Question One. Whether in the Actual Existence of an Angel there is any Succession Formally

1. About the second distinction, where the Master deals with the place of creation of angels and the time when they were created, I ask two questions: first about the measure of existence of angels, and second about the place of angels.

2. As to the first question I ask firstly whether in the actual existence of an angel there is any succession formally.

3. That there is not:

First, because quantity cannot be received by what lacks extension, or is a nonquantum; therefore succession - which is a quantity - cannot be received by the existence of an angel, which is indivisible.

4. A confirmation of the reason is that a permanent quantity cannot be received by something indivisible; therefore not a successive quantity either.

5. Second, as follows: before and after, in idea of number, can bring together the idea of time [time is ‘the number of motion with respect to before and after’ according to Aristotle]; wherever there is succession, there is before and after, and there the idea of number and of measure can be found; therefore, if succession were formally in the actual existence of an angel, that existence would be measured by time.

6. Third, relevant to this is Augustine 83 Questions q.72, “AeviternityScotus and Medieval theologians in general used the word ‘aevum’ for the eternal existence of angels and ‘aeternitas’ for the existence of God. Angels depend for existence on another (unlike God) but are immaterial and immortal (unlike men), and so exist, once they exist, without end (unless God un-creates or annihilates them). They are thus measured neither by God’s eternity nor by human or material time but by something in between, for which the Latin word ‘aevum’ was used. In English a term for the purpose has to be invented, and aeviternity is now by tradition that term. See the quotations from Henry of Ghent in the footnote to n.42 below. ¹⁰ is stable but time is changeable.”

7. Fourth, the same is argued by Dionysius Divine Names ch. 10 (these things that, when they are looked at there, are said to be there [“The property of aeviternity is something ancient and invariable, and the whole of it is measured as a whole^”]).

8. On the contrary:

When God creates one angel it is not necessary for him to create another; so some angel can exist when another does not exist, and this other can be created such that it exists while the former is still now existing. So the former, which existed when the latter did not exist and exists with it when it does now exist, seems to be prior to the latter, and its existence as ‘not being along with the latter’ seems to precede its existence as ‘being along with the latter’.

9. Second as follows: an angel, when time has been excluded, can be annihilated.

I ask then in what moment? Not in the ‘now’ of time because it does not exist; nor in the ‘now’ of eternity, formally; nor in the ‘now’ of aeviternity, because that ‘now’ remains one and the same. Therefore it will exist and will not exist in the same moment, which is contradictory.

10. Third as follows: an angel can exist now and afterwards be annihilated and again be restored; but his having been restored is not as one and the same with his having been created as it would have been had there been no interruption (otherwise something interrupted would be as one as something not-interrupted, which is false); therefore his having been restored will be in one ‘now’ and his having been created before in another ‘now’ - and if so, then, if he had persisted without interruption, he would have been then in a different ‘now’ than he is in at this moment. The proof of this consequence is that there is as much duration of him as at rest as there would be of him as moved; therefore, by similarity, there would have been as much duration of him as not-tending to not-being (although as able so to tend) as there is if he does actually so tend.

I. First Opinion as Reported and Held by Bonaventure

11. Here it is said that there is succession formally in the actual existence of an angel. See the opinion of Bonaventure and in his writings [Bonaventure, 2 d.2 p.1 a.1 q.3].

A. Arguments for the Opinion

12. And for this opinion there is argument in four ways:

First on the part of conservation. And the reason is founded on the authority of Augustine Literal Commentary on Genesis 8.12 n.26, where he maintains that “as air is not a having been made to be bright, but a continual being made bright, in respect of the sun (otherwise the air would remain bright in the absence of the sun), so is the creature disposed in respect of God;” and again (ibid. 4.12 n.22), Augustine maintains that God is not disposed in respect of the creature the way the builder is disposed in respect of the house.

13. And from this an argument is made as follows: if the creature in respect of God is not a having been made in its being by God but is as it were formally in a state of becoming, then it is always formally being posited in being by God - and so its creation in being is as continuously from God as it is continuous in persisting.

14. The point is confirmed, because ‘to conserve’ is not merely not to destroy but is some positive action of God’s (otherwise one who does not close a window would be said to be conserving light; similarly, ‘to annihilate’ would then be a positive act, which is false, because ‘to annihilate’ is ‘to non-act’); therefore to conserve is to act.

15. This is also plain from the following, that no creature is independent in its existence, because neither is any creature pure act; therefore a creature depends for existence continually on its cause, and not just on a cause that has given it being and is not giving it now, because then ‘to conserve’ would be nothing other than to have acted before and not to be destroying now.

16. If all these things be conceded, that God in conserving does something positive as regards the creature, yet not by any continuous action (because there is no form in him according to which continuation of action could be assigned), nor even by different actions one after the other, but always by the same action - then, on the contrary: by this causation there is not had formally and ultimately that which, when this causation is in place, can possibly not be had (my proof for this is that a cause causing by this causation is a cause that is ultimate and applied to producing an effect in existence; therefore if the non-existence of the effect can stand along with this cause, then existence does not seem to be had ultimately by this causation); but when this causation, by which an angel was produced in existence, is in place, the angel can possibly not have existence tomorrow; so he will not formally by this causation have existence tomorrow; and he does have existence; therefore by some other causation.

