Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber6/lect3

Lecture 3

Latin	English
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de ente per accidens, hic excludit quamdam opinionem, per quam tollitur totum ens per accidens. Quidam enim posuerunt, quod quicquid fit in mundo habet aliquam causam per se; et iterum quod qualibet causa posita, necesse est sequi effectum eius. Unde sequebatur quod per quamdam connexionem causarum omnia ex necessitate acciderent, et nihil esset per accidens in rebus. Et ideo hanc opinionem philosophus intendit destruere: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim destruit praedictam opinionem. Secundo infert quamdam conclusionem ex praedictis, ibi, palam ergo quia usque ad aliquod et cetera. Tertio movet quamdam quaestionem quae ex praedictis occasionatur, ibi, sed ad principium quale. Dicit ergo primo, quod palam erit ex sequentibus quod principia et causae generationis et corruptionis aliquorum sunt generabilia et corruptibilia, idest contingit generari et corrumpi sine generatione et corruptione, idest sine hoc quod sequatur generatio et corruptio. Non enim oportet, quod si generatio alicuius rei vel corruptio est causa generationis aut corruptionis rei alterius, quod posita generatione vel corruptione causae, de necessitate sequatur generatio vel corruptio effectus: quia quaedam causae sunt agentes ut in pluribus: unde eis positis, adhuc potest impediri effectus per accidens, sicut propter indispositionem materiae, vel propter occursum contrarii agentis, vel propter aliquid huiusmodi.	1191. Having drawn his conclusions concerning accidental being, the Philosopher now rejects an opinion that would completely abolish this kind of being. For some men held that whatever comes to pass in the world has some proper cause, and again that given any cause its effect necessarily follows. Hence, as a result of the connection between causes it would follow that everything in the world happens of necessity and nothing by chance. Therefore the Philosopher’s aim is to destroy this position; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he destroys this position. Second (1201), he draws a conclusion from his discussion (“It is evident”). Third (1202), he poses a question that arises out of this discussion (“But to what kind of principle”). He says, first, that it will be evident from the following remarks that the principles and causes of the generation and corruption of some things “are generable and corruptible,” i.e., they are capable of being generated and corrupted, “without generation and corruption, i.e., generation and corruption taking place. For if the generation or corruption of one thing is the cause of the generation or corruption of another, it is not necessary that the generation or corruption of the effect necessarily follows when the generation or corruption of the cause takes place, because some causes are active only for the most part. Therefore, granted that these causes exist, their effect can be hindered accidentally, either because the matter is not disposed, or because an opposing agent interferes, or because of some such reason.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 2 Sciendum tamen, quod Avicenna probat in sua metaphysica, quod nullus effectus sit possibilis in comparatione ad suam causam, sed solum necessarius. Si enim posita causa, possibile est effectum non poni, et poni, id autem quod est in potentia inquantum huiusmodi reducitur in actum per aliquod ens actu, oportebit ergo quod aliquid aliud a causa faciat ibi sequi effectum in actu. Causa igitur illa non erat sufficiens. Et hoc videtur contra id, quod philosophus hic dicit.	1192. Yet it must be noted that Avicenna proves in his Metaphysics that no effect is possible in relation to its own cause but only necessary. For if when the cause is posited it is possible for its effect not to follow, and it does follow (and the potential as such is made actual by some actual being), then something else besides this cause will have to cause the actual effect to follow. Therefore this cause was not sufficient. This appears to be contrary to what the Philosopher says here.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 3 Sed sciendum, quod dictum Avicennae intelligi debet, supposito quod nullum impedimentum causae adveniat. Necesse est enim causa posita sequi effectum, nisi sit impedimentum, quod quandoque contingit esse per accidens. Et ideo philosophus dicit, quod non est necessarium generationem sequi vel corruptionem, positis causis generationis vel corruptionis.	1193. But it must be noted that Avicenna’s statement should be understood to apply only if we assume that no obstacle interferes with the cause. For given the cause its effect must follow unless there is some obstacle, and sometimes this occurs accidentally. Hence the Philosopher says that generation and corruption need not follow when the causes of generation and corruption are posited.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 4 Si enim non est verum hoc quod dictum est, sequetur, quod omnia erunt ex necessitate, si tamen cum hoc quod dictum est, quod posita causa necesse est sequi effectum, ponatur etiam alia positio, scilicet quod cuiuslibet quod fit et corrumpitur, necesse sit esse aliquam causam per se et non per accidens. Ex his enim duabus propositionibus, sequitur omnia esse de necessitate. Quod sic probat.	1194. For if this statement were not true, it would follow that all things would be of necessity, granted that along with this statement: given the cause the effect must follow, another position is also maintained, namely, that there must be some proper cause, and not merely an accidental one, of each thing which is generated and corrupted. For from these two propositions it follows that all things are of necessity. He proves this as follows.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 5 Si enim quaeratur de aliquo, utrum sit futurum vel non, sequitur ex praedictis, quod alterum sit de necessitate verum: quia si omne quod fit habet causam per se suae factionis, qua posita necesse est ipsum fieri, sequetur quod res illa, de qua quaeritur utrum sit futura, fiat, si sit hoc quod ponitur causa eius; et si illud non fuerit, quod non fiat. Et similiter oportet dicere, quod ista causa erit futura, si aliquod aliud quod est causa eius, erit futurum.	