex praedictis quod considerationem circa creaturas habet doctrina fidei Christianae inquantum in eis resultat quaedam Dei similitudo, et inquantum error in ipsis inducit in divinorum errorem. Et sic alia ratione subiiciuntur praedictae doctrinae, et philosophiae humanae. Nam philosophia humana eas considerat secundum quod huiusmodi sunt: unde et secundum diversa rerum genera diversae partes philosophiae inveniuntur. Fides autem Christiana eas considerat, non inquantum huiusmodi, utpote ignem inquantum ignis est, sed inquantum divinam altitudinem repraesentat, et in ipsum Deum quoquo modo ordinatur. Ut enim Eccli. 42 dicitur: gloria domini plenum est opus eius. Nonne dominus fecit enarrare sanctos omnia mirabilia sua? [1] Now, from what has been said it is evident that the teaching of the Christian faith deals with creatures so far as they reflect a certain likeness of God, and so far as error concerning them leads to error about God. And so they are viewed in a different light by that doctrine and by human philosophy. For human philosophy considers them as they are, so that the different parts of philosophy are found to correspond to the different genera of things. The Christian faith, however, does not consider them as such; thus, it regards fire not as fire, but as representing the sublimity of God, and as being directed to Him in any way at all. For as it is said: “Full of the glory of the Lord is His work. Did the Lord not make the saints declare all His wonderful works?” (Sirach 42: 16-17)
Et propter hoc etiam alia circa creaturas et philosophus et fidelis considerat. Philosophus namque considerat illa quae eis secundum naturam propriam conveniunt: sicut igni ferri sursum. Fidelis autem ea solum considerat circa creaturas quae eis conveniunt secundum quod sunt ad Deum relata: utpote, quod sunt a Deo creata, quod sunt Deo subiecta, et huiusmodi.
Unde non est ad imperfectionem doctrinae fidei imputandum si multas rerum proprietates praetermittat: ut caeli figuram, et motus qualitatem. Sic enim nec naturalis circa lineam illas passiones considerat quas geometra: sed solum ea quae accidunt sibi inquantum est terminus corporis naturalis.
[2] For this reason, also, the philosopher and the believer consider different matters about creatures. The philosopher considers such things as belong to them by nature—the upward tendency of fire, for example; the believer, only such things as belong to them according as they are related to God—the fact, for instance, that they are created by God, are subject to Him, and so on.
[3] Hence, imperfection is not to be imputed to the teaching of the faith if it omits many properties of things, such as the figure of the heaven and the quality of its motion. For neither does the natural philosopher consider the same characters of a line as the geometrician, but only those that accrue to it as terminus of a natural body.
Si qua vero circa creaturas communiter a philosopho et fideli considerantur, per alia et alia principia traduntur. Nam philosophus argumentum assumit ex propriis rerum causis: fidelis autem ex causa prima; ut puta, quia sic divinitus est traditum; vel quia hoc in gloriam Dei cedit; vel quia Dei potestas est infinita.
Unde et ipsa maxima sapientia dici debet, utpote super altissimam causam considerans: secundum illud Deut. 4-6: haec est sapientia vestra et intellectus coram populis.
Et propter hoc sibi, quasi principali, philosophia humana deservit. Et ideo interdum ex principiis philosophiae humanae, sapientia divina procedit. Nam et apud philosophos prima philosophia utitur omnium scientiarum documentis ad suum propositum ostendendum.
[4] But any things concerning creatures that are considered in common by the philosopher and the believer are conveyed through different principles in each case. For the philosopher takes his argument from the proper causes of things; the believer, from the first cause—for such reasons as that a thing has been handed down in this manner by God, or that this conduces to God’s glory, or that God’s power is infinite.
Hence, also, [the doctrine of the faith] ought to be called the highest wisdom, since it treats of the highest Cause; as we read in Deuteronomy (4:6): “For this is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations.” And, therefore, human philosophy serves her as the first wisdom.
Accordingly, divine wisdom sometimes argues from principles of human philosophy. For among philosophers, too, the first philosophy utilizes the teachings of all the sciences in order to realize its objectives.
Exinde etiam est quod non eodem ordine utraque doctrina procedit. Nam in doctrina philosophiae, quae creaturas secundum se considerat et ex eis, in Dei cognitionem perducit, prima est consideratio de creaturis et ultima de Deo. In doctrina vero fidei, quae creaturas non nisi in ordine ad Deum considerat, primo est consideratio Dei et postmodum creaturarum. Et sic est perfectior: utpote Dei cognitioni similior, qui seipsum cognoscens alia intuetur. Unde, secundum hunc ordinem, post ea quae de Deo in se in primo libro sunt dicta, de his quae ab ipso sunt restat prosequendum. [5] Hence again, the two kinds of teaching do not follow the same order. For in the teaching of philosophy, which considers creatures in themselves and leads us from them to the knowledge of God, the first consideration is about creatures; the last, of God. But in the teaching of faith, which considers creatures only in their relation to God, the consideration of God comes first, that of creatures afterwards. And thus the doctrine of faith is more perfect, as being more like the knowledge possessed by God, who, in knowing Himself, immediately knows other things.
Erit autem hic prosecutionis ordo, ut primo agamus de productione rerum in esse; secundo, de earum distinctione; tertio vero de ipsarum rerum productarum et distinctarum natura, quantum ad fidei pertinet veritatem. [6] And so, following this order, after what has been said in Book I about God in Himself, it remains for us to treat of the things which derive from Him.

Caput 5 Chapter 5
Erit autem hic prosecutionis ordo, ut primo agamus de productione rerum in esse; secundo, de earum distinctione; tertio vero de ipsarum rerum productarum et distinctarum natura, quantum ad fidei pertinet veritatem. [1] We shall treat of these matters in the following order: first, the bringing forth of things into being [6-38]; second, their distinction [39-45]; third, the nature of these same things, brought forth and distinct from one another, so far as it is relevant to the truth of the faith [46-101].

Caput 6 Chapter 6
Quod Deo competit ut sit aliis principium essendi THAT IT IS PROPER TO GOD TO BE THE SOURCE OF THE BEING OF OTHER THINGS
Supponentes igitur quae in superioribus ostensa sunt, ostendamus nunc quod competit Deo ut sit aliis essendi principium et causa. [1] Presupposing the things already demonstrated in Book I, let us now show that it belongs to God to be the principle and cause of being to other things.
Ostensum est enim supra, per demonstrationem Aristotelis, esse aliquam primam causam efficientem, quam Deum dicimus. Efficiens autem causa suos effectus ad esse conducit. Deus igitur aliis essendi causa existit. [2] For in Book I of this work it was shown, by means of Aristotle’s demonstration, that there is a first efficient cause, which we call God. But an efficient cause brings its effects into being. Therefore, God is the cause of being to other things.
Item. Ostensum est in primo libro, per rationem eiusdem, esse aliquod primum movens immobile, quod Deum dicimus. Primum autem movens in quolibet ordine motuum est causa omnium motuum qui sunt illius ordinis. Cum igitur multa ex motibus caeli producantur in esse, in quorum ordine Deum esse primum movens ostensum est, oportet quod Deus sit multis rebus causa essendi. [3] Also, it was shown in Book I, by the argument of the same author, that there is a first immovable mover, which we call God. But the first mover in any order of movements is the cause of all the movements in that order. Since, then, many things are brought into existence by the movements of the heaven, and since God has been shown to be the first mover in the order of those movements, it follows necessarily that God is the cause of being to many things.
Amplius. Quod per se alicui convenit, universaliter ei inesse necesse est: sicut homini rationale, et igni sursum moveri. Agere autem aliquem effectum per se convenit enti in actu: nam unumquodque agens secundum hoc agit quod in actu est. Omne igitur ens actu natum est agere aliquid actu existens. Sed Deus est ens actu, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Igitur sibi competit agere aliquid ens actu, cui sit causa essendi. [4] Furthermore, that which belongs to a thing through itself must be in it universally; as for man to be rational and fire to tend, upwards. But to enact an actuality is, through itself, proper to a being in act; for every agent acts according as it is in act. Therefore, every being in act is by its nature apt to enact something existing in act. But God is a being in act, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, it is proper to Him to enact some being in act, to which He is the cause of being.
Adhuc. Signum perfectionis in rebus inferioribus est quod possunt sibi similia facere: ut patet per philosophum, in IV Meteororum. Deus autem est maxime perfectus, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Ipsi igitur competit facere aliquid sibi simile ens in actu, ut sic sit causa essendi. [5] It is, moreover, a sign of perfection in things of the lower order of reality that they are able to produce their like, as Aristotle points out in his Meteorology [IV, 3]. But, as was shown in Book I, God is supremely perfect. Therefore, it belongs to Him to produce something actual, like Himself, so as to be the cause of its existence.
Item. Ostensum est in primo libro quod Deus vult suum esse aliis communicare per modum similitudinis. De perfectione autem voluntatis est quod sit actionis et motus principium: ut patet in III de anima. Cum igitur divina voluntas sit perfecta, non deerit ei virtus communicandi esse suum alicui per modum similitudinis. Et sic erit ei causa essendi. [6] Then, too, it was shown in Book I that God wills to communicate His being to other things by way of likeness. But it belongs to the will’s perfection to be the principle of action and of movement, as is said in De anima III [10]. Therefore, since God’s will is perfect, He does not lack the power of communicating His being to a thing by way of likeness. And thus He will be the cause of its being.
Adhuc. Quanto alicuius actionis principium est perfectius, tanto actionem suam potest in plura extendere et magis remota: ignis enim, si sit debilis, solum propinqua calefacit; si autem sit fortis, etiam remota. Actus autem purus, qui Deus est, perfectior est quam actus potentiae permixtus, sicut in nobis est. Actus autem actionis principium est. Cum igitur per actum qui in nobis est possumus non solum in actiones in nobis manentes, sicut sunt intelligere et velle, sed etiam in actiones quae in exteriora tendunt, per quas aliqua facta producimus; multo magis Deus potest, per hoc quod actu est, non solum intelligere et velle, sed etiam producere effectum. Et sic potest aliis esse causa essendi. [7] Moreover, the more perfect is the principle of a thing’s action, to so many more and more remote things can it extend its action: thus, fire, if weak, heats only things nearby; if strong, it heats even distant things. But pure act, which God is, is more perfect than act mingled with potentiality, as it is in us. But act is the principle of action. Since, then, by the act which is in us we can proceed not only to actions abiding in us, such as understanding and willing, but also to actions which terminate in things outside of us, and through which certain things are made by us, much more can God, because He is in act, not only understand and will, but also produce an effect. And thus He can be the cause of being to other things.
Hinc est quod dicitur Iob 5-9: qui facit magna et mirabilia et inscrutabilia absque numero. [8] Hence, it is said: “Who does great things and unsearchable things without number” (Job 5:9).

Caput 7 Chapter 7
Quod in Deo sit potentia activa THAT ACTIVE POWER EXISTS IN GOD
Ex hoc autem apparet quod Deus est potens, et quod ei convenienter potentia activa attribuitur. [1] Now, from this it is clear that God is powerful, and that active power is fittingly attributed to Him.
Potentia enim activa est principium agendi in aliud secundum quod est aliud. Deo autem convenit esse aliis principium essendi. Ergo convenit sibi esse potentem. [2] For active power is the principle of acting upon another, as such. But it is proper to God to be the source of being to other things. Therefore, it pertains to Him to be powerful.
Amplius. Sicut potentia passiva sequitur ens in potentia, ita potentia activa sequitur ens in actu: unumquodque enim ex hoc agit quod est actu, patitur vero ex hoc quod est potentia. Sed Deo convenit esse actu. Igitur convenit sibi potentia activa. [3] Again, just as passive potency follows upon being in potency, so active potency follows upon being in act; for a thing acts in consequence of its being in act, and undergoes action because it is in potency. But it is proper to God to be in act. Therefore, active power belongs to Him.
Adhuc. Divina perfectio omnium perfectiones in se includit, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Virtus autem activa de perfectione rei est: unumquodque enim tanto maioris virtutis invenitur quanto perfectius est. Virtus igitur activa Deo non potest deesse. [4] The divine perfection, furthermore, includes in itself the perfections of all things, as was shown in Book I. But active power belongs to the perfection of a thing; for the more perfect any thing is, so much the greater is its power found to be. Therefore, active power cannot be wanting in God.
Praeterea. Omne quod agit potens est agere: nam quod non potest agere, impossibile est agere; et quod impossibile est agere, necesse est non agere. Deus autem est agens et movens, ut supra ostensum est. Igitur potens est agere: et potentia ei convenienter adscribitur activa, sed non passiva. [5] Moreover, whatever acts has the power to act, since that which has not the power to act cannot possibly act; and what cannot possibly act is necessarily non-active. But God is an acting and a moving being, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, He has the power to act; and active, but not passive, potency is properly ascribed to Him.
Hinc est quod in Psalmo dicitur: potens es, domine. Et alibi: potentiam tuam Deus, et iustitiam tuam usque in altissima quae fecisti magnalia. [6] Thus it is said in the Psalm (88:9): “You are mighty, O Lord,” and elsewhere: “Your power and Your justice, O God, even to the highest great things You have done.” (Ps. 70: 18-19).

Caput 8 Chapter 8
Quod Dei potentia sit eius substantia THAT GOD’S POWER IS HIS SUBSTANCE
Ex hoc autem ulterius concludi potest quod divina potentia sit ipsa Dei substantia. [1] Now, from this the further conclusion can be drawn that God’s power is His very substance.
Potentia enim activa competit alicui secundum quod est actu. Deus autem est actus ipse, non autem est ens actu per aliquem actum qui non sit quod est ipse: cum in eo nulla sit potentialitas, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Est igitur ipse sua potentia. [2] For active power belongs to a thing according as it is in act. But God is act itself, not a being whose actuality is due to an act that is other than itself; for in God there is no potentiality, as was shown in Book I of this work. Therefore, God is His own power.
Adhuc. Omnis potens qui non est sua potentia, est potens participatione potentiae alicuius. De Deo autem nihil potest dici participative: cum sit ipsum suum esse, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Est igitur ipse sua potentia. [3] Again, we argue from the fact that whatever is powerful and is not its own power is powerful by participation of another’s power. But nothing can be said of God participatively, since He is His very own being, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, He is His own power.
Amplius. Potentia activa ad perfectionem rei pertinet, ut ex praedictis patet. Omnis autem divina perfectio in ipso suo esse continetur, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Divina igitur potentia non est aliud ab ipso esse eius. Deus autem est suum esse, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Est igitur sua potentia. [4] Then, too, active power pertains to a thing’s perfection, as we have just seen. But every perfection of God is contained in His very being, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, God’s power is not other than His very being, as we likewise proved in Book I. Therefore, He is His own power.
Item. In rebus quarum potentiae non sunt earum substantiae, ipsae potentiae sunt accidentia: unde potentia naturalis in secunda specie qualitatis ponitur. In Deo autem non potest esse aliquod accidens: ut in primo ostensum est. Deus igitur est sua potentia. [5] Again, in things whose powers are not their substance, the powers themselves are accidents. Hence, natural power is placed in the second species of quality. But in God there can be no accident, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, God is His power.
Praeterea. Omne quod est per aliud, reducitur ad id quod est per se sicut ad primum. Alia vero agentia reducuntur in Deum sicut in primum agens. Est igitur agens per se. Quod autem per se agit, per suam essentiam agit. Id autem quo quis agit, est eius activa potentia. Ipsa igitur Dei essentia est eius activa potentia. [6] Moreover, everything which is through another is reduced to that which is through itself, as to that which is first. But other agents are reduced to God as first agent. Therefore, God is agent through His very self. But that which acts through itself acts through its essence, and that by which a thing acts is its active power. Therefore, God’s very essence is His active power.

Caput 9 Chapter 9
Quod Dei potentia sit eius actio THAT GOD’S POWER IS HIS ACTION
Ex hoc autem ostendi potest quod potentia Dei non sit aliud quam sua actio. [1] From this it can be shown that God’s power is not other than His action.
Quae enim uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem. Divina autem potentia est eius substantia, ut ostensum est. Eius etiam actio est eius substantia, ut in primo libro ostensum est de intellectuali operatione: eadem enim ratio in aliis competit. Igitur in Deo non est aliud potentia et aliud actio. [2] For things identical with one and the same thing are identical with one another. But God’s power is His substance, as was just proved. And His action is His substance, as was shown in Book P with regard to His intellectual operation; for the same argument applies to His other operations. Therefore, in God power is not distinct from action.
Item. Actio alicuius rei est complementum quoddam potentiae eius: comparatur enim ad potentiam sicut actus secundus ad primum. Divina autem potentia non completur alio quam seipso: cum sit ipsa Dei essentia. In Deo igitur non est aliud potentia et aliud actio. [3] The action of a thing, moreover, is a complement of its power; for action is compared to power as second act to first. But God’s power is not completed by another than Himself, since it is His very essence. Therefore, in God power and action are not distinct.
Amplius. Sicut potentia activa est aliquid agens, ita essentia eius est aliquid ens. Sed divina potentia est eius essentia, ut ostensum est. Ergo suum agere est suum esse. Sed eius esse est sua substantia. Et sic ut prius. [4] Then, too, just as active power is something acting, so is its essence something being. But, as we have seen, God’s power is His essence. Therefore, His action is His being. But His being is His substance. Therefore, God’s action is His substance; and thus the same conclusion follows as before.
Adhuc. Actio quae non est substantia agentis, inest ei sicut accidens subiecto: unde et actio unum inter novem praedicamenta accidentis computatur. In Deo autem non potest esse aliquid per modum accidentis. In Deo igitur sua actio non est aliud a sua substantia et sua potentia. [5] Furthermore, an action that is not the substance of the agent is in the agent as an accident in its subject; and that is why action is reckoned as one of the nine categories of accident. But nothing can exist in God in the manner of an accident. Therefore, God’s action is not other than His substance and His power.

Caput 10 Chapter 10
Qualiter potentia in Deo dicatur HOW POWER IS ATTRIBUTED TO GOD
Quia vero nihil est sui ipsius principium, cum divina actio non sit aliud quam eius potentia, manifestum est ex praedictis quod potentia non dicitur in Deo sicut principium actionis, sed sicut principium facti. Et quia potentia respectum ad alterum importat in ratione principii, est enim potentia activa principium agendi in aliud, ut patet per philosophum in V Metaph.; manifestum est quod potentia dicitur in Deo per respectum ad facta, secundum rei veritatem; non per respectum ad actionem nisi secundum modum intelligendi, prout intellectus noster diversis conceptionibus utrumque considerat, divinam scilicet potentiam et eius actionem. Unde, si aliquae actiones Deo conveniant quae non in aliquod factum transeant sed maneant in agente, respectu harum non dicetur in Deo potentia nisi secundum modum intelligendi, non secundum rei veritatem. Huiusmodi autem actiones sunt intelligere et velle. Potentia igitur Dei, proprie loquendo, non respicit huiusmodi actiones, sed solos effectus. Intellectus igitur et voluntas in Deo non sunt ut potentiae, sed solum ut actiones. [1] But, since nothing is its own principle, and God’s action is not other than His power, it is clear from the foregoing that power is attributed to God, not as principle of action, but as principle of the thing made. And since power implies relation to something else as having the character of a principle (for active power is the principle of acting on something else, as Aristotle says in Metaphysics V [12]), it is evident that power is in truth attributed to God in relation to things made, not in relation to action, except according to our way of understanding, namely, so far as our intellect considers both God’s power and His action through diverse conceptions. Hence, if certain actions are proper to God which do not pass into something made but remain in Him, power is not attributed to Him in their regard, except according to our manner of understanding, and not according to reality. Such actions are understanding and willing. Properly speaking, therefore, God’s power does not regard such actions, but only effects. Consequently, intellect and will are in God, not as powers, but only as actions.
Patet etiam ex praedictis quod multitudo actionum quae Deo attribuitur, ut intelligere, velle, producere res, et similia, non sunt diversae res: cum quaelibet harum actionum in Deo sit ipsum eius esse, quod est unum et idem. Quomodo autem multiplicitas significationis unius rei veritati non praeiudicet, ex his quae in primo libro ostensa sunt, manifestum esse potest. [2] From the foregoing it is clear, also, that the multifarious actions attributed to God, as understanding, willing, producing things, and the like are not diverse realities, since each of these actions in God is His very being, which is one and the same. Indeed, from what has been shown be clearly seen how a thing may be signified in many ways without prejudice to the truth of its oneness in reality.

Caput 11 Chapter 11
Quod de Deo dicitur aliquid relative ad creaturas THAT SOMETHING IS SAID OF GOD IN RELATION TO CREATURES
Cum autem potentia Deo conveniat respectu suorum effectuum; potentia autem rationem principii habeat, ut dictum est; principium autem relative ad principiatum dicitur: manifestum est quod aliquid relative potest dici de Deo in respectu suorum effectuum. [1] Now, since power is proper to God in relation to His effects, and since power, as was said, has the character of a principle, and since principle expresses relationship to that which proceeds from it, it is evident that something can be said of God relatively, with regard to His effects.
Item. Non potest intelligi aliquid relative dici ad alterum nisi e converso illud relative diceretur ad ipsum. Sed res aliae relative dicuntur ad Deum: utpote secundum suum esse, quod a Deo habent, ut ostensum est, ab ipso dependentes. Deus igitur e converso relative ad creaturas dicetur. [2] It is, moreover, inconceivable that one thing be said in relation to another unless, conversely, the latter be said in relation to it. But other things are spoken of in relation to God; for instance, as regards their being, which they possess from God, they are dependent upon Him, as has been shown. Conversely, therefore, God may be spoken of in relation to creatures.
Adhuc. Similitudo est relatio quaedam. Deus autem, sicut et cetera agentia, sibi simile agit. Dicitur igitur aliquid relative de ipso. [3] Further. Likeness is a certain kind of relation. But God, even as other agents, produces something like to Himself. Therefore, something is said of Him relatively.
Amplius. Scientia ad scitum relative dicitur. Deus autem non solum sui ipsius, sed etiam aliorum scientiam habet. Igitur aliquid relative dicitur de Deo ad alia. [4] Then, too, knowledge is spoken of in relation to the thing known. But God possesses knowledge not only of Himself, but also of other things. Therefore, something is said of God in relation to other things.
Adhuc. Movens dicitur relative ad motum, et agens ad factum. Deus autem est agens et movens non motum, ut ostensum est. Dicuntur igitur de ipso relationes. [5] Again. Mover is spoken of in relation to thing moved, and agent in relation to thing done. But, as was shown, God is an agent and an unmoved mover. Therefore relations are predicated of Him.
Item. Primum relationem quandam importat similiter summum. Ostensum est autem in primo ipsum esse primum ens et summum bonum. [6] And again. First implies a relation, and so does highest. But it was shown in Book I that God is the first being and the highest good.Patet igitur quod multa de Deo relative dicuntur.
[7] It is, therefore, evident that many things are said of God relatively.

Caput 12 Chapter 12
Quod relationes dictae de Deo ad creaturas non sunt realiter in Deo THAT RELATIONS PREDICATED OF GOD IN REFERENCE TO CREATURES DO NOT REALLY EXIST IN HIM
Huiusmodi autem relationes quae sunt ad suos effectus, realiter in Deo esse non possunt. [1] Now, these relations which refer to God’s effects cannot possibly exist in Him really.
Non enim in eo esse possent sicut accidentia in subiecto: cum in ipso nullum sit accidens ut in primo libro ostensum est. Nec etiam possent esse ipsa Dei substantia. Cum enim relativa sint quae secundum suum esse ad aliud quodammodo se habent, ut philosophus dicit in praedicamentis, oporteret quod Dei substantia hoc ipsum quod est ad aliud diceretur. Quod autem ipsum quod est ad aliud dicitur, quodammodo ab ipso dependet: cum nec esse nec intelligi sine eo possit. Oporteret igitur quod Dei substantia ab alio extrinseco esset dependens. Et sic non esset per seipsum necesse-esse, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Non sunt igitur huiusmodi relationes secundum rem in Deo. [2] For they cannot exist in Him as accidents in a subject, since there is no accident in Him, as was shown in Book I. Neither can they be God’s very substance, because, as Aristotle says in the Categories [VII], relative terms are those “which in their very being refer somehow to something else”; so that God’s substance would then have to be referred to something else. But that which is essentially referred to another depends upon it in a certain way, since it can neither be nor be understood without it. Hence, it would follow that God’s substance would depend on something else extrinsic to it, so that He would not be, of Himself, the necessary being, as He was shown to be in Book I. Therefore, such relations do not really exist in God.
Item. Ostensum est in primo quod Deus omnium entium est prima mensura. Comparatur igitur Deus ad alia entia sicut scibile ad scientiam nostram, quod eius mensura est: nam ex eo quod res est vel non est, opinio et oratio vera vel falsa est, secundum philosophum in praedicamentis. Scibile autem licet ad scientiam relative dicatur, tamen relatio secundum rem in scibili non est, sed in scientia tantum: unde secundum philosophum, in V Metaph., scibile dicitur relative, non quia ipsum referatur, sed quia aliud refertur ad ipsum. Dictae igitur relationes in Deo non sunt realiter. [3] It was shown in Book I, moreover, that God is the first measure of all things. Hence, He stands in relation to other beings as the knowable to our knowledge, which is measured by the knowable; for “opinion or speech is true or false according as a thing is or is not, as Aristotle says in the Categories [V]. But, although a thing is said to be knowable in relation to knowledge, the relation is not really in the knowable, but only in the knowledge. Thus, as Aristotle observes in Metaphysics v, the knowable is so called relatively, “not because it is itself related, but because something else is related to it.” Therefore the relations in question have no real being in God.
Adhuc. Relationes praedictae dicuntur de Deo non solum respectu eorum quae sunt actu, sed respectu eorum quae sunt in potentia: quia et eorum scientiam habet, et respectu eorum dicitur et primum ens et summum bonum. Sed eius quod est actu ad id quod non est actu sed potentia, non sunt relationes reales: alias sequeretur quod essent infinitae relationes actu in eodem, cum numeri infiniti in potentia sint maiores binario, quibus omnibus ipse est prior. Deus autem non aliter refertur ad ea quae sunt actu quam ad ea quae sunt potentia: quia non mutatur ex hoc quod aliqua producit. Non igitur refertur ad alia per relationem realiter in ipso existentem. [4] A further point. The aforesaid relations are predicated of God with respect not only to those things that are in act, but to those also that are in potency; for He both has knowledge of them and in relation to them is called the first being and the supreme good. But there are no real relations of that which is actual to that which is not actual, but potential; otherwise, it would follow that there are actually an infinity of relations in the same subject, since potentially infinite numbers are greater than the number two, which is prior to them all. God, however, is not referred to actual things otherwise than to potential things, for He is not changed as the result of producing certain things. Therefore, He is not referred to other things by a relation really existing in Him.
Amplius. Cuicumque aliquid de novo advenit, necesse est illud mutari, vel per se vel per accidens. Relationes autem quaedam de novo dicuntur de Deo: sicut quod est dominus aut gubernator huius rei quae de novo incipit esse. Si igitur praedicaretur aliqua relatio realiter in Deo existens, sequeretur quod aliquid Deo de novo adveniret, et sic quod mutaretur vel per se vel per accidens. Cuius contrarium in primo libro ostensum est. [5] Furthermore, we observe that whatever receives something anew must be changed, either essentially or accidentally. Now, certain relations are predicated of God anew; for example, that He is Lord or Governor of this thing which begins to exist anew. Hence, if a relation were predicated of God as really existing in Him, it would follow that something accrues to God anew, and thus that He is changed either essentially or accidentally; the contrary of this having been proved in Book I.

Caput 13 Chapters 13 and 14
Quomodo praedictae relationes de Deo dicantur HOW THE AFORESAID RELATIONS ARE PREDICATED OF GOD
Non autem potest dici quod relationes praedictae sint existentes exterius quasi res aliquae extra Deum. [1] It cannot be said, however, that these relations exist as realities outside God.
Cum enim Deus sit primum entium et summum bonorum, oporteret ad illas etiam relationes, quae sunt aliquae res, Dei relationes alias considerare. Et si illae iterum sint res aliquae, oportebit iterum tertias relationes adinvenire. Et sic in infinitum. Non igitur relationes quibus Deus ad res alias refertur, sunt res aliquae extra Deum existentes. [2] For, if they did, we should have to consider yet other relations of God to those that are realities, seeing that God is the first of beings and highest of goods. And if these also are realities, we shall be compelled to find third relations; and so on endlessly. The relations by which God is referred to other things, therefore, are not realities existing outside Him.
Item. Duplex est modus quo aliquid denominative praedicatur. Denominatur enim aliquid ab eo quod extra ipsum est, sicut a loco dicitur aliquis esse alicubi, et a tempore aliquando: aliquid vero denominatur ab eo quod inest, sicut ab albedine albus. A relatione vero non invenitur aliquid denominari quasi exterius existente, sed inhaerente: non enim denominatur aliquis pater nisi a paternitate quae ei inest. Non igitur potest esse quod relationes quibus Deus ad creaturas refertur, sint res aliquae extra ipsum.
Cum igitur ostensum sit quod non sint in ipso realiter, et tamen dicuntur de eo, relinquitur quod et attribuantur solum secundum intelligentiae modum, ex eo quod alia referuntur ad ipsum. Intellectus enim noster, intelligendo aliquid referri ad alterum, cointelligit relationem illius ad ipsum: quamvis secundum rem quandoque non referatur.
[3] Moreover, there are two ways in which a thing is predicated denominatively: first, from something external to it; as from place a person is said to be somewhere; from time, some-when; second, from something present in it; as white from whiteness. Yet in no case is a thing denominated from a relation as existing outside it, but only as inhering in it. For example: a man is not denominated father except from the fatherhood which is in him. Therefore, the relations by which God is referred to creatures cannot possibly be realities outside Him.
[4] Having proved that these relations have no real existence in God, and yet are predicated of Him, it follows that they are attributed to Him solely in accordance with our manner of understanding, from the fact that other things are referred to Him. For in understanding one thing to be referred to another, our intellect simultaneously grasps the relation of the latter to it, although sometimes that thing is not really related.
Et sic etiam patet quod alio modo dicuntur de Deo praedictae relationes, et alia quae de Deo praedicantur. Nam omnia alia, ut sapientia, voluntas, eius essentiam praedicant: relationes vero praedictae minime, sed secundum modum intelligendi tantum. Nec tamen intellectus est falsus. Ex hoc enim ipso quod intellectus noster intelligit relationes divinorum effectuum terminari in ipsum Deum, aliqua praedicat relative de ipso: sicut et scibile relative intelligimus et significamus ex hoc quod scientia refertur ad ipsum. [5] And so it is evident, also, that such relations are not said of God in the same way as other things predicated of Him. For all other things, such as wisdom and will, express His essence; the aforesaid relations by no means do so really, but only as regards our way of understanding. Nevertheless, our understanding is not fallacious. For, from the very fact that our intellect understands that the relations of the divine effects are terminated in God Himself, it predicates certain things of Him relatively; so also do we understand and express the knowable relatively, from the fact that knowledge is referred to it.

Patet etiam ex his quod divinae simplicitati non derogat si multae relationes de ipso dicuntur, quamvis eius essentiam non significent: quia sequuntur intelligendi modum. Nihil enim prohibet intellectum nostrum intelligere multa, et multipliciter referri ad id quod est in se simplex, ut sic ipsum simplex sub multiplici relatione consideret. Et quanto aliquid est magis simplex, tanto est maioris virtutis et plurium principium, ac per hoc multiplicius relatum intelligitur: sicut punctum plurium est principium quam linea, et linea quam superficies. Hoc igitur ipsum quod multa relative de Deo dicuntur, eius summae simplicitati attestatur. [6] [Chapter 14] From these considerations it is clear, also, that it is not prejudicial to God’s simplicity if many relations are predicated of Him, although they do not signify His essence; because those relations are consequent upon our way of understanding. For nothing prevents our intellect from understanding many things, and being referred in many ways to that which is in itself simple, so as to consider that simple reality under a manifold relationship. And the more simple a thing, the greater is its power, and of so many more things is it the principle, so that it is understood as related in so many more ways. Thus, a point is the principle of more things than a line is, and a line than a surface. Therefore, the very fact that many things are predicated of God in a relative manner bears witness to His supreme simplicity.

Caput 15 Chapter 15
Quod Deus sit omnibus causa essendi THAT GOD IS TO ALL THINGS THE CAUSE OF BEING
Quia vero ostensum est quod Deus est aliquibus essendi principium, oportet ulterius ostendere quod nihil praeter ipsum est nisi ab ipso. [1] Now, because it has been proved that God is the source of being to some things, it must be demonstrated further that everything besides God derives its being from Him.
Omne enim quod alicui convenit non secundum quod ipsum est, per aliquam causam convenit ei, sicut album homini: nam quod causam non habet, primum et immediatum est, unde necesse est ut sit per se et secundum quod ipsum. Impossibile est autem aliquod unum duobus convenire et utrique secundum quod ipsum. Quod enim de aliquo secundum quod ipsum dicitur, ipsum non excedit: sicut habere tres angulos duobus rectis aequales non excedit triangulum. Si igitur aliquid duobus conveniat, non conveniet utrique secundum quod ipsum est. Impossibile est igitur aliquod unum de duobus praedicari ita quod de neutro per causam dicatur, sed oportet vel unum esse alterius causam, sicut ignis est causa caloris corpori mixto, cum tamen utrumque calidum dicatur; vel oportet quod aliquod tertium sit causa utrique, sicut duabus candelis ignis est causa lucendi. Esse autem dicitur de omni eo quod est. Impossibile est igitur esse aliqua duo quorum neutrum habeat causam essendi, sed oportet utrumque acceptorum esse per causam, vel alterum alteri esse causam essendi. Oportet igitur quod ab illo cui nihil est causa essendi, sit omne illud quod quocumque modo est. Deum autem supra ostendimus huiusmodi ens esse cui nihil sit causa essendi. Ab eo igitur est omne quod quocumque modo est. Si autem dicatur quod ens non est praedicatum univocum, nihil minus praedicta conclusio sequitur. Non enim de multis aequivoce dicitur, sed per analogiam: et sic oportet fieri reductionem in unum. [2] For whatever does not belong to a thing as such appertains to it through some cause, as white to man; that which has no cause is primary and immediate, so that it must needs be through itself and as such. But no single entity can as such belong to two things and to both of them; for what is said of a thing as such is limited to that very thing; the possession of dam angles equal to two right angles is proper to the triangle exclusively. So, if something belongs to two things, it will not belong to both as such. Therefore, no single thing can possibly be predicated of two things so as to be said of neither of them by reason of a cause. On the contrary, either the one must be the cause of the other—as fire is the cause of heat in a mixed body, and yet each is called hot—or some third thing must be the cause of both, as fire is the cause of two candles giving light. But being is predicated of everything that is. Hence, there cannot possibly be two things neither of which has a cause of its being, but either both of them must exist through a cause, or the one must be the cause of the other's being. Everything which is in any way at all must then derive its being from that whose being has no cause. But we have already shown that God is this being whose existence has no cause. Everything which is in any mode whatever, therefore, is from Him. Now, to say that being is not a univocal predicate argues nothing against this conclusion. For being is not predicated of beings equivocally, but analogically, and thus a reduction to one must be made.
Amplius. Quod alicui convenit ex sua natura, non ex alia causa, minoratum in eo et deficiens esse non potest. Si enim naturae aliquid essentiale subtrahitur vel additur, iam altera natura erit: sicut et in numeris accidit, in quibus unitas addita vel subtracta speciem variat. Si autem, natura vel quidditate rei integra manente, aliquid minoratum inveniatur, iam patet quod illud non simpliciter dependet ex illa natura, sed ex aliquo alio, per cuius remotionem minoratur. Quod igitur alicui minus convenit quam aliis, non convenit ei ex sua natura tantum, sed ex alia causa. Illud igitur erit causa omnium in aliquo genere cui maxime competit illius generis praedicatio: unde et quod maxime calidum est videmus esse causam caloris in omnibus calidis, et quod maxime lucidum causam omnium lucidorum. Deus autem est maxime ens, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Ipse igitur est causa omnium de quibus ens praedicatur. [3] Furthermore, whatever a thing possesses by its own nature, and not from some other cause, cannot be diminished and deficient in it. For, if something essential be subtracted from or added to a nature, another nature will at once arise, as in the case of numbers, where the addition or the subtraction of the unit changes the species of the number. If, however, the nature or quiddity of a thing remains integral, and yet something in it is found to be diminished, it is at once clear that this diminution does not derive simply from that nature, but from something else, by whose removal the nature is diminished. Therefore, whatever belongs to one thing less than to others belongs to it not by virtue of its own nature alone, but through some other cause. Thus, that thing of which a genus is chiefly predicated will be the cause of everything in that genus. So we see that what is most hot is the cause of heat in all hot things; and what is most light, the cause of all illuminated things. But as we proved in Book I, God is being in the highest mode. Therefore, He is the cause of all things of which being is predicated.
Adhuc. Secundum ordinem effectuum oportet esse ordinem causarum: eo quod effectus causis suis proportionati sunt. Unde oportet quod, sicut effectus proprii reducuntur in causas proprias, ita id quod commune est in effectibus propriis, reducatur in aliquam causam communem: sicut supra particulares causas generationis huius vel illius est sol universalis causa generationis; et rex est universalis causa regiminis in regno, supra praepositos regni et etiam urbium singularium. Omnibus autem commune est esse. Oportet igitur quod supra omnes causas sit aliqua causa cuius sit dare esse. Prima autem causa Deus est, ut supra ostensum est. Oportet igitur omnia quae sunt a Deo esse. [4] Then, too, the order of causes necessarily corresponds to the order of effects, since effects are commensurate with their causes. Hence, just as effects are referred to their appropriate causes, so that which is common in such effects must be reduced to a common cause. Thus, transcending the particular causes of the generation of this or that thing is the universal cause of generation—the sun; and above the particular governors of the kingdom, as, indeed, of each city in it, stands the king, the universal cause of government in his whole realm. Now, being is common to everything that is. Above all causes, then, there must be a cause whose proper action is to give being. But we have already shown in Book I that God is the first cause. Everything that is must, therefore, be from God.
Item. Quod per essentiam dicitur, est causa omnium quae per participationem dicuntur: sicut ignis est causa omnium ignitorum inquantum huiusmodi. Deus autem est ens per essentiam suam: quia est ipsum esse. Omne autem aliud ens est ens per participationem: quia ens quod sit suum esse non potest esse nisi unum ut in primo ostensum est. Deus igitur est causa essendi omnibus aliis. [5] Moreover, the cause of everything said to be such and such by way of participation is that which is said to be so by virtue of its essence. Thus, fire is the cause of all hot things as such. But God is being by His own essence, because He is the very act of being. Every other being, however, is a being by participation. For that being which is its own act of being can be one only, as was shown in Book I. God, therefore, is the cause of being to all other things.
Praeterea. Omne quod est possibile esse et non esse, habet causam aliquam: quia in se consideratum ad utrumlibet se habet; et sic oportet esse aliquod aliud quod ipsum ad unum determinet. Unde, cum in infinitum procedi non possit, oportet quod sit aliquid necessarium quod sit causa omnium possibilium esse et non esse. Necessarium autem quoddam est habens causam suae necessitatis: in quo etiam in infinitum procedi non potest; et sic est devenire ad aliquid quod est per se necesse-esse. Hoc autem non potest esse nisi unum, ut in primo libro ostensum est. Et hoc est Deus. Oportet igitur omne aliud ab ipso reduci in ipsum sicut in causam essendi. [6] Again, everything that can be and not-be has a cause; for considered in itself it is indifferent to either, so that something else must exist which determines it to one. Since, then, it is impossible to go on to infinity, there must exist a necessary being which is the cause of all things that can he and not-be. Now, there is a certain kind of necessary being whose necessity is caused. But in this order of things, also, progression to infinity is impossible; so that we must conclude to the existence of something which is of itself necessary being. There can be but one such being, as we proved in Book I. And this being is God. Everything other than God, therefore, must be referred to Him as the cause of its being.
Amplius. Deus secundum hoc factivus est rerum quod actu est, ut supra ostensum est. Ipse autem sua actualitate et perfectione omnes rerum perfectiones comprehendit, ut in primo probatum est: et sic est virtualiter omnia. Est igitur ipse omnium factivus. Hoc autem non esset si aliquid aliud esset natum esse non ab ipso: nihil enim natum est esse ab alio et non ab alio; quia, si natum est non ab alio esse, est per seipsum necesse-esse, quod numquam potest ab alio esse. Nihil igitur potest esse nisi a Deo. [7] Moreover, as we proved above, God is the maker of things inasmuch as He is in act. But by virtue of His actuality and perfection God embraces all the perfections of things, as was shown in Book I; and thus He is virtually all things. He is, therefore, the maker of all things. But this would not be the case if something besides God were capable of being otherwise than from Him; for nothing is of such a nature as to be from another and not from another, since if a thing is of a nature not to be from another, then it is through itself a necessary being, and thus can never be from another. Therefore, nothing can be except from God.
Item. Imperfecta a perfectis sumunt originem: ut semen ab animali. Deus autem est perfectissimum ens et summum bonum, ut in primo ostensum est. Ipse igitur est omnibus causa essendi: praecipue cum ostensum sit quod tale non possit esse nisi unum. [8] A final argument. Imperfect things originate from perfect things, as seed from the animal. But God is the most perfect being and the highest good, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, He is the cause of the being of all things, and this is especially so in view of the truth already demonstrated that such a cause cannot but be one.
Hoc autem divina confirmat auctoritas. Dicitur enim in Psalmo: qui fecit caelum et terram, mare, et omnia quae in eis sunt. Et Ioan. 1-3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. Et Rom. 11-36: ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, et in quo omnia, ipsi gloria in saecula. [9] Now, this truth is confirmed by divine authority; for it is said in the Psalm (145:6): “Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all the things that are in them”; and: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing” (John 1:3); and: “Of Him, and by Him, and in Him are all things: to Him be glory for ever” (Rom. 11:36).
Per hoc autem excluditur antiquorum naturalium error, qui ponebant corpora quaedam non habere causam essendi. Et etiam quorundam qui dicunt Deum non esse causam substantiae caeli, sed solum motus. [10] The error of the natural philosophers of old, who asserted that certain bodies exist without a cause, is by this truth abolished, as well as the error of those who say that God is not the cause of the substance of the heaven, but only of its motion.

Caput 16 Chapter 16
Quod Deus ex nihilo produxit res in esse THAT GOD BROUGHT THINGS INTO BEING FROM NOTHING
Ex hoc autem apparet quod Deus res in esse produxit ex nullo praeexistente sicut ex materia. [1] Now, what has been said makes it clear that God brought things into being from no pre-existing subject, as from a matter.
Si enim est aliquid effectus Dei, aut praeexistit aliquid illi, aut non. Si non, habetur propositum: scilicet quod Deus aliquem effectum producat ex nullo praeexistente. Si autem aliquid illi praeexistit, aut est procedere in infinitum, quod non est possibile in causis naturalibus, ut philosophus probat in II metaphysicae: aut erit devenire ad aliquod primum quod aliud non praesupponit. Quod quidem non potest esse nisi ipse Deus. Ostensum est enim in primo libro quod ipse non est materia alicuius rei: nec potest esse aliud a Deo cui Deus non sit causa essendi, ut ostensum est. Relinquitur igitur quod Deus in productione sui effectus non requirit materiam praeiacentem ex qua operetur. [2] For, if a thing is an effect produced by God, either something exists before it, or not. If not, our assertion stands, namely, that God produces some effect from nothing preexisting. If something exists before it, however, we must either go on to infinity, which is impossible in natural causes, as Aristotle proves in Metaphysics II [2], or we must arrive at a first being which presupposes no other. And this being can be none other than God Himself. For we proved in Book I that God is not the matter of any thing; nor, as we have shown, can there be anything other than God which is not made to be by Him. It therefore follows that in the production of His effects God requires no antecedent matter to work from.
Adhuc. Unaquaeque materia per formam superinductam contrahitur ad aliquam speciem. Operari ergo ex materia praeiacente superinducendo formam quocumque modo, est agentis ad aliquam determinatam speciem. Tale autem agens est agens particulare: causae enim causatis proportionales sunt. Agens igitur quod requirit ex necessitate materiam praeiacentem ex qua operetur, est agens particulare. Deus autem est agens sicut causa universalis essendi, ut supra ostensum est. Igitur ipse in sua actione materiam praeiacentem non requirit. [3] Every matter, furthermore, is limited to some particular species by the form with which it is endowed. Consequently, it is the business of an agent limited to some determinate species to produce its effect from pre-existing matter by bestowing a form upon it in any manner whatsoever. But an agent of this kind is a particular agent; for causes are proportionate to their effects. So, an agent that necessarily requires pre-existent matter from which to produce its effect is a particular agent. Now, it is as the universal cause of being that God is an agent, as we proved in the preceding chapter. Therefore, in His action He has no need of any pre-existing matter.
Item. Quanto aliquis effectus est universalior, tanto habet propriam causam altiorem: quia quanto causa est altior, tanto ad plura virtus eius extenditur. Esse autem est universalius quam moveri: sunt enim quaedam entium immobilia, ut etiam philosophi tradunt, ut lapides et huiusmodi. Oportet ergo quod supra causam quae non agit nisi movendo et transmutando, sit illa causa quae est primum essendi principium. Hoc autem ostendimus esse Deum. Deus igitur non agit tantum movendo et transmutando. Omne autem quod non potest producere res in esse nisi ex materia praeiacente, agit solum movendo et transmutando: facere enim aliquid ex materia est per motum vel mutationem quandam. Non ergo impossibile est producere res in esse sine materia praeiacente. [4] Again. The more universal an effect is, the higher its proper cause; for the higher the cause, to so many more things does its power extend. But to be is more universal than to be moved, since, as the philosophers also teach, there are some beings—stones and the like—which are immobile. So, above the kind of cause which acts only by moving and changing there must exist that cause which is the first principle of being, and this, as we have proved in the same place, is God. Thus, God does not act only by moving and changing. On the other hand, every agent which cannot bring things into being except from pre-existing matter, acts only by moving and changing, for to make something out of matter is the result of some kind of motion or change. Therefore, to bring things into being without pre-existing matter is not impossible. Hence, God brings things into being without pre-existing matter.
Praeterea. Quod agit tantum per motum et mutationem non competit universali causae eius quod est esse: non enim per motum et mutationem fit ens ex non ente simpliciter, sed ens hoc ex non ente hoc. Deus autem est universale essendi principium, ut ostensum est. Non igitur sibi competit agere tantum per motum aut per mutationem. Neque igitur sibi competit indigere praeiacenti materia ad aliquid faciendum. [5] Moreover, to act only by motion and change is incompatible with the universal cause of being; for, by motion and change a being is not made from absolute non-being, but this being from this non-being. Yet, as was shown, God is the universal principle of being. Therefore, to act only by motion or by change is contrary to His nature. Neither, then, is it proper to Him to need pre-existing matter in order to make something.
Amplius. Unumquodque agens sibi simile agit, quoquo modo. Agit autem unumquodque agens secundum quod actu est. Illius igitur agentis erit producere effectum causando aliquo modo formam materiae inhaerentem quod est actu per formam sibi inhaerentem, et non per totam substantiam suam: unde philosophus, in VII Metaph., probat quod res materiales, habentes formas in materiis, generantur a materialibus agentibus habentibus formas in materia, non a formis per se existentibus. Deus autem non est ens actu per aliquid sibi inhaerens, sed per totam suam substantiam, ut supra probatum est. Igitur proprius modus suae actionis est ut producat rem subsistentem totam, non solum rem inhaerentem, scilicet formam in materia. Per hunc autem modum agit omne agens quod materiam in agendo non requirit. Deus igitur materiam praeiacentem non requirit in sua actione. [6] An additional argument. Every agent produces something in some way like itself. But every agent acts according as it is in act. Therefore, to produce an effect by somehow causing a form to inhere in a matter will be the proper function of an agent actualized by a form inherent in it, and not by its whole substance. Hence, in Metaphysics VII [8], Aristotle proves that material things, which possess forms in matter, are generated by material agents having forms in matter, not by forms existing through themselves. But God is a being in act, not through anything inherent in Him, but through His whole substance, as was proved above. Therefore, the proper mode of His action is to produce the whole subsisting thing, and not merely an inhering entity, namely, a form in a matter. Now, every agent which does not require matter for its action acts in this way. In His action, consequently, God requires no pre-existing matter.
Item. Materia comparatur ad agens sicut recipiens actionem quae ab ipso est: actus enim qui est agentis ut a quo, est patientis ut in quo. Igitur requiritur materia ab aliquo agente ut recipiat actionem ipsius: ipsa enim actio agentis in patiente recepta est actus patientis et forma, aut aliqua inchoatio formae, in ipso. Deus autem non agit actione aliqua quam necesse sit in aliquo patiente recipi: quia sua actio est sua substantia, ut supra probatum est. Non igitur ad producendum effectum requirit materiam praeiacentem. [7] Then, too, matter stands in relation to an agent as the recipient of the action proceeding from that agent. For that same act which belongs to the agent as proceeding therefrom belongs to the patient as residing therein. Therefore, matter is required by an agent in order that it may receive the action of the agent. For the agent’s action, received in the patient, is an actuality of the patient’s, and a form, or some inception of a form, in it. But God acts by no action which must be received in a patient, for His action is His substance, as was proved above. Therefore, He requires no pre-existing matter in order to produce an effect.
Praeterea. Omne agens quod in agendo requirit materiam praeiacentem, habet materiam proportionatam suae actioni, ut quicquid est in virtute agentis, totum sit in potentia materiae: alias non posset in actum producere quicquid est in sua virtute activa, et sic frustra haberet virtutem ad illa. Materia autem non habet talem proportionem ad Deum. Non enim in materia est potentia ad quantitatem quamcumque, ut patet per philosophum, in III physicorum: cum tamen divina potentia sit simpliciter infinita, ut in primo ostensum est. Deus igitur non requirit materiam praeiacentem ex qua de necessitate agat. [8] Again. Every agent whose action necessitates the prior existence of matter possesses a matter proportioned to its action, so that whatever lies within the agent’s power exists in its entirety in the potentiality of the matter; otherwise, the agent could not actualize all that lies within its active power, and hence, as regards the things it could not actualize, it would possess that power in vain. But matter stands in no such relation to God. For in matter there does not exist potentiality to any particular quantity, as Aristotle points out in Physics III [6]; whereas God’s power is absolutely infinite, as we proved in Book I of this work. No pre-existing matter, therefore, is required by God as necessary ground for His action.
Adhuc. Diversarum rerum diversae sunt materiae: non enim est eadem materia spiritualium et corporalium, nec corporum caelestium et corruptibilium. Quod quidem ex hoc patet quod recipere, quod est proprietas materiae, non eiusdem rationis est in praedictis: nam receptio quae est in spiritualibus est intelligibilis, sicut intellectus recipit species intelligibilium non secundum esse materiale; corpora vero caelestia recipiunt innovationem situs, non autem innovationem essendi, sicut corpora inferiora. Non est igitur una materia quae sit in potentia ad esse universale. Ipse autem Deus est totius esse activus universaliter. Ipsi igitur nulla materia proportionaliter respondet. Non igitur materiam ex necessitate requirit. [9] Diverse things, furthermore, have diverse matters; for the matter of spiritual things is not the same as that of corporeal things, nor is the matter of the heavenly bodies the same as that of corruptible bodies. This, indeed, is clear from the fact that receptivity, which is the property of matter, is not of the same nature in these things. For receptivity in spiritual things is intelligible in character; thus, the intellect receives the species of intelligible things, though not according to their material being; while the heavenly bodies acquire new positions, but no new existences, as the lower bodies do. Hence, there is no one matter which is in potentiality to universal being. But God is universally productive of the total being of things. There is, then, no matter corresponding, in proportionate fashion, to Him. Hence, He stands in no need of matter.
Amplius. Quorumcumque in rerum natura est aliqua proportio et aliquis ordo, oportet unum eorum esse ab alio, vel ambo ab aliquo uno: oportet enim ordinem in uno constitui respondendo ad aliud; alias ordo vel proportio esset a casu, quem in primis rerum principiis ponere est impossibile, quia sequeretur magis omnia alia esse a casu. Si igitur sit aliqua materia divinae actioni proportionata, oportet vel quod alterum sit ab altero, vel utrumque a tertio. Sed cum Deus sit primum ens et prima causa, nec potest esse ab aliqua tertia causa. Relinquitur igitur, si invenitur aliqua materia proportionata divinae actioni, quod illius ipse sit causa. [10] Moreover, wherever in the universe we find some mutual proportion and order among things, one of those things must derive its being from another, or both from some one thing. For an order must be founded in one term by it corresponding to another; otherwise, order or proportion would be the result of chance, which cannot be allowed in the first principles of things, since it would then follow with even greater force that all else are fortuitous. So, if a matter commensurate with God’s action exists, it follows either that the one is derived from the other, or both from a third thing. But, since God is the first being and the first cause, He cannot be the effect of matter, nor can He derive His being from any third cause. It remains, therefore, that, if any matter proportioned to God’s action exists, then He Himself is the cause of it.
Adhuc. Quod est in entibus primum, oportet esse causam eorum quae sunt: si enim non essent causata, non essent ab ipso ordinata, ut iam ostensum est. Inter actum autem et potentiam talis est ordo quod, licet in uno et eodem quod quandoque est potentia quandoque actu, potentia sit prior tempore quam actus, licet actus sit prior natura; tamen simpliciter loquendo, oportet actum potentia priorem esse, quod patet ex hoc, quod potentia non reducitur in actum nisi per ens actu. Sed materia est ens in potentia. Ergo oportet quod Deus, qui est actus purus, sit simpliciter ea prior: et per consequens causa ipsius. Non ergo suae actioni praesupponitur materia ex necessitate. [11] The first existent, furthermore, is necessarily the cause of the things that exist; for, if they were not caused, then they would not be set in order from that first being, as we have just shown. Now, the order that obtains between act and potentiality is this: although in one and the same thing which is sometimes in potentiality and sometimes in act, the potentiality is prior in time to the act, which however is prior in nature to the potentiality, nevertheless, absolutely speaking, act is necessarily prior to potentiality. This is evident from the fact that a potentiality is not actualized except by a being actually existing. But matter is only potentially existent. Therefore, God who is pure act, must be absolutely prior to matter, and consequently the cause of it. Matter, then, is not necessarily presupposed for His action.
Item. Materia prima aliquo modo est: quia est ens in potentia. Deus autem est causa omnium quae sunt, ut supra ostensum est. Deus igitur est causa materiae primae. Cui nulla praeexistit. Divina igitur actio naturam praeexistentem non requirit. [12] Also, prime matter in some way is, for it is potentially a being. But God is the cause of everything that is, as was shown above. Hence, God is the cause of prime matter—in respect to which nothing pre-exists. The divine action, therefore, requires no pre-existing nature.
Hanc autem veritatem divina Scriptura confirmat, dicens, Gen. 1-1: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Nihil enim est aliud creare quam absque materia praeiacenti aliquid in esse producere. [13] Holy Scripture confirms this truth, saying: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1). For to create means nothing else than to bring something into being without any pre-existing matter.
Ex hoc autem confutatur error antiquorum philosophorum qui ponebant materiae omnino nullam causam esse, eo quod actionibus particularium agentium semper videbant aliquid actioni praeiacere: ex quo opinionem sumpserunt, omnibus communem, quod ex nihilo nihil fit. Quod quidem in particularibus agentibus verum est. Ad universalis autem agentis, quod est totius esse activum, cognitionem nondum pervenerant, quem nihil in sua actione praesupponere necesse est. [14] This truth refutes the error of the ancient philosophers who asserted that matter has no cause whatsoever, for they perceived that in the actions of particular agents there is always an antecedent subject underlying the action; and from this observation they assumed the opinion common to all, that from nothing, comes nothing. Now, indeed, this is true of particular agents. But the ancient philosophers had not yet attained to the knowledge of the universal agent which is productive of the total being, and for His action necessarily presupposes nothing whatever.

Caput 17 Chapter 17
Quod creatio non est motus neque mutatio THAT CREATION IS NEITHER MOTION NOR CHANGE
Hoc autem ostenso, manifestum est quod Dei actio, quae est absque materia praeiacente et creatio vocatur, non sit motus neque mutatio, proprie loquendo. [1] In the light of what has been proved, it is evident that God’s action, which is without pre-existing matter and is called creation, is neither a motion nor a change, properly speaking.
Motus enim omnis vel mutatio est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huiusmodi. In hac autem actione non praeexistit aliquid in potentia quod suscipiat actionem, ut iam ostensum est. Igitur non est motus neque mutatio. [2] For all motion or change is the “act of that which exists potentially, as such.” But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change.
Item. Extrema motus vel mutationis cadunt in eundem ordinem: vel quia sunt sub uno genere, sicut contraria, ut patet in motu augmenti et alterationis et secundum locum lationis; vel quia communicant in una potentia materiae, ut privatio et forma in generatione et corruptione. Neutrum autem potest dici in creatione: potentia enim ibi non est, nec aliquid eiusdem generis quod praesupponatur creationi, ut probatum est. Igitur non est ibi neque motus neque mutatio. [3] Moreover, the extremes of a motion or change are included in the same order, either because they fall under one genus, as contraries—for example, in the motion of growth or alteration and of carrying a thing from one place to another—or because they share in one potentiality of matter, as do privation and form in generation and corruption. But neither of these alternatives can be attributed to creation; for in this action no potentiality is present, nor does there exist anything of the same genus as this action and which is presupposed for it, as we have proved. In creation, therefore, neither motion nor change exists.
Praeterea. In omni mutatione vel motu oportet esse aliquid aliter se habens nunc et prius: hoc enim ipsum nomen mutationis ostendit. Ubi autem tota substantia rei in esse producitur, non potest esse aliquod idem aliter et aliter se habens: quia illud esset non productum, sed productioni praesuppositum. Non est ergo creatio mutatio. [4] Again, in every change or motion there must be something existing in one way now and in a different way before, for the very word change shows this. But, where the whole substance of a thing is brought into being, there can be no same thing existing in different ways, because such a thing would not itself be produced, but would be presupposed to the production. Hence, creation is not a change.
Adhuc. Oportet quod motus vel mutatio duratione praecedat id quod fit per mutationem vel motum: quia factum esse est principium quietis et terminus motus. Unde oportet omnem mutationem esse motum vel terminum motus, qui est successivus. Et propter hoc, quod fit non est: quia, quandiu durat motus, aliquid fit et non est; in ipso autem termino motus, in quo incipit quies, iam non fit aliquid, sed factum est. In creatione autem non potest hoc esse: quia, si ipsa creatio praecederet ut motus vel mutatio, oporteret sibi praestitui aliquod subiectum; quod est contra rationem creationis. Creatio igitur non est motus neque mutatio. [5] Furthermore, motion or change must precede that which results therefrom; for in the being of the made lies the beginning of rest and the term of motion. Every change, then, must be a motion or a terminus of motion, which is successive. And for this reason, what is being made is not; because so long as the motion endures, something is coming to be, and is not; whereas in the very terminal point of motion, wherein rest begins, a thing no longer is coming to be; it is. In creation, however, this is impossible. For, if creation preceded its product, as do motion or change, then some subject would have to be prior to it; and this is contrary to the nature of creation. Creation, therefore, is neither a motion nor a change.

Caput 18 Chapter 18
Quomodo solvantur ea quae contra creationem obiiciuntur HOW OBJECTIONS AGAINST CREATION ARE SOLVED
Ex hoc autem apparet vanitas impugnantium creationem per rationes sumptas ex natura motus vel mutationis: utpote quod oportet creationem, sicut ceteros motus vel mutationes, esse in aliquo subiecto; et quod oportet non esse transmutari in esse, sicut ignis transmutatur in aerem. [1] Now, what has been said makes apparent the fruitless effort of those who impugn creation by arguments derived from the nature of motion or change—the contention, for example, that creation, like other motions or changes, must take place in a subject, or that in creation non-being must be transmuted into being, just as fire is changed into air.
Non enim est creatio mutatio, sed ipsa dependentia esse creati ad principium a quo statuitur. Et sic est de genere relationis. Unde nihil prohibet eam in creato esse sicut in subiecto. [2] For creation is not a change, but the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, creation is a kind of relation; so that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.
Videtur tamen creatio esse mutatio quaedam secundum modum intelligendi tantum: inquantum scilicet intellectus noster accipit unam et eandem rem ut non existentem prius, et postea existentem. [3] Nevertheless, creation appears to be a kind of change from the point of view of our way of understanding only, namely, in that our intellect grasps one and the same thing as not existing before and as existing afterwards.
Apparet autem, si creatio relatio quaedam est, quod res quaedam est: et neque increata est; neque alia relatione creata. Cum enim effectus creatus realiter dependeat a creante, oportet huiusmodi relationem esse rem quandam. Omnis autem res a Deo in esse producitur. Est igitur in esse a Deo producta. Non tamen alia creatione creata, quam ipsa creatura prima quae per eam creata dicitur. Quia accidentia et formae, sicut per se non sunt, ita nec per se creantur, cum creatio sit productio entis: sed, sicut in alio sunt, ita aliis creatis creantur. Praeterea. Relatio non refertur per aliam relationem, quia sic esset abire in infinitum: sed per seipsam refertur, quia essentialiter relatio est. Non igitur alia creatione opus est, qua ipsa creatio creetur, et sic in infinitum procedatur. [4] But, clearly, if creation is some sort of relation, then it is a certain reality; and neither is it uncreated nor is it created by another relation. For, since a created effect depends really upon its creator, a relation of real dependency, such as this, must itself be something real. But everything real is brought into being by God; it therefore owes its being to God. It is not, however, created by a creation other than that whereby this first creature itself is said to be created. For just as accidents and forms do not exist by themselves, so neither are they created by themselves; creation is the production of a being. Rather, just as accidents and forms exist in another, so are they created when other things are created. Moreover, a relation is not referred through another relation, for in that case we would fall into an infinite regress; but it is referential of itself, because it is a relation by essence. Hence, there is no need for another creation by which creation itself is created, and so on to infinity.

Quod in creatione non sit successio Chapter 19
Apparet etiam ex praedictis quod omnis creatio absque successione est. THAT IN CREATION NO SUCCESSION EXISTS
Nam successio propria est motui. Creatio autem non est motus; nec terminus motus, sicut mutatio. Igitur nulla est in ipsa successio. [1] From the foregoing it is also clear that all creation is successionless. [2] For succession characterizes motion. But creation is not a motion, nor the term of a motion, as a change is; hence, there is no succession in it.
Item. In omni motu successivo est aliquid medium inter eius extrema: quia medium est ad quod continue motum primo venit quam ad ultimum. Inter esse autem et non esse, quae sunt quasi extrema creationis, non potest esse aliquid medium. Igitur non est ibi aliqua successio. [3] In every successive motion, furthermore, there exists some mean between the extremes of the motion; for a mean is that which a continuously moved thing attains first before reaching the terminal point. But between being and non-being, which are as it were the extremes of creation, no mean can possibly exist. Therefore, in creation there is no succession.
Adhuc. In omni factione in qua est successio, fieri est ante factum esse: ut probatur in VI physicorum. Hoc autem in creatione non potest accidere. Quia fieri quod praecederet factum esse creaturae, indigeret aliquo subiecto. Quod non posset esse ipsa creatura de cuius creatione loquimur, quia illa non est ante factum esse: nec etiam in factore, non enim moveri est actus moventis, sed moti. Relinqueretur igitur quod fieri haberet pro subiecto aliquam materiam facti praeexistentem. Quod est contra creationis rationem. Impossibile est igitur in creatione successionem esse. [4] Again, in every making involving succession, a thing is in process of becoming prior to its actual production, as is shown in Physics VI [6]. But this cannot occur in creation. For the becoming which would precede the creature’s actual production would require a subject. The latter could not be the creature itself, of whose creation we are speaking, since, before being made, the creature is not. Nor would that subject lie in the maker, because to be moved is an act not of the mover, but of the thing moved. It therefore remains that some pre-existing matter of the thing produced would be the subject of the process of becoming. This is contrary to the idea of creation. It is therefore impossible that creation should involve succession.
Amplius. Omnem factionem successivam in tempore oportet esse: prius enim et posterius in motu numerantur tempore. Simul autem dividitur tempus, et motus, et id super quod transit motus. Quod quidem in motu locali manifestum est: nam in medietate temporis regulariter motum pertransit medium magnitudinis. Divisio autem in formis respondens divisioni temporis attenditur secundum intensionem et remissionem: ut, si aliquid in tanto tempore tantum calefit, in minori minus. Secundum hoc igitur potest esse successio in motu, vel quacumque factione, quod id secundum quod est motus, est divisibile: vel secundum quantitatem, sicut in motu locali et in augmento; vel secundum intensionem et remissionem, sicut in alteratione. Hoc autem secundum contingit dupliciter: uno modo, quia ipsa forma quae est terminus motus, est divisibilis secundum intensionem et remissionem, sicut patet cum aliquid movetur ad albedinem; alio modo, quia talis divisio contingit in dispositionibus ad talem formam, sicut fieri ignis successivum est propter alterationem praecedentem circa dispositiones ad formam. Ipsum autem esse substantiale creaturae non est divisibile modo praedicto: quia substantia non suscipit magis et minus. Nec in creatione praecedunt dispositiones, materia non praeexistente: nam dispositio ex parte materiae est. Relinquitur igitur quod in creatione non possit esse aliqua successio. [5] And again. Every successive making must take place in time; since before and after in motion are numbered by time. But time, motion, and the thing that is in motion are all simultaneously divided. This, indeed, is manifestly so in local motion; for, if the motion is regular, half the motion will occupy half the time. Now, the division in forms corresponding to the division of time is in terms of intensification and diminution; thus, if a thing is heated to a certain degree in so much time, it is heated to a less degree in less time. Hence, there can be succession in motion, or in any making, so far as that which is affected by motion is divisible, either in point of quantity, as in local motion and in growth, or as regards intensity and remission, as in alteration. The latter, however, takes place in two ways: in one way, because the form, which is the term of the motion, is divisible with respect to intensity and remission, as is evidently the case when a thing is in process of motion toward whiteness; in another way, because a division of this kind occurs in dispositions to such a form; thus, the process whereby the form of fire comes to exist is successive on account of preceding alteration in the dispositions towards the form. But the very substantial being of the creature is not divisible in this way; for “substance is not susceptible of degrees. Nor do any dispositions precede creation, since there is here no pre-existing matter, and disposition is on the side of matter. It follows that in creation no succession is possible.
Praeterea. Successio in rerum factionibus ex defectu materiae provenit, quae non convenienter est a principio ad receptionem formae disposita: unde, quando materia iam perfecte disposita est ad formam, eam recipit in instanti. Et inde est quod, quia diaphanum semper est in ultima dispositione ad lucem, statim ad praesentiam lucidi in actu illuminatur; nec aliquis motus praecedit ex parte illuminabilis, sed solum motus localis ex parte illuminantis, per quem fit praesens. In creatione autem nihil praeexigitur ex parte materiae: nec aliquid deest agenti ad agendum quod postea per motum ei adveniat, cum sit immobilis, ut in primo huius operis ostensum est. Relinquitur igitur quod creatio sit in instanti. Unde simul aliquid, dum creatur, creatum est: sicut simul illuminatur et illuminatum est. [6] Successiveness in the making of things, moreover, derives from a defect of the matter, which is not suitably disposed from the beginning for the reception of the form; so that, when the matter is already perfectly disposed for the form, it receives it immediately. For instance, because a transparent body is always in a state of complete readiness to receive light, it is illuminated at once by the presence of a luminous object; nor is there here any antecedent motion on the part of the illuminable thing, but only the illuminating agent’s local motion by which it becomes present. But nothing having the character of matter is prerequisite to creation; nor for the accomplishment of His action does God as agent lack anything which might accrue to Him afterwards through movement~ because He is immobile, as we proved in Book I of this work. It therefore remains that creation is instantaneous. Thus, a thing simultaneously is being created and is created, even as a thing at the same moment is being illuminated and is illuminated.
Et inde est quod Scriptura divina creationem rerum in indivisibili factam pronunciat, dicens: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram; quod quidem principium Basilius principium temporis exponit; quod oportet esse indivisibile, ut in VI physicorum probatur. [7] And so it is that holy Scripture proclaims the creation of things to have been effected in an indivisible instant; for it is written: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1). And Basil explains that this beginning is “the beginning of time” and is necessarily indivisible, as Aristotle proves in i VI [3].

Caput 20 Chapter 20
Quod nullum corpus potest creare THAT NO BODY IS CAPABLE OF CREATIVE ACTION
Ex hoc autem evidenter apparet quod nullum corpus potest aliquid per modum creationis producere. [1] The preceding considerations make it perfectly clear that no body can produce anything by creation.
Nullum enim corpus agit nisi moveatur: eo quod oporteat agens et patiens esse simul, vel faciens et factum; simul autem sunt quae in eodem loco sunt, ut habetur in V Phys.; locum autem non acquirit corpus nisi per motum. Nullum autem corpus movetur nisi in tempore. Quicquid igitur fit per actionem corporis, fit successive. Creatio autem, ut ostensum est non habet successionem. Nihil igitur potest a corpore quocumque per modum creationis produci. [2] A body acts only if it is moved, for the agent acting and the patient being acted upon, or the maker making and the thing being made, must exist together, simultaneously. Now, “those things are simultaneously existent which are in the same place,” as is pointed out in Physics V [3], and it is only by motion that a body acquires a place. But no body is moved except in time. Therefore, whatever is made by the action of a body comes to be successively. Yet, as we have just shown, creation is successionless. Therefore, nothing can be produced creatively by any bodily thing whatsoever.
Praeterea. Omne agens quod agit inquantum movetur, de necessitate movet illud in quod agit: factum enim et passum consequitur dispositionem facientis et agentis, eo quod omne agens agit sibi simile, unde, si agens, non in eadem dispositione se habens, agit inquantum per motum variatur, oportet quod etiam in patiente et facto quaedam renovatio dispositionum fiat, quod sine motu esse non potest. Omne autem corpus non movet nisi motum, ut probatum est. Nihil igitur fit a corporis actione nisi per motum vel mutationem facti. Creatio autem non est mutatio nec motus, ut ostensum est. Igitur nullum corpus potest aliquid causare creando. [3] Again. Every agent that acts so far as it is moved, necessarily moves that upon which it acts; the thing made and the thing acted upon are determined by the disposition of the maker and agent, for every agent produces its like. So, if an agent, while varying in disposition, acts in that it is changed by movement, a succession of new dispositions must also arise in the patient and in the thing made; and this cannot take place without motion. But as was shown, a body does not move unless it is moved. Therefore, nothing is made by the action of a body except through the motion or change of the thing made. It was, however, shown above that creation is neither a change nor a motion. It remains that no body can cause anything by creating it.
Item. Cum agens et factum oporteat sibi esse similia, non potest esse productivum totius substantiae facti quod non tota sua substantia agit: sicut e converso probat philosophus, in VII Metaph., quod forma sine materia, quae tota se agit, non potest esse causa proxima generationis, secundum quam sola forma in actum educitur. Nullum autem corpus tota sua substantia agit, etsi totum agat: quia, cum omne agens agat per formam qua actu est, illud solum per totam suam substantiam agere poterit cuius est tota substantia forma; quod de nullo corpore potest dici, cum omne corpus habeat materiam, eo quod omne corpus est mutabile. Ergo nullum corpus potest aliquid producere secundum totam eius substantiam: quod est de ratione creationis. [4] Moreover, since agent and effect must be similar to each other, a thing that does not act by its total substance cannot produce the total substance of its effect. Thus, Aristotle proves [ Metaph. VI, 8], conversely, that an immaterial form, which acts by its whole self, cannot be the proximate cause of a process of generation whereby the form alone is actualized. But no body acts by its total substance, although the whole substance acts. For, since every agent acts through the form by which it is in act, only that thing whose total substance is a form will be capable of acting by its total substance. Of no body can it be said that its whole substance consists of form; every body possesses matter because every body is mutable. Therefore, no body can produce a thing according to its total substance; and this pertains to the very essence of creation.
Amplius. Creare non est nisi potentiae infinitae. Tanto enim est maioris potentiae agens aliquod, quanto potentiam magis ab actu distantem in actum reducere potest: ut quod potest ex aqua ignem facere, quam quod ex aere. Unde, ubi omnino potentia praeexistens subtrahitur, exceditur omnis determinatae distantiae proportio, et sic necesse est potentiam agentis quae aliquid instituit nulla potentia praeexistente, excedere omnem proportionem quae posset considerari ad potentiam agentis aliquid ex materia facientis. Nulla autem potentia corporis est infinita: ut probatur a philosopho in VIII physicorum. Nullum igitur corpus potest aliquid creare, quod est ex nihilo aliquid facere. [5] Furthermore, creation is the act of an infinite power alone. For the greater the power of an agent, the greater is its capacity for actualizing a potentiality more and more remote from actual existence; a power able to produce fire from water is greater than one that can make fire from air; so that where pre-existing potentiality is altogether eliminated, every relation of a determinate distance is transcended; and thus the power of an agent which produces something from no pre-existing potentiality whatever must immeasurably surpass the power of an agent which produces something from matter. Now, no power possessed by a body is infinite as Aristotle proved in Physics VIII [10]. Hence, no bodily thing is capable of creating—of making something from nothing.
Adhuc. Movens et motum, faciens et factum, oportet simul esse: ut probatur in VII physicorum. Corpus autem agens non potest adesse suo effectui nisi per contactum, quo tangentium ultima fiunt simul. Unde impossibile est aliquod corpus agere nisi tangendo. Tactus autem alicuius ad alterum est. Et sic, ubi non est aliquid praeexistens praeter agens, sicut in creatione accidit, tactus esse non potest. Nullum igitur corpus potest agere creando. [6] Again, as Aristotle proves in Physics VII [2], there is nothing intermediate between this mover moving and this thing moved by it— this thing making and this thing made by it; mover and moved, maker and made must exist together. But a bodily agent can be present to its effect only by contact, whereby the extremities of contiguous things come together. No bodily thing, then, can act except by contact. Now, contact involves the relation of one thing to another. Consequently, where there is nothing pre-existent besides the agent, there can be no contact; and this is the case in creation. Hence, no body can act by creating.
Patet igitur falsitas positionis quorundam dicentium substantiam caelestium corporum causam materiae elementorum esse: cum materia causam habere non possit nisi id quod creando agit; eo quod ipsa est primum motus et mutationis subiectum. [7] Patently false, therefore, is the position of those who said that the substance of the heavenly bodies causes the matter of the elements; matter can have no other cause than an agent which acts by creating, for matter is the first subject of motion and change.

Caput 21 Chapter 21
Ex praemissis etiam ostendi potest ulterius quod creatio est propria Dei actio, et quod eius solius est creare. [1] In the light of what has been said, it can be shown further that creation is an action proper to God, and that He alone can create.
Cum enim secundum ordinem agentium sit ordo actionum, eo quod nobilioris agentis nobilior est actio: oportet quod prima actio sit primi agentis propria. Creatio autem est prima actio: eo quod nullam aliam praesupponit, omnes autem aliae praesupponunt eam. Est igitur creatio propria Dei solius actio, qui est agens primum. [2] Corresponding to the order of agents is the order of actions; for the nobler the agent, the nobler is its action; so that the first action must belong to the first agent. But creation is the first action because it presupposes no other action, whereas all others presuppose it. Therefore, creation is exclusively proper to God, who is the first agent.
Item. Ex hoc ostensum est quod Deus creat res, quia nihil potest esse praeter ipsum ab eo non causatum. Hoc autem nulli alii convenire potest: cum nihil aliud sit universalis causa essendi. Soli igitur Deo competit creatio, sicut propria eius actio. [3] Moreover, it was proved that God creates things, from the fact that there can be nothing besides Himself that is not caused by Him. But of nothing else can this be said, for only He is the universal cause of being. Hence, creation belongs to God alone, as His proper action.
Adhuc. Effectus suis causis proportionaliter respondent: ut scilicet effectus in actu causis actualibus attribuamus, et effectus in potentia causis quae sunt in potentia; et similiter effectus particulares causis particularibus, universalibus vero universales; ut docet philosophus, in II physicorum. Esse autem est causatum primum: quod ex ratione suae communitatis apparet. Causa igitur propria essendi est agens primum et universale, quod Deus est. Alia vero agentia non sunt causa essendi simpliciter, sed causa essendi hoc, ut hominem vel album. Esse autem simpliciter per creationem causatur, quae nihil praesupponit: quia non potest aliquid praeexistere quod sit extra ens simpliciter. Per alias factiones fit hoc ens vel tale: nam ex ente praeexistente fit hoc ens vel tale. Ergo creatio est propria Dei actio. [4] Furthermore, effects correspond proportionally to their causes, so that we attribute actual effects to actual causes, potential effects to potential causes, and, similarly, particular effects to particular causes and universal effects to universal causes, as Aristotle teaches in Physics II [3]. Now, the act of being is the first effect, and this is evident by reason of the universal presence of this act. It follows that the proper cause of the act of being is the first and universal agent, namely, God. Other agents, indeed, are not the cause of the act of being as such, but of being this—of being a man or being white, for example. On the contrary, the act of being, as such, is caused by creation, which presupposes nothing; because nothing can pre-exist that is outside being as such. By makings other than creation, this being or such being is produced; for out of pre-existent being is made this being or such a being. It remains that creation is the proper action of God.
Amplius. Quicquid est causatum secundum aliquam naturam, non potest esse prima causa illius naturae, sed secunda et instrumentalis. Socrates enim, quia habet suae humanitatis causam, non potest esse prima humanitatis causa: quia, cum humanitas sua sit ab aliquo causata, sequeretur quod esset sui ipsius causa, cum sit id quod est per humanitatem. Et ideo oportet quod generans univocum sit quasi agens instrumentale respectu eius quod est causa primaria totius speciei. Et inde est quod oportet omnes causas inferiores agentes reduci in causas superiores sicut instrumentales in primarias. Omnis autem alia substantia praeter Deum habet esse causatum ab alio, ut supra probatum est. Impossibile est igitur quod sit causa essendi nisi sicut instrumentalis et agens in virtute alterius. Instrumentum autem nunquam adhibetur nisi ad causandum aliquid per viam motus: est enim ratio instrumenti quod sit movens motum. Creatio autem non est motus, ut ostensum est. Nulla igitur substantia praeter Deum potest aliquid creare. [5] Again, whatever is caused as regards some particular nature cannot be the first cause of that nature, but only a second and instrumental cause; for example, since the human nature of Socrates has a cause, he cannot be the first cause of human nature; if so, since his human nature is caused by someone, it would follow that he was the cause of himself, since he is what he is by virtue of human nature. Thus, a univocal generator must have the status of an instrumental agent in respect to that which is the primary cause of the whole species. Accordingly, all lower efficient causes must be referred to higher ones, as instrumental to principal agents. The existence of every substance other than God is caused, as we proved above. No such substance, then, could possibly be the cause of existence otherwise than as instrumental and as acting by virtue of another agent. But it is only in order to cause something by way of motion that an instrument is ever employed; for to be a moved mover is the very essence of an instrument. We have already shown, however, that creation is not a motion. Hence, no substance besides God can create anything.
Item. Instrumentum adhibetur propter convenientiam eius cum causato, ut sit medium inter causam primam et causatum et attingat utrumque, et sic influentia primi perveniat ad causatum per instrumentum. Unde oportet quod sit aliquid recipiens primi influentiam in eo quod per instrumentum causatur. Quod est contra rationem creationis: nam nihil praesupponit. Relinquitur igitur quod nihil aliud praeter Deum potest creare, neque sicut principale agens neque sicut instrumentum. [6] An instrument, moreover, is used because it is adapted to a certain effect, and can therefore mediate between the first cause and the effect, being in contact with both; the influence of the first cause thus reaches the effect through the instrument. Hence, there must be a recipient of the influx of the first cause upon that which is caused by the instrument. But this is contrary to the notion of creation, which presupposes nothing whatever. It therefore remains that nothing besides God can create, either as principal agent or as instrument.
Praeterea. Omne agens instrumentale exequitur actionem principalis agentis per aliquam actionem propriam et connaturalem sibi: sicut calor naturalis generat carnem dissolvendo et digerendo, et serra operatur ad perfectionem scamni secando. Si igitur aliqua creatura sit quae operatur ad creationem sicut instrumentum primi creantis, oportet quod hoc operetur per aliquam actionem debitam et propriam suae naturae. Effectus autem respondens actioni propriae instrumenti est prior in via generationis quam effectus respondens principali agenti, ex quo provenit quod primo agenti finis ultimus respondet: prius enim est sectio ligni quam forma scamni, et digestio cibi quam generatio carnis. Oportebit igitur aliquid esse effectum per propriam operationem instrumentalis creantis quod sit prius in via generationis quam esse, quod est effectus respondens actioni primi creantis. Hoc autem est impossibile: nam quanto aliquid est communius, tanto est prius in via generationis; sicut prius est animal quam homo in generatione hominis, ut philosophus dicit, in libro de generatione animalium. Impossibile est ergo quod aliqua creatura creet, neque sicut principale agens neque instrumentaliter. [7] Furthermore, it is by an action proper and connatural to itself that every instrumental agent carries out the action of the principal agent; thus, by processes of dissolving and dividing, natural heat generates flesh, and a saw, by cutting, plays its part in completing the work of making a stool. If, therefore, there exists a creature which participates in the work of creation as an instrument of the first creator, it must do so by an action due and proper to its own nature. Now, the effect answering to an instrument’s proper action is prior, in the order of productive process, to the effect corresponding to the principal agent. So it is that the ultimate end corresponds to the first agent; thus, the cutting of the wood precedes the form of the stool, and the digestion of food, the production of flesh. Hence, by the proper operation of the creating instrument, something will have to be produced that is prior, in the order of production, to being—which is the effect corresponding to the action of the first agent. But this is impossible, because, the more universal a thing is, the greater its priority in the order of production; so, as Aristotle says in his book On the Generation of Animals [II, 3], animal precedes man in the generation of man. That any creature should exercise creative action, either as principal agent, or instrumentally, is, therefore, impossible.
Item. Quod est secundum aliquam naturam causatum, non potest esse simpliciter illius naturae causa, esset enim sui ipsius causa: potest autem esse causa illius naturae in hoc, sicut Plato est causa humanae naturae in Socrate, non autem simpliciter, eo quod ipse est causatus in humana natura. Quod autem est causa alicuius in hoc, est attribuens naturam communem alicui per quod specificatur vel individuatur. Quod non potest esse per creationem, quae nihil praesupponit cui aliquid attribuatur per actionem. Impossibile est igitur aliquod ens creatum esse causam alterius per creationem. [8] Again, that which is caused with respect to some nature cannot be the cause of that nature simply, for then it would be the cause of itself. It can, however, be the cause of that nature in this individual; if Plato is the cause of human nature in Socrates, he is not so absolutely speaking, for Plato is himself caused with respect to human nature. Now, that which is the cause of something in this individual is the communicator of a common nature to some particular thing whereby that nature is specified or individuated. Such communication cannot be effected by creation, which presupposes nothing to which anything can be communicated by action. That a created being should be the creative cause of anything else is thus impossible.
Amplius. Cum omne agens agat secundum quod actu est, oportet modum actionis esse secundum modum actus ipsius rei: unde calidum quod magis est in actu caloris, magis calefacit. Cuiuscumque igitur actus determinatur ad genus et speciem et accidens, eius virtutem oportet esse determinatam ad effectus similes agenti inquantum huiusmodi: eo quod omne agens agit sibi simile. Nihil autem quod habet esse determinatum, potest esse simile alteri eiusdem generis vel speciei nisi secundum rationem generis vel speciei: nam secundum quod est hoc aliquid, unumquodque est ab alio distinctum. Nihil igitur cuius esse finitum est, potest per suam actionem esse causa alterius nisi quantum ad hoc quod habet genus vel speciem: non autem quantum ad hoc quod subsistit ab aliis distinctum. Omne igitur agens finitum praesupponit ad suam actionem hoc unde causatum suum individualiter subsistit. Non ergo creat: sed solum hoc est agentis cuius esse est infinitum, quod est omnis entis comprehendens similitudinem, ut supra ostensum est. [9] And again, since every agent acts so far as it is in act, the mode of action must follow the mode of a thing’s actual being; the hotter a thing actually is, the more beat it gives. Therefore, anything whose actuality is subject to generic, specific, and accidental determinations must have a power that is limited to effects similar to the agent as such; for every agent produces its like. But nothing whose being is finite can be like another of the same genus or species, except as regards the nature of the genus or the species; for each single being, so far as it is this particular thing, is distinct from every other one. Therefore, nothing whose being is finite can be the efficient cause of another, except as regards its possession of a genus or species, not as regards its subsisting as distinct from others. Hence, that by which the effect of a finite agent subsists as an individual is the necessary pre-condition of such an agent’s action. Therefore, it does not create. Rather, the act of creation belongs solely to that agent whose being is infinite, and which, as we proved in Book I, embraces in itself the likeness of all being.
Adhuc. Cum omne quod fit ad hoc fiat ut sit, oportet, si aliquid fieri dicatur quod prius fuerit, quod hoc non fiat per se, sed per accidens, per se vero illud quod prius non fuit: ut, si ex albo fiat nigrum, fit quidem et nigrum et coloratum, sed nigrum per se, quia fit ex non nigro, coloratum autem per accidens, nam prius coloratum erat. Sic igitur, cum fit aliquod ens, ut homo vel lapis, homo quidem fit per se, quia ex non homine: ens autem per accidens, quia non ex non ente simpliciter, sed ex non ente hoc, ut philosophus dicit, in I physicorum. Cum igitur aliquid fit omnino ex non ente, ens per se fiet. Oportet igitur quod ab eo quod est per se causa essendi: nam effectus proportionaliter reducuntur in causas. Hoc autem est primum ens solum, quod est causa entis inquantum huiusmodi: alia vero sunt causa essendi per accidens, et huius esse per se. Cum igitur producere ens non ex ente praeexistente sit creare, oportet quod solius Dei sit creare. [10] Moreover, since the reason why anything is made is that it may be, if a thing is said to be made which existed before, it follows that it is made not through itself, but by accident; whereas that is made through itself which was not before. Thus, if from white a thing is made black, it indeed is made both black and colored; but black through itself, because it is made from not-black, and colored by accident, since it was colored before. So, in the production of a being of some particular kind, what is made through itself is that particular being; what is made by accident is simply a being; when a human being is born, it is a man that comes to be in an unqualified sense, a being that comes to be in a qualified sense, because a man is made, not from non-being as such, but from this particular non-being, as Aristotle says in Physics I [8]. Therefore, when a thing comes to be from non-being unqualifiedly speaking, what it made through itself is a being. In that case it must derive from that which is, through itself, the cause of being, for effects are referred to their proportionate causes. Now, it is the first being alone which is the cause of being as being; other things are the cause of being, by accident, and of this particular being, through themselves. Since to create is to produce being from nothing pre-existing, it follows that this act is exclusively God’s own.
Huic autem veritati sacrae Scripturae auctoritas attestatur, quae Deum omnia creasse affirmat, Gen. 1-1: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Damascenus etiam, in secundo sui libri, dicit: quicumque vero aiunt Angelos creatores esse cuiuscumque substantiae, hi omnes sunt patris sui Diaboli: creaturae enim existentes non sunt creatores. Per haec autem destruitur quorundam philosophorum error qui dixerunt Deum creasse primam substantiam separatam, et ab ea fuisse creatam secundam, et sic quodam ordine usque ad ultimam. [11] The authority of Sacred Scripture bears witness to this truth, affirming that God created all things: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1). Damascene, also, in the second part of his work writes: “All those who say that the angels are creators of any substance whatever have the devil as their father, for no creatures in existence are creators” [ De fide orthodoxa ]. [12] Thus is destroyed the error of certain philosophers who said that God created the first separate substance, which in turn created the second, and so on in orderly fashion to the last one.

Caput 22 Chapter 22
Quod Deus omnia possit THAT GOD IS OMNIPOTENT
Ex hoc autem apparet quod divina virtus non determinatur ad aliquem unum effectum. [1] It is evident, then, that God’s power is not determined to some single effect.
Si enim solius Dei creare est, ab ipso immediate producta esse oportet quaecumque a sua causa produci non possunt nisi per modum creationis. Huiusmodi autem sunt omnes substantiae separatae, quae non sunt compositae ex materia et forma, quas esse nunc supponatur; et similiter omnis materia corporalis. Haec igitur, tam diversa existentia, praedictae virtutis immediatus effectus sunt. Nulla autem virtus producens immediate plures effectus non ex materia, est determinata ad unum effectum. Dico autem immediate: quia, si per media produceret, posset provenire diversitas ex parte mediarum causarum. Dico etiam non ex materia: quia idem agens et eadem actione causat diversos effectus secundum materiae diversitatem, sicut calor ignis, qui indurat lutum et dissolvit ceram. Dei igitur virtus non est determinata ad unum effectum. [2] For, if God alone can create, then anything that can be brought into being only by creative causality must necessarily be produced by Him. In this category fall all separate substances—which are not composed of matter and form, and whose existence we now suppose, as well as the totality of corporeal matter. These diverse existents, then, are the immediate effects of God’s power. Now, no power which produces immediately a number of effects, but not from matter, is determined to one particular effect. I say immediately, because, if it produced them through intermediaries, the diversity might result from the latter. And I say not from matter, because the same agent by the same action causes diverse effects in accordance with the diversity of the matter involved; the heat of fire hardens clay and melts wav. God’s power, therefore, is not determined to one effect.
Item. Omnis virtus perfecta ad ea omnia se extendit ad quae suus per se et proprius effectus se extendere potest: sicut aedificativa ad omnia se extendit, si perfecta sit, quae possunt rationem habere domus. Virtus autem divina est per se causa essendi, et esse est eius proprius effectus, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo ad omnia illa se extendit quae rationi entis non repugnant: si enim in quendam tantum effectum virtus eius posset, non esset per se causa entis inquantum huiusmodi, sed huius entis. Rationi autem entis repugnat oppositum entis, quod est non ens. Omnia igitur Deus potest quae in se rationem non entis non includunt. Haec autem sunt quae contradictionem implicant. Relinquitur igitur quod quicquid contradictionem non implicat, Deus potest. [3] Again, every perfect power reaches out to all those things to which the effect possessed by it through itself and proper to it can extend; whatever can have the character of a dwelling falls within the range of the art of building, if it is perfect. Now, God’s power is through itself the cause of being, and the act of being is His proper effect, as was made clear above. Hence, His power reaches out to all things with which the notion of being is not incompatible; for, if God’s power were limited to some particular effect, He would not be through Himself the cause of a being as such, but of this particular being. Now, the opposite of being, namely, non-being, is incompatible with the notion of being. Hence, God can do all things which do not essentially include the notion of non-being, and such are those which involve a contradiction. It follows that God can do whatever does not imply a contradiction.
Adhuc. Omne agens agit inquantum actu est. Secundum igitur modum actus uniuscuiusque agentis est modus suae virtutis in agendo: homo enim generat hominem, et ignis ignem. Deus autem est actus perfectus, in se omnium perfectiones habens, ut supra ostensum est. Est igitur sua virtus activa perfecta, ad omnia se habens quaecumque non repugnant rationi eius quod est esse in actu. Hoc autem est solum quod contradictionem implicat. Omnia igitur praeter haec Deus potest. [4] Furthermore, every agent acts so far as it is in act. Hence, the mode of an agent’s power in acting accords with its mode of act; man begets man, and fire begets fire. Now, God is perfect act, possessing in Himself the perfections of all things, as we have already shown. His active power, therefore, is perfect, extending to everything not repugnant to the notion of that which is being in act; namely, to everything except that which implies a contradiction. God, then, is omnipotent as regards all but this.
Amplius. Omni potentiae passivae respondet potentia activa. Potentia enim propter actum est, sicut materia propter formam. Non potest autem ens in potentia consequi quod sit actu nisi per virtutem alicuius existentis in actu. Otiosa igitur esset potentia nisi esset virtus activa agentis quae eam in actum reducere posset: cum tamen nihil sit otiosum in rebus naturae. Et per hunc modum videmus quod omnia quae sunt in potentia materiae generabilium et corruptibilium, possunt reduci in actum per virtutem activam quae est in corpore caelesti, quod est primum activum in natura. Sicut autem corpus caeleste est primum agens respectu corporum inferiorum, ita Deus est primum agens respectu totius entis creati. Quicquid igitur est in potentia entis creati, totum hoc Deus per suam virtutem activam facere potest. In potentia autem entis creati est omne quod enti creato non repugnat: sicut in potentia naturae humanae sunt omnia quae naturam humanam non tollunt. Omnia igitur Deus potest. [5] Corresponding to every passive power, moreover, there is an active one; because potency is for the sake of act, as is matter for the sake of form. Now, it is only by the power of a thing existing actually that a potentially existent being can be made actual. A potency would thus be without purpose unless there existed the active power of an agent which could actualize it. And yet, in the real world, there is nothing purposeless. Thus, we see that all things potentially existent in the matter of generable and corruptible entities can be actualized by the active power present in the heavenly body, which is the primary active force in nature. Now, just as the heavenly body is the first agent in respect to lower bodies, so God is the first agent as regards the totality of created being. Therefore, by His active power God is able to do everything whatsoever that lies within the potency of the created being. But in the potency of the created being is everything that is not opposed to itself; just as human nature is patient of everything except that which would destroy it. Therefore, God can do all things.
Praeterea. Quod effectus aliquis non subsit potentiae alicuius agentis, potest ex tribus contingere. Uno modo, per hoc quod non habet cum agente affinitatem vel similitudinem: agens enim omne agit sibi simile aliquo modo. Unde virtus quae est in semine hominis, non potest producere brutum vel plantam: hominem autem potest, qui tamen praedicta excedit. Alio modo, propter excellentiam effectus, qui transcendit proportionem virtutis activae: sicut virtus activa corporalis non potest producere substantiam separatam. Tertio modo, propter materiam determinatam ad effectum, in quam agens agere non potest: sicut carpentarius non potest facere serram, quia sua arte non potest agere in ferrum, ex quo fit serra.
Nullo autem istorum modorum potest aliquis effectus subtrahi divinae virtuti. Neque enim propter dissimilitudinem effectus aliquid ei impossibile esse potest: cum omne ens, inquantum habet esse, sit ei simile, ut supra ostensum est. Nec etiam propter effectus excellentiam: cum ostensum sit quod Deus est supra omnia entia in bonitate et perfectione. Nec iterum propter defectum materiae: cum ipse sit causa materiae, quae non possibilis est causari nisi per creationem. Ipse etiam in agendo non requirit materiam: cum, nullo praeexistente, rem in esse producat. Et sic propter materiae defectum eius actio impediri non potest ab effectus productione.
Restat igitur quod divina virtus non determinetur ad aliquem effectum, sed simpliciter omnia potest: quod est eum esse omnipotentem.
[6] Furthermore, there are three reasons why some particular effect may escape the power of some particular agent. First, because the effect has no likeness or affinity to the agent—for every agent produces its like in some fashion. Thus, the power in human seed cannot produce an irrational animal or a plant, yet it can produce a man—a being superior to those things. Secondly, because of the excellence of the effect, which is disproportionate to the agent’s power; thus, an active corporeal power cannot produce a separate substance. Thirdly, because the effect requires a matter upon which the agent cannot act; a carpenter cannot make a saw, since his art does not enable him to act upon iron, from which a saw is made.
[7] But for none of these reasons can any effect be withdrawn from God’s power. For, first, not because of its dissimilarity to Him can any effect be impossible to Him, since every being, so far as it has being, is similar to Him, as was shown above. Nor, secondly, because of the excellence of the effect, since it has been shown already that God transcends all things in goodness and perfection. Nor, thirdly, because of any material deficiency, since God is Himself the cause of matter, which cannot be produced except by creation. Moreover, in acting, God needs no matter, because He brings a thing into being where nothing whatever existed before; hence, His action cannot be hindered from producing its effect because of any lack of matter.
[8] We therefore conclude that God’s power is not limited to some particular effect, but that He is able to do absolutely all things; in other words, He is omnipotent.
Hinc est quod etiam divina Scriptura fide tenendum hoc tradit. Dicitur enim Gen. 17-1, ex ore Dei: ego Deus omnipotens: ambula coram me et esto perfectus; et Iob 42-2: scio quia omnia potes; et Lucae 1-37, ex ore Angeli: non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. [9] So too, Divine Scripture teaches this as a matter of faith. For in the person of God Himself it is said: “I am the almighty God: walk before me and be perfect” (Gen. 17:1); and Job (42:2) says: “I know that You can do all things”; and in the person of the angel: “No word shall be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37).
Per hoc autem evacuatur quorundam philosophorum error qui posuerunt a Deo immediate produci unum effectum tantum, quasi virtus eius ad illius productionem determinata esset; et quod Deus non potest aliud facere nisi secundum quod cursus rerum naturalium se habet; de quibus dicitur Iob 22-17: quasi nihil posset omnipotens, aestimabant eum. [10] Thus is eliminated the error of certain philosophers who asserted that God produced immediately one effect only, as if His power were limited to the production of it, and that God can produce another only by acting in accordance with the natural train of events. Of such persons it is written: “Who looked upon the Almighty as if He could do nothing” (Job 22:17).

