E. Scotus’ own Opinion

40. [Exposition of the opinion] - One can say in a different way that there is no reason of predestination, even on the part of the predestined, that is in anyway prior to the predestination itself; but some reason is prior to reprobation, not indeed a reason for which God by efficient causality reprobates, insofar as the action is from God (as was argued in the previous opinion, because then ‘God would be passive’ [n.31]), but a reason for which this action thus has this object as term and not that one.

41. The proof of the first point is that he who in ordered way wills the end and what is for the end wills the end first before any of the things for the end, and he wills other things for the end; therefore since, in the whole process by which a creature capable of beatification is led to the perfect end, the ultimate end is perfect beatitude, God -willing something of this order for this person - first wills the end for this creature capable of beatification and as it were afterwards wills him other things, which are in the order of things that pertain to the end. But grace, faith, merits and good use of freewill, all these things are for the end (although some more remotely and others more near to it). Therefore God wills beatitude for this person first before any of the other things; and he wills for him each of these others first before he foresees that he will have each of them, therefore not because of foreseeing any of these does he will him beatitude.

42. The proof of the second point is that damnation does not seem to be good save because it is just, for - according to Augustine On Genesis XI ch.17 n.22 - ‘God is not avenger before someone is sinner’ (for it seems to be cruelty to punish someone when there is no guilt pre-existing in him); therefore by similarity, God does not wish to punish before he sees someone to be a sinner. Therefore the first act of the divine will about Judas is not to will to damn Judas as Judas is presented in his purely natural state (because then God seems to damn without guilt), but he sees that Judas must be presented to the divine will under the idea of sinner before he wills to damn him. Therefore reprobation has its reason on the part of the object, namely foreseen final sin.

43. This is confirmed by the authority of Augustine in his book On the Predestination of the Saints ch.19 n.38 and it is put in the text.

44. [Objections against the opinion] - Against this [n.41]. Peter and Judas, equal in natural state, willed by God in being of existence, in the instant in which they are presented to the divine will in natural existence and equal: God - for you [sc. Scotus] -first wills beatitude for Peter; why then did he will what for Judas? If damnation I have the conclusion intended ‘therefore he reprobates without any reason’, - if beatitude, then he predestines Judas.

45. One can say that in that instant God wishes nothing for Judas; there is only a negation there of volition for glory. And likewise, as if in the second instant of nature, when he wills grace for Peter, there is still no positive act of the divine will about Judas, but only a negative one. In the third instant, when he wills to permit Peter to be of the mass of perdition or worthy of perdition (and this either because of original sin or actual sin), then he wishes Judas in a like way to be a son of perdition; and here is the first positive act - a uniform one indeed - about Peter and Judas, but by this act this statement is true ‘Judas will be finally a sinner’, with the negations in place, namely that God does not will to give him grace or glory. In the fourth instant, then, Judas is presented to the divine will as finally a sinner, and then God wills to punish him justly and reprobate Judas.Tr. This explanation is no doubt compatible with orthodoxy but it seems wholly unconvincing that God should make creatures whose perfect end is glory and yet not choose to give them the grace to reach glory (this criticism would apply to Aquinas’ position too, of course, but not perhaps to Henry’s, as Scotus reports it nn.26-35). Better, then, perhaps to focus on the fact of free choice (also necessary for glory) and say that while God chooses to give grace to everyone yet some, like Peter, do not choose to resist the gift while others, like Judas as it seems, do so choose. The gift is free and precedes all merit; the resistance comes, not from God, but from the creature. And if it be said that grace is irresistible, or that God also gives the grace not to resist grace, the answer will be that free choice is precisely free and so can resist any grace, including the grace not to resist grace. If it be said, further, that then God is passive with respect to who resists or does not resist grace, let it be conceded. But the passivity is not with respect to the possibility (God knows all possibilities by his eternal essence); it is only with respect to this possibility being actual in creatures and that other one not. But the relation of God’s knowledge to creatures is real on the part of creatures and not on the part of God, and so no change is undergone by God because of anything that happens in creatures. Thus there is no real passivity on God’s part either. But this proposal is made under correction. ¹⁷

46. Nor is it surprising that a like process for predestination and reprobation is not posited, because all goods are attributed to God principally, but evils to us; and thus, that God ‘predestines without reason’ agrees with his goodness, but that ‘he wills to damn’ does not seem able immediately to be attributed to him with respect to the object as known in its pure natural state, but only in respect of the object as known in final mortal sin.

47. This response can be confirmed by a likeness: let us posit two people, equally graced on their own part, one of whom I love and the other of whom I do not, - and him whom I love I pre-ordain to some good through which he can please me, but him whom I do not love I do not pre-ordain to such good. If things were so that it was in my power to permit them to offend, I could will to permit both to offend - and from the fact that I do not will to lead the latter to that by which he could please me, I would fore-know that his offense would be perpetual (and thus that I could justly punish him), but I would foreknow that the offense of the other was to be remitted or committed to what I will.a

a [Interpolation, from Appendix A] From these points there follow four corollaries:

     The first, that the number of the elect is complete before anyone is reprobated, because in the first instant one person is fore-ordained, another fore-known.

     The second is that the predestined, insofar as they are predestined, are objects of the first divine act after their pure natural existence; in the second instant God foresees their final justice, namely their damnation and impenitence (which is perseverance in sin). From this there follows that none of the blessed can or should rejoice in the damnation of someone on the ground he himself was elected in his place, because the blessed have been predestined before the others were reprobate - and thus that good would never have belonged to the damned, even had they stood.

     The third follows, that no one is predestined because of the fall of another, nor is anyone saved by occasion; nor was Christ by occasion of sin made incarnate or thus supreme in merit and reward, because this would have happened if no one had ever sinned.

     Again, fourth, if follows that they alone who were to be saved would have been saved if Adam had not sinned, because they were all predestined or foreseen and guilty of sin before Adam had sinned

48. But still there is an instance against this:

Because God does not with certitude see that Judas is bad according to this way [n.47] - for the sole permission of some act and certitude about the permission do not make for certitude about this act, because it has to have some efficient cause; therefore from the sole fact that God fore-knows he wishes to permit Judas to sin, it is not certain that Judas will sin; or let us speak of a good and bad angel (who were not in original sin): from this fact alone - I say - it does not seem God knows that Lucifer sins, and from this (as it seems) Lucifer is not presented to him as sinner.

49. In addition, what is this ‘will to permit Lucifer to sin’? If this is some positive act of the will with respect to the sin, then it seems God wills him to sin. If it is not a positive act with respect to the act of sin but with respect to the act of permission, then it will be a reflex act, - and then it will be necessary to ask, as to the permission, what act it is; if a positive act of will, then it still seems God has a positive act with respect to the sin that he permits.

50. The first of these [n.48] is solved by the fact God fore-knows that he will cooperate with Lucifer in the substance of the act that will be a sin (but he fore-knows this, because he wills to co-operate with him if it is a sin of commission), or he fore-knows that he will not co-operate in some act if he does not will it (and this if that first act is a sin of omission); and knowing that he will co-operate in such substance of the act (without the due circumstances), or will not co-operate with Lucifer in a negative act (and consequently in an act he will omit), he knows that he will sin; such that he knows ‘this one will sin’ not only because he knows he himself will permit it, but because he knows he will co-operate with him in the substance of an act that is lacking in due circumstances, and consequently that the latter would commit it - or he knows that he will not co-operate with him in a negative act, and consequently that the latter will omit it.

51. The second argument [n.49] raises a difficulty touching on the divine will, -about which I will speak not here but elsewhere [d.47 nn.8-9].