Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L8/lect2

Lecture 2 Arguments for the eternity of motion

Latin	English
	Lecture 2 Arguments for the eternity of motion
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 1 Postquam movit dubitationem de sempiternitate motus, hic intendit ostendere motum esse sempiternum. Et dividitur in partes duas: in prima ostendit propositum; in secunda solvit ea quae in contrarium obiici possent, ibi: contraria autem his et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit rationes ad ostendendum sempiternitatem motus; secundo ponit rationes contra opiniones philosophorum contrarium opinantium, ibi: sed non aliquando et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit quod motus semper fuit; secundo quod semper erit, ibi: eadem autem ratio est et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit propositum ratione accepta ex parte motus; secundo ratione accepta ex parte temporis, ibi: adhuc autem prius et posterius et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo praemittit quoddam quod est necessarium ad probationem sequentem; secundo inducit probationem ad propositum ostendendum, ibi: ergo et hoc necessarium est etc., tertio ostendit necessitatem rationis inductae, ibi: alia quidem movent singulariter et cetera.	971. After raising the problem of the eternity of motion, the Philosopher now intends to show that motion is eternal. His treatment is divided into two parts: In the first he explains his proposition; In the second he solves objections contrary to his proposition, (L.4). About the first he does two things: First he presents arguments to show the eternity of motion; Secondly, he answers opinions to the contrary, (L. 3). About the first he does two things: First he shows that motion always has been; Secondly, that it always will be, at 895. About the first he does two things: First he explains his proposition with an argument from motion; Secondly, with an argument from time, at 979. About the first he does three things: First he premises something needed for his proposition; Secondly, he presents a proof that manifests his proposition, at 976; Thirdly, he shows that his argument proceeds necessarily, 977,
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo, quod ad propositum ostendendum debemus incipere ab his quae primo determinata sunt in physicis, ut eis quasi principiis utamur. Per quod dat intelligere, quod praecedentes libri, in quibus de motu in communi determinavit, et propter hoc appellantur universaliter de naturalibus, habent quandam distinctionem ad hunc librum octavum, in quo iam incipit motum ad res applicare. Assumit ergo id quod dictum est in III physicorum, scilicet quod motus est actus mobilis inquantum huiusmodi. Ex quo apparet quod ad hoc quod sit motus, necesse est existere res quae possint moveri quocumque motu: quia non potest esse actus sine eo cuius est actus. Sic ergo ex definitione motus apparet quod necesse est esse subiectum mobile, ad hoc quod sit motus. Sed etiam absque definitione motus per se manifestum est hoc, ut patet ex communi sententia omnium: quilibet enim confitetur hoc esse necessarium, quod non movetur nisi quod est possibile moveri: et hoc secundum unumquemque motum; sicut quod non contingit alterari nisi quod est alterabile, neque mutari secundum locum nisi quod est secundum locum mutabile. Et quia subiectum naturaliter prius est eo quod est in subiecto, possumus concludere in singulis mutationibus, et ex parte mobilis et ex parte moventis, quod prius est ipsum subiectum combustibile quam comburatur; et combustivum, idest subiectum potens comburere, quam comburat; prius inquam, non semper tempore, sed natura.	972. He says First (753 251 a8) therefore, that in order to demonstrate the proposition we must begin with things determined at the very beginning of the Physics and use them as principles. By this he gives us to understand that the preceding books, in which he determined about motion in general and which for this reason are given the general title “About Natural Things,” are set off from this Book VIII, in which he begins to apply motion to things. He assumes, therefore, what was said in Physics III, namely, that motion is the act of a mobile precisely as such. From this it appears that in order for motion to exist there must exist things which can be moved with some sort of motion, because an act cannot exist without the thing of which it is the act. Accordingly, from the definition of motion it is evident that there must be a subject of motion, if there is to be motion at all. But even without the definition of motion that fact is per se evident from the general consent of all, for everyone admits as a necessary fact that nothing is moved except what can be moved—and this with reference to any and all motion; for example, nothing can be altered except what is alterable, or be moved with respect to place unless it be changeable with respect to place. And because the subject is by nature prior to what is in the subject, we can conclude that in individual changes—both from the viewpoint of the mobile and of the mover—the combustible subject is prior to its being set afire, and the subject capable of setting it afire is prior to its setting afire, prior, I say, not always in time but in nature.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 3 Ex hac autem Aristotelis probatione, Averroes occasionem sumpsit loquendi contra id quod secundum fidem de creatione tenemus. Si enim fieri quoddam mutari est; omnis autem mutatio requirit subiectum, ut hic Aristoteles probat; necesse est quod omne quod fit, fiat ex aliquo subiecto: non ergo possibile est quod fiat aliquid ex nihilo. Adducit etiam ad hoc secundam rationem: quia cum dicitur nigrum fieri ex albo, hoc non dicitur per se, ita quod ipsum album convertatur in nigrum; sed hoc dicitur per accidens, quia scilicet recedente albo, succedit nigrum. Omne autem quod est per accidens, reducitur ad id quod est per se: hoc autem ex quo aliquid fit per se, est subiectum, quod intrat substantiam rei factae; omne ergo quod dicitur fieri ex opposito, fit quidem ex opposito per accidens, per se autem ex subiecto. Non ergo est possibile quod ens fiat ex non ente simpliciter. Adducit autem ad hoc tertio communem opinionem omnium antiquorum physicorum, ponentium nihil ex nihilo fieri. Assignat autem duas causas, ex quibus reputat hanc positionem exortam, quod aliquid ex nihilo fiat. Quarum prima est, quod vulgus non reputat existentia, nisi ea quae sunt comprehensibilia visu: quia ergo vulgus videt aliquid factum visibile, quod prius visibile non erat, reputat possibile aliquid ex nihilo fieri. Secunda causa est, quia apud vulgus reputatur esse ex diminutione virtutis agentis, quod indigeat materia ad agendum: quod tamen non est ex impotentia agentis, sed ex ipsa ratione motus. Quia ergo primum agens non habet potentiam aliquo modo defectivam, sequitur quod agat absque subiecto.	973. From this argument of Aristotle, Averroes took occasion to speak against what is held by faith about creation. For if coming-to-be is a kind of change and every change requires a subject, as Aristotle here proves, it is necessary that whatever comes to be does so from a subject, therefore, it is not possible for something to come to be from nothing. He confirms this with another argument: When it is said that the black comes to be from the white, this is not to speak per se, in the sense that the white itself is converted into the black, but it is to speak per accidens, in the sense that upon the departure of the white, the black succeeds it. Now whatever is per accidens is reduced to what is per se. But that from which something comes to be per se, is the subject, which enters into the substance of what comes to be. Therefore, whatever is said to come to be from its opposite comes to be from it per accidens, but per se it comes to be from the subject. Accordingly, it is not possible for being to come to be from non-being absolutely. In further support of his position Averroes adduces the common opinion of the early philosophers that nothing comes to be from nothing. He also gives two reasons from which he considers that the position arose that something should come to be from nothing. The first is that ordinary people do not consider as existing anything but what is comprehensible by sight; therefore, because they see something visible come to be which previously was not visible, they think that it is possible for something to come to be from nothing. The second reason is that among the common people it could be thought to be a weakening of the virtue of the agent that it should need matter in order to act, which condition, however, does not derive from the impotency of the agent, but from the very nature of motion. Therefore, because the first agent does not have a power which is in any way deficient, it follows that it should act without a subject.