V. To the Arguments for Henry’s Opinion

123. To the arguments for the first opinion recited, which were set down for the first article [nn.18-23], I reply:

To the first [n.20] it is plain that the minor is false, and it was refuted earlier [2 d.3 nn.46, 48-56].

124. To the second [n.21] I say there is equivocation over ‘first’ and ‘per se’ object.

For in one way that object is said to be first which has per se the idea of moving a power - and that object is said to be per se which does not have of itself that it move a power but moves it along with another; and in this way the Philosopher speaks in On the Soul 2.6.418a8-21 of the ‘first’ sensible, of which sort is a proper sensible, and of a ‘per se’ sensible, of which sort is a common sensible. In another way the first object is sometimes said to be the adequate object, and adequate to power or to act - and when contained under the first object adequate to the power it is called ‘the per se object of the power’, but when included in the first object adequate to the act it is called ‘the per se object of the act’.

125. Although therefore an object ‘per se and not first’ (in the way Aristotle speaks of it in On the Soul [n.124] cannot move a power save in virtue of the first object (or along with the first object [nn.21, 124]) - yet when speaking of ‘the per se object’ not adequate to the power but contained under the adequate object, it can move the power under its proper idea as well, to the extent it adds something to the first object.

126. Now when the proposition is taken that ‘the universal is the first object of the angelic intellect’ [n.21], it is false of the first adequate object, speaking of the universal insofar as it is universal; because although what universality is incident to, as to being, is in this way first object, yet being is saved equally in the singular as in the universal - and so being under the idea in which it is universal is not the adequate object such that universality is included in the adequate object.

127. Likewise, the universal is not ‘first’ in the way in which the Philosopher speaks in On the Soul [n.124], and the singular is not ‘per se’ in the way in which the sensible is common in respect of the senses, because the singular includes the same moving idea as the universal does; and yet the argument would not proceed without equivocation unless one provided a gloss or took the major of it in the first way.Vatican editors: There would be equivocation if the first object adequate to the power were understood to include the singular and the universal; but the equivocation can be avoided if one glosses it by saying that the first object adequate of itself is neither the singular nor the universal, and that as neither singular nor universal it moves the angelic intellect. ¹⁹

128. To the third [n.22] I say that proportionality does not always include likeness, but very often unlikeness instead; for four is double of two (and is proportional to it in double ratio), and three is to two in sesquialterate proportion, and the agent is proportional to the patient (because the former is in act and the latter in potency), and matter is proportional to form - and yet in all these unlikeness is more required than likeness. So I say in the issue at hand that the power must be proportioned to the object but not assimilated to it, because neither if the object is indeterminate (namely infinite) need the power be infinite (because a finite intellect knows the infinite as infinite finitely), nor if the object is determinate need the power be determinate, for an infinite intellect knows the finite as finite infinitely.

129. When therefore the proposition is taken that ‘the power must be determinate because the object is determinate’ [n.22] - if it is understood to mean that the power must thus be of a determinate object (and this in a determinate proportionate object), it is true; and in that case when - in the minor - the proposition is taken that ‘the intellect of an angel cannot be thus determinate’ (that is, does not have a proportion to an object thus determinate)A point not found in n.22 above but rather in the Lectura 2 d.9 n.24. ²⁰ it is false.

130. And when you ask ‘by what is the intellect thus determinate, by its own nature or by the species?’ - I say in neither way, for without a species it can know the singular as singular by intuitive knowledge, and by a species it can know the singular as singular by abstractive knowledge [2 d.3 n.394].

131. And when it is concluded against the first member here that ‘then the intellect of an angel would be more determinate than our intellect’ [n.22], and against the second that ‘then it would be more determinable than our senses’ - I say that this determination is not intrinsic to the power (neither of itself nor by the species) but is relative to a determinate object, and in this way the divine intellect is relative to a determinate singular; and it is not unacceptable that a more perfect intellect is determinate and determinable with respect to an object in a way that a more imperfect intellect is not determinate or determinable with respect to the same object.

132. But if it is concluded that ‘therefore it is more limited, because this determination introduces imperfection’ [n.22] - I deny the consequence, because this determination is not one of limitation but of perfection; for the intellect is altogether determinate to knowing the object altogether most determinately.

133. And if it is objected that ‘the angelic intellect will be more passive than our intellect, because affected by more objects’, I reply (see.. Scotus Metaphysics 7 q.15 nn.28-29: “Every actual entity is the idea for acting immediately on an intellect that has the capacity, not for any action immediately, but for action from such entity; thus the intellect of an angel has a capacity for action from any actual entity, both quidditative and individual, but ours now [sc. in this life] is not capable of action from an individual entity... And therefore the angelic intellect can be moved by any entity because it is more perfect than ours - nor is ‘being actable on by more things’ more imperfect when perfection is not possible save by being acted on; just as something transparent is not less perfect because it can be illumined by any light source than one that can be illumined only by the sun.” know them; and therefore a power that can know more things (even through receiving) is more perfect than a cognitive power that cannot know as many things - just as it is plain that our intellect is more perfect than any sensitive power because it can know more things. Hence generally in the case of cognitive powers that lack knowledge of some objects, it is a mark of greater perfection to be able to know more things, and consequently to be capable of being acted on by more objects - although in the case of the divine intellect (which actually knows everything) it is impossible for it to know anything de novo, as to be acted on by any object or to receive knowledge of it. ²¹).a

a. a[Interpolation] and I say that although the receiving of intellection is a certain imperfection (since it is a certain undergoing), yet it is in a sense a perfection, because in a cognitive power -which does not know things actually of itself - it is a mark of perfection to have the capacity to

134. To the fourth [n.23] I say either that ‘habit’ cannot be in an angelic intellect, taking habit for the quality that follows act (whereby it is distinguished from first act by which a thing is present under the idea of being actually intelligible), and this even if that intellect were supremely habituated of itself; or I say that if that intellect had the capacity and if such habit were not co-created with it, then I concede that it could generate in itself such a habit from acts, as was said before (to the similar argument about the generation of a habit in the angelic intellect [2 d.3 nn.360, 401-402]).

135. And when Aristotle is adduced, who maintains that ‘the habit of universals is not other than the habit of singulars’ [n.23] I say (as was said in the question on individuation [2 d.3 n.193]) that a singular does not have proper features that are knowable of it, and so there is properly no science about it; and thus neither is there a habit about it, speaking of the habit whereby singular knowables are present to the intellect - which are called by the Philosopher ‘proper knowables’, namely those that contain properties demonstrated of them as of their subjects.Scotus Exposition on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, 11 s.3 ch.2 n.60: “Each of the sciences considers the proper subject according to that science, namely by demonstrating the proper features of the proper subject.” ²² However the habit that is a facility for considering - left behind by acts - can well be different for a singular than for a universal; for an intellect that has distinct knowledge of a singular can frequently consider the singular and not frequently consider the nature in general - and thereby a quality would be made habituating for similar acts of considering the singular, but not universally inclining to considering the nature in general; if therefore there is a different habit consequent upon the acts, namely a habit that is a quality habituating to consideration more in respect of the singular than the universal, yet it is not a different scientific habit in the way in which the Philosopher speaks there [n.23] of scientific habit.