[TT] IN the third basic topic of the present Part One, which deals with divine permission, the question is raised whether the endorsement of divine permission in connection with these works on the part of sorcerers is so Catholic a proposition that the opposite view (rejection of such permission) is altogether heretical.

[AG 1] It is argued that it is not heretical to claim that God does not permit so much power to the Devil in connection with acts of sorcery this sort. For it is a Catholic and not a heretical proposition to reject statements that can result in insult to the Creator. Rather, it is a Catholic proposition to claim that such power to harm humans is not permitted the Devil. This is proven on the grounds that to claim the opposite seems to result in insult to the Creator. For it follows that not everything would be subordinate to divine providence, since to the extent that he can, every wise maker of provisions wards off defect and evil from his charges. Furthermore, since those things that happen through acts of sorcery, if they are permitted by God, are not excluded by Him, and if they are not excluded by Him, He will not be a wise maker of provisions, and in that case everything is not subordinate to His providence, which false. Therefore, the idea | that God gives His permission is also false.

[AG 2] Also, “God permits something to be done that He could impede if He wanted to or that He is unable to impeded even if He did want to.” But neither of these statements can be appropriate for God, the first because such a being is considered hostile, the second because such a being is considered powerless.

Next, an incidental question is raised. “This act of sorcery happened Peter, and God was able to impede it but did not. Therefore, God is hostile or does not care about everyone. If, on the other hand, He was unable to impede it even if He wanted to, then He is not all-powerful.”