Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber6/lect1

Lecture 1

Latin	English
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 1 Postquam philosophus in quarto huius ostendit, quod haec scientia considerat de ente et de uno, et de his quae consequuntur ad ens inquantum huiusmodi, et quod omnia ista dicuntur multipliciter, et in quinto huius eorum multiplicitatem distinxit, hic incipit de ente determinare, et de aliis quae consequuntur ad ens. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas. In prima ostendit per quem modum haec scientia debet determinare de ente. In secunda incipit de ente determinare, scilicet in principio septimi, ibi, ens dicitur multipliciter. Prima pars dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit modum tractandi de entibus, qui competit huic scientiae per differentiam ad alias scientias. In secunda removet a consideratione huius scientiae ens aliquibus modis dictum, secundum quos modos ens non intenditur principaliter in hac scientia, ibi, sed quoniam ens simpliciter. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas. In prima parte ostendit differentiam huius scientiae ad alias, per hoc, quod considerat principia entis inquantum est ens. Secundo, quantum ad modum tractandi de huiusmodi principiis, ibi, quoniam vero physica. Circa primum duo facit.	1144. Having shown in Book IV (535) of this work that this science considers being and unity and those attributes which belong to being as such, and that all of these are used in several senses; and having distinguished the number of these in Book V (843; 885) of this work, here the Philosopher begins to establish the truth about being and those attributes which belong to being. This part is divided into two sections. In the first he explains the method by which this science should establish what is true about being. In the second (1247) he begins to settle the issue about being. He does this at the beginning of Book VII (“The term being is used in many senses”). The first part is divided into two sections. In the first he explains the method of treating beings, which is proper to this science, by showing how it differs from the other sciences. In the second (1170 he excludes certain senses of being from the investigation of this science, namely, those senses which are not the chief concern of this science (“Being in an unqualified sense”). The first part is again divided into two sections. In the first he shows how this science differs from the others because it considers the principles of being as being. In the second (1152) he shows how this science differs from the others in its method of treating principles of this kind (“And since the philosophy of nature”). In regard to the first he does two things.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 2 Primo ostendit quomodo haec scientia convenit cum aliis in consideratione principiorum; dicens, quod ex quo ens est subiectum in huiusmodi scientia, ut in quarto ostensum est, et quaelibet scientia debet inquirere principia et causas, sui subiecti, quae sunt eius inquantum huiusmodi, oportet quod in ista scientia inquirantur principia et causae entium, inquantum sunt entia. Ita etiam est et in aliis scientiis. Nam sanitatis et convalescentiae est aliqua causa, quam quaerit medicus. Et similiter etiam mathematicorum sunt principia et elementa et causae, ut figurae et numeri et aliarum huiusmodi quae perquirit mathematicus. Et universaliter omnis scientia intellectualis qualitercumque participet intellectum: sive sit solum circa intelligibilia, sicut scientia divina; sive sit circa ea quae sunt aliquo modo imaginabilia, vel sensibilia in particulari, in universali autem intelligibilia, et etiam sensibilia prout de his est scientia, sicut in mathematica et in naturali; sive etiam ex universalibus principiis ad particularia procedant, in quibus est operatio, sicut in scientiis practicis: semper oportet quod talis scientia sit circa causas et principia.	1145. First, he shows how this science agrees with the other sciences in its study of principles. He says that since being is the subject of this kind of science, as has been shown in Book IV (529)30), and every science must investigate the principles and causes which belong to its subject inasmuch as it is this kind of thing, we must investigate in this science the principles and causes of beings as beings. And this is also what occurs in the other sciences. For there is a cause of health and of its recovery, which the physician seeks. And similarly there are also principles, elements and causes of the objects of mathematics, as figure and number and other things of this kind which the mathematician investigates. And in general every intellectual science, to whatever degree it participates in intellect, must always deal with causes and principles. This is the case whether it deals with purely intelligible things, as divine science does, or with those which are in some way imaginable or sensible in particular but intelligible in general; or even if it deals with sensible things inasmuch as there is science of them, as occurs in the case of mathematics and in that of the philosophy of nature. Or again whether they proceed from universal principles to particular cases in which there is activity, as occurs in the practical sciences, it is always necessary that such sciences deal with principles and causes.