Caput 23 Chapter 23
Quod Deus non agat ex necessitate naturae THAT GOD DOES NOT ACT BY NATURAL NECESSITY
Ex hoc autem ostenditur quod Deus agit in creaturis non per necessitatem naturae, sed per arbitrium voluntatis. [1] From what has been said it follows that God acts, in the realm of created things, not by necessity of His nature, but by the free choice of His will.
Omnis enim agentis per necessitatem naturae virtus determinatur ad unum effectum. Et inde est quod omnia naturalia semper eveniunt eodem modo, nisi sit impedimentum: non autem voluntaria. Divina autem virtus non ordinatur ad unum effectum tantum, ut supra ostensum est. Deus igitur non agit per necessitatem naturae, sed per voluntatem. [2] For the power of every agent which acts by natural necessity is determined to one effect; that is why all natural things invariably happen in the same way, unless there be an obstacle; while voluntary things do not. God’s power, however, is not ordered to one effect only, as we have just shown. Therefore, God acts, not out of natural necessity, but by His will.
Adhuc. Quicquid non implicat contradictionem, subest divinae potentiae, ut ostensum est. Multa autem non sunt in rebus creatis quae tamen, si essent, contradictionem non implicarent: sicut patet praecipue circa numerum, quantitates et distantias stellarum et aliorum corporum, in quibus si aliter se haberet ordo rerum, contradictio non implicaretur. Multa igitur subsunt divinae virtuti quae in rerum natura non inveniuntur. Quicumque autem eorum quae potest facere quaedam facit et quaedam non facit, agit per electionem voluntatis, et non per necessitatem naturae. Deus igitur non agit per necessitatem naturae, sed per voluntatem. [3] Also, as we have demonstrated, whatever does not imply a contradiction is subject to the divine power. Now, there are many entities which do not exist in the realm of created things, but which, if they did so exist, would imply no contradiction; particularly obvious examples are the number, quantities, and distances of the stars and of other bodies, wherein, if the order of things were different, no contradiction would be implied. Thus, numerous entities, non-existent in the order of reality, are subject to the divine power. Now, whoever does some of the things that he can do, leaving others undone, acts by choice of his will, not by necessity of his nature. Therefore, God acts by His will, not by necessity of His nature.
Item. Unumquodque agens hoc modo agit secundum quod similitudo facti est in ipso: omne enim agens agit sibi simile. Omne autem quod est in altero, est in eo per modum eius in quo est. Cum igitur Deus sit per essentiam suam intelligens, ut supra probatum est, oportet quod similitudo effectus sui sit in eo per modum intelligibilem. Igitur per intellectum agit. Intellectus autem non agit aliquem effectum nisi mediante voluntate, cuius obiectum est bonum intellectum, quod movet agentem ut finis. Deus igitur per voluntatem agit, non per necessitatem naturae. [4] Then, too, the mode of any agent’s action is in keeping with the way in which the likeness of its effect exists in it; for every agent produces its like. Now, whatever is present in something else exists in it conformably to the latter’s mode. But God is intelligent by His essence, as we have shown, so that the likeness of His effect must exist in Him in an intelligible mode. Therefore, He acts by His intellect. But the intellect does not produce an effect except by means of the will, whose object is a good apprehended by the intellect and which moves the agent as an end. God, therefore, acts by His will, not of natural necessity.
Amplius. Secundum philosophum, in IX Metaph., duplex est actio: una quae manet in agente et est perfectio ipsius, ut videre: alia quae transit in exteriora et est perfectio facti, sicut comburere in igne. Divina autem actio non potest esse de genere illarum actionum quae non sunt in agente: cum sua actio sit sua substantia, ut supra ostensum est. Oportet igitur quod sit de genere illarum actionum quae sunt in agente et sunt quasi perfectio ipsius. Huiusmodi autem non sunt nisi actiones cognoscentis et appetentis, Deus igitur cognoscendo et volendo operatur. Non igitur per necessitatem naturae, sed per arbitrium voluntatis. [5] Moreover, there are two modes of action distinguished by Aristotle in Metaphysics IX [8]: a kind of action which remains in the agent and is a perfection of that agent—for example, seeing; another, which passes into things outside the agent, and is a perfection of the thing made as a result of that action, as burning in the case of fire. Now, God’s action cannot belong to the class of actions which are not immanent in the agent, because His action is His substance, as was shown above. Hence, it must be of the order of actions which are present in the agent as actualities perfecting its own being. Such actions, however, are exclusively proper to a being endowed with knowledge and appetite. So, God acts by knowing and by willing—not by necessity of His nature, therefore, but by the decision of His will.
Adhuc. Deum agere propter finem ex hoc manifestum esse potest quod universum non est a casu, sed ad aliquod bonum ordinatur: ut per philosophum patet, in XI metaphysicae. Primum autem agens propter finem oportet esse agens per intellectum et voluntatem: ea enim quae intellectu carent, agunt propter finem sicut in finem ab alio directa. Quod quidem in artificialibus patet: nam sagittae motus est ad determinatum signum ex directione sagittantis. Simile autem esse oportet et in naturalibus. Ad hoc enim quod aliquid directe in finem debitum ordinetur, requiritur cognitio ipsius finis, et eius quod est ad finem, et debitae proportionis inter utrumque: quod solum intelligentis est. Cum igitur Deus sit primum agens, non agit per necessitatem naturae, sed intellectum et voluntatem. [6] That God acts for an end can also be evident from the fact that the universe is not the result of chance, but is ordered to a good, as Aristotle makes clear in Metaphysics XI [10]. Now, the first agent acting for an end must act by intellect and will, for things devoid of intellect act for an end as directed thereto by another. This is obviously true in the world of things made by art; it is the archer that directs the flight of the arrow to a definite mark. This must be the case also in the realm of natural things; the right ordering of a thing to a due end requires knowledge of that end and of the means to it, and of the due proportion between both; and this knowledge is found only in an agent endowed with intelligence. But God is the first agent; therefore, He acts, not by a necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will.
Praeterea. Quod per se agit, prius est eo quod per aliud agit: omne enim quod est per aliud, reduci oportet in id quod per se est, ne in infinitum procedatur. Quod autem suae actionis non est dominus, non per se agit: agit enim quasi ab alio actus, non quasi seipsum agens. Oportet igitur primum agens hoc modo agere quod sui actus dominus sit. Non est autem aliquis sui dominus actus nisi per voluntatem. Oportet igitur Deum, qui est primum agens, per voluntatem agere, non per naturae necessitatem. [7] Moreover, that which acts by itself is prior to that which acts by another, for whatever is by another must be referred to that which is by itself; otherwise, we fall into an infinite regress. A thing that is not master of its own action, however, does not act by itself; it acts as directed by something else, not as directing itself. Hence, the first agent must act as master of His own action. But it is only by will that one is master of his own action. It follows, therefore, that God, who is the first agent, acts by His will, not by necessity of His nature.
Adhuc. Primo agenti debetur prima actio: sicut et primo mobili primus motus. Sed naturaliter actio voluntatis est prior quam actio naturae. Illud enim naturaliter prius est quod est perfectius: licet in uno quodam sit tempore posterius. Actio autem agentis per voluntatem est perfectior: quod ex hoc patet quod perfectiora sunt ea apud nos quae per voluntatem agunt, quam quae per naturae necessitatem. Ergo Deo, qui est primus agens, debetur actio quae est per voluntatem. [8] A further argument. To the first agent belongs the first action, even as the first motion pertains to the first thing movable. But the will’s action is naturally prior to that of nature. For that which is more perfect is prior in nature, though in one and the same particular thing it be temporally posterior. Now, voluntary action is more perfect than natural action; in the realm of our own experience, agents which act by will are obviously more perfect than those whose actions are determined by natural necessity. Action by way of the will is, therefore, proper to God, the first agent.
Amplius. Ex hoc idem apparet quod, ubi coniungitur utraque actio, superior est virtus quae agit per voluntatem ea quae agit per naturam et utitur ea quasi instrumento: nam in homine superior est intellectus, qui agit per voluntatem, quam anima vegetabilis, quae agit per naturae necessitatem. Divina autem virtus est suprema in omnibus entibus. Ergo ipsa agit in res omnes per voluntatem, non per naturae necessitatem. [9] This is likewise evident from the fact that when both actions are found together, the power which acts by will is superior to that which acts by nature, and uses the latter as an instrument; thus in man the intellect, which acts by means of the will, is superior to the vegetative soul, which acts by natural necessity. The power of God, however, is supreme over all things. It therefore acts on all things by will, not by natural necessity.
Item. Voluntas habet pro obiecto bonum secundum rationem boni: natura autem non attingit ad communem boni rationem, sed ad hoc bonum quod est sua perfectio. Cum igitur omne agens agat secundum quod ad bonum intendit, quia finis movet agentem; oportet quod agens per voluntatem ad agens per necessitatem naturae comparetur sicut agens universale ad agens particulare. Agens autem particulare se habet ad agens universale sicut eo posterius, et sicut eius instrumentum. Ergo oportet quod primum agens sit voluntarium, et non per necessitatem naturae agens. [10] Again, the will has for its object a good considered precisely as such, whereas nature does not attain to goodness in its universal aspect, but only to this particular good which is its perfection. Now, every agent acts inasmuch as it aims at a good, because the end moves the agent; so that the agent acting by will must be compared to the agent acting by natural necessity as universal agent to particular agent. But a particular agent is related to a universal one as posterior to it and as its instrument. Therefore, the primary agent must be a voluntary one, and not an agent by natural necessity.
Hanc etiam veritatem divina Scriptura nos docet. Dicitur enim in Psalmo: omnia quaecumque voluit dominus fecit; et Ephes. 1-11: qui operatur omnia secundum propositum voluntatis suae.
Et Hilarius, in libro de synodis: omnibus creaturis substantiam voluntas Dei attulit. Et infra: talia enim cuncta creata sunt, qualia Deus ea esse voluit.
[11] Divine Scripture teaches us this truth, too, declaring: “Whatever the Lord wished He has done” (Ps. 134:6), and: “Who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11).
[12] And Hilary, too, in his work De synodis writes: “God’s will gave substance to all creatures.” And he adds: “For the whole universe of things were created such as God willed them to be.”
Per haec autem removetur error quorundam philosophorum qui dicebant Deum agere per naturae necessitatem. [13] This also abolishes the error of those philosophers who maintain that God’s action is determined by natural necessity.

Caput 24 Chapter 24
Quod Deus agit secundum suam sapientiam THAT GOD ACTS CONFORMABLY TO HIS WISDOM
Ex hoc autem apparet quod Deus effectus suos producit secundum suam sapientiam. [1] Now, it evidently follows from the foregoing that God produces His effects according to His wisdom.
Voluntas enim ad agendum ex aliqua apprehensione movetur: bonum enim apprehensum est obiectum voluntatis. Deus autem est agens per voluntatem, ut ostensum est. Cum igitur in Deo non sit nisi intellectualis apprehensio; nihilque intelligat nisi intelligendo se, quem intelligere est sapientem esse: relinquitur quod omnia Deus secundum suam sapientiam operatur. [2] For the will is moved to act as the result of some sort of apprehension; the apprehended good is indeed the object of will. But, as was just shown, God is a voluntary agent. Since in Him there exists intellectual apprehension—no other kind—and since He understands nothing except in the very act of understanding Himself, and since this act is itself an act of wisdom, it follows that God produces all things according to His wisdom.
Item. Omne agens agit sibi simile. Unde oportet quod secundum hoc agat unumquodque agens secundum quod habet similitudinem sui effectus: sicut ignis calefacit secundum modum sui caloris. Sed in quolibet agente per voluntatem, inquantum huiusmodi, est similitudo sui effectus secundum intellectus apprehensionem: si enim secundum naturae dispositionem solum inesset similitudo effectus agenti voluntario, non ageret nisi unum, quia ratio naturalis unius est una tantum. Omne igitur agens voluntarium producit effectum secundum rationem sui intellectus. Deus autem agit per voluntatem, ut ostensum est. Igitur per sapientiam sui intellectus res in esse producit. [3] Moreover, because every agent produces its like, it necessarily acts in keeping with the way in which the likeness of its effect exists in it; fire heats according to the measure of heat present in it. But the likeness of the effect produced by any voluntary agent, as such, is present in that agent according to the apprehension of his intellect, and not only according to the disposition of the agent’s nature; for in the latter case, the agent would produce but one effect, because the natural principal of that which is one is itself one. Thus, every voluntary agent produces its effect according to the nature of his intellect. But in the preceding chapter we proved that God acts by His will. It is by the wisdom of His intellect, therefore, that God brings things into being.
Amplius. Secundum philosophum, in I Metaph., ordinare sapientis est: ordinatio enim aliquorum fieri non potest nisi per cognitionem habitudinis et proportionis ordinatorum ad invicem, et ad aliquid altius eius, quod est finis eorum; ordo enim aliquorum ad invicem est propter ordinem eorum ad finem. Cognoscere autem habitudines et proportiones aliquorum ad invicem est solius habentis intellectum; iudicare autem de aliquibus per causam altissimam sapientiae est. Et sic oportet quod omnis ordinatio per sapientiam alicuius intelligentis fiat. Unde et in mechanicis ordinatores aedificiorum sapientes illius artificii dicuntur. Res autem quae sunt a Deo productae, ordinem ad invicem habent non casualem, cum sit semper vel in pluribus. Et sic patet quod Deus res in esse produxit eas ordinando. Deus igitur per suam sapientiam res in esse produxit. [4] Moreover, according to the Philosopher, “it is the office of a wise man to set things in order.” For things can be ordered only by knowing their relation and proportion to one another, and to something higher, which is their end; for the order of certain things to one another is for the sake of their order to an end. But only a being endowed with intellect is capable of knowing the mutual relations and proportions of things; and to judge of certain things by the highest cause is the prerogative of wisdom. All ordering, therefore, is necessarily effected by means of the wisdom of a being endowed with intelligence. Even so, in the world of the mechanical arts, the planners of buildings are called the wise men of their craft. Now, the things produced by God have a mutual order among themselves which is not fortuitous, since this order is observed always or for the most part. That God brought things into being by ordering them is thus evident. Therefore, God brought things into being by His wisdom.
Adhuc. Ea quae sunt a voluntate, vel sunt agibilia, sicut actus virtutum, qui sunt perfectiones operantis: vel transeunt in exteriorem materiam, quae factibiles dicuntur. Et sic patet quod res creatae sunt a Deo sicut factae. Factibilium autem ratio est ars, sicut philosophus dicit. Comparantur igitur omnes res creatae ad Deum sicut artificiata ad artificem. Sed artifex per ordinem suae sapientiae et intellectus artificiata in esse producit. Ergo et Deus omnes creaturas per ordinem sui intellectus fecit. [5] Then, too, things which proceed from the will are either things-to-be-done, such as acts of the virtues, which are perfections of the doer, or things-to-be-made, which pass into matter outside the agent. So it is clear that creatures proceed from God as things made. Now, as Aristotle says, “art is the reason concerned with things to be made.” All created things, therefore, stand in relation to God as products of art to the artist. But the artist brings his works into being by the ordering of his wisdom and intellect. So, too, did God make all things by the ordering of His intellect.
Hoc autem divina auctoritate confirmatur. Nam dicitur in Psalmo: omnia in sapientia fecisti; et Proverb. 3-19: dominus sapientia fundavit terram. [6] This truth is confirmed by divine authority. For we read in a Psalm (103:24): “You have made all things in wisdom”; and in the Book of Proverbs (3:19): “The Lord by wisdom has founded the earth.”
Per haec autem excluditur quorundam error qui dicebant omnia ex simplici divina voluntate dependere, absque aliqua ratione. [7] Excluded hereby is the error of those who said that all things depend on the simple will of God, without any reason.

Caput 25 Chapter 25
Qualiter omnipotens dicatur quaedam non posse HOW THE OMNIPOTENT GOD IS SAID TO BE INCAPABLE OF CERTAIN THINGS
Ex praemissis autem accipi potest quod, quamvis Deus sit omnipotens, aliqua tamen dicitur non posse. Ostensum enim est supra in Deo esse potentiam activam: potentiam vero passivam in eo non esse iam supra in primo fuerat probatum. Secundum autem utramque potentiam dicimur posse. Illa igitur Deus non potest quae posse potentiae passivae est. Quae autem huiusmodi sint, investigandum est. [1] Now, from what has been said already, we can see that, although God is omnipotent, He is nevertheless said to be incapable of some things. [2] For we proved above that active power exists in God; that there is no passive potency in Him had already been demonstrated in Book I of this work. (We, however, are said to-be-able as regards both active and passive potentiality.) Hence, God is unable to do those things whose possibility entails passive potency. What such things are is, then, the subject of this inquiry.
Primo quidem igitur potentia activa ad agere est, potentia autem passiva ad esse. Unde in illis solis est potentia ad esse quae materiam habent contrarietati subiectam. Cum igitur in Deo passiva potentia non sit, quicquid ad suum esse pertinet, Deus non potest. Non potest igitur Deus esse corpus, aut aliquid huiusmodi. [3] Let us observe, first of all, that active potency relates to acting; passive potency, to existing. Hence, there is potency with respect to being only in those things which have matter subject to contrariety. But, since there is no passive potency in God, His power does not extend to any thing pertaining to His own being. Therefore, God cannot be a body or anything of this kind.
Adhuc. Huius potentiae passivae motus actus est. Deus igitur, cui potentia passiva non competit, mutari non potest. [4] Furthermore, motion is the act of this passive potency of which we are speaking. But, since there is no passive potency in God, He cannot be changed.
Potest autem ulterius concludi quod non potest mutari secundum singulas mutationis species: ut quod non potest augeri vel minui, aut alterari, aut generari aut corrumpi. It can be concluded further that He cannot be changed with respect to the various kinds of change: increase and diminution, or alteration, coming to be and passing away—all are foreign to Him.
Amplius. Cum deficere quoddam corrumpi sit, sequitur quod in nullo deficere potest. [5] Thirdly, since a deprivation is a certain loss of being, it follows that God can lack nothing.
Praeterea. Defectus omnis secundum privationem aliquam est. Privationis autem subiectum potentia materiae est. Nullo igitur modo potest deficere. [6] Moreover, every failing follows upon some privation. But the subject of privation is the potency of matter. In no way, therefore, can God fail.
Adhuc. Cum fatigatio sit per defectum virtutis, oblivio autem per defectum scientiae, patet quod neque fatigari neque oblivisci potest. [7] Then, too, since weariness results from a defect of power, and forgetfulness from defect of knowledge, God cannot possibly be subject to either.
Amplius. Neque vinci aut violentiam pati. Haec enim non sunt nisi eius quod natum est moveri. [8] Nor can He be overcome or suffer violence, for these are found only in something having a movable nature.
Similiter autem neque poenitere potest, neque irasci aut tristari: cum haec omnia in passionem et defectum sonent. [9] Likewise, God can neither repent, nor be angry or sorrowful, because all these things bespeak passion and defect.
Rursus. Quia potentiae activae obiectum et effectus est ens factum, nulla autem potentia operationem habet ubi deficit ratio sui obiecti, sicut visus non videt deficiente visibili in actu: oportet quod Deus dicatur non posse quicquid est contra rationem entis inquantum est ens, vel facti entis inquantum est factum. Quae autem sint huiusmodi, inquirendum est. [10] An additional argument is this. The object and effect of an active power is a being made, and no power is operative if the nature of its object is lacking; sight is inoperative in the absence of the actually visible. It must therefore be said that God is unable to do whatever is contrary to the nature of being as being, or of made being as made. We must now inquire what these things are.
Primo quidem igitur contra rationem entis est quod entis rationem tollit. Tollitur autem ratio entis per suum oppositum: sicut ratio hominis per opposita eius vel particularum ipsius. Oppositum autem entis est non ens. Hoc igitur Deus non potest, ut faciat simul unum et idem esse et non esse: quod est contradictoria esse simul. [11] First of all, that which destroys the nature of being is contrary to it. Now, the nature of being is destroyed by its opposite, just as the nature of man is destroyed by things opposite in nature to him or to his parts. But the opposite of being is non-being, with respect to which God is therefore inoperative, so that He cannot make one and the same thing to be and not to be; He can not make contradictories to exist simultaneously.
Adhuc. Contradictio contrariis et privative oppositis includitur: sequitur enim, si est album et nigrum, quod sit album et non album; et si est videns et caecum, quod sit videns et non videns. Unde eiusdem rationis etiam est quod Deus non possit facere opposita simul inesse eidem secundum idem. [12] Contradiction, moreover, is implied in contraries and privative opposites: to be white and black is to be white and not white; to be seeing and blind is to be seeing and not seeing. For the same reason, God is unable to make opposites exist in the same subject at the same time and in the same respect.
Amplius. Ad remotionem cuiuslibet principii essentialis sequitur remotio ipsius rei. Si igitur Deus non potest facere rem simul esse et non esse, nec etiam potest facere quod rei desit aliquod suorum principiorum essentialium ipsa remanente: sicut quod homo non habeat animam. [13] Furthermore, to take away an essential principle of any thing is to take away the thing itself. Hence, if God cannot make a thing to be and not to be at the same time, neither can He make a thing to lack any of its essential principles while the thing itself remains in being; God cannot make a man to be without a soul.
Praeterea. Cum principia quarundam scientiarum, ut logicae, geometriae et arithmeticae, sumantur ex solis principiis formalibus rerum, ex quibus essentia rei dependet, sequitur quod contraria horum principiorum Deus facere non possit: sicut quod genus non sit praedicabile de specie; vel quod lineae ductae a centro ad circumferentiam non sint aequales; aut quod triangulus rectilineus non habeat tres angulos aequales duobus rectis. [14] Again, since the principles of certain sciences—of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, for instance—are derived exclusively from the formal principles of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of those principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle’s center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles.
Hinc etiam patet quod Deus non potest facere quod praeteritum non fuerit. Nam hoc etiam contradictionem includit: eiusdem namque necessitatis est aliquid esse dum est, et aliquid fuisse dum fuit. [15] It is obvious, moreover, that God cannot make the past not to have been, for this, too, would entail a contradiction; it is equally as necessary for a thing to be while it is as to have been while it was.
Sunt etiam quaedam quae repugnant rationi entis facti inquantum huiusmodi. Quae etiam Deus facere non potest: nam omne quod facit Deus, oportet esse factum. [16] Also, there are things incompatible with the nature of thing made, as such. And these God cannot make, because whatever He does make must be something made.
Ex hoc autem patet quod Deus non potest facere Deum. Nam de ratione entis facti est quod esse suum ex alia causa dependeat. Quod est contra rationem eius quod dicitur Deus, ut ex superioribus patet. [17] And from this it is clear that God cannot make God. For it is of the essence of a thing made that its own being depends on another cause, and this is contrary to the nature of the being we call God, as is evident from things previously said.
Eadem etiam ratione, non potest Deus facere aliquid aequale sibi. Nam illud cuius esse ab alio non dependet, potius est in essendo et in ceteris dignitatibus eo quod ab alio dependet, quod ad rationem entis facti pertinet. [18] For the same reason God cannot make a thing equal to Himself; for a thing whose being does not depend on another is superior in being, and in the other perfections, to that which depends on something else, such dependence pertaining to the nature of that which is made.
Similiter etiam Deus facere non potest quod aliquid conservetur in esse sine ipso. Nam conservatio esse uniuscuiusque dependet a causa sua. Unde oportet quod, remota causa, removeatur effectus. Si igitur res aliqua posset esse quae a Deo non conservaretur in esse, non esset effectus eius. [19] Likewise, God cannot make a thing to be preserved in being without Himself. For the preservation of each and every thing depends on its cause, so that, if the cause is taken away, the effect is necessarily removed also. Hence, if there can be a thing which is not kept in being by God, it would not be His effect.
Rursus. Quia ipse est per voluntatem agens, illa non potest facere quae non potest velle. Quae autem velle non possit, considerari potest si accipiamus qualiter in divina voluntate necessitas esse possit: nam quod necesse est esse, impossibile est non esse; et quod impossibile est esse, necesse est non esse. [20] Moreover, since God is a voluntary agent, that which He cannot will He cannot do. Now, we can see what He cannot will if we consider how there can be necessity in the divine will; for that which necessarily is cannot not-be, and what cannot be necessarily is not.
Patet autem ex hoc quod non potest Deus facere se non esse, vel non esse bonum aut beatum: quia de necessitate vult se esse, bonum esse et beatum, ut in primo ostensum est. [21] It clearly follows that God cannot make Himself not to be, or not to be good or happy; because He necessarily wills Himself to be, to be good and happy, as we, have shown in Book I of this work.
Item ostensum est supra quod Deus non potest velle aliquod malum. Unde patet quod Deus peccare non potest. [22] We proved also, in that same Book, that God cannot will any evil. It is therefore evident that God cannot sin.
Similiter ostensum est supra quod Dei voluntas non potest esse mutabilis. Sic igitur non potest facere id quod est a se volitum, non impleri. [23] And it has already been demonstrated that the will of God cannot be mutable; so, what He wills He cannot cause to be not fulfilled.
Sciendum tamen quod hoc alio modo dicitur non posse a praemissis. Nam praemissa simpliciter Deus nec velle nec facere potest. Huiusmodi autem potest quidem Deus vel facere vel velle, si eius voluntas vel potentia absolute consideretur, non autem si considerentur praesupposita voluntate de opposito: nam voluntas divina respectu creaturarum necessitatem non habet nisi ex suppositione, ut in primo ostensum est. Et ideo omnes istae locutiones, Deus non potest facere contraria his quae disposuit facere, et quaecumque similiter dicuntur, intelliguntur composite: sic enim implicant suppositionem divinae voluntatis de opposito. Si autem intelliguntur divise, sunt falsae: quia respiciunt potentiam et voluntatem Dei absolute. [24] But observe that God is said to be unable to do this in a different sense than in the preceding instances, for in those cases God’s inability either to will or to make is absolute, whereas in this case God can either make or will if His will or His power be considered in themselves, though not if they be considered on the supposition of His having willed the opposite. For the divine will, as regards creatures, has only suppositional necessity, as was shown in Book I. Thus, all such statements as that God cannot do the contrary of what He has designed to do are to be understood compositely, for so understood they presuppose the divine will as regards the opposite. But, if such expressions be understood in a divided sense, they are false, because they then refer to God’s power and will absolutely.
Sicut autem Deus agit per voluntatem, ita et per intellectum et scientiam ut ostensum est. Pari igitur ratione non potest facere quae se facturum non praescivit, aut dimittere quae se facturum praescivit, qua non potest facere quae facere non vult, aut dimittere quae vult. Et eodem modo conceditur et negatur utrumque: ut scilicet praedicta non posse dicatur, non quidem absolute, sed sub conditione vel ex suppositione. [25] Now, as we have shown, just as God acts by will, so also does He act by intellect and knowledge. It follows that He cannot do what He has foreseen that He will not do, or abstain from doing what He has foreseen that He will do, for the same reason that He cannot do what He wills not to do, or omit to do what He wills. That God is unable to do these things is both conceded and denied: conceded on a certain condition or supposition; denied with respect to His power or will considered absolutely.

Caput 26 Chapter 26
Quod divinus intellectus non coartatur ad determinatos effectus THAT THE DIVINE INTELLECT IS NOT CONFINED TO LIMITED EFFECTS
Quoniam autem ostensum est quod divina potentia ad determinatos effectus non limitatur, ac per hoc quod ex necessitate naturae non agit, sed per intellectum et voluntatem; ne cui forte videatur quod eius intellectus vel scientia ad determinatos effectus solummodo possit extendi, et sic agat ex necessitate scientiae, quamvis non ex necessitate naturae: restat ostendere quod eius scientia vel intellectus nullis effectuum limitibus coartatur. [1] We have shown above that God’s power is not limited to certain determinate effects, because He acts not by a necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will. But, lest someone should think that His intellect or knowledge can only attain to certain effects, and thus that He acts by a necessity of His knowledge, though not of His nature, it must be shown that His knowledge or intellect is limitless in its effects.
Ostensum est enim supra quod Deus omnia alia quae ab eo procedere possunt comprehendit suam essentiam intelligendo, in qua omnia huiusmodi esse necessarium est per aliqualem similitudinem, sicut effectus virtute sunt in causa. Si igitur potentia divina ad effectus determinatos non coartatur, ut supra ostensum est, necessarium est et de eius intellectu similem sententiam proferre. [2] For it was demonstrated in Book I of this work that all that can proceed from Him God comprehends in the act of understanding His own essence, wherein all such things must necessarily exist by some kind of likeness, even as effects exist virtually in their cause. So, if God’s power is not limited to certain determinate effects, as we have shown, a like judgment must be made concerning His intellect.
Adhuc. Divinae essentiae infinitatem supra ostendimus. Infinitum autem, quantalibet adiectione finitorum facta, adaequari non potest quin infinitum excedat quantalibet finita, si etiam numero infinita existant. Nihil autem aliud praeter Deum constat esse secundum essentiam infinitum: cum omnia alia secundum essentiae rationem sub determinatis generibus et speciebus concludantur. Quotcumque igitur et quanticumque divini effectus comprehendantur, semper in divina essentia est ut eos excedat. Et ita plurium ratio esse possit. Divinus igitur intellectus, qui perfecte divinam essentiam cognoscit, ut supra ostensum est, omnem finitatem effectuum transcendit. Non igitur ex necessitate ad hos vel illos effectus coartatur. [3] We argue further from our proof of the infinity of the divine essence. By no addition of finite things, even if their number were infinite, is it possible to equal the infinite, because the infinite exceeds the finite, however great. But it is certain that nothing besides God is infinite in essence; for, by the very nature of their essence, all other things are included under certain genera and species. Hence, no matter bow many or bow great divine effects be taken into account, the divine essence will always exceed them; it can be the raison d’être of more. Therefore, God’s intellect as we have shown, which knows the divine essence perfectly, surpasses all finiteness in the realm of effects. Therefore, it is not necessarily confined to these or those effects.
Item. Supra ostensum est quod divinus intellectus infinitorum est cognitor. Deus autem per sui intellectus scientiam res producit in esse. Causalitas igitur divini intellectus ad finitos effectus non coartatur. [4] Also, we have proved that the divine intellect is cognizant of infinite things. But God brings things into being by way of intellectual knowledge. Consequently, the causality of the divine intellect is not restricted to the production of finite effects.
Amplius. Si divini intellectus causalitas ad effectus aliquos, quasi de necessitate agens, artaretur, hoc esset respectu illorum qui ab eo producuntur in esse. Hoc autem esse non potest: cum supra ostensum sit quod Deus intelligit etiam quae nunquam sunt nec erunt nec fuerunt. Non igitur Deus agit ex necessitate sui intellectus vel scientiae. [5] If, moreover, the causality of God’s intellect were confined to certain effects, as though it produced them of necessity, this would have to do with the things brought into being by it. But that is impossible, since, as we have shown before, God knows even those things which never are, nor will be, nor have been. Hence, it is not by any necessity on the part of His intellect or His knowledge that God works.
Praeterea. Divina scientia comparatur ad res ab ipso productas sicut scientia artificis ad res artificiatas. Quaelibet autem ars se extendit ad omnia quae possunt contineri sub genere subiecto illius artis: sicut ars aedificatoria ad omnes domos. Genus autem subiectum divinae arti est ens: cum ipse per suum intellectum sit universale principium entis, ut ostensum est. Igitur intellectus divinus ad omnia quibus entis ratio non repugnat, suam causalitatem extendit: huiusmodi enim omnia, quantum est de se, nata sunt sub ente contineri. Non igitur divinus intellectus ad aliquos determinatos effectus coartatur. [6] Again. God’s knowledge is in relation to the things produced by it as the knowledge of the craftsman to his handiwork. Now, every art includes in its scope all the things that can be comprised under the generic subject of that art; the art of building, for example, extends to all houses. But the genus that is subject to the divine art is being, since, as we have shown, God is by His intellect the universal source of being. Hence, the causality of the divine intellect extends to everything not incompatible with the notion of being; for it is the nature of all such things, considered in themselves, to be contained under being. The divine intellect, therefore, is not restricted to the production of certain determinate effects.
Hinc est quod in Psalmo dicitur: magnus dominus, et magna virtus eius, et sapientiae eius non est numerus. [7] So it is said in a Psalm (146:5): “Great is the Lord, and great is His power, and of His wisdom there is no number.”
Per haec autem excluditur quorundam philosophorum positio dicentium quod ex hoc quod Deus seipsum intelligit, fluit ab ipso de necessitate talis rerum dispositio: quasi non suo arbitrio limitet singula et universa disponat, sicut fides Catholica profitetur. [8] Excluded hereby is the position of those philosophers who say that, because God understands Himself, this particular disposition of things flows from Him necessarily—as though He did not, by His own free choice, determine the limits of each single thing and the disposition of them all, as the Catholic faith declares.
Sciendum tamen quod, quamvis divinus intellectus ad certos effectus non coartatur, ipse tamen sibi statuit determinatos effectus quos per suam sapientiam ordinate producat: sicut sapientiae 11-21 dicitur: omnia in numero, pondere et mensura disposuisti, domine. [9] Bear in mind, however, that, although God’s intellect is not restricted to these or those effects, He nevertheless decides on certain determinate effects to be produced in a definite order by His wisdom. Thus, we read in the Book of Wisdom (11:21): “Lord, You have ordered all things in number, weight, and measure.”

Caput 27 Chapter 27
Quod divina voluntas ad determinatos effectus non artatur THAT THE DIVINE WILL IS NOT RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN EFFECTS
Ex his etiam ostendi potest quod nec eius voluntas, per quam agit, ad determinatos effectus necessitatem habet. [1] From the preceding considerations, it can also be shown that God’s will, by which He acts, is subject to no necessity as regards the production of certain determinate effects.
Voluntatem enim suo obiecto proportionatam esse oportet. Obiectum autem voluntatis est bonum intellectum, ut patet ex supra dictis. Voluntas igitur ad quaelibet se nata est extendere quae ei intellectus sub ratione boni proponere potest. Si igitur intellectus divinus ad certos effectus non coartatur, ut ostensum est, relinquitur quod nec divina voluntas determinatos effectus ex necessitate producit. [2] For the will must be commensurate with its object. But the object of will is a good grasped by the intellect, as stated above. Therefore, it is of the nature of will to reach out to whatever the intellect can propose to it under the aspect of goodness. Therefore, if, as we have proved, God’s intellect is not restricted to certain effects, it follows that neither is the divine will necessitated to produce certain determinate effects.
Praeterea. Nihil agens per voluntatem producit aliquid non volendo. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus circa alia a se nihil vult ex necessitate absoluta. Non igitur ex necessitate divinae voluntatis aliqui effectus procedunt, sed ex eius libera dispositione. [3] Moreover, nothing acting by the will produces a thing by not willing. But it was previously shown that, with respect to things other than Himself, God wills nothing by absolute necessity. Therefore, effects proceed from God’s will, not of necessity, but as He freely ordains.

Caput 28 Chapters 28 and 29
Qualiter in rerum productione debitum inveniatur HOW DUENESS IS ENTAILED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THINGS
Ostendere etiam ex praedictis oportet quod Deus non ex necessitate operatus est in rerum creatione quasi ex debito iustitiae res in esse produxerit. [1] From the foregoing it must also be shown that in the creation of things God did not work of necessity, as though He brought things into being as a debt of justice.
Iustitia enim, secundum philosophum, in V Ethic., ad alterum est, cui debitum reddit. Universali autem rerum productioni nihil praesupponitur cui aliquid debeatur. Ipsa igitur universalis rerum productio ex debito iustitiae provenire non potuit. [2] As Aristotle points out, justice involves a relationship to another, to whom it renders what is due. But, for the universal production of things, nothing is presupposed to which anything may be due. It follows that the universal production of things could not result from a debt of justice.
Item. Cum iustitiae actus sit reddere unicuique quod suum est, actum iustitiae praecedit actus quo aliquid alicuius suum efficitur, sicut in rebus humanis patet: aliquis enim laborando meretur suum effici quod retributor per actum iustitiae sibi reddit. Ille igitur actus quo primo aliquid suum alicuius efficitur, non potest esse actus iustitiae. Sed per creationem res creata primo incipit aliquid suum habere. Non igitur creatio ex debito iustitiae procedit. [3] Then too, since the act of justice consists in rendering to each that which is his own, the act by which a thing becomes one’s own property is prior to the act of justice, as we see in human affairs; a man’s work entitles him to possess as his own that which his employer, by an act of justice, pays to him. The act by which a person first acquires something of his own cannot, therefore, be an act of justice. But, by the act of creation, a created thing first possesses something of its own. It is not from a debt of justice, therefore, that creation proceeds.
Praeterea. Nullus debet aliquid alteri nisi per hoc quod aliqualiter dependet ab ipso, vel aliquid accipit ab eo vel ab altero, ratione cuius alteri debet: sic enim filius est debitor patri, quia accipit esse ab eo; dominus ministro, quia ab eo accipit famulatum quo indiget; omnis homo proximo propter Deum, a quo bona cuncta suscepimus. Sed Deus a nullo dependet, nec indiget aliquo quod ab altero suscipiat, ut ex supra dictis manifeste apparet. Deus igitur non produxit res in esse ex aliquo iustitiae debito. [4] Furthermore, no one owes anything to another except because he depends on him in some way, or receives something either from him or from someone else, on whose account he is indebted to that other person; a son is a debtor to his father, because he receives being from him; a master to his servant, because he receives from him the services he requires; and every man is a debtor to his neighbor, on God’s account, from whom we have received all good things. God, however, depends on nothing, nor does He stand in need of anything that He may receive from another, as things previously said make perfectly clear. Hence, it was from no debt of justice that God brought things into being.
Amplius. In quolibet genere quod est propter se est prius eo quod est propter aliud. Illud igitur quod est primum simpliciter inter omnes causas, est causa propter seipsum tantum. Quod autem agit ex debito iustitiae, non agit propter seipsum tantum: agit enim propter illud cui debet. Deus igitur, cum sit prima causa et primum agens, res in esse non produxit ex debito iustitiae. [5] Another argument is this. In every genus that which is for its own sake is prior to that which is for the sake of something else. Thus, that which is absolutely the first of all causes is a cause solely on its own account. But whatever acts by reason of a debt of justice acts not on its own account alone, but on account of that to which it is indebted. Now, since God is the first cause and the primal agent, He did not bring things into existence because of any debt of justice.
Hinc est quod Rom. 11 dicitur: quis prior dedit illi, et retribuetur ei? Quoniam ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia. Et Iob 41-2: quis ante dedit mihi, ut reddam ei? Omnia quae sub caelo sunt, mea sunt. [6] Hence St. Paul says: “Who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? For of Him, and by Him, and in Him, are all things” (Rom. 13:35-36); and in the Book of Job (41:2) we read: “Who has given me before that I should repay him? All things that are under heaven are mine.”
Per haec autem excluditur error quorundam probare nitentium quod Deus non potest facere nisi quod facit, quia non potest facere nisi quod debet. Non enim ex debito iustitiae res operatur, ut ostensum est. [7] Thus is set aside the error of those who try to prove that God can do nothing except what He does, on the argument that He can do only that which He ought to do; on the contrary, as we have proved, God does not produce things from a debt of justice.
Licet autem universalem rerum productionem nihil creatum praecedat cui aliquid debitum esse possit, praecedit tamen aliquid increatum, quod est creationis principium. Quod quidem dupliciter considerari potest. Ipsa enim divina bonitas praecedit ut finis et primum motivum ad creandum: secundum Augustinum, qui dicit: quia Deus bonus est, sumus. Scientia autem eius et voluntas praecedunt sicut ea quibus res in esse producuntur.
Si igitur ipsam divinam bonitatem absolute consideremus, nullum debitum in creatione rerum invenimus. Dicitur enim uno modo aliquid alicui debitum ex ordine alterius ad ipsum, quod scilicet in ipsum debet referre quod ab ipso accepit: sicut debitum est benefactori quod ei de beneficiis gratiae agantur, inquantum ille qui accepit beneficium hoc ei debet. Hic tamen modus debiti in rerum creatione locum non habet: cum non sit aliquid praeexistens cui possit competere aliquid Deo debere, nec aliquod eius beneficium praeexistat. Alio modo dicitur aliquid alicui debitum secundum se: hoc enim est ex necessitate alicui debitum quod ad eius perfectionem requiritur; sicut homini debitum est habere manus vel virtutem, quia sine his perfectus esse non potest. Divina autem bonitas nullo exteriori indiget ad sui perfectionem. Non est igitur per modum necessitatis ei debita creaturarum productio.
[8] True enough, prior to the universal production of things, nothing created exists to which anything can be due; nevertheless, it is preceded by something uncreated, namely, the principle of creation. And this precedence can be considered in two ways. For the divine goodness precedes as end and prime motivating principle of creation—as Augustine says, “because God is good, we are.” And God’s knowledge and will precede as that by which things are brought into being.
[9] Therefore, if we consider God’s goodness absolutely, we find nothing due in the creation of things. For in one way a thing is said to be a person’s due by reason of the relation of another person to him, so that he is obliged to make a return to that person for what he has received from him; thanks are due a benefactor for his kindness because the recipient owes this to him. This sort of dueness, however, has no place in the creation of things, because there is nothing pre-existent that could owe anything to God, nor does any benefaction of His pre-exist. In another way, something is said to be due a thing according to itself; for whatever is required for a thing’s completeness is necessarily due that thing; it is a man’s due to possess hands or strength, since without these he cannot be complete. But for the fulfillment of His goodness God needs nothing outside Him. Therefore, the production of things is not due Him by way of necessity.
Adhuc. Deus sua voluntate res in esse producit, ut supra ostensum est. Non est autem necessarium, si Deus suam bonitatem vult esse, quod velit alia a se produci: huius enim conditionalis antecedens est necessarium, non autem consequens; ostensum est enim in primo libro quod Deus ex necessitate vult suam bonitatem esse, non autem ex necessitate vult alia. Igitur non ex necessitate debetur divinae bonitati creaturarum productio. [10] Moreover, as we have shown, God brings things into being by His will. Now, if God wills His own goodness to be, He is under no necessity of willing the production of anything else; the antecedent of this conditional proposition is necessary, but not the consequent; for, as we proved in Book I, God necessarily wills His goodness to be, but He does not necessarily will anything else. Therefore, the production of creatures is not something due the divine goodness of necessity.
Amplius. Ostensum est quod Deus producit res in esse non ex necessitate naturae, neque ex necessitate scientiae, neque voluntatis, neque iustitiae. Nullo igitur modo necessitatis divinae bonitati est debitum quod res in esse producantur. [11] Also, it has been shown that God brings things into being neither by a necessity of His nature, nor of His knowledge, nor of His will, nor of His justice. By no mode of necessity, then, is it due the divine goodness that things be brought into being.
Potest tamen dici esse sibi debitum per modum cuiusdam condecentiae. Iustitia autem proprie dicta debitum necessitatis requirit: quod enim ex iustitia alicui redditur, ex necessitate iuris ei debetur.
Sicut igitur creaturarum productio non potest dici fuisse ex debito iustitiae quo Deus creaturae sit debitor, ita nec ex tali iustitiae debito quo suae bonitati sit debitor, si iustitia proprie accipiatur. Large tamen iustitia accepta, potest dici in creatione rerum iustitia, inquantum divinam condecet bonitatem.
[12] It may be said, however, that this is God’s due by way of a certain fittingness. But justice, properly so called, requires a debt of necessity, for what is rendered to someone by an act of justice is owed to him by a necessity of right.
[13] Therefore, it cannot be said that the production of creatures arose from a debt of justice by which God is the creature’s debtor, nor from a debt of justice whereby He is a debtor to His own goodness, if justice be taken in its proper sense. But, if the term be taken broadly, we may speak of justice in the creation of things, meaning that creation befits the divine goodness.
Si vero divinam dispositionem consideremus qua Deus disposuit suo intellectu et voluntate res in esse producere, sic rerum productio ex necessitate divinae dispositionis procedit: non enim potest esse quod Deus aliquid se facturum disposuerit quod postmodum ipse non faciat; alias eius dispositio vel esset mutabilis vel infirma. Eius igitur dispositioni ex necessitate debetur quod impleatur. Sed tamen hoc debitum non sufficit ad rationem iustitiae proprie dictae in rerum creatione, in qua considerari non potest nisi actio Dei creantis: eiusdem autem ad seipsum non est iustitia proprie dicta, ut patet per philosophum, in V Ethicorum. Non igitur proprie dici potest quod Deus ex debito iustitiae res in esse produxerit, ea ratione quia per scientiam et voluntatem se disposuit producturum. [14] If, however, we consider the plan which God by His intellect and His will laid down for the production of things, then the latter proceeds from the necessity of that plan. For it is impossible that God should plan to do a certain thing which afterwards He did not; otherwise, His decision would be either changeable or weak. The fulfillment of His ordinance is therefore something necessarily due. Nevertheless, this dueness does not suffice for introducing the notion of justice, properly so called, into the creative production of things, wherein nothing can be considered except the act of God creating. (And, as Aristotle explains in Ethics V [11], there is no justice properly speaking between a man and himself.) Therefore, it cannot properly be said that God brought things into being from a debt of justice, on the grounds that by His knowledge and will He ordained Himself to their production.

Si autem alicuius creaturae productio consideretur, poterit ibi debitum iustitiae inveniri ex comparatione posterioris creaturae ad priorem. Dico autem priorem non solum tempore, sed natura. [15] [Chapter 29] On the other hand, considering the production of a particular creature, we can see a debt of justice in it by comparing a posterior creature to a prior one; and I say prior, not only in time but also in nature.
Sic igitur in primis divinis effectibus producendis debitum non invenitur. In posteriorum vero productione invenitur debitum, ordine tamen diverso. Nam si illa quae sunt priora naturaliter, sint etiam priora in esse, posteriora ex prioribus debitum trahunt: debitum enim est ut, positis causis, habeant actiones per quas producunt effectus. Si vero quae sunt priora naturaliter, sint posteriora in esse, tunc e converso priora debitum trahunt a posterioribus: sicut medicinam debitum est praecedere ad hoc quod sanitas consequatur. Utrobique autem hoc commune existit, quod debitum sive necessitas sumitur ab eo quod est prius natura, circa id quod est natura posterius. [16] Thus, in the effects to be produced first by God, we discover nothing due, whereas in the production of subsequent effects, dueness is found, yet in a different order. For, if things prior in nature are also prior in being, those which follow become due on account of those naturally prior; given the causes, the possession of actions by which to produce their effects is due them. On the other hand, if things prior in nature are posterior in being, then the prior become due on account of the posterior; for medicine to come first in order that health may follow, is something due. Both cases have this in common: the dueness or necessity is taken from that which is naturally prior in relation to that which is naturally posterior.
Necessitas autem quae est a posteriori in esse licet sit prius natura, non est absoluta necessitas, sed conditionalis: ut, si hoc debeat fieri, necesse est hoc prius esse. Secundum igitur hanc necessitatem in creaturarum productione debitum invenitur tripliciter. Primo, ut sumatur conditionatum debitum a tota rerum universitate ad quamlibet eius partem quae ad perfectionem requiritur universi. Si enim tale universum fieri Deus voluit, debitum fuit ut solem et lunam faceret, et huiusmodi sine quibus universum esse non potest. Secundo, ut sumatur conditionis debitum ex una creatura ad aliam: ut, si animalia et plantas Deus esse voluit, debitum fuit ut caelestia corpora faceret, ex quibus conservantur; et si hominem esse voluit, oportuit facere plantas et animalia, et alia huiusmodi quibus homo indiget ad esse perfectum; quamvis et haec et illa ex mera Deus fecerit voluntate. Tertio, ut in unaquaque creatura sumatur conditionale debitum ex suis partibus et proprietatibus et accidentibus, ex quibus dependet creatura quantum ad esse vel quantum ad aliquam sui perfectionem: sicut, supposito quod Deus hominem facere vellet, debitum ex hac suppositione fuit ut animam et corpus in eo coniungeret, et sensus, et alia huiusmodi adiumenta, tam intrinseca quam extrinseca, ei praeberet. In quibus omnibus, si recte attenditur, Deus creaturae debitor non dicitur, sed suae dispositioni implendae. [17] Now, the necessity arising from that which is posterior in being, although prior in nature, is not absolute, but conditional; if this ought to come to pass, then this must precede. So, in accordance with this kind of necessity, dueness is found in the production of creatures in three ways. First, there is a conditional indebtedness on the part of the whole universe of things in relation to each part of it that is necessary for the perfection of the whole; for, if God willed the production of such an universe, it was due that He should make the sun and moon, and like things without which the universe cannot be. Secondly, something conditionally due is found in one creature in relation to another; if God willed the existence of animals and plants, then it was due that He should make the heavenly bodies by which those things are kept in being; and if He willed the existence of man, then He has to make plants and animals, and the other things which man requires for a complete existence. And yet God made both these and other things of His pure will. Thirdly, there is something conditionally due in each creature as regards its parts, properties, and accidents, upon which the creature depends either for its being or for some perfection proper to it. For example, given that God willed to make man, it was man’s due, on this supposition, that God should unite in him soul and body, and furnish him with senses, and other like aids, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Now, in all these cases, rightly considered, God is said to be a debtor, not to the creature, but to the fulfillment of His own purpose.
Invenitur autem et alius necessitatis modus in rerum natura secundum quod aliquid dicitur necessarium absolute. Quae quidem necessitas dependet ex causis prioribus in esse: sicut ex principiis essentialibus, et ex causis efficientibus sive moventibus. Sed iste modus necessitatis in prima rerum creatione locum habere non potest quantum ad causas efficientes. Ibi enim solus Deus causa efficiens fuit, cuius est solius creare, ut supra ostensum est; ipse autem non necessitate naturae, sed voluntate operatur creando, ut supra ostensum est; ea vero quae voluntate fiunt, necessitatem habere non possunt nisi ex sola finis suppositione, secundum quam debitum est fini ut ea sint per quae pervenitur ad finem. Sed quantum ad causas formales vel materiales, nihil prohibet etiam in prima rerum creatione necessitatem absolutam inveniri. Ex hoc enim quod aliqua corpora ex elementis fuerunt composita, necessarium fuit ea calida aut frigida esse. Et ex hoc quod aliqua superficies producta est triangularis figurae, necessarium fuit quod tres angulos aequales duobus rectis haberet. Haec autem necessitas est secundum ordinem effectus ad causam creatam materialem vel formalem. Unde secundum hanc Deus debitor dici non potest, sed magis in creaturam necessitatis debitum cadit. In rerum autem propagatione, ubi iam creatura efficiens invenitur, potest esse necessitas absoluta a causa efficiente creata: sicut ex motu solis inferiora corpora necessario immutantur.
Sic igitur ex praedictis debiti rationibus iustitia naturalis in rebus invenitur et quantum ad rerum creationem, et quantum ad earum propagationem. Et ideo Deus dicitur iuste et rationabiliter omnia condidisse et gubernare.
[18] But there is also another mode of necessity in the nature of things whereby a thing is said to be necessary absolutely; and this necessity depends on causes which are prior in being—on essential principles, for instance, and on efficient or moving causes. But this kind of necessity can have no place in the first creation of things so far as efficient causes are concerned, since in that creation the sole efficient cause was God, who alone can create, as we have already shown. But, as we have also proved, it is not by any necessity of His nature but by His will, that God works while creating; and things done by the will can have no necessity except only on the supposition of the end; for the existence of those things by which an end is attained is that end’s due. As regards formal or material causes, on the other hand, nothing prevents our finding absolute necessity even in the primal creation of things; for just because certain bodies were composed of the elements it was necessary that they be hot or cold; and from the very fact that a surface was extended in the form of a triangle it was necessary for it to have three angles equal to two right angles. But this kind of necessity results from the relation of an effect to its created material, or formal, cause, so that God cannot be said to be a debtor from the point of view of such necessity; here the debt of necessity falls upon the creature. However, in the propagation of things, where the creature is already active, an absolute necessity can arise from the created efficient cause; the sun’s motion, for example, necessarily gives rise to changes in terrestrial bodies.
[19] According to the foregoing kinds of dueness, then, natural justice is found in things, both as regards the creation of things and as regards their propagation. And so it is that God is said to have formed and to govern all things justly and reasonably.
Sic igitur per praedicta excluditur duplex error. Eorum scilicet qui, divinam potentiam limitantes, dicebant Deum non posse facere nisi quae facit, quia sic facere debet; et eorum qui dicunt quod omnia sequuntur simplicem voluntatem, absque aliqua alia ratione vel quaerenda in rebus vel assignanda. [20] By what has been said a double error is eliminated: the error of those who, setting limits to God’s power, said that God can do only that which He does because He is bound to this; and the error of those who assert that all things follow from the sheer will of God, there being no other reason either to be sought in things, or to be assigned.

Caput 30 Chapter 30
Qualiter in rebus creatis esse potest necessitas absoluta HOW ABSOLUTE NECESSITY CAN EXIST IN CREATED THINGS
Licet autem omnia ex Dei voluntate dependeant sicut ex prima causa, quae in operando necessitatem non habet nisi ex sui propositi suppositione, non tamen propter hoc absoluta necessitas a rebus excluditur, ut sit necessarium nos fateri omnia contingentia esse:- quod posset alicui videri, ex hoc quod a causa sua non de necessitate absoluta fluxerunt: cum soleat in rebus esse contingens effectus qui ex causa sua non de necessitate procedit. Sunt enim quaedam in rebus creatis quae simpliciter et absolute necesse est esse. [1] Although all things depend on the will of God as first cause, who is subject to no necessity in His operation except on the supposition of His intention, nevertheless absolute necessity is not on this account excluded from things, so as to compel us to say that all things are contingent. (One might infer this from the fact that things have with no absolute necessity proceeded from their cause, for usually, in things, an effect is contingent which does not proceed from its cause necessarily.) On the contrary, there are some things in the universe whose being is simply and absolutely necessary.
Illas enim res simpliciter et absolute necesse est esse in quibus non est possibilitas ad non esse. Quaedam autem res sic sunt a Deo in esse productae ut in earum natura sit potentia ad non esse. Quod quidem contingit ex hoc quod materia in eis est in potentia ad aliam formam. Illae igitur res in quibus vel non est materia, vel, si est, non est possibilis ad aliam formam, non habent potentiam ad non esse. Eas igitur absolute et simpliciter necesse est esse. [2] Such is the being of things wherein there is no possibility of not-being. Now, some things are so created by God that there is in their nature a potentiality to non-being; and this results from the fact that the matter present in them is in potentiality with respect to another form. On the other hand, neither immaterial things, nor things whose matter is not receptive of another form, have potentiality to non-being, so that their being is absolutely and simply necessary.
Si autem dicatur quod ea quae sunt ex nihilo, quantum est de se in nihilum tendunt; et sic omnibus creaturis inest potentia ad non esse:- manifestum est hoc non sequi. Dicuntur enim res creatae eo modo in nihilum tendere quo sunt ex nihilo. Quod quidem non est nisi secundum potentiam agentis. Sic igitur et rebus creatis non inest potentia ad non esse: sed creatori inest potentia ut eis det esse vel eis desinat esse influere; cum non ex necessitate naturae agat ad rerum productionem, sed ex voluntate, ut ostensum est. [3] Now, if it be said that whatever is from nothing of itself tends toward nothing, so that in all creatures there is the power not to be—this clearly does not follow. For created things are said to tend to nothing in the same way in which they are from nothing, namely, not otherwise than according to the power of their efficient cause. In this sense, then, the power not to be does not exist in created things. But in the Creator there is the power to give them being, or to cease pouring forth being into them, for He produces things not by a necessity of His nature, but by His will, as we have shown.
Item. Ex quo res creatae ex divina voluntate in esse procedunt, oportet eas tales esse quales Deus eas esse voluit. Per hoc autem quod dicitur Deum produxisse res in esse per voluntatem, non per necessitatem, non tollitur quin voluerit aliquas res esse quae de necessitate sint et aliquas quae sint contingenter, ad hoc quod sit in rebus diversitas ordinata. Nihil igitur prohibet res quasdam divina voluntate productas necessarias esse. [4] Moreover, it is because created things come into being through the divine will that they are necessarily such as God willed them to be. Now, the fact that God is said to have produced things voluntarily, and not of necessity, does not preclude His having willed certain things to be which are of necessity and others which are contingently, so that there may be an ordered diversity in things. Therefore, nothing prevents certain things that are produced by the divine will from being necessary.
Adhuc. Ad divinam perfectionem pertinet quod rebus creatis suam similitudinem indiderit, nisi quantum ad illa quae repugnant ei quod est esse creatum: agentis enim perfecti est producere sibi simile quantum possibile est. Esse autem necesse simpliciter non repugnat ad rationem esse creati: nihil enim prohibet aliquid esse necesse quod tamen suae necessitatis causam habet, sicut conclusiones demonstrationum. Nihil igitur prohibet quasdam res sic esse productas a Deo ut tamen eas esse sit necesse simpliciter. Immo hoc divinae perfectioni attestatur. [5] Then, too, it pertains to God’s perfection to have placed the seal of His own likeness upon created things, excluding only entities incompatible with the nature of created being; for it belongs to the perfect agent to produce its like as far as possible. But to be simply necessary is not incompatible with the notion of created being; for nothing prevents a thing being necessary whose necessity nevertheless has a cause, as in the case of the conclusions of demonstrations. Hence, nothing prevents certain things being produced by God in such fashion that they exist in a simply necessary way; indeed, this is a proof of God’s perfection.
Amplius. Quanto aliquid magis distat ab eo quod per seipsum est ens, scilicet Deo, tanto magis propinquum est ad non esse. Quanto igitur aliquid est propinquius Deo, tanto magis recedit a non esse. Quae autem ima sunt, propinqua sunt ad non esse per hoc quod habent potentiam ad non esse. Illa igitur quae sunt Deo propinquissima, et per hoc a non esse remotissima, talia esse oportet, ad hoc quod sit rerum ordo completus, ut in eis non sit potentia ad non esse. Talia autem sunt necessaria absolute. Sic igitur aliqua creata de necessitate habent esse. [6] Again, the more distant a thing is from that which is a being by virtue of itself, namely, God, the nearer it is to non-being; so that the closer a thing is to God, the further is it removed from non-being. Now, things which presently exist are near to non-being through having potentiality to non-being. Therefore, that the order of things be complete, those nearest to God, and hence the most remote from nonbeing, must be totally devoid of potentiality to non-being; and such things are necessary absolutely. Thus, some created things have being necessarily.
Sciendum est itaque quod, si rerum creatarum universitas consideretur prout sunt a primo principio, inveniuntur dependere ex voluntate, non ex necessitate principii, nisi necessitate suppositionis, sicut dictum est. Si vero comparentur ad principia proxima, inveniuntur necessitatem habere absolutam. Nihil enim prohibet aliqua principia non ex necessitate produci, quibus tamen positis, de necessitate sequitur talis effectus: sicut mors animalis huius absolutam necessitatem habet propter hoc quod iam ex contrariis est compositum, quamvis ipsum ex contrariis componi non fuisset necessarium absolute. Similiter autem quod tales rerum naturae a Deo producerentur, voluntarium fuit: quod autem, eis sic statutis, aliquid proveniat vel existat, absolutam necessitatem habet. [7] And so we must bear in mind that if the universe of created things be considered as deriving from their first principle, then they are seen to depend on a will, and on no necessity of their principle, except a suppositional one, as we have said. On the other hand, if created things be considered in relation to their proximate principles, they are found to have absolute necessity. For nothing prevents the non-necessary production of certain principles on the supposition of which such and such an effect nevertheless follows necessarily; the death of this animal is an absolutely necessary consequence of its being composed of contraries, although it was not absolutely necessary for it to be composed of contraries. Similarly, the production of such and such natures by God was voluntary; but, having been so constituted, something having absolute necessity comes forth from them or exists as a result.
Diversimode autem ex diversis causis necessitas sumitur in rebus creatis. Nam quia sine suis essentialibus principiis, quae sunt materia et forma, res esse non potest, quod ex ratione principiorum essentialium rei competit, absolutam necessitatem in omnibus habere necesse est. [8] In created things, however, there are diverse modes of necessity arising from diverse causes. For, since a thing cannot be without its essential principles, which are matter and form, whatever belongs to a thing by reason of its essential principles must have absolute necessity in all cases.
Ex his autem principiis, secundum quod sunt essendi principia, tripliciter sumitur necessitas absoluta in rebus. Uno quidem modo, per ordinem ad esse eius cuius sunt. [9] Now, from these principles, so far as they are principles of existing, there arises a threefold absolute necessity in things. First, through the relation of a thing’s principles to its act of being.
Et quia materia, secundum id quod est, ens in potentia est; quod autem potest esse, potest etiam et non esse: ex ordine materiae necessario res aliquae corruptibiles existunt; sicut animal quia ex contrariis compositum est, et ignis quia eius materia est contrariorum susceptiva. Since matter is by its nature a being in potentiality, and since that which can be can also not be, it follows that certain things, in relation to their matter, are necessarily corruptible animals because they are composed of contraries; fire because its matter is receptive of contraries.
Forma autem, secundum id quod est, actus est: et per eam res actu existunt. Unde ex ipsa provenit necessitas ad esse in quibusdam. Quod contingit vel quia res illae sunt formae non in materia: et sic non inest ei potentia ad non esse, sed per suam formam semper sunt in virtute essendi; sicut est in substantiis separatis. Vel quia formae earum sua perfectione adaequant totam potentiam materiae, ut sic non remaneat potentia ad aliam formam, nec per consequens ad non esse: sicut est in corporibus caelestibus. In quibus vero forma non complet totam potentiam materiae, remanet adhuc in materia potentia ad aliam formam. Et ideo non est in eis necessitas essendi, sed virtus essendi consequitur in eis victoriam formae super materia: ut patet in elementis et elementatis. Forma enim elementi non attingit materiam secundum totum eius posse: non enim fit susceptiva formae elementi unius nisi per hoc quod subiicitur alteri parti contrarietatis. Forma vero mixti attingit materiam secundum quod disponitur per determinatum modum mixtionis. Idem autem subiectum oportet esse contrariorum et mediorum omnium, quae sunt ex commixtione extremorum. Unde manifestum est quod omnia quae vel contrarium habent vel ex contrariis sunt, corruptibilia sunt. Quae autem huiusmodi non sunt, sempiterna sunt: nisi per accidens corrumpantur, sicut formae quae non subsistunt sed esse earum est per hoc quod insunt materiae. On the other hand, form is by its nature act, and through it things exist in act; so that from it there results in some things a necessity to be. And this happens either because those things are forms not existing in matter, so that there is no potentiality to non-being in them, but rather by their forms they are always able to be, as in the case of separate substances; or because their forms equal in their perfection the total potentiality of their matter, so that there remains no potentiality to another form, nor consequently, to non-being; such is the case with the heavenly bodies. But in things whose form does not fulfill the total potentiality of the matter, there still remains in the matter potentiality to another form; and hence in such things there is no necessity to be; rather, the power to be is in them the result of the victory of form over matter, as we see in the elements and things composed of them. The form of an element does not embrace the matter in its total potentiality, for matter receives the form of one element only by being made subject to one of two contraries; but the form of a mixed body embraces the matter according as it is disposed by a certain kind of mixture. Now, contraries, and all intermediaries resulting from the mixture of extremes, must have a common identical subject. The manifest consequence of this fact is that all things which either have contraries or are composed of contraries are corruptible, whereas things not of this sort are everlasting—unless they be corrupted accidentally, as forms which are not subsistent but which exist by being in matter.
Alio vero modo ex principiis essentialibus est in rebus absoluta necessitas per ordinem ad partes materiae vel formae, si contingat huiusmodi principia in aliquibus non simplicia esse. Quia enim materia propria hominis est corpus commixtum et complexionatum et organizatum, necessarium est absolute hominem quodlibet elementorum et humorum et organorum principalium in se habere. Similiter, si homo est animal rationale mortale, et haec est natura vel forma hominis, necessarium est ipsum et animal et rationale esse. [10] Secondly, from essential principles of things absolute necessity arises in them from the order of the parts of their matter or of their form, if it happens that in certain things these principles are not simple. For, since man’s proper matter is a mixed body, having a certain temperament and endowed with organs, it is absolutely necessary that a man have in himself each of the elements and humours and principal organs. Even so, if man is a rational mortal animal, and this is his nature or form, then it is necessary for him to be both animal and rational.
Tertio modo est in rebus necessitas absoluta per ordinem principiorum essentialium ad proprietates consequentes materiam vel formam: sicut necesse est serram, quia ex ferro est, duram esse; et hominem disciplinae perceptibilem esse. [11] Thirdly, there is absolute necessity in things from the order of their essential principles to the properties flowing from their matter or form; a saw, because it is made of iron, must be hard; and a man is necessarily capable of learning.
Necessitas vero agentis consideratur et quantum ad ipsum agere; et quantum ad effectum consequentem. Prima autem necessitatis consideratio similis est necessitati accidentis quam habet ex principiis essentialibus. Sicut enim alia accidentia ex necessitate principiorum essentialium procedunt, ita et actio ex necessitate formae per quam agens est actu: sic enim agit ut actu est. Differenter tamen hoc accidit in actione quae in ipso agente manet, sicut intelligere et velle; et in actione quae in alterum transit, sicut calefacere. Nam in primo genere actionis, sequitur ex forma per quam agens fit actu, necessitas actionis ipsius: quia ad eius esse nihil extrinsecum requiritur in quod actio terminetur. Cum enim sensus fuerit factus in actu per speciem sensibilem, necesse est ipsum sentire; et similiter cum intellectus est in actu per speciem intelligibilem. In secundo autem genere actionis, sequitur ex forma necessitas actionis quantum ad virtutem agendi: si enim ignis sit calidus, necessarium est ipsum habere virtutem calefaciendi, tamen non necesse est ipsum calefacere; eo quod ab extrinseco impediri potest. Nec ad propositum differt utrum agens sit unus tantum ad actionem sufficiens per suam formam vel oporteat multos agentes ad unam actionem agendam congregari, sicut multi homines ad trahendam navim: nam omnes sunt ut unus agens, qui fit actu per adunationem eorum ad actionem unam. [12] However, the agent’s necessity has reference both to the action itself and the resulting effect. Necessity in the former case is like the necessity that an accident derives from essential principles; just as other accidents result from the necessity of essential principles, so does action from the necessity of the form by which the agent actually exists; for as the agent actually is, so does it act. But this necessitation of action by form is different in the case of action that remains in the agent itself, as understanding and willing, and in action which passes into something else, as heating. In the first case, the necessity of the action itself results from the form by which the agent is made actual, because in order for this kind of action to exist, nothing extrinsic, as a terminus for it, is required. Thus, when the sense power is actualized by the sensible species, it necessarily acts; and so, too, does the intellect when it is actualized by the intelligible species. But in the second case, the action’s necessity results from the form, so far as the power to act is concerned; if fire is hot, it necessarily has the power of heating, yet it need not heat, for something extrinsic may prevent it. Nor in this question does it make any difference whether by its form one agent alone suffices to carry out an action, or whether many agents have to be assembled in order to perform a single action—as, for example, many men to pull a boat—because all are as one agent, who is put in act by their being united together in one action.
Necessitas autem quae est a causa agente vel movente in effectu vel moto, non tantum dependet a causa agente, sed etiam a conditione ipsius moti et recipientis actionem agentis, cui vel nullo modo inest potentia ad recipiendum talis actionis effectum, sicut lanae ut ex ea fiat serra; vel est potentia impedita per contraria agentia, vel per contrarias dispositiones inhaerentes mobili aut formas, maiori impedimento quam sit virtus agentis in agendo, sicut ferrum non liquefit a debili calido. Oportet igitur, ad hoc quod sequatur effectus, quod in passo sit potentia ad recipiendum, et in agente sit victoria supra passum, ut possit ipsum transmutare ad contrariam dispositionem. Et si quidem effectus consequens in passum ex victoria agentis supra ipsum fuerit contrarius naturali dispositioni patientis, erit necessitas violentiae: sicut cum lapis proiicitur sursum. Si vero non fuerit contraria naturali dispositioni ipsius subiecti, non erit necessitas violentiae, sed ordinis naturalis: sicut est in motu caeli, qui est a principio agente extrinseco, non tamen est contra naturalem dispositionem mobilis, et ideo non est motus violentus, sed naturalis. Similiter est in alteratione corporum inferiorum a corporibus caelestibus: nam naturalis inclinatio est in corporibus inferioribus ad recipiendam impressionem corporum superiorum. Sic etiam est in generatione elementorum: nam forma inducenda per generationem non est contraria primae materiae, quae est generationis subiectum, licet sit contraria formae abiiciendae; non enim materia sub forma contraria existens est generationis subiectum. [13] Now, the necessity in the effect or thing moved, resulting from the efficient or moving cause, depends not only on the efficient cause, but also on the condition of the thing moved and of the recipient of the agent’s action; for the recipient is either in no way receptive of the effect of such action—as wool to be made into a saw—or else its receptivity is impeded by contrary agents or by contrary dispositions in the movable or by contrary forms, to such an extent that the agent’s power is ineffective; a feeble heat will not melt iron. In order that the effect follow, it is therefore necessary that receptivity exist in the patient, and that the patient be under the domination of the agent, so that the latter can transform it to a contrary disposition. And if the effect in the patient resulting from the agent’s victory over it is contrary to the natural disposition of the patient, then there will be necessity by way of violence, as when a stone is thrown upwards. But if the effect is not contrary to the natural disposition of its subject, there will be necessity not of violence, but of natural order; the movement of the heaven, for example, results from an extrinsic active principle, and yet it is not contrary to the natural disposition of the movable subject, and hence is not a violent but a natural movement. This is true also in the alteration of lower bodies by the heavenly bodies, for there is a natural inclination in lower bodies to receive the influence of higher bodies. Such is the case, also, in the generation of the elements; for the form to be engendered is not contrary to prime matter, which is the subject of generation, although it is contrary to the form that is to be cast aside; for matter existing under a contrary form is not the subject of generation.
Ex praedictis igitur patet quod necessitas quae est ex causa agente, in quibusdam dependet ex dispositione agentis tantum; in quibusdam vero ex dispositione agentis et patientis. Si igitur talis dispositio secundum quam de necessitate sequitur effectus, fuerit necessaria absolute et in agente et in patiente, erit necessitas absoluta in causa agente: sicut in his quae agunt ex necessitate et semper. Si autem non fuerit absolute necessaria sed possibilis removeri, non erit necessitas ex causa agente nisi ex suppositione dispositionis utriusque debitae ad agendum: sicut in his quae impediuntur interdum in sua operatione vel propter defectum virtutis, vel propter violentiam alicuius contrarii; unde non agunt semper et ex necessitate, sed ut in pluribus. [14] It is therefore clear from what we have said that the necessity which arises from an efficient cause in some cases depends on the disposition of the agent alone; but in others, on the disposition of both agent and patient. Consequently, if this disposition, according to which the effect follows of necessity, be absolutely necessary both in the agent and in the patient, then there will be absolute necessity in the efficient cause, as with things that act necessarily and always. On the other hand, if this disposition be not absolutely necessary, but removable, then from the efficient cause no necessity will result, except on the supposition that both agent and patient possess the disposition necessary for acting. Thus, we find no absolute necessity in those things that are sometimes impeded in their activity either through lack of power or the violent action of a contrary; such things, then, do not act always and necessarily, but in the majority of cases.
Ex causa autem finali consequitur in rebus necessitas dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, prout est primum in intentione agentis. Et quantum ad hoc, eodem modo est necessitas ex fine et ab agente: agens enim in tantum agit in quantum finem intendit, tam in naturalibus quam in voluntariis. In rebus enim naturalibus, intentio finis competit agenti secundum suam formam, per quam finis est sibi conveniens: unde oportet quod secundum virtutem formae tendat res naturalis in finem; sicut grave secundum mensuram gravitatis tendit ad medium. In rebus autem voluntariis, tantum voluntas inclinat ad agendum propter finem quantum intendit finem: licet non semper tantum inclinetur ad agendum haec vel illa quae sunt propter finem quantum appetit finem, quando finis non solum per haec vel illa haberi potest, sed pluribus modis. Alio vero modo est ex fine necessitas secundum quod est posterius in esse. Et haec est necessitas non absoluta, sed conditionata: sicut dicimus necesse fore ut serra sit ferrea si debet habere serrae opus. [15] The final cause is responsible for a twofold necessity in things. In one way, necessity results from that cause inasmuch as it is first in the intention of the agent. And in this regard, necessity derives from the end in the same way as from the agent; for it is precisely so far as an agent intends an end that an agent acts. This is true of natural as well as voluntary actions. For in natural things the intention of the end belongs to the agent in keeping with the latter’s form, whereby the end is becoming to it; hence, the natural thing necessarily tends to its end in accordance with the power of its form; a heavy body tends toward the center according to the measure of its gravity. And in voluntary things the will inclines to act for the sake of an end only so far as it intends that end, although the will, as much as it desires the end, is not always inclined to do this or that as means to it, when the end can be obtained not only by this or that means, but in several ways. Now, in another way, necessity follows from the end as posterior in actual being; and such necessity is not absolute, but conditional. Thus, we say that a saw will have to be made of iron if it is to do the work of saw.

Caput 31 Chapter 31
Quod non est necessarium creaturas semper fuisse THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR CREATURES TO HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED
Ex praemissis autem restat ostendere quod non est necessarium res creatas ab aeterno fuisse. [1] It remains for us to show from the foregoing that it is not necessary for created things to have existed from eternity.
Si enim creaturarum universitatem, vel quamcumque unam creaturam, necesse est esse, oportet quod necessitatem istam habeat ex se, vel ex alio. Ex se quidem eam habere non potest. Ostensum est enim supra quod omne ens oportet esse a primo ente. Quod autem non habet esse a se, impossibile est quod necessitatem essendi a se habeat: quia quod necesse est esse, impossibile est non esse; et sic quod de se habet quod sit necesse-esse, de se habet quod non possit esse non ens; et per consequens, quod non sit non ens; et ita quod sit ens. [2] For, if the existence of the whole universe of creatures, or of any single creature, is necessary, then its necessity must be derived either from itself or from something else. But it cannot owe its necessity to itself; for we proved above that every being must derive its existence from the first being. But anything whose being is not self-derived cannot possibly have necessary existence from itself, because that which necessarily is cannot not-be; so, whatever of itself has necessary existence is for that reason incapable of not being; and it follows that it is not a non-being, and hence is a being.
Si autem haec necessitas creaturae est ab alio, oportet quod sit ab aliqua causa quae sit extrinseca: quia quicquid accipiatur intrinsecum creaturae, habet esse ab alio. Causa autem extrinseca est vel efficiens, vel finis. Ex efficiente vero sequitur quod effectum necesse sit esse, per hoc quod agentem necesse est agere: per actionem enim agentis effectus a causa efficiente dependet. Si igitur agentem non necesse sit agere ad productionem effectus, nec effectum necesse est esse absolute. Deus autem non agit ex aliqua necessitate ad creaturarum productionem, ut supra ostensum est. Non est igitur absolute necesse creaturam esse necessitate pendente a causa efficiente. Similiter nec necessitate pendente a causa finali. Ea enim quae sunt ad finem, necessitatem a fine non recipiunt nisi secundum quod finis sine eis vel non potest esse, sicut conservatio vitae sine cibo; vel non ita bene esse, sicut iter sine equo. Finis autem divinae voluntatis, ex qua res in esse processerunt, non potest aliud esse quam sua bonitas, ut in primo ostensum est. Quae quidem a creaturis non dependet: nec quantum ad esse, cum sit per se necesse-esse; nec quantum ad bene esse, cum sit secundum se perfecta simpliciter; quae omnia supra ostensa sunt. Non est igitur creaturam esse absolute necessarium. Nec igitur necessarium est ponere creaturam semper fuisse. [3] But, if the creature’s necessity of which we speak is derived from something other than itself, then this must be from some extrinsic cause; for whatever is received within a creature owes its being to another. An extrinsic cause, however, is either an efficient or a final one. Now, from the efficient cause it follows that the effect exists necessarily when the agent necessarily acts; for it is through the agent’s action that the effect depends on the efficient cause. Consequently, if the agent need not act in order to produce the effect, then it is not absolutely necessary for the effect to be. God, however, acts out of no necessity in the production of creatures, as we have shown. Therefore, it is not absolutely necessary for the creature to be, as concerns necessity dependent on the efficient cause. Nor is it necessary as regards dependence on the final cause. For the means to an end derive necessity from the end only so far as without them the end either cannot be—life cannot be preserved without food—or cannot well be—as a journey without a horse. Now, as we have shown in Book I, the end of God’s will, whereby things came into being, cannot be anything else than His own goodness. But the divine goodness does not depend on creatures, either as to being, since it is necessarily existent in virtue of itself, or as to well-being, since it is by itself absolutely perfect. (All these points have been previously demonstrated.) Therefore, it is not absolutely necessary for a creature to exist; nor, then, is it necessary to maintain that a creature always existed.
Adhuc. Quod est ex voluntate, non est absolute necessarium, nisi forte quando voluntatem hoc velle est necessarium. Deus autem non per necessitatem naturae, sed per voluntatem producit creaturas in esse, ut probatum est: nec ex necessitate vult creaturas esse, ut in primo ostensum est. Non igitur est absolute necessarium creaturam esse. Neque ergo necessarium est eas semper fuisse. [4] Consider, also, that nothing proceeding from a will is absolutely necessary, except when it chances to be necessary for the will to will it. But, as we have shown, God brings creatures into being not through a necessity of His nature, but voluntarily. Nor, as proved in Book I, does He necessarily will the existence of creatures. Hence, it is not absolutely necessary for the creature to be, and therefore neither is it necessary for creatures to have existed always.
Amplius. Ostensum est supra quod Deus non agit aliqua actione quae sit extra ipsum, quasi ab ipso exiens et in creaturam terminata, sicut calefactio exit ab igne et terminatur in ligna: sed eius velle est eius agere; et hoc modo sunt res, secundum quod Deus vult eas esse. Sed non est necessarium quod Deus velit creaturam semper fuisse: cum etiam non sit necessarium Deum velle quod creatura sit omnino, ut in primo ostensum est. Non igitur est necessarium quod creatura semper fuerit. [5] Moreover, we proved above that God’s action is not outside Himself, as though passing from Him and terminating in the created thing, in the way in which heat issues from fire and terminates in wood. On the contrary, His act of will is identical with His action; and things are as God wills them to be. But it is not necessary that God will a creature to have existed always, for indeed, as we proved in Book I, it is not necessary that God will a creature to be at all. Hence, it is not necessary for a creature to have always been.
Item. Ab agente per voluntatem non procedit aliquid ex necessitate nisi per rationem alicuius debiti. Ex nullo autem debito Deus creaturam producit, si absolute universalis creaturae productio consideretur, ut supra ostensum est. Non igitur ex necessitate Deus creaturam producit. Nec igitur necessarium est, si Deus sempiternus est, quod creaturam ab aeterno produxerit. [6] Then, too, a thing does not proceed necessarily from a voluntary agent except because of something due. But, as we have shown above, it is not by reason of any debt that God brings the creature into being, if the universal production of creatures be considered absolutely. Therefore, God does not of necessity produce the creature. Nor, then, is it necessary that God should have produced the creature from eternity because He Himself is eternal.
Praeterea. Ostensum est supra quod absoluta necessitas in rebus creatis non est per ordinem ad primum principium quod per se necesse est esse, scilicet Deum, sed per ordinem ad alias causas, quae non sunt per se necesse-esse. Necessitas autem ordinis ad id quod non est per se necesse esse, non cogit aliquid semper fuisse: sequitur enim, si aliquid currit, quod moveatur; non tamen necesse est quod semper motum fuerit, quia ipsum currere non est per se necessarium. Nihil ergo cogit creaturas semper fuisse. [7] Also, we have just shown that absolute necessity in created things results not from a relation to a first principle which is of itself necessarily existent, namely, God, but from a relation to other causes whose existence is not essentially necessary. But the necessity arising from a relation to that which is not of itself necessarily existent does not make it necessary for something to have always existed; if a thing runs, it follows that it is in motion, yet it is not necessary for it to have always been in motion, because the running itself is not essentially necessary. There is, therefore, no necessity that creatures should have existed always.

Caput 32 Chapter 32
Rationes volentium probare aeternitatem mundi ex parte Dei acceptae ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO WISH TO DEMONSTRATE THE WORLD’S ETERNITY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF GOD
Sed quia multorum positio fuit quod mundus semper et ex necessitate fuerit, et hoc demonstrare conati sunt, restat rationes eorum ponere, ut ostendatur quod non de necessitate concludunt mundi sempiternitatem. Primo, autem, ponentur rationes quae sumuntur ex parte Dei. Secundo, quae sumuntur ex parte creaturae. Tertio, quae sumuntur a modo factionis rerum, secundum quem ponuntur de novo incipere esse. [1] However, since many have held that the world has existed always and of necessity, and have attempted to demonstrate this, it remains for us to present their arguments, so as to show that they do not constitute a necessary demonstration of the world’s eternity. First, we give the arguments taken from God’s side of the matter; second, those taken from the point of view of the creature; third, those derived from a consideration of the mode of the production of things, according to which they are held to begin to exist anew.
Ex parte autem Dei, ad aeternitatem mundi ostendendam sumuntur rationes huiusmodi. [2] On the part of God the following arguments are used in order to prove the eternity of the world.
Omne agens quod non semper agit, movetur per se vel per accidens. Per se quidem, sicut ignis qui non semper comburebat, incipit comburere vel quia de novo accenditur; vel quia de novo transfertur, ut sit propinquum combustibili. Per accidens autem, sicut motor animalis incipit de novo movere animal aliquo novo motu facto circa ipsum: vel ex interiori, sicut, cum animal expergiscitur digestione completa, incipit moveri; vel ab exteriori, sicut cum de novo veniunt actiones inducentes ad aliquam actionem de novo inchoandam. Deus autem non movetur neque per se neque per accidens, ut in primo probatum est. Deus igitur semper eodem modo agit. Ex sua autem actione res creatae in esse consistunt. Semper igitur creaturae fuerunt. [3] Every agent which does not always act is moved through itself or by accident: through itself, as in the case of a fire which, not always burning, begins to burn either because it is newly lit or because it is for the first time placed in proximity to the fuel; by accident, as when an agent that moves an animal begins to move it by some new movement made in its regard, either from within, as an animal begins to be moved when it awakes after having digested its food, or from without, as when actions arise anew that lead to the initiation of some new action. Now, God is moved neither through Himself nor by accident, as we proved in Book I of this work. Therefore, God acts always in the same way. And by His action created things take their place in being. Hence, creatures always have been.
Adhuc. Effectus procedit a causa agente per actionem eius. Sed actio Dei est aeterna: alias fieret de potentia agente actu agens; et oporteret quod reduceretur in actum ab aliquo priori agente, quod est impossibile. Ergo res a Deo creatae ab aeterno fuerunt. [4] Again, an effect proceeds from its efficient cause through the latter’s action. But God’s action is eternal; otherwise, from being an agent potentially He would become an agent actually; and He would have to be actualized by some prior agent—which is impossible. Therefore, the things created by God have existed from eternity.
Amplius. Posita causa sufficienti, necesse est effectum poni. Si enim adhuc, posita causa, non necesse est effectum poni, possibile igitur erit, causa posita, effectum esse et non esse; consecutio igitur effectus ad causam erit possibilis tantum; quod autem est possibile, indiget aliquo quo reducatur in actum; oportebit igitur ponere aliquam causam qua fiat ut effectus reducatur in actum; et sic prima causa non erat sufficiens. Sed Deus est causa sufficiens productionis creaturarum: alias non esset causa, sed magis in potentia se ad causam haberet; aliquo enim addito fieret causa; quod patet esse impossibile. Videtur igitur necessarium quod, cum Deus ab aeterno fuerit, quod creatura etiam fuerit ab aeterno. [5] And again. Given a sufficient cause, its effect must be granted. For if, given the cause, it were still unnecessary to grant its effect, it would then be possible that the effect should be and not be; the sequence from cause to effect will in that case be only possible. But that which is possible needs something to make it actual. Some cause, therefore, will have to be posited in order to do this; thus, the first cause was not sufficient. God, however, is the sufficient cause of the production of creatures; otherwise, He would not be a cause; rather, He would be in potentiality to a cause, since in that case He would become a cause by the addition of something. But this is clearly impossible. Since, then, God has existed from eternity, it seems to follow necessarily that the creature also has existed from eternity.
Item. Agens per voluntatem non retardat suum propositum exequi de aliquo faciendo nisi propter aliquid in futurum expectatum quod nondum adest: et hoc quandoque est in ipso agente, sicut cum expectatur perfectio virtutis ad agendum, aut sublatio alicuius impedientis virtutem; quandoque vero est extra agentem, sicut cum expectatur praesentia alicuius coram quo actio fiat; vel saltem cum expectatur praesentia alicuius temporis opportuni quod nondum adest. Si enim voluntas sit completa, statim potentia exequitur, nisi sit defectus in ipsa: sicut ad imperium voluntatis statim sequitur motus membri, nisi sit defectus potentiae motivae exequentis motum. Et per hoc patet quod, cum aliquis vult aliquid facere et non statim fiat, oportet quod vel hoc sit propter defectum potentiae, qui expectatur removendus; vel quia voluntas non est completa ad hoc faciendum. Dico autem complementum voluntatis esse, quando vult hoc absolute facere omnibus modis: voluntas autem incompleta est, quando aliquis non vult facere hoc absolute, sed existente aliqua conditione quae nondum adest; vel nisi subtracto impedimento quod adest. Constat autem quod quicquid Deus nunc vult quod sit, ab aeterno voluit quod sit: non enim novus motus voluntatis ei advenire potest. Nec aliquis defectus vel impedimentum potentiae eius adesse potuit: nec aliquid aliud expectari potuit ad universalis creaturae productionem, cum nihil aliud sit increatum nisi ipse solus, ut supra ostensum est. Necessarium igitur videtur quod ab aeterno creaturam in esse produxerit. [6] Also, a voluntary agent delays in carrying out its intention only because of something expected but not yet present, and this sometimes is in the agent itself, as when complete competency to do something, or the removal of an impediment to one’s power, is waited for; while sometimes this anticipated thing is outside the agent, as when one awaits a person in whose presence an action is to be done, or at any event when one looks forward to the presence of an opportune moment that has not yet arrived. For, if the will be perfectly equipped, the power acts at once, unless there be a defect in it; at the will’s command the movement of a limb follows immediately, if no defect exists in the motive power carrying out the movement. And from this we see that when one wills to do something and it is not done at once, this failure must be due either to a defect in the power, of which defect one awaits the removal, or to the fact that the will is not perfectly equipped to do this thing. By the will being perfectly equipped I mean that it wills to do something absolutely, in every respect; whereas the will is imperfectly equipped when one does not will absolutely to do a thing, but on the condition that something exist which is not yet present or that a present obstacle be removed. It is certain however, that God has willed from eternity the existence of whatever He now wills to exist, for no new movement of will can possibly accrue to Him. Nor could any defect or obstacle stand in the way of His power, nor could anything else be looked for as cause of the universal production of creatures, since nothing besides Him is uncreated, as we have proved above. Therefore, it seems necessary to conclude that God brought creatures into being from all eternity.
Praeterea. Agens per intellectum non praeeligit unum alteri nisi propter eminentiam unius ad alterum. Sed ubi nulla est differentia, non potest, esse praeeminentia. Ubi igitur nulla est differentia, non fit praeelectio unius ad alterum. Et propter hoc ab agente ad utrumlibet se habente aequaliter nulla erit actio, sicut nec a materia: talis enim potentia similatur potentiae materiae. Non entis autem ad non ens nulla potest esse differentia. Unum igitur non ens non est alteri praeeligibile. Sed praeter totam universitatem creaturarum nihil est nisi aeternitas Dei. In nihilo autem non possunt assignari aliquae differentiae momentorum, ut in uno magis oporteat aliquid fieri quam in alio. Similiter nec in aeternitate, quae tota est uniformis et simplex, ut in primo ostensum est. Relinquitur igitur quod voluntas Dei aequaliter se habet ad producendum creaturam per totam aeternitatem. Aut igitur voluntas sua est de hoc quod nunquam creatura sub aeternitate eius constituatur: aut quod semper. Constat autem quod non est voluntas eius de hoc quod nunquam creatura sub esse eius aeterno constituatur: cum pateat creaturas voluntate eius esse institutas. Relinquitur igitur de necessitate, ut videtur, quod creatura semper fuit. [7] Moreover, an intellectual agent chooses one thing in preference to another only because of the superiority of the one over the other. But, where there is no difference, there can be no superiority, so that in the absence of difference there is no choice of the one rather than of the other. And on this account, no action will proceed from an agent equally indifferent to each of two alternatives, any more than from matter; for a potentiality of this kind is like that of matter. Now, there can be no difference between non-being and non-being. Therefore, one non-being is not preferable to another non-being. But outside the total universe of created things nothing whatever exists except the divine eternity. In nothingness, however, no difference of moments can possibly be assigned, so that a thing should be made in one moment rather than in another. Nor is there any difference of moments in eternity, the whole of which is, as was shown in Book I, uniform and simple. It therefore follows that God’s will is indifferent as concerns the production of the creature throughout all eternity. Accordingly, His will is either that the creature should never be established within His eternity, or that it should always have been so. The former clearly is not the case, for it is evident that creatures were originated and established by His will. It follows with apparent necessity that the creature has always existed.
Adhuc. Ea quae sunt ad finem, necessitatem habent ex fine: et maxime in his quae voluntate aguntur. Oportet igitur quod, fine eodem modo se habente, ea quae sunt ad finem eodem modo se habeant vel producantur, nisi adveniat nova habitudo eorum ad finem. Finis autem creaturarum ex divina voluntate prodeuntium est divina bonitas, quae sola potest esse divinae voluntatis finis. Cum igitur bonitas divina in tota aeternitate eodem modo se habeat in se et in comparatione ad divinam voluntatem videtur quod eodem modo creaturae in esse producantur a divina voluntate in tota aeternitate: non enim potest dici quod aliqua nova relatio eis advenerit ad finem, si penitus ponantur non fuisse ante aliquod determinatum tempus, a quo incoepisse ponuntur. [8] Furthermore, things directed to an end receive their necessity from that end; especially is this true of things done voluntarily. Therefore, if the end remains the same, it follows that the things ordered to it remain the same or are produced in the same way, unless there arises a new relation between them and the end. Now, the end of creatures issuing forth from the divine will is the divine goodness, which alone can be the end of the divine will. From the fact that the divine goodness, throughout all eternity, is unchangeable in itself and in relation to the divine will, it would seem to follow that creatures are in the same manner brought into being by God’s will throughout all eternity. For it cannot be said that some new relation to the end accrued to them, if they are held to have been absolutely non-existent prior to a particular time from which they are supposed to have begun to be.
Adhuc. Cum bonitas divina perfectissima sit, non hoc modo dicitur quod omnia a Deo processerunt propter bonitatem eius, ut ei aliquid ex creaturis accresceret: sed quia bonitatis est ut seipsam communicet prout possibile est, in quo ipsa bonitas manifestatur. Cum autem omnia bonitatem Dei participent inquantum habent esse, secundum quod diuturniora sunt, magis Dei bonitatem participant; unde et esse perpetuum speciei dicitur divinum esse. Bonitas autem divina infinita est. Eius igitur est ut se in infinitum communicet, non aliquo determinato tempore tantum. Hoc igitur videtur ad divinam bonitatem pertinere, ut creaturae aliquae ab aeterno fuerint. [9] Since the divine goodness is maximally perfect, it is said that all things issued from God on account of His goodness, but not in such a way that something accrued to Him from creatures; rather, this is said because it is of the essence of goodness to communicate itself as far as possible, and by so doing goodness itself is manifested. Now, since all things partake of God’s goodness so far as they have being, the more enduring they are, so much the more do they participate in His goodness. This is why the perpetual being of a species is called a divine being. The divine goodness, however, is infinite, so that it is proper to it to communicate itself in an infinite manner, not in some limited time only. Therefore, it seems to belong to the divine goodness that some created things should have existed from eternity.
Haec igitur sunt ex parte Dei accepta per quae videtur quod creaturae semper fuerint. [10] These, then, are the arguments, taken from God’s side of the question, which seem to show that creatures have existed always.

