E-text prepared by Sandra K. Perry, with corrections and supplementation
by David McClamrock



SUMMA THEOLOGICA

PART I-II ("Prima Secundae")

Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

BENZIGER BROTHERS
NEW YORK
________________________

DEDICATION

To the Blessed Virgin
Mary Immaculate
Seat of Wisdom
________________________

NOTE TO THIS ELECTRONIC EDITION

The text of this electronic edition was originally produced by Sandra
K. Perry, Perrysburg, Ohio, and made available through the Christian
Classics Ethereal Library <http://www.ccel.org>. I have eliminated
unnecessary formatting in the text, corrected some errors in
transcription, and added the dedication, tables of contents,
Prologue, and the numbers of the questions and articles, as they
appeared in the printed translation published by Benziger Brothers.
Each article is now designated by part, question number, and article
number in brackets, like this:

> SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 49, Art. 2]

> Whether the Supreme Good, God, Is the Cause of Evil?

In a few places, where obvious errors appeared in the Benziger
Brothers edition, I have corrected them by reference to a Latin text
of the _Summa._ These corrections are indicated by English text in
brackets. For example, in Part I, Question 45, Article 2, the first
sentence in the Benziger Brothers edition begins: "Not only is it
impossible that anything should be created by God...." By reference
to the Latin, "non solum _non_ est impossibile a Deo aliquid creari"
(emphasis added), this has been corrected to "Not only is it [not]
impossible that anything should be created by God...."

This electronic edition also differs from the Benziger Brothers
edition in the following details (as well as the obvious lack of the
original page numbers and headers):

* The repetitive expression "We proceed thus to the [next] Article"
does not appear directly below the title of each article.

* Italics are represented by underscores at the beginning and end,
_like this._ Quotations and other "quotable" matter, however, are
ordinarily set off by quotation marks with no underscores in this
edition, in accordance with common English usage, even where they
were set in italics with no quotation marks in the Benziger Brothers
edition. Titles of books are set off by underscores when they appear
in the text with no parentheses, but not when the books are cited in
parentheses.

* Bible chapters and verses are cited with arabic numerals separated
by colons, like this: "Dan. 7:10"--not like this: "Dan. vii. 10."
Small roman numerals have been retained where they appear in
citations to books other than the Bible.

* Any matter that appeared in a footnote in the Benziger Brothers
edition is presented in brackets at the point in the text where the
footnote mark appeared.

* Greek words are presented in Roman transliteration.

* Paragraphs are not indented and are separated by blank lines.

* Numbered topics, set forth at the beginning of each question and
at certain other places, are ordinarily presented on a separate line
for each topic.

* Titles of questions are in all caps.

Anything else in this electronic edition that does not correspond to
the content of the Benziger Brothers edition may be regarded as a
defect in this edition and attributed to me (David McClamrock).

________________________

CONTENTS

FIRST PART OF THE SECOND PART (QQ. 1-114)

Question

1.   Of Man's Last End
2.   Of Those Things in Which Man's Happiness Consists
3.   What Is Happiness
4.   Of Those Things That Are Required for Happiness
5.   Of the Attainment of Happiness
6.   Of the Voluntary and the Involuntary
7.   Of the Circumstances of Human Acts
8.   Of the Will, in Regard to What It Wills
9.   Of That Which Moves the Will
10.  Of the Manner in Which the Will Is Moved
11.  Of Enjoyment, Which Is an Act of the Will
12.  Of Intention
13.  Of Choice, Which Is an Act of the Will with Regard to the Means
14.  Of Counsel, Which Precedes Choice
15.  Of Consent, Which Is an Act of the Will in Regard to the Means
16.  Of Use, Which Is an Act of the Will in Regard to the Means
17.  Of the Acts Commanded by the Will
18.  Of the Good and Evil of Human Acts, in General
19.  Of the Goodness and Malice of the Interior Act of the Will
20.  Of Goodness and Malice in External Human Actions
21.  Of the Consequences of Human Actions by Reason of Their Goodness
       and Malice
22.  Of the Subject of the Soul's Passions
23.  How the Passions Differ from One Another
24.  Of Good and Evil in the Passions of the Soul
25.  Of the Order of the Passions to One Another
26.  Of the Passions of the Soul in Particular: and First, of Love
27.  Of the Cause of Love
28.  Of the Effects of Love
29.  Of Hatred
30.  Of Concupiscence
31.  Of Delight Considered in Itself
32.  Of the Cause of Pleasure
33.  Of the Effects of Pleasure
34.  Of the Goodness and Malice of Pleasures
35.  Of Pain or Sorrow, in Itself
36.  Of the Causes of Sorrow or Pain
37.  Of the Effects of Pain or Sorrow
38.  Of the Remedies of Sorrow or Pain
39.  Of the Goodness and Malice of Sorrow or Pain
40.  Of the Irascible Passions, and First, of Hope and Despair
41.  Of Fear, in Itself
42.  Of the Object of Fear
43.  Of the Cause of Fear
44.  Of the Effects of Fear
45.  Of Daring
46.  Of Anger, in Itself
47.  Of the Cause That Provokes Anger, and of the Remedies of Anger
48.  Of the Effects of Anger

TREATISE ON HABITS

49.  Of Habits in General, As to Their Substance
50.  Of the Subject of Habits
51.  Of the Cause of Habits, As to Their Formation
52.  Of the Increase of Habits
53.  How Habits Are Corrupted or Diminished
54.  Of the Distinction of Habits
55.  Of the Virtues, As to Their Essence
56.  Of the Subject of Virtue
57.  Of the Intellectual Virtues
58.  Of the Difference Between Moral and Intellectual Virtues
59.  Of the Moral Virtues in Relation to the Passions
60.  How the Moral Virtues Differ from One Another
61.  Of the Cardinal Virtues
62.  Of the Theological Virtues
63.  Of the Cause of Virtues
64.  Of the Mean of Virtue
65.  Of the Connection of Virtues
66.  Of Equality Among the Virtues
67.  Of the Duration of Virtues After This Life
68.  Of the Gifts
69.  Of the Beatitudes
70.  Of the Fruits of the Holy Ghost
71.  Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves
72.  Of the Distinction of Sins
73.  Of the Comparison of One Sin with Another
74.  Of the Subject of Sin
75.  Of the Causes of Sin, in General
76.  Of the Causes of Sin, in Particular
77.  Of the Cause of Sin, on the Part of the Sensitive Appetite
78.  Of That Cause of Sin Which Is Malice
79.  Of the External Causes of Sin
80.  Of the Cause of Sin, As Regards the Devil
81.  Of the Cause of Sin, on the Part of Man
82.  Of Original Sin, As to Its Essence
83.  Of the Subject of Original Sin
84.  Of the Cause of Sin, in Respect of One Sin Being the Cause
       of Another
85.  Of the Effects of Sin, and, First, of the Corruption of the
       Good of Nature
86.  Of the Stain of Sin
87.  Of the Debt of Punishment
88.  Of Venial and Mortal Sin
89.  Of Venial Sin in Itself

TREATISE ON LAW

90.  Of the Essence of Law
91.  Of the Various Kinds of Law
92.  Of the Effects of Law
93.  Of the Eternal Law
94.  Of the Natural Law
95.  Of Human Law
96.  Of the Power of Human Law
97.  Of Change in Laws
98.  Of the Old Law
99.  Of the Precepts of the Old Law
100. Of the Moral Precepts of the Old Law
101. Of the Ceremonial Precepts in Themselves
102. Of the Causes of the Ceremonial Precepts
103. Of the Duration of the Ceremonial Precepts
104. Of the Judicial Precepts
105. Of the Reason for the Judicial Precepts
106. Of the Law of the Gospel, Called the New Law, Considered in Itself
107. Of the New Law As Compared with the Old
108. Of Those Things That Are Contained in the New Law
109. Of the Necessity of Grace
110. Of the Grace of God as Regards Its Essence
111. Of the Division of Grace
112. Of the Cause of Grace
113. Of the Effects of Grace
114. Of Merit
________________________

FIRST PART OF THE SECOND PART
["I-II," "Prima Secundae"]
________________________

TREATISE ON THE LAST END (QQ. 1-5)
________________________

PROLOGUE

Since, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 12), man is said to be
made in God's image, in so far as the image implies "an intelligent
being endowed with free-will and self-movement": now that we have
treated of the exemplar, i.e. God, and of those things which came
forth from the power of God in accordance with His will; it remains
for us to treat of His image, i.e. man, inasmuch as he too is the
principle of his actions, as having free-will and control of his
actions.
________________________

OF MAN'S LAST END
(In Eight Articles)

In this matter we shall consider first the last end of human life;
and secondly, those things by means of which man may advance towards
this end, or stray from the path: for the end is the rule of whatever
is ordained to the end. And since the last end of human life is
stated to be happiness, we must consider (1) the last end in general;
(2) happiness.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it belongs to man to act for an end?

(2) Whether this is proper to the rational nature?

(3) Whether a man's actions are specified by their end?

(4) Whether there is any last end of human life?

(5) Whether one man can have several last ends?

(6) Whether man ordains all to the last end?

(7) Whether all men have the same last end?

(8) Whether all other creatures concur with man in that last end?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 1]

Whether It Belongs to Man to Act for an End?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to man to act for
an end. For a cause is naturally first. But an end, in its very name,
implies something that is last. Therefore an end is not a cause. But
that for which a man acts, is the cause of his action; since this
preposition "for" indicates a relation of causality. Therefore it
does not belong to man to act for an end.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is itself the last end is not for an end.
But in some cases the last end is an action, as the Philosopher
states (Ethic. i, 1). Therefore man does not do everything for an end.

Obj. 3: Further, then does a man seem to act for an end, when he acts
deliberately. But man does many things without deliberation,
sometimes not even thinking of what he is doing; for instance when
one moves one's foot or hand, or scratches one's beard, while intent
on something else. Therefore man does not do everything for an end.

_On the contrary,_ All things contained in a genus are derived from
the principle of that genus. Now the end is the principle in human
operations, as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii, 9). Therefore it
belongs to man to do everything for an end.

_I answer that,_ Of actions done by man those alone are properly
called "human," which are proper to man as man. Now man differs from
irrational animals in this, that he is master of his actions.
Wherefore those actions alone are properly called human, of which man
is master. Now man is master of his actions through his reason and
will; whence, too, the free-will is defined as "the faculty and will
of reason." Therefore those actions are properly called human which
proceed from a deliberate will. And if any other actions are found in
man, they can be called actions "of a man," but not properly "human"
actions, since they are not proper to man as man. Now it is clear
that whatever actions proceed from a power, are caused by that power
in accordance with the nature of its object. But the object of the
will is the end and the good. Therefore all human actions must be for
an end.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the end be last in the order of execution, yet
it is first in the order of the agent's intention. And it is this way
that it is a cause.

Reply Obj. 2: If any human action be the last end, it must be
voluntary, else it would not be human, as stated above. Now an action
is voluntary in one of two ways: first, because it is commanded by
the will, e.g. to walk, or to speak; secondly, because it is elicited
by the will, for instance the very act of willing. Now it is
impossible for the very act elicited by the will to be the last end.
For the object of the will is the end, just as the object of sight is
color: wherefore just as the first visible cannot be the act of
seeing, because every act of seeing is directed to a visible object;
so the first appetible, i.e. the end, cannot be the very act of
willing. Consequently it follows that if a human action be the last
end, it must be an action commanded by the will: so that there, some
action of man, at least the act of willing, is for the end. Therefore
whatever a man does, it is true to say that man acts for an end, even
when he does that action in which the last end consists.

Reply Obj. 3: Such like actions are not properly human actions; since
they do not proceed from deliberation of the reason, which is the
proper principle of human actions. Therefore they have indeed an
imaginary end, but not one that is fixed by reason.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 2]

Whether It Is Proper to the Rational Nature to Act for an End?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is proper to the rational nature
to act for an end. For man, to whom it belongs to act for an end,
never acts for an unknown end. On the other hand, there are many
things that have no knowledge of an end; either because they are
altogether without knowledge, as insensible creatures: or because
they do not apprehend the idea of an end as such, as irrational
animals. Therefore it seems proper to the rational nature to act for
an end.

Obj. 2: Further, to act for an end is to order one's action to an
end. But this is the work of reason. Therefore it does not belong to
things that lack reason.

Obj. 3: Further, the good and the end is the object of the will. But
"the will is in the reason" (De Anima iii, 9). Therefore to act for
an end belongs to none but a rational nature.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher proves (Phys. ii, 5) that "not
only mind but also nature acts for an end."

_I answer that,_ Every agent, of necessity, acts for an end. For if,
in a number of causes ordained to one another, the first be removed,
the others must, of necessity, be removed also. Now the first of all
causes is the final cause. The reason of which is that matter does
not receive form, save in so far as it is moved by an agent; for
nothing reduces itself from potentiality to act. But an agent does
not move except out of intention for an end. For if the agent were
not determinate to some particular effect, it would not do one thing
rather than another: consequently in order that it produce a
determinate effect, it must, of necessity, be determined to some
certain one, which has the nature of an end. And just as this
determination is effected, in the rational nature, by the "rational
appetite," which is called the will; so, in other things, it is
caused by their natural inclination, which is called the "natural
appetite."

Nevertheless it must be observed that a thing tends to an end, by its
action or movement, in two ways: first, as a thing, moving itself to
the end, as man; secondly, as a thing moved by another to the end, as
an arrow tends to a determinate end through being moved by the archer
who directs his action to the end. Therefore those things that are
possessed of reason, move themselves to an end; because they have
dominion over their actions through their free-will, which is the
"faculty of will and reason." But those things that lack reason tend
to an end, by natural inclination, as being moved by another and not
by themselves; since they do not know the nature of an end as such,
and consequently cannot ordain anything to an end, but can be
ordained to an end only by another. For the entire irrational nature
is in comparison to God as an instrument to the principal agent, as
stated above (I, Q. 22, A. 2, ad 4; Q. 103, A. 1, ad 3). Consequently
it is proper to the rational nature to tend to an end, as directing
(_agens_) and leading itself to the end: whereas it is proper to the
irrational nature to tend to an end, as directed or led by another,
whether it apprehend the end, as do irrational animals, or do not
apprehend it, as is the case of those things which are altogether
void of knowledge.

Reply Obj. 1: When a man of himself acts for an end, he knows the
end: but when he is directed or led by another, for instance, when
he acts at another's command, or when he is moved under another's
compulsion, it is not necessary that he should know the end. And it
is thus with irrational creatures.

Reply Obj. 2: To ordain towards an end belongs to that which directs
itself to an end: whereas to be ordained to an end belongs to that
which is directed by another to an end. And this can belong to an
irrational nature, but owing to some one possessed of reason.
Reply Obj. 3: The object of the will is the end and the good in
universal. Consequently there can be no will in those things that
lack reason and intellect, since they cannot apprehend the universal;
but they have a natural appetite or a sensitive appetite, determinate
to some particular good. Now it is clear that particular causes are
moved by a universal cause: thus the governor of a city, who intends
the common good, moves, by his command, all the particular
departments of the city. Consequently all things that lack reason
are, of necessity, moved to their particular ends by some rational
will which extends to the universal good, namely by the Divine will.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 3]

Whether Human Acts Are Specified by Their End?

Objection 1: It would seem that human acts are not specified by their
end. For the end is an extrinsic cause. But everything is specified
by an intrinsic principle. Therefore human acts are not specified by
their end.

Obj. 2: Further, that which gives a thing its species should exist
before it. But the end comes into existence afterwards. Therefore a
human act does not derive its species from the end.

Obj. 3: Further, one thing cannot be in more than one species. But
one and the same act may happen to be ordained to various ends.
Therefore the end does not give the species to human acts.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Mor. Eccl. et Manich. ii, 13):
"According as their end is worthy of blame or praise so are our deeds
worthy of blame or praise."

_I answer that,_ Each thing receives its species in respect of an act
and not in respect of potentiality; wherefore things composed of
matter and form are established in their respective species by their
own forms. And this is also to be observed in proper movements. For
since movements are, in a way, divided into action and passion, each
of these receives its species from an act; action indeed from the act
which is the principle of acting, and passion from the act which is
the terminus of the movement. Wherefore heating, as an action, is
nothing else than a certain movement proceeding from heat, while
heating as a passion is nothing else than a movement towards heat:
and it is the definition that shows the specific nature. And either
way, human acts, whether they be considered as actions, or as
passions, receive their species from the end. For human acts can be
considered in both ways, since man moves himself, and is moved by
himself. Now it has been stated above (A. 1) that acts are called
human, inasmuch as they proceed from a deliberate will. Now the
object of the will is the good and the end. And hence it is clear
that the principle of human acts, in so far as they are human, is the
end. In like manner it is their terminus: for the human act
terminates at that which the will intends as the end; thus in natural
agents the form of the thing generated is conformed to the form of
the generator. And since, as Ambrose says (Prolog. super Luc.)
"morality is said properly of man," moral acts properly speaking
receive their species from the end, for moral acts are the same as
human acts.

Reply Obj. 1: The end is not altogether extrinsic to the act, because
it is related to the act as principle or terminus; and thus it just
this that is essential to an act, viz. to proceed from something,
considered as action, and to proceed towards something, considered as
passion.

Reply Obj. 2: The end, in so far as it pre-exists in the intention,
pertains to the will, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1). And it is thus
that it gives the species to the human or moral act.

Reply Obj. 3: One and the same act, in so far as it proceeds
once from the agent, is ordained to but one proximate end, from which
it has its species: but it can be ordained to several remote ends, of
which one is the end of the other. It is possible, however, that an
act which is one in respect of its natural species, be ordained to
several ends of the will: thus this act "to kill a man," which is but
one act in respect of its natural species, can be ordained, as to an
end, to the safeguarding of justice, and to the satisfying of anger:
the result being that there would be several acts in different species
of morality: since in one way there will be an act of virtue, in
another, an act of vice. For a movement does not receive its species
from that which is its terminus accidentally, but only from that which
is its _per se_ terminus. Now moral ends are accidental to a natural
thing, and conversely the relation to a natural end is accidental to
morality. Consequently there is no reason why acts which are the same
considered in their natural species, should not be diverse, considered
in their moral species, and conversely.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 4]

Whether There Is One Last End of Human Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no last end of human life,
but that we proceed to infinity. For good is essentially diffusive, as
Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Consequently if that which proceeds
from good is itself good, the latter must needs diffuse some other
good: so that the diffusion of good goes on indefinitely. But good has
the nature of an end. Therefore there is an indefinite series of ends.

Obj. 2: Further, things pertaining to the reason can be multiplied to
infinity: thus mathematical quantities have no limit. For the same
reason the species of numbers are infinite, since, given any number,
the reason can think of one yet greater. But desire of the end is
consequent on the apprehension of the reason. Therefore it seems that
there is also an infinite series of ends.

Obj. 3: Further, the good and the end is the object of the will. But
the will can react on itself an infinite number of times: for I can
will something, and will to will it, and so on indefinitely.
Therefore there is an infinite series of ends of the human will, and
there is no last end of the human will.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Metaph. ii, 2) that "to
suppose a thing to be indefinite is to deny that it is good." But the
good is that which has the nature of an end. Therefore it is contrary
to the nature of an end to proceed indefinitely. Therefore it is
necessary to fix one last end.

_I answer that,_ Absolutely speaking, it is not possible to proceed
indefinitely in the matter of ends, from any point of view. For in
whatsoever things there is an essential order of one to another, if
the first be removed, those that are ordained to the first, must of
necessity be removed also. Wherefore the Philosopher proves (Phys.
viii, 5) that we cannot proceed to infinitude in causes of movement,
because then there would be no first mover, without which neither can
the others move, since they move only through being moved by the first
mover. Now there is to be observed a twofold order in ends--the order
of intention and the order of execution: and in either of these orders
there must be something first. For that which is first in the order of
intention, is the principle, as it were, moving the appetite;
consequently, if you remove this principle, there will be nothing to
move the appetite. On the other hand, the principle in execution is
that wherein operation has its beginning; and if this principle be
taken away, no one will begin to work. Now the principle in the
intention is the last end; while the principle in execution is the
first of the things which are ordained to the end. Consequently, on
neither side is it possible to go to infinity since if there were no
last end, nothing would be desired, nor would any action have its
term, nor would the intention of the agent be at rest; while if there
is no first thing among those that are ordained to the end, none would
begin to work at anything, and counsel would have no term, but would
continue indefinitely.

On the other hand, nothing hinders infinity from being in things that
are ordained to one another not essentially but accidentally; for
accidental causes are indeterminate. And in this way it happens that
there is an accidental infinity of ends, and of things ordained to the
end.

Reply Obj. 1: The very nature of good is that something flows from
it, but not that it flows from something else. Since, therefore, good
has the nature of end, and the first good is the last end, this
argument does not prove that there is no last end; but that from the
end, already supposed, we may proceed downwards indefinitely towards
those things that are ordained to the end. And this would be true if
we considered but the power of the First Good, which is infinite.
But, since the First Good diffuses itself according to the intellect,
to which it is proper to flow forth into its effects according to a
certain fixed form; it follows that there is a certain measure to the
flow of good things from the First Good from Which all other goods
share the power of diffusion. Consequently the diffusion of goods
does not proceed indefinitely but, as it is written (Wis. 11:21), God
disposes all things "in number, weight and measure."

Reply Obj. 2: In things which are of themselves, reason begins from
principles that are known naturally, and advances to some term.
Wherefore the Philosopher proves (Poster. i, 3) that there is no
infinite process in demonstrations, because there we find a process
of things having an essential, not an accidental, connection with one
another. But in those things which are accidentally connected,
nothing hinders the reason from proceeding indefinitely. Now it is
accidental to a stated quantity or number, as such, that quantity or
unity be added to it. Wherefore in such like things nothing hinders
the reason from an indefinite process.

Reply Obj. 3: This multiplication of acts of the will reacting on
itself, is accidental to the order of ends. This is clear from the
fact that in regard to one and the same end, the will reacts on
itself indifferently once or several times.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 5]

Whether One Man Can Have Several Last Ends?

Objection 1: It would seem possible for one man's will to be directed
at the same time to several things, as last ends. For Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xix, 1) that some held man's last end to consist in four
things, viz. "in pleasure, repose, the gifts of nature, and virtue."
But these are clearly more than one thing. Therefore one man can place
the last end of his will in many things.

Obj. 2: Further, things not in opposition to one another do not
exclude one another. Now there are many things which are not in
opposition to one another. Therefore the supposition that one thing
is the last end of the will does not exclude others.

Obj. 3: Further, by the fact that it places its last end in one
thing, the will does not lose its freedom. But before it placed its
last end in that thing, e.g. pleasure, it could place it in something
else, e.g. riches. Therefore even after having placed his last end in
pleasure, a man can at the same time place his last end in riches.
Therefore it is possible for one man's will to be directed at the
same time to several things, as last ends.

_On the contrary,_ That in which a man rests as in his last end, is
master of his affections, since he takes therefrom his entire rule of
life. Hence of gluttons it is written (Phil. 3:19): "Whose god is
their belly": viz. because they place their last end in the pleasures
of the belly. Now according to Matt. 6:24, "No man can serve two
masters," such, namely, as are not ordained to one another. Therefore
it is impossible for one man to have several last ends not ordained
to one another.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for one man's will to be directed
at the same time to diverse things, as last ends. Three reasons may
be assigned for this. First, because, since everything desires its
own perfection, a man desires for his ultimate end, that which he
desires as his perfect and crowning good. Hence Augustine (De Civ.
Dei xix, 1): "In speaking of the end of good we mean now, not that it
passes away so as to be no more, but that it is perfected so as to be
complete." It is therefore necessary for the last end so to fill
man's appetite, that nothing is left besides it for man to desire.
Which is not possible, if something else be required for his
perfection. Consequently it is not possible for the appetite so to
tend to two things, as though each were its perfect good.

The second reason is because, just as in the process of reasoning,
the principle is that which is naturally known, so in the process of
the rational appetite, i.e. the will, the principle needs to be that
which is naturally desired. Now this must needs be one: since nature
tends to one thing only. But the principle in the process of the
rational appetite is the last end. Therefore that to which the will
tends, as to its last end, is one.

The third reason is because, since voluntary actions receive their
species from the end, as stated above (A. 3), they must needs receive
their genus from the last end, which is common to them all: just as
natural things are placed in a genus according to a common form.
Since, then, all things that can be desired by the will, belong, as
such, to one genus, the last end must needs be one. And all the more
because in every genus there is one first principle; and the last end
has the nature of a first principle, as stated above. Now as the last
end of man, simply as man, is to the whole human race, so is the last
end of any individual man to that individual. Therefore, just as of
all men there is naturally one last end, so the will of an individual
man must be fixed on one last end.

Reply Obj. 1: All these several objects were considered as one
perfect good resulting therefrom, by those who placed in them the
last end.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it is possible to find several things which
are not in opposition to one another, yet it is contrary to a thing's
perfect good, that anything besides be required for that thing's
perfection.

Reply Obj. 3: The power of the will does not extend to making
opposites exist at the same time. Which would be the case were it to
tend to several diverse objects as last ends, as has been shown above
(ad 2).
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 6]

Whether Man Wills All, Whatsoever He Wills, for the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that man does not will all, whatsoever he
wills, for the last end. For things ordained to the last end are said
to be serious matter, as being useful. But jests are foreign to
serious matter. Therefore what man does in jest, he ordains not to
the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says at the beginning of his
Metaphysics (i. 2) that speculative science is sought for its own sake.
Now it cannot be said that each speculative science is the last end.
Therefore man does not desire all, whatsoever he desires, for the last
end.

Obj. 3: Further, whosoever ordains something to an end, thinks of
that end. But man does not always think of the last end in all that
he desires or does. Therefore man neither desires nor does all for
the last end.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 1): "That is the
end of our good, for the sake of which we love other things, whereas
we love it for its own sake."

_I answer that,_ Man must, of necessity, desire all, whatsoever he
desires, for the last end. This is evident for two reasons. First,
because whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good.
And if he desire it, not as his perfect good, which is the last end,
he must, of necessity, desire it as tending to the perfect good,
because the beginning of anything is always ordained to its
completion; as is clearly the case in effects both of nature and of
art. Wherefore every beginning of perfection is ordained to complete
perfection which is achieved through the last end. Secondly, because
the last end stands in the same relation in moving the appetite, as
the first mover in other movements. Now it is clear that secondary
moving causes do not move save inasmuch as they are moved by the first
mover. Therefore secondary objects of the appetite do not move the
appetite, except as ordained to the first object of the appetite,
which is the last end.

Reply Obj. 1: Actions done jestingly are not directed to any external
end; but merely to the good of the jester, in so far as they afford
him pleasure or relaxation. But man's consummate good is his last end.

Reply Obj. 2: The same applies to speculative science; which is
desired as the scientist's good, included in complete and perfect
good, which is the ultimate end.

Reply Obj. 3: One need not always be thinking of the last end,
whenever one desires or does something: but the virtue of the first
intention, which was in respect of the last end, remains in every
desire directed to any object whatever, even though one's thoughts be
not actually directed to the last end. Thus while walking along the
road one needs not to be thinking of the end at every step.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 7]

Whether All Men Have the Same Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that all men have not the same last end.
For before all else the unchangeable good seems to be the last end of
man. But some turn away from the unchangeable good, by sinning.
Therefore all men have not the same last end.

Obj. 2: Further, man's entire life is ruled according to his last
end. If, therefore, all men had the same last end, they would not
have various pursuits in life. Which is evidently false.

Obj. 3: Further, the end is the term of action. But actions are of
individuals. Now although men agree in their specific nature, yet
they differ in things pertaining to individuals. Therefore all men
have not the same last end.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3) that all men
agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness.

_I answer that,_ We can speak of the last end in two ways: first,
considering only the aspect of last end; secondly, considering the
thing in which the aspect of last end is realized. So, then, as to
the aspect of last end, all agree in desiring the last end: since all
desire the fulfilment of their perfection, and it is precisely this
fulfilment in which the last end consists, as stated above (A. 5).
But as to the thing in which this aspect is realized, all men are not
agreed as to their last end: since some desire riches as their
consummate good; some, pleasure; others, something else. Thus to
every taste the sweet is pleasant but to some, the sweetness of wine
is most pleasant, to others, the sweetness of honey, or of something
similar. Yet that sweet is absolutely the best of all pleasant
things, in which he who has the best taste takes most pleasure. In
like manner that good is most complete which the man with well
disposed affections desires for his last end.

Reply Obj. 1: Those who sin turn from that in which their last end
really consists: but they do not turn away from the intention of the
last end, which intention they mistakenly seek in other things.

Reply Obj. 2: Various pursuits in life are found among men by reason
of the various things in which men seek to find their last end.

Reply Obj. 3: Although actions are of individuals, yet their first
principle of action is nature, which tends to one thing, as stated
above (A. 5).
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 8]

Whether Other Creatures Concur in That Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that all other creatures concur in man's
last end. For the end corresponds to the beginning. But man's
beginning--i.e. God--is also the beginning of all else. Therefore
all other things concur in man's last end.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "God turns all
things to Himself as to their last end." But He is also man's last
end; because He alone is to be enjoyed by man, as Augustine says (De
Doctr. Christ. i, 5, 22). Therefore other things, too, concur in man's
last end.

Obj. 3: Further, man's last end is the object of the will. But the
object of the will is the universal good, which is the end of all.
Therefore other things, too, concur in man's last end.

_On the contrary,_ man's last end is happiness; which all men desire,
as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3, 4). But "happiness is not
possible for animals bereft of reason," as Augustine says (QQ. 83,
qu. 5). Therefore other things do not concur in man's last end.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 2), the end is
twofold--the end "for which" and the end "by which"; viz. the thing
itself in which is found the aspect of good, and the use or
acquisition of that thing. Thus we say that the end of the movement of
a weighty body is either a lower place as "thing," or to be in a lower
place, as "use"; and the end of the miser is money as "thing," or
possession of money as "use."

If, therefore, we speak of man's last end as of the thing which is the
end, thus all other things concur in man's last end, since God is the
last end of man and of all other things. If, however, we speak of
man's last end, as of the acquisition of the end, then irrational
creatures do not concur with man in this end. For man and other
rational creatures attain to their last end by knowing and loving God:
this is not possible to other creatures, which acquire their last end,
in so far as they share in the Divine likeness, inasmuch as they are,
or live, or even know.

Hence it is evident how the objections are solved: since happiness
means the acquisition of the last end.
________________________

QUESTION 2

OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH MAN'S HAPPINESS CONSISTS
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider happiness: and (1) in what it consists; (2)
what it is; (3) how we can obtain it.

Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether happiness consists in wealth?

(2) Whether in honor?

(3) Whether in fame or glory?

(4) Whether in power?

(5) Whether in any good of the body?

(6) Whether in pleasure?

(7) Whether in any good of the soul?

(8) Whether in any created good?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 1]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Wealth?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in wealth.
For since happiness is man's last end, it must consist in that which
has the greatest hold on man's affections. Now this is wealth: for it
is written (Eccles. 10:19): "All things obey money." Therefore man's
happiness consists in wealth.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii), happiness is
"a state of life made perfect by the aggregate of all good things."
Now money seems to be the means of possessing all things: for, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), money was invented, that it might be
a sort of guarantee for the acquisition of whatever man desires.
Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

Obj. 3: Further, since the desire for the sovereign good never fails,
it seems to be infinite. But this is the case with riches more than
anything else; since "a covetous man shall not be satisfied with
riches" (Eccles. 5:9). Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

_On the contrary,_ Man's good consists in retaining happiness rather
than in spreading it. But as Boethius says (De Consol. ii), "wealth
shines in giving rather than in hoarding: for the miser is hateful,
whereas the generous man is applauded." Therefore man's happiness
does not consist in wealth.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in
wealth. For wealth is twofold, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3),
viz. natural and artificial. Natural wealth is that which serves man
as a remedy for his natural wants: such as food, drink, clothing,
cars, dwellings, and such like, while artificial wealth is that which
is not a direct help to nature, as money, but is invented by the art
of man, for the convenience of exchange, and as a measure of things
salable.

Now it is evident that man's happiness cannot consist in natural
wealth. For wealth of this kind is sought for the sake of something
else, viz. as a support of human nature: consequently it cannot be
man's last end, rather is it ordained to man as to its end. Wherefore
in the order of nature, all such things are below man, and made for
him, according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his
feet."

And as to artificial wealth, it is not sought save for the sake of
natural wealth; since man would not seek it except because, by its
means, he procures for himself the necessaries of life. Consequently
much less can it be considered in the light of the last end. Therefore
it is impossible for happiness, which is the last end of man, to
consist in wealth.

Reply Obj. 1: All material things obey money, so far as the
multitude of fools is concerned, who know no other than material
goods, which can be obtained for money. But we should take our
estimation of human goods not from the foolish but from the wise: just
as it is for a person whose sense of taste is in good order, to judge
whether a thing is palatable.

Reply Obj. 2: All things salable can be had for money: not so
spiritual things, which cannot be sold. Hence it is written (Prov.
17:16): "What doth it avail a fool to have riches, seeing he cannot
buy wisdom."

Reply Obj. 3: The desire for natural riches is not infinite:
because they suffice for nature in a certain measure. But the desire
for artificial wealth is infinite, for it is the servant of disordered
concupiscence, which is not curbed, as the Philosopher makes clear
(Polit. i, 3). Yet this desire for wealth is infinite otherwise than
the desire for the sovereign good. For the more perfectly the
sovereign good is possessed, the more it is loved, and other things
despised: because the more we possess it, the more we know it. Hence
it is written (Ecclus. 24:29): "They that eat me shall yet hunger."
Whereas in the desire for wealth and for whatsoever temporal goods,
the contrary is the case: for when we already possess them, we despise
them, and seek others: which is the sense of Our Lord's words (John
4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water," by which temporal goods are
signified, "shall thirst again." The reason of this is that we realize
more their insufficiency when we possess them: and this very fact
shows that they are imperfect, and the sovereign good does not consist
therein.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 2]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Honors?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in honors.
For happiness or bliss is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. i, 9). But honor more than anything else seems to be that
by which virtue is rewarded, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3).
Therefore happiness consists especially in honor.

Obj. 2: Further, that which belongs to God and to persons of great
excellence seems especially to be happiness, which is the perfect
good. But that is honor, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3).
Moreover, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:17): "To . . . the only God be
honor and glory." Therefore happiness consists in honor.

Obj. 3: Further, that which man desires above all is happiness. But
nothing seems more desirable to man than honor: since man suffers
loss in all other things, lest he should suffer loss of honor.
Therefore happiness consists in honor.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is in the happy. But honor is not in the
honored, but rather in him who honors, and who offers deference to
the person honored, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 5). Therefore
happiness does not consist in honor.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for happiness to consist in honor.
For honor is given to a man on account of some excellence in him; and
consequently it is a sign and attestation of the excellence that is
in the person honored. Now a man's excellence is in proportion,
especially to his happiness, which is man's perfect good; and to its
parts, i.e. those goods by which he has a certain share of happiness.
And therefore honor can result from happiness, but happiness cannot
principally consist therein.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 5), honor is not
that reward of virtue, for which the virtuous work: but they receive
honor from men by way of reward, "as from those who have nothing
greater to offer." But virtue's true reward is happiness itself, for
which the virtuous work: whereas if they worked for honor, it would
no longer be a virtue, but ambition.

Reply Obj. 2: Honor is due to God and to persons of great excellence
as a sign of attestation of excellence already existing: not that
honor makes them excellent.

Reply Obj. 3: That man desires honor above all else, arises from his
natural desire for happiness, from which honor results, as stated
above. Wherefore man seeks to be honored especially by the wise, on
whose judgment he believes himself to be excellent or happy.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 3]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Fame or Glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in glory.
For happiness seems to consist in that which is paid to the saints
for the trials they have undergone in the world. But this is glory:
for the Apostle says (Rom. 8:18): "The sufferings of this time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be
revealed in us." Therefore happiness consists in glory.

Obj. 2: Further, good is diffusive of itself, as stated by Dionysius
(Div. Nom. iv). But man's good is spread abroad in the knowledge of
others by glory more than by anything else: since, according to
Ambrose [*Augustine, Contra Maxim. Arian. ii. 13], glory consists "in
being well known and praised." Therefore man's happiness consists in
glory.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is the most enduring good. Now this seems
to be fame or glory; because by this men attain to eternity after a
fashion. Hence Boethius says (De Consol. ii): "You seem to beget unto
yourselves eternity, when you think of your fame in future time."
Therefore man's happiness consists in fame or glory.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is man's true good. But it happens that
fame or glory is false: for as Boethius says (De Consol. iii), "many
owe their renown to the lying reports spread among the people. Can
anything be more shameful? For those who receive false fame, must
needs blush at their own praise." Therefore man's happiness does not
consist in fame or glory.

_I answer that,_ Man's happiness cannot consist in human fame or
glory. For glory consists "in being well known and praised," as
Ambrose [*Augustine, Contra Maxim. Arian. ii, 13] says. Now the thing
known is related to human knowledge otherwise than to God's
knowledge: for human knowledge is caused by the things known, whereas
God's knowledge is the cause of the things known. Wherefore the
perfection of human good, which is called happiness, cannot be caused
by human knowledge: but rather human knowledge of another's happiness
proceeds from, and, in a fashion, is caused by, human happiness
itself, inchoate or perfect. Consequently man's happiness cannot
consist in fame or glory. On the other hand, man's good depends on
God's knowledge as its cause. And therefore man's beatitude depends,
as on its cause, on the glory which man has with God; according to
Ps. 90:15, 16: "I will deliver him, and I will glorify him; I will
fill him with length of days, and I will show him my salvation."

Furthermore, we must observe that human knowledge often fails,
especially in contingent singulars, such as are human acts. For this
reason human glory is frequently deceptive. But since God cannot be
deceived, His glory is always true; hence it is written (2 Cor.
10:18): "He . . . is approved . . . whom God commendeth."

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle speaks, then, not of the glory which is
with men, but of the glory which is from God, with His Angels. Hence
it is written (Mk. 8:38): "The Son of Man shall confess him in the
glory of His Father, before His angels" [*St. Thomas joins Mk. 8:38
with Luke 12:8 owing to a possible variant in his text, or to the
fact that he was quoting from memory].

Reply Obj. 2: A man's good which, through fame or glory, is in the
knowledge of many, if this knowledge be true, must needs be derived
from good existing in the man himself: and hence it presupposes
perfect or inchoate happiness. But if the knowledge be false, it does
not harmonize with the thing: and thus good does not exist in him who
is looked upon as famous. Hence it follows that fame can nowise make
man happy.

Reply Obj. 3: Fame has no stability; in fact, it is easily ruined by
false report. And if sometimes it endures, this is by accident. But
happiness endures of itself, and for ever.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 4]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in power. For all
things desire to become like to God, as to their last end and first
beginning. But men who are in power, seem, on account of the
similarity of power, to be most like to God: hence also in Scripture
they are called "gods" (Ex. 22:28), "Thou shalt not speak ill of the
gods." Therefore happiness consists in power.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the perfect good. But the highest
perfection for man is to be able to rule others; which belongs to
those who are in power. Therefore happiness consists in power.

Obj. 3: Further, since happiness is supremely desirable, it is
contrary to that which is before all to be shunned. But, more than
aught else, men shun servitude, which is contrary to power. Therefore
happiness consists in power.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is the perfect good. But power is most
imperfect. For as Boethius says (De Consol. iii), "the power of man
cannot relieve the gnawings of care, nor can it avoid the thorny path
of anxiety": and further on: "Think you a man is powerful who is
surrounded by attendants, whom he inspires with fear indeed, but whom
he fears still more?"

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for happiness to consist in power;
and this for two reasons. First because power has the nature of
principle, as is stated in _Metaph._ v, 12, whereas happiness has the
nature of last end. Secondly, because power has relation to good and
evil: whereas happiness is man's proper and perfect good. Wherefore
some happiness might consist in the good use of power, which is by
virtue, rather than in power itself.

Now four general reasons may be given to prove that happiness
consists in none of the foregoing external goods. First, because,
since happiness is man's supreme good, it is incompatible with any
evil. Now all the foregoing can be found both in good and in evil
men. Secondly, because, since it is the nature of happiness to
"satisfy of itself," as stated in _Ethic._ i, 7, having gained
happiness, man cannot lack any needful good. But after acquiring any
one of the foregoing, man may still lack many goods that are
necessary to him; for instance, wisdom, bodily health, and such like.
Thirdly, because, since happiness is the perfect good, no evil can
accrue to anyone therefrom. This cannot be said of the foregoing: for
it is written (Eccles. 5:12) that "riches" are sometimes "kept to the
hurt of the owner"; and the same may be said of the other three.
Fourthly, because man is ordained to happiness through principles
that are in him; since he is ordained thereto naturally. Now the four
goods mentioned above are due rather to external causes, and in most
cases to fortune; for which reason they are called goods of fortune.
Therefore it is evident that happiness nowise consists in the
foregoing.

Reply Obj. 1: God's power is His goodness: hence He cannot use His
power otherwise than well. But it is not so with men. Consequently it
is not enough for man's happiness, that he become like God in power,
unless he become like Him in goodness also.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as it is a very good thing for a man to make good
use of power in ruling many, so is it a very bad thing if he makes a
bad use of it. And so it is that power is towards good and evil.

Reply Obj. 3: Servitude is a hindrance to the good use of power:
therefore is it that men naturally shun it; not because man's supreme
good consists in power.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 5]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Any Bodily Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in bodily
goods. For it is written (Ecclus. 30:16): "There is no riches above
the riches of the health of the body." But happiness consists in that
which is best. Therefore it consists in the health of the body.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v), that "to be" is better
than "to live," and "to live" is better than all that follows. But
for man's being and living, the health of the body is necessary.
Since, therefore, happiness is man's supreme good, it seems that
health of the body belongs more than anything else to happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, the more universal a thing is, the higher the
principle from which it depends; because the higher a cause is, the
greater the scope of its power. Now just as the causality of the
efficient cause consists in its flowing into something, so the
causality of the end consists in its drawing the appetite. Therefore,
just as the First Cause is that which flows into all things, so the
last end is that which attracts the desire of all. But being itself
is that which is most desired by all. Therefore man's happiness
consists most of all in things pertaining to his being, such as the
health of the body.

_On the contrary,_ Man surpasses all other animals in regard to
happiness. But in bodily goods he is surpassed by many animals; for
instance, by the elephant in longevity, by the lion in strength, by
the stag in fleetness. Therefore man's happiness does not consist in
goods of the body.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in
the goods of the body; and this for two reasons. First, because, if a
thing be ordained to another as to its end, its last end cannot
consist in the preservation of its being. Hence a captain does not
intend as a last end, the preservation of the ship entrusted to him,
since a ship is ordained to something else as its end, viz. to
navigation. Now just as the ship is entrusted to the captain that he
may steer its course, so man is given over to his will and reason;
according to Ecclus. 15:14: "God made man from the beginning and left
him in the hand of his own counsel." Now it is evident that man is
ordained to something as his end: since man is not the supreme good.
Therefore the last end of man's reason and will cannot be the
preservation of man's being.

Secondly, because, granted that the end of man's will and reason be
the preservation of man's being, it could not be said that the end of
man is some good of the body. For man's being consists in soul and
body; and though the being of the body depends on the soul, yet the
being of the human soul depends not on the body, as shown above (I,
Q. 75, A. 2); and the very body is for the soul, as matter for its
form, and the instruments for the man that puts them into motion,
that by their means he may do his work. Wherefore all goods of the
body are ordained to the goods of the soul, as to their end.
Consequently happiness, which is man's last end, cannot consist in
goods of the body.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the body is ordained to the soul, as its end,
so are external goods ordained to the body itself. And therefore it
is with reason that the good of the body is preferred to external
goods, which are signified by "riches," just as the good of the soul
is preferred to all bodily goods.

Reply Obj. 2: Being taken simply, as including all perfection of
being, surpasses life and all that follows it; for thus being itself
includes all these. And in this sense Dionysius speaks. But if we
consider being itself as participated in this or that thing, which
does not possess the whole perfection of being, but has imperfect
being, such as the being of any creature; then it is evident that
being itself together with an additional perfection is more
excellent. Hence in the same passage Dionysius says that things that
live are better than things that exist, and intelligent better than
living things.

Reply Obj. 3: Since the end corresponds to the beginning; this
argument proves that the last end is the first beginning of being, in
Whom every perfection of being is: Whose likeness, according to their
proportion, some desire as to being only, some as to living being,
some as to being which is living, intelligent and happy. And this
belongs to few.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 5]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in pleasure.
For since happiness is the last end, it is not desired for something
else, but other things for it. But this answers to pleasure more than
to anything else: "for it is absurd to ask anyone what is his motive
in wishing to be pleased" (Ethic. x, 2). Therefore happiness consists
principally in pleasure and delight.

Obj. 2: Further, "the first cause goes more deeply into the effect
than the second cause" (De Causis i). Now the causality of the end
consists in its attracting the appetite. Therefore, seemingly that
which moves most the appetite, answers to the notion of the last end.
Now this is pleasure: and a sign of this is that delight so far
absorbs man's will and reason, that it causes him to despise other
goods. Therefore it seems that man's last end, which is happiness,
consists principally in pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, since desire is for good, it seems that what all
desire is best. But all desire delight; both wise and foolish, and
even irrational creatures. Therefore delight is the best of all.
Therefore happiness, which is the supreme good, consists in pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "Any one that
chooses to look back on his past excesses, will perceive that
pleasures had a sad ending: and if they can render a man happy, there
is no reason why we should not say that the very beasts are happy
too."

_I answer that,_ Because bodily delights are more generally known,
"the name of pleasure has been appropriated to them" (Ethic. vii,
13), although other delights excel them: and yet happiness does not
consist in them. Because in every thing, that which pertains to its
essence is distinct from its proper accident: thus in man it is one
thing that he is a mortal rational animal, and another that he is a
risible animal. We must therefore consider that every delight is a
proper accident resulting from happiness, or from some part of
happiness; since the reason that a man is delighted is that he has
some fitting good, either in reality, or in hope, or at least in
memory. Now a fitting good, if indeed it be the perfect good, is
precisely man's happiness: and if it is imperfect, it is a share of
happiness, either proximate, or remote, or at least apparent.
Therefore it is evident that neither is delight, which results from
the perfect good, the very essence of happiness, but something
resulting therefrom as its proper accident.

But bodily pleasure cannot result from the perfect good even in that
way. For it results from a good apprehended by sense, which is a power
of the soul, which power makes use of the body. Now good pertaining to
the body, and apprehended by sense, cannot be man's perfect good. For
since the rational soul excels the capacity of corporeal matter, that
part of the soul which is independent of a corporeal organ, has a
certain infinity in regard to the body and those parts of the soul
which are tied down to the body: just as immaterial things are in a
way infinite as compared to material things, since a form is, after a
fashion, contracted and bounded by matter, so that a form which is
independent of matter is, in a way, infinite. Therefore sense, which
is a power of the body, knows the singular, which is determinate
through matter: whereas the intellect, which is a power independent of
matter, knows the universal, which is abstracted from matter, and
contains an infinite number of singulars. Consequently it is evident
that good which is fitting to the body, and which causes bodily
delight through being apprehended by sense, is not man's perfect good,
but is quite a trifle as compared with the good of the soul. Hence it
is written (Wis. 7:9) that "all gold in comparison of her, is as a
little sand." And therefore bodily pleasure is neither happiness
itself, nor a proper accident of happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: It comes to the same whether we desire good, or desire
delight, which is nothing else than the appetite's rest in good: thus
it is owing to the same natural force that a weighty body is borne
downwards and that it rests there. Consequently just as good is
desired for itself, so delight is desired for itself and not for
anything else, if the preposition "for" denote the final cause. But
if it denote the formal or rather the motive cause, thus delight is
desirable for something else, i.e. for the good, which is the object
of that delight, and consequently is its principle, and gives it its
form: for the reason that delight is desired is that it is rest in
the thing desired.

Reply Obj. 2: The vehemence of desire for sensible delight arises
from the fact that operations of the senses, through being the
principles of our knowledge, are more perceptible. And so it is that
sensible pleasures are desired by the majority.

Reply Obj. 3: All desire delight in the same way as they desire good:
and yet they desire delight by reason of the good and not conversely,
as stated above (ad 1). Consequently it does not follow that delight
is the supreme and essential good, but that every delight results
from some good, and that some delight results from that which is the
essential and supreme good.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 7]

Whether Some Good of the Soul Constitutes Man's Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that some good of the soul constitutes
man's happiness. For happiness is man's good. Now this is threefold:
external goods, goods of the body, and goods of the soul. But
happiness does not consist in external goods, nor in goods of the
body, as shown above (AA. 4, 5). Therefore it consists in goods
of the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, we love that for which we desire good, more than
the good that we desire for it: thus we love a friend for whom we
desire money, more than we love money. But whatever good a man
desires, he desires it for himself. Therefore he loves himself more
than all other goods. Now happiness is what is loved above all: which
is evident from the fact that for its sake all else is loved and
desired. Therefore happiness consists in some good of man himself:
not, however, in goods of the body; therefore, in goods of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, perfection is something belonging to that which is
perfected. But happiness is a perfection of man. Therefore happiness
is something belonging to man. But it is not something belonging to
the body, as shown above (A. 5). Therefore it is something belonging
to the soul; and thus it consists in goods of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22), "that
which constitutes the life of happiness is to be loved for its own
sake." But man is not to be loved for his own sake, but whatever is
in man is to be loved for God's sake. Therefore happiness consists in
no good of the soul.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8), the end is twofold:
namely, the thing itself, which we desire to attain, and the use,
namely, the attainment or possession of that thing. If, then, we speak
of man's last end, it is impossible for man's last end to be the soul
itself or something belonging to it. Because the soul, considered in
itself, is as something existing in potentiality: for it becomes
knowing actually, from being potentially knowing; and actually
virtuous, from being potentially virtuous. Now since potentiality is
for the sake of act as for its fulfilment, that which in itself is in
potentiality cannot be the last end. Therefore the soul itself cannot
be its own last end.

In like manner neither can anything belonging to it, whether power,
habit, or act. For that good which is the last end, is the perfect
good fulfilling the desire. Now man's appetite, otherwise the will,
is for the universal good. And any good inherent to the soul is a
participated good, and consequently a portioned good. Therefore none
of them can be man's last end.

But if we speak of man's last end, as to the attainment or possession
thereof, or as to any use whatever of the thing itself desired as an
end, thus does something of man, in respect of his soul, belong to his
last end: since man attains happiness through his soul. Therefore the
thing itself which is desired as end, is that which constitutes
happiness, and makes man happy; but the attainment of this thing is
called happiness. Consequently we must say that happiness is something
belonging to the soul; but that which constitutes happiness is
something outside the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: Inasmuch as this division includes all goods that man
can desire, thus the good of the soul is not only power, habit, or
act, but also the object of these, which is something outside. And in
this way nothing hinders us from saying that what constitutes
happiness is a good of the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: As far as the proposed objection is concerned,
happiness is loved above all, as the good desired; whereas a friend
is loved as that for which good is desired; and thus, too, man loves
himself. Consequently it is not the same kind of love in both cases.
As to whether man loves anything more than himself with the love of
friendship there will be occasion to inquire when we treat of Charity.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness, itself, since it is a perfection of the
soul, is an inherent good of the soul; but that which constitutes
happiness, viz. which makes man happy, is something outside his soul,
as stated above.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 8]

Whether Any Created Good Constitutes Man's Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that some created good constitutes man's
happiness. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that Divine wisdom
"unites the ends of first things to the beginnings of second things,"
from which we may gather that the summit of a lower nature touches
the base of the higher nature. But man's highest good is happiness.
Since then the angel is above man in the order of nature, as stated
in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 1), it seems that man's happiness
consists in man somehow reaching the angel.

Obj. 2: Further, the last end of each thing is that which, in
relation to it, is perfect: hence the part is for the whole, as for
its end. But the universe of creatures which is called the macrocosm,
is compared to man who is called the microcosm (Phys. viii, 2), as
perfect to imperfect. Therefore man's happiness consists in the whole
universe of creatures.

Obj. 3: Further, man is made happy by that which lulls his natural
desire. But man's natural desire does not reach out to a good
surpassing his capacity. Since then man's capacity does not include
that good which surpasses the limits of all creation, it seems that
man can be made happy by some created good. Consequently some created
good constitutes man's happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 26): "As the soul
is the life of the body, so God is man's life of happiness: of Whom
it is written: 'Happy is that people whose God is the Lord' (Ps.
143:15)."

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any created good to constitute
man's happiness. For happiness is the perfect good, which lulls the
appetite altogether; else it would not be the last end, if something
yet remained to be desired. Now the object of the will, i.e. of man's
appetite, is the universal good; just as the object of the intellect
is the universal true. Hence it is evident that naught can lull man's
will, save the universal good. This is to be found, not in any
creature, but in God alone; because every creature has goodness by
participation. Wherefore God alone can satisfy the will of man,
according to the words of Ps. 102:5: "Who satisfieth thy desire with
good things." Therefore God alone constitutes man's happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: The summit of man does indeed touch the base of the
angelic nature, by a kind of likeness; but man does not rest there as
in his last end, but reaches out to the universal fount itself of
good, which is the common object of happiness of all the blessed, as
being the infinite and perfect good.

Reply Obj. 2: If a whole be not the last end, but ordained to a
further end, then the last end of a part thereof is not the whole
itself, but something else. Now the universe of creatures, to which
man is compared as part to whole, is not the last end, but is
ordained to God, as to its last end. Therefore the last end of man is
not the good of the universe, but God himself.

Reply Obj. 3: Created good is not less than that good of which man is
capable, as of something intrinsic and inherent to him: but it is
less than the good of which he is capable, as of an object, and which
is infinite. And the participated good which is in an angel, and in
the whole universe, is a finite and restricted good.
________________________

QUESTION 3

WHAT IS HAPPINESS
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider (1) what happiness is, and (2) what things
are required for it.

Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether happiness is something uncreated?

(2) If it be something created, whether it is an operation?

(3) Whether it is an operation of the sensitive, or only of the
intellectual part?

(4) If it be an operation of the intellectual part, whether it is an
operation of the intellect, or of the will?

(5) If it be an operation of the intellect, whether it is an
operation of the speculative or of the practical intellect?

(6) If it be an operation of the speculative intellect, whether it
consists in the consideration of speculative sciences?

(7) Whether it consists in the consideration of separate substances
viz. angels?

(8) Whether it consists in the sole contemplation of God seen in His
Essence?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 1]

Whether Happiness Is Something Uncreated?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is something uncreated. For
Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "We must needs confess that God is
happiness itself."

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the supreme good. But it belongs to God
to be the supreme good. Since, then, there are not several supreme
goods, it seems that happiness is the same as God.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is the last end, to which man's will tends
naturally. But man's will should tend to nothing else as an end, but
to God, Who alone is to be enjoyed, as Augustine says (De Doctr.
Christ. i, 5, 22). Therefore happiness is the same as God.

_On the contrary,_ Nothing made is uncreated. But man's happiness is
something made; because according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i,
3): "Those things are to be enjoyed which make us happy." Therefore
happiness is not something uncreated.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), our end is
twofold. First, there is the thing itself which we desire to attain:
thus for the miser, the end is money. Secondly there is the
attainment or possession, the use or enjoyment of the thing desired;
thus we may say that the end of the miser is the possession of money;
and the end of the intemperate man is to enjoy something pleasurable.
In the first sense, then, man's last end is the uncreated good,
namely, God, Who alone by His infinite goodness can perfectly satisfy
man's will. But in the second way, man's last end is something
created, existing in him, and this is nothing else than the
attainment or enjoyment of the last end. Now the last end is called
happiness. If, therefore, we consider man's happiness in its cause or
object, then it is something uncreated; but if we consider it as to
the very essence of happiness, then it is something created.

Reply Obj. 1: God is happiness by His Essence: for He is happy not by
acquisition or participation of something else, but by His Essence.
On the other hand, men are happy, as Boethius says (De Consol. iii),
by participation; just as they are called "gods," by participation.
And this participation of happiness, in respect of which man is said
to be happy, is something created.

Reply Obj. 2: Happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is
the attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness is said to be the last end, in the same way
as the attainment of the end is called the end.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 2]

Whether Happiness Is an Operation?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is not an operation. For
the Apostle says (Rom. 6:22): "You have your fruit unto
sanctification, and the end, life everlasting." But life is not an
operation, but the very being of living things. Therefore the last
end, which is happiness, is not an operation.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that happiness is "a
state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But state
does not indicate operation. Therefore happiness is not an operation.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness signifies something existing in the happy
one: since it is man's final perfection. But the meaning of operation
does not imply anything existing in the operator, but rather
something proceeding therefrom. Therefore happiness is not an
operation.

Obj. 4: Further, happiness remains in the happy one. Now operation
does not remain, but passes. Therefore happiness is not an operation.

Obj. 5: Further, to one man there is one happiness. But operations
are many. Therefore happiness is not an operation.

Obj. 6: Further, happiness is in the happy one uninterruptedly. But
human operation is often interrupted; for instance, by sleep, or some
other occupation, or by cessation. Therefore happiness is not an
operation.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that
"happiness is an operation according to perfect virtue."

_I answer that,_ In so far as man's happiness is something created,
existing in him, we must needs say that it is an operation. For
happiness is man's supreme perfection. Now each thing is perfect in
so far as it is actual; since potentiality without act is imperfect.
Consequently happiness must consist in man's last act. But it is
evident that operation is the last act of the operator, wherefore the
Philosopher calls it "second act" (De Anima ii, 1): because that
which has a form can be potentially operating, just as he who knows
is potentially considering. And hence it is that in other things,
too, each one is said to be "for its operation" (De Coel ii, 3).
Therefore man's happiness must of necessity consist in an operation.

Reply Obj. 1: Life is taken in two senses. First for the very being
of the living. And thus happiness is not life: since it has been
shown (Q. 2, A. 5) that the being of a man, no matter in what it may
consist, is not that man's happiness; for of God alone is it true
that His Being is His Happiness. Secondly, life means the operation
of the living, by which operation the principle of life is made
actual: thus we speak of active and contemplative life, or of a life
of pleasure. And in this sense eternal life is said to be the last
end, as is clear from John 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may
know Thee, the only true God."

Reply Obj. 2: Boethius, in defining happiness, considered happiness
in general: for considered thus it is the perfect common good; and he
signified this by saying that happiness is "a state made perfect by
the aggregate of all good things," thus implying that the state of a
happy man consists in possessing the perfect good. But Aristotle
expressed the very essence of happiness, showing by what man is
established in this state, and that it is by some kind of operation.
And so it is that he proves happiness to be "the perfect good"
(Ethic. i, 7).

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Metaph._ ix, 7 action is twofold. One
proceeds from the agent into outward matter, such as "to burn" and
"to cut." And such an operation cannot be happiness: for such an
operation is an action and a perfection, not of the agent, but rather
of the patient, as is stated in the same passage. The other is an
action that remains in the agent, such as to feel, to understand, and
to will: and such an action is a perfection and an act of the agent.
And such an operation can be happiness.

Reply Obj. 4: Since happiness signifies some final perfection;
according as various things capable of happiness can attain to
various degrees of perfection, so must there be various meanings
applied to happiness. For in God there is happiness essentially;
since His very Being is His operation, whereby He enjoys no other
than Himself. In the happy angels, the final perfection is in respect
of some operation, by which they are united to the Uncreated Good:
and this operation of theirs is one only and everlasting. But in men,
according to their present state of life, the final perfection is in
respect of an operation whereby man is united to God: but this
operation neither can be continual, nor, consequently, is it one
only, because operation is multiplied by being discontinued. And for
this reason in the present state of life, perfect happiness cannot be
attained by man. Wherefore the Philosopher, in placing man's
happiness in this life (Ethic. i, 10), says that it is imperfect, and
after a long discussion, concludes: "We call men happy, but only as
men." But God has promised us perfect happiness, when we shall be "as
the angels . . . in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

Consequently in regard to this perfect happiness, the objection fails:
because in that state of happiness, man's mind will be united to God
by one, continual, everlasting operation. But in the present life, in
as far as we fall short of the unity and continuity of that operation
so do we fall short of perfect happiness. Nevertheless it is a
participation of happiness: and so much the greater, as the operation
can be more continuous and more one. Consequently the active life,
which is busy with many things, has less of happiness than the
contemplative life, which is busied with one thing, i.e. the
contemplation of truth. And if at any time man is not actually engaged
in this operation, yet since he can always easily turn to it, and
since he ordains the very cessation, by sleeping or occupying himself
otherwise, to the aforesaid occupation, the latter seems, as it were,
continuous. From these remarks the replies to Objections 5 and 6 are
evident.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 3]

Whether Happiness Is an Operation of the Sensitive Part, or of the
Intellective Part Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in an operation of
the senses also. For there is no more excellent operation in man than
that of the senses, except the intellective operation. But in us the
intellective operation depends on the sensitive: since "we cannot
understand without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, 7). Therefore happiness
consists in an operation of the senses also.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that happiness is "a
state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But some
goods are sensible, which we attain by the operation of the senses.
Therefore it seems that the operation of the senses is needed for
happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is the perfect good, as we find proved in
_Ethic._ i, 7: which would not be true, were not man perfected thereby
in all his parts. But some parts of the soul are perfected by
sensitive operations. Therefore sensitive operation is required for
happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Irrational animals have the sensitive operation in
common with us: but they have not happiness in common with us.
Therefore happiness does not consist in a sensitive operation.

_I answer that,_ A thing may belong to happiness in three ways: (1)
essentially, (2) antecedently, (3) consequently. Now the operation of
sense cannot belong to happiness essentially. For man's happiness
consists essentially in his being united to the Uncreated Good, Which
is his last end, as shown above (A. 1): to Which man cannot be united
by an operation of his senses. Again, in like manner, because, as
shown above (Q. 2, A. 5), man's happiness does not consist in goods
of the body, which goods alone, however, we attain through the
operation of the senses.

Nevertheless the operations of the senses can belong to happiness,
both antecedently and consequently: antecedently, in respect of
imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, since the
operation of the intellect demands a previous operation of the sense;
consequently, in that perfect happiness which we await in heaven;
because at the resurrection, "from the very happiness of the soul,"
as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.) "the body and the bodily senses
will receive a certain overflow, so as to be perfected in their
operations"; a point which will be explained further on when we treat
of the resurrection (Suppl. QQ. 82-85). But then the operation
whereby man's mind is united to God will not depend on the senses.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection proves that the operation of the senses
is required antecedently for imperfect happiness, such as can be had
in this life.

Reply Obj. 2: Perfect happiness, such as the angels have, includes
the aggregate of all good things, by being united to the universal
source of all good; not that it requires each individual good. But in
this imperfect happiness, we need the aggregate of those goods that
suffice for the most perfect operation of this life.

Reply Obj. 3: In perfect happiness the entire man is perfected, in
the lower part of his nature, by an overflow from the higher. But in
the imperfect happiness of this life, it is otherwise; we advance
from the perfection of the lower part to the perfection of the higher
part.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 4]

Whether, If Happiness Is in the Intellective Part, It Is an Operation
of the Intellect or of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in an act of
the will. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 10, 11), that man's
happiness consists in peace; wherefore it is written (Ps. 147:3):
"Who hath placed peace in thy end [Douay: 'borders']". But peace
pertains to the will. Therefore man's happiness is in the will.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the supreme good. But good is the
object of the will. Therefore happiness consists in an operation of
the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the last end corresponds to the first mover: thus
the last end of the whole army is victory, which is the end of the
general, who moves all the men. But the first mover in regard to
operations is the will: because it moves the other powers, as we
shall state further on (Q. 9, AA. 1, 3). Therefore happiness regards
the will.

Obj. 4: Further, if happiness be an operation, it must needs be man's
most excellent operation. But the love of God, which is an act of the
will, is a more excellent operation than knowledge, which is an
operation of the intellect, as the Apostle declares (1 Cor. 13).
Therefore it seems that happiness consists in an act of the will.

