Here is a parallel text version of Aquinas De Eternitate Mundi. The current version uses Robert Miller's translation from the internet Medieval sourcebook. I am posting it for discussion purposes only, and will replace this at some point with a new translation and introduction.

E. D. Buckner April 2006

Thomas Aquinas
De aeternitate mundi On The Eternity of the World
Translation 1991, 1997 by Robert T. Miller[[2]]
Supposito, secundum fidem Catholicam, quod mundus durationis initium habuit, dubitatio mota est, utrum potuerit semper fuisse. Cuius dubitationis ut veritas explicetur, prius distinguendum est in quo cum adversariis convenimus, et quid est illud in quo ab eis differimus. Si enim intelligatur quod aliquid praeter Deum potuit semper fuisse, quasi possit esse aliquid tamen ab eo non factum: error abominabilis est non solum in fide, sed etiam apud philosophos, qui confitentur et probant omne quod est quocumque modo, esse non posse nisi sit causatum ab eo qui maxime et verissime esse habet. Si autem intelligatur aliquid semper fuisse, et tamen causatum fuisse a Deo secundum totum id quod in eo est, videndum est utrum hoc possit stare. Let us assume, in accordance with the Catholic faith, that the world had a beginning in time. The question still arises whether the world could have always existed, and to explain the truth of this matter, we should first distinguish where we agree with our opponents from where we disagree with them. If someone holds that something besides God could have always existed, in the sense that there could be something always existing and yet not made by God, then we differ with him: such an abominable error is contrary not only to the faith but also to the teachings of the philosophers, who confess and prove that everything that in any way exists cannot exist unless it be caused by him who supremely and most truly has existence. However, someone may hold that there has always existed something that, nevertheless, had been wholly caused by God, and thus we ought to determine whether this position is tenable.
Si autem dicatur hoc esse impossibile, vel hoc dicetur quia Deus non potuit facere aliquid quod semper fuerit, aut quia non potuit fieri, etsi Deus posset facere. In prima autem parte omnes consentiunt: in hoc scilicet quod Deus potuit facere aliquid quod semper fuerit, considerando potentiam ipsius infinitam. Restat igitur videre, utrum sit possibile aliquid fieri quod semper fuerit. If it be impossible that something caused by God has always existed, it will be so either because God could not make something that has always existed or because such a thing could not be made, regardless of God's ability to make it. [[3]] As to the first, all parties agree that, in view of his infinite power, God could have made something that has always existed. [[4]] It remains to be seen, therefore, whether something that has always existed can be made.
Si autem dicatur quod hoc non potest fieri, hoc non potest intelligi nisi duobus modis, vel duas causas veritatis habere: vel propter remotionem potentiae passivae, vel propter repugnantiam intellectuum. Primo modo posset dici, antequam Angelus sit factus, non potest Angelus fieri, quia non praeexistit ad eius esse aliqua potentia passiva, cum non sit factus ex materia praeiacente; tamen Deus poterat facere Angelum, poterat etiam facere ut Angelus fieret, quia fecit, et factus est. Sic ergo intelligendo, simpliciter concedendum est secundum fidem quod non potest creatum semper esse: quia hoc ponere esset ponere potentiam passivam semper fuisse: quod haereticum est. Tamen ex hoc non sequitur quod Deus non possit facere ut fiat aliquid semper ens. If such a thing cannot be made, the impossibility will arise for one of two reasons: either because of an absence of a passive potentiality or because of some contradiction between the ideas involved. [[5]] In regard to the first, notice that before an angel is made, we may say, in a certain manner of speaking, that the angel cannot be made, [[6]] since no passive potentiality precedes its being, for an angel is not made from pre-existing matter. Nevertheless, God was able to make the angel, and he was able to cause the angel to be made, for God made it, and it was made. Therefore, if we understand "being made" or "being caused" as implying the pre-existence of a passive potentiality, then it should to be conceded, according to faith, that something caused cannot always exist, for it would then follow that a passive potentiality has always existed, and this is heretical. But since a passive potentiality need not precede in time whatever God may make, it does not follow that God could not have made something that has always existed.
