162 JAMES A. WEISHEIPL 



from nature through astronomy, geometry, harmonics, arith- 

 metic to the One of metaphysics; for him the proper subject 

 of metaphysics is God precisely as the first cause of all plurality, 

 material and immaterial .^^ 



St. Albert's view of the matter is most interesting. Through- 

 out the Metaphysics and Liber de causis St. Albert repeatedly 

 rejected the " Platonic view " which would admit into philoso- 

 phy certain separated substances totally unrelated to celestial 

 movement. " The statement of certain Platonists that there 

 exist separated substances not related to movable bodies, is 

 entirely outside the realm of philosophical discourse, since this 

 cannot be proved by reason." ^^ The separated substances 

 called angels by Avicenna, Algazel, Isaac and Moses Maimoni- 

 des have nothing to do with celestial movement or with celestial 

 bodies; they are independent intermediaries between God and 

 man. For Albert the only demonstrative way to separated sub- 

 stances and to God is through the study of celestial motions. 

 Consequently not only are angels, as revealed in Sacred Scrip- 

 ture, outside philosophical discussion, but the intellectus uni- 

 versaliter agens of celestial motions can be none other than 

 God. That is to say, the first cause of the primum mobile and 

 its diurnal motion is God, and not an intermediary. That God 

 is " the immediate natural mover " of the universe in its 

 diurnal motion is taken by St. Albert as true and demonstrated 

 among those who know anything about philosophy .^^ 



Whatever modern Thomists may have to say about the 

 famous quinque viae of St. Thomas, it cannot be denied that for 

 Thomas all the proofs progress from terrestrial phenomena 

 through celestial phenomena eventually to God. The question 

 of angels in St. Thomas' philosophy will be considered later. 

 For the present it is important to establish only that in St. 

 Thomas' proofs celestial phenomena do have an important 

 part to play. This is not to say that the validity of those proofs 



Cf. Kilwardby, De ortu scientiarum, cap. 26, fol. 32rb-va. 

 ''' St. Albert, Liber XI Metaph., tr. II, c. 17, ed. Borgnet VI, 638a; cf. Proble- 

 mata determmata, q. 2, ed. cit., pp. 323-327 



** St. Albert, Problemata determinata, q. 5, ed. cit., p. 328. 