17. If you say that from the first causation he does not have existence along with coexistence in time tomorrow, but that for this there is required the ‘existence of the future’ (and so, when the future then exists, this ‘reason of the future’ is the reason of coexistence for the angel) - on the contrary: this is how it is in eternity, that eternity does not have coexistence with time insofar as coexistence is coexistence.a Likewise, not only can an angel, when ‘causation of the future is not in place’, not have existence with the future, but he can even not have the foundation of the coexistence, namely existence absolutely; therefore he does not have ‘existence absolutely’ from such coexistence.

a.a [Interpolation] but only when time coexists with it; and so, if this were the cause, aeviternity and eternity would not differ.

18. Again, second: if an angel’s existence is simple, then just as God cannot make an angel not to have been, so neither can he make an angel not to be going to be.

19. There is a confirmation of the reason, that in eternity there are no true contradictories about the divine will, and neither is there divine volition in respect of contradictories as they are contradictories; but God could in eternity have willed to create some angel and to annihilate him; therefore he willed him to be and willed him not to be. Therefore some conditions on the part of being and not being must be found here so that they are not contradictories. But there seems to be nothing capable of being assigned to take away the contradiction save diverse ‘nows’ (namely, that God willed the angel to be at now a and not to be at now b); so it was incompossible for God to will to create an angel and to annihilate the same angel unless he willed the former and the latter to be at diverse ‘nows’; but God could have willed the former and the latter without any respect to time; therefore it must be possible to understand one now and another now on the part of the angel without any respect to time; this otherness can only be of the ‘nows’ of aeviternity; therefore etc.

20. The third way of argument is from infinity - because from the fact an angel will persist infinitely with the whole of future time, then, if he has now the whole duration that he will always have, he has now formally infinite duration.

21. There is confirmation of this in that the ‘now’ that is of itself such that it can coexist with the infinite is formally infinite - just as an angel, if he had in himself wherewith he was able to coexist with every place, would be infinite in place.

22. And if you say that this is not true unless the angel has of himself wherewith he can coexist - on the contrary: although he does not have of himself wherewith, as thus coexisting, he may possess infinity, yet, just as he formally has wherewith he does thus coexist, so he seems to be formally an infinite thing - just as if he had wherewith he might be present to every place (actual and potential), although he would have this from God effectively, yet he would be formally immense; and although his immensity would not be equal to the divine immensity in intensity, yet it would be equal to it in extension, such that God could be nowhere in his immensity save where the angel could be.

23. There is a confirmation for this reason too, that the negation of a negation is the assertion of the affirmation - therefore the negations of infinite negations assert infinite affirmations, or one infinite affirmation formally; but an angel, being possessed of this simple coexistence, has from it the negations of infinite negations (‘he does not exist with the infinite moments of time’); so he has from it infinite affirmations, or one infinite affirmation formally.

24. The fourth way is from the order of the things that come to be in aeviternity; for an angel could have been created not a sinner but innocent, and could afterwards have sinned or not sinned, with all time abstracted away; so this angel was innocent before he was a sinner; therefore there is in his existence ‘before’ and ‘after’.

25. Likewise, an angel could have been first created and afterwards at once annihilated, and another angel later created; the first angel never existed when the second existed, and so was not in the same ‘now’ as the second was; therefore the first was before and the second was afterwards (because if they existed, and not together, then one after the other). So if some other angel had existed along with both of them, there would have been ‘before’ and ‘after’ in his existence, just as the existence of one of them was before the existence of the other of them.

26. Authorities for this position [n.11] are:

Augustine Confessions 11.14 n.17, “The now of time, if it always stood and did not flow, would not be time but eternity;” and he seems there to be speaking of the true eternity of God, by expounding the verse of Psalm 101.28, “But you are yourself the same and your years, etc.”

27. Further, Literal Commentary on Genesis 4.12.n.23, “But as to his saying (John 5.17), ‘My Father works until now’, it signifies continuation of work;” and Augustine proves this by adding, “For he could be understood otherwise if he said ‘works now’ (where it would not be necessary for us to take it as continuation of work), but he compels us to understand it differently when he says ‘until now’, namely from then on -when he was making all things - he has been working.”

28. Further, Boethius On the Trinity ch.4 says that although, according to the philosophers, one could say of the heavenly bodies and spirits that they always are, yet there is a great difference; ‘being always’ in God is always present, not a running ultimately through eternity.

29. Further, Damascene Orthodox Faith ch.15, “The term ‘age [saeculum]’ means what is always being extended with eternal things, as space etc.”

30. Further, Gregory Morals 27.7 n.11 (on the remark in Job 36.26, ‘the number of his years is without reckoning’) says of the angels, “In them we discern a beginning when we turn our mind backwards etc.”

31. Further, Anselm Proslogion ch.20 speaking to God says, “You pass through all things, even eternal ones, because your eternity and theirs is all present to you, since they from their eternity do not have what is future as neither what is past.”

32. Further, Jerome To Marcella [rather Isidore Etymologies 7.1 n.12] , “Only God does not know ‘has been’ or ‘will be’.”

B. Arguments against the Opinion

33. Against this position [n.11] the argument is made that it involves a contradiction, because where succession is, there before and after are - and these are not together, but when what is after arrives, what was before falls away, and consequently what was before grows old and what comes after is new.