Caput 33 Chapter 33
Rationes volentium probare aeternitatem mundi sumptae ex parte creaturarum ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO WISH TO PROVE THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CREATURES
Sunt autem et alia, ex parte creaturarum accepta, quae idem ostendere videntur. [1] There are also the following arguments, taken from the point of view of creatures, which seemingly arrive at the same conclusion.
Quae enim non habent potentiam ad non esse, impossibile est ea non esse. Quaedam autem sunt in creaturis in quibus non est potentia ad non esse. Non enim potest esse potentia ad non esse nisi in illis quae habent materiam contrarietati subiectam: potentia enim ad esse et non esse est potentia ad privationem et formam, quorum subiectum est materia; privatio vero semper adiungitur formae contrariae, cum impossibile sit materiam esse absque omni forma. Sed quaedam creaturae sunt in quibus non est materia contrarietati subiecta: vel quia omnino non habent materiam, sicut substantiae intellectuales, ut infra ostendetur; vel non habent contrarium, sicut corpora caelestia; quod eorum motus ostendit, qui contrarium non habet. Quasdam igitur creaturas impossibile est non esse. Ergo eas necesse est semper esse. [2] Things having no potentiality to non-being cannot possibly fail to exist. Now, in certain created things there is no potentiality to non-being. For there can be potentiality to non-being only in those things which possess matter subject to contrariety; for potentiality to being and non-being is potentiality to privation and form, the subject of which is matter; and privation is always connected with the contrary form, since matter cannot possibly exist without any form at all. But some creatures, wherein there is no matter subject to contrariety, do exist, either because they are completely without matter, as intellectual substances are—this we will show later—or because they have no contrary opposite, as with the heavenly bodies—and this is proved by their movement, which has no contrary. It is, then, impossible for certain creatures not to exist; therefore, they must always exist.
Item. Unaquaeque res tantum durat in esse quanta est sua virtus essendi: nisi per accidens, sicut in his quae violenter corrumpuntur. Sed quaedam creaturae sunt quibus inest virtus essendi non ad aliquod determinatum tempus, sed ad semper essendum: sicut corpora caelestia et intellectuales substantiae; incorruptibilia enim sunt, cum contrarium non habeant. Relinquitur igitur quod eis competit semper esse. Quod autem incipit esse, non semper est. Eis ergo non competit ut esse incipiant. [3] Moreover, each and every thing continues in being in proportion to its power of being—except by accident, as in things caused to perish by violence. But there are some creatures endowed with the power of existing, not for any limited time, but forever; the heavenly bodies, for instance, and intellectual substances, which are imperishable because they have no contrary. It is therefore proper to these things to exist always. On the other hand, that which begins to be does not exist always. Therefore, an existential beginning does not pertain to imperishable or incorruptible things.
Adhuc. Quandocumque aliquid de novo incipit moveri, oportet quod movens, vel motum, vel utrumque, aliter se habeat nunc quando est motus, quam prius quando non erat motus: est enim habitudo vel relatio quaedam moventis ad motum secundum quod est movens actu; relatio autem nova non incipit sine mutatione utriusque vel alterius saltem extremorum. Quod autem se aliter habet nunc et prius, movetur. Ergo oportet, ante motum qui de novo incipit, alium motum praecedere in mobili vel in movente. Oportet igitur quod quilibet motus vel sit aeternus, vel habeat alium motum ante se. Motus igitur semper fuit. Ergo et mobilia. Et sic creaturae semper fuerunt. Deus enim omnino immobilis est, ut in primo ostensum est. [4] Furthermore, whenever something begins to be moved for the first time, either the mover, or the moved, or both, must needs exist in a different state now, while there is movement, than before, when no movement existed. For there is a certain condition or relation in the mover to the thing moved, as a result of which it moves actually; and the new relation does not arise without a change either in both or at least in one or other of the extremes related. But that thing is moved whose condition of existence is different now than it was before. Therefore, prior to the newly initiated movement, another movement must take place either in the movable thing or in the mover; so that every movement is either eternal or is preceded by another movement. Therefore, motion has always existed, and so, also, have things movable. Hence, creatures have always existed. For God is wholly immutable, as we proved in Book I of this work.
Praeterea. Omne agens, quod generat sibi simile, intendit conservare esse perpetuum in specie, quod non potest perpetuo conservari in individuo. Impossibile est autem naturae appetitum vanum esse. Oportet igitur quod rerum generabilium species sint perpetuae. [5] Again, every agent which engenders its like intends to preserve perpetual being in the species, for existence cannot be so maintained in the individual. Now, it is impossible that natural desire should be futile. The species of generable things, therefore, must be perpetual.
Adhuc. Si tempus est perpetuum, oportet motum esse perpetuum: cum sit numerus motus. Et per consequens mobilia esse perpetua: cum motus sit actus mobilis. Sed tempus oportet esse perpetuum. Non enim potest intelligi esse tempus quin sit nunc: sicut nec linea potest intelligi sine puncto. Nunc autem semper est finis praeteriti et principium futuri: haec enim est definitio ipsius nunc. Et sic quodlibet nunc datum habet ante se tempus prius et posterius. Et ita nullum potest esse primum neque ultimum. Relinquitur igitur quod mobilia, quae sunt substantiae creatae, sint ab aeterno. [6] And again, if time is everlasting, so also must motion be; for time “is the number of motion.” And, consequently, things movable must be perpetual, since motion is the “act of the movable.” But time must be everlasting. For time cannot be known to exist without the now, any more than a line without a point. But the now is always “the end of the past and the beginning of the future,” for this is the definition of the now. Thus, every given now has time preceding it and following it, so that no now can be either first or last. It remains that mobile things, which created substances are, exist from eternity.
Item. Oportet vel affirmare vel negare. Si igitur ad negationem alicuius sequitur eius positio, oportet illud esse semper. Tempus autem est huiusmodi. Nam, si tempus non semper fuit, est accipere prius non esse ipsius quam esse; et similiter, si non sit semper futurum, oportet quod non esse eius sit posterius ad esse eius. Prius autem et posterius non potest esse secundum durationem nisi tempus sit: nam numerus prioris et posterioris tempus est. Et sic oportebit tempus fuisse antequam inciperet, et futurum esse postquam desinet. Oportet igitur tempus esse aeternum. Tempus autem est accidens: quod sine subiecto esse non potest. Subiectum autem eius non est Deus, qui est supra tempus: cum sit omnino immobilis, ut in primo probatum est. Relinquitur igitur aliquam substantiam creatam aeternam esse. [7] Also, it is necessary either to affirm or to deny. If, therefore, a thing’s existence is affirmed as a result of denying it, then that thing must exist always. Now, time is such a thing. For to suppose that time did not always exist is to think of it as not existing prior to existing; and, similarly, if time will not exist always, its non-existence must succeed its existence. But if time does not exist, there can be no before and after in duration; for “the number of before and after is time.” And thus, time must have existed before it began to be and will continue to exist after it has ceased to be. Time is, therefore, necessarily eternal. But time is an accident, and an accident cannot be without a subject. Now, God, who is above time, is not the subject of this accident, for He is altogether immutable, as we proved in Book I of this work. It remains that some created substance is eternal.
Amplius. Multae propositiones sic se habent quod qui eas negat, oportet quod eas ponat: sicut qui negat veritatem esse, ponit veritatem esse: ponit enim suam negativam esse veram quam profert. Et simile est de eo qui negat hoc principium, contradictionem non esse simul: negans enim hoc dicit negationem quam ponit esse veram, oppositam autem affirmationem falsam, et sic non de eodem utrumque verificari. Si igitur id ad cuius remotionem sequitur sua positio, oportet esse semper, ut probatum est, sequitur quod praedictae propositiones, et omnes quae ex eis sequuntur, sint sempiternae. Hae autem propositiones non sunt Deus. Ergo oportet aliquid praeter Deum esse aeternum. [8] Many propositions, moreover, are of such nature that he who denies them must posit them; for example, whoever denies that truth exists posits the existence of truth, for the denial which he puts forward he posits as true. The same is true of one who denies the principle that contradictories are not simultaneous; for, by denying this, he asserts that the negation which he posits is true and that the opposite affirmation is false, and thus that both are not true of the same thing. Therefore, if a thing that is affirmed by being denied must, as we have just shown, exist always, then the aforesaid propositions, and all that follow from them, are everlasting. But these propositions are not God. It is, therefore, necessary that something besides God be eternal.
Hae igitur et huiusmodi rationes sumi possunt ex parte creaturarum quod creaturae fuerint semper. [9] These arguments, then, and others of like nature, can be taken from the standpoint of created things in order to prove that the latter have existed always.

Caput 34 Chapter 34
Rationes ad probandum aeternitatem mundi ex parte factionis ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE MAKING [OF THINGS]
Possunt etiam sumi aliae rationes, ex parte ipsius factionis, ad idem ostendendum. [1] In order to establish the same conclusion, this time from the side of the making itself, other arguments also can be adduced, such as the following.
Quod enim ab omnibus communiter dicitur, impossibile est totaliter esse falsum. Falsa enim opinio infirmitas quaedam intellectus est: sicut et falsum iudicium de sensibili proprio ex infirmitate sensus accidit. Defectus autem per accidens sunt: quia praeter naturae intentionem. Quod autem est per accidens, non potest esse semper et in omnibus: sicut iudicium quod de saporibus ab omni gustu datur, non potest esse falsum. Ita iudicium quod ab omnibus de veritate datur, non potest esse erroneum. Communis autem sententia est omnium philosophorum ex nihilo nihil fieri.
Oportet igitur hoc esse verum. Si igitur aliquid sit factum, oportet ex aliquo esse factum. Quod si etiam factum sit, oportet etiam et hoc ex alio fieri. Non potest autem hoc in infinitum procedere: quia sic nulla generatio compleretur, cum non sit possibile infinita transire. Oportet igitur devenire ad aliquod primum quod non sit factum. Omne autem ens quod non semper fuit, oportet esse factum. Ergo oportet illud ex quo primo omnia fiunt, esse sempiternum. Hoc autem non est Deus: quia ipse non potest esse materia alicuius rei, ut in primo probatum est. Relinquitur igitur quod aliquid extra Deum sit aeternum, scilicet prima materia.
[2] That which is asserted universally, by everyone, cannot possibly be totally false. For a false opinion is a kind of infirmity of the understanding, just as a false judgment concerning a proper sensible happens as the result of a weakness of the sense power involved. But defects, being outside the intention of nature, are accidental. And nothing accidental can be always and in all things; the judgment about savors given by every tasting cannot be false. Thus, the judgment uttered by everyone concerning truth cannot be erroneous. “Now, it is the common opinion of all the philosophers that nothing arises from what is not.
This opinion, therefore, must be true; so that if a thing is made it must needs be made from something; and if the latter, also, is made, then it, too, must be made from something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity, since in that case no generation of anything would be completed; it is impossible to pass through an infinite number of things. It is therefore necessary to arrive at a first thing that was not made. But any and every thing which has not always existed must be made. Consequently, that being from which all things were first made, must be everlasting. Yet this is not God, because He cannot be the matter of anything, as we proved in Book I of this work. Thus, it follows that something besides God is eternal, namely, prime matter.
Amplius. Si aliquid non se habet eodem modo nunc et prius, oportet illud esse aliqualiter mutatum: hoc enim est moveri, non eodem modo se nunc et prius habere. Omne autem quod de novo incipit esse, non eodem modo se habet nunc et prius. Oportet igitur hoc per aliquem motum accidere vel mutationem. Omnis autem motus vel mutatio in aliquo subiecto est: est enim actus mobilis. Cum autem motus sit prius eo quod fit per motum, cum ad hoc terminetur motus, oportet ante quodlibet factum praeexistere aliquod subiectum mobile. Et cum hoc non sit possibile in infinitum procedere, oportet devenire ad aliquod primum subiectum non de novo incipiens sed semper existens. [3] Moreover, if a thing does not exist in the same way now as it did before, then in some respect it must be changed, for to be moved [or changed] is not to exist in the same state now as before. But everything that begins to exist anew is not now as it was before; hence, the reason for this must be that some motion or change has occurred. But every motion or change is in a subject, for it is “the act of the movable.” Now, since motion precedes that which is made by it, for it terminates in the latter, it follows that a movable subject must exist prior to anything made. And since to proceed to infinity in this matter is impossible, we must come to a first subject not newly originated but always existent.
Adhuc. Omne quod de novo esse incipit, antequam esset, possibile erat ipsum esse: si enim non, impossibile erat ipsum esse, et necesse non esse; et sic semper fuisset non ens et nunquam esse incoepisset. Sed quod est possibile esse, est subiectum potentia ens. Oportet igitur ante quodlibet de novo incipiens praeexistere subiectum potentia ens. Et cum hoc in infinitum procedere non possit, oportet ponere aliquod primum subiectum quod non incoepit esse de novo. [4] Then, too, in the case of a thing that begins to be anew, it was possible, before it existed, that it would exist; otherwise, it was impossible for it to be, and necessary for it not to be; so that it would always have been a non-entity and would never have begun to be. But that which is possibly existent is potentially a subject of being. Therefore, antecedently to everything which begins to exist de novo, there must be a subject which is potentially a being. And since an infinite regress is here impossible, we must affirm the existence of a primary subject which did not begin to be de novo.
Item. Nulla substantia permanens est dum fit: ad hoc enim fit ut sit; non igitur fieret, si iam esset. Sed dum fit, oportet aliquid esse quod sit factionis subiectum: non enim factio, cum sit accidens, sine subiecto esse potest. Omne igitur quod fit, habet aliquod subiectum praeexistens. Et cum hoc in infinitum ire non possit, sequetur primum subiectum non esse factum, sed sempiternum. Ex quo ulterius sequitur aliquid praeter Deum esse aeternum: cum ipse subiectum factionis aut motus esse non possit. [5] Furthermore, no permanent substance exists while it is being made, for it is made in order that it may be; so, it would not be made if it existed already. But, while it is being made, something must exist which is the subject of the making; for, since making is an accident, there can be no making without a subject. Thus, whatever is made has some pre-existing subject. And since this cannot go on indefinitely, it follows that the first subject was not made, but is everlasting; and it follows, also, that something besides God is eternal, because He cannot be the subject of making or of movement.
Hae igitur rationes sunt quibus aliqui tanquam demonstrationibus inhaerentes, dicunt necessarium res creatas semper fuisse. In quo fidei Catholicae contradicunt, quae ponit nihil praeter Deum semper fuisse, sed omnia esse coepisse praeter unum Deum aeternum [6] These, then, are the arguments through adhering to which, as though they were demonstrations, some people say that created things must always have existed; in so saying they contradict the Catholic faith, which affirms that nothing besides God has always existed, but that all things, save the one eternal God, have had a beginning.

Caput 35 Chapter 35
Solutio rationum supra positarum et primo earum quae sumebantur ex parte Dei SOLUTION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENTS, AND FIRST OF THOSE TAKEN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOD
Oportet igitur ostendere praemissas rationes non ex necessitate concludere. Et primo, illas quae ex parte agentis sumuntur. [1] It remains for us to show that the arguments proposed above issue in no necessary conclusions. First, let us consider those taken from the agent’s point of view.
Non enim oportet quod per se vel per accidens Deus moveatur si effectus eius de novo esse incipiunt: ut prima ratio procedebat. Novitas enim effectus indicare potest mutationem agentis inquantum demonstrat novitatem actionis: non enim potest esse quod in agente sit nova actio nisi aliquo modo moveatur, saltem de otio in actum. Novitas autem divini effectus non demonstrat novitatem actionis in Deo: cum actio sua sit sua essentia, ut supra ostensum est. Unde neque novitas effectus mutationem Dei agentis demonstrare potest. [2] God need not be moved either essentially or accidentally if His effects begin to exist anew, as the first argument would have it. For the newness of an effect can indicate change on the agent’s part inasmuch as it does manifest newness of action; a new action cannot possibly be in the agent unless the latter is in some way moved, at least from inaction to action. But the newness of an effect produced by God does not demonstrate newness of action in Him, since His action is His essence, as we have proved above. Neither, therefore, can newness of effect prove change in God the agent.
Nec tamen oportet quod, si primo agentis actio sit aeterna, quod eius effectus sit aeternus: ut secunda ratio concludebat. Ostensum est enim supra quod Deus agit voluntate in rerum productione. Non autem ita quod sit aliqua alia ipsius actio media, sicut in nobis actio virtutis motivae est media inter actum voluntatis et effectum, ut in praecedentibus ostensum est: sed oportet quod suum intelligere et velle sit suum facere. Effectus autem ab intellectu et voluntate sequitur secundum determinationem intellectus et imperium voluntatis. Sicut autem per intellectum determinatur rei factae quaecumque alia conditio, ita et praescribitur ei tempus: non enim solum ars determinat ut hoc tale sit, sed ut tunc sit; sicut medicus ut tunc potio detur. Unde, si eius velle per se esset efficax ad effectum producendum, sequeretur de novo effectus ab antiqua voluntate, nulla actione de novo existente. Nihil igitur prohibet dicere actionem Dei ab aeterno fuisse, effectum autem non ab aeterno, sed tunc cum ab aeterno disposuit. [3] Nor, if the action of the first agent is eternal, does it follow that His effect is eternal, as the second argument concludes. For we have already shown in this Book that God acts voluntarily in the production of things, but not in such fashion that there be some other intermediate action of His, as in us the action of the motive power intervenes between the act of the will and the effect, as we have also previously shown. On the contrary, God’s act of understanding and willing is, necessarily, His act of making. Now, an effect follows from the intellect and the will according to the determination of the intellect and the command of the will. Moreover, just as the intellect determines every other condition of the thing made, so does it prescribe the time of its making; for art determines not only that this thing is to be such and such, but that it is to be at this particular time, even as a physician determines that a dose of medicine is to be drunk at such and such a particular time, so that, if his act of will were of itself sufficient to produce the effect, the effect would follow anew from his previous decision, without any new action on his part. Nothing, therefore, prevents our saying that God’s action existed from all eternity, whereas its effect was not present from eternity, but existed at that time when, from all eternity, He ordained it.
Ex quo etiam patet quod, etsi Deus sit sufficiens causa productionis rerum in esse, non tamen oportet quod eius effectus aeternus ponatur, eo existente aeterno: ut tertia ratio concludebat. Posita enim causa sufficienti, ponitur eius effectus, non autem effectus extraneus a causa: hoc enim esset ex insufficientia causae, ac si calidum non calefaceret. Proprius autem effectus voluntatis est ut sit hoc quod voluntas vult: si autem aliquid aliud esset quam voluntas velit, non poneretur effectus proprius causae, sed alienus ab ea. Voluntas autem, ut dictum est, sicut vult hoc esse tale, ita vult hoc esse tunc. Unde non oportet, ad hoc quod voluntas sit sufficiens causa, quod effectus sit quando voluntas est, sed quando voluntas effectum esse disponit. In his autem quae a causa naturaliter agente procedunt, secus est: quia actio naturae est secundum quod ipsa est; unde ad esse causae sequi oportet effectum. Voluntas autem agit, non secundum modum sui esse, sed secundum modum sui propositi. Et ideo, sicut effectus naturalis agentis sequitur esse agentis, si sit sufficiens, ita effectus agentis per voluntatem sequitur modum propositi. [4] From this we see also that, although God is the sufficient cause of bringing things into being, it is not necessary to hold that because He is eternal His effect is eternal, as the third argument maintained. Given a sufficient cause, its effect is given, too, but not an effect that does not belong to the cause; for this would result from the insufficiency of the cause, as if a hot thing, for example, failed to give heat. Now, the will’s proper effect is the being of that which it wills; and if something else were to be than what the will determines, this would be an effect not proper to the cause but foreign to it. But, as we have said, just as the will wills this thing to be such and such, so does it will it to be at such and such a time. Hence, for the will to be a sufficient cause it is not necessary that the effect should exist when the will exists, but at that time when the will has ordained its existence. But with things that proceed from a cause acting naturally, the case is different. For, as nature is, so is its action; hence, given the existence of the cause, the effect must necessarily follow. On the other hand, the will acts in keeping not with the manner of its being, but of its intention. So, then, just as the effect of a natural agent follows the being of the agent, if the latter is sufficient, so the effect of a voluntary agent follows the mode of his purpose.
Ex his etiam patet quod divinae voluntatis non retardatur effectus, quamvis non semper fuerit, voluntate existente: ut quarta ratio supponebat. Nam sub voluntate divina cadit non solum quod eius effectus sit, sed quod tunc sit. Hoc igitur volitum quod est tunc creaturam esse, non retardatur: quia tunc incoepit creatura esse quando Deus ab aeterno disposuit. [5] Moreover, what has been said makes it clear that, contrary to the fourth argument, the effect of God’s will was not delayed, although having been always willed, the effect was not itself always existent. For within the scope of God’s will fall not only the existence of His effect but also the time of its existence. Therefore, this thing willed, namely, that a creature should exist at a certain time, is not delayed, for the creature began to exist at that time which God appointed from all eternity.
Non est autem ante totius creaturae inchoationem diversitatem aliquam partium alicuius durationis accipere: ut in quinta ratione supponebatur. Nam nihil mensuram non habet nec durationem. Dei autem duratio, quae est aeternitas, non habet partes, sed est simplex omnino, non habens prius et posterius, cum Deus sit immobilis: ut in primo ostensum est. Non est igitur comparare inchoationem totius creaturae ad aliqua diversa signata in aliqua praeexistente mensura, ad quae initium creaturarum similiter vel dissimiliter se possit habere, ut oporteat rationem esse apud agentem quare in hoc signato illius durationis creaturam in esse produxerit, et non in alio praecedenti vel sequenti. Quae quidem ratio requireretur si aliqua duratio in partes divisibilis esset praeter totam creaturam productam: sicut accidit in particularibus agentibus, a quibus producitur effectus in tempore, non autem ipsum tempus. Deus autem simul in esse produxit et creaturam et tempus. Non est igitur ratio quare nunc et non prius in hoc consideranda: sed solum quare non semper. Sicut per simile in loco apparet. Particularia enim corpora, sicut in tempore determinato, ita et in loco determinato producuntur; et quia habent extra se tempus et locum, a quibus continentur, oportet esse rationem quare magis in hoc loco et in hoc tempore producuntur quam in alio: in toto autem caelo, extra quod non est locus, et cum quo universalis locus omnium producitur, non est ratio consideranda quare hic et non ibi constitutum est; quam rationem quia quidam considerandam putabant, deciderunt in errorem, ut ponerent infinitum in corporibus. Et similiter in productione totius creaturae, extra quam non est tempus, et cum qua simul tempus producitur, non est attendenda ratio quare nunc et non prius, ut per hoc ducamur ad concedendam temporis infinitatem: sed solum quare non semper, vel quare post non esse, vel cum aliquo principio. [6] Prior to the initial existence of the totality of created being there is no diversity of parts of any duration, as was supposed in the fifth argument. For nothingness has neither measure nor duration. Now, God’s duration, which is eternity, does not have parts, but is utterly simple, without before or after; since God is immovable, as we have shown in Book I of this work. Therefore, the beginning of the whole of creation is not to be thought of in comparison to any diverse parts designated in some pre-existing measure, to which parts the beginning of creatures can stand in similar or dissimilar relations, so that there would have to be a reason in the agent why he brought the creature into being in this designated part of that duration rather than at some other preceding or subsequent point. Such a reason would be required if, beside the totality of created being, there existed some duration divisible into parts, as is the case in particular agents, which produce their effects in time, but do not produce time itself. God, however, brought into being both the creature and time together. In this case, therefore, the reason why He produced them now and not before does not have to be considered, but only why He did not produce them always. A comparison with place will make this point clear. Particular bodies are brought into being not only at a definite time, but also in a definite place; and since the time and the place in which they are involved are extrinsic to them, there must be a reason why they are produced in this place and time rather than in another. On the other hand, outside the entire heaven there is no place, the universal place of all things being produced together with it; so that there is no reason for considering why the heaven was established in being here and not there. And because they thought that such a reason ought to be sought for, some have fallen into the error of attributing infinity to bodily things. Similarly, outside the entire universe of creatures there is no time, time having been produced simultaneously with that universe; hence, we do not have to look for the reason why it was produced now and not before, so as to be led to concede the infinity of time; we have only to ask why it was not always produced, or why it was produced after not being or with some beginning.
Ad hoc autem inquirendum, sexta ratio inducebatur ex parte finis, qui solus inducere potest necessitatem in his quae voluntate aguntur. Finis autem divinae voluntatis non potest esse nisi eius bonitas. Non autem agit propter hunc finem producendum in esse, sicut artifex agit propter constitutionem artificiati: cum bonitas eius sit aeterna et immutabilis, ita quod ei nihil accrescere potest. Nec etiam posset dici quod propter eius meliorationem Deus agat. Nec etiam agit propter hunc finem acquirendum sibi, sicut rex pugnat ut acquirat civitatem: ipse enim est sua bonitas. Restat igitur quod agat propter finem inquantum effectum producit ad participationem finis. In producendo igitur res sic propter finem, uniformis habitudo finis ad agentem non est consideranda ut ratio operis sempiterni: sed magis est attendenda habitudo finis ad effectum qui fit propter finem; ut taliter producatur effectus qualiter convenientius ordinetur ad finem. Unde per hoc quod finis uniformiter se habet ad agentem, non potest concludi quod effectus sit sempiternus. [7] Now, in order to inquire into this matter, the sixth argument was adduced from the point of view of the end, which alone can introduce necessity into things done voluntarily. But the only possible end of God’s will is His own goodness; and He does not act for the sake of bringing this end into being, as the craftsman acts in order to produce his handiwork. For God’s goodness is eternal and immutable, so that nothing can accrue to Him. Nor can it be said that God acts for His own betterment. Nor does He act in order to obtain this end for Himself, as a king fights in order to gain possession of a city; for God is His own goodness. We therefore conclude that God acts for an end inasmuch as He produces an effect so that it may participate in His end. Therefore, in producing a thing for the sake of an end, in this sense, the uniform relation of the end to the agent is not to be thought of as the reason for His work being eternal; on the contrary, the thing to be attended to is the relation of the end to the effect brought forth on account of the end in order that the effect be produced in such a manner as to be most fittingly ordained to that end. Hence, from the fact that the relation of the end to the agent is uniform, we cannot conclude that the effect is eternal.
Nec est necessarium effectum divinum semper fuisse, propter hoc quod sic convenientius ordinetur ad finem, ut septima ratio procedere videbatur: sed convenientius ordinatur ad finem per hoc quod est non semper fuisse. Omne enim agens producens effectum in participationem suae formae, intendit in eo inducere suam similitudinem. Sic igitur divinae voluntati conveniens fuit in suae bonitatis participationem creaturam producere, ut sua similitudine divinam bonitatem repraesentaret. Non autem potest esse talis repraesentatio per modum aequalitatis, sicut effectus univocus suam causam repraesentat, ut sic oporteat ab infinita bonitate aeternos effectus produci: sed sicut excedens repraesentatur ab eo quod exceditur. Excessus autem divinae bonitatis supra creaturam per hoc maxime exprimitur quod creaturae non semper fuerunt. Ex hoc enim apparet expresse quod omnia alia praeter ipsum eum habent sui esse auctorem; et quod virtus eius non obligatur ad huiusmodi effectus producendos, sicut natura ad effectus naturales; et per consequens quod est voluntate agens et intelligens. Quorum contraria quidam posuerunt, aeternitatem creaturarum supponentes. [8] Nor, as the seventh argument seemed to imply, is it necessary that God’s effect should have always existed because it would then be more fittingly directed to its end. On the contrary, by not having existed always, it is more fittingly directed to its end. For every agent that produces an effect in participation of its own form intends to produce its own likeness in that effect. Thus, to produce the creature in participation of His own goodness was becoming to God’s will, for by its likeness to Him the creature might show forth His goodness. But this representation cannot be in terms of equality, in the manner in which a univocal effect represents its cause—so that eternal effects would have to be produced by the divine goodness. Rather, this representation is in keeping with the way in which the transcendent is manifested by that which is transcended. Now, the transcendence of God’s goodness over the creature is shown most of all by the fact that creatures have not always existed. For this makes it perfectly clear that all things other than God have Him as the author of their being; and that His power is not fettered to the production of those effects, as nature is to natural effects; and, consequently, that He is a voluntary and intelligent agent. (Some, assuming the eternity of creatures, have asserted views contrary to these.)
Sic igitur ex parte agentis nihil est quod aeternitatem creaturarum nos ponere cogat. [9] There is, then, nothing from the agent’s side of the question that compels us to maintain the eternity of creatures.

Caput 36 Chapter 36
Solutio rationum quae sumuntur ex parte rerum factarum SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE THINGS MADE
Similiter etiam nec ex parte creaturae est aliquid quod nos ad eius aeternitatem ponendam de necessitate inducat. [1] Likewise, there is nothing on the part of creatures that induces us necessarily to affirm their eternity.
Necessitas enim essendi quae in creaturis invenitur, ex quo prima ratio ad hoc sumitur, est necessitas ordinis, ut in praecedentibus est ostensum. Necessitas autem ordinis non cogit ipsum cui talis inest necessitas, semper fuisse, ut supra ostensum est. Licet enim substantia caeli, per hoc quod caret potentia ad non esse, habeat necessitatem ad esse, haec tamen necessitas sequitur eius substantiam. Unde, substantia eius iam in esse instituta, talis necessitas impossibilitatem non essendi inducit: non autem facit esse impossibile caelum non esse, in consideratione qua agitur de productione substantiae ipsius. [2] The necessity of being that we find in creatures, whence the first argument about this question is drawn, is a necessity of order, as we have previously shown. But, as we proved above, a necessity of order does not compel the subject in which a necessity of this kind is present to exist always. For, although the substance of the heaven has necessity with respect to being, in virtue of the fact that it lacks potentiality to non-being, this necessity nevertheless is consequent upon its substance. Hence, once its substance has been established in being, this necessity entails the impossibility of not-being; but if we consider the production of its very substance, it does not entail the impossibility of the heaven’s not being at all.
Similiter etiam virtus essendi semper, ex qua procedebat secunda ratio, praesupponit substantiae productionem. Unde, cum de productione substantiae caeli agitur, talis virtus sempiternitatis argumentum sufficiens esse non potest. [3] Likewise, the power of existing always, whereon the second argument is based, presupposes the production of the substance; so that, where the point at issue is the production of the substance of the heaven, this power cannot be a sufficient proof of the eternity of that substance.
Motus etiam sempiternitatem non cogit nos ponere ratio consequenter inducta. Iam enim patet quod absque mutatione Dei agentis potest esse quod novum agat non sempiternum. Si autem possibile est aliquid ab eo agi de novo, patet quod et moveri: nam novitas motus dispositionem voluntatis aeternae sequitur de motu non semper essendo. [4] Nor does the argument brought up next compel us to assert the eternity of motion. For what we have said already makes it clear that, without any change in God the agent, He can enact something new that is not eternal. But, if something can be done by Him anew, it is evidently possible, also, for something to be moved by Him anew. For newness of motion follows upon the decision of the eternal will of God, that motion be not always in existence.
Similiter etiam intentio naturalium agentium ad specierum perpetuitatem, ex quo quarta ratio procedebat, praesupponit naturalia agentia iam producta. Unde locum non habet haec ratio nisi in rebus naturalibus iam in esse productis, non autem cum de rerum productione agitur. Utrum autem necesse sit ponere generationem perpetuo duraturam, in sequentibus ostendetur. [5] Then, too, the intention of natural agents to perpetuate the species—this was the starting point of the fourth argument—presupposes that natural agents already exist. Hence, this argument is relevant only to natural things already brought into being; where it is a question of the production of things, it has no place. But the question, whether it is necessary to hold that the engendering of things will go on for ever, will be dealt with later.
Ratio etiam quinta, ex tempore inducta, aeternitatem motus magis supponit quam probet. Cum enim prius et posterius et continuitas temporis sequatur prius et posterius et continuitatem motus, secundum Aristotelis doctrinam, patet quod idem instans est principium futuri et finis praeteriti quia aliquid signatum in motu est principium et finis diversarum partium motus. Non oportebit igitur omne instans huiusmodi esse, nisi omne signum in tempore acceptum sit medium inter prius et posterius in motu, quod est ponere motum sempiternum. Ponens autem motum non esse sempiternum, potest dicere primum instans temporis esse principium futuri et nullius praeteriti finem. Nec repugnat successioni temporis quod ponatur in ipso aliquod nunc principium et non finis propter hoc quod linea, in qua ponitur punctus aliquis principium et non finis, est stans, et non fluens: quia etiam in motu aliquo particulari, qui etiam non est stans sed fluens, signari aliquid potest ut principium motus tantum et non ut finis: aliter enim omnis motus esset perpetuus, quod est impossibile. [6] Furthermore, the fifth argument, drawn from a consideration of time, supposes the eternity of motion rather than proves it. For, as Aristotle teaches, the before and after and the continuity of time follow upon the before and after and the continuity of motion. Clearly, then, the same instant is the beginning of the future and the end of the past because some assigned point in motion is the beginning and the end of the diverse parts of motion. So, not every instant need be of this kind unless we think of every assignable point in time as existing between a before and an after in movement; and this is to suppose that movement is eternal. On the other hand, if we held that motion is not eternal, we can say that the first instant of time is the beginning of the future and the terminus of no time past. Nor, simply because a line, wherein some point is a beginning and not an end, is fixed and not flowing, is it incompatible with time’s successiveness if we suppose a now that is a beginning and not an end; for even in some particular movement, which is not stationary either, but transitory, it is possible to designate a point which is a beginning only and not an end; otherwise, all movement would be perpetual; and this is impossible.
Quod autem prius ponitur non esse temporis quam eius esse si tempus incoepit, non cogit nos dicere quod ponitur tempus esse si ponatur non esse, ut sexta ratio concludebat. Nam prius quod dicimus antequam tempus esset, non ponit aliquam temporis partem in re, sed solum in imaginatione. Cum enim dicimus quod tempus habet esse post non esse, intelligimus quod non fuit aliqua pars temporis ante hoc nunc signatum: sicut, cum dicimus quod supra caelum nihil est, non intelligimus quod aliquis locus sit extra caelum qui possit dici supra respectu caeli, sed quod non est locus eo superior. Utrobique autem imaginatio potest mensuram aliquam rei existenti apponere: ratione cuius, sicut non est ponenda quantitas corporis infinita, ut dicitur in III Phys., ita nec tempus aeternum. [7] True, if time had a beginning, we are supposing its nonexistence to precede its existence. But the supposition of time’s non-existence does not compel us to assert its existence, as the sixth argument would have it. For the before that we speak of as preceding time implies nothing temporal in reality, but only in our imagination. Indeed, when we say that time exists after not existing, we mean that there was no time at all prior to this designated now; even so, when we declare that above the heaven there is nothing, we are not implying the existence of a place outside the heaven which can be said to be above in relation to it, but that there is no place at all above it. In either case, the imagination can add a certain dimension to the already existing thing; and just as this is no reason for attributing infinite quantity to a body, as is said in Physics III [6], so neither does it justify the supposition that time is eternal.
Veritas autem propositionum quam oportet concedere etiam propositiones negantem, ex qua septima ratio procedebat, habet necessitatem ordinis qui est praedicati ad subiectum. Unde non cogit aliquam rem esse semper: nisi forte intellectum divinum, in quo est radix omnis veritatis, ut in primo ostensum est. [8] The truth of propositions whose denial entails their affirmation—and this was the starting point of the seventh argument—possesses the necessity of that order which obtains between predicate and subject. By such necessity, therefore, a thing is not compelled to exist everlastingly, except perhaps the divine intellect, in whom all truth is rooted, as was shown in Book I of this work.
Patet igitur quod rationes ex creaturis inductae non cogunt ad mundi aeternitatem ponendam. [9] It is therefore clear that the arguments adduced from the point of view of creatures do not oblige us to maintain that the world is eternal.

Caput 37 Chapter 37
Solutio rationum quae sumebantur ex parte factionis rerum SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE MAKING OF THINGS
Restat autem ostendere quod nec ex parte productionis rerum aliqua ratio sumpta cogere possit ad idem. [1] Lastly, we must show that no argument drawn from the standpoint of the making of things can necessitate that same conclusion.
Communis enim philosophorum positio ponentium ex nihilo nihil fieri, ex quo prima ratio procedebat, veritatem habet secundum illud fieri quod ipsi considerabant. Quia enim omnis nostra cognitio a sensu incipit, qui singularium est, a particularibus considerationibus ad universales consideratio humana profecit. Unde principium rerum perquirentes particulares factiones entium tantum consideraverunt, inquirentes qualiter vel hic ignis vel hic lapis fiat. Et ideo primi, magis extrinsece quam oporteret fieri rerum considerantes, posuerunt rem fieri solum secundum quasdam accidentales dispositiones, ut rarum, densum, et huiusmodi, dicentes per consequens fieri nihil esse nisi alterari, propter hoc quod ex ente in actu unumquodque fieri intelligebant. Posteriores vero, magis intrinsece, rerum factionem considerantes, ad fieri rerum secundum substantiam processerunt, ponentes quod non oportet aliquid fieri ex ente in actu nisi per accidens, sed per se ex ente in potentia. Hoc autem fieri, quod est entis ex qualicumque ente, est factio entis particularis: quod quidem fit inquantum est hoc ens, ut homo vel ignis, non autem inquantum est universaliter; ens enim prius erat, quod in hoc ens transmutatur. Profundius autem ad rerum originem ingredientes, consideraverunt ad ultimum totius entis creati ab una prima causa processionem: ut ex rationibus hoc ostendentibus supra positis patet. In hac autem processione totius entis a Deo non est possibile fieri aliquid ex aliquo alio praeiacente: non enim esset totius entis creati factio.
Et hanc quidem factionem non attigerunt primi naturales, quorum erat communis sententia ex nihilo nihil fieri. Vel, si qui eam attigerunt, non proprie nomen factionis ei competere consideraverunt, cum nomen factionis motum vel mutationem importet, in hac autem totius entis origine ab uno primo ente intelligi non potest transmutatio unius entis in aliud, ut ostensum est. Propter quod nec ad naturalem philosophum pertinet huiusmodi rerum originem considerare: sed ad philosophum primum, qui considerat ens commune et ea quae sunt separata a motu. Nos tamen sub quadam similitudine etiam ad illam originem nomen factionis transferimus, ut dicamus ea facta quorumcumque essentia vel natura ab aliis originem habet.
[2.] The common opinion of the philosophers, on which the first argument was based, namely, that from nothing comes nothing, is true as regards that particular making which they had in mind. Since our knowledge originates in sense perception, which is concerned with singular things, the progress of human thought has been from particular to universal considerations. That is why those who sought the principle of things considered only particular makings of things, inquiring how this particular fire or stone comes to be. And so those who came first, considering the making of things in a more extrinsic fashion than they needed to, claimed that a thing is made only as concerns certain accidental dispositions, such as rarity, density, and the like, and consequently they said that to be made was nothing else than to be altered; and this they held because it was their understanding that each and every thing was made from a being actually existing. But later thinkers, considering the making of things from a more intrinsic point of view, advanced to the problem of the making of things in terms of their substance; and they maintained that from an actually existing being a thing need be made only in an accidental respect, but that from a being potentially existent it is made in essential fashion. But this making, namely, of a being from any being whatever, is that of a particular being—one that is made inasmuch as it is this being, a man or a fire, for example, but not inasmuch as it is, universally, because there was previously existent being that is transformed into this being. Entering more deeply into the problem of the origin of things, philosophers came at last to consider the procession of all created being from one first cause: a truth made evident by arguments previously proposed. Now, in this procession of all being from God it is impossible for anything to be made from some other preexisting thing; otherwise, this procession would not consist in the making of all created being.
[3] Now, the first philosophers of nature, who shared the commonly received opinion that nothing is made from nothing, did not attain to the idea of such a making as this. Or, if any of them conceived of it, they did not consider it making properly speaking, since the word making implies motion or change, whereas in the origination of all being from one first being, the transmutation of one being into another is, as we have shown, inconceivable. And on this account it is the business not of the philosopher of nature to consider that origination, but of the metaphysician, who considers universal being and things existing apart from motion. Nevertheless, in virtue of a certain likeness we transfer the word making even to that origination of things, saying that anything at all whose essence or nature originates from something else is made.
Ex quo patet quod nec secunda ratio de necessitate concludit, quae ex ratione motus sumebatur. Nam creatio mutatio dici non potest nisi secundum metaphoram, prout creatum consideratur habere esse post non esse: ratione cuius aliquid ex alio fieri dicitur etiam eorum quae invicem transmutationem non habent, ex hoc solo quod unum eorum est post alterum, sicut dies ex nocte. Nec ratio motus inducta ad hoc aliquid facere potest: nam quod nullo modo est, non se habet aliquo modo; ut possit concludi quod, quando incipit esse, alio modo se habeat nunc et prius. [4] From this we see that the second argument, based on the concept of motion, is also inconclusive. For creation can be called a change only in a metaphorical sense, that is, only so far as the created thing is thought of as having being after not being, even as with things not mutually transformed we say that one comes to be from another simply because one succeeds the other; for instance, that day comes from night. Now, since that which in no way exists is not in any particular state, the idea of motion used in the argument does not warrant the conclusion that, when a thing begins to be, it is in another state now than it was before.
Ex hoc etiam patet quod non oportet aliquam potentiam passivam praecedere esse totius entis creati, ut tertia ratio concludebat. Hoc enim est necessarium in illis quae per motum essendi principium sumunt: eo quod motus est actus existentis in potentia. Possibile autem fuit ens creatum esse, antequam esset, per potentiam agentis, per quam et esse incoepit. Vel propter habitudinem terminorum, in quibus nulla repugnantia invenitur: quod quidem possibile secundum nullam potentiam dicitur, ut patet per philosophum, in V Metaph. Hoc enim praedicatum quod est esse, non repugnat huic subiecto quod est mundus vel homo, sicut commensurabile repugnat diametro: et sic sequitur quod non sit impossibile esse, et per consequens quod sit possibile esse antequam esset, etiam nulla potentia existente. In his autem quae per motum fiunt, oportet prius fuisse possibile per aliquam passivam potentiam: in quibus philosophus, in VII Metaphys., hac utitur ratione. [5] Whence it is also clear that, contrary to the third argument, no passive potentiality need precede the existence of all created being. Such a necessity obtains in the case of things that come into being by way of motion, for motion is the act of a thing existing potentially. But before a created thing misted, its existence was possible, in virtue of the power of its agent, by which also it began to be. Or that thing was possible on account of the relationship between the terms involved, wherein no incompatibility is found; and this is possibility “according to no potentiality,” as Aristotle states in Metaphysics V [12]. For the predicate, act of being, is not incompatible with the subject, world or man, as commensurable is incompatible with diameter. It therefore follows that the existence of the world or of man is not impossible, and, consequently, that before they actually existed their existence was possible, even in the absence of all potentiality. On the other hand, things produced by way of motion must be previously possible by virtue of a passive potentiality; and when Aristotle uses this argument in Metaphysics VII [7] it is to these things that he refers.
Patet etiam ex hoc quod nec quarta ratio ad propositum concludit. Nam fieri non simul est cum esse rei in his quae per motum fiunt, in quorum fieri successio invenitur. In his autem quae non fiunt per motum, non est prius fieri quam esse. [6] Moreover, from what has been said it is clear that the fourth argument likewise misses the mark. For, in things made by way of motion, to be made and to be are not simultaneous, because the production of such things involves succession. But in things that are not made by way of motion, the making does not precede the being.
Sic igitur evidenter apparet quod nihil prohibet ponere mundum non semper fuisse. Quod fides Catholica ponit: Gen. 1-1: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Et Prov. 8-12 de Deo dicitur: antequam quicquam faceret a principio et cetera. [7] In the light of all this, then, it is clear that nothing stands in the way of one’s holding that the world has not always existed—a truth which the Catholic faith affirms: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1); and in the Book of Proverbs (8:22) it is said of God: “Before He made anything from the beginning,” etc.

Caput 38 Chapter 38
Rationes quibus quidam conantur ostendere mundum non esse aeternum ARGUMENTS BY WHICH SOME TRY TO SHOW THAT THE WORLD IS NOT ETERNAL
Sunt autem quaedam rationes a quibusdam inductae ad probandum mundum non semper fuisse, sumptae ex his. [1] We now note a number of arguments introduced by certain persons with the intention of proving that the world did not always exist.
Deum enim esse omnium rerum causam est demonstratum. Causam autem oportet duratione praecedere ea quae per actionem causae fiunt. [2] It has been demonstrated that God is the cause of all things. But a cause must precede in duration the things produced by its action.
Item. Cum totum ens a Deo sit creatum, non potest dici factum esse ex aliquo ente, et sic relinquitur quod sit factum ex nihilo. Et per consequens quod habeat esse post non esse. [3] Moreover, since all being is created by God, it cannot be said to be made from some being. It follows that it is made from nothing and, consequently, that it has being after not-being.
Adhuc. Quia infinita non est transire. Si autem mundus semper fuisset, essent iam infinita pertransita: quia quod praeteritum est, pertransitum est; sunt autem infiniti dies vel circulationes solis praeteritae, si mundus semper fuit. [4] Also, an infinite number of things cannot be traversed. But, if the world had always existed, an infinite number of things would have now been traversed, for what is past is passed by; and if the world always existed, then there are an infinite number of past days or revolutions of the sun.
Praeterea. Sequitur quod infinito fiat additio: cum ad dies vel circulationes praeteritas quotidie de novo addatur. [5] Moreover, in that case it follows that an addition is made to the infinite; to the [infinite number of past days or revolutions every day brings another addition.
Amplius. Sequitur quod in causis efficientibus sit procedere in infinitum, si generatio fuit semper, quod oportet dicere mundo semper existente: nam filii causa est pater, et huius alius, et sic in infinitum. [6] Then, too, it follows that it is possible to proceed to infinity in the line of efficient causes, if the engendering of things has gone on perpetually—and this in turn follows necessarily on the hypothesis that the world always existed; the father is the cause of his son, and another person the cause of that father, and so on endlessly.
Rursus. Sequetur quod sint infinita: scilicet infinitorum hominum praeteritorum animae immortales. [7] Furthermore, if the world always existed, it will follow that there exists an infinite number of things, namely, the immortal souls of an infinite number of human beings who died in the past.
Hae autem rationes quia non usquequaque de necessitate concludunt, licet probabilitatem habeant, sufficit tangere solum, ne videatur fides Catholica in vanis rationibus constituta, et non potius in solidissima Dei doctrina. Et ideo conveniens videtur ponere qualiter obvietur eis per eos qui aeternitatem mundi posuerunt. [8] Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God. It would seem fitting, then, to state how these arguments are countered by the partisans of the doctrine of the world’s eternity.
Quod enim primo dicitur, agens de necessitate praecedere effectum qui per suam operationem fit, verum est in his quae agunt aliquid per motum: quia effectus non est nisi in termino motus; agens autem necesse est esse etiam cum motus incipit. In his autem quae in instanti agunt, hoc non est necesse: sicut simul dum sol est in puncto orientis, illuminat nostrum hemisphaerium. [9] The first statement, that the agent necessarily precedes the effect resulting from its operation, is true of things which produce something by way of motion, because the effect does mot exist until the motion is ended, but the agent must exist even when the motion begins. No such necessity obtains, however, in the case of things that act instantaneously. For instance, when the sun is at the point of the east, it immediately illuminates our hemisphere.
Quod etiam secundo dicitur, non est efficax. Ei enim quod est ex aliquo aliquid fieri, contradictorium quod oportet dare si hoc non detur, est non ex aliquo fieri: non autem hoc quod est ex nihilo, nisi sub sensu primi; ex quo concludi non potest quod fiat post non esse. [10] The second argument also is ineffectual. If the proposition (a) something is made from something be not admitted, then the contradictory of it which must be given is: (b) something is not made from something, and not (c) something is made from nothing, except in the sense of proposition (b). And from this it cannot be concluded that something is made after not-being.
Quod etiam tertio ponitur, non est cogens. Nam infinitum, etsi non sit simul in actu, potest tamen esse in successione: quia sic quodlibet infinitum acceptum finitum est. Quaelibet igitur circulatio praecedentium transiri potuit: quia finita fuit. In omnibus autem simul, si mundus semper fuisset, non esset accipere primam. Et ita nec transitum, qui semper exigit duo extrema. [11] Nor is the third argument cogent. For, although the infinite does not exist actually and all at once, it can exist successively. For, so considered, any infinite is finite. Therefore, being finite, any single one of the preceding solar revolutions could be completed; but if, on the assumption of the world’s eternity, all of them are thought of as existing simultaneously, then there would be no question of a first one, am, therefore, of a passing through them, for, unless there we two extremes, no transition is possible.
Quod etiam quarto proponitur, debile est. Nam nihil prohibet infinito ex ea parte additionem fieri qua est finitum. Ex hoc autem quod ponitur tempus aeternum, sequitur quod sit infinitum ex parte ante, sed finitum ex parte post: nam praesens est terminus praeteriti. [12] The fourth argument is weak. For there is no reason why an addition should not be made to the infinite on that side of it which is finite. Now, from the supposition of the eternity of time it follows that time is infinite in relation to the prior but finite in relation to the posterior; for the present is the terminal point of the past.
Quod etiam quinto obiicitur, non cogit. Quia causas agentes in infinitum procedere est impossibile, secundum philosophos, in causis simul agentibus: quia oporteret effectum dependere ex actionibus infinitis simul existentibus. Et huiusmodi sunt causae per se infinitae: quia earum infinitas ad causatum requiritur. In causis autem non simul agentibus, hoc non est impossibile, secundum eos qui ponunt generationem perpetuam. Haec autem infinitas accidit causis: accidit enim patri Socratis quod sit alterius filius vel non filius. Non autem accidit baculo, inquantum movet lapidem, quod sit motus a manu: movet enim inquantum est motus. [13] Nor does the objection to the theory of the world’s eternity that is raised in the fifth argument have compelling force. For, according to the philosophers, it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the order of efficient causes which act together at the same time, because in that case the effect would have to depend on an infinite number of actions simultaneously existing. And such causes are essentially infinite, because their infinity is required for the effect caused by them. On the other hand, in the sphere of non-simultaneously acting causes, it is not, according to the partisans of the perpetual generation theory, impossible to proceed to infinity. And the infinity here is accidental to the causes; thus, it is accidental to Socrates’ father that he is another man’s son or not. But it is not accidental to the stick, in moving the stone, that it be moved by the hand; for the stick moves just so far as it is moved.
Quod autem de animabus obiicitur difficilius est. Sed tamen ratio non est multum utilis: quia multa supponit. Quidam namque aeternitatem mundi ponentium posuerunt etiam humanas animas non esse post corpus. Quidam vero quod ex omnibus animabus non manet nisi intellectus separatus: vel agens, secundum quosdam; vel etiam possibilis, secundum alios. Quidam autem posuerunt circulationem in animabus, dicentes quod eaedem animae post aliqua saecula in corpora revertuntur. Quidam vero pro inconvenienti non habent quod sint aliqua infinita actu in his quae ordinem non habent. [14] The objection concerning the souls, however, is more difficult. Yet the argument is not very useful, because it supposes many things. For those who maintained that the world is eternal also held that human souls do not survive the body; and it was asserted that of all souls there remains only the separated intellect—either the agent intellect, according to some, or also the possible intellect, according to others. On the other hand, some have supposed a sort of circular movement in souls, saying that, after several ages have passed, the same souls return to bodies. And indeed there are those who do not consider it incongruous that, in the realm of things devoid of order, actual infinities should be found.
Potest autem efficacius procedi ad hoc ostendendum ex fine divinae voluntatis, ut supra tactum est. Finis enim divinae voluntatis in rerum productione est eius bonitas inquantum per causata manifestatur. Potissime autem manifestatur divina virtus et bonitas per hoc quod res aliae praeter ipsum non semper fuerunt. Ex hoc enim ostenditur manifeste quod res aliae praeter ipsum ab ipso esse habent, quia non semper fuerunt. Ostenditur etiam quod non agit per necessitatem naturae; et quod virtus sua est infinita in agendo. Hoc igitur convenientissimum fuit divinae bonitati, ut rebus creatis principium durationis daret. [15] However, a more effective approach toward proving the non-eternity of the world can be made from the point of view of the end of the divine will, as we have previously indicated. For in the production of things the end of God’s will is His own goodness as it is manifested in His effects. Now, His power and goodness are made manifest above all by the fact that things other than Himself were not always in existence. For this fact shows clearly that these things owe their existence to Him, and also is proof that God does not act by a necessity of His nature, and that His power of acting is infinite. Respecting the divine goodness, therefore, it was entirely fitting that God should have given created things a temporal beginning.
Ex his autem quae praedicta sunt, vitare possumus diversos errores gentilium philosophorum. Quorum quidam posuerunt mundum aeternum. Quidam materiam mundi aeternam, ex qua ex aliquo tempore mundus coepit generari: vel a casu; vel ab aliquo intellectu; aut etiam amore aut lite. Ab omnibus enim his ponitur aliquid praeter Deum aeternum. Quod fidei Catholicae repugnat. [16] The preceding considerations enable us to avoid various errors made by the pagan philosophers: the assertion of the world’s eternity; the assertion of the eternity of the world’s matter, out of which at a certain time the world began to be formed, either by chance, or by some intellect, or even by love or by strive. For in all these cases something beside God is claimed to be eternal; and this is incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Caput 39 Chapter 39
Expeditis autem his quae ad rerum productionem pertinent, restat prosequi ea quae sunt consideranda in rerum distinctione. In quibus primo oportet ostendere quod rerum distinctio non est a casu. [1] Having settled the problems concerning the production of things, it remains for us to deal with those that need to be taken into account as regards the distinction of things. And in this connection what we must do first is show that the distinction of things is not fortuitous.
Casus enim non contingit nisi in possibilibus aliter se habere: quae enim sunt ex necessitate et semper, non dicimus esse a casu. Ostensum est autem supra quasdam res creatas esse in quarum natura non est possibilitas ad non esse: sicut sunt substantiae immateriales, et absque contrarietate. Substantias igitur eorum impossibile est esse a casu. Sunt autem per suam substantiam ab invicem distinctae. Earum igitur distinctio non est a casu. [2] For chance occurs only in things which can be otherwise; we do not say that things that exist necessarily and always are the result of chance. Now, it was shown above that certain things have been created in whose nature there is no possibility of not being; in this category belong immaterial substances and those in which no contrariety is found. It is therefore impossible that their substances be from chance. But it is by their substance that they are distinct from one another. Consequently, their distinction is not the result of chance.
Amplius. Cum casus sit tantum in possibilibus aliter se habere; principium autem huiusmodi possibilitatis est materia, non autem forma, quae magis determinat possibilitatem materiae ad unum; ea quorum distinctio est a forma, non distinguuntur casu: sed forte ea quorum distinctio est a materia. Specierum autem distinctio est a forma: singularium autem eiusdem speciei a materia. Distinctio igitur rerum secundum speciem non potest esse a casu: sed forte aliquorum individuorum casus potest esse distinctivus. [3] Moreover, chance is found only in things that are possibly otherwise; and the source of this possibility is matter and not the form, which indeed determines the matter, reservoir of multiple possibilities, to one. It follows that those things whose distinction from one another is derived from their forms are not distinct by chance, although this is perhaps the case with things whose distinction stems from matter. Now, the distinction of species is derived from the form, and the distinction of singulars of the same species is from matter. Therefore, the distinction of things in terms of species cannot be the result of chance; but perhaps the distinction of certain individuals can be the result of chance.
Adhuc. Cum materia sit principium et causa rerum casualium, ut ostensum est, in eorum factione potest esse casus quae ex materia generantur. Ostensum est autem supra quod prima rerum productio in esse non est ex materia. In ea igitur casus locum habere non potest. Oportet autem quod prima rerum productio cum distinctione fuerit: cum multa inveniantur in rebus creatis quae neque ex invicem generantur, neque ex aliquo uno communi, quia non conveniunt in materia. Non est igitur possibile quod rerum distinctio sit a casu. [4] Again, since matter is the principle and cause of fortuitous things, as we have shown, in the making of things that are generated from matter there can be chance. Now, we proved above that the first production of things into being was not from matter. Therefore, chance can have had no place in it. Nevertheless, that production necessarily involved the distinction of the things produced. For in the world of creation there are many things which are neither generated from one another nor from some one common source, because they are not united in the possession of a common matter. It is impossible, therefore, that the distinction of things should be the result of chance.
Item. Causa per se prior est ea quae est per accidens. Si igitur posteriora sint a causa per se determinata, inconveniens est dicere priora esse a causa per accidens indeterminata. Distinctio autem rerum praecedit naturaliter motus et operationes rerum: determinati enim motus et operationes sunt rerum determinatarum et distinctarum. Motus autem et operationes rerum sunt a causis per se et determinatis: cum inveniantur aut semper aut in pluribus ex suis causis eodem modo procedere. Ergo et distinctio rerum est a causa per se et determinata: non a casu, quae est causa per accidens indeterminata. [5] Then, too, a thing that is a cause through itself is prior to one that is by accident. If, therefore, posterior things are from a cause determinate through itself, it would be incongruous to attribute things prior in nature to an indeterminate cause by accident. But the distinction of things is naturally prior to their movements and operations, because determinate movements and operations belong to things determinate and distinct. Now, the movements and operations of things are from causes that are determinate and are causes through themselves, since they proceed from their causes in the same manner either always, it is found, or in most cases. Consequently, the distinction of things is also the result of that kind of cause, and not of chance, which is an indeterminate cause by accident.
Amplius. Cuiuslibet rei procedentis ab agente per intellectum et voluntatem, forma est ab agente intenta. Ipsa autem universitas creaturarum Deum habet auctorem, qui est agens per voluntatem et intellectum, ut ex praemissis patet. Nec in virtute sua defectus aliquis esse potest, ut sic deficiat a sua intentione: cum sua virtus sit infinita, ut supra ostensum est. Oportet igitur quod forma universi sit a Deo intenta et volita. Non est igitur a casu: casu enim esse dicimus quae praeter intentionem agentis sunt. Forma autem universi consistit in distinctione et ordine partium eius. Non est igitur distinctio rerum a casu. [6] And again, the form of any thing proceeding from an intellectual and voluntary agent is intended by that agent. But, as we have already seen, the universe of creatures has as its author God, who is a voluntary and intellectual agent. Nor can there be any defect in His power so that He might fail in accomplishing His intention; for, as we proved in Book I of this work, His power is infinite. It therefore follows of necessity that the form of the universe is intended and willed by God, and for that reason it is not the result of chance. For it is things outside the scope of the agent’s intention that we say are fortuitous. Now, the form of the universe consists in the distinction and order of its parts. The distinction of things, therefore, is not the result of chance.
Adhuc. Id quod est bonum et optimum in effectu, est finis productionis ipsius. Sed bonum et optimum universi consistit in ordine partium eius ad invicem, qui sine distinctione esse non potest: per hunc enim ordinem universum in sua totalitate constituitur, quae est optimum ipsius. Ipse igitur ordo partium universi et distinctio earum est finis productionis universi. Non est igitur distinctio rerum a casu. [7] That which is good and best in the effect, furthermore, is the final cause of its production. But the good and the best in the universe consists in the mutual order of its parts, which is impossible without their distinction from one another; for by this order the universe is established in its wholeness, and in this does its optimum good consist. Therefore, it is this very order of the parts of the universe and of their distinction which is the end of the production of the universe. It remains that the distinction of things is not fortuitous.
Hanc autem veritatem sacra Scriptura profitetur: ut patet Gen. 1, ubi, cum primo dicatur, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, subiungit, distinxit Deus lucem a tenebris, et sic de aliis: ut non solum rerum creatio, sed etiam rerum distinctio a Deo esse ostendatur, non a casu, sed quasi bonum et optimum universi. Unde subditur: vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona. [8] Sacred Scripture bears witness to this truth, as the Book of Genesis (1:1) makes clear; for, after the words, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” we read: “God divided the light from the darkness,” etc., so that not only the creation of things, but also their distinction, is shown to be from God, and not the result of chance; and as constituting the good and the highest good of the universe. Hence, it is added: “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Gen. 1:34).
Per haec autem excluditur opinio antiquorum naturalium ponentium causam materialem solum et unam, ex qua omnia fiebant raritate et densitate. Hos enim necesse est dicere distinctionem rerum quas in universo videmus, non ex alicuius ordinante intentione provenisse, sed ex materiae fortuito motu.
Similiter etiam excluditur opinio Democriti et Leucippi ponentium infinita principia materialia, scilicet indivisibilia corpora eiusdem naturae sed differentia figuris, ordine et positione, ex quorum concursu - quem oportebat esse fortuitum, cum causam agentem negarent - ponebant esse diversitatem in rebus, propter tres praedictas atomorum differentias, scilicet figurae, ordinis et positionis; unde sequebatur distinctionem rerum esse fortuitam. Quod ex praemissis patet esse falsum.
[9] Eliminated hereby is the opinion of the ancient natural philosophers who held that there was but one cause, a material one, from which all things were made by rarity and density. For these thinkers were obliged to say that the distinction of things which we observe in the universe resulted not from the ordering intention of some principle, but from the fortuitous movement of matter.
[10] Set aside, likewise, is the opinion of Democritus and Leucippus, who posited an infinite number of material principles, namely, indivisible bodies of the same nature but differing in shape, order, and position, whose coming together—which was necessarily fortuitous, since they denied the existence of an efficient cause—they attributed to the diversity in things, by reason of the three differentiating characters of the atoms just mentioned, namely, figure, order, and position. Thus, it followed that the distinction of things was the result of chance. And in the light of what has been said this is clearly false.

Caput 40 Chapter 40
Quod materia non est prima causa distinctionis rerum THAT MATTER IS NOT THE FIRST CAUSE OF THE DISTINCTION OF THINGS
Ex hoc autem ulterius apparet quod rerum distinctio non est propter materiae diversitatem sicut propter primam causam. [1] Moreover, it plainly follows that the distinction of things is not to be attributed primarily to diversity of matter.
Ex materia enim nihil determinatum provenire potest nisi casualiter: eo quod materia ad multa possibilis est; ex quibus si unum tantum proveniat, hoc ut in paucioribus contingens necesse est esse; huiusmodi autem est quod casualiter evenit, et praecipue sublata intentione agentis. Ostensum est autem quod rerum distinctio non est a casu. Relinquitur igitur quod non sit propter materiae diversitatem sicut propter primam causam. [2] For it is only by chance that anything determinate can proceed from matter, because matter is in potentiality to many things, of which, if but one were to issue forth, this could not possibly happen except in the minority of instances; and such a thing it is that comes about by chance—and especially is this so in the absence of an agent’s intention. Now, we have shown that the distinction of things is not the result of chance. It therefore follows that the primary reason why things are distinct from one another does not lie in the diversity of their matter.
Adhuc. Ea quae sunt ex intentione agentis, non sunt propter materiam sicut propter primam causam. Causa enim agens prior est in causando quam materia: quia materia non fit actu causa nisi secundum quod est mota ab agente. Unde, si aliquis effectus consequitur dispositionem materiae et intentionem agentis, non est ex materia sicut ex causa prima. Et propter hoc videmus quod ea quae reducuntur in materiam sicut in causam primam, sunt praeter intentionem agentis: sicut monstra et alia peccata naturae. Forma autem est ex intentione agentis. Quod ex hoc patet: agens enim agit sibi simile secundum formam; et si aliquando hoc deficiat, hoc est a casu propter materiam. Formae igitur non consequuntur dispositionem materiae sicut primam causam: sed magis e converso materiae sic disponuntur ut sint tales formae. Distinctio autem rerum secundum speciem est per formas. Distinctio igitur rerum non est propter materiae diversitatem sicut propter primam causam. [3] Moreover, things that result from the intention of an agent do so not primarily on account of matter. For an efficient cause is prior in causal operation to matter, because it is only so far as it is moved by such a cause that matter itself becomes causally operative. Hence, if an effect follows upon a disposition of matter and the intention of an agent, it does not result from matter as its first cause. And on this account we observe that things referred to matter as their primary cause fall outside the intention of the agent concerned—monsters, for instance, and other failures of nature. The form, however, results from the agent’s intention. This is evident from the fact that the agent produces its like according to its form, and if it sometimes fails to do so, the failure is fortuitous and is due to the matter involved. Hence, forms are not consequent upon the disposition of matter as their first cause; on the contrary, the reason why matters are disposed in such and such ways is that there might be forms of such and such kinds. Now, it is by their forms that things are distinguished into species. Therefore, it is not in the diversity of matter that the first cause of the distinction of things is to be found.
Amplius. Distinctio rerum non potest provenire ex materia nisi in illis quae ex materia praeexistente fiunt. Multa autem sunt ab invicem distincta in rebus quae non possunt ex praeexistente materia fieri: sicut patet de corporibus caelestibus, quae non habent contrarium, ut eorum motus ostendit. Non igitur potest esse prima causa distinctionis rerum diversitas materiae. [4] Then, too, the distinction of things cannot result from matter except in the case of things made from pre-existing matter. But there are many things distinct from one another that cannot be made from pre-existing matter: the celestial bodies, for example, which have no contrary, as their motion shows. It follows that the diversity of matter cannot be the first cause of the distinction of things.
Item. Quaecumque habentia sui esse causam distinguuntur, habent causam suae distinctionis: unumquodque enim secundum hoc fit ens secundum quod fit unum in se indivisum et ab aliis distinctum. Sed si materia sui diversitate est causa distinctionis rerum, oportet ponere materias in se esse distinctas. Constat autem quod materia quaelibet habet esse ab alio, per hoc quod supra ostensum est omne quod qualitercumque est, a Deo esse. Ergo aliud est causa distinctionis in materiis. Non igitur prima causa distinctionis rerum potest esse diversitas materiae. [5] Again. There is a cause of the distinction that obtains between all things whose existence is caused and which, therefore, are distinct from one another. For each and every thing is made a being according as it is made one, undivided in itself and distinct from others. But, if matter is by virtue of its diversity the cause of the distinction of things, we shall then have to maintain that matters are in themselves distinct. It is, however, certain that every matter owes its existence to something else, for it was shown above that every thing which is in any way whatever owes its being to God. So the cause of distinction in matters is something other than matter itself. Therefore, the first cause of the distinction of things cannot be the diversity of matter.
Adhuc. Cum omnis intellectus agat propter bonum, non agit melius propter vilius, sed e converso: et simile est de natura. Omnes autem res procedunt a Deo per intellectum agente, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sunt igitur a Deo viliora propter meliora, et non e converso. Forma autem nobilior est materia: cum sit perfectio et actus eius. Ergo non producit tales formas rerum propter tales materias, sed magis tales materias produxit ut sint tales formae. Non igitur distinctio specierum in rebus, quae est secundum formam, est propter materiam: sed magis materiae sunt creatae diversae ut diversis formis conveniant. [6] Furthermore, since every intellect acts for the sake of a good, it does not produce a better thing for the sake of a thing of less worth, but vice versa; and the same is true of nature. Now, as we see from what has been said above, all things proceed from God acting by His intellect. Inferior things, therefore, proceed from God for the sake of better things, and not vice versa. Form, however, is nobler than matter, since it is its perfection and act. Hence, God does not produce such and such forms of things for the sake of such and such matters; rather, He produced such and such matters that there might be such and such forms. Therefore, the distinction of species in things, following as it does upon their form, is not on account of their matter. On the contrary, diverse matters were created in order that they might befit diverse forms.
Per hoc autem excluditur opinio Anaxagorae ponentis infinita principia materialia, a principio quidem commixta in uno confuso, quae postmodum intellectus separando rerum distinctionem constituit: et quorumcumque aliorum ponentium diversa principia materialia ad distinctionem rerum causandam. [7] Excluded hereby is the opinion of Anaxagoras, who asserted that there were an infinite number of material principles which in the beginning were mixed together in one confused whole, but which an intellect later separated, thus establishing the distinction of things from one another. Eliminated, likewise, is the opinion of any other thinkers who postulate various material principles as the cause of the distinction of things.

Caput 41 Chapter 41
Quod distinctio rerum non est propter contrarietatem agentium THAT A CONTRARIETY OF AGENTS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE DISTINCTION OF THINGS
Ex praemissis etiam ostendi potest quod causa distinctionis rerum non est diversitas, aut etiam contrarietas agentium. [1] From what has been said it can be shown, also, that the cause of the distinction of things is not a diversity or even a contrariety of agents.
Si enim diversi agentes ex quibus procedit rerum diversitas, sunt ordinati ad invicem, oportet quod huius ordinis sit aliqua una causa: nam multa non uniuntur nisi per aliquod unum. Et sic illud ordinans est prima causa et una distinctionis rerum. Si vero diversi agentes non sint ad invicem ordinati, concursus eorum ad diversitatem rerum producendam erit per accidens. Distinctio igitur rerum erit casualis. Cuius contrarium supra ostensum est. [2] For, if the diverse agents that cause the diversity of things are ordered to one another, there must be some single cause of this order; for many things are not united save by some one thing. And thus the ordering principle of this unity is the first and sole cause of the distinction of things. But, if these diverse agents are not ordered to one another, their unified action in producing the diversity of things will be accidental. The distinction of things, therefore, will be fortuitous. But we have already proved that the contrary is true.
Item. A diversis causis non ordinatis non procedunt effectus ordinati, nisi forte per accidens: diversa enim, inquantum huiusmodi, non faciunt unum. Res autem distinctae inveniuntur habere ordinem ad invicem non casualiter: cum ut in pluribus unum ab alio iuvetur. Impossibile est igitur quod distinctio rerum sic ordinatarum sit propter diversitatem agentium non ordinatorum. [3] Ordered effects, moreover, do not proceed from diverse causes devoid of order, except perhaps accidentally; for the diverse, as such, do not produce the one. Now, things mutually distinct are found to have a mutual order, and not fortuitously, since in the majority of cases one is served by another. Hence, the distinction of things thus ordered cannot possibly be accounted for by a diversity of agents without order.
Amplius. Quaecumque habent causam suae distinctionis, non possunt esse prima causa distinctionis rerum. Sed si plura agentia ex aequo accipiantur, necesse est quod habeant causam suae distinctionis: habent enim causam essendi, cum omnia entia sint ab uno primo ente, ut supra ostensum est; idem autem est causa essendi alicui et distinctionis eius ab aliis, sicut ostensum est. Non potest igitur esse prima causa distinctionis rerum diversitas agentium. [4] And let us add that the first cause of the distinction of things cannot be things whose distinction from one another itself is caused. Yet, if we consider several agents of the same order, their distinction from one another must necessarily have a cause; for their being itself is caused, since, as we have shown, all beings are from one first being. But we have just proved that the cause of a thing’s being, and of its distinction from other things, is the same. Diversity of agents, therefore, cannot possibly be the first cause of the distinction among things.
Item. Si diversitas rerum procedat a diversitate vel contrarietate diversorum agentium, maxime hoc videtur, quod et plures ponunt, de contrarietate boni et mali, ita quod omnia bona procedant a bono principio, mala autem a malo: bonum enim et malum sunt in omnibus generibus. Non potest autem esse unum primum principium omnium malorum. Cum enim ea quae sunt per aliud, reducantur ad ea quae sunt per se, oportebit primum activum malorum esse per se malum. Per se autem dicimus tale quod per essentiam suam tale est. Eius igitur essentia non erit bona. Hoc autem est impossibile. Omne enim quod est, inquantum est ens, necesse est esse bonum: esse namque suum unumquodque amat et conservari appetit; signum autem est, quia contra pugnat unumquodque suae corruptioni; bonum autem est quod omnia appetunt. Non potest igitur distinctio in rebus procedere a duobus contrariis principiis quorum unum sit bonum et aliud malum. [5] Furthermore, if the diversity of things results from the diversity or contrariety of diverse agents, this would seem especially true, as many say, of the contrariety of good and evil, such that all good things proceed from a good principle and evils from an evil principle—good and evil being found in every genus. It is, however, impossible that there should be one first principle of all evils. For, since things that exist through another are referred to those that exist of themselves, the first active cause of evils would necessarily be evil of itself. Now, we say that a thing is such of itself which is such by its essence. Therefore, the essence of a thing evil of itself will not be good. But this is impossible. For every thing that is must necessarily be good so far as it is being. For every thing loves its own being and desires its preservation, an indication of which is the fact that every thing resists its own dissolution; and the good is that which all things desire. It is, therefore, impossible for the distinction among things to proceed from two contrary principles, the one good, the other evil.
Adhuc. Omne agens agit inquantum est actu. Inquantum vero est actu, unumquodque perfectum est. Perfectum vero omne, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum dicimus. Omne igitur agens, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum est. Si quid igitur per se malum est, non poterit esse agens. Si autem est malorum principium primum, oportet esse per se malum, ut ostensum est. Impossibile est igitur distinctionem in rebus procedere a duobus principiis, bono et malo. [6] Again, every agent acts so far as it is in act; and so far as it is in act, each and every thing is perfect; while every thing that is perfect, as such, is said to be good. It follows that every agent, as such, is good. If, then, a thing were evil of itself, it could not be an agent. But, if a thing is the first principle of evils, it must of necessity be evil of itself, as we have just shown. Therefore, the distinction in things cannot possibly proceed from two principles, one good, the other evil.
Amplius. Si omne ens, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum est, malum igitur, inquantum est malum, est non ens. Non entis autem, inquantum huiusmodi, non est ponere causam agentem: cum omne agens agat inquantum est ens actu: agit autem unumquodque sibi simile. Mali igitur, inquantum est huiusmodi, non est ponere causam per se agentem. Non est igitur fieri reductionem malorum in unam primam causam quae per se sit causa omnium malorum. [7] What is more, if every being, as such, is good, then evil, as such, is a non-being. But there can be no efficient cause of non-being as such. For every agent acts so far as it is a being in act; and every agent produces its like. Therefore, no cause that is of itself active in character can be assigned to evil as such. Evils cannot, then, be referred to one first cause that is of itself the cause of all evils.
Adhuc. Quod educitur praeter intentionem agentis, non habet causam per se, sed incidit per accidens: sicut cum quis invenit thesaurum fodiens ad plantandum. Sed malum in effectu aliquo non potest provenire nisi praeter intentionem agentis: cum omne agens ad bonum intendat; bonum enim est quod omnia appetunt. Malum igitur non habet causam per se, sed per accidens incidit in effectibus causarum. Non igitur est ponere unum primum principium omnium malorum. [8] Consider, too, that anything brought into being outside the scope of the agent’s intention has no essential cause, but happens accidentally, as when a person finds a treasure while digging with the object of planting things. But evil in an effect cannot arise except beside the agent’s intention; every agent intends good, for good is “that which all desire.” Evil, therefore, has no essential cause, but occurs accidentally in the effects of causes. Hence, there is no question of maintaining the existence of one first principle of all evils.
Praeterea. Contrariorum agentium sunt contrariae actiones. Eorum igitur quae per unam actionem producuntur, non sunt ponenda principia contraria. Bonum autem et malum eadem actione producuntur: eadem enim actione aqua corrumpitur et aer generatur. Non sunt igitur, propter differentiam boni et mali in rebus inventam, ponenda principia contraria. [9] Bear in mind, also, that contrary agents have contrary actions, so that contrary principles are not to be attributed to things produced by one action. Now, good and evil are produced by the same action; for instance, by one and the same action water is corrupted and air generated. Hence, there is no reason for postulating contrary principles in order to explain the difference of good and evil that we find in things.
Amplius. Quod omnino non est, nec bonum nec malum est. Quod autem est, inquantum est, bonum est, ut ostensum est. Oportet igitur malum esse aliquid inquantum est non ens. Hoc autem est ens privatum. Malum igitur, inquantum huiusmodi, est ens privatum; et ipsum malum est ipsa privatio. Privatio autem non habet causam per se agentem: quia omne agens agit inquantum habet formam; et sic oportet per se effectum agentis esse habens formam, cum agens agat sibi simile, nisi per accidens. Relinquitur igitur quod malum non habet causam per se agentem, sed incidit per accidens in effectibus causarum per se agentium. [10] Another argument is this. That which has no being at all is neither good nor evil. And, as we have shown, whatever is, so far as it is, is good. Hence, a thing must be evil so far as it is a non-being. But this is a being deprived of being; so that evil, as such, is a being deprived of being; indeed, evil is itself this very privation. Now, privation has no efficient cause that is such through itself. For every agent acts so far as it has form; that which is through itself the effect of an agent, then, must be something having form, since an agent produces its like, except by accident. It remains, therefore, that evil has no cause efficient through itself, but occurs by accident in the effects of such causes.
Non est igitur unum primum et per se malorum principium: sed primum omnium principium est unum primum bonum, in cuius effectibus consequitur malum per accidens. [11] There is, then, no single primary and essential principle of evils; rather, the first principle of all things is the one first good, in whose effects evil results accidentally.
Hinc est quod Isaiae 45 dicitur: ego dominus, et non est alter Deus: formans lucem et creans tenebras, faciens pacem et creans malum. Ego dominus faciens omnia haec. Et Eccli. 11-14: bona et mala, vita et mors, paupertas et honestas, a Deo sunt. Et eodem 33-15: contra malum bonum est. Sic et contra virum iustum peccator. Et sic intuere in omnia opera altissimi duo contra duo, unum contra unum.
Dicitur autem Deus facere mala, vel creare, inquantum creat ea quae secundum se bona sunt, et tamen aliis sunt nociva: sicut lupus, quamvis in sua specie quoddam bonum naturae sit, tamen ovi est malus; et similiter ignis aquae, inquantum est eius corruptivus. Et per similem modum est causa malorum in hominibus quae poenae dicuntur. Unde dicitur Amos 3-6: si est malum in civitate quod dominus non fecerit? Et hoc est quod Gregorius dicit: etiam mala, quae nulla sua natura subsistunt, creantur a domino: sed creare mala dicitur cum res in se bonas creatas nobis male agentibus in flagellum format.
[12] Hence, in the Book of Isaiah (45:6-7) it is said: “I am the Lord and there is none other God: I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil: I am the Lord that do all these things”; and we read also that “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God,” and that “Good is set against evil. So also is the sinner against a just man. And so look upon all the works of the Most High. Two and two, and one against another” (Eccli. 11:14; 33:15).
[13] Now, God is said to make or create evils, so far as He creates things which in themselves are good, yet are injurious to others; the wolf, though in its own kind a good of nature, is nevertheless evil to the sheep; so, too, is fire in relation to water, being dissolutive of the latter. And, likewise, God is the cause of those evils among men which are called penal. That is why it is said: “Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord has not done?” (Amos 3:6). And in this connection Gregory remarks: “Even evils, which have no subsistent nature of their own, are created by the Lord: but He is said to create evils when He uses created things, which in themselves are good, to punish us for our evil doings.”
Per hoc autem excluditur error ponentium prima principia contraria. Qui error primo incoepit ab Empedocle. Posuit enim duo prima principia agentia, amicitiam et litem, quorum amicitiam dixit esse causam generationis, litem vero corruptionis: ex quo videtur, ut Aristoteles dicit, in I Metaphys., hic duo, bonum et malum, primus principia contraria posuisse.
Posuit autem et Pythagoras duo prima, bonum et malum: sed non per modum principiorum agentium, sed per modum formalium principiorum. Ponebat enim haec duo esse genera sub quibus omnia alia comprehenderentur: ut patet per philosophum, in I metaphysicae.
[14] This cancels the error of those who postulated contrary first principles—an error originated by Empedocles, who laid down two primary efficient principles, friendship and strife, declaring the former to be the cause of generation, the latter of corruption, so that, as Aristotle remarks in Metaphysics I [4], it would appear that Empedocles was the first to posit two contrary principles, good and evil.
[15] Pythagoras also postulated two primary principles, good and evil, not as efficient principles, however, but as formal ones. For, as Aristotle points out, Pythagoras held that these two are the genera under which all other things are contained.
Hos autem antiquissimorum philosophorum errores, qui etiam per posteriores philosophos sunt sufficienter exclusi, quidam perversi sensus homines doctrinae Christianae adiungere praesumpserunt. Quorum primus fuit Marchius, a quo Marchiani sunt dicti, qui sub nomine Christiano haeresim condidit, opinatus duo sibi adversa principia, quem secuti sunt Cerdoniani; et postmodum Marchianistae; et ultimo Manichaei, qui hunc errorem maxime diffuderunt. [16] Now, although these errors of the earliest philosophers were sufficiently disposed of by thinkers of later times, certain men of perverse mind have presumed to link them up with Christian doctrine. The first of these was Marchius—from whom the Marchians are named, who under the Christian label founded a heresy, holding the existence of two opposing principles. Following after him were the Cerdonians, then later the Marchianists, and at last came the Manicheans, who spread this error abroad most of all.

Caput 42 Chapter 42
Quod causa prima distinctionis rerum non est secundorum agentium ordo THAT THE FIRST CAUSE OF THE DISTINCTION OF THINGS IS NOT THE WORLD OF SECONDARY AGENTS
Ex eisdem etiam ostendi potest quod rerum distinctio non causatur ex ordine secundorum agentium: sicut quidam dicere voluerunt quod Deus, cum sit unus et simplex, facit tantum unum effectum, quae est substantia primo causata; quae, quia simplicitati primae causae adaequari non potest, cum non sit actus purus sed habeat aliquid de potentia admixtum, habet aliquam multiplicitatem, ut ex ea iam pluralitas aliqua possit prodire; et sic semper effectibus a simplicitate causarum deficientibus, dum multiplicantur effectus, diversitas rerum constituitur, ex quibus universum consistit. [1] From the same principles it can be shown, also, that the distinction of things is not caused by the order of secondary agents. And this contrary to the opinion of those who supposed that since God is one and simple He produces but one effect, which is the first caused substance, and that this effect, since it cannot possibly be on a par with the simplicity of the first cause (not being pure act, it contains some admixture of potentiality), possesses a certain multiple character, making it possible for some kind of plurality to issue from it; so that, with the effects perpetually falling short of the simplicity of their causes, the diversity of the things of which the universe consists is being established while the effects are being multiplied.
Haec igitur positio toti rerum diversitati non unam causam assignat, sed singulas causas determinatis effectibus: totam autem diversitatem rerum ex concursu omnium causarum procedere ponit. Ea autem a casu esse dicimus quae ex concursu diversarum causarum proveniunt et non ex aliqua una causa determinata. Distinctio igitur rerum et ordo universi erit a casu. [2] This position, then, does not assign one cause to the entire diversity of things, but different causes to different effects, while maintaining that the total diversity of things results from the concurrence of all causes. Now, we say that those things happen fortuitously which result from the concurrence of diverse causes, and not from one determinate cause. So, it will follow that the distinction of things and the order of the universe are the products of chance.
Amplius. Id quod est optimum in rebus causatis, reducitur ut in primam causam in id quod est optimum in causis: oportet enim effectus proportionales esse causis. Optimum autem in omnibus entibus causatis est ordo universi, in quo bonum universi consistit: sicut et in rebus humanis bonum gentis est divinius quam bonum unius. Oportet igitur ordinem universi sicut in causam propriam reducere in Deum, quem supra ostendimus esse summum bonum. Non igitur rerum distinctio, in qua ordo consistit universi, causatur ex causis secundis, sed magis ex intentione causae primae. [3] Moreover, that which is best in things caused is referred, as to its first cause, to that which is best in causes; for effects must be proportionate to their causes. Now, among all caused beings what is best is the order of the universe, and in this does its good consist; even as in human affairs “the good of a people is more godlike than the good of one individual.” Therefore, the order of the universe must be referred to god as its proper cause, whom we have proved above to be the highest good. Therefore, the distinction of things, wherein the order of the universe consists, proceeds not from secondary causes, but from the intention of the first cause.
Adhuc. Absurdum videtur id quod est optimum in rebus reducere sicut in causam in rerum defectum. Optimum autem in rebus causatis est distinctio et ordo ipsarum, ut ostensum est. Inconveniens igitur est dicere quod talis distinctio ex hoc causetur quod secundae causae deficiunt a simplicitate causae primae. [4] Then, too, it seems absurd to assign a defect in things as the cause of what is best in them. But, as we have just now shown, the best in things caused is their distinction and order. So, it would be incongruous to say that this distinction of things is the result of secondary causes falling short of the simplicity of the first cause.
Item. In omnibus causis agentibus ordinatis, ubi agitur propter finem, oportet quod fines causarum secundarum sint propter finem causae primae: sicut finis militaris et equestris et frenifactricis est propter finem civilis. Processus autem entium a primo ente est per actionem ordinatam ad finem: cum sit per intellectum, ut ostensum est; intellectus autem omnis propter finem agit. Si igitur in productione rerum sunt aliquae causae secundae, oportet quod fines earum et actiones sint propter finem causae primae, qui est ultimus finis in rebus causatis. Hoc autem est distinctio et ordo partium universi, qui est quasi ultima forma. Non igitur est distinctio in rebus et ordo propter actiones secundarum causarum: sed magis actiones secundarum causarum sunt propter ordinem et distinctionem in rebus constituendam. [5] Moreover, in all ordered efficient causes, where action is done for the sake of an end, the ends of the secondary causes must be pursued for the sake of the end of the first cause; the ends of the art of war, of horsemanship, and of bridle-making, for example, are ordained to the end of the political art. Now, the issuance of beings from the first being is brought about by an action ordained to an end, since, as we have shown, it is accomplished by the causality of an intellect; and every intellect acts for an end. So, if there are secondary causes at work in the production of things, the ends and actions of those causes are necessarily directed to the end of the first cause, which is the last end in things caused. Now, this is the distinction and order of the parts of the universe, which, as it were, constitute its ultimate form. Therefore, it is not on account of the actions of secondary agents that the distinction of things and their order exist; on the contrary, the actions of secondary causes are for the sake of the order and distinction to be established in things.
Adhuc. Si distinctio partium universi et ordo earum est proprius effectus causae primae, quasi ultima forma et optimum in universo, oportet rerum distinctionem et ordinem esse in intellectu causae primae: in rebus enim quae per intellectum aguntur, forma quae in rebus factis producitur, provenit a forma simili quae est in intellectu; sicut domus quae est in materia, a domo quae est in intellectu. Forma autem distinctionis et ordinis non potest esse in intellectu agente nisi sint ibi formae distinctorum et ordinatorum. Sunt igitur in intellectu divino formae diversarum rerum distinctarum et ordinatarum: nec hoc simplicitati ipsius repugnat, ut supra ostensum est. Si igitur ex formis quae sunt in intellectu proveniant res extra animam, in his quae per intellectum aguntur, poterunt a prima causa immediate causari plura et diversa, non obstante divina simplicitate, propter quam quidam in praedictam positionem inciderunt. [6] If the distinction of the parts of the universe and their order, furthermore, is the proper effect of the first cause, being the ultimate form and greatest good in the universe, then the distinction and order of things must needs be in the intellect of the first cause; for in things brought into being through the causality of an intellect, the form engendered in the things made proceeds from a like form in that intellect; the house existing in matter proceeds from the house existing in an intellect. But the form of distinction and order cannot exist in an agent intellect unless the forms of the distinct and ordered things are present there. Present in God’s intellect, therefore, are the forms of diverse things mutually distinct and ordered. Nor, as we have shown above, is this multiplicity incompatible with God’s simplicity. Hence, if things outside the mind proceed from forms that are in it, it will be possible, in the case of things brought about by intellectual causation, for many and diverse things to be produced immediately by the first cause without detriment to the divine simplicity, on whose account some fell into the position referred to above.
Item. Actio agentis per intellectum terminatur ad formam quam intelligit, non ad aliam, nisi per accidens et a casu. Deus autem est agens per intellectum, ut ostensum est: nec potest eius actio esse casualis, cum non possit in sua actione deficere. Oportet igitur quod producat effectum suum ex hoc quod ipsum effectum intelligit et intendit. Sed per quam rationem intelligit unum effectum, potest et multos effectus alios a se intelligere. Potest igitur statim multa causare absque medio. [7] Also, the action of an intellectual agent terminates in the form which the agent apprehends, and in no other, except accidentally and by chance. But, as we have shown, God is such an agent. Nor can His action be of a fortuitous character, since He cannot fail in its performance. It therefore necessarily follows that He produces His effect by the very fact that He knows it and intends it. But through the same idea whereby He apprehends one effect, He can grasp many effects other than Himself. Accordingly, without any intermediary He can cause many things all at once.
Amplius. Sicut supra ostensum est, virtus divina non limitatur ad unum effectum: et hoc eius simplicitati convenit; quia quanto aliqua virtus est magis unita, tanto est magis infinita, ad plura se potens extendere. Quod autem ex uno non fiat nisi unum, non oportet nisi quando agens ad unum effectum determinatur. Non oportet igitur dicere quod, quia Deus est unus et omnino simplex, ex ipso multitudo provenire non possit nisi mediantibus aliquibus ab eius simplicitate deficientibus. [8] Moreover, as we have previously shown, the power of God is not limited to the production of one effect; and this accords with His simplicity, because, the more unified a power is, the more unlimited is its scope since it is able to extend itself to so many more things. But, except in the case of the agent’s being determined to one effect, there is no necessary reason why only one thing should be made by one cause. Therefore, it is not necessary to say that, because God is one and absolutely simple, no multiplicity can proceed from Him unless it be through the mediation of certain things lacking in the simplicity proper to Himself.
Praeterea. Ostensum est supra quod solus Deus potest creare. Multa autem sunt rerum quae non possunt procedere in esse nisi per creationem: sicut omnia quae non sunt composita ex forma et materia contrarietati subiecta; huiusmodi enim ingenerabilia oportet esse, cum omnis generatio sit ex contrario et ex materia. Talia autem sunt omnes intellectuales substantiae, et omnia corpora caelestia, et etiam ipsa materia prima. Oportet igitur ponere omnia huiusmodi immediate a Deo sumpsisse sui esse principium. [9] Then, too, it was shown above that God alone can create. Now, there are numerous things that can come into being only by creation, such as all those which are not composed of form and matter subject to contrariety; for things of this kind are necessarily incapable of being generated, since it is from a contrary and from matter that every process of generation takes place. Now, in this category belong all intellectual substances, and all heavenly bodies, and even prime matter itself. It must therefore be maintained that all such things originated immediately from God.
Hinc est quod dicitur Gen. 1-1: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram; Iob 37-18: tu forsitan fabricatus es caelos, qui solidissimi quasi aere fundati sunt? [10] Hence it is said: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1); and, in the Book of Job (37:18): “Can you, like Him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?”
Excluditur autem ex praedictis opinio Avicennae, qui dicit quod Deus, intelligens se, produxit unam intelligentiam primam, in qua iam est potentia et actus; quae, inquantum intelligit Deum, producit intelligentiam secundam; inquantum vero intelligit se secundum quod est in actu, producit animam orbis; inquantum vero intelligit se secundum quod est in potentia, producit substantiam orbis primi. Et sic inde procedens diversitatem rerum causari instituit per causas secundas. [11] Excluded by the preceding considerations is the opinion of Avicenna,” who says that God, by knowing Himself, produced one first intelligence, wherein there already exist potentiality and act; that this intelligence, by knowing God, produces the second intelligence; by knowing itself as it is in act, produces the soul of the sphere; and by knowing itself as being in potentiality, produces the substance of the first sphere. And thus, proceeding from this point, he teaches that the diversity of things is the effect of secondary causes.
Excluditur etiam opinio quorundam antiquorum haereticorum, qui dicebant Deum non creasse mundum, sed Angelos. Cuius erroris dicitur primo Simon magus fuisse inventor. [12] Excluded, also, is the opinion of certain heretics of early times who said that the angels, and not God, created the world. It is said that Simon Magus was the originator of this error.

Caput 43 Chapter 43
Quod rerum distinctio non est per aliquem de secundis agentibus inducentem in materiam diversas formas THAT THE DISTINCTION OF THINGS IS NOT CAUSED BY SOME SECONDARY AGENT INTRODUCING DIVERSE FORMS INTO MATTER
Sunt autem quidam moderni haeretici qui dicunt Deum omnium visibilium creasse materiam, sed per aliquem Angelum diversis formis fuisse distinctam. Cuius opinionis falsitas manifeste apparet. [1] Certain modern heretics say that God created the matter of all visible things, but that an angel diversified it by various forms. This opinion is clearly false.
Non enim caelestia corpora, in quibus nulla contrarietas invenitur, ex aliqua materia possunt esse formata: omne enim quod fit ex materia praeexistenti, oportet ex contrario fieri. Impossibile est igitur quod ex aliqua materia prius a Deo creata Angelus aliquis caelestia corpora formaverit. [2] For the heavenly bodies, in which no contrariety is found, cannot have been formed from any matter, because whatever is made from pre-existing matter must be made from a contrary. Therefore, no angel could possibly have formed the heavenly bodies from matter antecedently created by God.
Amplius. Caelestia corpora aut in nulla materia conveniunt cum corporibus inferioribus, aut non conveniunt in aliqua materia nisi prima: non enim caelum est ex elementis compositum, nec naturae elementaris; quod eius motus ostendit, a motibus omnium elementorum diversus. Materia autem prima non potest praefuisse per seipsam ante omnia corpora formata: cum non sit nisi potentia tantum; omne enim esse in actu est ab aliqua forma. Impossibile est igitur quod ex materia prius a Deo creata aliquis Angelus omnia visibilia corpora formaverit. [3] The heavenly bodies, moreover, either have no matter in common with the lower bodies, or they have only prime matter in common with them; for the heaven neither is composed of elements nor is of an elemental nature—a fact shown by its motion, which is of another kind than that of all the elements. And prime matter could not have existed by itself prior to all formed bodies, since its being is purely potential, whereas everything actually existent is from some form. There is, then, no possibility of an angel’s having formed all visible bodies from matter antecedently created by God.
Adhuc. Omne quod fit, ad hoc fit quod sit: est enim fieri via in esse. Sic igitur unicuique causato convenit fieri sicut sibi convenit esse. Esse autem non convenit formae tantum nec materiae tantum, sed composito: materia enim non est nisi in potentia; forma vero est qua aliquid est, est enim actus. Unde restat quod compositum proprie sit. Eius igitur solius est fieri, non materiae praeter formam. Non est igitur aliud agens creans materiam solam, et aliud inducens formam. [4] Again, everything made is made in order that it may be, for making is the way to being. It befits every caused thing to be made, even as it befits it to be. The act of being, however, does not belong to the form only, nor to the matter only, but to the composite. For matter exists only in potency, while form is that by which something is, since it is act. It remains, therefore, that it is the composite which, properly speaking, is. Hence, it belongs to the composite alone to be made, and not to matter without form. So, there is not one agent that creates the matter alone and another that introduces the form.
Item. Prima inductio formarum in materia non potest esse ab aliquo agente per motum tantum: omnis enim motus ad formam est ex forma determinata in formam determinatam; quia materia non potest esse absque omni forma, et sic praesupponitur aliqua forma in materia. Sed omne agens ad formam solam materialem oportet quod sit agens per motum: cum enim formae materiales non sint per se subsistentes, sed earum esse sit inesse materiae, non possunt produci in esse nisi vel per creationem totius compositi, vel per transmutationem materiae ad talem vel talem formam. Impossibile est igitur quod prima inductio formarum in materia sit ab aliquo creante formam tantum: sed ab eo qui est creator totius compositi. [5] And again, the first induction of forms into matter cannot have originated from an agent acting by means of movement only. All motion directed to a form is from a determinate form toward a determinate form, for matter cannot exist in the absence of all form; the existence of some form in matter is presupposed. But every agent whose action is directed only toward material forms is necessarily an agent that acts by means of motion. For, since material forms are not self-subsistent, and since, in their case, to be is to be in matter, there are but two possible ways in which they can be brought into being: either by the creation of the whole composite, or by the transmutation of matter to this or that form. The first induction of forms into matter, therefore, cannot possibly be from an agent that creates the form alone; rather, this is the work of Him who is the Creator of the whole composite.
Adhuc. Motus ad formam est posterior naturaliter motu secundum locum: cum sit actus magis imperfecti, ut probat philosophus. Posteriora autem in entibus naturali ordine causantur a prioribus. Motus igitur ad formam causatur a motu secundum locum. Primus autem motus secundum locum est motus caelestis. Omnis igitur motus ad formam fit mediante motu caelesti. Ea igitur quae non possunt fieri mediante motu caelesti, non possunt fieri ab aliquo agente qui non potest agere nisi per motum: qualem oportet esse agentem qui non potest agere nisi inducere formam in materia, ut ostensum est. Per motum autem caelestem non possunt produci multae formae sensibiles nisi mediantibus determinatis principiis suppositis: sicut animalia quaedam non fiunt nisi ex semine. Prima igitur institutio harum formarum, ad quarum productionem non sufficit motus caelestis sine praeexistentia similium formarum in specie, oportet quod sit a solo creante. [6] Then, too, motion in respect of form is naturally posterior to local motion, since the former is the act of that which is more imperfect, as Aristotle proves [ Physics, VIII, 7]. Now, in the natural order, things posterior are caused by things prior. Therefore, motion with respect to form is caused by local motion. The first local motion, however, is that of the heaven. Hence, all motion toward form is brought about through the mediation of the heavenly motion. Consequently, things that cannot be produced in that way cannot be made by an agent capable of acting only by means of movement; and, as we have just shown, the agent that can act only by inducing form into matter must be that kind of agent. There are, however, many sensible forms which cannot be produced by the motion of the heaven except through the intermediate agency of certain determinate principles pre-supposed to their production; certain animals, for example, are generated only from seed. Therefore, the primary establishment of these forms, for producing which the motion of the heaven does not suffice without their pre-existence in the species, must of necessity proceed from the Creator alone.
Item. Sicut idem est motus localis partis et totius, ut totius terrae et unius glebae, ita mutatio generationis est eadem totius et partis. Partes autem horum generabilium et corruptibilium generantur acquirentes formas in actu a formis quae sunt in materia, non autem a formis extra materiam existentibus, cum oporteat generans esse simile generato: ut probat philosophus in VII metaphysicae. Neque igitur totalis acquisitio formarum in materia potest fieri per motum ab aliqua substantia separata, cuiusmodi est Angelus: sed vel oportet quod hoc fiat mediante agente corporeo; vel a creante, qui agit sine motu. [7] Furthermore, just as the local motion of part and whole is the same—the motion of the whole earth and of one piece of it, for example—so the change in which generation consists is the same in the part and in the whole. Now, the parts of generable and corruptible things are generated by acquiring actual forms from forms present in matter, and not from forms existing outside matter, since the generator must be like the generated, as Aristotle proves in Metaphysics VII [8]. Neither, then, is it possible that the total acquisition of forms by matter should be brought about through motion proceeding from some separate substance such as an angel; rather, this must be effected either by the intermediation of a corporeal agent, or by the Creator, who acts without motion.
Adhuc. Sicut esse est primum in effectibus, ita respondet primae causae ut proprius effectus. Esse autem est per formam, et non per materiam. Prima igitur causalitas formarum maxime est primae causae attribuenda. [8] Also, just as the act of being is first among effects, so, correspondingly, is it the proper effect of the first cause. But it is by virtue of form and not of matter that this act exists. Therefore, the first causation of forms is to be attributed above all to the first cause.
Amplius. Cum omne agens agat sibi simile, ab illo acquirit effectus formam cui per formam acquisitam similatur: sicut domus in materia ab arte, quae est species domus in anima. Sed omnia similantur Deo qui est actus purus, inquantum habent formas, per quas fiunt in actu: et inquantum formas appetunt, divinam similitudinem appetere dicuntur. Absurdum est igitur dicere quod rerum formatio ad alium pertineat quam ad creatorem omnium Deum. [9] Furthermore, since every agent produces its like, the effect obtains its form from that reality to which it is made like through the form acquired by it; the material house acquires its form from the art which is the likeness of the house present in the mind. But all things are like God, who is pure act, so far as they have forms, through which they become actual; and so far as they desire forms, they are said to desire the divine likeness. It is therefore absurd to say that the formation of things is the work of anything other than God the Creator of all.
Et inde est quod, ad excludendum istum errorem, Gen. 1, Moyses, postquam dixerat Deum in principio caelum et terram creasse, subdidit quomodo omnia in proprias species formando distinxerit. Et apostolus dicit, Coloss. 1-16, quod in Christo condita sunt universa: sive quae in caelis sunt sive quae in terris, sive visibilia sive invisibilia. [10] So it is that in order to cast out this error, Moses, after saying that God “in the beginning created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1), went on to explain how God distinguished all things by forming them in their proper species. And St. Paul says that “in Christ were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16).

