2. Rejection of the Opinion

153. Against the conclusion of this position [n.147] I argue as follows:

Things that have a uniform mode of lasting have, while they last, a measure in their duration of the same idea, even though one lasts longer than another; but the thinking of an angel has, while it lasts, the same mode of lasting as the existence of an angel, although it does not have as long a duration as the angel’s existence has; therefore it has a measure of the same idea as the existence does, and so the angel’s thinking is measured by aeviternity and not by time.a

a.a [Interpolated note] In the Reportatio, “The major is plain, both because the subject includes the predicate and because, if a single intellection of an angel were to remain sempiternally like his existence, it would have a measure uniformly; but sempiternal existence is not incidental to the measure, because, if one suppose that the angel will be annihilated tomorrow, his existence now would no less be measured by aeviternity.”

154. The proof of the minor is that to the formal idea of the existence of an angel - whether uniform or not - there corresponds, in their view [sc. the supporters of this opinion, n.147], a proper idea of measure, because they distinguish and speak ofa three modes of measure for things; and in this way both major and minor are plain. Hence their view maintains that the middle measure corresponds to what has an indivisible duration and is yet defectible (such that of itself it can cease to be), and it posits the measure to be aeviternity. But, just as the existence of an angel is indivisible and yet defectible, so also now, in their view, is the angel’s thinking.

a.a [Interpolated note] In the Reportatio [IIA d.2 q.1], “This doctor [Henry of Ghent] elsewhere says that there are three existences and three measures; existence that is simply independent and invariable, and it is measured by eternity, variable and dependent existence measured by time, invariable and dependent existence measured by aeviternity.”

155. If it be said that an angel’s thinking will not always be but that his existence will always be, and so things are not alike as to his existence and his thinking - this argument does not seem valid, because even if the angel is to be annihilated yet not for this reason would he, while he lasts, not be measured by aeviternity.

156. If it be said that it is in the angel’s power to have or not have the thinking, but not in his power to have or not have his actual existence - this argument does not seem valid, because just as potentiality for being about not to be at some point does not vary the measure of an angel’s existence while he lasts, so will the cause much more by which this potentiality can be reduced to act - namely a created or uncreated cause - not vary the formal idea of his existence or his duration in existing.

157. Further, second and principally, everyone concedes that the beatific act of an angel is measured by aeviternity, as is plain from Augustine [Fulgentius] On the Faith to Peter ch.3 n.20. But that act necessarily includes or presupposes a natural act, and this by positing the angel has some perfection in his beatific act, although he not have power in himself for the total perfection of the beatific act; but it is impossible for an aeviternal thing to include or presuppose something posterior to aeviternity, which would, namely, be measured by a measure posterior to aeviternity; therefore the natural act, which is included in the beatific act, cannot be temporal.

158. Against the way of positing this opinion [n.47]:

For it seems to concede a large quantity of times without necessity; for it has as consequence that any angel possesses his own discrete time, because one angel can continue his thinking along with our day and another continue his thinking along with half our day and a third do so along with an hour of our day - and so one angel will have twenty four instants while another will have a single instant; nay, the opinion has as consequence that in any angel there will be two discrete times, because any angel will be able to continue his thinking while not continuing his volition - and so he will have two instants of intellection and yet one instant of volition.

159. Further, according to this opinion the aeviternal durations in diverse aeviternities will, if the actual existences of aeviternal things are of a different idea, also be of different ideas - and in angels of diverse species the opinion posits aeviternal durations of diverse species; so likewise there will be ‘nows of discrete time’ of different species for intellections of different species.

160. From this I argue as follows: no single quantity is composed of several parts of altogether different ideas, because although sixes can be composed of twos and threes etc. (which however the Philosopher denies, Metaphysics 5.15.1020b7-8, because ‘six things are only once six’, and Avicenna also denies it, Metaphysics 3.5, f 80va), yet no quantity ‘composed however much of parts of distinct ideas’ can be the same quantity, because then six could come from tens and twos and from any number whatever; but during the length of a day of ours an angel could understand distinctly any natural intelligibles whatever, as stone, wood, iron, water, and understand anything else at all after anything else at all - and then his time would be composed of diverse instants and instants of diverse species, corresponding to the intelligibles of diverse species.a He would also be able not to think or understand these but instead to think or understand many more (or as many) other species, and consequently his time could then be composed of others parts, and parts positively disposed in determinate nature to time;     therefore it seems etc     . [sc. as above: that ‘his time would be composed of diverse instants and instants of diverse species, corresponding to the intelligibles of diverse species’].

a.a [Interpolated note] In the Reportatio [IIA d.2 q.1], “For number is not composed of numbers but of unities, because ‘once six’     etc . Let it however be so, certainly no number can be composed of parts altogether of another idea, however much; but an angel’s intellection of one object and of another is of another idea in its proper genus, because intellection is specified by its object; therefore      the times that do the measuring will be diverse and of a different idea.”