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 4 Sed si quis recte consideret, ex simili causa ipse deceptus fuit, ex qua causa nos deceptos arbitratur, scilicet ex consideratione particularium entium. Manifestum est enim quod potentia activa particularis praesupponit materiam, quam agens universalius operatur; sicut artifex utitur materia quam natura facit. Ex hoc ergo quod omne particulare agens praesupponit materiam quam non agit, non oportet opinari quod primum agens universale, quod est activum totius entis, aliquid praesupponat, quasi non causatum ab ipso. Nec hoc etiam est secundum intentionem Aristotelis. Probat enim in II Metaphys., quod id quod est maxime verum et maxime ens, est causa essendi omnibus existentibus: unde hoc ipsum esse in potentia, quod habet materia prima, sequitur derivatum esse a primo essendi principio, quod est maxime ens. Non igitur necesse est praesupponi aliquid eius actioni, quod non sit ab eo productum. Et quia omnis motus indiget subiecto, ut hic Aristoteles probat et rei veritas habet, sequitur quod productio universalis entis a Deo non sit motus nec mutatio, sed sit quaedam simplex emanatio. Et sic fieri et facere aequivoce dicuntur in hac universali rerum productione, et in aliis productionibus. Sicut ergo si intelligamus rerum productionem esse a Deo ab aeterno, sicut Aristoteles posuit, et plures Platonicorum, non est necessarium, immo impossibile, quod huic productioni universali aliquod subiectum non productum praeintelligatur: ita etiam, si ponamus secundum nostrae fidei sententiam, quod non ab aeterno produxerit res, sed produxerit eas postquam non fuerant, non est necessarium quod ponatur aliquod subiectum huic universali productioni. Patet ergo quod hoc quod Aristoteles hic probat, quod omnis motus indiget subiecto mobili, non est contra sententiam nostrae fidei: quia iam dictum est quod universalis rerum productio, sive ponatur ab aeterno, sive non ab aeterno, non est motus nec mutatio. Ad hoc enim quod sit motus vel mutatio, requiritur quod aliter se habeat nunc et prius: et sic aliquid esset prius existens; et per consequens haec non esset universalis rerum productio, de qua nunc loquimur.	974. But if one considers rightly, he was deceived by a cause similar to the cause by which he claimed we are deceived, namely, by considering particular things. For it is clear that a particular active power presupposes the matter which a more universal agent produces, just as an artisan uses the matter which nature makes. From the fact therefore, that every particular agent presupposes matter which it does not produce, one should not suppose that the first universal agent—which is active with respect to all being—should presuppose something not caused by it. Nor, moreover, is this in keeping with the intention of Aristotle who in Metaphysics II proves that the supremely true and the supreme being is the cause of being for all existents. Hence the being which prime matter has—i.e., a being in potency—is derived from the first principle of being which is in a supreme way a being. Therefore, it is not necessary to presuppose for its action anything not produced by it. And because every motion needs a subject—as Aristotle proves here, and as is the truth of the matter—it follows that the universal production of being by God is neither motion nor change, but a certain simple coming forth. Consequently, “to be made” and “to make” are used in an equivocal sense when applied to this universal production of being and to other productions. Therefore, just as, if we should understand the production of things to be from God ab aeterno—as Aristotle supposed, and a number of the Platonists—it is not necessary, indeed, it is impossible, that there have been a pre-existing but unproduced subject of this universal production, so also, in accord with the tenets of our faith, if we posit that he did not produce things ab aeterno but produced them after they had not existed, it is not necessary to posit a subject for this universal production. It is evident, therefore, that what Aristotle proves here, namely, that every motion requires a mobile subject, is not against a tenet of our faith—for it has already been said that the universal production of things, whether ab aeterno or not, is neither a motion nor a change. For in order that there be motion or change, it is required that something be other now than previously, and thus there would be something previously existing, and consequently this would not be the universal production of things about which we are now speaking.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 5 Similiter quod dicit, quod aliquid dicitur fieri ex opposito per accidens, et ex subiecto per se, veritatem habet in particularibus factionibus, secundum quas fit hoc aut illud ens, ut homo aut canis: non autem habet veritatem in universali entis productione. Quod patet ex hoc quod philosophus dixit in I physicorum. Dixit enim ibi, quod si fiat hoc animal, inquantum est hoc animal, non oportet quod fiat ex non animali, sed ex non hoc animali, puta si fiat homo ex non homine, aut equus ex non equo: si autem fiat animal inquantum est animal, oportet quod fiat ex non animali. Sic ergo si fiat aliquod particulare ens, non fit ex omnino non ente: sed si fit totum ens, quod est fieri ens inquantum est ens, oportet quod fiat ex penitus non ente: si tamen et hoc debeat dici fieri (aequivoce enim dicitur, ut dictum est). Quod etiam introducit de antiquis philosophorum opinionibus, efficaciam non habet: quia antiqui naturales non potuerunt pervenire ad causam primam totius esse, sed considerabant causas particularium mutationum. Quorum primi consideraverunt causas solarum mutationum accidentalium, ponentes omne fieri esse alterari: sequentes vero pervenerunt ad cognitionem mutationum substantialium: postremi vero, ut Plato et Aristoteles, pervenerunt ad cognoscendum principium totius esse. Sic igitur patet quod non movemur ad ponendum aliquid fieri ex nihilo, quia reputemus ea esse solum entia quae sunt visibilia: sed magis e contrario, quia non consideramus solas productiones particulares a causis particularibus, sed productionem universalem totius esse a primo essendi principio. Nec etiam ponimus quod indigere materia ad agendum sit potentiae diminutae, quasi deficientis a virtute naturali: sed dicimus hoc esse potentiae particularis, quae non potest super totum ens, sed facit aliquod ens. Et potest sic dici esse potentiae diminutae facere aliquid ex aliquo, sicut si dicamus potentiam particularem esse minorem potentia universali.	975. Similarly, Averroes’ statement that something is said to come to be from its opposite per accidens and from a subject per se is true in particular productions according to which this or that being comes to be, e.g., a man or a dog, but is not true in the universal production of being. This is clear from what the Philosopher said in Physics I. For he said there that if this animal comes to be inasmuch as it is this animal, it ought not come to be from “non-animal” but from “non-this-animal”—for example, if a man comes to be from non-man or a horse from non-horse. But if animal is produced precisely as animal, it must come to be from non-animal. Accordingly, if some particular being comes to be, it does not come to be from absolute non-being; but if the whole being comes to be, i.e., if being precisely as being comes to be, it must be made from absolute non-being—if, indeed, this process should be called “being made,” for it is an equivocal way of speaking, as has been said. What Averroes introduces about the early philosophers has no value, for they were unable to arrive at the first cause of all being but considered the causes of particular changes. The first of these philosophers considered the causes solely of accidental changes, and posited all “being made” to be alteration. Those who succeeded them arrived at a knowledge of substantial changes, but those who came still later, such as Plato and Aristotle, arrived at a knowledge of the principle of all existence. Consequently, it is clear that we are not moved to assert that something comes to be from nothing because we suppose only visible things to be beings; rather it is because we do not content ourselves with considering merely the particular productions of particular causes, but go on to consider the universal production of all being from the first principle of being. Nor do we assert that to need matter in order to act is due to a diminished power, in the sense of such a power’s lacking its natural energy, rather, what we say is that this is proper to a particular power, which does not extend to all being but makes a particular being. Hence one can say that it is characteristic of a “diminished power” to make something from something in the sense that we would say that a particular power is less than the universal power.