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 3 Quae quidem principia aut sunt certiora quo ad nos sicut in naturalibus, quia sunt propinquiora sensibilibus, aut simpliciora et priora secundum naturam, sicut est in mathematicis. Cognitiones autem quae sunt sensitivae tantum, non sunt per principia et causas, sed per hoc quod ipsum sensibile obiicitur sensui. Discurrere enim a causis in causata vel e contrario, non est sensus, sed solum intellectus. Vel certiora principia dicit ea quae sunt magis nota et exquisita. Simplicia autem ea, quae magis superficialiter exquiruntur, sicut est in scientiis moralibus, quorum principia sumuntur ex his quae sunt ut in pluribus.	1146. Now these principles are either (1) more certain to us, as occurs in the natural sciences, because they are closer to sensible things, or (2) they are simpler and prior in nature, as occurs in the mathematical sciences. But cognitions which are only sensory are not the result of principles and causes but of the sensible object itself acting upon the senses. For to proceed from causes to effects or the reverse is not an activity of the senses but only of the intellect. Or “more certain principles” means those which are better known and more deeply probed, and “simple” means those which are studied in a more superficial way, as occurs in the moral sciences, whose principles are derived from those things which occur in the majority of cases.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 4 Secundum ibi, sed et omnes ostendit differentiam aliarum scientiarum ad istam quantum ad considerationem principiorum et causarum; dicens, quod omnes istae scientiae particulares, de quibus nunc facta est mentio, sunt circa unum aliquod particulare genus entis, sicut circa numerum vel magnitudinem, aut aliquid huiusmodi. Et tractat unaquaeque circumscripte de suo genere subiecto, idest ita de isto genere, quod non de alio: sicut scientia quae tractat de numero, non tractat de magnitudine. Nulla enim earum determinat de ente simpliciter, idest de ente in communi, nec etiam de aliquo particulari ente inquantum est ens. Sicut arithmetica non determinat de numero inquantum est ens, sed inquantum est numerus. De quolibet enim ente inquantum est ens, proprium est metaphysici considerare.	1147. But all these (533). Second, he shows how the other sciences differ from this science in their study of principles and causes. He says that all these particular sciences which have now been mentioned are about one particular class of being, for example, number, continuous quantity or something of this kind; and each confines its investigations to “its subject genus,”’ i.e., dealing with this class and not with another; for example, the science which deals with number does not deal with continuous quantity. For no one of the other sciences deals “with being in an unqualified sense,” i.e., with being in general, or even with any particular being as being; for example, arithmetic does not deal with number as being but as number. For to consider each being as being is proper to metaphysics.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 5 Et, quia eiusdem est considerare de ente inquantum est ens, et de eo quod quid est, idest de quidditate rei, quia unumquodque habet esse per suam quidditatem, ideo etiam aliae scientiae particulares nullam mentionem, idest determinationem faciunt de eo quod quid est, idest de quidditate rei, et de definitione, quae ipsam significat. Sed ex hoc, idest ex ipso quod quid est ad alia procedunt, utentes eo quasi demonstrato principio ad alia probanda.	1148. And since it belongs to the same science to consider both being and the whatness or quiddity, because each thing has being by reason of its quiddity, therefore the other particular sciences make “no mention of,” i.e., they do (~) not investigate, the whatness or quiddity of a thing and the definition signifying it. But (+) they proceed “from this,” i.e., from the whatness itself of a thing, to other things, using this as an already established principle for the purpose of proving other things.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 6 Ipsum autem quod quid est sui subiecti aliae scientiae faciunt esse manifestum per sensum; sicut scientia, quae est de animalibus, accipit quid est animal per id quod apparet sensui, idest per sensum et motum, quibus animal a non animali discernitur. Aliae vero scientiae accipiunt quod quid est sui subiecti, per suppositionem ab aliqua alia scientia, sicut geometria accipit quid est magnitudo a philosopho primo. Et sic ex ipso quod quid est noto per sensum vel per suppositionem, demonstrant scientiae proprias passiones, quae secundum se insunt generi subiecto, circa quod sunt. Nam definitio est medium in demonstratione propter quid. Modus autem demonstrationis est diversus; quia quaedam demonstrant magis necessarie, sicut mathematicae scientiae, quaedam vero infirmius, idest non de necessitate; sicut scientiae naturales, in quibus multae demonstrationes sumuntur ex his quae non semper insunt, sed frequenter.	1149. Now some sciences make the whatness of their subject evident by means of the senses, as the science which treats of animals understands what an animal is by means of what “is apparent to the senses,” i.e., by means of sensation and local motion, by which animal is distinguished from non-animal. And other sciences understand the whatness of their subject by assuming it from some other science, as geometry learns what continuous quantity is from first philosophy. Thus, beginning from the whatness itself of a thing, which has been made known either by the senses or by assuming it from some other science, these sciences demonstrate the proper attributes which belong essentially to the subject-genus with which they deal; for a definition is the middle term in a causal demonstration. But the method of demonstration differs; because some sciences demonstrate with greater necessity, as the mathematical sciences, and others “more weakly,” i.e., without necessity, as the sciences of nature, whose demonstrations are based on things that do not pertain to something always but for the most part.