34. And if the succession is supposed to exist in the measure without newness coming to be in the measured - an argument against this is that, according to the Philosopher Physics 4.11.219a10-29, ‘before’ and ‘after’ in time are because of ‘before’ and ‘after’ in motion, such that if there were no different stages in motion there would not be ‘before’ and ‘after’ in time; therefore, by similarity, if there is no new existence in what is aeviternal (nor any newness in it), there will be no distinction between ‘before’ and ‘after’ in the measure of it.

35. This is confirmed by the Philosopher in Metaphysics 10.1.1053a18-27, because a measure should be of the same genus as the measured, such that, if the measure is divisible, so too is the measured; this is also proved by the fact that the indivisible (insofar as it is indivisible) cannot be measured by the divisible.

36. Further, if the ‘now’ of aeviternity passes away and does not always remain the same, this cannot be because of a defect in the subject, because the subject for you remains the same; nor can this be posited because of some corrupting cause, because it does not seem that any corrupting cause can be assigned. Therefore the ‘now’ does not pass away. It is otherwise with the ‘now’ of time, because its proximate subject (or the proximate measured thing) passes, namely change.

37. Further, if there is here some newness and some remaining with respect to the same thing, then it properly changes, because it is disposed differently now than before; but the measure of change is the ‘now’ of time; therefore to the extent aeviternity is posited as being measured by the ‘now’ of aeviternity, it will be measured by the ‘now’ of time.

38. On behalf of this view are the authorities of Blessed Augustine City of God -look there.11.31, “The holy angels have an eternity of persistence...”, 12.15 n.2, “...the immortality of the angels does not pass in time, nor has it gone by (as if now it were not) nor is it in the future (as if it not yet were).” ¹¹

II. Second Opinion

39. By holding to this negative conclusion, then [sc. that there is no succession in the existence of an angel], a twofold difference of aeviternity from time and eternity is posited.

A. Thomas Aquinas’ Way of Positing it

40. In one way as follows - look for the opinion elsewhere.Scotus Lectura 2 d.2 n.34, “So others say [namely Thomas] that eternity is the measure of stable existence. To the extent, therefore, that something departs from stable existence, to that extent it departs from eternity; now there is something that is in flux as to its whole existence (as a temporal thing), and there is something that, though it is not in itself in flux, yet has existence along with that in which there is flux (and in this way ‘aeviternal’ things exist along with flux) - and, when understanding things in this way, the heaven and angels exist along with flux, but yet their existence is stable in itself and their whole duration exists at once in itself.” ¹²

41. On the contrary - look for it.In Scotus’ Lectura 2 d.2 nn.35-36, “On the contrary: an angel is some being in itself, and so he has in himself his proper duration; therefore some duration must be assigned in itself to him. So he is not measured because of the fact that something else, possessed of duration, runs along with him; the point is plain in the heaven, which exists along with its own motion that is measured by time, and yet the heaven in itself has its proper measure... Besides he [Thomas] says elsewhere [ST la q.14 a.13] that ‘God knows future contingents because all things are present to the ‘now’ of eternity, which contains in itself the whole of time’; therefore, if the ‘now’ of aeviternity contain the whole of time, the consequence is that an angel knows all future things.” ¹³

B. Henry of Ghent’s Way of Positing it

42. In another way, [Henry] Quodlibet 5 q.13 - look for it.Henry ibid., “Now there is only a triple mode of existing in the universe of beings; for there is some being that exists in act altogether immutably, without any potency for change; and there is some being that exists in act altogether immutably, but is (as far as concerns itself) in potency for change if it were left to itself; and there is a third being existing altogether mutably in act and in potency. The measure of the quantity of existence (or of duration in existing) in the first way is called ‘eternity’ -and this, because of its ‘in every way immutable existence’, is necessarily a whole all at once, because as nothing is left to be acquired in its existence, so neither in its duration or eternity; and because of its lack of potency for change, it is of itself a fixed standing in the same way - for which reason the whole of eternity is nothing but a ‘now’ standing of itself immutably and indivisibly, not possessing parts., and it has, as far as concerns itself and the idea of its measurement, no idea of continuity, but only as to the consideration of our intellect in respect of and comparison with the succession of time. The measure of the quantity of existence (or of duration in existing) in the second way is called ‘aeviternity’ - which, because of its actual immutability, is necessarily a whole all at once, because nothing in the existence of what is aeviternal remains to be received; but because of the potency for change in what is aeviternal.it is not of itself a fixed standing, but is so only from another; not because it could be in the flux of a continuum, having of itself parts (as the ‘now’ of time can be), but because it can fall into, and it has a necessity of falling into, non-being unless it is conserved in being by another.; because of this, the whole duration of what is aeviternal is only a ‘now’ that stands, because of another, immutably and indivisibly, not possessed of parts.save by the extension of the intellect in respect of and by comparison with the parts of time. Now the measure of quantity (or of duration in existing) in the third way is called ‘time’ - which, because of the actual changing of the temporal thing (of which ‘time’ is the per se measure) is not a whole all at once but in succession, because in the being of a temporal thing (of which sort motion is) there properly remains always something to be received; and, because of the potency always mixed in with its act, it is always in flux (never a fixed standing), having parts that succeed to each other and never remain, in respect of which common difference eternity and aeviternity differ from time.” ¹⁴