Obj. 5: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he
who has whatever he desires, and desires nothing amiss." And a little
further on (6) he adds: "He is most happy who desires well, whatever
he desires: for good things make a man happy, and such a man already
possesses some good--i.e. a good will." Therefore happiness consists
in an act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 17:3): "This is eternal life:
that they may know Thee, the only true God." Now eternal life is the
last end, as stated above (A. 2, ad 1). Therefore man's happiness
consists in the knowledge of God, which is an act of the intellect.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 2, A. 6) two things are needed
for happiness: one, which is the essence of happiness: the other,
that is, as it were, its proper accident, i.e. the delight connected
with it. I say, then, that as to the very essence of happiness, it is
impossible for it to consist in an act of the will. For it is evident
from what has been said (AA. 1, 2; Q. 2, A. 7) that happiness is the
attainment of the last end. But the attainment of the end does not
consist in the very act of the will. For the will is directed to the
end, both absent, when it desires it; and present, when it is
delighted by resting therein. Now it is evident that the desire
itself of the end is not the attainment of the end, but is a movement
towards the end: while delight comes to the will from the end being
present; and not conversely, is a thing made present, by the fact
that the will delights in it. Therefore, that the end be present to
him who desires it, must be due to something else than an act of the
will.

This is evidently the case in regard to sensible ends. For if the
acquisition of money were through an act of the will, the covetous
man would have it from the very moment that he wished for it. But at
the moment it is far from him; and he attains it, by grasping it in
his hand, or in some like manner; and then he delights in the money
got. And so it is with an intelligible end. For at first we desire to
attain an intelligible end; we attain it, through its being made
present to us by an act of the intellect; and then the delighted will
rests in the end when attained.

So, therefore, the essence of happiness consists in an act of the
intellect: but the delight that results from happiness pertains to
the will. In this sense Augustine says (Confess. x, 23) that
happiness is "joy in truth," because, to wit, joy itself is the
consummation of happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: Peace pertains to man's last end, not as though it were
the very essence of happiness; but because it is antecedent and
consequent thereto: antecedent, in so far as all those things are
removed which disturb and hinder man in attaining the last end:
consequent inasmuch as when man has attained his last end, he remains
at peace, his desire being at rest.

Reply Obj. 2: The will's first object is not its act: just as neither
is the first object of the sight, vision, but a visible thing.
Wherefore, from the very fact that happiness belongs to the will, as
the will's first object, it follows that it does not belong to it as
its act.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellect apprehends the end before the will does:
yet motion towards the end begins in the will. And therefore to the
will belongs that which last of all follows the attainment of the
end, viz. delight or enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 4: Love ranks above knowledge in moving, but knowledge
precedes love in attaining: for "naught is loved save what is known,"
as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1). Consequently we first attain an
intelligible end by an act of the intellect; just as we first attain
a sensible end by an act of sense.

Reply Obj. 5: He who has whatever he desires, is happy, because he
has what he desires: and this indeed is by something other than the
act of his will. But to desire nothing amiss is needed for happiness,
as a necessary disposition thereto. And a good will is reckoned among
the good things which make a man happy, forasmuch as it is an
inclination of the will: just as a movement is reduced to the genus
of its terminus, for instance, "alteration" to the genus "quality."
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 5]

Whether Happiness Is an Operation of the Speculative, or of the
Practical Intellect?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is an operation of the
practical intellect. For the end of every creature consists in
becoming like God. But man is like God, by his practical intellect,
which is the cause of things understood, rather than by his
speculative intellect, which derives its knowledge from things.
Therefore man's happiness consists in an operation of the practical
intellect rather than of the speculative.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is man's perfect good. But the practical
intellect is ordained to the good rather than the speculative
intellect, which is ordained to the true. Hence we are said to be
good, in reference to the perfection of the practical intellect, but
not in reference to the perfection of the speculative intellect,
according to which we are said to be knowing or understanding.
Therefore man's happiness consists in an act of the practical
intellect rather than of the speculative.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is a good of man himself. But the
speculative intellect is more concerned with things outside man;
whereas the practical intellect is concerned with things belonging to
man himself, viz. his operations and passions. Therefore man's
happiness consists in an operation of the practical intellect rather
than of the speculative.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8) that "contemplation
is promised us, as being the goal of all our actions, and the
everlasting perfection of our joys."

_I answer that,_ Happiness consists in an operation of the
speculative rather than of the practical intellect. This is evident
for three reasons. First because if man's happiness is an operation,
it must needs be man's highest operation. Now man's highest operation
is that of his highest power in respect of its highest object: and
his highest power is the intellect, whose highest object is the
Divine Good, which is the object, not of the practical but of the
speculative intellect. Consequently happiness consists principally in
such an operation, viz. in the contemplation of Divine things. And
since that "seems to be each man's self, which is best in him,"
according to _Ethic._ ix, 8, and x, 7, therefore such an operation is
most proper to man and most delightful to him.

Secondly, it is evident from the fact that contemplation is sought
principally for its own sake. But the act of the practical intellect
is not sought for its own sake but for the sake of action: and these
very actions are ordained to some end. Consequently it is evident that
the last end cannot consist in the active life, which pertains to the
practical intellect.

Thirdly, it is again evident, from the fact that in the contemplative
life man has something in common with things above him, viz. with God
and the angels, to whom he is made like by happiness. But in things
pertaining to the active life, other animals also have something in
common with man, although imperfectly.

Therefore the last and perfect happiness, which we await in the life
to come, consists entirely in contemplation. But imperfect happiness,
such as can be had here, consists first and principally, in an
operation of the practical intellect directing human actions and
passions, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 7, 8.

Reply Obj. 1: The asserted likeness of the practical intellect to God
is one of proportion; that is to say, by reason of its standing in
relation to what it knows, as God does to what He knows. But the
likeness of the speculative intellect to God is one of union and
"information"; which is a much greater likeness. And yet it may be
answered that, in regard to the principal thing known, which is His
Essence, God has not practical but merely speculative knowledge.

Reply Obj. 2: The practical intellect is ordained to good which is
outside of it: but the speculative intellect has good within it, viz.
the contemplation of truth. And if this good be perfect, the whole
man is perfected and made good thereby: such a good the practical
intellect has not; but it directs man thereto.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument would hold, if man himself were his own
last end; for then the consideration and direction of his actions and
passions would be his happiness. But since man's last end is
something outside of him, to wit, God, to Whom we reach out by an
operation of the speculative intellect; therefore, man's happiness
consists in an operation of the speculative intellect rather than of
the practical intellect.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 6]

Whether Happiness Consists in the Consideration of Speculative Sciences?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in the
consideration of speculative sciences. For the Philosopher says
(Ethic. i, 13) that "happiness is an operation according to perfect
virtue." And in distinguishing the virtues, he gives no more than
three speculative virtues--"knowledge," "wisdom" and "understanding,"
which all belong to the consideration of speculative sciences.
Therefore man's final happiness consists in the consideration of
speculative sciences.

Obj. 2: Further, that which all desire for its own sake, seems to be
man's final happiness. Now such is the consideration of speculative
sciences; because, as stated in _Metaph._ i, 1, "all men naturally
desire to know"; and, a little farther on (2), it is stated that
speculative sciences are sought for their own sakes. Therefore
happiness consists in the consideration of speculative sciences.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is man's final perfection. Now everything
is perfected, according as it is reduced from potentiality to act.
But the human intellect is reduced to act by the consideration of
speculative sciences. Therefore it seems that in the consideration of
these sciences, man's final happiness consists.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 9:23): "Let not the wise man
glory in his wisdom": and this is said in reference to speculative
sciences. Therefore man's final happiness does not consist in the
consideration of these.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2, ad 4), man's happiness is
twofold, one perfect, the other imperfect. And by perfect happiness
we are to understand that which attains to the true notion of
happiness; and by imperfect happiness that which does not attain
thereto, but partakes of some particular likeness of happiness. Thus
perfect prudence is in man, with whom is the idea of things to be
done; while imperfect prudence is in certain irrational animals, who
are possessed of certain particular instincts in respect of works
similar to works of prudence.

Accordingly perfect happiness cannot consist essentially in the
consideration of speculative sciences. To prove this, we must observe
that the consideration of a speculative science does not extend
beyond the scope of the principles of that science: since the entire
science is virtually contained in its principles. Now the first
principles of speculative sciences are received through the senses,
as the Philosopher clearly states at the beginning of the
_Metaphysics_ (i, 1), and at the end of the _Posterior Analytics_
(ii, 15). Wherefore the entire consideration of speculative sciences
cannot extend farther than knowledge of sensibles can lead. Now man's
final happiness, which is his final perfection cannot consist in the
knowledge of sensibles. For a thing is not perfected by something
lower, except in so far as the lower partakes of something higher.
Now it is evident that the form of a stone or of any sensible, is
lower than man. Consequently the intellect is not perfected by the
form of a stone, as such, but inasmuch as it partakes of a certain
likeness to that which is above the human intellect, viz. the
intelligible light, or something of the kind. Now whatever is by
something else is reduced to that which is of itself. Therefore man's
final perfection must needs be through knowledge of something above
the human intellect. But it has been shown (I, Q. 88, A. 2), that man
cannot acquire through sensibles, the knowledge of separate
substances, which are above the human intellect. Consequently it
follows that man's happiness cannot consist in the consideration of
speculative sciences. However, just as in sensible forms there is a
participation of the higher substances, so the consideration of
speculative sciences is a certain participation of true and perfect
happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: In his book on Ethics the Philosopher treats of
imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, as stated above
(A. 2, ad 4).

Reply Obj. 2: Not only is perfect happiness naturally desired, but
also any likeness or participation thereof.

Reply Obj. 3: Our intellect is reduced to act, in a fashion, by the
consideration of speculative sciences, but not to its final and
perfect act.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 7]

Whether Happiness Consists in the Knowledge of Separate Substances,
Namely, Angels?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in the
knowledge of separate substances, namely, angels. For Gregory says in
a homily (xxvi in Evang.): "It avails nothing to take part in the
feasts of men, if we fail to take part in the feasts of angels"; by
which he means final happiness. But we can take part in the feasts of
the angels by contemplating them. Therefore it seems that man's final
happiness consists in contemplating the angels.

Obj. 2: Further, the final perfection of each thing is for it to be
united to its principle: wherefore a circle is said to be a perfect
figure, because its beginning and end coincide. But the beginning of
human knowledge is from the angels, by whom men are enlightened, as
Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). Therefore the perfection of the
human intellect consists in contemplating the angels.

Obj. 3: Further, each nature is perfect, when united to a higher
nature; just as the final perfection of a body is to be united to the
spiritual nature. But above the human intellect, in the natural order,
are the angels. Therefore the final perfection of the human intellect
is to be united to the angels by contemplation.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 9:24): "Let him that glorieth,
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me." Therefore man's
final glory or happiness consists only in the knowledge of God.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), man's perfect happiness
consists not in that which perfects the intellect by some
participation, but in that which is so by its essence. Now it is
evident that whatever is the perfection of a power is so in so far as
the proper formal object of that power belongs to it. Now the proper
object of the intellect is the true. Therefore the contemplation of
whatever has participated truth, does not perfect the intellect with
its final perfection. Since, therefore, the order of things is the
same in being and in truth (Metaph. ii, 1); whatever are beings by
participation, are true by participation. Now angels have being by
participation: because in God alone is His Being His Essence, as
shown in the First Part (Q. 44, A. 1). It follows that contemplation
of Him makes man perfectly happy. However, there is no reason why we
should not admit a certain imperfect happiness in the contemplation
of the angels; and higher indeed than in the consideration of
speculative science.

Reply Obj. 1: We shall take part in the feasts of the angels, by
contemplating not only the angels, but, together with them, also God
Himself.

Reply Obj. 2: According to those that hold human souls to be created
by the angels, it seems fitting enough, that man's happiness should
consist in the contemplation of the angels, in the union, as it were,
of man with his beginning. But this is erroneous, as stated in the
First Part (Q. 90, A. 3). Wherefore the final perfection of the human
intellect is by union with God, Who is the first principle both of
the creation of the soul and of its enlightenment. Whereas the angel
enlightens as a minister, as stated in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 2,
ad 2). Consequently, by his ministration he helps man to attain to
happiness; but he is not the object of man's happiness.

Reply Obj. 3: The lower nature may reach the higher in two ways.
First, according to a degree of the participating power: and thus
man's final perfection will consist in his attaining to a
contemplation such as that of the angels. Secondly, as the object is
attained by the power: and thus the final perfection of each power is
to attain that in which is found the fulness of its formal object.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 8]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in the Vision of the Divine Essence?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness does not consist in
the vision of the Divine Essence. For Dionysius says (Myst. Theol. i)
that by that which is highest in his intellect, man is united to God
as to something altogether unknown. But that which is seen in its
essence is not altogether unknown. Therefore the final perfection of
the intellect, namely, happiness, does not consist in God being seen
in His Essence.

Obj. 2: Further, the higher the perfection belongs to the higher
nature. But to see His own Essence is the perfection proper to the
Divine intellect. Therefore the final perfection of the human
intellect does not reach to this, but consists in something less.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 3:2): "When He shall appear,
we shall be like to Him; and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as
He is."

_I answer that,_ Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing
else than the vision of the Divine Essence. To make this clear, two
points must be observed. First, that man is not perfectly happy, so
long as something remains for him to desire and seek: secondly, that
the perfection of any power is determined by the nature of its
object. Now the object of the intellect is "what a thing is," i.e.
the essence of a thing, according to _De Anima_ iii, 6. Wherefore the
intellect attains perfection, in so far as it knows the essence of a
thing. If therefore an intellect knows the essence of some effect,
whereby it is not possible to know the essence of the cause, i.e. to
know of the cause "what it is"; that intellect cannot be said to
reach that cause simply, although it may be able to gather from the
effect the knowledge that the cause is. Consequently, when man knows
an effect, and knows that it has a cause, there naturally remains in
the man the desire to know about the cause, "what it is." And this
desire is one of wonder, and causes inquiry, as is stated in the
beginning of the _Metaphysics_ (i, 2). For instance, if a man,
knowing the eclipse of the sun, consider that it must be due to some
cause, and know not what that cause is, he wonders about it, and from
wondering proceeds to inquire. Nor does this inquiry cease until he
arrive at a knowledge of the essence of the cause.

If therefore the human intellect, knowing the essence of some created
effect, knows no more of God than "that He is"; the perfection of
that intellect does not yet reach simply the First Cause, but there
remains in it the natural desire to seek the cause. Wherefore it is
not yet perfectly happy. Consequently, for perfect happiness the
intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And
thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that
object, in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above (AA.
1, 7; Q. 2, A. 8).

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius speaks of the knowledge of wayfarers
journeying towards happiness.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8), the end has a twofold
acceptation. First, as to the thing itself which is desired: and in
this way, the same thing is the end of the higher and of the lower
nature, and indeed of all things, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 8).
Secondly, as to the attainment of this thing; and thus the end of the
higher nature is different from that of the lower, according to their
respective habitudes to that thing. So then in the happiness of God,
Who, in understanding his Essence, comprehends It, is higher than
that of a man or angel who sees It indeed, but comprehends It not.
________________________

QUESTION 4

OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR HAPPINESS
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider those things that are required for happiness:
and concerning this there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether delight is required for happiness?

(2) Which is of greater account in happiness, delight or vision?

(3) Whether comprehension is required?

(4) Whether rectitude of the will is required?

(5) Whether the body is necessary for man's happiness?

(6) Whether any perfection of the body is necessary?

(7) Whether any external goods are necessary?

(8) Whether the fellowship of friends is necessary?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 1]

Whether Delight Is Required for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is not required for happiness.
For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8) that "vision is the entire reward
of faith." But the prize or reward of virtue is happiness, as the
Philosopher clearly states (Ethic. i, 9). Therefore nothing besides
vision is required for happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is "the most self-sufficient of all
goods," as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. i, 7). But that which
needs something else is not self-sufficient. Since then the essence
of happiness consists in seeing God, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 8);
it seems that delight is not necessary for happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, the "operation of bliss or happiness should be
unhindered" (Ethic. vii, 13). But delight hinders the operation of
the intellect: since it destroys the estimate of prudence (Ethic. vi,
5). Therefore delight is not necessary for happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. x, 23) that happiness is
"joy in truth."

_I answer that,_ One thing may be necessary for another in four ways.
First, as a preamble and preparation to it: thus instruction is
necessary for science. Secondly, as perfecting it: thus the soul is
necessary for the life of the body. Thirdly, as helping it from
without: thus friends are necessary for some undertaking. Fourthly,
as something attendant on it: thus we might say that heat is
necessary for fire. And in this way delight is necessary for
happiness. For it is caused by the appetite being at rest in the good
attained. Wherefore, since happiness is nothing else but the
attainment of the Sovereign Good, it cannot be without concomitant
delight.

Reply Obj. 1: From the very fact that a reward is given to anyone,
the will of him who deserves it is at rest, and in this consists
delight. Consequently, delight is included in the very notion of
reward.

Reply Obj. 2: The very sight of God causes delight. Consequently, he
who sees God cannot need delight.

Reply Obj. 3: Delight that is attendant upon the operation of the
intellect does not hinder it, rather does it perfect it, as stated in
_Ethic._ x, 4: since what we do with delight, we do with greater care
and perseverance. On the other hand, delight which is extraneous to
the operation is a hindrance thereto: sometimes by distracting the
attention because, as already observed, we are more attentive to
those things that delight us; and when we are very attentive to one
thing, we must needs be less attentive to another: sometimes on
account of opposition; thus a sensual delight that is contrary to
reason, hinders the estimate of prudence more than it hinders the
estimate of the speculative intellect.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 2]

Whether in Happiness Vision Ranks Before Delight?

Objection 1: It would seem that in happiness, delight ranks before
vision. For "delight is the perfection of operation" (Ethic. x, 4).
But perfection ranks before the thing perfected. Therefore delight
ranks before the operation of the intellect, i.e. vision.

Obj. 2: Further, that by reason of which a thing is desirable, is yet
more desirable. But operations are desired on account of the delight
they afford: hence, too, nature has adjusted delight to those
operations which are necessary for the preservation of the individual
and of the species, lest animals should disregard such operations.
Therefore, in happiness, delight ranks before the operation of the
intellect, which is vision.

Obj. 3: Further, vision corresponds to faith; while delight or
enjoyment corresponds to charity. But charity ranks before faith, as
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:13). Therefore delight or enjoyment ranks
before vision.

_On the contrary,_ The cause is greater than its effect. But vision
is the cause of delight. Therefore vision ranks before delight.

_I answer that,_ The Philosopher discusses this question (Ethic. x,
4), and leaves it unsolved. But if one consider the matter carefully,
the operation of the intellect which is vision, must needs rank
before delight. For delight consists in a certain repose of the will.
Now that the will finds rest in anything, can only be on account of
the goodness of that thing in which it reposes. If therefore the will
reposes in an operation, the will's repose is caused by the goodness
of the operation. Nor does the will seek good for the sake of repose;
for thus the very act of the will would be the end, which has been
disproved above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 2;Q. 3, A. 4): but it seeks to be at
rest in the operation, because that operation is its good.
Consequently it is evident that the operation in which the will
reposes ranks before the resting of the will therein.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) "delight perfects
operation as vigor perfects youth," because it is a result of youth.
Consequently delight is a perfection attendant upon vision; but not a
perfection whereby vision is made perfect in its own species.

Reply Obj. 2: The apprehension of the senses does not attain to the
universal good, but to some particular good which is delightful. And
consequently, according to the sensitive appetite which is in
animals, operations are sought for the sake of delight. But the
intellect apprehends the universal good, the attainment of which
results in delight: wherefore its purpose is directed to good rather
than to delight. Hence it is that the Divine intellect, which is the
Author of nature, adjusted delights to operations on account of the
operations. And we should form our estimate of things not simply
according to the order of the sensitive appetite, but rather
according to the order of the intellectual appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Charity does not seek the beloved good for the sake of
delight: it is for charity a consequence that it delights in the good
gained which it loves. Thus delight does not answer to charity as its
end, but vision does, whereby the end is first made present to
charity.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 3]

Whether Comprehension Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that comprehension is not necessary for
happiness. For Augustine says (Ad Paulinam de Videndo Deum; [*Cf.
Serm. xxxciii De Verb. Dom.]): "To reach God with the mind is
happiness, to comprehend Him is impossible." Therefore happiness is
without comprehension.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the perfection of man as to his
intellective part, wherein there are no other powers than the
intellect and will, as stated in the First Part (QQ. 79 and
following). But the intellect is sufficiently perfected by seeing
God, and the will by enjoying Him. Therefore there is no need for
comprehension as a third.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness consists in an operation. But operations
are determined by their objects: and there are two universal objects,
the true and the good: of which the true corresponds to vision, and
good to delight. Therefore there is no need for comprehension as a
third.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:24): "So run that you
may comprehend [Douay: 'obtain']." But happiness is the goal of the
spiritual race: hence he says (2 Tim. 4:7, 8): "I have fought a good
fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; as to the
rest there is laid up for me a crown of justice." Therefore
comprehension is necessary for Happiness.

_I answer that,_ Since Happiness consists in gaining the last end,
those things that are required for Happiness must be gathered from
the way in which man is ordered to an end. Now man is ordered to an
intelligible end partly through his intellect, and partly through his
will: through his intellect, in so far as a certain imperfect
knowledge of the end pre-exists in the intellect: through the will,
first by love which is the will's first movement towards anything;
secondly, by a real relation of the lover to the thing beloved, which
relation may be threefold. For sometimes the thing beloved is present
to the lover: and then it is no longer sought for. Sometimes it is
not present, and it is impossible to attain it: and then, too, it is
not sought for. But sometimes it is possible to attain it, yet it is
raised above the capability of the attainer, so that he cannot have
it forthwith; and this is the relation of one that hopes, to that
which he hopes for, and this relation alone causes a search for the
end. To these three, there are a corresponding three in Happiness
itself. For perfect knowledge of the end corresponds to imperfect
knowledge; presence of the end corresponds to the relation of hope;
but delight in the end now present results from love, as already
stated (A. 2, ad 3). And therefore these three must concur with
Happiness; to wit, vision, which is perfect knowledge of the
intelligible end; comprehension, which implies presence of the end;
and delight or enjoyment, which implies repose of the lover in the
object beloved.

Reply Obj. 1: Comprehension is twofold. First, inclusion of the
comprehended in the comprehensor; and thus whatever is comprehended
by the finite, is itself finite. Wherefore God cannot be thus
comprehended by a created intellect. Secondly, comprehension means
nothing but the holding of something already present and possessed:
thus one who runs after another is said to comprehend [*In English we
should say 'catch.'] him when he lays hold on him. And in this sense
comprehension is necessary for Happiness.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as hope and love pertain to the will, because it
is the same one that loves a thing, and that tends towards it while
not possessed, so, too, comprehension and delight belong to the will,
since it is the same that possesses a thing and reposes therein.

Reply Obj. 3: Comprehension is not a distinct operation from vision;
but a certain relation to the end already gained. Wherefore even
vision itself, or the thing seen, inasmuch as it is present, is the
object of comprehension.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 4]

Whether Rectitude of the Will Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that rectitude of the will is not
necessary for Happiness. For Happiness consists essentially in an
operation of the intellect, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4). But
rectitude of the will, by reason of which men are said to be clean of
heart, is not necessary for the perfect operation of the intellect:
for Augustine says (Retract. i, 4) "I do not approve of what I said
in a prayer: O God, Who didst will none but the clean of heart to
know the truth. For it can be answered that many who are not clean of
heart, know many truths." Therefore rectitude of the will is not
necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, what precedes does not depend on what follows. But
the operation of the intellect precedes the operation of the will.
Therefore Happiness, which is the perfect operation of the intellect,
does not depend on rectitude of the will.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is ordained to another as its end, is not
necessary, when the end is already gained; as a ship, for instance,
after arrival in port. But rectitude of will, which is by reason of
virtue, is ordained to Happiness as to its end. Therefore, Happiness
once obtained, rectitude of the will is no longer necessary.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:8): "Blessed are the clean
of heart; for they shall see God": and (Heb. 12:14): "Follow peace
with all men, and holiness; without which no man shall see God."

_I answer that,_ Rectitude of will is necessary for Happiness both
antecedently and concomitantly. Antecedently, because rectitude of
the will consists in being duly ordered to the last end. Now the end
in comparison to what is ordained to the end is as form compared to
matter. Wherefore, just as matter cannot receive a form, unless it be
duly disposed thereto, so nothing gains an end, except it be duly
ordained thereto. And therefore none can obtain Happiness, without
rectitude of the will. Concomitantly, because as stated above (Q. 3,
A. 8), final Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence,
Which is the very essence of goodness. So that the will of him who
sees the Essence of God, of necessity, loves, whatever he loves, in
subordination to God; just as the will of him who sees not God's
Essence, of necessity, loves whatever he loves, under the common
notion of good which he knows. And this is precisely what makes the
will right. Wherefore it is evident that Happiness cannot be without
a right will.

[Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of knowledge of truth that is
not the essence of goodness itself.]

Reply Obj. 2: Every act of the will is preceded by an act of the
intellect: but a certain act of the will precedes a certain act of
the intellect. For the will tends to the final act of the intellect
which is happiness. And consequently right inclination of the will is
required antecedently for happiness, just as the arrow must take a
right course in order to strike the target.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything that is ordained to the end, ceases with
the getting of the end: but only that which involves imperfection,
such as movement. Hence the instruments of movement are no longer
necessary when the end has been gained: but the due order to the end
is necessary.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 5]

Whether the Body Is Necessary for Man's Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that the body is necessary for Happiness.
For the perfection of virtue and grace presupposes the perfection of
nature. But Happiness is the perfection of virtue and grace. Now the
soul, without the body, has not the perfection of nature; since it is
naturally a part of human nature, and every part is imperfect while
separated from its whole. Therefore the soul cannot be happy without
the body.

Obj. 2: Further, Happiness is a perfect operation, as stated above
(Q. 3, AA. 2, 5). But perfect operation follows perfect being: since
nothing operates except in so far as it is an actual being. Since,
therefore, the soul has not perfect being, while it is separated from
the body, just as neither has a part, while separate from its whole;
it seems that the soul cannot be happy without the body.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness is the perfection of man. But the soul,
without the body, is not man. Therefore Happiness cannot be in the
soul separated from the body.

Obj. 4: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 13) "the
operation of bliss," in which operation happiness consists, is "not
hindered." But the operation of the separate soul is hindered;
because, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35), the soul "has a
natural desire to rule the body, the result of which is that it is
held back, so to speak, from tending with all its might to the
heavenward journey," i.e. to the vision of the Divine Essence.
Therefore the soul cannot be happy without the body.

Obj. 5: Further, Happiness is the sufficient good and lulls desire.
But this cannot be said of the separated soul; for it yet desires to
be united to the body, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35).
Therefore the soul is not happy while separated from the body.

Obj. 6: Further, in Happiness man is equal to the angels. But the
soul without the body is not equal to the angels, as Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. xii, 35). Therefore it is not happy.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Apoc. 14:13): "Happy [Douay:
'blessed'] are the dead who die in the Lord."

_I answer that,_ Happiness is twofold; the one is imperfect and is had
in this life; the other is perfect, consisting in the vision of God.
Now it is evident that the body is necessary for the happiness of this
life. For the happiness of this life consists in an operation of the
intellect, either speculative or practical. And the operation of the
intellect in this life cannot be without a phantasm, which is only in
a bodily organ, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 84, AA. 6, 7).
Consequently that happiness which can be had in this life, depends, in
a way, on the body. But as to perfect Happiness, which consists in the
vision of God, some have maintained that it is not possible to the
soul separated from the body; and have said that the souls of saints,
when separated from their bodies, do not attain to that Happiness
until the Day of Judgment, when they will receive their bodies back
again. And this is shown to be false, both by authority and by reason.
By authority, since the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6): "While we are in
the body, we are absent from the Lord"; and he points out the reason
of this absence, saying: "For we walk by faith and not by sight." Now
from this it is clear that so long as we walk by faith and not by
sight, bereft of the vision of the Divine Essence, we are not present
to the Lord. But the souls of the saints, separated from their bodies,
are in God's presence; wherefore the text continues: "But we are
confident and have a good will to be absent . . . from the body, and
to be present with the Lord." Whence it is evident that the souls of
the saints, separated from their bodies, "walk by sight," seeing the
Essence of God, wherein is true Happiness.

Again this is made clear by reason. For the intellect needs not the
body, for its operation, save on account of the phantasms, wherein it
looks on the intelligible truth, as stated in the First Part (Q. 84,
A. 7). Now it is evident that the Divine Essence cannot be seen by
means of phantasms, as stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 3).
Wherefore, since man's perfect Happiness consists in the vision of
the Divine Essence, it does not depend on the body. Consequently,
without the body the soul can be happy.

We must, however, notice that something may belong to a thing's
perfection in two ways. First, as constituting the essence thereof;
thus the soul is necessary for man's perfection. Secondly, as
necessary for its well-being: thus, beauty of body and keenness of
perfection belong to man's perfection. Wherefore though the body does
not belong in the first way to the perfection of human Happiness, yet
it does in the second way. For since operation depends on a thing's
nature, the more perfect is the soul in its nature, the more
perfectly it has its proper operation, wherein its happiness
consists. Hence, Augustine, after inquiring (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35)
"whether that perfect Happiness can be ascribed to the souls of the
dead separated from their bodies," answers "that they cannot see the
Unchangeable Substance, as the blessed angels see It; either for some
other more hidden reason, or because they have a natural desire to
rule the body."

Reply Obj. 1: Happiness is the perfection of the soul on the part of
the intellect, in respect of which the soul transcends the organs of
the body; but not according as the soul is the natural form of the
body. Wherefore the soul retains that natural perfection in respect
of which happiness is due to it, though it does not retain that
natural perfection in respect of which it is the form of the body.

Reply Obj. 2: The relation of the soul to being is not the same as
that of other parts: for the being of the whole is not that of any
individual part: wherefore, either the part ceases altogether to be,
when the whole is destroyed, just as the parts of an animal, when the
animal is destroyed; or, if they remain, they have another actual
being, just as a part of a line has another being from that of the
whole line. But the human soul retains the being of the composite
after the destruction of the body: and this because the being of the
form is the same as that of its matter, and this is the being of the
composite. Now the soul subsists in its own being, as stated in the
First Part (Q. 75, A. 2). It follows, therefore, that after being
separated from the body it has perfect being and that consequently it
can have a perfect operation; although it has not the perfect
specific nature.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness belongs to man in respect of his intellect:
and, therefore, since the intellect remains, it can have Happiness.
Thus the teeth of an Ethiopian, in respect of which he is said to be
white, can retain their whiteness, even after extraction.

Reply Obj. 4: One thing is hindered by another in two ways. First, by
way of opposition; thus cold hinders the action of heat: and such a
hindrance to operation is repugnant to Happiness. Secondly, by way of
some kind of defect, because, to wit, that which is hindered has not
all that is necessary to make it perfect in every way: and such a
hindrance to operation is not incompatible with Happiness, but
prevents it from being perfect in every way. And thus it is that
separation from the body is said to hold the soul back from tending
with all its might to the vision of the Divine Essence. For the soul
desires to enjoy God in such a way that the enjoyment also may
overflow into the body, as far as possible. And therefore, as long as
it enjoys God, without the fellowship of the body, its appetite is at
rest in that which it has, in such a way, that it would still wish
the body to attain to its share.

Reply Obj. 5: The desire of the separated soul is entirely at rest,
as regards the thing desired; since, to wit, it has that which
suffices its appetite. But it is not wholly at rest, as regards the
desirer, since it does not possess that good in every way that it
would wish to possess it. Consequently, after the body has been
resumed, Happiness increases not in intensity, but in extent.

Reply Obj. 6: The statement made (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35) to the effect
that "the souls of the departed see not God as the angels do," is not
to be understood as referring to inequality of quantity; because even
now some souls of the Blessed are raised to the higher orders of the
angels, thus seeing God more clearly than the lower angels. But it
refers to inequality of proportion: because the angels, even the
lowest, have every perfection of Happiness that they ever will have,
whereas the separated souls of the saints have not.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 6]

Whether Perfection of the Body Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that perfection of the body is not
necessary for man's perfect Happiness. For perfection of the body is
a bodily good. But it has been shown above (Q. 2) that Happiness does
not consist in bodily goods. Therefore no perfect disposition of the
body is necessary for man's Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, man's Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine
Essence, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 8). But the body has no part in
this operation, as shown above (A. 5). Therefore no disposition of
the body is necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, the more the intellect is abstracted from the body,
the more perfectly it understands. But Happiness consists in the most
perfect operation of the intellect. Therefore the soul should be
abstracted from the body in every way. Therefore, in no way is a
disposition of the body necessary for Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is the reward of virtue; wherefore it is
written (John 13:17): "You shall be blessed, if you do them." But the
reward promised to the saints is not only that they shall see and
enjoy God, but also that their bodies shall be well-disposed; for it
is written (Isa. 66:14): "You shall see and your heart shall rejoice,
and your bones shall flourish like a herb." Therefore good
disposition of the body is necessary for Happiness.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of that happiness which man can acquire
in this life, it is evident that a well-disposed body is of necessity
required for it. For this happiness consists, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13) in "an operation according to perfect
virtue"; and it is clear that man can be hindered, by indisposition
of the body, from every operation of virtue.

But speaking of perfect Happiness, some have maintained that no
disposition of body is necessary for Happiness; indeed, that it is
necessary for the soul to be entirely separated from the body. Hence
Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxii, 26) quotes the words of Porphyry who said
that "for the soul to be happy, it must be severed from everything
corporeal." But this is unreasonable. For since it is natural to the
soul to be united to the body; it is not possible for the perfection
of the soul to exclude its natural perfection.

Consequently, we must say that perfect disposition of the body is
necessary, both antecedently and consequently, for that Happiness
which is in all ways perfect. Antecedently, because, as Augustine
says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35), "if the body be such, that the
governance thereof is difficult and burdensome, like unto flesh which
is corruptible and weighs upon the soul, the mind is turned away from
that vision of the highest heaven." Whence he concludes that, "when
this body will no longer be 'natural,' but 'spiritual,' then will it
be equalled to the angels, and that will be its glory, which
erstwhile was its burden." Consequently, because from the Happiness
of the soul there will be an overflow on to the body, so that this
too will obtain its perfection. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad
Dioscor.) that "God gave the soul such a powerful nature that from
its exceeding fulness of happiness the vigor of incorruption
overflows into the lower nature."

Reply Obj. 1: Happiness does not consist in bodily good as its
object: but bodily good can add a certain charm and perfection to
Happiness.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the body has no part in that operation of the
intellect whereby the Essence of God is seen, yet it might prove a
hindrance thereto. Consequently, perfection of the body is necessary,
lest it hinder the mind from being lifted up.

Reply Obj. 3: The perfect operation of the intellect requires indeed
that the intellect be abstracted from this corruptible body which
weighs upon the soul; but not from the spiritual body, which will be
wholly subject to the spirit. On this point we shall treat in the
Third Part of this work (Suppl., Q. 82, seqq.).
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 7]

Whether Any External Goods Are Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that external goods also are necessary for
Happiness. For that which is promised the saints for reward, belongs
to Happiness. But external goods are promised the saints; for
instance, food and drink, wealth and a kingdom: for it is said (Luke
22:30): "That you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom": and
(Matt. 6:20): "Lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven": and (Matt.
25:34): "Come, ye blessed of My Father, possess you the kingdom."
Therefore external goods are necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii): happiness is
"a state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But some
of man's goods are external, although they be of least account, as
Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19). Therefore they too are
necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, Our Lord said (Matt. 5:12): "Your reward is very
great in heaven." But to be in heaven implies being in a place.
Therefore at least external place is necessary for Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 72:25): "For what have I in
heaven? and besides Thee what do I desire upon earth?" As though to
say: "I desire nothing but this, "--"It is good for me to adhere to my
God." Therefore nothing further external is necessary for Happiness.

_I answer that,_ For imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this
life, external goods are necessary, not as belonging to the essence
of happiness, but by serving as instruments to happiness, which
consists in an operation of virtue, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13. For
man needs in this life, the necessaries of the body, both for the
operation of contemplative virtue, and for the operation of active
virtue, for which latter he needs also many other things by means of
which to perform its operations.

On the other hand, such goods as these are nowise necessary for
perfect Happiness, which consists in seeing God. The reason of this is
that all suchlike external goods are requisite either for the support
of the animal body; or for certain operations which belong to human
life, which we perform by means of the animal body: whereas that
perfect Happiness which consists in seeing God, will be either in the
soul separated from the body, or in the soul united to the body then
no longer animal but spiritual. Consequently these external goods are
nowise necessary for that Happiness, since they are ordained to the
animal life. And since, in this life, the felicity of contemplation,
as being more Godlike, approaches nearer than that of action to the
likeness of that perfect Happiness, therefore it stands in less need
of these goods of the body as stated in _Ethic._ x, 8.

Reply Obj. 1: All those material promises contained in Holy
Scripture, are to be understood metaphorically, inasmuch as Scripture
is wont to express spiritual things under the form of things
corporeal, in order "that from things we know, we may rise to the
desire of things unknown," as Gregory says (Hom. xi in Evang.). Thus
food and drink signify the delight of Happiness; wealth, the
sufficiency of God for man; the kingdom, the lifting up of man to
union of God.

Reply Obj. 2: These goods that serve for the animal life, are
incompatible with that spiritual life wherein perfect Happiness
consists. Nevertheless in that Happiness there will be the aggregate
of all good things, because whatever good there be in these things, we
shall possess it all in the Supreme Fount of goodness.

Reply Obj. 3: According to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte
i, 5), it is not material heaven that is described as the reward of
the saints, but a heaven raised on the height of spiritual goods.
Nevertheless a bodily place, viz. the empyrean heaven, will be
appointed to the Blessed, not as a need of Happiness, but by reason of
a certain fitness and adornment.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 8]

Whether the Fellowship of Friends Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that friends are necessary for Happiness.
For future Happiness is frequently designated by Scripture under the
name of "glory." But glory consists in man's good being brought to the
notice of many. Therefore the fellowship of friends is necessary for
Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius [*Seneca, Ep. 6] says that "there is no
delight in possessing any good whatever, without someone to share it
with us." But delight is necessary for Happiness. Therefore fellowship
of friends is also necessary.

Obj. 3: Further, charity is perfected in Happiness. But charity
includes the love of God and of our neighbor. Therefore it seems that
fellowship of friends is necessary for Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 7:11): "All good things came to
me together with her," i.e. with divine wisdom, which consists in
contemplating God. Consequently nothing else is necessary for
Happiness.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of the happiness of this life, the happy
man needs friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 9), not,
indeed, to make use of them, since he suffices himself; nor to
delight in them, since he possesses perfect delight in the operation
of virtue; but for the purpose of a good operation, viz. that he may
do good to them; that he may delight in seeing them do good; and
again that he may be helped by them in his good work. For in order
that man may do well, whether in the works of the active life, or in
those of the contemplative life, he needs the fellowship of friends.

But if we speak of perfect Happiness which will be in our heavenly
Fatherland, the fellowship of friends is not essential to Happiness;
since man has the entire fulness of his perfection in God. But the
fellowship of friends conduces to the well-being of Happiness. Hence
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 25) that "the spiritual creatures
receive no other interior aid to happiness than the eternity, truth,
and charity of the Creator. But if they can be said to be helped from
without, perhaps it is only by this that they see one another and
rejoice in God, at their fellowship."

Reply Obj. 1: That glory which is essential to Happiness, is that
which man has, not with man but with God.

Reply Obj. 2: This saying is to be understood of the possession of
good that does not fully satisfy. This does not apply to the question
under consideration; because man possesses in God a sufficiency of
every good.

Reply Obj. 3: Perfection of charity is essential to Happiness, as to
the love of God, but not as to the love of our neighbor. Wherefore if
there were but one soul enjoying God, it would be happy, though
having no neighbor to love. But supposing one neighbor to be there,
love of him results from perfect love of God. Consequently,
friendship is, as it were, concomitant with perfect Happiness.
________________________

QUESTION 5

OF THE ATTAINMENT OF HAPPINESS
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the attainment of Happiness. Under this heading
there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether man can attain Happiness?

(2) Whether one man can be happier than another?

(3) Whether any man can be happy in this life?

(4) Whether Happiness once had can be lost?

(5) Whether man can attain Happiness by means of his natural powers?

(6) Whether man attains Happiness through the action of some higher
creature?

(7) Whether any actions of man are necessary in order that man may
obtain Happiness of God?

(8) Whether every man desires Happiness?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 1]

Whether Man Can Attain Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that man cannot attain happiness. For just
as the rational is above the sensible nature, so the intellectual is
above the rational, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv, vi, vii) in
several passages. But irrational animals that have the sensitive
nature only, cannot attain the end of the rational nature. Therefore
neither can man, who is of rational nature, attain the end of the
intellectual nature, which is Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, True Happiness consists in seeing God, Who is pure
Truth. But from his very nature, man considers truth in material
things: wherefore "he understands the intelligible species in the
phantasm" (De Anima iii, 7). Therefore he cannot attain Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness consists in attaining the Sovereign Good.
But we cannot arrive at the top without surmounting the middle.
Since, therefore, the angelic nature through which man cannot mount
is midway between God and human nature; it seems that he cannot
attain Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 93:12): "Blessed is the man
whom Thou shalt instruct, O Lord."

_I answer that,_ Happiness is the attainment of the Perfect Good.
Whoever, therefore, is capable of the Perfect Good can attain
Happiness. Now, that man is capable of the Perfect Good, is proved
both because his intellect can apprehend the universal and perfect
good, and because his will can desire it. And therefore man can
attain Happiness. This can be proved again from the fact that man is
capable of seeing God, as stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 1): in
which vision, as we stated above (Q. 3, A. 8) man's perfect Happiness
consists.

Reply Obj. 1: The rational exceeds the sensitive nature, otherwise
than the intellectual surpasses the rational. For the rational
exceeds the sensitive nature in respect of the object of its
knowledge: since the senses have no knowledge whatever of the
universal, whereas the reason has knowledge thereof. But the
intellectual surpasses the rational nature, as to the mode of knowing
the same intelligible truth: for the intellectual nature grasps
forthwith the truth which the rational nature reaches by the inquiry
of reason, as was made clear in the First Part (Q. 58, A. 3; Q. 79,
A. 8). Therefore reason arrives by a kind of movement at that which
the intellect grasps. Consequently the rational nature can attain
Happiness, which is the perfection of the intellectual nature: but
otherwise than the angels. Because the angels attained it forthwith
after the beginning of their creation: whereas man attains if after a
time. But the sensitive nature can nowise attain this end.

Reply Obj. 2: To man in the present state of life the natural way of
knowing intelligible truth is by means of phantasms. But after this
state of life, he has another natural way, as was stated in the First
Part (Q. 84, A. 7; Q. 89, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 3: Man cannot surmount the angels in the degree of nature
so as to be above them naturally. But he can surmount them by an
operation of the intellect, by understanding that there is above the
angels something that makes men happy; and when he has attained it,
he will be perfectly happy.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 2]

Whether One Man Can Be Happier Than Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that one man cannot be happier than
another. For Happiness is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. i, 9). But equal reward is given for all the works of
virtue; because it is written (Matt. 20:10) that all who labor in the
vineyard "received every man a penny"; for, as Gregory says (Hom. xix
in Evang.), "each was equally rewarded with eternal life." Therefore
one man cannot be happier than another.

Obj. 2: Further, Happiness is the supreme good. But nothing can
surpass the supreme. Therefore one man's Happiness cannot be
surpassed by another's.

Obj. 3: Further, since Happiness is "the perfect and sufficient good"
(Ethic. i, 7) it brings rest to man's desire. But his desire is not
at rest, if he yet lacks some good that can be got. And if he lack
nothing that he can get, there can be no still greater good.
Therefore either man is not happy; or, if he be happy, no other
Happiness can be greater.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 14:2): "In My Father's house
there are many mansions"; which, according to Augustine (Tract. lxvii
in Joan.) signify "the diverse dignities of merits in the one eternal
life." But the dignity of eternal life which is given according to
merit, is Happiness itself. Therefore there are diverse degrees of
Happiness, and Happiness is not equally in all.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), Happiness
implies two things, to wit, the last end itself, i.e. the Sovereign
Good; and the attainment or enjoyment of that same Good. As to that
Good itself, Which is the object and cause of Happiness, one
Happiness cannot be greater than another, since there is but one
Sovereign Good, namely, God, by enjoying Whom, men are made happy.
But as to the attainment or enjoyment of this Good, one man can be
happier than another; because the more a man enjoys this Good the
happier he is. Now, that one man enjoys God more than another,
happens through his being better disposed or ordered to the enjoyment
of Him. And in this sense one man can be happier than another.

Reply Obj. 1: The one penny signifies that Happiness is one in its
object. But the many mansions signify the manifold Happiness in the
divers degrees of enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 2: Happiness is said to be the supreme good, inasmuch as
it is the perfect possession or enjoyment of the Supreme Good.

Reply Obj. 3: None of the Blessed lacks any desirable good;
since they have the Infinite Good Itself, Which is "the good of all
good," as Augustine says (Enarr. in Ps. 134). But one is said to be
happier than another, by reason of diverse participation of the same
good. And the addition of other goods does not increase Happiness,
since Augustine says (Confess. v, 4): "He who knows Thee, and others
besides, is not the happier for knowing them, but is happy for knowing
Thee alone."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 3]

Whether One Can Be Happy in This Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that Happiness can be had in this life. For
it is written (Ps. 118:1): "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who
walk in the law of the Lord." But this happens in this life. Therefore
one can be happy in this life.

Obj. 2: Further, imperfect participation in the Sovereign Good does
not destroy the nature of Happiness, otherwise one would not be
happier than another. But men can participate in the Sovereign Good
in this life, by knowing and loving God, albeit imperfectly.
Therefore man can be happy in this life.

Obj. 3: Further, what is said by many cannot be altogether false:
since what is in many, comes, apparently, from nature; and nature
does not fail altogether. Now many say that Happiness can be had in
this life, as appears from Ps. 143:15: "They have called the people
happy that hath these things," to wit, the good things in this life.
Therefore one can be happy in this life.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 14:1): "Man born of a woman,
living for a short time, is filled with many miseries." But Happiness
excludes misery. Therefore man cannot be happy in this life.

_I answer that,_ A certain participation of Happiness can be had in
this life: but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life.
This may be seen from a twofold consideration.

First, from the general notion of happiness. For since happiness is a
"perfect and sufficient good," it excludes every evil, and fulfils
every desire. But in this life every evil cannot be excluded. For
this present life is subject to many unavoidable evils; to ignorance
on the part of the intellect; to inordinate affection on the part of
the appetite, and to many penalties on the part of the body; as
Augustine sets forth in De Civ. Dei xix, 4. Likewise neither can the
desire for good be satiated in this life. For man naturally desires
the good, which he has, to be abiding. Now the goods of the present
life pass away; since life itself passes away, which we naturally
desire to have, and would wish to hold abidingly, for man naturally
shrinks from death. Wherefore it is impossible to have true Happiness
in this life.

Secondly, from a consideration of the specific nature of Happiness,
viz. the vision of the Divine Essence, which man cannot obtain in
this life, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 11). Hence it is
evident that none can attain true and perfect Happiness in this life.

Reply Obj. 1: Some are said to be happy in this life, either on
account of the hope of obtaining Happiness in the life to come,
according to Rom. 8:24: "We are saved by hope"; or on account of a
certain participation of Happiness, by reason of a kind of enjoyment
of the Sovereign Good.

Reply Obj. 2: The imperfection of participated Happiness is due to
one of two causes. First, on the part of the object of Happiness,
which is not seen in Its Essence: and this imperfection destroys the
nature of true Happiness. Secondly, the imperfection may be on the
part of the participator, who indeed attains the object of Happiness,
in itself, namely, God: imperfectly, however, in comparison with the
way in which God enjoys Himself. This imperfection does not destroy
the true nature of Happiness; because, since Happiness is an
operation, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 2), the true nature of Happiness
is taken from the object, which specifies the act, and not from the
subject.

Reply Obj. 3: Men esteem that there is some kind of happiness to be
had in this life, on account of a certain likeness to true Happiness.
And thus they do not fail altogether in their estimate.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 4]

Whether Happiness Once Had Can Be Lost?

Objection 1: It would seem that Happiness can be lost. For Happiness
is a perfection. But every perfection is in the thing perfected
according to the mode of the latter. Since then man is, by his
nature, changeable, it seems that Happiness is participated by man in
a changeable manner. And consequently it seems that man can lose
Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, Happiness consists in an act of the intellect; and
the intellect is subject to the will. But the will can be directed to
opposites. Therefore it seems that it can desist from the operation
whereby man is made happy: and thus man will cease to be happy.

Obj. 3: Further, the end corresponds to the beginning. But man's
Happiness has a beginning, since man was not always happy. Therefore
it seems that it has an end.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 25:46) of the righteous that
"they shall go . . . into life everlasting," which, as above stated
(A. 2), is the Happiness of the saints. Now what is eternal ceases
not. Therefore Happiness cannot be lost.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of imperfect happiness, such as can be
had in this life, in this sense it can be lost. This is clear of
contemplative happiness, which is lost either by forgetfulness, for
instance, when knowledge is lost through sickness; or again by
certain occupations, whereby a man is altogether withdrawn from
contemplation.

This is also clear of active happiness: since man's will can be
changed so as to fall to vice from the virtue, in whose act that
happiness principally consists. If, however, the virtue remain
unimpaired, outward changes can indeed disturb such like happiness,
in so far as they hinder many acts of virtue; but they cannot take it
away altogether because there still remains an act of virtue, whereby
man bears these trials in a praiseworthy manner. And since the
happiness of this life can be lost, a circumstance that appears to be
contrary to the nature of happiness, therefore did the Philosopher
state (Ethic. i, 10) that some are happy in this life, not simply,
but "as men," whose nature is subject to change.

But if we speak of that perfect Happiness which we await after this
life, it must be observed that Origen (Peri Archon. ii, 3), following
the error of certain Platonists, held that man can become unhappy
after the final Happiness.

This, however, is evidently false, for two reasons. First, from the
general notion of happiness. For since happiness is the "perfect and
sufficient good," it must needs set man's desire at rest and exclude
every evil. Now man naturally desires to hold to the good that he
has, and to have the surety of his holding: else he must of necessity
be troubled with the fear of losing it, or with the sorrow of knowing
that he will lose it. Therefore it is necessary for true Happiness
that man have the assured opinion of never losing the good that he
possesses. If this opinion be true, it follows that he never will
lose happiness: but if it be false, it is in itself an evil that he
should have a false opinion: because the false is the evil of the
intellect, just as the true is its good, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 2.
Consequently he will no longer be truly happy, if evil be in him.

Secondly, it is again evident if we consider the specific nature of
Happiness. For it has been shown above (Q. 3, A. 8) that man's
perfect Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now
it is impossible for anyone seeing the Divine Essence, to wish not to
see It. Because every good that one possesses and yet wishes to be
without, is either insufficient, something more sufficing being
desired in its stead; or else has some inconvenience attached to it,
by reason of which it becomes wearisome. But the vision of the Divine
Essence fills the soul with all good things, since it unites it to
the source of all goodness; hence it is written (Ps. 16:15): "I shall
be satisfied when Thy glory shall appear"; and (Wis. 7:11): "All good
things came to me together with her," i.e. with the contemplation of
wisdom. In like manner neither has it any inconvenience attached to
it; because it is written of the contemplation of wisdom (Wis. 8:16):
"Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any
tediousness." It is thus evident that the happy man cannot forsake
Happiness of his own accord. Moreover, neither can he lose Happiness,
through God taking it away from him. Because, since the withdrawal of
Happiness is a punishment, it cannot be enforced by God, the just
Judge, except for some fault; and he that sees God cannot fall into a
fault, since rectitude of the will, of necessity, results from that
vision as was shown above (Q. 4, A. 4). Nor again can it be withdrawn
by any other agent. Because the mind that is united to God is raised
above all other things: and consequently no other agent can sever the
mind from that union. Therefore it seems unreasonable that as time
goes on, man should pass from happiness to misery, and vice versa;
because such like vicissitudes of time can only be for such things as
are subject to time and movement.

Reply Obj. 1: Happiness is consummate perfection, which excludes
every defect from the happy. And therefore whoever has happiness has
it altogether unchangeably: this is done by the Divine power, which
raises man to the participation of eternity which transcends all
change.

Reply Obj. 2: The will can be directed to opposites, in things which
are ordained to the end; but it is ordained, of natural necessity, to
the last end. This is evident from the fact that man is unable not to
wish to be happy.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness has a beginning owing to the condition of the
participator: but it has no end by reason of the condition of the
good, the participation of which makes man happy. Hence the beginning
of happiness is from one cause, its endlessness is from another.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 5]

Whether Man Can Attain Happiness by His Natural Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can attain Happiness by his
natural powers. For nature does not fail in necessary things. But
nothing is so necessary to man as that by which he attains the last
end. Therefore this is not lacking to human nature. Therefore man
can attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Obj. 2: Further, since man is more noble than irrational creatures,
it seems that he must be better equipped than they. But irrational
creatures can attain their end by their natural powers. Much more
therefore can man attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness is a "perfect operation," according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 13). Now the beginning of a thing belongs to
the same principle as the perfecting thereof. Since, therefore, the
imperfect operation, which is as the beginning in human operations,
is subject to man's natural power, whereby he is master of his own
actions; it seems that he can attain to perfect operation, i.e.
Happiness, by his natural powers.

_On the contrary,_ Man is naturally the principle of his action, by
his intellect and will. But final Happiness prepared for the saints,
surpasses the intellect and will of man; for the Apostle says (1 Cor.
2:9) "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into
the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love
Him." Therefore man cannot attain Happiness by his natural powers.

_I answer that,_ Imperfect happiness that can be had in this life,
can be acquired by man by his natural powers, in the same way as
virtue, in whose operation it consists: on this point we shall speak
further on (Q. 63). But man's perfect Happiness, as stated above (Q.
3, A. 8), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the
vision of God's Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but
also of every creature, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 4).
For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the
mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De
Causis; Prop. viii) that "it knows things that are above it, and
things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance."
But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created
substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which
infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man,
nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as nature does not fail man in necessaries,
although it has not provided him with weapons and clothing, as it
provided other animals, because it gave him reason and hands, with
which he is able to get these things for himself; so neither did it
fail man in things necessary, although it gave him not the wherewithal
to attain Happiness: since this it could not do. But it did give him
free-will, with which he can turn to God, that He may make him happy.
"For what we do by means of our friends, is done, in a sense, by
ourselves" (Ethic. iii, 3).

Reply Obj. 2: The nature that can attain perfect good, although it
needs help from without in order to attain it, is of more noble
condition than a nature which cannot attain perfect good, but attains
some imperfect good, although it need no help from without in order
to attain it, as the Philosopher says (De Coel. ii, 12). Thus he is
better disposed to health who can attain perfect health, albeit by
means of medicine, than he who can attain but imperfect health,
without the help of medicine. And therefore the rational creature,
which can attain the perfect good of happiness, but needs the Divine
assistance for the purpose, is more perfect than the irrational
creature, which is not capable of attaining this good, but attains
some imperfect good by its natural powers.

Reply Obj. 3: When imperfect and perfect are of the same species,
they can be caused by the same power. But this does not follow of
necessity, if they be of different species: for not everything, that
can cause the disposition of matter, can produce the final
perfection. Now the imperfect operation, which is subject to man's
natural power, is not of the same species as that perfect operation
which is man's happiness: since operation takes its species from its
object. Consequently the argument does not prove.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 6]

Whether Man Attains Happiness Through the Action of Some Higher
Creature?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can be made happy through the
action of some higher creature, viz. an angel. For since we observe a
twofold order in things--one, of the parts of the universe to one
another, the other, of the whole universe to a good which is outside
the universe; the former order is ordained to the second as to its end
(Metaph. xii, 10). Thus the mutual order of the parts of an army is
dependent on the order of the parts of an army is dependent on the
order of the whole army to the general. But the mutual order of the
parts of the universe consists in the higher creatures acting on the
lower, as stated in the First Part (Q. 109, A. 2): while happiness
consists in the order of man to a good which is outside the universe,
i.e. God. Therefore man is made happy, through a higher creature, viz.
an angel, acting on him.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is such in potentiality, can be reduced
to act, by that which is such actually: thus what is potentially hot,
is made actually hot, by something that is actually hot. But man is
potentially happy. Therefore he can be made actually happy by an
angel who is actually happy.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness consists in an operation of the intellect
as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4). But an angel can enlighten man's
intellect as shown in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 1). Therefore an
angel can make a man happy.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give
grace and glory."

_I answer that,_ Since every creature is subject to the laws of
nature, from the very fact that its power and action are limited:
that which surpasses created nature, cannot be done by the power of
any creature. Consequently if anything need to be done that is above
nature, it is done by God immediately; such as raising the dead to
life, restoring sight to the blind, and such like. Now it has been
shown above (A. 5) that Happiness is a good surpassing created
nature. Therefore it is impossible that it be bestowed through the
action of any creature: but by God alone is man made happy, if we
speak of perfect Happiness. If, however, we speak of imperfect
happiness, the same is to be said of it as of the virtue, in whose
act it consists.

Reply Obj. 1: It often happens in the case of active powers ordained
to one another, that it belongs to the highest power to reach the
last end, while the lower powers contribute to the attainment of that
last end, by causing a disposition thereto: thus to the art of
sailing, which commands the art of shipbuilding, it belongs to use a
ship for the end for which it was made. Thus, too, in the order of
the universe, man is indeed helped by the angels in the attainment of
his last end, in respect of certain preliminary dispositions thereto:
whereas he attains the last end itself through the First Agent, which
is God.

Reply Obj. 2: When a form exists perfectly and naturally in
something, it can be the principle of action on something else: for
instance a hot thing heats through heat. But if a form exist in
something imperfectly, and not naturally, it cannot be the principle
whereby it is communicated to something else: thus the _intention_ of
color which is in the pupil, cannot make a thing white; nor indeed
can everything enlightened or heated give heat or light to something
else; for if they could, enlightening and heating would go on to
infinity. But the light of glory, whereby God is seen, is in God
perfectly and naturally; whereas in any creature, it is imperfectly
and by likeness or participation. Consequently no creature can
communicate its Happiness to another.

Reply Obj. 3: A happy angel enlightens the intellect of a man or of a
lower angel, as to certain notions of the Divine works: but not as to
the vision of the Divine Essence, as was stated in the First Part (Q.
106, A. 1): since in order to see this, all are immediately
enlightened by God.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 7]

Whether Any Good Works Are Necessary That Man May Receive Happiness
from God?

Objection 1: It would seem that no works of man are necessary that he
may obtain Happiness from God. For since God is an agent of infinite
power, He requires before acting, neither matter, nor disposition of
matter, but can forthwith produce the whole effect. But man's works,
since they are not required for Happiness, as the efficient cause
thereof, as stated above (A. 6), can be required only as
dispositions thereto. Therefore God who does not require dispositions
before acting, bestows Happiness without any previous works.

Obj. 2: Further, just as God is the immediate cause of Happiness, so
is He the immediate cause of nature. But when God first established
nature, He produced creatures without any previous disposition or
action on the part of the creature, but made each one perfect
forthwith in its species. Therefore it seems that He bestows
Happiness on man without any previous works.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 4:6) that Happiness is of the
man "to whom God reputeth justice without works." Therefore no works
of man are necessary for attaining Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 13:17): "If you know these
things, you shall be blessed if you do them." Therefore Happiness is
obtained through works.

_I answer that,_ Rectitude of the will, as stated above (Q. 4, A. 4),
is necessary for Happiness; since it is nothing else than the right
order of the will to the last end; and it is therefore necessary for
obtaining the end, just as the right disposition of matter, in order
to receive the form. But this does not prove that any work of man
need precede his Happiness: for God could make a will having a right
tendency to the end, and at the same time attaining the end; just as
sometimes He disposes matter and at the same time introduces the
form. But the order of Divine wisdom demands that it should not be
thus; for as is stated in _De Coelo_ ii, 12, "of those things that
have a natural capacity for the perfect good, one has it without
movement, some by one movement, some by several." Now to possess the
perfect good without movement, belongs to that which has it
naturally: and to have Happiness naturally belongs to God alone.
Therefore it belongs to God alone not to be moved towards Happiness
by any previous operation. Now since Happiness surpasses every
created nature, no pure creature can becomingly gain Happiness,
without the movement of operation, whereby it tends thereto. But the
angel, who is above man in the natural order, obtained it, according
to the order of Divine wisdom, by one movement of a meritorious work,
as was explained in the First Part (Q. 62, A. 5); whereas man obtains
it by many movements of works which are called merits. Wherefore also
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 9), happiness is the reward
of works of virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Works are necessary to man in order to gain Happiness;
not on account of the insufficiency of the Divine power which bestows
Happiness, but that the order in things be observed.

Reply Obj. 2: God produced the first creatures so that they are
perfect forthwith, without any previous disposition or operation of
the creature; because He instituted the first individuals of the
various species, that through them nature might be propagated to
their progeny. In like manner, because Happiness was to be bestowed
on others through Christ, who is God and Man, "Who," according to
Heb. 2:10, "had brought many children into glory"; therefore, from
the very beginning of His conception, His soul was happy, without any
previous meritorious operation. But this is peculiar to Him: for
Christ's merit avails baptized children for the gaining of Happiness,
though they have no merits of their own; because by Baptism they are
made members of Christ.

Reply Obj. 3: The Apostle is speaking of the Happiness of Hope, which
is bestowed on us by sanctifying grace, which is not given on account
of previous works. For grace is not a term of movement, as Happiness
is; rather is it the principle of the movement that tends towards
Happiness.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 8]

Whether Every Man Desires Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all desire Happiness. For no man
can desire what he knows not; since the apprehended good is the object
of the appetite (De Anima iii, 10). But many know not what Happiness
is. This is evident from the fact that, as Augustine says (De Trin.
xiii, 4), "some thought that Happiness consists in pleasures of the
body; some, in a virtue of the soul; some in other things." Therefore
not all desire Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, the essence of Happiness is the vision of the Divine
Essence, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 8). But some consider it
impossible for man to see the Divine Essence; wherefore they desire
it not. Therefore all men do not desire Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he
who has all he desires, and desires nothing amiss." But all do not
desire this; for some desire certain things amiss, and yet they wish
to desire such things. Therefore all do not desire Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3): "If that actor
had said: 'You all wish to be happy; you do not wish to be unhappy,'
he would have said that which none would have failed to acknowledge
in his will." Therefore everyone desires to be happy.

_I answer that,_ Happiness can be considered in two ways. First
according to the general notion of happiness: and thus, of necessity,
every man desires happiness. For the general notion of happiness
consists in the perfect good, as stated above (AA. 3, 4). But since
good is the object of the will, the perfect good of a man is that
which entirely satisfies his will. Consequently to desire happiness
is nothing else than to desire that one's will be satisfied. And this
everyone desires. Secondly we may speak of Happiness according to its
specific notion, as to that in which it consists. And thus all do not
know Happiness; because they know not in what thing the general
notion of happiness is found. And consequently, in this respect, not
all desire it. Wherefore the reply to the first Objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the will follows the apprehension of the
intellect or reason; just as it happens that where there is no real
distinction, there may be a distinction according to the
consideration of reason; so does it happen that one and the same
thing is desired in one way, and not desired in another. So that
happiness may be considered as the final and perfect good, which is
the general notion of happiness: and thus the will naturally and of
necessity tends thereto, as stated above. Again it can be considered
under other special aspects, either on the part of the operation
itself, or on the part of the operating power, or on the part of the
object; and thus the will does not tend thereto of necessity.

Reply Obj. 3: This definition of Happiness given by some--"Happy is
the man that has all he desires," or, "whose every wish is
fulfilled," is a good and adequate definition, if it be understood in
a certain way; but an inadequate definition if understood in another.
For if we understand it simply of all that man desires by his natural
appetite, thus it is true that he who has all that he desires, is
happy: since nothing satisfies man's natural desire, except the
perfect good which is Happiness. But if we understand it of those
things that man desires according to the apprehension of the reason,
thus it does not belong to Happiness, to have certain things that man
desires; rather does it belong to unhappiness, in so far as the
possession of such things hinders man from having all that he desires
naturally; thus it is that reason sometimes accepts as true things
that are a hindrance to the knowledge of truth. And it was through
taking this into consideration that Augustine added so as to include
perfect Happiness--that he "desires nothing amiss": although the
first part suffices if rightly understood, to wit, that "happy is he
who has all he desires."
________________________

TREATISE ON HUMAN ACTS: ACTS PECULIAR TO MAN (QQ. 6-21)
________________________

QUESTION 6

OF THE VOLUNTARY AND THE INVOLUNTARY
(In Eight Articles)

Since therefore Happiness is to be gained by means of certain acts,
we must in due sequence consider human acts, in order to know by what
acts we may obtain Happiness, and by what acts we are prevented from
obtaining it. But because operations and acts are concerned with
things singular, consequently all practical knowledge is incomplete
unless it take account of things in detail. The study of Morals,
therefore, since it treats of human acts, should consider first the
general principles; and secondly matters of detail.