1195. If it is asked whether a thing will be or not, it follows from the above remarks that one or the other is true of necessity; because if everything that is generated has a proper cause which produces it, and if given the cause its effect must ensue, then it follows that that thing about which it was asked whether it will exist or not, will come to be if its cause is held to exist; and if that cause will not exist, neither will its effect. And similarly it will be necessary to say that this cause will exist if some other thing which is its cause will exist.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 6 Constat autem, quod tempus quantumcumque futurum accipiatur, sive post centum annos, sive post mille, est finitum, incipiendo a praesenti nunc usque ad illum terminum. Cum autem generatio causae praecedat tempore generationem effectus, oportet quod procedendo ab effectu ad causam auferamus aliquid de tempore futuro, et appropinquemus magis ad praesens. Omne autem finitum consumitur aliquoties ablato quodam ab ipso. Et ita sequitur quod procedendo ab effectu ad causam, et iterum ab illa causa ad eius causam, et sic deinceps, auferatur totum tempus futurum cum sit finitum, et ita perveniatur ad ipsum nunc.	1196. Further, it is evident that regardless of the amount of future time that may be taken, whether after a hundred or a thousand years, the amount of time beginning from the present moment up to that point is limited. However, since the generation of a cause is prior in time to the generation of its effect, then by proceeding from effect to cause we must subtract some part of future time and come closer to the present. But every limited thing is used up by having some part of it constantly taken away. Thus by proceeding from an effect to its cause and again from that cause to its cause and so on in this way, it follows that the whole period of future time is used up, since it is limited, and in this way the present moment is reached.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 7 Quod quidem patet in hoc exemplo. Si enim omnis effectus habet aliquam causam per se, ad quam de necessitate sequitur, oportet quod iste de necessitate moriatur, vel per infirmitatem, vel per violentiam, si exit domum suam. Exitus enim a domo eius invenitur causa esse mortis eius, vel violentiae; puta si exiens domum invenitur a latronibus et occiditur; vel per infirmitatem; puta si exiens de domo ex aestu incurrit febrem et moritur. Et eodem modo hoc erit ex necessitate, scilicet quod exeat domum ad hauriendum aquam si sitit. Nam sitis invenitur esse causa ut exeat domum ad hauriendum aquam. Similiter per eamdem rationem hoc erit de necessitate, scilicet quod sitiat, si aliquid aliud erit quod est causa sitis: et ita sic procedens de effectu ad causam perveniet ad aliquod quod nunc est, idest in aliquod praesens, vel in aliquod factorum, idest in aliquod praeteritorum. Sicut si dicamus quod sitis erit si comedit mordicantia vel salsa, quae faciunt sitim: hoc autem, scilicet quod comedat salsa vel non comedat, est in praesenti. Et ita sequitur quod praedictum futurum, scilicet quod iste moriatur vel non moriatur, ex necessitate erit.	1197. This is clear in the following example. If every effect has some proper cause from which it follows of necessity, then this man must die of necessity, either from illness or violence, if he leaves the house. For his leaving the house is found to be the cause of his death by either violence (for example, if on leaving the house he is discovered by robbers and is killed), or illness (for example, if on leaving the house because he is hot he contracts a fever and dies). And in the same way it will also happen of necessity that he leaves the house in order to draw water from a well if he is thirsty; for thirst is the cause of his leaving the house in order to draw water. And similarly by the same argument it will also happen of necessity that he is thirsty if there is something else which causes his thirst; and thus by proceeding from effect to cause in this way one comes to “something which exists now,” i.e., to some present thing or to “something that has already happened,” i.e., to some past event. For example, if we were to say that a man will be thirsty if he eats highly seasoned or salty food which makes him thirsty, his eating or not eating salty food is in the present. Thus it follows that “the aforesaid future event,” namely, that this man will die or not die, will happen of necessity.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 8 Cum enim quaelibet conditionalis vera sit necessaria, oportet quod ex quo antecedens est positum, quod consequens ex necessitate ponatur. Sicut haec est vera, si Socrates currit, movetur. Posito ergo quod currat, necesse erit ipsum moveri, dum currit. Si autem quilibet effectus habet causam per se, ex qua de necessitate sequitur, oportet quod sit illa conditionalis vera, cuius antecedens est causa et consequens effectus. Et licet inter causam, quae nunc est praesens, et effectum qui erit futurus, quandoque sint plurima media, quorum unumquodque est effectus respectu praecedentium, et causa respectu sequentium; tamen sequitur de primo ad ultimum, quod conditionalis sit vera cuius antecedens est praesens et eius consequens quandoque futurum. Sicut hic, si comedit salsa, occidetur. Antecedens autem ponitur, ex quo praesens est; ergo de necessitate erit quod occidatur. Et ita omnia alia futura erunt necessaria, quorum causae proximae vel remotae, sunt praesentes.	