Secundo modo dicitur propter repugnantiam intellectuum aliquid non posse fieri, sicut quod non potest fieri ut affirmatio et negatio sint simul vera; quamvis Deus hoc possit facere, ut quidam dicunt. Quidam vero dicunt, quod nec Deus hoc posset facere, quia hoc nihil est. Tamen manifestum est quod non potest facere ut hoc fiat, quia positio qua ponitur esse, destruit se ipsam. Si tamen ponatur quod Deus huiusmodi potest facere ut fiant, positio non est haeretica, quamvis, ut credo, sit falsa; sicut quod praeteritum non fuerit, includit in se contradictionem. Unde Augustinus in libro contra Faustum: quisquis ita dicit: si omnipotens est Deus, faciat ut ea quae facta sunt, facta non fuerint: non videt hoc se dicere: si omnipotens est Deus, faciat ut ea quae vera sunt, eo ipso quo vera sunt, falsa sint. Et tamen quidam magni pie dixerunt Deum posse facere de praeterito quod non fuerit praeteritum; nec fuit reputatum haereticum. In regard to the second, someone may hold that something that has always existed cannot be made because such a thing is self-contradictory, just as an affirmation and a denial cannot be made simultaneously true. Still, some people say that God can even make self-contradictories things, while others say God cannot make such things, for such things are actually nothing. Clearly, God cannot make such things come to be, for the assumption that such a thing exists immediately refutes itself. Nevertheless, if we allow that God can make such things come to be, the position is not heretical, though I believe it is false, just as the proposition that the past did not occur is false, about which Augustine says (XXVI Contra Faustum cap. 5), "Anyone who says, 'If God is omnipotent, let him make what has happened not to have happened,' does not realize that he is saying, 'If God is omnipotent, let him make true things false insofar as they are true.'" [PL 42, 481.] Nevertheless, certain great men have piously maintained that God can make past events not to have happened, and this was not reputed to be heretical.
Videndum est ergo utrum in his duobus repugnantia sit intellectuum, quod aliquid sit creatum a Deo, et tamen semper fuerit. Et quidquid de hoc verum sit, non erit haereticum dicere quod hoc potest fieri a Deo ut aliquid creatum a Deo semper fuerit. Tamen credo quod, si esset repugnantia intellectuum, esset falsum. Si autem non est repugnantia intellectuum, non solum non est falsum, sed etiam impossibile: aliter esset erroneum, si aliter dicatur. Cum enim ad omnipotentiam Dei pertineat ut omnem intellectum et virtutem excedat, expresse omnipotentiae Dei derogat qui dicit aliquid posse intelligi in creaturis quod a Deo fieri non possit. Nec est instantia de peccatis, quae inquantum huiusmodi nihil sunt. In hoc ergo tota consistit quaestio, utrum esse creatum a Deo secundum totam substantiam, et non habere durationis principium, repugnent ad invicem, vel non. We thus ought to determine whether there is any contradiction between these two ideas, namely, to be made by God and to have always existed. And, whatever may be the truth of this matter, it will not be heretical to say that God can make something created by him to have always existed, though I believe that if there were a contradiction involved in asserting this, the assertion would be false. However, if there is no contradiction involved, then it is neither false nor impossible that God could have made something that has always existed, and it will be an error to say otherwise. For, if there is no contradiction, we ought to admit that God could have made something that has always existed, for it would be clearly derogatory to the divine omnipotence, which exceeds every thought and power, to say that we creatures can conceive of something that God is unable to make. (Nor are sins an instance to the contrary, for, considered in themselves, they are nothing.) In this, therefore, the entire question consists: whether to be wholly created by God and not to have a beginning in time are contradictory terms.
Quod autem non repugnent ad invicem, sic ostenditur. Si enim repugnant, hoc non est nisi propter alterum duorum, vel propter utrumque: aut quia oportet ut causa agens praecedat duratione; aut quia oportet quod non esse praecedat duratione; propter hoc quod dicitur creatum a Deo ex nihilo fieri. That they are not contradictory can be shown as follows. If they are contradictory, this is for one or both of these two reasons: either because the agent cause must precede the effect in time, or because non-being must precede the effect in time, for we say that what God creates comes to be out of nothing.