In treating of the general principles, the points that offer
themselves for our consideration are (1) human acts themselves; (2)
their principles. Now of human acts some are proper to man; others
are common to man and animals. And since Happiness is man's proper
good, those acts which are proper to man have a closer connection
with Happiness than have those which are common to man and the other
animals. First, then, we must consider those acts which are proper to
man; secondly, those acts which are common to man and the other
animals, and are called Passions. The first of these points offers a
twofold consideration: (1) What makes a human act? (2) What
distinguishes human acts?

And since those acts are properly called human which are voluntary,
because the will is the rational appetite, which is proper to man; we
must consider acts in so far as they are voluntary.

First, then, we must consider the voluntary and involuntary in
general; secondly, those acts which are voluntary, as being elicited
by the will, and as issuing from the will immediately; thirdly, those
acts which are voluntary, as being commanded by the will, which issue
from the will through the medium of the other powers.

And because voluntary acts have certain circumstances, according to
which we form our judgment concerning them, we must first consider
the voluntary and the involuntary, and afterwards, the circumstances
of those acts which are found to be voluntary or involuntary. Under
the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is anything voluntary in human acts?

(2) Whether in irrational animals?

(3) Whether there can be voluntariness without any action?

(4) Whether violence can be done to the will?

(5) Whether violence causes involuntariness?

(6) Whether fear causes involuntariness?

(7) Whether concupiscence causes involuntariness?

(8) Whether ignorance causes involuntariness?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Anything Voluntary in Human Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in human
acts. For that is voluntary "which has its principle within itself."
as Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Natura Hom. xxxii.], Damascene (De
Fide Orth. ii, 24), and Aristotle (Ethic. iii, 1) declare. But the
principle of human acts is not in man himself, but outside him: since
man's appetite is moved to act, by the appetible object which is
outside him, and is as a "mover unmoved" (De Anima iii, 10).
Therefore there is nothing voluntary in human acts.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher (Phys. viii, 2) proves that in
animals no new movement arises that is not preceded by a motion from
without. But all human acts are new, since none is eternal.
Consequently, the principle of all human acts is from without: and
therefore there is nothing voluntary in them.

Obj. 3: Further, he that acts voluntarily, can act of himself. But
this is not true of man; for it is written (John 15:5): "Without Me
you can do nothing." Therefore there is nothing voluntary in human
acts.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "the
voluntary is an act consisting in a rational operation." Now such are
human acts. Therefore there is something voluntary in human acts.

_I answer that,_ There must needs be something voluntary in human
acts. In order to make this clear, we must take note that the
principle of some acts or movements is within the agent, or that
which is moved; whereas the principle of some movements or acts is
outside. For when a stone is moved upwards, the principle of this
movement is outside the stone: whereas when it is moved downwards,
the principle of this movement is in the stone. Now of those things
that are moved by an intrinsic principle, some move themselves, some
not. For since every agent or thing moved, acts or is moved for an
end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 2); those are perfectly moved by an
intrinsic principle, whose intrinsic principle is one not only of
movement but of movement for an end. Now in order for a thing to be
done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary. Therefore,
whatever so acts or is moved by an intrinsic principle, that it has
some knowledge of the end, has within itself the principle of its
act, so that it not only acts, but acts for an end. On the other
hand, if a thing has no knowledge of the end, even though it have an
intrinsic principle of action or movement, nevertheless the principle
of acting or being moved for an end is not in that thing, but in
something else, by which the principle of its action towards an end
is not in that thing, but in something else, by which the principle
of its action towards an end is imprinted on it. Wherefore such like
things are not said to move themselves, but to be moved by others.
But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move
themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not
only act but also act for an end. And consequently, since both are
from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they act
for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary:
for the word "voluntary" implies that their movements and acts are
from their own inclination. Hence it is that, according to the
definitions of Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa, and Damascene [*See
Objection 1], the voluntary is defined not only as having "a principle
within" the agent, but also as implying "knowledge." Therefore, since
man especially knows the end of his work, and moves himself, in his
acts especially is the voluntary to be found.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every principle is a first principle. Therefore,
although it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be
within the agent, nevertheless it is not contrary to the nature of
the voluntary act that this intrinsic principle be caused or moved by
an extrinsic principle: because it is not essential to the voluntary
act that its intrinsic principle be a first principle. Yet again it
must be observed that a principle of movement may happen to be first
in a genus, but not first simply: thus in the genus of things subject
to alteration, the first principle of alteration is a heavenly body,
which nevertheless is not the first mover simply, but is moved
locally by a higher mover. And so the intrinsic principle of the
voluntary act, i.e. the cognitive and appetitive power, is the first
principle in the genus of appetitive movement, although it is moved
by an extrinsic principle according to other species of movement.

Reply Obj. 2: New movements in animals are indeed preceded by a
motion from without; and this in two respects. First, in so far as by
means of an extrinsic motion an animal's senses are confronted with
something sensible, which, on being apprehended, moves the appetite.
Thus a lion, on seeing a stag in movement and coming towards him,
begins to be moved towards the stag. Secondly, in so far as some
extrinsic motion produces a physical change in an animal's body, as
in the case of cold or heat; and through the body being affected by
the motion of an outward body, the sensitive appetite which is the
power of a bodily organ, is also moved indirectly; thus it happens
that through some alteration in the body the appetite is roused to
the desire of something. But this is not contrary to the nature of
voluntariness, as stated above (ad 1), for such movements caused by
an extrinsic principle are of another genus of movement.

Reply Obj. 3: God moves man to act, not only by proposing the
appetible to the senses, or by effecting a change in his body, but
also by moving the will itself; because every movement either of the
will or of nature, proceeds from God as the First Mover. And just as
it is not incompatible with nature that the natural movement be from
God as the First Mover, inasmuch as nature is an instrument of God
moving it: so it is not contrary to the essence of a voluntary act,
that it proceed from God, inasmuch as the will is moved by God.
Nevertheless both natural and voluntary movements have this in common,
that it is essential that they should proceed from a principle within
the agent.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 2]

Whether There Is Anything Voluntary in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in
irrational animals. For a thing is called "voluntary" from _voluntas_
(will). Now since the will is in the reason (De Anima iii, 9), it
cannot be in irrational animals. Therefore neither is there anything
voluntary in them.

Obj. 2: Further, according as human acts are voluntary, man is said
to be master of his actions. But irrational animals are not masters
of their actions; for "they act not; rather are they acted upon," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 27). Therefore there is no such
thing as a voluntary act in irrational animals.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. 24) that "voluntary
acts lead to praise and blame." But neither praise nor blame is due
to the acts of irrational minds. Therefore such acts are not
voluntary.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "both
children and irrational animals participate in the voluntary." The
same is said by Damascene (De Fide Orth. 24) and Gregory of Nyssa
[*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxii.].

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it is essential to the
voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with
some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold;
perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not
only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it
under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that
end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But
imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the
end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship
of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by
irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative
power.

Consequently perfect knowledge of the end leads to the perfect
voluntary; inasmuch as, having apprehended the end, a man can, from
deliberating about the end and the means thereto, be moved, or not,
to gain that end. But imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the
imperfect voluntary; inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but
does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once. Wherefore the
voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature:
whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even
irrational animals.

Reply Obj. 1: The will is the name of the rational appetite; and
consequently it cannot be in things devoid of reason. But the word
"voluntary" is derived from "voluntas" (will), and can be extended to
those things in which there is some participation of will, by way of
likeness thereto. It is thus that voluntary action is attributed to
irrational animals, in so far as they are moved to an end, through
some kind of knowledge.

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that man is master of his actions, is due to
his being able to deliberate about them: for since the deliberating
reason is indifferently disposed to opposite things, the will can be
inclined to either. But it is not thus that voluntariness is in
irrational animals, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Praise and blame are the result of the voluntary act,
wherein is the perfect voluntary; such as is not to be found in
irrational animals.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 3]

Whether There Can Be Voluntariness Without Any Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that voluntariness cannot be without any
act. For that is voluntary which proceeds from the will. But nothing
can proceed from the will, except through some act, at least an act
of the will. Therefore there cannot be voluntariness without act.

Obj. 2: Further, just as one is said to wish by an act of the will,
so when the act of the will ceases, one is said not to wish. But not
to wish implies involuntariness, which is contrary to voluntariness.
Therefore there can be nothing voluntary when the act of the will
ceases.

Obj. 3: Further, knowledge is essential to the voluntary, as stated
above (AA. 1, 2). But knowledge involves an act. Therefore
voluntariness cannot be without some act.

_On the contrary,_ The word "voluntary" is applied to that of which
we are masters. Now we are masters in respect of to act and not to
act, to will and not to will. Therefore just as to act and to will
are voluntary, so also are not to act and not to will.

_I answer that,_ Voluntary is what proceeds from the will. Now one
thing proceeds from another in two ways. First, directly; in which
sense something proceeds from another inasmuch as this other acts;
for instance, heating from heat. Secondly, indirectly; in which sense
something proceeds from another through this other not acting; thus
the sinking of a ship is set down to the helmsman, from his having
ceased to steer. But we must take note that the cause of what follows
from want of action is not always the agent as not acting; but only
then when the agent can and ought to act. For if the helmsman were
unable to steer the ship or if the ship's helm be not entrusted to
him, the sinking of the ship would not be set down to him, although
it might be due to his absence from the helm.

Since, then, the will by willing and acting, is able, and sometimes
ought, to hinder not-willing and not-acting; this not-willing and
not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will. And
thus it is that we can have the voluntary without an act; sometimes
without outward act, but with an interior act; for instance, when one
wills not to act; and sometimes without even an interior act, as when
one does not will to act.

Reply Obj. 1: We apply the word "voluntary" not only to that which
proceeds from the will directly, as from its action; but also to that
which proceeds from it indirectly as from its inaction.

Reply Obj. 2: "Not to wish" is said in two senses. First, as though
it were one word, and the infinitive of "I-do-not-wish." Consequently
just as when I say "I do not wish to read," the sense is, "I wish not
to read"; so "not to wish to read" is the same as "to wish not to
read," and in this sense "not to wish" implies involuntariness.
Secondly it is taken as a sentence: and then no act of the will is
affirmed. And in this sense "not to wish" does not imply
involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 3: Voluntariness requires an act of knowledge in the same
way as it requires an act of will; namely, in order that it be in
one's power to consider, to wish and to act. And then, just as not to
wish, and not to act, when it is time to wish and to act, is
voluntary, so is it voluntary not to consider.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 4]

Whether Violence Can Be Done to the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that violence can be done to the will. For
everything can be compelled by that which is more powerful. But there
is something, namely, God, that is more powerful than the human will.
Therefore it can be compelled, at least by Him.

Obj. 2: Further, every passive subject is compelled by its active
principle, when it is changed by it. But the will is a passive force:
for it is a "mover moved" (De Anima iii, 10). Therefore, since it is
sometimes moved by its active principle, it seems that sometimes it
is compelled.

Obj. 3: Further, violent movement is that which is contrary to
nature. But the movement of the will is sometimes contrary to nature;
as is clear of the will's movement to sin, which is contrary to
nature, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 20). Therefore the
movement of the will can be compelled.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 10) that what is
done by the will is not done of necessity. Now, whatever is done under
compulsion is done of necessity: consequently what is done by the
will, cannot be compelled. Therefore the will cannot be compelled to
act.

_I answer that,_ The act of the will is twofold: one is its immediate
act, as it were, elicited by it, namely, "to wish"; the other is an
act of the will commanded by it, and put into execution by means of
some other power, such as "to walk" and "to speak," which are
commanded by the will to be executed by means of the motive power.

As regards the commanded acts of the will, then, the will can suffer
violence, in so far as violence can prevent the exterior members from
executing the will's command. But as to the will's own proper act,
violence cannot be done to the will.

The reason of this is that the act of the will is nothing else than
an inclination proceeding from the interior principle of knowledge:
just as the natural appetite is an inclination proceeding from an
interior principle without knowledge. Now what is compelled or
violent is from an exterior principle. Consequently it is contrary to
the nature of the will's own act, that it should be subject to
compulsion and violence: just as it is also contrary to the nature of
a natural inclination or movement. For a stone may have an upward
movement from violence, but that this violent movement be from its
natural inclination is impossible. In like manner a man may be
dragged by force: but it is contrary to the very notion of violence,
that he be dragged of his own will.

Reply Obj. 1: God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move
the will of man, according to Prov. 21:1: "The heart of the king is
in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it." But
if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by an act of the
will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against
the will.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not always a violent movement, when a passive
subject is moved by its active principle; but only when this is done
against the interior inclination of the passive subject. Otherwise
every alteration and generation of simple bodies would be unnatural
and violent: whereas they are natural by reason of the natural
interior aptitude of the matter or subject to such a disposition. In
like manner when the will is moved, according to its own inclination,
by the appetible object, this movement is not violent but voluntary.

Reply Obj. 3: That to which the will tends by sinning, although in
reality it is evil and contrary to the rational nature, nevertheless
is apprehended as something good and suitable to nature, in so far as
it is suitable to man by reason of some pleasurable sensation or some
vicious habit.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 5]

Whether Violence Causes Involuntariness?

Objection 1: It would seem that violence does not cause
involuntariness. For we speak of voluntariness and involuntariness
in respect of the will. But violence cannot be done to the will, as
shown above (A. 4). Therefore violence cannot cause involuntariness.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is done involuntarily is done with grief,
as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the Philosopher (Ethic. iii,
5) say. But sometimes a man suffers compulsion without being grieved
thereby. Therefore violence does not cause involuntariness.

Obj. 3: Further, what is from the will cannot be involuntary. But
some violent actions proceed from the will: for instance, when a man
with a heavy body goes upwards; or when a man contorts his limbs in a
way contrary to their natural flexibility. Therefore violence does
not cause involuntariness.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) and Damascene (De
Fide Orth. ii, 24) say that "things done under compulsion are
involuntary."

_I answer that,_ Violence is directly opposed to the voluntary, as
likewise to the natural. For the voluntary and the natural have this
in common, that both are from an intrinsic principle; whereas
violence is from an extrinsic principle. And for this reason, just as
in things devoid of knowledge, violence effects something against
nature: so in things endowed with knowledge, it effects something
against the will. Now that which is against nature is said to be
"unnatural"; and in like manner that which is against the will is
said to be "involuntary." Therefore violence causes involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 1: The involuntary is opposed to the voluntary. Now it has
been said (A. 4) that not only the act, which proceeds immediately
from the will, is called voluntary, but also the act commanded by the
will. Consequently, as to the act which proceeds immediately from the
will, violence cannot be done to the will, as stated above (A. 4):
wherefore violence cannot make that act involuntary. But as to the
commanded act, the will can suffer violence: and consequently in this
respect violence causes involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 2: As that is said to be natural, which is according to
the inclination of nature; so that is said to be voluntary, which is
according to the inclination of the will. Now a thing is said to be
natural in two ways. First, because it is from nature as from an
active principle: thus it is natural for fire to produce heat.
Secondly, according to a passive principle; because, to wit, there is
in nature an inclination to receive an action from an extrinsic
principle: thus the movement of the heavens is said to be natural, by
reason of the natural aptitude in a heavenly body to receive such
movement; although the cause of that movement is a voluntary agent.
In like manner an act is said to be voluntary in two ways. First, in
regard to action, for instance, when one wishes to be passive to
another. Hence when action is brought to bear on something, by an
extrinsic agent, as long as the will to suffer that action remains in
the passive subject, there is not violence simply: for although the
patient does nothing by way of action, he does something by being
willing to suffer. Consequently this cannot be called involuntary.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, 4) the movement of
an animal, whereby at times an animal is moved against the natural
inclination of the body, although it is not natural to the body, is
nevertheless somewhat natural to the animal, to which it is natural
to be moved according to its appetite. Accordingly this is violent,
not simply but in a certain respect. The same remark applies in the
case of one who contorts his limbs in a way that is contrary to their
natural disposition. For this is violent in a certain respect, i.e.
as to that particular limb; but not simply, i.e. as to the man
himself.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 6]

Whether Fear Causes Involuntariness Simply?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear causes involuntariness simply.
For just as violence regards that which is contrary to the will at the
time, so fear regards a future evil which is repugnant to the will.
But violence causes involuntariness simply. Therefore fear too causes
involuntariness simply.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is such of itself, remains such, whatever
be added to it: thus what is hot of itself, as long as it
remains, is still hot, whatever be added to it. But that which is done
through fear, is involuntary in itself. Therefore, even with the
addition of fear, it is involuntary.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is such, subject to a condition, is
such in a certain respect; whereas what is such, without any
condition, is such simply: thus what is necessary, subject to a
condition, is necessary in some respect: but what is necessary
absolutely, is necessary simply. But that which is done through
fear, is absolutely involuntary; and is not voluntary, save under a
condition, namely, in order that the evil feared may be avoided.
Therefore that which is done through fear, is involuntary simply.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx.] and
the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that such things as are done
through fear are "voluntary rather than involuntary."

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) and likewise
Gregory of Nyssa in his book on Man (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx), such
things are done through fear "are of a mixed character," being partly
voluntary and partly involuntary. For that which is done through fear,
considered in itself, is not voluntary; but it becomes voluntary in
this particular case, in order, namely, to avoid the evil feared.

But if the matter be considered aright, such things are voluntary
rather than involuntary; for they are voluntary simply, but
involuntary in a certain respect. For a thing is said to be simply,
according as it is in act; but according as it is only in
apprehension, it is not simply, but in a certain respect. Now that
which is done through fear, is in act in so far as it is done. For,
since acts are concerned with singulars; and the singular, as such,
is here and now; that which is done is in act, in so far as it is
here and now and under other individuating circumstances. And that
which is done through fear is voluntary, inasmuch as it is here and
now, that is to say, in so far as, under the circumstances, it
hinders a greater evil which was feared; thus the throwing of the
cargo into the sea becomes voluntary during the storm, through fear
of the danger: wherefore it is clear that it is voluntary simply. And
hence it is that what is done out of fear is essentially voluntary,
because its principle is within. But if we consider what is done
through fear, as outside this particular case, and inasmuch as it is
repugnant to the will, this is merely a consideration of the mind.
And consequently what is done through fear is involuntary, considered
in that respect, that is to say, outside the actual circumstances of
the case.

Reply Obj. 1: Things done through fear and compulsion differ not only
according to present and future time, but also in this, that the will
does not consent, but is moved entirely counter to that which is done
through compulsion: whereas what is done through fear, becomes
voluntary, because the will is moved towards it, albeit not for its
own sake, but on account of something else, that is, in order to
avoid an evil which is feared. For the conditions of a voluntary act
are satisfied, if it be done on account of something else voluntary:
since the voluntary is not only what we wish, for its own sake, as an
end, but also what we wish for the sake of something else, as an end.
It is clear therefore that in what is done from compulsion, the will
does nothing inwardly; whereas in what is done through fear, the will
does something. Accordingly, as Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat.
Hom. xxx.] says, in order to exclude things done through fear, a
violent action is defined as not only one, "the princip[le] whereof
is from without," but with the addition, "in which he that suffers
violence concurs not at all"; because the will of him that is in
fear, does concur somewhat in that which he does through fear.

Reply Obj. 2: Things that are such absolutely, remain such, whatever
be added to them; for instance, a cold thing, or a white thing: but
things that are such relatively, vary according as they are compared
with different things. For what is big in comparison with one thing,
is small in comparison with another. Now a thing is said to be
voluntary, not only for its own sake, as it were absolutely; but also
for the sake of something else, as it were relatively. Accordingly,
nothing prevents a thing which was not voluntary in comparison with
one thing, from becoming voluntary when compared with another.

Reply Obj. 3: That which is done through fear, is voluntary without
any condition, that is to say, according as it is actually done: but
it is involuntary, under a certain condition, that is to say, if such
a fear were not threatening. Consequently, this argument proves
rather the opposite.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 7]

Whether Concupiscence Causes Involuntariness?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence causes involuntariness.
For just as fear is a passion, so is concupiscence. But fear causes
involuntariness to a certain extent. Therefore concupiscence does so
too.

Obj. 2: Further, just as the timid man through fear acts counter to
that which he proposed, so does the incontinent, through
concupiscence. But fear causes involuntariness to a certain extent.
Therefore concupiscence does so also.

Obj. 3: Further, knowledge is necessary for voluntariness. But
concupiscence impairs knowledge; for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi,
5) that "delight," or the lust of pleasure, "destroys the judgment of
prudence." Therefore concupiscence causes involuntariness.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24): "The
involuntary act deserves mercy or indulgence, and is done with
regret." But neither of these can be said of that which is done out
of concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence does not cause
involuntariness.

_I answer that,_ Concupiscence does not cause involuntariness, but on
the contrary makes something to be voluntary. For a thing is said to
be voluntary, from the fact that the will is moved to it. Now
concupiscence inclines the will to desire the object of
concupiscence. Therefore the effect of concupiscence is to make
something to be voluntary rather than involuntary.

Reply Obj. 1: Fear regards evil, but concupiscence regards good. Now
evil of itself is counter to the will, whereas good harmonizes with
the will. Therefore fear has a greater tendency than concupiscence to
cause involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 2: He who acts from fear retains the repugnance of the
will to that which he does, considered in itself. But he that acts
from concupiscence, e.g. an incontinent man, does not retain his
former will whereby he repudiated the object of his concupiscence;
for his will is changed so that he desires that which previously he
repudiated. Accordingly, that which is done out of fear is
involuntary, to a certain extent, but that which is done from
concupiscence is nowise involuntary. For the man who yields to
concupiscence acts counter to that which he purposed at first, but
not counter to that which he desires now; whereas the timid man acts
counter to that which in itself he desires now.

Reply Obj. 3: If concupiscence were to destroy knowledge altogether,
as happens with those whom concupiscence has rendered mad, it would
follow that concupiscence would take away voluntariness. And yet
properly speaking it would not result in the act being involuntary,
because in things bereft of reason, there is neither voluntary nor
involuntary. But sometimes in those actions which are done from
concupiscence, knowledge is not completely destroyed, because the
power of knowing is not taken away entirely, but only the actual
consideration in some particular possible act. Nevertheless, this
itself is voluntary, according as by voluntary we mean that which is
in the power of the will, for example "not to act" or "not to will,"
and in like manner "not to consider"; for the will can resist the
passion, as we shall state later on (Q. 10, A. 3; Q. 77, A.)
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 8]

Whether Ignorance Causes Involuntariness?

Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance does not cause
involuntariness. For "the involuntary act deserves pardon," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24). But sometimes that which is
done through ignorance does not deserve pardon, according to 1 Cor.
14:38: "If any man know not, he shall not be known." Therefore
ignorance does not cause involuntariness.

Obj. 2: Further, every sin implies ignorance; according to Prov.
14:22: "They err, that work evil." If, therefore, ignorance causes
involuntariness, it would follow that every sin is involuntary: which
is opposed to the saying of Augustine, that "every sin is voluntary"
(De Vera Relig. xiv).

Obj. 3: Further, "involuntariness is not without sadness," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24). But some things are done out
of ignorance, but without sadness: for instance, a man may kill a
foe, whom he wishes to kill, thinking at the time that he is killing
a stag. Therefore ignorance does not cause involuntariness.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the
Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that "what is done through ignorance
is involuntary."

_I answer that,_ If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far
as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of
voluntariness, as was declared above (A. 1). But it is not every
ignorance that deprives one of this knowledge. Accordingly, we must
take note that ignorance has a threefold relationship to the act of
the will: in one way, "concomitantly"; in another, "consequently"; in
a third way, "antecedently." "Concomitantly," when there is ignorance
of what is done; but, so that even if it were known, it would be
done. For then, ignorance does not induce one to wish this to be
done, but it just happens that a thing is at the same time done, and
not known: thus in the example given (Obj. 3) a man did indeed wish
to kill his foe, but killed him in ignorance, thinking to kill a
stag. And ignorance of this kind, as the Philosopher states (Ethic.
iii, 1), does not cause involuntariness, since it is not the cause
of anything that is repugnant to the will: but it causes
"non-voluntariness," since that which is unknown cannot be actually
willed. Ignorance is "consequent" to the act of the will, in so far
as ignorance itself is voluntary: and this happens in two ways, in
accordance with the two aforesaid modes of voluntary (A. 3). First,
because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as
when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin,
or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: "We
desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." And this is called "affected
ignorance." Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it
regards that which one can and ought to know: for in this sense "not
to act" and "not to will" are said to be voluntary, as stated above
(A. 3). And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not
actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called
"ignorance of evil choice," and arises from some passion or habit: or
when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one
ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of
law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence.
Accordingly, if in either of these ways, ignorance is voluntary, it
cannot cause involuntariness simply. Nevertheless it causes
involuntariness in a certain respect, inasmuch as it precedes the
movement of the will towards the act, which movement would not be, if
there were knowledge. Ignorance is "antecedent" to the act of the
will, when it is not voluntary, and yet is the cause of man's willing
what he would not will otherwise. Thus a man may be ignorant of some
circumstance of his act, which he was not bound to know, the result
being that he does that which he would not do, if he knew of that
circumstance; for instance, a man, after taking proper precaution,
may not know that someone is coming along the road, so that he shoots
an arrow and slays a passer-by. Such ignorance causes involuntariness
simply.

From this may be gathered the solution of the objections. For the
first objection deals with ignorance of what a man is bound to know.
The second, with ignorance of choice, which is voluntary to a certain
extent, as stated above. The third, with that ignorance which is
concomitant with the act of the will.
________________________

QUESTION 7

OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HUMAN ACTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the circumstances of human acts: under which head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) What is a circumstance?

(2) Whether a theologian should take note of the circumstances of
human acts?

(3) How many circumstances are there?

(4) Which are the most important of them?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 1]

Whether a Circumstance Is an Accident of a Human Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance is not an accident of
a human act. For Tully says (De Invent. Rhetor. i) that a
circumstance is that from "which an orator adds authority and
strength to his argument." But oratorical arguments are derived
principally from things pertaining to the essence of a thing, such as
the definition, the genus, the species, and the like, from which also
Tully declares that an orator should draw his arguments. Therefore a
circumstance is not an accident of a human act.

Obj. 2: Further, "to be in" is proper to an accident. But that which
surrounds (_circumstat_) is rather out than in. Therefore the
circumstances are not accidents of human acts.

Obj. 3: Further, an accident has no accident. But human acts
themselves are accidents. Therefore the circumstances are not
accidents of acts.

_On the contrary,_ The particular conditions of any singular thing
are called its individuating accidents. But the Philosopher (Ethic.
iii, 1) calls the circumstances particular things [*_ta kath'
ekasta_], i.e. the particular conditions of each act. Therefore the
circumstances are individual accidents of human acts.

_I answer that,_ Since, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i),
"words are the signs of what we understand," it must needs be that in
naming things we follow the process of intellectual knowledge. Now
our intellectual knowledge proceeds from the better known to the less
known. Accordingly with us, names of more obvious things are
transferred so as to signify things less obvious: and hence it is
that, as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4, "the notion of distance has been
transferred from things that are apart locally, to all kinds of
opposition": and in like manner words that signify local movement are
employed to designate all other movements, because bodies which are
circumscribed by place, are best known to us. And hence it is that
the word "circumstance" has passed from located things to human acts.

Now in things located, that is said to surround something, which is
outside it, but touches it, or is placed near it. Accordingly,
whatever conditions are outside the substance of an act, and yet in
some way touch the human act, are called circumstances. Now what is
outside a thing's substance, while it belongs to that thing, is
called its accident. Wherefore the circumstances of human acts should
be called their accidents.

Reply Obj. 1: The orator gives strength to his argument, in the first
place, from the substance of the act; and secondly, from the
circumstances of the act. Thus a man becomes indictable, first,
through being guilty of murder; secondly, through having done it
fraudulently, or from motives of greed or at a holy time or place,
and so forth. And so in the passage quoted, it is said pointedly that
the orator "adds strength to his argument," as though this were
something secondary.

Reply Obj. 2: A thing is said to be an accident of something in two
ways. First, from being in that thing: thus, whiteness is said to be
an accident of Socrates. Secondly, because it is together with that
thing in the same subject: thus, whiteness is an accident of the art
of music, inasmuch as they meet in the same subject, so as to touch
one another, as it were. And in this sense circumstances are said to
be the accidents of human acts.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (ad 2), an accident is said to
be the accident of an accident, from the fact that they meet in the
same subject. But this happens in two ways. First, in so far as two
accidents are both related to the same subject, without any relation
to one another; as whiteness and the art of music in Socrates.
Secondly, when such accidents are related to one another; as when the
subject receives one accident by means of the other; for instance, a
body receives color by means of its surface. And thus also is one
accident said to be in another; for we speak of color as being in the
surface.

Accordingly, circumstances are related to acts in both these ways. For
some circumstances that have a relation to acts, belong to the agent
otherwise than through the act; as place and condition of person;
whereas others belong to the agent by reason of the act, as the manner
in which the act is done.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 2]

Whether Theologians Should Take Note of the Circumstances of Human
Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that theologians should not take note of
the circumstances of human acts. Because theologians do not consider
human acts otherwise than according to their quality of good or evil.
But it seems that circumstances cannot give quality to human acts; for
a thing is never qualified, formally speaking, by that which is
outside it; but by that which is in it. Therefore theologians should
not take note of the circumstances of acts.

Obj. 2: Further, circumstances are the accidents of acts. But one
thing may be subject to an infinity of accidents; hence the
Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 2) that "no art or science considers
accidental being, except only the art of sophistry." Therefore the
theologian has not to consider circumstances.

Obj. 3: Further, the consideration of circumstances belongs to the
orator. But oratory is not a part of theology. Therefore it is not
a theologian's business to consider circumstances.

_On the contrary,_ Ignorance of circumstances causes an act to be
involuntary, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and
Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxi.]. But involuntariness
excuses from sin, the consideration of which belongs to the
theologian. Therefore circumstances also should be considered by the
theologian.

_I answer that,_ Circumstances come under the consideration of the
theologian, for a threefold reason. First, because the theologian
considers human acts, inasmuch as man is thereby directed to
Happiness. Now, everything that is directed to an end should be
proportionate to that end. But acts are made proportionate to an end
by means of a certain commensurateness, which results from the due
circumstances. Hence the theologian has to consider the
circumstances. Secondly, because the theologian considers human acts
according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse: and
this diversity depends on circumstances, as we shall see further on
(Q. 18, AA. 10, 11; Q. 73, A. 7). Thirdly, because the theologian
considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is
proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be
voluntary. Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary,
according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances, as stated above
(Q. 6, A. 8). Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances.

Reply Obj. 1: Good directed to the end is said to be useful; and this
implies some kind of relation: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic.
i, 6) that "the good in the genus 'relation' is the useful." Now, in
the genus "relation" a thing is denominated not only according to
that which is inherent in the thing, but also according to that which
is extrinsic to it: as may be seen in the expressions "right" and
"left," "equal" and "unequal," and such like. Accordingly, since the
goodness of acts consists in their utility to the end, nothing
hinders their being called good or bad according to their proportion
to extrinsic things that are adjacent to them.

Reply Obj. 2: Accidents which are altogether accidental are neglected
by every art, by reason of their uncertainty and infinity. But such
like accidents are not what we call circumstances; because
circumstances although, as stated above (A. 1), they are extrinsic to
the act, nevertheless are in a kind of contact with it, by being
related to it. Proper accidents, however, come under the
consideration of art.

Reply Obj. 3: The consideration of circumstances belongs to the
moralist, the politician, and the orator. To the moralist, in so far
as with respect to circumstances we find or lose the mean of virtue
in human acts and passions. To the politician and to the orator, in
so far as circumstances make acts to be worthy of praise or blame, of
excuse or indictment. In different ways, however: because where the
orator persuades, the politician judges. To the theologian this
consideration belongs, in all the aforesaid ways: since to him all
the other arts are subservient: for he has to consider virtuous and
vicious acts, just as the moralist does; and with the orator and
politician he considers acts according as they are deserving of
reward or punishment.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 3]

Whether the Circumstances Are Properly Set Forth in the Third Book of
Ethics?

Objection 1: It would seem that the circumstances are not properly
set forth in _Ethic._ iii, 1. For a circumstance of an act is
described as something outside the act. Now time and place answer to
this description. Therefore there are only two circumstances, to wit,
"when" and "where."

Obj. 2: Further, we judge from the circumstances whether a thing is
well or ill done. But this belongs to the mode of an act. Therefore
all the circumstances are included under one, which is the "mode of
acting."

Obj. 3: Further, circumstances are not part of the substance of an
act. But the causes of an act seem to belong to its substance.
Therefore no circumstance should be taken from the cause of the act
itself. Accordingly, neither "who," nor "why," nor "about what," are
circumstances: since "who" refers to the efficient cause, "why" to
the final cause, and "about what" to the material cause.

On the contrary is the authority of the Philosopher in _Ethic._ iii,
1.

_I answer that,_ Tully, in his Rhetoric (De Invent. Rhetor. i), gives
seven circumstances, which are contained in this verse:

"Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando--

"Who, what, where, by what aids, why, how, and when."

For in acts we must take note of "who" did it, "by what aids" or
"instruments" he did it, "what" he did, "where" he did it, "why" he
did it, "how" and "when" he did it. But Aristotle in _Ethic._ iii, 1
adds yet another, to wit, "about what," which Tully includes in the
circumstance "what."

The reason of this enumeration may be set down as follows. For a
circumstance is described as something outside the substance of the
act, and yet in a way touching it. Now this happens in three ways:
first, inasmuch as it touches the act itself; secondly, inasmuch as
it touches the cause of the act; thirdly, inasmuch as it touches the
effect. It touches the act itself, either by way of measure, as
"time" and "place"; or by qualifying the act as the "mode of acting."
It touches the effect when we consider "what" is done. It touches the
cause of the act, as to the final cause, by the circumstance "why";
as to the material cause, or object, in the circumstance "about
what"; as to the principal efficient cause, in the circumstance
"who"; and as to the instrumental efficient cause, in the
circumstance "by what aids."

Reply Obj. 1: Time and place surround (_circumstant_) the act by way of
measure; but the others surround the act by touching it in any other
way, while they are extrinsic to the substance of the act.

Reply Obj. 2: This mode "well" or "ill" is not a circumstance, but
results from all the circumstances. But the mode which refers to a
quality of the act is a special circumstance; for instance, that a
man walk fast or slowly; that he strike hard or gently, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 3: A condition of the cause, on which the substance of the
act depends, is not a circumstance; it must be an additional
condition. Thus, in regard to the object, it is not a circumstance of
theft that the object is another's property, for this belongs to the
substance of the act; but that it be great or small. And the same
applies to the other circumstances which are considered in reference
to the other causes. For the end that specifies the act is not a
circumstance, but some additional end. Thus, that a valiant man act
_valiantly for the sake of_ the good of the virtue o[f] fortitude, is
not a circumstance; but if he act valiantly for the sake of the
delivery of the state, or of Christendom, or some such purpose. The
same is to be said with regard to the circumstance "what"; for that a
man by pouring water on someone should happen to wash him, is not a
circumstance of the washing; but that in doing so he give him a
chill, or scald him; heal him or harm him, these are circumstances.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 4]

Whether the Most Important Circumstances Are "Why" and "In What the
Act Consists"?

Objection 1: It would seem that these are not the most important
circumstances, namely, "why" and those "in which the act is, [*_hen ois
e praxis_]" as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 1. For those in which the act is
seem to be place and time: and these do not seem to be the most
important of the circumstances, since, of them all, they are the most
extrinsic to the act. Therefore those things in which the act is are
not the most important circumstances.

Obj. 2: Further, the end of a thing is extrinsic to it. Therefore it
is not the most important circumstance.

Obj. 3: Further, that which holds the foremost place in regard to
each thing, is its cause and its form. But the cause of an act is the
person that does it; while the form of an act is the manner in which
it is done. Therefore these two circumstances seem to be of the
greatest importance.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxi.]
says that "the most important circumstances" are "why it is done" and
"what is done."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 1), acts are properly
called human, inasmuch as they are voluntary. Now, the motive and
object of the will is the end. Therefore that circumstance is the
most important of all which touches the act on the part of the end,
viz. the circumstance "why": and the second in importance, is that
which touches the very substance of the act, viz. the circumstance
"what he did." As to the other circumstances, they are more or less
important, according as they more or less approach to these.

Reply Obj. 1: By those things "in which the act is" the Philosopher
does not mean time and place, but those circumstances that are
affixed to the act itself. Wherefore Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De
Nat. Hom. xxxi], as though he were explaining the dictum of the
Philosopher, instead of the latter's term--"in which the act
is"--said, "what is done."

Reply Obj. 2: Although the end is not part of the substance of the
act, yet it is the most important cause of the act, inasmuch as it
moves the agent to act. Wherefore the moral act is specified chiefly
by the end.

Reply Obj. 3: The person that does the act is the cause of
that act, inasmuch as he is moved thereto by the end; and it is
chiefly in this respect that he is directed to the act; while other
conditions of the person have not such an important relation to the
act. As to the mode, it is not the substantial form of the act, for in
an act the substantial form depends on the object and term or end; but
it is, as it were, a certain accidental quality of the act.
________________________

QUESTION 8

OF THE WILL, IN REGARD TO WHAT IT WILLS
(In Three Articles)

We must now consider the different acts of the will; and in the first
place, those acts which belong to the will itself immediately, as
being elicited by the will; secondly, those acts which are commanded
by the will.

Now the will is moved to the end, and to the means to the end; we must
therefore consider: (1) those acts of the will whereby it is moved to
the end; and (2) those whereby it is moved to the means. And since it
seems that there are three acts of the will in reference to the end;
viz. "volition," "enjoyment," and "intention"; we must consider: (1)
volition; (2) enjoyment; (3) intention. Concerning the first, three
things must be considered:

(1) Of what things is the will?

(2) By what is the will moved?

(3) How is it moved?

Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will is of good only?

(2) Whether it is of the end only, or also of the means?

(3) If in any way it be of the means, whether it be moved to the end
and to the means, by the same movement?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 8, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is of Good Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not of good only. For the
same power regards opposites; for instance, sight regards white and
black. But good and evil are opposites. Therefore the will is not only
of good, but also of evil.

Obj. 2: Further, rational powers can be directed to opposite
purposes, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ix, 2). But the will
is a rational power, since it is "in the reason," as is stated in _De
Anima_ iii, 9. Therefore the will can be directed to opposites; and
consequently its volition is not confined to good, but extends to
evil.

Obj. 3: Further, good and being are convertible. But volition is
directed not only to beings, but also to non-beings. For sometimes we
wish "not to walk," or "not to speak"; and again at times we wish for
future things, which are not actual beings. Therefore the will is not
of good only.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "evil is
outside the scope of the will," and that "all things desire good."

_I answer that,_ The will is a rational appetite. Now every appetite
is only of something good. The reason of this is that the appetite is
nothing else than an inclination of a person desirous of a thing
towards that thing. Now every inclination is to something like and
suitable to the thing inclined. Since, therefore, everything,
inasmuch as it is being and substance, is a good, it must needs be
that every inclination is to something good. And hence it is that the
Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 1) that "the good is that which all
desire."

But it must be noted that, since every inclination results from a
form, the natural appetite results from a form existing in the nature
of things: while the sensitive appetite, as also the intellective or
rational appetite, which we call the will, follows from an
apprehended form. Therefore, just as the natural appetite tends to
good existing in a thing; so the animal or voluntary appetite tends
to a good which is apprehended. Consequently, in order that the will
tend to anything, it is requisite, not that this be good in very
truth, but that it be apprehended as good. Wherefore the Philosopher
says (Phys. ii, 3) that "the end is a good, or an apparent good."

Reply Obj. 1: The same power regards opposites, but it is not
referred to them in the same way. Accordingly, the will is referred
both to good and evil: but to good by desiring it: to evil, by
shunning it. Wherefore the actual desire of good is called "volition"
[*In Latin, 'voluntas'. To avoid confusion with "voluntas" (the will)
St. Thomas adds a word of explanation, which in the translation may
appear superfluous.], meaning thereby the act of the will; for it is
in this sense that we are now speaking of the will. On the other
hand, the shunning of evil is better described as "nolition":
wherefore, just as volition is of good, so nolition is of evil.

Reply Obj. 2: A rational power is not to be directed to all opposite
purposes, but to those which are contained under its proper object;
for no power seeks other than its proper object. Now, the object of
the will is good. Wherefore the will can be directed to such opposite
purposes as are contained under good, such as to be moved or to be at
rest, to speak or to be silent, and such like: for the will can be
directed to either under the aspect of good.

Reply Obj. 3: That which is not a being in nature, is considered as a
being in the reason, wherefore negations and privations are said to
be "beings of reason." In this way, too, future things, in so far as
they are apprehended, are beings. Accordingly, in so far as such like
are beings, they are apprehended under the aspect of good; and it is
thus that the will is directed to them. Wherefore the Philosopher
says (Ethic. v, 1) that "to lack evil is considered as a good."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 8, Art. 2]

Whether Volition Is of the End Only, or Also of the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that volition is not of the means, but of
the end only. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "volition
is of the end, while choice is of the means."

Obj. 2: Further, "For objects differing in genus there are
corresponding different powers of the soul" (Ethic. vi, 1). Now, the
end and the means are in different genera of good: because the end,
which is a good either of rectitude or of pleasure, is in the genus
"quality," or "action," or "passion"; whereas the good which is
useful, and is directed to and end, is in the genus "relation" (Ethic.
i, 6). Therefore, if volition is of the end, it is not of the means.

Obj. 3: Further, habits are proportionate to powers, since they are
perfections thereof. But in those habits which are called practical
arts, the end belongs to one, and the means to another art; thus the
use of a ship, which is its end, belongs to the (art of the)
helmsman; whereas the building of the ship, which is directed to the
end, belongs to the art of the shipwright. Therefore, since volition
is of the end, it is not of the means.

_On the contrary,_ In natural things, it is by the same power that a
thing passes through the middle space, and arrives at the terminus.
But the means are a kind of middle space, through which one arrives
at the end or terminus. Therefore, if volition is of the end, it is
also of the means.

_I answer that,_ The word "voluntas" sometimes designates the power
of the will, sometimes its act [*See note to A. 1, Reply Obj. 1].
Accordingly, if we speak of the will as a power, thus it extends both
to the end and to the means. For every power extends to those things
in which may be considered the aspect of the object of that power in
any way whatever: thus the sight extends to all things whatsoever
that are in any way colored. Now the aspect of good, which is the
object of the power of the will, may be found not only in the end,
but also in the means.

If, however, we speak of the will in regard to its act, then, properly
speaking, volition is of the end only. Because every act denominated
from a power, designates the simple act of that power: thus "to
understand" designates the simple act of the understanding. Now the
simple act of a power is referred to that which is in itself the
object of that power. But that which is good and willed in itself is
the end. Wherefore volition, properly speaking, is of the end itself.
On the other hand, the means are good and willed, not in themselves,
but as referred to the end. Wherefore the will is directed to them,
only in so far as it is directed to the end: so that what it wills in
them, is the end. Thus, to understand, is properly directed to things
that are known in themselves, i.e. first principles: but we do not
speak of understanding with regard to things known through first
principles, except in so far as we see the principles in those things.
For in morals the end is what principles are in speculative science
(Ethic. viii, 8).

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking of the will in reference to
the simple act of the will; not in reference to the power of the will.

Reply Obj. 2: There are different powers for objects that differ in
genus and are on an equality; for instance, sound and color are
different genera of sensibles, to which are referred hearing and
sight. But the useful and the righteous are not on an equality, but
are as that which is of itself, and that which is in relation to
another. Now such like objects are always referred to the same power;
for instance, the power of sight perceives both color and light by
which color is seen.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything that diversifies habits, diversifies the
powers: since habits are certain determinations of powers to certain
special acts. Moreover, every practical art considers both the end
and the means. For the art of the helmsman does indeed consider the
end, as that which it effects; and the means, as that which it
commands. On the other hand, the ship-building art considers the
means as that which it effects; but it considers that which is the
end, as that to which it refers what it effects. And again, in every
practical art there is an end proper to it and means that belong
properly to that art.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 8, Art. 3]

Whether the Will Is Moved by the Same Act to the End and to the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is moved by the same act, to
the end and to the means. Because according to the Philosopher (Topic.
iii, 2) "where one thing is on account of another there is only one."
But the will does not will the means save on account of the end.
Therefore it is moved to both by the same act.

Obj. 2: Further, the end is the reason for willing the means, just as
light is the reason of seeing colors. But light and colors are seen
by the same act. Therefore it is the same movement of the will,
whereby it wills the end and the means.

Obj. 3: Further, it is one and the same natural movement which tends
through the middle space to the terminus. But the means are in
comparison to the end, as the middle space is to the terminus.
Therefore it is the same movement of the will whereby it is directed
to the end and to the means.

_On the contrary,_ Acts are diversified according to their objects.
But the end is a different species of good from the means, which are
a useful good. Therefore the will is not moved to both by the same
act.

_I answer that,_ Since the end is willed in itself, whereas the
means, as such, are only willed for the end, it is evident that the
will can be moved to the end, without being moved to the means;
whereas it cannot be moved to the means, as such, unless it is moved
to the end. Accordingly the will is moved to the end in two ways:
first, to the end absolutely and in itself; secondly, as the reason
for willing the means. Hence it is evident that the will is moved by
one and the same movement, to the end, as the reason for willing the
means; and to the means themselves. But it is another act whereby the
will is moved to the end absolutely. And sometimes this act precedes
the other in time; for example when a man first wills to have health,
and afterwards deliberating by what means to be healed, wills to send
for the doctor to heal him. The same happens in regard to the
intellect: for at first a man understands the principles in
themselves; but afterwards he understands them in the conclusions,
inasmuch as he assents to the conclusions on account of the
principles.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument holds in respect of the will being moved
to the end as the reason for willing the means.

Reply Obj. 2: Whenever color is seen, by the same act the light is
seen; but the light can be seen without the color being seen. In like
manner whenever a man wills the means, by the same act he wills the
end; but not the conversely.

Reply Obj. 3: In the execution of a work, the means are as the middle
space, and the end, as the terminus. Wherefore just as natural
movement sometimes stops in the middle and does not reach the
terminus; so sometimes one is busy with the means, without gaining
the end. But in willing it is the reverse: the will through (willing)
the end comes to will the means; just as the intellect arrives at the
conclusions through the principles which are called "means." Hence it
is that sometimes the intellect understands a mean, and does not
proceed thence to the conclusion. And in like manner the will
sometimes wills the end, and yet does not proceed to will the means.

The solution to the argument in the contrary sense is clear from what
has been said above (A. 2, ad 2). For the useful and the righteous
are not species of good in an equal degree, but are as that which is
for its own sake and that which is for the sake of something else:
wherefore the act of the will can be directed to one and not to the
other; but not conversely.
________________________

QUESTION 9

OF THAT WHICH MOVES THE WILL
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider what moves the will: and under this head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will is moved by the intellect?

(2) Whether it is moved by the sensitive appetite?

(3) Whether the will moves itself?

(4) Whether it is moved by an extrinsic principle?

(5) Whether it is moved by a heavenly body?

(6) Whether the will is moved by God alone as by an extrinsic
principle?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is Moved by the Intellect?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by the
intellect. For Augustine says on Ps. 118:20: "My soul hath coveted to
long for Thy justifications: The intellect flies ahead, the desire
follows sluggishly or not at all: we know what is good, but deeds
delight us not." But it would not be so, if the will were moved by
the intellect: because movement of the movable results from motion of
the mover. Therefore the intellect does not move the will.

Obj. 2: Further, the intellect in presenting the appetible object to
the will, stands in relation to the will, as the imagination in
representing the appetible object to the sensitive appetite. But the
imagination, in presenting the appetible object, does not remove the
sensitive appetite: indeed sometimes our imagination affects us no
more than what is set before us in a picture, and moves us not at all
(De Anima ii, 3). Therefore neither does the intellect move the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the same is not mover and moved in respect of the
same thing. But the will moves the intellect; for we exercise the
intellect when we will. Therefore the intellect does not move the
will.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 10) that "the
appetible object is a mover not moved, whereas the will is a mover
moved."

_I answer that,_ A thing requires to be moved by something in so far
as it is in potentiality to several things; for that which is in
potentiality needs to be reduced to act by something actual; and to
do this is to move. Now a power of the soul is seen to be in
potentiality to different things in two ways: first, with regard to
acting and not acting; secondly, with regard to this or that action.
Thus the sight sometimes sees actually, and sometimes sees not: and
sometimes it sees white, and sometimes black. It needs therefore a
mover in two respects, viz. as to the exercise or use of the act, and
as to the determination of the act. The first of these is on the part
of the subject, which is sometimes acting, sometimes not acting:
while the other is on the part of the object, by reason of which the
act is specified.

The motion of the subject itself is due to some agent. And since
every agent acts for an end, as was shown above (Q. 1, A. 2), the
principle of this motion lies in the end. And hence it is that the
art which is concerned with the end, by its command moves the art
which is concerned with the means; just as the "art of sailing
commands the art of shipbuilding" (Phys. ii, 2). Now good in general,
which has the nature of an end, is the object of the will.
Consequently, in this respect, the will moves the other powers of the
soul to their acts, for we make use of the other powers when we will.
For the end and perfection of every other power, is included under
the object of the will as some particular good: and always the art or
power to which the universal end belongs, moves to their acts the
arts or powers to which belong the particular ends included in the
universal end. Thus the leader of an army, who intends the common
good--i.e. the order of the whole army--by his command moves one of
the captains, who intends the order of one company.

On the other hand, the object moves, by determining the act, after
the manner of a formal principle, whereby in natural things actions
are specified, as heating by heat. Now the first formal principle is
universal "being" and "truth," which is the object of the intellect.
And therefore by this kind of motion the intellect moves the will, as
presenting its object to it.

Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted proves, not that the intellect does
not move, but that it does not move of necessity.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the imagination of a form without estimation of
fitness or harmfulness, does not move the sensitive appetite; so
neither does the apprehension of the true without the aspect of
goodness and desirability. Hence it is not the speculative intellect
that moves, but the practical intellect (De Anima iii, 9).

Reply Obj. 3: The will moves the intellect as to the exercise of its
act; since even the true itself which is the perfection of the
intellect, is included in the universal good, as a particular good.
But as to the determination of the act, which the act derives from
the object, the intellect moves the will; since the good itself is
apprehended under a special aspect as contained in the universal
true. It is therefore evident that the same is not mover and moved in
the same respect.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 2]

Whether the Will Is Moved by the Sensitive Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will cannot be moved by the
sensitive appetite. For "to move and to act is more excellent than to
be passive," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). But the
sensitive appetite is less excellent than the will which is the
intellectual appetite; just as sense is less excellent than intellect.
Therefore the sensitive appetite does not move the will.

Obj. 2: Further, no particular power can produce a universal effect.
But the sensitive appetite is a particular power, because it follows
the particular apprehension of sense. Therefore it cannot cause the
movement of the will, which movement is universal, as following the
universal apprehension of the intellect.

Obj. 3: Further, as is proved in _Phys._  viii, 5, the mover is not
moved by that which it moves, in such a way that there be reciprocal
motion. But the will moves the sensitive appetite, inasmuch as the
sensitive appetite obeys the reason. Therefore the sensitive appetite
does not move the will.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (James 1:14): "Every man is tempted
by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured." But man
would not be drawn away by his concupiscence, unless his will were
moved by the sensitive appetite, wherein concupiscence resides.
Therefore the sensitive appetite moves the will.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), that which is apprehended as
good and fitting, moves the will by way of object. Now, that a thing
appear to be good and fitting, happens from two causes: namely, from
the condition, either of the thing proposed, or of the one to whom it
is proposed. For fitness is spoken of by way of relation; hence it
depends on both extremes. And hence it is that taste, according as it
is variously disposed, takes to a thing in various ways, as being
fitting or unfitting. Wherefore as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii,
5): "According as a man is, such does the end seem to him."

Now it is evident that according to a passion of the sensitive
appetite man is changed to a certain disposition. Wherefore according
as man is affected by a passion, something seems to him fitting,
which does not seem so when he is not so affected: thus that seems
good to a man when angered, which does not seem good when he is calm.
And in this way, the sensitive appetite moves the will, on the part
of the object.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders that which is better simply and in
itself, from being less excellent in a certain respect. Accordingly
the will is simply more excellent than the sensitive appetite: but in
respect of the man in whom a passion is predominant, in so far as he
is subject to that passion, the sensitive appetite is more excellent.

Reply Obj. 2: Men's acts and choices are in reference to singulars.
Wherefore from the very fact that the sensitive appetite is a
particular power, it has great influence in disposing man so that
something seems to him such or otherwise, in particular cases.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2), the reason, in
which resides the will, moves, by its command, the irascible and
concupiscible powers, not, indeed, "by a despotic sovereignty," as a
slave is moved by his master, but by a "royal and politic
sovereignty," as free men are ruled by their governor, and can
nevertheless act counter to his commands. Hence both irascible and
concupiscible can move counter to the will: and accordingly nothing
hinders the will from being moved by them at times.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 3]

Whether the Will Moves Itself?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will does not move itself. For
every mover, as such, is in act: whereas what is moved, is in
potentiality; since "movement is the act of that which is in
potentiality, as such" [*Aristotle, _Phys._ iii, 1]. Now the same is
not in potentiality and in act, in respect of the same. Therefore
nothing moves itself. Neither, therefore, can the will move itself.

Obj. 2: Further, the movable is moved on the mover being present. But
the will is always present to itself. If, therefore, it moved itself,
it would always be moving itself, which is clearly false.

Obj. 3: Further, the will is moved by the intellect, as stated above
(A. 1). If, therefore, the will move itself, it would follow that the
same thing is at once moved immediately by two movers; which seems
unreasonable. Therefore the will does not move itself.

_On the contrary,_ The will is mistress of its own act, and to it
belongs to will and not to will. But this would not be so, had it not
the power to move itself to will. Therefore it moves itself.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it belongs to the will to
move the other powers, by reason of the end which is the will's
object. Now, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 2), the end is in things
appetible, what the principle is in things intelligible. But it is
evident that the intellect, through its knowledge of the principle,
reduces itself from potentiality to act, as to its knowledge of the
conclusions; and thus it moves itself. And, in like manner, the will,
through its volition of the end, moves itself to will the means.

Reply Obj. 1: It is not in respect of the same that the will moves
itself and is moved: wherefore neither is it in act and in
potentiality in respect of the same. But forasmuch as it actually
wills the end, it reduces itself from potentiality to act, in respect
of the means, so as, in a word, to will them actually.

Reply Obj. 2: The power of the will is always actually present to
itself; but the act of the will, whereby it wills an end, is not
always in the will. But it is by this act that it moves itself.
Accordingly it does not follow that it is always moving itself.

Reply Obj. 3: The will is moved by the intellect, otherwise than by
itself. By the intellect it is moved on the part of the object:
whereas it is moved by itself, as to the exercise of its act, in
respect of the end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 4]

Whether the Will Is Moved by an Exterior Principle?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by anything
exterior. For the movement of the will is voluntary. But it is
essential to the voluntary act that it be from an intrinsic principle,
just as it is essential to the natural act. Therefore the movement of
the will is not from anything exterior.

Obj. 2: Further, the will cannot suffer violence, as was shown above
(Q. 6, A. 4). But the violent act is one "the principle of which is
outside the agent" [*Aristotle, _Ethic._ iii, 1]. Therefore the will
cannot be moved by anything exterior.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is sufficiently moved by one mover, needs
not to be moved by another. But the will moves itself sufficiently.
Therefore it is not moved by anything exterior.

_On the contrary,_ The will is moved by the object, as stated above
(A. 1). But the object of the will can be something exterior, offered
to the sense. Therefore the will can be moved by something exterior.

_I answer that,_ As far as the will is moved by the object, it is
evident that it can be moved by something exterior. But in so far as
it is moved in the exercise of its act, we must again hold it to be
moved by some exterior principle.

For everything that is at one time an agent actually, and at another
time an agent in potentiality, needs to be moved by a mover. Now it
is evident that the will begins to will something, whereas previously
it did not will it. Therefore it must, of necessity, be moved by
something to will it. And, indeed, it moves itself, as stated above
(A. 3), in so far as through willing the end it reduces itself to the
act of willing the means. Now it cannot do this without the aid of
counsel: for when a man wills to be healed, he begins to reflect how
this can be attained, and through this reflection he comes to the
conclusion that he can be healed by a physician: and this he wills.
But since he did not always actually will to have health, he must, of
necessity, have begun, through something moving him, to will to be
healed. And if the will moved itself to will this, it must, of
necessity, have done this with the aid of counsel following some
previous volition. But this process could not go on to infinity.
Wherefore we must, of necessity, suppose that the will advanced to
its first movement in virtue of the instigation of some exterior
mover, as Aristotle concludes in a chapter of the Eudemian Ethics
(vii, 14).

Reply Obj. 1: It is essential to the voluntary act that its principle
be within the agent: but it is not necessary that this inward
principle be the first principle unmoved by another. Wherefore though
the voluntary act has an inward proximate principle, nevertheless its
first principle is from without. Thus, too, the first principle of
the natural movement is from without, that, to wit, which moves
nature.

Reply Obj. 2: For an act to be violent it is not enough that its
principle be extrinsic, but we must add "without the concurrence of
him that suffers violence." This does not happen when the will is
moved by an exterior principle: for it is the will that wills, though
moved by another. But this movement would be violent, if it were
counter to the movement of the will: which in the present case is
impossible; since then the will would will and not will the same
thing.

Reply Obj. 3: The will moves itself sufficiently in one respect, and
in its own order, that is to say as proximate agent; but it cannot
move itself in every respect, as we have shown. Wherefore it needs to
be moved by another as first mover.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 5]

Whether the Will Is Moved by a Heavenly Body?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human will is moved by a heavenly
body. For all various and multiform movements are reduced, as to
their cause, to a uniform movement which is that of the heavens, as
is proved in _Phys._  viii, 9. But human movements are various and
multiform, since they begin to be, whereas previously they were not.
Therefore they are reduced, as to their cause, to the movement of the
heavens, which is uniform according to its nature.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4) "the lower
bodies are moved by the higher." But the movements of the human body,
which are caused by the will, could not be reduced to the movement of
the heavens, as to their cause, unless the will too were moved by the
heavens. Therefore the heavens move the human will.

Obj. 3: Further, by observing the heavenly bodies astrologers
foretell the truth about future human acts, which are caused by the
will. But this would not be so, if the heavenly bodies could not move
man's will. Therefore the human will is moved by a heavenly body.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 7) that "the
heavenly bodies are not the causes of our acts." But they would be,
if the will, which is the principle of human acts, were moved by the
heavenly bodies. Therefore the will is not moved by the heavenly
bodies.

_I answer that,_ It is evident that the will can be moved by the
heavenly bodies in the same way as it is moved by its object; that is
to say, in so far as exterior bodies, which move the will, through
being offered to the senses, and also the organs themselves of the
sensitive powers, are subject to the movements of the heavenly bodies.

But some have maintained that heavenly bodies have an influence on the
human will, in the same way as some exterior agent moves the will, as
to the exercise of its act. But this is impossible. For the "will," as
stated in _De Anima_ iii, 9, "is in the reason." Now the reason is a
power of the soul, not bound to a bodily organ: wherefore it follows
that the will is a power absolutely incorporeal and immaterial. But it
is evident that no body can act on what is incorporeal, but rather the
reverse: because things incorporeal and immaterial have a power more
formal and more universal than any corporeal things whatever.
Therefore it is impossible for a heavenly body to act directly on the
intellect or will. For this reason Aristotle (De Anima iii, 3)
ascribed to those who held that intellect differs not from sense, the
theory that "such is the will of men, as is the day which the father
of men and of gods bring on" [*Odyssey xviii. 135] (referring to
Jupiter, by whom they understand the entire heavens). For all the
sensitive powers, since they are acts of bodily organs, can be moved
accidentally, by the heavenly bodies, i.e. through those bodies being
moved, whose acts they are.

But since it has been stated (A. 2) that the intellectual appetite is
moved, in a fashion, by the sensitive appetite, the movements of the
heavenly bodies have an indirect bearing on the will; in so far as
the will happens to be moved by the passions of the sensitive
appetite.

Reply Obj. 1: The multiform movements of the human will are reduced
to some uniform cause, which, however, is above the intellect and
will. This can be said, not of any body, but of some superior
immaterial substance. Therefore there is no need for the movement of
the will to be referred to the movement of the heavens, as to its
cause.

Reply Obj. 2: The movements of the human body are reduced, as to
their cause, to the movement of a heavenly body, in so far as the
disposition suitable to a particular movement, is somewhat due to the
influence of heavenly bodies; also, in so far as the sensitive
appetite is stirred by the influence of heavenly bodies; and again,
in so far as exterior bodies are moved in accordance with the
movement of heavenly bodies, at whose presence, the will begins to
will or not to will something; for instance, when the body is
chilled, we begin to wish to make the fire. But this movement of the
will is on the part of the object offered from without: not on the
part of an inward instigation.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Cf. I, Q. 84, AA. 6, 7), the sensitive
appetite is the act of a bodily organ. Wherefore there is no reason
why man should not be prone to anger or concupiscence, or some like
passion, by reason of the influence of heavenly bodies, just as by
reason of his natural complexion. But the majority of men are led by
the passions, which the wise alone resist. Consequently, in the
majority of cases predictions about human acts, gathered from the
observation of heavenly bodies, are fulfilled. Nevertheless, as
Ptolemy says (Centiloquium v), "the wise man governs the stars";
which is a though to say that by resisting his passions, he opposes
his will, which is free and nowise subject to the movement of the
heavens, to such like effects of the heavenly bodies.

Or, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 15): "We must confess that
when the truth is foretold by astrologers, this is due to some most
hidden inspiration, to which the human mind is subject without
knowing it. And since this is done in order to deceive man, it must
be the work of the lying spirits."
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 6]

Whether the Will Is Moved by God Alone, As Exterior Principle?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by God alone as
exterior principle. For it is natural that the inferior be moved by
its superior: thus the lower bodies are moved by the heavenly bodies.
But there is something which is higher than the will of man and below
God, namely, the angel. Therefore man's will can be moved by an angel
also, as exterior principle.

Obj. 2: Further, the act of the will follows the act of the
intellect. But man's intellect is reduced to act, not by God alone,
but also by the angel who enlightens it, as Dionysius says (Coel.
Hier. iv). For the same reason, therefore, the will also is moved by
an angel.

Obj. 3: Further, God is not the cause of other than good things,
according to Gen. 1:31: "God saw all the things that He had made, and
they were very good." If, therefore man's will were moved by God
alone, it would never be moved to evil: and yet it is the will whereby
"we sin and whereby we do right," as Augustine says (Retract. i, 9).

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:13): "It is God Who worketh
in us" [Vulg.'you'] "both to will and to accomplish."

_I answer that,_ The movement of the will is from within, as also is
the movement of nature. Now although it is possible for something to
move a natural thing, without being the cause of the thing moved, yet
that alone, which is in some way the cause of a thing's nature, can
cause a natural movement in that thing. For a stone is moved upwards
by a man, who is not the cause of the stone's nature, but this
movement is not natural to the stone; but the natural movement of the
stone is caused by no other than the cause of its nature. Wherefore
it is said in _Phys._  vii, 4, that the generator moves locally heavy
and light things. Accordingly man endowed with a will is sometimes
moved by something that is not his cause; but that his voluntary
movement be from an exterior principle that is not the cause of his
will, is impossible.

Now the cause of the will can be none other than God. And this is
evident for two reasons. First, because the will is a power of the
rational soul, which is caused by God alone, by creation, as was
stated in the First Part (Q. 90, A. 2). Secondly, it is evident from
the fact that the will is ordained to the universal good. Wherefore
nothing else can be the cause of the will, except God Himself, Who is
the universal good: while every other good is good by participation,
and is some particular good, and a particular cause does not give a
universal inclination. Hence neither can primary matter, which is
potentiality to all forms, be created by some particular agent.

Reply Obj. 1: An angel is not above man in such a way as to be the
cause of his will, as the heavenly bodies are the causes of natural
forms, from which result the natural movements of natural bodies.

Reply Obj. 2: Man's intellect is moved by an angel, on the part of
the object, which by the power of the angelic light is proposed to
man's knowledge. And in this way the will also can be moved by a
creature from without, as stated above (A. 4).