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 7 Alia translatio habet loco suppositionis, conditionem. Et est idem sensus. Nam quod supponitur, quasi ex conditione accipitur: et quia principium demonstrationis est definitio, palam est ex tali inductione, quod demonstratio non est de substantia rei, idest de essentia eius; nec de definitione, quae significat quid est res; sed est aliquis alius modus, quo definitiones ostenduntur; scilicet divisione, et aliis modis, qui ponuntur in secundo posteriorum.	1150. Another translation has “condition” in place of “assumption,” but the meaning is the same; for what is assumed is taken, as it were, by stipulation. And since the starting point of demonstration is definition, it is evident that from this kind of inductive method “there is no demonstration of a thing’s substance,” i.e., of its essence, or of the definition signifying its whatness; but there is some other method by which definitions are made known, namely, the method of elimination and the other methods which are given in the Posterior Analytics, Book IV.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 8 Et sicut nulla scientia particularis determinat quod quid est, ita etiam nulla earum dicit de genere subiecto, circa quod versatur, est, aut non est. Et hoc rationabiliter accidit; quia eiusdem scientiae est determinare quaestionem an est, et manifestare quid est. Oportet enim quod quid est accipere ut medium ad ostendendum an est. Et utraque est consideratio philosophi, qui considerat ens inquantum ens. Et ideo quaelibet scientia particularis supponit de subiecto suo, quia est, et quid est, ut dicitur in primo posteriorum; et hoc est signum, quod nulla scientia particularis determinat de ente simpliciter, nec de aliquo ente inquantum est ens.	1151. And just as no particular science settles the issue about the whatness of things, neither does any one of them discuss the existence or nonexistence of the subject-genus with which it deals. This is understandable, because it belongs to the same science to settle the question of a thing’s existence and to make known its whatness. For in order to prove that a thing exists its whatness must be taken as the middle term of the demonstration. Now both of these questions belong to the investigation of the philosopher who considers being as being. Therefore every particular science assumes the existence and whatness of its subject, as is stated in Book I of the Posterior Analytics. This is indicated by the fact that no particular science establishes the truth about being in an unqualified sense, or about any being as being.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero ostendit differentiam huius scientiae ad alias, quantum ad modum considerandi principia entis inquantum est ens. Et quia ab antiquis scientia naturalis credebatur esse prima scientia, et quae consideraret ens inquantum est ens, ideo ab ea, quasi a manifestiori incipiens, primo ostendit differentiam scientiae naturalis a scientiis practicis. Secundo differentiam eius a scientiis speculativis, in quo ostenditur modus proprius considerationis huius scientiae, ibi, oportet autem quod quid erat esse. Dicit ergo primo, quod scientia naturalis non est circa ens simpliciter, sed circa quoddam genus entis; scilicet circa substantiam naturalem, quae habet in se principium motus et quietis: et ex hoc apparet quod neque est activa, neque factiva. Differunt enim agere et facere: nam agere est secundum operationem manentem in ipso agente, sicut est eligere, intelligere et huiusmodi: unde scientiae activae dicuntur scientiae morales. Facere autem est secundum operationem, quae transit exterius ad materiae transmutationem, sicut secare, urere, et huiusmodi: unde scientiae factivae dicuntur artes mechanicae.	1152. And since the philosophy of nature (534). Here he shows how this science differs from the other sciences in its method of considering the principles of being as being. And since the philosophy of nature was considered by the ancients to be the first science and the one which would consider being as being, therefore, beginning with it as with what is more evident, he shows, first (534), how the philosophy of nature differs from the practical sciences; and second (535), how it differs from the speculative sciences, showing also the method of study proper to this science. He says, first (534), that the philosophy of nature does not deal with being in an unqualified sense but with some particular class of being, i.e., with natural substance, which has within itself a principle of motion and rest; and from this it is evident that it is neither a practical nor a productive science. For action and production differ, because action is an operation that remains in the agent itself, as choosing, understanding and the like (and for this reason the practical sciences are called moral sciences), whereas production is an operation that passes over into some matter in order to change it, as cutting, burning and the like (and for this reason the productive sciences are called mechanical arts).