43. Against this way of positing it I argue thus:

For he seems to contradict himself,Henry ibid., “Anselm [n.31] only says this in respect of the extension of time, namely because it is not true in their case that they should have in the following ‘now’ the being that they have in the present ‘now’, nor do they have now of themselves the being that they had before; rather, the being of a creature (as of an angel), as far as concerns itself, has to have a limit, but the being of God not at all. Hence the being of a creature is not had through continuous influx save by having a reference to the extension of time, as was said; also as concerns extension or process, eternity and aeviternity are differently disposed, because eternity is related to the whole of time as ‘not being at all able to fail’, but aeviternity can (as far as concerns itself) fail at any instant and be concluded under time - and thus, by reason of its potency for corruption, it has in some way the idea of what is temporal, which eternity has not at all.” ¹⁵ because if in aeviternity “it is not the case that an angel should have in the following ‘now’ the being he has in the present ‘now’ _ rather the being of an angel, as far as concerns itself, has to have a limit” (as Henry says expressly), and later he says that “aeviternity can, as far as concerns itself, fail at any instant” - then, if this ‘now’ of aeviternity have being formally along with the first ‘now’, whereby that being had to have a limit along with the first ‘now’ (according to Henry and his followers), then it must exist along with the second ‘now’ either by another being or by the same being posited again.

44. Further, as to his sayingHenry ibid., “For eternity, as the exceeding measure, contains virtually in itself the whole course of time, just as a superior creature contains virtually and in a supereminent way whatever there is in an inferior creature; so that, by positing eternity or aeviternity to exist in reality, not only is it impossible to posit that time in itself cannot exist..., rather it is incompossible to posit this once eternity or aeviternity have been posited to exist in reality. So the fact that from positing this impossibility, namely that time cannot be.(which is not only impossible in itself but incompossible with positing that eternity exists in God and aeviternity in an angel), the impossible conclusions [about aeviternity] in the four ultimate modes of unacceptability follow, is not surprising. However, they cannot follow from the fact that the ‘now’ of aeviternity is posited to be simple and indivisible, since this ‘now’ possesses virtually in itself its being extended, by intellect or imagination, to time.; but they all follow from the aforesaid not only impossible but also incompossible thing - by the opposite of which, once posited as necessary, namely ‘there is time’. the contraries of all those conclusions are very easily understood.” ¹⁶ that ‘there are impossible inferences which follow, and they do not follow from positing aeviternity as indivisible but from the denial of time, which denial is incompossible with the positing of aeviternity, and it is because of this incompossibility that the impossible conclusion about aeviternity follows’: this does not seem reasonable, because, according to him,Henry ibid. 8 q.9, “For nothing belongs to anything prior in nature which is not of a nature to belong to the same thing - as far as concerns itself - prior in duration.” ¹⁷ whatever is, as far as concerns itself, prior in nature can, as far as concerns itself, be prior in duration. So there is no repugnance for it in its being able without contradiction, as far as concerns itself, to be ‘prior in duration’ to the posterior (with respect to which it is said to be ‘prior in nature’) - and, when it is posited and the posterior is not posited, there is no contradiction on the part of what is ‘naturally prior’, nor on the part of anything that pertains to it insofar as it is prior.a Therefore, from such an hypothesis, there follows no incompossibility on the part of what is aeviternal insofar as it is aeviternal.

a.a [Interpolation] but the aeviternal and its proper measure are in every respect prior in nature to time, as foundation is prior to relation.

45. An example of this: that although the subject is necessarily followed by its special property, yet, because the subject is prior in nature, there is no contradiction on the part of the subject that it should exist prior even in duration to its special property; and if this supposition is made, no incompossibility follows on the part of the subject in itself as to the way it is prior to its property. Therefore if any contradiction does follow, this is through some extrinsic fact, namely from the relation of the cause to the effect.

46. So, in this way, if there were some necessary comparison of aeviternity to time, as of what is prior in nature to what is posterior in nature, then no contradiction would follow, because of negation of the posterior and positing of the prior, on the part of the prior in itself, nor on the part of anything that belongs to the prior in itself; but those inferences [sc. of Henry], namely that an angel ‘cannot be prior to another angel’ or that ‘an angel cannot be after its non-being’, are impossible per se on the part of the aeviternal as it is aeviternal; therefore etc.

47. Also, as to his proof of the necessity of the concomitance of time with aeviternity on the basis of the order of the more perfect to the more imperfect, it does not seem to suffice. For the proof would not conclude this about a quasi-quantitative containing but about a quidditative one, in the way a superior quiddity contains the inferior one; but with such containing there stands the fact that the superior can be without the inferior and the fact that the being proper to the superior may belong to it in the absence of the inferior, or at least need not belong to it in respect of the inferior. One must speak, therefore, in the same way about the issue at hand, that nothing proper to aeviternity belongs to it precisely in respect of time.

III. In what Ways the First Opinion can be Sustained

A. The First Way, which is according to the Intention of Bonaventure

1. As to the Opinion itself

48. He who wishes to hold the first opinion [n.11] (which seems probable and has probable reasons on its behalf) can say - according to the intention of him who poses it [sc. Bonaventure] - that aeviternity is properly a quantity and consequently has proper divisibility; but not a permanent divisibility, therefore a successive one; such is an indivisible succeeding to an indivisible, and a different indivisible to a different indivisible.

