Chapter III
Truth, Freedom, and Evil perseverance because God gave it, then the evil angel did not receive perseverance because God did not give it?
S. Because I think that if giving is the cause of the good angel's receiving, then not-giving is the cause of the evil angel's notreceiving; and if not-giving is postulated, I see not-receiving as a necessary consequence. We all know that when we do not receive what we want, it is not the case that it is not given because we do not receive it, but it is rather the case that we do not receive it because it is not given. As far as I remember, everyone I've read or heard dealing with this question has put it in the form of the following argument; that if the good angel received perseverance because God gave it, then the evil angel did not receive it because
God did not give it.
I do not recall ever having seen a reply to this inference.
Chapter III That God did not give perseverance because Satan did not receive it.
T. The above argument doesn't hold. For even if giving were always the cause of receiving, not-giving would not always be the cause of not-receiving.^ S. But if not-giving were not necessarily the cause of not-receiving, then there could be a receiving even if there were no giving.
T. No, this is wrong.
S. Then give me an example of what you are saying.
T. If I give you something and you receive it, then I don't give it because you receive it, but you receive it because I give it; in this case, giving is the cause of receiving.
S. That's right.
T. What if I give something to someone and he does not receive it? Is it because I don't give it that he doesn't receive it?
S. It seems rather that you do not give it because he does not receive it.
T. That's right. In this case, my not-giving is not the cause of his not-receiving; however, if I hadn't given, then my not-giving * "Potest enim non dare non esse causa non accipiendi, etiamsi dare semper causa esset accipiendi."
The Fall of Satan
would have been the cause of concluding that he did not receive.
So we speak of "cause" in two ways: as the actual cause of something else, and as something posited is the cause of anything which follows from it. For example, burning is not the actual cause of fire, but fire of burning; nevertheless, if we say that there is burning, this is the cause ( or reason ) for concluding that there is fire. For if there is burning, it is necessary that there be fire.
S. And it is necessary that I agree.
T. So I think you see that if you have received something because I have given it, it does not necessarily follow that someone else who has not received something has not received it because I haven't given it; but it does follow that if I have not given it he has not received it.
I see the argument, and I'm happy because I understand it.
T. Do you have any more doubt that the angel who did not fall received perseverance because God gave it, and that God did not give perseverance to the fallen angel because he did not receive it?
S. You have not yet shown this to me, but you have shown only this much: that we cannot argue from the good angel's having received perseverance because God gave it, to the evil angel's not having received perseverance because God did not give it. For if you wish to maintain that God did not give it to him because he did not receive it, I will ask why he didn't receive it: Was it because he could not, or was it because he would not? Moreover, if he didnt have the ability or the will to receive perseverance, then it was because God didn't give them—for if God had given them he certainly would have had them. Therefore, if the evil angel couldn't have the ability or the will to receive perseverance without God's giving them, how did he sin in not receiving what God did not give him either the ability or the will to receive?
T. God did give him the abihty and will to receive perseverance.
S. Then he received what God gave him and he had what he received?
Yes, he received it and he had it.
S. Then, he received and had perseverance?
T. No, he didn't receive it and he didn't have it.
S. But didn't you say that God gave him the will and the ability to receive perseverance, and that he received this will and ability?
Truth, Freedom, and Evil T.
I said this; but I didn't say that God gave him the receiving of perseverance, but only the will and the ability to receive it.
S. Then if he willed to have perseverance, and was able to have it, he received it.
T. Not necessarily.
S. Show me why not.
T. Have you ever begun anything with the will and ability to complete it, but didn't complete it because your will was changed before you finished?
S. Frequently.
T. So you willed and were able to persevere in what you did not persevere?
I certainly willed to do so, but I didn't persevere in the willing, and therefore I didn't persevere in the action. r. But why didn't you persevere in the willing?
S. Because I didn't will to.
Isn't it the case that as long as you willed to persevere in the action, you willed to persevere in the willing itself?
I can't deny that.
T. Why, then, do you say that you did not will to persevere in the willing?
S. Again, I might reply that I did will to persevere, but that I did not persevere in this willing to persevere; but then the argument would continue to infinity, with you always asking the same question and me always giving the same answer.