Primo ostendam, quod non est necesse ut causa agens, scilicet Deus, praecedat duratione suum causatum, si ipse voluisset. Primo sic. Nulla causa producens suum effectum subito, necessario praecedit duratione suum effectum. Sed Deus est causa producens effectum suum non per motum, sed subito. Ergo non est necessarium quod duratione praecedat effectum suum. Prima per inductionem patet in omnibus mutationibus subitis, sicut est illuminatio et huiusmodi. Nihilominus tamen potest probari per rationem sic. First, we should show that it is not necessary that an agent cause, in this case God, precede in time that which he causes, if he should so will. This can be shown in several ways. First, no cause instantaneously producing its effect necessarily precedes the effect in time. God, however, is a cause that produces effects not through motion but instantaneously. Therefore, it is not necessary that he precede his effects in time. The first premise is proved inductively from all instantaneous changes, as, for example, with illumination and other such things. But the premise may be proved by reason as well.
In quocumque instanti ponitur res esse, potest poni principium actionis eius, ut patet in omnibus generabilibus, quia in illo instanti in quo incipit ignis esse, calefacit. Sed in operatione subita, simul, immo idem est principium et finis eius, sicut in omnibus indivisibilibus. Ergo in quocumque instanti ponitur agens producens effectum suum subito, potest poni terminus actionis suae. Sed terminus actionis simul est cum ipso facto. Ergo non repugnat intellectui si ponatur causa producens effectum suum subito non praecedere duratione causatum suum. Repugnat autem in causis producentibus per motum effectus suos, quia oportet quod principium motus praecedat finem eius. Et quia homines sunt assueti considerare huiusmodi factiones quae sunt per motus, ideo non facile capiunt quod causa agens duratione effectum suum non praecedat. Et inde est quod multorum inexperti ad pauca respicientes facile enuntiant. For, at whatever instant a thing exists, at that instant it can begin to act, as is clear in the case of all things that come to be by generation: in the very instant at which there is fire, the fire heats. But in an instantaneous action, the beginning and the end of the action are simultaneous, indeed identical, as is clear in the case of all indivisible things. Hence, at whatever moment an agent instantaneously producing an effect exists, the end of its action can exist as well. The end of the action, however, is simultaneous with the thing made. Therefore, there is no contradiction if we suppose that a cause instantaneously producing an effect does not precede its effect in time. A contradiction does obtain if the cause involved is one that produces its effects through motion, for the beginning of the motion precedes in time the end of the motion. Since people are accustomed to considering the type of cause that produces effects through motion, they do not easily grasp that an agent cause may fail to precede its effect in time, and so, having limited experience, they easily make a false generalization.
Nec potest huic rationi obviare quod Deus est causa agens per voluntatem: quia etiam voluntas non est necessarium quod praecedat duratione effectum suum; nec agens per voluntatem, nisi per hoc quod agit ex deliberatione; quod absit ut in Deo ponamus. Nor can the conclusion be avoided by saying that God is an agent cause that acts voluntarily, for neither the will nor the voluntary agent need precede its effect in time, unless the agent cause acts from deliberation, which we take to be absent in God.
Praeterea. Causa producens totam rei substantiam non minus potest in producendo totam substantiam, quam causa producens formam in productione formae; immo multo magis: quia non producit educendo de potentia materiae, sicut est in eo qui producit formam. Sed aliquod agens quod producit solum formam, potest in hoc quod forma ab eo producta sit quandocumque ipsum est, ut patet in sole illuminante. Ergo multo fortius Deus, qui producit totam rei substantiam, potest facere ut causatum suum sit quandocumque ipse est. Further, a cause that produces the whole substance of a thing does not, in producing a whole substance, act in a less perfect way than does a cause that produces just a form in producing the form. On the contrary, it acts in a much more perfect way, since it does not act by educing from the potentiality of matter, as do causes that merely produce forms. However, some causes that produce just forms are such that, whenever the cause exists, the form produced by it exists as well, as is clear in the case of illumination by the sun. Therefore, much more can God, who produces the whole substance of things, make something caused by him exist whenever he himself exists.
Praeterea. Si aliqua causa sit qua posita in aliquo instanti non possit poni effectus eius ab ea procedens in eodem instanti, hoc non est nisi quia causae deest aliquid de complemento: causa enim completa et causatum sunt simul. Sed Deo nunquam defuit aliquid de complemento. Ergo causatum eius potest poni semper eo posito; et ita non est necessarium quod duratione praecedat. Further, if, granted a cause, its effect does not immediately exist as well, this can only be because something complementary to that cause is lacking: the complete cause and the thing caused are simultaneous. God, however, never lacks any kind of complementary cause in order to produce an effect. Therefore, at any instant at which God exists, so too can his effects, and thus God need not precede his effects in time.