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 10 Quod autem scientia naturalis non sit factiva, patet; quia principium scientiarum factivarum est in faciente, non in facto, quod est artificiatum; sed principium motus rerum naturalium est in ipsis rebus naturalibus. Hoc autem principium rerum artificialium, quod est in faciente, est primo intellectus, qui primo artem adinvenit; et secundo ars, quae est habitus intellectus; et tertio aliqua potentia exequens, sicut potentia motiva, per quam artifex exequitur conceptionem artis. Unde patet, quod scientia naturalis non est factiva.	1153. Now it is evident that the philosophy of nature is not a (~) productive science, because the principle of productive sciences is in the maker and not in the thing made, which is the artifact. But the principle of motion in natural bodies is within these natural bodies. Further, the principle of things made by art, which is in the maker, is, first, the intellect which discovers the art; and second, the art which is an intellectual habit; and third, some executive power, such as the motive power by which the artisan executes the work conceived by his art. Hence it is evident that the philosophy of nature is not a productive science.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 11 Et per eamdem rationem patet quod non est activa. Nam principium activarum scientiarum est in agente, non in ipsis actionibus, sive moribus. Hoc autem principium est prohaeresis, idest electio. Idem enim est agibile et eligibile. Sic ergo patet, quod naturalis scientia non sit activa neque factiva.	1154. And for this reason it is evident that it is not a (~) practical science; for the principle of practical sciences is in the agent, not in the actions or customary operations themselves. This principle is “prohaeresis,” i.e., choice; for the object of action and that of choice are the same. Hence it is evident that the philosophy of nature is neither a practical nor a productive science.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 12 Si igitur omnis scientia est aut activa, aut factiva, aut theorica, sequitur quod naturalis scientia theorica sit. Ita tamen est theorica, idest speculativa circa determinatum genus entis, quod scilicet est possibile moveri. Ens enim mobile est subiectum naturalis philosophiae. Et est solum circa talem substantiam, idest quidditatem et essentiam rei, quae secundum rationem non est separabilis a materia, ut in pluribus; et hoc dicit propter intellectum, qui aliquo modo cadit sub consideratione naturalis philosophiae, et tamen substantia eius est separabilis. Sic patet, quod naturalis scientia est circa determinatum subiectum, quod est ens mobile; et habet determinatum modum definiendi, scilicet cum materia.	1155. If, then, every science is either practical, productive or theoretical, it follows that the philosophy of nature is a (+) theoretical science. Yet “it is theoretical,” or speculative, of a special class of being, namely, that which is subject to motion; for mobile being is the subject matter of the philosophy of nature. And it deals only with “that kind of substance,” i.e., the quiddity or essence of a thing, which is for the most part inseparable from matter in its intelligible structure. He adds this because of the intellect, which comes in a sense within the scope of the philosophy of nature, although its substance is separable from matter. Thus it is clear that the philosophy of nature deals with some special subject, which is mobile being, and that it has a special way of defining things, namely, with matter.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit oportet autem hic ostendit differentiam naturalis scientiae ad alias speculativas quantum ad modum definiendi: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit differentiam praedictam. Secundo concludit numerum scientiarum theoricarum, ibi quare. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit modum proprium definiendi naturalis philosophiae; dicens, quod ad cognoscendum differentiam scientiarum speculativarum adinvicem, oportet non latere quidditatem rei, et rationem idest definitionem significantem ipsam, quomodo est assignanda in unaquaque scientia. Quaerere enim differentiam praedictam sine hoc, idest sine cognitione modi definiendi, nihil facere est. Cum enim definitio sit medium demonstrationis, et per consequens principium sciendi, oportet quod ad diversum modum definiendi, sequatur diversitas in scientiis speculativis.	