1. Of the Objects and Ways as to which each Part is Saddened

72. As to the third principal article [n.26], namely about the sadness that concerns something not wanted by free will (and not only what arises from the flesh), one needs first to consider what Christ in his higher part was saddened by.

73. This part can be taken in two ways: in one way strictly, for the intellect and will as they regard eternal things alone, and in another way more broadly, for the intellect as it judges something according to eternal rules and for the will as it wills each thing by referring it to eternal things (Augustine speaks of this second way in On the Trinity 12 ch.2 n.2).

74. In the first way the higher part of the will cannot have a sadness that is disordered, because such a sadness would be consequent to not wanting God in himself or not wanting some perfection to be intrinsic to God. This sort of not wanting is so disordered in itself that it is perhaps the sin against the Holy Spirit, and scarcely do the damned thus sin, for though they do not want God to be just, yet it is not perhaps that they do not want this absolutely but that they do not want the effect of justice, namely the punishment that they feel; and this does not belong to the higher part taken strictly.

75. As to the higher part understood in the second way, there are three things that this part could be saddened by: namely, first, by lacking enjoyment of the eternal object; second by the sin of its own or another’s will; third by other evils disagreeable to its own supposit or to other persons dear to it. The order is plain. For just as the higher part, taken broadly, wills first its own enjoyment of God, wills second any justice that is ordered to enjoyment (and this whether in itself or in another), and wills third intermediate and lesser goods, in accord with eternal rules, for itself and others in their ordering to the greatest goods - so the same higher part has a not-wanting with respect to the opposite of these things, and is saddened by the opposites if they happen.

76. As to the first of the three [lack of enjoyment of God, n.75], the soul of Christ did not have sadness about it, because no non-enjoyment or non-perfection that was unwanted happened to him in death; for it was not fitting that he should be joined less to the end by that through which he merited to join others to the end.

77. As to the second [n.75], Christ’s soul was not saddened by his own sin because he had none; but he was saddened by others’ sin, as about the unfaithfulness of the doubting disciples and the cruelty of the persecuting Jews. Hence Ambrose, On Luke [On Faith 2 ch.7 n.54] (and it is in the text), says, “You are grieved, Lord, not over your wounds but mine,” that is, you are saddened by my sins that wound my nature, not by any of your own.

78. But there is a doubt here: since Christ merited for no one save because he paid back his passion for them by his act of will, and since he wanted his disciples’ innocence more than the innocence of the others (otherwise he would not seem to have been saddened), how is it that he did not merit that his disciples be preserved from a fall that was not wanted? There is a confirmation: he merited that they should rise from their fall, so he could have preserved them from it     etc .The editors put this doubt in brackets, noting that there is no response given to it later by Scotus. ⁹⁷

79. As to the third [n.75], one must reply diversely according to the four ways set down in the first article about the disagreeable and the sorrowful [nn.47-60].

80. For by making a beginning here from what was last there, as being more manifest [nn.60, 55-56], it is plain that Christ’s will was conjoined with his pained sense appetite, therefore      his will was of a nature to be pained along with it.

81. Next, as to what was second to last there [nn.60, 52-53], it is plain that the will as it is a nature desires the good of the whole person, just as it is an appetite of the whole person; for just as the more universal and higher cognitive power in man is the cognitive power of man qua man, so the supreme appetite in man is most of all the appetite of man, and this appetite, as it is a nature, is inclined to the natural good of man; and the destruction of nature, or the separation of the parts of the whole nature, was against this inclination. Similarly, the will as it is a nature strongly desires the good of any lower power; therefore what is disagreeable to any power is as a result disagreeable to the will as it is a nature.

82. As to the third from last there [nn.60, 58-59], one can reply in accord with Augustine On the Trinity 13.7 n.10, when he proves that no one is blessed here [in this life] because no one has what he wants in wanting nothing bad, for although perhaps he is ready to bear with equanimity the adversities that befall him, yet he is not blessed because, as far as it is in him, he does not want them.

83. And as to the two first objects, namely enjoyment and justice [n.75], no distinction should be drawn here between the higher and lower parts, for just as the lower intellect can have enjoyment and justice for its object, so the lower will, like the higher, was not saddened in some respects, for the unwanted things did not come about, and saddened in other respects, as by the sins, for they were thus unwanted too. For since Christ’s will was right, the sins of sinners neither pleased him nor were neutral to him but were presented to him as bad.

