|
Objection 1: It would seem that an angel's movement is
instantaneous. For the greater the power of the mover, and the less
the moved resist the mover, the more rapid is the movement. But the
power of an angel moving himself exceeds beyond all proportion the power
which moves a body. Now the proportion of velocities is reckoned
according to the lessening of the time. But between one length of time
and any other length of time there is proportion. If therefore a body
is moved in time, an angel is moved in an instant.
Objection 2: Further, the angel's movement is simpler than any
bodily change. But some bodily change is effected in an instant, such
as illumination; both because the subject is not illuminated
successively, as it gets hot successively; and because a ray does not
reach sooner what is near than what is remote. Much more therefore is
the angel's movement instantaneous.
Objection 3: Further, if an angel be moved from place to place in
time, it is manifest that in the last instant of such time he is in the
term "whereto": but in the whole of the preceding time, he is either
in the place immediately preceding, which is taken as the term
"wherefrom"; or else he is partly in the one, and partly in the
other, it follows that he is divisible; which is impossible.
Therefore during the whole of the preceding time he is in the term
"wherefrom." Therefore he rests there: since to be at rest is to be
in the same place now and previously, as was said (Article 2).
Therefore it follows that he is not moved except in the last instant of
time.
On the contrary, In every change there is a before and after. Now
the before and after of movement is reckoned by time. Consequently
every movement, even of an angel, is in time, since there is a before
and after in it.
I answer that, Some have maintained that the local movement of an
angel is instantaneous. They said that when an angel is moved from
place to place, during the whole of the preceding time he is in the
term "wherefrom"; but in the last instant of such time he is in the
term "whereto." Nor is there any need for a medium between the
terms, just as there is no medium between time and the limit of time.
But there is a mid-time between two "nows" of time: hence they say
that a last "now" cannot be assigned in which it was in the term
"wherefrom," just as in illumination, and in the substantial
generation of fire, there is no last instant to be assigned in which
the air was dark, or in which the matter was under the privation of the
form of fire: but a last time can be assigned, so that in the last
instant of such time there is light in the air, or the form of fire in
the matter. And so illumination and substantial generation are called
instantaneous movements.
But this does not hold good in the present case; and it is shown
thus. It is of the nature of rest that the subject in repose be not
otherwise disposed now than it was before: and therefore in every
"now" of time which measures rest, the subject reposing is in the
same "where" in the first, in the middle, and in the last "now."
On the other hand, it is of the very nature of movement for the
subject moved to be otherwise now than it was before: and therefore in
every "now" of time which measures movement, the movable subject is
in various dispositions; hence in the last "now" it must have a
different form from what it had before. So it is evident that to rest
during the whole time in some (disposition), for instance, in
whiteness, is to be in it in every instant of such time. Hence it is
not possible for anything to rest in one term during the whole of the
preceding time, and afterwards in the last instant of that time to be
in the other term. But this is possible in movement: because to be
moved in any whole time, is not to be in the same disposition in every
instant of that time. Therefore all instantaneous changes of the kind
are terms of a continuous movement: just as generation is the term of
the alteration of matter, and illumination is the term of the local
movement of the illuminating body. Now the local movement of an angel
is not the term of any other continuous movement, but is of itself,
depending upon no other movement. Consequently it is impossible to say
that he is in any place during the whole time, and that in the last
"now" he is in another place: but some "now" must be assigned in
which he was last in the preceding place. But where there are many
"nows" succeeding one another, there is necessarily time; since time
is nothing else than the reckoning of before and after in movement. It
remains, then, that the movement of an angel is in time. It is in
continuous time if his movement be continuous, and in non-continuous
time if his movement is non-continuous for, as was said (Article
1), his movement can be of either kind, since the continuity of time
comes of the continuity of movement, as the Philosopher says (Phys.
iv, text 99).
But that time, whether it be continuous or not, is not the same as
the time which measures the movement of the heavens, and whereby all
corporeal things are measured, which have their changeableness from the
movement of the heavens; because the angel's movement does not depend
upon the movement of the heavens.
Reply to Objection 1: If the time of the angel's movement be not
continuous, but a kind of succession of 'nows,' it will have no
proportion to the time which measures the movement of corporeal things,
which is continuous; since it is not of the same nature. If,
however, it be continuous, it is indeed proportionable, not,
indeed, because of the proportion of the mover and the movable, but on
account of the proportion of the magnitudes in which the movement
exists. Besides, the swiftness of the angel's movement is not
measured by the quantity of his power, but according to the
determination of his will.
Reply to Objection 2: Illumination is the term of a movement; and
is an alteration, not a local movement, as though the light were
understood to be moved to what is near, before being moved to what is
remote. But the angel's movement is local, and, besides, it is not
the term of movement; hence there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: This objection is based on continuous time.
But the same time of an angel's movement can be non-continuous. So
an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in
the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the
angel's movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places
throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was
already shown (Article 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the
continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is
susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the
first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (Article
2).
|
|