Praeterea. Voluntas volentis nihil diminuit de virtute eius, et praecipue in Deo. Sed omnes solventes ad rationes Aristotelis, quibus probatur res semper fuisse a Deo per hoc quod idem semper facit idem, dicunt quod hoc sequeretur si non esset agens per voluntatem. Ergo et si ponatur agens per voluntatem, nihilominus sequitur quod potest facere ut causatum ab eo nunquam non sit. Et ita patet quod non repugnat intellectui, quod dicitur agens non praecedere effectum suum duratione; quia in illis quae repugnant intellectui, Deus non potest facere ut illud sit. Further, the will of the voluntary agent in no way diminishes his power, and this is especially true with God. But all those who try to answer the arguments of Aristotle (who held that something caused by God had always existed, since like always makes like) [[7]] say that the conclusion would follow if God were not a voluntary agent. Therefore, allowing that God is a voluntary agent, it still follows that he can make something that he has made never fail to exist. Thus, although God cannot make contradictories true, we have shown that there is no contradiction in saying that an agent cause does not precede its effect in time.
Nunc restat videre an repugnet intellectui aliquod factum nunquam non fuisse, propter quod necessarium sit non esse eius duratione praecedere, propter hoc quod dicitur ex nihilo factum esse. Sed quod hoc in nullo repugnet, ostenditur per dictum Anselmi in Monologio, 8 cap., exponentis quomodo creatura dicatur facta ex nihilo. Tertia, inquit, interpretatio, qua dicitur aliquid esse factum de nihilo, est cum intelligimus esse quidem factum, sed non esse aliquid unde sit factum. Per similem significationem dici videtur, cum homo contristatus sine causa, dicitur contristatus de nihilo. Secundum igitur hunc sensum, si intelligatur quod supra conclusum est, quia praeter summam essentiam cuncta quae sunt ab eadem, ex nihilo facta sunt, idest non ex aliquo; nihil inconveniens sequetur. Unde patet quod secundum hanc expositionem non ponitur aliquis ordo eius quod factum est ad nihil, quasi oportuerit illud quod factum est, nihil fuisse, et postmodum aliquid esse. It remains to be seen, then, whether there is a contradiction in saying that something made has always existed, on the grounds that it may be necessary that its non-being precede it in time, for we say that it is made out of nothing. But that there is no contradiction here is shown by Anselm in his explanation of what it means to say that a creature is made out of nothing. He says (Monologion cap. 8), "The third sense in which we can say that something is made out of nothing is this: we understand that something is made, but that there is not something from which it is made. In a similar way, we say that someone who is sad without reason is sad about nothing. We can thus say that all things, except the Supreme Being, are made by him out of nothing in the sense that they are not made out of anything, and no absurdity results." On this understanding of the phrase "out of nothing," therefore, no temporal priority of non-being to being is posited, as there would be if there were first nothing and then later something.
Praeterea, supponatur quod ordo ad nihil in praepositione importatus remaneat affirmatus, ut sit sensus: creatura facta est ex nihilo, idest facta est post nihil: haec dictio post ordinem importat absolute. Sed ordo multiplex est: scilicet durationis et naturae. Si igitur ex communi et universali non sequitur proprium et particulare, non esset necessarium ut propter hoc quod creatura dicitur esse post nihil, prius duratione fuerit nihil, et postea fuerit aliquid: sed sufficit, si prius natura sit nihil quam ens; prius enim naturaliter inest unicuique quod convenit sibi in se, quam quod ex alio habetur. Esse autem non habet creatura nisi ab alio; sibi autem relicta in se considerata nihil est: unde prius naturaliter est sibi nihilum quam esse. Nec oportet quod propter hoc sit simul nihil et ens, quia duratione non praecedit: non enim ponitur, si creatura semper fuit, ut in aliquo tempore nihil sit: sed ponitur quod natura eius talis esset quod esset nihil, si sibi relinqueretur; ut si dicamus aerem semper illuminatum fuisse a sole, oportebit dicere, quod aer factus est lucidus a sole. Et quia omne quod fit, ex incontingenti fit, idest ex eo quod non contingit simul esse cum eo quod dicitur fieri; oportebit dicere quod sit factus lucidus ex non lucido, vel ex tenebroso; non ita quod umquam fuerit non lucidus vel tenebrosus, sed quia esset talis, si eum sibi sol relinqueret. Et hoc expressius patet in stellis et orbibus quae semper illuminantur a sole. Further, let us even suppose that the preposition "out of" imports some affirmative order of non-being to being, as