84. As to the third object, namely the passion of Christ [n.75], one must speak in different ways about the two parts [the higher and lower parts]; and one must do so according to the four ways set down in the first article about the disagreeable and saddening [nn.47-59]. One must consider if all of them can be posited to exist in each part.

85. In this regard there seems to be a double sadness: one that does not follow an actual not-wanting nor a habitual or conditioned not-wanting, but a natural one as it were, which concerns the will as it is a nature [nn.52-53]; and another which concerns the conjoining of the will to the sense appetite that is suffering [nn.55-56]. This double sadness, I say, seems to be appropriated to the two parts, such that the natural not-wanting, and so the being saddened, belongs to the will only in its higher part, while the being saddened only by a suffering along with the sense appetite belongs precisely to the will in its lower part.

86. Proof of the first point [n.85]: the higher part broadly taken (as said before according to Augustine [n.73]) has regard to that which is regarded in its order to the eternal, and this both in the reason, as that from which reason takes its principle of knowing, and in the will, as that for which as ultimate end the will wills it. But the will naturally wills nothing first and for itself save the ultimate end, and so it wills everything else not first and in order to what is first;     therefore etc     . [sc. the will as it is a nature is the will of the higher part]. The minor is plain from the rightness of natural inclination, which would not be right if it were inclined most and ultimately to a lesser and non-ultimate good. But if someone were to say that the will as it is a nature is only inclined to its own proper good first, he would be in disagreement with what has been said in this argument. But let the contrary be supposed here, from the question dealt with elsewhere [Reportatio IV A d.49 q.8-9 nn.4-5, 18].

87. Proof of the second point [n.85]: the intellect insofar as it understands something because the sense (with which it is conjoined) senses it, is the lower part alone; therefore the same holds of the appetites. The antecedent is plain because, insofar as the intellect does thus know, it knows nothing through eternal rules, for it would know in the same way if it could not judge according to those rules.

88. Against these arguments: the second argument [n.87] seems to be in conflict with the first [n.86], for the will suffers along with sense appetite as the will is a nature, because it does not do so as it is free, for the sudden suffering it has because of the natural connection of the higher appetite with the lower is not in its power; therefore the will as it is a nature does not concur precisely with the higher part and does concur, as suffering along with the sense appetite, precisely with the lower part.

89. Response: will as nature is taken in two ways.

In one way as it tends naturally to objects proper to this power as it is this power, all other things being excluded and this power being understood only as it is perfectible by certain objects and these its own objects. It is in this way that the first argument [n.86] is being understood, because the will is in that way inclined to its objects (ordered according to the natural order of the objects) insofar as the objects are in some way perfective of it.

90. Will as it is a nature is spoken of in another way when any order of it to anything consequent to the will’s nature is understood - this properly not as it is free but only as it is intellective appetite, or as it possesses the love of advantage and not of justice. And thus taken it has an order toward feeling along with the lower appetite not only in the order that the desired object has to the first object of the will as it is a will, but, setting aside this order, as the will thus feels along with the lower appetite about anything, and is as disposed toward this anything as if it could not be referred to what is eternal. But not like this is the natural inclination of the will (as the will is a power) that is precisely ordered to its own proper objects, because this inclination is not to any object at all save insofar as it is a further inclination to the eternal (just as matter is not inclined to a preceding disposition save as further inclined to perfect form).

91. Briefly, then, the will as nature in the first way is the will as only naturally inclined to its own proper objects; in the second way it is the will inclined to the objects of the other appetite with which it is conjoined by means of that inclination. In the first way it is the higher part only; in the second the lower part only. Thus in general, the will as nature can be taken as it includes both, and thus does it belong to both parts.

92. About the other two sadnesses, which follow absolute actual volition or conditional (or habitual) volition [nn.58-59], it seems that since both parts are able in both ways not to want anything that happens, both will be able to be saddened in both ways.

93. Of the four ways, then, of being saddened set down in the first article, two are common to both parts and two are proper to the two, such that both parts can be saddened by an object that is in a triple way unwanted.