161. Further, positing that ‘one now of angelic time necessarily coexists with several instants of our time’ [n.151] seems to be a subterfuge, and to be posited in order not to concede that our time is discrete; and if instants of the former time coexisted precisely with instants of our time, then it would follow that, as the former time is discrete, so our time would be discrete - and by avoiding this result the statement that one instant of the former time must coexist with many parts of our time seems to be posited without reason.

162. But that this is not necessary is proved as follows, because whatever intelligibles I can understand within a certain time (few intelligibles or many), an angel can understand distinctly in the same time, because in a created intellect - which cannot understand everything all at once - it seems a mark of perfection to be able to understand many things without interval, for this is something present more in those more talented; but the human intellect can have an intellection in some one instant and immediately afterwards have another intellection - and in this way it can have many intellections within some given time; therefore there is no necessity that the intellect of an angel should, if it understand a along with an instant of our time, abide in understanding the a for any time and any instants of our time in which my intellect could be having another intellection.

163. But if it be said that my intellect cannot after one instant immediately understand by another intellection but must remain for a time in that thought, otherwise one could not give a first instant for the subsequent thought - if it be posited that ‘the other intellection’ is indifferently measured by time and the instant, the argument would not be conclusive; for then, just as there is no intermediate between instant and time, so neither is there between an intellection of mine that is in an instant and that intellection which is in the immediately possessed time - and then one cannot give a first instant for the second intellection. But if an angel’s intellection is measured by aeviternity (as will be said later [n.167]), then some intellection too of his can be with one instant and some intellection can be with possessed time (and the second has a first instant of its being just as does the first, because the second has an indivisible measure just as also does the first), but yet nothing first in our time coexists with the second intellection; and the way it is with the intellections of an angel is that, if he understand anything along with our time, there is no need for that intellection to persist through a possessed time; but if he at once has another intellection, it coexists with ‘possessed time’ in the instant when the first intellection existed - and then there will be nothing of our time coexisting with the second intellection.

164. Further, it seems that he [Henry] should say as a consequence of his opinion [n.147] that our intellections are measured by discrete time, because our intellections seem to be whole all at once (according to the Philosopher in Ethics 10.6.1176a30-b6, 7.1177a12-8a8), since they are perfect and transient and disposed in a certain order.

166. And if you say (as Henry seems to say) that our intellections have connection because we understand discursively and an angel does not [n.147] - on the contrary, this does not make per se for continuity or non-continuity of intellection with intellection; for the cognition (or intellection) of a conclusion is not more acquired successively because part is acquired after part, and cognition of a conclusion acquired after cognition of the principle, than if knowledge of the conclusion were had precisely after knowledge of the principle and had without it. Likewise, we can have distinct intellections succeeding each other non-discursively; and if the intellections are whole all at once, then they will be non-continuous and in a discrete time - which is against the Philosopher On Memory and Recollection 1.450a7-9, because we understand along with the continuous and with time.

166. Further, as to what is said about the difference of number and of speaking and of a time of this sort [n.149], that ‘the parts of number last and the parts of speaking can be continuous in themselves, but the parts of angelic time neither last nor are continuous in themselves, nor can they be,’ then all these differences seem to be material and not to give a formal distinction to discrete quantity insofar as it is discrete; for they are incidental to the idea of a thing having parts not conjoined to a common term, whether the parts last all at once or are in flux, whether any of them is in itself indivisible or not.a

a.a [Interpolated note] In the Reportatio [IIA d.2 q.1], “To persist or not to persist makes nothing for discrete quantity or continuous quantity, but being conjoined to a common term or not does; and so for no reason in the world should one posit that time is composed of such discrete parts.”