1198. For since every conditional proposition is a necessary one, then granted the antecedent the consequent must follow; for eaxmple, this conditional proposition is true: “If Socrates runs, he moves.” Therefore, granted that he runs, he must be moving so long as he runs. But if any effect has a proper cause from which it follows of necessity, then that conditional proposition must be true of which the antecedent is the cause and the consequent is the effect. And although there are sometimes several intermediates between a cause which exists at the present moment and an effect which will exist in the future (each of which is an effect in relation to those preceding it and a cause in relation to those following it), nevertheless it follows from first to last that any conditional proposition is true whose antecedent is present and whose consequent exists at some future time, for example, the proposition: “If a man eats salty food, he will be killed.” Now the antecedent refers to what is present, and therefore it will be by necessity that he is killed. And in this way all other future events whose proximate or remote causes exist in the present will be necessary.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 9 Et similis ratio est si aliquis procedens ab effectibus ad causas, supersiliat ad facta, idest ad praeterita, hoc est dicere si reducat effectus futuros in aliquam causam praeteritam non praesentem; quia hoc quod praeteritum est iam est secundum aliquem modum. Hoc autem dico inquantum est factum vel praeteritum. Licet enim vita Caesaris non sit nunc ut in praesenti, est tamen in praeterito. Verum enim est Caesarem vixisse. Et ita nunc est ponere verum esse antecedens conditionalis, in cuius antecedente est causa praeterita, et in consequente est causa futura. Et sic sequetur, cum omnes effectus futuros oporteat redigere in tales causas praesentes vel praeteritas, quod omnia futura ex necessitate eveniant. Sicut nos dicimus quod viventem fore moriturum est necessarium absolute, quia sequitur de necessitate ad aliquid quod iam factum est, scilicet duo contraria esse in eodem corpore per commixtionem. Haec enim conditionalis est vera: si aliquod corpus est compositum ex contrariis, corrumpetur.	1199. The same argument applies if one in proceeding from effects to causes “jumps back to something that has already happened,” or to past events, that is to say, if one traces future effects back to some past cause that is not present; for that which is past nevertheless still is in some sense. I say this insofar as it has occurred, or is past. For even though Caesar’s life is not now, in the present, nevertheless it is in the past, because it is true that Caesar has lived. Thus it is possible to hold as true now the antecedent of a conditional proposition in whose antecedent clause there is a past cause and in whose consequent clause there is a future effect. And thus since all future effects must be traced back to such present or past causes, it follows that all future events happen of necessity. For example, we say that it is absolutely necessary that one now living is going to die, because this follows of necessity in reference to something that has already come to pass, namely, that there are two contraries in the same body by reason of its composition; for this conditional proposition is true, “If a body is composed of contraries, it will be corrupted.”
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 10 Hoc autem est impossibile, quod omnia futura ex necessitate eveniant. Ergo illa duo sunt impossibilia, ex quibus hoc sequebatur; scilicet quod quilibet effectus habeat causam per se, et quod causa posita necesse sit effectum poni. Quia ex hoc ipso sequeretur quod iam dictum est, quod quorumlibet effectuum futurorum essent aliquae causae iam positae. Sicut corruptionis animalis, iam sunt aliquae causae positae. Sed quod iste homo moriatur per infirmitatem vel violentiam, nondum habet aliquam causam positam ex qua de necessitate sequatur.	1200. But it is impossible that all future events should happen of necessity. Therefore the two premises from which this conclusion would follow are impossible, namely, that any effect has a proper cause, and that given the cause its effect must follow. For from this would follow the position already mentioned, namely, that there are some causes already posited for any future effect; for example, some causes have already been posited for the corruption of an animal. But no cause has yet been posited from which it will follow of necessity that this man will die either from illness or violence.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit palam ergo infert quamdam conclusionem ex praedictis; dicens: ergo ex quo non quodlibet, quod fit, habet causam per se, palam, quod in futuris contingentibus, effectus futuri reductio ad causam per se, vadit usque ad aliquod principium; quod quidem principium non reducitur in aliquod principium adhuc per se, sed ipsum erit cuius causa erit quodcumque evenit, idest causa casualis, et illius causae casualis non erit aliqua alia causa; sicut iam praedictum est, quod ens per accidens non habet causam neque generationem. Verbi gratia, quod iste occidatur a latronibus habet causam per se quia vulneratur; et hoc etiam habet causam per se, quia a latronibus invenitur; sed hoc non habet nisi causam per accidens. Hoc enim quod iste qui negotiatur, ad negotium vadens, inter latrones incidat, est per accidens, ut ex praedictis patet. Unde eius non oportet ponere aliquam causam. Ens enim per accidens, ut supra dictum est, non habet generationem, et ita eius generationis causam per se quaerere non oportet.	1201. It is evident (554). He draws a conclusion from the foregoing discussion. He says that, since not everything which comes to be has a proper cause, it is therefore evident that in the case of future contingent events the reduction of a future effect to some proper cause goes back to some principle, and that this principle is not reduced to some other proper principle but will be the cause of “everything that happens by chance,” i.e., an accidental cause, and that there will be no other cause of that accidental cause; just as we have already said (1184) that accidental being has no cause and is not generated. For example, the cause of this man being killed by robbers is a proper cause, because he is wounded by robbers; and this also has a proper cause, because he is found by the robbers; but this has only an accidental cause. For if on his way to work this man is wounded by robbers, this is accidental, as is evident from the foregoing; and therefore it is not necessary to posit a cause for this. For that which is accidental is not generated, and thus it is not necessary to look for some proper cause which produces it, as was said above.