Reply Obj. 3: God moves man's will, as the Universal Mover, to the
universal object of the will, which is good. And without this
universal motion, man cannot will anything. But man determines
himself by his reason to will this or that, which is true or apparent
good. Nevertheless, sometimes God moves some specially to the willing
of something determinate, which is good; as in the case of those whom
He moves by grace, as we shall state later on (Q. 109, A. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 10

OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE WILL IS MOVED
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the manner in which the will is moved. Under
this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will is moved to anything naturally?

(2) Whether it is moved of necessity by its object?

(3) Whether it is moved of necessity by the lower appetite?

(4) Whether it is moved of necessity by the exterior mover which is
God?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is Moved to Anything Naturally?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved to anything
naturally. For the natural agent is condivided with the voluntary
agent, as stated at the beginning of _Phys._ ii, 1. Therefore the will
is not moved to anything naturally.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is natural is in a thing always: as
"being hot" is in fire. But no movement is always in the will.
Therefore no movement is natural to the will.

Obj. 3: Further, nature is determinate to one thing: whereas the will
is referred to opposites. Therefore the will wills nothing naturally.

_On the contrary,_ The movement of the will follows the movement of
the intellect. But the intellect understands some things naturally.
Therefore the will, too, wills some things naturally.

_I answer that,_ As Boethius says (De Duabus Nat.) and the
Philosopher also (Metaph. v, 4) the word "nature" is used in a
manifold sense. For sometimes it stands for the intrinsic principle
in movable things. In this sense nature is either matter or the
material form, as stated in _Phys._  ii, 1. In another sense nature
stands for any substance, or even for any being. And in this sense,
that is said to be natural to a thing which befits it in respect of
its substance. And this is that which of itself is in a thing. Now
all things that do not of themselves belong to the thing in which
they are, are reduced to something which belongs of itself to that
thing, as to their principle. Wherefore, taking nature in this sense,
it is necessary that the principle of whatever belongs to a thing, be
a natural principle. This is evident in regard to the intellect: for
the principles of intellectual knowledge are naturally known. In like
manner the principle of voluntary movements must be something
naturally willed.

Now this is good in general, to which the will tends naturally, as
does each power to its object; and again it is the last end, which
stands in the same relation to things appetible, as the first
principles of demonstrations to things intelligible: and, speaking
generally, it is all those things which belong to the willer
according to his nature. For it is not only things pertaining to the
will that the will desires, but also that which pertains to each
power, and to the entire man. Wherefore man wills naturally not only
the object of the will, but also other things that are appropriate to
the other powers; such as the knowledge of truth, which befits the
intellect; and to be and to live and other like things which regard
the natural well-being; all of which are included in the object of
the will, as so many particular goods.

Reply Obj. 1: The will is distinguished from nature as one kind of
cause from another; for some things happen naturally and some are
done voluntarily. There is, however, another manner of causing that
is proper to the will, which is mistress of its act, besides the
manner proper to nature, which is determinate to one thing. But since
the will is founded on some nature, it is necessary that the movement
proper to nature be shared by the will, to some extent: just as what
belongs to a previous cause is shared by a subsequent cause. Because
in every thing, being itself, which is from nature, precedes
volition, which is from the will. And hence it is that the will wills
something naturally.

Reply Obj. 2: In the case of natural things, that which is natural,
as a result of the form only, is always in them actually, as heat is
in fire. But that which is natural as a result of matter, is not
always in them actually, but sometimes only in potentiality: because
form is act, whereas matter is potentiality. Now movement is "the act
of that which is in potentiality" (Aristotle, _Phys._ iii, 1).
Wherefore that which belongs to, or results from, movement, in regard
to natural things, is not always in them. Thus fire does not always
move upwards, but only when it is outside its own place. [*The
Aristotelian theory was that fire's proper place is the fiery heaven,
i.e. the Empyrean.] And in like manner it is not necessary that the
will (which is reduced from potentiality to act, when it wills
something), should always be in the act of volition; but only when it
is in a certain determinate disposition. But God's will, which is
pure act, is always in the act of volition.

Reply Obj. 3: To every nature there is one thing corresponding,
proportionate, however, to that nature. For to nature considered as a
genus, there corresponds something one generically; and to nature as
species there corresponds something one specifically; and to the
individualized nature there corresponds some one individual. Since,
therefore, the will is an immaterial power like the intellect, some
one general thing corresponds to it, naturally which is the good;
just as to the intellect there corresponds some one general thing,
which is the true, or being, or "what a thing is." And under good in
general are included many particular goods, to none of which is the
will determined.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 2]

Whether the Will Is Moved, of Necessity, by Its Object?

Objection 1: It seems that the will is moved, of necessity, by its
object. For the object of the will is compared to the will as mover
to movable, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 10. But a mover, if it be
sufficient, moves the movable of necessity. Therefore the will can be
moved of necessity by its object.

Obj. 2: Further, just as the will is an immaterial power, so is the
intellect: and both powers are ordained to a universal object, as
stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But the intellect is moved, of necessity,
by its object: therefore the will also, by its object.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever one wills, is either the end, or something
ordained to an end. But, seemingly, one wills an end necessarily:
because it is like the principle in speculative matters, to which
principle one assents of necessity. Now the end is the reason for
willing the means; and so it seems that we will the means also
necessarily. Therefore the will is moved of necessity by its object.

_On the contrary,_ The rational powers, according to the Philosopher
(Metaph. ix, 2) are directed to opposites. But the will is a rational
power, since it is in the reason, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 9.
Therefore the will is directed to opposites. Therefore it is not
moved, of necessity, to either of the opposites.

_I answer that,_ The will is moved in two ways: first, as to the
exercise of its act; secondly, as to the specification of its act,
derived from the object. As to the first way, no object moves the
will necessarily, for no matter what the object be, it is in man's
power not to think of it, and consequently not to will it actually.
But as to the second manner of motion, the will is moved by one
object necessarily, by another not. For in the movement of a power by
its object, we must consider under what aspect the object moves the
power. For the visible moves the sight, under the aspect of color
actually visible. Wherefore if color be offered to the sight, it
moves the sight necessarily: unless one turns one's eyes away; which
belongs to the exercise of the act. But if the sight were confronted
with something not in all respects colored actually, but only so in
some respects, and in other respects not, the sight would not of
necessity see such an object: for it might look at that part of the
object which is not actually colored, and thus it would not see it.
Now just as the actually colored is the object of sight, so is good
the object of the will. Wherefore if the will be offered an object
which is good universally and from every point of view, the will
tends to it of necessity, if it wills anything at all; since it
cannot will the opposite. If, on the other hand, the will is offered
an object that is not good from every point of view, it will not tend
to it of necessity. And since lack of any good whatever, is a
non-good, consequently, that good alone which is perfect and lacking
in nothing, is such a good that the will cannot not-will it: and this
is Happiness. Whereas any other particular goods, in so far as they
are lacking in some good, can be regarded as non-goods: and from this
point of view, they can be set aside or approved by the will, which
can tend to one and the same thing from various points of view.

Reply Obj. 1: The sufficient mover of a power is none but that object
that in every respect presents the aspect of the mover of that power.
If, on the other hand, it is lacking in any respect, it will not move
of necessity, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The intellect is moved, of necessity, by an object
which is such as to be always and necessarily true: but not by that
which may be either true or false--viz. by that which is contingent:
as we have said of the good.

Reply Obj. 3: The last end moves the will necessarily, because it is
the perfect good. In like manner whatever is ordained to that end,
and without which the end cannot be attained, such as "to be" and "to
live," and the like. But other things without which the end can be
gained, are not necessarily willed by one who wills the end: just as
he who assents to the principle, does not necessarily assent to the
conclusions, without which the principles can still be true.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 3]

Whether the Will Is Moved, of Necessity, by the Lower Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is moved of necessity by a
passion of the lower appetite. For the Apostle says (Rom. 7:19): "The
good which I will I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do":
and this is said by reason of concupiscence, which is a passion.
Therefore the will is moved of necessity by a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 5, "according as a man is,
such does the end seem to him." But it is not in man's power to cast
aside a passion at once. Therefore it is not in man's power not to
will that to which the passion inclines him.

Obj. 3: Further, a universal cause is not applied to a particular
effect, except by means of a particular cause: wherefore the
universal reason does not move save by means of a particular
estimation, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 11. But as the universal
reason is to the particular estimation, so is the will to the
sensitive appetite. Therefore the will is not moved to will something
particular, except through the sensitive appetite. Therefore, if the
sensitive appetite happen to be disposed to something, by reason of a
passion, the will cannot be moved in a contrary sense.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 4:7): "Thy lust [Vulg. 'The
lust thereof'] shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over
it." Therefore man's will is not moved of necessity by the lower
appetite.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 9, A. 2), the passion of the
sensitive appetite moves the will, in so far as the will is moved by
its object: inasmuch as, to wit, man through being disposed in such
and such a way by a passion, judges something to be fitting and good,
which he would not judge thus were it not for the passion. Now this
influence of a passion on man occurs in two ways. First, so that his
reason is wholly bound, so that he has not the use of reason: as
happens in those who through a violent access of anger or
concupiscence become furious or insane, just as they may from some
other bodily disorder; since such like passions do not take place
without some change in the body. And of such the same is to be said
as of irrational animals, which follow, of necessity, the impulse of
their passions: for in them there is neither movement of reason, nor,
consequently, of will.

Sometimes, however, the reason is not entirely engrossed by the
passion, so that the judgment of reason retains, to a certain extent,
its freedom: and thus the movement of the will remains in a certain
degree. Accordingly in so far as the reason remains free, and not
subject to the passion, the will's movement, which also remains, does
not tend of necessity to that whereto the passion inclines it.
Consequently, either there is no movement of the will in that man,
and the passion alone holds its sway: or if there be a movement of
the will, it does not necessarily follow the passion.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the will cannot prevent the movement of
concupiscence from arising, of which the Apostle says: "The evil
which I will not, that I do--i.e. I desire"; yet it is in the power
of the will not to will to desire or not to consent to concupiscence.
And thus it does not necessarily follow the movement of concupiscence.

Reply Obj. 2: Since there is in man a twofold nature, intellectual
and sensitive; sometimes man is such and such uniformly in respect of
his whole soul: either because the sensitive part is wholly subject
to his reason, as in the virtuous; or because reason is entirely
engrossed by passion, as in a madman. But sometimes, although reason
is clouded by passion, yet something of this reason remains free. And
in respect of this, man can either repel the passion entirely, or at
least hold himself in check so as not to be led away by the passion.
For when thus disposed, since man is variously disposed according to
the various parts of the soul, a thing appears to him otherwise
according to his reason, than it does according to a passion.

Reply Obj. 3: The will is moved not only by the universal good
apprehended by the reason, but also by good apprehended by sense.
Wherefore he can be moved to some particular good independently of a
passion of the sensitive appetite. For we will and do many things
without passion, and through choice alone; as is most evident in
those cases wherein reason resists passion.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 4]

Whether the Will Is Moved of Necessity by the Exterior Mover Which Is
God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is moved of necessity by
God. For every agent that cannot be resisted moves of necessity. But
God cannot be resisted, because His power is infinite; wherefore it
is written (Rom. 9:19): "Who resisteth His will?" Therefore God moves
the will of necessity.

Obj. 2: Further, the will is moved of necessity to whatever it wills
naturally, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3). But "whatever God does in a
thing is natural to it," as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3).
Therefore the will wills of necessity everything to which God moves
it.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing is possible, if nothing impossible follows
from its being supposed. But something impossible follows from the
supposition that the will does not will that to which God moves it:
because in that case God's operation would be ineffectual. Therefore
it is not possible for the will not to will that to which God moves
it. Therefore it wills it of necessity.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 15:14): "God made man from
the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel."
Therefore He does not of necessity move man's will.

_I answer that,_ As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) "it belongs to
Divine providence, not to destroy but to preserve the nature of
things." Wherefore it moves all things in accordance with their
conditions; so that from necessary causes through the Divine motion,
effects follow of necessity; but from contingent causes, effects
follow contingently. Since, therefore, the will is an active
principle, not determinate to one thing, but having an indifferent
relation to many things, God so moves it, that He does not determine
it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and
not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.

Reply Obj. 1: The Divine will extends not only to the doing of
something by the thing which He moves, but also to its being done in
a way which is fitting to the nature of that thing. And therefore it
would be more repugnant to the Divine motion, for the will to be
moved of necessity, which is not fitting to its nature; than for it
to be moved freely, which is becoming to its nature.

Reply Obj. 2: That is natural to a thing, which God so works in it
that it may be natural to it: for thus is something becoming to a
thing, according as God wishes it to be becoming. Now He does not
wish that whatever He works in things should be natural to them, for
instance, that the dead should rise again. But this He does wish to
be natural to each thing--that it be subject to the Divine power.

Reply Obj. 3: If God moves the will to anything, it is incompatible
with this supposition, that the will be not moved thereto. But it is
not impossible simply. Consequently it does not follow that the will
is moved by God necessarily.
________________________

QUESTION 11

OF ENJOYMENT [*Or, Fruition], WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider enjoyment: concerning which there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether to enjoy is an act of the appetitive power?

(2) Whether it belongs to the rational creature alone, or also to
irrational animals?

(3) Whether enjoyment is only of the last end?

(4) Whether it is only of the end possessed?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 1]

Whether to Enjoy Is an Act of the Appetitive Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that to enjoy belongs not only to the
appetitive power. For to enjoy seems nothing else than to receive the
fruit. But it is the intellect, in whose act Happiness consists, as
shown above (Q. 3, A. 4), that receives the fruit of human life,
which is Happiness. Therefore to enjoy is not an act of the
appetitive power, but of the intellect.

Obj. 2: Further, each power has its proper end, which is its
perfection: thus the end of sight is to know the visible; of the
hearing, to perceive sounds; and so forth. But the end of a thing is
its fruit. Therefore to enjoy belongs to each power, and not only to
the appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, enjoyment implies a certain delight. But sensible
delight belongs to sense, which delights in its object: and for the
same reason, intellectual delight belongs to the intellect. Therefore
enjoyment belongs to the apprehensive, and not to the appetitive
power.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4; and De
Trin. x, 10, 11): "To enjoy is to adhere lovingly to something for
its own sake." But love belongs to the appetitive power. Therefore
also to enjoy is an act of the appetitive power.

_I answer that,_ _Fruitio_ (enjoyment) and _fructus_ (fruit) seem to
refer to the same, one being derived from the other; which from
which, matters not for our purpose; though it seems probable that the
one which is more clearly known, was first named. Now those things
are most manifest to us which appeal most to the senses: wherefore it
seems that the word "fruition" is derived from sensible fruits. But
sensible fruit is that which we expect the tree to produce in the
last place, and in which a certain sweetness is to be perceived.
Hence fruition seems to have relation to love, or to the delight
which one has in realizing the longed-for term, which is the end. Now
the end and the good is the object of the appetitive power. Wherefore
it is evident that fruition is the act of the appetitive power.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders one and the same thing from belonging,
under different aspects, to different powers. Accordingly the vision
of God, as vision, is an act of the intellect, but as a good and an
end, is the object of the will. And as such is the fruition thereof:
so that the intellect attains this end, as the executive power, but
the will as the motive power, moving (the powers) towards the end and
enjoying the end attained.

Reply Obj. 2: The perfection and end of every other power is
contained in the object of the appetitive power, as the proper is
contained in the common, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1). Hence the
perfection and end of each power, in so far as it is a good, belongs
to the appetitive power. Wherefore the appetitive power moves the
other powers to their ends; and itself realizes the end, when each of
them reaches the end.

Reply Obj. 3: In delight there are two things: perception of what is
becoming; and this belongs to the apprehensive power; and complacency
in that which is offered as becoming: and this belongs to the
appetitive power, in which power delight is formally completed.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 2]

Whether to Enjoy Belongs to the Rational Creature Alone, or Also to
Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that to enjoy belongs to men alone. For
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22) that "it is given to us men
to enjoy and to use." Therefore other animals cannot enjoy.

Obj. 2: Further, to enjoy relates to the last end. But irrational
animals cannot obtain the last end. Therefore it is not for them to
enjoy.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the sensitive appetite is beneath the
intellectual appetite, so is the natural appetite beneath the
sensitive. If, therefore, to enjoy belongs to the sensitive appetite,
it seems that for the same reason it can belong to the natural
appetite. But this is evidently false, since the latter cannot
delight in anything. Therefore the sensitive appetite cannot enjoy:
and accordingly enjoyment is not possible for irrational animals.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "It is not so
absurd to suppose that even beasts enjoy their food and any bodily
pleasure."

_I answer that,_ As was stated above (A. 1) to enjoy is not the act
of the power that achieves the end as executor, but of the power that
commands the achievement; for it has been said to belong to the
appetitive power. Now things void of reason have indeed a power of
achieving an end by way of execution, as that by which a heavy body
has a downward tendency, whereas a light body has an upward tendency.
Yet the power of command in respect of the end is not in them, but in
some higher nature, which moves all nature by its command, just as in
things endowed with knowledge, the appetite moves the other powers to
their acts. Wherefore it is clear that things void of knowledge,
although they attain an end, have no enjoyment of the end: this is
only for those that are endowed with knowledge.

Now knowledge of the end is twofold: perfect and imperfect. Perfect
knowledge of the end, is that whereby not only is that known which is
the end and the good, but also the universal formality of the end and
the good; and such knowledge belongs to the rational nature alone. On
the other hand, imperfect knowledge is that by which the end and the
good are known in the particular. Such knowledge is in irrational
animals: whose appetitive powers do not command with freedom, but are
moved according to a natural instinct to whatever they apprehend.
Consequently, enjoyment belongs to the rational nature, in a perfect
degree; to irrational animals, imperfectly; to other creatures, not
at all.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there of perfect enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 2: Enjoyment need not be of the last end simply; but of
that which each one chooses for his last end.

Reply Obj. 3: The sensitive appetite follows some knowledge; not so
the natural appetite, especially in things void of knowledge.

Reply Obj. 4: Augustine is speaking there of imperfect enjoyment.
This is clear from his way of speaking: for he says that "it is not
so absurd to suppose that even beasts enjoy," that is, as it would
be, if one were to say that they "use."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 3]

Whether Enjoyment Is Only of the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that enjoyment is not only of the last end.
For the Apostle says (Philem. 20): "Yea, brother, may I enjoy thee in
the Lord." But it is evident that Paul had not placed his last end in
a man. Therefore to enjoy is not only of the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, what we enjoy is the fruit. But the Apostle says
(Gal. 5:22): "The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace," and
other like things, which are not in the nature of the last end.
Therefore enjoyment is not only of the last end.

Obj. 3: Further, the acts of the will reflect on one another; for I
will to will, and I love to love. But to enjoy is an act of the will:
since "it is the will with which we enjoy," as Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 10). Therefore a man enjoys his enjoyment. But the last end
of man is not enjoyment, but the uncreated good alone, which is God.
Therefore enjoyment is not only of the last end.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11): "A man does not
enjoy that which he desires for the sake of something else." But the
last end alone is that which man does not desire for the sake of
something else. Therefore enjoyment is of the last end alone.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) the notion of fruit implies
two things: first that it should come last; second, that it should
calm the appetite with a certain sweetness and delight. Now a thing
is last either simply or relatively; simply, if it be referred to
nothing else; relatively, if it is the last in a particular series.
Therefore that which is last simply, and in which one delights as in
the last end, is properly called fruit; and this it is that one is
properly said to enjoy. But that which is delightful not in itself,
but is desired, only as referred to something else, e.g. a bitter
potion for the sake of health, can nowise be called fruit. And that
which has something delightful about it, to which a number of
preceding things are referred, may indeed be called fruit in a
certain manner; but we cannot be said to enjoy it properly or as
though it answered perfectly to the notion of fruit. Hence Augustine
says (De Trin. x, 10) that "we enjoy what we know, when the delighted
will is at rest therein." But its rest is not absolute save in the
possession of the last end: for as long as something is looked for,
the movement of the will remains in suspense, although it has reached
something. Thus in local movement, although any point between the two
terms is a beginning and an end, yet it is not considered as an
actual end, except when the movement stops there.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 33), "if he had
said, 'May I enjoy thee,' without adding 'in the Lord,' he would seem
to have set the end of his love in him. But since he added that he
set his end in the Lord, he implied his desire to enjoy Him": as if
we were to say that he expressed his enjoyment of his brother not as
a term but as a means.

Reply Obj. 2: Fruit bears one relation to the tree that bore it, and
another to man that enjoys it. To the tree indeed that bore it, it is
compared as effect to cause; to the one enjoying it, as the final
object of his longing and the consummation of his delight.
Accordingly these fruits mentioned by the Apostle are so called
because they are certain effects of the Holy Ghost in us, wherefore
they are called "fruits of the spirit": but not as though we are to
enjoy them as our last end. Or we may say with Ambrose that they are
called fruits because "we should desire them for their own sake": not
indeed as though they were not ordained to the last end; but because
they are such that we ought to find pleasure in them.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), we speak of
an end in a twofold sense: first, as being the thing itself;
secondly, as the attainment thereof. These are not, of course, two
ends, but one end, considered in itself, and in its relation to
something else. Accordingly God is the last end, as that which is
ultimately sought for: while the enjoyment is as the attainment of
this last end. And so, just as God is not one end, and the enjoyment
of God, another: so it is the same enjoyment whereby we enjoy God,
and whereby we enjoy our enjoyment of God. And the same applies to
created happiness which consists in enjoyment.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 4]

Whether Enjoyment Is Only of the End Possessed?

Objection 1: It would seem that enjoyment is only of the end
possessed. For Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1) that "to enjoy is to
use joyfully, with the joy, not of hope, but of possession." But so
long as a thing is not had, there is joy, not of possession, but of
hope. Therefore enjoyment is only of the end possessed.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 3), enjoyment is not properly
otherwise than of the last end: because this alone gives rest to the
appetite. But the appetite has no rest save in the possession of the
end. Therefore enjoyment, properly speaking, is only of the end
possessed.

Obj. 3: Further, to enjoy is to lay hold of the fruit. But one does
not lay hold of the fruit until one is in possession of the end.
Therefore enjoyment is only of the end possessed.

_On the contrary,_ "to enjoy is to adhere lovingly to something for
its own sake," as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4). But this
is possible, even in regard to a thing which is not in our
possession. Therefore it is possible to enjoy the end even though it
be not possessed.

_I answer that,_ To enjoy implies a certain relation of the will to
the last end, according as the will has something by way of last end.
Now an end is possessed in two ways; perfectly and imperfectly.
Perfectly, when it is possessed not only in intention but also in
reality; imperfectly, when it is possessed in intention only. Perfect
enjoyment, therefore, is of the end already possessed: but imperfect
enjoyment is also of the end possessed not really, but only in
intention.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine speaks there of perfect enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 2: The will is hindered in two ways from being at rest.
First on the part of the object; by reason of its not being the last
end, but ordained to something else: secondly on the part of the one
who desires the end, by reason of his not being yet in possession of
it. Now it is the object that specifies an act: but on the agent
depends the manner of acting, so that the act be perfect or
imperfect, as compared with the actual circumstances of the agent.
Therefore enjoyment of anything but the last end is not enjoyment
properly speaking, as falling short of the nature of enjoyment. But
enjoyment of the last end, not yet possessed, is enjoyment properly
speaking, but imperfect, on account of the imperfect way in which it
is possessed.

Reply Obj. 3: One is said to lay hold of or to have an end, not only
in reality, but also in intention, as stated above.
________________________

QUESTION 12

OF INTENTION
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider Intention: concerning which there are five
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether intention is an act of intellect or of the will?

(2) Whether it is only of the last end?

(3) Whether one can intend two things at the same time?

(4) Whether intention of the end is the same act as volition of the
means?

(5) Whether intention is within the competency of irrational animals?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 1]

Whether Intention Is an Act of the Intellect or of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that intention is an act of the intellect,
and not of the will. For it is written (Matt. 6:22): "If thy eye be
single, thy whole body shall be lightsome": where, according to
Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 13) the eye signifies intention.
But since the eye is the organ of sight, it signifies the apprehensive
power. Therefore intention is not an act of the appetitive but of the
apprehensive power.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 13) that
Our Lord spoke of intention as a light, when He said (Matt. 6:23):
"If the light that is in thee be darkness," etc. But light pertains
to knowledge. Therefore intention does too.

Obj. 3: Further, intention implies a kind of ordaining to an end. But
to ordain is an act of reason. Therefore intention belongs not to the
will but to the reason.

Obj. 4: Further, an act of the will is either of the end or of the
means. But the act of the will in respect of the end is called
volition, or enjoyment; with regard to the means, it is choice, from
which intention is distinct. Therefore it is not an act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xi, 4, 8, 9) that "the
intention of the will unites the sight to the object seen; and the
images retained in the memory, to the penetrating gaze of the soul's
inner thought." Therefore intention is an act of the will.

_I answer that,_ Intention, as the very word denotes, signifies, "to
tend to something." Now both the action of the mover and the movement
of thing moved, tend to something. But that the movement of the thing
moved tends to anything, is due to the action of the mover.
Consequently intention belongs first and principally to that which
moves to the end: hence we say that an architect or anyone who is in
authority, by his command moves others to that which he intends. Now
the will moves all the other powers of the soul to the end, as shown
above (Q. 9, A. 1). Wherefore it is evident that intention, properly
speaking, is an act of the will.

Reply Obj. 1: The eye designates intention figuratively, not because
intention has reference to knowledge, but because it presupposes
knowledge, which proposes to the will the end to which the latter
moves; thus we foresee with the eye whither we should tend with our
bodies.

Reply Obj. 2: Intention is called a light because it is manifest to
him who intends. Wherefore works are called darkness because a man
knows what he intends, but knows not what the result may be, as
Augustine expounds (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 13).

Reply Obj. 3: The will does not ordain, but tends to something
according to the order of reason. Consequently this word "intention"
indicates an act of the will, presupposing the act whereby the reason
orders something to the end.

Reply Obj. 4: Intention is an act of the will in regard to the end.
Now the will stands in a threefold relation to the end. First,
absolutely; and thus we have "volition," whereby we will absolutely
to have health, and so forth. Secondly, it considers the end, as its
place of rest; and thus "enjoyment" regards the end. Thirdly, it
considers the end as the term towards which something is ordained;
and thus "intention" regards the end. For when we speak of intending
to have health, we mean not only that we have it, but that we will
have it by means of something else.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 2]

Whether Intention Is Only of the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that intention is only of the last end.
For it is said in the book of Prosper's Sentences (Sent. 100): "The
intention of the heart is a cry to God." But God is the last end of
the human heart. Therefore intention is always regards the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, intention regards the end as the terminus, as stated
above (A. 1, ad 4). But a terminus is something last. Therefore
intention always regards the last end.

Obj. 3: Further, just as intention regards the end, so does
enjoyment. But enjoyment is always of the last end. Therefore
intention is too.

_On the contrary,_ There is but one last end of human wills, viz.
Happiness, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 7). If, therefore, intentions
were only of the last end, men would not have different intentions:
which is evidently false.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 4), intention regards the
end as a terminus of the movement of the will. Now a terminus of
movement may be taken in two ways. First, the very last terminus,
when the movement comes to a stop; this is the terminus of the whole
movement. Secondly, some point midway, which is the beginning of one
part of the movement, and the end or terminus of the other. Thus in
the movement from A to C through B, C is the last terminus, while B
is a terminus, but not the last. And intention can be both.
Consequently though intention is always of the end, it need not be
always of the last end.

Reply Obj. 1: The intention of the heart is called a cry to God, not
that God is always the object of intention, but because He sees our
intention. Or because, when we pray, we direct our intention to God,
which intention has the force of a cry.

Reply Obj. 2: A terminus is something last, not always in respect of
the whole, but sometimes in respect of a part.

Reply Obj. 3: Enjoyment implies rest in the end; and this belongs to
the last end alone. But intention implies movement towards an end,
not rest. Wherefore the comparison proves nothing.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 3]

Whether One Can Intend Two Things at the Same Time?

Objection 1: It would seem that one cannot intend several things at
the same time. For Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 14, 16,
17) that man's intention cannot be directed at the same time to God
and to bodily benefits. Therefore, for the same reason, neither to
any other two things.

Obj. 2: Further, intention designates a movement of the will towards
a terminus. Now there cannot be several termini in the same direction
of one movement. Therefore the will cannot intend several things at
the same time.

Obj. 3: Further, intention presupposes an act of reason or of the
intellect. But "it is not possible to understand several things at
the same time," according to the Philosopher (Topic. ii, 10).
Therefore neither is it possible to intend several things at the same
time.

_On the contrary,_ Art imitates nature. Now nature intends two
purposes by means of one instrument: thus "the tongue is for the
purpose of taste and speech" (De Anima ii, 8). Therefore, for the
same reason, art or reason can at the same time direct one thing to
two ends: so that one can intend several ends at the same time.

_I answer that,_ The expression "two things" may be taken in two
ways: they may be ordained to one another or not so ordained. And if
they be ordained to one another, it is evident, from what has been
said, that a man can intend several things at the same time. For
intention is not only of the last end, as stated above (A. 2), but
also of an intermediary end. Now a man intends at the same time, both
the proximate and the last end; as the mixing of a medicine and the
giving of health.

But if we take two things that are not ordained to one another, thus
also a man can intend several things at the same time. This is
evident from the fact that a man prefers one thing to another because
it is the better of the two. Now one of the reasons for which one
thing is better than another is that it is available for more
purposes: wherefore one thing can be chosen in preference to another,
because of the greater number of purposes for which it is available:
so that evidently a man can intend several things at the same time.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine means to say that man cannot at the same time
direct his attention to God and to bodily benefits, as to two last
ends: since, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 5), one man cannot have
several last ends.

Reply Obj. 2: There can be several termini ordained to one another,
of the same movement and in the same direction; but not unless they
be ordained to one another. At the same time it must be observed that
what is not one in reality may be taken as one by the reason. Now
intention is a movement of the will to something already ordained by
the reason, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). Wherefore where we have
many things in reality, we may take them as one term of intention, in
so far as the reason takes them as one: either because two things
concur in the integrity of one whole, as a proper measure of heat and
cold conduce to health; or because two things are included in one
which may be intended. For instance, the acquiring of wine and
clothing is included in wealth, as in something common to both;
wherefore nothing hinders the man who intends to acquire wealth, from
intending both the others.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 10; Q. 58, A. 2;
Q. 85, A. 4), it is possible to understand several things at the same
time, in so far as, in some way, they are one.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 4]

Whether Intention of the End Is the Same Act As the Volition of the
Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that the intention of the end and the
volition of the means are not one and the same movement. For
Augustine says (De Trin. xi, 6) that "the will to see the window, has
for its end the seeing of the window; and is another act from the
will to see, through the window, the passersby." But that I should
will to see the passersby, through the window, belongs to intention;
whereas that I will to see the window, belongs to the volition of the
means. Therefore intention of the end and the willing of the means
are distinct movements of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, acts are distinct according to their objects. But
the end and the means are distinct objects. Therefore the intention
of the end and the willing of the means are distinct movements of the
will.

Obj. 3: Further, the willing of the means is called choice. But
choice and intention are not the same. Therefore intention of the end
and the willing of the means are not the same movement of the will.

_On the contrary,_ The means in relation to the end, are as the
mid-space to the terminus. Now it is all the same movement that
passes through the mid-space to the terminus, in natural things.
Therefore in things pertaining to the will, the intention of the end
is the same movement as the willing of the means.

_I answer that,_ The movement of the will to the end and to the means
can be considered in two ways. First, according as the will is moved
to each of the aforesaid absolutely and in itself. And thus there are
really two movements of the will to them. Secondly, it may be
considered accordingly as the will is moved to the means for the sake
of the end: and thus the movement of the will to the end and its
movement to the means are one and the same thing. For when I say: "I
wish to take medicine for the sake of health," I signify no more than
one movement of my will. And this is because the end is the reason
for willing the means. Now the object, and that by reason of which it
is an object, come under the same act; thus it is the same act of
sight that perceives color and light, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 3, ad
2). And the same applies to the intellect; for if it consider
principle and conclusion absolutely, it considers each by a distinct
act; but when it assents to the conclusion on account of the
principles, there is but one act of the intellect.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of seeing the window and of
seeing, through the window, the passersby, according as the will is
moved to either absolutely.

Reply Obj. 2: The end, considered as a thing, and the means to that
end, are distinct objects of the will. But in so far as the end is
the formal object in willing the means, they are one and the same
object.

Reply Obj. 3: A movement which is one as to the subject, may differ,
according to our way of looking at it, as to its beginning and end,
as in the case of ascent and descent (Phys. iii, 3). Accordingly, in
so far as the movement of the will is to the means, as ordained to
the end, it is called "choice": but the movement of the will to the
end as acquired by the means, is called "intention." A sign of
this is that we can have intention of the end without having
determined the means which are the object of choice.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 5]

Whether Intention Is Within the Competency of Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that irrational animals intend the end. For
in things void of reason nature stands further apart from the rational
nature, than does the sensitive nature in irrational animals. But
nature intends the end even in things void of reason, as is proved in
_Phys._  ii, 8. Much more, therefore, do irrational animals intend the
end.

Obj. 2: Further, just as intention is of the end, so is enjoyment.
But enjoyment is in irrational animals, as stated above (Q. 11, A.
2). Therefore intention is too.

Obj. 3: Further, to intend an end belongs to one who acts for an end;
since to intend is nothing else than to tend to something. But
irrational animals act for an end; for an animal is moved either to
seek food, or to do something of the kind. Therefore irrational
animals intend an end.

_On the contrary,_ Intention of an end implies ordaining something to
an end: which belongs to reason. Since therefore irrational animals
are void of reason, it seems that they do not intend an end.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), to intend is to tend to
something; and this belongs to the mover and to the moved. According,
therefore, as that which is moved to an end by another is said to
intend the end, thus nature is said to intend an end, as being moved
to its end by God, as the arrow is moved by the archer. And in this
way, irrational animals intend an end, inasmuch as they are moved to
something by natural instinct. The other way of intending an end
belongs to the mover; according as he ordains the movement of
something, either his own or another's, to an end. This belongs to
reason alone. Wherefore irrational animals do not intend an end in
this way, which is to intend properly and principally, as stated
above (A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: This argument takes intention in the sense of being
moved to an end.

Reply Obj. 2: Enjoyment does not imply the ordaining of one thing to
another, as intention does, but absolute repose in the end.

Reply Obj. 3: Irrational animals are moved to an end, not as though
they thought that they can gain the end by this movement; this
belongs to one that intends; but through desiring the end by natural
instinct, they are moved to an end, moved, as it were, by another,
like other things that are moved naturally.
________________________

QUESTION 13

OF CHOICE, WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL WITH REGARD TO THE MEANS
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the acts of the will with regard to the means.
There are three of them: to choose, to consent, and to use. And choice
is preceded by counsel. First of all, then, we must consider choice:
secondly, counsel; thirdly, consent; fourthly, use.

Concerning choice there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Of what power is it the act; of the will or of the reason?

(2) Whether choice is to be found in irrational animals?

(3) Whether choice is only the means, or sometimes also of the end?

(4) Whether choice is only of things that we do ourselves?

(5) Whether choice is only of possible things?

(6) Whether man chooses of necessity or freely?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 1]

Whether Choice Is an Act of Will or of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is an act, not of will but of
reason. For choice implies comparison, whereby one is given preference
to another. But to compare is an act of reason. Therefore choice is an
act of reason.

Obj. 2: Further, it is for the same faculty to form a syllogism, and
to draw the conclusion. But, in practical matters, it is the reason
that forms syllogisms. Since therefore choice is a kind of conclusion
in practical matters, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 3, it seems that it
is an act of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, ignorance does not belong to the will but to the
cognitive power. Now there is an "ignorance of choice," as is stated
in _Ethic._ iii, 1. Therefore it seems that choice does not belong to
the will but to the reason.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that choice
is "the desire of things in our power." But desire is an act of will.
Therefore choice is too.

_I answer that,_ The word choice implies something belonging to the
reason or intellect, and something belonging to the will: for the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that choice is either "intellect
influenced by appetite or appetite influenced by intellect." Now
whenever two things concur to make one, one of them is formal in
regard to the other. Hence Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom.
xxxiii.] says that choice "is neither desire only, nor counsel only,
but a combination of the two. For just as we say that an animal is
composed of soul and body, and that it is neither a mere body, nor a
mere soul, but both; so is it with choice."

Now we must observe, as regards the acts of the soul, that an act
belonging essentially to some power or habit, receives a form or
species from a higher power or habit, according as an inferior is
ordained by a superior: for if a man were to perform an act of
fortitude for the love of God, that act is materially an act of
fortitude, but formally, an act of charity. Now it is evident that, in
a sense, reason precedes the will and ordains its act: in so far as
the will tends to its object, according to the order of reason, since
the apprehensive power presents the object to the appetite.
Accordingly, that act whereby the will tends to something proposed to
it as being good, through being ordained to the end by the reason, is
materially an act of the will, but formally an act of the reason. Now
in such like matters the substance of the act is as the matter in
comparison to the order imposed by the higher power. Wherefore choice
is substantially not an act of the reason but of the will: for choice
is accomplished in a certain movement of the soul towards the good
which is chosen. Consequently it is evidently an act of the appetitive
power.

Reply Obj. 1: Choice implies a previous comparison; not that it
consists in the comparison itself.

Reply Obj. 2: It is quite true that it is for the reason to draw the
conclusion of a practical syllogism; and it is called "a decision" or
"judgment," to be followed by "choice." And for this reason the
conclusion seems to belong to the act of choice, as to that which
results from it.

Reply Obj. 3: In speaking "of ignorance of choice," we do not mean
that choice is a sort of knowledge, but that there is ignorance of
what ought to be chosen.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 2]

Whether Choice Is to Be Found in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that irrational animals are able to
choose. For choice "is the desire of certain things on account of an
end," as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 2, 3. But irrational animals desire
something on account of an end: since they act for an end, and from
desire. Therefore choice is in irrational animals.

Obj. 2: Further, the very word _electio_ (choice) seems to signify
the taking of something in preference to others. But irrational
animals take something in preference to others: thus we can easily
see for ourselves that a sheep will eat one grass and refuse another.
Therefore choice is in irrational animals.

Obj. 3: Further, according to _Ethic._ vi, 12, "it is from prudence
that a man makes a good choice of means." But prudence is found in
irrational animals: hence it is said in the beginning of _Metaph._ i,
1 that "those animals which, like bees, cannot hear sounds, are
prudent by instinct." We see this plainly, in wonderful cases of
sagacity manifested in the works of various animals, such as bees,
spiders, and dogs. For a hound in following a stag, on coming to a
crossroad, tries by scent whether the stag has passed by the first or
the second road: and if he find that the stag has not passed there,
being thus assured, takes to the third road without trying the scent;
as though he were reasoning by way of exclusion, arguing that the
stag must have passed by this way, since he did not pass by the
others, and there is no other road. Therefore it seems that
irrational animals are able to choose.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiii.]
says that "children and irrational animals act willingly but not from
choice." Therefore choice is not in irrational animals.

_I answer that,_ Since choice is the taking of one thing in preference
to another it must of necessity be in respect of several things that
can be chosen. Consequently in those things which are altogether
determinate to one there is no place for choice. Now the difference
between the sensitive appetite and the will is that, as stated above
(Q. 1, A. 2, ad 3), the sensitive appetite is determinate to one
particular thing, according to the order of nature; whereas the will,
although determinate to one thing in general, viz. the good, according
to the order of nature, is nevertheless indeterminate in respect of
particular goods. Consequently choice belongs properly to the will,
and not to the sensitive appetite which is all that irrational animals
have. Wherefore irrational animals are not competent to choose.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every desire of one thing on account of an end is
called choice: there must be a certain discrimination of one thing
from another. And this cannot be except when the appetite can be
moved to several things.

Reply Obj. 2: An irrational animal takes one thing in preference to
another, because its appetite is naturally determinate to that thing.
Wherefore as soon as an animal, whether by its sense or by its
imagination, is offered something to which its appetite is naturally
inclined, it is moved to that alone, without making any choice. Just
as fire is moved upwards and not downwards, without its making any
choice.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Phys._  iii, 3 "movement is the act of the
movable, caused by a mover." Wherefore the power of the mover appears
in the movement of that which it moves. Accordingly, in all things
moved by reason, the order of reason which moves them is evident,
although the things themselves are without reason: for an arrow
through the motion of the archer goes straight towards the target, as
though it were endowed with reason to direct its course. The same may
be seen in the movements of clocks and all engines put together by
the art of man. Now as artificial things are in comparison to human
art, so are all natural things in comparison to the Divine art. And
accordingly order is to be seen in things moved by nature, just as in
things moved by reason, as is stated in _Phys._  ii. And thus it is
that in the works of irrational animals we notice certain marks of
sagacity, in so far as they have a natural inclination to set about
their actions in a most orderly manner through being ordained by the
Supreme art. For which reason, too, certain animals are called
prudent or sagacious; and not because they reason or exercise any
choice about things. This is clear from the fact that all that share
in one nature, invariably act in the same way.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 3]

Whether Choice Is Only of the Means, or Sometimes Also of the End?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is not only of the means. For
the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 12) that "virtue makes us choose
aright; but it is not the part of virtue, but of some other power to
direct aright those things which are to be done for its sake." But
that for the sake of which something is done is the end. Therefore
choice is of the end.

Obj. 2: Further, choice implies preference of one thing to another.
But just as there can be preference of means, so can there be
preference of ends. Therefore choice can be of ends, just as it can
be of means.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that
"volition is of the end, but choice of the means."

_I answer that,_ As already stated (A. 1, ad 2), choice results from
the decision or judgment which is, as it were, the conclusion of a
practical syllogism. Hence that which is the conclusion of a
practical syllogism, is the matter of choice. Now in practical things
the end stands in the position of a principle, not of a conclusion,
as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 9). Wherefore the end, as such, is
not a matter of choice.

But just as in speculative knowledge nothing hinders the principle of
one demonstration or of one science, from being the conclusion of
another demonstration or science; while the first indemonstrable
principle cannot be the conclusion of any demonstration or science;
so too that which is the end in one operation, may be ordained to
something as an end. And in this way it is a matter of choice. Thus
in the work of a physician health is the end: wherefore it is not a
matter of choice for a physician, but a matter of principle. Now the
health of the body is ordained to the good of the soul, consequently
with one who has charge of the soul's health, health or sickness may
be a matter of choice; for the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:10): "For when
I am weak, then am I powerful." But the last end is nowise a matter
of choice.

Reply Obj. 1: The proper ends of virtues are ordained to Happiness as
to their last end. And thus it is that they can be a matter of choice.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 1, A. 5), there is but one last
end. Accordingly wherever there are several ends, they can be the
subject of choice, in so far as they are ordained to a further end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 4]

Whether Choice Is of Those Things Only That Are Done by Us?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is not only in respect of
human acts. For choice regards the means. Now, not only acts, but
also the organs, are means (Phys. ii, 3). Therefore choice is not
only concerned with human acts.

Obj. 2: Further, action is distinct from contemplation. But choice
has a place even in contemplation; in so far as one opinion is
preferred to another. Therefore choice is not concerned with human
acts alone.

Obj. 3: Further, men are chosen for certain posts, whether secular or
ecclesiastical, by those who exercise no action in their regard.
Therefore choice is not concerned with human acts alone.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "no man
chooses save what he can do himself."

_I answer that,_ Just as intention regards the end, so does choice
regard the means. Now the end is either an action or a thing. And
when the end is a thing, some human action must intervene; either in
so far as man produces the thing which is the end, as the physician
produces health (wherefore the production of health is said to be the
end of the physician); or in so far as man, in some fashion, uses or
enjoys the thing which is the end; thus for the miser, money or the
possession of money is the end. The same is to be said of the means.
For the means must needs be either an action; or a thing, with some
action intervening whereby man either makes the thing which is the
means, or puts it to some use. And thus it is that choice is always
in regard to human acts.

Reply Obj. 1: The organs are ordained to the end, inasmuch as man
makes use of them for the sake of the end.

Reply Obj. 2: In contemplation itself there is the act of the
intellect assenting to this or that opinion. It is exterior action
that is put in contradistinction to contemplation.

Reply Obj. 3: When a man chooses someone for a bishopric or some high
position in the state, he chooses to name that man to that post.
Else, if he had no right to act in the appointment of the bishop or
official, he would have no right to choose. Likewise, whenever we
speak of one thing being chosen in preference to another, it is in
conjunction with some action of the chooser.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 5]

Whether Choice Is Only of Possible Things?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is not only of possible
things. For choice is an act of the will, as stated above (A. 1). Now
there is "a willing of impossibilities" (Ethic. iii, 2). Therefore
there is also a choice of impossibilities.

Obj. 2: Further, choice is of things done by us, as stated above (A.
4). Therefore it matters not, as far as the act of choosing is
concerned, whether one choose that which is impossible in itself, or
that which is impossible to the chooser. Now it often happens that we
are unable to accomplish what we choose: so that this proves to be
impossible to us. Therefore choice is of the impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, to try to do a thing is to choose to do it. But the
Blessed Benedict says (Regula lxviii) that if the superior command
what is impossible, it should be attempted. Therefore choice can be
of the impossible.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "there
is no choice of impossibilities."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), our choice is always
concerned with our actions. Now whatever is done by us, is possible
to us. Therefore we must needs say that choice is only of possible
things.

Moreover, the reason for choosing a thing is that it conduces to an
end. But what is impossible cannot conduce to an end. A sign of this
is that when men in taking counsel together come to something that is
impossible to them, they depart, as being unable to proceed with the
business.

Again, this is evident if we examine the previous process of the
reason. For the means, which are the object of choice, are to the
end, as the conclusion is to the principle. Now it is clear that an
impossible conclusion does not follow from a possible principle.
Wherefore an end cannot be possible, unless the means be possible. Now
no one is moved to the impossible. Consequently no one would tend to
the end, save for the fact that the means appear to be possible.
Therefore the impossible is not the object of choice.

Reply Obj. 1: The will stands between the intellect and the external
action: for the intellect proposes to the will its object, and the
will causes the external action. Hence the principle of the movement
in the will is to be found in the intellect, which apprehends
something under the universal notion of good: but the term or
perfection of the will's act is to be observed in its relation to the
action whereby a man tends to the attainment of a thing; for the
movement of the will is from the soul to the thing. Consequently the
perfect act of the will is in respect of something that is good for
one to do. Now this cannot be something impossible. Wherefore the
complete act of the will is only in respect of what is possible and
good for him that wills. But the incomplete act of the will is in
respect of the impossible; and by some is called "velleity," because,
to wit, one would will (_vellet_) such a thing, were it possible. But
choice is an act of the will, fixed on something to be done by the
chooser. And therefore it is by no means of anything but what is
possible.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the object of the will is the apprehended good,
we must judge of the object of the will according as it is
apprehended. And so, just as sometimes the will tends to something
which is apprehended as good, and yet is not really good; so is
choice sometimes made of something apprehended as possible to the
chooser, and yet impossible to him.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason for this is that the subject should not rely
on his own judgment to decide whether a certain thing is possible;
but in each case should stand by his superior's judgment.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 6]

Whether Man Chooses of Necessity or Freely?

Objection 1: It would seem that man chooses of necessity. For the end
stands in relation to the object of choice, as the principle of that
which follows from the principles, as declared in _Ethic._ vii, 8. But
conclusions follow of necessity from their principles. Therefore man
is moved of necessity from (willing) the end of the choice (of the
means).

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2), choice follows the
reason's judgment of what is to be done. But reason judges of
necessity about some things: on account of the necessity of the
premises. Therefore it seems that choice also follows of necessity.

Obj. 3: Further, if two things are absolutely equal, man is not moved
to one more than to the other; thus if a hungry man, as Plato says
(Cf. De Coelo ii, 13), be confronted on either side with two portions
of food equally appetizing and at an equal distance, he is not moved
towards one more than to the other; and he finds the reason of this
in the immobility of the earth in the middle of the world. Now, if
that which is equally (eligible) with something else cannot be
chosen, much less can that be chosen which appears as less
(eligible). Therefore if two or more things are available, of which
one appears to be more (eligible), it is impossible to choose any of
the others. Therefore that which appears to hold the first place is
chosen of necessity. But every act of choosing is in regard to
something that seems in some way better. Therefore every choice is
made necessarily.

_On the contrary,_ Choice is an act of a rational power; which
according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ix, 2) stands in relation to
opposites.

_I answer that,_ Man does not choose of necessity. And this is
because that which is possible not to be, is not of necessity. Now
the reason why it is possible not to choose, or to choose, may be
gathered from a twofold power in man. For man can will and not will,
act and not act; again, he can will this or that, and do this or
that. The reason of this is seated in the very power of the reason.
For the will can tend to whatever the reason can apprehend as good.
Now the reason can apprehend as good, not only this, viz. "to will"
or "to act," but also this, viz. "not to will" or "not to act."
Again, in all particular goods, the reason can consider an aspect of
some good, and the lack of some good, which has the aspect of evil:
and in this respect, it can apprehend any single one of such goods as
to be chosen or to be avoided. The perfect good alone, which is
Happiness, cannot be apprehended by the reason as an evil, or as
lacking in any way. Consequently man wills Happiness of necessity,
nor can he will not to be happy, or to be unhappy. Now since choice
is not of the end, but of the means, as stated above (A. 3); it is
not of the perfect good, which is Happiness, but of other particular
goods. Therefore man chooses not of necessity, but freely.

Reply Obj. 1: The conclusion does not always of necessity follow from
the principles, but only when the principles cannot be true if the
conclusion is not true. In like manner, the end does not always
necessitate in man the choosing of the means, because the means are
not always such that the end cannot be gained without them; or, if
they be such, they are not always considered in that light.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason's decision or judgment of what is to be done
is about things that are contingent and possible to us. In such
matters the conclusions do not follow of necessity from principles
that are absolutely necessary, but from such as are so conditionally;
as, for instance, "If he runs, he is in motion."

Reply Obj. 3: If two things be proposed as equal under one aspect,
nothing hinders us from considering in one of them some particular
point of superiority, so that the will has a bent towards that one
rather than towards the other.
________________________

QUESTION 14

OF COUNSEL, WHICH PRECEDES CHOICE
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider counsel; concerning which there are six points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether counsel is an inquiry?

(2) Whether counsel is of the end or of the means?

(3) Whether counsel is only of things that we do?

(4) Whether counsel is of all things that we do?

(5) Whether the process of counsel is one of analysis?

(6) Whether the process of counsel is indefinite?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 1]

Whether Counsel Is an Inquiry?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is not an inquiry. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that counsel is "an act of
the appetite." But inquiry is not an act of the appetite. Therefore
counsel is not an inquiry.

Obj. 2: Further, inquiry is a discursive act of the intellect: for
which reason it is not found in God, Whose knowledge is not
discursive, as we have shown in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 7). But
counsel is ascribed to God: for it is written (Eph. 1:11) that "He
worketh all things according to the counsel of His will." Therefore
counsel is not inquiry.

Obj. 3: Further, inquiry is of doubtful matters. But counsel is given
in matters that are certainly good; thus the Apostle says (1 Cor.
7:25): "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but
I give counsel." Therefore counsel is not an inquiry.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says: "Every counsel is an inquiry; but not every inquiry is a
counsel."

_I answer that,_ Choice, as stated above (Q. 13, A. 1, ad 2; A. 3),
follows the judgment of the reason about what is to be done. Now
there is much uncertainty in things that have to be done; because
actions are concerned with contingent singulars, which by reason of
their vicissitude, are uncertain. Now in things doubtful and
uncertain the reason does not pronounce judgment, without previous
inquiry: wherefore the reason must of necessity institute an inquiry
before deciding on the objects of choice; and this inquiry is called
counsel. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that choice is
the "desire of what has been already counselled."

Reply Obj. 1: When the acts of two powers are ordained to one
another, in each of them there is something belonging to the other
power: consequently each act can be denominated from either power.
Now it is evident that the act of the reason giving direction as to
the means, and the act of the will tending to these means according
to the reason's direction, are ordained to one another. Consequently
there is to be found something of the reason, viz. order, in that act
of the will, which is choice: and in counsel, which is an act of
reason, something of the will--both as matter (since counsel is of
what man wills to do)--and as motive (because it is from willing the
end, that man is moved to take counsel in regard to the means). And
therefore, just as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that choice
"is intellect influenced by appetite," thus pointing out that both
concur in the act of choosing; so Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii,
22) that counsel is "appetite based on inquiry," so as to show that
counsel belongs, in a way, both to the will, on whose behalf and by
whose impulsion the inquiry is made, and to the reason that executes
the inquiry.

Reply Obj. 2: The things that we say of God must be understood
without any of the defects which are to be found in us: thus in us
science is of conclusions derived by reasoning from causes to
effects: but science when said of God means sure knowledge of all
effects in the First Cause, without any reasoning process. In like
manner we ascribe counsel to God, as to the certainty of His
knowledge or judgment, which certainty in us arises from the inquiry
of counsel. But such inquiry has no place in God; wherefore in this
respect it is not ascribed to God: in which sense Damascene says (De
Fide Orth. ii, 22): "God takes not counsel: those only take counsel
who lack knowledge."

Reply Obj. 3: It may happen that things which are most certainly good
in the opinion of wise and spiritual men are not certainly good in
the opinion of many, or at least of carnal-minded men. Consequently
in such things counsel may be given.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 2]

Whether Counsel Is of the End, or Only of the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is not only of the means but
also of the end. For whatever is doubtful, can be the subject of
inquiry. Now in things to be done by man there happens sometimes a
doubt as to the end and not only as to the means. Since therefore
inquiry as to what is to be done is counsel, it seems that counsel
can be of the end.

Obj. 2: Further, the matter of counsel is human actions. But some
human actions are ends, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 1. Therefore counsel
can be of the end.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says that "counsel is not of the end, but of the means."

_I answer that,_ The end is the principle in practical matters:
because the reason of the means is to be found in the end. Now the
principle cannot be called in question, but must be presupposed in
every inquiry. Since therefore counsel is an inquiry, it is not of
the end, but only of the means. Nevertheless it may happen that what
is the end in regard to some things, is ordained to something else;
just as also what is the principle of one demonstration, is the
conclusion of another: and consequently that which is looked upon as
the end in one inquiry, may be looked upon as the means in another;
and thus it will become an object of counsel.

Reply Obj. 1: That which is looked upon as an end, is already fixed:
consequently as long as there is any doubt about it, it is not looked
upon as an end. Wherefore if counsel is taken about it, it will be
counsel not about the end, but about the means.

Reply Obj. 2: Counsel is about operations, in so far as they are
ordained to some end. Consequently if any human act be an end, it
will not, as such, be the matter of counsel.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 3]

Whether Counsel Is Only of Things That We Do?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is not only of things that we
do. For counsel implies some kind of conference. But it is possible
for many to confer about things that are not subject to movement, and
are not the result of our actions, such as the nature of various
things. Therefore counsel is not only of things that we do.

Obj. 2: Further, men sometimes seek counsel about things that are
laid down by law; hence we speak of counsel at law. And yet those who
seek counsel thus, have nothing to do in making the laws. Therefore
counsel is not only of things that we do.

Obj. 3: Further, some are said to take consultation about future
events; which, however, are not in our power. Therefore counsel is
not only of things that we do.

Obj. 4: Further, if counsel were only of things that we do, no one
would take counsel about what another does. But this is clearly
untrue. Therefore counsel is not only of things that we do.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says: "We take counsel of things that are within our competency and
that we are able to do."

_I answer that,_ Counsel properly implies a conference held between
several; the very word (_consilium_) denotes this, for it means a
sitting together (_considium_), from the fact that many sit together in
order to confer with one another. Now we must take note that in
contingent particular cases, in order that anything be known for
certain, it is necessary to take several conditions or circumstances
into consideration, which it is not easy for one to consider, but are
considered by several with greater certainty, since what one takes
note of, escapes the notice of another; whereas in necessary and
universal things, our view is brought to bear on matters much more
absolute and simple, so that one man by himself may be sufficient to
consider these things. Wherefore the inquiry of counsel is concerned,
properly speaking, with contingent singulars. Now the knowledge of
the truth in such matters does not rank so high as to be desirable of
itself, as is the knowledge of things universal and necessary; but it
is desired as being useful towards action, because actions bear on
things singular and contingent. Consequently, properly speaking,
counsel is about things done by us.

Reply Obj. 1: Counsel implies conference, not of any kind, but about
what is to be done, for the reason given above.

Reply Obj. 2: Although that which is laid down by the law is not due
to the action of him who seeks counsel, nevertheless it directs him
in his action: since the mandate of the law is one reason for doing
something.

Reply Obj. 3: Counsel is not only about what is done, but also about
whatever has relation to what is done. And for this reason we speak
of consulting about future events, in so far as man is induced to do
or omit something, through the knowledge of future events.

Reply Obj. 4: We seek counsel about the actions of others, in so far
as they are, in some way, one with us; either by union of
affection--thus a man is solicitous about what concerns his friend,
as though it concerned himself; or after the manner of an instrument,
for the principal agent and the instrument are, in a way, one cause,
since one acts through the other; thus the master takes counsel about
what he would do through his servant.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 4]

Whether Counsel Is About All Things That We Do?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is about all things that we
have to do. For choice is the "desire of what is counselled" as
stated above (A. 1). But choice is about all things that we do.
Therefore counsel is too.

Obj. 2: Further, counsel implies the reason's inquiry. But, whenever
we do not act through the impulse of passion, we act in virtue of the
reason's inquiry. Therefore there is counsel about everything that we
do.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that "if it
appears that something can be done by more means than one, we take
counsel by inquiring whereby it may be done most easily and best; but
if it can be accomplished by one means, how it can be done by this."
But whatever is done, is done by one means or by several. Therefore
counsel takes place in all things that we do.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says that "counsel has no place in things that are done according to
science or art."

_I answer that,_ Counsel is a kind of inquiry, as stated above
(A. 1). But we are wont to inquire about things that admit of doubt;
hence the process of inquiry, which is called an argument, "is a
reason that attests something that admitted of doubt" [*Cicero,
_Topic._ ad Trebat.]. Now, that something in relation to human acts
admits of no doubt, arises from a twofold source. First, because
certain determinate ends are gained by certain determinate means: as
happens in the arts which are governed by certain fixed rules of
action; thus a writer does not take counsel how to form his letters,
for this is determined by art. Secondly, from the fact that it little
matters whether it is done this or that way; this occurs in minute
matters, which help or hinder but little with regard to the end aimed
at; and reason looks upon small things as mere nothings. Consequently
there are two things of which we do not take counsel, although they
conduce to the end, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3): namely,
minute things, and those which have a fixed way of being done, as in
works produced by art, with the exception of those arts that admit of
conjecture such as medicine, commerce, and the like, as Gregory of
Nyssa says [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxiv.].

Reply Obj. 1: Choice presupposes counsel by reason of its judgment or
decision. Consequently when the judgment or decision is evident
without inquiry, there is no need for the inquiry of counsel.

Reply Obj. 2: In matters that are evident, the reason makes no
inquiry, but judges at once. Consequently there is no need of counsel
in all that is done by reason.

Reply Obj. 3: When a thing can be accomplished by one means, but in
different ways, doubt may arise, just as when it can be accomplished
by several means: hence the need of counsel. But when not only the
means, but also the way of using the means, is fixed, then there is
no need of counsel.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 5]

Whether the Process of Counsel Is One of Analysis?

Objection 1: It would seem that the process of counsel is not one of
analysis. For counsel is about things that we do. But the process of
our actions is not one of analysis, but rather one of synthesis, viz.
from the simple to the composite. Therefore counsel does not always
proceed by way of analysis.

Obj. 2: Further, counsel is an inquiry of the reason. But reason
proceeds from things that precede to things that follow, according to
the more appropriate order. Since then, the past precedes the present,
and the present precedes the future, it seems that in taking counsel
one should proceed from the past and present to the future: which is
not an analytical process. Therefore the process of counsel is not one
of analysis.

Obj. 3: Further, counsel is only of such things as are possible to
us, according to _Ethic._ iii, 3. But the question as to whether a
certain thing is possible to us, depends on what we are able or
unable to do, in order to gain such and such an end. Therefore the
inquiry of counsel should begin from things present.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that "he who
takes counsel seems to inquire and analyze."

_I answer that,_ In every inquiry one must begin from some principle.
And if this principle precedes both in knowledge and in being, the
process is not analytic, but synthetic: because to proceed from cause
to effect is to proceed synthetically, since causes are more simple
than effects. But if that which precedes in knowledge is later in the
order of being, the process is one of analysis, as when our judgment
deals with effects, which by analysis we trace to their simple
causes. Now the principle in the inquiry of counsel is the end, which
precedes indeed in intention, but comes afterwards into execution.
Hence the inquiry of counsel must needs be one of analysis, beginning
that is to say, from that which is intended in the future, and
continuing until it arrives at that which is to be done at once.

Reply Obj. 1: Counsel is indeed about action. But actions take their
reason from the end; and consequently the order of reasoning about
actions is contrary to the order of actions.

Reply Obj. 2: Reason begins with that which is first according to
reason; but not always with that which is first in point of time.

Reply Obj. 3: We should not want to know whether something to be done
for an end be possible, if it were not suitable for gaining that end.
Hence we must first inquire whether it be conducive to the end,
before considering whether it be possible.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 6]

Whether the Process of Counsel Is Indefinite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the process of counsel is indefinite.
For counsel is an inquiry about the particular things with which
action is concerned. But singulars are infinite. Therefore the
process of counsel is indefinite.

Obj. 2: Further, the inquiry of counsel has to consider not only what
is to be done, but how to avoid obstacles. But every human action can
be hindered, and an obstacle can be removed by some human reason.
Therefore the inquiry about removing obstacles can go on indefinitely.

Obj. 3: Further, the inquiry of demonstrative science does not go on
indefinitely, because one can come to principles that are
self-evident, which are absolutely certain. But such like certainty
is not to be had in contingent singulars, which are variable and
uncertain. Therefore the inquiry of counsel goes on indefinitely.

_On the contrary,_ "No one is moved to that which he cannot possibly
reach" (De Coelo i, 7). But it is impossible to pass through the
infinite. If therefore the inquiry of counsel is infinite, no one
would begin to take counsel. Which is clearly untrue.

_I answer that,_ The inquiry of counsel is actually finite on both
sides, on that of its principle and on that of its term. For a
twofold principle is available in the inquiry of counsel. One is
proper to it, and belongs to the very genus of things pertaining to
operation: this is the end which is not the matter of counsel, but is
taken for granted as its principle, as stated above (A. 2). The other
principle is taken from another genus, so to speak; thus in
demonstrative sciences one science postulates certain things from
another, without inquiring into them. Now these principles which are
taken for granted in the inquiry of counsel are any facts received
through the senses--for instance, that this is bread or iron: and
also any general statements known either through speculative or
through practical science; for instance, that adultery is forbidden
by God, or that man cannot live without suitable nourishment. Of such
things counsel makes no inquiry. But the term of inquiry is that
which we are able to do at once. For just as the end is considered in
the light of a principle, so the means are considered in the light of
a conclusion. Wherefore that which presents itself as to be done
first, holds the position of an ultimate conclusion whereat the
inquiry comes to an end. Nothing however prevents counsel from being
infinite potentially, for as much as an infinite number of things may
present themselves to be inquired into by means of counsel.

Reply Obj. 1: Singulars are infinite; not actually, but only
potentially.

Reply Obj. 2: Although human action can be hindered, the hindrance is
not always at hand. Consequently it is not always necessary to take
counsel about removing the obstacle.

Reply Obj. 3: In contingent singulars, something may be taken for
certain, not simply, indeed, but for the time being, and as far as it
concerns the work to be done. Thus that Socrates is sitting is not a
necessary statement; but that he is sitting, as long as he continues
to sit, is necessary; and this can be taken for a certain fact.
________________________

QUESTION 15

OF CONSENT, WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL IN REGARD TO THE MEANS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider consent; concerning which there are four points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether consent is an act of the appetitive or of the apprehensive
power?

(2) Whether it is to be found in irrational animals?

(3) Whether it is directed to the end or to the means?

(4) Whether consent to an act belongs to the higher part of the soul
only?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 1]

Whether Consent Is an Act of the Appetitive or of the Apprehensive
Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent belongs only to the
apprehensive part of the soul. For Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12)
ascribes consent to the higher reason. But the reason is an
apprehensive power. Therefore consent belongs to an apprehensive
power.

Obj. 2: Further, consent is "co-sense." But sense is an apprehensive
power. Therefore consent is the act of an apprehensive power.