1156. Now the essence (535). Here he shows how the philosophy of nature differs from the other speculative sciences in its method of defining things; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he explains this difference. Second (1166), he draws a conclusion about the number of theoretical sciences. (“Hence there will be”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he exposes the method of definings things which is proper to the philosophy of nature. He says that, in order to understand how the speculative sciences differ from each other, the quiddity of a thing and the way in which “the conceptual expression,” i.e., the definition signifying it, should be expressed in each science, must not remain unknown. For in seeking the aforesaid difference “without this,” i.e., without knowing how to define things, our search would be unfruitful. For since a definition is the middle term in a demonstration, and is therefore the starting-point of knowing the difference between the speculative sciences must depend on the different ways of defining things.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 14 Sciendum est autem, quod eorum quae diffiniuntur, quaedam definiuntur sicut definitur simum, quaedam sicut definitur concavum; et haec duo differunt, quia definitio simi est accepta cum materia sensibili. Simum enim nihil aliud est quam nasus curvus vel concavus. Sed concavitas definitur sine materia sensibili. Non enim ponitur in definitione concavi vel curvi aliquod corpus sensibile, ut ignis aut aqua, aut aliquod corpus huiusmodi. Dicitur enim concavum, cuius medium exit ab extremis.	1157. Now concerning things which are defined it must be noted that some are defined like snub and others like concave. And these two differ because the definition of snub includes sensible matter (since snub is merely a curved or concave nose), whereas concavity is defined without sensible matter. For some sensible body, such as fire or water or the like, is not included in the definition of concave or curved. For that is said to be concave whose middle curves away from the ends.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 15 Omnia autem naturalia simili modo definiuntur sicut simum, ut patet in partibus animalis tam dissimilibus, ut sunt nasus, oculus et facies, quam similibus, ut sunt caro et os; et etiam in toto animali. Et similiter in partibus plantarum quae sunt folium, radix et cortex; et similiter in tota planta. Nullius enim praedictorum definitio potest assignari sine motu: sed quodlibet eorum habet materiam sensibilem in sui definitione, et per consequens motum. Nam cuilibet materiae sensibili competit motus proprius. In definitione enim carnis et ossis, oportet quod ponatur calidum et frigidum aliquo modo contemperatum; et similiter in aliis. Et ex hoc palam est quis est modus inquirendi quidditatem rerum naturalium, et definiendi in scientia naturali, quia scilicet cum materia sensibili.	1158. Now all natural things are defined in a way similar to snub, as is evident both of those parts of an animal which are unlike, for example, nose, eye and face; and of those which are alike, for example, flesh and bone; and also of the whole animal. And the same is true of the parts of plants, for example, leaf, root and bark; and also of the whole plant. For no one of these can be defined without motion; but each includes sensible matter in its definition, and therefore motion, because every kind of sensible matter has its own kind of motion. Thus in the definition of flesh and bone it is necessary that the hot and cold be held to be suitably mixed in some way; and the same is true of other things. From this it is evident what the method is which the philosophy of nature uses in investigating and defining the quiddity of natural things; i.e., it involves sensible matter.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 16 Et propter hoc etiam de anima, quaedam speculatur naturalis, quaecumque scilicet non definitur sine materia sensibili. Dicitur enim in secundo de anima, quod anima est actus primus corporis physici organici potentia vitam habentis. Anima autem secundum quod non est actus talis corporis non pertinet ad considerationem naturalis, si qua anima potest a corpore separari. Manifestum est ergo ex praedictis quod physica est quaedam scientia theorica, et quod habet determinatum modum definiendi.	1159. And for this reason the philosophy of nature also investigates one kind of soul—the kind that is (+) not defined without sensible matter. For in Book II of The Soul he says that a soul is the first actuality of a natural organic body having life potentially. But if any soul can exist (~) separately from a body, then insofar as it is not the actuality of such a body, it does not fall within the scope of the philosophy of nature. Therefore it is evident from the above that the philosophy of nature is a theoretical science, and that it has a special method of defining things.