Caput 44 Chapter 44
Quod distinctio rerum non processit ex meritorum vel demeritorum diversitate THAT THE DISTINCTION OF THINGS DOES NOT HAVE ITS SOURCE IN THE DIVERSITY OF MERITS OR DEMERITS
Nunc superest ostendere quod rerum distinctio non processit ex diversis motibus liberi arbitrii rationalium creaturarum: ut posuit Origenes, in libro periarchon. Volens enim resistere antiquorum haereticorum obiectionibus et erroribus, qui ostendere nitebantur diversam naturam boni et mali esse in rebus ex contrariis actoribus, propter multam distantiam inventam tam in rebus naturalibus quam in rebus humanis, quam nulla merita praecessisse videntur, scilicet quod quaedam corpora sunt lucida, quaedam obscura, quidam homines ex barbaris, quidam ex Christianis nascuntur; coactus est ponere omnem diversitatem in rebus inventam ex diversitate meritorum, secundum Dei iustitiam, processisse. Dicit enim quod Deus ex sola sua bonitate primo omnes creaturas aequales produxit, et omnes spirituales et rationales; quae per liberum arbitrium diversimode sunt motae, quaedam adhaerentes Deo plus vel minus, quaedam ab eo recedentes vel magis vel minus; et secundum hoc diversi gradus in substantiis spiritualibus ex divina iustitia sunt subsecuti, ut quidam essent Angeli secundum diversos ordines, quidam animae humanae etiam secundum diversos status, quidam etiam Daemones in statibus diversis; et propter diversitatem rationalium creaturarum dicebat diversitatem corporalium creaturarum Deum instituisse, ut nobilioribus corporibus nobiliores spirituales substantiae adiungerentur, ut diversimode corporalis creatura spiritualium substantiarum diversitati quibuslibet modis aliis deserviret. [1] We now have to show that the distinction among things did not result from diverse movements of free choice in rational creatures, as Origen maintained in his Peri Archon. For he wished to oppose the objections and errors of the early heretics who endeavored to prove that the heterogeneous character of good and evil in things has its origin in contrary agents. Now, there are, as Origen saw, great differences in natural as well as human things which seemingly are not preceded by any merits; some bodies are luminous, some dark, some men are born of pagans, others of Christians, etc. And having observed this fact, Origen was impelled to assert that all diversity found in things resulted from a diversity of merits, in accordance with the justice of God. For he says that God, of His goodness alone, first made all creatures equal, and all of them spiritual and rational; and these by their free choice were moved in various ways, some adhering to God more, and some less, some withdrawing from Him more, and some less; and as a result of this, diverse grades in spiritual substances were established by the divine justice, so that some were angels of diverse orders, some human souls in various conditions, some demons in their differing states. And because of the diversity among rational creatures, Origen stated that Cod had instituted diversity in the realm of corporeal creatures so that the higher spiritual substances were united to the higher bodies, and thus the bodily creature would subserve, in whatever other various ways, the diversity of spiritual substances.
Haec autem opinio falsa esse manifeste convincitur. Quanto enim aliquid est melius in effectibus, tanto est prius in intentione agentis. Optimum autem in rebus creatis est perfectio universi, quae consistit in ordine distinctarum rerum: in omnibus enim perfectio totius praeminet perfectioni singularium partium. Igitur diversitas rerum ex principali intentione primi agentis provenit, non ex diversitate meritorum. [2] This opinion, however, is demonstrably false. For in the order of effects, the better a thing is, so much the more is it prior in the intention of the agent. But the greatest good in things created is the perfection of the universe, consisting in the order of distinct things; for always the perfection of the whole has precedence of the perfection of the individual parts. Therefore, the diversity of things results from the original intention of the first agent, not from a diversity of merits.
Adhuc. Si omnes creaturae rationales a principio fuerunt aequales creatae, oportet dicere quod una earum in sua operatione ab alia non dependeret. Quod autem provenit ex concursu diversarum causarum quarum una ab alia non dependet, est casuale. Igitur, secundum praedictam positionem, talis distinctio et ordo rerum est casualis. Quod est impossibile, ut supra ostensum est. [3] Then, too, if all rational creatures were created equal from the beginning, it must be said that one of them would not depend, in its action, upon another. But that which results from the concurrence of diverse causes, one of which does not depend on another, is fortuitous. In accordance with the opinion just cited, therefore, this distinction and order of things is fortuitous. Yet this, as we have proved above, is impossible.
Amplius. Quod est alicui naturale, non acquiritur ab eo per voluntatem: motus enim voluntatis, sive liberi arbitrii, praesupponit existentiam volentis, ad quam eius naturalia exiguntur. Si igitur per motum liberi arbitrii acquisitus est diversus gradus rationalium creaturarum, nulli creaturae rationali erit suus gradus naturalis, sed accidentalis. Hoc autem est impossibile. Cum enim differentia specifica sit unicuique naturalis, sequetur quod omnes substantiae rationales creatae sint unius speciei, scilicet Angeli, Daemones, et animae humanae, et animae caelestium corporum (quae Origenes animata ponebat). Et hoc esse falsum diversitas actionum naturalium declarat: non enim est idem modus quo naturaliter intelligit intellectus humanus, qui sensu et phantasia indiget, et intellectus angelicus et anima solis; nisi forte fingamus Angelos et caelestia corpora habere carnes et ossa et alias huiusmodi partes, ad hoc quod possint organa sensuum habere, quod est absurdum. Relinquitur igitur quod diversitas substantiarum intellectualium non consequitur diversitatem meritorum, quae sunt secundum motus liberi arbitrii. [4] Moreover, what is natural to a person is not acquired by him through the exercise of his will; for the movement of the will, or of free choice, presupposes the existence of the willer, and his existence presupposes the things proper to his nature. If the diverse grades of rational creatures result from a movement of free choice, then the grade of none of them will be natural, but every grade will be accidental. Now, this is impossible. For, since the specific difference is natural to each thing, it would follow, on that theory, that all created rational substances—angels, demons, human souls, the souls of the heavenly bodies (Origen attributed animation to these bodies)—are of one species. The diversity of natural actions proves the falsity of this position. For the natural mode of understanding proper to the human intellect is not the same as that which sense and imagination, the angelic intellect, and the soul of the sun, require—unless, perhaps, we picture the angels and heavenly bodies with flesh and bones and like parts, so that they may be endowed with organs of sense; which is absurd. It therefore remains that the diversity of intellectual substances is not the consequence of a diversity of merits, resulting from movements of free choice.
Adhuc. Si ea quae sunt naturalia non acquiruntur per motum liberi arbitrii; animam autem rationalem tali corpori uniri acquiritur ei propter praecedens meritum vel demeritum secundum motum liberi arbitrii: sequetur quod coniunctio huius animae ad hoc corpus non sit naturalis. Ergo nec compositum est naturale. Homo autem, et sol, secundum Origenem, et astra, sunt composita ex substantiis rationalibus et corporibus talibus. Ergo omnia huiusmodi, quae sunt nobilissima inter corporeas substantias, sunt innaturalia. [5] Again, if natural things are not acquired by a movement of free choice, whereas a rational soul owes its union with a certain body to preceding merit or demerit in keeping with the movement of free choice, then it would follow that the union of this soul with this body is not natural. Neither, then, is the resulting composite natural. Nevertheless, according to Origen, man and the sun and the stars are composed of rational substances and such and such bodies. Therefore, all these things—which are the noblest among corporeal substances— are unnatural.
Item. Si huic substantiae rationali non convenit inquantum est talis substantia huic corpori uniri, sed magis inquantum est sic merita, huic corpori uniri non est ei per se, sed per accidens. Ex his autem quae per accidens uniuntur non resultat aliqua species, quia non fit ex eis unum per se: non enim est aliqua species homo albus vel homo vestitus. Relinquitur igitur quod homo non sit aliqua species: nec sol, nec luna, nec aliquid huiusmodi. [6] Moreover, if the union of a particular rational substance with a particular body befits that substance, not so far as it is such a substance, but so far as it has merited that union, then it is not united to that body through itself, but by accident. Now, no species results from the accidental union of things; for from such a union there does not arise a thing one through itself; thus, white man is not a species, nor is clothed man. From the hypothesis in question, therefore, it would follow that man is not a species, nor is the sun a species, nor the moon, nor anything of the kind.
Amplius. Ea quae ad merita consequuntur, possunt in melius vel in peius mutari: merita enim et demerita possunt augeri vel minui; et praecipue secundum Origenem, qui dicebat liberum arbitrium cuiuslibet creaturae semper esse in utramque partem flexibile. Si igitur anima rationalis hoc corpus consecuta est propter praecedens meritum vel demeritum, sequetur quod possit iterum coniungi alteri corpori: et non solum quod anima humana assumat aliud corpus humanum, sed etiam quod assumat quandoque corpus sidereum; quod est secundum Pythagoricas fabulas, quamlibet animam quodlibet corpus ingredi. Hoc autem et secundum philosophiam apparet esse erroneum, secundum quam determinatis formis et motoribus assignantur determinatae materiae et determinata mobilia: et secundum fidem haereticum, quae animam in resurrectione idem corpus resumere praedicat quod deponit. [7] Again, things resulting from merit may be changed for better or for worse; for merits and demerits may increase and diminish—a point particularly stressed by Origen, who said that the free choice of every creature can always be turned to either side. Hence, if a rational soul has obtained this body on account of preceding merit or demerit, then it is possible for it to be united again to another body; and it will follow not only that the human soul may take to itself another human body, but also that it may sometimes assume a sidereal body—a notion “in keeping with the Pythagorean fables according to which any soul could enter any body.” Obviously, this idea is both erroneous as regards philosophy, according to which determinate matters and determinate movable things are assigned to determinate forms and determinate movers, and heretical according to faith, which declares that in the resurrection the soul resumes the same body that it has left.
Praeterea. Cum multitudo sine diversitate esse non possit, si fuerunt a principio creaturae rationales in quadam multitudine constitutae, oportuit eis aliquam diversitatem fuisse. Aliquid ergo habuit una earum quod non habuit altera. Et sic hoc ex diversitate meriti non procedat, pari ratione nec fuit necesse ut gradus diversitas ex meritorum diversitate proveniret. [8] Also, since multitude without diversity cannot exist, if from the beginning any multitude at all of rational creatures existed, then there must have been some diversity among them. And this means that one of those creatures had something which another had not. And if this was not the consequence of a diversity in merit, for the same reason neither was it necessary that the diversity of grades should result from a diversity of merits.
Item. Omnis distinctio est aut secundum divisionem quantitatis, quae in solis corporibus est, unde in substantiis primo creatis, secundum Origenem, esse non potuit: aut secundum divisionem formalem. Quae sine graduum diversitate esse non potest: cum talis divisio reducatur ad privationem et formam; et sic oportet quod altera formarum condivisarum sit melior et altera vilior. Unde, secundum philosophum, species rerum sunt sicut numeri, quorum unus alteri addit aut minuit. Sic igitur, si fuerunt a principio multae substantiae rationales creatae, oportet quod fuerit in eis gradus diversitas. [9] Every distinction, furthermore, is either in terms of a division of quantity, which exists only in bodies—so that, according to Origen, such distinctness could not exist in the substances first created; or in terms of formal division. But without a diversity of grades there can be no formal division, since division of this kind is reduced to privation and form. Necessarily, then, one of the reciprocally divided forms is better and the other less good. Hence, as Aristotle remarks, the species of things are like numbers, one number being in addition to or in subtraction from the other. Therefore, if there were many rational substances created from the beginning, there must have been a diversity of grades among them.
Item. Si creaturae rationales sine corporibus subsistere possunt, non fuit necessarium propter diversa merita rationalium creaturarum diversitatem in natura corporali institui: quia et sine diversitate corporum poterat diversus gradus in substantiis rationalibus inveniri. Si autem creaturae rationales sine corporibus subsistere non possunt, ergo a principio simul cum creatura rationali est etiam creatura corporalis instituta. Maior est autem distantia corporalis creaturae ad spiritualem quam spiritualium creaturarum ad invicem. Si igitur a principio Deus tam magnam distantiam in suis creaturis instituit absque aliquibus meritis praecedentibus, non oportuit merita diversa praecedere ad hoc quod in diversis gradibus creaturae rationales instituerentur. [10] Then, too, if rational creatures can subsist without bodies, there was no need to have introduced distinctness in the realm of corporeal nature on account of the different merits of rational creatures; because, even in the absence of a diversity of bodies, diverse grades in rational substances could be found. If, however, rational creatures cannot subsist without bodies, then the corporeal creature also was produced from the beginning simultaneously with the rational creature. Now, the corporeal creature is more remote from the spiritual than spiritual creatures are from one another. So, if God from the beginning established such a great distance among His creatures without any antecedent merits, it was unnecessary for a diversity of merits to have been acquired previously in order that rational creatures might be constituted in diverse grades.
Adhuc. Si diversitas creaturae corporalis respondet diversitati creaturae rationalis, pari ratione et uniformitati rationalium creaturarum responderet uniformitas naturae corporalis. Fuisset ergo natura corporalis creata etiam si diversa merita rationalis creaturae non praecessissent, sed uniformis. Fuisset igitur creata materia prima, quae est omnibus corporibus communis, sed sub una tantum forma. Sunt autem in ipsa plures formae in potentia. Remansisset igitur imperfecta, sola una eius forma reducta in actum. Quod non est conveniens divinae bonitati. [11] Again, if, corresponding to the multiformity of rational creatures there is multiformity in corporeal creatures, then, for the same reason, corresponding to the uniformity of rational creatures, there would be uniformity in the corporeal nature. Consequently the corporeal nature would have been created, even if multifarious merits of rational creatures had not preceded, but a corporeal nature uniform in character. Hence, prime matter would have been created—a principle common to all bodies—but it would have been created under one form only. But prime matter contains potentially a multiplicity of forms. On the hypothesis under consideration, prime matter would therefore have remained unfulfilled, its one form alone being actualized; and this is at variance with the divine goodness.
Item. Si diversitas corporalis creaturae sequitur diversos motus liberi arbitrii rationalis creaturae, oportebit dicere quod causa quare est tantum unus sol in mundo, sit quia una tantum rationalis creatura sic mota est per liberum arbitrium ut tali corpori mereretur adiungi. Hoc autem fuit a casu, quod una tantum sic peccaret. Est igitur a casu quod sit unus sol in mundo, et non ad necessitatem corporalis naturae. [12] Moreover, if the heterogeneity of corporeal creatures arises from the various movements of the rational creature’s free choice, it will have to be said that the reason why there is only one sun in the world is that only one rational creature was moved by its free choice in such a way as to deserve being joined to such a body as the sun. But, that only one rational creature sinned in this way was a matter of chance. Therefore, the existence of only one sun in the world is the result of chance; it does not answer to a need of corporeal nature.
Praeterea. Cum creatura spiritualis non mereatur descendere nisi per peccatum; descendit autem a sua sublimitate, in qua indivisibilis est, per hoc quod visibilibus corporibus unitur: videtur sequi quod visibilia corpora sint eis adiuncta propter peccatum. Quod videtur propinquum errori Manichaeorum ponentium haec visibilia ex malo principio processisse. [13] The spiritual creature, furthermore, does not deserve reduction to a lower status except for sin; and yet, by being united to visible bodies, it is brought down from its lofty state of being, wherein it is invisible. Now, from this it would seem to follow that visible bodies are joined to spiritual creatures because of sin—a notion seemingly akin to the error of the Manicheans who asserted that these visible things originated from the evil principle.
Huic etiam opinioni auctoritas sacrae Scripturae manifeste contradicit. Quia in singulis operibus visibilium creaturarum tali modo loquendi utitur Moyses, videns Deus quod esset bonum, etc.; et postmodum de cunctis simul subiungit: vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona. Ex quo manifeste datur intelligi quod creaturae corporales et visibiles ideo sunt factae quia bonum est eas esse, quod est consonum divinae bonitati: et non propter aliqua creaturarum rationalium merita vel peccata. [14] This opinion is clearly contradicted by the authority of sacred Scripture, for in regard to each production of visible creatures, Moses says: “God saw that it was good,” etc. (Gen. 1); and afterwards, concerning the totality of His creatures, Moses adds: “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good.” By this we are clearly given to understand that the corporeal and visible creatures were made because it is good for them to be; and that this is in keeping with God’s goodness, and not because of any merits or sins of rational creatures.
Videtur autem Origenes non perpendisse quod, cum aliquid non ex debito, sed liberaliter damus, non est contra iustitiam si inaequalia damus, nulla diversitate meritorum pensata: cum retributio merentibus debeatur. Deus autem, ut supra ostensum est, ex nullo debito, sed ex mera liberalitate res in esse produxit. Unde diversitas creaturarum diversitatem meritorum non praesupponit. [25] Now, Origen seems not to have taken into consideration the fact that when we give something, not in payment of a debt, but as a free gift, it is not contrary to justice if we give unequal things, without having weighed the difference of merits; although payment is due to those who merit. But, as we have shown above, God brought things into being, not because He was in any way obliged to do so, but out of pure generosity. Therefore, the diversity of creatures does not presuppose a diversity of merits.
Item, cum bonum totius sit melius quam bonum partium singularium, non est optimi factoris diminuere bonum totius ut aliquarum partium augeat bonitatem: non enim aedificator fundamento tribuit eam bonitatem quam tribuit tecto, ne domum faciat ruinosam. Factor igitur omnium, Deus, non faceret totum universum in suo genere optimum, si faceret omnes partes aequales: quia multi gradus bonitatis in universo deessent, et sic esset imperfectum. [16] And again, since the good of the whole is better than the good of each part, the best maker is not he who diminishes the good of the whole in order to increase the goodness of some of the parts; a builder does not give the same relative value to the foundation that he gives to the roof, lest he ruin the house. Therefore, God, the maker of all things, would not make the whole universe the best of its kind, if He made all the parts equal, because many grades of goodness would then be lacking in the universe, and thus it would be imperfect.

Caput 45 Chapter 45
Quae sit prima causa distinctionis rerum secundum veritatem THE TRUE FIRST CAUSE OF THE DISTINCTION OF THINGS
Ostendi autem ex praedictis potest quae sit vere prima distinctionis rerum causa. [1] From the foregoing it can be shown what is truly the first cause of the distinction of things.
Cum enim omne agens intendat suam similitudinem in effectum inducere secundum quod effectus capere potest, tanto hoc agit perfectius quanto agens perfectius est: patet enim quod quanto aliquid est calidius, tanto facit magis calidum; et quanto est aliquis melior artifex, formam artis perfectius inducit in materiam. Deus autem est perfectissimum agens. Suam igitur similitudinem in rebus creatis ad Deum pertinebat inducere perfectissime, quantum naturae creatae convenit. Sed perfectam Dei similitudinem non possunt consequi res creatae secundum unam solam speciem creaturae: quia, cum causa excedat effectum, quod est in causa simpliciter et unite, in effectu invenitur composite et multipliciter, nisi effectus pertingat ad speciem causae; quod in proposito dici non potest, non enim creatura potest esse Deo aequalis. Oportuit igitur esse multiplicitatem et varietatem in rebus creatis, ad hoc quod inveniretur in eis Dei similitudo perfecta secundum modum suum. [2] Since every agent intends to introduce its likeness into its effect, in the measure that its effect can receive it, the agent does this the more perfectly as it is the more perfect itself; obviously, the hotter a thing is, the hotter its effect, and the better the craftsman, the more perfectly does he put into matter the form of his art. Now, God is the most perfect agent. It was His prerogative, therefore, to induce His likeness into created things most perfectly, to a degree consonant with the nature of created being. But created things cannot attain to a perfect likeness to God according to only one species of creature. For, since the cause transcends the effect, that which is in the cause, simply and unitedly, exists in the effect in composite and multiple fashion—unless the effect attain to the species of the cause; which cannot be said in this case, because no creature can be equal to God. The presence of multiplicity and variety among created things was therefore necessary that a perfect likeness to God be found in them according to their manner of being.
Amplius. Sicut quae fiunt ex materia sunt in potentia materiae passiva, ita quae fiunt ab agente oportet esse in potentia activa agentis. Non autem potentia passiva materiae perfecte reduceretur in actum si ex materia fieret unum tantum eorum ad quae materia est in potentia. Ergo, si aliquis agens cuius potentia est ad plures effectus, faceret unum illorum tantum, potentia eius non ita complete reduceretur in actum sicut cum facit plura. Per hoc autem quod potentia activa reducitur in actum, effectus consequitur similitudinem agentis. Ergo non esset perfecta Dei similitudo in universo si esset unus tantum gradus omnium entium. Propter hoc igitur est distinctio in rebus creatis, ut perfectius Dei similitudinem consequantur per multa quam per unum. [3] Moreover, just as things made from matter lie in the passive potentiality of matter, so things made by an agent must exist in the active power of the agent. The passive potentiality of matter, however, would not be completely actualized if only one of the things to which matter is in potentiality were made from it. Therefore, if an agent whose power extends to a number of effects were to produce only one of them, its power would not be as fully actualized as when it produces several. Now, by the fact that the active power is actualized the effect receives the likeness of the agent. Hence, there would not be a perfect likeness of God in the universe if all things were of one grade of being. For this reason, then, is there distinction among created things: that, by being many, they may receive God’s likeness more perfectly than by being one.
Adhuc. Quanto aliquid in pluribus est Deo simile, tanto perfectius ad eius similitudinem accedit. In Deo autem est bonitas, et diffusio bonitatis in alia. Perfectius igitur accedit res creata ad Dei similitudinem si non solum bona est sed etiam ad bonitatem aliorum agere potest, quam si solum in se bona esset: sicut similius est soli quod lucet et illuminat quam quod lucet tantum. Non autem posset creatura ad bonitatem alterius creaturae agere nisi esset in rebus creatis pluralitas et inaequalitas: quia agens est aliud a patiente, et honorabilius eo. Oportuit igitur, ad hoc quod in creaturis esset perfecta Dei imitatio, quod diversi gradus in creaturis invenirentur. [4] Then, too, a thing approaches to God’s likeness the more perfectly as it resembles Him in more things. Now, goodness is in God, and the outpouring of goodness into other things. Hence, the creature approaches more perfectly to God’s likeness if it is not only good, but can also act for the good of other things, than if it were good only in itself; that which both shines and casts light is more like the sun than that which only shines. But no creature could act for the benefit of another creature unless Plurality and inequality existed in created things. For the agent is distinct from the patient and superior to it. In order that there might be in created things a perfect representation of God, the existence of diverse grades among them was therefore necessary.
Item. Plura bona uno bono finito sunt meliora: habent enim hoc et adhuc amplius. Omnis autem creaturae bonitas finita est: est enim deficiens ab infinita Dei bonitate. Perfectius est igitur universum creaturarum si sunt plures, quam si esset unus tantum gradus rerum. Summo autem bono competit facere quod melius est. Ergo conveniens ei fuit ut plures faceret creaturarum gradus. [5] Furthermore, a plurality of goods is better than a single finite good, since they contain the latter and more besides. But all goodness possessed by creatures is finite, falling short of the infinite goodness of God. Hence, the universe of creatures is more perfect if there are many grades of things than if there were but one. Now, it befits the supreme good to make what is best. It was therefore fitting that God should make many grades of creatures.
Adhuc. Bonitas speciei excedit bonitatem individui, sicut formale id quod est materiale. Magis igitur addit ad bonitatem universi multitudo specierum quam multitudo individuorum in una specie. Est igitur ad perfectionem universi pertinens non solum quod multa sint individua, sed quod sint etiam diversae rerum species; et per consequens diversi gradus in rebus. [6] Again, the good of the species is greater than the good of the individual, just as the formal exceeds that which is material. Hence, a multiplicity of species adds more to the goodness of the universe than a multiplicity of individuals in one species. It therefore pertains to the perfection of the universe that there be not only many individuals, but that there be also diverse species of things, and, consequently, diverse grades in things.
Item. Omne quod agit per intellectum, repraesentat speciem sui intellectus in re facta: sic enim agens per artem sibi facit simile. Deus autem fecit creaturam ut agens per intellectum, et non per necessitatem naturae, ut supra ostensum est. Species igitur intellectus divini repraesentatur in creatura per ipsum facta. Intellectus autem multa intelligens non sufficienter repraesentatur in uno tantum. Cum igitur intellectus divinus multa intelligat, ut in primo probatum est, perfectius seipsum repraesentat si plures universorum graduum creaturas producat quam si unum tantum produxisset. [7] Whatever acts by intellect, moreover, represents in the thing made the species present in its intellect, for thus does an agent that causes things by art produce his like. Now, as we have already shown, God, acting as an intellectual agent and not by natural necessity, made the creature. Hence, the species present in God’s intellect is represented in the creature made by Him. But an intellect which understands many things is not adequately represented in only one thing. Therefore, since the divine intellect knows many things, as was proved in Book I, it represents itself more perfectly if it produces many creatures of all grades than if it had produced only one.
Amplius. Operi a summe bono artifice facto non debuit deesse summa perfectio. Sed bonum ordinis diversorum est melius quolibet illorum ordinatorum per se sumpto: est enim formale respectu singularium, sicut perfectio totius respectu partium. Non debuit ergo bonum ordinis operi Dei deesse. Hoc autem bonum esse non posset, si diversitas et inaequalitas creaturarum non fuisset. [8] But there is more. The highest degree of perfection should not be lacking in a work made by the supremely good workman. But the good of order among diverse things is better than any of the members of an order, taken by itself. For the good of order is formal in respect to each member of it, as the perfection of the whole in relation to the parts. It was not fitting, therefore, that God’s work should lack the good of order. And yet, without the diversity and inequality of created things, this good could not exist.
Est igitur diversitas et inaequalitas in rebus creatis non a casu; non ex materiae diversitate; non propter interventum aliquarum causarum, vel meritorum; sed ex propria Dei intentione perfectionem creaturae dare volentis qualem possibile erat eam habere. [9] To sum up: The diversity and inequality in created things are not the result of chance, nor of a diversity of matter, nor of the intervention of certain causes or merits, but of the intention of God Himself, who wills to give the creature such perfection as it is possible for it to have.
Hinc est quod dicitur Gen. 1-31: vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona: cum de singulis dixisset quod sunt bona. Quia singula quidem sunt in suis naturis bona: simul autem omnia valde bona, propter ordinem universi, quae est ultima et nobilissima perfectio in rebus. [10] Accordingly, in the Book of Genesis (1:31) it is said: “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good,” each one of them having been previously said to be good. For each thing in its nature is good, but all things together are very good, by reason of the order of the universe, which is the ultimate and noblest perfection in things.

Caput 46 Chapter 46
Quod oportuit ad perfectionem universi aliquas creaturas intellectuales esse THAT THE PERFECTION OF THE UNIVERSE REQUIRED THE EXISTENCE OF SOME INTELLECTUAL CREATURES
Hac igitur existente causa diversitatis in rebus, restat nunc de rebus distinctis prosequi, quantum ad fidei veritatem pertinet: quod erat tertium a nobis propositorum. Et ostendemus primo, quod ex divina dispositione perfectionem rebus creatis secundum suum modum optimam assignante, consequens fuit quod quaedam creaturae intellectuales fierent, in summo rerum vertice constitutae. [1] Having determined the actual cause of the diversity among things, it remains for us to tackle the third problem that we proposed, namely, to inquire into those things themselves, as far as this concerns the truth of faith. And first we shall show that, as a result of the order established by God’s assigning to creatures the optimum perfection consonant with their manner of being, certain creatures were endowed with an intellectual nature, thus being given the highest rank in the universe.
Tunc enim effectus maxime perfectus est quando in suum redit principium: unde et circulus inter omnes figuras, et motus circularis inter omnes motus, est maxime perfectus, quia in eis ad principium reditur. Ad hoc igitur quod universum creaturarum ultimam perfectionem consequatur, oportet creaturas ad suum redire principium. Redeunt autem ad suum principium singulae et omnes creaturae inquantum sui principii similitudinem gerunt secundum suum esse et suam naturam, in quibus quandam perfectionem habent: sicut et omnes effectus tunc maxime perfecti sunt quando maxime similantur causae agenti, ut domus quando maxime similatur arti, et ignis quando maxime similatur generanti. Cum igitur intellectus Dei creaturarum productionis principium sit, ut supra ostensum est, necesse fuit ad creaturarum perfectionem quod aliquae creaturae essent intelligentes. [2] An effect is most perfect when it returns to its source; thus, the circle is the most perfect of all figures, and circular motion the most perfect of all motions, because in their case a return is made to the starting point. It is therefore necessary that creatures return to their principle in order that the universe of creatures may attain its ultimate perfection. Now, each and every creature returns to its source so far as it bears a likeness to its source, according to its being and its nature, wherein it enjoys a certain perfection. Indeed, all effects are most perfect when they are most like their efficient causes—a house when it most closely resembles the art by which it was produced, and fire when its intensity most fully approximates that of its generator. Since God’s intellect is the principle of the production of creatures, as we have shown above, the existence of some creatures endowed with intelligence was necessary in order that the universe of created things might be perfect.
Amplius. Perfectio secunda in rebus addit supra primam. Sicut autem esse et natura rei consideratur secundum primam perfectionem, ita operatio secundum perfectionem secundam. Oportuit igitur, ad consummatam universi perfectionem, esse aliquas creaturas quae in Deum redirent non solum secundum naturae similitudinem, sed etiam per operationem. Quae quidem non potest esse nisi per actum intellectus et voluntatis: quia nec ipse Deus aliter erga seipsum operationem habet. Oportuit igitur, ad perfectionem optimam universi, esse aliquas creaturas intellectuales. [3] A thing’s second perfection, moreover, constitutes an addition to its first perfection. Now, just as the act of being and the nature of a thing are considered as belonging to its first perfection, so operation is referred to its second perfection. Hence, the complete perfection of the universe required the existence of some creatures which return to God not only as regards likeness of nature, but also by their action. And such a return to God cannot be made except by the act of the intellect and will, because God Himself has no other operation in His own regard than these. The greatest perfection of the universe therefore demanded the existence of some intellectual creatures.
Adhuc. Ad hoc quod perfecte divinae bonitatis repraesentatio per creaturas fieret, oportuit, ut supra ostensum est, non solum quod res bonae fierent, sed etiam quod ad aliorum bonitatem agerent. Assimilatur autem perfecte aliquid alteri in agendo quando non solum est eadem species actionis, sed etiam idem modus agendi. Oportuit igitur, ad summam rerum perfectionem, quod essent aliquae creaturae quae agerent hoc modo quo Deus agit. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus agit per intellectum et voluntatem. Oportuit igitur aliquas creaturas esse intelligentes et volentes. [4] Moreover, in order that creatures might perfectly represent the divine goodness, it was necessary, as we have shown, not only that good things should be made, but also that they should by their actions contribute to the goodness of other things. But a thing is perfectly likened to another in its operation when not only the action is of the same specific nature, but also the mode of acting is the same. Consequently, the highest perfection of things required the existence of some creatures that act in the same way as God. But it has already been shown that God acts by intellect and will. It was therefore necessary for some creatures to have intellect and will.
Amplius. Similitudo effectus ad causam agentem attenditur secundum formam effectus quae praeexistit in agente: agens enim agit sibi simile in forma secundum quam agit. Forma autem agentis recipitur quidem in effectu quandoque secundum eundem modum essendi quo est in agente, sicut forma ignis generati eundem essendi habet modum cum forma ignis generantis; quandoque vero secundum alium modum essendi, sicut forma domus quae est intelligibiliter in mente artificis, recipitur materialiter in domo quae est extra animam. Patet autem perfectiorem esse primam similitudinem quam secundam. Perfectio autem universitatis creaturarum consistit in similitudine ad Deum: sicut etiam perfectio cuiuslibet effectus in similitudine ad causam agentem. Requirit igitur summa universi perfectio non solum secundam assimilationem creaturae ad Deum, sed primam, quantum possibile est. Forma autem per quam Deus agit creaturam, est forma intelligibilis in ipso: est enim agens per intellectum, ut supra ostensum est. Oportet igitur ad summam perfectionem universi esse aliquas creaturas in quibus secundum esse intelligibile forma divini intellectus exprimatur. Et hoc est esse creaturas secundum suam naturam intellectuales. [5] Again. It is according to the form of the effect pre-existing in the agent that the effect attains likeness to the agent, for an agent produces its like with respect to the form by which it acts. Now, in some cases the form of the agent is received in the effect according to the same mode of being that it has in the agent; the form of the fire generated has the same mode of being as the form of the generating fire. But in other cases the form of the agent is received in the effect according to another mode of being; the form of the house that exists in an intelligible manner in the builder’s mind is received, in a material mode, in the house that exists outside the mind. And the former likeness clearly is more perfect than the latter. Now, the perfection of the universe of creatures consists in its likeness to God, just as the perfection of any effect whatever consists in its likeness to its efficient cause. Therefore, the highest perfection of the universe requires not only the second mode in which the creature is likened to God, but also the first, as far as possible. But the form through which God produces the creature is an intelligible form in Him, since, as we have shown above, God is an intellectual agent. Therefore, the highest perfection of the universe demands the existence of some creatures in which the form of the divine intellect is represented according to intelligible being; that is to say, it requires the existence of creatures of an intellectual nature.
Item. Ad productionem creaturarum nihil aliud movet Deum nisi sua bonitas, quam rebus aliis communicare voluit secundum modum assimilationis ad ipsum, ut ex dictis patet. Similitudo autem unius invenitur in altero dupliciter: uno modo, quantum ad esse naturae, sicut similitudo caloris ignei est in re calefacta per ignem; alio modo, secundum cognitionem, sicut similitudo ignis est in visu vel tactu. Ad hoc igitur quod similitudo Dei perfecte esset in rebus modis possibilibus, oportuit quod divina bonitas rebus per similitudinem communicaretur non solum in essendo, sed cognoscendo. Cognoscere autem divinam bonitatem solus intellectus potest. Oportuit igitur esse creaturas intellectuales. [6] Likewise, the only thing that moves God to produce creatures is His own goodness, which He wished to communicate to other things by likening them to Himself, as was shown in Book I of this work. Now, the likeness of one thing is found in another thing in two ways: first, as regards natural being—the likeness of heat produced by fire is in the thing heated by fire; second, cognitively, as the likeness of fire is in sight or touch. Hence, that the likeness of God might exist in things perfectly, in the ways possible, it was necessary that the divine goodness be communicated to things by likeness not only in existing, but also in knowing. But only an intellect is capable of knowing the divine goodness. Accordingly, it was necessary that there should be intellectual creatures.
Adhuc. In omnibus decenter ordinatis habitudo secundorum ad ultima imitatur habitudinem primi ad omnia secunda et ultima, licet quandoque deficienter. Ostensum est autem quod Deus in se omnes creaturas comprehendit. Et hoc repraesentatur in corporalibus creaturis, licet per alium modum: semper enim invenitur superius corpus comprehendens et continens inferius; tamen secundum extensionem quantitatis; cum Deus omnes creaturas simplici modo, et non quantitatis extensione, contineat. Ut igitur nec in hoc modo continendi Dei imitatio creaturis deesset, factae sunt creaturae intellectuales, quae creaturas corporales continerent, non extensione quantitatis, sed simpliciter per modum intelligibilem: nam quod intelligitur est in intelligente, et eius intellectuali operatione comprehenditur. [7] Again, in all things becomingly ordered, the relation to the last term of the things intermediate between it and the first imitates the relation of the first to all the others, both intermediate and last, though sometimes deficiently. Now, it has been shown in Book I that God embraces in Himself all creatures. And in corporeal creatures there is a representation of this, although in an other mode. For we find that the higher body always comprises and contains the lower, yet according to quantitative extension, whereas God contains all creatures in a simple mode, and not by extension of quantity. Hence, in order that the imitation of God, in this mode of containing, might not be lacking to creatures, intellectual creatures were made which contain corporeal creatures, not by quantitative extension, but in simple fashion, intelligibly; for what is intellectually known exists in the knowing subject, and is contained by his intellectual operation.

Caput 47 Chapter 47
Quod substantiae intellectuales sunt volentes THAT INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCES ARE ENDOWED WITH WILL
Has autem substantias intellectuales necesse est esse volentes. [1] Now, these intellectual substances must be capable of willing.
Inest enim omnibus appetitus boni: cum bonum sit quod omnia appetunt, ut philosophi tradunt. Huiusmodi autem appetitus in his quidem quae cognitione carent, dicitur naturalis appetitus: sicut dicitur quod lapis appetit esse deorsum. In his autem quae cognitionem sensitivam habent, dicitur appetitus animalis, qui dividitur in concupiscibilem et irascibilem. In his vero quae intelligunt, dicitur appetitus intellectualis seu rationalis, qui est voluntas. Substantiae igitur intellectuales creatae habent voluntatem. [2] There is in all things appetite for the good, since, as the philosophers teach, the good is what all desire. In things devoid of knowledge this desire is called natural appetite; thus it is said that a stone desires to be below. In things having sense knowledge this desire is called animal appetite, which is divided into concupiscible and irascible. In things possessed of understanding it is called intellectual or rational appetite, and this is will. Created intellectual substances, therefore, are endowed with will.
Adhuc. Quod est per aliud, reducitur in id quod est per se tanquam in prius: unde et, secundum philosophum, in VIII Phys., mota ab alio reducuntur in prima moventia seipsa; in syllogismis etiam conclusiones, quae sunt notae ex aliis, reducuntur in prima principia, quae sunt nota per seipsa. Inveniuntur autem in substantiis creatis quaedam quae non agunt seipsa ad operandum, sed aguntur vi naturae, sicut inanimata, plantae et animalia bruta: non enim est in eis agere et non agere. Oportet ergo quod fiat reductio in aliqua prima quae seipsa agant ad operandum. Prima autem in rebus creatis sunt substantiae intellectuales, ut supra ostensum est. Hae igitur substantiae se agunt ad operandum. Hoc autem est proprium voluntatis, per quam substantia aliqua est domina sui actus, utpote in ipsa existens agere et non agere. Substantiae igitur intellectuales creatae habent voluntatem. [3] Moreover, that which exists through another is referred to that which exists through itself, as being prior to the former. That is why, according to Aristotle [ Ethics I, 1], things moved by another are referred to the first self-movers. Likewise, in syllogisms, the conclusions, which are known from other things, are referred to first principles, which are known through themselves. Now, there are some created substances that do not activate themselves, but are by force of nature moved to act; such is the case with inanimate things, plants, and brute animals; for to act or not to act does not lie in their power. It is therefore necessary to go back to some first things that move themselves to action. But, as we have just shown, intellectual substances hold the first rank in created things. These substances, then, are self-activating. Now, to move itself to act is the property of the will, and by the will a substance is master of its action, since within such a substance lies the power of acting or not acting. Hence, created intellectual substances are possessed of will.
Amplius. Principium cuiuslibet operationis est forma per quam aliquid est actu: cum omne agens agat inquantum est actu. Oportet igitur quod secundum modum formae sit modus operationis consequentis formam. Forma igitur quae non est ab ipso agente per formam, causat operationem cuius agens non est dominus. Si qua vero fuerit forma quae sit ab eo qui per ipsam operatur, operationis etiam consequentis operans dominium habebit. Formae autem naturales, ex quibus sequuntur motus et operationes naturales, non sunt ab his quorum sunt formae, sed ab exterioribus agentibus totaliter: cum per formam naturalem unumquodque esse habeat in sua natura; nihil autem potest esse sibi causa essendi. Et ideo quae moventur naturaliter, non movent seipsa: non enim grave movet seipsum deorsum, sed generans, quod dedit ei formam. In animalibus etiam brutis formae sensatae vel imaginatae moventes non sunt adinventae ab ipsis animalibus brutis, sed sunt receptae in eis ab exterioribus sensibilibus, quae agunt in sensum, et diiudicatae per naturale aestimatorium. Unde, licet quodammodo dicantur movere seipsa, inquantum eorum una pars est movens et alia est mota, tamen ipsum movere non est eis ex seipsis, sed partim ex exterioribus sensatis et partim a natura. Inquantum enim appetitus movet membra, dicuntur seipsa movere, quod habent supra inanimata et plantas; inquantum vero ipsum appetere de necessitate sequitur in eis ex formis acceptis per sensum et iudicium naturalis aestimationis, non sibi sunt causa quod moveant. Unde non habent dominium sui actus. Forma autem intellecta, per quam substantia intellectualis operatur, est ab ipso intellectu, utpote per ipsum concepta et quodammodo excogitata: ut patet de forma artis, quam artifex concipit et excogitat et per eam operatur. Substantiae igitur intellectuales seipsas agunt ad operandum, ut habentes suae operationis dominium. Habent igitur voluntatem. [4] The principle of every operation, furthermore, is the form by which a thing is in act, since every agent acts so far as it is in act. So, the mode of operation consequent upon a form must be in accordance with the mode of that form. Hence, a form not proceeding from the agent that acts by it causes an operation of which that agent is not master. But, if there be a form which proceeds from the agent acting by it, then the consequent operation also will be in the power of that agent. Now, natural forms, from which natural motions and operations derive, do not proceed from the things whose forms they are, but wholly from extrinsic agents. For by a natural form each thing has being in its own nature, and nothing can be the cause of its own act of being. So it is that things which are moved naturally do not move themselves; a heavy body does not move itself downwards; its generator, which gave it its form, does so. Likewise, in brute animals the forms sensed or imagined, which move them, are not discovered by them, but are received by them from extrinsic sensible things, which act upon their senses and are judged of by their natural estimative faculty. Hence, though brutes are in a sense said to move themselves, inasmuch as one part of them moves and another is moved, yet they are not themselves the source of the actual moving, which, rather, derives partly from external things sensed and partly from nature. For, so far as their appetite moves their members, they are said to move themselves, and in this they surpass inanimate things and plants; but, so far as appetition in them follows necessarily upon the reception of forms through their senses and from the judgment of their natural estimative power, they are not the cause of their own movement; and so they are not master of their own action. On the other hand, the form understood, through which the intellectual substance acts, proceeds from the intellect itself as a thing conceived, and in a way contrived by it; as we see in the case of the artistic form, which the artificer conceives and contrives, and through which he performs his works. Intellectual substances, then, move themselves to act, as having mastery of their own action. It therefore follows that they are endowed with will.
Item. Activum oportet esse proportionatum passivo, et motivum mobili. Sed in habentibus cognitionem vis apprehensiva se habet ad appetitivam sicut motivum ad mobile: nam apprehensum per sensum vel imaginationem vel intellectum, movet appetitum intellectualem vel animalem. Apprehensio autem intellectiva non determinatur ad quaedam, sed est omnium: unde et de intellectu possibili philosophus dicit, in III de anima, quod est quo est omnia fieri. Appetitus igitur intellectualis substantiae est ad omnia se habens. Hoc autem est proprium voluntatis, ut ad omnia se habeat: unde in III Ethicorum philosophus dicit quod est et possibilium et impossibilium. Substantiae igitur intellectuales habent voluntatem. [5] The active, moreover, should be proportionate to the passive, and the moving to the movable. But in things having cognition the apprehending power is related to the appetitive power as mover to movable, for that which is apprehended by sense or imagination or intellect moves the intellectual or the animal appetite. Intellectual apprehension, however, is not limited to certain things, but reaches out to them all. And this is why Aristotle, in De anima III [5], says of the possible intellect that it is “that by which we become all things. Hence, the appetite of an intellectual substance has relationship to all things; wherefore Aristotle remarks, in Ethics III [2], that appetite extends to both possible and impossible things. Intellectual substances, then, are possessed of will.

Caput 48 Chapter 48
Quod substantiae intellectuales sunt liberi arbitrii in agendo THAT INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCES HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ACTING
Ex hoc autem apparet quod praedictae substantiae sunt liberi arbitrii in operando. [1] It is therefore clear that the aforesaid substances are endowed with freedom of choice in acting.
Quod enim arbitrio agant, manifestum est: eo quod per cognitionem intellectivam iudicium habent de operandis. Libertatem autem necesse est eas habere, si habent dominium sui actus, ut ostensum est. Sunt igitur praedictae substantiae liberi arbitrii in agendo. [2] That they act by judgment is evident from the fact that through their intellectual cognition they judge of things to be done. And they must have freedom, if, as just shown, they have control over their own action. Therefore, these substances in acting have freedom of choice.
Item. Liberum est quod sui causa est. Quod ergo non est sibi causa agendi, non est liberum in agendo. Quaecumque autem non moventur neque agunt nisi ab aliis mota, non sunt sibi ipsis causa agendi. Sola ergo moventia se ipsa libertatem in agendo habent. Et haec sola iudicio agunt: nam movens seipsum dividitur in movens et motum; movens autem est appetitus ab intellectu vel phantasia aut sensu motus, quorum est iudicare. Horum igitur haec sola libere iudicant quaecumque in iudicando seipsa movent. Nulla autem potentia iudicans seipsam ad iudicandum movet nisi supra actum suum reflectatur: oportet enim, si se ad iudicandum agit, quod suum iudicium cognoscat. Quod quidem solius intellectus est. Sunt igitur animalia irrationalia quodammodo liberi quidem motus sive actionis, non autem liberi iudicii; inanimata autem, quae solum ab aliis moventur, neque etiam liberae actionis aut motus; intellectualia vero non solum actionis, sed etiam liberi iudicii, quod est liberum arbitrium habere. [3] Also, “the free is that which is its own cause.” Hence, that which is not the cause of its own acting is not free in acting. But things that do not move nor act unless they are moved by other things are not the cause of their own acting. So, only things that move themselves act freely. And these alone act by judgment. For the thing that moves itself is divided into mover and moved; and the mover is the appetite moved by intellect, imagination, or sense, to which faculties judgment belongs. Among these things, therefore, those alone judge freely which in judging move themselves. But no judging power moves itself to judge unless it reflects on its own action; for, if it moves itself to judge, it must know its own judgment; and this only an intellect can do. Thus, irrational animals have in a certain way freedom of movement or action, but not of judgment, whereas inanimate things, which are moved only by other things, have not even free action or movement. Intellectual beings, on the other hand, enjoy freedom not only of action, but also of judgment; and this is to have free choice.
Adhuc. Forma apprehensa est principium movens secundum quod apprehenditur sub ratione boni vel convenientis: actio enim exterior in moventibus seipsa procedit ex iudicio quo iudicatur aliquid esse bonum vel conveniens per formam praedictam. Si igitur iudicans ad iudicandum seipsum moveat, oportet quod per aliquam altiorem formam apprehensam se moveat ad iudicandum. Quae quidem esse non potest nisi ipsa ratio boni vel convenientis, per quam de quolibet determinato bono vel convenienti iudicatur. Illa igitur sola se ad iudicandum movent quae communem boni vel convenientis rationem apprehendunt. Haec autem sunt sola intellectualia. Sola igitur intellectualia se non solum ad agendum, sed etiam ad iudicandum movent. Sola igitur ipsa sunt libera in iudicando, quod est liberum arbitrium habere. [4] Then, too, the apprehended form is a moving principle according as it is apprehended under the aspect of the good or the fitting; for the outward action in things that move themselves proceeds from the judgment, made through that form, that something is good or fitting. Hence, if he who judges moves himself to judge, he must do so in the light of a higher form apprehended by him. And this form can be none other than the very intelligible essence of the good or the fitting, in the light of which judgment is made of any determinate good or fitting thing; so that only those beings move themselves to judge which apprehend the all-embracing essence of the good or the fitting. And these are intellectual beings alone. Hence, none but intellectual beings move themselves not only to act, but also to judge. They alone, therefore, are free in judging; and this is to have free choice.
Amplius. A conceptione universali non sequitur motus et actio nisi mediante particulari apprehensione: eo quod motus et actio circa particularia est. Intellectus autem est naturaliter universalium apprehensivus. Ad hoc igitur quod ex apprehensione intellectus sequatur motus aut quaecumque actio, oportet quod universalis intellectus conceptio applicetur ad particularia. Sed universale continet in potentia multa particularia. Potest igitur applicatio conceptionis intellectualis fieri ad plura et diversa. Iudicium igitur intellectus de agibilibus non est determinatum ad unum tantum. Habent igitur omnia intellectualia liberum arbitrium. [5] Movement and action, moreover, issue from a universal conception only through the intermediation of a particular apprehension. For movement and action have to do with particular things, whereas it is the nature of the intellect to grasp universals. Hence, for movement and action of any kind to result from the intellect’s grasp of something, the universal conception formed by it must be applied to particulars. But the universal contains many particulars potentially; so that the universal conception can be applied to many and diverse things. For this reason the judgment of the intellect concerning things to be done is not determined to one thing only. It follows, in short, that all intellectual beings have freedom of choice.
Praeterea. Iudicii libertate carent aliqua vel propter hoc quod nullum habent iudicium, sicut quae cognitione carent, ut lapides et plantae: vel quia habent iudicium a natura determinatum ad unum, sicut irrationalia animalia; naturali enim existimatione iudicat ovis lupum sibi nocivum, et ex hoc iudicio fugit ipsum; similiter autem in aliis. Quaecumque igitur habent iudicium de agendis non determinatum a natura ad unum, necesse est liberi arbitrii esse. Huiusmodi autem sunt omnia intellectualia. Intellectus enim apprehendit non solum hoc vel illud bonum, sed ipsum bonum commune. Unde, cum intellectus per formam apprehensam moveat voluntatem; in omnibus autem movens et motum oporteat esse proportionata; voluntas substantiae intellectualis non erit determinata a natura nisi ad bonum commune. Quicquid igitur offeretur sibi sub ratione boni, poterit voluntas inclinari in illud, nulla determinatione naturali in contrarium prohibente. Omnia igitur intellectualia liberam voluntatem habent ex iudicio intellectus venientem. Quod est liberum arbitrium habere, quod definitur esse liberum de ratione iudicium. [6] Furthermore, certain things lack liberty of judgment, either because they have no judgment at all, as plants and stones, or because they have a judgment determined by nature to one thing, as do irrational animals; the sheep, by natural estimation, judges the wolf to be harmful to it, and in consequence of this judgment flees from the wolf; and so it is in other cases. Hence, so far as matters of action are concerned, whatever things possess judgment that is not determined to one thing by nature are of necessity endowed with freedom of choice. And such are all intellectual beings. For the intellect apprehends not only this or that good, but good itself, as common to all things. Now, the intellect, through the form apprehended, moves the will; and in all things mover and moved must be proportionate to one another. It follows that the will of an intellectual substance will not be determined by nature to anything except the good as common to all things. So it is possible for the will to be inclined toward anything whatever that is presented to it under the aspect of good, there being no natural determination to the contrary to prevent it. Therefore, all intellectual beings have a free will, resulting from the judgment of the intellect. And this means that they have freedom of choice, which is defined as the free judgment of reason.

Caput 49 Chapter 49
Quod substantia intellectualis non sit corpus THAT THE INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCE IS NOT A BODY
Ex praemissis autem ostenditur quod nulla substantia intellectualis est corpus. [1] From the foregoing we proceed to show that no intellectual substance is a body.
Nullum enim corpus invenitur aliquid continere nisi per commensurationem quantitatis: unde et, si se toto totum aliquid continet, et partem parte continet, maiorem quidem maiore, minorem autem minore. Intellectus autem non comprehendit rem aliquam intellectam per aliquam quantitatis commensurationem: cum se toto intelligat et comprehendat totum et partem, maiora in quantitate et minora. Nulla igitur substantia intelligens est corpus. [2] For it is only by quantitative commensuration that a body contains anything at all; so, too, if a thing contains a whole thing in the whole of itself, it contains also a part in a part of itself, a greater part in a greater part, a lesser part in a lesser part. But an intellect does not, in terms of any quantitative commensuration, comprehend a thing understood, since by its whole self it understands and encompasses both whole and part, things great in quantity and things small. Therefore, no intelligent substance is a body.
Amplius. Nullum corpus potest alterius corporis formam substantialem recipere nisi per corruptionem suam formam amittat. Intellectus autem non corrumpitur, sed magis perficitur per hoc quod recipit formas omnium corporum: perficitur enim in intelligendo; intelligit autem secundum quod habet in se formas intellectorum. Nulla igitur substantia intellectualis est corpus. [3] Then, too, no body can receive the substantial form of another body, unless by corruption it lose its own form. But the intellect is not corrupted; rather, it is perfected by receiving the forms of all bodies; for it is perfected by understanding, and it understands by having in itself the forms of the things understood. Hence, no intellectual substance is a body.
Adhuc. Principium diversitatis individuorum eiusdem speciei est divisio materiae secundum quantitatem: forma enim huius ignis a forma illius ignis non differt nisi per hoc quod est in diversis partibus in quas materia dividitur; nec aliter quam divisione quantitatis, sine qua substantia est indivisibilis. Quod autem recipitur in corpore, recipitur in eo secundum quantitatis divisionem. Ergo forma non recipitur in corpore nisi ut individuata. Si igitur intellectus esset corpus, formae rerum intelligibiles non reciperentur in eo nisi ut individuatae. Intelligit autem intellectus res per formas earum quas penes se habet. Non ergo intellectus intelligit universalia, sed solum particularia. Quod patet esse falsum. Nullus igitur intellectus est corpus. [4] Again, the principle of diversity among individuals of the same species is the division of matter according to quantity; the form of this fire does not differ from the form of that fire, except by the fact of its presence in different parts into which the matter is divided; nor is this brought about in any other way than by the division of quantity—without which substance is indivisible. Now, that which is received into a body is received into it according to the division of quantity. Therefore, it is only as individuated that a form is received into a body. If, then, the intellect were a body, the intelligible forms of things would not be received into it except as individuated. But the intellect understands things by those forms of theirs which it has in its possession. So, if it were a body, it would not be cognizant of universals but only of particulars. But this is patently false. Therefore, no intellect is a body.
Item. Nihil agit nisi secundum suam speciem: eo quod forma est principium agendi in unoquoque. Si igitur intellectus sit corpus, actio eius ordinem corporum non excedet. Non igitur intelligeret nisi corpora. Hoc autem patet esse falsum: intelligimus enim multa quae non sunt corpora. Intellectus igitur non est corpus. [5] Likewise, nothing acts except in keeping with its species, because in each and every thing the form is the principle of action; so that, if the intellect is a body, its action will not go beyond the order of bodies. It would then have no knowledge of anything except bodies. But this is clearly false, because we know many things that are not bodies. Therefore, the intellect is not a body.
Adhuc. Si substantia intelligens est corpus, aut est finitum, aut infinitum. Corpus autem esse infinitum actu est impossibile, ut in physicis probatur. Est igitur finitum corpus, si corpus esse ponatur. Hoc autem est impossibile. In nullo enim corpore finito potest esse potentia infinita, ut supra probatum est. Potentia autem intellectus est quodammodo infinita in intelligendo: in infinitum enim intelligit species numerorum augendo, et similiter species figurarum et proportionum; cognoscit etiam universale, quod est virtute infinitum secundum suum ambitum, continet enim individua quae sunt potentia infinita. Intellectus igitur non est corpus. [6] Moreover, if an intelligent substance is a body, it is either finite or infinite. Now, it is impossible for a body to be actually infinite, as is proved in the Physics [III, 5]. Therefore, if we suppose that such a substance is a body at all, it is a finite one. But this also is impossible, since, as was shown in Book I of this work, infinite power can exist in no finite body. And yet the cognitive power of the intellect is in a certain way infinite; for by adding number to number its knowledge of the species of numbers is infinitely extended; and the same applies to its knowledge of the species of figures and proportions. Moreover, the intellect grasps the universal, which is virtually infinite in its scope, because it contains individuals which are potentially infinite. Therefore, the intellect is not a body.
Amplius. Impossibile est duo corpora se invicem continere: cum continens excedat contentum. Duo autem intellectus se invicem continent et comprehendunt, dum unus alium intelligit. Non est igitur intellectus corpus. [7] It is impossible, furthermore, for two bodies to contain one another, since the container exceeds the contained. Yet, when one intellect has knowledge of another, the two intellects contain and encompass one another. Therefore, the intellect is not a body.
Item. Nullius corporis actio reflectitur super agentem: ostensum est enim in physicis quod nullum corpus a seipso movetur nisi secundum partem, ita scilicet quod una pars eius sit movens et alia mota. Intellectus autem supra seipsum agendo reflectitur: intelligit enim seipsum non solum secundum partem, sed secundum totum. Non est igitur corpus. [8] Also, the action of no body is self-reflexive. For it is proved in the Physics that no body is moved by itself except with respect to a part, so that one part of it is the mover and the other the moved. But in acting the intellect reflects on itself, not only as to a part, but as to the whole of itself. Therefore, it is not a body.
Adhuc. Actio corporis ad actionem non terminatur, nec motus ad motum: ut in physicis est probatum. Actio autem substantiae intelligentis ad actionem terminatur: intellectus enim, sicut intelligit rem, ita intelligit se intelligere, et sic in infinitum. Substantia igitur intelligens non est corpus. [9] A body’s action, moreover, is not terminated in action, nor movement in movement—a point proved in the Physics [V, 2]. But the action of an intelligent substance is terminated in action; for just as the intellect knows a thing, so does it know that it knows; and so on indefinitely. An intelligent substance, therefore, is not a body.
Hinc est quod sacra Scriptura substantias intellectuales spiritus nominat: per quem modum consuevit Deum incorporeum nominare, secundum illud Ioan. 4-24, Deus spiritus est. Dicitur autem Sap. 7-22 est autem in illa, scilicet divina sapientia, spiritus intelligentiae, qui capiat omnes spiritus intelligibiles. [10] Hence it is that sacred Scripture calls intellectual substances spirits; and this term it customarily employs in reference to the incorporeal God; as St. John says: “God is a spirit” (John 4:24); and in the Book of Wisdom (7:22-23) we read: “for in her” namely, divine Wisdom, “is the spirit of understanding, containing all intelligible spirits.”
Per hoc autem excluditur error antiquorum naturalium, qui nullam substantiam nisi corpoream esse ponebant: unde et animam dicebant esse corpus, vel ignem vel aerem vel aquam, vel aliud huiusmodi. [11] This, then, does away with the error of the early natural philosophers, who supposed that no substance exists except the corporeal, and who therefore said that the soul is a body, either fire or air or water, or something of the kind
Quam quidem opinionem in fidem Christianam quidam inducere sunt conati, dicentes animam esse corpus effigiatum, sicut corpus exterius figuratur. —an opinion which some have endeavored to introduce into the Christian faith by saying that the soul is the effigy of the body, like a body externally represented.

Caput 50 Chapter 50
Quod substantiae intellectuales sunt immateriales THAT INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCES ARE IMMATERIAL
Ex hoc autem apparet quod substantiae intellectuales sunt immateriales. [1] It clearly follows that intellectual substances are immaterial.
Unumquodque enim ex materia et forma compositum est corpus. Diversas enim formas materia non nisi secundum diversas partes recipere potest. Quae quidem diversitas partium esse in materia non potest nisi secundum quod per dimensiones in materia existentes una communis materia in plures dividitur: subtracta enim quantitate, substantia indivisibilis est. Ostensum est autem quod nulla substantia intelligens est corpus. Relinquitur igitur quod non sit ex materia et forma composita. [2] For everything composed of matter and form is a body, since matter cannot receive diverse forms except with respect to its various parts. And this diversity of parts can exist in matter only so far as one common matter is divided into several by dimensions existing in matter; for, without quantity, substance is indivisible. But it has just been shown, that no intelligent substance is a body. It remains, therefore, that such a substance is not composed of matter and form.
Amplius. Sicut homo non est sine hoc homine, ita materia non est sine hac materia. Quicquid igitur in rebus est subsistens ex materia et forma compositum, est compositum ex forma et materia individuali. Intellectus autem non potest esse compositus ex materia et forma individuali. Species enim rerum intellectarum fiunt intelligibiles actu per hoc quod a materia individuali abstrahuntur. Secundum autem quod sunt intelligibiles actu, fiunt unum cum intellectu. Unde et intellectum oportet esse absque materia individuali. Non est igitur substantia intelligens ex materia et forma composita. [3] Furthermore, just as man does not exist apart from this man, so matter does not exist apart from this matter. Any subsistent thing that is composed of matter and form is, then, composed of individual form and individual matter. But the intellect cannot be composed of individual matter and form, because the species of things understood are made actually intelligible by being abstracted from individual matter. And as a result of being actually intelligible they become one with the intellect. That is why the intellect also must be without individual matter. Therefore, a substance endowed with intelligence is not composed of matter and form.
Adhuc. Actio cuiuslibet ex materia et forma compositi non est tantum formae, nec tantum materiae, sed compositi: eius enim est agere cuius est esse; esse autem est compositi per formam; unde et compositum per formam agit. Si igitur substantia intelligens sit composita ex materia et forma, intelligere erit ipsius compositi. Actus autem terminatur ad aliquid simile agenti: unde et compositum generans non generat formam, sed compositum. Si igitur intelligere sit actio compositi, non intelligetur nec forma nec materia, sed tantum compositum. Hoc autem patet esse falsum. Non est igitur substantia intelligens composita ex materia et forma. [4] Then, too, the action of anything composed of matter and form belongs not to the form alone, nor to the matter alone, but to the composite; for to act belongs to that which exists, and existence belongs to the composite through its form, so that the composite also acts through its form. So, if the intelligent substance is composed of matter and form, its act of understanding will be the act of the composite. Now, action terminates in a thing like the agent that produces it; that is why the composite, in generating, produces not a form but a composite. Hence, if the act of understanding is an action of the composite, neither the form nor the matter would be known, but only the composite. But this is patently false. Therefore, the intelligent substance is not composed of matter and form.
Item. Formae rerum sensibilium perfectius esse habent in intellectu quam in rebus sensibilibus: sunt enim simpliciores et ad plura se extendentes; per unam enim formam hominis intelligibilem, omnes homines intellectus cognoscit. Forma autem perfecte in materia existens facit esse actu tale, scilicet vel ignem, vel coloratum: si autem non faciat aliquid esse tale, est imperfecte in illo, sicut forma coloris in aere ut in deferente, et sicut virtus primi agentis in instrumento. Si igitur intellectus sit ex materia et forma compositus, formae rerum intellectarum facient intellectum esse actu talis naturae quale est quod intelligitur. Et sic sequitur error Empedoclis, qui dicebat quod ignem igne cognoscit anima, et terra terram, et sic de aliis. Quod patet esse inconveniens. Non est igitur intelligens substantia composita ex materia et forma. [5] Again. The forms of sensible things have a more perfect mode of existence in the intellect than in sensible things, for in the intellect they are simpler and extend to more things; thus, through the one intelligible form of man, the intellect knows all men. Now, a form existing perfectly in matter makes a thing to be actually such—to be fire or to be colored, for example— and if the form does not have that effect, then the form is in that thing imperfectly, as the form of heat in the air carrying it, and the power of the first agent in its instrument. So, if the intellect were composed of matter and form, the forms of the things known would make the intellect to be actually of the same nature as that which is known. And the consequence of this is the error of Empedocles, who said that “the soul knows fire by fire, and earth by earth”; and so with other things. But this is clearly incongruous. Therefore, the intelligent substance is not composed of matter and form.
Praeterea. Omne quod est in aliquo est in eo per modum recipientis. Si igitur intellectus sit compositus ex materia et forma, formae rerum erunt in intellectu materialiter, sicut sunt extra animam. Sicut igitur extra animam non sunt intelligibiles actu, ita nec existentes in intellectu. [6] And since a thing’s mode of presence in its recipient accords with the latter’s mode of being, it would follow, were the intellect composed of matter and form, that the forms of things would exist in it materially, just as they exist outside the mind. Therefore, just as they are not actually intelligible outside the mind, so they would not be actually intelligible when present in the intellect.
Item. Formae contrariorum, secundum esse quod habent in materia, sunt contrariae: unde et se invicem expellunt. Secundum autem quod sunt in intellectu, non sunt contrariae: sed unum contrariorum est ratio intelligibilis alterius, quia unum per aliud cognoscitur. Non igitur habent esse materiale in intellectu. Ergo intellectus non est compositus ex materia et forma. [7] Moreover, the forms of contraries, as they exist in matter, are contrary; hence, they exclude one another. But as they exist in the intellect the forms of contraries are not contrary; rather, one contrary is the intelligible ground of another, since one is understood through the other. They have, then, no material being in the intellect. Therefore, the intellect is not composed of matter and form.
Adhuc. Materia non recipit aliquam formam de novo nisi per motum vel mutationem. Intellectus autem non movetur per hoc quod recipit formas, sed magis perficitur et quiescens intelligit, impeditur autem in intelligendo per motum. Non igitur recipiuntur formae in intellectu sicut in materia vel in re materiali. Unde patet quod substantiae intelligentes immateriales sunt, sicut et incorporeae. [8] And again, matter does not receive a fresh form except through motion or change. But the intellect is not moved through receiving forms; rather, it is perfected and at rest while understanding, whereas movement is a hindrance to understanding. Hence, forms are not received in the intellect as in matter or a material thing. Clearly, then, intelligent substances are immaterial, even as they are incorporeal, too.
Hinc est quod Dionysius dicit, III cap. de Div. Nom.: propter divinae bonitatis radios substiterunt intellectuales omnes substantiae, quae sicut incorporales et immateriales intelliguntur. [9] Hence, Dionysius says: “On account of the rays of God’s goodness all intellectual substances, which are known to be incorporeal and immaterial, have remained immutably in existence [ De div. nom. IV].

Caput 51 Chapter 51
Quod substantia intellectualis non sit forma materialis THAT THE INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCE IS NOT A MATERIAL FORM
Per eadem autem ostenditur quod naturae intellectuales sunt formae subsistentes, non autem existentes in materia quasi esse earum a materia dependeat. [1] From the same principles we proceed to show that intellectual natures are subsistent forms, and are not in matter as though their being depends on matter.
Formae enim secundum esse a materia dependentes non ipsae proprie habent esse, sed composita per ipsas. Si igitur naturae intellectuales essent huiusmodi formae, sequeretur quod haberent esse materiale, sicut et si essent ex materia et forma compositae. [2] Forms dependent in being upon matter do not themselves have being properly, but being properly belongs to the composites through their forms. Consequently, if intellectual substances were forms of this kind, it would follow that they have material being, just as they would if they were composed of matter and form.
Adhuc. Formae quae per se non subsistunt, non possunt per se agere, agunt autem composita per eas. Si igitur naturae intellectuales huiusmodi formae essent, sequeretur quod ipsae non intelligerent, sed composita ex eis et materia. Et sic intelligens esset compositum ex materia et forma. Quod est impossibile, ut ostensum est. [3] Moreover, forms that do not subsist through themselves cannot act through themselves; rather, the composites act through them. Hence, if intellectual natures were forms of this sort, it would follow that they do not themselves understand, but that it is the things composed of them and matter which understand. And thus, an intelligent being would be composed of matter and form; which is impossible, as we have just shown.
Amplius. Si intellectus esset forma in materia et non per se subsistens, sequeretur quod id quod recipitur in intellectu reciperetur in materia: huiusmodi enim formae quae habent esse materiae obligatum, non recipiunt aliquid quod in materia non recipiatur. Cum igitur receptio formarum in intellectu non sit receptio formarum in materia, impossibile est quod intellectus sit forma materialis. [4] Also, if the intellect were a form in matter and not self-subsistent, it would follow that what is received into the intellect would be received into matter, since forms whose being is bound to matter receive nothing that is not received into the matter. But the reception of forms into the intellect is not a reception of forms into matter. Therefore, the intellect cannot possibly be a material form.
Praeterea. Dicere quod intellectus sit forma non subsistens sed materiae immersa, idem est secundum rem et si dicatur quod intellectus sit compositus ex materia et forma, differt autem solum secundum nomen: nam primo modo, dicetur intellectus ipsa forma compositi; secundo vero modo, dicetur intellectus ipsum compositum. Si igitur falsum est intellectum esse compositum ex materia et forma, falsum erit quod sit forma non subsistens sed materialis. [5] Moreover, to say that the intellect is not a subsistent form, but a form embedded in matter, is the same in reality as to say that the intellect is composed of matter and form. The difference is purely nominal, for in the first way the intellect will be called the form itself of the composite; in the second way, the composite itself. So, if it is false that the intellect is composed of matter and form, it will be false that it is a form which does not subsist, but is material.

Caput 52 Chapter 52
Quod in substantiis intellectualibus creatis differt esse et quod est THAT IN CREATED INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCES, BEING AND WHAT IS DIFFER
Non est autem opinandum quod, quamvis substantiae intellectuales non sint corporeae, nec ex materia et forma compositae, nec in materia existentes sicut formae materiales, quod propter hoc divinae simplicitati adaequentur. Invenitur enim in eis aliqua compositio ex eo quod non est idem in eis esse et quod est. Although intellectual substances are not corporeal, nor composed of matter and form, nor existing in matter as material forms, it is not to be supposed that they therefore equal the divine simplicity. For a certain composition is found in them by the fact that in them being is not the same as what is.
Si enim esse est subsistens, nihil praeter ipsum esse ei adiungitur. Quia etiam in his quorum esse non est subsistens, quod inest existenti praeter esse eius, est quidem existenti unitum, non autem est unum cum esse eius, nisi per accidens, inquantum est unum subiectum habens esse et id quod est praeter esse: sicut patet quod Socrati, praeter suum esse substantiale, inest album, quod quidem diversum est ab eius esse substantiali; non enim idem est esse Socratem et esse album, nisi per accidens. Si igitur non sit esse in aliquo subiecto, non remanebit aliquis modus quo possit ei uniri illud quod est praeter esse. Esse autem, inquantum est esse, non potest esse diversum: potest autem diversificari per aliquid quod est praeter esse; sicut esse lapidis est aliud ab esse hominis. Illud ergo quod est esse subsistens, non potest esse nisi unum tantum. Ostensum est autem quod Deus est suum esse subsistens. Nihil igitur aliud praeter ipsum potest esse suum esse. Oportet igitur in omni substantia quae est praeter ipsum, esse aliud ipsam substantiam et esse eius. [2] For, if being is subsisting, nothing besides this act itself is added to it. Because, even In things whose being is not subsistent, that which is in the existing thing in addition to its being is indeed united to the thing, but is not one with the thing’s being, except by accident, so far as the thing is one subject having being and that which is other than being. Thus it is clear that in Socrates, beside his substantial being, there is white, which, indeed, is other than his substantial being; for to be Socrates and to be white are not the same except by accident. If, then, being is not in a subject, there will remain no way in which that which is other than being can be united to it. Now, being, as being, cannot be diverse; but it can be diversified by something beside itself; thus, the being of a stone is other than that of a man. Hence, that which is subsisting being can be one only. Now, we have shown in Book I that God is His own subsisting being. Hence, nothing beside Him can be its own being. Of necessity, therefore, in every substance beside Him the substance itself is other than its being.
Amplius. Natura communis, si separata intelligatur, non potest esse nisi una: quamvis habentes naturam illam plures possint inveniri. Si enim natura animalis per se separata subsisteret, non haberet ea quae sunt hominis vel quae sunt bovis: iam enim non esset animal tantum, sed homo vel bos. Remotis autem differentiis constitutivis specierum, remanet natura generis indivisa: quia eaedem differentiae quae sunt constitutivae specierum sunt divisivae generis. Sic igitur, si hoc ipsum quod est esse sit commune sicut genus, esse separatum per se subsistens non potest esse nisi unum. Si vero non dividatur differentiis, sicut genus, sed per hoc quod est huius vel illius esse, ut veritas habet; magis est manifestum quod non potest esse per se existens nisi unum. Relinquitur igitur quod, cum Deus sit esse subsistens, nihil aliud praeter ipsum est suum esse. [3] Moreover, a common nature, if considered in separation from things, can be only one, although there can be a plurality of things possessing that nature. For, if the nature of animal subsisted as separate through itself, it would not have those things that are proper to a man or an ox; if it did have them, it would not be animal alone, but man or ox. Now, if the differences constitutive of species be removed, there remains the undivided nature of the genus, because the same differences which constitute the species divide the genus. Consequently, if this itself which is being is common as a genus, separate, self-subsisting being can be one only. But, if being is not divided by differences, as a genus is, but, as it is in truth, by the fact that it is the being of this or that, then it is all the more manifest that being existing through itself can only be one. Since God is subsisting being, it therefore remains that nothing other than He is its own being.
Adhuc. Impossibile est quod sit duplex esse omnino infinitum: esse enim quod omnino est infinitum, omnem perfectionem essendi comprehendit; et sic, si duobus talis adesset infinitas, non inveniretur quo unum ab altero differret. Esse autem subsistens oportet esse infinitum: quia non terminatur aliquo recipiente. Impossibile est igitur esse aliquod esse subsistens praeter primum. [4] Again, absolutely infinite being cannot be twofold, for being that is absolutely infinite comprises every perfection of being; hence, if infinity were present in two such things, in no respect would they be found to differ. Now, subsisting being must be infinite, because it is not terminated in some recipient. Therefore, there cannot be a subsisting being besides the first.
Item. Si sit aliquod esse per se subsistens, nihil competit ei nisi quod est entis inquantum est ens: quod enim dicitur de aliquo non inquantum huiusmodi, non convenit ei nisi per accidens, ratione subiecti; unde, si separatum a subiecto ponatur, nullo modo ei competit. Esse autem ab alio causatum non competit enti inquantum est ens: alias omne ens esset ab alio causatum; et sic oporteret procedere in infinitum in causis, quod est impossibile, ut supra ostensum est. Illud igitur esse quod est subsistens, oportet quod sit non causatum. Nullum igitur ens causatum est suum esse. [5] Then, too, if there is a self-subsisting being, nothing belongs to it except that which is proper to a being inasmuch as it is a being, since what is said of a thing, not as such, appertains to it only accidentally, by reason of the subject. Consequently, if the thing so spoken of is held to be separated from the subject, it in no way belongs to it. Now, to be caused by another does not appertain to a being inasmuch as it is being; otherwise, every being would be caused by another, so that we should have to proceed to infinity in causes—an impossibility, as was shown in Book I of this work. Therefore, that being which is subsisting must be uncaused. Therefore, no caused being is its own being.
Amplius. Substantia uniuscuiusque est ei per se et non per aliud: unde esse lucidum actu non est de substantia aeris, quia est ei per aliud. Sed cuilibet rei creatae suum esse est ei per aliud: alias non esset causatum. Nullius igitur substantiae creatae suum esse est sua substantia. [6] The substance of each and every thing, furthermore, belongs to it through itself and not through another; thus, it does not pertain to the substance of air to be actually luminous, since this quality it acquires through something else. But every created thing has its being through another; otherwise, it would not be caused. Therefore, the being of no created substance is that substance.
Item. Cum omne agens agat inquantum est actu, primo agenti, quod est perfectissimum, competit esse in actu perfectissimo modo. Tanto autem aliquid est perfectius in actu quanto talis actus est in via generationis posterior: actus enim est tempore potentia posterior in uno et eodem quod de potentia ad actum procedit. Perfectius quoque est in actu quod est ipse actus quam quod est habens actum: hoc enim propter illud actu est. His igitur sic positis, constat ex supra ostensis quod Deus solus est primum agens. Sibi ergo soli competit esse in actu perfectissimo modo, ut scilicet sit ipse actus perfectissimus. Hic autem est esse, ad quod generatio et omnis motus terminatur: omnis enim forma et actus est in potentia antequam esse acquirat. Soli igitur Deo competit quod sit ipsum esse: sicut soli competit quod sit primum agens. [7] Also, since every agent acts so far as it is in act, it belongs to the first agent, which is most perfect, to be most perfectly in act. Now, a thing is the more perfectly in act the more its act is posterior in the way of generation, for act is posterior in time to potentiality in one and the same thing that passes from potentiality to act. Further, act itself is more perfectly in act than that which has act, since the latter is in act because of the former. These things being posited, then, it is clear from what has been shown in Book I of this work that God alone is the first agent. Therefore, it belongs to Him alone to be in act in the most perfect way, that is, to be Himself the most perfect act. Now, this act is being, wherein generation and all movement terminate, since every form and act is in potentiality before it acquires being. Therefore, it belongs to God alone to be His own being, just as it pertains to Him only to be the first agent.
Amplius. Ipsum esse competit primo agenti secundum propriam naturam: esse enim Dei est eius substantia ut supra ostensum est. Quod autem competit alicui secundum propriam naturam suam, non convenit aliis nisi per modum participationis: sicut calor aliis corporibus ab igne. Ipsum igitur esse competit omnibus aliis a primo agente per participationem quandam. Quod autem competit alicui per participationem, non est substantia eius. Impossibile est igitur quod substantia alterius entis praeter agens primum sit ipsum esse. [8] Moreover, being itself belongs to the first agent according to His proper nature, for God’s being is His substance, as was shown in Book I. Now, that which belongs to a thing according to its proper nature does not belong to other things except by way of participation, as heat is in other bodies from fire. Therefore, being itself belongs to all other things from the first agent by a certain participation. That which belongs to a thing by participation, however, is not that thing’s substance. Therefore, it is impossible that the substance of a thing other than the first agent should be being itself.
Hinc est quod Exodi 3-14 proprium nomen Dei ponitur esse qui est: quia eius solius proprium est quod sua substantia non sit aliud quam suum esse. [9] Wherefore in Exodus (3:14) the proper name of God is stated to be “HE WHO IS,” because it is proper to Him alone that His substance is not other than His being.

Caput 53 Chapter 53
Quod in substantiis intellectualibus creatis est actus et potentia THAT IN CREATED INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCES THERE IS ACT AND POTENTIALITY
Ex hoc autem evidenter apparet quod in substantiis intellectualibus creatis est compositio actus et potentiae. [1] Now, from the foregoing it is evident that in created intellectual substances there is composition of act and potentiality.
In quocumque enim inveniuntur aliqua duo quorum unum est complementum alterius, proportio unius eorum ad alterum est sicut proportio potentiae ad actum: nihil enim completur nisi per proprium actum. In substantia autem intellectuali creata inveniuntur duo: scilicet substantia ipsa; et esse eius, quod non est ipsa substantia, ut ostensum est. Ipsum autem esse est complementum substantiae existentis: unumquodque enim actu est per hoc quod esse habet. Relinquitur igitur quod in qualibet praedictarum substantiarum sit compositio actus et potentiae. [2] For in whatever thing we find two, one of which is the complement of the other, the proportion of one of them to the other is as the proportion of potentiality to act; for nothing is completed except by its proper act. Now, in the created intellectual substance two principles are found: the substance itself and its being, which, as we have just shown, is not the substance itself. Now, being itself is the complement of the existing substance, for each and every thing is in act through having being. It therefore remains that in each of the aforesaid substances there is composition of act and potentiality.
Amplius. Quod inest alicui ab agente, oportet esse actum: agentis enim est facere aliquid actu. Ostensum est autem supra quod omnes aliae substantiae habent esse a primo agente: et per hoc ipsae substantiae causatae sunt quod esse ab alio habent. Ipsum igitur esse inest substantiis causatis ut quidam actus ipsarum. Id autem cui actus inest, potentia est: nam actus, inquantum huiusmodi, ad potentiam refertur. In qualibet igitur substantia creata est potentia et actus. [3] There is also the consideration that what ever is present in a thing from an agent must be act, for it belongs to an agent to make something in act. Now, it was shown above that all other substances have being from the first agent; and the substances themselves are caused by the fact that they have being from another. Therefore, being is present in caused substances as a certain act of their own. But that in which act is present is a potentiality, since act, as such, is referred to potentiality. Therefore, in every created substance there is potentiality and act.
Item. Omne participans aliquid comparatur ad ipsum quod participatur ut potentia ad actum: per id enim quod participatur fit participans actu tale. Ostensum autem est supra quod solus Deus est essentialiter ens, omnia autem alia participant ipsum esse. Comparatur igitur substantia omnis creata ad suum esse sicut potentia ad actum. [4] Likewise, whatever participates in a thing is compared to the thing participated in as act to potentiality, since by that which is participated the participator is actualized in such and such a way. But it was shown above that God alone is essentially a being, whereas all other things participate in being. Therefore, every created substance is compared to its own being as potentiality to act.
Praeterea. Assimilatio alicuius ad causam agentem fit per actum: agens enim agit sibi simile inquantum est actu. Assimilatio autem cuiuslibet substantiae creatae ad Deum est per ipsum esse, ut supra ostensum est. Ipsum igitur esse comparatur ad omnes substantias creatas sicut actus earum. Ex quo relinquitur quod in qualibet substantia creata sit compositio actus et potentiae. [5] Furthermore, it is by act that a thing is made like its efficient cause, for the agent produces its like so far as it is in act. Now, as shown above it is through being itself that every created substance is likened to God. Therefore, being itself is compared to all created substances as their act. Whence it follows that in every created substance there is composition of act and potentiality.

Caput 54 Chapter 54
Quod non est idem componi ex substantia et esse, et materia et forma THAT THE COMPOSITION OF SUBSTANCE AND BEING IS NOT THE SAME AS THE COMPOSITION OF MATTER AND FORM
Non est autem eiusdem rationis compositio ex materia et forma, et ex substantia et esse: quamvis utraque sit ex potentia et actu. [1] Now, these compositions are not of the same nature, although both are compositions of potentiality and act.
Primo quidem, quia materia non est ipsa substantia rei, nam sequeretur omnes formas esse accidentia, sicut antiqui naturales opinabantur: sed materia est pars substantiae. [2] First, this is so because matter is not the very substance of a thing; for, if that were true, it would follow that all forms are accidents, as the early natural philosophers supposed. But matter is not the substance; it is only part of the substance.
Secundo autem quia ipsum esse non est proprius actus materiae, sed substantiae totius. Eius enim actus est esse de quo possumus dicere quod sit. Esse autem non dicitur de materia, sed de toto. Unde materia non potest dici quod est, sed ipsa substantia est id quod est. [3] Secondly, because being itself is the proper act, not of the matter, but of the whole substance; for being is the act of that whereof we can say that it is. Now, this act is predicated not of the matter, but of the whole. Hence, matter cannot be called that which is; rather, the substance itself is that which is.
Tertio, quia nec forma est ipsum esse, sed se habent secundum ordinem: comparatur enim forma ad ipsum esse sicut lux ad lucere, vel albedo ad album esse. [4] Thirdly, because neither is the form the being itself, but between them there is a relation of order, because form is compared to being itself as light to illuminating, or whiteness to being white.
Deinde quia ad ipsam etiam formam comparatur ipsum esse ut actus. Per hoc enim in compositis ex materia et forma dicitur forma esse principium essendi, quia est complementum substantiae, cuius actus est ipsum esse: sicut diaphanum est aeri principium lucendi quia facit eum proprium subiectum luminis. [5] Then, too, because being is compared even to the form itself as act. For in things composed of matter and form, the form is said to be the principle of being, for this reason: that it is the complement of the substance, whose act is being. Thus, transparency is in relation to the air the principle of illumination, in that it makes the air the proper subject of light.
Unde in compositis ex materia et forma nec materia nec forma potest dici ipsum quod est, nec etiam ipsum esse. Forma tamen potest dici quo est, secundum quod est essendi principium; ipsa autem tota substantia est ipsum quod est; et ipsum esse est quo substantia denominatur ens. [6] Accordingly, in things composed of matter and form, neither the matter nor the form nor even being itself can be termed that which is. Yet the form can be called that by which it is, inasmuch as it is the principle of being; the whole substance itself, however, is that which is. And being itself is that by which the substance is called a being.
In substantiis autem intellectualibus, quae non sunt ex materia et forma compositae, ut ostensum est, sed in eis ipsa forma est substantia subsistens, forma est quod est, ipsum autem esse est actus et quo est. [7] But, as we have shown, intellectual substances are not composed of matter and form; rather, in them the form itself is a subsisting substance; so that form here is that which is and being itself is act and that by which the substance is.
Et propter hoc in eis est unica tantum compositio actus et potentiae, quae scilicet est ex substantia et esse, quae a quibusdam dicitur ex quod est et esse; vel ex quod est et quo est. [8] And on this account there is in such substances but one composition of act and potentiality, namely, the composition of substance and being, which by some is said to be of that which is and being, or of that which is and that by which a thing is.
In substantiis autem compositis ex materia et forma est duplex compositio actus et potentiae: prima quidem ipsius substantiae, quae componitur ex materia et forma; secunda vero ex ipsa substantia iam composita et esse, quae etiam potest dici ex quod est et esse; vel ex quod est et quo est. [9] On the other hand, in substances composed of matter and form there is a twofold composition of act and potentiality: the first, of the substance itself which is composed of matter and form; the second, of the substance thus composed, and being; and this composition also can be said to be of that which is and being, or of that which is and that by which a thing is.
Sic igitur patet quod compositio actus et potentiae est in plus quam compositio formae et materiae. Unde materia et forma dividunt substantiam naturalem: potentia autem et actus dividunt ens commune. Et propter hoc quaecumque quidem consequuntur potentiam et actum inquantum huiusmodi, sunt communia substantiis materialibus et immaterialibus creatis: sicut recipere et recipi, perficere et perfici. Quaecumque vero sunt propria materiae et formae inquantum huiusmodi, sicut generari et corrumpi et alia huiusmodi, haec sunt propria substantiarum materialium, et nullo modo conveniunt substantiis immaterialibus creatis. [10] It is therefore clear that composition of act and potentiality has greater extension than that of form and matter. Thus, matter and form divide natural substance, while potentiality and act divide common being. Accordingly, whatever follows upon potentiality and act, as such, is common to both material and immaterial created substances, as to receive and to be received, to perfect and to be perfected. Yet all that is proper to matter and form, as such, as to be generated and to be corrupted, and the like, are proper to material substances, and in no way belong to immaterial created substances.

Caput 55 Chapter 55
Quod substantiae intellectuales sunt incorruptibiles THAT INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCES ARE INCORRUPTIBLE
Ex hoc autem aperte ostenditur quod omnis substantia intellectualis est incorruptibilis. [1] Now, from what has just been said it is clearly shown that every intellectual substance is incorruptible.
Omnis enim corruptio est per separationem formae a materia: simplex quidem corruptio per separationem formae substantialis; corruptio autem secundum quid per separationem formae accidentalis. Forma enim manente, oportet rem esse: per formam enim substantia fit proprium susceptivum eius quod est esse. Ubi autem non est compositio formae et materiae, ibi non potest esse separatio earundem. Igitur nec corruptio. Ostensum est autem quod nulla substantia intellectualis est composita ex materia et forma. Nulla igitur substantia intellectualis est corruptibilis. [2] For all corruption occurs through the separation of form from matter; absolute corruption, through the separation of the substantial form; relative corruption, through the separation of an accidental form. For, so long as the form remains, the thing must exist, since by the form the substance is made the proper recipient of the act of being. Now, where there is no composition of matter and form, there can be no separation of them; neither, then, can there be corruption. It has been shown, however, that no intellectual substance is composed of matter and form. Therefore, no intellectual substance is corruptible.
Amplius. Quod per se alicui competit, de necessitate et semper et inseparabiliter ei inest: sicut rotundum per se quidem inest circulo, per accidens autem aeri; unde aes quidem fieri non rotundum est possibile, circulum autem non esse rotundum est impossibile. Esse autem per se consequitur ad formam: per se enim dicimus secundum quod ipsum; unumquodque autem habet esse secundum quod habet formam. Substantiae igitur quae non sunt ipsae formae, possunt privari esse, secundum quod amittunt formam: sicut aes privatur rotunditate secundum quod desinit esse circulare. Substantiae vero quae sunt ipsae formae, nunquam possunt privari esse: sicut, si aliqua substantia esset circulus, nunquam posset fieri non rotunda. Ostensum est autem supra quod substantiae intellectuales sunt ipsae formae subsistentes. Impossibile est igitur quod esse desinant. Sunt igitur incorruptibiles. [3] Moreover, that which belongs to a thing through itself is necessarily in it always and inseparably—thus, roundness is in a circle through itself, but is by accident in a coin; so that the existence of a non-round coin is possible; whereas it is impossible for a circle not to be round. Now, being is consequent upon form through itself; for by through itself we mean according as that thing is such; and each and every thing has being according as it has form. Therefore, substances which are not themselves forms can be deprived of being, so far as they lose form, even as a coin is deprived of roundness as a result of ceasing to be circular. But substances which are themselves forms can never be deprived of being; thus, if a substance were a circle, it could never be non-round. Now, we have already shown that intellectual substances are themselves subsisting forms. Hence, they cannot possibly cease to be, and therefore they are incorruptible.
Adhuc. In omni corruptione, remoto actu, manet potentia: non enim corrumpitur aliquid in omnino non ens, sicut nec generatur aliquid ex omnino non ente. In substantiis autem intellectualibus, ut ostensum est, actus est ipsum esse, ipsa autem substantia est sicut potentia. Si igitur substantia intellectualis corrumpatur, remanebit post suam corruptionem. Quod est omnino impossibile. Omnis igitur substantia intellectualis est incorruptibilis. [4] In every instance of corruption, furthermore, potentiality remains after the removal of act. For when a thing is corrupted it does not dissolve into absolute non-entity, any more than a thing is generated from absolute non-entity. But, as we have proved, in intellectual substances the act is being itself, while the substance is as potentiality. Therefore, if an intellectual substance is corrupted, it will remain after its corruption; which is simply impossibility. Therefore, every intellectual substance is incorruptible.
Item. In omni quod corrumpitur, oportet quod sit potentia ad non esse. Si quid igitur est in quo non est potentia ad non esse, hoc non potest esse corruptibile. In substantia autem intellectuali non est potentia ad non esse. Manifestum est enim ex dictis quod substantia completa est proprium susceptivum ipsius esse. Proprium autem susceptivum alicuius actus ita comparatur ut potentia ad actum illum quod nullo modo est in potentia ad oppositum: sicut ignis ita comparatur ad calorem ut potentia ad actum quod nullo modo est in potentia ad frigus. Unde nec in ipsis substantiis corruptibilibus est potentia ad non esse in ipsa substantia completa nisi ratione materiae. In substantiis autem intellectualibus non est materia, sed ipsae sunt substantiae completae simplices. Igitur in eis non est potentia ad non esse. Sunt igitur incorruptibiles. [5] Likewise, in every thing which is corrupted there must be potentiality to non-being. Hence, if there be a thing in which there is no potentiality to non-being, such a thing cannot be corruptible. Now, in the intellectual substance there is no potentiality to non-being. For it is clear from what we have said that the complete substance is the proper recipient of being itself. But the proper recipient of an act is related to that act as potentiality, in such fashion that it is in no way in potentiality to the opposite; thus, the relationship of fire to heat is such that fire is in no way in potentiality to cold. Hence, neither in the case of corruptible substances is there potentiality to non-being in the complete substance itself, except by reason of the matter. But there is no matter in intellectual substances, for they are themselves complete simple substances. Consequently, there is no potentiality to not-being in them. Therefore, they are incorruptible.
Praeterea. In quibuscumque est compositio potentiae et actus, id quod tenet locum primae potentiae, sive primi subiecti, est incorruptibile: unde etiam in substantiis corruptibilibus materia prima est incorruptibilis. Sed in substantiis intellectualibus id quod tenet locum primae potentiae et subiecti, est ipsa earum substantia completa. Igitur substantia ipsa est incorruptibilis. Nihil autem est corruptibile nisi per hoc quod sua substantia corrumpitur. Igitur omnes intellectuales naturae sunt incorruptibiles. [6] Then, too, in whatever things there is composition of potentiality and act, that which holds the place of first potentiality, or of first subject, is incorruptible; so that even in corruptible substances prime matter is incorruptible. But, with intellectual substances, that which holds the place of first potentiality and subject is itself the complete substance of those things. Hence, the substance itself is incorruptible. But nothing is corruptible except by the fact that its substance is corruptible. Therefore, all intellectual natures are incorruptible.
Amplius. Omne quod corrumpitur vel corrumpitur per se, vel corrumpitur per accidens. Substantiae autem intellectuales non possunt per se corrumpi. Omnis enim corruptio est a contrario. Agens enim, cum agat secundum quod est ens actu, semper agendo ducit ad aliquid esse actu. Unde, si per huiusmodi esse actu aliquid corrumpatur desinens esse actu, oportet quod hoc contingat per contrarietatem eorum ad invicem: nam contraria sunt quae mutuo se expellunt. Et propter hoc oportet omne quod corrumpitur per se, vel habere contrarium, vel esse ex contrariis compositum. Neutrum autem horum substantiis intellectualibus convenit. Cuius signum est, quia in intellectu ea etiam quae secundum suam naturam sunt contraria, desinunt esse contraria: album enim et nigrum in intellectu non sunt contraria; non enim se expellunt, immo magis se consequuntur, per intellectum enim unius eorum intelligitur aliud. Substantiae igitur intellectuales non sunt corruptibiles per se. Similiter autem neque per accidens. Sic enim corrumpuntur accidentia et formae non subsistentes. Ostensum autem est supra quod substantiae intellectuales sunt subsistentes. Sunt igitur omnino incorruptibiles. [7] Moreover, whatever is corrupted is corrupted either through itself or by accident. Now, intellectual substances cannot be corrupted through themselves, because all corruption is by a contrary. For the agent, since it acts according as it is a being in act, always by its acting brings something into actual being, so that if a thing is corrupted by its ceasing to be in act, this must result from the mutual contrariety of the terms involved; since things are contrary which exclude one another. And on this account whatever is corrupted through itself must either have a contrary or be composed of contraries. Yet neither the one nor the other is true of intellectual substances; and a sign of this is that in the intellect things even of contrary nature cease to be contraries. Thus, white and black are not contraries in the intellect, since they do not exclude one another; rather, they are co-implicative, since by grasping the one we understand the other. Therefore, intellectual substances are not corruptible through themselves. Likewise, neither are they corruptible by accident, for in this manner are accidents and non-subsistent forms corrupted. Now, it was shown above that intellectual substances are subsistent. Therefore, they are altogether incorruptible.
Adhuc. Corruptio est mutatio quaedam. Quam oportet esse terminum motus, ut in physicis est probatum. Unde oportet quod omne quod corrumpitur moveatur. Ostensum est autem in naturalibus quod omne quod movetur est corpus. Oportet igitur omne quod corrumpitur esse corpus, si per se corrumpatur: vel aliquam formam seu virtutem corporis a corpore dependentem, si corrumpatur per accidens. Substantiae autem intellectuales non sunt corpora, neque virtutes seu formae a corpore dependentes. Ergo neque per se neque per accidens corrumpuntur. Sunt igitur omnino incorruptibiles. [8] Again, corruption is a kind of change, and change must be the terminal point of a movement, as is proved in the Physics [V, 1]. Hence, whatever is corrupted must be moved. Now, it is shown in natural philosophy that whatever is moved is a body. Hence, whatever is corrupted must be a body, if it is corrupted through itself, or a form or power of a body depending thereon, if it be corrupted by accident. Now, intellectual substances are not bodies, nor powers or forms dependent on a body. Consequently, they are corrupted neither through themselves nor by accident. They are, then, utterly incorruptible.
Item. Omne quod corrumpitur, corrumpitur per hoc quod aliquid patitur: nam et ipsum corrumpi est quoddam pati. Nulla autem substantia intellectualis potest pati tali passione quae ducat ad corruptionem. Nam pati recipere quoddam est. Quod autem recipitur in substantia intellectuali, oportet quod recipiatur in ea per modum ipsius, scilicet intelligibiliter. Quod vero sic in substantia intellectuali recipitur, est perficiens substantiam intellectualem, et non corrumpens eam: intelligibile enim est perfectio intelligentis. Substantia igitur intelligens est incorruptibilis. [9] And again. Whatever is corrupted is corrupted through being passive to something, for to be corrupted is itself to be passive in a certain way. Now, no intellectual substance can be passive in such a way as will lead to its corruption. For passivity is a kind of receptivity, and what is received into an intellectual substance must be received in it in a manner consonant with its mode, namely, intelligibly. What is thus received into an intellectual substance, however, perfects that substance and does not corrupt it, for the intelligible is the perfection of the intelligent. Therefore, an intelligent substance is incorruptible.
Praeterea. Sicut sensibile est obiectum sensus, ita intelligibile est obiectum intellectus. Sensus autem propria corruptione non corrumpitur nisi propter excellentiam sui obiecti: sicut visus a valde fulgidis, et auditus a fortibus sonis, et sic de aliis. Dico autem propria corruptione: quia sensus corrumpitur etiam per accidens propter corruptionem subiecti. Qui tamen modus corruptionis non potest accidere intellectui: cum non sit actus corporis ullius quasi a corpore dependens, ut supra ostensum est. Patet autem quod nec corrumpitur per excellentiam sui obiecti: quia qui intelligit valde intelligibilia, non minus intelligit minus intelligibilia, sed magis. Intellectus igitur nullo modo est corruptibilis. [10] Furthermore, just as the sensible is the object of sense, so the intelligible is the object of intellect. But sense is not corrupted by a corruption proper to itself except on account of the exceedingly high intensity of its object; thus, is sight corrupted by very brilliant objects, hearing by very loud sounds, etc. Now, I say by corruption proper to the thing itself because the sense is corrupted also accidentally through its subject being corrupted. But this mode of corruption cannot happen to the intellect, since it is not the act of any body, as depending thereon, as we have shown above. And clearly it is not corrupted by the exceeding loftiness of its object, because he who understands very intelligible things understands things less intelligible not less but more. Therefore, the intellect is in no way corruptible.
Amplius. Intelligibile est propria perfectio intellectus: unde intellectus in actu et intelligibile in actu sunt unum. Quod igitur convenit intelligibili inquantum est intelligibile, oportet convenire intellectui inquantum huiusmodi: quia perfectio et perfectibile sunt unius generis. Intelligibile autem, inquantum est intelligibile, est necessarium et incorruptibile: necessaria enim perfecte sunt intellectu cognoscibilia; contingentia vero, inquantum huiusmodi, non nisi deficienter; habetur enim de eis non scientia, sed opinio; unde et corruptibilium intellectus scientiam habet secundum quod sunt incorruptibilia, inquantum scilicet sunt universalia. Oportet igitur intellectum esse incorruptibilem. [11] Also, the intelligible is the proper perfection of the intellect; so that “the intellect in act and the intelligible in act are one. Hence, whatever appertains to the intelligible, as such, must appertain to the intellect, as such, because perfection and the perfectible are of one genus. Now, the intelligible, as such, is necessary and incorruptible; for necessary things are perfectly knowable by the intellect, whereas contingent things, as such, are only deficiently knowable, for concerning them we have not science but opinion. So it is that the intellect has scientific knowledge of corruptible things so far as they are incorruptible, that is, inasmuch as they are universal. The intellect, therefore, must be incorruptible.
Adhuc. Unumquodque perficitur secundum modum suae substantiae. Ex modo igitur perfectionis alicuius rei potest accipi modus substantiae ipsius. Intellectus autem non perficitur per motum, sed per hoc quod est extra motum existens: perficimur enim secundum intellectivam animam scientia et prudentia, sedatis permutationibus et corporalibus et animae passionum; ut patet per philosophum, in VII physicorum. Modus igitur substantiae intelligentis est quod esse suum sit supra motum, et per consequens supra tempus. Esse autem cuiuslibet rei corruptibilis subiacet motui et tempori. Impossibile est igitur substantiam intelligentem esse corruptibilem. [12] Moreover, a thing is perfected according to the mode of its substance. Hence, the mode of a thing’s substance can be learned from the mode of its perfection. Now, the intellect is not perfected by movement, but by the fact of its being outside movement; for, as concerns the intellective soul, we are perfected by science and prudence when bodily changes and alterations of the soul’s passions are put at rest, as Aristotle points out in Physics VII [3]. Hence, the mode of an intelligent substance consists in the fact that its being is above movement and consequently above time; whereas the being of every corruptible thing is subject to motion and time. Therefore, an intelligent substance cannot possibly be corruptible.
Praeterea. Impossibile est naturale desiderium esse inane: natura enim nihil facit frustra. Sed quilibet intelligens naturaliter desiderat esse perpetuum: non solum ut perpetuetur esse secundum speciem, sed etiam individuum. Quod sic patet. Naturalis enim appetitus quibusdam quidem inest ex apprehensione: sicut lupus naturaliter desiderat occisionem animalium ex quibus pascitur, et homo naturaliter desiderat felicitatem. Quibusdam vero absque apprehensione, ex sola inclinatione naturalium principiorum, quae naturalis appetitus in quibusdam dicitur: sicut grave appetit esse deorsum. Utroque autem modo inest rebus naturale desiderium essendi: cuius signum est quia et ea quae cognitione carent, resistunt corrumpentibus secundum virtutem suorum principiorum naturalium; et ea quae cognitionem habent, resistunt eisdem secundum modum suae cognitionis. Illa igitur cognitione carentia quorum principiis inest virtus ad conservandum esse perpetuum ita quod maneant semper eadem secundum numerum, naturaliter appetunt esse perpetuum etiam secundum idem numero. Quorum autem principia non habent ad hoc virtutem, sed solum ad conservandum esse perpetuum secundum idem specie, etiam sic naturaliter appetunt perpetuitatem. Hanc igitur differentiam oportet et in his inveniri quibus desiderium essendi cum cognitione inest: ut scilicet illa quae non cognoscunt esse nisi ut nunc, desiderant esse ut nunc; non autem semper, quia esse sempiternum non apprehendunt. Desiderant tamen esse perpetuum speciei: tamen absque cognitione; quia virtus generativa, quae ad hoc deservit, praeambula est, et non subiacens cognitioni. Illa igitur quae ipsum esse perpetuum cognoscunt et apprehendunt, desiderant ipsum naturali desiderio. Hoc autem convenit omnibus substantiis intelligentibus. Omnes igitur substantiae intelligentes naturali desiderio appetunt esse semper. Ergo impossibile est quod esse deficiant. [13] A further argument. It is impossible for natural desire to be in vain, “since nature does nothing in vain.” But every intelligent being naturally desires to be forever; and to be forever not only in its species but also in the individual. This point is made clear as follows. Natural appetite is present in some things as the result of apprehension; the wolf naturally desires the killing of the animals on which it feeds, and man naturally desires happiness. But in some other things natural desires results without apprehension from the sole inclination of natural principles, and this inclination, in some, is called natural appetite; thus, a heavy body desires to be down. Now, in both ways there is in things a natural desire for being; and a sign of this is that not only things devoid of knowledge resist, according to the power of their natural principles, whatever is corruptive of them, but also things possessed of knowledge resist the same according to the mode of their knowledge. Hence, those things lacking knowledge, in whose principles there is a power of keeping themselves in existence forever so that they remain always the same numerically, naturally desire to exist everlastingly even in their numerical self-identity. But things whose principles have not the power to do this, but only the power of perpetuating their existence in the same species, also naturally desire to be perpetuated in this manner. Hence, this same difference must be found also in those things in which there is desire for being, together with knowledge, so that those things which have no knowledge of being except as now desire to be as now, but not to be always, because they do not apprehend everlasting being. Yet they desire the perpetual existence of the species, though without knowledge, because the generative power, which conduces to this effect, is a forerunner and not a subject of knowledge. Hence, those things which know and apprehend perpetual being desire it with natural desire. And this is true of all intelligent substances. Consequently, all intelligent substances, by their natural appetite, desire to be always. That they should cease to be is, therefore, impossible.
Adhuc. Quaecumque incipiunt esse et desinunt, per eandem potentiam habent utrumque: eadem enim est potentia ad esse et ad non esse. Sed substantiae intelligentes non potuerunt incipere esse nisi per potentiam primi agentis: non enim sunt ex materia, quae potuerit praefuisse, ut ostensum est. Igitur nec est aliqua potentia ad non esse earum nisi in primo agente, secundum quod potest non influere eis esse. Sed ex hac sola potentia nihil potest dici corruptibile. Tum quia res dicuntur necessariae et contingentes secundum potentiam quae est in eis, et non secundum potentiam Dei, ut supra ostensum est. Tum etiam quia Deus, qui est institutor naturae, non subtrahit rebus id quod est proprium naturis earum; ostensum est autem quod proprium naturis intellectualibus est quod sint perpetuae; unde hoc eis a Deo non subtrahetur. Sunt igitur substantiae intellectuales ex omni parte incorruptibiles. [14] Furthermore, all things that begin to be and cease to be do so in virtue of the same potency, for the same potency regards being and non-being. Now, intelligent substances could not begin to be except by the potency of the first agent, since, as we have shown, they are not made out of a matter that could have existed antecedently to them. Hence, there is no potency with respect to their non-being except in the first agent, inasmuch as it lies within His power not to pour being into them. But nothing can be said to be corruptible with respect to this potency alone; and for two reasons: because things are said to be necessary and contingent according to a potentiality that is in them, and not according to the power of God, as we have already shown, and also because God, who is the Author of nature, does not take from things that which is proper to their natures; and we have just shown that it is proper to intellectual natures to exist forever, and that is why God will not take this property from them. Therefore, intellectual substances are in every way incorruptible.
Hinc est quod in Psalmo: laudate dominum de caelis, connumeratis Angelis et caelestibus corporibus, subiungitur: statuit ea in aeternum et in saeculum saeculi, per quod praedictorum perpetuitas designatur. [15] So it is that in the Psalm (148:1, 6): “Praise the Lord from the heavens,” after speaking of the angels and the heavenly bodies together, it is added: “He established them for ever and for ages of ages,” thus designating the everlastingness of those things.
Dionysius etiam, in IV cap. de Div. Nom., dicit quod propter divinae bonitatis radios substiterunt intelligibiles et intellectuales substantiae, et sunt et vivunt, et habent vitam indeficientem et imminorabilem, ab universa corruptione et generatione et morte mundae existentes, et elevatae ab instabili et fluxa variatione. [16] Dionysius also, in his work On the Divine Names [4], says that “it is because of the rays of God’s goodness that intelligible and intellectual substances subsist and are and live; and they have life unfailing and undiminishable, being free from universal corruption, free from generation and death, lifted above the instability of this world in flux.”