Obj. 3: Further, just as assent is an application of the intellect to
something, so is consent. But assent belongs to the intellect, which
is an apprehensive power. Therefore consent also belongs to an
apprehensive power.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "if a
man judge without affection for that of which he judges, there is no
sentence," i.e. consent. But affection belongs to the appetitive
power. Therefore consent does also.

_I answer that,_ Consent implies application of sense to something.
Now it is proper to sense to take cognizance of things present; for
the imagination apprehends the similitude of corporeal things, even
in the absence of the things of which they bear the likeness; while
the intellect apprehends universal ideas, which it can apprehend
indifferently, whether the singulars be present or absent. And since
the act of an appetitive power is a kind of inclination to the thing
itself, the application of the appetitive power to the thing, in so
far as it cleaves to it, gets by a kind of similitude, the name of
sense, since, as it were, it acquires direct knowledge of the thing
to which it cleaves, in so far as it takes complacency in it. Hence
it is written (Wis. 1:1): "Think of (_Sentite_) the Lord in goodness."
And on these grounds consent is an act of the appetitive power.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _De Anima_ iii, 9, "the will is in the
reason." Hence, when Augustine ascribes consent to the reason, he
takes reason as including the will.

Reply Obj. 2: Sense, properly speaking, belongs to the apprehensive
faculty; but by way of similitude, in so far as it implies seeking
acquaintance, it belongs to the appetitive power, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: _Assentire_ (to assent) is, to speak, _ad aliud
sentire_ (to feel towards something); and thus it implies a certain
distance from that to which assent is given. But _consentire_ (to
consent) is "to feel with," and this implies a certain union to the
object of consent. Hence the will, to which it belongs to tend to the
thing itself, is more properly said to consent: whereas the
intellect, whose act does not consist in a movement towards the
thing, but rather the reverse, as we have stated in the First Part
(Q. 16, A. 1; Q. 27, A. 4; Q. 59, A. 2), is more properly said to
assent: although one word is wont to be used for the other [*In Latin
rather than in English.]. We may also say that the intellect assents,
in so far as it is moved by the will.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 2]

Whether Consent Is to Be Found in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent is to be found in irrational
animals. For consent implies a determination of the appetite to one
thing. But the appetite of irrational animals is determinate to one
thing. Therefore consent is to be found in irrational animals.

Obj. 2: Further, if you remove what is first, you remove what
follows. But consent precedes the accomplished act. If therefore
there were no consent in irrational animals, there would be no act
accomplished; which is clearly false.

Obj. 3: Further, men are sometimes said to consent to do something,
through some passion; desire, for instance, or anger. But irrational
animals act through passion. Therefore they consent.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "after
judging, man approves and embraces the judgment of his counselling,
and this is called the sentence," i.e. consent. But counsel is not in
irrational animals. Therefore neither is consent.

_I answer that,_ Consent, properly speaking, is not in irrational
animals. The reason of this is that consent implies an application of
the appetitive movement to something as to be done. Now to apply the
appetitive movement to the doing of something, belongs to the subject
in whose power it is to move the appetite: thus to touch a stone is
an action suitable to a stick, but to apply the stick so that it
touch the stone, belongs to one who has the power of moving the
stick. But irrational animals have not the command of the appetitive
movement; for this is in them through natural instinct. Hence in the
irrational animal, there is indeed the movement of the appetite, but
it does not apply that movement to some particular thing. And hence
it is that the irrational animal is not properly said to consent:
this is proper to the rational nature, which has the command of the
appetitive movement, and is able to apply or not to apply it to this
or that thing.

Reply Obj. 1: In irrational animals the determination of the appetite
to a particular thing is merely passive: whereas consent implies a
determination of the appetite, which is active rather than merely
passive.

Reply Obj. 2: If the first be removed, then what follows is removed,
provided that, properly speaking, it follow from that only. But if
something can follow from several things, it is not removed by the
fact that one of them is removed; thus if hardening is the effect of
heat and of cold (since bricks are hardened by the fire, and frozen
water is hardened by the cold), then by removing heat it does not
follow that there is no hardening. Now the accomplishment of an act
follows not only from consent, but also from the impulse of the
appetite, such as is found in irrational animals.

Reply Obj. 3: The man who acts through passion is able not to follow
the passion: whereas irrational animals have not that power. Hence
the comparison fails.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 3]

Whether Consent Is Directed to the End or to the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent is directed to the end.
Because that on account of which a thing is such is still more such.
But it is on account of the end that we consent to the means.
Therefore, still more do we consent to the end.

Obj. 2: Further, the act of the intemperate man is his end, just as
the act of the virtuous man is his end. But the intemperate man
consents to his own act. Therefore consent can be directed to the end.

Obj. 3: Further, desire of the means is choice, as stated above (Q.
13, A. 1). If therefore consent were only directed to the means it
would nowise differ from choice. And this is proved to be false by
the authority of Damascene who says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that
"after the approval" which he calls "the sentence," "comes the
choice." Therefore consent is not only directed to the means.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that the
"sentence," i.e. the consent, takes place "when a man approves and
embraces the judgment of his counsel." But counsel is only about the
means. Therefore the same applies to consent.

_I answer that,_ Consent is the application of the appetitive movement
to something that is already in the power of him who causes the
application. Now the order of action is this: First there is the
apprehension of the end; then the desire of the end; then the counsel
about the means; then the desire of the means. Now the appetite tends
to the last end naturally: wherefore the application of the appetitive
movement to the apprehended end has not the nature of consent, but of
simple volition. But as to those things which come under consideration
after the last end, in so far as they are directed to the end, they
come under counsel: and so counsel can be applied to them, in so far
as the appetitive movement is applied to the judgment resulting from
counsel. But the appetitive movement to the end is not applied to
counsel: rather is counsel applied to it, because counsel presupposes
the desire of the end. On the other hand, the desire of the means
presupposes the decision of counsel. And therefore the application of
the appetitive movement to counsel's decision is consent, properly
speaking. Consequently, since counsel is only about the means, consent,
properly speaking, is of nothing else but the means.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the knowledge of conclusions through the
principles is science, whereas the knowledge of the principles is not
science, but something higher, namely, understanding; so do we consent
to the means on account of the end, in respect of which our act is not
consent but something greater, namely, volition.

Reply Obj. 2: Delight in his act, rather than the act itself, is the
end of the intemperate man, and for sake of this delight he
consents to that act.

Reply Obj. 3: Choice includes something that consent has not, namely,
a certain relation to something to which something else is
preferred: and therefore after consent there still remains a choice.
For it may happen that by aid of counsel several means have been found
conducive to the end, and through each of these meeting with approval,
consent has been given to each: but after approving of many, we have
given our preference to one by choosing it. But if only one meets with
approval, then consent and choice do not differ in reality, but only
in our way of looking at them; so that we call it consent, according
as we approve of doing that thing; but choice according as we prefer
it to those that do not meet with our approval.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 4]

Whether Consent to the Act Belongs Only to the Higher Part of the
Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent to the act does not always
belong to the higher reason. For "delight follows action, and
perfects it, just as beauty perfects youth" [*_oion tois akmaiois he
hora_--as youthful vigor perfects a man in his prime] (Ethic. x, 4).
But consent to delight belongs to the lower reason, as Augustine says
(De Trin. xii, 12). Therefore consent to the act does not belong only
to the higher reason.

Obj. 2: Further, an act to which we consent is said to be voluntary.
But it belongs to many powers to produce voluntary acts. Therefore
the higher reason is not alone in consenting to the act.

Obj. 3: Further, "the higher reason is that which is intent on the
contemplation and consultation of things eternal," as Augustine says
(De Trin. xii, 7). But man often consents to an act not for eternal,
but for temporal reasons, or even on account of some passion of the
soul. Therefore consent to an act does not belong to the higher
reason alone.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12): "It is
impossible for man to make up his mind to commit a sin, unless that
mental faculty which has the sovereign power of urging his members
to, or restraining them from, act, yield to the evil deed and become
its slave."

_I answer that,_ The final decision belongs to him who holds the
highest place, and to whom it belongs to judge of the others; for as
long as judgment about some matter remains to be pronounced, the
final decision has not been given. Now it is evident that it belongs
to the higher reason to judge of all: since it is by the reason that
we judge of sensible things; and of things pertaining to human
principles we judge according to Divine principles, which is the
function of the higher reason. Wherefore as long as a man is
uncertain whether he resists or not, according to Divine principles,
no judgment of the reason can be considered in the light of a final
decision. Now the final decision of what is to be done is consent to
the act. Therefore consent to the act belongs to the higher reason;
but in that sense in which the reason includes the will, as stated
above (A. 1, ad 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Consent to delight in the work done belongs to the
higher reason, as also does consent to the work; but consent to
delight in thought belongs to the lower reason, just as to the lower
reason it belongs to think. Nevertheless the higher reason exercises
judgment on the fact of thinking or not thinking, considered as an
action; and in like manner on the delight that results. But in so far
as the act of thinking is considered as ordained to a further act, it
belongs to the lower reason. For that which is ordained to something
else, belongs to a lower art or power than does the end to which it
is ordained: hence the art which is concerned with the end is called
the master or principal art.

Reply Obj. 2: Since actions are called voluntary from the fact that
we consent to them, it does not follow that consent is an act of each
power, but of the will which is in the reason, as stated above (A. 1,
ad 1), and from which the voluntary act is named.

Reply Obj. 3: The higher reason is said to consent not only because
it always moves to act, according to the eternal reasons; but also
because it fails to dissent according to those same reasons.
________________________

QUESTION 16

OF USE, WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL IN REGARD TO THE MEANS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider use; concerning which there are four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether use is an act of the will?

(2) Whether it is to be found in irrational animals?

(3) Whether it regards the means only, or the end also?

(4) Of the relation of use to choice.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 1]

Whether Use Is an Act of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that use is not an act of the will. For
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4) that "to use is to refer that
which is the object of use to the obtaining of something else." But
"to refer" something to another is an act of the reason to which it
belongs to compare and to direct. Therefore use is an act of the
reason and not of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that man "goes
forward to the operation, and this is called impulse; then he makes
use (of the powers) and this is called use." But operation belongs to
the executive power; and the act of the will does not follow the act
of the executive power, on the contrary execution comes last.
Therefore use is not an act of the will.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "All things that
were made were made for man's use, because reason with which man is
endowed uses all things by its judgment of them." But judgment of
things created by God belongs to the speculative reason; which seems
to be altogether distinct from the will, which is the principle of
human acts. Therefore use is not an act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11): "To use is to
apply to something to purpose of the will."

_I answer that,_ The use of a thing implies the application of that
thing to an operation: hence the operation to which we apply a thing
is called its use; thus the use of a horse is to ride, and the use of
a stick is to strike. Now we apply to an operation not only the
interior principles of action, viz. the powers of the soul or the
members of the body; as the intellect, to understand; and the eye, to
see; but also external things, as a stick, to strike. But it is
evident that we do not apply external things to an operation save
through the interior principles which are either the powers of the
soul, or the habits of those powers, or the organs which are parts of
the body. Now it has been shown above (Q. 9, A. 1) that it is the
will which moves the soul's powers to their acts, and this is to
apply them to operation. Hence it is evident that first and
principally use belongs to the will as first mover; to the reason, as
directing; and to the other powers as executing the operation, which
powers are compared to the will which applies them to act, as the
instruments are compared to the principal agent. Now action is
properly ascribed, not to the instrument, but to the principal agent,
as building is ascribed to the builder, not to his tools. Hence it is
evident that use is, properly speaking, an act of the will.

Reply Obj. 1: Reason does indeed refer one thing to another; but the
will tends to that which is referred by the reason to something else.
And in this sense to use is to refer one thing to another.

Reply Obj. 2: Damascene is speaking of use in so far as it belongs to
the executive powers.

Reply Obj. 3: Even the speculative reason is applied by the will to
the act of understanding or judging. Consequently the speculative
reason is said to use, in so far as it is moved by the will, in the
same way as the other powers.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 2]

Whether Use Is to Be Found in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that use is to be found in irrational
animals. For it is better to enjoy than to use, because, as Augustine
says (De Trin. x, 10): "We use things by referring them to something
else which we are to enjoy." But enjoyment is to be found in
irrational animals, as stated above (Q. 11, A. 2). Much more,
therefore, is it possible for them to use.

Obj. 2: Further, to apply the members to action is to use them. But
irrational animals apply their members to action; for instance, their
feet, to walk; their horns, to strike. Therefore it is possible for
irrational animals to use.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "None but a
rational animal can make use of a thing."

_I answer that,_ as stated above (A. 1), to use is to apply an active
principle to action: thus to consent is to apply the appetitive
movement to the desire of something, as stated above (Q. 15, AA. 1,
2, 3). Now he alone who has the disposal of a thing, can apply it to
something else; and this belongs to him alone who knows how to refer
it to something else, which is an act of the reason. And therefore
none but a rational animal consents and uses.

Reply Obj. 1: To enjoy implies the absolute movement of the appetite
to the appetible: whereas to use implies a movement of the appetite
to something as directed to something else. If therefore we compare
use and enjoyment in respect of their objects, enjoyment is better
than use; because that which is appetible absolutely is better than
that which is appetible only as directed to something else. But if we
compare them in respect of the apprehensive power that precedes them,
greater excellence is required on the part of use: because to direct
one thing to another is an act of reason; whereas to apprehend
something absolutely is within the competency even of sense.

Reply Obj. 2: Animals by means of their members do something from
natural instinct; not through knowing the relation of their members
to these operations. Wherefore, properly speaking, they do not apply
their members to action, nor do they use them.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 3]

Whether Use Regards Also the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that use can regard also the last end. For
Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11): "Whoever enjoys, uses." But man
enjoys the last end. Therefore he uses the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, "to use is to apply something to the purpose of the
will" (De Trin. x, 11). But the last end, more than anything else, is
the object of the will's application. Therefore it can be the object
of use.

Obj. 3: Further, Hilary says (De Trin. ii) that "Eternity is in the
Father, Likeness in the Image," i.e. in the Son, "Use in the Gift,"
i.e. in the Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost, since He is God, is the
last end. Therefore the last end can be the object of use.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "No one rightly
uses God, but one enjoys Him." But God alone is the last end.
Therefore we cannot use the last end.

_I answer that,_ Use, as stated above (A. 1), implies the application
of one thing to another. Now that which is applied to another is
regarded in the light of means to an end; and consequently use always
regards the means. For this reason things that are adapted to a
certain end are said to be "useful"; in fact their very usefulness is
sometimes called use.

It must, however, be observed that the last end may be taken in two
ways: first, simply; secondly, in respect of an individual. For
since the end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), signifies
sometimes the thing itself, and sometimes the attainment or
possession of that thing (thus the miser's end is either money or
the possession of it); it is evident that, simply speaking, the last
end is the thing itself; for the possession of money is good only
inasmuch as there is some good in money. But in regard to the
individual, the obtaining of money is the last end; for the miser
would not seek for money, save that he might have it. Therefore,
simply and properly speaking, a man enjoys money, because he places
his last end therein; but in so far as he seeks to possess it, he
is said to use it.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of use in general, in so far as
it implies the relation of an end to the enjoyment which a man seeks
in that end.

Reply Obj. 2: The end is applied to the purpose of the will, that
the will may find rest in it. Consequently this rest in the end,
which is the enjoyment thereof, is in this sense called use of the
end. But the means are applied to the will's purpose, not only in
being used as means, but as ordained to something else in which the
will finds rest.

Reply Obj. 3: The words of Hilary refer to use as applicable
to rest in the last end; just as, speaking in a general sense, one may
be said to use the end for the purpose of attaining it, as stated
above. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10) that "this love, delight,
felicity, or happiness, is called use by him."
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 4]

Whether Use Precedes Choice?

Objection 1: It would seem that use precedes choice. For nothing
follows after choice, except execution. But use, since it belongs to
the will, precedes execution. Therefore it precedes choice also.

Obj. 2: Further, the absolute precedes the relative. Therefore the
less relative precedes the more relative. But choice implies two
relations: one, of the thing chosen, in relation to the end; the
other, of the thing chosen, in respect of that to which it is
preferred; whereas use implies relation to the end only. Therefore
use precedes choice.

Obj. 3: Further, the will uses the other powers in so far as it
removes them. But the will moves itself, too, as stated above (Q. 9,
A. 3). Therefore it uses itself, by applying itself to act. But it
does this when it consents. Therefore there is use in consent. But
consent precedes choice as stated above (Q. 15, A. 3, ad 3).
Therefore use does also.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "the
will after choosing has an impulse to the operation, and afterwards
it uses (the powers)." Therefore use follows choice.

_I answer that,_ The will has a twofold relation to the thing willed.
One, according as the thing willed is, in a way, in the willing
subject, by a kind of proportion or order to the thing willed.
Wherefore those things that are naturally proportionate to a certain
end, are said to desire that end naturally. Yet to have an end thus
is to have it imperfectly. Now every imperfect thing tends to
perfection. And therefore both the natural and the voluntary appetite
tend to have the end in reality; and this is to have it perfectly.
This is the second relation of the will to the thing willed.

Now the thing willed is not only the end, but also the means. And the
last act that belongs to the first relation of the will to the means,
is choice; for there the will becomes fully proportionate, by willing
the means fully. Use, on the other hand, belongs to the second
relation of the will, in respect of which it tends to the realization
of the thing willed. Wherefore it is evident that use follows choice;
provided that by use we mean the will's use of the executive power in
moving it. But since the will, in a way, moves the reason also, and
uses it, we may take the use of the means, as consisting in the
consideration of the reason, whereby it refers the means to the end.
In this sense use precedes choice.

Reply Obj. 1: The motion of the will to the execution of the
work, precedes execution, but follows choice. And so, since use
belongs to that very motion of the will, it stands between choice and
execution.

Reply Obj. 2: What is essentially relative is after the
absolute; but the thing to which relation is referred need not come
after. Indeed, the more a cause precedes, the more numerous the
effects to which it has relation.

Reply Obj. 3: Choice precedes use, if they be referred to the
same object. But nothing hinders the use of one thing preceding the
choice of another. And since the acts of the will react on one
another, in each act of the will we can find both consent and choice
and use; so that we may say that the will consents to choose, and
consents to consent, and uses itself in consenting and choosing. And
such acts as are ordained to that which precedes, precede also.
________________________

QUESTION 17

OF THE ACTS COMMANDED BY THE WILL (In Nine Articles)

We must now consider the acts commanded by the will; under which head
there are nine points of inquiry:

(1) Whether command is an act of the will or of the reason?

(2) Whether command belongs to irrational animals?

(3) Of the order between command and use;

(4) Whether command and the commanded act are one act or distinct?

(5) Whether the act of the will is commanded?

(6) Whether the act of the reason is commanded?

(7) Whether the act of the sensitive appetite is commanded?

(8) Whether the act of the vegetal soul is commanded?

(9) Whether the acts of the external members are commanded?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 1]

Whether Command Is an Act of the Reason or of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that command is not an act of the reason
but of the will. For command is a kind of motion; because Avicenna
says that there are four ways of moving, "by perfecting, by
disposing, by commanding, and by counselling." But it belongs to the
will to move all the other powers of the soul, as stated above (Q. 9,
A. 1). Therefore command is an act of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, just as to be commanded belongs to that which is
subject, so, seemingly, to command belongs to that which is most
free. But the root of liberty is especially in the will. Therefore
to command belongs to the will.

Obj. 3: Further, command is followed at once by act. But the act of
the reason is not followed at once by act: for he who judges that a
thing should be done, does not do it at once. Therefore command is
not an act of the reason, but of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xvi.]
and the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13) say that "the appetite obeys
reason." Therefore command is an act of the reason.

_I answer that,_ Command is an act of the reason presupposing,
however, an act of the will. In proof of this, we must take note
that, since the acts of the reason and of the will can be brought to
bear on one another, in so far as the reason reasons about willing,
and the will wills to reason, the result is that the act of the
reason precedes the act of the will, and conversely. And since the
power of the preceding act continues in the act that follows, it
happens sometimes that there is an act of the will in so far as it
retains in itself something of an act of the reason, as we have
stated in reference to use and choice; and conversely, that there is
an act of the reason in so far as it retains in itself something of
an act of the will.

Now, command is essentially indeed an act of the reason: for the
commander orders the one commanded to do something, by way of
intimation or declaration; and to order thus by intimating or
declaring is an act of the reason. Now the reason can intimate or
declare something in two ways. First, absolutely: and this intimation
is expressed by a verb in the indicative mood, as when one person
says to another: "This is what you should do." Sometimes, however,
the reason intimates something to a man by moving him thereto; and
this intimation is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood; as
when it is said to someone: "Do this." Now the first mover, among the
powers of the soul, to the doing of an act is the will, as stated
above (Q. 9, A. 1). Since therefore the second mover does not move,
save in virtue of the first mover, it follows that the very fact that
the reason moves by commanding, is due to the power of the will.
Consequently it follows that command is an act of the reason,
presupposing an act of the will, in virtue of which the reason, by
its command, moves (the power) to the execution of the act.

Reply Obj. 1: To command is to move, not anyhow, but by intimating
and declaring to another; and this is an act of the reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The root of liberty is the will as the subject thereof;
but it is the reason as its cause. For the will can tend freely
towards various objects, precisely because the reason can have
various perceptions of good. Hence philosophers define the free-will
as being "a free judgment arising from reason," implying that reason
is the root of liberty.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument proves that command is an act of reason
not absolutely, but with a kind of motion as stated above.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 2]

Whether Command Belongs to Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that command belongs to irrational
animals. Because, according to Avicenna, "the power that commands
movement is the appetite; and the power that executes movement is in
the muscles and nerves." But both powers are in irrational animals.
Therefore command is to be found in irrational animals.

Obj. 2: Further, the condition of a slave is that of one who receives
commands. But the body is compared to the soul as a slave to his
master, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2). Therefore the body is
commanded by the soul, even in irrational animals, since they are
composed of soul and body.

Obj. 3: Further, by commanding, man has an impulse towards an action.
But impulse to action is to be found in irrational animals, as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22). Therefore command is to be
found in irrational animals.

_On the contrary,_ Command is an act of reason, as stated above (A.
1). But in irrational animals there is no reason. Neither, therefore,
is there command.

_I answer that,_ To command is nothing else than to direct someone to
do something, by a certain motion of intimation. Now to direct is the
proper act of reason. Wherefore it is impossible that irrational
animals should command in any way, since they are devoid of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The appetitive power is said to command movement, in so
far as it moves the commanding reason. But this is only in man. In
irrational animals the appetitive power is not, properly speaking, a
commanding faculty, unless command be taken loosely for motion.

Reply Obj. 2: The body of the irrational animal is competent to obey;
but its soul is not competent to command, because it is not competent
to direct. Consequently there is no ratio there of commander and
commanded; but only of mover and moved.

Reply Obj. 3: Impulse to action is in irrational animals otherwise
than in man. For the impulse of man to action arises from the
directing reason; wherefore his impulse is one of command. On the
other hand, the impulse of the irrational animal arises from natural
instinct; because as soon as they apprehend the fitting or the
unfitting, their appetite is moved naturally to pursue or to avoid.
Wherefore they are directed by another to act; and they themselves do
not direct themselves to act. Consequently in them is impulse but not
command.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 3]

Whether Use Precedes Command?

Objection 1: It would seem that use precedes command. For command is
an act of the reason presupposing an act of the will, as stated above
(A. 1). But, as we have already shown (Q. 16, A. 1), use is an act of
the will. Therefore use precedes command.

Obj. 2: Further, command is one of those things that are ordained to
the end. But use is of those things that are ordained to the end.
Therefore it seems that use precedes command.

Obj. 3: Further, every act of a power moved by the will is called
use; because the will uses the other powers, as stated above (Q. 16,
A. 1). But command is an act of the reason as moved by the will, as
stated above (A. 1). Therefore command is a kind of use. Now the
common precedes the proper. Therefore use precedes command.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that impulse
to action precedes use. But impulse to operation is given by command.
Therefore command precedes use.

_I answer that,_ use of that which is directed to the end, in so far
as it is in the reason referring this to the end, precedes choice, as
stated above (Q. 16, A. 4). Wherefore still more does it precede
command. On the other hand, use of that which is directed to the end,
in so far as it is subject to the executive power, follows command;
because use in the user is united to the act of the thing used; for
one does not use a stick before doing something with the stick. But
command is not simultaneous with the act of the thing to which the
command is given: for it naturally precedes its fulfilment,
sometimes, indeed, by priority of time. Consequently it is evident
that command precedes use.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every act of the will precedes this act of the
reason which is command; but an act of the will precedes, viz.
choice; and an act of the will follows, viz. use. Because after
counsel's decision, which is reason's judgment, the will chooses; and
after choice, the reason commands that power which has to do what was
chosen; and then, last of all, someone's will begins to use, by
executing the command of reason; sometimes it is another's will, when
one commands another; sometimes the will of the one that commands,
when he commands himself to do something.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as act ranks before power, so does the object rank
before the act. Now the object of use is that which is directed to
the end. Consequently, from the fact that command [itself is directed
to the end, it may be concluded that command] precedes, rather than
that it follows use.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as the act of the will in using the reason for the
purpose of command, precedes the command; so also we may say that
this act whereby the will uses the reason, is preceded by a command
of reason; since the acts of these powers react on one another.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 4]

Whether Command and the Commanded Act Are One Act, or Distinct?

Objection 1: It would seem that the commanded act is not one with the
command itself. For the acts of different powers are themselves
distinct. But the commanded act belongs to one power, and the command
to another; since one is the power that commands, and the other is
the power that receives the command. Therefore the commanded act is
not one with the command.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever things can be separate from one another,
are distinct: for nothing is severed from itself. But sometimes the
commanded act is separate from the command: for sometimes the command
is given, and the commanded act follows not. Therefore command is a
distinct act from the act commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever things are related to one another as
precedent and consequent, are distinct. But command naturally
precedes the commanded act. Therefore they are distinct.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Topic. iii, 2) that "where
one thing is by reason of another, there is but one." But there is no
commanded act unless by reason of the command. Therefore they are one.

_I answer that,_ Nothing prevents certain things being distinct in
one respect, and one in another respect. Indeed, every multitude is
one in some respect, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xiii). But a
difference is to be observed in this, that some are simply many, and
one in a particular aspect: while with others it is the reverse. Now
"one" is predicated in the same way as "being." And substance is
being simply, whereas accident or being "of reason" is a being only
in a certain respect. Wherefore those things that are one in
substance are one simply, though many in a certain respect. Thus, in
the genus substance, the whole composed of its integral or essential
parts, is one simply: because the whole is being and substance
simply, and the parts are being and substances in the whole. But
those things which are distinct in substance, and one according to an
accident, are distinct simply, and one in a certain respect: thus
many men are one people, and many stones are one heap; which is unity
of composition or order. In like manner also many individuals that
are one in genus or species are many simply, and one in a certain
respect: since to be one in genus or species is to be one according
to the consideration of the reason.

Now just as in the genus of natural things, a whole is composed of
matter and form (e.g. man, who is one natural being, though he has
many parts, is composed of soul and body); so, in human acts, the act
of a lower power is in the position of matter in regard to the act of
a higher power, in so far as the lower power acts in virtue of the
higher power moving it: for thus also the act of the first mover is
as the form in regard to the act of its instrument. Hence it is
evident that command and the commanded act are one human act, just as
a whole is one, yet in its parts, many.

Reply Obj. 1: If the distinct powers are not ordained to one another,
their acts are diverse simply. But when one power is the mover of the
other, then their acts are, in a way, one: since "the act of the
mover and the act of the thing moved are one act" (Phys. iii, 3).

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that command and the commanded act can be
separated from one another shows that they are different parts.
Because the parts of a man can be separated from one another, and yet
they form one whole.

Reply Obj. 3: In those things that are many in parts, but one as a
whole, nothing hinders one part from preceding another. Thus the
soul, in a way, precedes the body; and the heart, the other members.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 5]

Whether the Act of the Will Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of the will is not commanded.
For Augustine says (Confess. viii, 9): "The mind commands the mind to
will, and yet it does not." But to will is the act of the will.
Therefore the act of the will is not commanded.

Obj. 2: Further, to receive a command belongs to one who can
understand the command. But the will cannot understand the command;
for the will differs from the intellect, to which it belongs to
understand. Therefore the act of the will is not commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, if one act of the will is commanded, for the same
reason all are commanded. But if all the acts of the will are
commanded, we must needs proceed to infinity; because the act of the
will precedes the act of reason commanding, as stated above (A. 1);
for if that act of the will be also commanded, this command will be
preceded by another act of the reason, and so on to infinity. But to
proceed to infinity is not possible. Therefore the act of the will
is not commanded.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is in our power, is subject to our
command. But the acts of the will, most of all, are in our power;
since all our acts are said to be in our power, in so far as they are
voluntary. Therefore the acts of the will are commanded by us.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), command is nothing else than
the act of the reason directing, with a certain motion, something to
act. Now it is evident that the reason can direct the act of the
will: for just as it can judge it to be good to will something, so it
can direct by commanding man to will. From this it is evident that an
act of the will can be commanded.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Confess. viii, 9) when the mind
commands itself perfectly to will, then already it wills: but that
sometimes it commands and wills not, is due to the fact that it
commands imperfectly. Now imperfect command arises from the fact that
the reason is moved by opposite motives to command or not to command:
wherefore it fluctuates between the two, and fails to command
perfectly.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as each of the members of the body works not for
itself alone but for the whole body; thus it is for the whole body
that the eye sees; so is it with the powers of the soul. For the
intellect understands, not for itself alone, but for all the powers;
and the will wills not only for itself, but for all the powers too.
Wherefore man, in so far as he is endowed with intellect and will,
commands the act of the will for himself.

Reply Obj. 3: Since command is an act of reason, that act is
commanded which is subject to reason. Now the first act of the will
is not due to the direction of the reason but to the instigation of
nature, or of a higher cause, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 4).
Therefore there is no need to proceed to infinity.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 6]

Whether the Act of the Reason Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of the reason cannot be
commanded. For it seems impossible for a thing to command itself. But
it is the reason that commands, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore the
act of the reason is not commanded.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is essential is different from that which
is by participation. But the power whose act is commanded by reason,
is rational by participation, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13. Therefore
the act of that power, which is essentially rational, is not
commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, that act is commanded, which is in our power. But to
know and judge the truth, which is the act of reason, is not always
in our power. Therefore the act of the reason cannot be commanded.

_On the contrary,_ That which we do of our free-will, can be done by
our command. But the acts of the reason are accomplished through the
free-will: for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "by his
free-will man inquires, considers, judges, approves." Therefore the
acts of the reason can be commanded.

_I answer that,_ Since the reason reacts on itself, just as it
directs the acts of other powers, so can it direct its own act.
Consequently its act can be commanded.

But we must take note that the act of the reason may be considered in
two ways. First, as to the exercise of the act. And considered thus,
the act of the reason can always be commanded: as when one is told to
be attentive, and to use one's reason. Secondly, as to the object; in
respect of which two acts of the reason have to be noticed. One is
the act whereby it apprehends the truth about something. This act is
not in our power: because it happens in virtue of a natural or
supernatural light. Consequently in this respect, the act of the
reason is not in our power, and cannot be commanded. The other act of
the reason is that whereby it assents to what it apprehends. If,
therefore, that which the reason apprehends is such that it naturally
assents thereto, e.g. the first principles, it is not in our power to
assent or dissent to the like: assent follows naturally, and
consequently, properly speaking, is not subject to our command. But
some things which are apprehended do not convince the intellect to
such an extent as not to leave it free to assent or dissent, or at
least suspend its assent or dissent, on account of some cause or
other; and in such things assent or dissent is in our power, and is
subject to our command.

Reply Obj. 1: Reason commands itself, just as the will moves itself,
as stated above (Q. 9, A. 3), that is to say, in so far as each power
reacts on its own acts, and from one thing tends to another.

Reply Obj. 2: On account of the diversity of objects subject to the
act of the reason, nothing prevents the reason from participating in
itself: thus the knowledge of principles is participated in the
knowledge of the conclusions.

The reply to the third object is evident from what has been said.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 7]

Whether the Act of the Sensitive Appetite Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of the sensitive appetite is
not commanded. For the Apostle says (Rom. 7:15): "For I do not that
good which I will": and a gloss explains this by saying that man
lusts, although he wills not to lust. But to lust is an act of the
sensitive appetite. Therefore the act of the sensitive appetite is
not subject to our command.

Obj. 2: Further, corporeal matter obeys God alone, to the effect of
formal transmutation, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 65, A. 4; Q.
91, A. 2; Q. 110, A. 2). But the act of the sensitive appetite is
accompanied by a formal transmutation of the body, consisting in heat
or cold. Therefore the act of the sensitive appetite is not subject
to man's command.

Obj. 3: Further, the proper motive principle of the sensitive
appetite is something apprehended by sense or imagination. But it is
not always in our power to apprehend something by sense or
imagination. Therefore the act of the sensitive appetite is not
subject to our command.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xvi.]
says: "That which obeys reason is twofold, the concupiscible and the
irascible," which belong to the sensitive appetite. Therefore the act
of the sensitive appetite is subject to the command of reason.

_I answer that,_ An act is subject to our command, in so far as it is
in our power, as stated above (A. 5). Consequently in order to
understand in what manner the act of the sensitive appetite is
subject to the command of reason, we must consider in what manner it
is in our power. Now it must be observed that the sensitive appetite
differs from the intellective appetite, which is called the will, in
the fact that the sensitive appetite is a power of a corporeal organ,
whereas the will is not. Again, every act of a power that uses a
corporeal organ, depends not only on a power of the soul, but also on
the disposition of that corporeal organ: thus the act of vision
depends on the power of sight, and on the condition of the eye, which
condition is a help or a hindrance to that act. Consequently the act
of the sensitive appetite depends not only on the appetitive power,
but also on the disposition of the body.

Now whatever part the power of the soul takes in the act, follows
apprehension. And the apprehension of the imagination, being a
particular apprehension, is regulated by the apprehension of reason,
which is universal; just as a particular active power is regulated by
a universal active power. Consequently in this respect the act of the
sensitive appetite is subject to the command of reason. On the other
hand, condition or disposition of the body is not subject to the
command of reason: and consequently in this respect, the movement of
the sensitive appetite is hindered from being wholly subject to the
command of reason.

Moreover it happens sometimes that the movement of the sensitive
appetite is aroused suddenly in consequence of an apprehension of the
imagination of sense. And then such movement occurs without the
command of reason: although reason could have prevented it, had it
foreseen. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2) that the reason
governs the irascible and concupiscible not by a "despotic
supremacy," which is that of a master over his slave; but by a
"politic and royal supremacy," whereby the free are governed, who are
not wholly subject to command.

Reply Obj. 1: That man lusts, although he wills not to lust, is due
to a disposition of the body, whereby the sensitive appetite is
hindered from perfect compliance with the command of reason. Hence
the Apostle adds (Rom. 7:15): "I see another law in my members,
fighting against the law of my mind." This may also happen through a
sudden movement of concupiscence, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The condition of the body stands in a twofold relation
to the act of the sensitive appetite. First, as preceding it: thus a
man may be disposed in one way or another, in respect of his body, to
this or that passion. Secondly, as consequent to it: thus a man
becomes heated through anger. Now the condition that precedes, is not
subject to the command of reason: since it is due either to nature,
or to some previous movement, which cannot cease at once. But the
condition that is consequent, follows the command of reason: since it
results from the local movement of the heart, which has various
movements according to the various acts of the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Since the external sensible is necessary for the
apprehension of the senses, it is not in our power to apprehend
anything by the senses, unless the sensible be present; which
presence of the sensible is not always in our power. For it is then
that man can use his senses if he will so to do; unless there be some
obstacle on the part of the organ. On the other hand, the
apprehension of the imagination is subject to the ordering of reason,
in proportion to the strength or weakness of the imaginative power.
For that man is unable to imagine the things that reason considers,
is either because they cannot be imagined, such as incorporeal
things; or because of the weakness of the imaginative power, due to
some organic indisposition.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 8]

Whether the Act of the Vegetal Soul Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the acts of the vegetal soul are
subject to the command of reason. For the sensitive powers are of
higher rank than the vegetal powers. But the powers of the sensitive
soul are subject to the command of reason. Much more, therefore, are
the powers of the vegetal soul.

Obj. 2: Further, man is called a "little world" [*Aristotle,
_Phys._ viii. 2], because the soul is in the body, as God is in the
world. But God is in the world in such a way, that everything in the
world obeys His command. Therefore all that is in man, even the
powers of the vegetal soul, obey the command of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, praise and blame are awarded only to such acts as
are subject to the command of reason. But in the acts of the
nutritive and generative power, there is room for praise and blame,
virtue and vice: as in the case of gluttony and lust, and their
contrary virtues. Therefore the acts of these powers are subject to
the command of reason.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxii.]
says that "the nutritive and generative power is one over which the
reason has no control."

_I answer that,_ Some acts proceed from the natural appetite, others
from the animal, or from the intellectual appetite: for every agent
desires an end in some way. Now the natural appetite does not follow
from some apprehension, as [d]o the animal and the intellectual
appetite. But the reason commands by way of apprehensive power.
Wherefore those acts that proceed from the intellective or the animal
appetite, can be commanded by reason: but not those acts that proceed
from the natural appetite. And such are the acts of the vegetal soul;
wherefore Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxii) says "that
generation and nutrition belong to what are called natural powers."
Consequently the acts of the vegetal soul are not subject to the
command of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The more immaterial an act is, the more noble it is,
and the more is it subject to the command of reason. Hence the very
fact that the acts of the vegetal soul do not obey reason, shows that
they rank lowest.

Reply Obj. 2: The comparison holds in a certain respect: because, to
wit, as God moves the world, so the soul moves the body. But it does
not hold in every respect: for the soul did not create the body out
of nothing, as God created the world; for which reason the world is
wholly subject to His command.

Reply Obj. 3: Virtue and vice, praise and blame do not affect the
acts themselves of the nutritive and generative power, i.e.
digestion, and formation of the human body; but they affect the acts
of the sensitive part, that are ordained to the acts of generation
and nutrition; for example the desire for pleasure in the act of
taking food or in the act of generation, and the right or wrong use
thereof. ________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 9]

Whether the Acts of the External Members Are Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the members of the body do not obey
reason as to their acts. For it is evident that the members of the
body are more distant from the reason, than the powers of the vegetal
soul. But the powers of the vegetal soul do not obey reason, as
stated above (A. 8). Therefore much less do the members of the body
obey.

Obj. 2: Further, the heart is the principle of animal movement. But
the movement of the heart is not subject to the command of reason:
for Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxii.] says that "the
pulse is not controlled by reason." Therefore the movement of the
bodily members is not subject to the command of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 16) that "the
movement of the genital members is sometimes inopportune and not
desired; sometimes when sought it fails, and whereas the heart is
warm with desire, the body remains cold." Therefore the movements of
the members are not obedient to reason.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. viii, 9): "The mind
commands a movement of the hand, and so ready is the hand to obey,
that scarcely can one discern obedience from command."

_I answer that,_ The members of the body are organs of the soul's
powers. Consequently according as the powers of the soul stand in
respect of obedience to reason, so do the members of the body stand
in respect thereof. Since then the sensitive powers are subject to
the command of reason, whereas the natural powers are not; therefore
all movements of members, that are moved by the sensitive powers, are
subject to the command of reason; whereas those movements of members,
that arise from the natural powers, are not subject to the command of
reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The members do not move themselves, but are moved
through the powers of the soul; of which powers, some are in closer
contact with the reason than are the powers of the vegetal soul.

Reply Obj. 2: In things pertaining to intellect and will, that which
is according to nature stands first, whence all other things are
derived: thus from the knowledge of principles that are naturally
known, is derived knowledge of the conclusions; and from volition of
the end naturally desired, is derived the choice of the means. So
also in bodily movements the principle is according to nature. Now
the principle of bodily movements begins with the movement of the
heart. Consequently the movement of the heart is according to nature,
and not according to the will: for like a proper accident, it results
from life, which follows from the union of soul and body. Thus the
movement of heavy and light things results from their substantial
form: for which reason they are said to be moved by their generator,
as the Philosopher states (Phys. viii, 4). Wherefore this movement is
called "vital." For which reason Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat.
Hom. xxii) says that, just as the movement of generation and
nutrition does not obey reason, so neither does the pulse which is a
vital movement. By the pulse he means the movement of the heart which
is indicated by the pulse veins.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 17, 20) it is in
punishment of sin that the movement of these members does not obey
reason: in this sense, that the soul is punished for its rebellion
against God, by the insubmission of that member whereby original sin
is transmitted to posterity.

But because, as we shall state later on, the effect of the sin of our
first parent was that his nature was left to itself, through the
withdrawal of the supernatural gift which God had bestowed on man, we
must consider the natural cause of this particular member's
insubmission to reason. This is stated by Aristotle (De Causis Mot.
Animal.) who says that "the movements of the heart and of the organs
of generation are involuntary," and that the reason of this is as
follows. These members are stirred at the occasion of some
apprehension; in so far as the intellect and imagination represent
such things as arouse the passions of the soul, of which passions
these movements are a consequence. But they are not moved at the
command of the reason or intellect, because these movements are
conditioned by a certain natural change of heat and cold, which
change is not subject to the command of reason. This is the case with
these two organs in particular, because each is as it were a separate
animal being, in so far as it is a principle of life; and the
principle is virtually the whole. For the heart is the principle of
the senses; and from the organ of generation proceeds the seminal
virtue, which is virtually the entire animal. Consequently they have
their proper movements naturally: because principles must needs be
natural, as stated above (Reply Obj. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 18

OF THE GOOD AND EVIL OF HUMAN ACTS, IN GENERAL (In Eleven Articles)

We must now consider the good and evil of human acts. First, how a
human act is good or evil; secondly, what results from the good or
evil of a human act, as merit or demerit, sin and guilt.

Under the first head there will be a threefold consideration: the
first will be of the good and evil of human acts, in general; the
second, of the good and evil of internal acts; the third, of the good
and evil of external acts.

Concerning the first there are eleven points of inquiry:

(1) Whether every human action is good, or are there evil actions?

(2) Whether the good or evil of a human action is derived from its
object?

(3) Whether it is derived from a circumstance?

(4) Whether it is derived from the end?

(5) Whether a human action is good or evil in its species?

(6) Whether an action has the species of good or evil from its end?

(7) Whether the species derived from the end is contained under the
species derived from the object, as under its genus, or conversely?

(8) Whether any action is indifferent in its species?

(9) Whether an individual action can be indifferent?

(10) Whether a circumstance places a moral action in the species of
good or evil?

(11) Whether every circumstance that makes an action better or worse,
places the moral action in the species of good or evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 1]

Whether Every Human Action Is Good, or Are There Evil Actions?

Objection 1: It would seem that every human action is good, and that
none is evil. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil acts not,
save in virtue of the good. But no evil is done in virtue of the
good. Therefore no action is evil.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing acts except in so far as it is in act. Now a
thing is evil, not according as it is in act, but according as its
potentiality is void of act; whereas in so far as its potentiality is
perfected by act, it is good, as stated in _Metaph._ ix, 9. Therefore
nothing acts in so far as it is evil, but only according as it is
good. Therefore every action is good, and none is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, evil cannot be a cause, save accidentally, as
Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv). But every action has some effect
which is proper to it. Therefore no action is evil, but every action
is good.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 3:20): "Every one that doth
evil, hateth the light." Therefore some actions of man are evil.

_I answer that,_ We must speak of good and evil in actions as of good
and evil in things: because such as everything is, such is the act
that it produces. Now in things, each one has so much good as it has
being: since good and being are convertible, as was stated in the
First Part (Q. 5, AA. 1, 3). But God alone has the whole plenitude of
His Being in a certain unity: whereas every other thing has its
proper fulness of being in a certain multiplicity. Wherefore it
happens with some things, that they have being in some respect, and
yet they are lacking in the fulness of being due to them. Thus the
fulness of human being requires a compound of soul and body, having
all the powers and instruments of knowledge and movement: wherefore
if any man be lacking in any of these, he is lacking in something due
to the fulness of his being. So that as much as he has of being, so
much has he of goodness: while so far as he is lacking in goodness,
and is said to be evil: thus a blind man is possessed of goodness
inasmuch as he lives; and of evil, inasmuch as he lacks sight. That,
however, which has nothing of being or goodness, could not be said to
be either evil or good. But since this same fulness of being is of
the very essence of good, if a thing be lacking in its due fulness of
being, it is not said to be good simply, but in a certain respect,
inasmuch as it is a being; although it can be called a being simply,
and a non-being in a certain respect, as was stated in the First Part
(Q. 5, A. 1, ad 1). We must therefore say that every action has
goodness, in so far as it has being; whereas it is lacking in
goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its
fulness of being; and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it
lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its due place, or
something of the kind.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil acts in virtue of deficient goodness. For if there
were nothing of good there, there would be neither being nor
possibility of action. On the other hand if good were not deficient,
there would be no evil. Consequently the action done is a deficient
good, which is good in a certain respect, but simply evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing hinders a thing from being in act in a certain
respect, so that it can act; and in a certain respect deficient in
act, so as to cause a deficient act. Thus a blind man has in act the
power of walking, whereby he is able to walk; but inasmuch as he is
deprived of sight he suffers a defect in walking by stumbling when he
walks.

Reply Obj. 3: An evil action can have a proper effect, according to
the goodness and being that it has. Thus adultery is the cause of
human generation, inasmuch as it implies union of male and female,
but not inasmuch as it lacks the order of reason.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 2]

Whether the Good or Evil of a Man's Action Is Derived from Its Object?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good or evil of an action is not
derived from its object. For the object of any action is a thing. But
"evil is not in things, but in the sinner's use of them," as
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12). Therefore the good or
evil of a human action is not derived from their object.

Obj. 2: Further, the object is compared to the action as its matter.
But the goodness of a thing is not from its matter, but rather from
the form, which is an act. Therefore good and evil in actions is not
derived from their object.

Obj. 3: Further, the object of an active power is compared to the
action as effect to cause. But the goodness of a cause does not
depend on its effect; rather is it the reverse. Therefore good or
evil in actions is not derived from their object.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Osee 9:10): "They became abominable
as those things which they loved." Now man becomes abominable to God
on account of the malice of his action. Therefore the malice of his
action is according to the evil objects that man loves. And the same
applies to the goodness of his action.

_I answer that,_ as stated above (A. 1) the good or evil of an
action, as of other things, depends on its fulness of being or its
lack of that fulness. Now the first thing that belongs to the fulness
of being seems to be that which gives a thing its species. And just
as a natural thing has its species from its form, so an action has
its species from its object, as movement from its term. And therefore
just as the primary goodness of a natural thing is derived from its
form, which gives it its species, so the primary goodness of a moral
action is derived from its suitable object: hence some call such an
action "good in its genus"; for instance, "to make use of what is
one's own." And just as, in natural things, the primary evil is when
a generated thing does not realize its specific form (for instance,
if instead of a man, something else be generated); so the primary
evil in moral actions is that which is from the object, for instance,
"to take what belongs to another." And this action is said to be
"evil in its genus," genus here standing for species, just as we
apply the term "mankind" to the whole human species.

Reply Obj. 1: Although external things are good in themselves,
nevertheless they have not always a due proportion to this or that
action. And so, inasmuch as they are considered as objects of such
actions, they have not the quality of goodness.

Reply Obj. 2: The object is not the matter "of which" (a thing is
made), but the matter "about which" (something is done); and stands
in relation to the act as its form, as it were, through giving it its
species.

Reply Obj. 3: The object of the human action is not always the object
of an active power. For the appetitive power is, in a way, passive;
in so far as it is moved by the appetible object; and yet it is a
principle of human actions. Nor again have the objects of the active
powers always the nature of an effect, but only when they are already
transformed: thus food when transformed is the effect of the
nutritive power; whereas food before being transformed stands in
relation to the nutritive power as the matter about which it
exercises its operation. Now since the object is in some way the
effect of the active power, it follows that it is the term of its
action, and consequently that it gives it its form and species, since
movement derives its species from its term. Moreover, although the
goodness of an action is not caused by the goodness of its effect,
yet an action is said to be good from the fact that it can produce a
good effect. Consequently the very proportion of an action to its
effect is the measure of its goodness.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 3]

Whether Man's Action Is Good or Evil from a Circumstance?

Objection 1: It would seem that an action is not good or evil from a
circumstance. For circumstances stand around (_circumstant_) an action,
as being outside it, as stated above (Q. 7, A. 1). But "good and evil
are in things themselves," as is stated in _Metaph._ vi, 4. Therefore
an action does not derive goodness or malice from a circumstance.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness or malice of an action is considered
principally in the doctrine of morals. But since circumstances are
accidents of actions, it seems that they are outside the scope of
art: because "no art takes notice of what is accidental" (Metaph. vi,
2). Therefore the goodness or malice of an action is not taken from a
circumstance.

Obj. 3: Further, that which belongs to a thing, in respect of its
substance, is not ascribed to it in respect of an accident. But good
and evil belong to an action in respect of its substance; because an
action can be good or evil in its genus as stated above (A. 2).
Therefore an action is not good or bad from a circumstance.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that a
virtuous man acts as he should, and when he should, and so on in
respect of the other circumstances. Therefore, on the other hand, the
vicious man, in the matter of each vice, acts when he should not, or
where he should not, and so on with the other circumstances.
Therefore human actions are good or evil according to circumstances.

_I answer that,_ In natural things, it is to be noted that the whole
fulness of perfection due to a thing, is not from the mere
substantial form, that gives it its species; since a thing derives
much from supervening accidents, as man does from shape, color, and
the like; and if any one of these accidents be out of due proportion,
evil is the result. So it is with action. For the plenitude of its
goodness does not consist wholly in its species, but also in certain
additions which accrue to it by reason of certain accidents: and such
are its due circumstances. Wherefore if something be wanting that is
requisite as a due circumstance the action will be evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Circumstances are outside an action, inasmuch as they
are not part of its essence; but they are in an action as accidents
thereof. Thus, too, accidents in natural substances are outside the
essence.

Reply Obj. 2: Every accident is not accidentally in its subject; for
some are proper accidents; and of these every art takes notice. And
thus it is that the circumstances of actions are considered in the
doctrine of morals.

Reply Obj. 3: Since good and being are convertible; according as
being is predicated of substance and of accident, so is good
predicated of a thing both in respect of its essential being, and in
respect of its accidental being; and this, both in natural things and
in moral actions.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 4]

Whether a Human Action Is Good or Evil from Its End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good and evil in human actions
are not from the end. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "nothing
acts with a view to evil." If therefore an action were good or evil
from its end, no action would be evil. Which is clearly false.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness of an action is something in the
action. But the end is an extrinsic cause. Therefore an action is not
said to be good or bad according to its end.

Obj. 3: Further, a good action may happen to be ordained to an evil
end, as when a man gives an alms from vainglory; and conversely, an
evil action may happen to be ordained to a good end, as a theft
committed in order to give something to the poor. Therefore an action
is not good or evil from its end.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Differ. _Topic._ ii) that "if the
end is good, the thing is good, and if the end be evil, the thing
also is evil."

_I answer that,_ The disposition of things as to goodness is the same
as their disposition as to being. Now in some things the being does
not depend on another, and in these it suffices to consider their
being absolutely. But there are things the being of which depends on
something else, and hence in their regard we must consider their
being in its relation to the cause on which it depends. Now just as
the being of a thing depends on the agent, and the form, so the
goodness of a thing depends on its end. Hence in the Divine Persons,
Whose goodness does not depend on another, the measure of goodness is
not taken from the end. Whereas human actions, and other things, the
goodness of which depends on something else, have a measure of
goodness from the end on which they depend, besides that goodness
which is in them absolutely.

Accordingly a fourfold goodness may be considered in a human action.
First, that which, as an action, it derives from its genus; because
as much as it has of action and being so much has it of goodness, as
stated above (A. 1). Secondly, it has goodness according to its
species; which is derived from its suitable object. Thirdly, it has
goodness from its circumstances, in respect, as it were, of its
accidents. Fourthly, it has goodness from its end, to which it is
compared as to the cause of its goodness.

Reply Obj. 1: The good in view of which one acts is not always a true
good; but sometimes it is a true good, sometimes an apparent good.
And in the latter event, an evil action results from the end in view.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the end is an extrinsic cause, nevertheless
due proportion to the end, and relation to the end, are inherent to
the action.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the
ways mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus
it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its
circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa. However, an
action is not good simply, unless it is good in all those ways: since
"evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete
cause," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 5]

Whether a Human Action Is Good or Evil in Its Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that good and evil in moral actions do not
make a difference of species. For the existence of good and evil in
actions is in conformity with their existence in things, as stated
above (A. 1). But good and evil do not make a specific difference in
things; for a good man is specifically the same as a bad man.
Therefore neither do they make a specific difference in actions.

Obj. 2: Further, since evil is a privation, it is a non-being. But
non-being cannot be a difference, according to the Philosopher
(Metaph. iii, 3). Since therefore the difference constitutes the
species, it seems that an action is not constituted in a species
through being evil. Consequently good and evil do not diversify the
species of human actions.

Obj. 3: Further, acts that differ in species produce different
effects. But the same specific effect results from a good and from an
evil action: thus a man is born of adulterous or of lawful wedlock.
Therefore good and evil actions do not differ in species.

Obj. 4: Further, actions are sometimes said to be good or bad from a
circumstance, as stated above (A. 3). But since a circumstance is an
accident, it does not give an action its species. Therefore human
actions do not differ in species on account of their goodness or
malice.

_On the contrary,_ According to the Philosopher (Ethic ii. 1) "like
habits produce like actions." But a good and a bad habit differ in
species, as liberality and prodigality. Therefore also good and bad
actions differ in species.

_I answer that,_ Every action derives its species from its object, as
stated above (A. 2). Hence it follows that a difference of object
causes a difference of species in actions. Now, it must be observed
that a difference of objects causes a difference of species in
actions, according as the latter are referred to one active
principle, which does not cause a difference in actions, according as
they are referred to another active principle. Because nothing
accidental constitutes a species, but only that which is essential;
and a difference of object may be essential in reference to one
active principle, and accidental in reference to another. Thus to
know color and to know sound, differ essentially in reference to
sense, but not in reference to the intellect.

Now in human actions, good and evil are predicated in reference to
the reason; because as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "the good of
man is to be in accordance with reason," and evil is "to be against
reason." For that is good for a thing which suits it in regard to its
form; and evil, that which is against the order of its form. It is
therefore evident that the difference of good and evil considered in
reference to the object is an essential difference in relation to
reason; that is to say, according as the object is suitable or
unsuitable to reason. Now certain actions are called human or moral,
inasmuch as they proceed from the reason. Consequently it is evident
that good and evil diversify the species in human actions; since
essential differences cause a difference of species.

Reply Obj. 1: Even in natural things, good and evil, inasmuch as
something is according to nature, and something against nature,
diversify the natural species; for a dead body and a living body are
not of the same species. In like manner, good, inasmuch as it is in
accord with reason, and evil, inasmuch as it is against
reason, inasmuch as it is against reason, diversify the moral species.

Reply Obj. 2: Evil implies privation, not absolute, but affecting
some potentiality. For an action is said to be evil in its species,
not because it has no object at all; but because it has an object in
disaccord with reason, for instance, to appropriate another's
property. Wherefore in so far as the object is something positive, it
can constitute the species of an evil act.

Reply Obj. 3: The conjugal act and adultery, as compared to reason,
differ specifically and have effects specifically different; because
the other deserves praise and reward, the other, blame and
punishment. But as compared to the generative power, they do not
differ in species; and thus they have one specific effect.

Reply Obj. 4: A circumstance is sometimes taken as the essential
difference of the object, as compared to reason; and then it can
specify a moral act. And it must needs be so whenever a circumstance
transforms an action from good to evil; for a circumstance would not
make an action evil, except through being repugnant to reason.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 6]

Whether an Action Has the Species of Good or Evil from Its End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good and evil which are from the
end do not diversify the species of actions. For actions derive their
species from the object. But the end is altogether apart from the
object. Therefore the good and evil which are from the end do not
diversify the species of an action.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is accidental does not constitute the
species, as stated above (A. 5). But it is accidental to an action to
be ordained to some particular end; for instance, to give alms from
vainglory. Therefore actions are not diversified as to species,
according to the good and evil which are from the end.

Obj. 3: Further, acts that differ in species, can be ordained to the
same end: thus to the end of vainglory, actions of various virtues
and vices can be ordained. Therefore the good and evil which are
taken from the end, do not diversify the species of action.

_On the contrary,_ It has been shown above (Q. 1, A. 3) that human
actions derive their species from the end. Therefore good and evil in
respect of the end diversify the species of actions.

_I answer that,_ Certain actions are called human, inasmuch as they
are voluntary, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1). Now, in a voluntary
action, there is a twofold action, viz. the interior action of the
will, and the external action: and each of these actions has its
object. The end is properly the object of the interior act of the
will: while the object of the external action, is that on which the
action is brought to bear. Therefore just as the external action
takes its species from the object on which it bears; so the interior
act of the will takes its species from the end, as from its own
proper object.

Now that which is on the part of the will is formal in regard to that
which is on the part of the external action: because the will uses
the limbs to act as instruments; nor have external actions any
measure of morality, save in so far as they are voluntary.
Consequently the species of a human act is considered formally with
regard to the end, but materially with regard to the object of the
external action. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he
who steals that he may commit adultery, is strictly speaking, more
adulterer than thief."

Reply Obj. 1: The end also has the character of an object, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it is accidental to the external action to be
ordained to some particular end, it is not accidental to the interior
act of the will, which act is compared to the external act, as form
to matter.

Reply Obj. 3: When many actions, differing in species, are ordained
to the same end, there is indeed a diversity of species on the part
of the external actions; but unity of species on the part of the
internal action.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 7]

Whether the Species Derived from the End Is Contained Under the
Species Derived from the Object, As Under Its Genus, or Conversely?

Objection 1: It would seem that the species of goodness derived from
the end is contained under the species of goodness derived from the
object, as a species is contained under its genus; for instance, when
a man commits a theft in order to give alms. For an action takes its
species from its object, as stated above (AA. 2, 6). But it is
impossible for a thing to be contained under another species, if this
species be not contained under the proper species of that thing;
because the same thing cannot be contained in different species that
are not subordinate to one another. Therefore the species which is
taken from the end, is contained under the species which is taken
from the object.

Obj. 2: Further, the last difference always constitutes the most
specific species. But the difference derived from the end seems to
come after the difference derived from the object: because the end is
something last. Therefore the species derived from the end, is
contained under the species derived from the object, as its most
specific species.

Obj. 3: Further, the more formal a difference is, the more specific
it is: because difference is compared to genus, as form to matter.
But the species derived from the end, is more formal than that which
is derived from the object, as stated above (A. 6). Therefore the
species derived from the end is contained under the species derived
from the object, as the most specific species is contained under the
subaltern genus.

_On the contrary,_ Each genus has its determinate differences. But an
action of one same species on the part of its object, can be ordained
to an infinite number of ends: for instance, theft can be ordained to
an infinite number of good and bad ends. Therefore the species
derived from the end is not contained under the species derived from
the object, as under its genus.

_I answer that,_ The object of the external act can stand in a
twofold relation to the end of the will: first, as being of itself
ordained thereto; thus to fight well is of itself ordained to
victory; secondly, as being ordained thereto accidentally; thus to
take what belongs to another is ordained accidentally to the giving
of alms. Now the differences that divide a genus, and constitute the
species of that genus, must, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. vii,
12), divide that genus essentially: and if they divide it
accidentally, the division is incorrect: as, if one were to say:
"Animals are divided into rational and irrational; and the irrational
into animals with wings, and animals without wings"; for "winged" and
"wingless" are not essential determinations of the irrational being.
But the following division would be correct: "Some animals have feet,
some have no feet: and of those that have feet, some have two feet,
some four, some many": because the latter division is an essential
determination of the former. Accordingly when the object is not of
itself ordained to the end, the specific difference derived from the
object is not an essential determination of the species derived from
the end, nor is the reverse the case. Wherefore one of these species
is not under the other; but then the moral action is contained under
two species that are disparate, as it were. Consequently we say that
he that commits theft for the sake of adultery, is guilty of a
twofold malice in one action. On the other hand, if the object be of
itself ordained to the end, one of these differences is an essential
determination of the other. Wherefore one of these species will be
contained under the other.

It remains to be considered which of the two is contained under the
other. In order to make this clear, we must first of all observe that
the more particular the form is from which a difference is taken, the
more specific is the difference. Secondly, that the more universal an
agent is, the more universal a form does it cause. Thirdly, that the
more remote an end is, the more universal the agent to which it
corresponds; thus victory, which is the last end of the army, is the
end intended by the commander in chief; while the right ordering of
this or that regiment is the end intended by one of the lower
officers. From all this it follows that the specific difference
derived from the end, is more general; and that the difference
derived from an object which of itself is ordained to that end, is a
specific difference in relation to the former. For the will, the
proper object of which is the end, is the universal mover in respect
of all the powers of the soul, the proper objects of which are the
objects of their particular acts.

Reply Obj. 1: One and the same thing, considered in its substance,
cannot be in two species, one of which is not subordinate to the
other. But in respect of those things which are superadded to the
substance, one thing can be contained under different species. Thus
one and the same fruit, as to its color, is contained under one
species, i.e. a white thing: and, as to its perfume, under the
species of sweet-smelling things. In like manner an action which, as
to its substance, is in one natural species, considered in respect to
the moral conditions that are added to it, can belong to two species,
as stated above (Q. 1, A. 3, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 2: The end is last in execution; but first in the
intention of the reason, in regard to which moral actions receive
their species.

Reply Obj. 3: Difference is compared to genus as form to matter,
inasmuch as it actualizes the genus. On the other hand, the genus is
considered as more formal than the species, inasmuch as it is
something more absolute and less contracted. Wherefore also the parts
of a definition are reduced to the genus of formal cause, as is
stated in _Phys._  ii, 3. And in this sense the genus is the formal
cause of the species; and so much the more formal, as it is more
universal.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 8]

Whether Any Action Is Indifferent in Its Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that no action is indifferent in its
species. For evil is the privation of good, according to Augustine
(Enchiridion xi). But privation and habit are immediate contraries,
according to the Philosopher (Categor. viii). Therefore there is not
such thing as an action that is indifferent in its species, as though
it were between good and evil.

Obj. 2: Further, human actions derive their species from their end or
object, as stated above (A. 6; Q. 1, A. 3). But every end and every
object is either good or bad. Therefore every human action is good or
evil according to its species. None, therefore, is indifferent in its
species.

Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1), an action is said to be
good, when it has its due complement of goodness; and evil, when it
lacks that complement. But every action must needs either have the
entire plenitude of its goodness, or lack it in some respect.
Therefore every action must needs be either good or bad in its
species, and none is indifferent.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18)
that "there are certain deeds of a middle kind, which can be done
with a good or evil mind, of which it is rash to form a judgment."
Therefore some actions are indifferent according to their species.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 5), every action takes its
species from its object; while human action, which is called moral,
takes its species from the object, in relation to the principle of
human actions, which is the reason. Wherefore if the object of an
action includes something in accord with the order of reason, it will
be a good action according to its species; for instance, to give alms
to a person in want. On the other hand, if it includes something
repugnant to the order of reason, it will be an evil act according to
its species; for instance, to steal, which is to appropriate what
belongs to another. But it may happen that the object of an action
does not include something pertaining to the order of reason; for
instance, to pick up a straw from the ground, to walk in the fields,
and the like: and such actions are indifferent according to their
species.

Reply Obj. 1: Privation is twofold. One is privation "as a result"
(_privatum esse_), and this leaves nothing, but takes all away: thus
blindness takes away sight altogether; darkness, light; and death,
life. Between this privation and the contrary habit, there can be no
medium in respect of the proper subject. The other is privation "in
process" (_privari_): thus sickness is privation of health; not that it
takes health away altogether, but that it is a kind of road to the
entire loss of health, occasioned by death. And since this sort of
privation leaves something, it is not always the immediate contrary
of the opposite habit. In this way evil is a privation of good, as
Simplicius says in his commentary on the Categories: because it does
not take away all good, but leaves some. Consequently there can be
something between good and evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Every object or end has some goodness or malice, at
least natural to it: but this does not imply moral goodness or
malice, which is considered in relation to the reason, as stated
above. And it is of this that we are here treating.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything belonging to an action belongs also to
its species. Wherefore although an action's specific nature may not
contain all that belongs to the full complement of its goodness, it
is not therefore an action specifically bad; nor is it specifically
good. Thus a man in regard to his species is neither virtuous nor
wicked.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 9]

Whether an Individual Action Can Be Indifferent?