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit sed ad principium movet quamdam quaestionem occasionatam ex dictis. Dixit enim supra immediate, quod causae entium per accidens reducuntur usque ad aliquod principium, cuius non est ponere aliam causam. Et ideo hic inquirit de hac reductione, vel anagoge, quod idem est, ad quale principium et ad qualem causam debeat fieri, idest ad quod genus causae vel principii: scilicet utrum ad aliquam causam primam, quae sit causa sicut materia; aut ad aliquam, quae sit causa sicut finis, cuius gratia aliquid fit; aut ad aliquam, quae sit causa sicut movens. Praetermittit autem de causa formali, quia quaestio hic habetur de causa generationis rerum, quae fiunt per accidens. In generatione autem, forma non habet causalitatem, nisi per modum finis. Finis enim et forma in generatione incidunt in idem numero. Hanc autem quaestionem hic motam non solvit: sed supponit eius solutionem ab eo quod est determinatum in secundo physicorum. Ibi enim ostensum est quod fortuna et casus, quae sunt causae eorum quae fiunt per accidens, reducuntur ad genus causae efficientis. Ergo concludit ex praemissis, quod praetermittendum est loqui de ente per accidens, ex quo determinatum est sufficienter secundum id quod de eo determinari potest.	1202. But to what kind of principle (555). Here he poses a question arising out of the foregoing discussion; for he has just said above that the causes of those beings which are accidental are ultimately reduced to some principle for which it is impossible to give another cause. Hence he inquires here about this process of reduction or avnagwgh,, which means the same as “to what kind of principle and what kind of cause it should be reduced,”, i.e., to what class of cause or principle, whether to some first cause which is a material cause, or to one which is a final cause (or that for the sake of which a thing comes to be), or to one which is a mover. He omits the formal cause because the question here involves the cause responsible for the generation of things that come to be by accident. But in the process of generation a form has no causal role except that of an end, because in the process of generation the end and the form are identical. Now he does not answer the question which is raised here, but assumes its solution from what has been established in Book II of the Physics; for it was shown there that fortune and chance, which are the causes of things that come to be by accident, are reduced to the class of efficient cause. Hence he concludes from the above that we must omit any discussion of accidental being, because the truth concerning it has been established as completely as it is possible to do so.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 13 Attendendum est autem quod ea quae philosophus hic tradit, videntur removere quaedam, quae secundum philosophiam ab aliquibus ponuntur, scilicet fatum et providentiam. Vult enim hic philosophus, quod non omnia quae fiunt, reducantur in aliquam causam per se, ex qua de necessitate sequantur: alias sequeretur, quod omnia essent ex necessitate, et nihil per accidens esset in rebus. Illi autem, qui ponunt fatum, dicunt, contingentia, quae hic fiunt, quae videntur per accidens, esse reducibilia in aliquam virtutem corporis caelestis, per cuius actionem ea quae secundum se considerata per accidens fieri videntur, cum quodam ordine producantur. Et similiter illi, qui ponunt providentiam, ea quae aguntur hic, dicunt esse ordinata secundum ordinem providentiae.	1203. It must be noted, however, that the doctrine of the Philosopher set forth here seems to do away with certain things which some thinkers hold in philosophy, namely, fate and providence. For here the force of the Philosopher’s argument is that not all that occurs may be traced back to some proper cause from which it follows of necessity, otherwise it would follow that everything in the world would be of necessity and nothing by accident. But those who posit fate say that the contingent events occurring here, which appear to be accidental, can be traced back to some power of a celestial body, whose activity produces in a certain order those things which, viewed in themselves, seem accidental. And similarly those who posit providence say that whatever occurs here is ordained by the order of providence.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 14 Ex utraque igitur positione duo videntur sequi, quae sunt contraria his, quae hic philosophus determinat: quorum primum est: in rebus nihil fit per accidens neque a fortuna neque a casu. Quae enim secundum aliquem ordinem procedunt, non sunt per accidens. Sunt enim vel semper vel in maiori parte. Secundum autem est, quod omnia ex necessitate eveniant. Si enim omnia ex necessitate eveniunt quorum causa vel ponitur in praesenti, vel iam est posita in praeterito, ut ratio philosophi procedit, eorum autem quae sunt sub providentia vel fato causa ponitur in praesenti, et iam posita est in praeterito, eo quod providentia est immutabilis et aeterna, motus etiam caeli est invariabilis: videtur sequi quod ea quae sunt sub providentia vel fato, ex necessitate contingant. Et ita, si omnia quae hic aguntur, fato et providentia subduntur, sequitur quod omnia ex necessitate proveniant. Videtur ergo quod secundum intentionem philosophi non sit ponere neque providentiam neque fatum.	1204. From both of these positions, then, there seem to follow two conclusions which are opposed to what the philosopher establishes here. (1) The first is that nothing in the world happens accidentally either by fortune or by chance; for those things which occur in a certain order are not accidental, since they occur either always or for the most part. (2) The second is that all things happen of necessity. For if all those things whose cause is placed in the present or has been placed in the past occur of necessity, as the Philosopher’s argument maintains, and if the cause of those things which come under providence or fate is placed in the present or has already been placed in the past (because providence is unchangeable and eternal, and the motion of the heavens is also invariable), it seems to follow that those things which come under providence or fate happen of necessity. Thus if everything that occurs here is subject to fate and providence, it follows that everything happens of necessity. Therefore according to the mind of the Philosopher it seems impossible to posit either fate or providence.