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 17 Secundo ibi, sed est et mathematica ostendit modum proprium mathematicae; dicens quod etiam mathematica est quaedam scientia theorica. Constat enim, quod neque est activa, neque factiva; cum mathematica consideret ea quae sunt sine motu, sine quo actio et factio esse non possunt. Sed utrum illa de quibus considerat mathematica scientia, sint mobilia et separabilia a materia secundum suum esse, adhuc non est manifestum. Quidam enim posuerunt numeros et magnitudines et alia mathematica esse separata et media inter species et sensibilia, scilicet Platonici, ut in primo et tertio libro habitum est; cuius quaestionis veritas nondum est ab eo perfecte determinata; determinabitur autem infra.	1160. But mathematics (536). Second, he exposes the method proper to mathematics. He says that mathematics is also a speculative science; for evidently it is neither a practical nor a productive science, since it considers things which are devoid of motion, without which action and production cannot exist. But whether those things which mathematical science considers are immobile and separable from matter in their being is not yet clear. For some men, the Platonists, held that numbers, continuous quantities and other mathematical objects are separate from matter and midway between the Forms and sensible things, as is stated in Book I (157) and in Book III (350). But the answer to this question has not yet been fully established by him, but will be established later on.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 18 Sed tamen hoc est manifestum, quod scientia mathematica speculatur quaedam inquantum sunt immobilia et inquantum sunt separata a materia sensibili, licet secundum esse non sint immobilia vel separabilia. Ratio enim eorum est sine materia sensibili, sicut ratio concavi vel curvi. In hoc ergo differt mathematica a physica, quia physica considerat ea quorum definitiones sunt cum materia sensibili. Et ideo considerat non separata, inquantum sunt non separata. Mathematica vero considerat ea, quorum definitiones sunt sine materia sensibili. Et ideo, etsi sunt non separata ea quae considerat, tamen considerat ea inquantum sunt separata.	1161. However, it is evident that mathematical science studies some things insofar as they are immobile and separate from matter, although they are neither immobile nor separable from matter in being. For their intelligible structure, for example, that of concave or curved, does not contain sensible matter. Hence mathematical science differs from the philosophy of nature in this respect, that while the philosophy of nature considers things whose definitions contain sensible matter (and thus it considers what is not separate insofar as it is not separate), mathematical science considers things whose definitions do not contain sensible matter. And thus even though the things which it considers are not separate from matter, it nevertheless considers them insofar as they are separate.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 19 Tertio ibi, si vero est ostendit modum proprium scientiae huius; dicens quod, si est aliquid immobile secundum esse, et per consequens sempiternum et separabile a materia secundum esse, palam est, quod eius consideratio est theoricae scientiae, non activae vel factivae, quarum consideratio est circa aliquos motus. Et tamen consideratio talis entis non est physica. Nam physica considerat de quibusdam entibus, scilicet de mobilibus. Et similiter consideratio huius entis non est mathematica; quia mathematica non considerat separabilia secundum esse, sed secundum rationem, ut dictum est. Sed oportet quod consideratio huius entis sit alterius scientiae prioris ambabus praedictis, scilicet physica et mathematica.	1162. Now if there is something (537). Third, he exposes the method proper to this science. He says that, if there is something whose being is immobile, and therefore eternal and separable from matter in being, it is evident that the investigation of it belongs to a theoretical science and not to a practical or productive one, whose investigations have to do with certain kinds of motion. However, the study of such being does not belong to the philosophy of nature, for the philosophy of nature deals with certain kinds of beings, namely, mobile ones. Nor likewise does the study of this being belong to mathematics, because mathematics does not consider things which are separable from matter in being but only in their intelligible structure, as has been stated (1161). But the study of this being must belong to another science which is prior to both of these, i.e., prior to the philosophy of nature and to mathematics.