if the proposition that the creature is made out of nothing meant that the creature is made after nothing. Then this expression "after" certainly implies order, but order is of two kinds: order of time and order of nature. If, therefore, the proper and the particular does not follow from the common and the universal, it will not necessarily follow that, because the creature is made after nothing, non-being is temporally prior to the being of the creature. Rather, it suffices that non-being be prior to being by nature. Now, whatever naturally pertains to something in itself is prior to what that thing only receives from another. A creature does not have being, however, except from another, for, considered in itself, every creature is nothing, and thus, with respect to the creature, non-being is prior to being by nature. Nor does it follow from the creature's always having existed that its being and non-being are ever simultaneous, as if the creature always existed but at some time nothing existed, for the priority is not one of time. Rather, the argument merely requires that the nature of the creature is such that, if the creature were left to itself, it would be nothing. For example, if we should say that the air has always been illuminated by the sun, it would be right to say that the air has always been made lucid by the sun. Thus, since anything that comes to be such-and-such comes to be such-and-such from being not such-and-such, we say that the air is made lucid from being non-lucid, or opaque, not because the air was once non-lucid or opaque, but because the air would be opaque if the sun did not illuminate it. This is clearly the case with the stars and those celestial bodies that are always illuminated by the sun.
Sic ergo patet quod in hoc quod dicitur, aliquid esse factum et nunquam non fuisse, non est intellectus aliqua repugnantia. Si enim esset aliqua, mirum est quomodo Augustinus eam non vidit: quia hoc esset efficacissima via ad improbandum aeternitatem mundi, cum tamen ipse multis rationibus impugnet aeternitatem mundi in undecimo et duodecimo de Civ. Dei, hanc etiam viam omnino praetermittit? Quinimmo videtur innuere quod non sit ibi repugnantia intellectuum: unde dicit decimo de Civ. Dei, 31 cap., de Platonicis loquens: id quomodo intelligant, invenerunt non esse hoc, scilicet temporis, sed substitutionis initium. Sic enim, inquiunt, si pes ex aeternitate semper fuisset in pulvere, semper ei subesset vestigium, quod tamen vestigium a calcante factum nemo dubitaret; nec alterum altero prius esset, quamvis alterum ab altero factum esset: sic, inquiunt, et mundus et dii in illo creati semper fuerunt, semper existente qui fecit; et tamen facti sunt. Nec unquam dicit hoc non posse intelligi: sed alio modo procedit contra eos. Item dicit undecimo Lib., 4 cap.: qui autem a Deo quidem mundum factum fatentur, non tamen eum temporis sed suae creationis initium habere, ut modo quodam vix intelligibili semper sit factus; dicunt quidem aliquid et cetera. Causa autem quare est vix intelligibile, tacta est in prima ratione. Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed. Indeed, if there were some contradiction, it would be amazing that Augustine failed to see it, for exposing such a contradiction would be a most effective way of proving that the world is not eternal, and although Augustine offers many arguments against the eternity of the world in XI and XII De Civitate Dei, he never argues that his opponents' view is contradictory. On the contrary, Augustine seems to hint that there is no contradiction involved. Thus, speaking of the Platonists, he says (X De Civitate Dei cap. 31), "They somehow contemplate a beginning in causation rather than a beginning in time. Imagine, they say, a foot that has been in dust since eternity: a footprint has always been beneath it, and nobody would doubt that the footprint was made by the pressure of the foot. Though neither is prior in time to the other, yet one is made by the other. Likewise, they say, the world and the gods in it have always existed, just as he who made them always existed; yet nevertheless, they were made." [PL 41, 311] Nor does Augustine ever say that this cannot be understood; rather, he proceeds against the Platonists in a totally different way. He says (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 4), "Those, however, who admit that the world was made by God but nevertheless want to hold that the world has a beginning in creation but not in time, so that, in some scarcely intelligible way, it has always been made by God, think that they are defending God against a charge of casual rashness." [PL 41, 319][[8]] Their position is difficult to understand, however, only for the reason given above in the first argument.