Caput 56 Chapter 56
Per quem modum substantia intellectualis possit corpori uniri IN WHAT WAY AN INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCE CAN BE UNITED TO THE BODY
Cum autem supra ostensum sit substantiam intellectualem non esse corpus neque virtutem aliquam a corpore dependentem, restat investigandum utrum aliqua substantia intellectualis corpori possit uniri. [1] Having shown that an intellectual substance is not a body or a power dependent on a body, it remains for us to inquire whether an intellectual substance can be united to a body.
Est autem primo manifestum quod substantia intellectualis non potest corpori uniri per modum mixtionis.
Quae enim miscentur, oportet ad invicem alterata esse. Quod non contingit nisi in his quorum est materia eadem, quae possunt esse activa et passiva ad invicem. Substantiae autem intellectuales non communicant in materia cum corporalibus: sunt enim immateriales, ut supra ostensum est. Non sunt igitur corpori miscibiles.
[2] In the first place, it is evident that an intellectual substance cannot be united to a body by way of mixture.
[3] For things mixed together are necessarily altered in relation to one another. But such alteration occurs only in things whose matter is the same, and which can be active and passive in relation to one another. But intellectual substances have no matter in common with bodies, since, as shown above, they are immaterial. Hence, they are not combinable with bodies.
Adhuc. Quae miscentur, mixtione iam facta, non manent actu, sed virtute tantum: nam si actu manerent, non esset mixtio, sed confusio tantum; unde corpus mixtum ex elementis nullum eorum est. Hoc autem impossibile est accidere substantiis intellectualibus: sunt enim incorruptibiles, ut supra ostensum est.
Non igitur potest substantia intellectualis uniri corpori per modum mixtionis.
[4] Moreover, the things that are combined with one another do not themselves, having been combined, remain actually, but only virtually; for, were they to remain actually, it would be not a mixture, but only a collection; that is why a body constituted by a mixture of elements is none of those elements. But this cannot possibly occur in the case of intellectual substances, since, as we have just shown, they are incorruptible.
[5] Therefore, an intellectual substance cannot be united to a body by way of mixture.
Similiter autem patet quod substantia intellectualis non potest uniri corpori per modum contactus proprie sumpti. Tactus enim non nisi corporum est: sunt enim tangentia quorum sunt ultima simul, ut puncta aut lineae aut superficies, quae sunt corporum ultima. Non igitur per modum contactus substantia intellectualis corpori uniri potest. [6] It is likewise evident that an intellectual substance cannot be united to a body by way of contact properly so called. For there is contact only between bodies, since things are in contact when they come together at their extremities, as the points or lines or surfaces which are the extremities of bodies. It is, therefore, impossible for an intellectual substance to be united to a body by way of contact.
Ex hoc autem relinquitur quod neque continuatione, neque compositione aut colligatione, ex substantia intellectuali et corpore unum fieri possit. Omnia enim haec sine contactu esse non possunt. [7] And from this it follows that neither by continuation nor composition or colligation can union of an intellectual substance with a body be effected. For without contact none of these is possible.
Est tamen quidam modus contactus quo substantia intellectualis corpori uniri potest. Corpora enim naturalia tangendo se alterant: et sic ad invicem uniuntur non solum secundum ultima quantitatis, sed etiam secundum similitudinem qualitatis aut formae, dum alterans formam suam imprimit in alteratum. Et quamvis, si considerentur solum ultima quantitatis, oporteat in omnibus mutuum esse tactum, tamen, si attendatur ad actionem et passionem, invenientur aliqua esse tangentia tantum et aliqua tacta tantum: corpora enim caelestia tangunt quidem hoc modo elementaria corpora, inquantum ea alterant: non autem tanguntur ab eis, quia ab eis non patiuntur. Si igitur sint aliqua agentia quae quantitatis ultimis non tangant, dicentur nihilominus tangere, inquantum agunt: secundum quem modum dicimus quod contristans nos tangit. Hoc igitur modo tangendi possibile est uniri substantiam intellectualem corpori per contactum. Agunt enim substantiae intellectuales in corpora et movent ea, cum sint immateriales et magis in actu existentes. [8] There is, however, a certain kind of contact whereby an intellectual substance can be united to a body. For, when they are in contact, natural bodies alter one another, thus being mutually united not only by way of their quantitative extremities, but also by way of likeness in quality or form, as long as the altering body impresses its form upon the body altered. Now, if the quantitative extremities alone be considered, then in all cases contact must of necessity be mutual. On the other hand, if attention is given to activity and passivity, it will be found that certain things touch others and are not themselves touched, while certain things are themselves touched and touch nothing else. For, indeed, the heavenly bodies touch elemental bodies in this way, inasmuch as they alter them, but they are not touched by the elemental bodies, since they are not acted upon by them. Consequently, if there are any agents not in contact by their quantitative extremities, they nevertheless will be said to touch, so far as they act; and in this sense we say that a person in sorrow touches us. Hence, it is possible for an intellectual substance to be united to a body by contact, by touching it in this way. For intellectual substances, being immaterial and enjoying a higher degree of actuality than bodies, act on the latter and move them.
Hic autem tactus non est quantitatis, sed virtutis. Unde differt hic tactus a tactu corporeo in tribus. Primo quidem, quia hoc tactu id quod est indivisibile potest tangere divisibile. Quod in tactu corporeo non potest accidere: nam puncto non potest tangi nisi indivisibile aliquid. Substantia autem intellectualis, quamvis sit indivisibilis, potest tangere quantitatem divisibilem, inquantum agit in ipsam. Alio enim modo est indivisibile punctum, et substantia intellectualis. Punctum quidem sicut quantitatis terminus: et ideo habet situm determinatum in continuo, ultra quem porrigi non potest. Substantia autem intellectualis est indivisibilis quasi extra genus quantitatis existens. Unde non determinatur ei indivisibile aliquid quantitatis ad tangendum. Secundo, quia tactus quantitatis est solum secundum ultima: tactus autem virtutis est ad totum quod tangitur. Sic enim tangitur secundum quod patitur et movetur. Hoc autem fit secundum quod est in potentia. Potentia vero est secundum totum, non secundum ultima totius. Unde totum tangitur. Ex quo patet tertia differentia. Quia in tactu quantitatis, qui fit secundum extrema, oportet esse tangens extrinsecum ei quod tangitur; et non potest incedere per ipsum, sed impeditur ab eo. Tactus autem virtutis, qui competit substantiis intellectualibus, cum sit ad intima, facit substantiam tangentem esse intra id quod tangitur, et incedentem per ipsum absque impedimento. [9] This, however, is not contact of quantity, but of power. It therefore differs from bodily contact in three ways. First, because by this contact the indivisible can touch the divisible. Now, in bodily contact this cannot occur, since only an indivisible thing can be touched by a point. But an intellectual substance, though it is indivisible, can touch divisible quantity, so far as it acts upon it. For, indeed, a point is indivisible in one way and an intellectual substance in another. A point is indivisible as being the terminus of a quantity, and for this reason it occupies a determinate position in a continuous quantity, beyond which it cannot extend. But an intellectual substance is indivisible, as being outside the genus of quantity, and that is why no quantitative indivisible entity with which it can make contact is assigned to it. Contact of quantity differs from quantity of power, secondly, because the former obtains only with respect to the extremities, whereas the latter regards the whole thing touched. For by contact of power a thing is touched according as it is acted upon and is moved. And this comes about inasmuch as the thing is in potentiality. Now, potentiality regards the whole and not the extremities of the whole; so that it is the whole that is touched. And from this the third difference emerges, because in contact of quantity, which takes place in respect of extremities, that which touches must be extrinsic to that which is touched; and it cannot penetrate the thing touched, but is obstructed by it. But, since contact of power, which appertains to intellectual substances, extends to the innermost things, it makes the touching substance to be within the thing touched, and to penetrate it without hindrance.
Sic igitur substantia intellectualis potest corpori uniri per contactum virtutis. Quae autem uniuntur secundum talem contactum, non sunt unum simpliciter. Sunt enim unum in agendo et patiendo: quod non est esse unum simpliciter. Sic enim dicitur unum quomodo et ens. Esse autem agens non significat esse simpliciter. Unde nec esse unum in agendo est esse unum simpliciter.
Unum autem simpliciter tripliciter dicitur: vel sicut indivisibile; vel sicut continuum; vel sicut quod est ratione unum. Ex substantia autem intellectuali et corpore non potest fieri unum quod sit indivisibile: oportet enim illud esse compositum ex duobus. Neque iterum quod sit continuum: quia partes continui quantae sunt. Relinquitur igitur inquirendum utrum ex substantia intellectuali et corpore possit sic fieri unum sicut quod est ratione unum.
Ex duobus autem permanentibus non fit aliquid ratione unum nisi sicut ex forma substantiali et materia: ex subiecto enim et accidente non fit ratione unum; non enim est eadem ratio hominis et albi. Hoc igitur inquirendum relinquitur, utrum substantia intellectualis corporis alicuius forma substantialis esse possit.
[10] The intellectual substance, then, can be united to a body by contact of power. Now, things united by contact of this kind are not unqualifiedly one. For they are one with respect to acting and being acted upon, but this is not to be unqualifiedly one. Thus, indeed, one is predicated in the same mode as being. But to be acting does not mean to be, without qualification, so that neither is to be one in action to be one without qualification.
[11] Now, one, in the unqualified sense of the term, has a threefold reference: to the indivisible, to the continuous, and to the one in reason. Now, from the union of an intellectual substance and a body there cannot result a thing indivisibly one, because such a union must consist in a composite of two things; nor a thing continuously one, because the parts of the continuous are parts of quantity. It therefore remains for us to inquire whether from an intellectual substance and a body there can be formed a thing one in reason.
[12] Now, from two permanent entities a thing one in reason does not result unless one of them has the character of substantial form and the other of matter. For the joining of subject and accident does not constitute a unity of this kind; the idea of man, for example, is not the same as the idea of white. So, it must be asked whether an intellectual substance can be the substantial form of a body.
Videtur autem rationabiliter considerantibus hoc esse impossibile. [13] Now, to those who consider the question reasonably, such a union would seem to be impossible.
Ex duabus enim substantiis actu existentibus non potest fieri aliquid unum: actus enim cuiuslibet est id quo ab altero distinguitur. Substantia autem intellectualis est substantia actu existens, ut ex praemissis apparet. Similiter autem et corpus. Non igitur potest aliquid unum fieri, ut videtur, ex substantia intellectuali et corpore. [14] From two actually existing substances one thing cannot be made, because the act of each thing is that by which it is distinguished from another. Now, an intellectual substance n an actually existing substance, as is clear from what has been said. And so, too, is a body. It therefore seems that from an intellectual substance and a body something one cannot be made.
Adhuc. Forma et materia in eodem genere continentur: omne enim genus per actum et potentiam dividitur. Substantia autem intellectualis et corpus sunt diversa genera. Non igitur videtur possibile unum esse formam alterius. [15] Also, form and matter are contained in the same genus, for every genus is divided by act and potentiality. But intellectual substance and body are diverse genera. Hence, it does not seem possible for one to be the form of the other.
Amplius. Omne illud cuius esse est in materia, oportet esse materiale. Sed si substantia intellectualis est forma corporis, oportet quod esse eius sit in materia corporali: non enim esse formae est praeter esse materiae. Sequetur igitur quod substantia intellectualis non sit immaterialis, ut supra ostensum est. [16] Moreover, every thing whose being is in matter must be material. Now, if an intellectual substance is the form of a body, it must have its being in corporeal matter. For the form’s act of being is not outside that of the matter. Hence, it will follow that an intellectual substance is not immaterial, as it was shown to be above.
Item. Impossibile est illud cuius esse est in corpore, esse a corpore separatum. Intellectus autem ostenditur a philosophis esse separatus a corpore, et quod neque est corpus neque virtus in corpore. Non est igitur intellectualis substantia forma corporis: sic enim esse eius esset in corpore. [17] Likewise, it is impossible for a thing that has its being in a body to be separate from the body, It is, however, proved by philosophers that the intellect is separate from the body, and that it is neither a body nor a power in a body. Therefore, an intellectual substance is not the form of a body; if it were, it would have its being in a body.
Adhuc. Cuius esse est commune corpori, oportet et operationem corpori communem esse: unumquodque enim agit secundum quod est ens; nec virtus operativa rei potest esse sublimior quam eius essentia, cum virtus essentiae principia consequatur. Si autem substantia intellectualis sit forma corporis, oportet quod esse eius sit sibi et corpori commune: ex forma enim et materia fit aliquid unum simpliciter, quod est secundum esse unum. Erit igitur et operatio substantiae intellectualis communis corpori, et virtus eius virtus in corpore. Quod ex praemissis patet esse impossibile. [18] Again a thing having its being in common with a body must have its operation in common with a body, for every thing acts in keeping with its being. Nor can the operative power of a thing be superior to its essence, since power is consequent upon principles of the essence of a thing. Now, if an intellectual substance is the form of a body, its being must be common to it and the body, since from form and matter there results a thing unqualifiedly one, which exists by one act of being. Therefore, an intellectual substance not only will have its operation in common with the body, but also its power will be a power in a body—a conclusion evidently impossible in the light of what has already been said.

Caput 57 Chapter 57
Ex his autem et similibus rationibus aliqui moti, dixerunt quod nulla substantia intellectualis potest esse forma corporis. Sed quia huic positioni ipsa hominis natura contradicere videbatur, qui ex anima intellectuali et corpore videtur esse compositus, excogitaverunt quasdam vias per quas naturam hominis salvarent. [1] Moved by these and like reasons, some have said that no intellectual substance can be the form of a body. But, since the very nature of man seemed to contradict this position, in that he appears to be composed of an intellectual soul and a body, they sought to save the nature of man by devising certain solutions.
Plato igitur posuit, et eius sequaces, quod anima intellectualis non unitur corpori sicut forma materiae, sed solum sicut motor mobili, dicens animam esse in corpore sicut nautam in navi. Et sic unio animae et corporis non esset nisi per contactum virtutis, de quo supra dictum est. [2] Accordingly, Plato and his followers asserted that the intellectual soul is not united to the body as form to matter, but only as mover to movable, for Plato said that the soul is in the body “as a sailor in a ship.” Thus, the union of soul and body would only be by contact of power—which we have spoken of above.
Hoc autem videtur inconveniens. Secundum praedictum enim contactum non fit aliquid unum simpliciter, ut ostensum est. Ex unione autem animae et corporis fit homo. Relinquitur igitur quod homo non sit unum simpliciter: et per consequens nec ens simpliciter, sed ens per accidens. [3] But this doctrine seems not to fit the facts. For, as a result of contact of power, a thing unqualifiedly one does not arise, as we have shown; whereas from the union of soul and body there results a man. On Plato’s theory, then, a man is not one unqualifiedly speaking, nor, consequently, is he a being unqualifiedly speaking, but a being by accident.
Ad hoc autem evitandum, Plato posuit quod homo non sit aliquid compositum ex anima et corpore: sed quod ipsa anima utens corpore sit homo; sicut Petrus non est aliquid compositum ex homine et indumento, sed homo utens indumento. [4] In order to avoid this, Plato asserted that man is not a being composed of body and soul, but that the soul itself using the body is man; just as Peter is not a thing composed of man and clothes, but a man using clothes.
Hoc autem esse impossibile ostenditur. Animal enim et homo sunt quaedam sensibilia et naturalia. Hoc autem non esset si corpus et eius partes non essent de essentia hominis et animalis, sed tota essentia utriusque esset anima, secundum positionem praedictam: anima enim non est aliquid sensibile neque materiale. Impossibile est igitur hominem et animal esse animam utentem corpore, non autem aliquid ex corpore et anima compositum. [5] This, however, is shown to be impossible. For animal and man are sensible and natural realities. But this would not be the case if the body and its parts were not of the essence of man and animal; rather, the soul would be the entire essence of both, according to the aforesaid position; for the soul is neither a sensible nor a material thing. It is, therefore, impossible that man and animal should be a soul using a body, and not a thing composed of body and soul.
Item. Impossibile est quod eorum quae sunt diversa secundum esse, sit operatio una. Dico autem operationem unam, non ex parte eius in quod terminatur actio, sed secundum quod egreditur ab agente: multi enim trahentes navim unam actionem faciunt ex parte operati, quod est unum, sed tamen ex parte trahentium sunt multae actiones, quia sunt diversi impulsus ad trahendum, cum enim actio consequatur formam et virtutem, oportet quorum sunt diversae formae et virtutes, esse et actiones diversas. Quamvis autem animae sit aliqua operatio propria, in qua non communicat corpus, sicut intelligere; sunt tamen aliquae operationes communes sibi et corpori, ut timere et irasci et sentire et huiusmodi: haec enim accidunt secundum aliquam transmutationem alicuius determinatae partis corporis, ex quo patet quod simul sunt animae et corporis operationes. Oportet igitur ex anima et corpore unum fieri, et quod non sint secundum esse diversa. [6] It is, moreover, impossible that things diverse in being should have one operation. Now, I speak of an operation being one, not with reference to that in which the action terminates, but to the manner of its issuance from the agent. For many men pulling a boat make one action on the part of the thing done, which is one, yet on the part of the haulers there are many actions, since there are many acts of hauling. For, since action is consequent upon form and power, things having diverse forms and powers must likewise have diverse actions. Now, though the soul has an operation proper to itself, in which the body does not share, namely, understanding, there are nevertheless some operations common to it and the body, as fear, anger, sensation, and the like; for these operations occur through some transmutation in a determinate part of the body, and, therefore, obviously are operations of soul and body together. It necessarily follows that the soul and the body make up one single being, and that they have not each a distinct being.
Huic autem rationi secundum Platonis sententiam obviatur. Nihil enim inconveniens est moventis et moti, quamvis secundum esse diversorum, esse eundem actum: nam motus est idem actus moventis sicut a quo est, moti autem sicut in quo est. Sic igitur Plato posuit praemissas operationes esse animae corporique communes: ut videlicet sint animae sicut moventis et corporis sicut moti. [7] Now, according to the opinion of Plato, this argument may be obviated by pointing out that there is nothing contradictory in the action of mover and moved being the same, though of things diverse in being; since the same act belongs to the mover as that from which it is and to the moved as that in which it is. Accordingly, Plato asserted that the aforesaid operations were common to soul and body, being operations of the soul as mover and of the body as moved.
Sed hoc esse non potest. Quia, ut probat philosophus in II de anima, sentire accidit in ipso moveri a sensibilibus exterioribus. Unde non potest homo sentire absque exteriori sensibili: sicut non potest aliquid moveri absque movente. Organum igitur sensus movetur et patitur in sentiendo, sed ab exteriori sensibili. Illud autem quo patitur est sensus; quod ex hoc patet, quia carentia sensu non patiuntur a sensibilibus tali modo passionis. Sensus igitur est virtus passiva ipsius organi. Anima igitur sensitiva non se habet in sentiendo sicut movens et agens, sed sicut id quo patiens patitur. Quod impossibile est esse diversum secundum esse a patiente. Non est igitur anima sensibilis secundum esse diversa a corpore animato. [8] But this cannot be, because, as Aristotle proves in De anima II [5], “sensation occurs as the result of one’s being moved by external objects of sense.” Hence, man cannot sense without an external sensible object, any more than a thing can be moved without a mover. Therefore, the sense organ is moved and is passive in sensing—but in relation to an external sensible object. And that whereby it is passive [suffers] is the sense, for it is obviously the fact that things devoid of sense are not passive in relation to sensibles by the same kind of passivity. Therefore, sense is the passive power of the organ itself. Hence, the sensitive soul has not the function of mover and agent in sensing, but of that whereby the patient is passive; and this cannot possibly be diverse in being from the patient. Therefore, the sensible soul is not, in being, diverse from the animate body.
Praeterea. Licet motus sit communis actus moventis et moti, tamen alia operatio est facere motum et recipere motum: unde et duo praedicamenta ponuntur facere et pati. Si igitur in sentiendo anima sensitiva se habet ut agens et corpus ut patiens, alia erit operatio animae et alia corporis. Anima igitur sensitiva habebit aliquam operationem propriam. Habebit igitur et subsistentiam propriam. Non igitur, destructo corpore, esse desinet. Animae igitur sensitivae, etiam irrationabilium animalium, erunt immortales. Quod quidem improbabile videtur. Tamen a Platonis opinione non discordat, sed de hoc infra erit locus quaerendi. [9] Furthermore, although motion is the common act of the mover and the moved, nevertheless to cause motion is one thing, to receive motion is another; that is why there are two categories, action and passion. If, then, in sensing the sensitive soul plays the role of agent and the body of patient, the operation of the soul will be one thing and that of the body another. Therefore, the sensitive soul will have an operation proper to itself, and, consequently, will enjoy a subsistence of its own. It will therefore follow that, when the body is destroyed, the soul will not cease to be. Thus, the sensitive souls, even of irrational animals, will be immortal; which indeed seems improbable, though it is not inconsistent with Plato’s opinion. But there will be an occasion later on to inquire into this matter.
Amplius. Mobile non sortitur speciem a suo motore. Si igitur anima non coniungitur corpori nisi sicut motor mobili, corpus et partes eius non consequuntur speciem ab anima. Abeunte igitur anima, remanebit corpus et partes eius eiusdem speciei. Hoc autem est manifeste falsum: nam caro et os et manus et huiusmodi partes post abscessum animae non dicuntur nisi aequivoce; cum nulli harum partium propria operatio adsit, quae speciem consequitur. Non igitur unitur anima corpori solum sicut motor mobili, vel sicut homo vestimento. [10] Then, too, the movable does not derive its species from its mover. Therefore, if the soul is united to the body only as mover to thing movable, then the body and its parts do not owe to the soul that which they specifically are; so that, with the passing of the soul, the body and its parts will remain of the same species. But this is clearly false; for flesh and bones and hands, and like parts, after the soul’s departure, are so called only in an equivocal sense, because none of these parts is then possessed of its proper operation, which stems from the specific nature of the thing whose parts they are. It remains that the soul is not united to the body only as mover to movable, or as a man to his clothes.
Adhuc. Mobile non habet esse per suum motorem, sed solummodo motum. Si igitur anima uniatur corpori solummodo ut motor, corpus movebitur quidem ab anima, sed non habebit esse per eam. Vivere autem est quoddam esse viventis. Non igitur corpus vivet per animam. [11] Again, the movable does not owe its being to its mover, but only its movement. If, then, the soul were united to the body merely as its mover, the body would indeed be moved by the soul, but it would not owe its being to the soul. Now, in the living thing living is a certain being. Therefore, the body would not live in virtue of the soul.
Item. Mobile neque generatur per applicationem motoris ad ipsum, neque per eius separationem corrumpitur: cum non dependeat mobile a motore secundum esse, sed secundum moveri tantum. Si igitur anima uniatur corpori solum ut motor, sequetur quod in unione animae et corporis non erit aliqua generatio, neque in separatione corruptio. Et sic mors, quae consistit in separatione animae et corporis, non erit corruptio animalis. Quod est manifeste falsum. [12] Likewise, the movable is neither generated by the mover’s being joined to it nor corrupted by its separation from it, because the movable does not depend on the mover for its being, but only for its being moved. Therefore, if the soul were united to the body only as its mover, it will follow that in the union of soul and body there will be no generation, nor will their separation mean corruption. And thus death, which consists in the separation of soul and body, will not be the corruption of the animal. And this is manifestly false.
Praeterea. Omne movens seipsum ita se habet quod in ipso est moveri et non moveri, et movere et non movere. Sed anima, secundum Platonis opinionem, movet corpus sicut movens seipsum. Est ergo in potestate animae movere corpus vel non movere. Si igitur non unitur ei nisi sicut motor mobili, erit in potestate animae separari a corpore cum voluerit, et iterum uniri ei cum voluerit. Quod patet esse falsum. [13] Furthermore, to be moved and not to be moved, to move and not to move, lie within the power of every self-mover. But the soul, according to the Platonic opinion, moves the body in the capacity of self-mover. It is, therefore, in the soul’s power to move the body and not to move it. Accordingly, if the soul is united to the body merely as mover to movable, it will be in the soul’s power to be separated from the body at will and to be reunited to it at will. And this clearly is false.
Quod autem ut forma propria anima corpori uniatur, sic probatur. Illud quo aliquid fit de potentia ente actu ens, est forma et actus ipsius. Corpus autem per animam fit actu ens de potentia existente: vivere enim est esse viventis; semen autem ante animationem est vivens solum in potentia, per animam autem fit vivens actu. Est igitur anima forma corporis animati. [14] Now, that the soul is united to the body as its proper form is proved as follows. That by which something becomes a being in act from a being in potency is its form and act. But it is through the soul that the body becomes a being in act from being potentially existent, for living is the being of the living thing. Now, the seed before animation is living only in potency, and, through the soul, becomes living in act. Therefore, the soul is the form of the animated body.
Amplius. Quia tam esse quam etiam operari non est solum formae neque solum materiae, sed coniuncti, esse et agere duobus attribuitur, quorum unum se habet ad alterum sicut forma ad materiam: dicimus enim quod homo est sanus corpore et sanitate, et quod est sciens scientia et anima, quorum scientia est forma animae scientis, et sanitas corporis sani. Vivere autem et sentire attribuitur animae et corpori: dicimur enim et vivere et sentire anima et corpore. Sed anima tamen sicut principio vitae et sensus. Est igitur anima forma corporis. [15] In addition, since being as well as operating belong neither to the form alone, nor to the matter alone, but to the composite, to be and to act are attributed to two things, one of which is to the other as form to matter. For we say that a man is healthy in body and in health, and that he is knowing in knowledge and in his soul, knowledge being a form of the knower’s soul and health a form of the healthy body. Now, life and sensation are ascribed to both soul and body, for we are said to live and to sense both in soul and body. But we live and sense by the soul as the principle of life and sensation. The soul is, therefore, the form of the body.
Adhuc. Similiter se habet tota anima sensitiva ad totum corpus sicut pars ad partem. Pars autem ita se habet ad partem quod est forma et actus eius: visus enim est forma et actus oculi. Ergo anima est forma et actus corporis. [16] The whole sensitive soul, moreover, is related to the whole body as a part to a part. And part is to part in such fashion that it is its form and act, for sight is the form and act of the eye. Therefore, the soul is the form and act of the body.

Caput 58 Chapter 58
Quod nutritiva, sensitiva et intellectiva non sunt in homine tres animae THAT IN MAN THERE ARE NOT THREE SOULS, NUTRITIVE, SENSITIVE, AND INTELLECTIVE
Potest autem praedictis rationibus secundum opinionem Platonis obviari quantum ad praesentem intentionem pertinet. Ponit enim Plato non esse eandem animam in nobis intellectivam, nutritivam et sensitivam. Unde, etsi anima sensitiva sit forma corporis, non oportebit propter hoc dicere quod aliqua intellectualis substantia forma corporis esse possit. [1] Now, according to Plato’s theory, the arguments proposed above can be met, so far as the present question is concerned. For Plato maintains that in us the same soul is not intellective, nutritive, and sensitive. That is why, even if the sensitive soul were the form of the body, it would not be necessary to conclude that some intellectual substance can be the form of a body.
Quod autem hoc sit impossibile, sic ostendendum est. [2] That this opinion is impossible we must now show by the following arguments.
Quae attribuuntur alicui eidem secundum diversas formas, praedicantur de invicem per accidens: album enim dicitur esse musicum per accidens, quia Socrati accidit albedo et musica. Si igitur anima intellectiva, sensitiva et nutritiva sunt diversae virtutes aut formae in nobis, ea quae secundum has formas nobis conveniunt, de invicem praedicabuntur per accidens. Sed secundum animam intellectivam dicimur homines, secundum sensitivam animalia, secundum nutritivam viventia. Erit igitur haec praedicatio per accidens, homo est animal; vel, animal est vivum. Est autem per se: nam homo secundum quod est homo, animal est; et animal secundum quod est animal, vivum est. Est igitur aliquis ab eodem principio homo, animal et vivum. [3] Things attributed to the same thing according to diverse forms are predicated of one another by accident; a white thing is said to be musical by accident, because whiteness and music are accidental to Socrates, for example. Accordingly, if in us the intellective, sensitive, and nutritive soul are diverse powers or forms, then the things that appertain to us according to those forms will be predicated of one another by accident. Now, it is with respect to the intellective soul that we are said to be men; to the sensitive soul, animals; to the nutritive soul, living beings. It follows that the predication, man is an animal, or an animal is a living thing, will be by accident. But this predication is through itself, since man, as such, is an animal, and animal, as such, is a living thing. It is by the same principle, therefore, that one is a man, an animal, and a living thing.
Si autem dicatur quod, etiam praedictis animabus diversis existentibus, non sequitur praedictae praedicationes fore per accidens, eo quod animae illae ad invicem ordinem habent: hoc iterum removetur. Nam ordo sensitivi ad intellectivum, et nutritivi ad sensitivum, est sicut ordo potentiae ad actum: nam intellectivum sensitivo, et sensitivum nutritivo posterius secundum generationem est; prius enim in generatione fit animal quam homo. Si igitur iste ordo facit praedicationes praedictas esse per se, hoc non erit secundum illum modum dicendi per se qui accipitur secundum formam, sed secundum illum qui accipitur secundum materiam et subiectum, sicut dicitur superficies colorata. Hoc autem est impossibile. Quia in isto modo dicendi per se, id quod est formale praedicatur per se de subiecto: ut cum dicimus, superficies est alba, vel, numerus est par. Et iterum in hoc modo dicendi per se subiectum ponitur in definitione praedicati: sicut numerus in definitione paris. Ibi autem e contrario accidit. Non enim homo per se praedicatur de animali, sed e converso: et iterum non ponitur subiectum in definitione praedicati, sed e converso. Non igitur praedictae praedicationes dicuntur per se ratione dicti ordinis. [4] Now, it may be said that even if the aforesaid souls are diverse, it does not follow that the predications in question will be by accident, because these souls are mutually subordinate. But this, again, is ruled out. For the sensitive is subordinate to the intellective and the nutritive to the sensitive, as potency is subordinate to act, since in the order of generation the intellective comes after the sensitive and the sensitive after the nutritive; thus, animal is prior to man in that line. Therefore, if this order makes the above mentioned predications to be through themselves, they will be so, not in that mode of predication through itself which arises from the form, but in that mode which arises from the matter and the subject; as a surface, for example, is said to be colored. But this is impossible, because in this latter mode of predication through itself that which is formal is predicated through itself of the subject, as when we say: The surface is white or the number is even. And again, in this kind of predication through itself the subject is placed in the definition of the predicate, as number in the definition of even. But, in the previous case, the contrary is true; for man is not predicated of animal through itself, but vice versa; nor is the subject placed in the definition of the predicate, but vice versa. Therefore, such things are not predicated through themselves by reason of the order in question.
Praeterea. Ab eodem aliquid habet esse et unitatem: unum enim consequitur ad ens. Cum igitur a forma unaquaeque res habeat esse, a forma etiam habebit unitatem. Si igitur ponantur in homine plures animae sicut diversae formae, homo non erit unum ens, sed plura. Nec ad unitatem hominis ordo formarum sufficiet. Quia esse unum secundum ordinem non est esse unum simpliciter: cum unitas ordinis sit minima unitatum. [5] Moreover, the principle of a thing’s unity is the same as that of its being; for one is consequent upon being. Therefore, since each and every thing has being from its form, it will also have unity from its form. Consequently, if several souls, as so many distinct forms, are ascribed to man, he will not be one being, but several. Nor will an order among forms suffice to give man unity, because to be one in respect of order is not to be one unqualifiedly speaking; since unity of order is the least of unities.
Item. Adhuc redibit praedictum inconveniens, ut scilicet ex anima intellectiva et corpore non fiat unum simpliciter, sed secundum accidens tantum. Omne enim quod advenit alicui post esse completum, advenit ei accidentaliter: cum sit extra essentiam eius. Quaelibet autem forma substantialis facit ens completum in genere substantiae: facit enim ens actu et hoc aliquid. Quicquid igitur post primam formam substantialem advenit rei, accidentaliter adveniet. Cum igitur anima nutritiva sit forma substantialis, vivum enim substantialiter de homine praedicatur et de animali; sequetur quod anima sensitiva adveniat accidentaliter, et similiter intellectiva. Et sic neque animal neque homo significant unum simpliciter, neque aliquod genus aut speciem in praedicamento substantiae. [6] Also, the impossibility noted above will again arise, namely, that from the intellective soul and the body there results a thing that is one not unqualifiedly speaking but only accidentally. For whatever comes to a thing after it is complete in its being, comes to it accidentally, since it is outside that thing’s essence. Now, every substantial form makes a being complete in the genus of substance, for it makes a being in act, and this particular thing. Therefore, whatever accrues to a thing after its first substantial form will accrue to it accidentally. Now, the nutritive soul is a substantial form, for the living is predicated substantially of man and animal. It will then follow that the sensitive soul accrues to man accidentally, and likewise the intellective soul. Thus, neither animal nor man will signify one thing unqualifiedly speaking, nor will they denote a genus or a species in the category of substance.
Amplius. Si homo, secundum Platonis sententiam, non est aliquid ex anima et corpore compositum, sed est anima utens corpore, aut hoc intelligitur solum de anima intellectiva, aut de tribus animabus, si tres sunt, sive de duabus earum. Si autem de tribus vel duabus, sequitur quod homo non sit unum, sed sit duo vel tria: est enim tres animae, vel saltem duae. Si autem hoc intelligatur de anima intellectiva tantum, ita scilicet quod intelligatur anima sensitiva esse forma corporis, et anima intellectiva utens corpore animato et sensificato sit homo, sequentur adhuc inconvenientia: scilicet quod homo non sit animal, sed utatur animali, nam per animam sensitivam aliquid est animal; et quod homo non sentiat, sed utatur re sentiente. Quae cum sint inconvenientia, impossibile est tres animas substantia differentes esse in nobis, intellectivum, sensitivum et nutritivum. [7] Again, if man, in Plato’s theory, is not a thing composed of body and soul, but a soul using a body, this is to he understood either of the intellective soul only, or of the three souls, if there are three, or of two of them. If of three or two, it follows that man is not one being, but two or three, since he is then three souls or at least two. And if this is understood of the intellective soul only, so that the sensitive soul is thought to be the body’s form, and the intellective soul, using the animated and sense-endowed body, to be the man, then this, again, will lead to absurd consequences, namely, that man is not an animal, but uses an animal (for through the sensitive soul a thing is an animal), and that man does not sense, but uses a sentient thing. These statements being contrary to the facts, it is impossible that there should be in us three souls differing in substance, the intellective, the sensitive, and the nutritive.
Adhuc. Ex duobus aut pluribus non potest fieri unum si non sit aliquid uniens, nisi unum eorum se habeat ad alterum ut actus ad potentiam: sic enim ex materia et forma fit unum, nullo vinculo extraneo eos colligante. Si autem in homine sint plures animae, non se habent ad invicem ut materia et forma, sed omnes ponuntur ut actus quidam et principia actionum. Oportet igitur, si uniantur ad faciendum aliquid unum, puta hominem vel animal, quod sit aliquid uniens. Hoc autem non potest esse corpus: cum magis corpus uniatur per animam; cuius signum est quod discedente anima, corpus dissolvitur. Relinquitur igitur quod oportet aliquid formalius esse quod facit ex illis pluribus unum. Et hoc magis erit anima quam illa plura quae per ipsum uniuntur. Si igitur hoc iterum est habens partes diversas, et non est unum secundum se, oportet adhuc esse aliquid uniens. Cum igitur non sit abire in infinitum, oportet devenire ad aliquid quod sit secundum se unum. Et hoc maxime est anima. Oportet igitur in uno homine vel animali unam tantum animam esse. [8] And again, the one cannot be made from two or more, without something to unite them, unless one of them be related to the other as act to potentiality; for thus matter and form become one, without anything outside uniting them. Now, if there are several souls in man, they are not related to one another as matter and form, but they are all by hypothesis acts and principles of actions. So, if they are united in order to form one thing, say, a man or an animal, there must be something to unite them. But this cannot be the body, since it is precisely the body which is united together by the soul; a sign of which is the fact that, when the soul departs, the body is dissolved. It therefore remains that there must be some thing of a more formal character to make these several entities into one. And this will be the soul rather than those several entities which are united by this thing. Hence, if this latter, again, has diverse parts and is not one thing in itself, there will still be need of something to unite them. Since, then, it is impossible to go on to infinity, it is necessary to come to a thing that is one in itself. And the soul, especially, is such a thing. Therefore, there must be but one soul in one man or in one animal.
Item. Si id quod est ex parte animae in homine, est ex pluribus congregatum, oportet quod sicut totum congregatum se habet ad totum corpus, ita singula ad singulas partes corporis. Quod etiam a positione Platonis non discordat: ponebat enim animam rationalem in cerebro, nutritivam in hepate, concupiscibilem in corde. Hoc autem apparet esse falsum, dupliciter. Primo quidem quia aliqua pars animae est quae non potest attribui alicui parti corporis, scilicet intellectus, de quo supra ostensum est quod non est actus alicuius partis corporis. Secundo, quia manifestum est quod in eadem parte corporis apparent diversarum partium animae operationes: sicut patet in animalibus quae decisa vivunt, quia eadem pars habet motum et sensum et appetitum quo movetur; et similiter eadem pars plantae decisa nutritur, augetur et germinat; ex quo apparet quod diversae partes animae in una et eadem parte corporis sint. Non igitur sunt diversae animae in nobis, diversis partibus corporis attributae. [9] Then, too, if that which belongs to the soul in man is an aggregate of several things, it follows that, as the totality of them is to the whole body, so each of them is to each part of the body. Nor does this idea conflict with Plato’s position, for he located the rational soul in the brain, the nutritive in the liver, and the appetitive in the heart. But this doctrine is evidently false, for two reasons. First, because there is a part of the soul which cannot be allocated to any part of the body, namely, the intellect; as we have already proved, the intellect is not the act of some part of the body. Secondly, because it is manifest that the operations of different parts of the soul appear in the same part of the body, as we see in the case of animals that live after being cut in two, since the same part has the movement, sensation, and appetite by which it is moved; so too, the same part of a plant, after being cut off, is nourished, grows, and blossoms. And from this it is clear that the diverse parts of the soul are in one and the same part of the body. Therefore, there are not distinct souls in us which are allocated to various parts of the body.
Amplius. Diversae vires quae non radicantur in uno principio, non impediunt se invicem in agendo, nisi forte earum actiones essent contrariae: quod in proposito non contingit. Videmus autem quod diversae actiones animae impediunt se: cum enim una est intensa, altera remittitur. Oportet igitur quod istae actiones, et vires quae sunt earum proxima principia, reducantur in unum principium. Hoc autem principium non potest esse corpus: tum quia aliqua actio est in qua non communicat corpus, scilicet intelligere; tum quia, si principium harum virium et actionum esset corpus inquantum huiusmodi, invenirentur in omnibus corporibus, quod patet esse falsum. Et sic relinquitur quod sit principium earum forma aliqua una, per quam hoc corpus est tale corpus. Quae est anima. Relinquitur igitur quod omnes actiones animae quae sunt in nobis, ab anima una procedunt. Et sic non sunt in nobis plures animae. [10] Furthermore, diverse powers that are not rooted in one principle do not hinder one another in acting, unless, perhaps, their action be contrary; and this is not so in the present case. Now, we observe that the diverse actions of the soul hinder one another, for when one is intense another is remiss. Therefore, these actions and the powers that are their proximate principles must be referred to one principle. But this principle cannot be the body, both because there is an action in which the body does not share, namely, understanding, and because, if the body, as such, were the principle of these powers and actions, they would be found in all bodies; which is clearly false. It therefore remains that their principle is some one form, by which this body is such a body. And this principle is the soul. It follows, then, that all the actions of the soul which are in us proceed from the one soul. Thus, there are not several souls in us.
Huic autem consonat quod dicitur in libro de Ecclesiast. dogmatibus: neque duas animas esse credimus in uno homine, sicut Iacobus et alii Syrorum scribunt, unam animalem, qua animatur corpus, et immixta sit sanguini, et alteram spiritualem, quae rationem ministret: sed dicimus unam eandemque esse animam in homine quae et corpus sua societate vivificat, et semetipsam sua ratione disponat. [11] Now, this conclusion accords with what is said in the book On the Teachings of the Church [Gennadius, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus ] “Nor do we believe that there are two souls in one man, as James and other Syrians write: one being the animal soul by which the body is animated and which is mingled with the blood; the other, a spiritual soul, which provides the reason. On the contrary, we say that it is one and the same soul in man which both gives life to the body by its union with it, and orders itself by its own reason.”

Caput 59 Chapter 59
Quod intellectus possibilis hominis non est substantia separata THAT MAN’S POSSIBLE INTELLECT IS NOT A SEPARATE SUBSTANCE
Fuerunt autem et alii alia adinventione utentes in sustinendo quod substantia intellectualis non possit uniri corpori ut forma. Dicunt enim quod intellectus, etiam quem Aristoteles possibilem vocat, est quaedam substantia separata non coniuncta nobis ut forma. [1] There have been others who discovered an additional reason for holding that the intellectual soul cannot be united to the body as its form. For they say that the intellect, which Aristotle calls possible, is a separate substance not united to us as a form.
Et hoc confirmare nituntur, primo, ex verbis Aristotelis qui dicit, de hoc intellectu loquens, quod est separatus, et immixtus corpori, et simplex, et impassibilis: quae non possent dici de eo si esset forma corporis. [2] First, they endeavor to prove this from the words of Aristotle, who says that this intellect is “separate, not mixed with the body, simple, impassible”—things that could not be said of the intellect if it were the body’s form.
Item, per demonstrationem eiusdem qua probat quod, quia intellectus possibilis recipit omnes species rerum sensibilium ut in potentia ad ea existens, oportet quod omnibus careat. Sicut pupilla, quae recipit omnes species colorum, caret omni colore: si enim haberet de se aliquem colorem, ille color prohiberet videri alios colores; quinimmo nihil videretur nisi sub illo colore. Et simile contingeret de intellectu possibili, si haberet de se aliquam formam seu naturam de rebus sensibilibus. Hoc autem oporteret esse, si esset mixtus alicui corpori. Et similiter si esset forma alicuius corporis: quia, cum ex forma et materia fiat unum, oportet quod forma participet aliquid de natura eius cuius est forma. Impossibile est igitur intellectum possibilem esse mixtum corpori, aut esse actum seu formam alicuius corporis. [3] Also, they try to prove this from the demonstration by which Aristotle shows that, since the possible intellect receives all the species of sensible things through being in potentiality to them, it must be devoid of them all. Likewise, the pupil, which receives all the species of colors, lacks all color. For, if of itself it had any color, the latter would prevent it from seeing other colors; indeed, it would see nothing except under that color. And the same would be true of the possible intellect, if by itself it possessed any form or nature of sensible things. But this would necessarily be the case if the possible intellect were combined with the body, or if it were a form of some body. For, since one thing is made from form and matter, the form must share something of the nature of which it is the form. Therefore, the possible intellect cannot be combined with the body, or be the act or form of a body.
Adhuc. Si esset forma alicuius corporis materialis, esset eiusdem generis receptio huius intellectus, et receptio materiae primae. Id enim quod est alicuius corporis forma, non recipit aliquid absque sua materia. Materia autem prima recipit formas individuales: immo per hoc individuantur quod sunt in materia. Intellectus igitur possibilis reciperet formas ut sunt individuales. Et sic non cognosceret universalia. Quod patet esse falsum. [4] If, moreover, the possible intellect were the form of a material body, its receptivity would be of the same kind as that of prime matter. For that which is the form of a body receives nothing without its matter. Now, prime matter receives individual forms, which in fact are individuated through being in matter. Hence, the possible intellect would receive forms as they are individual. And thus it would not be cognizant of universals; which is clearly false.
Praeterea. Materia prima non est cognoscitiva formarum quas recipit. Si ergo eadem esset receptio intellectus possibilis et materiae primae, nec intellectus possibilis cognosceret formas receptas. Quod est falsum. [5] Then, too, prime matter is not cognizant of the forms which it receives. If, then, the receptivity of the possible intellect were the same as that of prime matter, the possible intellect would not be cognizant of the forms received. And this is false.
Amplius. Impossibile est in corpore esse virtutem infinitam: ut probatur ab Aristotele in VIII Physicor. Intellectus autem possibilis est quodammodo virtutis infinitae: iudicamus enim per ipsum res infinitas secundum numerum, inquantum per ipsum cognoscimus universalia, sub quibus comprehenduntur particularia infinita in potentia. Non est igitur intellectus possibilis virtus in corpore. [6] Again, as Aristotle proves in Physics VIII [10] an infinite power cannot possibly exist in a body. But the possible intellect is endowed with a certain infinite power, since by it we judge of things infinite in number, inasmuch as by it we know universals, under which potentially infinite particulars are contained. Therefore, the possible intellect is not a power in a body.
Ex his autem motus est Averroes et quidam antiqui, ut ipse dicit, ad ponendum intellectum possibilem, quo intelligit anima, esse separatum secundum esse a corpore, et non esse formam corporis. [7] Now, for these reasons Averroes was moved, and, as he himself says, some of the ancients, to hold that the possible intellect, by which the soul understands, has a separate existence from the body, and is not the form of the body.
Sed quia hic intellectus nihil ad nos pertineret, nec per ipsum intelligeremus, nisi nobiscum aliquo modo coniungeretur; determinat etiam modum quo continuatur nobiscum, dicens quod species intellecta in actu est forma intellectus possibilis, sicut visibile in actu est forma potentiae visivae. Unde ex intellectu possibili et forma intellecta in actu fit unum. Cuicumque igitur coniungitur forma intellecta praedicta, coniungitur intellectus possibilis. Coniungitur autem nobis mediante phantasmate, quod est subiectum quoddam illius formae intellectae. Per hunc igitur modum etiam intellectus possibilis nobiscum continuatur. [8] However, since such an intellect would in no way belong to us, nor would we understand by it, unless it were united to us in some manner, Averroes determines how it is brought into contact with us, saying that the species understood in act is the form of the possible intellect, just as the visible in act is the form of the power of sight. Thus there arises one thing from the possible intellect and the form understood in act. The possible intellect, then, is united to anyone to whom that form is united. Now, it is united to us by means of the phantasm, which is a kind of subject of that understood form; and in this way the possible intellect also is brought into connection with us.
Quod autem haec frivola sint et impossibilia facile est videre. Habens enim intellectum est intelligens. Intelligitur autem id cuius species intelligibilis intellectui unitur. Per hoc igitur quod species intelligibilis intellectui unita est in homine per aliquem modum, non habebit homo quod sit intelligens, sed solum quod intelligatur ab intellectu separato. [9] But it is easy to see that these notions are worthless and impossible. For the one who understands is the one who has intellect. Now, the thing understood is the thing whose intelligible species is united to the intellect. Hence, simply because the intelligible species united to the intellect is present in a man in some way, it does not follow that it is the man who understands, but only that he is understood by [Averroes’] separate intellect.
Praeterea. Sic species intellecta in actu est forma intellectus possibilis, sicut species visibilis in actu est forma potentiae visivae, sive ipsius oculi. Species autem intellecta comparatur ad phantasma sicut species visibilis in actu ad coloratum quod est extra animam: et hac similitudine ipse utitur, et etiam Aristoteles. Similis igitur continuatio est intellectus possibilis per formam intelligibilem ad phantasma quod in nobis est, et potentiae visivae ad colorem qui est in lapide. Haec autem continuatio non facit lapidem videre, sed solum videri. Ergo et praedicta continuatio intellectus possibilis nobiscum non facit nos intelligere, sed intelligi solum. Planum autem est quod proprie et vere dicitur quod homo intelligit: non enim intellectus naturam investigaremus nisi per hoc quod nos intelligimus. Non igitur sufficiens est praedictus continuationis modus. [10] Moreover, the actually understood species is the form of the intellect, just as the actually visible species is the form of the power of sight, or of the eye itself. Now, the species understood is compared to the phantasm as the actually visible species to the colored thing outside the mind; indeed, Averroes himself uses this comparison, as does Aristotle. Through the intelligible form, therefore, the possible intellect is in touch with the phantasm in us, even as the power of sight is in touch with the color present in the stone. But this contact does not make the stone to see, but only to be seen. So, too, the aforesaid contact of the possible intellect with us does not make us to understand, but only to be understood. Now, of course, it is properly and truly said that man understands, for we would not inquire into the nature of the intellect were it not for the fact that we understand ourselves. Therefore, the manner of contact in question is not sufficient.
Adhuc. Omne cognoscens per virtutem cognoscitivam coniungitur obiecto, et non e converso: sicut et operans omne per virtutem operativam coniungitur operato. Homo autem est intelligens per intellectum sicut per virtutem cognoscitivam. Non igitur coniungitur per formam intelligibilem intellectui, sed magis per intellectum intelligibili. [11] Furthermore, every knower by its cognitive power is united to its object, and not vice versa, just as every operator by its operative power is united to the thing operated. But man is intelligent by his intellect as by his cognitive power. Hence, he is not united to the intellect by the intelligible form; on the contrary, it is by the intellect that he is united to the intelligible.
Amplius. Id quo aliquid operatur, oportet esse formam eius: nihil enim agit nisi secundum quod est actu; actu autem non est aliquid nisi per id quod est forma eius; unde et Aristoteles probat animam esse formam, per hoc quod animal per animam vivit et sentit. Homo autem intelligit, et non nisi per intellectum: unde et Aristoteles, inquirens de principio quo intelligimus, tradit nobis naturam intellectus possibilis. Oportet igitur intellectum possibilem formaliter uniri nobis, et non solum per suum obiectum. [12] Then, too, that by which a thing operates must be its form. For nothing acts except so far as it is in act; and nothing is in act except by its form. And that is why Aristotle proves that the soul is a form, from the fact that an animal lives and senses through its soul. Now, man understands, and this by his intellect alone; and therefore Aristotle, when inquiring into the principle by which we understand, explains to us the nature of the possible intellect. Consequently, the possible intellect must be united to us formally, and not merely by its object.
Praeterea. Intellectus in actu et intelligibile in actu sunt unum: sicut sensus in actu et sensibile in actu. Non autem intellectus in potentia et intelligibile in potentia: sicut nec sensus in potentia et sensibile in potentia. Species igitur rei, secundum quod est in phantasmatibus, non est intelligibilis actu: non enim sic est unum cum intellectu in actu sed secundum quod est a phantasmatibus abstracta; sicut nec species coloris est sensata in actu secundum quod est in lapide, sed solum secundum quod est in pupilla. Sic autem solum continuatur nobiscum species intelligibilis secundum quod est in phantasmatibus, secundum positionem praedictam. Non igitur continuatur nobiscum secundum quod est unum cum intellectu possibili ut forma eius. Igitur non potest esse medium quo continuetur intellectus possibilis nobiscum: quia secundum quod continuatur cum intellectu possibili, non continuatur nobiscum, nec e converso. [13] Again. “The intellect in act and the intelligible in act are one... just as the sense in act and the sensible in act.” But the intellect in potentiality and the intelligible in potentiality are not one, any more than the sense in potentiality and the sensible in potentiality. Hence, the species of a thing, as present in phantasms, is not actually intelligible, since in this state it is not one with the intellect in act, but is one with it according as the species is abstracted from the phantasms. just so, the species of color is not actually perceived as it exists in the stone, but only as it exists in the pupil. Now, according to the [Averroistic] doctrine stated above, the intelligible species is in contact with us only in respect of its existence in the phantasms; it is not, then, in contact with us according as it is one with the possible intellect as its form. Therefore, the intelligible species cannot be the means of bringing the possible intellect into contact with us; because, according as it is in contact with the possible intellect, it is not in contact with us, or vice versa.
Patet autem eum qui hanc positionem induxit, aequivocatione deceptum fuisse. Colores enim extra animam existentes, praesente lumine, sunt visibiles actu ut potentes movere visum: non autem ut actu sensata, secundum quod sunt unum cum sensu in actu. Et similiter phantasmata per lumen intellectus agentis fiunt actu intelligibilia, ut possint movere intellectum possibilem: non autem ut sint intellecta actu, secundum quod sunt unum cum intellectu possibili facto in actu. [14] Now, he who invented this doctrine was evidently deceived by an equivocation. For colors existing outside the soul are in the presence of light actually visible, as having the power to move the sight; but are not actually visible in the sense of being actually perceived as the result of becoming one with the sense power in act. And similarly, phantasms are made actually intelligible by the light of the agent intellect, so that they are able to move the possible intellect; but not so as to be actually understood, through union with the possible intellect actualized.
Item. Ubi invenitur altior operatio viventis, ibi invenitur altior species vitae, correspondens illi actioni. In plantis enim invenitur sola actio ad nutritionem pertinens. In animalibus autem invenitur altior actio, scilicet sentire et moveri secundum locum: unde et animal vivit altiori specie vitae. Sed adhuc in homine invenitur altior operatio ad vitam pertinens quam in animali, scilicet intelligere. Ergo homo habebit altiorem speciem vitae. Sed vita est per animam. Habebit igitur homo altiorem animam, qua vivit, quam sit anima sensibilis. Nulla autem est altior quam intellectus. Est igitur intellectus anima hominis. Et per consequens forma ipsius. [15] Likewise, where the living thing has a higher operation, there is a higher kind of life corresponding to that operation. For in plants the only action we find is that which has to do with nutrition. But in animals we find a higher action, namely, sensation and locomotion; and that is why the animal lives by a higher kind of life. Now, in man we find a still higher vital operation than in the animal, namely, understanding. Therefore, man will have a higher kind of life. Now, life is through the soul. Therefore, the soul by which man lives will be of a higher sort than the sensible soul. But none is higher than the intellect. Therefore, the intellect is man’s soul, and, consequently, his form.
Adhuc. Quod consequitur ad operationem alicuius rei, non largitur alicui speciem: quia operatio est actus secundus; forma autem per quam aliquid habet speciem, est actus primus. Unio autem intellectus possibilis ad hominem, secundum positionem praedictam, consequitur hominis operationem: fit enim mediante phantasia, quae, secundum philosophum, est motus factus a sensu secundum actum. Ex tali igitur unione non consequitur homo speciem. Non igitur differt homo specie a brutis animalibus per hoc quod est intellectum habens. [16] And again. That which follows upon the operation of a thing does not give a thing its species, because operation is second act, whereas the form to which a thing owes its species is first act. But, according to the doctrine under consideration, the union of the possible intellect with man is the result of an operation of man, for it takes place by means of the imagination which, according to Aristotle, is “a movement resulting from the exercise of a sense power.” Therefore, man does not derive his species from that union. So it is not because of having an intellect that man differs specifically from brute animals.
Amplius. Si homo speciem sortitur per hoc quod est rationalis et intellectum habens, quicumque est in specie humana, est rationalis et intellectum habens. Sed puer, etiam antequam ex utero egrediatur, est in specie humana: in quo tamen nondum sunt phantasmata, quae sint intelligibilia actu. Non igitur est homo intellectum habens per hoc quod intellectus continuatur homini mediante specie intelligibili cuius subiectum est phantasma. [17] Furthermore, if man derives his species in virtue of his being rational and having an intellect, then whoever belongs to the human species is rational and endowed with an intellect. But a child, even before leaving the womb, is specifically human, although there are as yet no actually intelligible phantasms present in it. Therefore, a man has not an intellect as the result of its being united to him by means of an intelligible species whose subject is a phantasm.

Caput 60 Chapter 60
Quod homo non sortitur speciem per intellectum passivum,
sed per intellectum possibilem
His autem rationibus obviatur secundum praedictam positionem. Dicit enim praedictus Averroes quod homo differt specie a brutis per intellectum quem Aristoteles vocat passivum, qui est ipsa vis cogitativa, quae est propria homini, loco cuius alia animalia habent quandam aestimativam naturalem. Huius autem cogitativae virtutis est distinguere intentiones individuales, et comparare eas ad invicem: sicut intellectus qui est separatus et immixtus, comparat et distinguit inter intentiones universales. Et quia per hanc virtutem, simul cum imaginativa et memorativa, praeparantur phantasmata ut recipiant actionem intellectus agentis, a quo fiunt intelligibilia actu, sicut sunt aliquae artes praeparantes materiam artifici principali; ideo praedicta virtus vocatur nomine intellectus et rationis, de qua medici dicunt quod habet sedem in media cellula capitis. Et secundum dispositionem huius virtutis differt homo unus ab alio in ingenio et in aliis quae pertinent ad intelligendum. Et per usum huius et exercitium acquirit homo habitum scientiae. Unde habitus scientiarum sunt in hoc intellectu passivo sicut in subiecto. Et hic intellectus passivus a principio adest puero, per quem sortitur speciem humanam, antequam actu intelligat. [1] These arguments are countered by others in keeping with the doctrine considered above. For Averroes says that man differs specifically from the brutes by the intellect which Aristotle calls passive and which is the same as the cogitative power that is proper to man, in place of which the other animals have a certain natural estimative power. Now, it is the function of this cogitative power to distinguish individual intentions and to compare them with one another, even as the intellect which is separate and unmixed compares and distinguishes universal intentions. And by this cogitative power, together with the imagination and memory, the phantasms are prepared to receive the action of the agent intellect, whereby they are made intelligible in act, just as there are certain arts which prepare the matter for the master artificer. Accordingly, this power is given the name of intellect or reason, which physicians declare to be seated in the middle cell of the head. And according to the disposition of this power, one man differs from another in genius and in other qualities pertaining to understanding. And by the use and exercise of this power a man acquires the habit [habitus] of science. Hence, the habits of the sciences are in this passive intellect as their subject. Moreover, this passive intellect is in the child from the beginning, and through it the child receives its specific nature as a human being, before it actually understands.
Quod autem haec sint falsa, et abusive dicta, evidenter apparet. Operationes enim vitae comparantur ad animam ut actus secundi ad primum: ut patet per Aristotelem, in II de anima. Actus autem primus in eodem praecedit tempore actum secundum: sicut scientia est ante considerare. In quocumque igitur invenitur aliqua operatio vitae, oportet in eo ponere aliquam partem animae quae comparetur ad illam operationem sicut actus primus ad secundum. Sed homo habet propriam operationem supra alia animalia, scilicet intelligere et ratiocinari, quae est operatio hominis inquantum est homo, ut Aristoteles dicit, in I Ethicorum. Ergo oportet in homine ponere aliquod principium quod proprie dat speciem homini, quod se habeat ad intelligere sicut actus primus ad secundum. Hoc autem non potest esse intellectus passivus praedictus: quia principium praedictae operationis oportet esse impassibile et non mixtum corpori, ut philosophus probat; cuius contrarium apparet de intellectu passivo. Non igitur est possibile quod per virtutem cogitativam, quae dicitur intellectus passivus, homo speciem sortiatur, per quam ab aliis animalibus differat. [2] But it is quite obvious that these notions are false and involve an abuse of terms. For the vital operations are compared to the soul as second acts to the first act, as Aristotle makes clear in De anima II [1]. Now, in the same thing first act precedes the second in time, just as knowledge precedes reflection, Consequently, in whatever thing we find a vital operation we must place a part of the soul which will be related to that operation as first act to second act. But man has a proper operation higher than the other animals, namely, understanding and reasoning, which is the operation of man as man, as Aristotle says in Ethics I [7]. Hence, we must attribute to man a principle that properly gives him his specific nature and is related to the act of understanding as first act to second act. Now, this principle cannot be the aforesaid passive intellect, because the principle of man’s proper operation must be impassible and not mixed with the body, as Aristotle proves [ De anima III, 4]; whereas, the contrary is clearly true of the passive intellect. Therefore, it is impossible that man’s specific nature, whereby he is distinguished from the other animals, should be given him by the cogitative power, which is called the passive intellect.
Adhuc. Quod est passio partis sensitivae, non potest ponere in altiori genere vitae quam sit vita sensitiva: sicut quod est passio animae nutritivae, non ponit in altiori genere vitae quam sit vita nutritiva. Constat autem quod phantasia, et huiusmodi potentiae quae ad ipsam consequuntur, ut memorativa et consimiles, sunt passiones partis sensitivae: ut philosophus probat in libro de memoria. Non igitur per praedictas virtutes, vel aliquam earum, aliquod animal potest poni in altiori genere vitae quam sit vita sensitiva. Homo autem est in altiori genere vitae: quod patet per philosophum, in II de anima, qui, distinguens genera vitae, superaddit intellectivum, quod homini attribuit, sensitivo, quod attribuit communiter omni animali. Non igitur homo est vivens vita sibi propria per virtutem cogitativam praedictam. [3] Furthermore, an affection of the sensitive part of a thing cannot place it in a higher kind of life than the sensitive, just as an affection of the nutritive soul does not place it in a higher kind of life than the nutritive. Now, it is clear that the imagination, and like powers consequent upon it, such as the memory and so on, are affections of the sensitive part, as Aristotle proves in the De memoria [I]. Hence, an animal cannot be placed by these powers or by any one of them in a higher category of life than the sensitive. But man’s life is of a higher kind—a point clearly explained in De anima II [2], where Aristotle, in distinguishing the kinds of life, places the intellective, which he attributes to man, above the sensitive, which he ascribes to all animals in general. Therefore, it is not by virtue of the aforesaid cogitative power that man is a living being with a life proper to himself.
Amplius. Omne movens seipsum, secundum quod probat philosophus, in VIII Physic., componitur ex movente et moto. Homo autem, sicut et alia animalia, est movens seipsum. Ergo movens et motum sunt partes ipsius. Primum autem movens in homine est intellectus: nam intellectus suo intelligibili movet voluntatem. Nec potest dici quod solus intellectus passivus sit movens: quia intellectus passivus est solum particularium; in movendo autem accipitur et universalis opinio, quae est intellectus possibilis, et particularis, quae potest esse intellectus passivi; ut patet per Aristotelem, in III de anima et in VII Eth. Ergo intellectus possibilis est aliqua pars hominis. Et est dignissimum et formalissimum in ipso. Igitur ab eo speciem sortitur, et non ab intellectu passivo. [4] Then, too, every self-mover is composed of mover and moved, as Aristotle proves in Physics VIII [5]. Now, man, in common with the other animals, is a self-mover. Therefore, mover and moved are parts of him. And the first mover in man is the intellect, since the intellect by its intelligible object moves the will. Nor can it be said that the passive intellect alone is the mover, because the passive intellect has to do with particulars only, whereas, actual movement involves both the universal judgment, which belongs to the possible intellect, and the particular judgment, which can belong to the passive intellect, as Aristotle explains in De anima III [11], and in Ethics VII [3]. Therefore, the possible intellect is a part of man. And it is the most noble and most formal thing in him. Hence, man derives his specific nature from it, and not from the passive intellect.
Adhuc. Intellectus possibilis probatur non esse actus corporis alicuius propter hoc quod est cognoscitivus omnium formarum sensibilium in universali. Nulla igitur virtus cuius operatio se extendere potest ad universalia omnium formarum sensibilium, potest esse actus alicuius corporis. Voluntas autem est huiusmodi: omnium enim eorum quae intelligimus possumus habere voluntatem, saltem ea cognoscendi. Apparet etiam actus voluntatis in universali: odimus enim, ut dicit Aristoteles in sua rhetorica, in universali latronum genus, irascimur autem particularibus tantum. Voluntas igitur non potest esse actus alicuius partis corporis, nec consequi aliquam potentiam quae sit actus corporis. Omnis autem pars animae est actus alicuius corporis praeter solum intellectum proprie dictum. Igitur voluntas in intellectiva parte est: unde et Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima, quod voluntas in ratione est, irascibilis autem et concupiscibilis in parte sensitiva. Propter quod et actus concupiscibilis et irascibilis cum passione sunt: non autem actus voluntatis, sed cum electione. Voluntas autem hominis non est extrinseca ab homine, quasi in quadam substantia separata fundata, sed est in ipso homine. Aliter enim non esset dominus suarum actionum, quia ageretur voluntate cuiusdam substantiae separatae; et in ipso essent tantum potentiae appetitivae cum passione operantes, scilicet irascibilis et concupiscibilis, quae sunt in parte sensitiva, sicut et in ceteris animalibus, quae magis aguntur quam agant. Hoc autem est impossibile, et destructivum totius moralis philosophiae et politicae conversationis. Oportet igitur intellectum possibilem in nobis esse, per quem a brutis differamus, et non solum secundum intellectum passivum. [5] The possible intellect, moreover, is demonstrably not the act of any body, because it is cognizant of all sensible forms universally. Therefore, no power whose operation can extend to the universals of all sensible forms can be the act of a body. Now, such a power is the will, for our will can reach out to all the things that we can understand, at least our will to know them. And the act of the will is clearly directed to the universal; as Aristotle says in the Rhetoric [II, 4], “we hate robbers in general, but are angry only with individual ones.” Therefore, the will cannot be the act of any part of the body, nor can it follow upon a power that is an act of the body. Now, every part of the soul is an act of the body, with the single exception of the intellect properly so called. Therefore, the will is in the intellective part; and that is why Aristotle says in De anima in: “Will is in the reason, but the irascible and concupiscible appetite are in the sensitive part.” So it is that acts of concupiscence and irascibility involve passion, but not the act of the will, which involves choice. Now, man’s will is not outside him, as though it resided in some separate substance, but is within him. Otherwise, man would not be master of his own actions, since he would then be acted upon by the will of a separate substance, and in him there would be only the appetitive powers functioning in association with passion, namely, the irascible and concupiscible powers, which are in the sensitive part, as in other animals that are acted upon rather than act themselves. But this is impossible and would destroy all moral philosophy and sociality. It follows that there must exist in us the possible intellect, so that by it we differ from brute animals, and not only in terms of the passive intellect.
Item. Sicut nihil est potens agere nisi per potentiam activam in ipso existentem, ita nihil potens est pati nisi per potentiam passivam quae in ipso est: combustibile enim est potens comburi non solum quia est aliquid potens comburere ipsum, sed etiam quia habet in se potentiam ut comburatur. Intelligere autem quoddam pati est ut dicitur in III de anima. Cum igitur puer sit potentia intelligens, etsi non actu intelligat, oportet quod sit in eo aliqua potentia qua sit potens intelligere. Haec autem potentia est intellectus possibilis. Oportet igitur quod puero iam sit coniunctus intellectus possibilis antequam actu intelligat. Non est igitur continuatio intellectus possibilis cum homine per formam intellectam in actu, sed ipse intellectus possibilis inest homini a principio sicut aliquid eius. [6] Likewise, just as nothing is able to act except through an active potentiality in it, so nothing can be passive save through an inherent passive potentiality; the combustible is able to be burned not only because there is a thing capable of burning it, but also because it has in itself a potentiality to be burned. Now, understanding is a kind of undergoing, as is stated in De anima III [4]. Therefore, since the child is potentially understanding, even though he is not actually understanding, there must be in him a potentiality whereby he is able to understand. And this potentiality is the possible intellect. Hence, there must already be a union of the possible intellect to the child before he understands actually. Therefore, it is not through the actually understood form that the possible intellect is brought into connection with man; rather, the possible intellect itself is in man from the beginning as part of himself.
Huic autem rationi respondet Averroes praedictus. Dicit enim quod puer dicitur potentia intelligens duplici ratione. Uno modo, quia phantasmata quae sunt in ipso, sunt intelligibilia in potentia. Alio modo, quia intellectus possibilis est potens continuari cum ipso: et non quia intellectus sit iam unitus ei. [7] Averroes, however, has an answer to this argument. For he avers that a child is said to be understanding potentially for two reasons: first, because the phantasms in him are potentially intelligible; second, because the possible intellect is able to come in contact with him, and not because the intellect is already united to him.
Ostendendum est autem quod uterque modus sit insufficiens. Alia enim est potentia qua agens potest agere, et alia potentia qua patiens potest pati, et ex opposito dividuntur. Ex eo igitur quod convenit alicui quod possit agere, non competit ei quod possit pati. Posse autem intelligere est posse pati: cum intelligere quoddam pati sit, secundum philosophum. Non igitur dicitur puer potens intelligere ex eo quod phantasmata in eo possunt esse intellecta in actu: cum hoc pertineat ad posse agere; phantasmata enim movent intellectum possibilem. [8] Now we have to show that neither of these reasons suffices. Thus, the potentiality that enables the agent to act is distinct from the potentiality that enables the patient to receive action; and they differ as opposites. So, just because a thing is able to act, it does not follow that it is capable of receiving action. But ability to understand is ability to be passive; for as Aristotle remarks, “understanding is a kind of undergoing.” The child, therefore, is not said to be able to understand simply because the phantasms in him can be actually understood; this has to do with the ability to act, since the phantasms move the possible intellect.
Adhuc. Potentia consequens speciem alicuius non competit ei secundum id quod speciem non largitur. Posse autem intelligere consequitur speciem humanam: est enim intelligere operatio hominis inquantum huiusmodi. Phantasmata autem non dant speciem humanam, sed magis consequuntur operationem hominis. Non ergo ratione phantasmatum potest dici puer potentia intelligens. [9] Moreover, a potentiality derivative from the specific nature of a thing does not belong to it as a result of that which does not confer upon the thing its specific nature. Now, ability to understand is a consequence of the specific nature of man, for understanding is an operation of man as man. But phantasms do not give man his specific nature; rather, they are consequent upon his operation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the child is potentially understanding because of the phantasms.
Similiter autem neque potest dici puer posse intelligere quia intellectus possibilis potest continuari cum ipso. Sic enim aliquis dicitur potens agere vel pati per potentiam activam vel passivam, sicut dicitur albus per albedinem. Non autem dicitur aliquis albus antequam albedo sit ei coniuncta. Ergo neque dicitur aliquis potens agere vel pati antequam potentia activa vel passiva ei adsit. Non ergo de puero posset dici quod est potens intelligere antequam intellectus possibilis, qui est potentia intelligendi, sit ei continuatus. [10] And it is likewise impossible to say that a child is potentially understanding because the possible intellect can be in touch with him. For a person is said to be able to act or to be passive by active or passive potentiality, just as he is said to be white by whiteness. But he is not said to be white before whiteness is united to him. Therefore, neither is a person said to be able to act or to be passive before active or passive potentiality is present in him. Consequently, it cannot be said that a child is able to understand before the possible intellect, which is the power of understanding, is in contact with him.
Praeterea. Aliter dicitur aliquis potens operari antequam habeat naturam qua operetur, et aliter postquam iam habet naturam sed impeditur per accidens ab operando: sicut aliter dicitur corpus potens ferri sursum antequam sit leve, et aliter postquam iam est generatum leve sed impeditur in suo motu. Puer autem est in potentia intelligens non quasi nondum habens naturam intelligendi, sed habens impedimentum ut non intelligat: impeditur enim ab intelligendo propter multimodos motus in ipso existentes, ut dicitur in VII physicorum. Non igitur propter hoc dicitur potens intelligere quia intellectus possibilis, qui est intelligendi principium, potest continuari sibi: sed quia iam est continuatus et impeditur ab actione propria; unde, impedimento remoto, statim intelligit. [11] Furthermore, a person is said in one way to be able to act before having the nature by which he acts, and in another way after he already has that nature, but is accidentally prevented from acting; thus, a body is in one sense said to be capable of being lifted upwards before it is light, and in another, after it is made light but is impeded in its movement. Now, a child is potentially understanding, not as though he has not yet the nature enabling him to understand, but as having an obstacle to understanding, since he is prevented from understanding “because of the multiform movements in him,” as is said in Physics VII [3]. Hence, he is not said to have the power of understanding because the possible intellect, which is the principle of understanding, can be joined to him, but because it is already in contact with him and is prevented from exercising its proper action; so that, upon the removal of the obstacle, he immediately understands.
Item. Habitus est quo quis operatur cum voluerit. Oportet igitur eiusdem esse habitum, et operationem quae est secundum habitum. Sed considerare intelligendo, quod est actus huius habitus qui est scientiae, non potest esse intellectus passivi, sed est ipsius intellectus possibilis: ad hoc enim quod aliqua potentia intelligat, oportet quod non sit actus corporis alicuius. Ergo et habitus scientiae non est in intellectu passivo sed in intellectu possibili. Scientia autem in nobis est, secundum quam dicimur scientes. Ergo et intellectus possibilis est in nobis, et non secundum esse a nobis separatus. [12] Likewise, “a habit is that by which one acts when he wills.” Therefore, a habit and the operation in keeping with it must exist in the same subject. Intellectual consideration, which is the act of the habit of science, cannot, however, be the function of the passive intellect, but belongs to the possible intellect itself; for a power must not be the act of a body if it is to be capable of understanding. Thus, the habit of science is not in the passive but in the possible intellect. Now, science is in us, and it is in accordance with this science that we are said to know scientifically. Therefore, the possible intellect also is in us, and has no being apart from us.
Adhuc. Scientiae assimilatio est scientis ad rem scitam. Rei autem scitae, inquantum est scita, non assimilatur sciens nisi secundum species universales: scientia enim de huiusmodi est. Species autem universales non possunt esse in intellectu passivo, cum sit potentia utens organo, sed solum in intellectu possibili. Scientia igitur non est in intellectu passivo, sed solum in intellectu possibili. [13] Scientific knowledge, moreover, consists in the assimilation of the knower to the thing known. Now, the knower is assimilated to the thing known, as such, only with respect to universal species; for such are the objects of science. Now, universal species cannot be in the passive intellect, since it is a power using an organ, but only in the possible intellect. Therefore, scientific knowledge cannot reside in the passive intellect, but only in the possible intellect.
Amplius. Intellectus in habitu, ut adversarius confitetur, est effectus intellectus agentis. Intellectus autem agentis effectus sunt intelligibilia actu, quorum proprium recipiens est intellectus possibilis, ad quem comparatur agens sicut ars ad materiam, ut Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima. Oportet igitur intellectum in habitu, qui est habitus scientiae, esse in intellectu possibili, non passivo. [14] Also, the intellect in the state of habit is, as the opponent admits, the effect of the agent intellect. But it is the agent intellect which causes things to be actually intelligible, and the proper recipient of these things is the possible intellect, to which the agent intellect is compared as “art to its material,” in Aristotle’s phrase. Therefore, the intellect in habit, which is the habit of science, must have its locus in the possible, and not in the passive intellect.
Praeterea. Impossibile est quod perfectio superioris substantiae dependeat ab inferiori. Perfectio autem intellectus possibilis dependet ab operatione hominis: dependet enim a phantasmatibus, quae movent intellectum possibilem. Non est igitur intellectus possibilis aliqua substantia superior homine. Ergo oportet quod sit aliquid hominis ut actus et forma ipsius. [15] Then, too, the perfection of a higher substance cannot possibly depend upon a lower substance. Now, the perfection of the possible intellect depends on the operation of man, for it depends on the phantasms, which move the possible intellect. Therefore, the possible intellect is not a higher substance than man. Consequently, it must be part of man as his act and form.
Adhuc. Quaecumque sunt separata secundum esse, habent etiam separatas operationes: nam res sunt propter suas operationes, sicut actus primus propter secundum; unde Aristoteles dicit, in I de anima, quod, si aliqua operationum animae est sine corpore, quod possibile est animam separari. Operatio autem intellectus possibilis indiget corpore: dicit enim philosophus, in III de anima, quod intellectus potest agere per seipsum, scilicet intelligere, quando est factus in actu per speciem a phantasmatibus abstractam, quae non sunt sine corpore. Igitur intellectus possibilis non est omnino a corpore separatus. [16] Again, things separate in being also have separate operations, because things are for the sake of their operations, as first act for the sake of second act; that is why Aristotle says that, if any operation of the soul does not involve the body, then “it is possible for the soul to have a separate existence.” But the operation of the possible intellect requires the body, for Aristotle says in De anima III [4] that the intellect can act by itself, namely, it can understand, when it has been actuated by a species abstracted from phantasms—which have no existence apart from the body. Therefore, the possible intellect is not altogether separate from the body.
Amplius. Cuicumque competit aliqua operatio secundum naturam, sunt ei a natura attributa ea sine quibus illa operatio compleri non potest: sicut Aristoteles probat, in II libro de caelo, quod, si stellae moverentur motu progressivo ad modum animalium, quod natura dedisset eis organa motus progressivi. Sed operatio intellectus possibilis completur per organa corporea, in quibus necesse est esse phantasmata. Natura igitur intellectum possibilem corporeis univit organis. Non est igitur secundum esse a corpore separatus. [17] And again, every thing naturally endowed with a certain operation has by nature those attributes without which that operation cannot be carried out. Thus, Aristotle proves in De caelo II [8] that if the movement of the stars were progressive, like that of animals, nature would have given them organs of progressive movement. But the operation of the possible intellect is accomplished by bodily organs, in which there must be phantasms. Therefore, nature has united the possible intellect to bodily organs. Consequently, it has no being separate from the body.
Item. Si sit secundum esse a corpore separatus, magis intelliget substantias quae sunt a materia separatae quam formas sensibiles: quia sunt magis intelligibiles, et magis ei conformes. Non potest autem intelligere substantias omnino a materia separatas, quia eorum non sunt aliqua phantasmata: hic autem intellectus nequaquam sine phantasmate intelligit, ut Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima; sunt enim ei phantasmata sicut sensibilia sensui, sine quibus sensus non sentit. Non est igitur substantia a corpore separata secundum esse. [18] Furthermore, if the possible intellect had being separate from the body, it would know substances that are separate from matter, rather than sensible forms, because such substances are more intelligible and more conformed to the intellect. But it cannot know substances that are altogether separate from matter, because there are not phantasms of them; and this intellect “in no case understands without a phantasm,” as Aristotle says in De anima III [7], because the phantasms are to it “as sensible objects to the senses,” without which objects the sense power is inoperative. Therefore, the possible intellect is not a substance separate from the body in being.
Adhuc. In omni genere tantum se extendit potentia passiva quantum potentia activa illius generis: unde non est aliqua potentia passiva in natura cui non respondeat aliqua potentia activa naturalis. Sed intellectus agens non facit intelligibilia nisi phantasmata. Ergo nec intellectus possibilis movetur ab aliis intelligibilibus nisi a speciebus a phantasmatibus abstractis. Et sic substantias separatas intelligere non potest. [19] In every genus, moreover, the passive potentiality is equal in its scope to that of the correlative active potentiality, and so there does not exist in nature a passive potentiality without a corresponding natural active potentiality. But the agent intellect makes only the phantasms to be intelligible. Therefore, the possible intellect is moved by no other intelligible objects than the species abstracted from the phantasms. And thus, it is unable to understand separate substances.
Amplius. In substantiis separatis sunt species rerum sensibilium intelligibiliter, per quas de sensibilibus scientiam habent. Si igitur intellectus possibilis intelligit substantias separatas, in eis acciperet sensibilium cognitionem. Non ergo acciperet eam a phantasmatibus: quia natura non abundat superfluis. [20] Then, too, the species of sensible things exist in separate substances in an intelligible mode, and it is through those species that such substances have knowledge of sensible things. If, then, the possible intellect understands separate substances, it would in knowing them receive knowledge of sensible things. It would not, therefore, receive this knowledge from phantasms, for nature does not abound in superfluities.
Si autem dicatur quod substantiis separatis non adest cognitio sensibilium, saltem oportebit dicere quod eis adsit altior cognitio. Quam oportet non deesse intellectui possibili, si praedictas substantias intelligit. Habebit igitur duplicem scientiam: unam per modum substantiarum separatarum, aliam a sensibus acceptam. Quarum altera superflueret. [21] Yet, if it be said that separate substances have no knowledge of sensible things, at least it will have to said that they enjoy a higher kind of knowledge: a knowledge which the possible intellect must not lack if it understands those substances. Accordingly, the possible intellect will have a twofold science: one, in the manner of separate substances; the other, received from the senses. And one of these would be superfluous.
Praeterea. Intellectus possibilis est quo intelligit anima, ut dicitur in III de anima. Si igitur intellectus possibilis intelligit substantias separatas, et nos intelligimus eas. Quod patet esse falsum: habemus enim nos ad eas sicut oculus noctuae ad solem, ut Aristoteles dicit. [22] The possible intellect, furthermore, is that “by which the soul understands,” as is said in De anima III [4]. Therefore, if the possible intellect understands separate substances, then we also understand them. And this is clearly false, because in relation to them we are “as the eye of the owl to the sun,” as Aristotle remarks [ Metaph. II, 1].
His autem respondetur, secundum positionem praedictam. Intellectus enim possibilis, secundum quod est in se subsistens, intelligit substantias separatas: et est in potentia ad eas sicut diaphanum ad lucem. Secundum autem quod continuatur nobis, a principio est in potentia ad formas a phantasmatibus abstractas. Unde nos a principio non intelligimus per eum substantias separatas. [23] Now, these arguments are answered as follows, along the lines of the doctrine we have been dealing with. The possible intellect, as the result of being self-subsistent, knows separate substances, and is in potentiality to them as a transparent body to the light. But, so far as the possible intellect is in contact with us, it is from the beginning in potentiality to forms abstracted from phantasms. That is why we do not from the beginning know separate substances by its means.
Sed hoc stare non potest. Intellectus enim possibilis ex hoc dicitur, secundum eos, continuari nobis, quod perficitur per species intelligibiles a phantasmatibus abstractas. Prius igitur est considerare intellectum ut in potentia ad huiusmodi species quam ut continuetur nobis. Non igitur per hoc quod continuatur nobis, est in potentia ad huiusmodi species. [24] This answer, however, cannot stand. For the possible intellect, according to them, is said to be in contact with us as a result of being perfected by intelligible species abstracted from phantasms. Prior to its contact with us, therefore, the intellect is to be thought of as being in potentiality to these species; so that it is not in potentiality to them by its being in contact with us.
Praeterea. Secundum hoc, esse in potentia ad praedictas species non esset ei secundum se conveniens, sed per aliud. Per ea autem quae non conveniunt alicui secundum se, non debet aliquid definiri. Non igitur ratio intellectus possibilis est ex hoc quod possibilis est ad praedictas species, ut definit ipsum Aristoteles in III de anima. [25] Moreover, according to this view the possible intellect would owe not to itself, but to something else, the fact of its being in potentiality to the intelligible species in question. But a thing ought not to be defined in terms of things not belonging to it in itself. Therefore, the definition of the possible intellect is not derived from its being in potentiality to those species, as Aristotle defines it in De anima III [4].
Adhuc. Impossibile est intellectum possibilem simul multa intelligere nisi unum per aliud intelligat: non enim una potentia pluribus actibus simul perficitur nisi secundum ordinem. Si igitur intellectus possibilis intelligat substantias separatas et species a phantasmatibus separatas, oportet quod vel intelligat per species huiusmodi substantias separatas, vel e converso. Quodcumque autem detur, sequitur quod nos intelligamus substantias separatas. Quia si nos intelligimus naturas sensibilium inquantum intelligit eas intellectus possibilis; intellectus autem possibilis intelligit eas per hoc quod intelligit substantias separatas; et similiter nos intelligemus. Et similiter si sit e converso. Hoc autem est manifeste falsum. Non igitur intellectus possibilis intelligit substantias separatas. Non est igitur substantia separata. [26] Again, the possible intellect cannot understand several things at the same time unless it understands one through another, for a single power is not perfected by several acts at the same time except in keeping with a certain order. Consequently, if the possible intellect understands separate substances, and species abstracted from phantasms, it must either understand the substances through the species or the species through the substances. Now, in either case it follows that we do not understand separate substances. For, if we understand the natures of sensible things so far as the possible intellect understands them, and the possible intellect knows them through understanding separate substances, then we will understand them in the same way. And this also follows if the converse is true. But this is manifestly false. It remains that the possible intellect does not understand separate substances, and, therefore, it is not a separate substance.

Caput 61 Chapter 61
Quod praedicta positio est contra sententiam Aristotelis THAT THIS THEORY IS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHING OF ARISTOTLE
Sed quia huic positioni Averroes praestare robur auctoritatis nititur propter hoc quod dicit Aristotelem ita sensisse, ostendemus manifeste quod praedicta opinio est contra sententiam Aristotelis. [1] Averroes, however, attempts to strengthen his position by appealing to authority, saying, therefore, that Aristotle was of the same opinion. We shall, then, show clearly that Averroes’ doctrine is contrary to that of Aristotle.
Primo quidem, quia Aristoteles in II de anima, definit animam dicens quod est actus primus physici corporis organici potentia vitam habentis:
et postea subiungit quod haec est definitio universaliter dicta de omni anima; non sicut praedictus Averroes fingit, sub dubitatione hoc proferens; ut patet ex exemplaribus Graecis et translatione Boetii.
[2] First, because Aristotle in De anima II [1] defines the soul as “the first act of an organic physical body having life potentially”; and he adds that this definition “applies universally to every kind of soul”; nor, as Averroes imagines, does Aristotle express any doubt concerning this definition. The Greek texts, as well as Boethius’ translation, give clear proof of this.
[3] And afterwards in the same chapter, Aristotle remarks that “certain parts of the soul are separable.” But these are no other than intellective parts. Hence, it remains that these parts are acts of the body.
Postmodum autem, in eodem capitulo, subiungit esse quasdam partes animae separabiles. Quae non sunt nisi intellectivae. Relinquitur igitur quod illae partes sunt actus corporis. Nec est contra hoc quod postea subiungit: de intellectu autem et perspectiva potentia nihil est adhuc manifestum, sed videtur animae alterum genus esse. Non enim per hoc vult intellectum alienare a communi definitione animae, sed a propriis naturis aliarum partium: sicut qui dicit quod alterum genus animalis est volatile a gressibili, non aufert a volatili communem definitionem animalis. Unde, ut ostenderet in quo dixerit alterum, subiungit: et hoc solum contingit separari sicut perpetuum a corruptibili. Nec est intentio Aristotelis ut Commentator praedictus fingit, dicere quod nondum est manifestum de intellectu utrum intellectus sit anima, sicut de aliis principiis. Non enim textus verus habet, nihil est declaratum sive, nihil est dictum, sed, nihil est manifestum: quod intelligendum est quantum ad id quod est proprium ei, non quantum ad communem definitionem. Si autem, ut ipse dicit, anima aequivoce dicitur de intellectu et aliis, primo distinxisset aequivocationem, postea definivisset, sicut est consuetudo sua. Alias procederet in aequivoco. Quod non est in scientiis demonstrativis. [4] Nor is this point contradicted by what Aristotle says later on, namely: “Nothing is clear as yet about the intellect and the power of insight, but it seems to be another kind of soul” [II, 1] For Aristotle does not mean by this to exclude the intellect from the common definition of soul, but from the nature proper to the other parts of the soul; thus, he who says that “the flying animal is of another kind than the walking” does not exclude the former from the common definition of animal. So, in order to explain what he meant by saying another, Aristotle immediately adds: “And this alone is capable of separate existence, as the everlasting apart from the perishable.” Nor is it Aristotle’s intention, as Averroes imagines, to say that, in contrast with the clear knowledge which we have concerning the other parts of the soul, it is not yet clear whether the intellect is the soul. The genuine text does not read, nothing has been declared, or nothing has been said, but nothing is clear; and this must be taken to refer to that which is proper to the intellective soul, and not to the common definition. But if, as Averroes says, soul is predicated equivocally of the intellect and of other souls, then Aristotle would first have pointed out the equivocation, and given the definition afterwards, in keeping with his usual procedure. Otherwise, his argument would have been based on an equivocation, and in demonstrative science there is no room for that sort of thing.
Item. In II de anima intellectum numerat inter potentias animae. Et in auctoritate etiam praedicta nominat perspectivam potentiam. Non est igitur intellectus extra animam humanam, sed est quaedam potentia eius. [5] Moreover, Aristotle in De anima II [3] reckons the intellect among the powers of the soul; and in the text previously quoted” he calls it the power of insight. Therefore, the intellect is not outside the human soul, but is one of its powers.
Item. In III de anima, incipiens loqui de intellectu possibili, nominat eum partem animae, dicens: de parte autem animae qua cognoscit anima et sapit. In quo manifeste ostendit quod intellectus possibilis sit aliquid animae. [6] And when in that same work Aristotle begins his discussion of the possible intellect by speaking of it as “the part of the soul with which the soul has knowledge and wisdom” [III, 4], he thus plainly indicates that the possible intellect is a part of the soul.
Adhuc autem manifestius per id quod postea subiungit, declarans naturam intellectus possibilis, dicens: dico autem intellectum quo opinatur et intelligit anima. In quo manifeste ostenditur intellectum esse aliquid animae humanae, quo anima humana intelligit. [7] Aristotle indeed makes this point still more explicit when he explains later on what the nature of the possible intellect is: “By the intellect,” he says, “I mean that by which the soul judges and understands” [III, 4]. This makes it perfectly clear that the intellect is that part of the human soul by which it understands.
Est igitur praedicta positio contra sententiam Aristotelis, et contra veritatem. Unde tanquam fictitia repudianda est. [8] The Averroistic position in question is, then, contrary to the opinion of Aristotle and to the truth, and is to be rejected therefore as sheer fiction.