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 15 Ad horum autem evidentiam considerandum est, quod quanto aliqua causa est altior, tanto eius causalitas ad plura se extendit. Habet enim causa altior proprium causatum altius quod est communius et in pluribus inventum. Sicut in artificialibus patet quod ars politica, quae est supra militarem, ad totum statum communitatis se extendit. Militaris autem solum ad eos, qui in ordine militari continentur. Ordinatio, autem quae est in effectibus ex aliqua causa tantum se extendit quantum extendit se illius causae causalitas. Omnis enim causa per se habet determinatos effectus, quos secundum aliquem ordinem producit. Manifestum igitur est, quod effectus relati ad aliquam inferiorem causam nullum ordinem habere videntur, sed per accidens sibiipsis coincidunt; qui si referantur ad superiorem causam communem, ordinati inveniuntur, et non per accidens coniuncti, sed ab una per se causa simul producti sunt.	1205. In clearing up this difficulty it must be noted that the higher a cause the more extensive is its causality, for a higher cause produces its own proper higher effect, which is more general and extends to many things. For example, in the case of the arts it is evident that the political art, which is higher than the military art, has jurisdiction over the entire political community, whereas the military art has jurisdiction only over those things which fall within the military sphere. But the order found in the effects of a cause extends only so far as the causality of that cause extends, for every cause in the proper sense has definite effects which it produces in a certain order. It is evident, then, that (a) when effects are referred to lower causes they seem to be unrelated and to coincide with each other accidentally, but (b) that when they are referred to some higher common cause they are found to be related and not accidentally connected but to be produced simultaneously by one proper cause.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 16 Sicut floritio huius herbae vel illius, si referatur ad particularem virtutem, quae est in hac planta vel in illa, nullum ordinem habere videtur,- immo videtur esse accidens -, quod hac herba florente illa floreat. Et hoc ideo, quia causa virtutis huius plantae extendit se ad floritionem huius, et non ad floritionem alterius: unde est quidem causa, quod haec planta floreat, non autem quod simul cum altera. Si autem ad virtutem corporis caelestis, quae est causa communis, referatur, invenitur hoc non esse per accidens, quod hac herba florente illa floreat, sed esse ordinatum ab aliqua prima causa hoc ordinante, quae simul movet utramque herbam ad floritionem.	1206. For example, if the blossoming of one plant is referred to a particular power in this plant and the blossoming of a second plant is referred to a particular power in that plant, there seems to be no reason (indeed it seems to be accidental) why the first plant should blossom when the second does. And this is true, because the cause of the power of the first plant extends to the blossoming of this plant and not to that of the second, so that while it causes the first plant to blossom, it does not cause it to blossom at the same time as the second. But if this is attributed to the power of a celestial body, which is a universal cause, then we find that the first plant blossoms when the second does, not by accident, but by the direction of some first cause, which ordains this and moves each plant to blossom at the same time.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 17 Invenitur autem in rebus triplex causarum gradus. Est enim primo causa incorruptibilis et immutabilis, scilicet divina; sub hac secundo est causa incorruptibilis, sed mutabilis; scilicet corpus caeleste; sub hac tertio sunt causae corruptibiles et mutabiles. Hae igitur causae in tertio gradu existentes sunt particulares, et ad proprios effectus secundum singulas species determinatae: ignis enim generat ignem, et homo generat hominem, et planta plantam.	1207. Now we find three grades of causes in the world. (1) First, there is a cause which is incorruptible and immutable, namely, the divine cause; (2) second, beneath this there are causes which are incorruptible but mutable, namely, the celestial bodies; and (3) third, beneath this there are those causes which are corruptible and mutable. Therefore causes in this (3) third grade are particular causes and are determined to proper effects of the same kind; for example, fire generates fire, man generates man, and plants generate plants.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 18 Causa autem secundi gradus est quodammodo universalis, et quodammodo particularis. Particularis quidem, quia se extendit ad aliquod genus entium determinatum, scilicet ad ea quae per motum in esse producuntur; est enim causa movens et mota. Universalis autem, quia non ad unam tantum speciem mobilium se extendit causalitas eius, sed ad omnia, quae alterantur et generantur et corrumpuntur: illud enim quod est primo motum, oportet esse causam omnium consequenter mobilium.	1208. Now a cause belonging to the (2) second grade is in one sense universal and in another particular. It is particular because it extends to some special class of beings, namely, to those which are generated by motion; for it is both a cause of motion and something that is moved. And it is universal because its causality extends not only to one class of changeable things but to everything that is altered, generated and corrupted; for that which is first moved must be the cause of everything that is subsequently moved.