Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber11/lect12

Lecture 12

Latin	English
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 1 Postquam divisit transmutationes in generationem et corruptionem et motum, hic subdividit alterum membrum divisionis, scilicet motum, secundum genera in quibus potest esse motus. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit in quibus generibus possit esse motus. Secundo ostendit quot modis dicitur immobile, ibi, immobile autem quod. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit quod intendit. Secundo probat propositum, ibi, secundum substantiam autem. Tertio concludit principalem intentionem, ibi, quoniam autem neque. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum praedicamenta dividantur per substantiam, qualitatem, et huiusmodi; et in aliis generibus non possit esse motus; erunt igitur tria genera entis in quibus potest esse motus: quae sunt qualitas, quantitas et ubi: loco cuius ponit locum, quia nihil aliud significat esse ubi, nisi esse in loco; et moveri secundum locum, nihil est aliud quam moveri secundum ubi. Non enim motus secundum locum attribuitur subiecto loco, in quo est locus, sed ei quod est in loco.	2376. Having divided change into generation, destruction and motion, here he subdivides the other member of this division, Le, motion, on the basis of the categories in which it takes place. In regard to this he does two things. First (1012)C 2376), he indicates the categories in which motion can be found. Second (1020:C 2401), he explains the different senses in which the term immovable is used (“The immovable”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he sets forth his thesis. Second (1013:C 2378), he proves this (“There is no motion”). Third (1019:C 2399), he draws his main conclusion (“And since”). He accordingly says, first (1012), that, since the categories are divided into substance, quality and so on, and since there cannot be motion in the other categories, there are therefore three categories of being in which motion can be found; that is, quality, quantity and location, for which he substitutes the term place, because location merely signifies being in a place; and to be moved with respect to place is merely to be moved with respect to one’s location. For motion with respect to place is not attributed to a subject in which place inheres but to the thing in place.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 2 Attendendum est autem quod praetermittere videtur tria genera, scilicet quando, situm et habere. Cum enim quando significet esse in tempore, tempus autem sit numerus motus, eiusdem rationis est non esse motum in genere quando, et non esse motum in genere actionis et passionis, quae significant aliqualiter ipsum motum. Positio vero non addit supra ubi, nisi ordinem partium determinatum, qui nihil aliud est quam determinata relatio partium adinvicem. Habitus etiam importat habitudinem indumenti ad indutum. Et sic eiusdem rationis videtur esse quod non sit motus in situ et habere, et quod non sit in ad aliquid.	2377. Now it should be noted that he seems to omit three categories, namely, temporal situation (quando), posture and accoutrement; for since temporal situation signifies being in time, and time is the measure of motion, the reason why there is no motion in the category of temporal situation or in that of action and of passion, which signify motion itself under special aspects, is the same. And posture adds nothing to location except a definite arrangement of parts, which is nothing else than a definite relationship of parts to each other. And accoutrement implies the relation of one clothed to his clothing. Hence the reason why there does not seem to be motion with respect to posture and to accoutrement and to relation seems to be the same.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit secundum substantiam probat propositum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quod non sit motus in substantia. Secundo quod non sit motus in ad aliquid, ibi, neque ad aliquid. Tertio quod non est motus in agere et pati, ibi, neque facientis et patientis. Ostendit ergo primo, quod secundum substantiam non potest esse motus, quia motus est mutatio de subiecto in subiectum. Duo ergo subiecta inter quae est motus, sunt contraria aut media. Cum igitur substantiae nihil sit contrarium, relinquitur quod secundum substantiam non possit esse motus, sed generatio et corruptio tantum, quorum termini sunt oppositi secundum contradictionem, et non secundum contrarietatem, ut supra dictum est.	2378. There is no motion (1013). Next, he proves his thesis; and in regard to this he does three things. First (1013:C 2378) he shows that there is no motion with respect to substance; second (1014:C 2385), that there is no motion with respect to relation (“Nor is there motion”); and third (1015:C 2386), that there is no motion with respect to action and passion (“Nor is there motion of agent”). He accordingly proves, first (1013), that there cannot be motion with respect to substance because motion is a change from subject to subject. Therefore the two subjects between which there is motion are either contraries or intermediates. Hence, since nothing is contrary to substance, it follows that there cannot be motion with respect to substance, but only generation and destruction, whose limits are opposed to each other as contradictories and not as contraries, as has been stated above (1009:C 2366).