Caput 62 Chapter 62
Contra opinionem Alexandri de intellectu possibili AGAINST ALEXANDER’S OPINION CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT
His igitur verbis Aristotelis consideratis, Alexander posuit intellectum possibilem esse aliquam virtutem in nobis, ut sic definitio communis de anima assignata ab Aristotele in II de anima, possit sibi convenire. Quia vero intelligere non poterat aliquam substantiam intellectualem esse corporis formam, posuit praedictam virtutem non esse fundatam in aliqua intellectuali substantia; et consequentem commixtionem elementorum in corpore humano. Determinatus enim mixtionis humani corporis modus facit hominem esse in potentia ad recipiendum influentiam intellectus agentis, qui semper est in actu, et secundum ipsum est quaedam substantia separata, ex qua influentia homo fit intelligens actu. Id autem in homine per quod est potentia intelligens, est intellectus possibilis. Et sic videbatur sequi quod ex commixtione determinata in nobis sit intellectus possibilis. [1] Having considered these sayings of Aristotle, Alexander asserted that the possible intellect is a power in us, so that the common definition of soul given by Aristotle in De anima might apply to that intellect. But because he was unable to understand how an intellectual substance could be the form of a body, be held that the power of which we speak does not have its foundation in an intellectual substance, but that it is consequent upon a blending of elements in the human body. For the particular kind of blending found in the human body makes man to be in potentiality to receive the influx of the agent intellect, which is always in act, and according to him is a separate substance, the effect of that influx being that man is made to understand actually. Now, that which enables man to understand is the possible intellect. And thus, it seemed to follow that the possible intellect is in us the result of a particular blending.
Videtur autem in primo aspectu haec positio verbis et demonstrationi Aristotelis esse contraria. Ostendit enim Aristoteles in III de anima, ut dictum est, quod intellectus possibilis est immixtus corpori. Hoc autem est impossibile dici de aliqua virtute consequente mixtionem elementorum: quod enim huiusmodi est, oportet quod in ipsa elementorum commixtione fundetur, sicut videmus de sapore et odore et aliis huiusmodi. Non igitur positio praedicta Alexandri potest stare cum verbis et demonstratione Aristotelis, ut videtur. [2] But this position seems at first glance to be contrary to both the words and the proof of Aristotle. For, as we have already pointed out, Aristotle proves in De anima in that the possible intellect is “free from all admixture with, the body” [III, 4]. And this could not possibly be said of a power resulting from a blending of elements, since such a power must be rooted in that very blending of elements, as we see in the case of taste, smell, and the like. Seemingly, then, this notion of Alexander’s is incompatible with the words and the proof of Aristotle.
Ad hoc autem Alexander dicit quod intellectus possibilis est ipsa praeparatio in natura humana ad recipiendum influentiam intellectus agentis. Praeparatio autem ipsa non est aliqua natura sensibilis determinata, neque est mixta corpori. Est enim relatio quaedam, et ordo unius ad aliud. [3] To this, however, Alexander replies that the possible intellect is the very preparedness in human nature to receive the influx of the agent intellect. And preparedness is not itself a particular sensible nature, nor is it intermixed with the body, rather, preparedness is a certain relation, and the order of one thing to another.
Sed hoc manifeste discordat ab intentione Aristotelis. Probat enim Aristoteles ex hoc intellectum possibilem non habere determinate aliquam naturam sensibilium, et per consequens non esse mixtum corpori, quia est receptivus omnium formarum sensibilium et cognoscitivus earum. Quod de praeparatione non potest intelligi: quia eius non est recipere, sed magis praeparari. Non igitur demonstratio Aristotelis procedit de praeparatione, sed de aliquo recipiente praeparato. [4] But this notion also clearly clashes with Aristotle’s meaning. For Aristotle proves that the reason why the possible intellect does not itself have the nature of any particular sensible thing, and consequently is free from any admixture with the body, is because it is receptive of all the forms of sensible things, and cognizant of them. Now, preparedness cannot be thought of in such terms, for it does not mean to receive, but to be prepared to receive. So it is that Aristotle’s demonstration proceeds not from preparedness, but from a prepared recipient.
Amplius. Si ea quae dicit Aristoteles de intellectu possibili, conveniunt ei inquantum est praeparatio, et non ex natura subiecti praeparati, sequetur quod omni praeparationi conveniant. In sensu autem est praeparatio quaedam ad sensibilia in actu recipienda. Ergo et idem dicendum est de sensu et intellectu possibili. Cuius contrarium manifeste subiungit Aristoteles, ostendens differentiam inter receptionem sensus et intellectus ex hoc quod sensus corrumpitur ex excellentia obiectorum, non autem intellectus. [5] Moreover, if what Aristotle says about the possible intellect applies to it as a preparedness, and not by reason of the nature of the subject prepared, it will follow that it applies to every preparedness. Now, in the senses there is a certain preparedness to receive sensibles in act. And so, the same thing must be said of the senses as of the possible intellect. But Aristotle clearly says the contrary in explaining the difference between the receptivity of the senses and of the intellect, from the fact that the sense is corrupted by objects exceedingly high or intense, but not the intellect.
Item. Aristoteles attribuit possibili intellectui pati ab intelligibili, suscipere species intelligibiles, esse in potentia ad eas. Comparat etiam eum tabulae in qua nihil est scriptum. Quae quidem omnia non possunt dici de praeparatione, sed de subiecto praeparato. Est igitur contra intentionem Aristotelis quod intellectus possibilis sit praeparatio ipsa. [6] Likewise, Aristotle says that the possible intellect is passive to the intelligible, receives intelligible species, is in potentiality to them. He even compares it to “a tablet on which nothing is written.” Now, none of these things can be said of preparedness, but they all apply to the subject prepared. The notion that the possible intellect is a mere preparedness is, therefore, contrary to Aristotle’s meaning.
Adhuc. Agens est nobilius patiente et faciens facto, sicut actus potentia. Quanto autem aliquid est immaterialius, tanto est nobilius. Non potest igitur effectus esse immaterialior sua causa. Omnis autem virtus cognoscitiva, inquantum huiusmodi, est immaterialis: unde et de sensu, qui est infimus in ordine virtutum cognoscitivarum, dicit Aristoteles, in II de anima, quod est susceptivus sensibilium specierum sine materia. Impossibile est igitur a commixtione elementorum causari aliquam virtutem cognoscitivam. Intellectus autem possibilis est suprema virtus cognoscitiva in nobis: dicit enim Aristoteles, in III de anima, quod intellectus possibilis est quo cognoscit et intelligit anima. Intellectus igitur possibilis non causatur ex commixtione elementorum. [7] “The agent is superior to the patient, and the maker to the thing made,” as act to potentiality. Now, the more immaterial a thing is, the higher its level of being. Therefore, the effect cannot be more immaterial than its cause. But every cognitive power, as such, is immaterial. Thus, Aristotle says that the power of sense, which occupies the lowest place in the order of cognitive powers, is “receptive of sensible species without matter.” It is therefore impossible for a cognitive power to be caused by a commingling of elements. Now, the possible intellect is the highest cognitive power in us; for Aristotle says that the possible intellect is “that by which the soul knows and understands.”“ Therefore, the possible intellect is not caused by a mixture of elements.
Amplius. Si principium alicuius operationis ab aliquibus causis procedit, oportet operationem illam non excedere causas illas: cum causa secunda agat virtute primae. Operatio autem animae nutritivae etiam excedit virtutem qualitatum elementarium: probat enim Aristoteles, in II de anima, quod ignis non est causa augmenti, sed concausa aliquo modo, principalis autem causa est anima, ad quam comparatur calor sicut instrumentum ad artificem. Non igitur potest anima vegetabilis produci ex commixtione elementorum. Multo igitur minus sensus et intellectus possibilis. [8] If the principle of an operation proceeds from certain causes, that operation must not go beyond those causes, for the second cause acts by virtue of the first. But even the operation of the nutritive soul exceeds the power of the elemental qualities; for, in De anima II [4], Aristotle proves that “fire is not the cause of growth, but in a sense its concurrent cause, the principal cause of growth being the soul,” to which heat is compared as the instrument to the craftsman. It follows that the vegetative soul cannot be produced by an intermingling of the elements, and much less, therefore, the sense and possible intellect.
Item. Intelligere est quaedam operatio in qua impossibile est communicare aliquod organum corporeum. Haec autem operatio attribuitur animae, vel etiam homini: dicitur enim quod anima intelligit, vel, homo per animam. Oportet igitur aliquod principium in homine esse, a corpore non dependens, quod sit principium talis operationis. Praeparatio autem sequens commixtionem elementorum a corpore dependet manifeste. Non est igitur praeparatio tale principium. Est autem intellectus possibilis: dicit enim Aristoteles, in III de anima, quod intellectus possibilis est quo anima opinatur et intelligit. Non est igitur intellectus possibilis praeparatio. [9] Understanding is an operation in which no bodily organ can possibly take part. Now, this operation is attributed to the soul, or even to the man, for it is said that the soul understands, or man, by the soul. Hence, there must be in man a principle, independent of the body, which is the source of that operation. However, the preparedness that results from a blending of the elements clearly depends on the body; and, consequently, it is not this principle. But the possible intellect is for Aristotle says in De anima in that this intellect is “that by which the soul knows and understands.” Therefore, the possible intellect is not a preparedness.
Si autem dicatur quod principium praedictae operationis in nobis est species intelligibilis facta in actu ab intellectu agente: hoc videtur non sufficere. Quia, cum homo de potentia intelligente fiat actu intelligens, oportet quod non solum intelligat per speciem intelligibilem, per quam fit actu intelligens, sed per aliquam potentiam intellectivam, quae sit praedictae operationis principium: sicut et in sensu accidit. Haec autem potentia ab Aristotele ponitur intellectus possibilis. Intellectus igitur possibilis est non dependens a corpore. [10] Now, seemingly it is not enough to say that the principle of the operation of understanding in us is the intelligible species brought into act by the agent intellect. For man comes to understand actually after understanding potentially. So, it follows that he understands not only by the intelligible species, whereby he is made to understand actually, but also by an intellective power, which is the principle of this operation of understanding; and such is the case also with the senses. Now, Aristotle holds that this power is the possible intellect. Therefore, the possible intellect is independent of the body.
Praeterea. Species non est intelligibilis actu nisi secundum quod est depurata ab esse materiali. Hoc autem non potest accidere dum fuerit in aliqua potentia materiali, quae scilicet sit causata ex principiis materialibus, vel quae sit actus materialis organi. Oportet igitur poni aliquam potentiam intellectivam in nobis immaterialem. Quae est intellectus possibilis. [11] Moreover, a species is intelligible in act only so far as it is freed from its presence in matter. But this cannot be done so long as it remains in a material power, namely, a power which is caused by material principles, or is the act of a material organ. The presence in us of an intellective power that is immaterial must, therefore, be granted. And this power is the possible intellect.
Adhuc. Intellectus possibilis ab Aristotele dicitur pars animae. Anima autem non est praeparatio, sed actus: praeparatio enim est ordo potentiae ad actum. Sequitur tamen ad actum aliqua praeparatio ad ulteriorem actum: sicut ad actum diaphanitatis sequitur ordo ad actum lucis. Intellectus igitur possibilis non est ipsa praeparatio, sed actus quidam. [12] Also, Aristotle speaks of the possible intellect as being part of the soul. Now, the soul is not a preparedness, but an act, since preparedness is the order of potentiality to act. And yet an act is followed by a preparedness for a further act; the act of transparency is followed by an order to the act of light. Therefore, the possible intellect is not a preparedness itself, but is a certain act.
Amplius. Homo consequitur speciem et naturam humanam secundum partem animae sibi propriam, quae quidem est intellectus possibilis. Nihil autem consequitur speciem et naturam secundum quod est in potentia, sed secundum quod est in actu. Cum igitur praeparatio nihil sit aliud quam ordo potentiae ad actum, impossibile est quod intellectus possibilis nihil sit aliud quam praeparatio quaedam in natura humana existens. [13] Man owes his specific essence and his human nature to that part of the soul which is proper to him, namely, the possible intellect. Now, nothing receives its species and its nature so far as it is in potentiality, but so far as it is in act. And since preparedness simply consists in an order of potentiality to act, the possible intellect cannot be merely a preparedness existing in human nature.

Caput 63 Chapter 63
Quod anima non sit complexio, ut posuit Galenus THAT THE SOUL IS NOT A TEMPERAMENT, AS GALEN MAINTAINED
Praedictae autem opinioni Alexandri de intellectu possibili, propinqua est Galeni medici de anima. Dicit enim animam esse complexionem. Ad hoc autem dicendum motus est per hoc quod videmus ex diversis complexionibus causari in nobis diversas passiones quae attribuuntur animae: aliquam enim complexionem habentes, ut cholericam, de facili irascuntur; melancholici vero de facili tristantur. Unde et per easdem rationes haec opinio improbari potest per quas improbata est opinio Alexandri, et per aliquas proprias. [1] The opinion of the physician Galen about the soul is similar to the previously discussed notion, of Alexander concerning the possible intellect. For Galen says that the soul is a temperament. Now, he was moved to say this because of our observation that diverse passions, ascribed to the soul, result from various temperaments in us: those possessed of a choleric temperament are easily angered; melancholics easily grow sad. And so we see that the same arguments which we used a moment ago against Alexander’s theory can serve to disprove this notion of Galen’s, as well as some arguments specifically relevant to that notion.
Ostensum est enim supra quod operatio animae vegetabilis, et cognitio sensitiva, excedit virtutem qualitatum activarum et passivarum, et multo magis operatio intellectus. Complexio autem causatur ex qualitatibus activis et passivis. Non potest igitur complexio esse principium operationum animae. Unde impossibile est quod aliqua anima sit complexio. [2] For it was shown above that the operation of the vegetative soul, sensitive knowledge, and, much more, the operation of the intellect transcend the power of the active and passive qualities. But temperament is caused by active and passive qualities. Therefore, it cannot be a principle of the soul’s operations. It is, then, impossible for a soul to be a temperament.
Adhuc. Complexio, cum sit quiddam constitutum ex contrariis qualitatibus quasi medium inter eas, impossibile est quod sit forma substantialis: nam substantiae nihil est contrarium, nec suscipit magis et minus. Anima autem est forma substantialis, et non accidentalis: alias per animam non sortiretur aliquid genus vel speciem. Anima igitur non est complexio. [3] Moreover, temperament is something constituted by contrary qualities, as a kind of mean between them, and therefore it cannot possibly be a substantial form, since “substance has no contrary, and does not admit of variation of degree.” But the soul is a substantial, not an accidental, form; otherwise, a thing would not obtain genus or species through the soul. It follows that the soul is not a temperament.
Adhuc. Complexio non movet corpus animalis motu locali: sequeretur enim motum dominantis, et sic semper deorsum ferretur. Anima autem movet animal in omnem partem. Non est igitur anima complexio. [4] Again, temperament is not responsible for the local movement of an animal’s body; if it were, then that body would follow the movement of the preponderant element, and thus would always be moved downwards. But the soul moves the body in all directions; therefore, it is not the temperament.
Amplius. Anima regit corpus et repugnat passionibus, quae complexionem sequuntur. Ex complexione enim aliqui sunt magis aliis ad concupiscentias vel iras apti, qui tamen magis ab eis abstinent, propter aliquid refrenans: ut patet in continentibus. Hoc autem non facit complexio. Non est igitur anima complexio. [5] Then, too, the soul rules the body and resists the passions, which follow the temperament. For by temperament some are more prone than others to concupiscence or anger, yet refrain more from these things because something keeps them in check, as we see in continent persons. Now, it is not the temperament that does this. Therefore, the soul is not the temperament.
Deceptus autem fuisse videtur ex hoc quod non consideravit aliter passiones attribui complexioni, et aliter animae. Complexioni namque attribuuntur sicut disponenti, et quantum ad id quod est materiale in passionibus, sicut fervor sanguinis et huiusmodi: animae autem tanquam principali causae, ex parte eius quod est in passionibus formale, sicut in ira appetitus vindictae. [6] It would seem that Galen was misled through not having considered that passions are attributed to the temperament in quite a different manner than to the soul. For passions are ascribed to the temperament as a dispositive cause in their regard, and as concerns that which is material in them, such as the heat of the blood and the like. On the other hand, passions are ascribed to the soul as their principal cause, and as regards that which is formal in them; for instance, the desire of vengeance in the passion of anger.

Caput 64 Chapter 64
Quod anima non sit harmonia THAT THE SOUL IS NOT A HARMONY
Similis autem praedictae positioni est positio dicentium animam esse harmoniam. Non enim intellexerunt animam esse harmoniam sonorum, sed contrariorum, ex quibus videbant componi corpora animata. Quae quidem opinio in libro de anima videtur attribui Empedocli. Gregorius autem Nyssenus attribuit eam Dinarcho. Unde et improbatur sicut et praecedens; et adhuc propriis rationibus. [1] Along the lines of the foregoing theory is the view of those who say that the soul is a harmony. For these persons thought of the soul not as a harmony of sounds, but of the contraries of which they observed animate bodies to be composed. In the De anima [I, 4] this notion seems to be attributed to Empedocles, although Gregory of Nyssa ascribes it to Dinarchus. And it is disproved in the same way as Galen’s theory, as well as by arguments that apply properly to itself.
Omne enim corpus mixtum harmoniam habet et complexionem. Nec harmonia potest movere corpus aut regere ipsum, vel repugnare passionibus: sicut nec complexio. Intenditur etiam et remittitur: sicut et complexio. Ex quibus omnibus ostenditur quod anima non sit harmonia, sicut nec complexio. [2] For every mixed body has harmony and temperament. Nor can harmony move a body or rule it or curb the passions, any more than can temperament. Moreover, harmony is subject to intensification and remission; and so, too, is temperament. All these things show that the soul is not a harmony, even as it is not a temperament.
Adhuc. Ratio harmoniae magis convenit qualitatibus corporis quam animae: nam sanitas est harmonia quaedam humorum; fortitudo, nervorum et ossium; pulchritudo, membrorum et colorum. Non autem potest assignari qualium harmonia sit sensus aut intellectus, et cetera quae ad animam pertinent. Non est igitur anima harmonia. [3] Furthermore, the nature of harmony pertains to the qualities of the body rather than to those of the soul; thus, health consists in a kind of harmony of the humours; strength, in a certain harmony of sinews and bones; beauty, in harmony of limbs and colors. But it is impossible to assign the things of which sense or intellect or the other powers of the soul are the harmony. Therefore, the soul is not a harmony.
Amplius. Harmonia dicitur dupliciter: uno modo, ipsa compositio; alio modo, ratio compositionis. Anima autem non est compositio: quia oporteret quod unaquaeque pars animae esset compositio aliquarum partium corporis; quod non est assignare. Similiter non est ratio compositionis: quia, cum in diversis partibus corporis sint diversae rationes seu proportiones compositionis, singulae partes corporis haberent singulas animas; aliam enim animam haberet os et caro et nervus, cum sint secundum diversam proportionem composita. Quod patet esse falsum. Non est igitur anima harmonia. [4] Again, harmony has two senses; for it can be taken to signify the composition itself, or the mode of composition. Now, the soul is not a composition, since each part of the soul would have to consist in the composition of some of the parts of the body; and such an allotting of psychic part to corporeal part is impossible. Nor is the soul a mode of composition; for, since in the various parts of the body there are various modes or proportions of composition, each part of the body would have a distinct soul: since bone, flesh, and sinew are in each case composed according to a different proportion, each would possess a different soul. Now, this is patently false. Therefore, the soul is not a harmony.

Caput 65 Chapter 65
Quod anima non sit corpus THAT THE SOUL IS NOT A BODY
Fuerunt autem et alii magis errantes, ponentes animam esse corpus. Quorum opiniones licet fuerint diversae et variae, sufficit eas hic communiter reprobare. [1] There were also others whose thinking was even wider of the mark, since they asserted that the soul is a body. Although they held divergent and various opinions, it suffices to refute them here collectively.
Viventia enim, cum sint quaedam res naturales, sunt composita ex materia et forma. Componuntur autem ex corpore et anima, quae facit viventia actu. Ergo oportet alterum istorum esse formam, et alterum materiam. Corpus autem non potest esse forma: quia corpus non est in altero sicut in materia et subiecto. Anima igitur est forma. Ergo non est corpus: cum nullum corpus sit forma. [2] For, since living things are physical realities, they are composed of matter and form. Now, they are composed of a body and a soul, which makes them actually living. Therefore, one of these two must be the form and the other matter. But the body cannot be the form, because the body is not present in another thing as its matter and subject. The soul, then, is the form, and consequently is not a body, since no body is a form.
Adhuc. Impossibile est duo corpora esse simul. Anima autem non est seorsum a corpore dum vivit. Non est igitur anima corpus. [3] It is, moreover, impossible for two bodies to coincide. But, so long as the body lives, the soul is not apart from it. Therefore, the soul is not a body.
Amplius. Omne corpus divisibile est. Omne autem divisibile indiget aliquo continente et uniente partes eius. Si igitur anima sit corpus, habebit aliquid aliud continens et illud magis erit anima: videmus enim, anima recedente, corpus dissolvi. Et si hoc iterum sit divisibile, oportebit vel devenire ad aliquod indivisibile et incorporeum, quod erit anima: vel erit procedere in infinitum, quod est impossibile. Non est igitur anima corpus. [4] Then, too, every body is divisible Now, whatever is divisible requires something to keep together and unite its parts, so that, if the soul is a body, it will have something else to preserve its integrity, and this yet more will be the soul; for we observe that, when the soul departs, the body disintegrates. And if this integrating principle again be divisible, we must at last either arrive at something indivisible and incorruptible, which will be the soul, or go on to infinity; which is impossible. Therefore, the soul is not a body.
Item. Sicut supra probatum est, et in VIII physicorum probatur, omne movens seipsum componitur ex duobus, quorum alterum est movens et non motum, et alterum est motum. Sed animal est movens seipsum: movens autem in ipso est anima, motum autem est corpus. Anima igitur est movens non motum. Nullum autem corpus movet nisi motum, ut supra probatum est. Anima igitur non est corpus. [5] Again. It has been proved in Book I of this work, and in Physics VIII [5], that every self-mover is composed of two parts: one, the part that moves and is not moved; the other, the part that is moved. Now, the animal is a self-mover, and the mover in it is the soul, and the body is the moved. Therefore, the soul is an unmoved mover. But no body moves without being moved, as was shown in that same Book. Therefore, the soul is not a body.
Praeterea. Supra ostensum est quod intelligere non potest esse actio alicuius corporis. Est autem actus animae. Anima igitur, ad minus intellectiva, non est corpus. [6] Furthermore, we have already shown that understanding cannot be the act of a body. But it is the act of a soul. Consequently, at least the intellective soul is not a body.
Ea autem quibus aliqui conati sunt probare animam esse corpus, facile est solvere. Ostendunt enim animam esse corpus, per hoc quod filius similatur patri etiam in accidentibus animae: cum tamen filius generetur a patre per decisionem corporalem. Et quia anima compatitur corpori. Et quia separatur a corpore: separari autem est corporum se tangentium. [7] Now the arguments by which some have tried to prove that the soul is a body are easily solved. They argue as follows: that the son is like the father even in accidents of the soul, despite the fact that the begetting of the one by the other involves the parting of body from body; that the soul suffers with the body; that the soul is separate from the body, and separation is between mutually contacting bodies.
Sed contra hoc iam dictum est quod complexio corporis est aliqualiter causa animae passionum per modum disponentis. Anima etiam non compatitur corpori nisi per accidens: quia, cum sit forma corporis, movetur per accidens moto corpore. Separatur etiam anima a corpore, non sicut tangens a tacto, sed sicut forma a materia. Quamvis et aliquis tactus sit incorporei ad corpus, ut supra ostensum est. [8] But against this argumentation it has already been pointed out that the bodily temperament has a certain dispositive causality with respect to the passions of the soul. Moreover, it is only accidentally that the soul suffers with the body; for, since the soul is the form of the body, it is moved accidentally by the body’s being moved. Also, the soul is separate from the body, not as a thing touching from a thing touched, but as form from matter, although, as we have shown, that which is incorporeal does have a certain contact with the body.
Movit etiam ad hanc positionem multos quia crediderunt quod non est corpus, non esse, imaginationem transcendere non valentes, quae solum circa corpora versatur. [9] Indeed, what motivated many to adopt this position was their belief that there is nothing that is not a body, for they were unable to rise above the imagination, which is exclusively concerned with bodies.
Unde haec opinio, Sap. 2, ex persona insipientium proponitur, dicentium de anima: fumus et flatus est in naribus nostris, et sermo scintillae ad movendum cor. That is why this view is proposed in the person of the foolish, who say of the soul: “The breath in our nostrils is smoke, and speech a spark to move our heart” (Wis. 2:2).

Caput 66 Chapter 66
Contra ponentes intellectum et sensum esse idem AGAINST THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT INTELLECT AND SENSE ARE THE SAME
His autem propinquum fuit quod quidam antiquorum philosophorum intellectum a sensu differre non opinabantur. Quod quidem impossibile est. [1] Thinking that there was no difference between intellect and sense, some of the early philosophers” were close to the persons referred to above. But that notion of theirs is impossible.
Sensus enim in omnibus animalibus invenitur. Alia autem animalia ab homine intellectum non habent. Quod ex hoc apparet, quia non operantur diversa et opposita, quasi intellectum habentia; sed, sicut a natura mota, determinatas quasdam operationes, et uniformes in eadem specie, sicut omnis hirundo similiter nidificat. Non est igitur idem intellectus et sensus. [2] For sense is found in all animals, whereas animals other than man have no intellect. This is evident from the fact that the latter perform diverse and opposite actions, not as though they possessed intellect, but as moved by nature, carrying out certain determinate operations of uniform character within the same species; every swallow builds its nest in the same way. Therefore, intellect is not the same as sense.
Adhuc. Sensus non est cognoscitivus nisi singularium: cognoscit enim omnis sensitiva potentia per species individuales, cum recipiat species rerum in organis corporalibus. Intellectus autem est cognoscitivus universalium, ut per experimentum patet. Differt igitur intellectus a sensu. [3] Moreover, sense is cognizant only of singulars; for every sense power knows through individual species, since it receives the species of things in bodily organs. But the intellect is cognizant of universals, as experience proves. Therefore, intellect differs from sense.
Amplius. Cognitio sensus non se extendit nisi ad corporalia. Quod ex hoc patet, quia qualitates sensibiles, quae sunt propria obiecta sensuum, non sunt nisi in corporalibus; sine eis autem sensus nihil cognoscit. Intellectus autem cognoscit incorporalia: sicut sapientiam, veritatem, et relationes rerum. Non est igitur idem intellectus et sensus. [4] Then, too, sense-cognition is limited to corporeal things. This is clear from the fact that sensible qualities, which are the proper objects of the senses, exist only in such things; and without them the senses know nothing. On the other hand, the intellect knows incorporeal things, such as wisdom, truth, and the relations of things. Therefore, intellect and sense are not the same.
Item. Nullus sensus seipsum cognoscit, nec suam operationem: visus enim non videt seipsum, nec videt se videre, sed hoc superioris potentiae est, ut probatur in libro de anima. Intellectus autem cognoscit seipsum, et cognoscit se intelligere. Non est igitur idem intellectus et sensus. [5] Likewise, a sense knows neither itself nor its operation; for instance, sight neither sees itself nor sees that it sees. This self-reflexive power belongs to a higher faculty, as is proved in the De anima [III, 2]. But the intellect knows itself, and knows that it knows. Therefore, intellect and sense are not the same.
Praeterea. Sensus corrumpitur ab excellenti sensibili. Intellectus autem non corrumpitur ab excellentia intelligibilis: quinimmo qui intelligit maiora, potest melius postmodum minora intelligere. Est igitur alia virtus sensitiva et intellectiva. [6] Sense, furthermore, is corrupted by excess in the sensible object. But intellect is not corrupted by the exceedingly high rank of an intelligible object; for, indeed, he who understands greater things is more able afterwards to understand lesser things. The sensitive power therefore differs from the intellective.

Caput 67 Chapter 67
Contra ponentes intellectum possibilem esse imaginationem AGAINST THOSE WHO HOLD THAT THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT IS THE IMAGINATION
Huic autem opinioni affine fuit quod quidam posuerunt intellectum possibilem non esse aliud quam imaginationem. Quod quidem patet esse falsum. [1] The opinion of those who asserted that the possible intellect is not distinct from the imagination was akin to the notion just discussed. And that opinion is evidently false.
Imaginatio enim est etiam in aliis animalibus. Cuius signum est quod, abeuntibus sensibilibus, fugiunt vel persequuntur ea; quod non esset nisi in eis imaginaria apprehensio sensibilium remaneret. Intellectus autem in eis non est, cum nullum opus intellectus in eis appareat. Non est igitur idem imaginatio et intellectus. [2] For imagination is present in non-human animals as well as in man. This is indicated by the fact that in the absence of sensible things, such animals shun or seek them; which would not be the case unless they retained an imaginative apprehension of them. But non-human animals are devoid of intellect, since no work of intellect is evident in them. Therefore imagination and intellect are not the same.
Adhuc. Imaginatio non est nisi corporalium et singularium: cum phantasia sit motus factus a sensu secundum actum, ut dicitur in libro de anima. Intellectus autem universalium et incorporalium est. Non est igitur intellectus possibilis imaginatio. [3] Moreover, imagination has to do with bodily and singular things only; as is said in the De anima [3], imagination is a movement caused by actual sensation. The intellect, however, grasps objects universal and incorporeal. Therefore, the possible intellect is not the imagination.
Amplius. Impossibile est idem esse movens et motum. Sed phantasmata movent intellectum possibilem sicut sensibilia sensum: ut Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima. Impossibile est igitur quod sit idem intellectus possibilis et imaginatio. [4] Again, it is impossible for the same thing to be mover and moved. But the phantasms move the possible intellect as sensibles move the senses, as Aristotle says in De anima III [7]. Therefore, the possible intellect cannot be the same as the imagination.
Praeterea. Probatum est in III de anima quod intellectus non est actus alicuius partis corporis. Imaginatio autem habet organum corporale determinatum. Non est igitur idem imaginatio et intellectus possibilis. [5] And again. It is proved in De anima III [4] that the intellect is not the act of any part of the body. Now the imagination has a determinate bodily organ. Therefore, the imagination is not the same as the possible intellect.
Hinc est quod dicitur Iob 35-11: qui docet nos super iumenta terrae, et super volucres caeli erudit nos. Per quod datur intelligi quod hominis est aliqua virtus cognoscitiva supra sensum et imaginationem, quae sunt in aliis animalibus. [6] So it is that we read in the Book of Job (35:11): “Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and instructs us more than the fowls of the air.” And by this we are given to understand that man is possessed of a power of knowledge superior to sense and imagination, which are shared by the other animals.

Caput 68 Chapter 68
Qualiter substantia intellectualis possit esse forma corporis HOW AN INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCE CAN BE THE FORM OF THE BODY
Ex praemissis igitur rationibus concludere possumus quod intellectualis substantia potest uniri corpori ut forma. [1] From the preceding arguments, then, we can conclude that an intellectual substance can be united to the body as its form.
Si enim substantia intellectualis non unitur corpori solum ut motor, ut Plato posuit, neque continuatur ei solum per phantasmata, ut dixit Averroes, sed ut forma; neque tamen intellectus quo homo intelligit, est praeparatio in humana natura, ut dixit Alexander; neque complexio, ut Galenus; neque harmonia, ut Empedocles; neque corpus, vel sensus, vel imaginatio, ut antiqui dixerunt: relinquitur quod anima humana sit intellectualis substantia corpori unita ut forma. Quod quidem sic potest fieri manifestum. [2] For, if an intellectual substance is not united to the body merely as its mover, as Plato held that it is, nor is in contact with it merely by phantasms, as Averroes said, but as its form; and if the intellect whereby man understands is not a preparedness in human nature, as Alexander supposed it to be, nor the temperament, according to Galen, nor a harmony, as Empedocles imagined, nor a body, nor the senses or the imagination, as the early philosophers maintained, then it remains that the human soul is an intellectual substance united to the body as its form. This conclusion can be made evident as follows.
Ad hoc enim quod aliquid sit forma substantialis alterius, duo requiruntur. Quorum unum est, ut forma sit principium essendi substantialiter ei cuius est forma: principium autem dico, non factivum, sed formale, quo aliquid est et denominatur ens. Unde sequitur aliud, scilicet quod forma et materia conveniant in uno esse: quod non contingit de principio effectivo cum eo cui dat esse. Et hoc esse est in quo subsistit substantia composita, quae est una secundum esse, ex materia et forma constans. Non autem impeditur substantia intellectualis, per hoc quod est subsistens, ut probatum est, esse formale principium essendi materiae, quasi esse suum communicans materiae. Non est enim inconveniens quod idem sit esse in quo subsistit compositum et forma ipsa: cum compositum non sit nisi per formam, nec seorsum utrumque subsistat. [3] For one thing to be another’s substantial form, two requirements must be met. First, the form must be the principle of the substantial being of the thing whose form it is; I speak not of the productive but of the formal principle whereby a thing exists and is called a being. The second requirement then follows from this, namely, that the form and the matter be joined together in the unity of one act of being; which is not true of the union of the efficient cause with that to which it gives being. And this single act of being is that in which the composite substance subsists: a thing one in being and made up of matter and form. Now, as we have shown, the fact that an intellectual substance is subsistent does not stand in the way of its being the formal principle of the being of the matter, as communicating its own being to the matter. For it is not unfitting that the composite and its form should subsist in the same act of being, since the composite exists only by the form, and neither of them subsists apart from the other.
Potest autem obiici quod substantia intellectualis esse suum materiae corporali communicare non possit, ut sit unum esse substantiae intellectualis et materiae corporalis: diversorum enim generum est diversus modus essendi; et nobilioris substantiae nobilius esse. [4] Nevertheless, it may be objected that an intellectual substance cannot communicate its being to corporeal matter in such fashion that the two will be united in the same act of being, because diverse genera have diverse modes of being, and to the nobler substance belongs a loftier being.
Hoc autem convenienter diceretur si eodem modo illud esse materiae esset sicut est substantiae intellectualis. Non est autem ita. Est enim materiae corporalis ut recipientis et subiecti ad aliquid altius elevati: substantiae autem intellectualis ut principii, et secundum propriae naturae congruentiam. Nihil igitur prohibet substantiam intellectualem esse formam corporis humani, quae est anima humana. [5] Now, this argument would be relevant if that single act of being belonged in the same way to the matter as to the intellectual substance. But it does not. For that act of being appertains to the corporeal matter as its recipient and its subject, raised to a higher level; it belongs to the intellectual substance as its principle, and in keeping with its very own nature. Nothing, therefore, prevents an intellectual substance from being the human body’s form, which is the human soul.
Hoc autem modo mirabilis rerum connexio considerari potest. Semper enim invenitur infimum supremi generis contingere supremum inferioris generis: sicut quaedam infima in genere animalium parum excedunt vitam plantarum, sicut ostrea, quae sunt immobilia, et solum tactum habent, et terrae in modum plantarum adstringuntur; unde et beatus Dionysius dicit, in VII cap. de Div. Nom., quod divina sapientia coniungit fines superiorum principiis inferiorum. Est igitur accipere aliquid supremum in genere corporum, scilicet corpus humanum aequaliter complexionatum, quod attingit ad infimum superioris generis, scilicet ad animam humanam, quae tenet ultimum gradum in genere intellectualium substantiarum, ut ex modo intelligendi percipi potest. Et inde est quod anima intellectualis dicitur esse quasi quidam horizon et confinium corporeorum et incorporeorum, inquantum est substantia incorporea, corporis tamen forma. Non autem minus est aliquid unum ex substantia intellectuali et materia corporali quam ex forma ignis et eius materia, sed forte magis: quia quanto forma magis vincit materiam, ex ea et materia efficitur magis unum. [6] Thus are we able to contemplate the marvelous connection of things. For it is always found that the lowest in the higher genus touches the highest of the lower species. Some of the lowest members of the animal kingdom, for instance, enjoy a form of life scarcely superior to that of plants; oysters, which are motionless, have only the sense of touch and are fixed to the earth like plants. That is why Blessed Dionysius says in his work On the Divine Names that “divine wisdom has united the ends of higher things with the beginnings of the lower.” We have, therefore, to consider the existence of something supreme in the genus of bodies, namely, the human body harmoniously tempered, which is in contact with the lowest of the higher genus, namely, the human soul, which holds the lowest rank in the genus of intellectual substances, as can be seen from its mode of understanding; so that the intellectual soul is said to be on the horizon and confines of things corporeal and incorporeal, in that it is an incorporeal substance and yet the form of a body. Nor is a thing composed of an intellectual substance and corporeal matter less one than a thing made up of the form of fire and its matter, but perhaps it is more one; because the greater the mastery of form over matter, the greater is the unity of that which is made from it and matter.
Quamvis autem sit unum esse formae et materiae, non tamen oportet quod materia semper adaequet esse formae. Immo, quanto forma est nobilior, tanto in suo esse superexcedit materiam. Quod patet inspicienti operationes formarum, ex quarum consideratione earum naturas cognoscimus: unumquodque enim operatur secundum quod est. Unde forma cuius operatio superexcedit conditionem materiae, et ipsa secundum dignitatem sui esse superexcedit materiam. [7] But, though the form and the matter are united in the one act of being, the matter need not always be commensurate with the form. Indeed, the higher the form, the more it surpasses matter in its being. This fact is clearly apparent to one who observes the operations of forms, from the study of which we know their natures; for, as a thing is, so does it act. That is why a form whose operation transcends the condition of matter, itself also surpasses matter in the rank of its being.
Invenimus enim aliquas infimas formas, quae in nullam operationem possunt nisi ad quam se extendunt qualitates quae sunt dispositiones materiae, ut calidum, frigidum, humidum et siccum, rarum, densum, grave et leve, et his similia: sicut formae elementorum. Unde istae sunt formae omnino materiales, et totaliter immersae materiae. [8] For we find certain lowest-grade forms whose operations are limited to the class of those proper to the qualities which are dispositions of matter; qualities such as heat, cold, moisture and dryness, rarity and density, gravity and levity, etc. And those forms are the forms of the elements: forms which therefore are altogether material and wholly embedded in matter.
Super has inveniuntur formae mixtorum corporum, quae licet non se extendant ad aliqua operata quae non possunt compleri per qualitates praedictas, interdum tamen operantur illos effectus altiori virtute, quam sortiuntur ex corporibus caelestibus, quae consequitur eorum speciem: sicut adamas trahit ferrum. [9] Above these are found the forms of mixed bodies. Although their operations are no greater in scope than those which can be effected through qualities of the aforesaid variety, nevertheless they sometimes produce those same effects by a higher power which they receive from the heavenly bodies, and which is consequent upon the latter’s species. A case in point is that of the lodestone attracting iron.
Super has iterum inveniuntur aliquae formae quarum operationes extenduntur ad aliqua operata quae excedunt virtutem qualitatum praedictarum, quamvis qualitates praedictae organice ad harum operationes deserviant: sicut sunt animae plantarum, quae etiam assimilantur non solum virtutibus corporum caelestium in excedendo qualitates activas et passivas, sed ipsis motoribus corporum caelestium, inquantum sunt principia motus rebus viventibus, quae movent seipsas. [10] One rung higher on the ladder of forms, we encounter those whose operations include some which exceed the power of the previously mentioned material qualities, although the latter assist organically in the operations of those forms. Such forms are the souls of plants, which likewise resemble not only the powers of the heavenly bodies, in surpassing the active and passive qualities, but also the movers of those bodies, the souls of plants being principles of movement in living things, which move themselves.
Supra has formas inveniuntur aliae formae similes superioribus substantiis non solum in movendo, sed etiam aliqualiter in cognoscendo; et sic sunt potentes in operationes ad quas nec organice qualitates praedictae deserviunt, tamen operationes huiusmodi non complentur nisi mediante organo corporali; sicut sunt animae brutorum animalium. Sentire enim et imaginari non completur calefaciendo et infrigidando: licet haec sint necessaria ad debitam organi dispositionem. [11] A step above, we find other forms resembling the higher substances, not only in moving, but even, somehow, in knowing, so that they are capable of operations to which the aforesaid qualities are of no assistance, even organically, although these operations are performed only by means of a bodily organ. Such forms are the souls of brute animals. For sensation and imagination are not brought about by heating and cooling, although these are necessary for the due disposition of the organ involved.
Super omnes autem has formas invenitur forma similis superioribus substantiis etiam quantum ad genus cognitionis, quod est intelligere: et sic est potens in operationem quae completur absque organo corporali omnino. Et haec est anima intellectiva: nam intelligere non fit per aliquod organum corporale. Unde oportet quod illud principium quo homo intelligit, quod est anima intellectiva, et excedit conditionem materiae corporalis, non sit totaliter comprehensa a materia aut ei immersa, sicut aliae formae materiales. Quod eius operatio intellectualis ostendit, in qua non communicat materia corporalis. Quia tamen ipsum intelligere animae humanae indiget potentiis quae per quaedam organa corporalia operantur, scilicet imaginatione et sensu, ex hoc ipso declaratur quod naturaliter unitur corpori ad complendam speciem humanam. [12] Above all these forms, however, is a form like to the higher substances even in respect of the kind of knowledge proper to it, namely, understanding. This form, then, is capable of an operation which is accomplished without any bodily organ at all. And this form is the intellective soul; for understanding is not effected through any bodily organ. That is why this principle, the intellective soul by which man understands and which transcends the condition of corporeal matter, must not be wholly encompassed by or imbedded in matter, as material forms are. This is proved by its intellectual operation, wherein corporeal matter has no part. But since the human soul’s act of understanding needs powers—namely, imagination and sense—which function through bodily organs, this itself shows that the soul is naturally united to the body in order to complete the human species.

Caput 69 Chapter 69
Solutio rationum quibus supra probatur quod substantia intellectualis non potest uniri corpori ut forma SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ABOVE IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT AN INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCE CANNOT BE UNITED TO THE BODY AS ITS FORM
His autem consideratis, non est difficile solvere quae contra praedictam unionem supra opposita sunt. [1] With the preceding points in mind, it is not difficult to solve the arguments previously proposed against the union in question.
In prima enim ratione falsum supponitur. Non enim corpus et anima sunt duae substantiae actu existentes, sed ex eis duobus fit una substantia actu existens: corpus enim hominis non est idem actu praesente anima, et absente; sed anima facit ipsum actu esse. [2] In the first argument a false supposition is made, because body and soul are not two actually existing substances; rather, the two of them together constitute one actually existing substance. For man’s body is not actually the same while the soul is present and when it is absent; but the soul makes it to be actually.
Quod autem secundo obiicitur, formam et materiam in eodem genere contineri, non sic verum est quasi utrumque sit species unius generis: sed quia sunt principia eiusdem speciei. Sic igitur substantia intellectualis et corpus, quae seorsum existentia essent diversorum generum species, prout uniuntur, sunt unius generis ut principia. [3] In the second argument the statement that form and matter are contained in the same genus is true, not in the sense that they are both species of the same genus, but in the sense that they are the principles of the same species. So, if the intellectual substance and the body existed apart from one another, they would be species of diverse genera; but by being united, they are of one and the same genus as principles of it.
Non autem oportet substantiam intellectualem esse formam materialem, quamvis esse eius sit in materia: ut tertia ratio procedebat. Non enim est in materia sicut materiae immersa, vel a materia totaliter comprehensa, sed alio modo, ut dictum est. [4] Nor is the third argument valid. For from the fact that the intellectual substance is in matter it does not follow that it is a material form, because that soul is not present in matter in the sense of being embedded in it or wholly enveloped by it, but in another way, as we have pointed out.
Nec tamen per hoc quod substantia intellectualis unitur corpori ut forma, removetur quod a philosophis dicitur, intellectum esse a corpore separatum. Est enim in anima considerare et ipsius essentiam, et potentiam eius. Secundum essentiam quidem suam dat esse tali corpori: secundum potentiam vero operationes proprias efficit. Si igitur operatio animae per organum corporale completur, oportet quod potentia animae quae est illius operationis principium, sit actus illius partis corporis per quam operatio eius completur: sicut visus est actus oculi. Si autem operatio eius non compleatur per organum corporale, potentia eius non erit actus alicuius corporis. Et per hoc dicitur intellectus esse separatus: non quin substantia animae cuius est potentia intellectus, sive anima intellectiva, sit corporis actus ut forma dans tali corpori esse. [5] As to the fourth argument, the fact that an intellectual substance is united to the body as its form does not prevent the intellect from being, as the philosophers say, separate from the body. For in the soul two things must be taken into consideration: its essence, and its power. Through its essence the soul gives being to such and such a body; by its power it performs its proper operations. Accordingly, if a psychic operation is carried out by means of a bodily organ, then the power of the soul which is the principle of that operation must be the act of that part of the body whereby such an operation is performed; thus, sight is the act of the eye. But, if the soul’s operation is not effected by means of a bodily organ, then its power will not be the act of a body. And this is what is meant by saying that the intellect is separate; nor does separateness in this sense prevent the substance of the soul of which the intellect is a power (namely, the intellective soul) from being the act of the body, as the form which gives being to such a body.
Non est autem necessarium, si anima secundum suam substantiam est forma corporis, quod omnis eius operatio fiat per corpus, ac per hoc omnis eius virtus sit alicuius corporis actus: ut quinta ratio procedebat. Iam enim ostensum est quod anima humana non sit talis forma quae sit totaliter immersa materiae, sed est inter omnes alias formas maxime supra materiam elevata. Unde et operationem producere potest absque corpore, idest, quasi non dependens a corpore in operando: quia nec etiam in essendo dependet a corpore. [6] Concerning the fifth argument, let it be said that because the soul is in its substance the form of the body, it does not follow that every operation of the soul must be performed by means of the body, so that every power of the soul will be the act of a bodily thing. For we have already proved that the human soul is not a form wholly embedded in matter, but among all other forms occupies a most exalted place above matter. That is why it can produce an operation without the body, as being operationally independent of the body; since neither is it existentially dependent on the body.
Eodem etiam modo patet quod ea quibus Averroes suam opinionem confirmare nititur, non probant substantiam intellectualem corpori non uniri ut formam. [7] As for the arguments whereby Averroes endeavors to establish his theory, they clearly fail to prove that an intellectual substance is not united to the body as its form.
Verba enim Aristotelis quae dicit de intellectu possibili, quod est impassibilis et immixtus et separatus, non cogunt confiteri quod substantia intellectiva non sit unita corpori ut forma dans esse. Verificantur enim etiam si dicatur quod intellectiva potentia, quam Aristoteles vocat potentiam perspectivam, non sit alicuius organi actus quasi per ipsum suam exercens operationem. Et hoc etiam sua demonstratio declarat: ex operatione enim intellectuali qua omnia intelligit, ostendit ipsum immixtum esse vel separatum; operatio autem pertinet ad potentiam ut ad principium. [8] For the terms which Aristotle applies to the possible intellect, namely, that it is impassible, unmixed, and separate, do not compel us to admit that an intellective substance is not united to the body as a form giving being. For these expressions are also true if we say that the intellective power, which Aristotle calls the power of insight, is not the act of an organ, as though it exercises its operation by it. This point, too, ‘is made clear in his own demonstration, since he proves that this power is pure of all admixture, or is separate, because of the intellectual character of its operation, whereby it understands all things, and because a power is the source of a thing’s operation.
Unde patet quod nec demonstratio Aristotelis hoc concludit, quod substantia intellectiva non uniatur corpori sicut forma. Si enim ponamus substantiam animae secundum esse corpori sic unitam, intellectum autem nullius organi actum esse, non sequetur quod intellectus habeat aliquam naturam, de naturis dico sensibilium: cum non ponatur harmonia, vel ratio alicuius organi, sicut de sensu dicit Aristoteles, in II de anima, quod est quaedam ratio organi. Non enim habet intellectus operationem communem cum corpore.
Quod autem per hoc quod Aristoteles dicit intellectum esse immixtum vel separatum, non intendat excludere ipsum esse partem sive potentiam animae quae est forma totius corporis, patet per hoc quod dicit in fine primi de anima, contra illos qui dicebant animam in diversis partibus corporis diversas sui partes habere: si tota anima omne corpus continet, convenit et partium unamquamque aliquid corporis continere. Hoc autem videtur impossibile. Qualem enim partem aut quomodo intellectus continet, grave est fingere.
[9] Clearly, that is why Aristotle’s demonstration does not result in the proposition that the intellective substance is not united to the body as its form. For, if we maintain that the soul’s substance is thus united in being to the body, and that the intellect is not the act of any organ, it will not follow that the intellect has a particular nature—I refer to the natures of sensible things—since the soul is not held to be a harmony, nor the form of an organ. (As Aristotle in De anima II [12] says of the sense-power, it is a certain form of an organ.) None of these things is true of man’s soul, because the intellect has no operation in common with the body.
[10] Now, by saying that the intellect is free from all admixture, or is separate, Aristotle does not mean to exclude its being a part or power of the soul which is the form of the whole body. This is clear from what he says toward the end of De anima I [5] in opposing those who maintained that the soul has diverse parts of itself in diverse parts of the body: “If the whole soul holds together the whole body, it is fitting that each part of the soul should hold together a part of the body. But this seems an impossibility. For it is difficult to imagine what bodily part the intellect will hold together, or how it will do this.”
Patet etiam quod, ex quo intellectus nullius partis corporis actus est, quod non sequitur receptionem eius esse receptionem materiae primae: ex quo eius receptio et operatio est omnino absque organo corporali. [11] Moreover, from the fact that the intellect is not the act of any part of the body, it clearly does not follow that its receptiveness is that of prime matter, for intellectual receptiveness and operation are altogether without a corporeal organ.
Nec etiam infinita virtus intellectus tollitur: cum non ponatur virtus in magnitudine, sed in substantia intellectuali fundata, ut dictum est. [12] Nor, again, does union with the body rob the intellect of its infinite power, since that power is not placed in a magnitude, but is rooted in the intellectual substance, as was said.

Caput 70 Chapter 70
Quod secundum dicta Aristotelis oportet ponere intellectum uniri corpori ut formam THAT ACCORDING TO THE WORDS OF ARISTOTLE THE INTELLECT MUST BE SAID TO BE UNITED TO THE BODY AS ITS FORM
Et quia Averroes maxime nititur suam opinionem confirmare per verba et demonstrationem Aristotelis, ostendendum restat quod necesse est dicere, secundum opinionem Aristotelis, intellectum secundum suam substantiam alicui corpori uniri ut formam. [1] Now, since Averroes seeks to confirm his doctrine especially by appealing to the words and proof of Aristotle, it remains for us to show that in the Philosopher’s judgment we must say that the intellect, as to its substance, is united to the body as its form.
Probat enim Aristoteles, in libro physicorum, quod in motoribus et motis impossibile est procedere in infinitum. Unde concludit quod necesse est devenire ad aliquod primum motum, quod vel moveatur ab immobili motore, vel moveat seipsum. Et de his duobus accipit secundum, scilicet quod primum mobile moveat seipsum: ea ratione, quia quod est per se, semper est prius eo quod est per aliud. Deinde ostendit quod movens seipsum de necessitate dividitur in duas partes, quarum una est movens et alia est mota. Oportet igitur primum seipsum movens componi ex duabus partibus, quarum una est movens et alia mota. Omne autem huiusmodi est animatum. Primum igitur mobile, scilicet caelum, est animatum, secundum opinionem Aristotelis. Unde et in II de caelo dicitur expresse quod caelum est animatum, et propter hoc oportet in eo ponere differentias positionis non solum quoad nos, sed etiam secundum se. [2] For Aristotle proves in the Physics [VIII, 5] that in movers and things moved it is impossible to proceed to infinity. Hence, he concludes to the necessity of a first moved thing, which either is moved by an immobile mover or moves itself. And of these two he takes the second, namely, that the first movable being moves itself; for what is through itself is always prior to that which is through another. Then he shows that a self-mover necessarily is divided into two parts, part moving and part moved; whence it follows that the first self-mover must consist of two parts, the one moving, the other moved. Now, every thing of this kind is animate. The first movable being, namely, the heaven, is therefore animate in Aristotle’s opinion. So it is expressly stated in De caelo [II, 2] that the heaven is animate, and on this account we must attribute to its differences of position not only in relation to us, but also in relation to itself.
Inquiramus igitur, secundum opinionem Aristotelis, qua anima sit caelum animatum. Let us, then, ask with what kind of soul Aristotle thinks the heaven to be animated.
Probat autem in XI metaphysicae, quod in motu caeli est considerare aliquid quod movet omnino immotum, et aliquid quod movet motum. Id autem quod movet omnino immotum, movet sicut desiderabile: nec dubium quin ab eo quod movetur. Ostendit autem quod non sicut desiderabile desiderio concupiscentiae, quod est desiderium sensus, sed sicut desiderabile intellectuali desiderio: unde dicit quod primum movens non motum est desiderabile et intellectuale. Igitur id quod ab eo movetur, scilicet caelum, est desiderans et intelligens nobiliori modo quam nos, ut subsequenter probat. Est igitur caelum compositum, secundum opinionem Aristotelis, ex anima intellectuali et corpore. Et hoc significat in II de anima, ubi dicit quod quibusdam inest intellectivum et intellectus: ut hominibus, et si aliquid huiusmodi est alterum, aut honorabilius, scilicet caelum. [3] In Metaphysics XI [7], Aristotle proves that in the heaven’s movement two factors are to be considered: something that moves and is wholly unmoved, and something that moves and is also moved. Now, that which moves without being moved moves as an object of desire; nor is there any doubt that it moves as a thing desirable by that which is moved. And he shows that it moves not as an object of concupiscent desire, which is a sense desire, but of intellectual desire; and he therefore says that the first unmoved mover is an object of desire and understanding. Accordingly, that which is moved by this mover, namely, the heaven, desires and understands in a nobler fashion than we, as he subsequently proves. In Aristotle’s view, then, the heaven is composed of an intellectual soul and a body. He indicates this when he says in De anima II [3] that “in certain things there is intellect and the power of understanding, for example, in men, and in other things Eke man or superior to him,” namely, the heaven.
Constat autem quod caelum non habet animam sensitivam, secundum opinionem Aristotelis: haberet enim diversa organa, quae non competunt simplicitati caeli. Et ad hoc significandum, subiungit Aristoteles quod quibus de numero corruptibilium inest intellectus, insunt omnes aliae potentiae: ut daret intelligere quod aliqua incorruptibilia habent intellectum quae non habent alias potentias animae, scilicet corpora caelestia. [4] Now the heaven certainly does not possess a sensitive soul, according to the opinion of Aristotle; otherwise, it would have diverse organs, and this is inconsistent with the heaven’s simplicity. By way of indicating this fact, Aristotle goes on to say that “among corruptible things, those that possess intellect have all the other powers,” thus giving us to understand that some incorruptible things, namely, the heavenly bodies, have intellect without the other powers of the soul.
Non poterit igitur dici quod intellectus continuetur corporibus caelestibus per phantasmata: sed oportebit dicere quod intellectus secundum suam substantiam uniatur corpori caelesti ut forma. [5] It will therefore be impossible to say that the intellect makes contact with the heavenly bodies by the instrumentality of phantasms. On the contrary, it will have to be said that the intellect, by its substance, is united to the heavenly body as its form.
Sic igitur et corpori humano, quod est inter omnia corpora inferiora nobilissimum, et aequalitate suae complexionis caelo, ab omni contrarietate absoluto, simillimum, secundum intentionem Aristotelis substantia intellectualis unitur non per aliqua phantasmata sed ut forma ipsius. [6] Now, the human body is the noblest of all lower bodies, and by, its equable temperament most closely resembles the heaven, which is completely devoid of contrariety; so that in Aristotle’s judgment the intellectual substance is united to the human body not by any phantasms, but as its form.
Hoc autem quod dictum est de animatione caeli, non diximus quasi asserendo secundum fidei doctrinam, ad quam nihil pertinet sive sic sive aliter dicatur. Unde Augustinus, in libro Enchiridion, dicit: nec illud quidem certum habeo, utrum ad eandem societatem, scilicet Angelorum, pertineant sol et luna et cuncta sidera: quamvis nonnullis lucida esse corpora, non cum sensu vel intelligentia, videantur. [7] As for the heaven being animate, we have spoken of this not as though asserting its accordance with the teaching of the faith, to which the whole question is entirely irrelevant. Hence, Augustine says in the Enchiridion: “Nor is it certain, to my mind, whether the sun, moon, and all the stars belong to the same community, namely, that of the angels; although to some they appear to be luminous bodies devoid of sense or intelligence.”

Caput 71 Chapter 71
Ex praemissis autem concludi potest quod anima immediate corpori unitur, nec oportet ponere aliquod medium quasi animam corpori uniens: vel phantasmata, sicut dicit Averroes; vel potentias ipsius, sicut quidam dicunt; vel etiam spiritum corporalem, sicut alii dixerunt. [1] It can be inferred from the foregoing that the soul is united to the body immediately, no medium being required to unite the soul to the body, whether it be the phantasms, as Averroes holds, or the body’s powers, as some say, or the corporeal spirit, as others have asserted.
Ostensum est enim quod anima unitur corpori ut forma eius. Forma autem unitur materiae absque omni medio: per se enim competit formae quod sit actus talis corporis, et non per aliquid aliud. Unde nec est aliquid unum faciens ex materia et forma nisi agens, quod potentiam reducit ad actum, ut probat Aristoteles, in VIII metaphysicae: nam materia et forma habent se ut potentia et actus. [2] For we have shown that the soul is united to the body as its form. Now, a form is united to matter without any medium at all, since to be the act of such and such a body belongs to a form by its very essence, and not by anything else. That is why, as Aristotle proves in Metaphysics VIII [6] there is nothing that makes a unitary thing out of matter and form except the agent which reduces the potentiality to act, for matter and form are related as potentiality and act.
Potest tamen dici aliquid esse medium inter animam et corpus, etsi non in essendo, tamen in movendo et in via generationis. In movendo quidem, quia in motu quo anima movet corpus, est quidam ordo mobilium et motorum. Anima enim omnes operationes suas efficit per suas potentias: unde mediante potentia movet corpus; et adhuc membra mediante spiritu; et ulterius unum organum mediante alio organo. In via autem generationis dispositiones ad formam praecedunt formam in materia, quamvis sint posteriores in essendo. Unde et dispositiones corporis quibus fit proprium perfectibile talis formae, hoc modo possunt dici mediae inter animam et corpus. [3] Even so, it can be said that there is a medium between the soul and the body, not, however, from the point of view of being, but of movement and the order of generation. Respecting movement, we find such a medium, since the movement of the body by the soul entails a certain order among movables and movers. For the soul performs all its operations through its powers; thus, it moves the body by means of its power, and, again, the members by means of the [vital] spirit, and, lastly, one organ by means of another. And in the line of generation, a certain medium is found in the fact that dispositions to a form precede the form’s reception in matter, but are posterior to it in being. That is why the body’s dispositions, which make it the proper perfectible subject of such and such a form, may thus be called intermediaries between the soul and the body.

Caput 72 Chapter 72
Quod anima sit tota in toto et tota in qualibet parte THAT THE WHOLE SOUL IS IN THE WHOLE BODY AND IN EACH OF ITS PARTS
Per eadem autem ostendi potest animam totam in toto corpore esse, et totam in singulis partibus. [1] In the light of the same considerations it can be shown that the whole soul is present in the whole body and in its several parts.
Oportet enim proprium actum in proprio perfectibili esse. Anima autem est actus corporis organici, non unius organi tantum. Est igitur in toto corpore, et non in una parte tantum, secundum suam essentiam, secundum quam est forma corporis. [2] For the proper act must reside in its proper perfectible subject. Now, the soul is the act of an organic body, not of one organ only. It is, therefore, in the whole body, and not merely in one part, according to its essence whereby it is the body’s form.
Sic autem anima est forma totius corporis quod etiam est forma singularium partium. Si enim esset forma totius et non partium, non esset forma substantialis talis corporis: sicut forma domus, quae est forma totius et non singularium partium, est forma accidentalis. Quod autem sit forma substantialis totius et partium, patet per hoc quod ab ea sortitur speciem et totum et partes. Unde, ea abscedente, neque totum neque partes remanent eiusdem speciei: nam oculus mortui et caro eius non dicuntur nisi aequivoce. Si igitur anima est actus singularium partium; actus autem est in eo cuius est actus: relinquitur quod sit secundum suam essentiam in qualibet parte corporis. [3] Moreover, the soul is the form of the whole body in such fashion as to be also the form of each part. For, were it the form of the whole and not of the parts, it would not be the substantial form of that body; thus, the form of a house, which is the form of the whole and not of each part, is an accidental form. That the soul is the substantial form both of the whole and of the parts, is clear from the fact that not only the whole but also the parts owe their species to it. This explains why it is that, when the soul departs, neither the whole body nor its parts remain of the same species as before; the eye or flesh of a dead thing are so called only in an equivocal sense. Consequently, if the soul is the act of each part, and an act is in the thing whose act it is, it follows that the soul is by its essence in each part of the body.
Quod autem tota, manifestum est. Cum enim totum dicatur per relationem ad partes, oportet totum diversimode accipi sicut diversimode accipiuntur partes. Dicitur autem pars dupliciter: uno quidem modo, inquantum dividitur aliquid secundum quantitatem, sicut bicubitum est pars tricubiti; alio modo, inquantum dividitur aliquid secundum divisionem essentiae, sicut forma et materia dicuntur partes compositi. Dicitur ergo totum et secundum quantitatem, et secundum essentiae perfectionem. Totum autem et pars secundum quantitatem dicta formis non conveniunt nisi per accidens, scilicet inquantum dividuntur divisione subiecti quantitatem habentis. Totum autem vel pars secundum perfectionem essentiae invenitur in formis per se. De hac igitur totalitate loquendo, quae per se formis competit, in qualibet forma apparet quod est tota in toto et tota in qualibet parte eius: nam albedo, sicut secundum totam rationem albedinis est in toto corpore, ita et in qualibet parte eius. Secus autem est de totalitate quae per accidens attribuitur formis: sic enim non possumus dicere quod tota albedo sit in qualibet parte. Si igitur est aliqua forma quae non dividatur divisione subiecti, sicut sunt animae animalium perfectorum, non erit opus distinctione, cum eis non competat nisi una totalitas: sed absolute dicendum est eam totam esse in qualibet parte corporis. Nec est hoc difficile apprehendere ei qui intelligit animam non sic esse indivisibilem ut punctum; neque sic incorporeum corporeo coniungi sicut corpora ad invicem coniunguntur; ut supra expositum est. [4] And this is manifestly true of the whole soul. For since a whole is spoken of in relation to parts, the word whole must be taken in various senses, according to the meaning of parts. Now, the term part has a double signification; it may refer to the quantitative division of a thing (thus, two cubits is a part of three cubits), or to a division of its essence (form and matter are in this sense said to be parts of a composite). Accordingly, whole is used in reference both to quantity and to the perfection of the essence. Now, whole and part quantitatively so called appertain to forms only accidentally, namely, so far as the forms are divided when the quantitative subject in which they reside is divided. But whole and part as applied to the perfection of the essence are found in forms essentially. Respecting this kind of totality, which belongs to forms essentially, it is therefore clear that the whole of every form is in the whole subject and the whole of it in each part; just as whiteness, by its total essence, is in a whole body, so is it in each part. The case is different with a totality that is ascribed to forms accidentally, for in this sense we cannot say that the whole whiteness is in each part. If, then, there exists a form which is not divided as a result of its subject being divided—and souls of perfect animals are such forms—there will be no need for a distinction, since only one totality befits things of that kind; and it must be said unqualifiedly that the whole of this form is in each part of the body. Nor is this difficult to grasp by one who understands that the soul is not indivisible in the same way as a point, and that an incorporeal being is not united to a corporeal one in the same way as bodies are united to one another, as we explained above.
Non est autem inconveniens animam, cum sit quaedam forma simplex, esse actum partium tam diversarum. Quia unicuique formae aptatur materia secundum suam congruentiam. Quanto autem aliqua forma est nobilior et simplicior, tanto est maioris virtutis. Unde anima, quae est nobilissima inter formas inferiores, etsi simplex in substantia, est multiplex in potentia et multarum operationum. Unde indiget diversis organis ad suas operationes complendas, quorum diversae animae potentiae proprii actus esse dicuntur: sicut visus oculi, auditus aurium, et sic de aliis. Propter quod animalia perfecta habent maximam diversitatem in organis, plantae vero minimam. [5] Nor is it incongruous that the soul, since it is a simple form, should be the act of parts so diverse in character. For in every case the matter is adapted to the form according to the latter’s requirements. Now, the higher and simpler a form is, the greater is its power; and that is why the soul, which is the highest of the lower forms, though simple in substance, has a multiplicity of powers and many operations. The soul, then, needs various organs in order to perform its operations, and of these organs the soul’s various powers are said to be the proper acts; sight of the eye, hearing of the ears, etc. For this reason perfect animals have the greatest diversity of organs; plants, the least.
Hac igitur occasione a quibusdam philosophis dictum est animam esse in aliqua parte corporis: sicut ab ipso Aristotele, in libro de causa motus animalium, dicitur esse in corde, quia aliqua potentiarum eius illi parti corporis attribuitur. Vis enim motiva, de qua Aristoteles in libro illo agebat, est principaliter in corde, per quod anima in totum corpus motum et alias huiusmodi operationes diffundit. [6] Reflection on the fact that the soul needs various organs for the performance of its multifarious activities was the occasion for some philosophers to say that the soul is in some particular part of the body. Thus, Aristotle himself says in the De motu animalium [X] that the soul is in the heart, because one of the soul’s powers is ascribed to that part of the body. For the motive power, of which Aristotle was treating in that work, is principally in the heart, through which the soul communicates movement and other such operations to the whole body.

Caput 73 Chapter 73
Quod intellectus possibilis non est unus in omnibus hominibus THAT THERE IS NOT ONE POSSIBLE INTELLECT IN ALL MEN
Ex praemissis autem evidenter ostenditur non esse unum intellectum possibilem omnium hominum qui sunt et qui erunt et qui fuerunt: ut Averroes, in III de anima, fingit. [1] On the basis of what has already been said it can be clearly demonstrated that there is not one possible intellect of all present, future and past men, as Averroes imagined.
Ostensum est enim quod substantia intellectus unitur corpori humano ut forma. Impossibile est autem unam formam esse nisi unius materiae: quia proprius actus in propria potentia fit; sunt enim ad invicem proportionata. Non est igitur intellectus unus omnium hominum. [2] For it has been proved that the substance of the intellect is united to the human body as its form. But one form cannot possibly exist in more than one matter, because the proper act comes to be in the proper potentiality, since they are proportioned to one another. Therefore, there is not one intellect of all men.
Adhuc. Unicuique motori debentur propria instrumenta: alia enim sunt instrumenta tibicinis, alia architectoris. Intellectus autem comparatur ad corpus ut motor ipsius: sicut Aristoteles determinat in III de anima. Sicut igitur impossibile est quod architector utatur instrumentis tibicinis, ita impossibile est quod intellectus unius hominis sit intellectus alterius. [3] Moreover, every mover ought to have its proper instruments; the flute-player uses one kind of instrument, the builder another. Now, the intellect is related to the body as its mover, as Aristotle shows in De anima III [10]. So, just as it is impossible for the builder to use a flute-player’s instruments, so is it impossible for the intellect of one man to be the intellect of another.
Praeterea. Aristoteles, in I de anima, reprehendit antiquos de hoc quod, dicentes de anima, nihil de proprio susceptibili dicebant: quasi esset contingens, secundum Pythagoricas fabulas, quamlibet animam quodlibet corpus indui. Non est igitur possibile quod anima canis ingrediatur corpus lupi, vel anima hominis aliud corpus quam hominis. Sed quae est proportio animae hominis ad corpus hominis, eadem est proportio animae huius hominis ad corpus huius hominis. Non est igitur possibile animam huius hominis ingredi aliud corpus quam istius hominis. Sed anima huius hominis est per quam hic homo intelligit: homo enim per animam intelligit secundum sententiam Aristotelis in I de anima. Non est igitur unus intellectus istius et illius hominis. [4] Again, Aristotle in De anima I [3] takes the ancients to task for discussing the soul without saying anything about its proper recipient, “as if it were possible, as in the Pythagorean fables, that any soul might put on any body.” It is, then, impossible for the soul of a dog to enter the body of a wolf, or for a man’s soul to enter any body other than a man’s. But the proportion between man’s soul and man’s body is the same as between this man’s soul and this man’s body. Therefore, the soul of this man cannot possibly enter a body other than his own. But it is this man’s soul by which this man understands: man understands by his soul, as Aristotle puts it in De anima I [4]. Hence, this man and that man have not the same intellect.
Amplius. Ab eodem aliquid habet esse et unitatem: unum enim et ens se consequuntur. Sed unumquodque habet esse per suam formam. Ergo et unitas rei sequitur unitatem formae. Impossibile est igitur diversorum individuorum esse formam unam. Forma autem huius hominis est anima intellectiva. Impossibile est igitur omnium hominum esse unum intellectum. [5] Then, too, a thing owes its being and its unity to the same principle, for unity and being are consequent upon one another. But every thing has being through its form. Therefore, a thing’s unity follows upon the unity of its form. Hence, there cannot possibly be one form of diverse individual things. But the form of this particular man is his intellective soul. Therefore, it is impossible that there should be one intellect for all men.
Si autem dicatur quod anima sensitiva huius hominis sit alia ab anima sensitiva illius, et pro tanto non est unus homo, licet sit unus intellectus: hoc stare non potest. Propria enim operatio cuiuslibet rei consequitur et demonstrat speciem ipsius. Sicut autem animalis propria operatio est sentire, ita hominis propria operatio est intelligere: ut Aristoteles dicit, in I Ethicorum. Unde oportet quod, sicut hoc individuum est animal propter sensum, secundum Aristotelem, in II de anima; ita sit homo propter id quo intelligit. Id autem quo intelligit anima, vel homo per animam, est intellectus possibilis, ut dicitur in III de anima. Est igitur hoc individuum homo per intellectum possibilem. Si igitur hic homo habet aliam animam sensitivam cum alio homine, non autem alium intellectum possibilem, sed unum et eundem, sequetur quod sint duo animalia, sed non duo homines. Quod patet impossibile esse. Non est igitur unus intellectus possibilis omnium hominum. [6] Now, if it be said that this man’s sensitive soul is distinct from that man’s, and that to this extent there is not one man although there is one intellect-such an argument cannot stand. For each thing’s proper operation is a consequence and a manifestation of its species. Now, just as the proper operation of an animal is sensation, so the operation proper to man is understanding, as Aristotle says in Ethics I [7]. It is therefore necessary that just as this individual is an animal because it possesses the power of sensation, as Aristotle remarks in De anima II [2], so is be a man in virtue of that by which he understands. But “that whereby the soul, or man through the soul, understands,” is the possible intellect, as the same philosopher says in De anima III [4]. This individual, then, is a man through the possible intellect. Now, suppose that this man has a distinct sensitive soul from that man’s, and yet not a distinct possible intellect but one and the same possible intellect. The consequence is obviously impossible, namely, that this man and that man will be two animals, but not two men. Therefore, there is not one possible intellect of all men.
His autem rationibus respondet Commentator praedictus, in III de anima, dicens quod intellectus possibilis continuatur nobiscum per formam suam, scilicet per speciem intelligibilem, cuius unum subiectum est phantasma in nobis existens, quod est in diversis diversum. Et sic intellectus possibilis numeratur in diversis, non ratione suae substantiae, sed ratione suae formae. [7] Now, the Commentator Averroes replies to these arguments by saying that the possible intellect comes into contact with us through its form, that is, by the intelligible species, whose single subject is the phantasm existing in us and which is distinct in distinct subjects. Thus, the possible intellect is particularized in diverse subjects, not by reason of its substance but of its form.
Quod autem haec responsio nulla sit, apparet per ea quae supra dicta sunt. Ostensum est enim supra quod non est possibile hominem intelligere si sic solum intellectus possibilis continuaretur nobiscum. [8] It is clear from what has been said above” that this reply is worthless. For, if the possible intellect makes contact with us only in that way, man’s understanding is rendered impossible, as we have shown.”
Dato autem quod praedicta continuatio sufficeret ad hoc quod homo esset intelligens, adhuc responsio dicta rationes supra dictas non solvit. Secundum enim dictam positionem, nihil ad intellectum pertinens remanebit numeratum secundum multitudinem hominum nisi solum phantasma. Et hoc ipsum phantasma non erit numeratum secundum quod est intellectum in actu: quia sic est in intellectu possibili, et est abstractum a materialibus conditionibus per intellectum agentem. Phantasma autem, secundum quod est intellectum in potentia, non excedit gradum animae sensitivae. Adhuc igitur non remanebit alius hic homo ab illo nisi per animam sensitivam. Et sequetur praedictum inconveniens, quod non sint plures homines hic et ille. [9] But, even if we supposed that the contact in question sufficed to account for man’s knowing, Averroes’ reply still fails to solve the arguments we adduced. For in the Averroistic theory under consideration nothing pertaining to the intellect save only the phantasm will be particularized in accordance with the number of men. Nor will this phantasm itself be particularized so far as it is actually understood, because in this state it exists in the possible intellect, being abstracted from material conditions by the agent intellect. But the phantasm, as understood potentially, is not above the level of being of the sensitive soul; so that this man will still remain indistinguishable from that man, except as concerns the sensitive soul; and there will follow the incongruity previously noted, namely, that this and that man are not several men.
Praeterea. Nihil sortitur speciem per id quod est in potentia, sed per id quod est actu. Phantasma autem, secundum quod est numeratum, est tantum in potentia ad esse intelligibile. Ergo per phantasma, secundum quod numeratur, non sortitur hoc individuum speciem animalis intellectivi, quod est ratio hominis. Et sic remanebit illud quod speciem humanam dat, non esse numeratum in diversis. [10] Moreover, a thing derives its species, not from that which is in potentiality, but from that which is in act. Yet the phantasm, as particularized, has only a potentially intelligible being. Therefore, it is not to the phantasm as particularized that this individual owes the specific character of intellective animal, which is the nature of man. And so we have the same result as before, namely, that the thing from which man’s specific nature is derived is not particularized in diverse subjects.
Adhuc. Illud per quod speciem sortitur unumquodque vivens, est perfectio prima, et non perfectio secunda: ut patet per Aristotelem, in II de anima. Phantasma autem non est perfectio prima, sed perfectio secunda: est enim phantasia motus factus a sensu secundum actum, ut dicitur in libro de anima. Non est igitur ipsum phantasma quod numeratur, a quo homo speciem habet. [11] Again, the source of a living thing’s species is its first and not its second perfection, as is clear from what Aristotle says in De anima II. But the phantasm is not the first but a second perfection, for the imagination is “a movement resulting from the exercise of a sense-power,” as we read in the same work. Therefore, it is not to the particularized phantasm that man owes his specific nature.
Amplius. Phantasmata quae sunt intellecta in potentia, diversa sunt. Illud autem quo aliquid speciem sortitur, oportet esse unum: nam species una est unius. Non igitur per phantasmata, prout ponuntur numerari in diversis, ut sunt intellecta in potentia, homo speciem sortitur. [12] Phantasms that are potentially understood are distinct. But the source of a thing’s specific nature must be one, since of one thing there is one specific nature. Therefore, man does not derive his specific nature through phantasms as particularized in diverse subjects and hence as potentially understood.
Item. Illud quo homo sortitur speciem, oportet semper esse manens in eodem individuo dum durat: alias individuum non semper esset unius et eiusdem speciei, sed quandoque huius, quandoque illius. Phantasmata autem non semper eadem manent in uno homine, sed quaedam de novo adveniunt, et quaedam praeexistentia abolentur. Individuum igitur hominis neque per phantasma sortitur speciem; neque per ipsum continuatur principio suae speciei, quod est intellectus possibilis. [13] The source of man’s specific nature must always remain the same in the same individual as long as the individual continues to be; otherwise, the individual would not always be of one and the same species, but sometimes of this one and sometimes of that one. But phantasms do not always remain the same in one man; rather, some new ones appear, while some old ones pass away. Therefore, the human individual neither acquires his specific nature through the phantasm nor by its means is he brought into contact with the principle of his specific essence, namely, the possible intellect.
Si autem dicatur quod hic homo non sortitur speciem ab ipsis phantasmatibus, sed a virtutibus in quibus sunt phantasmata, scilicet imaginativa, memorativa et cogitativa, quae est propria homini, quam Aristoteles in III de anima, passivum intellectum vocat: adhuc sequuntur eadem inconvenientia. Quia, cum virtus cogitativa habeat operationem solum circa particularia, quorum intentiones dividit et componit, et habeat organum corporale per quod agit, non transcendit genus animae sensitivae. Homo autem ex anima sensitiva non habet quod sit homo, sed quod sit animal. Adhuc igitur relinquitur quod numeretur in nobis solum id quod competit homini inquantum est animal. [14] Now, if it be argued that this man does not derive his specific nature from the phantasms themselves but from the powers in which the phantasms reside, namely, imagination, memory, and cogitation—the latter, which Aristotle in De anima in calls the passive intellect, being proper to man—even so the same impossibilities ensue. For, since the cogitative power is operationally limited to particular things, makes its judgments on the basis of particular intentions, and acts by means of a bodily organ, it is not above the generic level of the sensitive soul. Now, man is not a man in virtue of his sensitive soul, but an animal. Therefore, it still remains that the only thing particularized in us is that which belongs to man as an animal.
Praeterea. Virtus cogitativa, cum operetur per organum, non est id quo intelligimus: cum intelligere non sit operatio alicuius organi. Id autem quo intelligimus, est illud quo homo est homo: cum intelligere sit propria operatio hominis consequens eius speciem. Non est igitur hoc individuum homo per virtutem cogitativam: neque haec virtus est id per quod homo substantialiter differt a brutis, ut Commentator praedictus fingit. [15] Moreover, the cogitative power, since it operates by means of an organ, is not that whereby we understand, for understanding is not the operation of an organ. Now, that whereby we understand is that by which man is man, since understanding is man’s proper operation, flowing from his specific nature. Consequently, it is not by the cogitative power that this individual is a man, nor is it by this power that man differs substantially from the brutes, as the Commentator imagines.
Adhuc. Virtus cogitativa non habet ordinem ad intellectum possibilem, quo intelligit homo, nisi per suum actum quo praeparantur phantasmata ut per intellectum agentem fiant intelligibilia actu et perficientia intellectum possibilem. Operatio autem ista non semper eadem manet in nobis. Impossibile est igitur quod homo per eam vel continuetur principio speciei humanae; vel per eam habeat speciem. Sic igitur patet quod praedicta responsio omnino confutanda est. [16] Nor, again, does the cogitative power bear any ordered relationship to the possible intellect whereby man understands, except through its act of preparing the phantasms for the operation of the agent intellect which makes them actually intelligible and perfective of the possible intellect. But this activity of the cogitative power does not always remain the same in us. By its means, therefore, man cannot possibly be brought into contact with the principle of the human species, nor can he receive his specific nature from it. Clearly, the counter-argument cited above is therefore to be completely rejected.
Item. Id quo aliquid operatur aut agit, est principium ad quod sequitur operatio non solum quantum ad esse ipsius, sed etiam quantum ad multitudinem aut unitatem: ab eodem enim calore non est nisi unum calefacere, sive una calefactio activa; quamvis possit esse multiplex calefieri, sive multae calefactiones passivae, secundum diversitatem calefactorum simul per unum calorem. Intellectus autem possibilis est quo intelligit anima: ut dicit Aristoteles in III de anima. Si igitur intellectus possibilis huius et illius hominis sit unus et idem numero, necesse erit etiam intelligere utriusque esse unum et idem. Quod patet esse impossibile: nam diversorum individuorum impossibile est esse operationem unam. Impossibile est igitur intellectum possibilem esse unum huius et illius. [17] Furthermore, that whereby a thing operates or acts is a principle not only of the being of the operation flowing from it, but also of the multiplicity or unity involved. Thus, there is from the same heat but one heating or active calefaction, though there may be many things heated, many passive calefactions according to the number of different things heated simultaneously by the same heat. Now, the possible intellect is that by which the soul understands, as Aristotle says in De anima III.” Hence, if the possible intellect of this and that man is numerically one and the same, then the act of understanding will of necessity be one and the same in both men; which is obviously impossible, since a single operation cannot belong to distinct individuals. Therefore, this and that man cannot have the one possible intellect.
Si autem dicatur quod ipsum intelligere multiplicatur secundum diversitatem phantasmatum: hoc stare non potest. Sicut enim dictum est, unius agentis una actio multiplicatur solum secundum diversa subiecta in quae transit illa actio. Intelligere autem et velle, et huiusmodi, non sunt actiones transeuntes in exteriorem materiam, sed manent in ipso agente quasi perfectiones ipsius agentis: ut patet per Aristotelem in IX metaphysicae. Non potest igitur unum intelligere intellectus possibilis multiplicari per diversitatem phantasmatum. [18] Now, if it be argued that the very act of understanding is multiplied in accordance with the diversity of phantasms, the contention is baseless. For, as has been said, the one action of the one agent is multiplied only according to the diverse subjects into which that action passes. But understanding, willing, and the like, are not actions that pass into external matter; on the contrary, they remain in the agent as perfections of that very agent, as Aristotle makes clear in Metaphysics IX [8]. Therefore, one act of understanding of the possible intellect cannot be multiplied by means of a diversity of phantasms.
Praeterea. Phantasmata se habent ad intellectum possibilem ut activum quodammodo ad passivum: secundum quod Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima, quod intelligere quoddam pati est. Pati autem ipsum patientis diversificatur secundum diversas formas activorum sive species, non secundum diversitatem eorum in numero. In uno enim passivo sequitur simul a duobus activis, scilicet calefaciente et desiccante, calefieri et desiccari: non autem a duobus calefacientibus sequitur in uno calefactibili duplex calefieri, sed unum tantum; nisi forte sint diversae species caloris. Cum enim calor duplex unius speciei non possit esse in uno subiecto; motus autem numeratur secundum terminum ad quem: si sit unius temporis et eiusdem subiecti, non poterit esse duplex calefieri in uno subiecto. Et hoc dico, nisi sit alia species caloris: sicut ponitur in semine calor ignis, caeli et animae. Ex diversitate igitur phantasmatum intellectus possibilis non multiplicatur nisi secundum diversarum specierum intelligentiam: ut dicamus quod aliud est eius intelligere prout intelligit hominem, et prout intelligit equum. Sed horum unum intelligere simul convenit omnibus hominibus. Ergo adhuc sequetur quod idem intelligere numero sit huius hominis et illius. [19] The phantasms, moreover, are in a certain manner related to the possible intellect as the active to the passive. In this connection Aristotle remarks in De anima [III, 4] in that to understand is in a certain way to be passive. Now, the passivity of the patient is diversified according to the diverse forms or species of the agents, not according to their numerical diversity. For the one passive subject is heated and dried at the same time by two active causes, heating and drying; two heating agents do not produce two heatings in one heatable thing, but only one heating, unless, perchance, those agents be distinct species of heat. For, since two heats specifically the same cannot be present in one subject, and movement is numbered in relation to its terminal point, if the movement take place at one time and in the same subject, there cannot be a double heating in one subject. I mean that this is the case unless another species of beat is involved, as in the seed there is, said to be the beat of fire, of heaven, and of the soul. Hence the possible intellect’s act of understanding is not multiplied in accordance with the diversity of phantasms, except as concerns its understanding of diverse species (so we may say that its act of understanding is different in the case of understanding a man and understanding a horse); on the contrary, one act of understanding these things befits all men at the same time. Therefore, it will still follow that the act of understanding is numerically the same in this and that man.
Adhuc. Intellectus possibilis intelligit hominem, non secundum quod est hic homo, sed inquantum est homo simpliciter, secundum rationem speciei. Haec autem ratio una est, quantumcumque phantasmata hominis multiplicentur, vel in uno homine vel in diversis, secundum diversa individua hominis, quorum proprie sunt phantasmata. Multiplicatio igitur phantasmatum non potest esse causa quod multiplicetur ipsum intelligere intellectus possibilis respectu unius speciei. Et sic adhuc remanebit una actio numero diversorum hominum. [20] Again, the possible intellect understands man, not as this man, but simply as man, according to man’s specific nature. Now, this nature of man’s is one, regardless of the multiplication of phantasms, whether in one man or in several, according to the diverse human individuals to which phantasms properly speaking belong. Consequently, the multiplication of phantasms cannot cause the multiplication of the possible intellect’s act of understanding with respect to a single species. We are, then, left with the same result as before, namely, numerically one action of many different men.
Item. Proprium subiectum habitus scientiae est intellectus possibilis: quia eius actus est considerare secundum scientiam. Accidens autem, si sit unum, non multiplicatur nisi secundum subiectum. Si igitur intellectus possibilis sit unus omnium hominum, necesse erit quod scientiae habitus idem secundum speciem, puta habitus grammaticae, sit idem numero in omnibus hominibus. Quod est inopinabile. Non est igitur intellectus possibilis unus in omnibus. [21] Also, the possible intellect is the proper subject of the habit of science, because its act is scientific consideration. But, if an accident is one, it is multiplied only in reference to its subject; so that, if there is one possible intellect of all men, then specifically the same habit of science—the habit of grammar, for instance—will of necessity be numerically the same in all men; which is inconceivable. Therefore, the possible intellect is not one in all.
Sed ad hoc dicunt quod subiectum habitus scientiae non est intellectus possibilis, sed intellectus passivus et virtus cogitativa. Quod quidem esse non potest.
Nam, sicut probat Aristoteles, in II Ethicorum, ex similibus actibus fiunt similes habitus, et similes etiam actus reddunt. Ex actibus autem intellectus possibilis fit habitus scientiae in nobis: et ad eosdem actus potentes sumus secundum habitum scientiae. Habitus igitur scientiae est in intellectu possibili, non passivo.
[22] But to this they [the Averroists] reply that the subject of the habit of science is not the possible intellect but the passive intellect and the cogitative power.
[23] This, however, is impossible. For, as Aristotle proves in Ethics II, “from like acts, like habits are formed, which in turn give rise to like acts.” Now, the habit of science is formed in us by acts of the possible intellect, and we are capable of performing those acts according to the habit of science. Therefore, the habit of science is in the possible, and not the passive, intellect.
Adhuc. Scientia est de conclusionibus demonstrationum: nam demonstratio est syllogismus faciens scire, ut Aristoteles dicit in I posteriorum. Conclusiones autem demonstrationum sunt universales, sicut et principia. Erit igitur in illa virtute quae est cognoscitiva universalium. Intellectus autem passivus non est cognoscitivus universalium, sed particularium intentionum. Non est igitur subiectum habitus scientiae. [24] It is with respect to the conclusions of demonstrations, moreover, that there is science. For a demonstration is “a syllogism productive of scientific knowledge,” as Aristotle says in Posterior Analytics I [2]. Now, the conclusions of demonstrations are universals, and so, too, are their principles. Therefore, science will reside in that power which is cognizant of universals. But the passive intellect has no knowledge of universals, but only of particular intentions. Hence, it is not the subject of the habit of science.
Praeterea. Contra hoc sunt plures rationes adductae supra, cum de unione intellectus possibilis ad hominem ageretur. [25] Then, too, against this [Averroistic theory about the passive intellect] are a number of arguments adduced above, when we were treating of the possible intellect’s union with man.
Videtur autem ex hoc fuisse deceptio in ponendo habitum scientiae in intellectu passivo esse, quia homines inveniuntur promptiores vel minus prompti ad scientiarum considerationes secundum diversam dispositionem virtutis cogitativae et imaginativae.
Sed ista promptitudo dependet ab illis virtutibus sicut ex dispositionibus remotis: prout etiam dependet a bonitate tactus et corporis complexione; secundum quod dicit Aristoteles, in II de anima, homines boni tactus et mollis carnis esse bene aptos mente. Ex habitu autem scientiae inest facultas considerandi sicut ex proximo principio actus: oportet enim quod habitus scientiae perficiat potentiam qua intelligimus, ut agat cum voluerit faciliter, sicut et alii habitus potentias in quibus sunt.
[26] Seemingly, the fallacy of locating the habit of science in the passive intellect resulted from the observation that men are more or less apt for scientific studies according to the various dispositions of the cogitative and imaginative powers.
[27] This aptitude, however, depends on these powers as on remote dispositions, as it likewise depends on a fine sense of touch and on bodily temperament. In this connection, Aristotle remarks in De anima II [9] that men possessed of a highly developed sense of touch and of soft flesh are “mentally well endowed.” Now, the habit of science gives rise to an aptitude for reflection, being the proximate principle of that action; for the habit of science must perfect the power whereby we understand, so that it acts easily at will, even as the other habits perfect the powers in which they inhere.
Item. Dispositiones praedictarum virtutum sunt ex parte obiecti, scilicet phantasmatis, quod propter bonitatem harum virtutum praeparatur ad hoc quod faciliter fiat intelligibile actu per intellectum agentem. Dispositiones autem quae sunt ex parte obiectorum, non sunt habitus, sed quae sunt ex parte potentiarum: non enim dispositiones quibus terribilia fiunt toleranda, sunt habitus fortitudinis; sed dispositio qua pars animae, scilicet irascibilis, disponitur ad terribilia sustinenda. Ergo manifestum est quod habitus scientiae non est in intellectu passivo, ut Commentator praedictus dicit, sed magis in intellectu possibili. [28] Moreover, the dispositions of the cogitative and imaginative powers are relative to the object, namely, the phantasm, which, because of the well-developed character of these powers, is prepared in such a way as to facilitate its being made actually intelligible by the agent intellect. Now, dispositions relative to objects are not habits, but dispositions relative to.powers are habits. Thus, the habit of fortitude is not a disposition whereby frightening things become endurable, but a disposition by which the irascible part of the soul is disposed to endure such things. It is therefore evident that the habit of science is not in the passive intellect, as the Commentator says, but rather in the possible intellect.
Item. Si unus est intellectus possibilis omnium hominum, oportet ponere intellectum possibilem semper fuisse, si homines semper fuerunt, sicut ponunt: et multo magis intellectum agentem, quia agens est honorabilius patiente, ut Aristoteles dicit. Sed si agens est aeternum, et recipiens aeternum, oportet recepta esse aeterna. Ergo species intelligibiles ab aeterno fuerunt in intellectu possibili. Non igitur de novo recipit aliquas species intelligibiles. Ad nihil autem sensus et phantasia sunt necessaria ad intelligendum nisi ut ab eis accipiantur species intelligibiles. Sensus igitur non erit necessarius ad intelligendum, neque phantasia. Et redibit opinio Platonis, quod scientiam non acquirimus per sensus, sed ab eis excitamur ad rememorandum prius scita. [29] And if there is one possible intellect for all men, it must be granted that if (as the Averroists assert) men have always existed, then the possible intellect has always existed, and much more the agent intellect, because “the agent is superior to the patient,” as Aristotle says. Now, if both the agent and the recipient are eternal, the things received must be eternal. It would then follow that the intelligible species existed from all eternity in the possible intellect; so, in that case, the latter receives no intelligible species anew. But it is only as the subjects from which intelligible species may be derived that sense and imagination have any necessary role to play in the understanding of things. Therefore, neither sense nor imagination will be necessary for understanding. And thus we shall come back to Plato’s theory that we do not acquire knowledge through the senses, but are awakened by them to the remembrance of things we knew before.
Sed ad hoc respondet Commentator praedictus, quod species intelligibiles habent duplex subiectum: ex uno quorum habent aeternitatem, scilicet ab intellectu possibili; ab alio autem habent novitatem, scilicet a phantasmate; sicut etiam speciei visibilis subiectum est duplex, scilicet res extra animam et potentia visiva. [30] To this Averroes replies that the intelligible species have a twofold subject: the possible intellect, wherein they have eternal being; the phantasm, as ground of their newness. So too, the subject of the visible species is twofold: the thing outside the soul, and the power of sight.
Haec autem responsio stare non potest. Impossibile enim est quod actio et perfectio aeterni dependeat ab aliquo temporali. Phantasmata autem temporalia sunt, de novo quotidie in nobis facta ex sensu. Impossibile est igitur quod species intelligibiles, quibus intellectus possibilis fit actu et operatur, dependeant a phantasmatibus, sicut species visibilis dependet a rebus quae sunt extra animam. [31] But this reply cannot stand, because the action and perfection of an eternal thing could not possibly depend on something temporal. And phantasms are temporal, new ones springing up in us every day from the senses. It follows that the intelligible species whereby the possible intellect is actualized and operates cannot depend on the phantasms, as the visible species depends on things outside the soul.
Amplius. Nihil recipit quod iam habet: quia recipiens oportet esse denudatum a recepto, secundum Aristotelem. Sed species intelligibiles ante meum sentire vel tuum fuerunt in intellectu possibili: non enim qui fuerunt ante nos intellexissent, nisi intellectus possibilis fuisset reductus in actum per species intelligibiles. Nec potest dici quod species illae prius receptae in intellectu possibili, esse cessaverunt: quia intellectus possibilis non solum recipit; sed conservat quod recipit, unde in III de anima dicitur esse locus specierum. Igitur ex phantasmatibus nostris non recipiuntur species in intellectu possibili. Frustra igitur per intellectum agentem fiunt intelligibilia actu nostra phantasmata. [32] Nothing receives what it already has, since, as Aristotle remarks, the recipient must be devoid of the thing received. Now, prior to my sensation or yours, intelligible species were present in the possible intellect, for our predecessors would have had no understanding of anything unless the possible intellect had been actualized by the intelligible species. Nor can it be said that these species already received into the possible intellect have ceased to exist, for the possible intellect not only receives but also preserves what it receives; that is why in De anima II [4] it is called the place of species. Hence, species are not received from our phantasms into the possible intellect. Therefore, it would be useless for our phantasms to be made actually intelligible by the agent intellect.
Item. Receptum est in recipiente per modum recipientis. Sed intellectus secundum se est supra motum. Ergo quod recipitur in eo, recipitur fixe et immobiliter. [33] Likewise, “The presence in the recipient of the thing received accords with the recipient’s manner of being. But the intellect, in itself, transcends movement. Therefore, what is received into it is received in a fixed and immovable manner.
Praeterea. Cum intellectus sit superior virtus quam sensus, oportet quod sit magis unita: et ex hoc videmus quod unus intellectus habet iudicium de diversis generibus sensibilium, quae ad diversas potentias sensitivas pertinet. Unde accipere possumus quod operationes pertinentes ad diversas potentias sensitivas, in uno intellectu adunantur. Potentiarum autem sensitivarum quaedam recipiunt tantum, ut sensus: quaedam autem retinent, ut imaginatio et memoria; unde et thesauri dicuntur. Oportet igitur quod intellectus possibilis et recipiat, et retineat recepta. [34] Since the intellect is a higher power than the sense, its unity must be greater. This explains the observed fact of one intellect exercising judgment upon diverse kinds of sensible things belonging to diverse sensitive powers. And from this we can gather that the operations belonging to the various sensitive powers are united in the one intellect. Now, some of the sensitive powers only receive—the senses, for instance; while some retain, as imagination and memory, which therefore are called store-houses. The possible intellect, then, must both receive and retain what it has received.
Amplius. In rebus naturalibus vanum est dicere quod id ad quod pervenitur per motum, non permaneat, sed statim esse desinat: propter quod repudiatur positio dicentium omnia semper moveri; oportet enim motum ad quietem terminari. Multo igitur minus dici potest quod receptum in intellectu possibili non conservetur. [35] It is idle, moreover, to say that in the realm of natural things what is acquired as the result of movement has no abiding reality but immediately ceases to be. The opinion of those who say that all things are always in motion is rejected in the light of the fact that motion necessarily terminates in repose. Much less, therefore, can it be said that what is received into the possible intellect is not preserved.
Adhuc. Si ex phantasmatibus quae sunt in nobis intellectus possibilis non recipit aliquas species intelligibiles, quia iam recepit a phantasmatibus eorum qui fuerunt ante nos; pari ratione, a nullorum phantasmatibus recipit quos alii praecesserunt. Sed quoslibet aliqui alii praecesserunt, si mundus est aeternus, ut ponunt. Nunquam igitur intellectus possibilis recipit aliquas species a phantasmatibus. Frustra igitur ponitur intellectus agens ab Aristotele, ut faciat phantasmata esse intelligibilia actu. [36] Again, if from the phantasms in us the possible intellect comes into possession of no intelligible species because it has already received from the phantasms of our predecessors, then for the same reason it receives from none of the phantasms of those whom others preceded. But, if the world is eternal, as the Averroists say, there has never existed a person without predecessors. It follows that the possible intellect never receives any species from phantasms. There was then no point in Aristotle’s having posited the agent intellect in order to make the phantasms actually intelligible.
Praeterea. Ex hoc videtur sequi quod intellectus possibilis non indigeat phantasmatibus ad intelligendum. Nos autem per intellectum possibilem intelligimus. Neque igitur nos sensu et phantasmate indigebimus ad intelligendum. Quod est manifeste falsum et contra sententiam Aristotelis. [37] The apparent consequence of all this, furthermore, is that the possible intellect has no need of phantasms in order to understand. Now, it is the possible intellect by which we understand. It will, therefore, follow that we need not have senses and phantasms in order to understand. And this is manifestly false, as well as being contrary to the judgment of Aristotle.
Si autem dicatur quod, pari ratione, non indigeremus phantasmate ad considerandum ea quorum species intelligibiles sunt in intellectu conservatae, etiam si intellectus possibiles sint plures in diversis: quod est contra Aristotelem, qui dicit quod nequaquam sine phantasmate intelligit anima: patet quod non est conveniens obviatio. Intellectus enim possibilis, sicut et quaelibet substantia, operatur secundum modum suae naturae. Secundum autem suam naturam est forma corporis. Unde intelligit quidem immaterialia, sed inspicit ea in aliquo materiali. Cuius signum est, quod in doctrinis universalibus exempla particularia ponuntur, in quibus quod dicitur inspiciatur. Alio ergo modo se habet intellectus possibilis ad phantasma quo indiget, ante speciem intelligibilem: et alio modo postquam recepit speciem intelligibilem. Ante enim, indiget eo ut ab eo accipiat speciem intelligibilem: unde se habet ad intellectum possibilem ut obiectum movens. Sed post speciem in eo receptam, indiget eo quasi instrumento sive fundamento suae speciei: unde se habet ad phantasmata sicut causa efficiens; secundum enim imperium intellectus formatur in imaginatione phantasma conveniens tali speciei intelligibili, in quo resplendet species intelligibilis sicut exemplar in exemplato sive in imagine. Si ergo intellectus possibilis semper habuisset species, nunquam compararetur ad phantasmata sicut recipiens ad obiectum motivum. [38] Now, it may be said that for the same reason we would not need a phantasm in order to consider the things whose species are retained in the possible intellect, even if there are many possible intellects in many different persons. Not only is this objection contrary to Aristotle, who says that “the soul in no wise understands without a phantasm,” it is also clearly irrelevant. For the possible intellect, like every substance, operates in a manner consonant with its nature. Now, it is by its nature the form of the body. Hence, it does indeed understand immaterial things, but it sees them in something material. An indication of this is that in teaching universal notions particular examples are employed, so that the universals may be viewed in them. Hence, the possible intellect, before possessing the intelligible species, is related in one way to the phantasms which it needs, and in another way after receiving that species; before, it needs that phantasm in order to receive from it the intelligible species, and thus the phantasm stands in relation to the possible intellect as the object moving the latter; but, after the species has been received into the possible intellect, the latter needs the phantasm as the instrument or foundation of its species, so that the possible intellect is then related to the phantasm as efficient cause. For by the intellect’s command there is formed in the imagination a phantasm corresponding to such and such an intelligible species, the latter being mirrored in this phantasm as an exemplar in the thing exemplified or in the image. Consequently, were the possible intellect always in possession of the species, it would never stand in relationship to the phantasms as recipient to object moving it.
Item. Intellectus possibilis est quo anima et homo intelligit, secundum Aristotelem. Si autem intellectus possibilis est unus omnium ac aeternus, oportet quod in ipso iam sint receptae omnes species intelligibiles eorum quae a quibuslibet hominibus sunt scita vel fuerunt. Quilibet igitur nostrum, qui per intellectum possibilem intelligit, immo cuius intelligere est ipsum intelligere intellectus possibilis, intelliget omnia quae sunt vel fuerunt a quibuscumque intellecta. Quod patet esse falsum. [39] Then, too, the possible intellect, according to Aristotle, is that “whereby the soul and man understand.” But, if the possible intellect is one in all men and is eternal, then all the intelligible species of the things that are or have been known by any men whatever must already be received in it. Therefore, each of us, since we understand by the possible intellect, and, in fact, our act of understanding is itself the possible intellect’s act of understanding, will understand all that is or has been understood by anyone whatever; which is plainly false.
Ad hoc autem Commentator praedictus respondet, dicens quod nos non intelligimus per intellectum possibilem nisi secundum quod continuatur nobis per nostra phantasmata. Et quia non sunt eadem phantasmata apud omnes nec eodem modo disposita, nec quicquid intelligit unus, intelligit alius. Et videtur haec responsio consonare praemissis. Nam etiam si intellectus possibilis non est unus, non intelligimus ea quorum species sunt in intellectu possibili nisi adsint phantasmata ad hoc disposita. [40] Now, to this the Commentator replies that we do not understand by the possible intellect except so far as it is in contact with us through our phantasms. And since phantasms are not the same in all, nor disposed in the same manner, neither is whatever one person understands understood by another. And this reply seems to be consistent with things previously said. For, even if the possible intellect is not one, we do not understand the things whose species are in the possible intellect without the presence of phantasms disposed for this purpose.
Sed quod dicta responsio non possit totaliter inconveniens evitare, sic patet. Cum intellectus possibilis factus est actu per speciem intelligibilem receptam, potest agere per seipsum, ut dicit Aristoteles, in III de anima. Unde videmus quod illud cuius scientiam semel accepimus, est in potestate nostra iterum considerare cum volumus. Nec impedimur propter phantasmata: quia in potestate nostra est formare phantasmata accommoda considerationi quam volumus; nisi forte esset impedimentum ex parte organi cuius est, sicut accidit in phreneticis et lethargicis, qui non possunt habere liberum actum phantasiae et memorativae. Et propter hoc Aristoteles dicit, in VIII Phys., quod ille qui iam habet habitum scientiae, licet sit potentia considerans, non indiget motore qui reducat eum de potentia in actum, nisi removente prohibens, sed potest ipse exire in actum considerationis ut vult. Si autem in intellectu possibili sunt species intelligibiles omnium scientiarum, quod oportet dicere si est unus et aeternus, necessitas phantasmatum ad intellectum possibilem erit sicut est illius qui iam habet scientiam ad considerandum secundum scientiam illam, quod etiam sine phantasmatibus non posset. Cum igitur quilibet homo intelligat per intellectum possibilem secundum quod est reductus in actum per species intelligibiles, quilibet homo poterit considerare, cum voluerit, scita omnium scientiarum. Quod est manifeste falsum: sic enim nullus indigeret doctore ad acquirendum scientiam. Non est igitur unus et aeternus intellectus possibilis. [41] But, that this reply cannot wholly avoid the difficulty is made clear as follows. When the possible intellect has been actualized by the reception of the intelligible species, it can act of itself, as Aristotle says in De anima III [4]. This accounts for the experienced fact that when we have once acquired knowledge of a thing, it is in our power to consider it again at will. And since we are able to form phantasms adapted to the thinking that we wish to do, they are no hindrance to us [in our reconsideration of things], unless, perhaps, there be an obstacle on the part of the organ to which the phantasm belongs, as in madmen and those afflicted with lethargy, who cannot freely exercise their imagination and memory. For this reason Aristotle says in Physics VIII [4] that one already possessed of the habit of science, though he be considering potentially, needs no mover to bring him from potentiality to act, except a remover of obstacles, but is himself able to exercise his knowledge at will. If, however, the intelligible species of all sciences are present in the possible intellect—which the hypothesis of its unicity and eternity necessarily implies—then that intellect will require phantasms, just as one already in possession of a science needs them in order to think in terms of that science; this the intellect cannot do without phantasms. Therefore, since every man understands by the possible intellect as a result of its being actualized by the intelligible species, every man will be able to apply his mind at will to the things known in every science. This is manifestly false, since in that case no one would need a teacher in order to acquire a science. Therefore, the possible intellect is not one and eternal.