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 19 Sed causa primi gradus est simpliciter universalis: eius enim effectus proprius est esse: unde quicquid est, et quocumque modo est, sub causalitate et ordinatione illius causae proprie continetur.	1209. But the cause belonging to the (1) first grade is universal without qualification, because its proper effect is existence. Hence whatever exists, and in whatever way it exists, comes properly under the causality and direction of that cause.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 20 Si igitur ea quae hic sunt contingentia, reducamus in causas proximas particulares tantum, inveniuntur multa fieri per accidens, tum propter concursum duarum causarum, quarum una sub altera non continetur, sicut cum praeter intentionem occurrunt mihi latrones. (Hic enim concursus causatur ex duplici virtute motiva, scilicet mea et latronum). Tum etiam propter defectum agentis, cui accidit debilitas, ut non possit pervenire ad finem intentum; sicut cum aliquis cadit in via propter lassitudinem. Tum etiam propter indispositionem materiae, quae non recipit formam intentam ab agente, sed alterius modi sicut accidit in monstruosis partibus animalium.	1210. If, then, we attribute all contingent events here to particular causes only, many things will be found to occur accidentally. This will be so for a number of reasons. (1) First, because of the conjunction of two causes one of which does not come under the causality of the other, as when robbers attack me without my intending this; for this meeting is caused by a twofold motive power, namely, mine and that of the robbers. (2) Second, because of some defect in the agent, who is so weak that he cannot attain the goal at which he aims, for example, when someone falls on the road because of fatigue. (3) Third, because of the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the form intended by the agent but another kind of form. This is what occurs, for example, in the case of the deformed parts of animals.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 21 Haec autem contingentia, si ulterius in causam caelestem reducantur, multa horum invenientur non esse per accidens; quia causae particulares etsi non continentur sub se invicem, continentur tamen sub una causa communi caelesti; unde concursus earum potest habere aliquam unam causam caelestem determinatam. Quia etiam virtus corporis caelestis et incorruptibilis est et impassibilis, non potest exire aliquis effectus ordinem causalitatis eius propter defectum vel debilitatem ipsius virtutis. Sed quia agit movendo, et omne tale agens requirit materiam determinatam et dispositam, potest contingere quod in rebus naturalibus virtus caelestis non consequatur suum effectum propter materiae indispositionem; et hoc erit per accidens.	1211. But if these contingent events are traced back further to a celestial body, we find that many of them are not accidental; because even though particular causes are not contained under each other, they are nevertheless contained under one common celestial cause. Hence their concurrence can be attributed to one definite celestial cause. Again, since the power of a celestial body is incorruptible and impassible, no effect can escape from the sphere of its causality because of any defect or weakness of its power. But since it acts by moving, and since every agent of this kind requires a matter which is properly determined or disposed, then in the case of natural beings it can happen that the power of a celestial body fails to produce its effect because the matter is not disposed; and this will be accidental.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 22 Quamvis igitur multa, quae videntur esse per accidens reducendo ipsa ad causas particulares, inveniantur non esse per accidens reducendo ipsa ad causam communem universalem, scilicet virtutem caelestem, tamen etiam hac reductione facta, inveniuntur esse aliqua per accidens, sicut superius est habitum a philosopho. Quando enim agens aliquod inducit effectum suum ut in pluribus, et non semper, sequetur, quod deficiat in paucioribus, et hoc per accidens est. Si igitur corpora caelestia effectos suos inducunt in inferiora corpora, ut in pluribus, et non semper, propter materiae indispositionem, sequetur, quod ipsum sit per accidens, quod virtus caelestis effectum suum non consequatur.	1212. Therefore, even though many things which seem to be accidental when traced back to these particular causes are found not to be accidental when traced back to a common universal cause, namely, to a celestial body, yet even when this reduction has been made some things are found to be accidental, as the Philosopher stated above (1201). For when an agent produces its effect for the most part but not always, it follows that it fails in a few instances; and this is accidental. If, then, the celestial bodies cause their effects in these lower bodies for the most part but not always, because the matter is not properly disposed, then it follows that, when the power of a celestial body fails to produce its effect, this happens accidentally.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 23 Licet etiam ex hoc inveniantur aliqua per accidens, facta reductione ad corpus caeleste: quia in istis inferioribus sunt aliquae causae agentes, quae possunt per se agere absque impressione corporis caelestis, scilicet animae rationales, ad quas non pertingit virtus corporis caelestis (cum sint formae corporibus non subiectae), nisi forte per accidens, inquantum scilicet ex impressione corporis caelestis fit aliqua immutatio in corpore, et per accidens in viribus animae, quae sunt actus quarumdam partium corporis, ex quibus anima rationalis inclinatur ad agendum, licet nulla necessitas inducatur, cum habeat liberum dominium super passiones, ut eis dissentiat. Illa igitur, quae in his inferioribus inveniuntur per accidens fieri reducendo ad has causas, scilicet animas rationales, prout non sequuntur inclinationem, quae est ex impressione caelesti, non invenientur per se fieri per reductionem ad virtutem corporis caelestis.	