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: ergo et haec necessarium est etc., supposito quod ad hoc quod sit motus requiratur mobile et motivum, sic argumentatur. Si motus non semper fuit, necesse est dicere aut quod moventia et motiva sint aliquando facta, cum prius non essent; aut quod sint perpetua. Si ergo dicatur quod unumquodque mobile est factum, necesse est dicere quod ante mutationem quae accipitur ut prima, sit alia mutatio et motus, secundum quem factum est ipsum mobile, quod potest moveri et motum esse. Quae quidem illatio dependet ex praecedentibus. Si enim detur quod motus non semper fuerit, sed aliqua mutatio sit prima, ante quam nulla fuerit; sequetur quod illa prima mutatio habeat aliquod mobile, et quod illud mobile sit factum cum prius non fuerit; cum ponantur omnia mobilia esse facta. Omne autem quod fit cum prius non fuerit, fit per aliquem motum vel mutationem: motus autem vel mutatio per quam fit mobile, est prior quam mutatio qua mobile movebatur: ergo ante mutationem quae dicebatur esse prima, est alia mutatio; et sic in infinitum. Si autem dicatur quod ea quae sunt mobilia semper praeexistebant, etiam motu nullo existente, hoc videtur irrationabile et dictum a nescientibus. Statim enim apparet quod si mobilia sunt, oportet esse motum: mobilia enim naturalia simul etiam sunt moventia, ut ex tertio patet. Moventibus autem et mobilibus naturalibus existentibus, necesse est esse motum. Sed ut profundius ingrediamur ad veritatis inquisitionem, necessarium est hoc idem accidere, si ponantur mobilia et moventia praeexistentia semper ante motum, quod sequebatur si ponantur haec esse facta: scilicet quod ante mutationem quae ponitur prima, sit alia mutatio in infinitum. Quod sic patet. Quia si ponatur quod sint aliqua mobilia et aliqua motiva, et tamen aliquando primum movens incipiat movere, et aliquid moveri ab ipso, et ante hoc nihil moveatur sed quiescat; oportebit dicere quod sit alia mutatio prius facta in movente vel mobili, quam id quod ponebatur primo movens, incipiat movere: quod sic patet. Quies enim est privatio motus: privatio autem non inest susceptivo habitus et formae nisi propter aliquam causam: erat ergo aliqua causa vel ex parte motivi vel ex parte mobilis, quare quies erat: ergo ea durante, semper quies remanebat. Si ergo aliquando movens incipiat movere, oportet quod illa causa quietis removeatur. Sed non potest removeri nisi per aliquem motum vel mutationem: ergo sequitur quod ante illam mutationem, quae dicebatur esse prima, sit alia mutatio prior, qua removetur causa quietis.	976. Then at (754 251 a16), assuming that a mobile and a mover are required in order that there be motion, Aristotle argues in the following manner: If motion has not always existed, it is necessary to say either that mobiles and movers were at some time made, having previously not existed, or are eternal. If, therefore, it is held that each mobile has been made, it is necessary to say that previous to the change which is taken as the first, there was another change and motion according to which was made the very mobile which is able to be moved and to have been moved. This inference, indeed, depends on the preceding. For if it is granted that motion has not always been but that there is some first change before which there was none, it will follow that that first change involved a mobile, and that that mobile was made, for previously it did not exist—since it is being supposed that all mobiles have been made. Now, whatever comes to be after having previously not existed, comes to be through a motion or a change. But the motion or change through which a mobile comes to be, is prior to the change by which the mobile is moved. Therefore, prior to the change which was presumed to be first is another change and so on ad infinitum. But if it is held that things which are mobile always pre-existed even when no motion existed, this seems to be unreasonable and a sign of ignorance. For it immediately appears that if mobiles exist, motion ought to exist, for natural mobiles are at once also movers, as is clear from Book III. But if natural mobiles and movers are existing, there must be motion. But to enter more deeply into our search for the truth, it is necessary that this same thing happen—if mobiles and movers are assumed to be eternally existing prior to motion—that followed from the assumption that they were made, namely, that prior to the change supposed to be the first, there is other change ad infinitum. This is evident in the following way: If it be supposed that certain mobiles and certain movers exist, and yet the first mover begins at some time or other to cause motion and something is moved by it, and before this nothing is being moved but is at rest, it will be necessary to say that there was another change in the mover or mobile made prior to that which was assumed to be the first one produced by the mover beginning to cause motion, The truth of this is clear from the following: Rest is the privation of motion. Privation, however, is not present in a thing capable of habit and form except on account of some cause. Therefore there was a cause—either on the part of the mover or on the part of the mobile—why there was rest. Therefore, as long as that cause prevailed, there was always rest. If, then, a mover begins at some time to cause motion, the cause of rest must be removed. But it cannot be removed except by a motion or change. Therefore, it follows that before that change which was said to be first, there is a prior change by which the cause of rest is removed.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: alia quidem enim etc., probat necessitatem praemissae rationis. Posset enim aliquis dicere quod contingit quandoque quiescere et quandoque moveri, absque hoc quod praeextiterit aliqua causa quietis, quae removeatur. Unde hoc vult excludere. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo praemittit quoddam quod est necessarium ad propositum; secundo inducit propositam probationem, ibi: sed igitur quaecumque possibilia sunt et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod eorum quae movent, quaedam movent singulariter, idest uno modo tantum; quaedam vero movent secundum contrarios motus. Quae movent tantum uno modo, sunt naturalia; sicut ignis semper calefacit et nunquam frigefacit. Sed agentia per intellectum movent secundum contrarios motus, quia una scientia videtur esse contrariorum, sicut medicina est scientia sani et aegri: unde videtur quod medicus per suam scientiam possit movere secundum contrarios motus. Posuit autem hanc distinctionem moventium, quia in iis quae agunt per intellectum, videtur non esse verum quod ipse dixerat, scilicet quod si aliquid movetur cum prius quieverit, oporteat prius removeri causam quietis. Agentia enim per intellectum, videntur se ad opposita habere absque aliqua sui mutatione: unde videtur quod possint movere et non movere, absque aliqua mutatione. Ne ergo per hoc sua ratio impediatur, subiungit quod ratio sua similiter tenet in iis quae agunt per intellectum, et in iis quae agunt per naturam. Quia ea quae agunt per naturam, per se quidem semper movent ad unum, sed per accidens quandoque movent ad contrarium; et ad hoc quod illud accidens eveniat, necesse est esse aliquam mutationem; sicut frigidum per se semper frigefacit, sed per accidens calefacit. Sed quod per accidens calefaciat, hoc est per aliquam eius mutationem: vel inquantum vertitur ad alium situm, ut alio modo respiciat id quod nunc calefit ab eo, prius autem frigefiebat; vel inquantum totaliter abscedit. Dicimus enim frigus esse causam caloris abscedendo, sicut gubernator per sui absentiam est causa submersionis navis: similiter etiam frigus per accidens fit causa caloris, vel per maiorem elongationem, vel etiam per maiorem appropinquationem; sicut in hyeme interiora animalium sunt calidiora, calore ad interius recurrente propter frigus circumstans. Sic etiam est in agente secundum intellectum. Scientia enim, licet sit una contrariorum, tamen non aequaliter utrorumque, sed unius principaliter; sicut medicina ad hoc est per se ordinata, quod faciat sanitatem. Si ergo contingat quod medicus utatur sua scientia in contrarium ad inducendum aegritudinem, hoc non erit ex scientia per se, sed per accidens, propter aliquid aliud. Et ad hoc quod illud aliud adveniat cum prius non esset, necesse est esse aliquam mutationem.	