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 4 Videtur autem hoc quod dictum est substantiae nihil est contrarium, falsum esse, cum ignis manifeste appareat contrarius aquae: et cum Aristoteles in primo de caelo probaverit quod caelum non est corruptibile, quia non habet contrarium; alia vero corpora quae sunt corruptibilia, contrarium habent.	2379. Now it seems that his statement that “substance has no contrary” is false, because fire clearly appears to be contrary to water, and because Aristotle had proved in Book I of The Heavens that the heavens are not destructible since they do not have a contrary, whereas other bodies, which are corruptible, have a contrary.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 5 Dixerunt igitur quidam, quod toti substantiae compositae, non est aliquid contrarium, quia oportet contrariorum esse unum subiectum; sed formae substantiali nihil prohibet esse contrarium. Dicebant enim quod calor est forma substantialis ignis. Hoc autem non potest esse verum, quia formae substantiales non sunt sensibiles per se. Et iterum manifestum est quod calor et frigus in aliis corporibus sunt accidentia. Quod autem est in genere substantiae, nulli potest accidens esse.	2380. Hence some said that there is nothing contrary to the whole composite substance because the subject of contraries must be one; but nothing prevents a substantial form from having a contrary. For they said that heat is the substantial form of fire. But this cannot be true, because substantial forms are not perceptible of themselves. And again it is evident that in other bodies heat and cold are accidents. But what belongs to the category of substance cannot be an accident in anything.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 6 Unde alii dixerunt, quod calor et frigus non sunt formae substantiales ignis et aquae, sed tamen eorum formae substantiales sunt contrariae, et recipiunt magis et minus, et sunt quasi mediae inter substantiam et accidens. Sed hoc omnino irrationabiliter dicitur. Nam, cum forma sit principium speciei, si formae ignis et aquae non sunt vere substantiales, neque ignis et aqua sunt verae species in genere substantiae. Non est igitur possibile quod inter substantiam et accidens sit aliquod medium: tum quia sunt diversorum generum, inter huiusmodi autem non cadit medium, ut supra in decimo ostensum est: tum quia etiam definitiones substantiae et accidentis immediatae sunt. Est enim substantia ens per se; accidens vero ens per se non est, sed in alio.	2381. Others have said that heat and cold are not the substantial forms of fire and water, but that their substantial forms are contraries differing in degree, and are, so to speak, intermediate between substance and accidents. But this is wholly unreasonable; for, since form is the principle of a species, if the forms of fire and of water are not truly substantial, neither are fire and water true species in the category of substance. It is impossible, then, that there should be an intermediate between substance and accidents, because they belong to different categories, and between such things an intermediate does not fall, as has been shown above in Book X (881:C 2102); and also because the definitions of substance and accident have no intermediate. For a substance is a being of itself, whereas an accident is not a being of itself but has being in something else.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 7 Dicendum est ergo quod nec formae substantiales possunt esse contrariae, quia contraria sunt extrema quaedam cuiusdam determinatae distantiae, et quodammodo continuae, cum sit motus de uno contrario in aliud contrarium. Unde in illis generibus in quibus talis distantia continua et determinata non invenitur, non potest contrarium inveniri. Sicut patet in numeris. Distantia enim numerorum adinvicem non intelligitur secundum aliquam continuitatem, sed secundum additionem unitatum. Unde numerus numero non est contrarius. Et similiter nec figura figurae.	2382. It is necessary then to say that substantial forms cannot be contraries, because contraries are extremes of a certain definite distance, and in a sense they are continuous, since motion is i one contrary to another. In those categories, then, in which no such continuous and definite distance is found, it is impossible to find a contrary, as is clear in the case of numbers. For the distance between one number and another does not mean continuity but the addition of units. Hence number is not contrary to number, nor similarly is figure contrary to figure.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 8 Eodem autem modo est in substantiis; quia ratio cuiuslibet speciei constituitur in quodam determinato indivisibili. Sed cum forma sit differentiae principium; si formae substantiales non sunt adinvicem contrariae, sequitur quod non sit contrarietas in differentiis; cum tamen supra ostensum sit, quod genus dividitur in contrarias differentias.	2383. The same thing applies to substances because the intelligible structure of each species consists in a definite unity. But since form is the basis of difference, if substantial forms are not contrary to each other, it follows that contrariety cannot be found between differences.