49. And so the ‘now’ of aeviternity, as far as concerns itself, passes instantaneously - and aeviternal being, as it is posited in being in the ‘now’, has, from the force of this position, being precisely in the ‘now’ and then immediately non-being (when the ‘now’ has gone by), unless the same cause, by another causation, were to posit the same being in another ‘now’. And so the cause conserves it by positively causing, not another being (as is true in the case of something successive), but the same being over and over infinitely - such that the first causation is called ‘creation’, because it follows not-being immediately in the order of duration, but each following causation follows not-being mediately in the order of duration, and not-being immediately in the order of nature, namely because not-being would then be present unless the conserving cause were to bestow being. But the being posited secondly follows, in the order of duration, the being posited previously - and thus, in this way, there is conservation and continuation of the same being.

50. There is an example of this. If an angel has some virtual quantity by which he can be present at some place, then he is, by this virtual quantity, present at this place, because he cannot simultaneously be present at another place; and he can absolutely not be present at another place save by some change made with respect to the former place; either because the virtual quantity becomes formally greater, or because it is transferred from place to place, or because it is, by divine power, in another place without leaving the former place.

51. So it is in the issue at hand, that the being that the angel has by a single causation is limited to this ‘now’ - and, when nothing new is done with respect to the angel, he cannot, by force of this single causation, exist beyond this ‘now’; but God, by giving the angel perpetual, enduring quantity (and this by a single continuous causation or by infinite causations of the same being), gives it to him always uniformly, so that by it the angel is extended to the whole of time.

2. To the Arguments brought against the First Opinion

52. To the arguments against this position.

To the first [n.33], which proves that a contradiction follows from the position, I reply: in the duration or persistence of being which precisely is successive there is renewal (and one part of it goes away and another part succeeds, and in general one part succeeds to another), but there is not any renewal in the existence of that of which there is persistence; just as, if the same flesh were posited, not possessed of part after part in the same permanent quantity, there would be an otherness there of parts in the extension itself formally (which is a quantity), without any extension or diversity of parts in that to which such extension happens.

53. And when proof is given [n.34] that ‘there is no distinction in the measure (from the Philosopher Physics 4. 11.219a10-29) unless there was distinction in the measured’ - I say that the consequence is good that ‘if the parts of time are other, then the parts of motion are other’, as inference from effect to cause; but it is not necessary that in anything whatever the parts of duration are other, because there may be some ‘distinction of parts’ that are prior; the reason for this is that the distinction that is second to one thing can be first in another thing.

54. There is an example of this: fire heats and dries, because of distinct ordered accidents in fire, such that the distinction of actions there is second, presupposing another prior distinction, namely the distinction of active accidents [sc. of hot and dry in fire]; but it does not follow from this that, wherever there is a distinction of actions, this distinction is second - because if these distinct accidents of fire were virtually contained in the sun, then the first distinction there would be of actions, which distinction was second with respect to fire. So must one say in the issue at hand.

55. To the other argument [n.36] I say that the ‘now’ can fail, because of itself it has only instantaneous being - although its subject remains the same, and no agent corrupts it. And as to the fact that ‘the now of time fails when its own proper subject fails’ [n.36], it is accidental to a ‘now’ that its proximate subject fails - because if the subject were to remain the same (as in the case of something at rest), then one could say that the same subject, acting through what is another ‘now’ succeeding to the prior ‘now’, does, by producing another ‘now’ incompossible with the prior ‘now’, destroy the prior ‘now’, not first of itself but by way of consequence.

56. And if you ask what the prior ‘now’ fails in, whether in itself or in another (as Aristotle argues in Physics 4.10.218a8-21) - I say that ‘to fail’ (as also ‘to cease’) can be understood in two ways: in one way by positing a present and denying a future, and in another way by positing a past and denying a present. The first way must be understood in the case of indivisibles and things that have the ultimate of their being; for they do not have a first stage in their not-being, and they then cease to be when they are - and in this way the ‘now’ ceases to be in itself, because then it is and after this it will not be; and if you ask for the first stage in its not-being, there is none, as neither in the case of anything that has the ultimate of its being.Tr. The point here seems to be something as follows. The ‘now’ of time comes and goes with the process of change in temporal things, as these come to be and cease to be. Angels do not undergo change but simply are or are not without any process (they have, or do not have, the fullness of their being all at once). The ‘now’ of angels comes and goes, then, not because angels are subjects of change, but simply because of itself, because it is an indivisible that immediately is and immediately is not. ¹⁸

B. Second Way, which is tangential to the Intention of Bonaventure

57. The conclusion [sc. that there is succession formally in the existence of an angel, n.1] can be sustained in another way (although not according to the intention of him who posits this principal position [n.11]), because the total existence of an angel persists according as it is absolute, but it has new respects, one after the other, to the cause - such that this total existence as it is under one respect to its causing cause succeeds to itself as it is under another respect to its conserving cause.William of Ware Sentences 2 d.2 q.2, “The whole of aeviternity, taken under one real respect to an angel, succeeds to itself under another real respect to an angel, succeeding to itself; likewise the creature, as it now coexists with God, has a different respect from when, in another ‘now’, it coexists with itself, without any absolute newness. Hence the whole succeeds to itself in both measured and measure, as the measure succeeds to itself the way the measured whole, in every respect of proportion, succeeds to itself; nor can there be concluded from this any succession in parts succeeding to themselves. Hence the first succession of whole to whole exists in aeviternity without absolute newness, but not without respective newness, because it receives different real respects.” ¹⁹

And this way would perhaps be easier for maintaining succession than the previous one (which posits quantity [n.48]), although, on the other side, there would be much difficulty in sustaining how there would be there a succession precisely of respects without any distinction in what is absolute in any way, whether in the foundation or in the term.