977. Then at (755 251 a28) he proves the necessity of the foregoing argument. For someone could say that it happens that things are at rest at some time and in motion at some time, without any pre-existing cause of rest to be removed. Hence he wishes to refute this. And about this he does two things: First he premises something needed for his proof; Secondly, he presents the proposed proof, at 978. He says therefore first that among movers, some move “singularly,” i.e., in just one way, while others move with respect to motions that are contrary. Things that cause motion in just one way are natural things, as fire always heats and never cools. But beings that act through intellect are causes of motions that are contrary, for one and the same knowledge seems to deal with things and their contraries, as medicine is the science of health and of sickness. Hence one sees that a doctor by means of his science can cause motions that are mutually contrary. Now Aristotle mentioned this distinction among movers, because in things that act through intellect it does not appear that what he had said is true, namely, that if something is moved when previously it had been at rest, the cause of the rest ought first be removed. For things that act according to intellect seem to be ready to move to opposites without any change of themselves being involved; hence it seems that they can cause motion and not cause it, without any change. Therefore, lest his argument be forestalled by this objection, he adds that his reason holds both for things that act according to intellect and that act by nature. For things that act by nature do always per se move to one, but per accidens they sometimes move to the contrary, and in order that such an accident occur, some change is necessary; thus cold always per se causes coldness, but per accidens it produces warmth. But that cold should per accidens cause warmth is due to some change affecting the cold object, either inasmuch as it is moved to another location, thus making it differently related to the object which is now made warm by it than it was when it was making it cold, or inasmuch as it completely departs. For we say that cold is the cause of warmth by departing in the way that a captain is by his absence the cause of the sinking of a ship; again, cold becomes per accidens the cause of warmth either by moving farther away or by approaching closer, as in the winter the interior of animals is warmer, because their heat retreats inward on account of the surrounding cold. The same applies to things that act by intellect, For knowledge, although it is one thing dealing with contraries, does not deal equally with them both but with one principally, as medicine is per se ordained to causing health. Therefore, if it happens that a doctor uses his knowledge for the contrary purpose of causing sickness, this will not be per se from this science but per accidens, on account of something else. And in order that that something else occur when previously it did not exist, some change is required.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: sed igitur quaecumque etc., inducit probationem ad propositum ostendendum. Dicit ergo quod ex quo ita est, quod simili modo se habet in iis quae agunt secundum naturam et secundum intellectum, possumus universaliter de omnibus loquentes dicere, quod quaecumque sunt possibilia facere aut pati aut movere vel moveri, non penitus possibilia sunt, idest non possunt movere aut moveri in quacumque dispositione se habeant; sed prout se habent in aliqua determinata habitudine et propinquitate ad invicem. Et hoc concludit ex praemissis: quia iam dictum est, quod tam in agentibus secundum naturam, quam in agentibus secundum voluntatem, non est aliquid causa diversorum, nisi in aliqua alia habitudine se habens. Et sic oportet quod quando appropinquant ad invicem movens et motum convenienti propinquitate, et similiter cum sunt in quacumque dispositione quae requiritur ad hoc quod unum moveat et aliud moveatur, necesse sit hoc moveri, et aliud movere. Si ergo non semper erat motus, manifestum est quod non se habebant in ista habitudine ut tunc unum moveret et aliud moveretur; sed se habebant sicut non possibilia tunc movere et moveri; postmodum autem se habent in ista habitudine ut unum moveat et aliud moveatur. Ergo necesse est quod alterum eorum mutetur. Hoc enim videmus accidere in omnibus quae dicuntur ad aliquid, quod nunquam advenit nova habitudo, nisi per mutationem utriusque vel alterius; sicut si aliquid, cum prius non esset duplum, nunc factum est duplum, etsi non mutetur utrumque extremorum, saltem oportet quod alterum mutetur. Et sic si de novo adveniat habitudo per quam aliquid moveat et aliud moveatur, oportet vel utrumque vel alterum moveri prius. Et sic sequitur quod sit mutatio quaedam prior mutatione, quae dicebatur esse prima.	978. Then at (756 251 b1) he sets forth the proof which manifests his proposition. He says therefore that from the fact that things are such, i.e., that a similar situation prevails with respect to things that act by nature and things that act by intellect, then, speaking universally of all, we can say that whatever things are possible to make, or to be acted upon, or to cause motion, or to be moved, cannot cause motion or be moved in just any disposition in which they find themselves, but according as they are in some definite state and nearness with respect to each other. And this he concludes from the premises, because it has already been said that both in things that act according to nature and in things that act according to will, none is the cause of diverse things except as it is a different state. Accordingly, it is necessary that when the mover and the moved approach one another according to a suitable distance and likewise when they are in whatever disposition is required for one to cause motion and for the other to be moved, then the one must be moved and the other must cause motion. If, therefore, there was not always motion, it is clear that existing things were not in that state that allowed for one to cause motion and another to be moved; rather, they were in the state of not being able to cause motion and of being moved at that time. But later they reached that state in which one moves and the other is moved. Therefore, one or the other of them changed. For we see that in all things which are said to be “to something” it does not happen that a new relation arises except through a change affecting one or other or both, as, for example, if something which previously was not “double” has now become double, even though not both of the extremes were changed, yet at least one of them was. Accordingly, if there newly arises a relationship by which something causes motion and something is moved, then one or other or both had to be previously moved. Hence, it follows that there is a change prior to the one assumed to be the first.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: adhuc autem prius et posterius etc., ostendit propositum, ratione sumpta ex parte temporis. Et primo praemittit duo quae sunt necessaria ad sequentem probationem. Quorum primum est, quod prius et posterius esse non possunt nisi tempus sit, cum tempus nihil sit aliud quam prius et posterius secundum quod sunt numerata. Secundum est, quod tempus non potest esse nisi sit motus; et hoc etiam patet ex definitione temporis, quam supra in quarto posuit, dicens quod tempus est numerus motus secundum prius et posterius.	979. Then at (757 251 b10) he explains his proposition with an argument from time. First he premises two things necessary for his proposition. The first of these is that “prior” and “subsequent” cannot occur unless there is time, since time is nothing else than prior and subsequent precisely as numbered. The second is that time cannot be, unless there is motion. This, too, is clear from the definition—given in Book IV—describing time as the number of motion with respect to prior and subsequent.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 10 Secundo ibi: si igitur tempus etc., concludit quandam conditionalem ex iis quae in quarto dicta sunt. Posuit enim ibi secundum suam sententiam, quod tempus est numerus motus: secundum vero aliorum philosophorum sententiam, tempus est motus quidam, ut ibidem dixit. Quodcumque autem horum sit verum, sequitur hanc conditionalem esse veram: si tempus semper est, necesse est motum esse perpetuum.	980. Secondly, at (758 251 b12) he concludes to a conditional proposition from statements made in Book IV, For there, according to his doctrine, he stated time to be the number of motion; according to the doctrine of the other philosophers time is a motion, as he there stated. But whichever of these is true, it follows that this conditional is true: If time always exists, it is necessary that motion be perpetual.