Caput 74 Chapter 74
De opinione Avicennae, qui posuit formas intelligibiles non conservari in intellectu possibili CONCERNING THE THEORY OF AVICENNA, WHO SAID THAT INTELLIGIBLE FORMS ARE NOT PRESERVED IN THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT
Praedictis vero rationibus obviare videntur quae Avicenna ponit. Dicit enim, in suo libro de anima, quod in intellectu possibili non remanent species intelligibiles nisi quandiu actu intelliguntur. [1] What Avicenna has to say, however, seems to conflict with the arguments given above, for he asserts in his De animal that the intelligible species do not remain in the possible intellect except when they are being actually understood.
Quod quidem ex hoc probare nititur, quia, quandiu formae apprehensae manent in potentia apprehensiva, actu apprehenduntur: ex hoc enim fit sensus in actu, quod est idem cum sensato in actu, et similiter intellectus in actu est intellectum in actu. Unde videtur quod, quandocumque sensus vel intellectus est factus unum cum sensato vel intellecto, secundum quod habet formam ipsius, fit apprehensio in actu per sensum vel per intellectum. Vires autem quae conservant formas non apprehensas in actu, dicit non esse vires apprehensivas, sed thesauros virtutum apprehensivarum: sicut imaginatio, quae est thesaurus formarum apprehensarum per sensum; et memoria, quae est, secundum ipsum, thesaurus intentionum apprehensarum absque sensu, sicut cum ovis apprehendit inimicitiam lupi. Hoc autem contingit huiusmodi virtutibus quod conservant formas non apprehensas actu, inquantum habent quaedam organa corporea, in quibus recipiuntur formae receptione propinqua apprehensioni. Et propter hoc, virtus apprehensiva, convertens se ad huiusmodi thesauros, apprehendit in actu. Constat autem quod intellectus possibilis est virtus apprehensiva, et quod non habet organum corporeum. Unde concludit quod impossibile est quod species intelligibiles conserventur in intellectu possibili, nisi quandiu intelligit actu. Oportet ergo quod vel ipsae species intelligibiles conserventur in aliquo organo corporeo, sive in aliqua virtute habente organum corporeum; vel oportet quod formae intelligibiles sint per se existentes, ad quas comparetur intellectus possibilis noster sicut speculum ad res quae videntur in speculo; vel oportet quod species intelligibiles fluant in intellectum possibilem de novo ab aliquo agente separato, quandocumque actu intelligit. Primum autem horum trium est impossibile: quia formae existentes in potentiis utentibus organis corporalibus, sunt intelligibiles in potentia tantum. Secundum autem est opinio Platonis, quam reprobat Aristoteles, in metaphysica. Unde concludit tertium: quod quandocumque intelligimus actu, fluunt species intelligibiles in intellectum possibilem nostrum ab intellectu agente, quem ponit ipse quandam substantiam separatam. [2] Avicenna endeavors to prove this by arguing that, as long as the apprehended forms remain in the apprehending power, they are actually apprehended, since [as Aristotle says] “sense is actualized by being identified with the thing actually sensed” and, similarly, “the intellect in act is one with the thing actually understood” [ De anima III, 2]. So, it seems that whenever sense or intellect becomes one with the thing sensed or understood, as the result of possessing its form, there is actual apprehension through sense or intellect. And Avicenna says that the powers wherein are preserved the forms not actually apprehended are not powers of apprehension, but store-houses thereof; for example, the imagination, which is the store-house of sense-apprehended forms, and the memory, which, he says, is the store-house of intentions apprehended without the senses—the sheep’s apprehension of the wolf as its enemy, for instance. Now, it happens that these powers preserve forms not actually apprehended, so far as they possess bodily organs wherein forms are received in a manner closely resembling apprehension. Accordingly, the apprehensive power, by turning to these store-houses, apprehends actually. Now, the possible intellect certainly is an apprehensive power, and certainly it has no corporeal organ. Hence, Avicenna concludes that it is impossible for the intelligible species to be preserved in the possible intellect, except while it understands actually. There are, then, the following alternatives: either the intelligible species themselves must be preserved in some bodily organ or in some power having such an organ; or the intelligible forms are of necessity self-existent, our possible intellect being to them as a mirror to the things seen in it; or the intelligible species have to be infused anew into the possible intellect whenever it understands actually. Now, the first of these three is impossible, because forms existing in powers which employ bodily organs are only potentially intelligible; and the second is the opinion of Plato, which Aristotle refutes in the Metaphysics [I, 9]. So, Avicenna takes the third, namely, that whenever we understand actually, the agent intellect, which he says is a separate substance, infuses intelligible species into our possible intellect.
Si vero aliquis obiiciat contra eum quod tunc non est differentia inter hominem cum primo addiscit, et cum postmodum vult considerare in actu quae prius didicit: respondet quod addiscere nihil aliud est quam acquirere perfectam habitudinem coniungendi se intelligentiae agenti ad recipiendum ab eo formam intelligibilem. Et ideo ante addiscere est nuda potentia in homine ad talem receptionem: addiscere vero est sicut potentia adaptata. [3] Now, if anyone attacks Avicenna by arguing that on his theory there is no difference between a man when he first learns and when afterwards he wishes to consider actually what he had learned before, Avicenna replies that learning simply consists “in acquiring the perfect aptitude for uniting oneself with the agent intellect so as to receive the intelligible form from it”; so that before learning there exists in man the bare potentiality for such reception, and learning is, as it were, the potentiality adapted.
Videtur etiam huic positioni consonare quod Aristoteles, in libro de memoria, ostendit memoriam non esse in parte intellectiva, sed in parte animae sensitiva. Ex quo videtur quod conservatio specierum intelligibilium non pertineat ad partem intellectivam. [4] In apparent harmony with this position is Aristotle’s proof, given in the De memoria [I] that the memory is in the sensitive and not the intellective part of the soul; whence it seems to follow that the retention of the intelligible species is not the function of the intellective part.
Sed si diligenter consideretur, haec positio, quantum ad originem, parum aut nihil differt a positione Platonis. Posuit enim Plato formas intelligibiles esse quasdam substantias separatas, a quibus scientia fluebat in animas nostras. Hic autem ponit ab una substantia separata, quae est intellectus agens secundum ipsum, scientiam in animas nostras fluere. Non autem differt, quantum ad modum acquirendi scientiam, utrum ab una vel pluribus substantiis separatis scientia nostra causetur: utrobique enim sequetur quod scientia nostra non causetur a sensibilibus. Cuius contrarium apparet per hoc quod qui caret aliquo sensu, caret scientia sensibilium quae cognoscuntur per sensum illum. [5] But, if this position is examined carefully, it will be seen that in principle it differs little or not at all from that of Plato. For Plato maintained that intelligible forms are separate substances, from which knowledge poured into our souls, while Avicenna asserts that knowledge flows into our souls from one separate substance, the agent intellect. Now, so far as the manner of acquiring knowledge is concerned, it makes no difference whether it be caused by one or several separate substances; in either case, it follows that our knowledge is not caused by sensible things—a consequence clearly contradicted by the fact that a person who lacks one sense lacks, also, the knowledge of those sensible things which are known through that sense.
Dicere autem quod per hoc quod intellectus possibilis inspicit singularia quae sunt in imaginatione, illustratur luce intelligentiae agentis ad cognoscendum universale; et quod actiones virium inferiorum, scilicet imaginationis et memorativae et cogitativae, sunt aptantes animam ad recipiendam emanationem intelligentiae agentis, est novum. Videmus enim quod anima nostra tanto magis disponitur ad recipiendum a substantiis separatis, quanto magis a corporalibus et sensibilibus removetur: per recessum enim ab eo quod infra est, acceditur ad id quod supra est. Non igitur est verisimile quod per hoc quod anima respicit ad phantasmata corporalia, quod disponatur ad recipiendam influentiam intelligentiae separatae. [6] And a mere innovation is the statement that by casting its gaze upon the singulars present in the imagination the possible intellect is illuminated by the light of the agent intellect so as to know the universal, and that the actions of the lower powers—imaginative, memorative, cogitative—make the soul fit subject for receiving the influx of the agent intellect. For it is a matter of observation that our soul is the more disposed to receive from separate substances, the further removed it is from corporeal and sensible things; by withdrawing from the lower we approach the higher. The notion that the soul is disposed to receive the influx of a separate intelligence by reflecting upon corporeal phantasms is, therefore, without verisimilitude.
Plato autem radicem suae positionis melius est prosecutus. Posuit enim quod sensibilia non sunt disponentia animam ad recipiendum influentiam formarum separatarum, sed solum expergefacientia intellectum ad considerandum ea quorum scientiam habebat ab exteriori causatam. Ponebat enim quod a principio a formis separatis causabatur scientia in animabus nostris omnium scibilium: unde addiscere dixit esse quoddam reminisci. Et hoc necessarium est secundum eius positionem. Nam, cum substantiae separatae sint immobiles et semper eodem modo se habentes, semper ab eis resplendet scientia rerum in anima nostra, quae est eius capax. [7] Now, Plato followed the root-principle of his position more consistently, because he held that sensible things do not dispose the soul to receive the influx of separate forms, but merely awaken the intellect to consider the things the knowledge of which it had received from an external cause. For he asserted that knowledge of all things knowable was caused in our souls from the beginning by separate forms. Learning he therefore declared to be a kind of remembering. And this is a necessary consequence of his position, for, since separate substances are immobile and ever the same, the knowledge of things always shines forth from them into our soul, which is the fit subject of that knowledge.
Amplius. Quod recipitur in aliquo, est in eo per modum recipientis. Esse autem intellectus possibilis est magis firmum quam esse materiae corporalis. Cum igitur formae fluentes in materiam corporalem ab intelligentia agente, secundum ipsum, conserventur in ea, multo magis conservantur in intellectu possibili. [8] Moreover, the presence in the recipient of the thing received accords with the recipient’s manner of being. Now, the possible intellect exists in a more stable manner than corporeal matter. Therefore, since forms flowing into corporeal matter from the agent intellect are according to Avicenna preserved in that matter, much more are they preserved in the possible intellect.
Adhuc. Cognitio intellectiva est perfectior sensitiva. Si igitur in sensitiva cognitione est aliquid conservans apprehensa, multo fortius hoc erit in cognitione intellectiva. [9] Again, intellective cognition is more perfect than sensitive; so that, if there is something to preserve things apprehended by the senses, this will be all the more true of things apprehended by the intellect.
Item. Videmus quod diversa quae in inferiori ordine potentiarum pertinent ad diversas potentias, in superiori ordine pertinent ad unum: sicut sensus communis apprehendit sensata omnium sensuum propriorum. Apprehendere igitur et conservare, quae in parte animae sensitivae pertinent ad diversas potentias, oportet quod in suprema potentia, scilicet in intellectu, uniantur. [10] Likewise, we see that distinct things, which in a lower order of powers belong to distinct powers, in a higher order belong to one. Thus, the common sense apprehends the things sensed by all the proper senses. It follows that apprehension and preservation, which in the sensitive part of the soul are functions of distinct powers, must be united in the highest power, namely, the intellect.
Praeterea. Intelligentia agens, secundum ipsum, influit omnes scientias. Si igitur addiscere nihil est aliud quam aptari ut uniatur intelligentiae agenti, qui addiscit unam scientiam, non magis addiscit illam quam aliam. Quod patet esse falsum. [11] Then, too, according to Avicenna, the agent intellect causes all sciences by way of influx. Hence, if to learn is simply to be made apt for union with that intellect, then he who learns one science does not learn that one more than another; which is obviously false.
Patet etiam quod haec opinio est contra sententiam Aristotelis, qui dicit, in III de anima, quod intellectus possibilis est locus specierum: quod nihil aliud est dicere quam ipsum esse thesaurum intelligibilium specierum, ut verbis Avicennae utamur. [12] This doctrine of Avicenna’s is also clearly contrary to Aristotle, who says in De anima III [4] that the possible intellect is the place of species, a phrase having the same meaning as Avicenna’s store-house of intelligible species.
Item. Postea subiungit quod quando intellectus possibilis acquirit scientiam, est potens operari per seipsum, licet non actu intelligat. Non igitur indiget influentia alicuius superioris agentis. [13] Moreover, Aristotle goes on to say that when the possible intellect acquires knowledge, it is capable of acting on its own initiative, although it is not actually understanding. Therefore, it has no need of the influx of any higher agent.
Dicit etiam, in VIII physicorum, quod ante addiscere est homo in potentia essentiali ad scientiam, et ideo indiget motore per quem reducatur in actu: non autem, postquam iam addidicit, indiget per se motore. Ergo non indiget influentia intellectus agentis. [14] He also says in Physics VIII [4] that, before learning, a man is in a state of essential potentiality with respect to knowledge and therefore needs a mover to bring him to a state of actual knowledge, but, when he has already learned, he needs no mover essentially so called. Therefore, the influx of the agent intellect is unnecessary for him.
Dicit etiam, in III de anima, quod phantasmata se habent ad intellectum possibilem sicut sensibilia ad sensum. Unde patet quod species intelligibiles sunt in intellectu possibili a phantasmatibus, non a substantia separata. [15] And in De anima III [7,8] Aristotle says that “phantasms are to the possible intellect what sensibles are to the senses.” So, it is clear that intelligible species in the possible intellect are derived from the phantasms, not from a separate substance.
Rationes autem quae videntur in contrarium esse, non est difficile solvere. Intellectus enim possibilis est in actu perfecto secundum species intelligibiles cum considerat actu: cum vero non considerat actu, non est in actu perfecto secundum illas species, sed se habet medio modo inter potentiam et actum. Et hoc est quod Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima, quod, cum haec pars, scilicet intellectus possibilis, unaquaeque fiat, sciens dicitur secundum actum. Hoc autem accidit cum possit operari per seipsum. Est quidem et tunc potentia similiter quodammodo, non tamen similiter et ante addiscere aut invenire. [16] The arguments seemingly contrary to this conclusion are not difficult to solve. For the possible intellect is completely actualized with respect to the intelligible species when actually exercising its power; when it is not so doing, it is not in their regard completely actualized, but is in a state between potentiality and act. And Aristotle remarks that, when this part, namely, the possible intellect, “has become each of its objects, it is said to be actually possessed of knowledge; and this happens when it is capable of acting on its own initiative, yet, even so, its condition is one of potentiality, in a certain sense, but not in the same sense as before learning or discovering.”
Memoria vero in parte sensitiva ponitur, quia est alicuius prout cadit sub determinato tempore: non est enim nisi praeteriti. Et ideo, cum non abstrahat a singularibus conditionibus, non pertinet ad partem intellectivam, quae est universalium. Sed per hoc non excluditur quin intellectus possibilis sit conservativus intelligibilium, quae abstrahunt ab omnibus conditionibus particularibus. [17] Now, the memory is located in the sensitive part of the soul, because its scope is limited to things subject to determinate times; there is memory only of what is past. Therefore, since memory does not abstract from singular conditions, it does not belong to the intellective part of the soul, which is cognizant of universals. This, however, does not stand in the way of the possible intellect’s retentiveness of intelligibles, which abstract from all particular conditions.

Caput 75 Chapter 75
Solutio rationum quibus videtur probari unitas intellectus possibilis SOLUTION OF THE SEEMINGLY DEMONSTRATIVE ARGUMENTS FOR THE UNITY OF THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT
Ad probandum autem unitatem intellectus possibilis quaedam rationes adducuntur, quas oportet ostendere efficaces non esse. [1] We must now show the inefficacy of the arguments put forward with the object of proving the unit of the possible intellect.
Videtur enim quod omnis forma quae est una secundum speciem et multiplicatur secundum numerum, individuetur per materiam: quae enim sunt unum specie et multa secundum numerum, conveniunt in forma et distinguuntur secundum materiam. Si igitur intellectus possibilis in diversis hominibus sit multiplicatus secundum numerum, cum sit unus secundum speciem, oportet quod sit individuatus in hoc et in illo per materiam. Non autem per materiam quae sit pars sui: quia sic esset receptio eius de genere receptionis materiae primae, et reciperet formas individuales; quod est contra naturam intellectus. Relinquitur ergo quod individuetur per materiam quae est corpus hominis cuius ponitur forma. Omnis autem forma individuata per materiam cuius est actus, est forma materialis. Oportet enim quod esse cuiuslibet rei dependeat ab eo a quo dependet individuatio eius: sicut enim principia communia sunt de essentia speciei, ita principia individuantia sunt de essentia huius individui. Sequitur ergo quod intellectus possibilis sit forma materialis. Et per consequens quod non recipiat aliquid nec operetur sine organo corporali. Quod etiam est contra naturam intellectus possibilis. Igitur intellectus possibilis non multiplicatur in diversis hominibus, sed est unus omnium. [2] For it seems that every form which is one specifically and many in number is individuated by matter; because things one in species and many in number agree in form and differ in matter. Therefore, if the possible intellect is multiplied numerically in different men, while being specifically one, then it must be individuated in this and that man by matter. But this individuation is not brought about by matter which is a part of the intellect itself, since in that case the intellect’s receptivity would be of the same genus as that of prime matter, and it would receive individual forms; which is contrary to the nature of intellect. It remains that the intellect is individuated by that matter which is the human body and of which the intellect is held to be the form. But every form individuated by matter of which that form is the act is a material form. For the being of a thing must stem from that to which it owes its individuation; since just as common principles belong to the essence of the species, so individuating principles belong to the essence of this individual thing. It therefore follows that the possible intellect is a material form, and, consequently, that it neither receives anything nor operates without a bodily organ. And this, too, is contrary to the nature of the possible intellect. Therefore, the possible intellect is not multiplied in different men, but is one for them all.
Item. Si intellectus possibilis esset alius in hoc et in illo homine, oporteret quod species intellecta esset alia numero in hoc et in illo, una vero in specie: cum enim specierum intellectarum in actu proprium subiectum sit intellectus possibilis, oportet quod, multiplicato intellectu possibili, multiplicentur species intelligibiles secundum numerum in diversis. Species autem aut formae quae sunt eaedem secundum speciem et diversae secundum numerum, sunt formae individuales. Quae non possunt esse formae intelligibiles: quia intelligibilia sunt universalia, non particularia. Impossibile est igitur intellectum possibilem esse multiplicatum in diversis individuis hominum. Necesse est igitur quod sit unus in omnibus. [3] Also, if the possible intellect in this and that man were distinct, then the species understood would be numerically distinct in this and that man, though one in species. For the possible intellect is the proper subject of species actually understood, so that, with a multiplication of possible intellects, the intelligible species must be multiplied numerically in those diverse intellects. Now, species or forms which are specifically the same and numerically diverse are individual forms. And these cannot be intelligible forms, because intelligibles are universal, not particular. Therefore, the possible intellect cannot be multiplied in diverse human individuals; it must be one in all.
Adhuc. Magister scientiam quam habet transfundit in discipulum. Aut igitur eandem numero: aut aliam numero diversam, non specie. Secundum videtur impossibile esse: quia sic magister causaret scientiam suam in discipulo sicut causat formam suam in alio generando sibi simile in specie; quod videtur pertinere ad agentia materialia. Oportet ergo quod eandem scientiam numero causet in discipulo. Quod esse non posset nisi esset unus intellectus possibilis utriusque. Necesse igitur videtur intellectum possibilem esse unum omnium hominum. [4] And again, the master imparts the knowledge that he possesses to his disciple. Hence, either he conveys numerically the same knowledge or a knowledge numerically, but not specifically, diverse. The latter seems impossible, because in that case the master would cause his own knowledge to exist in his disciple, even as he causes his own form to exist in something else by begetting one specifically like to himself; and this seems to apply to material agents. It follows that the master causes numerically the same knowledge to exist in the disciple. But, unless there were one possible intellect for both persons, this would be impossible. So, the existence of one possible intellect for all men seems to be a necessary conclusion.
Sicut autem praedicta positio veritatem non habet, ut ostensum est, ita rationes positae ad ipsam confirmandam facile solubiles sunt. [5] Nevertheless, just as this doctrine is devoid of truth, as we have shown, so the arguments put forward to confirm it are easy of solution.
Confitemur enim intellectum possibilem esse unum specie in diversis hominibus, plures autem secundum numerum: ut tamen non fiat in hoc vis, quod partes hominis non ponuntur in genere vel specie secundum se, sed solum ut sunt principia totius. Nec tamen sequitur quod sit forma materialis secundum esse dependens a corpore. Sicut enim animae humanae secundum suam speciem competit quod tali corpori secundum speciem uniatur, ita haec anima differt ab illa numero solo ex hoc quod ad aliud numero corpus habitudinem habet. Et sic individuantur animae humanae, et per consequens intellectus possibilis, qui est potentia animae, secundum corpora, non quasi individuatione a corporibus causata. [6] As to the first argument adduced above, we admit that the possible intellect is specifically one in different men and yet is numerically many; though this is not to be taken so as to emphasize the fact that man’s parts are not ascribed to his generic or specific essence as such, but only as principles of the whole man. Nor does it follow that the possible intellect is a material form dependent on the body for its being. For just as it belongs to the human soul by its specific nature to be united to a particular species of body, so this particular soul differs only numerically from that one as the result of having a relationship to a numerically different body. In this way are human souls individuated in relation to bodies, and not as though their individuation were caused by bodies; and so the possible intellect, which is a power of the soul, is individuated likewise.
Secunda vero ratio ipsius deficit, ex hoc quod non distinguit inter id quo intelligitur, et id quod intelligitur. Species enim recepta in intellectu possibili non habet se ut quod intelligitur. Cum enim de his quae intelliguntur sint omnes artes et scientiae, sequeretur quod omnes scientiae essent de speciebus existentibus in intellectu possibili. Quod patet esse falsum: nulla enim scientia de eis aliquid considerat nisi rationalis et metaphysica. Sed tamen per eas quaecumque sunt in omnibus scientiis cognoscuntur. Habet se igitur species intelligibilis recepta in intellectu possibili in intelligendo sicut id quo intelligitur, non sicut id quod intelligitur: sicut et species coloris in oculo non est id quod videtur, sed id quo videmus. Id vero quod intelligitur, est ipsa ratio rerum existentium extra animam: sicut et res extra animam existentes visu corporali videntur. Ad hoc enim inventae sunt artes et scientiae ut res in suis naturis existentes cognoscantur. [7] Averroes’ second argument fails because it does not distinguish between that by which one understands and that which is understood. The species received into the possible intellect is not that which is understood; for, since all arts and sciences have to do with things understood, it would follow that all sciences are about species existing in the possible intellect. And this is patently false, because no science, except logic and metaphysics, is concerned with such things. And yet, in all the sciences, whatever is known is known through those species. Consequently, in the act of understanding, the intelligible species received into the possible intellect functions as the thing by which one understands, and not as that which is understood, even as the species of color in the eye is not that which is seen, but that by which we see. And that which is understood is the very intelligible essence of things existing outside the soul, just as things outside the soul are seen by corporeal sight. For arts and sciences were discovered for the purpose of knowing things as existing in their own natures.
Nec tamen oportet quod, quia scientiae sunt de universalibus, quod universalia sint extra animam per se subsistentia: sicut Plato posuit. Quamvis enim ad veritatem cognitionis necesse sit ut cognitio rei respondeat, non tamen oportet ut idem sit modus cognitionis et rei. Quae enim coniuncta sunt in re, interdum divisim cognoscuntur: simul enim una res est et alba et dulcis; visus tamen cognoscit solam albedinem, et gustus solam dulcedinem. Sic etiam et intellectus intelligit lineam in materia sensibili existentem, absque materia sensibili: licet et cum materia sensibili intelligere possit. Haec autem diversitas accidit secundum diversitatem specierum intelligibilium in intellectu receptarum: quae quandoque est similitudo quantitatis tantum, quandoque vero substantiae sensibilis quantae. Similiter autem, licet natura generis et speciei nunquam sit nisi in his individuis, intelligit tamen intellectus naturam speciei et generis non intelligendo principia individuantia: et hoc est intelligere universalia. Et sic haec duo non repugnant, quod universalia non subsistant extra animam: et quod intellectus, intelligens universalia, intelligat res quae sunt extra animam. Quod autem intelligat intellectus naturam generis vel speciei denudatam a principiis individuantibus, contingit ex conditione speciei intelligibilis in ipso receptae, quae est immaterialis effecta per intellectum agentem, utpote abstracta a materia et conditionibus materiae, quibus aliquid individuatur. Et ideo potentiae sensitivae non possunt cognoscere universalia: quia non possunt recipere formam immaterialem, cum recipiant semper in organo corporali. [8] Nor need we follow Plato in holding that, because science is about universals, universals are self-subsisting entities outside the soul. For, although the truth of knowledge requires the correspondence of cognition to thing, this does not mean that these two must have the same mode of being. For things united in reality are sometimes known separately; in a thing that is at once white and sweet, sight knows only the whiteness, taste only the sweetness. So, too, the intellect understands, apart from sensible matter, a line existing in sensible matter, although it can also understand it with sensible matter. Now, this diversity comes about as a result of the diversity of intelligible species received into the intellect, the species being sometimes a likeness of quantity alone, and sometimes a likeness of a quantitative sensible substance. Similarly, although the generic nature and the specific nature never exist except in individual things, the intellect nevertheless understands those natures without understanding the individuating principles; and to do this is to understand universals. Thus, there is no incompatibility between the fact that universals do not subsist outside the soul, and that in understanding universals the intellect understands things that do exist outside the soul. The intellect’s understanding of the generic or specific nature apart from the individuating principles is due to the condition of the intelligible species received into it, for the species is immaterialized by the agent intellect through being abstracted from matter and material conditions whereby a particular thing is individuated. Consequently, the sensitive powers are unable to know universals; they cannot receive an immaterial form, since whatever is received by them is always received in a corporeal organ.
Non igitur oportet esse numero unam speciem intelligibilem huius intelligentis et illius: ad hoc enim sequeretur esse unum intelligere numero huius et illius, cum operatio sequatur formam quae est principium speciei. Sed oportet, ad hoc quod sit unum intellectum, quod sit unius et eiusdem similitudo. Et hoc est possibile si species intelligibiles sint numero diversae: nihil enim prohibet unius rei fieri plures imagines differentes; et ex hoc contingit quod unus homo a pluribus videtur. Non igitur repugnat cognitioni universali intellectus quod sint diversae species intelligibiles in diversis. [9] Hence, it does not follow that the intelligible species are numerically one in this or that knower; otherwise, this and that person’s act of understanding would be numerically one, since operation follows upon the form which is the principle of the species. But in order that there be one thing understood, there must be a likeness of one and the same thing; and this is possible if the intelligible species are numerically distinct. For there is no reason why there should not be several different images of one thing; it is thus that one man is seen by several. Hence, the existence of several intelligible species in several persons is not incompatible with the intellect’s knowledge of the universal.
Nec propter hoc oportet quod, si species intelligibiles sint plures numero et eaedem specie, quod non sint intelligibiles actu, sed potentia tantum, sicut alia individua. Non enim hoc quod est esse individuum, repugnat ei quod est esse intelligibile actu: oportet enim dicere ipsum intellectum possibilem et agentem, si ponuntur quaedam substantiae separatae corpori non unitae per se subsistentes, quaedam individua esse, et tamen intelligibilia sunt. Sed id quod repugnat intelligibilitati est materialitas: cuius signum est quod, ad hoc quod fiant formae rerum materialium intelligibiles actu, oportet quod a materia abstrahantur. Et ideo in illis in quibus individuatio fit per hanc materiam signatam, individuata non sunt intelligibilia actu. Si autem individuatio fiat non per materiam, nihil prohibet ea quae sunt individua esse actu intelligibilia. Species autem intelligibiles individuantur per suum subiectum, qui est intellectus possibilis, sicut et omnes aliae formae. Unde, cum intellectus possibilis non sit materialis, non tollitur a speciebus individuatis per ipsum quin sint intelligibiles actu. [10] Nor does it then follow, if intelligible species are several in number and specifically the same, that they are not actually intelligible but only potentially intelligible, like other individual things. For to be individual is not incompatible with being actually intelligible, since, on the supposition that the possible and agent intellects are separate substances not united to the body but self-subsistent, it must be said that they are themselves individual things; and yet they are intelligible. No; it is materiality that is incompatible with intelligibility, a sign of this being the fact that for the forms of material things to be made actually intelligible they must be abstracted from matter. Hence, things whose individuation is effected by particular signate matter are not actually intelligible, but nothing prevents things whose individuation is not due to matter from being actually intelligible. Now, intelligible species, in common with all other forms, are individuated by their subject, which in this case is the possible intellect. That is why the possible intellect, being immaterial, does not deprive of actual intelligibility the species which it individuates.
Praeterea. In rebus sensibilibus, sicut non sunt intelligibilia actu individua quae sunt multa in una specie, ut equi vel homines; ita nec individua quae sunt unica in sua specie, ut hic sol et haec luna. Eodem autem modo individuantur species per intellectum possibilem sive sint plures intellectus possibiles sive unus: sed non eodem modo multiplicantur in eadem specie. Nihil igitur refert, quantum ad hoc quod species receptae in intellectu possibili sint intelligibiles actu, utrum intellectus possibilis sit unus in omnibus, aut plures. [11] Moreover, just as individuals in the realm of sensible things are not actually intelligible if there be many of them in one species—for example, horses or men—so neither are sensible individuals which are unique in their species, as this particular sun and this particular moon. But species are individuated in the same way by the possible intellect, whether there be several such intellects or only one; yet they are not multiplied in the same way in the one species. Hence, so far as the actual intelligibility of the species received into the possible intellect is concerned, it makes no difference whether there be one or several possible intellects in all men.
Item. Intellectus possibilis, secundum Commentatorem praedictum, est ultimus in ordine intelligibilium substantiarum, quae quidem secundum ipsum sunt plures. Nec potest dici quin aliquae superiorum substantiarum habeant cognitionem eorum quae intellectus possibilis cognoscit: in motoribus enim orbium, ut ipse etiam dicit, sunt formae eorum quae causantur per orbis motum. Adhuc igitur remanebit, licet intellectus possibilis sit unus, quod formae intelligibiles multiplicentur in diversis intellectibus. [12] Then, too, the possible intellect, according to Averroes, is the last in the order of intelligible substances, which in his view are several. Nor can it be denied that some of the higher substances are cognizant of things which the possible intellect knows; for in the movers of the spheres are present the forms of the things caused by the movement of a sphere, as he himself says. Hence, even if there is but one possible intellect, it will still follow that the intelligible forms are multiplied in different intellects.
Licet autem dixerimus quod species intelligibilis in intellectu possibili recepta, non sit quod intelligitur, sed quo intelligitur; non tamen removetur quin per reflexionem quandam intellectus seipsum intelligat, et suum intelligere, et speciem qua intelligit. Suum autem intelligere intelligit dupliciter: uno modo in particulari, intelligit enim se nunc intelligere; alio modo in universali, secundum quod ratiocinatur de ipsius actus natura. Unde et intellectum et speciem intelligibilem intelligit eodem modo dupliciter: et percipiendo se esse et habere speciem intelligibilem, quod est cognoscere in particulari; et considerando suam et speciei intelligibilis naturam, quod est cognoscere in universali. Et secundum hoc de intellectu et intelligibili tractatur in scientiis. [13] Now, while we have said that the intelligible species received into the possible intellect is not that which is understood but that whereby one understands, this does not prevent the intellect, by a certain reflexion, from understanding itself, and its act of understanding, and the species whereby it understands. Indeed, it understands its own act of understanding in two ways: particularly, for it understands that it presently understands; universally, so far as it reasons about the nature of its act. So, likewise, the intellect understands both itself and the intelligible species in two ways: by perceiving its own being and its possession of an intelligible species—and this is a kind of particular knowing—by considering its own nature and that of the intelligible species, which is a universal knowing. It is in this latter mode that the intellect and the intelligible are treated in the sciences.
Per haec autem quae dicta sunt etiam tertiae rationis apparet solutio. Quod enim dicit scientiam in discipulo et magistro esse numero unam, partim quidem vere dicitur, partim autem non. Est enim numero una quantum ad id quod scitur: non tamen quantum ad species intelligibiles quibus scitur, neque quantum ad ipsum scientiae habitum. Non tamen oportet quod eodem modo magister causet scientiam in discipulo sicut ignis generat ignem. Non enim idem est modus eorum quae a natura generantur, et eorum quae ab arte. Ignis quidem enim generat ignem naturaliter, reducendo materiam de potentia in actum suae formae: magister vero causat scientiam in discipulo per modum artis; ad hoc enim datur ars demonstrativa, quam Aristoteles in posterioribus tradit; demonstratio enim est syllogismus faciens scire. [14] As to the third argument, its solution emerges from what has already been said. For Averroes statement that knowledge in the disciple and in the master is numerically one is partly true and partly false. It is numerically one as concerns the thing known; it is not numerically one either in respect of the intelligible species whereby the thing is known, or of the habit of knowledge itself. Nor does this entail the consequence that the master causes knowledge in the disciple in the same way as fire generates fire. For things are not in the same fashion generated by nature as by art; fire generates fire naturally, by making actual the form of fire potentially present in the matter, whereas the master causes knowledge in his disciple by way of art, since this is the aim of the art of demonstration, which Aristotle teaches in the Posterior Analytics; for demonstration is “a syllogism productive of scientific knowledge,” as he says in that work [I, 2].
Sciendum tamen quod, secundum quod Aristoteles in VII metaphysicae docet, artium quaedam sunt in quarum materia non est aliquod principium agens ad effectum artis producendum, sicut patet in aedificativa: non enim est in lignis et lapidibus aliqua vis activa movens ad domus constitutionem, sed aptitudo passiva tantum. Aliqua vero est ars in cuius materia est aliquod activum principium movens ad producendum effectum artis, sicut patet in medicativa: nam in corpore infirmo est aliquod activum principium ad sanitatem. Et ideo effectum artis primi generis nunquam producit natura, sed semper fit ab arte: sicut domus omnis est ab arte. Effectus autem artis secundi generis fit et ab arte, et a natura sine arte: multi enim per operationem naturae, sine arte medicinae, sanantur. In his autem quae possunt fieri et arte et natura, ars imitatur naturam: si quis enim ex frigida causa infirmetur, natura eum calefaciendo sanat; unde et medicus, si eum curare debeat, calefaciendo sanat. Huic autem arti similis est ars docendi. In eo enim qui docetur, est principium activum ad scientiam: scilicet intellectus, et ea quae naturaliter intelliguntur, scilicet prima principia. Et ideo scientia acquiritur dupliciter: et sine doctrina, per inventionem; et per doctrinam. Docens igitur hoc modo incipit docere sicut inveniens incipit invenire: offerendo scilicet considerationi discipuli principia ab eo nota, quia omnis disciplina ex praeexistenti fit cognitione, et illa principia in conclusiones deducendo; et proponendo exempla sensibilia, ex quibus in anima discipuli formentur phantasmata necessaria ad intelligendum. Et quia exterior operatio docentis nihil operaretur nisi adesset principium intrinsecum scientiae, quod inest nobis divinitus, ideo apud theologos dicitur quod homo docet ministerium exhibendo, Deus autem interius operando: sicut et medicus dicitur naturae minister in sanando. Sic igitur causatur scientia in discipulo per magistrum, non modo naturalis actionis, sed artificialis, ut dictum est. [15] It must be borne in mind, however, that according to Aristotle’s teaching in Metaphysics VII [9] there are some arts wherein the matter is not an active principle productive of the art’s effect. The art of building is a case in point, since in wood and stone there is no active force tending to the construction of a house, but only a passive aptitude. On the other hand, there exists an art whose matter is an active principle tending to produce the effect of that art. Such is the art of medicine, for in the sick body there is an active principle conducive to health. Thus, the effect of an art of the first kind is never produced by nature, but is always the result of the art; every house is an artifact. But the effect of an art of the second kind is the result both of art and of nature without art, for many are healed by the action of nature without the art of medicine. Now, in those things that can be done both by art and by nature, art imitates nature; if the cause of a person’s illness is something cold, nature cures him by heating; and that is why the physician, if his services are needed in order to cure the patient, does so by applying beat. Now, the art of teaching resembles this art. For in the person taught there is an active principle conducive to knowledge, namely, the intellect, and there are also those things that are naturally understood, namely, first principles. Knowledge, then, is acquired in two ways: by discovery without teaching, and by teaching. So, the teacher begins to teach in the same way as the discoverer begins to discover, that is, by offering to the disciple’s consideration principles known by him, since all learning results from pre-existent knowledge; by drawing conclusions from those principles; and by proposing sensible examples, from which the phantasms necessary for the disciple’s understanding are found in the soul. And since the outward action of the teacher would have no effect without the inward principle of knowledge, whose—presence in us we owe to God, the theologians remark that man teaches by outward ministration, but God by inward operation. So, too, is the physician said to minister to nature in the practice of his art of healing. Thus, knowledge is caused in the disciple by his master, not by way of natural action, but of art, as was said.
Praeterea, cum Commentator praedictus ponat habitus scientiarum esse in intellectu passivo sicut in subiecto, unitas intellectus possibilis nihil facit ad hoc quod sit una scientia numero in discipulo et magistro. Intellectum enim passivum constat non esse eundem in diversis: cum sit potentia materialis. Unde haec ratio non est ad propositum, secundum eius positionem. [16] Furthermore, since the Commentator locates the habits of science in the passive intellect as their subject, the unicity of the possible intellect does nothing whatever to effect a numerical unity of knowledge in disciple and master. For the passive intellect certainly is not the same in different individuals, since it is a material power. That is why this argument is wide of the mark even in terms of Averroes own position.

Caput 76 Chapter 76
Quod intellectus agens non sit substantia separata, sed aliquid animae THAT THE AGENT INTELLECT IS NOT A SEPARATE SUBSTANCE, BUT PART OF THE SOUL
Ex his etiam concludi potest quod nec intellectus agens est unus in omnibus, ut Alexander etiam ponit, et Avicenna, qui non ponunt intellectum possibilem esse unum omnium. [1] From the foregoing it can be inferred that neither is there one agent intellect in all, as maintained by Alexander and by Avicenna, who do not hold there is one possible intellect for all.
Cum enim agens et recipiens sint proportionata, oportet quod unicuique passivo respondeat proprium activum. Intellectus autem possibilis comparatur ad agentem ut proprium passivum sive susceptivum ipsius: habet enim se ad eum agens sicut ars ad materiam, ut dicitur in III de anima. Si igitur intellectus possibilis est aliquid animae humanae, multiplicatum secundum multitudinem individuorum, ut ostensum est; et intellectus agens erit etiam eiusmodi, et non erit unus omnium. [2] For, since agent and recipient are proportionate to one another, to every passive principle there must correspond a proper active one. Now, the possible intellect is compared to the agent intellect as its proper patient or recipient, because the agent intellect is related to it as art to its matter; So that if the possible intellect is part of the human soul and is multiplied according to the number of individuals, as was shown, then the agent intellect also will be part of the soul and multiplied in like manner, and not one for all.
Adhuc. Intellectus agens non facit species intelligibiles actu ut ipse per eas intelligat, maxime sicut substantia separata, cum non sit in potentia: sed ut per eas intelligat intellectus possibilis. Non igitur facit eas nisi tales quales competunt intellectui possibili ad intelligendum. Tales autem facit eas qualis est ipse: nam omne agens agit sibi simile. Est igitur intellectus agens proportionatus intellectui possibili. Et sic, cum intellectus possibilis sit pars animae, intellectus agens non erit substantia separata. [3] Again, the purpose for which the agent intellect renders the species actually intelligible is not that they may serve as means of understanding on its part, especially as a separate substance, because the agent intellect is not in a state of potentiality; this purpose, on the contrary, is that the possible intellect may understand by those species which the agent intellect has made actually intelligible. Thus, the function of the agent intellect in regard to the intelligible species is simply to render them fit vehicles for the possible intellect’s understanding. Now, the agent intellect makes them to be such as it is itself; for every agent produces its like. Therefore, the agent intellect is proportionate to the possible intellect; and since the possible intellect is a part of the soul, the agent intellect will not be a separate substance.
Amplius. Sicut materia prima perficitur per formas naturales, quae sunt extra animam, ita intellectus possibilis perficitur per formas intellectas in actu. Sed formae naturales recipiuntur in materia prima, non per actionem alicuius substantiae separatae tantum, sed per actionem formae eiusdem generis, scilicet quae est in materia: sicut haec caro generatur per formam quae est in his carnibus et in his ossibus, ut probat Aristoteles in VII metaphysicae. Si igitur intellectus possibilis sit pars animae et non sit substantia separata, ut probatum est, intellectus agens, per cuius actionem fiunt species intelligibiles in ipso, non erit aliqua substantia separata, sed aliqua virtus activa animae. [4] just as prime matter is perfected by natural forms, which are outside the soul, so the possible intellect is perfected by forms actually understood. Natural forms, however, are received into prime matter, not by the action of some separate substance alone, but by the action of a form of the same kind, namely, a form existing in matter; thus, this particular flesh is begotten through a form in this flesh and these bones, as Aristotle proves in Metaphysics VII [8]. If the possible intellect is a part of the soul and not a separate substance, as we have shown, then the agent intellect, by whose action the intelligible species are made present in the possible intellect, will not be a separate substance but an active power of the soul.
Item. Plato posuit scientiam in nobis causari ab ideis, quas ponebat esse quasdam substantias separatas: quam quidem positionem Aristoteles improbat in I metaphysicae. Constat autem quod scientia nostra dependet ab intellectu agente sicut ex primo principio. Si igitur intellectus agens esset quaedam substantia separata, nulla esset vel modica differentia inter opinionem istam et Platonicam a philosopho improbatam. [5] Also, Plato held that the cause of our knowledge is Ideas, which he said were separate substances: a theory disproved by Aristotle in Metaphysics I [9]. Now, it is certain that our knowledge depends on the agent intellect as its first principle. So, if the agent intellect were a separate substance, there would be little or no difference between this opinion and the Platonic theory referred to, which the Philosopher has refuted.
Adhuc. Si intellectus agens est quaedam substantia separata, oportet quod eius actio sit continua et non intercisa: vel saltem oportet dicere quod non continuetur et intercidatur ad nostrum arbitrium. Actio autem eius est facere phantasmata intelligibilia actu. Aut igitur hoc semper faciet, aut non semper: si non semper, non tamen hoc faciet ad arbitrium nostrum. Sed tunc intelligimus actu quando phantasmata fiunt intelligibilia actu. Ergo oportet quod vel semper intelligamus; vel quod non sit in potestate nostra actu intelligere. [6] Then, too, if the agent intellect is a separate substance, its action must be continuous and not interrupted; or at least it is not continued or interrupted at our will—this in any case must be said. Now, the function of the agent intellect is to make phantasms actually intelligible. Therefore, either it will do this always or not always. If not always, this, however, will not be by our choosing. Yet we understand actually when the phantasms are made actually intelligible. Hence it follows that either we always understand or that it is not in our power to understand actually.
Praeterea. Comparatio substantiae separatae ad omnia phantasmata quae sunt in quibuscumque hominibus, est una: sicut comparatio solis est una ad omnes colores. Res autem sensibiles similiter sentiunt scientes et inscii: et per consequens eadem phantasmata sunt in utrisque. Similiter igitur fient intelligibilia ab intellectu agente. Uterque ergo similiter intelliget. [7] A separate substance, furthermore, has one and the same relationship to all the phantasms present in any men whatever, just as the sun stands in the same relation to all colors. Persons possessed of knowledge perceive sensible things, but so also do the ignorant. Hence, the same phantasms are in both, and these phantasms will in like manner be made actually intelligible by the agent intellect. Therefore, both will understand m similar fashion.
Potest autem dici quod intellectus agens semper agit quantum in se est, sed non semper phantasmata fiunt intelligibilia actu, sed solum quando sunt ad hoc disposita. Disponuntur autem ad hoc per actum cogitativae virtutis, cuius usus est in nostra potestate. Et ideo intelligere actu est in nostra potestate. Et ob hoc etiam contingit quod non omnes homines intelligunt ea quorum habent phantasmata: quia non omnes habent actum virtutis cogitativae convenientem, sed solum qui sunt instructi et consueti. [8] Even so, it can be said that the agent intellect is, in itself, always acting, but that the phantasms are not always made actually intelligible, but only when they are disposed to this end. Now, they are so disposed by the act of the cogitative power, the use of which is in our power. Hence, to understand actually is in our power. And this is the reason why not all men understand the things whose phantasms they have, since not all are possessed of the requisite act of the cogitative power, but only those who are instructed and habituated.
Videtur autem quod haec responsio non sit omnino sufficiens. Haec enim dispositio quae fit per cogitativam ad intelligendum, oportet quod sit vel dispositio intellectus possibilis ad recipiendum formas intelligibiles ab intellectu agente fluentes, ut Avicenna dicit, vel quia disponuntur phantasmata ut fiant intelligibilia actu, sicut Averroes et Alexander dicunt. Primum autem horum non videtur esse conveniens. Quia intellectus possibilis secundum suam naturam est in potentia ad species intelligibiles actu: unde comparatur ad eas sicut diaphanum ad lucem vel ad species coloris. Non autem indiget aliquid in cuius natura est recipere formam aliquam, disponi ulterius ad formam illam: nisi forte sint in eo contrariae dispositiones, sicut materia aquae disponitur ad formam aeris per remotionem frigiditatis et densitatis. Nihil autem contrarium est in intellectu possibili quod possit impedire cuiuscumque speciei intelligibilis susceptionem: nam species intelligibiles etiam contrariorum in intellectu non sunt contrariae, ut probat Aristoteles in VII metaphysicae, cum unum sit ratio cognoscendi aliud. Falsitas autem quae accidit in iudicio intellectus componentis et dividentis, provenit, non ex eo quod in intellectu possibili sint aliqua intellecta, sed ex eo quod ei aliqua desunt. Non igitur, quantum in se est, intellectus possibilis indiget aliqua praeparatione ut suscipiat species intelligibiles ab intellectu agente fluentes. [9] This reply, however, seems not entirely adequate. For the disposition to understand which the cogitative power causes must either be a disposition of the possible intellect to receive intelligible forms flowing from the agent intellect, as Avicenna says, or a disposition of the phantasms to be made actually intelligible, as Averroes and Alexander declare. But the former seems incongruous, because the possible intellect by its very nature is in potentiality with respect to species actually intelligible, so that it bears the same relationship to them as a transparent medium to light or to color-species. Now, a thing equipped by nature to receive a certain form needs no further disposition to that form, unless there happen to be contrary dispositions in it, as the matter of water is disposed to the form of air by the removal of cold and density. But there is nothing contrary in the possible intellect that could prevent it from receiving any intelligible species whatever, for the intelligible species even of contraries are not contrary in the intellect, as Aristotle proves in Metaphysics VII [7], since one is the reason of the knowledge of the other. And any falsity occurring in the intellect’s affirmative or negative judgments is due, not to the presence in the possible intellect of certain things understood, but to its lack of certain things. In and of itself, therefore, the possible intellect needs no preparation in order to receive the intelligible species issuing from the agent intellect.
Praeterea. Colores facti visibiles actu per lucem pro certo imprimunt suam similitudinem in diaphano, et per consequens in visum. Si igitur ipsa phantasmata illustrata ab intellectu agente non imprimerent suas similitudines in intellectum possibilem, sed solum disponunt ipsum ad recipiendum; non esset comparatio phantasmatum ad intellectum possibilem sicut colorum ad visum, ut Aristoteles ponit. [10] Moreover, colors made actually visible by light unfailingly impress their likeness upon the transparent body and, consequently, upon the power of sight. Therefore, if the very phantasms which the agent intellect has illumined did not impress their likeness on the possible intellect, but only disposed it to receive them, the phantasms would not bear the same relationship to the possible intellect as colors to the faculty of sight as Aristotle maintains.
Item. Secundum hoc phantasmata non essent per se necessaria ad intelligendum, et per consequens nec sensus: sed solum per accidens, quasi excitantia et praeparantia intellectum possibilem ad recipiendum. Quod est opinionis Platonicae, et contra ordinem generationis artis et scientiae quem ponit Aristoteles, in I Metaph. et ult. Poster., dicens quod ex sensu fit memoria, ex multis memoriis unum experimentum; ex multis experimentis universalis acceptio, quae est principium scientiae et artis. [11] According to this [Avicennian theory], the phantasms would not be essentially necessary for our understanding, nor, then, would the senses; but necessary only accidentally, as things so to speak inciting and preparing the possible intellect to accomplish its receptive function. This is part of the Platonic doctrine, and is contrary to the order in which art and science come to birth in the mind, as Aristotle explains it in Metaphysics I [1], and in the Posterior Analytics [II, 15], where he says that “memory results from sensation; one experience from many memories; from many experiences the universal apprehension which is the beginning of science and art.”
Est autem haec positio Avicennae consona his quae de generatione rerum naturalium dicit. Ponit enim quod omnia agentia inferiora solum per suas actiones praeparant materiam ad suscipiendas formas quae effluunt in materias ab intelligentia agente separata. Unde et, eadem ratione, ponit quod phantasmata praeparant intellectum possibilem, formae autem intelligibiles fluunt a substantia separata. This position of Avicenna’s, however, is in accord with what its author says about the generation of natural things.” For he asserts that the actions of all lower agents have merely the effect of preparing matter to receive the forms which flow into their matters from the separate agent intellect. So, too, for the same reason, he holds that the phantasms prepare the possible intellect, and that the intelligible forms emanate from a separate substance.
Similiter autem quod per cogitativam disponuntur phantasmata ad hoc quod fiant intelligibilia actu et moventia intellectum possibilem, conveniens non videtur si intellectus agens ponatur substantia separata. Hoc enim videtur esse conforme positioni dicentium quod inferiora agentia sunt solum disponentia ad ultimam perfectionem, ultima autem perfectio est ab agente separato: quod est contra sententiam Aristotelis in VII metaphysicae. Non enim videtur imperfectius se habere anima humana ad intelligendum, quam inferiora naturae ad proprias operationes. [12] Similarly, on the hypothesis that the agent intellect is a separate substance it would seem incongruous that the phantasms should he prepared by the cogitative power so as to be actually intelligible and move the possible intellect. For, seemingly, this agrees with the position of those who say that the lower agents are merely dispositive causes with respect to the ultimate perfection [of a thing], the source of which is a separate agent: a position contrary to the judgment expressed by Aristotle in Metaphysics VII [8]. For the human soul would seem to be not less perfectly fitted for understanding than the lower things of nature for their proper operations.
Amplius. Effectus nobiliores in istis inferioribus producuntur non solum ab agentibus superioribus, sed requirunt agentia sui generis: hominem enim generat sol et homo. Et similiter videmus in aliis animalibus perfectis quod quaedam ignobilia animalia ex solis tantum actione generantur, absque principio activo sui generis: sicut patet in animalibus generatis ex putrefactione. Intelligere autem est nobilissimus effectus qui est in istis inferioribus. Non igitur sufficit ponere ad ipsum agens remotum, nisi etiam ponatur agens proximum. Haec tamen ratio contra Avicennam non procedit: nam ipse ponit omne animal posse generari absque semine. [13] Then, too, among these lower things the more noble effects are produced not only by higher agents but also require agents of their own genus; for the sun and man generate a man. Likewise, we observe that among other perfect animals, some less noble are generated entirely by the sun’s action, without an active principle of their own genus; so it is with animals engendered by putrefaction. Now, understanding is the noblest effect found in this world of lower things. Therefore, it is not enough to ascribe this effect to a remote agent, unless a proximate one is also assigned. This argument, however, does not militate against Avicenna, because he holds that any animal can be generated without seed.
Adhuc. Intentio effectus demonstrat agentem. Unde animalia generata ex putrefactione non sunt ex intentione naturae inferioris, sed superioris tantum, quia producuntur ab agente superiori tantum: propter quod Aristoteles, in VII Metaph., dicit ea fieri casu. Animalia autem quae fiunt ex semine, sunt ex intentione naturae superioris et inferioris. Hic autem effectus qui est abstrahere formas universales a phantasmatibus, est in intentione nostra, non solum in intentione agentis remoti. Igitur oportet in nobis ponere aliquod proximum principium talis effectus. Hoc autem est intellectus agens. Non est igitur substantia separata, sed aliqua virtus animae nostrae. [14] Again, the effect intended reveals the agent. Hence, animals engendered by putrefaction are not intended by a lower nature, but only by a higher one, because they are produced by a higher agent alone; for this reason Aristotle says in Metaphysics VII [7] that their production is fortuitous. On the other hand, animals generated from seed are intended both by the higher and the lower nature. Now, this effect which consists in abstracting universal forms from phantasms is intended by us, and not merely by a remote agent. Hence, there must exist in us a proximate principle of such an effect; and this is the agent intellect, which, therefore, is not a separate substance but a power of our soul.
Item. In natura cuiuslibet moventis est principium sufficiens ad operationem naturalem eiusdem: et si quidem operatio illa consistat in actione, adest ei principium activum, sicut patet de potentiis animae nutritivae in plantis; si vero operatio illa consistat in passione, adest ei principium passivum, sicut patet de potentiis sensitivis in animalibus. Homo autem est perfectissimus inter omnia inferiora moventia. Eius autem propria et naturalis operatio est intelligere: quae non completur sine passione quadam, inquantum intellectus patitur ab intelligibili; et etiam sine actione, inquantum intellectus facit intelligibilia in potentia esse intelligibilia in actu. Oportet igitur in natura hominis esse utriusque proprium principium scilicet intellectum agentem et possibilem; et neutrum secundum esse ab anima hominis separatum esse. [15] And again, present in the nature of every mover is a principle sufficient for its natural operation. If this operation consists in an action, then the nature contains an active principle; for instance, the powers of the nutritive soul of plants. But, if this operation is a passion, the nature contains a passive principle, as appears in the sensitive powers of animals. Now, man is the most perfect of all lower movers, and his proper and natural operation is understanding, which is not accomplished without a certain passivity, in that the intellect is passive to the intelligible; nor again, without action, in that the intellect makes things that are potentially intelligible to be actually so. Therefore, the proper principles of both these operations must be in man’s nature, nor must either of them have being in separation from his soul. And these principles are the agent and the possible intellects.
Adhuc. Si intellectus agens est quaedam substantia separata, manifestum est quod est supra naturam hominis. Operatio autem quam homo exercet sola virtute alicuius supernaturalis substantiae, est operatio supernaturalis: ut miracula facere et prophetare, et alia huiusmodi quae divino munere homines operantur. Cum igitur homo non possit intelligere nisi virtute intellectus agentis, si intellectus agens est quaedam substantia separata, sequetur quod intelligere non sit operatio naturalis homini. Et sic homo non poterit definiri per hoc quod est intellectivus aut rationalis. [16] Also, if the agent intellect is a separate substance, it is manifest that it is above man’s nature. Now, an operation which man performs solely by the power of a supernatural substance is a supernatural operation; for instance, the working of miracles, prophesying, and other like things which men do by God’s favor. Since man cannot understand except by the power of the agent intellect, understanding will not be for man a natural operation if the agent intellect is a separate substance. Nor in that case can man be defined as being intellectual or rational.
Praeterea. Nihil operatur nisi per aliquam virtutem quae formaliter in ipso est: unde Aristoteles, in II de anima, ostendit quod quo vivimus et sentimus, est forma et actus. Sed utraque actio, scilicet intellectus possibilis et intellectus agentis, convenit homini: homo enim abstrahit a phantasmatibus, et recipit mente intelligibilia in actu; non enim aliter in notitiam harum actionum venissemus nisi eas in nobis experiremur. Oportet igitur quod principia quibus attribuuntur hae actiones, scilicet intellectus possibilis et agens, sint virtutes quaedam in nobis formaliter existentes. [17] Furthermore, no thing operates except by virtue of a power formally in it. Hence, Aristotle in De anima II [2] shows that the thing whereby we live and sense is a form and an act. Now, both actions—of the agent intellect and of the possible intellect as well—are proper to man, since man abstracts from phantasms, and receives in his mind things actually intelligible. For, indeed, we should not have become aware of these actions had we not experienced them in ourselves. It follows that the principles to which we ascribe these actions, namely, the possible and agent intellects, must be powers formally existing in us.
Si autem dicatur quod hae actiones attribuuntur homini inquantum praedicti intellectus continuantur nobis, ut Averroes dicit, iam supra ostensum est quod continuatio intellectus possibilis nobiscum, si sit quaedam substantia separata, qualem ipse intelligit, non sufficit ad hoc quod per ipsum intelligamus. Similiter etiam patet de intellectu agente. Comparatur enim intellectus agens ad species intelligibiles receptas in intellectu possibili, sicut ars ad formas artificiales quae per artem ponuntur in materia: ut patet ex exemplo Aristotelis in III de anima. Formae autem artis non consequuntur actionem artis, sed solum similitudinem formalem: unde nec subiectum harum formarum potest per huiusmodi formas actionem artificis facere. Ergo nec homo, per hoc quod sunt in ipso species intelligibiles actu factae ab intellectu agente, potest facere operationem intellectus agentis. [18] And if it be argued that these actions are attributed to man so far as those intellects are in contact with us, as Averroes claims, we refer to our previous proof that the possible intellect’s conjunction with us does not suffice as a means of understanding on our part, if, as Averroes maintains, it is a separate substance. And, clearly, the same thing is true of the agent intellect. For the agent intellect stands in the same relation to the intelligible species received into the possible intellect as art to the artificial forms which it produces in matter, as the example used by Aristotle in De anima III [5] makes clear. But art-forms are artistically inoperative, attaining only to a formal likeness, and that is why the subject of these forms cannot through them exercise the action of a maker. Therefore, neither can man exercise the operation of the agent intellect through the presence in him of intelligible species made actual by the agent intellect.
Adhuc. Unumquodque quod non potest exire in propriam operationem nisi per hoc quod movetur ab exteriori principio, magis agitur ad operandum quam seipsum agat. Unde animalia irrationalia magis aguntur ad operandum quam seipsa agant, quia omnis operatio eorum dependet a principio extrinseco movente: sensus enim, motus a sensibili exteriori, imprimit in phantasiam, et sic per ordinem procedit in omnibus potentiis usque ad motivas. Operatio autem propria hominis est intelligere: cuius primum principium est intellectus agens, qui facit species intelligibiles, a quibus patitur quodammodo intellectus possibilis, qui factus in actu, movet voluntatem. Si igitur intellectus agens est quaedam substantia extra hominem, tota operatio hominis dependet a principio extrinseco. Non igitur erit homo agens seipsum, sed actus ab alio. Et sic non erit dominus suarum operationum; nec merebitur laudem aut vituperium; et peribit tota scientia moralis et conversatio politica; quod est inconveniens. Non est igitur intellectus agens substantia separata ab homine. [19] Again, a thing that cannot initiate its proper operation without being moved by an external principle is moved to operate rather than moves itself. Thus, irrational animals are moved to operate rather than move themselves, because every one of their operations depends on an extrinsic principle which moves them. For the sense, moved by an external sensible object, places an impress upon the imagination, thus giving rise to an orderly process in all the powers, down to the motive ones. Now, man’s proper operation is understanding, and of this the primary principle is the agent intellect, which makes species intelligible, to which species the possible intellect in a certain manner is passive; and the possible intellect, having been actualized, moves the will. Therefore, if the agent intellect is a substance outside man, all man’s operation depends on an extrinsic principle. Man, then, will not act autonomously, but will be activated by another. So, he will not be master of his own operations, nor will he merit either praise or blame. All moral science and social intercourse thus will perish; which is unfitting. Therefore, the agent intellect is not a substance separate from man.

Caput 77 Chapter 77
Quod non est impossibile intellectum possibilem et agentem in una substantia animae convenire THAT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE POSSIBLE AND AGENT INTELLECT TO EXIST TOGETHER IN THE ONE SUBSTANCE OF THE SOUL
Videbitur autem forsan alicui hoc esse impossibile, quod una et eadem substantia, scilicet nostrae animae, sit in potentia ad omnia intelligibilia, quod pertinet ad intellectum possibilem, et faciat ea actu, quod est intellectus agentis: cum nihil agat secundum quod est in potentia, sed secundum quod est actu. Unde non videbitur quod agens et possibilis intellectus possint in una substantia animae convenire. [1] Perhaps someone will think it impossible for one and the same substance, namely, that of our soul, to be in potentiality to all intelligibles, as becomes the possible intellect, and to actualize them, as becomes the agent intellect. For nothing acts so far as it is in potentiality, but so far as it is in act. That is why it will seem impossible for the agent and possible intellect to exist concurrently in the one substance of the soul.
Si quis autem recte inspiciat, nihil inconveniens aut difficile sequitur. Nihil enim prohibet hoc respectu illius esse secundum quid in potentia et secundum aliud in actu, sicut in rebus naturalibus videmus: aer enim est actu humidus et potentia siccus, terra autem e converso. Haec autem comparatio invenitur esse inter animam intellectivam et phantasmata. Habet enim anima intellectiva aliquid in actu ad quod phantasma est in potentia: et ad aliquid est in potentia quod in phantasmatibus actu invenitur. Habet enim substantia animae humanae immaterialitatem, et, sicut ex dictis patet, ex hoc habet naturam intellectualem: quia omnis substantia immaterialis est huiusmodi. Ex hoc autem nondum habet quod assimiletur huic vel illi rei determinate, quod requiritur ad hoc quod anima nostra hanc vel illam rem determinate cognoscat: omnis enim cognitio fit secundum similitudinem cogniti in cognoscente. Remanet igitur ipsa anima intellectiva in potentia ad determinatas similitudines rerum cognoscibilium a nobis, quae sunt naturae rerum sensibilium. Et has quidem determinatas naturas rerum sensibilium praesentant nobis phantasmata. Quae tamen nondum pervenerunt ad esse intelligibile: cum sint similitudines rerum sensibilium etiam secundum conditiones materiales, quae sunt proprietates individuales, et sunt etiam in organis materialibus. Non igitur sunt intelligibilia actu. Et tamen, quia in hoc homine cuius similitudinem repraesentant phantasmata, est accipere naturam universalem denudatam ab omnibus conditionibus individuantibus, sunt intelligibilia in potentia. Sic igitur habent intelligibilitatem in potentia, determinationem autem similitudinis rerum in actu. E contrario autem erat in anima intellectiva. Est igitur in anima intellectiva virtus activa in phantasmata, faciens ea intelligibilia actu: et haec potentia animae vocatur intellectus agens. Est etiam in ea virtus quae est in potentia ad determinatas similitudines rerum sensibilium: et haec est potentia intellectus possibilis. [2] Upon close examination, however, it is seen that this concurrence entails nothing incongruous or difficult. For nothing prevents one thing from being in one respect potential in relation to some other thing, and actual in another respect, as we observe in things of nature; air is actually damp and potentially dry, and the reverse is true of earth. Now, this same interrelationship obtains between the intellective soul and the phantasms. For the intellective soul has something actual to which the phantasm is potential, and is potential to something present actually in the phantasm; since the substance of the human soul is possessed of immateriality, and, as is clear from what has been said, it therefore has an intellectual nature—every immaterial substance being of this kind. But this does not mean that the soul is now likened to this or that determinate thing, as it must be in order to know this or that thing determinately; for all knowledge is brought about by the likeness of the thing known being present in the knower. Thus, the intellectual soul itself remains potential with respect to the determinate likenesses of things that can be known by us, namely, the natures of sensible things. It is the phantasms which present these determinate sensible natures to us. But these phantasms have not yet acquired intelligible actuality, since they are likenesses of sensible things even as to material conditions, which are the individual properties, and, moreover, the phantasms exist in material organs. Consequently, they are not actually intelligible. They are, however, potentially intelligible, since in the individual man whose likeness the phantasms reflect it is possible to receive the universal nature stripped of all individuating conditions. And so, the phantasms have intelligibility potentially, while being actually determinate as likenesses of things. In the intellective soul the opposite was the case. Hence, there is in that soul an active power vis-à-vis the phantasms, making them actually intelligible; and this power is called the agent intellect; while there is also in the soul a power that is in potentiality to the determinate likenesses of sensible things; and this power is the possible intellect.
Differt tamen hoc quod invenitur in anima, ab eo quod invenitur in agentibus naturalibus. Quia ibi unum est in potentia ad aliquid secundum eundem modum quo in altero actu invenitur: nam materia aeris est in potentia ad formam aquae eo modo quo est in aqua. Et ideo corpora naturalia, quae communicant in materia, eodem ordine agunt et patiuntur ad invicem. Anima autem intellectiva non est in potentia ad similitudines rerum quae sunt in phantasmatibus per modum illum quo sunt ibi: sed secundum quod illae similitudines elevantur ad aliquid altius, ut scilicet sint abstractae a conditionibus individuantibus materialibus, ex quo fiunt intelligibiles actu. Et ideo actio intellectus agentis in phantasmate praecedit receptionem intellectus possibilis. Et sic principalitas actionis non attribuitur phantasmatibus, sed intellectui agenti. Propter quod Aristoteles dicit quod se habet ad possibilem sicut ars ad materiam. [3] That which exists in the soul, however, differs from what is found in natural agents. For in the latter, one thing is in potentiality to something according to the same manner of being as that of its actual presence in something else; the matter of air is in potentiality to the form of water in the same way as it is in water. That is why natural bodies, which have matter in common, are mutually active and passive in the same order. On the other hand, the intellective soul is not in potentiality to the likenesses of things in the phantasms, according to the mode of their presence therein, but according as they are raised to a higher level by abstraction from material individuating conditions, thus being made actually intelligible. The action of the agent intellect on the phantasm, therefore, precedes the reception by the possible intellect, so that operational primacy here is ascribed not to the phantasms, but to the agent intellect. And for this reason Aristotle says that the agent intellect is related to the possible intellect as art to its matter.
Huius autem exemplum omnino simile esset si oculus, simul cum hoc quod est diaphanum et susceptivus colorum, haberet tantum de luce quod posset colores facere visibiles actu: sicut quaedam animalia dicuntur sui oculi luce sufficienter sibi illuminare obiecta; propter quod de nocte vident magis, in die vero minus; sunt enim debilium oculorum, quia parva luce moventur, ad multam autem confunduntur. Cui etiam simile est in intellectu nostro quod ad ea quae sunt manifestissima, se habet sicut oculus noctuae ad solem: unde parvum lumen intelligibile quod est nobis connaturale, sufficit ad nostrum intelligere. [4] A quite similar case would be that of the eye, if, being transparent and receptive of colors, it were endowed with sufficient light to make colors actually visible; even as certain animals are said to illuminate objects for themselves by the light of their own eyes, and so they see more at night and less by day, for their eyes are weak, being activated by a dim light and confused by a strong one. There is something comparable to this in our intellect, which, “as regards things which are most evident of all, is as the eyes of the owl to the blaze of day”; so that the little intelligible light which is connatural to us suffices for our act of understanding.
Quod autem lumen intelligibile nostrae animae connaturale sufficiat ad faciendum actionem intellectus agentis, patet si quis consideret necessitatem ponendi intellectum agentem. Inveniebatur enim anima in potentia ad intelligibilia, sicut sensus ad sensibilia: sicut enim non semper sentimus, ita non semper intelligimus. Haec autem intelligibilia quae anima intellectiva humana intelligit, Plato posuit esse intelligibilia per seipsa, scilicet ideas: unde non erat ei necessarium ponere intellectum agentem ad intelligibilia. Si autem hoc esset verum, oporteret quod, quanto aliqua sunt secundum se magis intelligibilia, magis intelligerentur a nobis. Quod patet esse falsum: nam magis sunt nobis intelligibilia quae sunt sensui proximiora, quae in se sunt minus intelligibilia. Unde Aristoteles fuit motus ad ponendum quod ea quae sunt nobis intelligibilia, non sunt aliqua existentia intelligibilia per seipsa, sed quod fiunt ex sensibilibus. Unde oportuit quod poneret virtutem quae hoc faceret. Et haec est intellectus agens. Ad hoc ergo ponitur intellectus agens, ut faceret intelligibilia nobis proportionata. Hoc autem non excedit modum luminis intelligibilis nobis connaturalis. Unde nihil prohibet ipsi lumini nostrae animae attribuere actionem intellectus agentis: et praecipue cum Aristoteles intellectum agentem comparet lumini. [5] It is clear that the intelligible light connatural to our soul suffices to cause the action of the agent intellect, if one considers the necessity of affirming the existence of the agent intellect. For the soul was found to be in potentiality to intelligible things, as the senses are to sensible things; since, just as we do not always sense, so neither do we always understand. Now, these intelligibles which the human intellective soul understands were asserted by Plato to be intelligible of themselves, namely, Ideas, so that in his doctrine there was no necessity of an agent intellect: an intellect having an active role with respect to intelligibles. But, if this doctrine were true, it would follow necessarily that the more intelligible in their own nature things are, the greater would be our understanding of them; which is manifestly false. For the nearer things are to our senses, the more intelligible they are to us, though in themselves they are less intelligible. That is why Aristotle was impelled to maintain that those things which are intelligible to us are not existing entities intelligible in themselves, but are made intelligible from sensibles. Aristotle, therefore, saw the necessity of admitting a power capable of doing this, namely, the agent intellect. So, the function of that intellect is to make intelligibles proportionate to our minds. Now, the mode of intellectual light connatural to us is not unequal to the performance of this function. Nothing, therefore, stands in the way of our ascribing the action of the agent intellect to the light of our soul, and especially since Aristotle compares the agent intellect to a light.

Caput 78 Chapter 78
Quod non fuit sententia Aristotelis de intellectu agente quod sit substantia separata, sed magis quod sit aliquid animae THAT ARISTOTLE HELD NOT THAT THE AGENT INTELLECT IS A SEPARATE SUBSTANCE, BUT THAT IT IS A PART OF THE SOUL
Quia vero plures opinioni supra positae assentiunt credentes eam fuisse opinionem Aristotelis ostendendum est ex verbis eius quod ipse hoc non sensit de intellectu agente, quod sit substantia separata. [1] Now, since a number of persons agree with the Avicennian theory dealt with above, in the belief that it is the position of Aristotle, we must show from his own words that in his judgment the agent intellect is not a separate substance.
Dicit enim, primo, quod, sicut in omni natura est aliquid quasi materia in unoquoque genere, et hoc est in potentia ad omnia quae sunt illius generis; et altera causa est quasi efficiens, quod facit omnia quae sunt illius generis, sicut se habet ars ad materiam: necesse est et in anima esse has differentias. Et huiusmodi quidem, scilicet quod in anima est sicut materia, est intellectus (possibilis) in quo fiunt omnia intelligibilia. Ille vero, qui in anima est sicut efficiens causa, est intellectus in quo est omnia facere (scilicet intelligibilia in actu), idest intellectus agens, qui est sicut habitus, et non sicut potentia. Qualiter autem dixerit intellectum agentem habitum, exponit subiungens quod est sicut lumen: quodam enim modo lumen facit potentia colores esse actu colores, inquantum scilicet facit eos visibiles actu: hoc autem circa intelligibilia attribuitur intellectui agenti. [2] For Aristotle says [ De anima III, 5] that in “every nature we find two factors, the one material, which, like the matter in every genus, is in potentiality to all the things contained under it, the other causal, which, like the efficient cause, produces all the things of a given genus, the latter factor standing to the former as art to its matter”; and therefore, Aristotle concludes, “these two factors must likewise be found within the soul.” The quasi-material principle in the soul is “the (possible) intellect wherein all things become intelligible”; the other principle, having the role of efficient cause in the soul, “is the intellect by which all things are made” (namely, actually intelligible), and this is the agent intellect, “which is like a habit,” and not a power. Aristotle explains what he means by calling the agent intellect a habit, when he goes on to speak of it as a kind of light, for “in a certain way light makes potential colors to be colors actually,” that is to say, so far as it makes them actually visible. And this function in regard to intelligibles is attributed to the agent intellect.
Ex his manifeste habetur quod intellectus agens non sit substantia separata, sed magis aliquid animae: expresse enim dicit quod intellectus possibilis et agens sunt differentiae animae, et quod sunt in anima. Neutra ergo earum est substantia separata. [3] These considerations clearly imply that the agent intellect is not a separate substance, but, rather, a part of the soul; for Aristotle says explicitly that the possible and agent intellects are differences of the soul, and that they are in the soul. Therefore, neither of them is a separate substance.
Adhuc. Ratio eius hoc idem ostendit. Quia in omni natura in qua invenitur potentia et actus, est aliquid quasi materia, quod est in potentia ad ea quae sunt illius generis, et aliquid quasi agens, quod reducit potentiam in actum, sicut in artificialibus est ars et materia. Sed anima intellectiva est quaedam natura in qua invenitur potentia et actus: cum quandoque sit actu intelligens et quandoque in potentia. Est igitur in natura animae intellectivae aliquid quasi materia, quod est in potentia ad omnia intelligibilia, quod dicitur intellectus possibilis: et aliquid quasi causa efficiens, quod facit omnia in actu, et dicitur intellectus agens. Uterque igitur intellectus, secundum demonstrationem Aristotelis, est in natura animae, et non aliquid separatum secundum esse a corpore cuius anima est actus. [4] Aristotle’s reasoning also proves the same point. For in every nature containing potentiality and act we find something which, having the character of matter, is in potentiality to the things of that genus, and something in the role of an efficient cause which actualizes the potentiality; similarly, in the products of art there is art and matter. But the intellective soul is a nature in which we find potentiality and act, since sometimes it is actually understanding, and sometimes potentially. Consequently, in the nature of the intellective soul there is something having the character of matter, which is in potentiality to all intelligibles—and this is called the possible intellect; and there also is something which, in the capacity of an efficient cause, makes all in act— and this is called the agent intellect. Therefore, both intellects, on Aristotle’s showing, are within the nature of the soul, and have no being separate from the body of which the soul is the act.
Amplius. Aristoteles dicit quod intellectus agens est sicut habitus quod est lumen. Habitus autem non significatur ut aliquid per se existens, sed alicuius habentis. Non est igitur intellectus agens aliqua substantia separatim per se existens, sed est aliquid animae humanae. [5] Aristotle says, moreover, that the agent intellect is a sort of habit like light. Now, by a habit we mean, not something existing by itself, but something belonging to one who has it. Therefore, the agent intellect is not a substance existing separately by itself, but is part of the human soul.
Non autem intelligitur littera Aristotelis ut habitus dicatur esse effectus intellectus agentis, ut sit sensus: agens facit hominem intelligere omnia, quod est sicut habitus. Haec enim est definitio habitus, ut Commentator Averroes ibidem dicit, quod habens habitum intelligat per ipsum quod est sibi proprium ex se et quando voluerit, absque hoc quod indigeat in eo aliquo extrinseco. Expresse enim assimilat habitui non ipsum factum, sed intellectum quo est omnia facere. [6] Yet, what this Aristotelian phrase means is not that the effect produced by the agent intellect may be called a habit, as though the sense were that the agent intellect makes man to understand all things, and this effect is like a habit. “For the essence of habit,” as the Commentator, Averroes, says on this very text, “consists in this, that its possessor understands by means of that which is proper to him—understands by himself and whenever he wills, with no need of anything extrinsic”; since Averroes explicitly likens to a habit, not the effect itself, but “the intellect by which we make all things.”
Nec tamen intelligendum est quod intellectus agens sit habitus per modum quo habitus est in secunda specie qualitatis, secundum quod quidam dixerunt intellectum agentem esse habitum principiorum. Quia habitus ille principiorum est acceptus a sensibilibus, ut probat Aristoteles in II posteriorum: et sic oportet quod sit effectus intellectus agentis, cuius est phantasmata, quae sunt intellecta in potentia, facere intellecta in actu. Sed accipitur habitus secundum quod dividitur contra privationem et potentiam: sicut omnis forma et actus potest dici habitus. Et hoc apparet, quia dicit hoc modo intellectum agentem esse habitum sicut lumen habitus est. [7] Nevertheless, the agent intellect is not to be thought of as a habit such as we find in the second species of quality and in reference to which some have said that the agent intellect is the habit of principles. For this habit of principles is derived from sensible things, as Aristotle proves in Posterior Analytics II [19]; and thus it must be the effect of the agent intellect, whose function is to make actually understood the phantasms, which are potentially understood. Now, the meaning of habit is grasped in terms of its distinction from privation and potentiality; thus, every form and act can be called a habit. This is clearly what Aristotle has in mind, because he says that the agent intellect is a habit in the same way as “light is a habit.”
Deinde subiungit, quod hic intellectus, scilicet agens, est separatus et immixtus et impassibilis et substantia actu ens. Horum autem quatuor quae attribuit intellectui agenti, duo supra expresse de intellectu possibili dixerat, scilicet quod sit immixtus et quod sit separatus. Tertium, scilicet quod sit impassibilis, sub distinctione dixerat: ostendit enim primo quod non est passibilis sicut sensus; et postmodum ostendit quod, communiter accipiendo pati, passibilis est, inquantum scilicet est in potentia ad intelligibilia. Quartum vero omnino negaverat de intellectu possibili, dicendo quod erat in potentia ad intelligibilia, et nihil horum erat actu ante intelligere. Sic igitur in duobus primis intellectus possibilis convenit cum agente; in tertio partim convenit et partim differt; in quarto autem omnino differt agens a possibili. Has quatuor conditiones agentis probat per unam rationem, subiungens: semper enim honorabilius est agens patiente, et principium, scilicet activum, materia. Supra enim dixerat quod intellectus agens est sicut causa efficiens, et possibilis sicut materia. Per hoc autem medium concluduntur duo prima, sic: agens est honorabilius patiente et materia. Sed possibilis, qui est sicut patiens et materia, est separatus et immixtus, ut supra probatum est. Ergo multo magis agens. Alia vero per hoc medium sic concluduntur: agens in hoc est honorabilius patiente et materia, quod comparatur ad ipsum sicut agens et actu ens ad patiens et ens in potentia. Intellectus autem possibilis est patiens quodammodo et potentia ens. Intellectus igitur agens est agens non patiens, et actu ens. Patet autem quod nec ex his verbis Aristotelis haberi potest quod intellectus agens sit quaedam substantia separata: sed quod sit separatus hoc modo quo supra dixit de possibili, scilicet ut non habeat organum. Quod autem dicit quod est substantia actu ens, non repugnat ei quod substantia animae est in potentia, ut supra ostensum est. [8] Now, Aristotle goes on to say, that this intellect, namely, the agent intellect is separate, unmixed, impassible, and an actually existing substance. And of these four perfections attributed to that intellect, Aristotle had previously ascribed two to the possible intellect, namely, freedom from admixture and separate existence. The third—impassibility—he had applied to it in showing the distinction between the impassibility of the senses and that of the possible intellect, pointing out that if passivity be taken broadly, the possible intellect is passive so far as it is in potentiality to intelligibles. The fourth perfection—substantial actuality—Aristotle simply denies of the possible intellect, saying that it was “in potentiality to intelligibles, and none of these things was actual before the act of understanding.” Thus, the possible intellect shares the first two perfections with the agent intellect; in the third it agrees partly, and partly differs; but in the fourth the agent intellect differs altogether from the possible intellect. Aristotle goes on to prove in a single arguments that these four perfections belong to the agent intellect: “For always the agent is superior to the patient, and the (active) principle to the matter.” For he had already said that the agent intellect is like an efficient cause, and the possible intellect like matter. Now, through this proposition, as a demonstrative mean, the first two perfections are inferred as follows: “The agent is superior to the patient and to matter. But the possible intellect, which is as patient and matter, is separate and unmixed, as was proved before. Much more, therefore, is the agent possessed of these perfections.” The other perfections are inferred through this middle proposition, as follows: “The agent is superior to the patient and to matter by being compared to the latter as an agent and an actual being to a patient and a potential being. But the possible intellect is, in a certain way, a patient and a potential being. Therefore, the agent intellect is a non-passive agent and an actual being.” Now, from those words of Aristotle, it evidently cannot be inferred that the agent intellect is a separate substance; rather, that it is separate in the same sense of the term as he had previously applied to the possible intellect, namely, as not having an organ. Aristotle’s statement that the agent intellect is an actual substantial being is not incompatible with the fact that the substance of the soul is in potentiality, as was shown above.
Deinde subiungit: idem autem est secundum actum scientia rei. In quo Commentator dicit quod differt intellectus agens a possibili: nam in intellectu agente idem est intelligens et intellectum; non autem in possibili. Hoc autem manifeste est contra intentionem Aristotelis. Nam supra eadem verba dixerat de intellectu possibili, ubi dixit de intellectu possibili quod ipse intelligibilis est sicut intelligibilia: in his enim quae sine materia sunt, idem est intellectus et quod intelligitur; scientia namque speculativa, et quod speculatum est, idem est. Manifeste enim per hoc quod intellectus possibilis, prout est actu intelligens, idem est cum eo quod intelligitur, vult ostendere quod intellectus possibilis intelligitur sicut alia intelligibilia. Et parum supra dixerat quod intellectus possibilis est potentia quodammodo intelligibilia, sed nihil actu est antequam intelligat: ubi expresse dat intelligere quod per hoc quod intelligit actu, fit ipsa intelligibilia. Nec est mirum si hoc dicit de intellectu possibili: quia hoc etiam supra dixerat de sensu et sensibili secundum actum. Sensus enim fit actu per speciem sensatam in actu; et similiter intellectus possibilis fit actu per speciem intelligibilem actu; et hac ratione intellectus in actu dicitur ipsum intelligibile in actu. Est igitur dicendum quod, postquam Aristoteles determinavit de intellectu possibili et agente, hic incipit determinare de intellectu in actu, dicens quod scientia in actu est idem rei scitae in actu. [9] The Philosopher goes on to say that actual knowledge is identical with its object. On this text the Commentator remarks” that the agent intellect differs from the possible, because that which understands and that which is understood are the same in the agent intellect, but not in the possible intellect. But this clearly is contrary to Aristotle’s meaning. For Aristotle had used the same words before in speaking of the possible intellect, namely, that “it is intelligible in precisely the same way as its objects are; since in things devoid of matter, the intellect and that which is understood are the same; for speculative knowledge and its object are identical.” For he plainly wishes to show that the possible intellect is understood as are other intelligible objects, from the fact that the possible intellect, so far as it is actually understanding, is identical with that which is understood. Moreover, Aristotle had remarked a little before that the possible intellect “is in a sense potentially whatever is intelligible, though actually it is nothing until it has exercized its power of understanding”; and here he explicitly gives us to understand that, by actually knowing, the possible intellect becomes its objects. Nor is it surprising that he should say this of the possible intellect, since he had already said the same thing about sense and the sensible object in act. For the sense is actualized by the species actually sensed and, similarly, the possible intellect is actualized through the intelligible species in act; and for this reason the intellect in act is said to be the very intelligible object itself in act. We must therefore say that Aristotle, having definitively treated of the possible and agent intellects, here begins his treatment of the intellect in act, when he says that actual knowledge is identical with the thing actually known.
Deinde dicit: qui vero secundum potentiam, tempore prior in uno est: omnino autem, neque in tempore. Qua quidem distinctione inter potentiam et actum in pluribus locis utitur: scilicet quod actus secundum naturam est prior potentia; tempore vero, in uno et eodem quod mutatur de potentia in actum, est prior potentia actu; simpliciter vero loquendo, non est potentia etiam tempore prior actu, quia potentia non reducitur in actum nisi per actum. Dicit ergo quod intellectus qui est secundum potentiam, scilicet possibilis, prout est in potentia, prior est tempore quam intellectus in actu: et hoc dico in uno et eodem. Non tamen omnino, idest universaliter: quia intellectus possibilis reducitur in actum per intellectum agentem, qui est actu, ut dixit, et iterum per aliquem intellectum possibilem factum actu; unde dixit in III Physic., quod ante addiscere indiget aliquis docente ut reducatur de potentia in actum. Sic igitur in verbis istis ostendit ordinem intellectus possibilis, prout est in potentia, ad intellectum in actu. [10] Continuing, Aristotle states: “Although in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, it is not altogether prior even in time.” Indeed, in several places he employs this distinction between potentiality and act, namely, that act is in its nature prior to potentiality, but that in time, potentiality precedes act in one and the same thing that is changed from potentiality to act; and yet, absolutely speaking, potentiality is not even temporally prior to act, since it is only by an act that a potentiality is reduced to act. That is why Aristotle says that the intellect which is in potency, namely, the possible intellect so far as it is in potency, is temporally prior to the intellect in act—and this, I say, in one and the same subject. Aristotle, however, adds: but not altogether, that is to say, not universally; because the possible intellect is reduced to act by the agent intellect, which again is in act, as he said, through some possible intellect brought into act; thus, Aristotle remarked in Physics III [3] that, before learning, a person needs a teacher, that he may be brought from potency to act. In these words, then, Aristotle explains the relationship which the possible intellect, as potential, bears to the intellect in act.
Deinde dicit: sed non aliquando quidem intelligit, et aliquando non intelligit. In quo ostendit differentiam intellectus in actu et intellectus possibilis. Supra enim dixit de intellectu possibili quod non semper intelligit, sed quandoque non intelligit, quando est in potentia ad intelligibilia; quandoque intelligit, quando scilicet est actu ipsa. Intellectus autem per hoc fit actu quod est ipsa intelligibilia, ut iam dixit. Unde non competit ei quandoque intelligere et quandoque non intelligere. [11] Aristotle then declares: But it is not at one time understanding and at another not, thus indicating the difference between the intellect in act and the possible intellect. For he had said earlier that the possible intellect is not perpetually understanding, but sometimes is not actually understanding, namely, when it is in potentiality to intelligibles, and sometimes is actually understanding, namely, when it is actually identified with them. Now, the intellect becomes in act by the fact that it is the intelligibles themselves, as he had already said. Hence, it does not pertain to the intellect to understand sometimes and sometimes not to understand.
Deinde subiungit: separatum autem hoc solum quod vere est. Quod non potest intelligi de agente: non enim ipse solus est separatus; quia iam idem dixerat de intellectu possibili. Nec potest intelligi de possibili: quia iam idem dixerat de agente. Relinquitur ergo quod dicatur de eo quod comprehendit utrumque, scilicet de intellectu in actu, de quo loquebatur: quia hoc solum in anima nostra est separatum, non utens organo, quod pertinet ad intellectum in actu; idest, illa pars animae qua intelligimus actu, comprehendens possibilem et agentem. Et ideo subiungit quod hoc solum animae est immortale et perpetuum: quasi a corpore non dependens, cum sit separatum. [12] The Philosopher thereupon adds: That alone is separate which truly is. This remark cannot apply to the agent intellect, since it alone is not separate, for he had already spoken of the possible intellect as being separate. Nor can that statement be understood to refer to the possible intellect, since Aristotle had already said the same thing concerning the agent intellect. It remains that the above remark applies to that which includes both intellects, namely, to the intellect in act, of which he was speaking; because that alone in our soul which belongs to the intellect in act is separate and uses no organ; I mean that part of the soul whereby we understand actually and which includes the possible and agent intellect. And that is why Aristotle goes on to say that this part of the soul alone is immortal and everlasting, as being independent of the body in virtue of its separateness.

