Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
I. To the Question
511. It is said here by some that extremes can be understood either as two distant ‘wheres’ between which there is some middle that is not part of the extremes, or as two immediate ‘wheres’ between which there are middles yet any one of them is some part of the extremes.
512. Speaking of middles in the second way and of the continuous motion of an angel, I say that he cannot pass from extreme to extreme (speaking in this second way about extremes) save by passing through such a middle as is part of each extreme, because such a middle is the idea of continuity between the extremes passed through, as is plain from the definition of a middle in Metaphysics 10.5.1057a21-26.43
513. It seems to be similar when speaking of continuous motion and of a middle said in the other way [sc. the first, n.511], because, if an angel moves continuously, he is not completely in either extreme; therefore he is partly in one and partly in the other, or he is in the middle between both; for it cannot be said - as it seems - that he is in part of one extreme and in part of the other and yet that he is altogether not in such a middle between such extremes, because then he would be in two discontinuous places and in not in any way in the middle place, which does not seem to belong to him by natural power [nn.262-64].
514. But if we are speaking of indivisible motion, I say that in such a motion an angel can pass from extreme to immediate extreme without passing through a middle that is some part of either extreme; rather this must be the case, because if he were to pass through such a middle he would pass continuously and not instantaneously [n.512].
515. However as to distant extremes there is doubt. It is plain indeed from the preceding question [nn.503-504] that an angel cannot put himself in a distant extreme with a change that involves the whole reality of motion. - But can he really put himself in a distant extreme that involves precisely the reality of the term of motion, so that in some whole time he is in ‘where’ a and in part of that time he is precisely in ‘where’ b (such that ‘where’ b is distant from ‘where’ a by some middle, and the angel was never in this middle, whether in time or in an instant)? It seems probably that he cannot, because an order pre-established by a superior agent seems to be necessary for any inferior agent when the inferior agent does an action precisely about things in that order (an example: the order of natural forms that succeed each other in natural generation is determined by the institutor of nature, and so this order is necessary in respect of any natural agent, such that no natural agent can make vinegar immediately save from wine); therefore, since the order of the principal parts of the universe has been imposed by God on every created agent and created power, this order seems to be a necessary one when a natural agent moves itself through bodies to which such an order belongs. So when an angel moves himself through bodies to which such an order belongs, he cannot put himself in any ‘where’ whatever and follow no order about any ‘where’ whatever; for then no distance would seem to impede his action.
516. And if you object that this argument [n.515] is conclusive against the second member, ‘about middles that are part of the extremes’ [n.514], I deny it, because in that case, when an angel passes in an instant immediately from one ‘where’ to another ‘where’, he has all the ‘wheres’ in some order of nature (and between these ‘wheres’ there is, from the nature of the thing, a potential order), but he need not have them in an order of duration; and if he passes from a distant ‘where’ to a distant ‘where’ without any order in any way, then he would, without any order at all whether of nature or of duration, possess things to which a natural order belongs even though his acting about them necessarily presupposes the order of them.