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 9 Dicendum est igitur quod forma substantialis secundum quod in se consideratur, constituit speciem in genere substantiae: secundum autem quod una forma habet sibi intellectam privationem alterius formae, sic diversae formae sunt contrariarum differentiarum principia. Nam privatio quodammodo contrarium est. Et per hunc modum opponuntur animatum et inanimatum, rationale et irrationale et huiusmodi.	2384. It is necessary to say, then, that a substantial form, considered in itself, constitutes a species in the category of substance; but according as one form implies the privation of another, different forms are the principles of contrary differences. For in one respect a privation is a contrary, and living and non-living, rational and irrational, and the like are opposed in this way.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit neque ad ostendit non per se esse motum in genere ad aliquid, sed solum per accidens. Sicuti enim aliquid movetur per accidens, quando non fit motus in eo, nisi quodam altero moto; ita et in aliquo dicitur esse motus per accidens, quando non fit motus in eo, nisi quodam altero moto. Hoc autem invenimus in genere ad aliquid; quod nisi aliquid alterum permutetur, non verum est dicere quod in eo fiat permutatio, sicut non fit de aequali inaequale, non facta permutatione secundum quantitatem. Et similiter non fit de dissimili simile, nisi facta permutatione secundum qualitatem. Videmus etiam quod unum relativorum dicitur permutari facta permutatione circa alterum; sicut alterum per se manens de sinistro fit dextrum, altero secundum locum permutato. Relinquitur igitur quod in ad aliquid non est motus nisi per accidens.	2385. Nor is there motion of relation (1014). Next, he shows that there is no motion in the proper sense in the category of relation except accidentally. For just as a thing is moved accidentally when motion takes place in it only as a result of something else being moved, in a similar way motion is said to be accidental to a thing when it takes place in it only because something else is moved. Now we find this in the category of relation; for unless something else is changed, it is not true to say that change occurs in relation; for example, the unequal comes from the equal only when there has been change in quantity. Similarly the like comes from the unlike only when there has been a change in quality. Thus we see that one of two relative things is said to be changed when change affects the other one of them; for example, a thing which is unmoved of itself changes from left to right when some other thing changes its place. Hence it follows that there is motion in the category of relation only accidentally.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit neque facientis ostendit, quod neque in agere et pati sit motus: et hoc quatuor rationibus: quarum prima talis est. Agere et pati sunt motus, et significant motum. Si igitur in agere et pati esset motus, sequeretur, quod motus sit alicuius motus, et generatio generationis, et permutatio permutationis. Sed hoc est impossibile; ergo, et hoc quod in agere et pati sit motus. Quod autem impossibile sit motum esse motus, sic ostendit. Motum enim esse motus contingit dupliciter: aut ut eius quod movetur, aut ut termini. Eius quidem quod movetur: sicut dicimus motum esse hominis, quia homo movetur, quia ex albo in nigrum permutatur. Unde et similiter motus movebitur, et aut calefiet, aut infrigidabitur, aut mutabitur secundum locum, aut augebitur. Hoc autem est impossibile; quia motus non potest esse subiectum caloris aut frigoris, aut alicuius huiusmodi. Relinquitur igitur quod non contingat motum esse motus sicut subiecti.	2386. Nor is there motion of agent (1015). Here he shows that motion does not occur with respect to either action or passion. He proves this by four arguments, of which the first is as follows: action and passion constitute motion and designate it. If, then, motion were to occur in action and in passion, it would follow that there would be motion of motion and generation of generation and change of change. But this is impossible. Therefore it is also impossible that there should be motion in action and in passion. That it is impossible for motion to be moved he proves thus: there are two ways in which there might be motion of motion: first, there might be motion of motion as of a subject which is moved, or, second, as of the limit of motion. And motion might be the subject of motion, as we say that there is motion of a man because a man is moved since he is changed from white to black. In a similar way motion would be moved, and would either be heated or cooled, or changed with respect to place, or increase. But this is impossible; because motion cannot be the subject of heat or of cold or of similar attributes. It follows, then, that there cannot be motion of motion if motion is regarded as a subject.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 12 Sed neque etiam sicut termini; ita scilicet quod aliquod subiectum alterum permutetur de una specie permutationis in aliam, sicut homo permutatur de languore in sanitatem. Hoc enim est impossibile nisi per accidens.	2387. But neither can there be motion of motion as of a limit, some other subject being changed from one species of change to another, as a man might be changed from sickness to health; for this is possible only accidentally.