Caput 79 Chapter 79
Quod anima humana, corrupto corpore, non corrumpitur THAT THE HUMAN SOUL DOES NOT PERISH WHEN THE BODY IS CORRUPTED
Ex praemissis igitur manifeste ostendi potest animam humanam non corrumpi, corrupto corpore. [1] From what has been said, therefore, it can be clearly shown that the human soul is not corrupted when the body is corrupted.
Ostensum est enim supra omnem substantiam intellectualem esse incorruptibilem. Anima autem hominis est quaedam substantia intellectualis, ut ostensum est. Oportet igitur animam humanam incorruptibilem esse. [2] For it was proved above that every intellectual substance is incorruptible. But man’s soul is an intellectual substance, as was shown. It therefore follows that the human soul is incorruptible.
Adhuc. Nulla res corrumpitur ex eo in quo consistit sua perfectio: hae enim mutationes sunt contrariae, scilicet ad perfectionem et corruptionem. Perfectio autem animae humanae consistit in abstractione quadam a corpore. Perficitur enim anima scientia et virtute: secundum scientiam autem tanto magis perficitur quanto magis immaterialia considerat; virtutis autem perfectio consistit in hoc quod homo corporis passiones non sequatur, sed eas secundum rationem temperet et refraenet. Non ergo corruptio animae consistit in hoc quod a corpore separetur. [3] Again, no thing is corrupted with respect to that wherein its perfection consists, for mutations in regard to perfection and corruption are contrary to one another. The perfection of the human soul, however, consists in a certain abstraction from the body. For the soul is perfected by knowledge and virtue, and it is perfected in knowledge the more it considers immaterial things, the perfection of virtue consisting in man’s not submitting to the passions of the body, but moderating and controlling them in accordance with reason. Consequently, the soul is not corrupted by being separated from the body.
Si autem dicatur quod perfectio animae consistit in separatione eius a corpore secundum operationem, corruptio autem in separatione secundum esse, non convenienter obviatur. Operatio enim rei demonstrat substantiam et esse ipsius: quia unumquodque operatur secundum quod est ens, et propria operatio rei sequitur propriam ipsius naturam. Non potest igitur perfici operatio alicuius rei nisi secundum quod perficitur eius substantia. Si igitur anima secundum operationem suam perficitur in relinquendo corpus, incorporea substantia sua in esse suo non deficiet per hoc quod a corpore separatur. [4] Now, it may be said that the soul’s perfection lies in its operational separation from the body, and its corruption in its existential separation therefrom. Such an argument misses the mark, for a thing’s operation manifests its substance and its being, since a thing operates according as it is a being, and its proper operation follows upon its proper nature. The operation of a thing, therefore, can be perfected only so far as its substance is perfected. Thus, if the soul, in leaving the body, is perfected operationally, its incorporeal substance will not fail in its being through separation from the body.
Item. Proprium perfectivum hominis secundum animam est aliquid incorruptibile. Propria enim operatio hominis, inquantum huiusmodi, est intelligere: per hanc enim differt a brutis et plantis et inanimatis. Intelligere autem universalium est et incorruptibilium inquantum huiusmodi. Perfectiones autem oportet esse perfectibilibus proportionatas. Ergo anima humana est incorruptibilis. [5] Likewise, that which properly perfects the soul of man is something incorruptible; for the proper operation of man, as man, is understanding, since it is in this that he differs from brutes, plants, and inanimate things. Now, it properly pertains to this act to apprehend objects universal and incorruptible as such. But perfections must be proportionate to things perfectible. Therefore, the human soul is incorruptible.
Amplius. Impossibile est appetitum naturalem esse frustra. Sed homo naturaliter appetit perpetuo manere. Quod patet ex hoc quod esse est quod ab omnibus appetitur: homo autem per intellectum apprehendit esse non solum ut nunc, sicut bruta animalia, sed simpliciter. Consequitur ergo homo perpetuitatem secundum animam, qua esse simpliciter et secundum omne tempus apprehendit. [6] Moreover, it is impossible that natural appetite should be in vain. But man naturally desires to exist forever. This is evidenced by the fact that being is that which all desire; and man by his intellect apprehends being not merely in the present, as brute animals do, but unqualifiedly. Therefore, man attains perpetual existence as regards his soul, whereby he apprehends being unqualifiedly and in respect of every time.
Item. Unumquodque quod recipitur in aliquo, recipitur in eo secundum modum eius in quo est. Formae autem rerum recipiuntur in intellectu possibili prout sunt intelligibiles actu. Sunt autem intelligibiles actu prout sunt immateriales, universales, et per consequens incorruptibiles. Ergo intellectus possibilis est incorruptibilis. Sed, sicut supra est probatum, intellectus possibilis est aliquid animae humanae. Est igitur anima humana incorruptibilis. [7] Also, the reception of one thing in another accords with the recipient’s manner of being. But the forms of things are received in the possible intellect according as they are actually intelligible; and they are actually intelligible according as they are immaterial, universal, and consequently incorruptible. Therefore, the possible intellect is incorruptible. The possible intellect, however, is part of the human soul, as we proved above. Hence, the human soul is incorruptible.
Adhuc. Esse intelligibile est permanentius quam esse sensibile. Sed id quod se habet in rebus sensibilibus per modum primi recipientis, est incorruptibile secundum suam substantiam, scilicet materia prima. Multo igitur fortius intellectus possibilis, qui est receptivus formarum intelligibilium. Ergo et anima humana, cuius intellectus possibilis est pars, est incorruptibilis. [8] Then, too, intelligible being is more permanent than sensible being. But in sensible things that which has the role of first recipient, namely, prime matter, is incorruptible in its substance; much more so, therefore, is the possible intellect, which is receptive of intelligible forms. Therefore, the human soul, of which the possible intellect is a part, is also incorruptible.
Amplius. Faciens est honorabilius facto: ut etiam Aristoteles dicit. Sed intellectus agens facit actu intelligibilia: ut ex praemissis patet. Cum igitur intelligibilia actu, inquantum huiusmodi, sint incorruptibilia, multo fortius intellectus agens erit incorruptibilis. Ergo et anima humana, cuius lumen est intellectus agens, ut ex praemissis patet. [9] Moreover, the maker is superior to the thing made, as Aristotle says. But the agent intellect actualizes intelligibles, as was shown above. Therefore, since intelligibles in act, as such, are incorruptible, much more will the agent intellect be incorruptible. So, too, then, is the human soul, whose light is the agent intellect, as we have previously made clear.
Item. Nulla forma corrumpitur nisi vel ex actione contrarii, vel per corruptionem sui subiecti, vel per defectum suae causae: per actionem quidem contrarii, sicut calor destruitur per actionem frigidi; per corruptionem autem sui subiecti, sicut, destructo oculo destruitur vis visiva; per defectum autem causae, sicut lumen aeris deficit deficiente solis praesentia, quae erat ipsius causa. Sed anima humana non potest corrumpi per actionem contrarii: non est enim ei aliquid contrarium; cum per intellectum possibilem ipsa sit cognoscitiva et receptiva omnium contrariorum. Similiter autem neque per corruptionem sui subiecti: ostensum est enim supra quod anima humana est forma non dependens a corpore secundum suum esse. Similiter autem neque per deficientiam suae causae: quia non potest habere aliquam causam nisi aeternam, ut infra ostendetur. Nullo igitur modo anima humana corrumpi potest. [10] Again, a form is corrupted by three things only: the action of its contrary, the corruption of its subject, the failure of its cause; by the action of a contrary, as when beat is destroyed by the action of cold; by the corruption of its subject, as when the power of sight is destroyed through the destruction of the eye; by the failure of its cause, as when the air’s illumination fails through the failure of its cause, the sun, to be present. But the human soul cannot be corrupted by the action of a contrary, for nothing is contrary to it; since, through the possible intellect, it is cognizant and receptive of all contraries. Nor can the human soul be destroyed through the corruption of its subject, for we have already shown that it is a form independent of the body in its being. Nor, again, can the soul be destroyed through the failure of its cause, since it can have no cause except an eternal one, as we shall prove later on. Therefore, in no way can the human soul be corrupted.
Adhuc. Si anima corrumpitur per corruptionem corporis, oportet quod eius esse debilitetur per debilitatem corporis. Si autem aliqua virtus animae debilitetur debilitato corpore, hoc non est nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet virtus animae indiget organo corporali: sicut visus debilitatur debilitato organo, per accidens tamen. Quod ex hoc patet. Si enim ipsi virtuti per se accideret aliqua debilitas, nunquam restauraretur organo reparato: videmus autem quod, quantumcumque vis visiva videatur debilitata, si organum reparetur, quod vis visiva restauratur; unde dicit Aristoteles, in I de anima, quod, si senex accipiat oculum iuvenis, videret utique sicut iuvenis. Cum igitur intellectus sit virtus animae quae non indiget organo, ut ex praemissis patet, ipse non debilitatur, neque per se neque per accidens, per senium vel per aliquam aliam debilitatem corporis. Si autem in operatione intellectus accidit fatigatio aut impedimentum propter infirmitatem corporis, hoc non est propter debilitatem ipsius intellectus, sed propter debilitatem virium quibus intellectus indiget, scilicet imaginationis, memorativae et cogitativae virtutum. Patet igitur quod intellectus est incorruptibilis. Ergo et anima humana, quae est intellectiva quaedam substantia. [11] Furthermore, if the soul perishes as the result of the body’s corruption, then its being must be weakened through the debility of the body. But if a power of the soul is weakened for that reason, this occurs only by accident, namely, in so far as that power has need of a bodily organ. Thus, the power of sight is debilitated through the weakening of its organ—accidentally, however. The following considerations will make this point clear. If some weakness were attached to the power through itself, it would never be restored as the result of the organ’s being restored; yet it is a fact of observation that, however much the power of sight may seem to be weakened, if the organ is restored, then the power is restored. That is why Aristotle says, in De anima I [4], “that if an old man were to recover the eye of a youth, he would see just as well as the youth does.” Since, then, the intellect is a power of the soul that needs no organ—as we proved above—it is not weakened, either through itself or accidentally, by old age or any other bodily weakness. Now, if in the operation of the intellect fatigue occurs, or some impediment because of a bodily infirmity, this is due not to any weakness on the part of the intellect itself, but to the weakness of the powers which the intellect needs, namely, of the imagination, the memory, and the cogitative power. Clearly, therefore, the intellect is incorruptible. And since it is an intellective substance, the human soul likewise is incorruptible.
Hoc etiam apparet per auctoritatem Aristotelis. Dicit enim, in I de anima, quod intellectus videtur substantia quaedam esse, et non corrumpi. Quod autem hoc non possit intelligi de aliqua substantia separata quae sit intellectus possibilis vel agens, ex praemissis haberi potest. [12] This conclusion also comes to light through the authority of Aristotle. For he says in De anima I [4] that the intellect is evidently a substance and is incapable of being destroyed. And it can be inferred from what has been said already that remark of Aristotle’s cannot apply to a separate substance that is either the possible or the agent intellect.
Praeterea apparet ex ipsis verbis Aristotelis in XI metaphysicae. Ubi dicit, contra Platonem loquens, quod causae moventes praeexistunt, causae vero formales sunt simul cum his quorum sunt causae: quando enim sanatur homo, tunc sanitas est, et non prius: contra hoc quod Plato posuit formas rerum praeexistere rebus. Et his dictis, postmodum subdit: si autem et posterius aliquid manet, perscrutandum est. Nam in quibusdam nihil prohibet: ut si est anima tale; non omnis, sed intellectus. Ex quo patet, cum loquatur de formis, quod vult intellectum, qui est forma hominis, post materiam remanere, scilicet post corpus. [13] The same conclusion also follows from what Aristotle says in Metaphysics XI [3], speaking against Plato, namely, “that moving causes exist prior to their effects, whereas formal causes are simultaneous with their effects; thus when a man is healed, then health exists,” and not before—Plato’s position, that the forms of things exist prior to the things themselves, to the contrary notwithstanding. Having said this, Aristotle adds: But we must examine whether anything also survives afterwards. “For in some cases there is nothing to prevent this—the soul, for example, may be of this sort, not every soul, but the intellect.” Since Aristotle is speaking of forms, he clearly means that the intellect, which is the form of man, remains after the matter, which is the body.
Patet autem ex praemissis Aristotelis verbis quod, licet ponat animam esse formam, non tamen ponit eam non subsistentem et per consequens corruptibilem, sicut Gregorius Nyssenus ei imponit: nam a generalitate aliarum formarum animam intellectivam excludit, dicens eam post corpus remanere, et substantiam quandam esse. [14] It is also clear from these texts of Aristotle that, while he maintains that the soul is a form, he does not say it is non-subsistent and therefore corruptible—an interpretation which Gregory of Nyssa attributes to him. For Aristotle excludes the intellective soul from the generality of other forms, in saying that it remains after the body, and is a certain substance.
Praemissis autem sententia Catholicae fidei concordat. Dicitur enim in libro de Ecclesiast. dogmatibus: solum hominem credimus habere animam substantivam, quae et exuta corpore vivit, et sensus suos atque ingenia vivaciter tenet; neque cum corpore moritur, sicut Arabs asserit; neque post modicum intervallum, sicut Zenon; quia substantialiter vivit. [15] The doctrine of the Catholic faith is in agreement on these matters. For in the work On the Teachings of the Church there is this statement: “We believe that man alone is possessed of a subsistent soul, which continues to live even after divesting itself of the body, and is the animating principle of the senses and powers; nor does the soul die with the body, as the Arabian asserts, nor after a short period of time, as Zeno would have it, because it is a living substance.”
Per hoc autem excluditur error impiorum, ex quorum persona Salomon dicit, Sap. 2-2: ex nihilo nati sumus, et post hoc erimus tanquam non fuerimus; et ex quorum persona Salomon dicit, Eccle. 3-19: unus est interitus hominum et iumentorum, et aequa utriusque conditio. Sicut moritur homo, sic et illa moriuntur. Similiter spirant omnia, et nihil habet homo iumento amplius. Quod enim non ex persona sua sed impiorum dicat, patet per hoc quod in fine libri quasi determinando subiungit: donec revertatur pulvis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad eum qui dedit illum.
Infinitae etiam sunt auctoritates sacrae Scripturae quae immortalitatem animae protestantur.
[16] This eliminates the error of the ungodly, in whose person Solomon says: “We are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been” (Wis. 2:2); and in whose person again Solomon says: “The death of man and of beasts is one, and the condition of them both is equal: as man dies, so they also die: all things breathe alike, and man has nothing more than beast” (Eccle. 3:19). For Solomon clearly is not speaking in his own person but in that of the godless, since at the end of the book he adds in a decisive manner: “Before the dusts return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit returns to Him Who gave it” (Eccle. 17:6-7).
[17] Furthermore, there are myriad passages of sacred Scripture which proclaim the immortality of the soul.

Caput 80 Chapters 80 and 81
Rationes probantes animam corrumpi corrupto corpore (et solutio ipsarum) ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE CORRUPTION OF THE BODY ENTAILS THAT OF THE SOUL [AND THEIR SOLUTION]
Videtur autem quibusdam rationibus posse probari animas humanas non posse remanere post corpus. [1] There are certain arguments which would seem to prove the impossibility of human souls remaining after the body.
Si enim animae humanae multiplicantur secundum multiplicationem corporum, ut supra ostensum est, destructis ergo corporibus, non possunt animae in sua multitudine remanere. Unde oportet alterum duorum sequi: aut quod totaliter anima humana esse desinat; aut quod remaneat una tantum. Quod videtur esse secundum opinionem illorum qui ponunt esse incorruptibile solum illud quod est unum in omnibus hominibus: sive hoc sit intellectus agens tantum, ut Alexander dicit; sive cum agente etiam possibilis, ut dicit Averroes. [2] For, if human souls are multiplied in accordance with the multiplication of bodies, as was shown above, then the souls cannot remain in their multiple being when the bodies are destroyed. One of two alternatives, therefore, follows ineluctably: either the human soul perishes utterly, or only one soul remains. And, seemingly, this state of affairs would accord with the theory of those who maintain that what is one in all men is alone incorruptible, whether this be the agent intellect only, as Alexander declares, or, in the Averroistic doctrine, the possible along with the agent intellect.
Amplius. Ratio formalis est causa diversitatis secundum speciem. Sed, si remanent multae animae post corporum corruptionem, oportet eas esse diversas: sicut enim idem est quod est unum secundum substantiam, ita diversa sunt quae sunt multa secundum substantiam. Non potest autem esse in animabus remanentibus post corpus diversitas nisi formalis: non enim sunt compositae ex materia et forma, ut supra probatum est de omni substantia intellectuali. Relinquitur igitur quod sunt diversae secundum speciem. Non autem per corruptionem corporis mutantur animae ad aliam speciem: quia omne quod mutatur de specie in speciem, corrumpitur. Relinquitur ergo quod etiam antequam essent a corporibus separatae, erant secundum speciem diversae. Composita autem sortiuntur speciem secundum formam. Ergo et individua hominum erant secundum speciem diversa. Quod est inconveniens. Ergo impossibile videtur quod animae humanae multae remaneant post corpora. [3] Moreover, the formal principle [ ratio ] is the cause of specific diversity. But, if many souls remain after the corruption of bodies, they must be mutually diverse; for just as there is identity where there is unity of substance, so those things we diverse which are substantially many. Now, in souls that survive the death of the bodies which they inform, the only possible diversity is of a formal character, since such souls are not composed of matter and form—a point proved above with respect to every intellectual substance. It therefore follows that those souls are specifically diverse. Nevertheless, souls are not changed to another species as a result of the body’s corruption, because whatever is changed from species to species is corrupted. Consequently, even before souls were separated from their bodies, they were specifically diverse. Now, composite things owe their specific nature to their form. It follows that individual men will be specifically diverse—an awkward consequence. It is, therefore, seemingly impossible that a multiplicity of. human souls should survive their bodies.
Adhuc. Videtur omnino esse impossibile, secundum ponentes aeternitatem mundi, ponere quod animae humanae in sua multitudine remaneant post mortem corporis. Si enim mundus est ab aeterno, motus fuit ab aeterno. Ergo et generatio est aeterna. Sed si generatio est aeterna, infiniti homines mortui sunt ante nos. Si ergo animae mortuorum remanent post mortem in sua multitudine, oportet dicere animas infinitas esse nunc in actu hominum prius mortuorum. Hoc autem est impossibile: nam infinitum actu non potest esse in natura. Relinquitur igitur, si mundus est aeternus, quod animae non remaneant multae post mortem. [4] Then, too, for those who espouse the doctrine of the eternity of the world it would seem utterly impossible to maintain that a multiplicity of human souls remain after the death of the body. For, if the world exists from eternity, then movement did, too, so that generation likewise is eternal. But in that case an infinite number of men have died before us. If, then, the souls of the dead remain in their multiple being after death, it must be said that there actually exist now an infinite number of souls of men already dead. This, however, is impossible, because the actually infinite cannot exist in nature. Hence it follows, on the hypothesis of the world’s eternity, that souls do not remain many after death.
Item. Quod advenit alicui et discedit ab eo praeter sui corruptionem, advenit ei accidentaliter: haec enim est definitio accidentis. Si ergo anima non corrumpitur corpore abscedente, sequetur quod anima accidentaliter corpori uniatur. Ergo homo est ens per accidens, qui est compositus ex anima et corpore. Et sequetur ulterius quod non sit aliqua species humana: non enim ex his quae coniunguntur per accidens, fit species una; nam homo albus non est aliqua species. [5] Also, “That which comes to a thing and departs from it, without the latter being corrupted, accrues to it accidentally”; for this is the definition of an accident. Thus, if the soul is not corrupted as the result of its severance from the body, it would follow that the soul is united to the body accidentally, and, further, that man is an accidental being, composed of body and soul. In that case, too, we should be faced with the consequence that there is no human species, for one species does not result from things joined together by accident; white man, for example, is not a species.
Amplius. Impossibile est aliquam substantiam esse cuius non sit aliqua operatio. Sed omnis operatio animae finitur cum corpore. Quod quidem patet per inductionem. Nam virtutes animae nutritivae operantur per qualitates corporeas, et per instrumentum corporeum, et in ipsum corpus quod perficitur per animam, quod nutritur et augetur, et ex quo deciditur semen ad generationem. Operationes etiam omnes potentiarum quae pertinent ad animam sensitivam, complentur per organa corporalia: et quaedam earum complentur cum aliqua transmutatione corporali, sicut quae dicuntur animae passiones, ut amor, gaudium et huiusmodi. Intelligere autem etsi non sit operatio per aliquod organum corporale exercita, tamen obiecta eius sunt phantasmata, quae ita se habent ad ipsam ut colores ad visum: unde, sicut visus non potest videre sine coloribus, ita anima intellectiva non potest intelligere sine phantasmatibus. Indiget etiam anima ad intelligendum virtutibus praeparantibus phantasmata ad hoc quod fiant intelligibilia actu, scilicet virtute cogitativa et memorativa: de quibus constat quod, cum sint actus quorundam organorum corporis per quae operantur, quod non possunt remanere post corpus. Unde et Aristoteles dicit quod nequaquam sine phantasmate intelligit anima; et quod nihil intelligit sine intellectu passivo, quem vocat virtutem cogitativam, qui est corruptibilis. Et propter hoc dicit, in I de anima, quod intelligere hominis corrumpitur quodam interius corrupto, scilicet phantasmate vel passivo intellectu. Et in III de anima, dicitur quod non reminiscimur, post mortem, eorum quae scivimus in vita. Sic igitur patet quod nulla operatio animae potest remanere post mortem. Neque igitur substantia eius manet: cum nulla substantia possit esse absque operatione. [6] A completely inoperative substance, moreover, cannot possibly exist. All psychic operation, however, is corporeally determined, as we see by induction. For the soul’s nutritive powers function through the bodily qualities, and by a bodily instrument acting upon the body, which is perfected by the soul, which is nourished and increased, and from which the seed is separated for generative purposes. Secondly, all the operations of the powers belonging to the sensitive soul are executed through bodily organs, some of them entailing a certain bodily transmutation, as in those which are called passions of the soul, for instance, love, joy, and the like. And again, while understanding is not an operation carried out through any bodily organ, nevertheless its objects are the phantasms, which stand in relation to it as colors to the power of sight; so that, just as sight cannot function in the absence of colors, so the intellective soul is incapable of understanding without phantasms. Moreover, to enable it to understand, the soul needs the powers which prepare the phantasms so as to render them actually intelligible, namely, the cogitative power and the memory-powers which, being acts of certain bodily organs and functioning through them, surely cannot remain after the body perishes. And that is why Aristotle says that the soul never understands without a phantasm, and that it understands nothing without the passive intellect, which he terms the cogitative power, and which is destructible. This explains why he says in De anima I [4] that man’s understanding is corrupted through the decay of some inward part, namely, the phantasm, or the passive intellect. Aristotle also remarks in De anima III [5] that after death we do not remember what we know in life. Evidently, then, no operation of the soul can remain after death. Therefore, neither does its substance continue to be, since no substance can exist without operation.

Has autem rationes, quia falsum concludunt, ut ex praemissis est ostensum, tentandum est solvere. [7] [Chapter 81] Now, because these arguments arrive at a false conclusion, as was shown above, we must endeavor to solve them.
Ac primo sciendum est quod quaecumque oportet esse invicem coaptata et proportionata, simul recipiunt multitudinem vel unitatem, unumquodque ex sua causa. Si igitur esse unius dependeat ab altero, unitas vel multiplicatio eius etiam ex illo dependet: alioquin, ex alia causa extrinseca. Formam igitur et materiam semper oportet esse ad invicem proportionata et quasi naturaliter coaptata: quia proprius actus in propria materia fit. Unde semper oportet quod materia et forma consequantur se invicem in multitudine et unitate. Si igitur esse formae dependet a materia, multiplicatio ipsius a materia dependet, et similiter unitas. Si autem non, erit quidem necessarium multiplicari formam secundum multiplicationem materiae, idest simul cum materia, et proportionem ipsius: non autem ita quod dependeat unitas vel multitudo ipsius formae a materia. Ostensum est autem quod anima humana est forma secundum suum esse a materia non dependens. Unde sequitur quod multiplicantur quidem animae secundum quod multiplicantur corpora, non tamen multiplicatio corporum erit causa multiplicationis animarum. Et ideo non oportet quod, destructis corporibus, cesset pluralitas animarum: ut prima ratio concludebat. And first of all, it must be understood that whatever things have to be adapted and proportioned to one another simultaneously derive their multiplicity or unity, each from its own cause. Therefore, if the being of one thing depends on another, its unity or multiplicity likewise depends thereon; otherwise, its unity or multiplicity depends on some other extrinsic cause. Thus, form and matter must always be mutually proportioned and, as it were, naturally adapted, because the proper act is produced in its proper matter. That is why matter and form must always agree with one another in respect to multiplicity and unity. Consequently, if the being of the form depends on matter, its multiplication, as well as its unity, depends on matter. But if this is not the case, then the form will have to be multiplied in accordance with the multiplication of the matter, that is to say, together with the matter and in proportion to it; yet not in such a manner that the unity or multiplicity of the form itself depends upon the matter. It has been shown,” however, that the human soul is a form not depending in its being on matter. It therefore follows that souls are multiplied in accordance with the multiplication of bodies, yet the latter will not be the cause of the multiplication of souls. And for this reason it does not follow that, with the destruction of bodies, the plurality of souls ceases, as the first argument concluded.
Ex quo etiam de facili patet responsio ad secundam rationem. Non enim quaelibet formarum diversitas facit diversitatem secundum speciem, sed solum illa quae est secundum principia formalia, vel secundum diversam rationem formae: constat enim quod alia est essentia formae huius ignis et illius, nec tamen est alius ignis neque alia forma secundum speciem. Multitudo igitur animarum a corporibus separatarum consequitur quidem diversitatem formarum secundum substantiam, quia alia est substantia huius animae et illius: non tamen ista diversitas procedit ex diversitate principiorum essentialium ipsius animae, nec est secundum diversam rationem animae; sed est secundum diversam commensurationem animarum ad corpora; haec enim anima est commensurata huic corpori et non illi, illa autem alii, et sic de omnibus. Huiusmodi autem commensurationes remanent in animabus etiam pereuntibus corporibus: sicut et ipsae earum substantiae manent, quasi a corporibus secundum esse non dependentes. Sunt enim animae secundum substantias suas formae corporum: alias accidentaliter corpori unirentur, et sic ex anima et corpore non fieret unum per se, sed unum per accidens. Inquantum autem formae sunt, oportet eas esse corporibus commensuratas. Unde patet quod ipsae diversae commensurationes manent in animabus separatis: et per consequens pluralitas. [8] From this the reply to the second argument also clearly emerges. For not every diversity of form causes diversity in species, but that diversity alone which concerns formal principles, or otherness in respect of the intelligible essence of the form; for obviously, the form of this and that fire is essentially distinct, yet neither the fire nor its form is specifically diverse. Thus, a multiplicity of souls separated from their bodies is due to the substantial diversity of the forms, since the substance of this soul is other than the substance of that soul. This diversity, nevertheless, does not result from a diversity in the essential principles of the soul itself, nor from otherness in respect of the intelligible essence of the soul, but from diversity in the commensuration of souls to bodies, since this soul is adapted to this and not to that body, and that soul to another body, and so in all other instances. And such adaptabilities remain in souls even after the bodies have perished, even as their substances remain, as not depending in their being on bodies. For souls are in their substances the forms of bodies; otherwise, they would be united to their bodies accidentally, so that from the union of soul and body there would result a thing not essentially, but only accidentally, one. Now, it is as forms that souls have to be adapted to bodies. Clearly, that is why these diverse adaptabilities remain in separated souls, and consequently explains their enduring plurality.
Occasione autem tertiae rationis inductae, aliqui aeternitatem mundi ponentes in diversas opiniones extraneas inciderunt. Quidam enim conclusionem simpliciter concesserunt, dicentes animas humanas cum corporibus penitus interire. Alii vero dixerunt quod de omnibus animabus remanet aliquid unum separatum quod est omnibus commune: scilicet intellectus agens, secundum quosdam; vel cum eo intellectus possibilis, secundum alios. Alii autem posuerunt animas in sua multitudine post corpora remanere: sed, ne cogerentur animarum ponere infinitatem, dixerunt easdem animas diversis corporibus uniri post determinatum tempus. Et haec fuit Platonicorum opinio, de qua infra agetur. Quidam vero, omnia praedicta vitantes, dixerunt non esse inconveniens animas separatas actu existere infinitas. Esse enim infinitum actu in his quae non habent ad invicem ordinem, est esse infinitum per accidens: quod ponere non reputant inconveniens. Et est positio Avicennae et Algazelis. Quid autem horum Aristoteles senserit, ab eo expresse non invenitur: cum tamen expresse mundi aeternitatem ponat. Ultima tamen praedictarum opinionum principiis ab eo positis non repugnat. Nam in III Phys. et in I caeli et mundi, probat non esse infinitum actu in corporibus naturalibus, non autem in substantiis immaterialibus. Certum tamen est circa hoc nullam difficultatem pati Catholicae fidei professores, qui aeternitatem mundi non ponunt. [9] For some advocates of the eternity of the world the third argument cited above has been the occasion of their lapsing into various bizarre opinions. For some admitted the conclusion unqualifiedly, declaring that human souls perish utterly with their bodies. Others said that of all souls there remains a single separate entity common to them all, namely, the agent intellect, according to some, or, in addition, the possible intellect, according to others. Still others maintained that souls continue to exist in their multiplicity after the death of the bodies; yet, on pain of having to admit an infinite number of souls, these persons averred that the same souls are united to different bodies after a certain period of time has elapsed. This was the Platonists’ theory, of which we shall treat further on. Avoiding all these inferences, another group of thinkers held that it is not impossible for separate souls to be actually infinite in number. For in the case of things devoid of mutual order, to be actually infinite is to be infinite accidentally, and those thinkers saw no incongruity in admitting this. Such is the position of Avicenna and Al-Ghazali. Aristotle does not tell us explicitly which of these opinions he himself shared, but he does expressly affirm the eternity of the world. Nevertheless, of all the opinions cited above, the last one is not inconsistent with the principle laid down by him. For in Physics III [5] and in De caelo I [5] he proves that there is no actual infinity in natural bodies, but he does not prove that there is no actual infinity in immaterial substances. In any case it is certain that this question presents no difficulty to those who profess the Catholic faith, and do not posit the eternity of the world.
Non est etiam necessarium, quod si anima manet corpore destructo, quod fuerit ei accidentaliter unita: ut quarta ratio concludebat. Accidens enim describitur: quod potest adesse et abesse praeter corruptionem subiecti compositi ex materia et forma. Si autem referatur ad principia subiecti compositi, verum non invenitur. Constat enim materiam primam ingenitam et incorruptibilem esse: ut probat Aristoteles in I physicorum. Unde, recedente forma, manet in sua essentia. Non tamen forma accidentaliter ei uniebatur, sed essentialiter: uniebatur enim ei secundum esse unum. Similiter autem anima unitur corpori secundum esse unum, ut supra ostensum est. Unde, licet maneat post corpus, substantialiter ei unitur, non accidentaliter. Quod autem materia prima non remanet actu post formam nisi secundum actum alterius formae, anima autem humana manet in actu eodem, ex hoc contingit quod anima humana est forma et actus, materia autem prima potentia ens. [10] Moreover, if the soul remains in existence after the death of the body, it does not follow that it must have been accidentally united to it, as the fourth argument concluded. For an accident is described as that which can be present or absent without the corruption of the subject composed of matter and form. However, if this statement is applied to the principles of the composite subject, it is found to be false; because it is clear, as Aristotle shows in Physics I [9], that prime matter is ungenerated and incorruptible. That is why prime matter remains in its essence when the form departs. Nevertheless, the form was united to it not accidentally but essentially, since it was joined to it according to one act of being. The soul likewise is united to the body as regards one act of being, as was shown above. Therefore, although the soul continues to exist after the body has passed away, it is nevertheless united to the body substantially and not accidentally. Now, prime matter does not remain in act after the form’s departure, except in relation to the act of another form, whereas the human soul remains in the same act; and the reason for this is that the human soul is a form and an act, while prime matter is a being only potentially.
Quod autem quinta ratio proponebat, nullam operationem posse remanere in anima si a corpore separetur, dicimus esse falsum: manent enim operationes illae quae per organa non exercentur. Huiusmodi autem sunt intelligere et velle. Quae autem per organa corporea exercentur, sicut sunt operationes potentiarum nutritivae et sensitivae, non manent. [11] The proposition advanced in the fifth argument, namely, that no operation ran remain in the soul when separated from the body, we declare to be false, in view of the fact that those operations do remain which are not exercised through organs. Such are the operations of understanding and willing. Those operations, however, do not endure which are carried out by means of bodily~ organs, and of such a kind are the operations of the nutritive and sensitive powers.
Sciendum tamen est quod alio modo intelligit anima separata a corpore et corpori unita, sicut et alio modo est: unumquodque enim secundum hoc agit secundum quod est. Esse quidem animae humanae dum est corpori unita, etsi sit absolutum a corpore non dependens, tamen stramentum quoddam ipsius et subiectum ipsum recipiens est corpus. Unde et consequenter operatio propria eius, quae est intelligere, etsi non dependeat a corpore quasi per organum corporale exercita, habet tamen obiectum in corpore, scilicet phantasma. Unde, quandiu est anima in corpore, non potest intelligere sine phantasmate: nec etiam reminisci nisi per virtutem cogitativam et memorativam, per quam phantasmata praeparantur, ut ex dictis patet. Et propter hoc intelligere, quantum ad hunc modum, et similiter reminisci, destruitur corpore destructo. Esse vero separatae animae est ipsi soli absque corpore. Unde nec eius operatio, quae est intelligere, explebitur per respectum ad aliqua obiecta in corporeis organis existentia, quae sunt phantasmata: sed intelliget per seipsam, ad modum substantiarum quae sunt totaliter secundum esse a corporibus separatae, de quibus infra agetur. A quibus etiam tanquam a superioribus, uberius influentiam recipere poterit ad perfectius intelligendum. Cuius signum etiam in iuvenibus apparet. Nam anima, quando impeditur ab occupatione circa corpus proprium, redditur habilior ad intelligendum aliqua altiora: unde et virtus temperantiae, quae a corporeis delectationibus retrahit animam, praecipue facit homines ad intelligendum aptos. Homines etiam dormientes, quando corporeis sensibus non utuntur, nec est aliqua perturbatio humorum aut fumositatum impediens, percipiunt de futuris, ex superiorum impressione, aliqua quae modum ratiocinationis humanae excedunt. Et hoc multo magis accidit in syncopizantibus et exstasim passis: quanto magis fit retractio a corporeis sensibus. Nec immerito hoc accidit. Quia, cum anima humana, ut supra ostensum est, in confinio corporum et incorporearum substantiarum, quasi in horizonte existens aeternitatis et temporis, recedens ab infimo, appropinquat ad summum. Unde et, quando totaliter erit a corpore separata, perfecte assimilabitur substantiis separatis quantum ad modum intelligendi, et abunde influentiam eorum recipiet. [12] Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that the soul understands in a different manner when separated from the body and when united to it, even as it exists diversely in those cases; for a thing acts according as it is. Indeed, although the soul, while united to the body, enjoys an absolute being not depending on the body, nevertheless the body is the soul’s housing, so to speak, and the subject that receives it. This explains why the soul’s proper operation, understanding, has its object, namely, the phantasm, in the body, despite the fact that this operation does not depend on the body as though it were effected through the instrumentality of a bodily organ. It follows that, so long as the soul is in the body, it cannot perform that act without a phantasm; neither can it remember except through the powers of cogitation and memory, by which the phantasms are prepared, as stated above. Accordingly, understanding, so far as this mode of it is concerned, as well as remembering, perishes with the death of the body. The separated soul, however, exists by itself, apart from the body. Consequently, its operation, which is understanding, will not be fulfilled in relation to those objects existing in bodily organs which the phantasms are; on the contrary, it will understand through itself, in the manner of substances which in their being are totally separate from bodies, and of which we shall treat subsequently. And from those substances, as from things above it, the separated soul will be able to receive a more abundant influx, productive of a more perfect understanding on its own part. There is an indication of this event in the young. For the more the soul is freed from preoccupation with its body, the more fit does it become for understanding higher things. Hence, the virtue of temperance, which withdraws the soul from bodily pleasures, is especially fruitful in making men apt in understanding. Then, too, sleeping persons, their bodily senses being dormant, with no disturbance of the humours or vapors to impede their mental processes, are, under the influence of higher beings, enabled to perceive some things pertaining to the future which transcend the scope of human reason. And this is all the more true of those in a fainting condition or in ecstasy, since such states involve an even greater withdrawal from the bodily senses. Nor does this come to pass undeservedly. For, since the human soul, as we have shown already, is situated on the boundary line between corporeal and incorporeal substances, as though it existed on the horizon of eternity and time, it approaches to the highest by withdrawing from the lowest. Consequently, when the soul shall be completely separated from the body, it will be perfectly likened to separate substances in its mode of understanding, and will receive their influx abundantly.
Sic igitur, etsi intelligere nostrum secundum modum praesentis vitae, corrupto corpore corrumpatur, succedet tamen alius modus intelligendi altior. [13] Therefore, although the mode of understanding vouchsafed to us in the present life ceases upon the death of the body, nevertheless another and higher mode of understanding will take its place.
Reminisci autem, cum sit actus per corporeum organum exercitus, ut in libro de memoria et Reminisc. Aristoteles probat, non poterit post corpus in anima remanere: nisi reminisci aequivoce sumatur pro intelligentia eorum quae quis prius novit; quam oportet animae separatae adesse etiam eorum quae novit in vita, cum species intelligibiles in intellectu possibili indelebiliter recipiantur, ut supra ostensum est. [14] Now, recollection, being an act performed through a bodily organ, as Aristotle shows in the De memoria [I], cannot remain in the soul after the body, unless recollection be taken equivocally for the understanding of things which one knew before. For there must be present in the separate soul even the things that it knew in this life, since the intelligible species are received into the possible intellect inexpugnably, as we have already shown.
Circa alias vero animae operationes, sicut est amare, gaudere, et alia huiusmodi, est aequivocatio cavenda. Nam quandoque sumuntur ut sunt animae passiones. Et sic sunt actus sensibilis appetitus secundum concupiscibilem vel irascibilem, cum aliqua permutatione corporali. Et sic in anima manere non possunt post mortem: ut Aristoteles probat in libro de anima. Sumuntur autem quandoque pro simplici actu voluntatis, qui est absque passione. Unde Aristoteles dicit, in VII Ethic., quod Deus una simplici operatione gaudet; et in X, quod in contemplatione sapientiae est delectatio admirabilis; et in VIII, amorem amicitiae ab amatione, quae est passio, distinguit. Cum vero voluntas sit potentia non utens organo, sicut nec intellectus, palam est huiusmodi, secundum quod sunt actus voluntatis, in anima separata remanere. [15] As for the other operations of the soul, such as loving, rejoicing, and the like, one must beware of equivocation. For sometimes such operations are taken inasmuch as they are passions of the soul, and in this sense they are acts of the sensible appetite appertaining to the concupiscible and irascible powers, entailing some bodily change. And thus they cannot remain in the soul after death, as Aristotle proves in the De anima [I, 4]. Sometimes, however, such operations are taken for a simple act of the will, in the absence of all passion. That is why Aristotle says in Book VII of the Ethics that God rejoices in a single and simple operation; and in Book X that in the contemplation of wisdom there is marvelous delight; and in Book VII he distinguishes the love of friendship from the love that is a passion. Now, since the will is a power employing no organ, as neither does the intellect, it is plain that these things of which we are speaking remain in the separated soul, so far as they are acts of the will.
Sic igitur ex praedictis rationibus concludi non potest animam hominis esse mortalem. [16] From the preceding arguments, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the soul of man is mortal.

Caput 82 Chapter 82
Quod animae brutorum animalium non sunt immortales THAT THE SOULS OF BRUTE ANIMALS ARE NOT IMMORTAL
Ex his autem quae dicta sunt, evidenter ostenditur brutorum animas non esse immortales. [1] This truth can be clearly inferred from what has been already said.
Iam enim ostensum est quod nulla operatio sensitivae partis esse sine corpore potest. In animabus autem brutorum non est invenire aliquam operationem superiorem operationibus sensitivae partis: non enim intelligunt neque ratiocinantur. Quod ex hoc apparet, quia omnia animalia eiusdem speciei similiter operantur, quasi a natura motae et non ex arte operantes: omnis enim hirundo similiter facit nidum, et omnis aranea similiter telam. Nulla igitur est operatio animae brutorum quae possit esse sine corpore. Cum igitur omnis substantia aliquam operationem habeat, non poterit anima bruti absque corpore esse. Ergo, pereunte corpore, perit. [2] For we demonstrated above that no operation of the sensitive part of the soul can be performed without the body. In the souls of brute animals, however, there is no operation superior to those of the sensitive part, since they neither understand nor reason. This is evident from the fact that all animals of the same species operate in the same way, as though moved by nature and not as operating by art; every swallow builds its nest and every spider spins its web, in the same manner. The souls of brutes, then, are incapable of any operation that does not involve the body. Now, since every substance is possessed of some operation, the soul of a brute animal will be unable to exist apart from its body; so that it perishes along with the body.
Item. Omnis forma separata a materia est intellecta in actu: sic enim intellectus agens facit species intelligibiles actu, inquantum abstrahit eas, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed, si anima bruti manet corrupto corpore, erit forma a materia separata. Ergo erit forma intellecta in actu. Sed in separatis a materia idem est intelligens et intellectum, ut Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima. Ergo anima bruti, si post corpus manet, erit intellectualis. Quod est impossibile. [3] Likewise, every form separate from matter is understood in act. for the agent intellect renders species intelligible in act by way of abstraction, as we see from what was said above. But if the soul of the brute animal continues to exist after its body has passed away, then that soul will be a form separate from matter, and therefore a form understood in act. And yet, as Aristotle says in De anima III [4], with things separate from matter, that which understands is identical with that which is understood. It follows that the soul of a brute animal, if it survives the body, will be intellectual; and this is impossible.
Adhuc. In qualibet re quae potest pertingere ad aliquam perfectionem, invenitur naturalis appetitus illius perfectionis: bonum enim est quod omnia appetunt, ita tamen quod unumquodque proprium bonum. In brutis autem non invenitur aliquis appetitus ad esse perpetuum, nisi ut perpetuentur secundum speciem, inquantum in eis invenitur appetitus generationis, per quam species perpetuatur, qui quidem invenitur et in plantis et in rebus inanimatis: non autem quantum ad proprium appetitum animalis inquantum est animal, qui est appetitus apprehensionem consequens. Nam, cum anima sensitiva non apprehendat nisi hic et nunc, impossibile est quod apprehendat esse perpetuum. Neque ergo appetit appetitu animali. Non est igitur anima bruti capax perpetui esse. [4] Then, too, in every thing capable of attaining a certain perfection, we find a natural desire for that perfection, since good is what all things desire, yet in such fashion that each thing desires the good proper to itself. In brutes, however, we find no desire for perpetual existence, but only a desire for the perpetuation of their several species, since we do observe in them the desire to reproduce and thereby perpetuate the species—a desire common also to plants and to inanimate things, though not as regards desire proper to an animal as such, because animal appetite is consequent upon apprehension. For, since the apprehending power of the sensitive soul is limited to the here and now, that soul cannot possibly be cognizant of perpetual existence. Nor, then, does it desire such existence with animal appetite. Therefore, the soul of a brute animal is incapable of perpetual existence.
Amplius. Cum delectationes operationes perficiant, ut patet per Aristotelem in X Ethic., ad hoc ordinatur operatio cuiuslibet rei sicut in finem in quo sua delectatio figitur. Delectationes autem brutorum animalium omnes referuntur ad conservantia corpus: non enim delectantur in sonis, odoribus et aspectibus, nisi secundum quod sunt indicativa ciborum vel venereorum, circa quae est omnis eorum delectatio. Tota igitur operatio eorum ordinatur ad conservationem esse corporei sicut in finem. Non igitur est eis aliquod esse absque corpore. [5] Moreover, as Aristotle remarks in Ethics X [4], pleasures perfect operations. Hence, a thing’s activity is directed to that object wherein it takes pleasure, as to its end. But all the pleasures of brute animals have reference to the preservation of their body; thus, they delight in sounds, odors, and sights only to the extent that they signify for them food or sex, the sole objects of all their pleasures. All the activities of such animals, then, have but a single end: the preservation of their bodily existence. Thus, there is in them no being whatever which is independent of the body.
Huic autem sententiae doctrina Catholicae fidei concordat. Dicitur enim Gen. 9, de anima bruti, anima illius in sanguine est: quasi dicat: ex sanguinis permanentia esse illius dependet. Et in libro de Ecclesiast. dogmatibus: solum hominem dicimus animam substantivam habere, idest per se vitalem: brutorum animas cum corporibus interire. [6] The teaching of the Catholic faith is in harmony with this doctrine. For in the Old Testament we read, concerning the soul of the brute animal, that “the life of all flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:14; cf. Gen. 9:4-5), which seemingly means that the existence of such souls depends on the permanence of the blood. And it is said in the work On the Teachings of the Church: “We declare that man alone has a subsistent soul,” that is, a soul having life of itself; and that “the souls of brute animals perish along with their bodies.”
Aristoteles etiam, in II de anima, dicit quod intellectiva pars animae separatur ab aliis sicut incorruptibile a corruptibili. [7] Aristotle likewise states, in De anima II [2], that “the intellective part of the soul differs from the other parts as the incorruptible from the corruptible.”
Per hoc autem excluditur positio Platonis, qui posuit etiam brutorum animas immortales. [8] This eliminates Plato’s theory that the souls even of brute animals are immortal.
Videtur tamen posse probari brutorum animas esse immortales. Cuius enim est aliqua operatio per se separatim, et ipsum est per se subsistens. Sed animae sensitivae in brutis est aliqua operatio per se in qua non communicat corpus, scilicet movere: nam movens componitur ex duobus, quorum unum est movens et alterum est motum; unde, cum corpus sit motum, relinquitur quod anima sola sit movens. Ergo est per se subsistens. Non igitur potest per accidens corrumpi, corpore corrupto: illa enim solum per accidens corrumpuntur quae per se non habent esse. Per se autem non potest corrumpi: cum neque contrarium habeat, neque sit ex contrariis composita. Relinquitur igitur quod sit omnino incorruptibilis. [9] Nevertheless, it would seem possible to show that the souls of such animals are immortal. For, if a thing possesses an operation through itself, distinctly its own, then it is subsisting through itself. But the sensitive soul in brutes enjoys an operation through itself, wherein the body has no part, namely, motion; for a mover is compounded of two parts, the one being mover and the other moved. Since the body is a thing moved, it remains that the soul is exclusively a mover, and, consequently, is subsisting through itself. Hence, the soul cannot be corrupted by accident, when the body is corrupted, for only those things are corrupted by accident which do not have being through themselves. Nor can the soul be corrupted through itself, since it neither has a contrary nor is composed of contraries. The result of the argument, therefore, is that the soul is altogether incorruptible.
Ad hoc etiam videbatur redire Platonis ratio qua probabat omnem animam esse immortalem: quia scilicet anima est movens seipsum; omne autem movens seipsum oportet esse immortale. Corpus enim non moritur nisi abscedente eo a quo movebatur; idem autem a seipso non potest discedere; unde sequitur, secundum ipsum, quod movens seipsum non possit mori. Et sic relinquebatur quod anima omnis motiva esset immortalis, etiam brutorum. Ideo autem hanc rationem in idem redire diximus cum praemissa, quia cum, secundum Platonis positionem, nihil moveat nisi motum, illud quod est seipsum movens, est per seipsum motivum, et sic habet aliquam operationem per se. [10] And, seemingly, Plato’s argument that every soul is immortal comes to the same thing, namely, that the soul is a self-mover; and everything of this sort must be immortal. For the body dies only when its mover departs from it, and a thing cannot abandon itself. That is why Plato inferred that Is thing which moves itself cannot die. And thus he came to the conclusion that every soul possessed of the power of motion, even that of brute animals, is immortal. Now, we have remarked that this argument is reductively the same as the preceding one, since, given Plato’s position that nothing moves without being moved, a thing that moves itself is a mover through itself and therefore has an operation through itself.
Non solum autem in movendo, sed etiam in sentiendo ponebat Plato animam sensitivam propriam operationem habere. Dicebat enim quod sentire est motus quidam ipsius animae sentientis: et ipsa, sic mota, movebat corpus ad sentiendum. Unde, definiens sensum, dicebat quod est motus animae per corpus. [11] Now, Plato also maintained that the sensitive soul enjoys an operation of its own, not only in respect to movement, but also as regards sensation. For he said that sensation is a movement of the sensing soul itself, and that the soul, thus moved, moved the body to sensation; wherefore Plato said, in defining sense, that it is the motion of the soul through the body.
Haec autem quae dicta sunt, patet esse falsa. Non enim sentire est movere, sed magis moveri: nam ex potentia sentiente fit animal actu sentiens per sensibilia, a quibus sensus immutantur. Non autem potest dici similiter sensum pati a sensibili sicut patitur intellectus ab intelligibili, ut sic sentire possit esse operatio animae absque corporeo instrumento, sicut est intelligere: nam intellectus apprehendit res in abstractione a materia et materialibus conditionibus, quae sunt individuationis principia; non autem sensus. Quod exinde apparet quia sensus est particularium, intellectus vero universalium. Unde patet quod sensus patiuntur a rebus secundum quod sunt in materia: non autem intellectus, sed secundum quod sunt abstractae. Passio igitur intellectus est absque materia corporali, non autem passio sensus. [12] Now, these Platonic dicta are patently false. For the act of sensation is not an act of movement; rather, to sense is to be moved; since, through the sensible objects altering the condition of the senses in acting upon them, the animal is made actually sentient from being only potentially so. However, it cannot be maintained that the passivity of the sense in respect of the sensible is the same as that of the intellect in relation to the intelligible, so that sensation could then be an operation of the soul without a bodily instrument, just as understanding is. This is impossible, because the intellect grasps things in abstraction from matter and material conditions, which are individuating principles, whereas the sense does not, being manifestly limited to the perception of particulars, while the intellect attains to universals. Clearly, then, the senses are passive to things as existing in matter, but not the intellect, which is passive to things according as they are abstracted. Thus, in the intellect there is passivity in utter independence of corporeal matter, but not in the senses.
Adhuc. Diversi sensus sunt susceptivi diversorum sensibilium: sicut visus colorum, auditus sonorum. Haec autem diversitas manifeste ex dispositione diversa organorum contingit: nam organum visus oportet esse in potentia ad omnes colores, organum auditus ad omnes sonos. Si autem haec receptio fieret absque organo corporali, eadem potentia esset omnium sensibilium susceptiva: nam virtus immaterialis se habet aequaliter, quantum de se est, ad omnes huiusmodi qualitates; unde intellectus, qui non utitur organo corporali, omnia sensibilia cognoscit. Sentire igitur non fit absque organo corporeo. [13] Moreover, diverse senses are receptive of diverse sensible objects—sight of colors, hearing of sounds, and so on. And it is quite clear that this diversity stems from the diverse dispositions of the organs. The organ of sight, for instance, is, necessarily, in potentiality to all colors, and the organ of hearing to all sounds. But, if this sense-receptivity occurred without a corporeal organ, then the same power would be receptive of all sensible objects; for an immaterial power is of itself related indifferently to all such qualities; and that is why the intellect, which employs no bodily organ, is cognizant of all sensible things. Without a bodily organ, then, no sensation takes place.
Praeterea. Sensus corrumpitur ab excellentia sensibilium: non autem intellectus, quia qui intelligit altiora intelligibilium, non minus poterit alia speculari, sed magis. Alterius igitur generis est passio sensus a sensibili, et intellectus ab intelligibili. Intellectus quidem passio fit absque organo corporali: passio vero sensus cum organo corporali, cuius harmonia solvitur per sensibilium excellentiam. [14] There is also the fact that sense is overwhelmed by an exceedingly high degree of intensity on the part of its objects; but the intellect is not, because he who understands the higher intelligibles is more and not less able to understand other things. Hence, the state of passivity brought about in the sense by the sensible differs in kind from that which the intelligible causes in the intellect; the latter occurs without a bodily organ, the former with a bodily organ, the harmonious structure of whose parts is shattered by the pre-eminent power of some sensible objects.
Quod autem Plato dixit, animam esse moventem seipsam, certum esse videtur ex hoc quod circa corpora apparet. Nullum enim corpus videtur movere nisi sit motum. Unde Plato ponebat omne movens moveri. Et quia non itur in infinitum ut unumquodque motum ab alio moveatur, ponebat primum movens in unoquoque ordine movere seipsum. Et ex hoc sequebatur animam, quae est primum movens in motibus animalium, esse aliquod movens seipsum. [15] Now, Plato’s statement, that the soul is self-moving, appears true in the light of our observations of bodily things. For no body seems to move without being moved, and Plato accordingly asserted that every mover is moved. Moreover, since it is impossible to proceed to infinity, every thing moved being moved by something else, he laid it down that the first mover in each and every order of things, moves itself. It therefore followed that the soul, being the first mover in the order of animal movements, is a self-moving reality.
Hoc autem patet esse falsum, dupliciter: primo quidem, quia probatum est quod omne quod movetur per se, est corpus. Unde, cum anima non sit corpus, impossibile est ipsam moveri nisi per accidens. [16] This conclusion, however, is seen to be false, for two reasons. First, because it has been proved in Book I of this work that whatever is moved through itself is a body; since, then, the soul is not a body, it cannot possibly be moved except by accident.
Secundo quia, cum movens inquantum huiusmodi sit actu, motum autem inquantum huiusmodi sit in potentia; nihil autem potest esse secundum idem actu et potentia: impossibile erit quod idem secundum idem sit movens et motum, sed oportet, si aliquid dicitur movens seipsum, quod una pars eius sit movens et alia pars sit mota. Et hoc modo dicitur animal movere seipsum: quia anima est movens, et corpus est motum. Sed quia Plato animam non ponebat esse corpus, licet uteretur nomine motus, qui proprie corporum est, non tamen de hoc motu proprie dicto intelligebat, sed accipiebat motum communius pro qualibet operatione: prout etiam Aristoteles dicit, in III de anima, quod sentire et intelligere sunt motus quidam. Sic autem motus non est actus existentis in potentia, sed actus perfecti. Unde, cum dicebat animam movere seipsam, intendebat per hoc dicere quod ipsa operatur absque adminiculo corporis, e contrario ei quod accidit in aliis formis, quae non agunt absque materia: non enim calor calefacit separatim, sed calidum. Ex quo volebat concludere omnem animam motivam esse immortalem: nam quod per se habet operationem, et per se habet operationem, et per se existentiam habere potest. [17] The second reason is this. A mover, precisely as such, is in act; the thing moved, as such, is in potentiality; and nothing can be in act and in potentiality in the same respect. The same thing, therefore, cannot possibly be mover and moved in the same respect, so that, if a thing is said to move itself, one part of it must be mover and the other part moved. And this is what is meant by saying that an animal moves itself, for the animal’s soul is the mover and its body the moved. Now, Plato did not hold that the soul is a body, although he did use the word movement in this connection, and in the proper sense of the term, movement belongs to bodies. But it was not this meaning that Plato had in mind; rather, he was taking movement in a more universal, extended sense, as applying to any operation, even as Aristotle does in De anima III [7]: “Sensation and understanding are certain movements.” But in this case movement is the act, not of that which exists potentially, but of that which is perfect. So, in saying that the soul moves itself, Plato meant that it acts without the help of the body, whereas just the reverse is true of other forms, incapable as they are of exercising any action whatever apart from matter. (It is not any separately existing beat that produces beat, but only something hot.) Plato wishes to conclude from this that every soul capable of causing movement is immortal, for that which by its essence is endowed with operation can likewise enjoy an essential mode of existence.
Sed iam ostensum est quod operatio animae brutalis, quae est sentire, non potest esse sine corpore. Multo autem magis hoc apparet in operatione eius quod est appetere. Nam omnia quae ad appetitum sensitivae partis pertinent, manifeste cum transmutatione aliqua corporis fiunt: unde et passiones animae dicuntur. [18] But we have shown already that the brute animal’s operation of sensing is impossible without the body. And this impossibility is all the more apparent in the case of the operation of appetite. For all things pertaining to sense appetite manifestly involve some bodily change; that is why they are called passions of the soul.
Ex quibus sequitur quod nec ipsum movere sit operatio animae sensitivae absque organo. Non enim movet anima brutalis nisi per sensum et appetitum. Nam virtus quae dicitur exequens motum, facit membra esse obedientia imperio appetitus: unde magis sunt virtutes perficientes corpus ad moveri, quam virtutes moventes. [19] From these points it follows that movement is itself no organless operation of the sensitive soul. For it is only through sense and appetite that the soul of the brute animal moves; since the power designated as the executor of movement makes the animal’s members obedient to the appetite’s command. Thus, the powers of which we speak are of the sort that perfect the body as regards its being moved, rather than powers of actively moving.
Sic igitur patet quod nulla operatio animae brutalis potest esse absque corpore. Ex quo de necessitate concludi potest quod anima brutalis cum corpore intereat. [20] It is, then, clearly impossible for any operation of the brute animal’s soul to be independent of its body. And from this it can be inferred with necessity that the soul of the brute perishes with the body.

Caput 83 Chapter 83
Quod anima humana incipiat cum corpore THAT THE HUMAN SOUL BEGINS TO EXIST WHEN THE BODY DOES
Sed quia eaedem res inveniuntur et esse incipere et finem essendi habere, potest alicui videri quod, ex quo anima humana finem essendi non habet, quod nec principium essendi habuerit, sed fuerit semper. Quod quidem videtur his rationibus posse probari. [1] Now, since the same things are found both to begin to be and to end, someone might suppose that, because the human soul will not cease to exist, neither will it have begun to exist, but, on the contrary, has always been. And it would seem possible to prove this by the following arguments.
Nam illud quod nunquam esse desinet, habet virtutem ut sit semper. Quod autem habet virtutem ut sit semper nunquam de eo verum est dicere non esse: quia quantum se extendit virtus essendi, tantum res durat in esse. Omne autem quod incoepit esse, est aliquando verum dicere non esse. Quod igitur nunquam desinet esse, nec esse aliquando incipiet. [2] That which will never cease to be has the power to exist forever. But no such thing can ever be truly said not to be; for the extent of a thing’s existential duration is exactly commensurate with its power of existing. But of every thing which had begun to exist, it is at some time true to say that it is not. Therefore, that which will never cease to exist, at no time begins to be.
Adhuc. Veritas intelligibilium, sicut est incorruptibilis, ita, quantum est de se, est aeterna: est enim necessaria; omne autem necessarium est aeternum, quia quod necesse est esse, impossibile est non esse. Ex incorruptibilitate autem veritatis intelligibilis ostenditur anima secundum esse incorruptibilis. Pari ergo ratione, ex eius aeternitate potest probari animae aeternitas. [3] Moreover, just as the truth of intelligible things is imperishable, so is that truth, of itself, eternal; because it is necessary, and whatever is necessary is eternal, for what is necessary to be cannot possibly not be. Now, the imperishable being of the soul is demonstrated from the imperishability of intelligible truth. Hence, by the same reasoning, the soul’s eternity can be proved from the eternal being of intelligible both.
Amplius. Illud non est perfectum cui plurimae suarum principalium partium desunt. Patet autem principales partes universi esse intellectuales substantias, in quarum genere ostensum est supra esse animas humanas. Si igitur quotidie de novo tot animae humanae esse incipiant quot homines nascuntur, patet quotidie universo plurimas principalium partium addi, et plurimas ei deesse. Sequitur igitur universum esse imperfectum. Quod est impossibile. [4] Also, a thing that lacks several of its principal parts is not perfect. But, clearly, the principal parts of the universe are intellectual substances, in the genus of which human souls belong, as we have shown above. If every day as many human souls begin to exist as men are born, then, obviously, many of the principal parts of the universe are added to it daily, so that it lacks a multiplicity of things. Consequently, the universe is imperfect. But this is impossible.
Adhuc etiam quidam argumentantur ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae. Dicitur enim Gen. 1, quod Deus die septimo complevit opus suum quod fecerat, et requievit ab omni opere quod patrarat. Hoc autem non esset si quotidie novas animas faceret. Non igitur de novo animae humanae esse incipiunt, sed a principio mundi fuerunt. [5] Then, too, some draw their arguments from the authority of Sacred Scripture. For in Genesis (2:2) it is said that “on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made: and He rested from all His work which He had done.” But, if God made new souls every day, this would not be true. Therefore, no new human souls ever begin to exist, but they have existed from the beginning of the world.
Propter has ergo et similes rationes quidam, aeternitatem mundi ponentes, dixerunt animam humanam, sicut est incorruptibilis, ita et ab aeterno fuisse. Unde qui posuerunt animas humanas in sui multitudine esse immortales, scilicet Platonici, posuerunt easdem ab aeterno fuisse, et nunc quidem corporibus uniri, nunc autem a corporibus absolvi, hac vicissitudine secundum determinata annorum curricula observata. Qui vero posuerunt animas humanas esse immortales secundum aliquid unum quod ex omnibus hominibus manet post mortem, posuerunt hoc ipsum unum ab aeterno fuisse: sive hoc sit intellectus agens tantum, ut posuit Alexander sive, cum eo, etiam intellectus possibilis, ut posuit Averroes. Hoc etiam videntur sonare et Aristotelis verba: nam, de intellectu loquens, dicit ipsum non solum incorruptibilem, sed etiam perpetuum esse. [6] Hence, for these and similar reasons, proponents of the doctrine of the world’s eternity have said that, just as the human soul is incorruptible, so has it existed from all eternity. That is why the upholders of the theory of the immortality of human souls in their multiple existence—I refer to the Platonists—asserted that they have existed from eternity, and are united to bodies at one time and separated from them at another, these vicissitudes following a fixed cyclical pattern throughout set periods of years. Advocates of the theory that human souls are immortal in respect of some single reality, pertaining to all men, which remains after death, declared, however, that this one entity has endured from all eternity; whether it be the agent intellect alone, as Alexander held, or, together with this, the possible intellect, as Averroes maintained. Aristotle, also, seems to be making the same point when, speaking of the intellect, he says that it is not only incorruptible, but also everlasting.
Quidam vero Catholicam fidem profitentes, Platonicorum doctrinis imbuti, viam mediam tenuerunt. Quia enim, secundum fidem Catholicam, nihil est aeternum praeter Deum, humanas quidem animas aeternas non posuerunt, sed eas cum mundo, sive potius ante mundum visibilem, creatas fuisse, et tamen eas de novo corporibus alligari. Quam quidem positionem primus inter Christianae fidei professores Origenes posuisse invenitur, et post eum plures ipsum sequentes. Quae quidem opinio usque hodie apud haereticos manet: quorum Manichaei eas etiam aeternas asserunt, cum Platone, et de corpore ad corpus transire. [7] On the other hand, some who profess the Catholic faith, yet are imbued with the teachings of the Platonists, have taken a middle position. For, since the Catholic faith teaches that nothing is eternal except God, these persons maintain, not that human souls are eternal, but that they were created with, or rather before, the visible world, yet are fettered to bodies anew. Among these Christians, Origen was the first exponent of this theory, and a number of his disciples followed suit. The theory, indeed, survives to this day among heretics, the Manicheans, for example, siding with Plato in proclaiming the eternity and transmutation of souls.
Sed de facili ostendi potest praemissas positiones non esse veritate subnixas. Quod enim non sit unus omnium intellectus possibilis neque agens, iam supra ostensum est. Unde restat contra istas positiones procedere quae dicunt plures animas esse hominum, et tamen ponunt eas ante corpora extitisse, sive ab aeterno sive a mundi constitutione. Quod quidem videtur inconveniens his rationibus. [8] Now, all these opinions can be easily shown to have no foundation in truth. For it has already been proved that there does not exist only one possible agent intellect for all men. Hence, it remains for us to proceed against those theories which, while envisaging the existence of many human souls, maintain that they existed before bodies, either from eternity, or from the foundation of the world. The incongruity of such a notion is exposed by the following arguments.
Ostensum est enim supra animam uniri corpori ut formam et actum ipsius. Actus autem, licet sit naturaliter prior potentia, tamen, in uno et eodem, tempore est posterior: movetur enim aliquid de potentia in actum. Prius igitur fuit semen, quod est potentia vivum, quam esset anima, quae est actus vitae. [9] For, it has already been established that the soul is united to the body as its form and act. Now, although act is prior in its nature to potentiality, nevertheless in one and the same thing it is temporally posterior to it; for a thing is moved from potentiality to act. Thus, seed, which is potentially living, preceded the soul, which is the act of life.
Adhuc. Unicuique formae naturale est propriae materiae uniri: alioquin constitutum ex forma et materia esset aliquid praeter naturam. Prius autem attribuitur unicuique quod convenit ei secundum naturam, quam quod convenit ei praeter naturam: quod enim convenit alicui praeter naturam inest ei per accidens, quod autem convenit secundum naturam inest ei per se; quod autem per accidens est, semper posterius est eo quod est per se. Animae igitur prius convenit esse unitam corpori quam esse a corpore separatam. Non igitur creata fuit ante corpus cui unitur. [10] Moreover, it is natural to every form to be united to its proper matter; otherwise, that which is made of form and matter would be something preternatural. But that which befits a thing naturally is attributed to it before that which befits it preternaturally, because the latter is in it by accident, the former, through itself. Now, that which is by accident is always posterior to that which is through itself. It is, therefore, becoming to the soul to be united to the body before being separated from it. The soul, then, was not created before the body to which it is united.
Amplius. Omnis pars a suo toto separata est imperfecta. Anima autem, cum sit forma, ut probatum est, est pars speciei humanae. Igitur, existens per se absque corpore, est imperfecta. Perfectum autem est prius imperfecto in rerum naturalium ordine. Non igitur competit naturae ordini quod anima fuerit prius creata a corpore exuta, quam corpori unita. [11] Again, every part existing in separation from its whole is imperfect. Now, the soul, being a form, as has been proved, is a part of the specific nature of man. Hence, as long as it exists through itself apart from the body, it is imperfect. But in the order of natural things, the perfect is prior to the imperfect. It would, therefore, be inconsistent with the order of nature were the soul created apart from the body before being united to it.
Amplius. Si animae sunt creatae absque corporibus, quaerendum est quomodo sint corporibus unitae. Aut enim hoc fuit violenter: aut per naturam. Si autem violenter; omne autem violentum est contra naturam: unio igitur animae ad corpus est praeter naturam. Homo igitur, qui ex utroque componitur, est quid innaturale. Quod patet esse falsum. Praeterea, substantiae intellectuales altioris ordinis sunt quam corpora caelestia. In corporibus autem caelestibus nihil invenitur violentum neque contrarium. Multo igitur minus in substantiis intellectualibus.
Si autem naturaliter animae sunt corporibus unitae, naturaliter igitur animae in sui creatione appetierunt corporibus uniri. Appetitus autem naturalis statim prodit in actum nisi sit aliquid impediens, sicut patet in motu gravium et levium: natura enim semper uno modo operatur. Statim igitur a principio suae creationis fuissent corporibus unitae nisi esset aliquid impediens. Sed omne impediens executionem naturalis appetitus, est violentiam inferens. Per violentiam igitur fuit quod animae essent aliquo tempore a corporibus separatae. Quod est inconveniens. Tum quia in illis substantiis non potest esse aliquid violentum, ut ostensum est. Tum quia violentum, et quod est contra naturam, cum sit per accidens, non potest esse prius eo quod est secundum naturam, neque totam speciem consequens.
[12] And again, if souls are created without bodies, it must be asked how they are united to bodies. This union could he effected in but two ways: by violence or by nature. Now, everything violent is against nature, so that if the union of soul and body is brought about by violence it is not natural. Hence, man, who is composed of both, is something unnatural; which is obviously false. There is also the consideration that intellectual substances are of a higher order than the heavenly bodies. But in the latter there is nothing violent or contrary. Much less, therefore, does any such thing exist in intellectual substances.
[13] Now, if the union of souls to bodies is natural, then, in their creation, souls had a natural desire to be united to bodies. Now, natural appetite immediately issues in act if no obstacle stands in the way, as we see in the movement of heavy and light bodies; for nature always works in the same way. So, unless something existed to prevent it, souls would have been united to bodies from the very beginning of their creation. But whatever obstructs the realisation of natural appetite does violence to it. That at some time souls existed in separation from bodies was therefore the result of violence. And this is incongruous, not only because in such substances there can be nothing violent, as was shown, but also because the violent and the unnatural, being accidental, cannot be prior to that which is in keeping with nature, nor can they be consequent upon the total species.
Praeterea. Cum unumquodque naturaliter appetat suam perfectionem, materiae est appetere formam, et non e converso. Anima autem comparatur ad corpus sicut forma ad materiam, ut supra ostensum est. Non igitur unio animae ad corpus fit per appetitum animae, sed magis per appetitum corporis. [14] Furthermore, since everything naturally desires its own perfection, it pertains to matter to desire form, and not conversely. But the soul is compared to the body as form to matter, as was shown above.” Therefore, the union of the soul to the body is not brought about in response to the desire of the soul, but, rather, of the body.
Si autem dicatur quod utrumque est animae naturale, scilicet uniri corpori et esse a corpore separatum, pro diversis temporibus:- hoc videtur esse impossibile. Quia ea quae naturaliter variantur circa subiectum, sunt accidentia: sicut iuventus et senectus. Si igitur uniri corpori et separari a corpore naturaliter circa animam varietur, erit accidens animae corpori uniri. Et sic ex hac unione homo constitutus non erit ens per se, sed per accidens. [15] Now, the argument may be raised that union with the body is natural to the soul, as well as separation from it, according to various periods of time. But such a notion seems impossible. For changes that take place naturally in a subject are accidental, such as youth and old age; so that, if its union with, and separation from the body are for the soul natural changes, then union with the body will be an accident of the soul. The human being constituted by this union therefore will not be an essential but an accidental being.
Praeterea. Omne illud cui accidit alteritas aliqua secundum diversitatem temporum, est subiectum caelesti motui, quem sequitur totus temporis cursus. Substantiae autem intellectuales et incorporeae, inter quas sunt animae separatae, excedunt totum ordinem corporum. Unde non possunt esse subiectae caelestibus motibus. Impossibile est igitur quod, secundum diversa tempora, naturaliter uniantur quandoque et separentur quandoque, vel naturaliter nunc hoc, nunc illud appetant. [16] Then, too, whatever is subject to alternate phases of existence according to various periods of time is subject to the movement of the heaven, which the whole course of time follows. But intellectual and incorporeal substances, including separately existing souls, transcend the entire realm of bodily things. Hence, they cannot be subject to the movements of the heavenly bodies. Therefore, it is impossible that they should be naturally united during one period of time and separated during another, or that they should naturally desire this at one time, and that at another.
Si autem dicatur quod neque per violentiam neque per naturam corporibus uniuntur, sed spontanea voluntate:- hoc esse non potest. Nullus enim vult in statum peiorem venire nisi deceptus. Anima autem separata est altioris status quam corpori unita: et praecipue secundum Platonicos qui dicunt quod ex unione corporis patitur oblivionem eorum quae prius scivit, et retardatur a contemplatione pura veritatis. Non igitur volens corpori unitur nisi decepta. Deceptionis autem nulla in ea causa potest existere: cum ponatur, secundum eos, scientiam omnem habere. Nec posset dici quod iudicium ex universali scientia procedens in particulari eligibili subvertatur propter passiones, sicut accidit in incontinentibus: quia passiones huiusmodi non sunt absque corporali transmutatione; unde non possunt esse in anima separata. Relinquitur ergo quod anima, si fuisset ante corpus, non uniretur corpori propria voluntate. [17] On the other hand, the hypothesis that souls are united to bodies neither by violence nor by nature, but by free choice, is likewise impossible. For no one voluntarily enters into a state worse than the previous one, unless he be deceived. But the separate soul enjoys a higher state of existence than when united to the body; especially according to the Platonists, who say that through its union with the body, the soul forgets what it knew before, its power to contemplate truth in a pure manner thus being checked. Hence, the soul is not willingly united to the body unless it be the victim of deception. But there can be nothing in the soul that could cause deception, since, for the Platonists, the soul is possessed of all knowledge. Nor can it be said that the soul’s judgment, proceeding from universal scientific knowledge and applied to a particular matter of choice, is overwhelmed by the passions, as in the incontinent; for no passions of this sort occur without bodily change, and, consequently, they cannot exist in the separate soul. We are, then, left with the conclusion that, if the soul had existed before the body, it would not be united to the body of its own will.
Praeterea. Omnis effectus procedens ex concursu duarum voluntatum ad invicem non ordinatarum, est effectus casualis: sicut patet cum aliquis, intendens emere, obviat in foro creditori illuc non ex condicto venienti. Voluntas autem propria generantis, ex qua dependet generatio corporis, non habet ordinem cum voluntate animae separatae uniri volentis. Cum igitur absque utraque voluntate unio corporis et animae fieri non possit, sequitur quod sit casualis. Et ita generatio hominis non est a natura, sed a casu. Quod patet esse falsum: cum sit ut in pluribus. [18] Moreover, every effect issuing from the concurrent operation of two mutually unrelated wills is fortuitous, as in the case of a person who goes out to shop and meets his creditor in the market place without any prior arrangement between the two. Now, the will of the generative agent, whereon the body’s production depends, is independent of the will of the separate soul which wills to be united. It follows that the union of the soul and body is fortuitous, since it cannot be effected without the concurrence of both wills. Thus, the begetting of a man results not from nature, but from chance, which is patently false, since it occurs in the majority of cases.
Si autem rursus dicatur quod non ex natura, neque ex propria voluntate anima corpori unitur, sed ex divina ordinatione:- hoc etiam non videtur conveniens, si animae ante corpora fuerunt creatae. Unumquodque enim Deus instituit secundum convenientem modum suae naturae: unde et Gen. 1, de singulis creatis dicitur, videns Deus quod esset bonum, et simul de omnibus, vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona. Si igitur animas creavit a corporibus separatas, oportet dicere quod hic modus essendi sit convenientior naturae earum. Non est autem ad ordinationem divinae bonitatis pertinens res ad inferiorem statum reducere, sed magis ad meliorem promovere. Non igitur ex divina ordinatione factum fuisset quod anima corpori uniretur. [19] Now, again, the theory may be advanced that the soul is united to the body by divine decree, and not by nature, nor of its own will. But such a supposition also seems inadmissible on the hypothesis that souls were created before bodies. For God established each thing in being in a mode congruent with its nature. Hence, in the Book of Genesis (1:10, 31) it is said of each creature: “God saw that it was good,” and of all creatures collectively: “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good.” If, then, God created souls separate from bodies, it must be said that this manner of being is more suitable to their nature. But it is not becoming to the ordering of things by the divine goodness to relegate them to a lower state, but, rather, to raise them to a higher. Hence, it could not have been by God’s ordinance that the soul was united to the body.
Praeterea. Non pertinet ad ordinem divinae sapientiae cum superiorum detrimento ea quae sunt infima nobilitare. Infima autem in rerum ordine sunt corpora generabilia et corruptibilia. Non igitur fuisset conveniens ordini divinae sapientiae, ad nobilitandum humana corpora, animas praeexistentes eis unire: cum hoc sine detrimento earum esse non possit, ut ex dictis patet. [20] Moreover, it is inconsistent with the order of divine wisdom to raise up lower things to the detriment of higher things. But generable and corruptible bodies have the lowest rank in the order of things. Hence, it would not have been consistent with the order of divine wisdom to ennoble human bodies by uniting pre-existing souls to them, since this would be impossible without detriment to the latter, as we have already seen.
Hoc autem Origenes considerans, cum poneret animas humanas a principio fuisse creatas, dixit quod ordinatione divina animae corporibus sunt unitae, sed in earum poenam. Nam ante corpora eas peccasse existimavit; et pro quantitate peccati corporibus nobilioribus vel minus nobilibus eas esse, quasi quibusdam carceribus, inclusas. [21] Having this point in mind—for he asserted that human souls had been created from the beginning—Origen said that they were united to bodies by divine decree, but as a punishment. For Origen thought that souls had sinned before bodies existed, and that according to the gravity of their sin, souls were shut up in bodies of higher or lower character, as in so many prisons.
Sed haec positio stare non potest. Poena enim bono naturae adversatur, et ex hoc dicitur mala. Si igitur unio animae et corporis est quoddam poenale, non est bonum naturae. Quod est impossibile: est enim intentum per naturam; nam ad hoc naturalis generatio terminatur. Et iterum sequeretur quod esse hominem non esset bonum secundum naturam: cum tamen Gen. 1-31 dicatur, post hominis creationem, vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona. [22] This doctrine, however, is untenable, for, being contrary to a good of nature, punishment is said to be an evil. If, then, the union of soul and body is something penal in character, it is not a good of nature. But this is impossible, for that union is intended by nature, since natural generation terminates in it. And again, on Origen’s theory, it would follow that man’s being would not be a good according to nature, yet it is said, after man’s creation: “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good.”
Praeterea. Ex malo non provenit bonum nisi per accidens. Si igitur propter peccatum animae separatae hoc constitutum est, quod anima corpori uniatur, cum hoc sit quoddam bonum, per accidens erit. Casuale igitur fuit quod homo fieret. Quod derogat divinae sapientiae, de qua dicitur, Sap. 11-21, quod omnia in numero, pondere et mensura instituit. [23] Furthermore, good does not issue from evil save by accident. Therefore, if the soul’s union with the body were due to sin on the part of the separate soul, it would follow that this union is accidental, since it is a kind of good. In that case the production of man was a matter of chance. But such a thing is derogatory to God’s wisdom, of which it is written that “It ordered all things in number, weight, and measure” (Wis. 11:21).
Adhuc autem et hoc repugnat manifeste apostolicae doctrinae. Dicitur enim Rom. 9 de Iacob et Esau, quod, cum nondum nati essent aut aliquid boni aut mali egissent, dictum est, quod maior serviet minori. Non igitur, antequam hoc verbum diceretur, aliquid eorum animae peccaverant: cum tamen hoc post eorum conceptionem dictum fuerit, ut patet Gen. 25-23. [24] That notion also clearly clashes with apostolic doctrine. For St. Paul says of Jacob and Esau, that “when they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil, it was said that the elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:11-17). Hence, before this was said, their souls had not sinned at all, yet the Apostle’s statement postdates the time of their conception, as Genesis (25:23) makes clear.
Sunt autem supra, cum de distinctione rerum ageretur, plura contra Origenis positionem inducta, quae etiam hic possent assumi. Et ideo, eis praetermissis, ad alia transeundum est. [25] Earlier, in treating of the distinction of things, we leveled against Origen’s position a number of arguments which may also be used here. Omitting them, therefore, we pass on to others.
Item. Necesse est dicere quod anima humana aut indigeat sensibus: aut non. Videtur autem manifeste per id quod experimur, quod indigeat sensibus: quia qui caret sensu aliquo, non habet scientiam de sensibilibus quae cognoscuntur per sensum illum; sicut caecus natus nullam scientiam habet nec aliquid intelligit de coloribus. Et praeterea, si non sunt necessarii humanae animae sensus ad intelligendum, non inveniretur in homine aliquis ordo sensitivae et intellectivae cognitionis. Cuius contrarium experimur: nam ex sensibus fiunt in nobis memoriae, ex quibus experimenta de rebus accipimus, per quae ad comprehendendum universalia scientiarum et artium principia pervenimus. Si ergo anima humana ad intelligendum sensibus indiget; natura autem nulli deficit in necessariis ad propriam operationem explendam, sicut animalibus habentibus animam sensitivam et motivam, dat convenientia organa sensus et motus: non fuisset anima humana sine necessariis adminiculis sensuum instituta. Sensus autem non operantur sine organis corporeis, ut ex dictis patet. Non igitur fuit instituta anima sine organis corporeis.
Si autem anima humana non indiget sensibus ad intelligendum, et propter hoc dicitur absque corpore fuisse creata; oportet dicere quod, antequam corpori uniretur, omnium scientiarum veritates intelligebat per seipsam. Quod et Platonici concesserunt, dicentes ideas, quae sunt formae rerum intelligibiles separatae secundum Platonis sententiam, causam scientiae esse: unde anima separata, cum nullum impedimentum adesset, plenarie omnium scientiarum cognitionem accipiebat. Oportet igitur dicere quod, dum corpori unitur, cum inveniatur ignorans, oblivionem praehabitae scientiae patiatur. Quod etiam Platonici confitentur: huius rei signum esse dicentes quod quilibet, quantumcumque ignoret, ordinate interrogatus de his quae in scientiis traduntur, veritatem respondet; sicut, cum aliquis iam oblito aliquorum quae prius scivit, seriatim proponit ea quae prius fuerat oblitus, in eorum memoriam ipsum reducit. Ex quo etiam sequebatur quod discere non esset aliud quam reminisci. Sic igitur ex hac positione de necessitate concluditur quod unio corporis animae praestet intelligentiae impedimentum. Nulli autem rei natura adiungit aliquid propter quod sua operatio impediatur: sed magis ea per quae fiat convenientior. Non igitur erit unio corporis et animae naturalis. Et sic homo non erit res naturalis, nec eius generatio naturalis. Quae patet esse falsa.
[26] It must be said that the human soul either needs the senses or does not need them. Now, experience seems to show clearly that the former is true. For a person who lacks a certain sense has no knowledge of the sensible objects which are perceived through that sense; a man born blind has neither knowledge nor any understanding of colors. Furthermore, if the human soul does not require the senses in order to understand, then sensitive and intellective cognition in man would have so ordered relationship to one another. But experience demonstrates the contrary; for our senses give rise to memories, and from these we obtain experiential knowledge of things, which in turn is the means through which we come to an understanding of the universal principles of sciences and arts. Now, nature is wanting in nothing that is necessary for the fulfillment of its proper operation; thus, to animals whose soul is endowed with powers of sense and movement nature gives the appropriate organs of sense and movement. Hence, if the human soul needs the senses in order to understand, then that soul would never have been made to be in the first place without the indispensable assistants which the senses are. But the senses do not function without corporeal organs, as we have seen. The soul, therefore, was not made without such organs.
[27] The argument that the human soul does not need the senses in order to understand, and thus is said to have been created apart from the body, necessarily implies that, before being united to the body, the soul was by itself cognizant of all scientific truths. The Platonists indeed admitted this in saying that Ideas, which according to Plato are the separate intelligible forms of things, are the cause of knowledge; and thus, the separate soul, having no obstacle confronting it, received full knowledge of all sciences. Therefore, since the soul is found to be ignorant when united to the body, it must be said that it forgets the knowledge which it previously possessed. The Platonists acknowledge this inference, also, adducing the following observation as indicative of its truth: If a man, however ignorant he may be, is questioned systematically about matters taught in the sciences, he will answer the truth; so, if a man has forgotten some of the things that he knew before, and a person proposes to him one by one the things he has forgotten, he recalls them to his memory. And from this they inferred that learning was nothing else than remembering. This theory then necessarily led to the conclusion that union with the body places an obstacle in the way of the soul’s understanding. In no case, however, does nature unite a thing to that which impedes its operation; on the contrary, nature unites the thing to that which facilitates its operation. Thus, the union of body and soul will not be natural, so that man will not be a natural thing, nor will his engendering be natural; which, of course, is false.
Praeterea. Ultimus finis rei cuiuslibet est illud ad quod res pervenire nititur per suas operationes. Sed per omnes proprias operationes ordinatas et rectas homo pervenire nititur in veritatis contemplationem: nam operationes virtutum activarum sunt quaedam praeparationes et dispositiones ad virtutes contemplativas. Finis igitur hominis est pervenire ad contemplationem veritatis. Propter hoc igitur anima est unita corpori: quod est esse hominem. Non igitur per hoc quod unitur corpori, scientiam habitam perdit, sed magis ei unitur ut scientiam acquirat. [28] The ultimate end of every thing, moreover, is that which it strives to attain by its operations. But man, by all his proper operations fittingly ordered and rightly directed, strives to attain the contemplation of truth; for the operations of the active powers are certain preparations and dispositions to the contemplative powers. The end of man, therefore, is to arrive at the contemplation of truth. It is for this purpose, then, that the soul is united to the body, and in this union does man’s being consist. Therefore, it is not union with the body that causes the soul to lose knowledge which it had possessed; on the contrary, the soul is united to the body so that it may acquire knowledge.
Item. Si aliquis scientiarum ignarus de his quae ad scientias pertinent interrogetur, non respondebit veritatem nisi de universalibus principiis, quae nullus ignorat, sed sunt ab omnibus eodem modo et naturaliter cognita. Postmodum autem ordinate interrogatus, respondebit veritatem de his quae sunt propinqua principiis, habito respectu ad principia; et sic deinceps quousque virtutem primorum principiorum ad ea de quibus interrogatur, applicare potest. Ex hoc igitur manifeste apparet quod per principia prima, in eo qui interrogatur, causatur cognitio de novo. Non igitur prius habitae notitiae reminiscitur. [29] Then, too, if a person ignorant of the sciences is questioned about matters pertaining to the sciences, his answers will not be true, except with regard to the universal principles of which no one is ignorant, but which are known by all in the same way and naturally. But, if that ignorant person is questioned systematically later on, he will answer truly concerning matters closely related to the principles, by referring them to the latter; and he will go on answering truly as long as he is able to apply the power of first principles to the subjects about which he is questioned. This makes it quite clear, therefore, that through the primary principles new knowledge is caused in the person questioned. This new knowledge, then, is not caused by recalling to memory things previously known.
Praeterea. Si ita esset animae naturalis cognitio conclusionum sicut principiorum, eadem esset sententia apud omnes de conclusionibus sicut de principiis: quia quae sunt naturalia, sunt eadem apud omnes. Non est autem apud omnes eadem sententia de conclusionibus, sed solum de principiis. Patet igitur quod cognitio principiorum est nobis naturalis, non autem conclusionum. Quod autem non est naturale nobis, acquirimus per id quod est naturale: sicut etiam in exterioribus per manus instituimus omnia artificialia. Non ergo conclusionum scientia est in nobis nisi ex principiis acquisita. [30] Furthermore, if the knowledge of conclusions were as natural to the soul as knowledge of principles, then everyone’s judgment concerning conclusions, as well as principles, would be the same, since things natural are the same for all. But not all persons share the same judgment in respect to conclusions, but only to principles. Clearly, then, the knowledge of principles is natural to us, but not the knowledge of conclusions. The non-natural, however, is acquired by us through the natural; thus it is through our hands that we produce, in the world of things outside us, all our artifacts. Therefore, we have no knowledge of conclusions except that which we acquire from principles.
Adhuc. Cum natura semper ordinetur ad unum, unius virtutis oportet esse naturaliter unum obiectum: sicut visus colorem, et auditus sonum. Intellectus igitur cum sit una vis, est eius unum naturale obiectum, cuius per se et naturaliter cognitionem habet. Hoc autem oportet esse id sub quo comprehenduntur omnia ab intellectu cognita: sicut sub colore comprehenduntur omnes colores, qui sunt per se visibiles. Quod non est aliud quam ens. Naturaliter igitur intellectus noster cognoscit ens, et ea quae sunt per se entis inquantum huiusmodi; in qua cognitione fundatur primorum principiorum notitia, ut non esse simul affirmare et negare, et alia huiusmodi. Haec igitur sola principia intellectus noster naturaliter cognoscit, conclusiones autem per ipsa: sicut per colorem cognoscit visus tam communia quam sensibilia per accidens. [31] Again, since nature is always directed to one thing, of one power there must naturally be one object, as color of sight, and sound of hearing. Hence, the intellect, being one power, has one natural object, of which it has knowledge essentially and naturally. And this object must be one under which are included all things known by the intellect; just as under color are included all colors essentially visible. Now, this is none other than being [ ens ]. Our intellect, therefore, knows being naturally, and whatever essentially belongs to a being as such; and upon this knowledge is founded the knowledge of first principles, such as the impossibility of simultaneously affirming and denying, and the like. Thus, only these principles are known naturally by our intellect, while conclusions are known through them; just as, through color, sight is cognizant of both common and accidental sensibles.
Praeterea. Id quod per sensum in nobis acquiritur, non infuit animae ante corpus. Sed ipsorum principiorum cognitio in nobis ex sensibilibus causatur: nisi enim aliquod totum sensu percepissemus, non possemus intelligere quod totum esset maius parte; sicut nec caecus natus aliquid percipit de coloribus. Ergo nec ipsorum principiorum cognitio affuit animae ante corpus. Multo igitur minus aliorum. Non igitur firma est Platonis ratio quod anima fuit antequam corpori uniretur. [32] And again. That which we acquire through the senses did not exist in the soul before its union with the body. But our knowledge of principles themselves is derived from sensible things; if, for instance, we had not perceived some whole by our senses, we would be unable to understand the principle that the whole is greater than its parts; even as a man born blind is utterly insensible of colors. Therefore, neither did the soul prior to its union with the body have any knowledge of principles; much less, of other things. Hence, Plato’s argument that the soul existed before its union with the body is without solidity.
Item. Si omnes animae praeextiterunt corporibus quibus uniuntur, consequens videtur quod eadem anima secundum vicissitudinem temporum diversis corporibus uniatur. Quod quidem aperte consequitur ponentes aeternitatem mundi. Si enim generatio hominum est sempiterna, oportet infinita corpora humana generari et corrumpi secundum totum temporis decursum. Aut ergo oportebit dicere animas praeextitisse actu infinitas, si singulae animae singulis corporibus uniuntur: aut oportebit dicere, si animae sunt finitae, quod eaedem uniantur nunc his, nunc illis corporibus. Idem autem videtur sequi si ponantur animae praefuisse corporibus, et tamen generatio non sit aeterna. Etsi enim ponatur humana generatio non semper fuisse, tamen nulli dubium est quin secundum naturam in infinitum possit durare: sic enim est unusquisque naturaliter institutus, nisi per accidens impediatur, ut, sicut est ab alio generatus, ita possit alium generare. Hoc autem esset impossibile, si, animabus existentibus finitis, una pluribus corporibus uniri non possit. Unde et plures ponentium animas ante corpora, ponunt transitum animae de corpore in corpus. Hoc autem est impossibile. Non igitur animae ante corpora praeextiterunt.
Quod autem sit impossibile unam animam diversis corporibus uniri, sic patet. Animae enim humanae non differunt specie ab invicem, sed numero solo: alioquin et homines specie differrent. Differentia autem secundum numerum est secundum principia materialia. Oportet igitur diversitatem animarum secundum aliquid materiale sumi. Non autem ita quod ipsius animae sit materia pars: ostensum est enim supra quod est substantia intellectualis, et quod nulla talis substantia materiam habet. Relinquitur ergo quod secundum ordinem ad diversas materias quibus animae uniuntur, diversitas et pluralitas animarum sumatur, eo modo quo supra dictum est. Si igitur sunt diversa corpora, necesse est quod habeant diversas animas sibi unitas. Non igitur una pluribus unitur.
[33] There is also the argument that if all souls existed before the bodies to which they are united, it would then seemingly follow that the same soul is united to different bodies according to the vicissitudes of time—an obvious consequence of the doctrine of the eternity of the world. For from the hypothesis of the engendering of human beings from eternity it follows that an infinite number of human bodies have come into being and passed away throughout the whole course of time. Hence, two possibilities: either an actually infinite number of souls pre-existed, if each soul is united to a single body, or, if the number of souls is finite, then the same souls are united at one time to these particular bodies and at another time to those. And seemingly we would be faced with the same consequence if we held that souls existed before bodies but that they were not produced from eternity. For, even if it be supposed that the engendering of men has not always been in progress, nevertheless, in the very nature of the case, it indubitably can be of infinite duration; because every man is so constituted by nature that, unless he be impeded accidentally, he is able to beget another man, even as he himself was begotten of another. But this would be impossible if, given the existence of a finite number of souls, one soul cannot be united to several bodies. That is why a number of proponents of the doctrine that souls exist before bodies espoused the theory of transmigration; which cannot possibly be true. Therefore, souls did not exist before bodies.
[34] Now, the impossibility of one soul’s being united to diverse bodies is clearly seen in the light of the following considerations. Human souls do not differ specifically from one another, but only numerically; otherwise, men also would differ specifically, one from the other. Material principles, however, are the source of numerical distinction. It follows that the distinction among human souls must be attributed to something material in character—but not so as to imply that matter is a part of the soul, because the soul is an intellectual substance, and no such substance has matter, as we have proved above. It therefore remains that in the manner explained above the diversity and plurality of souls result from their relationship to the diverse matters to which they are united; so that, if there are different bodies, they must have different souls united to them. One soul, then, is not united to several bodies.
Adhuc. Ostensum est supra animam uniri corpori ut formam. Formas autem oportet esse propriis materiis proportionatas: cum se habeant ad invicem sicut potentia et actus; proprius enim actus propriae potentiae respondet. Non ergo una anima pluribus corporibus unitur. [35] Moreover, it was shown above that the soul is united to the body as its form. But forms must be proportionate to their proper matters, since they are related to one another as act to potentiality, the proper act corresponding to the proper potentiality. Therefore, one soul is not united to a number of bodies.
Amplius. Virtutem motoris oportet esse suo mobili proportionatam: non enim quaecumque virtus movet quodcumque mobile. Anima autem, etsi non sit forma corporis, non tamen potest dici quod non sit motor ipsius: animatum enim ab inanimato distinguimus sensu et motu. Oportet igitur secundum diversitatem corporum esse diversitatem animarum. [36] We argue further from the fact that the power of the mover must be proportionate to the thing movable by it, for not every power moves every movable. But, even if the soul were not the form of the body, it could not be said that the soul is not the body’s mover, for we distinguish the animate from the inanimate by sense and movement. It therefore follows that the distinction among souls must correspond to the distinction among bodies.
Item. In his quae generantur et corrumpuntur, impossibile est per generationem reiterari idem numero: cum enim generatio et corruptio sit motus in substantiam, in his quae generantur et corrumpuntur non manet substantia eadem, sicut manet in his quae secundum locum moventur. Sed si una anima diversis corporibus generatis unitur successive, redibit idem numero homo per generationem. Quod Platoni de necessitate sequitur, qui dixit hominem esse animam corpore indutam. Sequitur etiam et aliis quibuscumque: quia, cum unitas rei sequatur formam, sicut et esse, oportet quod illa sint unum numero quorum est forma numero una. Non igitur est possibile unam animam diversis corporibus uniri. Ex quo etiam sequitur quod nec animae fuerunt ante corpora. [37] Likewise, in the realm of things subject to generation and corruption it is impossible for one and the same thing to be reproduced by generation; for generation and corruption are movements in respect of substance, so that in things generated and corrupted the substance does not remain the same, as it does in things moved locally. But, if one soul is united successively to different generated bodies, the self-same man will come into being again through generation. This follows necessarily for Plato, who said that man is a “soul clothed with a body.” This consequence also holds for any others. For a thing’s unity follows upon its form, even as its being does, so that those things are one in number whose form is one in number. It is, therefore, impossible for one soul to be united to different bodies. From this it follows, too, that souls were not in existence before bodies.
Huic autem veritati Catholicae fidei sententia concordat. Dicitur enim in Psalmo: qui finxit singillatim corda eorum: quia scilicet unicuique seorsum Deus animam fecit, non autem simul omnes creavit, neque unam diversis corporibus adiunxit. Hinc etiam in libro de Ecclesiast. dogmatibus dicitur: animas hominum dicimus non esse ab initio inter ceteras intellectuales naturas, nec simul creatas, sicut Origenes fingit. [38] With this truth the Catholic faith expressly agrees. For it is said in a Psalm (32:15): “He who made the hearts of every one of them”; namely, because God created a soul specially for each one, and neither created them all together, nor united one to different bodies. In this connection also we read in the work On the Teachings of the Church: “We declare that human souls were not created from the beginning together with other intellectual natures, nor all at the same time, as Origen imagines.”

Caput 84 Chapter 84
Solutio rationum praemissarum SOLUTION OF THE PRECEDING ARGUMENTS
Rationes autem quibus probatur animas ab aeterno fuisse, vel saltem corporibu