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 11 Tertio ibi: at vero de tempore etc., probat antecedens praedictae conditionalis dupliciter. Primo quidem per opiniones aliorum. Et dicit quod omnes philosophi praeter unum, scilicet Platonem, concorditer videntur sentire de tempore quod sit ingenitum, idest quod non inceperit esse postquam prius non fuit. Unde et Democritus probat impossibile esse quod omnia sint facta, quasi de novo inceperint, quia impossibile est sic tempus esse factum, quod de novo inceperit. Sed solus Plato generat tempus, idest dicit tempus de novo factum. Dicit enim Plato quod tempus est simul factum cum caelo; ponebat autem caelum esse factum, idest habere durationis principium, ut hic Aristoteles ei imponit, secundum quod eius verba superficietenus sonare videntur; quamvis Platonici dicant Platonem sic dixisse caelum esse factum, inquantum habet principium activum sui esse, non autem ita quod habeat durationis principium. Sic igitur solus Plato intellexisse videtur quod tempus non potest esse sine motu; quia non posuit tempus esse ante motum caeli.	981. Thirdly, at (759 251 b13) he proves in two ways the antecedent of this conditional. First, from the opinions of others. And he says that all the philosophers but one, namely, Plato, seem to be in accord with regard to the opinion that time is not begotten, i.e., that it did not begin to exist after previously not existing. Whence, Democritus also proved that it is impossible that all things should have been made in the sense of newly beginning to be, because it is impossible that time have been so made that it begin newly to be. Only Plato generates time, i.e., says that time was newly made. For he says that time was made at the same time as the heavens, and he supposed that the heavens were made, i.e., that they have a beginning of their duration, as Aristotle here claims, and as Plato’s words seem at first glance to indicate—although Platonists say that Plato asserted that the heavens were made in the sense that they have an active principle of their existence but not as having a principle of their duration. Thus, therefore, does Plato alone seem to have conceived that time cannot be without motion, for he did not suppose that time existed before the motion of the heavens.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 12 Secundo ibi: si igitur impossibile etc., probat idem per rationem: quia impossibile est quod dicatur aut intelligatur esse tempus absque ipso nunc, sicut impossibile est quod sit linea sine puncto. Nunc autem est quoddam medium, habens de sui ratione quod sit simul et principium et finis, principium quidem futuri temporis, finis autem praeteriti. Ex quo apparet quod necesse est semper esse tempus. Quodcumque enim tempus accipiatur, eius extremum est aliquod nunc ex utraque parte. Et hoc patet per hoc, quod nihil est accipere in actu de tempore, nisi nunc: quia quod praeteritum est, iam abiit; quod autem futurum est, nondum est. Nunc autem quod accipitur in extremo temporis, est principium et finis, ut dictum est. Ergo necesse est quod ex utraque parte cuiuscumque temporis accepti, semper sit tempus: alioquin primum nunc non esset finis, et ultimum nunc non esset principium. Ex hoc autem quod tempus est sempiternum, concludit quod necesse est motum sempiternum esse. Et rationem consequentiae assignat: quia tempus est quaedam proprietas motus; est enim numerus eius, ut dictum est.	982. Secondly, at (760 251 b17) he proves the same point by an argument, namely, from the fact that it is impossible to say or to understand time to exist without the “now,” just as it is impossible that there be a line without a point, The “now,” however, is something intermediate, having as part of its nature that it be at once a beginning and an end, i.e., the beginning of a future time, but the end of a past. From this it appears that it is necessary for time always to be. For whatever time is taken, its boundary is a “now” in both senses. And this is clear from the fact that nothing is actual in time but the “now,” because what is past has gone by, and what is future does not yet exist. But the “now” which is taken as the boundary of time, is both a beginning and an end, as has been said. Therefore it is necessary that from both aspects of whatever time is taken, time always be; otherwise the first “now” would not be an end, and the last not a beginning. But from the fact that time is eternal, he concludes that motion too must be eternal; the reason for this conclusion being that time is a property of motion, for it is its number, as was said.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 13 Videtur autem quod Aristotelis ratio non sit efficax. Sic enim se habet nunc ad tempus, sicut punctum ad lineam, ut in sexto habitum est: non est autem de ratione puncti quod sit medium; sed aliquod punctum est quod est tantum principium lineae, aliquod autem quod est tantum finis: accideret autem omne punctum esse principium et finem, inquantum est lineae infinitae. Non ergo posset probari quod linea sit infinita, ex hoc quod omne punctum sit principium et finis: sed potius e converso, ex hoc quod linea est infinita, probandum esset quod omne punctum esset principium et finis. Sic ergo videtur quod omne nunc esse principium et finem, non sic sit verum, nisi ex eo quod tempus ponitur sempiternum. Videtur ergo Aristoteles in assumptione huius medii supponere sempiternitatem temporis, quam debet probare. Averroes autem volens salvare Aristotelis rationem, dicit quod hoc quod nunc semper sit principium et finis, convenit ei inquantum tempus non est stans sicut linea, sed fluens. Quod manifestum est nihil ad propositum pertinere. Ex hoc enim quod tempus est fluens et non stans, sequitur quod unum nunc non possit bis sumi, sicut bis sumitur unum punctum: sed fluxus temporis nihil facit ad hoc quod nunc sit principium et finis simul. Eiusdem enim rationis est inceptio et terminatio in omnibus continuis, sive sint permanentia, sive fluentia, ut ex sexto patet.	983. But the argument of Aristotle does not appear efficacious. For the “now” is to time as the point is to the line, as was explained in Book VI. But it is not necessary that a point be an intermediate, for some points are merely the beginnings of lines and others the ends, although every point would be both a beginning and an end if the line were infinite. One could not, therefore, prove that a line is infinite from the fact that every point is a beginning and an end; rather it is the other way around: from the fact of a line’s being infinite, one would go on to prove that every point would be both a beginning and an end. Accordingly, it also appears that the claim that every “now” is a beginning and an end is not true, unless time is assumed to be eternal. Therefore in assuming this as a middle term, i.e., that every “now” is a beginning and an end, Aristotle seems to suppose the eternity of time—the very thing he ought to prove. Now Averroes, in trying to save Aristotle’s argument, says that the attribute of always being both a beginning and an end belongs to the “now” inasmuch as time is not stationary like a line but flowing. But this does not pertain to the proposition. For from the fact that time is flowing and not stationary, it follows that one “now” cannot be taken twice in the way that one point is taken twice, but the flow of time has nothing to do with the “now” being at once a beginning and an end. For the notion of beginning and end is the same in all continua whether they be permanent or flowing, as is clear from Book VI.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 14 Et ideo aliter dicendum est, secundum intentionem Aristotelis, quod hoc quod omne nunc sit principium et finis, vult accipere ex eo quod primo supposuit, scilicet quod prius et posterius non sit, tempore non existente: hoc enim principio supposito ad nihil aliud usus est; sed ex hoc concluditur quod omne nunc sit principium et finis. Detur enim quod aliquod nunc sit principium alicuius temporis: manifestum est autem ex definitione principii, quod principium temporis est ante quod nihil eius existit: est ergo accipere aliquid ante vel prius quam ipsum nunc, quod ponitur principium temporis. Prius autem non est sine tempore: ergo nunc quod ponitur principium temporis, est etiam temporis finis. Et eodem modo si ponatur nunc esse finis temporis, sequitur quod sit etiam principium: quia de ratione finis est quod post ipsum nihil sit eius: posterius autem non est sine tempore: sequitur ergo quod nunc quod ponitur finis, sit etiam principium temporis.	984. And therefore another explanation must be furnished in accord with the intention of Aristotle, which is that he wishes to derive the fact that every “now” is a beginning and an end from what he had first supposed, namely, that “prior” and “subsequent” would not be, if time did not exist. For he uses this principle which he supposes for no other purpose, but deduces from it that every “now” is a beginning and an end. For let us suppose that some “now” is the beginning of a time; but it is clear from the definition of a beginning, that the beginning of a time is that before which nothing of the time existed. Therefore, there must be taken something “before” or “prior” to the “now” which is assumed as the beginning of the time. “Prior,” however, does not exist without time. Therefore, the “now” which is taken as the beginning of a time is also the end of a time. In the same way, if a “now” be taken as the end of a time, it too will be a beginning, because an end is by definition that “after which” nothing of a thing exists; but “after” cannot be without time. Therefore, it follows that the “now” which is the end of a time is also a beginning.