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 20 Physica enim est circa inseparabilia et mobilia, et mathematica quaedam circa immobilia, quae tamen non sunt separata a materia secundum esse, sed solum secundum rationem, secundum vero esse sunt in materia sensibili. Dicit autem forsan, quia haec veritas nondum est determinata. Dicit autem quasdam mathematicas esse circa immobilia, sicut geometriam et arithmeticam; quia quaedam scientiae mathematicae applicantur ad motum sicut astrologia. Sed prima scientia est circa separabilia secundum esse, et quae sunt omnino immobilia.	1163. For the philosophy of nature deals with things which are inseparable from matter and mobile, and mathematics deals with certain immobile things although these are not separate from matter in being but only in their intelligible structure, since in reality they are found in sensible matter. And he says “presumably” because this truth has not yet been established. Further, he says that some mathematical sciences deal with immobile things, as geometry and arithmetic, because some mathematical sciences are applied to motion, as astronomy. But the first science deals with things which are separable from matter in being and are altogether immobile.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 21 Necesse vero est communes causas esse sempiternas. Primas enim causas entium generativorum oportet esse ingenitas, ne generatio in infinitum procedat; et maxime has, quae sunt omnino immobiles et immateriales. Hae namque causae immateriales et immobiles sunt causae sensibilibus manifestis nobis, quia sunt maxime entia, et per consequens causae aliorum, ut in secundo libro ostensum est. Et per hoc patet, quod scientia quae huiusmodi entia pertractat, prima est inter omnes, et considerat communes causas omnium entium. Unde sunt causae entium secundum quod sunt entia, quae inquiruntur in prima philosophia, ut in primo proposuit. Ex hoc autem apparet manifeste falsitas opinionis illorum, qui posuerunt Aristotelem sensisse, quod Deus non sit causa substantiae caeli, sed solum motus eius.	1164. Now common causes must be eternal, because the first causes of beings which are generated must not themselves be generated, otherwise the process of generation would proceed to infinity; and this is true especially of those causes which are altogether immobile and immaterial. For those immaterial and immobile causes are the causes of the sensible things evident to us, because they are beings in the highest degree, and therefore are the cause of other things, as was shown in Book II (290). From this it is evident that the science which considers beings of this kind is the first of all the sciences and the one which considers the common causes of all beings. Hence there are causes of beings as beings, which are investigated in first philosophy, as he proposed in Book I (36). And from this it is quite evident that the opinion of those who claimed that Aristotle thought that God is not the cause of the substance of the heavens, but only of their motion, is false.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 22 Advertendum est autem, quod licet ad considerationem primae philosophiae pertineant ea quae sunt separata secundum esse et rationem a materia et motu, non tamen solum ea; sed etiam de sensibilibus, inquantum sunt entia, philosophus perscrutatur. Nisi forte dicamus, ut Avicenna dicit, quod huiusmodi communia de quibus haec scientia perscrutatur, dicuntur separata secundum esse, non quia semper sint sine materia; sed quia non de necessitate habent esse in materia, sicut mathematica.	1165. However, we must remember that even though things which are separate from matter and motion in being and in their intelligible structure belong to the study of first philosophy, still the philosopher not only investigates these but also sensible things inasmuch as they are beings. Unless perhaps we may say, as Avicenna does, that common things of the kind which this science considers are said to be separate from matter in being, not because they are always without matter, but because they do not necessarily have being in matter, as the objects of mathematics do.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 23 Deinde cum dicit quare tres concludit numerum scientiarum theoricarum; et circa hoc tria facit. Primo concludit ex praemissis, quod tres sunt partes philosophiae theoricae, scilicet mathematica, physica et theologia, quae est philosophia prima.	1166. Hence there will be (538). He draws a conclusion as to the number of theoretical sciences. And in regard to this he does three things. First, he concludes from what has been laid down above that there are three parts of theoretical philosophy: mathematics, the philosophy of nature, and theology, which is first philosophy.