Dist. 37, Divisio Textus
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 37
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVII.
Utrum actio malitiae substrata sit a Deo.
Sunt autem et alii plurimi, longe aliter de peccato etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra ostendit Magister, quomodo peccatum sit peccati poena, ad declarandum qualiter peccatum est privatio. In hac parte intendit Magister inquirere, utrum actio, in qua peccatum committitur, sit a Deo, propter hoc quod supra1 dictum fuit, quod peccatum est actus. Et quoniam supra prosecutus fuit opinionem illorum qui dicunt, actionem substratam malitiae esse a Deo, hic secundo prosequitur aliam opinionem, qua quidam ponebant, nec malitiam nec actionem malam esse a Deo. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In quarum prima ponit praedictam opinionem. In secunda vero opponit contra opinionem partis adversae, ibi: In hoc autem verbo superiorum sententiae etc.
Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima explicat Magister illam opinionem. In secunda vero subiungit eius defensionem, ibi: Illa quoque Augustini verba, quibus dicit etc. In tertia vero ex praedictis elicit quandam conclusionem, ibi: Ex quo colligitur, res aliquas etc.
Similiter secunda pars principalis habet tres partes. In prima parte opponit contra adversam opinionem. In secunda vero loco determinationis ponit quandam commonitionem ad auditoris eruditionem, ibi: Intendant diligenter his verbis etc. In tertia vero removet quandam dubitationem, ibi: Cum igitur omnes in hoc consentiant catholici tractatores etc.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis, in qua Magister inquirit, utrum actio culpabilis sit a Deo, incidit hic quaestio circa duo principaliter.
Et primo quaeritur, utrum omnis actio, secundum quod actio, sit a Deo.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum actio defectiva, secundum quod defectiva, a Deo sit.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, utrum a Deo sit omnis actio, secundum quod actio.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum a Deo sit omnis conservatio.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum a Deo sit omnis compositio.
---
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXVII.
Whether the action underlying malice is from God.
But there are also many others who think of sin in a far different way etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above, the Master showed how sin is the penalty of sin, in order to declare in what way sin is a privation. In this part he intends to inquire whether the action in which sin is committed is from God, on account of what was said above1 — that sin is an act. And since above he pursued the opinion of those who say that the action underlying malice is from God, here he secondly pursues another opinion, by which certain men held that neither malice nor an evil action is from God. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he sets forth the aforesaid opinion. In the second he argues against the opinion of the opposing side, there: But in this expression of the views of his predecessors etc.
The first part has three parts. In the first the Master explains that opinion. In the second he subjoins its defense, there: Those words of Augustine also, by which he says etc. In the third he draws from the foregoing a certain conclusion, there: From which it is gathered that certain things etc.
Likewise the second principal part has three parts. In the first part he argues against the contrary opinion. In the second, in place of a determination, he sets down a certain admonition for the instruction of the hearer, there: Let them attend diligently to these words etc. In the third he removes a certain doubt, there: Since therefore all catholic teachers agree in this etc.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
Now for the understanding of this part, in which the Master inquires whether a culpable action is from God, a question falls here concerning two matters principally.
And first it is asked whether every action, insofar as it is action, is from God.
Secondly it is asked whether a defective action, insofar as it is defective, is from God.
Concerning the first, three things are asked.
First it is asked whether every action, insofar as it is action, is from God.
Secondly it is asked whether all conservation is from God.
Thirdly it is asked whether all composition is from God.
---
- Dist. XXXV. c. 1. seqq.Distinction XXXV, chapter 1 and following. ---