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit: eadem autem ratio est etc., ostendit quod motus semper sit futurus. Et ostendit hoc ex parte motus: quia ratio supra ex parte motus accepta, non concludebat nisi quod motus nunquam incipiat; ratio vero sumpta ex parte temporis, concludebat utrumque, et quod nunquam inceperit, et quod nunquam deficiat. Dicit ergo quod eadem ratione potest probari quod motus sit incorruptibilis, idest quod nunquam deficiat, per quam probatur quod motus nunquam incepit. Sicut enim ex hoc quod est motum incipere, sequitur quod sit quaedam mutatio prior mutatione quae ponitur prima; sic si ponatur quod motus quandoque deficiat, sequitur quod sit aliqua mutatio posterior ea quae ponitur postrema. Et quomodo hoc sequatur manifestat abbreviando quod supra diffusius dixerat circa inceptionem motus. Posuerat enim quod si motus incepit, aut mobilia et moventia inceperunt, aut semper fuerunt. Et similis divisio posset hic fieri; quia si motus deficiat, aut mobilia et moventia remanebunt, aut non: sed quia supra ostenderat quod idem sequitur secundum utrumque, ideo hic non utitur nisi altera via, scilicet quod ponatur sic motus deficere, quod mobilia et moventia deficiant. Hoc ergo supposito, dicit quod non simul quiescit, idest deficit, motus in actu et ipsum mobile: sed sicut prior est generatio mobilis quam motus eius, ita posterior est corruptio mobilis quam cessatio motus. Quod sic patet: quia contingit quod remaneat aliquid combustibile, postquam desinit comburi. Et sicut dictum est de mobili, ita dicendum est de motivo: quia non simul desinit esse movens in actu, et esse motivum in potentia. Sic igitur patet quod si etiam ipsum mobile corrumpitur post cessationem motus, necessarium erit esse quandam corruptionem ipsius mobilis. Et iterum quia ponitur quod omnia moventia et mota desinunt, necessarium erit posterius, quod etiam ipsum corruptivum corrumpatur. Cum ergo corruptio sit mutatio quaedam, sequetur quod post ultimam mutationem sint aliquae mutationes. Cum ergo hoc sit impossibile, sequitur quod motus in perpetuum duret.	985. Then at (761 251 b28) he shows that motion will always be. And he shows this on the part of motion, because the argument from motion given above concluded only that motion never began, whereas the argument from time concluded both, i.e., that it never began and that it never ceases. He says therefore that the very argument by which it was proved that motion never began can prove that motion is indestructible, i.e., that it will never end. For just as from the assumption that motion began it followed that there was a change prior to the change assumed to be first, so too, if it be supposed that motion at some time ceases, it follows that a change will occur after the one assumed to be the last, How this follows he explains by abbreviating the more diffuse explanation he gave with regard to the beginning of motion. For he had supposed that if motion began, the mobiles and movers either began or always were. The same alternatives can be taken here, namely, that if motion should cease, the mobiles and movers will remain or they will not. But because he had previously shown that the same conclusion follows from either alternative, here therefore he uses only the one alternative, i.e., the supposition that motion ceases in such a way that the mobiles and movers also pass away. Therefore, beginning with the assumption mentioned, he says that both the actual motion and the mobile do not pass away simultaneously, but just as the generation of a mobile is prior to its motion, so the ceasing-to-be of a mobile is subsequent to the passing away of its motion. This is so because something combustible can remain after combustion ceases. And what was said of the mobile must also be said of the mover, because a mover in act does not in ceasing to be cease at the same time to be a mover in potency. Accordingly, it is evident that if even the mobile cease to be after the destruction of its motion, then there has to be a process by which the mobile passes out of existence. And again, because we are supposing that all mobiles and motions are ceasing to be, it will be necessary later that even the cause of their ceasing-to-be cease to be. But because ceasing-to-be is a type of motion, it will follow that after the final change, other changes occur. But since this is impossible, it follows that motion endures forever.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 16 Hae igitur rationes sunt, ex quibus Aristoteles probare intendit motum semper fuisse et nunquam deficere. Quod quidem quantum ad unam partem fidei nostrae repugnat, scilicet quod ponatur motus semper fuisse. Nihil enim secundum fidem nostram ponitur semper fuisse, nisi solus Deus, qui est omnino immobilis: nisi forte quis ipsum divinum intelligere velit nominare motum; quod aequivoce intelligeretur: non enim de tali motu Aristoteles hic intelligit, sed de motu proprie dicto. Quantum vero ad aliam partem, non omnino est contrarium fidei: quia ut supra dictum est, non agit Aristoteles de motu caeli, sed universaliter de motu. Ponimus autem secundum fidem nostram, substantiam mundi sic quandoque incepisse, quod tamen nunquam desinat esse. Ponimus etiam quod aliqui motus semper erunt, praesertim in hominibus, qui semper remanebunt, incorruptibilem vitam agentes, vel miseram vel beatam. Quidam vero frustra conantes Aristotelem ostendere non contra fidem locutum esse, dixerunt quod Aristoteles non intendit hic probare quasi verum, quod motus sit perpetuus; sed inducere rationem ad utramque partem, quasi ad rem dubiam: quod ex ipso modo procedendi frivolum apparet. Et praeterea, perpetuitate temporis et motus quasi principio utitur ad probandum primum principium esse, et hic in octavo et in XII Metaphys.; unde manifestum est, quod supponit hoc tanquam probatum.	986. These, therefore, are the arguments by which Aristotle intends to prove that motion always has been and will never cease, The first part of which, i.e., that motion always existed, conflicts with our faith, For our faith admits nothing as eternally existing but God alone, Who is utterly immobile—unless, of course, you wish to refer to the act of the divine intellect as a motion, but that would be an equivocal sense, and Aristotle is not here speaking of motion in that sense but of motion properly so called. The other part of the conclusion is not entirely contrary to the faith, because, as was said above, Aristotle is not treating of the motion of the heavens in particular but of motion universally. Now we believe according to our faith that the substance of the world indeed began, yet so as never to cease. For we posit that some motions will always exist, especially in men who will always remain living an unceasing life either of happiness or misery. But some, vainly trying to show that Aristotle concluded nothing contrary to the faith, have said that Aristotle does not intend here to prove as a truth that motion is eternal but to allege reason for both sides of a question that is doubtful. Rut this is a foolish statement to anyone who investigates Aristotle’s procedure here. Moreover, he uses the eternity of time and of motion as a principle to prove the existence of a first principle both here in Physics VIII and in Metaphysics XII. That shows he considered it proved.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 17 Sed si quis recte rationes hic positas consideret, huiusmodi rationibus veritas fidei efficaciter impugnari non potest. Sunt enim huiusmodi rationes efficaces ad probandum quod motus non inceperit per viam naturae, sicut ab aliquibus ponebatur: sed quod non inceperit quasi rebus de novo productis a primo rerum principio, ut fides nostra ponit, hoc iis rationibus probari non potest; quod patet singulas illationes hic positas consideranti. Cum enim quaerit, si motus non semper fuit, utrum moventia et mobilia semper fuerunt vel non: respondendum est quod primum movens semper fuit; omnia vero alia, sive sint moventia sive mobilia, non semper fuerunt, sed inceperunt esse a causa universali totius esse. Ostensum est autem supra, quod productio totius esse a causa prima essendi, non est motus, sive ponatur quod haec rerum emanatio sit ab aeterno, sive non. Sic ergo non sequitur quod ante primam mutationem sit aliqua mutatio. Sequeretur autem si moventia et mobilia essent de novo producta in esse ab aliquo agente particulari, quod ageret aliquo subiecto praesupposito, quod transmutaretur de non esse in esse, sive de privatione ad formam: de hoc enim modo incipiendi procedit ratio Aristotelis.	