Dist. 37, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/37/q/bon-sent-I-d37-p2-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III.
#### *Whether the Angel passes through the medium by a sudden or by a successive motion.*

Thirdly, it is asked whether the angelic spirit passes through the medium by a sudden motion or by a successive [motion]. And that [it does so] successively, [the following] is seen.

1. In one instant it is in the term *from which* (*a quo*), and in another instant it is in the term *to which* (*ad quem*); but between any two instants there falls an intermediate time, and in the middle of those instants there is being-moved: therefore the being-moved of the Angel itself is in time: therefore it is moved by a successive motion.

2. Likewise, this very thing is shown on the part of the space, thus: the Angel, if it passes through the medium in some instant, is in the medium and in the parts of the medium; but it is impossible that any one [thing] except God and the body of Christ be at one and the same time in several places: therefore it is impossible that the Angel be in the same instant in the whole medium and at the end: therefore it is not moved suddenly: therefore necessarily it must [be moved] successively.

3. Likewise, this is shown on the part of [its] power. As the Philosopher holds, if such-and-such a power moves in such-and-such a time, and a greater [power] in less [time], and the greatest in the least, and an infinite [power] in the *now*, then according as [something] is power, accordingly its motion is faster; but the instant exceeds time disproportionately: therefore also the power which moves in an instant exceeds, by an infinite [degree], that which moves in time. But no created power exceeds another infinitely, and the angelic power is created: therefore since every natural local motion is successive, it is plain that the Angel's motion is successive.

4. Likewise, if the Angel is moved, then either that motion is truly motion, or [it is] a *mutatio* (change). If a *mutatio*: then [it is] generation or corruption, which is plainly false. If motion; but every motion properly so called has a before and an after, and place and time, and every such [thing] is successive: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine in the book *Five Responses*: "A ray does not arrive at nearer places more quickly than at remoter places", and it is plain that it passes through the medium: therefore if the angelic power is not less powerful, but more, the conclusion is plain etc.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher proves "that if there were a vacuum, there would be no motion"; but the same [thing] which a vacuum does for a moved body, the very space does for the Angel, since it in no way resists it, just as neither does a vacuum: therefore it seems that the Angel itself passes through it suddenly.

3. Likewise, everything which is moved successively is partly in the term *from which*, partly in the term *to which*; but every such [thing] is partible: therefore it is necessary either that the Angel be partible, or [that] it not be moved successively.

4. Likewise, everything which transfers itself all-at-once and as-a-whole-at-once is not moved successively; but the Angel transfers itself all-at-once, since it is wholly simple: therefore in an instant, and not successively, is it moved.

5. Likewise, successive motion is something composite and an accident, and no composite accident is in a simple subject; but the Angel is simple: therefore it is not the subject of successive motion, but the *mobile* is the subject of motion, therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *The Angel is moved through the medium by a successive motion, by reason of the distance of the space and by reason of the finite power of the mover.*

**I respond:** It must be said, that on this [matter] some have held diverse views.

For some have said that, since the Angel is simple, and space composite, both the Angel and his power are disproportionate to space; and therefore his power altogether prevails over the space, to such a degree that he passes through the space suddenly and by a disproportionate motion, and such a motion is above

nature. — But since it seems difficult to understand that he passes through the medium without being in several parts of the medium; and to posit that he is moved suddenly and is in several parts of the medium is to posit, in that motion, that he be in several places at once; and this is altogether absurd to say of the Angel, as the Saints say, and the philosophers and the Catholic doctors agree on this: therefore it must be said, that the Angel is not moved through the medium by a sudden motion, but by a successive [motion].