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 13 Unde consequenter ostendit quod est impossibile per se, quia omnis motus est permutatio de uno in aliud. Et similiter generatio et corruptio est mutatio de uno in aliud, licet termini permutationis non sic opponantur in generatione et corruptione sicut in motu, ut supra dictum est. Si igitur sit aliqua permutatio de una permutatione in aliam, puta de sanatione in quamdam aliam permutationem, sequetur quod simul dum aliquid permutatur de sanitate in aegritudinem, permutetur de illa permutatione in aliam permutationem; quia adhuc uno extremorum permutationis existente, fit transmutatio de illo extremo in aliud. Et sic, si duae transmutationes sunt extrema unius permutationis, sequetur, quod durante prima transmutatione, fiat transmutatio in aliam. Et sic simul, dum aliquod movetur de sanitate in aegritudinem, transmutabitur de sanatione in aliam transmutationem.	2388. Hence he shows next that it is impossible for motion to be moved essentially because every motion is a change from one thing to something else. Similarly generation and destruction are a change from one thing to something else, even though in their case the limits of change are not opposed to each other as they are in that of motion, as has been said above (1008:C 2363). If, then, there is change from one change to another, as from becoming sick to some other process of change, it will follow that, while a thing is being changed from health to sickness, it is being changed at the same time from that change to another; because, while one of the limits of a change is arising, a change from one limit to another occurs. Thus if two processes of change are the limits of one change, it follows that while the original change is occurring, a change into another takes place. And so at the same time that a thing is being moved from health to sickness it will be being changed from becoming healthy to some other change.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 14 Sed hoc non videtur, nisi inquantum una mutatio succedit alteri. Contingit autem quod ad hanc mutationem qua aliquid movetur de sanitate in aegritudinem, succedat quaevis alia mutatio; puta dealbatio, vel denigratio, mutatio secundum locum, vel quaecumque alia. Unde manifestum est, quod si aliquis languet per hoc quod movetur de sanitate in aegritudinem, quod ex hac mutatione permutari poterit in quamcumque aliam mutationem. Neque est mirum, quia poterit ex hac mutatione mutari ut in quiete. Contingit enim post hanc mutationem aliquem quiescere.	2389. But this seems to be true only inasmuch as one change succeeds another. And it is possible that any other change may succeed this one by which something is being moved from health to sickness, for example, becoming white or becoming black or change of place or any other change. Hence it is evident that, if someone is becoming ill because he is being moved from health to sickness, he can be changed from this change to any other. Nor is this surprising, because he can even be changed from this change to a state of repose; for it is possible that someone might come to rest after this change.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 15 Sed cum omnis mutatio sit in non contingens, idest in oppositum, quod non contingit simul verum esse cum suo opposito, sequitur quod si permutatio sit de mutatione in mutationem, quod semper sit in oppositam mutationem quam appellat non contingentem. Et illa transmutatio in quam fit transitus, oportet quod sit de aliquo in aliquid. Quare non fiet transitus de permutatione languoris, nisi in oppositam mutationem quae dicitur sanatio.	2390. But since every change is “always to an opposite which is not contingent,” i.e., an opposite which cannot be true at the same time as the opposed term, it follows that, if there is a change from change to change, it will always be to an opposite change, which he calls not contingent. And that change in which the transition takes place will have to be from one thing to something else. Hence the transition from a change of becoming ill will only be to the opposite change, which is called becoming healthy.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 16 Et sic videntur duo contraria sequi: scilicet quod opposita permutatio fiat de una permutatione in quamcumque aliam, et quod non nisi in oppositam. Ex quo sequitur ulterius, quod simul dum mutatur aliquid ad unum oppositorum, mutetur in mutationem tamquam in aliud oppositum. Quod videtur impossibile: sequitur enim, quod simul intentio naturae tendat in opposita. Non igitur est possibile, quod per se mutetur aliquid de una permutatione in aliam.	2391. And so two contrary positions seem to follow, namely, that an opposite change passes from one change to any other, and only to its opposite. And from this it further follows that, at the same time that something is being changed to one of its opposites, it is also being changed to a change as if it were another opposite. This seems to be impossible, for it would follow that nature inclines to opposite effects at the same time. Hence it cannot be that anything is changed essentially from one change to another.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 17 Sed per accidens hoc contingit; sicut aliquis permutatur ex reminiscentia in oblivionem, quia subiectum permutatur, quandoque ad unum terminum, quandoque ad alium: non quod sit intentio moventis ad hoc, quod simul dum permutatur in unum, intendat tendere in aliud.	