Bonaventure

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum peccatum minorum Angelorum habeat ordinem ad peccatum luciferi.

Secundo quaeritur de comparatione peccati minorum Angelorum ad peccatum luciferi, et quaeritur, utrum habeat ordinem ad ipsum. — Et quod habeat ordinem causalitatis cuiusdam, videtur.

1. Apocalypsis duodecimo¹: Draco traxit secum tertiam partem stellarum. Sancti et magistri exponunt de lucifero et de daemonibus. Si traxit, ergo aliquo modo procuravit casum eorum: ergo etc.

2. Item, Ioannis octavo² dicitur, quod ipse mendax est, et pater eius: ergo diabolus est pater mendacii: ergo cum mendacium ibi vocetur omne peccatum, videtur, quod ipse fuit pater omnis peccati, ergo et peccati minorum Angelorum: et ita videtur, quod sit ordo causalitatis.

3. Item, quod sit ibi ordo temporis sive durationis, videtur, quia Hugo³ dicit et Magister, quod peccaverunt peccato consentiendo: sed non potuerunt consentire peccato luciferi, nisi quod praecesserat; prius enim vult aliquis aliquid, quam requirat consensum: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc videtur, quia diabolus aliquo modo fuit origo, sive suggerendo, sive exemplum praebendo. Non potuit suggerere, nisi postquam appetiit, nec etiam demonstrare aliis conceptum suum, nec illi consentire, nisi postquam cognoverunt: ergo in medio inter peccatum diaboli et aliorum cecidit suggestio, vel saltem demonstratio et perceptio et adiudicatio de percepto. Sed ista non possunt simul esse: ergo fuit ibi ordo temporis⁴.

Sed Contra: 1. Quod non potuerit ibi esse ordo causalitatis sive occasionis, videtur, quia statim ut peccavit, deformatus est: ergo cum Angeli ante peccatum haberent limpidum visum, si viderunt deformitatem, potius debuerunt a peccato retrahi quam eius exemplum vel suggestionem imitari: ergo non peccaverunt eius exemplo vel suggestione.

2. Item, quod non fuerit ibi ordo temporis, videtur, quia statim ut diabolus peccavit, corruit; alioquin «fuisset dedecus peccati sine decore iustitiae⁵»; sed omnes simul ceciderunt — unde Damascenus dicit, quod «simul cum eo, scilicet lucifero, convulsa est innumera multitudo» — ergo simul, tempore omnes peccaverunt.

3. Item, potest obiici, quod neuter ordo ibi fuerit; quia boni simul conversi sunt, ita quod nec fuit ibi ordo causalitatis sive suggestionis, nec p. 153temporis: ergo si statim divisa est lux a tenebris, statim boni facti sunt lux, et mali tenebrae: ergo simul non tantum tempore, verum etiam natura.

4. Item, adhuc quod neuter ordo ibi fuerit, videtur, quia, si fuit ordo causalitatis, ergo videtur, peccatum aliorum Angelorum remediabile, sicut et peccatum hominis, quod aliunde habuit remedium, quia aliunde habuit occasionem⁶. Si vero fuit ordo temporis, ergo videtur, quod peccatum minorum Angelorum sit gravius, cum non formidaverint divinum iudicium, quod conspexerunt circa luciferum.

Conclusio.

Inter luciferi peccatum et ceterorum fuit ordo et quoad gradum et quoad occasionem et quoad durationem.

Respondeo: Dicendum ad praedictorum intelligentiam, quod hic triplex consuevit poni positio. Quidam enim voluerunt dicere, quod non fuit ibi ordo nisi secundum gradum, quia maius et excellentius fuit peccatum luciferi, eo quod magis superbivit; nec tamen fuit prius peccato aliorum tempore nec origine, sed statim in eodem puncto quilibet, propria voluntate depravatus, sine exemplo peccavit; et quia aspectum habuerunt ad idem, ideo consimili modo et eodem genere peccati peccaverunt. Et concedunt rationes ad hoc.

Aliorum positio fuit, quod non tantum fuit ordo excessus⁷, immo causalitatis, ut causalitas large dicatur non tantum ad causam vere, sed etiam ad occasionem; non tantum ad perpetrationem, sed etiam ad suggestionem; non tamen ordo temporis. Et hoc volunt dare sic intelligere, quod in lucifero simul fuit tempore appetitus et eius expressio, et in Angelis simul perceptio et appetitio, et ita simul tempore peccaverunt; tamen peccatum diaboli praebuit aliis viam, sicut exemplum. — Et ponunt simile: si oculus aspiceret directe in orientem, existens in occidente, simul fieret coruscatio et appareret in oculo⁸. A minori volunt hoc esse posse in Angelo; et per hoc solvunt obiecta.