1213. There is also another reason why things happen accidentally even if causality is traced back to a celestial body. It is that in the sphere of lower bodies there are some efficient causes which can act of themselves without the influence of a celestial body. These causes are rational souls, to which the power of a celestial body does not extend (since they are not forms subjected to bodies), except in an accidental way, i.e., inasmuch as the influence of a celestial body produces some change in the [human] body, and accidentally in the powers of the soul which are actualities of certain parts of the body, by which the rational soul is disposed to act. However, no necessity is involved, since the soul’s dominion over the passions is free inasmuch as it may not assent to them. Therefore in the sphere of lower bodies whatever things are found to happen accidentally when reduced to these causes, i.e., rational souls, insofar as they do not follow the inclination produced by the influence of a celestial body, will not be found to be generated in any essential way by being traced back to the power of a celestial body.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 24 Et sic patet, quod positio fati, quae est quaedam dispositio inhaerens rebus inferioribus ex actione corporis caelestis, non removet omnia ea quae sunt per accidens.	1214. Thus it is evident that to posit fate, which is a certain disposition present in lower bodies as a result of the activity of a celestial body, is not to do away with everything that happens by chance.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 25 Sed si ulterius ista contingentia reducantur in causam altissimam divinam, nihil inveniri poterit, quod ab ordine eius exeat, cum eius causalitas extendat se ad omnia inquantum sunt entia. Non potest igitur sua causalitas impediri per indispositionem materiae; quia et ipsa materia, et eius dispositiones non exeunt ab ordine illius agentis, quod est agens per modum dantis esse, et non solum per modum moventis et alterantis. Non enim potest dici, quod materia praesupponatur ad esse, sicut praesupponitur ad moveri, ut eius subiectum; quinimo est pars essentiae rei. Sicut igitur virtus alterantis et moventis non impeditur ex essentia motus, aut ex termino eius, sed ex subiecto, quod praesupponitur; ita virtus dantis esse non impeditur a materia, vel a quocumque, quod adveniat qualitercumque ad esse rei. Ex quo etiam patet, quod nulla causa agens potest esse in istis inferioribus, quae eius ordini non subdatur.	1215. But if these contingent events are traced back further to the highest, divine cause, it will be impossible to find anything that lies outside its sphere of influence, since its causality extends to all things insofar as they are beings. Hence its causal activity cannot be thwarted as a result of the matter being indisposed, because matter itself and its dispositions do not lie outside the domain of this agent, since He is the agent who gives things their being and not merely moves and changes them. For it cannot be said that matter is presupposed as the subject of being as it is presupposed as the subject of motion; it is rather part of the essence of a thing. Therefore, just as the power of changing and moving is not hindered by the essence of motion or its terminus but by the subject which is presupposed, in a similar fashion the power of the one giving being is not hindered by matter or anything which accrues in any way to the being of a thing. From this it is also evident that in the sphere of lower bodies no efficient cause can be found which is not subject to the control of this first cause.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 26 Relinquitur igitur quod omnia, quae hic fiunt, prout ad primam causam divinam referuntur, inveniuntur ordinata et non per accidens existere; licet per comparationem ad alias causas per accidens esse inveniantur. Et propter hoc secundum fidem Catholicam dicitur, quod nihil fit temere sive fortuito in mundo, et quod omnia subduntur divinae providentiae. Aristoteles autem hic loquitur de contingentibus quae hic fiunt, in ordine ad causas particulares, sicut per eius exemplum apparet.	1216. It follows, then, that everything which occurs here insofar as it is related to the first divine cause, is found to be ordained by it and not to be accidental, although it may be found to be accidental in relation to other causes. This is why the Catholic faith says that nothing in the world happens by chance or fortuitously, and that everything is subject to divine providence. But in this place Aristotle is speaking of those contingent events which occur here as a result of particular causes, as is evident from his example.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 27 Nunc autem restat videre quomodo positio fati et providentiae non tollit a rebus contingentiam, quasi omnia ex necessitate eveniant. Et de fato quidem manifestum est per ea quae dicta sunt. Iam enim est ostensum, quod licet corpora caelestia et eorum motus et actiones quantum in ipsis est necessitatem habeant, tamen effectus eorum in istis inferioribus potest deficere, vel propter indispositionem materiae, vel propter animam rationalem quae habet liberam electionem sequendi inclinationes, quae sunt ex impressione caelesti, vel non sequendi: et ita relinquitur, quod huiusmodi effectus non ex necessitate, sed contingenter proveniant. Non enim positio causae caelestis est positio causae talis, ad quam de necessitate sequatur effectus, sicut ad compositionem ex contrariis sequitur mors animalis, ut in litera tangitur.	1217. It now remains to see how the affirming of fate and providence does not eliminate contingency from the world, as though all things were to happen of necessity. From the things that have been said above it is evident that fate does not do away with contingency. For it has been shown already that, even though the celestial bodies and their motions and activities are necessary, nevertheless their effects in these lower bodies can fail either because the matter is not disposed or because the rational soul may freely choose to follow or not follow the inclinations produced in it by the influence of a celestial body. Thus it follows that effects of this sort do not happen of necessity but contingently; for to posit a celestial cause is not to posit a cause of such a kind that its effect follows of necessity, as the death of an animal is a result of its being composed of contraries, as he mentions in the text.