Mirum est etiam quomodo nobilissimi philosophorum hanc repugnantiam non viderunt. Dicit enim Augustinus in eodem Lib. cap. 5, contra illos loquens de quibus in praecedenti auctoritate facta est mentio: cum his agimus qui et Deum corporum et omnium naturarum quae non sunt quod ipse, creatorem nobiscum sentiunt; de quibus postea subdit: isti philosophos ceteros nobilitate et auctoritate vicerunt. Et hoc etiam patet diligenter consideranti dictum eorum qui posuerunt mundum semper fuisse, quia nihilominus ponunt eum a Deo factum, nihil de hac repugnantia intellectuum percipientes. Ergo illi qui tam subtiliter eam percipiunt, soli sunt homines, et cum illis oritur sapientia. How remarkable it would be that even the most noble of philosophers failed to see a contradiction in the idea that something made by God has always existed. Speaking against the Platonists, Augustine says (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 5), "Here we are contending with those who agree with us that God is the Creator of all bodies and all natures except himself," [PL 41, 320] and then, again about the Platonists, he adds (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 5), "These philosophers surpassed the rest in nobility and authority." [PL 41, 321] Augustine said this even after diligently considering their position that the world has always existed, for they nevertheless thought that it was made by God, and they saw no contradiction between these two ideas. Therefore, those who so subtly perceive the contradiction are solitary men, and with these does wisdom arise. [[9]]
Sed quia quaedam auctoritates videntur pro eis facere, ideo ostendendum est quod praestant eis debile fulcimentum. Dicit enim Damascenus I Lib. 8 cap.: non aptum natum est quod ex non ente ad esse deducitur coaeternum esse ei quod sine principio est et semper est. Item Hugo de sancto Victore in principio Lib. sui de sacramentis dicit: ineffabilis omnipotentiae virtus non potuit aliud praeter se habere coaeternum, quo faciendo iuvaretur. Still, since certain authorities seem to argue on the side of such men, we ought to show that they base themselves on a weak foundation. Damascene says (I De Fide Orthodoxa cap. 8), "What is made out of nothing is by nature not such that it is coeternal to what has no causal principle and always exists." [PG 94, 814B] Likewise, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacramentis I-1 cap. 1), "The ineffable omnipotent power could not have anything coeternal beyond itself that would help it in making." [PL 176, 187B]
Sed harum auctoritatum et similium intellectus patet per hoc quod dicit Boetius in ult. de consolatione: non recte quidam, cum audiunt visum Platoni mundum hunc nec habuisse initium temporis, nec habiturum esse defectum, hoc modo conditori conditum mundum fieri coaeternum putant. Aliud enim est per interminabilem vitam duci, quod mundo Plato tribuit; aliud interminabilis vitae totam pariter complexam esse praesentiam, quod divinae mentis esse proprium manifestum est. Unde patet quod etiam non sequitur quod quidam obiiciunt, scilicet quod creatura aequaretur Deo in duratione; et quod per hunc modum dicatur, quod nullo modo potest esse aliquid coaeternum Deo, quia scilicet nihil potest esse immutabile nisi solus Deus, patet per hoc quod dicit Augustinus, in libro XII de Civ. Dei, cap. 15: tempus, quoniam mutabilitate transcurrit, aeternitati immutabili non potest esse coaeternum. Ac per hoc etiam si immortalitas Angelorum non transit in tempore, nec praeterita est quasi iam non sit, nec futura quasi nondum sit; tamen eorum motus, quibus tempora peraguntur, ex futuro in praeteritum transeunt. Et ideo creatori, in cuius motu dicendum non est vel fuisse quod iam non sit, vel futurum esse quod nondum sit, coaeterni esse non possunt. Similiter etiam dicit octavo super Gen.: quia omnino incommutabilis est illa natura Trinitatis, ob hoc ita aeterna est ut ei aliquid coaeternum esse non possit. Consimilia verba dicit in undecimo confessionum. But the position of these and similar authorities is made clear by Boethius, who says (V De Consolatione prosa 6), "When some people hear that Plato thought this world neither had a beginning in time nor will ever have an end, they mistakenly conclude that the created world is coeternal with the Creator. However, to be led through the endless life Plato attributes to the world is one thing; to embrace simultaneously the whole presence of endless life is quite another, and it is this latter that is proper to the divine mind." [PL 63, 859B] Thus it does not follow, as some people object, that a creature, even if it had always existed, would be equal to God in duration. For, if "eternal" be understood in this sense, nothing can in any way be coeternal with God, for nothing but God is immutable. As Augustine says (XII De Civitate Dei cap. 15), [[10]] "Time, since it passes away by its mutability, cannot be coeternal with immutable eternity. Thus, even