Objection 1: It would seem that an individual action can be
indifferent. For there is no species that does not, or cannot,
contain an individual. But an action can be indifferent in its
species, as stated above (A. 8). Therefore an individual action can
be indifferent.

Obj. 2: Further, individual actions cause like habits, as stated in
_Ethic._ ii, 1. But a habit can be indifferent: for the Philosopher
says (Ethic. iv, 1) that those who are of an even temper and prodigal
disposition are not evil; and yet it is evident that they are not
good, since they depart from virtue; and thus they are indifferent in
respect of a habit. Therefore some individual actions are indifferent.

Obj. 3: Further, moral good belongs to virtue, while moral evil
belongs to vice. But it happens sometimes that a man fails to ordain
a specifically indifferent action to a vicious or virtuous end.
Therefore an individual action may happen to be indifferent.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says in a homily (vi in Evang.): "An idle
word is one that lacks either the usefulness of rectitude or the
motive of just necessity or pious utility." But an idle word is an
evil, because "men . . . shall render an account of it in the day of
judgment" (Matt. 12:36): while if it does not lack the motive of just
necessity or pious utility, it is good. Therefore every word is
either good or bad. For the same reason every other action is either
good or bad. Therefore no individual action is indifferent.

_I answer that,_ It sometimes happens that an action is indifferent
in its species, but considered in the individual it is good or evil.
And the reason of this is because a moral action, as stated above (A.
3), derives its goodness not only from its object, whence it takes
its species; but also from the circumstances, which are its
accidents, as it were; just as something belongs to a man by reason
of his individual accidents, which does not belong to him by reason
of his species. And every individual action must needs have some
circumstance that makes it good or bad, at least in respect of the
intention of the end. For since it belongs to the reason to direct;
if an action that proceeds from deliberate reason be not directed to
the due end, it is, by that fact alone, repugnant to reason, and has
the character of evil. But if it be directed to a due end, it is in
accord with reason; wherefore it has the character of good. Now it
must needs be either directed or not directed to a due end.
Consequently every human action that proceeds from deliberate reason,
if it be considered in the individual, must be good or bad.

If, however, it does not proceed from deliberate reason, but from
some act of the imagination, as when a man strokes his beard, or
moves his hand or foot; such an action, properly speaking, is not
moral or human; since this depends on the reason. Hence it will be
indifferent, as standing apart from the genus of moral actions.

Reply Obj. 1: For an action to be indifferent in its species can be
understood in several ways. First in such a way that its species
demands that it remain indifferent; and the objection proceeds along
this line. But no action can be specifically indifferent thus: since
no object of human action is such that it cannot be directed to good
or evil, either through its end or through a circumstance. Secondly,
specific indifference of an action may be due to the fact that as far
as its species is concerned, it is neither good nor bad. Wherefore it
can be made good or bad by something else. Thus man, as far as his
species is concerned, is neither white nor black; nor is it a
condition of his species that he should not be black or white; but
blackness or whiteness is superadded to man by other principles than
those of his species.

Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher states that a man is evil, properly
speaking, if he be hurtful to others. And accordingly, he says that
the prodigal is not evil, because he hurts none save himself. And the
same applies to all others who are not hurtful to other men. But we
say here that evil, in general, is all that is repugnant to right
reason. And in this sense every individual action is either good or
bad, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Whenever an end is intended by deliberate reason, it
belongs either to the good of some virtue, or to the evil of some
vice. Thus, if a man's action is directed to the support or repose
of his body, it is also directed to the good of virtue, provided he
direct his body itself to the good of virtue. The same clearly
applies to other actions.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 10]

Whether a Circumstance Places a Moral Action in the Species of Good
or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance cannot place a moral
action in the species of good or evil. For the species of an action
is taken from its object. But circumstances differ from the object.
Therefore circumstances do not give an action its species.

Obj. 2: Further, circumstances are as accidents in relation to the
moral action, as stated above (Q. 7, A. 1). But an accident does not
constitute the species. Therefore a circumstance does not constitute
a species of good or evil.

Obj. 3: Further, one thing is not in several species. But one action
has several circumstances. Therefore a circumstance does not place a
moral action in a species of good or evil.

_On the contrary,_ Place is a circumstance. But place makes a moral
action to be in a certain species of evil; for theft of a thing from
a holy place is a sacrilege. Therefore a circumstance makes a moral
action to be specifically good or bad.

_I answer that,_ Just as the species of natural things are
constituted by their natural forms, so the species of moral actions
are constituted by forms as conceived by the reason, as is evident
from what was said above (A. 5). But since nature is determinate to
one thing, nor can a process of nature go on to infinity, there must
needs be some ultimate form, giving a specific difference, after
which no further specific difference is possible. Hence it is that in
natural things, that which is accidental to a thing, cannot be taken
as a difference constituting the species. But the process of reason
is not fixed to one particular term, for at any point it can still
proceed further. And consequently that which, in one action, is taken
as a circumstance added to the object that specifies the action, can
again be taken by the directing reason, as the principal condition of
the object that determines the action's species. Thus to appropriate
another's property is specified by reason of the property being
"another's," and in this respect it is placed in the species of
theft; and if we consider that action also in its bearing on place or
time, then this will be an additional circumstance. But since the
reason can direct as to place, time, and the like, it may happen that
the condition as to place, in relation to the object, is considered
as being in disaccord with reason: for instance, reason forbids
damage to be done to a holy place. Consequently to steal from a holy
place has an additional repugnance to the order of reason. And thus
place, which was first of all considered as a circumstance, is
considered here as the principal condition of the object, and as
itself repugnant to reason. And in this way, whenever a circumstance
has a special relation to reason, either for or against, it must
needs specify the moral action whether good or bad.

Reply Obj. 1: A circumstance, in so far as it specifies an action, is
considered as a condition of the object, as stated above, and as
being, as it were, a specific difference thereof.

Reply Obj. 2: A circumstance, so long as it is but a circumstance,
does not specify an action, since thus it is a mere accident: but
when it becomes a principal condition of the object, then it does
specify the action.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not every circumstance that places the moral
action in the species of good or evil; since not every circumstance
implies accord or disaccord with reason. Consequently, although one
action may have many circumstances, it does not follow that it is in
many species. Nevertheless there is no reason why one action should
not be in several, even disparate, moral species, as said above (A.
7, ad 1; Q. 1, A. 3, ad 3).
________________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 11]

Whether Every Circumstance That Makes an Action Better or Worse,
Places a Moral Action in a Species of Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that every circumstance relating to
good or evil, specifies an action. For good and evil are specific
differences of moral actions. Therefore that which causes a
difference in the goodness or malice of a moral action, causes a
specific difference, which is the same as to make it differ in
species. Now that which makes an action better or worse, makes it
differ in goodness and malice. Therefore it causes it to differ in
species. Therefore every circumstance that makes an action better
or worse, constitutes a species.

Obj. 2: Further, an additional circumstance either has in itself the
character of goodness or malice, or it has not. If not, it cannot
make the action better or worse; because what is not good, cannot
make a greater good; and what is not evil, cannot make a greater
evil. But if it has in itself the character of good or evil, for this
very reason it has a certain species of good or evil. Therefore every
circumstance that makes an action better or worse, constitutes a new
species of good or evil.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "evil is
caused by each single defect." Now every circumstance that increases
malice, has a special defect. Therefore every such circumstance adds
a new species of sin. And for the same reason, every circumstance
that increases goodness, seems to add a new species of goodness: just
as every unity added to a number makes a new species of number; since
the good consists in "number, weight, and measure" (I, Q. 5, A. 5).

_On the contrary,_ More and less do not change a species. But more
and less is a circumstance of additional goodness or malice.
Therefore not every circumstance that makes a moral action better or
worse, places it in a species of good or evil.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 10), a circumstance gives the
species of good or evil to a moral action, in so far as it regards a
special order of reason. Now it happens sometimes that a circumstance
does not regard a special order of reason in respect of good or evil,
except on the supposition of another previous circumstance, from
which the moral action takes its species of good or evil. Thus to
take something in a large or small quantity, does not regard the
order of reason in respect of good or evil, except a certain other
condition be presupposed, from which the action takes its malice or
goodness; for instance, if what is taken belongs to another, which
makes the action to be discordant with reason. Wherefore to take what
belongs to another in a large or small quantity, does not change the
species of the sin. Nevertheless it can aggravate or diminish the
sin. The same applies to other evil or good actions. Consequently not
every circumstance that makes a moral action better or worse, changes
its species.

Reply Obj. 1: In things which can be more or less intense, the
difference of more or less does not change the species: thus by
differing in whiteness through being more or less white a thing is
not changed in regard to its species of color. In like manner that
which makes an action to be more or less good or evil, does not make
the action differ in species.

Reply Obj. 2: A circumstance that aggravates a sin, or adds to the
goodness of an action, sometimes has no goodness or malice in itself,
but in regard to some other condition of the action, as stated above.
Consequently it does not add a new species, but adds to the goodness
or malice derived from this other condition of the action.

Reply Obj. 3: A circumstance does not always involve a distinct
defect of its own; sometimes it causes a defect in reference to
something else. In like manner a circumstance does not always add
further perfection, except in reference to something else. And, for
as much as it does, although it may add to the goodness or malice,
it does not always change the species of good or evil.
________________________

QUESTION 19

OF THE GOODNESS AND MALICE OF THE INTERIOR ACT OF THE WILL
(In Ten Articles)

We must now consider the goodness of the interior act of the will;
under which head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the goodness of the will depends on the object?

(2) Whether it depends on the object alone?

(3) Whether it depends on reason?

(4) Whether it depends on the eternal law?

(5) Whether erring reason binds?

(6) Whether the will is evil if it follows the erring reason against
the law of God?

(7) Whether the goodness of the will in regard to the means, depends
on the intention of the end?

(8) Whether the degree of goodness or malice in the will depends on
the degree of good or evil in the intention?

(9) Whether the goodness of the will depends on its conformity to the
Divine Will?

(10) Whether it is necessary for the human will, in order to be good,
to be conformed to the Divine Will, as regards the thing willed?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 1]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on the Object?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on the object. For the will cannot be directed otherwise than
to what is good: since "evil is outside the scope of the will," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). If therefore the goodness of the will
depended on the object, it would follow that every act of the will
is good, and none bad.

Obj. 2: Further, good is first of all in the end: wherefore the
goodness of the end, as such, does not depend on any other. But,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), "goodness of action is
the end, but goodness of making is never the end": because the latter
is always ordained to the thing made, as to its end. Therefore the
goodness of the act of the will does not depend on any object.

Obj. 3: Further, such as a thing is, such does it make a thing to be.
But the object of the will is good, by reason of the goodness of
nature. Therefore it cannot give moral goodness to the will.
Therefore the moral goodness of the will does not depend on the
object.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that justice is
that habit "from which men wish for just things": and accordingly,
virtue is a habit from which men wish for good things. But a good
will is one which is in accordance with virtue. Therefore the
goodness of the will is from the fact that a man wills that which is
good.

_I answer that,_ Good and evil are essential differences of the act
of the will. Because good and evil of themselves regard the will;
just as truth and falsehood regard reason; the act of which is
divided essentially by the difference of truth and falsehood, for as
much as an opinion is said to be true or false. Consequently good and
evil will are acts differing in species. Now the specific difference
in acts is according to objects, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 5).
Therefore good and evil in the acts of the will is derived properly
from the objects.

Reply Obj. 1: The will is not always directed to what is truly good,
but sometimes to the apparent good; which has indeed some measure of
good, but not of a good that is simply suitable to be desired. Hence
it is that the act of the will is not always good, but sometimes evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Although an action can, in a certain way, be man's last
end; nevertheless such action is not an act of the will, as stated
above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 2).

Reply Obj. 3: Good is presented to the will as its object by the
reason: and in so far as it is in accord with reason, it enters the
moral order, and causes moral goodness in the act of the will:
because the reason is the principle of human and moral acts, as
stated above (Q. 18, A. 5).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 2]

Whether the goodness of the will depends on the object alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on the object alone. For the end has a closer relationship to
the will than to any other power. But the acts of the other powers
derive goodness not only from the object but also from the end, as
we have shown above (Q. 18, A. 4). Therefore the act also of the
will derives goodness not only from the object but also from the end.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness of an action is derived not only from
the object but also from the circumstances, as stated above (Q. 18,
A. 3). But according to the diversity of circumstances there may be
diversity of goodness and malice in the act of the will: for
instance, if a man will, when he ought, where he ought, as much as he
ought, and how he ought, or if he will as he ought not. Therefore the
goodness of the will depends not only on the object, but also on the
circumstances.

Obj. 3: Further, ignorance of circumstances excuses malice of the
will, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 8). But it would not be so, unless
the goodness or malice of the will depended on the circumstances.
Therefore the goodness and malice of the will depend on the
circumstances, and not only on the object.

_On the contrary,_ An action does not take its species from the
circumstances as such, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 10, ad 2). But good
and evil are specific differences of the act of the will, as stated
above (A. 1). Therefore the goodness and malice of the will depend,
not on the circumstances, but on the object alone.

_I answer that,_ In every genus, the more a thing is first, the more
simple it is, and the fewer the principles of which it consists: thus
primary bodies are simple. Hence it is to be observed that the first
things in every genus, are, in some way, simple and consist of one
principle. Now the principle of the goodness and malice of human
actions is taken from the act of the will. Consequently the goodness
and malice of the act of the will depend on some one thing; while the
goodness and malice of other acts may depend on several things.

Now that one thing which is the principle in each genus, is not
something accidental to that genus, but something essential thereto:
because whatever is accidental is reduced to something essential, as
to its principle. Therefore the goodness of the will's act depends on
that one thing alone, which of itself causes goodness in the act; and
that one thing is the object, and not the circumstances, which are
accidents, as it were, of the act.

Reply Obj. 1: The end is the object of the will, but not of the other
powers. Hence, in regard to the act of the will, the goodness derived
from the object, does not differ from that which is derived from the
end, as they differ in the acts of the other powers; except perhaps
accidentally, in so far as one end depends on another, and one act of
the will on another.

Reply Obj. 2: Given that the act of the will is fixed on some good,
no circumstances can make that act bad. Consequently when it is said
that a man wills a good when he ought not, or where he ought not,
this can be understood in two ways. First, so that this circumstance
is referred to the thing willed. And thus the act of the will is not
fixed on something good: since to will to do something when it ought
not to be done, is not to will something good. Secondly, so that the
circumstance is referred to the act of willing. And thus, it is
impossible to will something good when one ought not to, because one
ought always to will what is good: except, perhaps, accidentally, in
so far as a man by willing some particular good, is prevented from
willing at the same time another good which he ought to will at that
time. And then evil results, not from his willing that particular
good, but from his not willing the other. The same applies to the
other circumstances.

Reply Obj. 3: Ignorance of circumstances excuses malice of the will,
in so far as the circumstance affects the thing willed: that is to
say, in so far as a man ignores the circumstances of the act which
he wills.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 3]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on reason. For what comes first does not depend on what
follows. But the good belongs to the will before it belongs to
reason, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 9, A. 1).
Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on reason.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that the
goodness of the practical intellect is "a truth that is in conformity
with right desire." But right desire is a good will. Therefore the
goodness of the practical reason depends on the goodness of the will,
rather than conversely.

Obj. 3: Further, the mover does not depend on that which is moved,
but vice versa. But the will moves the reason and the other powers,
as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1). Therefore the goodness of the will
does not depend on reason.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. x): "It is an unruly will
that persists in its desires in opposition to reason." But the
goodness of the will consists in not being unruly. Therefore the
goodness of the will depends on its being subject to reason.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2), the goodness of the will
depends properly on the object. Now the will's object is proposed to
it by reason. Because the good understood is the proportionate object
of the will; while sensitive or imaginary good is proportionate not
to the will but to the sensitive appetite: since the will can tend to
the universal good, which reason apprehends; whereas the sensitive
appetite tends only to the particular good, apprehended by the
sensitive power. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on
reason, in the same way as it depends on the object.

Reply Obj. 1: The good considered as such, i.e. as appetible,
pertains to the will before pertaining to the reason. But considered
as true it pertains to the reason, before, under the aspect of
goodness, pertaining to the will: because the will cannot desire a
good that is not previously apprehended by reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher speaks here of the practical intellect,
in so far as it counsels and reasons about the means: for in this
respect it is perfected by prudence. Now in regard to the means, the
rectitude of the reason depends on its conformity with the desire of
a due end: nevertheless the very desire of the due end presupposes on
the part of reason a right apprehension of the end.

Reply Obj. 3: The will moves the reason in one way: the reason moves
the will in another, viz. on the part of the object, as stated above
(Q. 9, A. 1).
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 4]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the human will does
not depend on the eternal law. Because to one thing there is one rule
and one measure. But the rule of the human will, on which its
goodness depends, is right reason. Therefore the goodness of the will
does not depend on the eternal law.

Obj. 2: Further, "a measure is homogeneous with the thing measured"
(Metaph. x, 1). But the eternal law is not homogeneous with the human
will. Therefore the eternal law cannot be the measure on which the
goodness of the human will depends.

Obj. 3: Further, a measure should be most certain. But the eternal
law is unknown to us. Therefore it cannot be the measure on which the
goodness of our will depends.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) that "sin
is a deed, word or desire against the eternal law." But malice of the
will is the root of sin. Therefore, since malice is contrary to
goodness, the goodness of the will depends on the eternal law.

_I answer that,_ Wherever a number of causes are subordinate to one
another, the effect depends more on the first than on the second
cause: since the second cause acts only in virtue of the first. Now
it is from the eternal law, which is the Divine Reason, that human
reason is the rule of the human will, from which the human derives
its goodness. Hence it is written (Ps. 4:6, 7): "Many say: Who
showeth us good things? The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is
signed upon us": as though to say: "The light of our reason is able
to show us good things, and guide our will, in so far as it is the
light (i.e. derived from) Thy countenance." It is therefore evident
that the goodness of the human will depends on the eternal law much
more than on human reason: and when human reason fails we must have
recourse to the Eternal Reason.

Reply Obj. 1: To one thing there are not several proximate measures;
but there can be several measures if one is subordinate to the other.

Reply Obj. 2: A proximate measure is homogeneous with the thing
measured; a remote measure is not.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the eternal law is unknown to us according as
it is in the Divine Mind: nevertheless, it becomes known to us
somewhat, either by natural reason which is derived therefrom as its
proper image; or by some sort of additional revelation.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 5]

Whether the Will Is Evil When It Is at Variance with Erring Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not evil when it is at
variance with erring reason. Because the reason is the rule of the
human will, in so far as it is derived from the eternal law, as
stated above (A. 4). But erring reason is not derived from the
eternal law. Therefore erring reason is not the rule of the human
will. Therefore the will is not evil, if it be at variance with
erring reason.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine, the command of a lower
authority does not bind if it be contrary to the command of a higher
authority: for instance, if a provincial governor command something
that is forbidden by the emperor. But erring reason sometimes
proposes what is against the command of a higher power, namely, God
Whose power is supreme. Therefore the decision of an erring reason
does not bind. Consequently the will is not evil if it be at variance
with erring reason.

Obj. 3: Further, every evil will is reducible to some species of
malice. But the will that is at variance with erring reason is not
reducible to some species of malice. For instance, if a man's reason
err in telling him to commit fornication, his will in not willing to
do so, cannot be reduced to any species of malice. Therefore the will
is not evil when it is at variance with erring reason.

_On the contrary,_ As stated in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 13),
conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some
action. Now knowledge is in the reason. Therefore when the will is at
variance with erring reason, it is against conscience. But every such
will is evil; for it is written (Rom. 14:23): "All that is not of
faith"--i.e. all that is against conscience--"is sin." Therefore the
will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason.

_I answer that,_ Since conscience is a kind of dictate of the reason,
for it is an application of knowledge to action, as was stated in
the First Part (Q. 19, A. 13), to inquire whether the will is evil
when it is at variance with erring reason, is the same as to inquire
"whether an erring conscience binds." On this matter, some
distinguished three kinds of actions: for some are good generically;
some are indifferent; some are evil generically. And they say that if
reason or conscience tell us to do something which is good
generically, there is no error: and in like manner if it tell us not
to do something which is evil generically; since it is the same
reason that prescribes what is good and forbids what is evil. On the
other hand if a man's reason or conscience tells him that he is bound
by precept to do what is evil in itself; or that what is good in
itself, is forbidden, then his reason or conscience errs. In like
manner if a man's reason or conscience tell him, that what is
indifferent in itself, for instance to raise a straw from the ground,
is forbidden or commanded, his reason or conscience errs. They say,
therefore, that reason or conscience when erring in matters of
indifference, either by commanding or by forbidding them, binds: so
that the will which is at variance with that erring reason is evil
and sinful. But they say that when reason or conscience errs in
commanding what is evil in itself, or in forbidding what is good in
itself and necessary for salvation, it does not bind; wherefore in
such cases the will which is at variance with erring reason or
conscience is not evil.

But this is unreasonable. For in matters of indifference, the will
that is at variance with erring reason or conscience, is evil in some
way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the
will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is
in its own nature; but according as it is accidentally apprehended by
reason as something evil to do or to avoid. And since the object of
the will is that which is proposed by the reason, as stated above (A.
3), from the very fact that a thing is proposed by the reason as
being evil, the will by tending thereto becomes evil. And this is the
case not only in indifferent matters, but also in those that are good
or evil in themselves. For not only indifferent matters can receive
the character of goodness or malice accidentally; but also that which
is good, can receive the character of evil, or that which is evil,
can receive the character of goodness, on account of the reason
apprehending it as such. For instance, to refrain from fornication is
good: yet the will does not tend to this good except in so far as it
is proposed by the reason. If, therefore, the erring reason propose
it as an evil, the will tends to it as to something evil.
Consequently the will is evil, because it wills evil, not indeed that
which is evil in itself, but that which is evil accidentally, through
being apprehended as such by the reason. In like manner, to believe
in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the
will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the
reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something
evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were
evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the
apprehension of the reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii,
9) that "properly speaking the incontinent man is one who does not
follow right reason; but accidentally, he is also one who does not
follow false reason." We must therefore conclude that, absolutely
speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or
erring, is always evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the judgment of an erring reason is not
derived from God, yet the erring reason puts forward its judgment as
being true, and consequently as being derived from God, from Whom is
all truth.

Reply Obj. 2: The saying of Augustine holds good when it is known
that the inferior authority prescribes something contrary to the
command of the higher authority. But if a man were to believe the
command of the proconsul to be the command of the emperor, in
scorning the command of the proconsul he would scorn the command of
the emperor. In like manner if a man were to know that human reason
was dictating something contrary to God's commandment, he would not
be bound to abide by reason: but then reason would not be entirely
erroneous. But when erring reason proposes something as being
commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn
the commandment of God.

Reply Obj. 3: Whenever reason apprehends something as evil, it
apprehends it under some species of evil; for instance, as being
something contrary to a divine precept, or as giving scandal, or for
some such like reason. And then that evil is reduced to that species
of malice.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 6]

Whether the Will Is Good When It Abides by Erring Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is good when it abides by
erring reason. For just as the will, when at variance with the reason,
tends to that which reason judges to be evil; so, when in accord with
reason, it tends to what reason judges to be good. But the will is
evil when it is at variance with reason, even when erring. Therefore
even when it abides by erring reason, the will is good.

Obj. 2: Further, the will is always good, when it abides by the
commandment of God and the eternal law. But the eternal law and God's
commandment are proposed to us by the apprehension of the reason,
even when it errs. Therefore the will is good, even when it abides by
erring reason.

Obj. 3: Further, the will is evil when it is at variance with erring
reason. If, therefore, the will is evil also when it abides by erring
reason, it seems that the will is always evil when in conjunction
with erring reason: so that in such a case a man would be in a
dilemma, and, of necessity, would sin: which is unreasonable.
Therefore the will is good when it abides by erring reason.

_On the contrary,_ The will of those who slew the apostles was evil.
And yet it was in accord with the erring reason, according to John
16:2: "The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that
he doth a service to God." Therefore the will can be evil, when it
abides by erring reason.

_I answer that,_ Whereas the previous question is the same as
inquiring "whether an erring conscience binds"; so this question is
the same as inquiring "whether an erring conscience excuses." Now
this question depends on what has been said above about ignorance.
For it was said (Q. 6, A. 8) that ignorance sometimes causes an act
to be involuntary, and sometimes not. And since moral good and evil
consist in action in so far as it is voluntary, as was stated above
(A. 2); it is evident that when ignorance causes an act to be
involuntary, it takes away the character of moral good and evil; but
not, when it does not cause the act to be involuntary. Again, it has
been stated above (Q. 6, A. 8) that when ignorance is in any way
willed, either directly or indirectly, it does not cause the act to
be involuntary. And I call that ignorance "directly" voluntary, to
which the act of the will tends: and that, "indirectly" voluntary,
which is due to negligence, by reason of a man not wishing to know
what he ought to know, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 8).

If then reason or conscience err with an error that is voluntary,
either directly, or through negligence, so that one errs about what
one ought to know; then such an error of reason or conscience does
not excuse the will, that abides by that erring reason or conscience,
from being evil. But if the error arise from ignorance of some
circumstance, and without any negligence, so that it cause the act to
be involuntary, then that error of reason or conscience excuses the
will, that abides by that erring reason, from being evil. For
instance, if erring reason tell a man that he should go to another
man's wife, the will that abides by that erring reason is evil; since
this error arises from ignorance of the Divine Law, which he is bound
to know. But if a man's reason, errs in mistaking another for his
wife, and if he wish to give her her right when she asks for it, his
will is excused from being evil: because this error arises from
ignorance of a circumstance, which ignorance excuses, and causes the
act to be involuntary.

Reply Obj. 1: As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "good results from
the entire cause, evil from each particular defect." Consequently in
order that the thing to which the will tends be called evil, it
suffices, either that it be evil in itself, or that it be apprehended
as evil. But in order for it to be good, it must be good in both ways.

Reply Obj. 2: The eternal law cannot err, but human reason can.
Consequently the will that abides by human reason, is not always
right, nor is it always in accord with the eternal law.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as in syllogistic arguments, granted one
absurdity, others must needs follow; so in moral matters, given one
absurdity, others must follow too. Thus suppose a man to seek
vainglory, he will sin, whether he does his duty for vainglory or
whether he omit to do it. Nor is he in a dilemma about the matter:
because he can put aside his evil intention. In like manner, suppose
a man's reason or conscience to err through inexcusable ignorance,
then evil must needs result in the will. Nor is this man in a
dilemma: because he can lay aside his error, since his ignorance is
vincible and voluntary.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 7]

Whether the Goodness of the Will, As Regards the Means, Depends on
the Intention of the End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on the intention of the end. For it has been stated above (A.
2) that the goodness of the will depends on the object alone. But as
regards the means, the object of the will is one thing, and the end
intended is another. Therefore in such matters the goodness of the
will does not depend on the intention of the end.

Obj. 2: Further, to wish to keep God's commandment, belongs to a good
will. But this can be referred to an evil end, for instance, to
vainglory or covetousness, by willing to obey God for the sake of
temporal gain. Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on
the intention of the end.

Obj. 3: Further, just as good and evil diversify the will, so do they
diversify the end. But malice of the will does not depend on the
malice of the end intended; since a man who wills to steal in order
to give alms, has an evil will, although he intends a good end.
Therefore neither does the goodness of the will depend on the
goodness of the end intended.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ix, 3) that God rewards
the intention. But God rewards a thing because it is good. Therefore
the goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end.

_I answer that,_ The intention may stand in a twofold relation to the
act of the will; first, as preceding it, secondly as following
[*Leonine edn.: 'accompanying'] it. The intention precedes the act of
the will causally, when we will something because we intend a certain
end. And then the order to the end is considered as the reason of the
goodness of the thing willed: for instance, when a man wills to fast
for God's sake; because the act of fasting is specifically good from
the very fact that it is done for God's sake. Wherefore, since the
goodness of the will depends on the goodness of the thing willed, as
stated above (AA. 1, 2), it must, of necessity, depend on the
intention of the end.

On the other hand, intention follows the act of the will, when it is
added to a preceding act of the will; for instance, a man may will to
do something, and may afterwards refer it to God. And then the
goodness of the previous act of the will does not depend on the
subsequent intention, except in so far as that act is repeated with
the subsequent intention.

Reply Obj. 1: When the intention is the cause of the act of willing,
the order to the end is considered as the reason of the goodness of
the object, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The act of the will cannot be said to be good, if an
evil intention is the cause of willing. For when a man wills to give
an alms for the sake of vainglory, he wills that which is good in
itself, under a species of evil; and therefore, as willed by him, it
is evil. Wherefore his will is evil. If, however, the intention is
subsequent to the act of the will, then the latter may be good: and
the intention does not spoil that act of the will which preceded, but
that which is repeated.

Reply Obj. 3: As we have already stated (A. 6, ad 1), "evil results
from each particular defect, but good from the whole and entire
cause." Hence, whether the will tend to what is evil in itself, even
under the species of good; or to the good under the species of evil,
it will be evil in either case. But in order for the will to be good,
it must tend to the good under the species of good; in other words,
it must will the good for the sake of the good.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 8]

Whether the Degree of Goodness or Malice in the Will Depends on the
Degree of Good or Evil in the Intention?

Objection 1: It would seem that the degree of goodness in the will
depends on the degree of good in the intention. Because on Matt.
12:35, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth
forth that which is good," a gloss says: "A man does as much good as
he intends." But the intention gives goodness not only to the
external action, but also to the act of the will, as stated above (A.
7). Therefore the goodness of a man's will is according to the
goodness of his intention.

Obj. 2: Further, if you add to the cause, you add to the effect. But
the goodness of the intention is the cause of the good will.
Therefore a man's will is good, according as his intention is good.

Obj. 3: Further, in evil actions, a man sins in proportion to his
intention: for if a man were to throw a stone with a murderous
intention, he would be guilty of murder. Therefore, for the same
reason, in good actions, the will is good in proportion to the good
intended.

_On the contrary,_ The intention can be good, while the will is evil.
Therefore, for the same reason, the intention can be better, and the
will less good.

_I answer that,_ In regard to both the act, and the intention of the
end, we may consider a twofold quantity: one, on the part of the
object, by reason of a man willing or doing a good that is greater;
the other, taken from the intensity of the act, according as a man
wills or acts intensely; and this is more on the part of the agent.

If then we speak of these respective quantities from the point of
view of the object, it is evident that the quantity in the act does
not depend on the quantity in the intention. With regard to the
external act this may happen in two ways. First, through the object
that is ordained to the intended end not being proportionate to that
end; for instance, if a man were to give ten pounds, he could not
realize his intention, if he intended to buy a thing worth a hundred
pounds. Secondly, on account of the obstacles that may supervene in
regard to the exterior action, which obstacles we are unable to
remove: for instance, a man intends to go to Rome, and encounters
obstacles, which prevent him from going. On the other hand, with
regard to the interior act of the will, this happens in only one way:
because the interior acts of the will are in our power, whereas the
external actions are not. But the will can will an object that is not
proportionate to the intended end: and thus the will that tends to
that object considered absolutely, is not so good as the intention.
Yet because the intention also belongs, in a way, to the act of the
will, inasmuch, to wit, as it is the reason thereof; it comes to pass
that the quantity of goodness in the intention redounds upon the act
of the will; that is to say, in so far as the will wills some great
good for an end, although that by which it wills to gain so great a
good, is not proportionate to that good.

But if we consider the quantity in the intention and in the act,
according to their respective intensity, then the intensity of the
intention redounds upon the interior act and the exterior act of the
will: since the intention stands in relation to them as a kind of
form, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 12, A. 4; Q. 18,
A. 6). And yet considered materially, while the intention is intense,
the interior or exterior act may be not so intense, materially
speaking: for instance, when a man does not will with as much
intensity to take medicine as he wills to regain health. Nevertheless
the very fact of intending health intensely, redounds, as a formal
principle, upon the intense volition of medicine.

We must observe, however, that the intensity of the interior or
exterior act, may be referred to the intention as its object: as when
a man intends to will intensely, or to do something intensely. And
yet it does not follow that he wills or acts intensely; because the
quantity of goodness in the interior or exterior act does not depend
on the quantity of the good intended, as is shown above. And hence it
is that a man does not merit as much as he intends to merit: because
the quantity of merit is measured by the intensity of the act, as we
shall show later on (Q. 20, A. 4; Q. 114, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 1: This gloss speaks of good as in the estimation of God,
Who considers principally the intention of the end. Wherefore another
gloss says on the same passage that "the treasure of the heart is the
intention, according to which God judges our works." For the goodness
of the intention, as stated above, redounds, so to speak, upon the
goodness of the will, which makes even the external act to be
meritorious in God's sight.

Reply Obj. 2: The goodness of the intention is not the whole cause of
a good will. Hence the argument does not prove.

Reply Obj. 3: The mere malice of the intention suffices to make the
will evil: and therefore too, the will is as evil as the intention is
evil. But the same reasoning does not apply to goodness, as stated
above (ad 2).
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 9]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on Its Conformity to the
Divine Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the human will does
not depend on its conformity to the Divine will. Because it is
impossible for man's will to be conformed to the Divine will; as
appears from the word of Isa. 55:9: "As the heavens are exalted above
the earth, so are My ways exalted above your ways, and My thoughts
above your thoughts." If therefore goodness of the will depended on
its conformity to the Divine will, it would follow that it is
impossible for man's will to be good. Which is inadmissible.

Obj. 2: Further, just as our wills arise from the Divine will, so
does our knowledge flow from the Divine knowledge. But our knowledge
does not require to be conformed to God's knowledge; since God knows
many things that we know not. Therefore there is no need for our will
to be conformed to the Divine will.

Obj. 3: Further, the will is a principle of action. But our action
cannot be conformed to God's. Therefore neither can our will be
conformed to His.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 26:39): "Not as I will, but
as Thou wilt": which words He said, because "He wishes man to be
upright and to tend to God," as Augustine expounds in the Enchiridion
[*Enarr. in Ps. 32, serm. i.]. But the rectitude of the will is its
goodness. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on its
conformity to the Divine will.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 7), the goodness of the will
depends on the intention of the end. Now the last end of the human
will is the Sovereign Good, namely, God, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 8;
Q. 3, A. 1). Therefore the goodness of the human will requires it to
be ordained to the Sovereign Good, that is, to God.

Now this Good is primarily and essentially compared to the Divine
will, as its proper object. Again, that which is first in any genus
is the measure and rule of all that belongs to that genus. Moreover,
everything attains to rectitude and goodness, in so far as it is in
accord with its proper measure. Therefore, in order that man's will
be good it needs to be conformed to the Divine will.

Reply Obj. 1: The human will cannot be conformed to the will of God
so as to equal it, but only so as to imitate it. In like manner human
knowledge is conformed to the Divine knowledge, in so far as it knows
truth: and human action is conformed to the Divine, in so far as it
is becoming to the agent: and this by way of imitation, not by way of
equality.

From the above may be gathered the replies to the Second and Third
Objections.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 10]

Whether It Is Necessary for the Human Will, in Order to Be Good, to
Be Conformed to the Divine Will, As Regards the Thing Willed?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human will need not always be
conformed to the Divine will, as regards the thing willed. For we
cannot will what we know not: since the apprehended good is the object
of the will. But in many things we know not what God wills. Therefore
the human will cannot be conformed to the Divine will as to the thing
willed.

Obj. 2: Further, God wills to damn the man whom He foresees about
to die in mortal sin. If therefore man were bound to conform his will
to the Divine will, in the point of the thing willed, it would follow
that a man is bound to will his own damnation. Which is inadmissible.

Obj. 3: Further, no one is bound to will what is against filial
piety. But if man were to will what God wills, this would sometimes
be contrary to filial piety: for instance, when God wills the death
of a father: if his son were to will it also, it would be against
filial piety. Therefore man is not bound to conform his will to the
Divine will, as to the thing willed.

_On the contrary,_ (1) On Ps. 32:1, "Praise becometh the upright," a
gloss says: "That man has an upright heart, who wills what God wills."
But everyone is bound to have an upright heart. Therefore everyone is
bound to will what God wills.

(2) Moreover, the will takes its form from the object, as does every
act. If therefore man is bound to conform his will to the Divine will,
it follows that he is bound to conform it, as to the thing willed.

(3) Moreover, opposition of wills arises from men willing different
things. But whoever has a will in opposition to the Divine will, has
an evil will. Therefore whoever does not conform his will to the
Divine will, as to the thing willed, has an evil will.

_I answer that,_ As is evident from what has been said above (AA. 3,
5), the will tends to its object, according as it is proposed by the
reason. Now a thing may be considered in various ways by the reason,
so as to appear good from one point of view, and not good from
another point of view. And therefore if a man's will wills a thing to
be, according as it appears to be good, his will is good: and the
will of another man, who wills that thing not to be, according as it
appears evil, is also good. Thus a judge has a good will, in willing
a thief to be put to death, because this is just: while the will of
another--e.g. the thief's wife or son, who wishes him not to be put
to death, inasmuch as killing is a natural evil, is also good.

Now since the will follows the apprehension of the reason or
intellect; the more universal the aspect of the apprehended good, the
more universal the good to which the will tends. This is evident in
the example given above: because the judge has care of the common
good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief's death,
which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate;
whereas the thief's wife has to consider the private good of the
family, and from this point of view she wishes her husband, the
thief, not to be put to death. Now the good of the whole universe is
that which is apprehended by God, Who is the Maker and Governor of
all things: hence whatever He wills, He wills it under the aspect of
the common good; this is His own Goodness, which is the good of the
whole universe. On the other hand, the apprehension of a creature,
according to its nature, is of some particular good, proportionate to
that nature. Now a thing may happen to be good under a particular
aspect, and yet not good under a universal aspect, or vice versa, as
stated above. And therefore it comes to pass that a certain will is
good from willing something considered under a particular aspect,
which thing God wills not, under a universal aspect, and vice versa.
And hence too it is, that various wills of various men can be good in
respect of opposite things, for as much as, under various aspects,
they wish a particular thing to be or not to be.

But a man's will is not right in willing a particular good, unless he
refer it to the common good as an end: since even the natural appetite
of each part is ordained to the common good of the whole. Now it is
the end that supplies the formal reason, as it were, of willing
whatever is directed to the end. Consequently, in order that a man
will some particular good with a right will, he must will that
particular good materially, and the Divine and universal good,
formally. Therefore the human will is bound to be conformed to the
Divine will, as to that which is willed formally, for it is bound to
will the Divine and universal good; but not as to that which is willed
materially, for the reason given above.

At the same time in both these respects, the human will is conformed
to the Divine, in a certain degree. Because inasmuch as it is
conformed to the Divine will in the common aspect of the thing willed,
it is conformed thereto in the point of the last end. While, inasmuch
as it is not conformed to the Divine will in the thing willed
materially, it is conformed to that will considered as efficient
cause; since the proper inclination consequent to nature, or to the
particular apprehension of some particular thing, comes to a thing
from God as its efficient cause. Hence it is customary to say that a
man's will, in this respect, is conformed to the Divine will, because
it wills what God wishes him to will.

There is yet another kind of conformity in respect of the formal
cause, consisting in man's willing something from charity, as God
wills it. And this conformity is also reduced to the formal
conformity, that is in respect of the last end, which is the proper
object of charity.

Reply Obj. 1: We can know in a general way what God wills. For we
know that whatever God wills, He wills it under the aspect of good.
Consequently whoever wills a thing under any aspect of good, has a
will conformed to the Divine will, as to the reason of the thing
willed. But we know not what God wills in particular: and in this
respect we are not bound to conform our will to the Divine will.

But in the state of glory, every one will see in each thing that he
wills, the relation of that thing to what God wills in that
particular matter. Consequently he will conform his will to God in
all things not only formally, but also materially.

Reply Obj. 2: God does not will the damnation of a man, considered
precisely as damnation, nor a man's death, considered precisely as
death, because, "He wills all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4); but He
wills such things under the aspect of justice. Wherefore in regard to
such things it suffices for man to will the upholding of God's
justice and of the natural order.

Wherefore the reply to the Third Objection is evident.

To the first argument advanced in a contrary sense, it should be said
that a man who conforms his will to God's, in the aspect of reason of
the thing willed, wills what God wills, more than the man, who
conforms his will to God's, in the point of the very thing willed;
because the will tends more to the end, than to that which is on
account of the end.

To the second, it must be replied that the species and form of an act
are taken from the object considered formally, rather than from the
object considered materially.

To the third, it must be said that there is no opposition of wills
when several people desire different things, but not under the same
aspect: but there is opposition of wills, when under one and the same
aspect, one man wills a thing which another wills not. But there is
no question of this here.
________________________

QUESTION 20

OF GOODNESS AND MALICE IN EXTERNAL HUMAN ACTIONS
(In Six Articles)

We must next consider goodness and malice as to external actions:
under which head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether goodness and malice is first in the act of the will, or
in the external action?

(2) Whether the whole goodness or malice of the external action
depends on the goodness of the will?

(3) Whether the goodness and malice of the interior act are the same
as those of the external action?

(4) Whether the external action adds any goodness or malice to that
of the interior act?

(5) Whether the consequences of an external action increase its
goodness or malice?

(6) Whether one and the same external action can be both good and
evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 1]

Whether Goodness or Malice Is First in the Action of the Will, or in
the External Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that good and evil are in the external
action prior to being in the act of the will. For the will derives
goodness from its object, as stated above (Q. 19, AA. 1, 2). But the
external action is the object of the interior act of the will: for a
man is said to will to commit a theft, or to will to give an alms.
Therefore good and evil are in the external action, prior to being in
the act of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, the aspect of good belongs first to the end: since
what is directed to the end receives the aspect of good from its
relation to the end. Now whereas the act of the will cannot be an
end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 2), the act of another power can
be an end. Therefore good is in the act of some other power prior to
being in the act of the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the act of the will stands in a formal relation to
the external action, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 6). But that which is
formal is subsequent; since form is something added to matter.
Therefore good and evil are in the external action, prior to being in
the act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 9) that "it is by the
will that we sin, and that we behave aright." Therefore moral good
and evil are first in the will.

_I answer that,_ External actions may be said to be good or bad in
two ways. First, in regard to their genus, and the circumstances
connected with them: thus the giving of alms, if the required
conditions be observed, is said to be good. Secondly, a thing is said
to be good or evil, from its relation to the end: thus the giving of
alms for vainglory is said to be evil. Now, since the end is the
will's proper object, it is evident that this aspect of good or evil,
which the external action derives from its relation to the end, is to
be found first of all in the act of the will, whence it passes to the
external action. On the other hand, the goodness or malice which the
external action has of itself, on account of its being about due
matter and its being attended by due circumstances, is not derived
from the will, but rather from the reason. Consequently, if we
consider the goodness of the external action, in so far as it comes
from reason's ordination and apprehension, it is prior to the
goodness of the act of the will: but if we consider it in so far as
it is in the execution of the action done, it is subsequent to the
goodness of the will, which is its principle.

Reply Obj. 1: The exterior action is the object of the will, inasmuch
as it is proposed to the will by the reason, as good apprehended and
ordained by the reason: and thus it is prior to the good in the act
of the will. But inasmuch as it is found in the execution of the
action, it is an effect of the will, and is subsequent to the will.

Reply Obj. 2: The end precedes in the order of intention, but follows
in the order of execution.

Reply Obj. 3: A form as received into matter, is subsequent to matter
in the order of generation, although it precedes it in the order of
nature: but inasmuch as it is in the active cause, it precedes in
every way. Now the will is compared to the exterior action, as its
efficient cause. Wherefore the goodness of the act of the will, as
existing in the active cause, is the form of the exterior action.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 2]

Whether the Whole Goodness and Malice of the External Action Depends
on the Goodness of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that the whole goodness and malice of the
external action depend on the goodness of the will. For it is written
(Matt. 7:18): "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can
an evil tree bring forth good fruit." But, according to the gloss,
the tree signifies the will, and fruit signifies works. Therefore, it
is impossible for the interior act of the will to be good, and the
external action evil, or vice versa.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Retract. i, 9) that there is no sin
without the will. If therefore there is no sin in the will, there
will be none in the external action. And so the whole goodness or
malice of the external action depends on the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the good and evil of which we are speaking now are
differences of the moral act. Now differences make an essential
division in a genus, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vii, 12).
Since therefore an act is moral from being voluntary, it seems that
goodness and malice in an act are derived from the will alone.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Mendac. vii), that "there
are some actions which neither a good end nor a good will can make
good."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), we may consider a twofold
goodness or malice in the external action: one in respect of due
matter and circumstances; the other in respect of the order to the
end. And that which is in respect of the order to the end, depends
entirely on the will: while that which is in respect of due matter or
circumstances, depends on the reason: and on this goodness depends
the goodness of the will, in so far as the will tends towards it.

Now it must be observed, as was noted above (Q. 19, A. 6, ad 1), that
for a thing to be evil, one single defect suffices, whereas, for it
to be good simply, it is not enough for it to be good in one point
only, it must be good in every respect. If therefore the will be
good, both from its proper object and from its end, if follows that
the external action is good. But if the will be good from its
intention of the end, this is not enough to make the external action
good: and if the will be evil either by reason of its intention of
the end, or by reason of the act willed, it follows that the external
action is evil.

Reply Obj. 1: If the good tree be taken to signify the good will, it
must be in so far as the will derives goodness from the act willed
and from the end intended.

Reply Obj. 2: A man sins by his will, not only when he wills an evil
end; but also when he wills an evil act.

Reply Obj. 3: Voluntariness applies not only to the interior act of
the will, but also to external actions, inasmuch as they proceed from
the will and the reason. Consequently the difference of good and evil
is applicable to both the interior and external act.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 3]

Whether the Goodness and Malice of the External Action Are the Same
As Those of the Interior Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness and malice of the
interior act of the will are not the same as those of the external
action. For the principle of the interior act is the interior
apprehensive or appetitive power of the soul; whereas the principle
of the external action is the power that accomplishes the movement.
Now where the principles of action are different, the actions
themselves are different. Moreover, it is the action which is the
subject of goodness or malice: and the same accident cannot be in
different subjects. Therefore the goodness of the interior act cannot
be the same as that of the external action.

Obj. 2: Further, "A virtue makes that, which has it, good, and
renders its action good also" (Ethic. ii, 6). But the intellective
virtue in the commanding power is distinct from the moral virtue in
the power commanded, as is declared in _Ethic._ i, 13. Therefore the
goodness of the interior act, which belongs to the commanding power,
is distinct from the goodness of the external action, which belongs
to the power commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect; since
nothing is its own cause. But the goodness of the interior act is the
cause of the goodness of the external action, or vice versa, as
stated above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore it is not the same goodness in
each.

_On the contrary,_ It was shown above (Q. 18, A. 6) that the act of
the will is the form, as it were, of the external action. Now that
which results from the material and formal element is one thing.
Therefore there is but one goodness of the internal and external act.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 17, A. 4), the interior act of
the will, and the external action, considered morally, are one act.
Now it happens sometimes that one and the same individual act has
several aspects of goodness or malice, and sometimes that it has but
one. Hence we must say that sometimes the goodness or malice of the
interior act is the same as that of the external action, and
sometimes not. For as we have already said (AA. 1, 2), these two
goodnesses or malices, of the internal and external acts, are
ordained to one another. Now it may happen, in things that are
subordinate to something else, that a thing is good merely from being
subordinate; thus a bitter draught is good merely because it procures
health. Wherefore there are not two goodnesses, one the goodness of
health, and the other the goodness of the draught; but one and the
same. On the other hand it happens sometimes that that which is
subordinate to something else, has some aspect of goodness in itself,
besides the fact of its being subordinate to some other good: thus a
palatable medicine can be considered in the light of a pleasurable
good, besides being conducive to health.

We must therefore say that when the external action derives goodness
or malice from its relation to the end only, then there is but one
and the same goodness of the act of the will which of itself regards
the end, and of the external action, which regards the end through
the medium of the act of the will. But when the external action has
goodness or malice of itself, i.e. in regard to its matter and
circumstances, then the goodness of the external action is distinct
from the goodness of the will in regarding the end; yet so that the
goodness of the end passes into the external action, and the goodness
of the matter and circumstances passes into the act of the will, as
stated above (AA. 1, 2).

Reply Obj. 1: This argument proves that the internal and external
actions are different in the physical order: yet distinct as they are
in that respect, they combine to form one thing in the moral order,
as stated above (Q. 17, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 2: As stated in _Ethic._ vi, 12, a moral virtue is
ordained to the act of that virtue, which act is the end, as it were,
of that virtue; whereas prudence, which is in the reason, is ordained
to things directed to the end. For this reason various virtues are
necessary. But right reason in regard to the very end of a virtue has
no other goodness than the goodness of that virtue, in so far as the
goodness of the reason is participated in each virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: When a thing is derived by one thing from another, as
from a univocal efficient cause, then it is not the same in both:
thus when a hot thing heats, the heat of the heater is distinct from
the heat of the thing heated, although it be the same specifically.
But when a thing is derived from one thing from another, according to
analogy or proportion, then it is one and the same in both: thus the
healthiness which is in medicine or urine is derived from the
healthiness of the animal's body; nor is health as applied to urine
and medicine, distinct from health as applied to the body of an
animal, of which health medicine is the cause, and urine the sign. It
is in this way that the goodness of the external action is derived
from the goodness of the will, and vice versa; viz. according to the
order of one to the other.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 4]

Whether the External Action Adds Any Goodness or Malice to That of
the Interior Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that the external action does not add any
goodness or malice to that of the interior action. For Chrysostom
says (Hom. xix in Matt.): "It is the will that is rewarded for doing
good, or punished for doing evil." Now works are the witnesses of the
will. Therefore God seeks for works not on His own account, in order
to know how to judge; but for the sake of others, that all may
understand how just He is. But good or evil is to be estimated
according to God's judgment rather than according to the judgment of
man. Therefore the external action adds no goodness or malice to that
of the interior act.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness and malice of the interior and external
acts are one and the same, as stated above (A. 3). But increase is
the addition of one thing to another. Therefore the external action
does not add to the goodness or malice of the interior act.

Obj. 3: Further, the entire goodness of created things does not add
to the Divine Goodness, because it is entirely derived therefrom. But
sometimes the entire goodness of the external action is derived from
the goodness of the interior act, and sometimes conversely, as stated
above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore neither of them adds to the goodness or
malice of the other.

_On the contrary,_ Every agent intends to attain good and avoid evil.
If therefore by the external action no further goodness or malice be
added, it is to no purpose that he who has a good or an evil will,
does a good deed or refrains from an evil deed. Which is unreasonable.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of the goodness which the external
action derives from the will tending to the end, then the external
action adds nothing to this goodness, unless it happens that the will
in itself is made better in good things, or worse in evil things.
This, seemingly, may happen in three ways. First in point of number;
if, for instance, a man wishes to do something with a good or an evil
end in view, and does not do it then, but afterwards wills and does
it, the act of his will is doubled and a double good, or a double
evil is the result. Secondly, in point of extension: when, for
instance, a man wishes to do something for a good or an evil end, and
is hindered by some obstacle, whereas another man perseveres in the
movement of the will until he accomplish it in deed; it is evident
that the will of the latter is more lasting in good or evil, and in
this respect, is better or worse. Thirdly, in point of intensity: for
there are certain external actions, which, in so far as they are
pleasurable, or painful, are such as naturally to make the will more
intense or more remiss; and it is evident that the more intensely the
will tends to good or evil, the better or worse it is.

On the other hand, if we speak of the goodness which the external
action derives from its matter and due circumstances, thus it stands
in relation to the will as its term and end. And in this way it adds
to the goodness or malice of the will; because every inclination or
movement is perfected by attaining its end or reaching its term.
Wherefore the will is not perfect, unless it be such that, given the
opportunity, it realizes the operation. But if this prove impossible,
as long as the will is perfect, so as to realize the operation if it
could; the lack of perfection derived from the external action, is
simply involuntary. Now just as the involuntary deserves neither
punishment nor reward in the accomplishment of good or evil deeds, so
neither does it lessen reward or punishment, if a man through simple
involuntariness fail to do good or evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Chrysostom is speaking of the case where a man's will
is complete, and does not refrain from the deed save through the
impossibility of achievement.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument applies to that goodness which the
external action derives from the will as tending to the end. But
the goodness which the external action takes from its matter and
circumstances, is distinct from that which it derives from the end;
but it is not distinct from that which it has from the very act
willed, to which it stands in the relation of measure and cause,
as stated above (AA. 1, 2).

From this the reply to the Third Objection is evident.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 5]

Whether the Consequences of the External Action Increase Its Goodness
or Malice?

Objection 1: It would seem that the consequences of the external
action increase its goodness or malice. For the effect pre-exists
virtually in its cause. But the consequences result from the action
as an effect from its cause. Therefore they pre-exist virtually in
actions. Now a thing is judged to be good or bad according to its
virtue, since a virtue "makes that which has it to be good" (Ethic.
ii, 6). Therefore the consequences increase the goodness or malice of
an action.

Obj. 2: Further, the good actions of his hearers are consequences
resulting from the words of a preacher. But such goods as these
redound to the merit of the preacher, as is evident from Phil. 4:1:
"My dearly beloved brethren, my joy and my crown." Therefore the
consequences of an action increase its goodness or malice.

Obj. 3: Further, punishment is not increased, unless the fault
increases: wherefore it is written (Deut. 25:2): "According to the
measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." But the
punishment is increased on account of the consequences; for it is
written (Ex. 21:29): "But if the ox was wont to push with his horn
yesterday and the day before, and they warned his master, and he did
not shut him up, and he shall kill a man or a woman, then the ox
shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death." But he
would not have been put to death, if the ox, although he had not been
shut up, had not killed a man. Therefore the consequences increase
the goodness or malice of an action.

Obj. 4: Further, if a man do something which may cause death, by
striking, or by sentencing, and if death does not ensue, he does not
contract irregularity: but he would if death were to ensue. Therefore
the consequence of an action increase its goodness or malice.

_On the contrary,_ The consequences do not make an action that was
evil, to be good; nor one that was good, to be evil. For instance, if
a man give an alms to a poor man who makes bad use of the alms by
committing a sin, this does not undo the good done by the giver; and,
in like manner, if a man bear patiently a wrong done to him, the
wrongdoer is not thereby excused. Therefore the consequences of an
action doe not increase its goodness or malice.

_I answer that,_ The consequences of an action are either foreseen or
not. If they are foreseen, it is evident that they increase the
goodness or malice. For when a man foresees that many evils may
follow from his action, and yet does not therefore desist therefrom,
this shows his will to be all the more inordinate.

But if the consequences are not foreseen, we must make a distinction.
Because if they follow from the nature of the action and in the
majority of cases, in this respect, the consequences increase the
goodness or malice of that action: for it is evident that an action
is specifically better, if better results can follow from it; and
specifically worse, if it is of a nature to produce worse results. On
the other hand, if the consequences follow by accident and seldom,
then they do not increase the goodness or malice of the action:
because we do not judge of a thing according to that which belongs to
it by accident, but only according to that which belongs to it of
itself.

Reply Obj. 1: The virtue of a cause is measured by the effect that
flows from the nature of the cause, not by that which results by
accident.

Reply Obj. 2: The good actions done by the hearers, result from the
preacher's words, as an effect that flows from their very nature.
Hence they redound to the merit of the preacher: especially when such
is his intention.

Reply Obj. 3: The consequences for which that man is ordered to be
punished, both follow from the nature of the cause, and are supposed
to be foreseen. For this reason they are reckoned as punishable.

Reply Obj. 4: This argument would prove if irregularity were the
result of the fault. But it is not the result of the fault, but of
the fact, and of the obstacle to the reception of a sacrament.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 6]

Whether One and the Same External Action Can Be Both Good and Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that one and the same external action can
be both good and evil. For "movement, if continuous, is one and the
same" (Phys. v, 4). But one continuous movement can be both good and
bad: for instance, a man may go to church continuously, intending at
first vainglory, and afterwards the service of God. Therefore one and
the same action can be both good and bad.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 3), action
and passion are one act. But the passion may be good, as Christ's
was; and the action evil, as that of the Jews. Therefore one and the
same act can be both good and evil.

Obj. 3: Further, since a servant is an instrument, as it were, of his
master, the servant's action is his master's, just as the action of a
tool is the workman's action. But it may happen that the servant's
action result from his master's good will, and is therefore good: and
from the evil will of the servant, and is therefore evil. Therefore
the same action can be both good and evil.

_On the contrary,_ The same thing cannot be the subject of
contraries. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore the same
action cannot be both good and evil.

_On the contrary,_ The same thing cannot be the subject of
contraries. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore the same
action cannot be both good and evil.

_I answer that,_ Nothing hinders a thing from being one, in so far as
it is in one genus, and manifold, in so far as it is referred to
another genus. Thus a continuous surface is one, considered as in the
genus of quantity; and yet it is manifold, considered as to the genus
of color, if it be partly white, and partly black. And accordingly,
nothing hinders an action from being one, considered in the natural
order; whereas it is not one, considered in the moral order; and vice
versa, as we have stated above (A. 3, ad 1; Q. 18, A. 7, ad 1). For
continuous walking is one action, considered in the natural order:
but it may resolve itself into many actions, considered in the moral
order, if a change take place in the walker's will, for the will is
the principle of moral actions. If therefore we consider one action
in the moral order, it is impossible for it to be morally both good
and evil. Whereas if it be one as to natural and not moral unity, it
can be both good and evil.

Reply Obj. 1: This continual movement which proceeds from various
intentions, although it is one in the natural order, is not one in
the point of moral unity.

Reply Obj. 2: Action and passion belong to the moral order, in so far
as they are voluntary. And therefore in so far as they are voluntary
in respect of wills that differ, they are two distinct things, and
good can be in one of them while evil is in the other.

Reply Obj. 3: The action of the servant, in so far as it proceeds
from the will of the servant, is not the master's action: but only in
so far as it proceeds from the master's command. Wherefore the evil
will of the servant does not make the action evil in this respect.
________________________

QUESTION 21

OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HUMAN ACTIONS BY REASON OF THEIR GOODNESS
AND MALICE (In Four Articles)

We have now to consider the consequences of human actions by reason
of their goodness and malice: and under this head there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a human action is right or sinful by reason of its being
good or evil?

(2) Whether it thereby deserves praise or blame?

(3) Whether accordingly, it is meritorious or demeritorious?

(4) Whether it is accordingly meritorious or demeritorious before God?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 1]

Whether a Human Action Is Right or Sinful, in So Far As It Is Good or
Evil?

Objection 1: It seems that a human action is not right or sinful, in
so far as it is good or evil. For "monsters are the sins of nature"
(Phys. ii, 8). But monsters are not actions, but things engendered
outside the order of nature. Now things that are produced according
to art and reason imitate those that are produced according to nature
(Phys. ii, 8). Therefore an action is not sinful by reason of its
being inordinate and evil.

Obj. 2: Further, sin, as stated in _Phys._  ii, 8 occurs in nature and
art, when the end intended by nature or art is not attained. But the
goodness or malice of a human action depends, before all, on the
intention of the end, and on its achievement. Therefore it seems that
the malice of an action does not make it sinful.

Obj. 3: Further, if the malice of an action makes it sinful, it
follows that wherever there is evil, there is sin. But this is false:
since punishment is not a sin, although it is an evil. Therefore an
action is not sinful by reason of its being evil.

_On the contrary,_ As shown above (Q. 19, A. 4), the goodness of a
human action depends principally on the Eternal Law: and consequently
its malice consists in its being in disaccord with the Eternal Law.
But this is the very nature of sin; for Augustine says (Contra Faust.
xxii, 27) that "sin is a word, deed, or desire, in opposition to the
Eternal Law." Therefore a human action is sinful by reason of its
being evil.

_I answer that,_ Evil is more comprehensive than sin, as also is good
than right. For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an
evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain
end, and lacking due order to that end. Now the due order to an end
is measured by some rule. In things that act according to nature,
this rule is the natural force that inclines them to that end. When
therefore an action proceeds from a natural force, in accord with the
natural inclination to an end, then the action is said to be right:
since the mean does not exceed its limits, viz. the action does not
swerve from the order of its active principle to the end. But when an
action strays from this rectitude, it comes under the notion of sin.

Now in those things that are done by the will, the proximate rule is
the human reason, while the supreme rule is the Eternal Law. When,
therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of
reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it
turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin. Now it
is evident from what has been said (Q. 19, AA. 3, 4) that every
voluntary action that turns aside from the order of reason and of the
Eternal Law, is evil, and that every good action is in accord with
reason and the Eternal Law. Hence it follows that a human action is
right or sinful by reason of its being good or evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Monsters are called sins, inasmuch as they result from
a sin in nature's action.

Reply Obj. 2: The end is twofold; the last end, and the proximate
end. In the sin of nature, the action does indeed fail in respect of
the last end, which is the perfection of the thing generated; but it
does not fail in respect of any proximate end whatever; since when
nature works it forms something. In like manner, the sin of the will
always fails as regards the last end intended, because no voluntary
evil action can be ordained to happiness, which is the last end: and
yet it does not fail in respect of some proximate end: intended and
achieved by the will. Wherefore also, since the very intention of
this end is ordained to the last end, this same intention may be
right or sinful.

Reply Obj. 3: Each thing is ordained to its end by its action: and
therefore sin, which consists in straying from the order to the end,
consists properly in an action. On the other hand, punishment regards
the person of the sinner, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 48, A.
5, ad 4; A. 6, ad 3).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 2]

Whether a Human Action Deserves Praise or Blame, by Reason of Its
Being Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that a human action does not deserve praise
or blame by reason of its being good or evil. For "sin happens even in
things done by nature" (Phys. ii, 8). And yet natural things are not
deserving of praise or blame (Ethic. iii, 5). Therefore a human action
does not deserve blame, by reason of its being evil or sinful; and,
consequently, neither does it deserve praise, by reason of its being
good.

Obj. 2: Further, just as sin occurs in moral actions, so does it
happen in the productions of art: because as stated in _Phys._ ii, 8
"it is a sin in a grammarian to write badly, and in a doctor to give
the wrong medicine." But the artist is not blamed for making
something bad: because the artist's work is such, that he can produce
a good or a bad thing, just as he lists. Therefore it seems that
neither is there any reason for blaming a moral action, in the fact
that it is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil is "weak and
incapable." But weakness or inability either takes away or diminishes
guilt. Therefore a human action does not incur guilt from being evil.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Virt. et Vit. i) that
"virtuous deeds deserve praise, while deeds that are opposed to
virtue deserve censure and blame." But good actions are virtuous;
because "virtue makes that which has it, good, and makes its action
good" (Ethic. ii, 6): wherefore actions opposed to virtue are evil.
Therefore a human action deserves praise or blame, through being good
or evil.

_I answer that,_ Just as evil is more comprehensive than sin, so is
sin more comprehensive than blame. For an action is said to deserve
praise or blame, from its being imputed to the agent: since to praise
or to blame means nothing else than to impute to someone the malice
or goodness of his action. Now an action is imputed to an agent, when
it is in his power, so that he has dominion over it: because it is
through his will that man has dominion over his actions, as was made
clear above (Q. 1, AA. 1, 2). Hence it follows that good or evil, in
voluntary actions alone, renders them worthy of praise or blame: and
in such like actions, evil, sin and guilt are one and the same thing.

Reply Obj. 1: Natural actions are not in the power of the natural
agent: since the action of nature is determinate. And, therefore,
although there be sin in natural actions, there is no blame.

Reply Obj. 2: Reason stands in different relations to the productions
of art, and to moral actions. In matters of art, reason is directed
to a particular end, which is something devised by reason: whereas in
moral matters, it is directed to the general end of all human life.
Now a particular end is subordinate to the general end. Since
therefore sin is a departure from the order to the end, as stated
above (A. 1), sin may occur in two ways, in a production of art.
First, by a departure from the particular end intended by the artist:
and this sin will be proper to the art; for instance, if an artist
produce a bad thing, while intending to produce something good; or
produce something good, while intending to produce something bad.
Secondly, by a departure from the general end of human life: and then
he will be said to sin, if he intend to produce a bad work, and does
so in effect, so that another is taken in thereby. But this sin is
not proper to the artist as such, but as man. Consequently for the
former sin the artist is blamed as an artist; while for the latter he
is blamed as a man. On the other hand, in moral matters, where we
take into consideration the order of reason to the general end of
human life, sin and evil are always due to a departure from the order
of reason to the general end of human life. Wherefore man is blamed
for such a sin, both as man and as a moral being. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that "in art, he who sins voluntarily
is preferable; but in prudence, as in the moral virtues," which
prudence directs, "he is the reverse."