IV. Against the Conclusion of the First Opinion in itself

58. But against the conclusion of the said opinion in itself [n.11], whether it is sustained in the first way or the second, I argue as follows:

The ‘now’ of aeviternity - which is posited as one absolute after another according to the first way of sustaining the opinion [nn.48-51] - is either the same as actual existence or different from it. If the same, then it is plain that as actual existence remains the same so also does the ‘now’ of aeviternity. If different -to the contrary, for then, just as existence can be posited in being an infinite number of times, so it seems the same absolute ‘now’ of aeviternity (different from the being of existence) can be posited frequently in being, and so the same ‘now’ of aeviternity can be conserved just as the same existence can.

59. If it be said that ‘if it is posited frequently in being, then it is posited in diverse nows’ - on the contrary, if the absolute ‘now’, different from the being of existence, can be posited frequently in being and in different nows, there will still be the same reason for its being able to be conserved in each of those ‘nows’; and then there will be a process to infinity or a stand will be made in this, that just as existence is conserved the same, so any absolute in an angel will be able to be conserved the same.

60. Likewise, in the following question [nn.122-123] it will be proved that there is no other absolute in an angel besides his existence, and so there cannot be identity in existence and succession in some other absolute; and, whether it is this way or that, a new respect does not seem able to exist without newness in the foundation or the term, for a respect consequent to extremes - such that, when either is posited, the respect follows from the nature of the extremes - cannot be new (as it seems) without newness in one or other extreme; but, for you, there is nothing new in the foundation of this respect - nor in the term, as is plain.

61. Likewise, this respect is the same as the foundation, as is plain from the preceding distinction [2 d.1 n.260]; therefore this respect cannot be other while the foundation exists the same.

V. Scotus’ own Response to the Question

62. Therefore, one can say that there is no necessity of positing anything new or any succession in any angel (which, namely, would be formally ‘new’ in it); rather ‘whatever is there’ can remain the same (as the existence remains the same) and consequently so can any respect consequent to the absolute.

VI. To the Arguments for the First Opinion

63. To the arguments for the first opinion [nn.12-25].

To the first [n.12] I say that both ways [nn.11, 33] save the saying of Augustine. For as the first way says that ‘the creature always essentially depends equally on God’, so that the conservation of a thing is as it were one continuous causation (or there are infinite causations), and thereby it always actually causes the thing in the way it caused it in the first instant (although the causation, as it is in the first instant, be called creation and in the other moments conservation) - so the second position [n.33], not seeing a reason for continuation in this causation (because not seeing any continued form), nor seeing so much reason for a distinction (because not seeing that distinction either in the causer or in the caused, as far as concerns the formal term) [n.16], says that one action ‘persisting always in respect of the creature’ is creation insofar as it is understood to coexist with the first ‘now’ of time, which ‘now’ of time was immediately preceded by the non-being of the caused thing; and that the same action persisting is called

‘conservation’ insofar as it coexists with the other parts of time, parts not immediately following not-being but following the pre-had being along with the parts of time - and so the action is a sort of continuation of what was pre-had, without comparing it to not-being (where there is no before and after), but comparing it to the parts of time with which it coexists.Henry of Ghent Quodlibet 5 q.11, “But different are the things on which caused things depend not only as to their coming to be but also as to their being, as the creature universally depends on God and light in the air on a luminous body. In the case of such things the caused altogether does not persist in the absence of the truth of its cause; not because the agent by a different action in reality gives being and conserves it once given (as the opinion already stated maintains [sc. the opinion of Bonaventure]), but because the action does not have any co-agent for the coming to be of its being..., such that, as the acting virtue itself...remains the same in number, so its action about the caused thing is the same, remaining one and the same in number; and likewise, the caused thing itself.is first said ‘to be a caused thing coming to be’ and next there is conservation of it. Yet the agent has not done by the first causing of coming to be anything other than it is doing now by the causing of being conserved (nor conversely), such that, as on the part of the agent ‘to make’ and ‘to conserve’ are the same in reality, so on the part of the caused ‘to come to be’ and ‘to be conserved’ are the same in reality and different only in reason. Rather (as it seems) ‘coming to be’ and ‘making’ should not be spoken of save as regards the first instant, wherein the caused leaps into being at the presence of its cause - but afterwards, as regards the whole succession of time, ‘conservation’ of the persisting thing should be spoken of, without any making.” “And as to what Augustine said...about ‘always coming to be’, he did not understand the ‘coming to be’ of the thing itself considered in itself and absolutely, but according to a certain respect to time, where there is before and after.” ²⁰

64. But, apart from the intention of Blessed Augustine, the reason there adduced [n.16] seems to have the difficulty that, namely, the thing has being by one causation with one ‘now’ and by another causation with another ‘now’, because ‘being is not had in its completion by any causation, the opposite of which seems to stand when such causation is posited’ [n.16].

I reply. This proposition [sc. ‘being is not had.. .such causation is posited’] is to be distinguished as to composition and division; and in the sense of composition it is true, because ‘it is not had in its completion by any causation the opposite of which stands when such causation stands, such that these are simultaneous’; but in the sense of division it is false, because even the conservation itself is able not to be, although the causation, by which the thing has its being to the ultimate, has been posited - and so, although the causation of an angel has been posited, yet the non-existence of the angel can stand with this causation (when it has been posited) in the sense of division, but not in the sense of composition.