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 24 Deinde cum dicit non enim secundo assignat duas rationes quare haec scientia dicatur theologia. Quarum prima est, quia manifestum est, quod si alicubi, idest in aliquo genere rerum existit aliquod divinum, quod existit in tali natura, scilicet entis immobilis et a materia separati, de quo considerat ista scientia.	1167. For it is obvious (539). Second, he gives two reasons why this science is called theology. The first of these is that “it is obvious that if the divine exists anywhere,” i.e., if something divine exists in any class of things, it exists in such a nature, namely, in the class of being which is immobile and separate from matter, which this science studies.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit et honorabilissimam secundam rationem ponit quae talis est. Honorabilissima scientia est circa honorabilissimum genus entium, in quo continentur res divinae: ergo, cum haec scientia sit honorabilissima inter omnes, quia est honorabilior theoricis, ut prius ostensum est,- quae quidem sunt honorabiliores practicis, ut in primo libro habitum est -, manifestum est, quod ista scientia est circa res divinas; et ideo dicitur theologia, quasi sermo de divinis.	1168. And he most honorable (540). He gives the second reason why this science is called theology; and the reason is this: the most honorable science deals with the most honorable class of beings, and this is the one in which divine beings are contained. Therefore, since this science is the most honorable of the sciences because it is the most honorable of the theoretical sciences, as was shown before (64)—and these are more honorable than the practical sciences, as was stated in Book I (35)—it is evident that this science deals with divine beings; and therefore it is called theology inasmuch as it is a discourse about divine beings.
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 26 Deinde cum dicit dubitabit autem tertio movetur quaedam quaestio circa praedeterminata: et primo movet eam, dicens, quod aliquis potest dubitare, utrum prima philosophia sit universalis quasi considerans ens universaliter, aut eius consideratio sit circa aliquod genus determinatum et naturam unam. Et hoc non videtur. Non enim est unus modus huius scientiae et mathematicarum; quia geometria et astrologia, quae sunt mathematicae, sunt circa aliquam naturam determinatam; sed philosophia prima est universaliter communis omnium. Et tamen e converso videtur, quod sit alicuius determinatae naturae, propter hoc quod est separabilium et immobilium, ut dictum est.	1169. But someone will (541). [objection] Third, he raises a question about a point already established. First, he states the question, saying that someone can inquire whether first philosophy is universal inasmuch as it considers being in general, or whether it investigates some particular class or a single nature. Now this does not seem to be the case. For this science and the mathematical sciences do not have one and the same method; because geometry and astronomy, which are mathematical sciences, deal with a special nature, whereas first philosophy is universally common to all. Yet the reverse seems to be true, namely, that it deals with a special nature, because it is concerned with things which are separable from matter and immobile, as has been stated (1163).
lib. 6 l. 1 n. 27 Deinde cum dicit si igitur secundo solvit, dicens quod si non est aliqua alia substantia praeter eas quae consistunt secundum naturam, de quibus est physica, physica erit prima scientia. Sed, si est aliqua substantia immobilis, ista erit prior substantia naturali; et per consequens philosophia considerans huiusmodi substantiam, erit philosophia prima. Et quia est prima, ideo erit universalis, et erit eius speculari de ente inquantum est ens, et de eo quod quid est, et de his quae sunt entis inquantum est ens: eadem enim est scientia primi entis et entis communis, ut in principio quarti habitum est.	1170. Therefore, if (542). Second, he answers this question, saying that if there is no substance other than those which exist in the way that natural substances do, with which the philosophy of nature deals, the philosophy of nature will be the first science. But if there is some immobile substance, this will be prior to natural substance, and therefore the philosophy of nature, which considers this kind of substance, will be first philosophy. And since it is first, it will be universal; and it will be its function to study being as being, both what being is and what the attributes are which belong to being as being. For the science of the primary kind of being and that of being in general are the same, as has been stated at the beginning of Book IV (533).