II. To the Principal Arguments

265. And therefore to the arguments for the first part [nn.255-59], which seem to prove not only an impossibility as to the natural power of an angel but also an impossibility simply (because they seem to prove a contradiction), a reply must be made:

And first to the first argument [n.255], that it is a non sequitur; and the converse too is a non sequitur, when the third thing (to which the extremes are compared) is unlimited in the respect in which the extremes are compared to it - as is plain about the soul in the right hand and the left hand, which soul is not spatially separate from itself and yet hand is spatially separate from hand; thus God is not spatially separate from himself and yet the things that exist with him here and in Rome are spatially separate from each other. But whatever is posited as the same in two ‘wheres’, whatever the power be by which it exists in them, is in some way thus unlimited with respect to them, and so neither consequence is valid.

266. To the second [n.256] I say that an angel is of himself limited both in nature and in natural properties; but as to an accidental property or respect (of the sort that ‘where’ states, or at any rate ‘where’ is not without a respect), there is no need that an angel be limited altogether (such that it is incompossible for him to have two such respects), although perhaps he is limited by natural power to one of them as to adequacy.

267. As to the third argument [n.257] see 4 d.10 p.1 q.2 n.25.

268. As to the fourth argument [n.258] I say that just as ‘to be moved’ means to be disposed differently now than before, so ‘to be at rest’ is to be disposed now as before; but it is not unacceptable that something is with respect to one ‘where’ disposed now as before and is with respect to a second disposed differently than before - and so it is not unacceptable that it could be at rest here and in motion there. And hereby I concede absolutely that it is at once at rest and in motion - because affirmative predicates simply taken follow of themselves, being taken with a non-diminishing determination.

269. And when the inference is further drawn that ‘therefore it is at rest and not at rest’ [n.258], there is here a mistaking of the question and a fallacy of simply and in a certain respect; for ‘to be at rest’ does not entail ‘not to be in motion’ absolutely but entails only ‘not to be in motion’ with that determination with which ‘to be at rest’ was taken insofar as it preceded being at rest simply; and therefore all that follows is that the thing is in motion in this ‘where’ and is not in motion in that ‘where’, which are not contradictories.

Here is an example: this is double a and half b, therefore it is double and half. But the further inference ‘therefore it is double and not double’ does not follow; for this inference only follows from the first antecedents together with the determination that the thing is double a and not double b - and from these the further inference does not follow that ‘therefore it is double and not double’, but there is here a mistaking of the question. So, in all such cases where the predicates are taken with a qualification, affirmative conclusions are entailed in which the same predicates are included simply; but negative conclusions are not entailed in which the predicates are involved simply in belonging to the subjects, for the reasons stated.

270. To the final argument [n.259] I say that both ways are possible.

271. And when the first way is criticized, I say that there is no incompossibility of motions unless there is an incompossibility of the forms according to which they are motions; and therefore, if two ‘wheres’ are not formally incompossible (either as to being in motion or as to being in flux), then neither will two motions at once to two ‘wheres’ be incompossible. Now the statement of the Philosopher in Physics 3 [n.259] is true of motions according to incompossible forms, of which sort perhaps are absolute forms (but not of the same species), and of this matter elsewhere [4 d.10 p.1 q.2 nn.13-17, 19].

272. And when the second way is criticized, I say that just as generation and corruption are two distinct motions and have their own distinct terms, even though they frequently coincide (and then there are four terms, namely two terms ‘from which’ - one privation and one form - and two terms ‘to which’ - similarly one privation and one form), so there is in the case of motions a departure from the term ‘from which’ and an approaching to the term ‘to which’; and yet, just as generation can, without contradiction, be without corruption and conversely, because they are not the same change, so there can be motion or change insofar as there is an approaching to the term ‘to which’ without any motion which is a departure from a term ‘from which’. And then the statement ‘the terms of the motions are incompossible’ [n.259] is true of the proximate terms of the same motion, but it is not true of terms that can be those of any different motions whatever.