T. Then you should not say, "I did not will to persevere in the willing because I did not will to persevere in the willing of this willing to persevere." But rather, when you are first asked why you did not persevere in an activity in which you were willing and able to persevere, you should answer, "Because I didn't persevere in willing." But if you are asked again why you didn't persevere in willing, you must not answer that you did not persevere in willing to will to persevere, but you must give another reason which explains the failure of the will. For unless you give this other reason, you merely repeat the question in your reply, viz., that you haven't persevered in willing to persevere in the action.
I see that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Tell me in one word exactly what it is to persevere in doing something.
The Fall of Satan
"Perficere,'' i.e., completing a thing or accomplishing what one has set out to do. For we call perseverance in writing something
**perscribere," i.e., writing something out completely; and we call perseverance in leading ''perducere" i.e., leading through to the end.
T. We may similarly say, even though such an expression is not in use, that to persevere in willing is "pervellej" i.e., willing something completely.
S. So we may.
T. Then, when you didn't complete what you willed to complete and were able to complete, why didn't you complete it?
S. Because I didn't will it completely (Quia non pervolui).
T. Then you should likewise say that Satan, who received the will and abihty to receive perseverance and the will and ability to persevere, did not receive perseverance and did not persevere because he did not will it completely.
S. Now I ask you why he didn't will it completely. For when you say that what he willed he did not will completely, it is as if you were saying that what he willed at first, he didn't will afterwards.
But why didn't he keep willing what he first willed except because he did not have the will to keep willing it? By this, I don't mean the will which he had when he first willed it, but the will which he didn't have when he no longer willed it. Wliy didn't he have this will except because he didn't receive it? And why didn't he receive it except because God didn't give it?
T. And again I repeat: it is not the case that he didn't receive the will to persevere because God didn't give it; rather, God didn't give it because he didn't receive it.
S. Show me this.
T. Satan freely lost the will which he had; and just as he received the will to have what he had, so also he could have received the will always to have what he deserted. But because he deserted what he had, he didn't receive the will to keep it. So it is not the case that he didn't receive a persevering will
( or a will to keep what he had ) because God did not give it, but rather that God did not give it because he would not receive it.
S. But doesn't everyone see that Satan deserted what he had because he was unwilling to keep it, rather than being unwilling to keep it because he deserted it? For being unwilling to keep is
Truth, Freedom, and Evil always prior to willing to desert, as long as someone has something.
Therefore, someone wants to desert what he has because he does not want to keep it.
I ask, therefore, whether there is any other reason for Satan's being unwilling to keep what he had than that God didn't give him the will to keep it.
It is not the case that being unwilling to keep is always prior to willing to desert.
S. Show me when it isn't.
T. Well, it may be that when a lighted coal is placed in your bare hand, your not wanting to keep it is, in fact, prior to your wanting to desert it. And perhaps you "will to desert" because you are "unwilling to keep" in every case where you do not will to have something for its own sake, but will to desert it. For before you have something like a hot coal in your bare hand, you can be unwilling to have it; but you cannot will to desert it except when you already have it.
However, suppose you have something that you do not want to keep, simply because you prefer something else: you do not will to desert such a thing except for a thing you would rather have; and you prefer to have this other thing which you are not able to have without giving up what you already have. In this case, willing to desert is prior to being unwilling to keep. For example, suppose there is a miser who wants to keep his money, yet prefers to have bread, which he is not able to have unless he gives up some of his money. He wills to give up ( or desert ) some of his money before he is unwilling to keep it. For he does not will to give up his money because he is unwilling to keep it, but he is unwilling to keep it [only] because he must give it up to get bread. For before he had his money, he wanted to have it and to keep it; and while he has it, he wants to keep it as long as he has no need to give it up.
S. True enough.
T. Then, it is not always the case that being unwilling to keep something is prior to willing to desert it; but sometimes willing to desert is prior to being unwilling to keep.
I can't deny this.
T. Therefore, I say it is not the case that Satan did not will what and when he should have willed because his will had a deficiency which came from God; but when he willed what he should not have willed, he expelled his good will by means of a supervening evil