Tertia positio est, quod fuit ibi ordo et quantum ad gradum et quantum ad occasionem et quantum ad durationem: quantum ad gradum, quia illud luciferi⁹ fuit maius; quantum ad occasionem, quia aliis praebuit exemplum; quantum ad durationem, quia, sicut in lucifero necesse fuit tempore ante esse quam peccare, quia non potuit in eodem instanti habere cognitionem, quae praeexigitur ad peccatum, cum deordinata affectione; sic in minoribus Angelis dicunt fuisse in peccando, cum peccaverunt aspiciendo quod Angelus volebat, et exinde aspiciendo commodum suum. — Et haec positio videtur intelligibilior, unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod deformis fuit statim; potest responderi, quod deformis fuit, sed illa deformitas erat intra conscientiam, et ideo non apparuit, quia non revelavit. — Vel potest dici, quod est deformitas contra naturam et contra voluntatem. Deformitatem contra naturam statim natura cognoscit et respuit, quia non movetur nisi uno modo¹⁰. Sed deformitatem voluntatis non sic respuit voluntas, eo quod ipsa libera est; et ideo frequenter placet ei actus culpabilis, et deformis; nec unquam talis actus displicet ei, nisi in quantum adhaeret aliquo modo iustitiae. Et quia Angeli quidam adhaeserunt iustitiae; ideo eis displicuit motus Angeli et deformis voluntas. Alii vero non adhaeserunt; ideo immunditiam non perceperunt, sed magis ut apparens bonum acceptaverunt.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod simul ceciderunt; potest dici, quod simul, non quia in eodem instanti, sed quia repente, quasi in imperceptibili tempore; et ibi bene potest esse ordo, quamvis non percipiatur. — Vel aliter et melius potest dici, quod satanas non cecidit statim ut appetiit, sed postquam peccatum eius fuit consummatum et confirmatum per odium et invidiam¹¹, et postquam facta est divisio bonorum Angelorum a malis, de quorum consortio post beatificationem statim repulsi sunt. Nec valet illud quod obiicitur de peccati dedecore, quia peccatum semper habet poenam internam sibi coniunctam. Unde sicut homo non statim fuit eiectus de paradiso ut peccavit, sed tamen statim poenam habuit; ita videtur de Angelo esse dicendum, quod non in eodem instanti cecidit.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de bonis Angelis, dicendum, quod tam conversionem bonorum Angelorum quam aversionem daemonum peccatum luciferi praecessit. Nam ipse prius superbivit et superbiam suam omnibus indicavit; et ex tunc quidam adhaeserunt sibi, alii vero restiterunt et adhaeserunt Deo; et simul isti lux, illi tenebrae facti sunt. p. 154Quamvis ergo simul fuerit Angelorum conversio et daemonum aversio, non tamen simul cum peccato luciferi.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de excusabilitate vel gravitate, dicendum, quod prima pars ratiocinationis dupliciter deficit: primum, quia illa non est sufficiens ratio, quare peccatum hominis fuit remediabile, sicut infra patebit melius¹²; secundum, quia non est simile. Aliter enim diabolus dedit occasionem homini, aliter Angelis malis: homini promittendo et fallendo, sed Angelis solum conceptum suum insinuando; unde non dicitur eos tentasse, ut primos parentes. Secunda pars deficit, quia non adverterunt eius ruinam nec viderunt divini iudicii severitatem in ipsum, quousque peccatum eius fuit consummatum, ut prius tactum est et determinatum¹³.

---

QUESTION II.

Whether the sin of the lesser Angels has an order to the sin of Lucifer.

Secondly it is asked about the comparison of the sin of the lesser Angels to the sin of Lucifer, and it is asked whether it has an order to it. — And that it has an order of a certain causality, it seems.

1. Apocalypse, chapter twelve¹: The dragon drew with him the third part of the stars. The Saints and masters expound [this] of Lucifer and of the demons. If he drew [them], therefore he in some manner procured their fall: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in John, chapter eight², it is said that he is a liar, and the father thereof: therefore the devil is the father of lying: therefore, since there every sin is called a lie, it seems that he was the father of every sin, therefore also of the sin of the lesser Angels: and so it seems that there is an order of causality.

3. Likewise, that there is there an order of time or of duration, it seems, because Hugh³ says, and the Master, that they sinned by consenting to [his] sin: but they could not consent to the sin of Lucifer unless it had preceded; for one wills something before he requires consent [to it]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this seems [so], because the devil in some manner was the origin, either by suggesting, or by furnishing an example. He could not suggest except after he desired, nor even demonstrate his concept to others, nor [could] they consent except after they knew: therefore in the middle between the sin of the devil and [that] of the others fell the suggestion, or at least the demonstration and perception and adjudication concerning what was perceived. But these cannot be at once: therefore there was there an order of time⁴.

But on the contrary: 1. That there could not be there an order of causality or of occasion, it seems, because as soon as he sinned, he was deformed: therefore, since the Angels before [their] sin had a clear sight, if they saw the deformity, they ought rather to have been drawn back from sin than to imitate his example or suggestion: therefore they did not sin by his example or suggestion.