987. But if one rightly considers the arguments here given, the truth of the faith is not assailed by them, For they prove that motion did not begin through the way of nature, as some taught it did, but that it did not begin by things being created by a first principle of things, as our faith holds, cannot be proved by these arguments. And that will be evident to anyone who considers each of the inferences here drawn by Aristotle. For when he asks whether, if motion did not always exist, the movers and mobiles always existed or not, the reply must be that the first mover always existed; other things—movers or mobiles—did not always exist, but began to exist from the universal cause of all existence. But it has been pointed out above that the production of all being by the first cause of being is not a motion, whether this coming-forth be taken to be ab aeterno or not. Accordingly, it does not follow that before the first change there was a previous change. But this would follow if the movers and mobiles were newly brought into existence by some particular agent acting upon some presupposed subject that would be changed from non-being to being, or from privation to form—and Aristotle’s argument concerns this way of coming into existence.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 18 Sed quia ponimus saltem primum motorem semper fuisse, respondendum restat sequenti eius deductioni, qua concludit quod si, praeexistentibus moventibus et mobilibus, incipiat de novo esse motus, oportet quod moventia vel mobilia prius non essent in hac dispositione, in qua sunt dum est motus; et sic oportet quod primam mutationem praecedat aliqua mutatio. Et si quidem de ipso motu loquamur, facilis est responsio: non enim mobilia prius erant in hac dispositione in qua nunc sunt, quia prius non erant; unde moveri non poterant. Sed sicut dictum est, ipsum esse non acquisiverunt per mutationem vel motum, sed per emanationem a primo rerum principio: et sic non sequitur quod ante primam mutationem sit aliqua mutatio. Sed ulterius remanet quaestio de prima rerum productione. Si enim primum principium, quod est Deus, non aliter se habet nunc quam prius, non magis nunc res producit quam prius: si vero aliter se habet, saltem mutatio quae est ex parte eius, erit prior mutatione quae ponitur prima. Et quidem si esset agens per naturam tantum, et non per voluntatem et intellectum, ex necessitate concluderet ratio: sed quia agit per voluntatem, potest per voluntatem aeternam producere effectum non aeternum, sicut intellectu aeterno potest intelligere rem non aeternam: res enim intellecta est quodammodo principium actionis in agentibus per voluntatem, sicut forma naturalis in agentibus per naturam.	988. But because we posit that at least a first mover always existed, we need to give an answer to his subsequent deduction that, if movers and mobiles pre-exist, and motion begins newly to be in them, then the movers or mobiles could not have been previously in that disposition in which they are while there is motion, and therefore, some change must have preceded the first change. Now, if we are speaking of the motion itself, the answer is easy: the mobiles were not previously in that disposition in which they now are, because previously they did not exist; hence they could not be moved. But, as it has been said, they received their existence not through a change or motion but through coming forth from the first principle of things; accordingly, it does not follow that before the first change there was a change. But there still remains the question about the first production of things. For if the first principle, which is God, is no different now than before, then neither does he produce things now any more than before; but if he is different, at least the change affecting him will be prior to the change which is supposed to be the first. And indeed, if he were a cause that acts only through nature and not through intellect and will, this reason would conclude necessarily. But because he acts through will, he can through an eternal will produce an effect which is non-eternal, just as by his eternal intellect he can understand a thing that is non-eternal—the thing understood being in a certain way the principle of action in causes that act by intellect, as a natural form is in causes that act by nature.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 19 Sed adhuc magis instat. Non enim videmus quod voluntas postponat facere quod vult, nisi propter hoc quod aliquid exspectatur in futurum, quod nondum est in praesenti; sicut si volo facere ignem non nunc, sed postea exspectatur in futurum frigus, cuius causa facio ignem; vel ad minus exspectatur praesentia temporis. Quod autem tempus succedat post tempus, hoc non est absque motu: non ergo potest esse quod voluntas, etiam si ponatur immutabilis, postponat facere id quod vult, nisi aliquo motu interveniente. Et sic non potest esse quod nova productio rerum proveniat a voluntate aeterna, nisi mediantibus motibus succedentibus sibi in infinitum. Latet autem sic obiicientes, quod haec obiectio procedit de agente in tempore, quod scilicet agit tempore praesupposito: in huiusmodi enim actione quae fit in tempore, oportet considerare aliquam determinatam habitudinem ad hoc tempus, vel ad aliquid eorum quae sunt in hoc tempore, ut fiat magis in hoc tempore quam in alio. Sed haec ratio locum non habet in agente universali, quod et ipsum tempus simul cum ceteris producit. Cum enim dicimus res non semper fuisse a Deo productas, non intelligimus quod infinitum tempus praecesserit, in quo Deus ab agendo cessaverit, et postmodum tempore determinato agere ceperit: sed quod Deus tempus et res simul in esse produxerit postquam non fuerant. Et sic non restat in divina voluntate considerandum, quod voluerit facere res non tunc sed postea, quasi tempore iam existente: sed considerandum solum est hoc, quod voluit quod res et tempus durationis earum inceperint esse postquam non fuerant. Si autem quaeratur quare hoc voluit, sine dubio dicendum est quod propter seipsum. Sicut enim propter seipsum res fecit, ut in eis suae bonitatis similitudo manifestaretur; ita voluit eas non semper esse, ut sua sufficientia manifestaretur, in hoc quod omnibus aliis non existentibus, ipse in seipso omnem sufficientiam beatitudinis habuit, et virtutis ad rerum productionem. Et hoc quidem dici potest quantum humana ratio capere potest de divinis: salvo tamen secreto divinae sapientiae, quod a nobis comprehendi non potest.	989. But a further point must be pursued. For we do not say that a will postpones doing what it wants, unless something is expected in the future that does not yet exist in the present, as for example, when I will to make a fire not now but later, because in the future it is expected to be cold, on account of which I make the fire; or at least a presence of time is awaited. But that time succeeds time does not occur without motion. Therefore, it cannot be that a will, even if it be immutable, postpones doing what it wills, without some motion being involved, Accordingly, the new production of things cannot come forth from the eternal will except by means of motions succeeding one another ad infinitum. Now those who raise this objection fail to see that it assumes a thing acting in time, i.e., something that acts on the assumption that time exists; for in this kind of action which occurs in time, one must consider some determinate relationship to this time or to things that exist in this time to explain why it be performed in this time rather than in some other time. But this reasoning has no place in the universal agent, which produces time itself at the same time that it produces other things. For when we say that things have not always been produced by God, we do not understand that an infinite time preceded, in which God refrained from acting and that later, at a definite time, He began to act; rather, we understand that God produced at once both time and things after they did not exist. Accordingly, we must not consider in the divine will that it willed to make things not then but later, as though time were already existing; rather, we must solely consider the fact that he willed that things and the time of their duration should begin to be after they had no existed at all. If it be asked why he willed this, it must be said without a doubt that it was for his own sake. For just as he made things because of himself, in order that in them the likeness of his goodness be manifested, so he willed that they not always be, in order to show his self-sufficiency, from the fact that, although nothing else existed, he in himself had all sufficiency of happiness and of power to produce things. And this can indeed be said as far as human reason can grasp divine things, saving, of course, the secret of divine wisdom which cannot be comprehended by us.
