d. To the Arguments for the First Solution

134. As a solution to the arguments [nn.110-116], one can say that ‘moral good’ is a per accidens being, containing in itself an act of some sort together with many circumstances additional to the act, so that one can conclude, by reason of one of the circumstances, that the whole is worth choosing, and yet conclude that, with the circumstance removed, the remainder will, because of some other circumstance, not be worth choosing.

135. So by reliance on this point [n.134] for the first argument for the first way [n.110], the major is granted about the same per se object, but here the object is only per accidens the same and not per se.

136. Using the same point [n.134] for the second argument [n.111], I say that the conclusions of the higher reason are principles for drawing further conclusions when taken per se and as inferred from the principles of the higher reason; and in this way opposite minor premises can well be assumed under a principle about a thing that is per accidens the same, one of which minors may be true by virtue of one part of the whole and the other by reason of another part.

137. The reply to the third argument [n.112] is clear again from the same point, that there would be a sophism if opposite conclusions were drawn, but when the whole is ‘per accidens the same’ a predicate is proved of it because of one circumstance that is opposite to a predicate proved of it because of another circumstance.

138. To the argument about a brave man enduring death [n.113], I say that it proceeds of circumstances that belong to the lower reason, and so the reply made above [n.131] can be applied directly to it.

139. To the argument to the contrary [n.114] one can say that ‘absolutely not wanting a’ and ‘absolutely willing to undergo a’ are mutually compatible provided one assumes some unwanted thing, namely the necessity of undergoing a. And when you say [n.114] that ‘an absolute not-wanting is cause of fleeing what is not wanted’, this is true in itself, not as inferred by someone other than the one by whom ‘do not want’ is inferred.

140. As to Augustine [n.115] I say that Christ did not have the same reason for fearing that we have, because he did not have sins to make him fear as ours do us. Thus can the words of Ambrose be understood, “You are grieved, Lord, not over your wounds but mine,” [n.77].

141. To the Master and Jerome [n.116]: if the will suffered not only because of a surreptitious movement preceding consent (and this sort of passion — which can be called ‘pro-passion’ — belongs to the will as it is a nature), but also because of a movement following a freely elicited not-wanting, then the propassion in question must be understood to be distinct from passion that overthrows reason, of which sort there was none in Christ.No reply is given by Scotus to the principal arguments posed at the beginning, nn.2-19, but answers can perhaps be supplied, mutatis mutandis, from the parallel passage in the Lectura 3 d.15 nn.108-121 ⁹⁸