Reply Obj. 3: Weakness that occurs in voluntary evils, is subject to
man's power: wherefore it neither takes away nor diminishes guilt.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 3]

Whether a Human Action Is Meritorious or Demeritorious in So Far As
It Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that a human action is not meritorious or
demeritorious on account of its goodness or malice. For we speak of
merit or demerit in relation to retribution, which has no place save
in matters relating to another person. But good or evil actions are
not all related to another person, for some are related to the person
of the agent. Therefore not every good or evil human action is
meritorious or demeritorious.

Obj. 2: Further, no one deserves punishment or reward for doing as he
chooses with that of which he is master: thus if a man destroys what
belongs to him, he is not punished, as if he had destroyed what
belongs to another. But man is master of his own actions. Therefore a
man does not merit punishment or reward, through putting his action
to a good or evil purpose.

Obj. 3: Further, if a man acquire some good for himself, he does not
on that account deserve to be benefited by another man: and the same
applies to evil. Now a good action is itself a kind of good and
perfection of the agent: while an inordinate action is his evil.
Therefore a man does not merit or demerit, from the fact that he does
a good or an evil deed.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 3:10, 11): "Say to the just
man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to
the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him."

_I answer that,_ We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to
retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution
according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having
done something to another's advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be
observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion,
a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil,
done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus,
who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good
or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or
demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to
him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in
respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now
when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the
whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by
the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. Whereas
when a man does that which conduces to his own benefit or
disadvantage, then again is retribution owed to him, in so far as
this too affects the community, forasmuch as he is a part of society:
although retribution is not due to him, in so far as it conduces to
the good or harm of an individual, who is identical with the agent:
unless, perchance, he owe retribution to himself, by a sort of
resemblance, in so far as man is said to be just to himself.

It is therefore evident that a good or evil action deserves praise or
blame, in so far as it is in the power of the will: that it is right
or sinful, according as it is ordained to the end; and that its merit
or demerit depends on the recompense for justice or injustice towards
another.

Reply Obj. 1: A man's good or evil actions, although not ordained to
the good or evil of another individual, are nevertheless ordained to
the good or evil of another, i.e. the community.

Reply Obj. 2: Man is master of his actions; and yet, in so far as he
belongs to another, i.e. the community, of which he forms part, he
merits or demerits, inasmuch as he disposes his actions well or ill:
just as if he were to dispense well or ill other belongings of his,
in respect of which he is bound to serve the community.

Reply Obj. 3: This very good or evil, which a man does to himself by
his action, redounds to the community, as stated above.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 4]

Whether a Human Action Is Meritorious or Demeritorious Before God,
According As It Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's actions, good or evil, are not
meritorious or demeritorious in the sight of God. Because, as stated
above (A. 3), merit and demerit imply relation to retribution for
good or harm done to another. But a man's action, good or evil, does
no good or harm to God; for it is written (Job 35:6, 7): "If thou
sin, what shalt thou hurt Him? . . . And if thou do justly, what
shalt thou give Him?" Therefore a human action, good or evil, is not
meritorious or demeritorious in the sight of God.

Obj. 2: Further, an instrument acquires no merit or demerit in the
sight of him that uses it; because the entire action of the
instrument belongs to the user. Now when man acts he is the
instrument of the Divine power which is the principal cause of his
action; hence it is written (Isa. 10:15): "Shall the axe boast itself
against him that cutteth with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself
against him by whom it is drawn?" where man while acting is evidently
compared to an instrument. Therefore man merits or demerits nothing
in God's sight, by good or evil deeds.

Obj. 3: Further, a human action acquires merit or demerit through
being ordained to someone else. But not all human actions are
ordained to God. Therefore not every good or evil action acquires
merit or demerit in God's sight.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eccles. 12:14): "All things that
are done, God will bring into judgment . . . whether it be good or
evil." Now judgment implies retribution, in respect of which we speak
of merit and demerit. Therefore every human action, both good and
evil, acquires merit or demerit in God's sight.

_I answer that,_ A human action, as stated above (A. 3), acquires
merit or demerit, through being ordained to someone else, either by
reason of himself, or by reason of the community: and in each way,
our actions, good and evil, acquire merit or demerit, in the sight of
God. On the part of God Himself, inasmuch as He is man's last end;
and it is our duty to refer all our actions to the last end, as
stated above (Q. 19, A. 10). Consequently, whoever does an evil deed,
not referable to God, does not give God the honor due to Him as our
last end. On the part of the whole community of the universe, because
in every community, he who governs the community, cares, first of
all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award
retribution for such things as are done well or ill in the community.
Now God is the governor and ruler of the whole universe, as stated in
the First Part (Q. 103, A. 5): and especially of rational creatures.
Consequently it is evident that human actions acquire merit or
demerit in reference to Him: else it would follow that human actions
are no business of God's.

Reply Obj. 1: God in Himself neither gains nor loses anything by the
action of man: but man, for his part, takes something from God, or
offers something to Him, when he observes or does not observe the
order instituted by God.

Reply Obj. 2: Man is so moved, as an instrument, by God, that, at the
same time, he moves himself by his free-will, as was explained above
(Q. 9, A. 6, ad 3). Consequently, by his action, he acquires merit or
demerit in God's sight.

Reply Obj. 3: Man is not ordained to the body politic, according to
all that he is and has; and so it does not follow that every action
of his acquires merit or demerit in relation to the body politic. But
all that man is, and can, and has, must be referred to God: and
therefore every action of man, whether good or bad, acquires merit or
demerit in the sight of God, as far as the action itself is concerned.
________________________

TREATISE ON THE PASSIONS (QQ. 22-48)
________________________

QUESTION 22

OF THE SUBJECT OF THE SOUL'S PASSIONS
(In Three Articles)

We must now consider the passions of the soul: first, in general;
secondly, in particular. Taking them in general, there are four
things to be considered: (1) Their subject: (2) The difference
between them: (3) Their mutual relationship: (4) Their malice and
goodness.

Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is any passion in the soul?

(2) Whether passion is in the appetitive rather than in the
apprehensive part?

(3) Whether passion is in the sensitive appetite rather than in the
intellectual appetite, which is called the will?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 22, Art. 1]

Whether Any Passion Is in the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no passion in the soul.
Because passivity belongs to matter. But the soul is not composed of
matter and form, as stated in the First Part (Q. 75, A. 5). Therefore
there is no passion in the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, passion is movement, as is stated in _Phys._ iii, 3.
But the soul is not moved, as is proved in _De Anima_ i, 3. Therefore
passion is not in the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, passion is the road to corruption; since "every
passion, when increased, alters the substance," as is stated in
_Topic._ vi, 6. But the soul is incorruptible. Therefore no passion
is in the soul.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 7:5): "When we were in the
flesh, the passions of sins which were by the law, did the work in
our members." Now sins are, properly speaking, in the soul. Therefore
passions also, which are described as being "of sins," are in the
soul.

_I answer that,_ The word "passive" is used in three ways. First, in
a general way, according as whatever receives something is passive,
although nothing is taken from it: thus we may say that the air is
passive when it is lit up. But this is to be perfected rather than to
be passive. Secondly, the word "passive" is employed in its proper
sense, when something is received, while something else is taken
away: and this happens in two ways. For sometimes that which is lost
is unsuitable to the thing: thus when an animal's body is healed, and
loses sickness. At other times the contrary occurs: thus to ail is to
be passive; because the ailment is received and health is lost. And
here we have passion in its most proper acceptation. For a thing is
said to be passive from its being drawn to the agent: and when a
thing recedes from what is suitable to it, then especially does it
appear to be drawn to something else. Moreover in _De Generat._ i, 3
it is stated that when a more excellent thing is generated from a
less excellent, we have generation simply, and corruption in a
particular respect: whereas the reverse is the case, when from a more
excellent thing, a less excellent is generated. In these three ways
it happens that passions are in the soul. For in the sense of mere
reception, we speak of "feeling and understanding as being a kind of
passion" (De Anima i, 5). But passion, accompanied by the loss of
something, is only in respect of a bodily transmutation; wherefore
passion properly so called cannot be in the soul, save accidentally,
in so far, to wit, as the _composite_ is passive. But here again we
find a difference; because when this transmutation is for the worse,
it has more of the nature of a passion, than when it is for the
better: hence sorrow is more properly a passion than joy.

Reply Obj. 1: It belongs to matter to be passive in such a way as to
lose something and to be transmuted: hence this happens only in those
things that are composed of matter and form. But passivity, as
implying mere reception, need not be in matter, but can be in
anything that is in potentiality. Now, though the soul is not
composed of matter and form, yet it has something of potentiality, in
respect of which it is competent to receive or to be passive,
according as the act of understanding is a kind of passion, as stated
in _De Anima_ iii, 4.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it does not belong to the soul in
itself to be passive and to be moved, yet it belongs accidentally as
stated in _De Anima_ i, 3.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of passion accompanied by
transmutation to something worse. And passion, in this sense, is not
found in the soul, except accidentally: but the composite, which is
corruptible, admits of it by reason of its own nature.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 22, Art. 2]

Whether Passion Is in the Appetitive Rather Than in the Apprehensive
Part?

Objection 1: It would seem that passion is in the apprehensive part
of the soul rather than in the appetitive. Because that which is
first in any genus, seems to rank first among all things that are in
that genus, and to be their cause, as is stated in _Metaph._ ii, 1.
Now passion is found to be in the apprehensive, before being in the
appetitive part: for the appetitive part is not affected unless there
be a previous passion in the apprehensive part. Therefore passion is
in the apprehensive part more than in the appetitive.

Obj. 2: Further, what is more active is less passive; for action is
contrary to passion. Now the appetitive part is more active than the
apprehensive part. Therefore it seems that passion is more in the
apprehensive part.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the sensitive appetite is the power of a
corporeal organ, so is the power of sensitive apprehension. But
passion in the soul occurs, properly speaking, in respect of a bodily
transmutation. Therefore passion is not more in the sensitive
appetitive than in the sensitive apprehensive part.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "the
movement of the soul, which the Greeks called _pathe_, are styled by
some of our writers, Cicero [*"Those things which the Greeks call
_pathe_, we prefer to call disturbances rather than diseases" (Tusc.
iv. 5)] for instance, disturbances; by some, affections or emotions;
while others rendering the Greek more accurately, call them
passions." From this it is evident that the passions of the soul are
the same as affections. But affections manifestly belong to the
appetitive, and not to the apprehensive part. Therefore the passions
are in the appetitive rather than in the apprehensive part.

_I answer that,_ As we have already stated (A. 1) the word "passion"
implies that the patient is drawn to that which belongs to the agent.
Now the soul is drawn to a thing by the appetitive power rather than
by the apprehensive power: because the soul has, through its
appetitive power, an order to things as they are in themselves: hence
the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 4) that "good and evil," i.e. the
objects of the appetitive power, "are in things themselves." On the
other hand the apprehensive power is not drawn to a thing, as it is
in itself; but knows it by reason of an "intention" of the thing,
which "intention" it has in itself, or receives in its own way. Hence
we find it stated (Metaph. vi, 4) that "the true and the false,"
which pertain to knowledge, "are not in things, but in the mind."
Consequently it is evident that the nature of passion is consistent
with the appetitive, rather than with the apprehensive part.

Reply Obj. 1: In things relating to perfection the case is the
opposite, in comparison to things that pertain to defect. Because in
things relating to perfection, intensity is in proportion to the
approach to one first principle; to which the nearer a thing
approaches, the more intense it is. Thus the intensity of a thing
possessed of light depends on its approach to something endowed with
light in a supreme degree, to which the nearer a thing approaches the
more light it possesses. But in things that relate to defect,
intensity depends, not on approach to something supreme, but [o]n
receding from that which is perfect; because therein consists the
very notion of privation and defect. Wherefore the less a thing
recedes from that which stands first, the less intense it is: and the
result is that at first we always find some small defect, which
afterwards increases as it goes on. Now passion pertains to defect,
because it belongs to a thing according as it is in potentiality.
Wherefore in those things that approach to the Supreme Perfection,
i.e. to God, there is but little potentiality and passion: while in
other things, consequently, there is more. Hence also, in the
supreme, i.e. the apprehensive, power of the soul, passion is found
less than in the other powers.

Reply Obj. 2: The appetitive power is said to be more active, because
it is, more than the apprehensive power, the principle of the
exterior action: and this for the same reason that it is more
passive, namely, its being related to things as existing in
themselves: since it is through the external action that we come into
contact with things.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in the First Part (Q. 78, A. 3) the organs of
the soul can be changed in two ways. First, by a spiritual change, in
respect of which the organ receives an "intention" of the object. And
this is essential to the act of the sensitive apprehension: thus is
the eye changed by the object visible, not by being colored, but by
receiving an intention of color. But the organs are receptive of
another and natural change, which affects their natural disposition;
for instance, when they become hot or cold, or undergo some similar
change. And whereas this kind of change is accidental to the act of
the sensitive apprehension; for instance, if the eye be wearied
through gazing intently at something or be overcome by the intensity
of the object: on the other hand, it is essential to the act of the
sensitive appetite; wherefore the material element in the definitions
of the movements of the appetitive part, is the natural change of the
organ; for instance, "anger is" said to be "a kindling of the blood
about the heart." Hence it is evident that the notion of passion is
more consistent with the act of the sensitive appetite, than with
that of the sensitive apprehension, although both are actions of a
corporeal organ.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 22, Art. 3]

Whether Passion Is in the Sensitive Appetite Rather Than in the
Intellectual Appetite, Which Is Called the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that passion is not more in the sensitive
than in the intellectual appetite. For Dionysius declares (Div. Nom.
ii) Hierotheus "to be taught by a kind of yet more Godlike
instruction; not only by learning Divine things, but also by
suffering (_patiens_) them." But the sensitive appetite cannot "suffer"
Divine things, since its object is the sensible good. Therefore
passion is in the intellectual appetite, just as it is also in the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 2: Further, the more powerful the active force, the more intense
the passion. But the object of the intellectual appetite, which is
the universal good, is a more powerful active force than the object
of the sensitive appetite, which is a particular good. Therefore
passion is more consistent with the intellectual than with the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, joy and love are said to be passions. But these are
to be found in the intellectual and not only in the sensitive
appetite: else they would not be ascribed by the Scriptures to God
and the angels. Therefore the passions are not more in the sensitive
than in the intellectual appetite.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22), while
describing the animal passions: "Passion is a movement of the
sensitive appetite when we imagine good or evil: in other words,
passion is a movement of the irrational soul, when we think of good
or evil."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) passion is properly to be
found where there is corporeal transmutation. This corporeal
transmutation is found in the act of the sensitive appetite, and is
not only spiritual, as in the sensitive apprehension, but also
natural. Now there is no need for corporeal transmutation in the act
of the intellectual appetite: because this appetite is not exercised
by means of a corporeal organ. It is therefore evident that passion
is more properly in the act of the sensitive appetite, than in that
of the intellectual appetite; and this is again evident from the
definitions of Damascene quoted above.

Reply Obj. 1: By "suffering" Divine things is meant being well
affected towards them, and united to them by love: and this takes
place without any alteration in the body.

Reply Obj. 2: Intensity of passion depends not only on the power of
the agent, but also on the passibility of the patient: because things
that are disposed to passion, suffer much even from petty agents.
Therefore although the object of the intellectual appetite has
greater activity than the object of the sensitive appetite, yet the
sensitive appetite is more passive.

Reply Obj. 3: When love and joy and the like are ascribed to God or
the angels, or to man in respect of his intellectual appetite, they
signify simple acts of the will having like effects, but without
passion. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5): "The holy angels
feel no anger while they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery
while they relieve the unhappy: and yet ordinary human speech is wont
to ascribe to them also these passions by name, because, although
they have none of our weakness, their acts bear a certain resemblance
to ours."
________________________

QUESTION 23

HOW THE PASSIONS DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider how the passions differ from one another: and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the passions of the concupiscible part are different from
those of the irascible part?

(2) Whether the contrariety of passions in the irascible part is
based on the contrariety of good and evil?

(3) Whether there is any passion that has no contrary?

(4) Whether, in the same power, there are any passions, differing in
species, but not contrary to one another?
________________________

QUESTION 23

Whether the Passions of the Concupiscible Part Are Different from
Those of the Irascible Part?

Objection 1: It would seem that the same passions are in the
irascible and concupiscible parts. For the Philosopher says (Ethic.
ii, 5) that the passions of the soul are those emotions "which are
followed by joy or sorrow." But joy and sorrow are in the
concupiscible part. Therefore all the passions are in the
concupiscible part, and not some in the irascible, others in the
concupiscible part.

Obj. 2: Further, on the words of Matt. 13:33, "The kingdom of heaven
is like to leaven," etc., Jerome's gloss says: "We should have
prudence in the reason; hatred of vice in the irascible faculty;
desire of virtue, in the concupiscible part." But hatred is in the
concupiscible faculty, as also is love, of which it is the contrary,
as is stated in _Topic._ ii, 7. Therefore the same passion is in the
concupiscible and irascible faculties.

Obj. 3: Further, passions and actions differ specifically according
to their objects. But the objects of the irascible and concupiscible
passions are the same, viz. good and evil. Therefore the same
passions are in the irascible and concupiscible faculties.

_On the contrary,_ The acts of the different powers differ in
species; for instance, to see, and to hear. But the irascible and the
concupiscible are two powers into which the sensitive appetite is
divided, as stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2). Therefore, since
the passions are movements of the sensitive appetite, as stated above
(Q. 22, A. 3), the passions of the irascible faculty are specifically
distinct from those of the concupiscible part.

_I answer that,_ The passions of the irascible part differ in species
from those of the concupiscible faculty. For since different powers
have different objects, as stated in the First Part (Q. 77, A. 3),
the passions of different powers must of necessity be referred to
different objects. Much more, therefore, do the passions of different
faculties differ in species; since a greater difference in the object
is required to diversify the species of the powers, than to diversify
the species of passions or actions. For just as in the physical
order, diversity of genus arises from diversity in the potentiality
of matter, while diversity of species arises from diversity of form
in the same matter; so in the acts of the soul, those that belong to
different powers, differ not only in species but also in genus, while
acts and passions regarding different specific objects, included
under the one common object of a single power, differ as the species
of that genus.

In order, therefore, to discern which passions are in the irascible,
and which in the concupiscible, we must take the object of each of
these powers. For we have stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2),
that the object of the concupiscible power is sensible good or evil,
simply apprehended as such, which causes pleasure or pain. But, since
the soul must, of necessity, experience difficulty or struggle at
times, in acquiring some such good, or in avoiding some such evil, in
so far as such good or evil is more than our animal nature can easily
acquire or avoid; therefore this very good or evil, inasmuch as it is
of an arduous or difficult nature, is the object of the irascible
faculty. Therefore whatever passions regard good or evil absolutely,
belong to the concupiscible power; for instance, joy, sorrow, love,
hatred, and such like: whereas those passions which regard good or
bad as arduous, through being difficult to obtain or avoid, belong to
the irascible faculty; such are daring, fear, hope and the like.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2), the
irascible faculty is bestowed on animals, in order to remove the
obstacles that hinder the concupiscible power from tending towards
its object, either by making some good difficult to obtain, or by
making some evil hard to avoid. The result is that all the irascible
passions terminate in the concupiscible passions: and thus it is that
even the passions which are in the irascible faculty are followed by
joy and sadness which are in the concupiscible faculty.

Reply Obj. 2: Jerome ascribes hatred of vice to the irascible
faculty, not by reason of hatred, which is properly a concupiscible
passion; but on account of the struggle, which belongs to the
irascible power.

Reply Obj. 3: Good, inasmuch as it is delightful, moves the
concupiscible power. But if it prove difficult to obtain, from this
very fact it has a certain contrariety to the concupiscible power:
and hence the need of another power tending to that good. The same
applies to evil. And this power is the irascible faculty.
Consequently the concupiscible passions are specifically different
from the irascible passions.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 23, Art. 2]

Whether the Contrariety of the Irascible Passions Is Based on the
Contrariety of Good and Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that the contrariety of the irascible
passions is based on no other contrariety than that of good and evil.
For the irascible passions are ordained to the concupiscible
passions, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1). But the contrariety of the
concupiscible passions is no other than that of good and evil; take,
for instance, love and hatred, joy and sorrow. Therefore the same
applies to the irascible passions.

Obj. 2: Further, passions differ according to their objects; just as
movements differ according to their termini. But there is no other
contrariety of movements, except that of the termini, as is stated in
_Phys._ v, 3. Therefore there is no other contrariety of passions,
save that of the objects. Now the object of the appetite is good or
evil. Therefore in no appetitive power can there be contrariety of
passions other than that of good and evil.

Obj. 3: Further, "every passion of the soul is by way of approach and
withdrawal," as Avicenna declares in his sixth book of _Physics._
Now approach results from the apprehension of good; withdrawal, from
the apprehension of evil: since just as "good is what all desire"
(Ethic. i, 1), so evil is what all shun. Therefore, in the passions
of the soul, there can be no other contrariety than that of good and
evil.

_On the contrary,_ Fear and daring are contrary to one another, as
stated in _Ethic._ iii, 7. But fear and daring do not differ in
respect of good and evil: because each regards some kind of evil.
Therefore not every contrariety of the irascible passions is that of
good and evil.

_I answer that,_ Passion is a kind of movement, as stated in _Phys._
iii, 3. Therefore contrariety of passions is based on contrariety of
movements or changes. Now there is a twofold contrariety in changes
and movements, as stated in _Phys._ v, 5. One is according to
approach and withdrawal in respect of the same term: and this
contrariety belongs properly to changes, i.e. to generation, which is
a change _to being,_ and to corruption, which is a change _from
being._ The other contrariety is according to opposition of termini,
and belongs properly to movements: thus whitening, which is movement
from black to white, is contrary to blackening, which is movement
from white to black.

Accordingly there is a twofold contrariety in the passions of the
soul: one, according to contrariety of objects, i.e. of good and
evil; the other, according to approach and withdrawal in respect of
the same term. In the concupiscible passions the former contrariety
alone is to be found; viz. that which is based on the objects:
whereas in the irascible passions, we find both forms of contrariety.
The reason of this is that the object of the concupiscible faculty,
as stated above (A. 1), is sensible good or evil considered
absolutely. Now good, as such, cannot be a term wherefrom, but only a
term whereto, since nothing shuns good as such; on the contrary, all
things desire it. In like manner, nothing desires evil, as such; but
all things shun it: wherefore evil cannot have the aspect of a term
whereto, but only of a term wherefrom. Accordingly every
concupiscible passion in respect of good, tends to it, as love,
desire and joy; while every concupiscible passion in respect of evil,
tends from it, as hatred, avoidance or dislike, and sorrow.
Wherefore, in the concupiscible passions, there can be no contrariety
of approach and withdrawal in respect of the same object.

On the other hand, the object of the irascible faculty is sensible
good or evil, considered not absolutely, but under the aspect of
difficulty or arduousness. Now the good which is difficult or
arduous, considered as good, is of such a nature as to produce in us
a tendency to it, which tendency pertains to the passion of _hope;_
whereas, considered as arduous or difficult, it makes us turn from
it; and this pertains to the passion of _despair._ In like manner the
arduous evil, considered as an evil, has the aspect of something to
be shunned; and this belongs to the passion of _fear:_ but it also
contains a reason for tending to it, as attempting something arduous,
whereby to escape being subject to evil; and this tendency is called
_daring._ Consequently, in the irascible passions we find contrariety
in respect of good and evil (as between hope and fear): and also
contrariety according to approach and withdrawal in respect of the
same term (as between daring and fear).

From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 23, Art. 3]

Whether Any Passion of the Soul Has No Contrary?

Objection 1: It would seem that every passion of the soul has a
contrary. For every passion of the soul is either in the irascible or
in the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (A. 1). But both kinds
of passion have their respective modes of contrariety. Therefore
every passion of the soul has its contrary.

Obj. 2: Further, every passion of the soul has either good or evil
for its object; for these are the common objects of the appetitive
part. But a passion having good for its object, is contrary to a
passion having evil for its object. Therefore every passion has a
contrary.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul is in respect of approach
or withdrawal, as stated above (A. 2). But every approach has a
corresponding contrary withdrawal, and vice versa. Therefore every
passion of the soul has a contrary.

_On the contrary,_ Anger is a passion of the soul. But no passion is
set down as being contrary to anger, as stated in _Ethic._ iv, 5.
Therefore not every passion has a contrary.

_I answer that,_ The passion of anger is peculiar in this, that it
cannot have a contrary, either according to approach and withdrawal,
or according to the contrariety of good and evil. For anger is caused
by a difficult evil already present: and when such an evil is
present, the appetite must needs either succumb, so that it does not
go beyond the limits of _sadness,_ which is a concupiscible passion;
or else it has a movement of attack on the hurtful evil, which
movement is that of _anger._ But it cannot have a movement of
withdrawal: because the evil is supposed to be already present or
past. Thus no passion is contrary to anger according to contrariety
of approach and withdrawal.

In like manner neither can there be according to contrariety of good
and evil. Because the opposite of present evil is good obtained,
which can be no longer have the aspect of arduousness or difficulty.
Nor, when once good is obtained, does there remain any other
movement, except the appetite's repose in the good obtained; which
repose belongs to joy, which is a passion of the concupiscible
faculty.

Accordingly no movement of the soul can be contrary to the movement
of anger, and nothing else than cessation from its movement is
contrary thereto; thus the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "calm
is contrary to anger," by opposition not of contrariety but of
negation or privation.

From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 23, Art. 4]

Whether in the Same Power, There Are Any Passions, Specifically
Different, but Not Contrary to One Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be, in the same power,
specifically different passions that are not contrary to one another.
For the passions of the soul differ according to their objects. Now
the objects of the soul's passions are good and evil; and on this
distinction is based the contrariety of the passions. Therefore no
passions of the same power, that are not contrary to one another,
differ specifically.

Obj. 2: Further, difference of species implies a difference of form.
But every difference of form is in respect of some contrariety, as
stated in _Metaph._ x, 8. Therefore passions of the same power, that
are not contrary to one another, do not differ specifically.

Obj. 3: Further, since every passion of the soul consists in approach
or withdrawal in respect of good or evil, it seems that every
difference in the passions of the soul must needs arise from the
difference of good and evil; or from the difference of approach and
withdrawal; or from degrees in approach or withdrawal. Now the first
two differences cause contrariety in the passions of the soul, as
stated above (A. 2): whereas the third difference does not diversify
the species; else the species of the soul's passions would be
infinite. Therefore it is not possible for passions of the same power
to differ in species, without being contrary to one another.

_On the contrary,_ Love and joy differ in species, and are in the
concupiscible power; and yet they are not contrary to one another;
rather, in fact, one causes the other. Therefore in the same power
there are passions that differ in species without being contrary to
one another.

_I answer that,_ Passions differ in accordance with their active
causes, which, in the case of the passions of the soul, are their
objects. Now, the difference in active causes may be considered in
two ways: first, from the point of view of their species or nature,
as fire differs from water; secondly, from the point of view of the
difference in their active power. In the passions of the soul we can
treat the difference of their active or motive causes in respect of
their motive power, as if they were natural agents. For every mover,
in a fashion, either draws the patient to itself, or repels it from
itself. Now in drawing it to itself, it does three things in the
patient. Because, in the first place, it gives the patient an
inclination or aptitude to tend to the mover: thus a light body,
which is above, bestows lightness on the body generated, so that it
has an inclination or aptitude to be above. Secondly, if the
generated body be outside its proper place, the mover gives it
movement towards that place. Thirdly, it makes it to rest, when it
shall have come to its proper place: since to the same cause are due,
both rest in a place, and the movement to that place. The same
applies to the cause of repulsion.

Now, in the movements of the appetitive faculty, good has, as it
were, a force of attraction, while evil has a force of repulsion. In
the first place, therefore, good causes, in the appetitive power, a
certain inclination, aptitude or connaturalness in respect of good:
and this belongs to the passion of _love:_ the corresponding contrary
of which is _hatred_ in respect of evil. Secondly, if the good be not
yet possessed, it causes in the appetite a movement towards the
attainment of the good beloved: and this belongs to the passion of
_desire_ or _concupiscence:_ and contrary to it, in respect of evil,
is the passion of _aversion_ or _dislike._ Thirdly, when the good is
obtained, it causes the appetite to rest, as it were, in the good
obtained: and this belongs to the passion of _delight_ or _joy;_ the
contrary of which, in respect of evil, is _sorrow_ or _sadness._

On the other hand, in the irascible passions, the aptitude, or
inclination to seek good, or to shun evil, is presupposed as arising
from the concupiscible faculty, which regards good or evil absolutely.
And in respect of good not yet obtained, we have _hope_ and _despair._
In respect of evil not yet present we have _fear_ and _daring._ But in
respect of good obtained there is no irascible passion: because it is
no longer considered in the light of something arduous, as stated
above (A. 3). But evil already present gives rise to the passion
of _anger._

Accordingly it is clear that in the concupiscible faculty there are
three couples of passions; viz. love and hatred, desire and aversion,
joy and sadness. In like manner there are three groups in the
irascible faculty; viz. hope and despair, fear and daring, and anger
which has no contrary passion.

Consequently there are altogether eleven passions differing
specifically; six in the concupiscible faculty, and five in the
irascible; and under these all the passions of the soul are contained.

From this the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

QUESTION 24

OF GOOD AND EVIL IN THE PASSIONS OF THE SOUL
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider good and evil in the passions of the soul: and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether moral good and evil can be found in the passions of the
soul?

(2) Whether every passion of the soul is morally evil?

(3) Whether every passion increases or decreases the goodness or
malice of an act?

(4) Whether any passion is good or evil specifically?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 1]

Whether Moral Good and Evil Can Be Found in the Passions of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that no passion of the soul is morally
good or evil. For moral good and evil are proper to man: since
"morals are properly predicated of man," as Ambrose says (Super Luc.
Prolog.). But passions are not proper to man, for he has them in
common with other animals. Therefore no passion of the soul is
morally good or evil.

Obj. 2: Further, the good or evil of man consists in "being in
accord, or in disaccord with reason," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv). Now the passions of the soul are not in the reason, but in the
sensitive appetite, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3). Therefore they
have no connection with human, i.e. moral, good or evil.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that "we are
neither praised nor blamed for our passions." But we are praised and
blamed for moral good and evil. Therefore the passions are not
morally good or evil.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) while speaking
of the passions of the soul: "They are evil if our love is evil; good
if our love is good."

_I answer that,_ We may consider the passions of the soul in two
ways: first, in themselves; secondly, as being subject to the command
of the reason and will. If then the passions be considered in
themselves, to wit, as movements of the irrational appetite, thus
there is no moral good or evil in them, since this depends on the
reason, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 5). If, however, they be
considered as subject to the command of the reason and will, then
moral good and evil are in them. Because the sensitive appetite is
nearer than the outward members to the reason and will; and yet the
movements and actions of the outward members are morally good or
evil, inasmuch as they are voluntary. Much more, therefore, may the
passions, in so far as they are voluntary, be called morally good or
evil. And they are said to be voluntary, either from being commanded
by the will, or from not being checked by the will.

Reply Obj. 1: These passions, considered in themselves, are common to
man and other animals: but, as commanded by the reason, they are
proper to man.

Reply Obj. 2: Even the lower appetitive powers are called rational,
in so far as "they partake of reason in some sort" (Ethic. i, 13).

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher says that we are neither praised nor
blamed for our passions considered absolutely; but he does not
exclude their becoming worthy of praise or blame, in so far as they
are subordinate to reason. Hence he continues: "For the man who fears
or is angry, is not praised . . . or blamed, but the man who is angry
in a certain way, i.e. according to, or against reason."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 2]

Whether Every Passion of the Soul Is Evil Morally?

Objection 1: It would seem that all the passions of the soul are
morally evil. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "some call
the soul's passions diseases or disturbances of the soul" [*Cf. Q.
22, A. 2, footnote]. But every disease or disturbance of the soul is
morally evil. Therefore every passion of the soul is evil morally.

Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "movement
in accord with nature is an action, but movement contrary to nature
is passion." But in movements of the soul, what is against nature is
sinful and morally evil: hence he says elsewhere (De Fide Orth. ii,
4) that "the devil turned from that which is in accord with nature to
that which is against nature." Therefore these passions are morally
evil.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever leads to sin, has an aspect of evil. But
these passions lead to sin: wherefore they are called "the passions
of sins" (Rom. 7:5). Therefore it seems that they are morally evil.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9) that "all
these emotions are right in those whose love is rightly placed . . .
For they fear to sin, they desire to persevere; they grieve for sin,
they rejoice in good works."

_I answer that,_ On this question the opinion of the Stoics differed
from that of the Peripatetics: for the Stoics held that all passions
are evil, while the Peripatetics maintained that moderate passions
are good. This difference, although it appears great in words, is
nevertheless, in reality, none at all, or but little, if we consider
the intent of either school. For the Stoics did not discern between
sense and intellect; and consequently neither between the
intellectual and sensitive appetite. Hence they did not discriminate
the passions of the soul from the movements of the will, in so far as
the passions of the soul are in the sensitive appetite, while the
simple movements of the will are in the intellectual appetite: but
every rational movement of the appetitive part they call will, while
they called passion, a movement that exceeds the limits of reason.
Wherefore Cicero, following their opinion (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 4)
calls all passions "diseases of the soul": whence he argues that
"those who are diseased are unsound; and those who are unsound are
wanting in sense." Hence we speak of those who are wanting in sense
of being "unsound."

On the other hand, the Peripatetics give the name of "passions" to
all the movements of the sensitive appetite. Wherefore they esteem
them good, when they are controlled by reason; and evil when they are
not controlled by reason. Hence it is evident that Cicero was wrong
in disapproving (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 4) of the Peripatetic theory
of a mean in the passions, when he says that "every evil, though
moderate, should be shunned; for, just as a body, though it be
moderately ailing, is not sound; so, this mean in the diseases or
passions of the soul, is not sound." For passions are not called
"diseases" or "disturbances" of the soul, save when they are not
controlled by reason.

Hence the reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2: In every passion there is an increase or decrease in
the natural movement of the heart, according as the heart is moved
more or less intensely by contraction and dilatation; and hence it
derives the character of passion. But there is no need for passion to
deviate always from the order of natural reason.

Reply Obj. 3: The passions of the soul, in so far as they are
contrary to the order of reason, incline us to sin: but in so far as
they are controlled by reason, they pertain to virtue.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 3]

Whether Passion Increases or Decreases the Goodness or Malice of an
Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that every passion decreases the goodness
of a moral action. For anything that hinders the judgment of reason,
on which depends the goodness of a moral act, consequently decreases
the goodness of the moral act. But every passion hinders the judgment
of reason: for Sallust says (Catilin.): "All those that take counsel
about matters of doubt, should be free from hatred, anger, friendship
and pity." Therefore passion decreases the goodness of a moral act.

Obj. 2: Further, the more a man's action is like to God, the better
it is: hence the Apostle says (Eph. 5:1): "Be ye followers of God, as
most dear children." But "God and the holy angels feel no anger when
they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery when they relieve the
unhappy," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5). Therefore it is
better to do such like deeds without than with a passion of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, just as moral evil depends on its relation to
reason, so also does moral good. But moral evil is lessened by
passion: for he sins less, who sins from passion, than he who sins
deliberately. Therefore he does a better deed, who does well without
passion, than he who does with passion.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "the
passion of pity is obedient to reason, when pity is bestowed without
violating right, as when the poor are relieved, or the penitent
forgiven." But nothing that is obedient to reason lessens the moral
good. Therefore a passion of the soul does not lessen moral good.

_I answer that,_ As the Stoics held that every passion of the soul is
evil, they consequently held that every passion of the soul lessens
the goodness of an act; since the admixture of evil either destroys
good altogether, or makes it to be less good. And this is true
indeed, if by passions we understand none but the inordinate
movements of the sensitive appetite, considered as disturbances or
ailments. But if we give the name of passions to all the movements of
the sensitive appetite, then it belongs to the perfection of man's
good that his passions be moderated by reason. For since man's good
is founded on reason as its root, that good will be all the more
perfect, according as it extends to more things pertaining to man.
Wherefore no one questions the fact that it belongs to the perfection
of moral good, that the actions of the outward members be controlled
by the law of reason. Hence, since the sensitive appetite can obey
reason, as stated above (Q. 17, A. 7), it belongs to the perfection
of moral or human good, that the passions themselves also should be
controlled by reason.

Accordingly just as it is better that man should both will good and
do it in his external act; so also does it belong to the perfection
of moral good, that man should be moved unto good, not only in
respect of his will, but also in respect of his sensitive appetite;
according to Ps. 83:3: "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the
living God": where by "heart" we are to understand the intellectual
appetite, and by "flesh" the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 1: The passions of the soul may stand in a twofold
relation to the judgment of reason. First, antecedently: and thus,
since they obscure the judgment of reason, on which the goodness of
the moral act depends, they diminish the goodness of the act; for it
is more praiseworthy to do a work of charity from the judgment of
reason than from the mere passion of pity. In the second place,
consequently: and this in two ways. First, by way of redundance:
because, to wit, when the higher part of the soul is intensely moved
to anything, the lower part also follows that movement: and thus the
passion that results in consequence, in the sensitive appetite, is a
sign of the intensity of the will, and so indicates greater moral
goodness. Secondly, by way of choice; when, to wit, a man, by the
judgment of his reason, chooses to be affected by a passion in order
to work more promptly with the co-operation of the sensitive
appetite. And thus a passion of the soul increases the goodness of an
action.

Reply Obj. 2: In God and the angels there is no sensitive appetite,
nor again bodily members: and so in them good does not depend on the
right ordering of passions or of bodily actions, as it does in us.

Reply Obj. 3: A passion that tends to evil, and precedes the judgment
of reason, diminishes sin; but if it be consequent in either of the
ways mentioned above (Reply Obj. 1), it aggravates the sin, or else
it is a sign of its being more grievous.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 4]

Whether Any Passion Is Good or Evil in Its Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that no passion of the soul is good or
evil morally according to its species. Because moral good and evil
depend on reason. But the passions are in the sensitive appetite; so
that accordance with reason is accidental to them. Since, therefore,
nothing accidental belongs to a thing's species, it seems that no
passion is good or evil according to its species.

Obj. 2: Further, acts and passions take their species from their
object. If, therefore, any passion were good or evil, according to
its species, it would follow that those passions the object of which
is good, are specifically good, such as love, desire and joy: and
that those passions, the object of which is evil, are specifically
evil, as hatred, fear and sadness. But this is clearly false.
Therefore no passion is good or evil according to its species.

Obj. 3: Further, there is no species of passion that is not to be
found in other animals. But moral good is in man alone. Therefore no
passion of the soul is good or evil according to its species.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "pity is a
kind of virtue." Moreover, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7) that
modesty is a praiseworthy passion. Therefore some passions are good
or evil according to their species.

_I answer that,_ We ought, seemingly, to apply to passions what has
been said in regard to acts (Q. 18, AA. 5, 6; Q. 20, A. 1)--viz. that
the species of a passion, as the species of an act, can be considered
from two points of view. First, according to its natural genus; and
thus moral good and evil have no connection with the species of an
act or passion. Secondly, according to its moral genus, inasmuch as
it is voluntary and controlled by reason. In this way moral good and
evil can belong to the species of a passion, in so far as the object
to which a passion tends, is, of itself, in harmony or in discord
with reason: as is clear in the case of _shame_ which is base fear;
and of _envy_ which is sorrow for another's good: for thus passions
belong to the same species as the external act.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the passions in their natural
species, in so far as the sensitive appetite is considered in itself.
But in so far as the sensitive appetite obeys reason, good and evil
of reason are no longer accidentally in the passions of the appetite,
but essentially.

Reply Obj. 2: Passions having a tendency to good, are themselves
good, if they tend to that which is truly good, and in like manner,
if they turn away from that which is truly evil. On the other hand,
those passions which consist in aversion from good, and a tendency to
evil, are themselves evil.

Reply Obj. 3: In irrational animals the sensitive appetite does not
obey reason. Nevertheless, in so far as they are led by a kind of
estimative power, which is subject to a higher, i.e. the Divine
reason, there is a certain likeness of moral good in them, in regard
to the soul's passions.
________________________

QUESTION 25

OF THE ORDER OF THE PASSIONS TO ONE ANOTHER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the order of the passions to one another: and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) The relation of the irascible passions to the concupiscible
passions;

(2) The relation of the concupiscible passions to one another;

(3) The relation of the irascible passions to one another;

(4) The four principal passions.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 1]

Whether the Irascible Passions Precede the Concupiscible Passions, or
Vice Versa?

Objection 1: It would seem that the irascible passions precede the
concupiscible passions. For the order of the passions is that of
their objects. But the object of the irascible faculty is the
difficult good, which seems to be the highest good. Therefore the
irascible passions seem to precede the concupiscible passions.

Obj. 2: Further, the mover precedes that which is moved. But the
irascible faculty is compared to the concupiscible, as mover to that
which is moved: since it is given to animals, for the purpose of
removing the obstacles that hinder the concupiscible faculty from
enjoying its object, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1, ad 1; I, Q. 81,
A. 2). Now "that which removes an obstacle, is a kind of mover"
(Phys. viii, 4). Therefore the irascible passions precede the
concupiscible passions.

Obj. 3: Further, joy and sadness are concupiscible passions. But joy
and sadness succeed to the irascible passions: for the Philosopher
says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "retaliation causes anger to cease, because
it produces pleasure instead of the previous pain." Therefore the
concupiscible passions follow the irascible passions.

_On the contrary,_ The concupiscible passions regard the absolute
good, while the irascible passions regard a restricted, viz. the
difficult, good. Since, therefore, the absolute good precedes the
restricted good, it seems that the concupiscible passions precede
the irascible.

_I answer that,_ In the concupiscible passions there is more
diversity than in the passions of the irascible faculty. For in the
former we find something relating to movement--e.g. desire; and
something belonging to repose, e.g. joy and sadness. But in the
irascible passions there is nothing pertaining to repose, and only
that which belongs to movement. The reason of this is that when we
find rest in a thing, we no longer look upon it as something
difficult or arduous; whereas such is the object of the irascible
faculty.

Now since rest is the end of movement, it is first in the order of
intention, but last in the order of execution. If, therefore, we
compare the passions of the irascible faculty with those
concupiscible passions that denote rest in good, it is evident that
in the order of execution, the irascible passions take precedence of
such like passions of the concupiscible faculty: thus hope precedes
joy, and hence causes it, according to the Apostle (Rom. 12:12):
"Rejoicing in hope." But the concupiscible passion which denotes rest
in evil, viz. sadness, comes between two irascible passions: because
it follows fear; since we become sad when we are confronted by the
evil that we feared: while it precedes the movement of anger; since
the movement of self-vindication, that results from sadness, is the
movement of anger. And because it is looked upon as a good thing to
pay back the evil done to us; when the angry man has achieved this
he rejoices. Thus it is evident that every passion of the irascible
faculty terminates in a concupiscible passion denoting rest, viz.
either in joy or in sadness.

But if we compare the irascible passions to those concupiscible
passions that denote movement, then it is clear that the latter take
precedence: because the passions of the irascible faculty add
something to those of the concupiscible faculty; just as the object
of the irascible adds the aspect of arduousness or difficulty to the
object of the concupiscible faculty. Thus hope adds to desire a
certain effort, and a certain raising of the spirits to the
realization of the arduous good. In like manner fear adds to aversion
or detestation a certain lowness of spirits, on account of difficulty
in shunning the evil.

Accordingly the passions of the irascible faculty stand between those
concupiscible passions that denote movement towards good or evil, and
those concupiscible passions that denote rest in good or evil. And it
is therefore evident that the irascible passions both arise from and
terminate in the passions of the concupiscible faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument would prove, if the formal object of the
concupiscible faculty were something contrary to the arduous, just as
the formal object of the irascible faculty is that which is arduous.
But because the object of the concupiscible faculty is good
absolutely, it naturally precedes the object of the irascible, as the
common precedes the proper.

Reply Obj. 2: The remover of an obstacle is not a direct but an
accidental mover: and here we are speaking of passions as directly
related to one another. Moreover, the irascible passion removes the
obstacle that hinders the concupiscible from resting in its object.
Wherefore it only follows that the irascible passions precede those
concupiscible passions that connote rest. The third objection leads
to the same conclusion.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 2]

Whether Love Is the First of the Concupiscible Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not the first of the
concupiscible passions. For the concupiscible faculty is so called
from concupiscence, which is the same passion as desire. But "things
are named from their chief characteristic" (De Anima ii, 4).
Therefore desire takes precedence of love.

Obj. 2: Further, love implies a certain union; since it is a "uniting
and binding force," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But
concupiscence or desire is a movement towards union with the thing
coveted or desired. Therefore desire precedes love.

Obj. 3: Further, the cause precedes its effect. But pleasure is
sometimes the cause of love: since some love on account of pleasure
(Ethic. viii, 3, 4). Therefore pleasure precedes love; and
consequently love is not the first of the concupiscible passions.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9) that all
the passions are caused by love: since "love yearning for the beloved
object, is desire; and, having and enjoying it, is joy." Therefore
love is the first of the concupiscible passions.

_I answer that,_ Good and evil are the object of the concupiscible
faculty. Now good naturally precedes evil; since evil is privation of
good. Wherefore all the passions, the object of which is good, are
naturally before those, the object of which is evil--that is to say,
each precedes its contrary passion: because the quest of a good is
the reason for shunning the opposite evil.

Now good has the aspect of an end, and the end is indeed first in the
order of intention, but last in the order of execution. Consequently
the order of the concupiscible passions can be considered either in
the order of intention or in the order of execution. In the order of
execution, the first place belongs to that which takes place first in
the thing that tends to the end. Now it is evident that whatever
tends to an end, has, in the first place, an aptitude or proportion
to that end, for nothing tends to a disproportionate end; secondly,
it is moved to that end; thirdly, it rests in the end, after having
attained it. And this very aptitude or proportion of the appetite to
good is love, which is complacency in good; while movement towards
good is desire or concupiscence; and rest in good is joy or pleasure.
Accordingly in this order, love precedes desire, and desire precedes
pleasure. But in the order of intention, it is the reverse: because
the pleasure intended causes desire and love. For pleasure is the
enjoyment of the good, which enjoyment is, in a way, the end, just as
the good itself is, as stated above (Q. 11, A. 3, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 1: We name a thing as we understand it, for "words are
signs of thoughts," as the Philosopher states (Peri Herm. i, 1). Now
in most cases we know a cause by its effect. But the effect of love,
when the beloved object is possessed, is pleasure: when it is not
possessed, it is desire or concupiscence: and, as Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 12), "we are more sensible to love, when we lack that which
we love." Consequently of all the concupiscible passions,
concupiscence is felt most; and for this reason the power is named
after it.

Reply Obj. 2: The union of lover and beloved is twofold. There is
real union, consisting in the conjunction of one with the other. This
union belongs to joy or pleasure, which follows desire. There is also
an affective union, consisting in an aptitude or proportion, in so
far as one thing, from the very fact of its having an aptitude for
and an inclination to another, partakes of it: and love betokens such
a union. This union precedes the movement of desire.

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasure causes love, in so far as it precedes love in
the order of intention.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 3]

Whether Hope Is the First of the Irascible Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not the first of the
irascible passions. Because the irascible faculty is denominated from
anger. Since, therefore, "things are names from their chief
characteristic" (cf. A. 2, Obj. 1), it seems that anger precedes and
surpasses hope.

Obj. 2: Further, the object of the irascible faculty is something
arduous. Now it seems more arduous to strive to overcome a contrary
evil that threatens soon to overtake us, which pertains to daring; or
an evil actually present, which pertains to anger; than to strive
simply to obtain some good. Again, it seems more arduous to strive to
overcome a present evil, than a future evil. Therefore anger seems to
be a stronger passion than daring, and daring, than hope. And
consequently it seems that hope does not precede them.

Obj. 3: Further, when a thing is moved towards an end, the movement
of withdrawal precedes the movement of approach. But fear and despair
imply withdrawal from something; while daring and hope imply approach
towards something. Therefore fear and despair precede hope and daring.

_On the contrary,_ The nearer a thing is to the first, the more it
precedes others. But hope is nearer to love, which is the first of
the passions. Therefore hope is the first of the passions in the
irascible faculty.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) all irascible passions imply
movement towards something. Now this movement of the irascible
faculty towards something may be due to two causes: one is the mere
aptitude or proportion to the end; and this pertains to love or
hatred; [the other is the presence of good or evil itself,] and this
belongs to sadness or joy. As a matter of fact, the presence of good
produces no passion in the irascible, as stated above (Q. 23, AA. 3,
4); but the presence of evil gives rise to the passion of anger.

Since then in the order of generation or execution, proportion or
aptitude to the end precedes the achievement of the end; it follows
that, of all the irascible passions, anger is the last in the order
of generation. And among the other passions of the irascible faculty,
which imply a movement arising from love of good or hatred of evil,
those whose object is good, viz. hope and despair, must naturally
precede those whose object is evil, viz. daring and fear: yet so that
hope precedes despair; since hope is a movement towards good as such,
which is essentially attractive, so that hope tends to good directly;
whereas despair is a movement away from good, a movement which is
consistent with good, not as such, but in respect of something else,
wherefore its tendency from good is accidental, as it were. In like
manner fear, through being a movement from evil, precedes daring. And
that hope and despair naturally precede fear and daring is evident
from this--that as the desire of good is the reason for avoiding
evil, so hope and despair are the reason for fear and daring: because
daring arises from the hope of victory, and fear arises from the
despair of overcoming. Lastly, anger arises from daring: for no one
is angry while seeking vengeance, unless he dare to avenge himself,
as Avicenna observes in the sixth book of his _Physics._ Accordingly,
it is evident that hope is the first of all the irascible passions.

And if we wish to know the order of all the passions in the way of
generation, love and hatred are first; desire and aversion, second;
hope and despair, third; fear and daring, fourth; anger, fifth; sixth
and last, joy and sadness, which follow from all the passions, as
stated in _Ethic._ ii, 5: yet so that love precedes hatred; desire
precedes aversion; hope precedes despair; fear precedes daring; and
joy precedes sadness, as may be gathered from what has been stated
above.

Reply Obj. 1: Because anger arises from the other passions, as an
effect from the causes that precede it, it is from anger, as being
more manifest than the other passions, that the power takes its name.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the arduousness but the good that is the
reason for approach or desire. Consequently hope, which regards good
more directly, takes precedence: although at times daring or even
anger regards something more arduous.

Reply Obj. 3: The movement of the appetite is essentially and
directly towards the good as towards its proper object; its movement
from evil results from this. For the movement of the appetitive part
is in proportion, not to natural movement, but to the intention of
nature, which intends the end before intending the removal of a
contrary, which removal is desired only for the sake of obtaining
the end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 4]

Whether These Are the Four Principal Passions: Joy, Sadness, Hope and
Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that joy, sadness, hope and fear are not
the four principal passions. For Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3, 7
sqq.) omits hope and puts desire in its place.

Obj. 2: Further, there is a twofold order in the passions of the
soul: the order of intention, and the order of execution or
generation. The principal passions should therefore be taken, either
in the order of intention; and thus joy and sadness, which are the
final passions, will be the principal passions; or in the order of
execution or generation, and thus love will be the principal passion.
Therefore joy and sadness, hope and fear should in no way be called
the four principal passions.

Obj. 3: Further, just as daring is caused by hope, so fear is caused
by despair. Either, therefore, hope and despair should be reckoned as
principal passions, since they cause others: or hope and daring, from
being akin to one another.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius (De Consol. i) in enumerating the four
principal passions, says:

"Banish joys: banish fears:
Away with hope: away with tears."

_I answer that,_ These four are commonly called the principal
passions. Two of them, viz. joy and sadness, are said to be principal
because in them all the other passions have their completion and end;
wherefore they arise from all the other passions, as is stated in
_Ethic._ ii, 5. Fear and hope are principal passions, not because
they complete the others simply, but because they complete them as
regards the movement of the appetite towards something: for in
respect of good, movement begins in love, goes forward to desire, and
ends in hope; while in respect of evil, it begins in hatred, goes on
to aversion, and ends in fear. Hence it is customary to distinguish
these four passions in relation to the present and the future: for
movement regards the future, while rest is in something present: so
that joy relates to present good, sadness relates to present evil;
hope regards future good, and fear, future evil.

As to the other passions that regard good or evil, present or future,
they all culminate in these four. For this reason some have said that
these four are the principal passions, because they are general
passions; and this is true, provided that by hope and fear we
understand the appetite's common tendency to desire or shun something.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine puts desire or covetousness in place of hope,
in so far as they seem to regard the same object, viz. some future
good.

Reply Obj. 2: These are called principal passions, in the order of
intention and completion. And though fear and hope are not the last
passions simply, yet they are the last of those passions that tend
towards something as future. Nor can the argument be pressed any
further except in the case of anger: yet neither can anger be
reckoned a principal passion, because it is an effect of daring,
which cannot be a principal passion, as we shall state further on
(Reply Obj. 3).

Reply Obj. 3: Despair implies movement away from good; and this is,
as it were, accidental: and daring implies movement towards evil;
and this too is accidental. Consequently these cannot be principal
passions; because that which is accidental cannot be said to be
principal. And so neither can anger be called a principal passion,
because it arises from daring.
________________________

QUESTION 26

OF THE PASSIONS OF THE SOUL IN PARTICULAR: AND FIRST, OF LOVE
(In Four Articles)

We have now to consider the soul's passions in particular, and (1)
the passions of the concupiscible faculty; (2) the passions of the
irascible faculty.

The first of these considerations will be threefold: since we shall
consider (1) Love and hatred; (2) Desire and aversion; (3) Pleasure
and sadness.

Concerning love, three points must be considered: (1) Love itself;
(2) The cause of love; (3) The effects of love. Under the first
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether love is in the concupiscible power?

(2) Whether love is a passion?

(3) Whether love is the same as dilection?

(4) Whether love is properly divided into love of friendship, and
love of concupiscence?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 1]

Whether Love Is in the Concupiscible Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not in the concupiscible
power. For it is written (Wis. 8:2): "Her," namely wisdom, "have I
loved, and have sought her out from my youth." But the concupiscible
power, being a part of the sensitive appetite, cannot tend to wisdom,
which is not apprehended by the senses. Therefore love is not in the
concupiscible power.

Obj. 2: Further, love seems to be identified with every passion: for
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7): "Love, yearning for the object
beloved, is desire; having and enjoying it, is joy; fleeing what is
contrary to it, is fear; and feeling what is contrary to it, is
sadness." But not every passion is in the concupiscible power;
indeed, fear, which is mentioned in this passage, is in the irascible
power. Therefore we must not say absolutely that love is in the
concupiscible power.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) mentions a "natural love."
But natural love seems to pertain rather to the natural powers, which
belong to the vegetal soul. Therefore love is not simply in the
concupiscible power.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Topic. ii, 7) that "love is
in the concupiscible power."

_I answer that,_ Love is something pertaining to the appetite; since
good is the object of both. Wherefore love differs according to the
difference of appetites. For there is an appetite which arises from
an apprehension existing, not in the subject of the appetite, but in
some other: and this is called the _natural appetite._ Because
natural things seek what is suitable to them according to their
nature, by reason of an apprehension which is not in them, but in the
Author of their nature, as stated in the First Part (Q. 6, A. 1, ad
2; Q. 103, A. 1, ad 1, 3). And there is another appetite arising from
an apprehension in the subject of the appetite, but from necessity
and not from free-will. Such is, in irrational animals, the
_sensitive appetite,_ which, however, in man, has a certain share of
liberty, in so far as it obeys reason. Again, there is another
appetite following freely from an apprehension in the subject of the
appetite. And this is the rational or intellectual appetite, which is
called the _will._

Now in each of these appetites, the name "love" is given to the
principle of movement towards the end loved. In the natural appetite
the principle of this movement is the appetitive subject's
connaturalness with the thing to which it tends, and may be called
"natural love": thus the connaturalness of a heavy body for the
centre, is by reason of its weight and may be called "natural love."
In like manner the aptitude of the sensitive appetite or of the will
to some good, that is to say, its very complacency in good is called
"sensitive love," or "intellectual" or "rational love." So that
sensitive love is in the sensitive appetite, just as intellectual
love is in the intellectual appetite. And it belongs to the
concupiscible power, because it regards good absolutely, and not
under the aspect of difficulty, which is the object of the irascible
faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: The words quoted refer to intellectual or rational love.

Reply Obj. 2: Love is spoken of as being fear, joy, desire and
sadness, not essentially but causally.

Reply Obj. 3: Natural love is not only in the powers of the
vegetal soul, but in all the soul's powers, and also in all the parts
of the body, and universally in all things: because, as Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv), "Beauty and goodness are beloved by all things"; since
each single thing has a connaturalness with that which is naturally
suitable to it.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 2]

Whether Love Is a Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not a passion. For no power
is a passion. But every love is a power, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv). Therefore love is not a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, love is a kind of union or bond, as Augustine says
(De Trin. viii, 10). But a union or bond is not a passion, but rather
a relation. Therefore love is not a passion.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that passion
is a movement. But love does not imply the movement of the appetite;
for this is desire, of which movement love is the principle.
Therefore love is not a passion.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 5) that "love
is a passion."

_I answer that,_ Passion is the effect of the agent on the patient.
Now a natural agent produces a twofold effect on the patient: for in
the first place it gives it the form; and secondly it gives it the
movement that results from the form. Thus the generator gives the
generated body both weight and the movement resulting from weight: so
that weight, from being the principle of movement to the place, which
is connatural to that body by reason of its weight, can, in a way, be
called "natural love." In the same way the appetible object gives the
appetite, first, a certain adaptation to itself, which consists in
complacency in that object; and from this follows movement towards
the appetible object. For "the appetitive movement is circular," as
stated in _De Anima_ iii, 10; because the appetible object moves the
appetite, introducing itself, as it were, into its intention; while
the appetite moves towards the realization of the appetible object,
so that the movement ends where it began. Accordingly, the first
change wrought in the appetite by the appetible object is called
"love," and is nothing else than complacency in that object; and from
this complacency results a movement towards that same object, and
this movement is "desire"; and lastly, there is rest which is "joy."
Since, therefore, love consists in a change wrought in the appetite
by the appetible object, it is evident that love is a passion:
properly so called, according as it is in the concupiscible faculty;
in a wider and extended sense, according as it is in the will.

Reply Obj. 1: Since power denotes a principle of movement or action,
Dionysius calls love a power, in so far as it is a principle of
movement in the appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: Union belongs to love in so far as by reason of the
complacency of the appetite, the lover stands in relation to that
which he loves, as though it were himself or part of himself. Hence
it is clear that love is not the very relation of union, but that
union is a result of love. Hence, too, Dionysius says that "love is a
unitive force" (Div. Nom. iv), and the Philosopher says (Polit. ii,
1) that union is the work of love.

Reply Obj. 3: Although love does not denote the movement of the
appetite in tending towards the appetible object, yet it denotes that
movement whereby the appetite is changed by the appetible object, so
as to have complacency therein.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 3]

Whether Love Is the Same As Dilection?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is the same as dilection. For
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that love is to dilection, "as four is
to twice two, and as a rectilinear figure is to one composed of
straight lines." But these have the same meaning. Therefore love and
dilection denote the same thing.

Obj. 2: Further, the movements of the appetite differ by reason of
their objects. But the objects of dilection and love are the same.
Therefore these are the same.

Obj. 3: Further, if dilection and love differ, it seems that it is
chiefly in the fact that "dilection refers to good things, love to
evil things, as some have maintained," according to Augustine (De
Civ. Dei xiv, 7). But they do not differ thus; because as Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) the holy Scripture uses both words in
reference to either good or bad things. Therefore love and dilection
do not differ: thus indeed Augustine concludes (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7)
that "it is not one thing to speak of love, and another to speak of
dilection."

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "some holy men
have held that love means something more Godlike than dilection does."

_I answer that,_ We find four words referring in a way, to the same
thing: viz. love, dilection, charity and friendship. They differ,
however, in this, that "friendship," according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. viii, 5), "is like a habit," whereas "love" and "dilection"
are expressed by way of act or passion; and "charity" can be taken
either way.

Moreover these three express act in different ways. For love has a
wider signification than the others, since every dilection or charity
is love, but not vice versa. Because dilection implies, in addition
to love, a choice (_electionem_) made beforehand, as the very word
denotes: and therefore dilection is not in the concupiscible power,
but only in the will, and only in the rational nature. Charity
denotes, in addition to love, a certain perfection of love, in so far
as that which is loved is held to be of great price, as the word
itself implies [*Referring to the Latin "carus" (dear)].

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius is speaking of love and dilection, in so far
as they are in the intellectual appetite; for thus love is the same
as dilection.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of love is more general than the
object of dilection: because love extends to more than dilection does,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Love and dilection differ, not in respect of
good and evil, but as stated. Yet in the intellectual faculty love is
the same as dilection. And it is in this sense that Augustine speaks
of love in the passage quoted: hence a little further on he adds that
"a right will is well-directed love, and a wrong will is ill-directed
love." However, the fact that love, which is concupiscible passion,
inclines many to evil, is the reason why some assigned the difference
spoken of.

Reply Obj. 4: The reason why some held that, even when applied
to the will itself, the word "love" signifies something more Godlike
than "dilection," was because love denotes a passion, especially in so
far as it is in the sensitive appetite; whereas dilection presupposes
the judgment of reason. But it is possible for man to tend to God by
love, being as it were passively drawn by Him, more than he can
possibly be drawn thereto by his reason, which pertains to the nature
of dilection, as stated above. And consequently love is more Godlike
than dilection.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 4]

Whether Love Is Properly Divided into Love of Friendship and Love of
Concupiscence?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not properly divided into
love of friendship and love of concupiscence. For "love is a passion,
while friendship is a habit," according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
viii, 5). But habit cannot be the member of a division of passions.
Therefore love is not properly divided into love of concupiscence and
love of friendship.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing cannot be divided by another member of the
same division; for man is not a member of the same division as
"animal." But concupiscence is a member of the same division as love,
as a passion distinct from love. Therefore concupiscence is not a
division of love.

Obj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3)
friendship is threefold, that which is founded on _usefulness,_ that
which is founded on _pleasure,_ and that which is founded on
_goodness._ But useful and pleasant friendship are not without
concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence should not be contrasted with
friendship.

_On the contrary,_ We are said to love certain things, because we
desire them: thus "a man is said to love wine, on account of its
sweetness which he desires"; as stated in _Topic._ ii, 3. But we have
no friendship for wine and suchlike things, as stated in _Ethic._
viii, 2. Therefore love of concupiscence is distinct from love of
friendship.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4), "to love is
to wish good to someone." Hence the movement of love has a twofold
tendency: towards the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself
or to another) and towards that to which he wishes some good.
Accordingly, man has love of concupiscence towards the good that he
wishes to another, and love of friendship towards him to whom he
wishes good.

Now the members of this division are related as primary and
secondary: since that which is loved with the love of friendship is
loved simply and for itself; whereas that which is loved with the
love of concupiscence, is loved, not simply and for itself, but for
something else. For just as that which has existence, is a being
simply, while that which exists in another is a relative being; so,
because good is convertible with being, the good, which itself has
goodness, is good simply; but that which is another's good, is a
relative good. Consequently the love with which a thing is loved,
that it may have some good, is love simply; while the love, with
which a thing is loved, that it may be another's good, is relative
love.

Reply Obj. 1: Love is not divided into friendship and concupiscence,
but into love of friendship, and love of concupiscence. For a friend
is, properly speaking, one to whom we wish good: while we are said to
desire, what we wish for ourselves.

Hence the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: When friendship is based on usefulness or pleasure, a
man does indeed wish his friend some good: and in this respect the
character of friendship is preserved. But since he refers this good
further to his own pleasure or use, the result is that friendship of
the useful or pleasant, in so far as it is connected with love of
concupiscence, loses the character to true friendship.
________________________

QUESTION 27

OF THE CAUSE OF LOVE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the cause of love: and under this head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether good is the only cause of love?

(2) Whether knowledge is a cause of love?

(3) Whether likeness is a cause of love?

(4) Whether any other passion of the soul is a cause of love?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 1]

Whether Good Is the Only Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that good is not the only cause of love.
For good does not cause love, except because it is loved. But it
happens that evil also is loved, according to Ps. 10:6: "He that
loveth iniquity, hateth his own soul": else, every love would be
good. Therefore good is not the only cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "we love
those who acknowledge their evils." Therefore it seems that evil is
the cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that not "the good"
only but also "the beautiful is beloved by all."