On account of which it should be noted, that in motion which is successive with perfect succession, the succession comes from a fourfold cause: the first is the distance of the medium, the second the resistance of the medium, the third is the partibility of the *mobile*, the fourth is the finitude of the power, since to a finite power it properly belongs to move in time, especially through a medium. It must be conceded therefore, that the Angel's motion through the medium is not successive with perfect succession, since there fails there the resistance of the space and the partibility of the *mobile*; it is nevertheless successive by reason of the distance of the space, in which he cannot be all at once throughout the whole, and by [reason of] the finitude of the moving power, which does not exceed the medium disproportionately, and therefore does not produce a motion altogether disproportionate to the medium. — And the reasons proving that motion through space [to be] successive must be conceded. Yet the first reason is sophistical; but it will be resolved elsewhere, when treatment is made of the transition of the bread into the body of Christ, where it has its [proper] place.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that a ray does not arrive more quickly; it must be said, that Augustine speaks according to the perception of sense, because sense does not perceive that a ray arrives more quickly at nearer places than at more distant ones, not because in fact there is not truly a before and after there. Hence if the ray be said to be moved suddenly, "suddenly" is to be understood for "instantly" (*pro repente*), and "instantaneous" (*repentinum*) is said of that which is to be moved in an imperceptible time. — But it can be said otherwise, that light is moved suddenly, since the motion of light in the medium is not only local motion, but is a motion of diffusion, which is generation, just as an *idolum* (*image*) is generated from an object; and since light is and shines simultaneously, simultaneously with its being it generates splendor, and so in the same instant: similarly the like can be understood [of the splendor], and so on. Hence if a man simultaneously [were] and generated [men], in the first instant the world would be full of men. In this way may answer one who knows no better.

2. To that which is objected concerning the vacuum, that if there were a vacuum, there would be no motion; it must be said, that on this [matter] many have said many things, and to recount their sayings would be long. But now, sustaining the Philosopher, it can be said that, if there were a vacuum, there would not be successive motion, the vacuum being rightly understood, in the sense in which I believe the Philosopher to understand it, [taking it] as he says, simply [as] a privation: if there is a vacuum there — where we understand a vacuum, there we understand nothing to be — therefore not only does the resistance of body fail, but also there is no distance there at all; but where there is no distance, there is neither near nor far; but where there is local motion, necessarily there is approach or recession: therefore if there is a vacuum, there is no motion, not on account of a defect of resistance, but of distance. But since the medium, compared to the Angel, has the character of distance, since it truly makes a distance between the extremes, therefore it suffices for some succession or other on account of the distance; but where there is a vacuum, there is no distance, and this is necessarily required beforehand for local motion. For the partibility of the *mobile* and the finitude of the power do not produce succession, unless there be a before and an after in the magnitude over which [the motion] is, or in that which is acquired through motion.

3. To that which is objected, that what is moved successively is partly in the term *from which* and partly in the term *to which*; it must be said, that in [a motion] successive, where there is full succession, one must posit a part-and-part both as regards the underlying magnitude, and as regards the magnitude moved-through, and as regards the disposition acquired. Since natural motion to *situs* (place) is motion to a form in a certain way; but in the motion of an Angel there is not succession according to every kind of completeness, and therefore not

according to all these differences, but only according to the priority and posteriority of the magnitude over which. — As to what is therefore said, that [a thing in motion] is partly in the term *from which*, partly in the term *to which*, this is not according to a diversity of parts of the *mobile*, but is only by approach and recession.

4. To that which is objected, that [the Angel] transfers itself wholly at once: it must be said, that, although on its own part it transfers the whole of itself at once, it does not however transfer itself simultaneously over the whole [space], because of the distance of the medium, in which it cannot be all at once throughout the whole.

5. To that which is objected, that a composite accident cannot be in a simple thing; it must be said, that this is true of [something] composite which has parts in act: but of [something] composite which is in succession, it is not true. For just as successive duration can be in the Angel, according as he abides — since of [that duration] there is never anything except the *now* — so successive motion can be in him, according as he is borne along; and this indeed has nothing inappropriate about it. With these things seen, the objections are clear.

For the sum of the foregoing is, that the Angel is moved without an assumed body, and [that] he is moved in or through the medium, and [that] he is moved by a successive motion, although [a motion] not composed by every kind of succession, as has been said.