Gabriel Biel

Gabriel Biel, Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum I d.17 q.1, third conclusion, in Commentarij doctissimi in 4. Sententiarum libros, Brescia: Petrus Bozola, 1574, p. 202, leaf n297 (archive.org bub_gb_BBOVAlqWQBUC)

Datec. 1490PlaceTübingenBench / banddissentingDistinctionI d.17 · q.1, concl. 3

Acceptance without charity

English

Third conclusion. Whatever supernatural form has been placed in the soul, God can decline to accept that soul unto eternal life.

It is proved: because, whatever form has been placed there, God is not necessitated to produce anything else without which that form can stand and be conserved; therefore, once that habit has been posited, God can still not beatify.

Again, whatever form God can produce and conserve for a time without another, he can conserve perpetually without it. Again, he can annihilate that form together with the soul in which it inheres. Again, who doubts that he could keep Enoch and Elijah perpetually in paradise without the beatific vision and enjoyment — who are nevertheless believed to have grace?

From which it follows that God beatifies anyone he beatifies purely conting⟨ently⟩ […]

Fresh draft (Claude), approved by Wilson Pruitt · cc-by · published at bonaventure.wrootpress.com. This page quotes it; that is its home.

Latin

Tertia conclusio. Quacunque forma supernaturali in anima posita, potest deus eam non acceptare ad vitam eternam.

Probatur: quia quacunque forma posita non necessitatur deus ad producendum aliud sine quo illa forma potest stare et conservari; ergo posito illo habitu potest deus non beatificare.

Item, quamcunque formam potest deus producere et conservare ad tempus sine alia, potest conservare perpetuo sine illa. Item, potest illam formam annihilare cum anima cui inhaeret. Item, quis dubitat quin Enoch et Heliam posset perpetuo in paradiso conservare absque beatifica visione et fruitione, qui tamen creduntur habere gratiam?

Ex quo sequitur quod deus quemcunque beatificat mere contin⟨genter⟩ […]

Notes

Ockham's second conclusion, restated by his epitomator seventy years on and given an argument Ockham does not use: Enoch and Elijah, who are believed to have grace and are held in paradise without the beatific vision. A scriptural case for a metaphysical thesis, and the one place on this page where the absolute-power argument touches anything a reader could picture. His conclusion, deus quemcunque beatificat mere contingenter, is Ockham's word.

No created form is required

Threads

→ echoes · William of Ockham
Biel's third conclusion is Ockham's second, in Ockham's terms. Ockham: quacumque forma posita supernaturali in anima potest ipsa esse non accepta deo. Biel: quacunque forma supernaturali in anima posita, potest deus eam non acceptare ad vitam eternam — and he closes with Ockham's own adverb, deus quemcunque beatificat mere contingenter. The proof is his own: Enoch and Elijah, believed to have grace, kept in paradise without the beatific vision.
→ parallel · Gregory of Rimini
Both divide the question by God's two powers, and both put the absolute-power case second. Gregory: ista quaestio potest intelligi tam de potentia dei absoluta quam de potentia dei ordinata … secundus erit utrum hoc sit possibile de potentia absoluta dei. Biel reaches the same place by conclusions rather than articles, his second holding de lege ordinata and his third — this witness — holding the absolute-power case. Neither cites the other here, though Biel names Gregory elsewhere in this distinction.