2392. But this can happen accidentally; for example, a person may change from recollection to forgetfulness because the subject is changed, sometimes in relation to one extreme and sometimes to the other-not that it may be the mover’s intention that at the same time that he is being changed to one extreme he is at the same time intending to move to the other.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit et adhuc secundam rationem ponit, quae talis est. Si permutatio sit permutationis, sicut terminus termini, vel generatio generationis, necesse erit quod ad permutationem non perveniatur nisi per aliam permutationem, sicut ad qualitatem non pervenitur nisi per alterationem praecedentem: et sic ad illam mutationem praecedentem non pervenitur, nisi per aliquam priorem mutationem: et ita procedetur in infinitum.	2393. Further, the process (1016). Then he gives the second argument, which runs thus: if there is change of change, as limit of limit, or generation of generation, one change must be reached only by another change, as one quality is reached only by a preceding alteration; and thus it will be possible to reach that preceding change only by a prior change, and so on to infinity.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 19 Quod esse non potest: quia si ponantur infinitae permutationes hoc modo ordinatae, quod una inducat ad aliam, necesse est priorem esse si posterior sit. Ponamus enim quod generationis simpliciter, quae est generatio substantiae, sit quaedam generatio. Si ergo generatio simpliciter fiat quandoque et iterum ipsum fieri generationis simpliciter aliquando fiebat, sequetur, quod nondum erat quod fit simpliciter: sed erat generatio secundum aliquid, secundum quod fit ipsa generatio generationis. Si itaque et haec generatio aliquando fiebat, cum non sit abire in infinitum, et in infinitis non sit accipere primum, non erit devenire ad primum fieri. Si autem prius non est, neque posterius, ut supra dictum est: quare sequetur quod non sit habitum, idest, id quod consequenter est. Et inde sequitur, quod nihil possit fieri neque moveri neque mutari: quod est impossibile. Non igitur possibile est quod mutationis sit mutatio.	2394. But this cannot be the case, because, if it is assumed that there are an infinite number of changes related in such a way that one leads to the other, the preceding must exist if the following does. Let us suppose that there is a particular instance of the generation of a generation in an unqualified sense, which is the generation of substance. Then, if the generation in an unqualified sense sometimes comes to be, and again if the coming to be of generation in an unqualified sense itself at one time came to be, it will follow that that which is coming to be in an unqualified sense did not yet exist, but there was generation in one respect, namely, the very generation of the process of generation. And if this generation also came to be at some time, since it is not possible to have either an infinite regress or any first term among infinite things, it is impossible ever to come to any first process of generation. But if the preceding member in a series does not exist, there will be no succeeding member, as has been pointed out above, and the consequence will be that “there will not be a subsequent one,” i.e., one which follows it. It follows, then, that nothing can come to be or be moved or be changed. But this is impossible. Hence change of change is impossible.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit adhuc eiusdem tertiam rationem ponit, quae talis est. Motus contrarii sunt eiusdem subiecti, etiam quies et motus, et etiam generatio et corruptio; quia opposita nata sunt fieri circa idem. Si igitur aliquod subiectum transmutetur de generatione in corruptionem, simul dum generatur, transmutabitur ad corruptionem; quod est transmutari ad non esse; nam corruptionis terminus est non esse. Quod autem transmutatur ad non esse, corrumpitur. Sequitur igitur, quod aliquid simul dum fit corrumpatur.	2395. Further, of the same thing (1017) Then he gives the third argument, which is as follows. Contrary motions, and rest and motion, and generation and destruction, belong to the same subject, because opposites are suited by nature to come to be in the same subject. Therefore, if some subject is being changed from generation to destruction, at the same time that it is being generated it will be undergoing change leading to destruction, which is to be changed into non-being; for the terminus of destruction is non-being, Now what is being changed into non-being is being destroyed. Hence it follows that a thing is being destroyed at the same time that it is being generated.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 21 Sed hoc non potest esse. Neque enim dum aliquid fit corrumpitur, neque statim postea corrumpitur. Cum enim corruptio sit de esse in non esse, oportebit id quod corrumpitur esse. Et sic oportet inter generationem quae est mutatio ad esse, et corruptionem quae est mutatio ad non esse, invenire quietem mediam. Et sic non est mutatio de generatione in corruptionem.	