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 28 Sed de providentia maiorem habet difficultatem. Providentia enim divina falli non potest. Haec enim duo sunt incompossibilia, quod aliquid sit provisum a Deo, et non fiat: et ita videtur, quod ex quo providentia iam ponitur, quod eius effectum necesse sit sequi.	1218. But there is greater difficulty with regard to providence, because divine providence cannot fail; for these two statements are incompatible, namely, that something is foreknown by God, and that it does not come to pass. Hence it seems that, once providence is posited, its effect follows of necessity.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 29 Sed sciendum est, quod ex eadem causa dependet effectus, et omnia quae sunt per se accidentia illius effectus. Sicut enim homo est a natura, ita et omnia eius per se accidentia, ut risibile, et mentis disciplinae susceptibile. Si autem aliqua causa non faciat hominem simpliciter sed hominem talem, eius non erit constituere ea quae sunt per se accidentia hominis, sed solum uti eis. Politicus enim facit hominem civilem; non tamen facit eum mentis disciplinae susceptibilem, sed hac eius proprietate utitur ad hoc quod homo fiat civilis.	1219. But it must be noted that an effect and all of its proper accidents depend on one and the same cause; for just as a man is from nature, so also are his proper accidents, such as risibility and susceptibility to mental instruction. However, if some cause does not produce man in an absolute sense but such and such a man, it will not be within the power of this cause to produce the proper attributes of man but only to make use of them. For while the statesman makes man a citizen, he does not make him susceptible to mental instruction. Rather he makes use of this property in order to make a citizen of him.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 30 Sicut autem dictum est, ens inquantum ens est, habet causam ipsum Deum: unde sicut divinae providentiae subditur ipsum ens, ita etiam omnia accidentia entis inquantum est ens, inter quae sunt necessarium et contingens. Ad divinam igitur providentiam pertinet non solum quod faciat hoc ens, sed quod det ei contingentiam vel necessitatem. Secundum enim quod unicuique dare voluit contingentiam vel necessitatem, praeparavit ei causas medias, ex quibus de necessitate sequatur, vel contingenter. Invenitur igitur uniuscuiusque effectus secundum quod est sub ordine divinae providentiae necessitatem habere. Ex quo contingit quod haec conditionalis est vera, si aliquid est a Deo provisum, hoc erit.	1220. Now, as has been pointed out (1215), being as being has God himself as its cause. Hence just as being itself is subject to divine providence, so also are all the accidents of being as being, among which are found necessity and contingency. Therefore it belongs to divine providence not only to produce a particular being but also to give it contingency or necessity; for insofar as God wills to give contingency or necessity to anything, He has prepared for it certain intermediate causes from which it follows either of necessity or contingently. Hence the effect of every cause is found to be necessary insofar as it comes under the control of providence. And from this it follows that this conditional proposition is true: “If anything is foreknown by God, it will be.”
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 31 Secundum autem quod effectus aliquis consideratur sub ordine causae proximae, sic non omnis effectus est necessarius; sed quidam necessarius et quidam contingens secundum analogiam suae causae. Effectus enim in suis naturis similantur causis proximis, non autem remotis, ad quarum conditionem pertingere non possunt.	1221. However, insofar as any effect is considered to come under its proximate cause, not every effect is necessary; but some are necessary and some contingent in proportion to their cause. For effects are likened in their nature to their proximate causes, but not to their remote causes, whose state they cannot attain.
lib. 6 l. 3 n. 32 Sic ergo patet, quod cum de divina providentia loquimur, non est dicendum solum, hoc est provisum a Deo ut sit, sed hoc est provisum a Deo, ut contingenter sit, vel ut necessario sit. Unde non sequitur secundum rationem Aristotelis hic inductam, quod ex quo divina providentia est posita, quod omnes effectus sint necessarii; sed necessarium est effectus esse contingenter, vel de necessitate. Quod quidem est singulare in hac causa, scilicet in divina providentia. Reliquae enim causae non constituunt legem necessitatis vel contingentiae, sed constituta a superiori causa utuntur. Unde causalitati cuiuslibet alterius causae subditur solum quod eius effectus sit. Quod autem sit necessario vel contingenter, dependet ex causa altiori, quae est causa entis inquantum est ens; a qua ordo necessitatis et contingentiae in rebus provenit.	1222. It is evident, then, that when we speak of divine providence we must say that this thing is foreseen by God not only insofar as it is but also insofar as it is either contingent or necessary. Therefore, just because divine providence is held to exist, it does not follow, according to the argument which Aristotle gives here, that every effect happens of necessity, but only that it must be either contingent or necessary. In fact this applies solely in the case of this cause, i.e., divine providence, because the remaining causes do not establish the law of necessity or contingency, but make use of this law established by a higher cause. Hence the only thing that is subject to the causality of any other cause is that its effect be. But that it be either necessary or contingent depends on a higher cause, which is the cause of being as being, and the one from which the order of necessity and of contingency originates in the world.