65. And hereby is plain the response to the like argument, that ‘an angel’s being created and being annihilated cannot stand together, therefore being created and being conserved are not the same thing - because when an angel is being conserved it can be annihilated, but not when it is being created.’

I reply. Just as an angel’s being created and being annihilated do not stand together in the sense of composition, so neither does an angel’s being conserved and being annihilated stand together in the sense of composition; but in the sense of division it does stand that, as concerns an angel, creation or conservation at some point are and yet that they can at some point not be (and thus annihilation can be) - just as was said in the matter of God’s predestination and foreknowledge, that in the sense of division there is potency for one opposite when the other opposite persists, yet not that there is potency for the opposite when the other opposite persists at the same time [1 d.40 nn.4-7, or Lectura 1 d.40 nn.4-8 and d.39 nn.53-54 - there being no d.39 in the Ordinatio].

66. To the second argument [n.18] I say that, on the part of an angel, there is no difference between its being, its having been, and its going to be, yet these indicate a different relation of the angel to time - because, just as was said in 1 d.9 n.17 and d.40 n.9, about being generated and having been generated, that these co-signify the ‘now’ of eternity insofar as it coexists with the diverse parts of time, so too they would state of the ‘now’ of aeviternity that the same ‘now’ can be and coexist with all the parts of time.Henry of Ghent Quodlibet 5 q.13, “Hence the fact that the [angelic] creature has, in the said way, its whole being at once does not in any respect derogate from the simplicity of the being of God. Hence it is false to say that the being of the creature yesterday and tomorrow is not the same and simultaneous; for it is simultaneous as far as concerns itself and on the part of aeviternity. But if it is understood not to be simultaneous, this is according to the mode of our understanding, extending aeviternity to the parts of time; for the intellect seems to exist with the continuous and with time in such a way that it cannot understand things, which are in themselves fixed according to the whole of time, without understanding their being to be extended according to the differences of time - and in this regard our intellect is altogether defective... In that which has being at once and from itself, there is no difference at all between ‘to be’ and ‘to have been’ and ‘to be going to be’ - but these differ in anything that has being at once but from another, so that, when it has been according to the extension of past time, it is thereafter impossible for it not to have been according to that past; simply however it is impossible for it not to be going to be, on the supposition that there was no extension made.” ²¹

67. And when in the argument it is said that ‘God cannot make an angel not to have been’ [n.18], this is denied as it is said of the thing signified by the ‘have been’ -because the thing signified by the ‘have been’ is the same being as what the angel has.

68. And if it be said that ‘the past cannot not have been’, the minor that would be co-assumed [sc. ‘an angel has been’] is denied, because it is not past in itself.

An example of this would be if the Son of God, along with his being generated in eternity, were to receive, per impossibile, another nature in accord with which he would depend on the Father - then the ‘being generated’ and the ‘having been generated’ would state the same in him, and this being of the Son could absolutely not be; and insofar as this being would as it were follow its not-being, it would be called ‘being generated’, and insofar as it would as it were mediately follow its not-being, as coexisting with the other parts of time, it would be called ‘having been generated’. And so conservation and production (or creation) differ only by the action of the intellect; and the ‘having been conserved’ is able not to be when this being is being conserved, and when it is being produced, in the sense of division.

69. And if it be thus argued that ‘the past is able not to have coexisted with it, therefore it is able not to have been’ - this seems to be the fallacy of figure of speech, by changing ‘when’ into ‘what’.Tr. The sense seems to be that since an angel, or anything aeviternal, is (according to this opinion) only said ‘to have been’ relative to the parts of time, if there was no time, or no past time, then the angel would not have the ‘when’ of past time. Yet he would still have the ‘what’ of his existence. So the angel would still exist in the way he was said to have been, though there would no longer be a ‘when’ relative to which his ‘have been’ could be said. So there is a fallacy of figure of speech in inferring absence of the ‘what’ from the absence of the ‘when’. ²²

70. As to the confirmation of this second reason, about contradictory things willed in eternity [n.19] - one can say that although God willed me to sit at moment a and not to sit at moment b, yet the objects willed by him are naturally prior to the things that measure the ‘now’, and one must look in the prior stage for the non-contradiction of the things willed; otherwise a contradiction of this sort does not seem it could be taken away by the adding on of those posterior ‘nows’. Although therefore God might will an angel to be for this ‘now’ and not to be for that ‘now’, one must look first for the possibility of how he might will an angel to be and not to be.

71. I say then that if the ‘now’ is posited in any even aeviternal thing as proper to it, God wills it to be in that ‘now’ positively - and he wills it not to be negatively by willing that ‘now’ not to be; and then if there is another aeviternal thing in whose ‘now’ both of the former come to be, this is accidental to those ‘nows’, for the ‘now’ of that aeviternal thing is not the proper measure of them - just as neither is eternity a measure, in which there can be contradictories that succeed to each other in the case of every measure.

72. Or if there is not posited in any aeviternal thing some ‘now’ different from the actual existence of the thing (as will be said in the following question [nn.122-123]), then God wills it to be along with eternity and wills it not to be along with eternity. He does not however will it to be along with the whole of eternity ‘according to all the being present of eternity’, nor not to be along with the whole of eternity in this way, because then there would be a contradiction; but there is no contradiction when comparing these to eternity ‘not in accord with the whole idea of eternity’s infinite present’.

