C. Rejection of the First Opinion in Particular

19. Further, against the first way [n.9] there is argument specifically.

First, because it supposes something false, namely that the intellect is a sufficient mover - as will be made clear in 2 d.25 [lacking in Ordinatio, but found in Lectura 2 d.25 n.69].

Second, this false thing is repugnant in two ways to the statements of those who hold this position. First, because since the intellect of the angels was right in apprehending (for punishment does not precede guilt), it was moving the will to desire something rightly; nor could it move the will otherwise, because the intellect moves by way of nature and consequently it can only move according to the mode of cognition that it has; therefore it moves the will to willing rightly. Therefore the will could in no way sin. - Second, the false thing contradicts their position because, if from the idea of mover and movable there is a proportion of the sort between them, the will not only will be immovable after the first choice of the will, but will be in itself first so even before the first choice - because the angels’ intellect, just as it immovably shows something after the first choice of the will, so does it also do so before it; and if the intellect itself, when immovably apprehending, moves the appetite immovably, then it will move immovably in the first act, and consequently not after the first act only!

21. Further, from this way it seems to follow that since, according to them, the angel was created in grace [d.4-5 n.24] and thus had some act in grace (because it is not likely that in the first instant he was idle, for he was not impeded - and if he was then idle he would perhaps have sinned by the sin of omission), and he did not sin with grace (as is plain) - then at some point he had according to grace a good and full choice, because a choice following perfect apprehension of the intellect, for, according to them, there is only such apprehension in the angels, and this apprehension immovable and not discursive [n.9]. Therefore any angel in that first good choice confirmed himself and was made impeccable.

22. Further, the difference between the wills of man and angel [n.9] is not valid, because although the angel understands non-discursively what - according to them - man understands discursively, yet the intellect of man does not movably adhere to that which he reaches discursively; for he holds the conclusion he reaches discursively with as much certitude (that is, without doubting) as an angel holds it by seeing it non-discursively in the principle; therefore this immovability of the human intellect (that is, this certitude) would have an equally immovable will just as does the other immovability posited in the angel. Also, the fact that all discursive reasoning is denied to the angels does not seem probable - as is proved above [Ord. Prol. nn.208-209, 2 d.1 nn.312-314].