lib. 8 l. 2 n. 20 Quia igitur huius rationis solutio procedit supponendo quod tempus non fuerit semper, restat solvere rationem per quam ostendi videtur tempus semper fuisse: et ideo forte Aristoteles post rationem de motu posuit rationem de tempore, quia consideravit quod praemissa ratio de motu efficaciam non haberet, nisi poneretur tempus aeternum. Quod ergo dicit, quod quandocumque est tempus, necesse est ponere aliquod nunc esse, indubitanter concedendum est: omne autem nunc esse principium et finem temporis, concedi non oportet, nisi ponatur etiam motum semper esse; ut scilicet sic quodlibet indivisibile in motu acceptum, quod momentum dicitur, sit principium et finis motus: sic enim se habet nunc ad momentum, sicut tempus ad motum. Si ergo ponimus motum non semper fuisse, sed est accipere aliquod primum indivisibile in motu, ante quod nihil fuit motus; erit etiam accipere aliquod nunc in tempore, ante quod non fuit aliquod tempus. Iam autem ostendimus, exponendo litteram, quod id quod Averroes dicit ad hanc rationem confirmandam, efficaciam non habet. Sed nec illud quod Aristoteles ad hoc ponit, scilicet quod prius et posterius non sunt sine tempore, efficax esse potest. Cum enim dicimus quod principium temporis est ante quod nihil eius est, non propter hoc oportet quod ipsum nunc quod est principium temporis, praecedat tempus quod significatur cum dicitur ante: sicut si in magnitudine dicam quod principium magnitudinis est extra quod nihil est eius, non oportet quod extra illud principium significet aliquem locum in rerum natura existentem, sed imaginabilem tantum: alioquin esset ponere locum extra caelum, cuius est magnitudo finita, habens principium et finem. Similiter etiam primum nunc quod est principium temporis, non praecedit tempus in rerum natura existens, sed secundum imaginationem nostram tantum. Et hoc tempus designatur, cum dicitur quod primum nunc est principium temporis, ante quod nihil est temporis. Vel potest dici, quod cum dicitur principium temporis est ante quod nihil est temporis, ly ante non remanet affirmatum, sed negatur; et sic non oportet ponere tempus ante principium temporis. In iis enim quae sunt in tempore, accidit quod eorum principio tempus aliquod praeexistat: sicut cum dicitur quod principium iuventutis est ante quod nihil est de iuventute, potest intelligi ly ante etiam affirmative, quia iuventus tempore mensuratur. Tempus autem non mensuratur tempore; unde eius principio tempus non praeexistit: et sic ly ante, quod ponitur in definitione principii temporis, non oportet quod remaneat affirmatum, sed negatur. Est tamen ante tempus aliqua duratio, scilicet aeternitas Dei, quae non habet extensionem aut prius et posterius, sicut tempus, sed est tota simul; et non est eiusdem rationis cum tempore, sicut nec magnitudo divina cum magnitudine corporali. Sicut ergo, cum dicimus extra mundum non esse nisi Deum, non ponimus aliquam dimensionem extra mundum; ita cum dicimus ante mundum nihil fuisse, non ponimus aliquam successivam durationem ante mundum.	990. Because the solution of this argument proceeded on the supposition that time did not always exist, there remains the problem of solving the argument which seems to prove that time always existed. And perhaps Aristotle, after the argument from motion, gave one from time, because he thought that the one from motion would be inefficacious, unless time was assumed to be eternal. His statement, therefore, that whenever there is time there must be a “now” existing, must be granted without demur. But the statement that every “now” is both a beginning and an end should not be conceded, unless it be also granted that motion always existed, so that every indivisible of motion (which is called a “moment”) should be both a beginning and an end of motion—for the “now” is to the moment as time is to motion. If, therefore, we suppose that motion has not always existed, but that we can take some first indivisible in motion before which nothing of motion existed, we can also take some “now” in time before which there was no time. Now we have already shown, in explaining the text, that what Averroes says to bolster this argument is inefficacious. But neither is there any efficacy in what Aristotle cites to bolster his own position, namely, that “before” and “after” do not exist without time. For when we say that a time’s beginning is “that before which nothing of the time existed,” we are not thereby compelled to say that the “now” which is the beginning of the time, is preceded by a time signified by the word “before,” any more than in magnitudes, if I say that the beginning of a magnitude is “that beyond which nothing exists of that magnitude,” it is necessary to say that the phrase, “beyond which beginning,” signifies some real place existing in nature—for it signifies an imaginary one only. Otherwise, it would be necessary to posit a place beyond the universe, whose magnitude is finite and has a beginning and an end. Similarly, the first “now” which is the beginning of time is not preceded by a time existing in reality but only in our imagination. And this is the time that is described when one says that the first “now” is the beginning of time, “before which” nothing of time exists. Or it may be said that in the expression, “the beginning of time is that before which nothing of time exists,” the word, “before,” is not affirmed but denied—and so it is not necessary to posit a time before the beginning of time. For in things which exist in time, it happens that some certain time precedes their beginning, as, when it is said that the beginning of youth is that before which there was nothing of youth, the word “before” can be taken in an affirmative sense, because youth is measured by time. But time is not measured by time; hence no time preceded its beginning; hence the word “before” in the definition of time is not taken affirmatively but negatively. But before time there does exist a duration, namely, the eternity of God. But this eternity has no extension or any before or after as time does; rather, it is all at once—and is not of the same nature as time any more than the divine magnitude is of the same nature as a bodily magnitude. Therefore, just as when we say that “outside” the universe there is nothing but God, we are not positing some dimension outside the world, so too, when we say that “before” the universe nothing existed, we are not positing any sort of successive duration before the universe.