if the immortality of the angels does not pass away in time (it is neither past, as if it did not exist now; nor is it future, as if it did not yet exist), nevertheless, the angels' motions, by which moments of time are carried along from the future into the past, pass away. Therefore, angels cannot be coeternal with the Creator, in whose motion there is nothing which has been that is not now, nor anything which will later be that is not already." [PL 41, 364-365] Likewise, Augustine says (VIII Super Genesis ad Litteram cap. 23), "Since the nature of the Trinity is wholly unchangeable, it is eternal in such a way that nothing can be coeternal with it," [PL 34, 389] and he uses words to the same effect in XI Confessionum as well. [[11]]
Addunt etiam pro se rationes quas etiam philosophi tetigerunt et eas solverunt; inter quas illa est difficilior quae est de infinitate animarum: quia si mundus semper fuit, necesse est modo infinitas animas esse. Sed haec ratio non est ad propositum, quia Deus mundum facere potuit sine hominibus et animabus, vel tunc homines facere quando fecit, etiam si totum mundum fecisset ab aeterno; et sic non remanerent post corpora animae infinitae. Et praeterea non est adhuc demonstratum, quod Deus non possit facere ut sint infinita actu. Those who try to prove that the world could not have always existed even adduce arguments that the philosophers have considered and solved. Chief among these is the argument from the infinity of souls: if the world had always existed, these people argue, there would necessarily be an infinite number of souls. But this argument is not to the point, for God could have made the world without making men or creatures with souls, or he could have made men when in fact he did make them, even if he had made the rest of the world from eternity. In either case, an infinite number of souls would not remain after the bodies had passed away. Furthermore, it has not yet been demonstrated that God cannot cause an infinite number of things to exist simultaneously.
Aliae etiam rationes sunt a quarum responsione supersedeo ad praesens, tum quia eis alibi responsum est, tum quia quaedam earum sunt adeo debiles quod sua debilitate contrariae parti videntur probabilitatem afferre. There are other arguments adduced as well, but I refrain from answering them at present, either because they have been suitably answered elsewhere, or because they are so weak that their very weakness lends probability to the opposing view.
[1] This translation follows the Leonine Edition of Aquinas's works, vol. 43 Sancti Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia 85-89 (Rome 1976).
[2] All persons are licensed to reproduce this translation and the footnotes hereto for personal or educational purposes, provided that the notice of copyright above and this notice are included in their respective entireties in all copies. This license includes reproduction by a commercial entity engaged in the business of providing copying services if such reproduction is made at the behest of a person who would otherwise be licensed under the preceding sentence to reproduce this translation for personal or educational purposes.
[3] Aquinas means that the impossibility may be thought to arise either on the part of God, as if he were unable to make such a thing for lack of power, or on the part of the thing, as if such a thing could not be made because it lacks a pre-existing passive potentiality or because it is self-contradictory.
[4] That is, on the condition that such a thing can be made. In other words, all sides agree that the impossibility of something having always existed, if such there be, does not arise from some lack of power in God.
[5] That is, between "always having existed" and "having been made."
[6] In the sense that there was nothing existing before the angel that would become the angel, as the brass to be made into a statue exists before the statue and becomes the statue.
[7] See II De Generatione et Corruptione cap. 10, 336a 27-28.
[8] PL 41, 319. In the Leonine Edition, Aquinas does not quote the predicate of the independent clause; it does appear in the Parma Edition, and I have chosen to supply it.
[9] Said ironically, the sentence is quite out of character for Aquinas, who courteously conducted the bitterest disputations. Here he is probably alluding to the Vulgate text of Job 12:2, in which Job says, "You are solitary men, and with you wisdom shall die." The difference between "arises" (oritur) and "shall die" (morietur) is small.
[10] So in Aquinas. The chapter divisions in De Civitate Dei are, at this point, somewhat unclear, and, as the editors of the Leonine Edition suggest, the quoted text is probably from cap. 16. In any event, the quoted material appears at PL 41, 364-365.
[11] See XI Confessionum cap. 30. PL 32, 826.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
Paul Halsall May 1997

THE LOGIC MUSEUM Copyright (introduction) E.D.Buckner 2006.