2. Likewise, that there was not there an order of time, it seems, because as soon as the devil sinned, he fell; otherwise «there would have been the disgrace of sin without the adornment of justice⁵»; but all fell at once — whence Damascene says that «together with him, namely Lucifer, an innumerable multitude was torn away» — therefore at once, in time, all sinned.

3. Likewise, it can be objected that neither order was there; because the good were converted at once, so that there was there neither an order of causality or of suggestion, nor p. 153of time: therefore if at once light was divided from darkness, at once the good were made light, and the evil darkness: therefore at once not only in time, but even in nature.

4. Likewise, further, that neither order was there, it seems, because, if there was an order of causality, then it seems the sin of the other Angels [was] remediable, just as also the sin of man, which had a remedy from elsewhere, because it had its occasion from elsewhere⁶. But if there was an order of time, then it seems that the sin of the lesser Angels is graver, since they did not fear the divine judgment, which they beheld concerning Lucifer.

Conclusion.

Between Lucifer's sin and that of the rest there was an order both as to degree and as to occasion and as to duration.

I respond: It must be said, for the understanding of the foregoing, that here a threefold position is wont to be set. For some wished to say that there was there no order except according to degree, because the sin of Lucifer was greater and more excellent, in that he was more proud; yet it was not prior to the sin of the others in time nor in origin, but at once in the same point each one, depraved by his own will, sinned without an example; and because they had their gaze on the same thing, therefore they sinned in a like manner and by the same kind of sin. And they concede the arguments for this.

The position of others was, that there was an order not only of excess⁷, nay of causality, taking causality broadly not only for a true cause, but also for an occasion; not only for the perpetration, but also for the suggestion; yet not an order of time. And they wish [it] to be understood thus, that in Lucifer there was at once in time the appetite and its expression, and in the Angels at once the perception and the appetition, and so they sinned at once in time; yet the sin of the devil furnished the others a way, as an example. — And they set a simile: if an eye, being in the west, should look directly into the east, at once the flashing would occur and would appear in the eye⁸. From the lesser they wish this to be able to be [so] in the Angel; and through this they solve the objections.

The third position is, that there was there an order both as to degree and as to occasion and as to duration: as to degree, because that of Lucifer⁹ was greater; as to occasion, because he furnished the others an example; as to duration, because, just as in Lucifer it was necessary in time to be before [he could] sin, since he could not in the same instant have the cognition which is pre-required for sin, together with a disordered affection; so they say it was in the lesser Angels in sinning, since they sinned by looking at what the Angel willed, and thence by looking at their own advantage. — And this position seems more intelligible, whence the arguments adduced for it are to be conceded.

To 1. To that, then, which is objected, that he was deformed at once; it can be answered that he was deformed, but that deformity was within the conscience, and therefore did not appear, because he did not reveal [it]. — Or it can be said that there is a deformity against nature and against the will. A deformity against nature the nature at once knows and rejects, because it is not moved except in one way¹⁰. But a deformity of the will the will does not so reject, because it is itself free; and therefore a culpable and deformed act frequently pleases it; nor ever does such an act displease it, except insofar as it adheres in some manner to justice. And because certain Angels adhered to justice, therefore the motion of the Angel and the deformed will displeased them. But others did not adhere; therefore they did not perceive the uncleanness, but rather accepted [it] as an apparent good.

To 2. To that which is objected, that they fell at once; it can be said that [they fell] at once, not because in the same instant, but because suddenly, as it were in an imperceptible time; and there an order can well be, although it is not perceived. — Or it can be said otherwise and better, that Satan did not fall as soon as he desired, but after his sin was consummated and confirmed through hatred and envy¹¹, and after the division was made of the good Angels from the evil, from whose fellowship, after the beatification, they were at once repelled. Nor does that which is objected concerning the disgrace of sin hold, because sin always has an internal punishment joined to it. Hence, just as man was not at once cast out of paradise as he sinned, but yet at once had punishment; so it seems must be said of the Angel, that he did not fall in the same instant.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning the good Angels, it must be said that the sin of Lucifer preceded both the conversion of the good Angels and the aversion of the demons. For he first was proud and made his pride known to all; and from then some adhered to him, but others resisted and adhered to God; and at once these were made light, those darkness. p. 154Although therefore the conversion of the Angels and the aversion of the demons were at once, yet [they were] not at once with the sin of Lucifer.

To 4. To that which is objected last concerning excusability or gravity, it must be said that the first part of the reasoning is deficient in two ways: first, because that is not a sufficient reason why the sin of man was remediable, as will be clearer below¹²; second, because it is not similar. For the devil gave an occasion to man in one way, to the evil Angels in another: to man by promising and deceiving, but to the Angels only by insinuating his concept; whence he is not said to have tempted them, as [he did] the first parents. The second part is deficient, because they did not advert to his ruin, nor did they see the severity of the divine judgment upon him, until his sin was consummated, as was touched upon and determined before¹³.