2396. But this cannot be true; for while a thing is coming to be it is not being destroyed, nor is it corrupted immediately afterwards. For since destruction is a process from being to nonbeing, that which is being destroyed must be. And thus there will have to be an intermediate state of rest between generation, which is a change to being, and destruction, which is a change to non-being. Hence there is no change from generation to destruction.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit adhuc oportet quartam rationem ponit; quae talis est. In omni, quod generatur, oportet duo inveniri, quorum unum est materia eius quod fit, et aliud ad quod terminatur generatio. Si ergo generetur generatio, oportet quod generatio et motus habeant materiam talem, quale est alterabile corpus, aut anima, aut aliquid huiusmodi: sed huius materiam non est assignare generationi et motui.	2397. Further, there must be (1018). Then he gives the fourth argument, which runs as follows. In everything that is being generated two things must be present: first, the matter of the thing which is generated, and, second, that in which the generation is terminated. If, then, there is generation of generation, both generation and motion will have to have some matter, such as an alterable body or a soul or something of this kind. But it is impossible to assign matter of this kind to generation and to motion.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 23 Similiter etiam oportet in generatione esse aliquid ad quod terminatur mutatio; quia oportet aliquam partem, scilicet materiam eius quod generatur, esse motam ex hoc in hoc: et hoc in quod terminatur motus, non contingit esse motum sed terminum motus. Non enim huiusmodi permutationis quae est disciplinatio, est aliqua alia disciplinatio quae ad eam terminetur, quae sit disciplina disciplinationis. Quare relinquitur quod non sit generatio generationis.	2398. Similarly, there must also be something in which the process of change is terminated, because some part, namely, the matter of the thing generated, must be moved from one attribute to another, and that in which motion is terminated cannot be motion but is the terminus of motion. For of the kind of change which we call learning there is not some other learning which is terminated in it, which is a learning of learning. Hence there is nothing to conclude but that there is no generation of generation.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 24 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem concludit principale intentum; dicens, quod quia motus non potest esse neque in genere substantiae, neque in ad aliquid, neque in agere et pati, relinquitur quod motus sit secundum quale et quantum et ubi. In his enim generibus contingit esse contrarietatem quae est inter terminos motus, ut ostensum est.	2399. And since (1019). Here he draws as his conclusion his main thesis. He says that, since there cannot be motion either in the category of substance or in that of relation or in that of action and passion, it follows that motion belongs to quality, quantity and location; for in these categories there can be contrariety, which stands between the termini of motion, as has been pointed out.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 25 Sed quia qualitas quandoque dicitur de forma substantiali, subiungitur quod cum motus dicitur esse in quali, non intelligitur significare substantiam secundum quod differentia substantialis praedicatur in eo quod quale; sed de quali secundum quod dicitur aliquid pati, vel impassibile esse. Non enim est proprie alteratio nisi secundum passibiles qualitates, ut in septimo physicorum probatur.	2400. But since quality is sometimes used to mean substantial form, he adds that, when there is said to be motion in quality, it is not understood to signify substance, in view of the fact that substantial difference is predicated as something qualitative; but it refers to the kind of quality by which something is said to be acted upon or to be incapable of this. For there is alteration, properly speaking, only in terms of susceptible qualities, as is proved in Book VII of the Physics.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 26 Deinde cum dicit immobile autem ostendit quot modis dicitur immobile. Et ponit tres modos: quorum primus est, quod immobile dicitur id quod omnino est impossibile moveri, sicut Deus est immobilis.	2401. The immovable (1020). Then he explains the different senses in which the term immovable is used; and he gives three of these. First, the immovable means what is completely incapable of being moved; for example, God is immovable.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 27 Secundus modus est secundum quod dicitur immobile, id quod vix non potest moveri, sicut saxum magnum.	2402. Second, it means what can be moved with difficulty, as a huge boulder.
lib. 11 l. 12 n. 28 Tertius modus est secundum quod dicitur immobile id quod natum est moveri, sed tunc non possit moveri, quando natum est, et ubi natum est moveri, et sicut natum est moveri. Et hoc solum immobile dicitur proprie quiescere, quia quies est contraria motui. Unde oportet quod quies sit privatio motus in susceptivo motus.	2403. Third, it means what is naturally fit to be moved but cannot be moved when it is fit, and where, and in the way in which it is fit to be moved. And only this kind of immobility is properly called rest, because rest is contrary to motion. Hence rest must be the privation of motion in what is susceptible of motion.