73. To the third [n.20] I say that in order to be obliged to infer, from the coexistence of some virtual quantity with some quantity properly - namely some quantity of bulk -, to the infinity of the virtual quantity [n.21], the virtual quantity must necessarily coexist with all the parts of the other quantity. The proof is that ‘the other quantity’ [sc. the quantity of bulk] would not be infinite unless it had all the parts possible to it (just as time, if it were simultaneous, would not be actually infinite unless it had all the parts possible to it); therefore nothing is deduced to be infinite virtually from the coexistence of it with the whole of time unless it necessarily coexist with all the parts of time. But aeviternity is not such. I say then that although aeviternity has wherewith it can coexist with the infinite parts of time, there is no need - for this reason - that it be in itself infinite, because it does not have formally wherewith it necessarily thus coexists.

74. And as to the likeness about immensity [n.22], I say that there is no likeness -because, in the case of immensity, that which could be present to every place would exist in every place at once, and not through any conservation by an extrinsic cause. In the issue at hand, however, an aeviternal thing does not have wherewith it may coexist with all the parts of time save through conservation by an extrinsic cause; and it would have nothing through which it might coexist unless it were caused to be quasi-continuously the same by the extrinsic cause, although not by a different causation; so there would be more a likeness of this [sc. aeviternity] with that [sc. immensity] if the coexistence of the latter with different places - if this were possible - were caused by the same causation. However, in order to coexist simultaneously, it would never have infinite presence to place, and so it would never be immense. So it is in the issue at hand.

75. On the contrary: a finite thing cannot coexist together with a total infinite thing, such that it have in itself wherewith it could coexist with it; therefore because it does coexist it is infinite. - I reply: the antecedent is denied of an infinite which is infinite by succession, and denied of a finite formally having what it has always by the same action, such that it does not have it without such action.

76. As to the fourth [nn.24-25], that one aeviternal thing succeeds to another is conceded, and that the existence of an aeviternal thing succeeds to its opposite (that is, one is after another) is conceded, but from this there is not deduced any succession in any single existence of some aeviternal thing.

77. And from this is plain the answer to all the arguments:

As to those two angels [n.25], about these a ‘before’ and ‘after’ are conceded (because one remains after the other); if however a third were to coexist with the two of them, there would be no ‘before’ and ‘after’ in the existence of that third - just as, though today and tomorrow coexist with eternity, not for this reason is there a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in eternity.

78. Likewise [n.24], it is conceded that the nature of an angel would be prior to his guilt, such that this existence (namely under innocence) would be with the opposite of that existence, and from the second existence would follow the opposite of the first; however the existence of the angel in its own nature would not have any succession, neither as it is existent under innocence nor as it is existent under guilt - but there would only be a succession in accidents (that is, that the existence of one act would be after the existence of the other), without however a diversity in the other in itself.

79. The authorities adduced for this opinion [nn.26-32] I concede, because no creature is independent of the first cause, but is always dependent on the cause - not however with a continuous dependence, nor with difference dependences, but with the same dependence; and, because of this same dependence, any creature can have being with one part of time and not with another part, and to this extent it can as it were fall under time, that is, so as to coexist with one part and not coexist with another, and in this way it may be said ‘to have been’ and ‘not to be going to be’, and thus not something eternal.

VII. To the Principal Arguments

80. To the principal arguments [nn.8-10].

As to the first [n.8], it is conceded that one angel is created before another, but it does not follow because of this that there is in the existence of the angel first created a ‘before’ and ‘after’.

81. As to the second [n.9], it can likewise be said that an angel can be annihilated, and in the same ‘now’ negatively (if it has a ‘now’), that is, that its ‘now’ should cease along with it; but if its ‘now’ does not differ from its existence, then it can be annihilated with eternity and can exist with eternity, but not with the whole nature of the present-ness of eternity [nn.71-72].

82. To the last one [n.10] I say that the being of the [angel] restored follows the not-being of the [angel] annihilated, and that the not-being of the annihilated was preceded by the being of the created, and that the being of the created was preceded by the not-being of the creatable - and so the ‘being’ follows the same being, with the interrupting not-being in between. Nor does there follow from this any continuation in the being itself ‘if it had not been annihilated’ [n.10], because there is not now any succession in some one thing, but succession of one opposite to another [sc. not-being to being to not-being to being].Vatican Editors remark that Scotus means the identically same being is restored as was annihilated, not some other being, and that the not-being of annihilation was identically the same as the not-being prior to creation, not some other not-being. ²³

83. On the contrary: therefore in this way the interrupted existence is at one with itself restored, as if it was a non-interrupted existence.

I reply: if there was no succession there of opposite to opposite [sc. of being to not-being to being] (which opposite [not-being] mediates between this being [the being of the created] and itself [the being of the restored]), the consequence would be that there would be as much at-oneness as if the opposite did not intervene; but now the opposite mediates as it were between the created being and that very being repaired (and this ‘opposite’ is a mean, or has a certain relation to both extremes), and so these are not as at one as if not-being did not intervene. However, just as in this case the same repaired ‘now’ (or the same existence, if it requires no ‘now’ [n.72]) is the same, and there is ‘created existence and repaired existence’ in the same thing without any succession in it in itself (although, as posited in being, it succeeds itself as previously posited in being) -so it would have been in the same ‘now’ if it had not been interrupted, and without any succession, in either way.