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 3): "Assuredly the
good alone is beloved." Therefore good alone is the cause of love.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 26, A. 1), Love belongs to the
appetitive power which is a passive faculty. Wherefore its object
stands in relation to it as the cause of its movement or act.
Therefore the cause of love must needs be love's object. Now the
proper object of love is the good; because, as stated above (Q. 26,
AA. 1, 2), love implies a certain connaturalness or complacency of
the lover for the thing beloved, and to everything, that thing is a
good, which is akin and proportionate to it. It follows, therefore,
that good is the proper cause of love.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil is never loved except under the aspect of good,
that is to say, in so far as it is good in some respect, and is
considered as being good simply. And thus a certain love is evil, in
so far as it tends to that which is not simply a true good. It is in
this way that man "loves iniquity," inasmuch as, by means of
iniquity, some good is gained; pleasure, for instance, or money, or
such like.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who acknowledge their evils, are beloved, not
for their evils, but because they acknowledge them, for it is a good
thing to acknowledge one's faults, in so far as it excludes
insincerity or hypocrisy.

Reply Obj. 3: The beautiful is the same as the good, and they differ
in aspect only. For since good is what all seek, the notion of good
is that which calms the desire; while the notion of the beautiful is
that which calms the desire, by being seen or known. Consequently
those senses chiefly regard the beautiful, which are the most
cognitive, viz. sight and hearing, as ministering to reason; for we
speak of beautiful sights and beautiful sounds. But in reference to
the other objects of the other senses, we do not use the expression
"beautiful," for we do not speak of beautiful tastes, and beautiful
odors. Thus it is evident that beauty adds to goodness a relation
to the cognitive faculty: so that "good" means that which simply
pleases the appetite; while the "beautiful" is something pleasant
to apprehend.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 2]

Whether Knowledge Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that knowledge is not a cause of love. For
it is due to love that a thing is sought. But some things are sought
without being known, for instance, the sciences; for since "to have
them is the same as to know them," as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu.
35), if we knew them we should have them, and should not seek them.
Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, to love what we know not seems like loving something
more than we know it. But some things are loved more than they are
known: thus in this life God can be loved in Himself, but cannot be
known in Himself. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, if knowledge were the cause of love, there would be
no love, where there is no knowledge. But in all things there is
love, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv); whereas there is not
knowledge in all things. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine proves (De Trin. x, 1, 2) that "none can
love what he does not know."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), good is the cause of love,
as being its object. But good is not the object of the appetite,
except as apprehended. And therefore love demands some apprehension
of the good that is loved. For this reason the Philosopher (Ethic.
ix, 5, 12) says that bodily sight is the beginning of sensitive love:
and in like manner the contemplation of spiritual beauty or goodness
is the beginning of spiritual love. Accordingly knowledge is the
cause of love for the same reason as good is, which can be loved only
if known.

Reply Obj. 1: He who seeks science, is not entirely without knowledge
thereof: but knows something about it already in some respect, either
in a general way, or in some one of its effects, or from having heard
it commended, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1, 2). But to have it is
not to know it thus, but to know it perfectly.

Reply Obj. 2: Something is required for the perfection of knowledge,
that is not requisite for the perfection of love. For knowledge
belongs to the reason, whose function it is to distinguish things
which in reality are united, and to unite together, after a fashion,
things that are distinct, by comparing one with another. Consequently
the perfection of knowledge requires that man should know distinctly
all that is in a thing, such as its parts, powers, and properties. On
the other hand, love is in the appetitive power, which regards a
thing as it is in itself: wherefore it suffices, for the perfection
of love, that a thing be loved according as it is known in itself.
Hence it is, therefore, that a thing is loved more than it is known;
since it can be loved perfectly, even without being perfectly known.
This is most evident in regard to the sciences, which some love
through having a certain general knowledge of them: for instance,
they know that rhetoric is a science that enables man to persuade
others; and this is what they love in rhetoric. The same applies to
the love of God.

Reply Obj. 3: Even natural love, which is in all things, is caused
by a kind of knowledge, not indeed existing in natural things
themselves, but in Him Who created their nature, as stated above
(Q. 26, A. 1; cf. I, Q. 6, A. 1, ad 2).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 3]

Whether Likeness Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that likeness is not a cause of love. For
the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But likeness is the
cause of hatred; for it is written (Prov. 13:10) that "among the
proud there are always contentions"; and the Philosopher says (Ethic.
viii, 1) that "potters quarrel with one another." Therefore likeness
is not a cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 14) that "a man loves
in another that which he would not be himself: thus he loves an
actor, but would not himself be an actor." But it would not be so, if
likeness were the proper cause of love; for in that case a man would
love in another, that which he possesses himself, or would like to
possess. Therefore likeness is not a cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, everyone loves that which he needs, even if he have
it not: thus a sick man loves health, and a poor man loves riches.
But in so far as he needs them and lacks them, he is unlike them.
Therefore not only likeness but also unlikeness is a cause of love.

Obj. 4: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "we love
those who bestow money and health on us; and also those who retain
their friendship for the dead." But all are not such. Therefore
likeness is not a cause of love.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 13:19): "Every beast loveth
its like."

_I answer that,_ Likeness, properly speaking, is a cause of love. But
it must be observed that likeness between things is twofold. One kind
of likeness arises from each thing having the same quality actually:
for example, two things possessing the quality of whiteness are said
to be alike. Another kind of likeness arises from one thing having
potentially and by way of inclination, a quality which the other has
actually: thus we may say that a heavy body existing outside its
proper place is like another heavy body that exists in its proper
place: or again, according as potentiality bears a resemblance to its
act; since act is contained, in a manner, in the potentiality itself.

Accordingly the first kind of likeness causes love of friendship or
well-being. For the very fact that two men are alike, having, as it
were, one form, makes them to be, in a manner, one in that form: thus
two men are one thing in the species of humanity, and two white men
are one thing in whiteness. Hence the affections of one tend to the
other, as being one with him; and he wishes good to him as to
himself. But the second kind of likeness causes love of
concupiscence, or friendship founded on usefulness or pleasure:
because whatever is in potentiality, as such, has the desire for its
act; and it takes pleasure in its realization, if it be a sentient
and cognitive being.

Now it has been stated above (Q. 26, A. 4), that in the love of
concupiscence, the lover, properly speaking, loves himself, in
willing the good that he desires. But a man loves himself more than
another: because he is one with himself substantially, whereas with
another he is one only in the likeness of some form. Consequently,
if this other's likeness to him arising from the participation of a
form, hinders him from gaining the good that he loves, he becomes
hateful to him, not for being like him, but for hindering him from
gaining his own good. This is why "potters quarrel among themselves,"
because they hinder one another's gain: and why "there are
contentions among the proud," because they hinder one another in
attaining the position they covet.

Hence the Reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2: Even when a man loves in another what he loves not in
himself, there is a certain likeness of proportion: because as the
latter is to that which is loved in him, so is the former to that
which he loves in himself: for instance, if a good singer love a good
writer, we can see a likeness of proportion, inasmuch as each one has
that which is becoming to him in respect of his art.

Reply Obj. 3: He that loves what he needs, bears a likeness to what
he loves, as potentiality bears a likeness to its act, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 4: According to the same likeness of potentiality to its
act, the illiberal man loves the man who is liberal, in so far as he
expects from him something which he desires. The same applies to the
man who is constant in his friendship as compared to one who is
inconstant. For in either case friendship seems to be based on
usefulness. We might also say that although not all men have these
virtues in the complete habit, yet they have them according to
certain seminal principles in the reason, in force of which
principles the man who is not virtuous loves the virtuous man, as
being in conformity with his own natural reason.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 4]

Whether Any Other Passion of the Soul Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that some other passion can be the cause
of love. For the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3) says that some are
loved for the sake of the pleasure they give. But pleasure is a
passion. Therefore another passion is a cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, desire is a passion. But we love some because we
desire to receive something from them: as happens in every friendship
based on usefulness. Therefore another passion is a cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1): "When we have no
hope of getting a thing, we love it but half-heartedly or not at all,
even if we see how beautiful it is." Therefore hope too is a cause of
love.

_On the contrary,_ All the other emotions of the soul are caused by
love, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9).

_I answer that,_ There is no other passion of the soul that does not
presuppose love of some kind. The reason is that every other passion
of the soul implies either movement towards something, or rest in
something. Now every movement towards something, or rest in
something, arises from some kinship or aptness to that thing; and in
this does love consist. Therefore it is not possible for any other
passion of the soul to be universally the cause of every love. But it
may happen that some other passion is the cause of some particular
love: just as one good is the cause of another.

Reply Obj. 1: When a man loves a thing for the pleasure it affords,
his love is indeed caused by pleasure; but that very pleasure is
caused, in its turn, by another preceding love; for none takes
pleasure save in that which is loved in some way.

Reply Obj. 2: Desire for a thing always presupposes love for that
thing. But desire of one thing can be the cause of another thing's
being loved; thus he that desires money, for this reason loves him
from whom he receives it.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope causes or increases love; both by reason of
pleasure, because it causes pleasure; and by reason of desire,
because hope strengthens desire, since we do not desire so intensely
that which we have no hope of receiving. Nevertheless hope itself is
of a good that is loved.
________________________

QUESTION 28

OF THE EFFECTS OF LOVE
(In Six Articles)

We now have to consider the effects of love: under which head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether union is an effect of love?

(2) Whether mutual indwelling is an effect of love?

(3) Whether ecstasy is an effect of love?

(4) Whether zeal is an effect of love?

(5) Whether love is a passion that is hurtful to the lover?

(6) Whether love is cause of all that the lover does?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 1]

Whether Union Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that union is not an effect of love. For
absence is incompatible with union. But love is compatible with
absence; for the Apostle says (Gal. 4:18): "Be zealous for that which
is good in a good thing always" (speaking of himself, according to a
gloss), "and not only when I am present with you." Therefore union is
not an effect of love.

Obj. 2: Further, every union is either according to essence, thus
form is united to matter, accident to subject, and a part to the
whole, or to another part in order to make up the whole: or according
to likeness, in genus, species, or accident. But love does not cause
union of essence; else love could not be between things essentially
distinct. On the other hand, love does not cause union of likeness,
but rather is caused by it, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 3). Therefore
union is not an effect of love.

Obj. 3: Further, the sense in act is the sensible in act, and the
intellect in act is the thing actually understood. But the lover in
act is not the beloved in act. Therefore union is the effect of
knowledge rather than of love.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that every love is a
"unitive love."

_I answer that,_ The union of lover and beloved is twofold. The first
is real union; for instance, when the beloved is present with the
lover. The second is union of affection: and this union must be
considered in relation to the preceding apprehension; since movement
of the appetite follows apprehension. Now love being twofold, viz.
love of concupiscence and love of friendship; each of these arises
from a kind of apprehension of the oneness of the thing loved with
the lover. For when we love a thing, by desiring it, we apprehend it
as belonging to our well-being. In like manner when a man loves
another with the love of friendship, he wills good to him, just as he
wills good to himself: wherefore he apprehends him as his other self,
in so far, to wit, as he wills good to him as to himself. Hence a
friend is called a man's "other self" (Ethic. ix, 4), and Augustine
says (Confess. iv, 6), "Well did one say to his friend: Thou half of
my soul."

The first of these unions is caused _effectively_ by love; because
love moves man to desire and seek the presence of the beloved, as of
something suitable and belonging to him. The second union is caused
_formally_ by love; because love itself is this union or bond. In
this sense Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 10) that "love is a vital
principle uniting, or seeking to unite two together, the lover, to
wit, and the beloved." For in describing it as "uniting" he refers to
the union of affection, without which there is no love: and in saying
that "it seeks to unite," he refers to real union.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of real union. That is necessary
to pleasure as being its cause; desire implies the real absence of
the beloved: but love remains whether the beloved be absent or
present.

Reply Obj. 2: Union has a threefold relation to love. There is union
which causes love; and this is substantial union, as regards the love
with which one loves oneself; while as regards the love wherewith one
loves other things, it is the union of likeness, as stated above (Q.
27, A. 3). There is also a union which is essentially love itself.
This union is according to a bond of affection, and is likened to
substantial union, inasmuch as the lover stands to the object of his
love, as to himself, if it be love of friendship; as to something
belonging to himself, if it be love of concupiscence. Again there is
a union, which is the effect of love. This is real union, which the
lover seeks with the object of his love. Moreover this union is in
keeping with the demands of love: for as the Philosopher relates
(Polit. ii, 1), "Aristophanes stated that lovers would wish to be
united both into one," but since "this would result in either one or
both being destroyed," they seek a suitable and becoming union--to
live together, speak together, and be united together in other like
things.

Reply Obj. 3: Knowledge is perfected by the thing known being
united, through its likeness, to the knower. But the effect of love is
that the thing itself which is loved, is, in a way, united to the
lover, as stated above. Consequently the union caused by love is
closer than that which is caused by knowledge.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 2]

Whether Mutual Indwelling Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that love does not cause mutual
indwelling, so that the lover be in the beloved and vice versa. For
that which is in another is contained in it. But the same cannot be
container and contents. Therefore love cannot cause mutual
indwelling, so that the lover be in the beloved and vice versa.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing can penetrate within a whole, except by
means of a division of the whole. But it is the function of the
reason, not of the appetite where love resides, to divide things that
are really united. Therefore mutual indwelling is not an effect of
love.

Obj. 3: Further, if love involves the lover being in the beloved and
vice versa, it follows that the beloved is united to the lover, in
the same way as the lover is united to the beloved. But the union
itself is love, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it follows that the
lover is always loved by the object of his love; which is evidently
false. Therefore mutual indwelling is not an effect of love.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 4:16): "He that abideth in
charity abideth in God, and God in him." Now charity is the love of
God. Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the beloved to
be in the lover, and vice versa.

_I answer that,_ This effect of mutual indwelling may be understood
as referring both to the apprehensive and to the appetitive power.
Because, as to the apprehensive power, the beloved is said to be in
the lover, inasmuch as the beloved abides in the apprehension of the
lover, according to Phil. 1:7, "For that I have you in my heart":
while the lover is said to be in the beloved, according to
apprehension, inasmuch as the lover is not satisfied with a
superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an
intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to
penetrate into his very soul. Thus it is written concerning the Holy
Ghost, Who is God's Love, that He "searcheth all things, yea the deep
things of God" (1 Cor. 2:10).

As the appetitive power, the object loved is said to be in the lover,
inasmuch as it is in his affections, by a kind of complacency:
causing him either to take pleasure in it, or in its good, when
present; or, in the absence of the object loved, by his longing, to
tend towards it with the love of concupiscence, or towards the good
that he wills to the beloved, with the love of friendship: not indeed
from any extrinsic cause (as when we desire one thing on account of
another, or wish good to another on account of something else), but
because the complacency in the beloved is rooted in the lover's
heart. For this reason we speak of love as being "intimate"; and "of
the bowels of charity." On the other hand, the lover is in the
beloved, by the love of concupiscence and by the love of friendship,
but not in the same way. For the love of concupiscence is not
satisfied with any external or superficial possession or enjoyment of
the beloved; but seeks to possess the beloved perfectly, by
penetrating into his heart, as it were. Whereas, in the love of
friendship, the lover is in the beloved, inasmuch as he reckons what
is good or evil to his friend, as being so to himself; and his
friend's will as his own, so that it seems as though he felt the good
or suffered the evil in the person of his friend. Hence it is proper
to friends "to desire the same things, and to grieve and rejoice at
the same," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 3 and Rhet. ii, 4).
Consequently in so far as he reckons what affects his friend as
affecting himself, the lover seems to be in the beloved, as though he
were become one with him: but in so far as, on the other hand, he
wills and acts for his friend's sake as for his own sake, looking on
his friend as identified with himself, thus the beloved is in the
lover.

In yet a third way, mutual indwelling in the love of friendship can
be understood in regard to reciprocal love: inasmuch as friends
return love for love, and both desire and do good things for one
another.

Reply Obj. 1: The beloved is contained in the lover, by being
impressed on his heart and thus becoming the object of his
complacency. On the other hand, the lover is contained in the
beloved, inasmuch as the lover penetrates, so to speak, into the
beloved. For nothing hinders a thing from being both container and
contents in different ways: just as a genus is contained in its
species, and vice versa.

Reply Obj. 2: The apprehension of the reason precedes the movement of
love. Consequently, just as the reason divides, so does the movement
of love penetrate into the beloved, as was explained above.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of the third kind of mutual
indwelling, which is not to be found in every kind of love.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 3]

Whether Ecstasy Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that ecstasy is not an effect of love.
For ecstasy seems to imply loss of reason. But love does not always
result in loss of reason: for lovers are masters of themselves at
times. Therefore love does not cause ecstasy.

Obj. 2: Further, the lover desires the beloved to be united to him.
Therefore he draws the beloved to himself, rather than betakes
himself into the beloved, going forth out from himself as it were.

Obj. 3: Further, love unites the beloved to the lover, as stated
above (A. 1). If, therefore, the lover goes out from himself, in
order to betake himself into the beloved, it follows that the lover
always loves the beloved more than himself: which is evidently false.
Therefore ecstasy is not an effect of love.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the Divine
love produces ecstasy," and that "God Himself suffered ecstasy
through love." Since therefore according to the same author (Div.
Nom. iv), every love is a participated likeness of the Divine Love,
it seems that every love causes ecstasy.

_I answer that,_ To suffer ecstasy means to be placed outside
oneself. This happens as to the apprehensive power and as to the
appetitive power. As to the apprehensive power, a man is said to be
placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge
proper to him. This may be due to his being raised to a higher
knowledge; thus, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, inasmuch as he is
placed outside the connatural apprehension of his sense and reason,
when he is raised up so as to comprehend things that surpass sense
and reason: or it may be due to his being cast down into a state of
debasement; thus a man may be said to suffer ecstasy, when he is
overcome by violent passion or madness. As to the appetitive power, a
man is said to suffer ecstasy, when that power is borne towards
something else, so that it goes forth out from itself, as it were.

The first of these ecstasies is caused by love dispositively in so
far, namely, as love makes the lover dwell on the beloved, as stated
above (A. 2), and to dwell intently on one thing draws the mind from
other things. The second ecstasy is caused by love directly; by love
of friendship, simply; by love of concupiscence not simply but in a
restricted sense. Because in love of concupiscence, the lover is
carried out of himself, in a certain sense; in so far, namely, as not
being satisfied with enjoying the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy
something outside himself. But since he seeks to have this extrinsic
good for himself, he does not go out from himself simply, and this
movement remains finally within him. On the other hand, in the love
of friendship, a man's affection goes out from itself simply; because
he wishes and does good to his friend, by caring and providing for
him, for his sake.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of the first kind of ecstasy.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument applies to love of concupiscence, which,
as stated above, does not cause ecstasy simply.

Reply Obj. 3: He who loves, goes out from himself, in so far as he
wills the good of his friend and works for it. Yet he does not will
the good of his friend more than his own good: and so it does not
follow that he loves another more than himself.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 4]

Whether Zeal Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that zeal is not an effect of love. For
zeal is a beginning of contention; wherefore it is written (1 Cor.
3:3): "Whereas there is among you zeal [Douay: 'envying'] and
contention," etc. But contention is incompatible with love. Therefore
zeal is not an effect of love.

Obj. 2: Further, the object of love is the good, which communicates
itself to others. But zeal is opposed to communication; since it
seems an effect of zeal, that a man refuses to share the object of
his love with another: thus husbands are said to be jealous of
(_zelare_) their wives, because they will not share them with others.
Therefore zeal is not an effect of love.

Obj. 3: Further, there is no zeal without hatred, as neither is there
without love: for it is written (Ps. 72:3): "I had a zeal on occasion
of the wicked." Therefore it should not be set down as an effect of
love any more than of hatred.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "God is said to be
a zealot, on account of his great love for all things."

_I answer that,_ Zeal, whatever way we take it, arises from the
intensity of love. For it is evident that the more intensely a power
tends to anything, the more vigorously it withstands opposition or
resistance. Since therefore love is "a movement towards the object
loved," as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 35), an intense love seeks to
remove everything that opposes it.

But this happens in different ways according to love of
concupiscence, and love of friendship. For in love of concupiscence
he who desires something intensely, is moved against all that hinders
his gaining or quietly enjoying the object of his love. It is thus
that husbands are said to be jealous of their wives, lest association
with others prove a hindrance to their exclusive individual rights.
In like manner those who seek to excel, are moved against those who
seem to excel, as though these were a hindrance to their excelling.
And this is the zeal of envy, of which it is written (Ps. 36:1): "Be
not emulous of evil doers, nor envy (_zelaveris_) them that work
iniquity."

On the other hand, love of friendship seeks the friend's good:
wherefore, when it is intense, it causes a man to be moved against
everything that opposes the friend's good. In this respect, a man is
said to be zealous on behalf of his friend, when he makes a point of
repelling whatever may be said or done against the friend's good. In
this way, too, a man is said to be zealous on God's behalf, when he
endeavors, to the best of his means, to repel whatever is contrary to
the honor or will of God; according to 3 Kings 19:14: "With zeal I
have been zealous for the Lord of hosts." Again on the words of John
2:17: "The zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up," a gloss says that "a
man is eaten up with a good zeal, who strives to remedy whatever evil
he perceives; and if he cannot, bears with it and laments it."

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle is speaking in this passage of the zeal of
envy; which is indeed the cause of contention, not against the object
of love, but for it, and against that which is opposed to it.

Reply Obj. 2: Good is loved inasmuch as it can be communicated to the
lover. Consequently whatever hinders the perfection of this
communication, becomes hateful. Thus zeal arises from love of good.
But through defect of goodness, it happens that certain small goods
cannot, in their entirety, be possessed by many at the same time: and
from the love of such things arises the zeal of envy. But it does not
arise, properly speaking, in the case of those things which, in their
entirety, can be possessed by many: for no one envies another the
knowledge of truth, which can be known entirely by many; except
perhaps one may envy another his superiority in the knowledge of it.

Reply Obj. 3: The very fact that a man hates whatever is opposed to
the object of his love, is the effect of love. Hence zeal is set down
as an effect of love rather than of hatred.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 5]

Whether Love Is a Passion That Wounds the Lover?

Objection 1: It would seem that love wounds the lover. For languor
denotes a hurt in the one that languishes. But love causes languor:
for it is written (Cant 2:5): "Stay me up with flowers, compass me
about with apples; because I languish with love." Therefore love is
a wounding passion.

Obj. 2: Further, melting is a kind of dissolution. But love melts
that in which it is: for it is written (Cant 5:6): "My soul melted
when my beloved spoke." Therefore love is a dissolvent: therefore it
is a corruptive and a wounding passion.

Obj. 3: Further, fervor denotes a certain excess of heat; which
excess has a corruptive effect. But love causes fervor: for Dionysius
(Coel. Hier. vii) in reckoning the properties belonging to the
Seraphim's love, includes "hot" and "piercing" and "most fervent."
Moreover it is said of love (Cant 8:6) that "its lamps are fire and
flames." Therefore love is a wounding and corruptive passion.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "everything
loves itself with a love that holds it together," i.e. that preserves
it. Therefore love is not a wounding passion, but rather one that
preserves and perfects.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 26, AA. 1, 2; Q. 27, A. 1), love
denotes a certain adapting of the appetitive power to some good. Now
nothing is hurt by being adapted to that which is suitable to it;
rather, if possible, it is perfected and bettered. But if a thing be
adapted to that which is not suitable to it, it is hurt and made
worse thereby. Consequently love of a suitable good perfects and
betters the lover; but love of a good which is unsuitable to the
lover, wounds and worsens him. Wherefore man is perfected and
bettered chiefly by the love of God: but is wounded and worsened by
the love of sin, according to Osee 9:10: "They became abominable, as
those things which they loved."

And let this be understood as applying to love in respect of its
formal element, i.e. in regard to the appetite. But in respect of the
material element in the passion of love, i.e. a certain bodily
change, it happens that love is hurtful, by reason of this change
being excessive: just as it happens in the senses, and in every act
of a power of the soul that is exercised through the change of some
bodily organ.

In reply to the objections, it is to be observed that four proximate
effects may be ascribed to love: viz. melting, enjoyment, languor,
and fervor. Of these the first is "melting," which is opposed to
freezing. For things that are frozen, are closely bound together, so
as to be hard to pierce. But it belongs to love that the appetite is
fitted to receive the good which is loved, inasmuch as the object
loved is in the lover, as stated above (A. 2). Consequently the
freezing or hardening of the heart is a disposition incompatible with
love: while melting denotes a softening of the heart, whereby the
heart shows itself to be ready for the entrance of the beloved. If,
then, the beloved is present and possessed, pleasure or enjoyment
ensues. But if the beloved be absent, two passions arise; viz.
sadness at its absence, which is denoted by "languor" (hence Cicero
in _De Tusc. Quaest._ iii, 11 applies the term "ailment" chiefly to
sadness); and an intense desire to possess the beloved, which is
signified by "fervor." And these are the effects of love considered
formally, according to the relation of the appetitive power to its
object. But in the passion of love, other effects ensue,
proportionate to the above, in respect of a change in the organ.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 6]

Whether Love Is Cause of All That the Lover Does?

Objection 1: It would seem that the lover does not do everything from
love. For love is a passion, as stated above (Q. 26, A. 2). But man
does not do everything from passion: but some things he does from
choice, and some things from ignorance, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 8.
Therefore not everything that a man does, is done from love.

Obj. 2: Further, the appetite is a principle of movement and action
in all animals, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 10. If, therefore,
whatever a man does is done from love, the other passions of the
appetitive faculty are superfluous.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing is produced at one and the same time by
contrary causes. But some things are done from hatred. Therefore all
things are not done from love.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "all things,
whatever they do, they do for the love of good."

_I answer that,_ Every agent acts for an end, as stated above (Q. 1,
A. 2). Now the end is the good desired and loved by each one.
Wherefore it is evident that every agent, whatever it be, does every
action from love of some kind.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection takes love as a passion existing in the
sensitive appetite. But here we are speaking of love in a general
sense, inasmuch as it includes intellectual, rational, animal, and
natural love: for it is in this sense that Dionysius speaks of love
in chapter iv of _De Divinis Nominibus._

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (A. 5; Q. 27, A. 4) desire, sadness and
pleasure, and consequently all the other passions of the soul, result
from love. Wherefore every act that proceeds from any passion,
proceeds also from love as from a first cause: and so the other
passions, which are proximate causes, are not superfluous.

Reply Obj. 3: Hatred also is a result of love, as we shall state
further on (Q. 29, A. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 29

OF HATRED
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider hatred: concerning which there are six points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether evil is the cause and the object of hatred?

(2) Whether love is the cause of hatred?

(3) Whether hatred is stronger than love?

(4) Whether a man can hate himself?

(5) Whether a man can hate the truth?

(6) Whether a thing can be the object of universal hatred?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 1]

Whether Evil Is the Cause and Object of Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that evil is not the object and cause of
hatred. For everything that exists, as such, is good. If therefore
evil be the object of hatred, it follows that nothing but the lack
of something can be the object of hatred: which is clearly untrue.

Obj. 2: Further, hatred of evil is praiseworthy; hence (2 Macc. 3:1)
some are praised for that "the laws were very well kept, because of
the godliness of Onias the high-priest, and the hatred of their souls
[Douay: 'his soul'] had no evil." If, therefore, nothing but evil be
the object of hatred, it would follow that all hatred is commendable:
and this is clearly false.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing is not at the same time both good and
evil. But the same thing is lovable and hateful to different
subjects. Therefore hatred is not only of evil, but also of good.

_On the contrary,_ Hatred is the opposite of love. But the object of
love is good, as stated above (Q. 26, A. 1; Q. 27, A. 1). Therefore
the object of hatred is evil.

_I answer that,_ Since the natural appetite is the result of
apprehension (though this apprehension is not in the same subject as
the natural appetite), it seems that what applies to the inclination
of the natural appetite, applies also to the animal appetite, which
does result from an apprehension in the same subject, as stated above
(Q. 26, A. 1). Now, with regard to the natural appetite, it is
evident, that just as each thing is naturally attuned and adapted to
that which is suitable to it, wherein consists natural love; so has
it a natural dissonance from that which opposes and destroys it; and
this is natural hatred. So, therefore, in the animal appetite, or in
the intellectual appetite, love is a certain harmony of the appetite
with that which is apprehended as suitable; while hatred is
dissonance of the appetite from that which is apprehended as
repugnant and hurtful. Now, just as whatever is suitable, as such,
bears the aspect of good; so whatever is repugnant, as such, bears
the aspect of evil. And therefore, just as good is the object of
love, so evil is the object of hatred.

Reply Obj. 1: Being, as such, has not the aspect of repugnance but
only of fittingness; because being is common to all things. But
being, inasmuch as it is this determinate being, has an aspect of
repugnance to some determinate being. And in this way, one being is
hateful to another, and is evil; though not in itself, but by
comparison with something else.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as a thing may be apprehended as good, when it is
not truly good; so a thing may be apprehended as evil, whereas it is
not truly evil. Hence it happens sometimes that neither hatred of
evil nor love of good is good.

Reply Obj. 3: To different things the same thing may be lovable or
hateful: in respect of the natural appetite, owing to one and the
same thing being naturally suitable to one thing, and naturally
unsuitable to another: thus heat is becoming to fire and unbecoming
to water: and in respect of the animal appetite, owing to one and
the same thing being apprehended by one as good, by another as bad.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 2]

Whether Love Is a Cause of Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not a cause of hatred. For
"the opposite members of a division are naturally simultaneous"
(Praedic. x). But love and hatred are opposite members of a division,
since they are contrary to one another. Therefore they are naturally
simultaneous. Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.

Obj. 2: Further, of two contraries, one is not the cause of the
other. But love and hatred are contraries. Therefore love is not the
cause of hatred.

Obj. 3: Further, that which follows is not the cause of that which
precedes. But hatred precedes love, seemingly: since hatred implies a
turning away from evil, whereas love implies a turning towards good.
Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9) that all
emotions are caused by love. Therefore hatred also, since it is an
emotion of the soul, is caused by love.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), love consists in a certain
agreement of the lover with the object loved, while hatred consists
in a certain disagreement or dissonance. Now we should consider in
each thing, what agrees with it, before that which disagrees: since a
thing disagrees with another, through destroying or hindering that
which agrees with it. Consequently love must needs precede hatred;
and nothing is hated, save through being contrary to a suitable thing
which is loved. And hence it is that every hatred is caused by love.

Reply Obj. 1: The opposite members of a division are sometimes
naturally simultaneous, both really and logically; e.g. two species
of animal, or two species of color. Sometimes they are simultaneous
logically, while, in reality, one precedes, and causes the other;
e.g. the species of numbers, figures and movements. Sometimes they
are not simultaneous either really or logically; e.g. substance and
accident; for substance is in reality the cause of accident; and
being is predicated of substance before it is predicated of accident,
by a priority of reason, because it is not predicated of accident
except inasmuch as the latter is in substance. Now love and hatred
are naturally simultaneous, logically but not really. Wherefore
nothing hinders love from being the cause of hatred.

Reply Obj. 2: Love and hatred are contraries if considered in respect
of the same thing. But if taken in respect of contraries, they are
not themselves contrary, but consequent to one another: for it
amounts to the same that one love a certain thing, or that one hate
its contrary. Thus love of one thing is the cause of one's hating its
contrary.

Reply Obj. 3: In the order of execution, the turning away from one
term precedes the turning towards the other. But the reverse is the
case in the order of intention: since approach to one term is the
reason for turning away from the other. Now the appetitive movement
belongs rather to the order of intention than to that of execution.
Wherefore love precedes hatred: because each is an appetitive
movement.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 3]

Whether Hatred Is Stronger Than Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that hatred is stronger than love. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 36): "There is no one who does not flee
from pain, more than he desires pleasure." But flight from pain
pertains to hatred; while desire for pleasure belongs to love.
Therefore hatred is stronger than love.

Obj. 2: Further, the weaker is overcome by the stronger. But love is
overcome by hatred: when, that is to say, love is turned into hatred.
Therefore hatred is stronger than love.

Obj. 3: Further, the emotions of the soul are shown by their effects.
But man insists more on repelling what is hateful, than on seeking
what is pleasant: thus also irrational animals refrain from pleasure
for fear of the whip, as Augustine instances (QQ. 83, qu. 36).
Therefore hatred is stronger than love.

_On the contrary,_ Good is stronger than evil; because "evil does
nothing except in virtue of good," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
But hatred and love differ according to the difference of good and
evil. Therefore love is stronger than hatred.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for an effect to be stronger than
its cause. Now every hatred arises from some love as its cause, as
above stated (A. 2). Therefore it is impossible for hatred to be
stronger than love absolutely.

But furthermore, love must needs be, absolutely speaking, stronger
than hatred. Because a thing is moved to the end more strongly than
to the means. Now turning away from evil is directed as a means to
the gaining of good. Wherefore, absolutely speaking, the soul's
movement in respect of good is stronger than its movement in respect
of evil.

Nevertheless hatred sometimes seems to be stronger than love, for two
reasons. First, because hatred is more keenly felt than love. For,
since the sensitive perception is accompanied by a certain
impression; when once the impression has been received it is not felt
so keenly as in the moment of receiving it. Hence the heat of a
hectic fever, though greater, is nevertheless not felt so much as the
heat of tertian fever; because the heat of the hectic fever is
habitual and like a second nature. For this reason, love is felt more
keenly in the absence of the object loved; thus Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 12) that "love is felt more keenly when we lack what we
love." And for the same reason, the unbecomingness of that which is
hated is felt more keenly than the becomingness of that which is
loved. Secondly, because comparison is made between a hatred and a
love which are not mutually corresponding. Because, according to
different degrees of good there are different degrees of love to
which correspond different degrees of hatred. Wherefore a hatred that
corresponds to a greater love, moves us more than a lesser love.

Hence it is clear how to reply to the First Objection. For the love
of pleasure is less than the love of self-preservation, to which
corresponds flight from pain. Wherefore we flee from pain more than
we love pleasure.

Reply Obj. 2: Hatred would never overcome love, were it not for the
greater love to which that hatred corresponds. Thus man loves
himself, more than he loves his friend: and because he loves himself,
his friend is hateful to him, if he oppose him.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason why we act with greater insistence in
repelling what is hateful, is because we feel hatred more keenly.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 4]

Whether a Man Can Hate Himself?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man can hate himself. For it is
written (Ps. 10:6): "He that loveth iniquity, hateth his own soul."
But many love iniquity. Therefore many hate themselves.

Obj. 2: Further, him we hate, to whom we wish and work evil. But
sometimes a man wishes and works evil to himself, e.g. a man who
kills himself. Therefore some men hate themselves.

Obj. 3: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. ii) that "avarice makes a
man hateful"; whence we may conclude that everyone hates a miser. But
some men are misers. Therefore they hate themselves.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:29) that "no man ever
hated his own flesh."

_I answer that,_ Properly speaking, it is impossible for a man to
hate himself. For everything naturally desires good, nor can anyone
desire anything for himself, save under the aspect of good: for "evil
is outside the scope of the will," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
Now to love a man is to will good to him, as stated above (Q. 26, A.
4). Consequently, a man must, of necessity, love himself; and it is
impossible for a man to hate himself, properly speaking.

But accidentally it happens that a man hates himself: and this in two
ways. First, on the part of the good which a man wills to himself.
For it happens sometimes that what is desired as good in some
particular respect, is simply evil; and in this way, a man
accidentally wills evil to himself; and thus hates himself. Secondly,
in regard to himself, to whom he wills good. For each thing is that
which is predominant in it; wherefore the state is said to do what
the king does, as if the king were the whole state. Now it is clear
that man is principally the mind of man. And it happens that some men
account themselves as being principally that which they are in their
material and sensitive nature. Wherefore they love themselves
according to what they take themselves to be, while they hate that
which they really are, by desiring what is contrary to reason. And in
both these ways, "he that loveth iniquity hateth" not only "his own
soul," but also himself.

Wherefore the reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2: No man wills and works evil to himself, except he
apprehend it under the aspect of good. For even they who kill
themselves, apprehend death itself as a good, considered as putting
an end to some unhappiness or pain.

Reply Obj. 3: The miser hates something accidental to himself, but
not for that reason does he hate himself: thus a sick man hates his
sickness for the very reason that he loves himself. Or we may say
that avarice makes man hateful to others, but not to himself. In
fact, it is caused by inordinate self-love, in respect of which,
man desires temporal goods for himself more than he should.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 5]

Whether a Man Can Hate the Truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man cannot hate the truth. For
good, true, and being are convertible. But a man cannot hate good.
Neither, therefore, can he hate the truth.

Obj. 2: Further, "All men have a natural desire for knowledge," as
stated in the beginning of the _Metaphysics_ (i, 1). But knowledge is
only of truth. Therefore truth is naturally desired and loved. But
that which is in a thing naturally, is always in it. Therefore no man
can hate the truth.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "men love
those who are straightforward." But there can be no other motive for
this save truth. Therefore man loves the truth naturally. Therefore
he cannot hate it.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 4:16): "Am I become your
enemy because I tell you the truth?" [*St. Thomas quotes the passage,
probably from memory, as though it were an assertion: "I am become,"
etc.]

_I answer that,_ Good, true and being are the same in reality, but
differ as considered by reason. For good is considered in the light
of something desirable, while being and true are not so considered:
because good is "what all things seek." Wherefore good, as such,
cannot be the object of hatred, neither in general nor in particular.
Being and truth in general cannot be the object of hatred: because
disagreement is the cause of hatred, and agreement is the cause of
love; while being and truth are common to all things. But nothing
hinders some particular being or some particular truth being an
object of hatred, in so far as it is considered as hurtful and
repugnant; since hurtfulness and repugnance are not incompatible with
the notion of being and truth, as they are with the notion of good.

Now it may happen in three ways that some particular truth is
repugnant or hurtful to the good we love. First, according as truth
is in things as in its cause and origin. And thus man sometimes hates
a particular truth, when he wishes that what is true were not true.
Secondly, according as truth is in man's knowledge, which hinders him
from gaining the object loved: such is the case of those who wish not
to know the truth of faith, that they may sin freely; in whose person
it is said (Job 21:14): "We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."
Thirdly, a particular truth is hated, as being repugnant, inasmuch as
it is in the intellect of another man: as, for instance, when a man
wishes to remain hidden in his sin, he hates that anyone should know
the truth about his sin. In this respect, Augustine says (Confess. x,
23) that men "love truth when it enlightens, they hate it when it
reproves." This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: The knowledge of truth is lovable in itself: hence
Augustine says that men love it when it enlightens. But accidentally,
the knowledge of truth may become hateful, in so far as it hinders
one from accomplishing one's desire.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason why we love those who are straightforward is
that they make known the truth, and the knowledge of the truth,
considered in itself, is a desirable thing.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 6]

Whether Anything Can Be an Object of Universal Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that a thing cannot be an object of
universal hatred. Because hatred is a passion of the sensitive
appetite, which is moved by an apprehension in the senses. But the
senses cannot apprehend the universal. Therefore a thing cannot be an
object of universal hatred.

Obj. 2: Further, hatred is caused by disagreement; and where there is
disagreement, there is nothing in common. But the notion of
universality implies something in common. Therefore nothing can be
the object of universal hatred.

Obj. 3: Further, the object of hatred is evil. But "evil is in
things, and not in the mind" (Metaph. vi, 4). Since therefore the
universal is in the mind only, which abstracts the universal from the
particular, it would seem that hatred cannot have a universal object.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "anger is
directed to something singular, whereas hatred is also directed to a
thing in general; for everybody hates the thief and the backbiter."

_I answer that,_ There are two ways of speaking of the universal:
first, as considered under the aspect of universality; secondly, as
considered in the nature to which it is ascribed: for it is one thing
to consider the universal man, and another to consider a man as man.
If, therefore, we take the universal, in the first way, no sensitive
power, whether of apprehension or of appetite, can attain the
universal: because the universal is obtained by abstraction from
individual matter, on which every sensitive power is based.

Nevertheless the sensitive powers, both of apprehension and of
appetite, can tend to something universally. Thus we say that the
object of sight is color considered generically; not that the sight
is cognizant of universal color, but because the fact that color is
cognizant by the sight, is attributed to color, not as being this
particular color, but simply because it is color. Accordingly hatred
in the sensitive faculty can regard something universally: because
this thing, by reason of its common nature, and not merely as an
individual, is hostile to the animal--for instance, a wolf in regard
to a sheep. Hence a sheep hates the wolf universally. On the other
hand, anger is always caused by something in particular: because it
is caused by some action of the one that hurts us; and actions
proceed from individuals. For this reason the Philosopher says (Rhet.
ii, 4) that "anger is always directed to something singular, whereas
hatred can be directed to a thing in general."

But according as hatred is in the intellectual part, since it arises
from the universal apprehension of the intellect, it can regard the
universal in both ways.

Reply Obj. 1: The senses do not apprehend the universal, as such: but
they apprehend something to which the character of universality is
given by abstraction.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is common to all cannot be a reason of
hatred. But nothing hinders a thing from being common to many, and at
variance with others, so as to be hateful to them.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the universal under the aspect
of universality: and thus it does not come under the sensitive
apprehension or appetite.
________________________

QUESTION 30

OF CONCUPISCENCE
(In Four Articles)

We have now to consider concupiscence: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite only?

(2) Whether concupiscence is a specific passion?

(3) Whether some concupiscences are natural, and some not natural?

(4) Whether concupiscence is infinite?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 1]

Whether Concupiscence Is in the Sensitive Appetite Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence is not only in the
sensitive appetite. For there is a concupiscence of wisdom, according
to Wis. 6:21: "The concupiscence [Douay: 'desire'] of wisdom bringeth
to the everlasting kingdom." But the sensitive appetite can have no
tendency to wisdom. Therefore concupiscence is not only in the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 2: Further, the desire for the commandments of God is not in the
sensitive appetite: in fact the Apostle says (Rom. 7:18): "There
dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good."
But desire for God's commandments is an act of concupiscence,
according to Ps. 118:20: "My soul hath coveted (_concupivit_) to long
for thy justifications." Therefore concupiscence is not only in the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, to each power, its proper good is a matter of
concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence is in each power of the soul,
and not only in the sensitive appetite.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that "the
irrational part which is subject and amenable to reason, is divided
into the faculties of concupiscence and anger. This is the irrational
part of the soul, passive and appetitive." Therefore concupiscence is
in the sensitive appetite.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11),
"concupiscence is a craving for that which is pleasant." Now pleasure
is twofold, as we shall state later on (Q. 31, AA. 3, 4): one is in
the intelligible good, which is the good of reason; the other is in
good perceptible to the senses. The former pleasure seems to belong
to soul alone: whereas the latter belongs to both soul and body:
because the sense is a power seated in a bodily organ: wherefore
sensible good is the good of the whole composite. Now concupiscence
seems to be the craving for this latter pleasure, since it belongs to
the united soul and body, as is implied by the Latin word
"concupiscentia." Therefore, properly speaking, concupiscence is in
the sensitive appetite, and in the concupiscible faculty, which takes
its name from it.

Reply Obj. 1: The craving for wisdom, or other spiritual goods, is
sometimes called concupiscence; either by reason of a certain
likeness; or on account of the craving in the higher part of the soul
being so vehement that it overflows into the lower appetite, so that
the latter also, in its own way, tends to the spiritual good,
following the lead of the higher appetite, the result being that the
body itself renders its service in spiritual matters, according to
Ps. 83:3: "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God."

Reply Obj. 2: Properly speaking, desire may be not only in the lower,
but also in the higher appetite. For it does not imply fellowship in
craving, as concupiscence does; but simply movement towards the thing
desired.

Reply Obj. 3: It belongs to each power of the soul to seek its proper
good by the natural appetite, which does not arise from apprehension.
But the craving for good, by the animal appetite, which arises from
apprehension, belongs to the appetitive power alone. And to crave a
thing under the aspect of something delightful to the senses, wherein
concupiscence properly consists, belongs to the concupiscible power.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 2]

Whether Concupiscence Is a Specific Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence is not a specific
passion of the concupiscible power. For passions are distinguished by
their objects. But the object of the concupiscible power is something
delightful to the senses; and this is also the object of
concupiscence, as the Philosopher declares (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore
concupiscence is not a specific passion of the concupiscible faculty.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33) that "covetousness
is the love of transitory things": so that it is not distinct from
love. But all specific passions are distinct from one another.
Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion in the
concupiscible faculty.

Obj. 3: Further, to each passion of the concupiscible faculty there
is a specific contrary passion in that faculty, as stated above (Q.
23, A. 4). But no specific passion of the concupiscible faculty is
contrary to concupiscence. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12)
that "good when desired gives rise to concupiscence; when present, it
gives joy: in like manner, the evil we apprehend makes us fear, the
evil that is present makes us sad": from which we gather that as
sadness is contrary to joy, so is fear contrary to concupiscence. But
fear is not in the concupiscible, but in the irascible part.
Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion of the
concupiscible faculty.

_On the contrary,_ Concupiscence is caused by love, and tends to
pleasure, both of which are passions of the concupiscible faculty.
Hence it is distinguished from the other concupiscible passions, as
a specific passion.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; Q. 23, A. 1), the good which
gives pleasure to the senses is the common object of the
concupiscible faculty. Hence the various concupiscible passions are
distinguished according to the differences of that good. Now the
diversity of this object can arise from the very nature of the
object, or from a diversity in its active power. The diversity,
derived from the nature of the active object, causes a material
difference of passions: while the difference in regard to its active
power causes a formal diversity of passions, in respect of which the
passions differ specifically.

Now the nature of the motive power of the end or of the good, differs
according as it is really present, or absent: because, according as
it is present, it causes the faculty to find rest in it; whereas,
according as it is absent, it causes the faculty to be moved towards
it. Wherefore the object of sensible pleasure causes love, inasmuch
as, so to speak, it attunes and conforms the appetite to itself; it
causes concupiscence, inasmuch as, when absent, it draws the faculty
to itself; and it causes pleasure, inasmuch as, when present, it
makes the faculty to find rest in itself. Accordingly, concupiscence
is a passion differing _in species_ from both love and pleasure. But
concupiscences of this or that pleasurable object differ _in number._

Reply Obj. 1: Pleasurable good is the object of concupiscence, not
absolutely, but considered as absent: just as the sensible,
considered as past, is the object of memory. For these particular
conditions diversify the species of passions, and even of the powers
of the sensitive part, which regards particular things.

Reply Obj. 2: In the passage quoted we have causal, not essential
predication: for covetousness is not essentially love, but an effect
of love. We may also say that Augustine is taking covetousness in a
wide sense, for any movement of the appetite in respect of good to
come: so that it includes both love and hope.

Reply Obj. 3: The passion which is directly contrary to concupiscence
has no name, and stands in relation to evil, as concupiscence in
regard to good. But since, like fear, it regards the absent evil;
sometimes it goes by the name of fear, just as hope is sometimes
called covetousness. For a small good or evil is reckoned as though
it were nothing: and consequently every movement of the appetite in
future good or evil is called hope or fear, which regard good and
evil as arduous.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 3]

Whether Some Concupiscences Are Natural, and Some Not Natural?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscences are not divided into
those which are natural and those which are not. For concupiscence
belongs to the animal appetite, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But the
natural appetite is contrasted with the animal appetite. Therefore no
concupiscence is natural.

Obj. 2: Further, material differences makes no difference of species,
but only numerical difference; a difference which is outside the
purview of science. But if some concupiscences are natural, and some
not, they differ only in respect of their objects; which amounts to a
material difference, which is one of number only. Therefore
concupiscences should not be divided into those that are natural and
those that are not.

Obj. 3: Further, reason is contrasted with nature, as stated in
_Phys._ ii, 5. If therefore in man there is a concupiscence which is
not natural, it must needs be rational. But this is impossible:
because, since concupiscence is a passion, it belongs to the
sensitive appetite, and not to the will, which is the rational
appetite. Therefore there are no concupiscences which are not natural.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11 and Rhetor. i, 11)
distinguishes natural concupiscences from those that are not natural.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), concupiscence is the craving
for pleasurable good. Now a thing is pleasurable in two ways. First,
because it is suitable to the nature of the animal; for example,
food, drink, and the like: and concupiscence of such pleasurable
things is said to be natural. Secondly, a thing is pleasurable
because it is apprehended as suitable to the animal: as when one
apprehends something as good and suitable, and consequently takes
pleasure in it: and concupiscence of such pleasurable things is said
to be not natural, and is more wont to be called "cupidity."

Accordingly concupiscences of the first kind, or natural
concupiscences, are common to men and other animals: because to both
is there something suitable and pleasurable according to nature: and
in these all men agree; wherefore the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11)
calls them "common" and "necessary." But concupiscences of the second
kind are proper to men, to whom it is proper to devise something as
good and suitable, beyond that which nature requires. Hence the
Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that the former concupiscences are
"irrational," but the latter, "rational." And because different men
reason differently, therefore the latter are also called (Ethic. iii,
11) "peculiar and acquired," i.e. in addition to those that are
natural.

Reply Obj. 1: The same thing that is the object of the natural
appetite, may be the object of the animal appetite, once it is
apprehended. And in this way there may be an animal concupiscence of
food, drink, and the like, which are objects of the natural appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: The difference between those concupiscences that are
natural and those that are not, is not merely a material difference;
it is also, in a way, formal, in so far as it arises from a
difference in the active object. Now the object of the appetite is
the apprehended good. Hence diversity of the active object follows
from diversity of apprehension: according as a thing is apprehended
as suitable, either by absolute apprehension, whence arise natural
concupiscences, which the Philosopher calls "irrational" (Rhet. i,
11); or by apprehension together with deliberation, whence arise
those concupiscences that are not natural, and which for this very
reason the Philosopher calls "rational" (Rhet. i, 11).

Reply Obj. 3: Man has not only universal reason, pertaining to the
intellectual faculty; but also particular reason pertaining to the
sensitive faculty, as stated in the First Part (Q. 78, A. 4; Q. 81,
A. 3): so that even rational concupiscence may pertain to the
sensitive appetite. Moreover the sensitive appetite can be moved by
the universal reason also, through the medium of the particular
imagination.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 4]

Whether Concupiscence Is Infinite?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence is not infinite. For
the object of concupiscence is good, which has the aspect of an end.
But where there is infinity there is no end (Metaph. ii, 2).
Therefore concupiscence cannot be infinite.

Obj. 2: Further, concupiscence is of the fitting good, since it
proceeds from love. But the infinite is without proportion, and
therefore unfitting. Therefore concupiscence cannot be infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, there is no passing through infinite things: and
thus there is no reaching an ultimate term in them. But the subject
of concupiscence is not delighted until he attain the ultimate term.
Therefore, if concupiscence were infinite, no delight would ever
ensue.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3) that "since
concupiscence is infinite, men desire an infinite number of things."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), concupiscence is twofold;
one is natural, the other is not natural. Natural concupiscence
cannot be actually infinite: because it is of that which nature
requires; and nature ever tends to something finite and fixed. Hence
man never desires infinite meat, or infinite drink. But just as in
nature there is potential successive infinity, so can this kind of
concupiscence be infinite successively; so that, for instance, after
getting food, a man may desire food yet again; and so of anything
else that nature requires: because these bodily goods, when obtained,
do not last for ever, but fail. Hence Our Lord said to the woman of
Samaria (John 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst
again."

But non-natural concupiscence is altogether infinite. Because, as
stated above (A. 3), it follows from the reason, and it belongs to
the reason to proceed to infinity. Hence he that desires riches, may
desire to be rich, not up to a certain limit, but to be simply as
rich as possible.

Another reason may be assigned, according to the Philosopher (Polit.
i, 3), why a certain concupiscence is finite, and another infinite.
Because concupiscence of the end is always infinite: since the end is
desired for its own sake, e.g. health: and thus greater health is
more desired, and so on to infinity; just as, if a white thing of
itself dilates the sight, that which is more white dilates yet more.
On the other hand, concupiscence of the means is not infinite,
because the concupiscence of the means is in suitable proportion to
the end. Consequently those who place their end in riches have an
infinite concupiscence of riches; whereas those who desire riches, on
account of the necessities of life, desire a finite measure of
riches, sufficient for the necessities of life, as the Philosopher
says (Polit. i, 3). The same applies to the concupiscence of any
other things.

Reply Obj. 1: Every object of concupiscence is taken as something
finite: either because it is finite in reality, as being once
actually desired; or because it is finite as apprehended. For it
cannot be apprehended as infinite, since the infinite is that "from
which, however much we may take, there always remains something to be
taken" (Phys. iii, 6).

Reply Obj. 2: The reason is possessed of infinite power, in a certain
sense, in so far as it can consider a thing infinitely, as appears in
the addition of numbers and lines. Consequently, the infinite, taken
in a certain way, is proportionate to reason. In fact the universal
which the reason apprehends, is infinite in a sense, inasmuch as it
contains potentially an infinite number of singulars.

Reply Obj. 3: In order that a man be delighted, there is no need for
him to realize all that he desires: for he delights in the
realization of each object of his concupiscence.
________________________

QUESTION 31

OF DELIGHT [*Or, Pleasure] CONSIDERED IN ITSELF
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider delight and sadness. Concerning delight four
things must be considered: (1) Delight in itself; (2) The causes of
delight; (3) Its effects; (4) Its goodness and malice.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether delight is a passion?

(2) Whether delight is subject to time?

(3) Whether it differs from joy?

(4) Whether it is in the intellectual appetite?

(5) Of the delights of the higher appetite compared with the delight
of the lower;

(6) Of sensible delights compared with one another;

(7) Whether any delight is non-natural?

(8) Whether one delight can be contrary to another?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 1]

Whether Delight Is a Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is not a passion. For
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) distinguishes operation from
passion, and says that "operation is a movement in accord with
nature, while passion is a movement contrary to nature." But delight
is an operation, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 12; x, 5).
Therefore delight is not a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, "To be passive is to be moved," as stated in _Phys._
iii, 3. But delight does not consist in being moved, but in having
been moved; for it arises from good already gained. Therefore delight
is not a passion.

Obj. 3: Further, delight is a kind of a perfection of the one who is
delighted; since it "perfects operation," as stated in _Ethic._ x, 4,
5. But to be perfected does not consist in being passive or in being
altered, as stated in _Phys._ vii, 3 and _De Anima_ ii, 5. Therefore
delight is not a passion.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei ix, 2; xiv, 5 seqq) reckons
delight, joy, or gladness among the other passions of the soul.

_I answer that,_ The movements of the sensitive appetite, are
properly called passions, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3). Now every
emotion arising from a sensitive apprehension, is a movement of the
sensitive appetite: and this must needs be said of delight, since,
according to the Philosopher (Rhet. i, 11) "delight is a certain
movement of the soul and a sensible establishing thereof all at once,
in keeping with the nature of the thing."

In order to understand this, we must observe that just as in natural
things some happen to attain to their natural perfections, so does
this happen in animals. And though movement towards perfection does
not occur all at once, yet the attainment of natural perfection does
occur all at once. Now there is this difference between animals and
other natural things, that when these latter are established in the
state becoming their nature, they do not perceive it, whereas animals
do. And from this perception there arises a certain movement of the
soul in the sensitive appetite; which movement is called delight.
Accordingly by saying that delight is "a movement of the soul," we
designate its genus. By saying that it is "an establishing in keeping
with the thing's nature," i.e. with that which exists in the thing, we
assign the cause of delight, viz. the presence of a becoming good. By
saying that this establishing is "all at once," we mean that this
establishing is to be understood not as in the process of
establishment, but as in the fact of complete establishment, in the
term of the movement, as it were: for delight is not a "becoming" as
Plato [*Phileb. 32, 33] maintained, but a "complete fact," as stated
in _Ethic._ vii, 12. Lastly, by saying that this establishing is
"sensible," we exclude the perfections of insensible things wherein
there is no delight. It is therefore evident that, since delight is a
movement of the animal appetite arising from an apprehension of sense,
it is a passion of the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: Connatural operation, which is unhindered, is a second
perfection, as stated in _De Anima_ ii, 1: and therefore when a thing
is established in its proper connatural and unhindered operation,
delight follows, which consists in a state of completion, as observed
above. Accordingly when we say that delight is an operation, we
designate, not its essence, but its cause.

Reply Obj. 2: A twofold movement is to be observed in an animal: one,
according to the intention of the end, and this belongs to the
appetite; the other, according to the execution, and this belongs to
the external operation. And so, although in him who has already
gained the good in which he delights, the movement of execution
ceases, by which he tends to the end; yet the movement of the
appetitive faculty does not cease, since, just as before it desired
that which it had not, so afterwards does it delight in that which is
possesses. For though delight is a certain repose of the appetite, if
we consider the presence of the pleasurable good that satisfies the
appetite, nevertheless there remains the impression made on the
appetite by its object, by reason of which delight is a kind of
movement.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the name of passion is more appropriate to
those passions which have a corruptive and evil tendency, such as
bodily ailments, as also sadness and fear in the soul; yet some
passions have a tendency to something good, as stated above (Q. 23,
AA. 1, 4): and in this sense delight is called a passion.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 2]

Whether Delight Is in Time?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is in time. For "delight is
a kind of movement," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). But all
movement is in time. Therefore delight is in time.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing is said to last long and to be morose in
respect of time. But some pleasures are called morose. Therefore
pleasure is in time.

Obj. 3: Further, the passions of the soul are of one same genus. But
some passions of the soul are in time. Therefore delight is too.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "no one
takes pleasure according to time."

_I answer that,_ A thing may be in time in two ways: first, by
itself; secondly, by reason of something else, and accidentally as
it were. For since time is the measure of successive things, those
things are of themselves said to be in time, to which succession or
something pertaining to succession is essential: such are movement,
repose, speech and such like. On the other hand, those things are
said to be in time, by reason of something else and not of
themselves, to which succession is not essential, but which are
subject to something successive. Thus the fact of being a man is not
essentially something successive; since it is not a movement, but the
term of a movement or change, viz. of this being begotten: yet,
because human being is subject to changeable causes, in this respect,
to be a man is in time.

Accordingly, we must say that delight, of itself indeed, is not in
time: for it regards good already gained, which is, as it were, the
term of the movement. But if this good gained be subject to change,
the delight therein will be in time accidentally: whereas if it be
altogether unchangeable, the delight therein will not be in time,
either by reason of itself or accidentally.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _De Anima_ iii, 7, movement is twofold.
One is "the act of something imperfect, i.e. of something existing in
potentiality, as such": this movement is successive and is in time.
Another movement is "the act of something perfect, i.e. of something
existing in act," e.g. to understand, to feel, and to will and such
like, also to have delight. This movement is not successive, nor is
it of itself in time.

Reply Obj. 2: Delight is said to be long lasting or morose, according
as it is accidentally in time.

Reply Obj. 3: Other passions have not for their object a good
obtained, as delight has. Wherefore there is more of the movement of
the imperfect in them than in delight. And consequently it belongs
more to delight not to be in time.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 3]

Whether Delight Differs from Joy?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is altogether the same as
joy. Because the passions of the soul differ according to their
objects. But delight and joy have the same object, namely, a good
obtained. Therefore joy is altogether the same as delight.

Obj. 2: Further, one movement does not end in two terms. But one and
the same movement, that of desire, ends in joy and delight. Therefore
delight and joy are altogether the same.

Obj. 3: Further, if joy differs from delight, it seems that there is
equal reason for distinguishing gladness, exultation, and
cheerfulness from delight, so that they would all be various passions
of the soul. But this seems to be untrue. Therefore joy does not
differ from delight.

_On the contrary,_ We do not speak of joy in irrational animals;
whereas we do speak of delight in them. Therefore joy is not the same
as delight.

_I answer that,_ Joy, as Avicenna states (De Anima iv), is a kind of
delight. For we must observe that, just as some concupiscences are
natural, and some not natural, but consequent to reason, as stated
above (Q. 30, A. 3), so also some delights are natural, and some are
not natural but rational. Or, as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 13) and
Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.] put it, "some
delights are of the body, some are of the soul"; which amounts to the
same. For we take delight both in those things which we desire
naturally, when we get them, and in those things which we desire as a
result of reason. But we do not speak of joy except when delight
follows reason; and so we do not ascribe joy to irrational animals,
but only delight.

Now whatever we desire naturally, can also be the object of reasoned
desire and delight, but not vice versa. Consequently whatever can be
the object of delight, can also be the object of joy in rational
beings. And yet everything is not always the object of joy; since
sometimes one feels a certain delight in the body, without rejoicing
thereat according to reason. And accordingly delight extends to more
things than does joy.

Reply Obj. 1: Since the object of the appetite of the soul is an
apprehended good, diversity of apprehension pertains, in a way, to
diversity of the object. And so delights of the soul, which are also
called joys, are distinct from bodily delights, which are not called
otherwise than delights: as we have observed above in regard to
concupiscences (Q. 30, A. 3, ad 2).

Reply Obj. 2: A like difference is to be observed in concupiscences
also: so that delight corresponds to concupiscence, while joy
corresponds to desire, which seems to pertain more to concupiscence
of the soul. Hence there is a difference of repose corresponding to
the difference of movement.

Reply Obj. 3: These other names pertaining to delight are derived
from the effects of delight; for _laetitia_ (gladness) is derived
from the "dilation" of the heart, as if one were to say "latitia";
"exultation" is derived from the exterior signs of inward delight,
which appear outwardly in so far as the inward joy breaks forth from
its bounds; and "cheerfulness" is so called from certain special
signs and effects of gladness. Yet all these names seem to belong to
joy; for we do not employ them save in speaking of rational beings.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 4]

Whether Delight Is in the Intellectual Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is not in the intellectual
appetite. Because the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that "delight is
a sensible movement." But sensible movement is not in an intellectual
power. Therefore delight is not in the intellectual appetite.

Obj. 2: Further, delight is a passion. But every passion is in the
sensitive appetite. Therefore delight is only in the sensitive
appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, delight is common to us and to the irrational
animals. Therefore it is not elsewhere than in that power which we
have in common with irrational animals.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 36:4): "Delight in the Lord."
But the sensitive appetite cannot reach to God; only the intellectual
appetite can. Therefore delight can be in the intellectual appetite.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), a certain delight arises
from the apprehension of the reason. Now on the reason apprehending
something, not only the sensitive appetite is moved, as regards its
application to some particular thing, but also the intellectual
appetite, which is called the will. And accordingly in the
intellectual appetite or will there is that delight which is called
joy, but not bodily delight.

However, there is this difference of delight in either power, that
delight of the sensitive appetite is accompanied by a bodily
transmutation, whereas delight of the intellectual appetite is
nothing but the mere movement of the will. Hence Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "desire and joy are nothing else but a volition
of consent to the things we wish."

Reply Obj. 1: In this definition of the Philosopher, he uses the word
"sensible" in its wide acceptation for any kind of perception. For he
says (Ethic. x, 4) that "delight is attendant upon every sense, as it
is also upon every act of the intellect and contemplation." Or we may
say that he is defining delight of the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: Delight has the character of passion, properly
speaking, when accompanied by bodily transmutation. It is not thus in
the intellectual appetite, but according to simple movement: for thus
it is also in God and the angels. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic.
vii, 14) that "God rejoices by one simple act": and Dionysius says at
the end of _De Coel. Hier.,_ that "the angels are not susceptible to
our passible delight, but rejoice together with God with the gladness
of incorruption."

Reply Obj. 3: In us there is delight, not only in common with dumb
animals, but also in common with angels. Wherefore Dionysius says (De
Coel. Hier.) that "holy men often take part in the angelic delights."
Accordingly we have delight, not only in the sensitive appetite,
which we have in common with dumb animals, but also in the
intellectual appetite, which we have in common with the angels.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 5]

Whether Bodily and Sensible Pleasures Are Greater Than Spiritual and
Intellectual Pleasures?

Objection 1: It would seem that bodily and sensible pleasures are
greater than spiritual and intelligible pleasures. For all men seek
some pleasure, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 2, 4). But
more seek sensible pleasures, than intelligible spiritual pleasures.
Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.

Obj. 2: Further, the greatness of a cause is known by its effect. But
bodily pleasures have greater effects; since "they alter the state of
the body, and in some they cause madness" (Ethic. vii, 3). Therefore
bodily pleasures are greater.

Obj. 3: Further, bodily pleasures need to be tempered and checked, by
reason of their vehemence: whereas there is no need to check
spiritual pleasures. Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 118:103): "How sweet are Thy
words to my palate; more than honey to my mouth!" And the Philosopher
says (Ethic. x, 7) that "the greatest pleasure is derived from the
operation of wisdom."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), pleasure arises from union
with a suitable object perceived or known. Now, in the operations of
the soul, especially of the sensitive and intellectual soul, it must
be noted that, since they do not pass into outward matter, they are
acts or perfections of the agent, e.g. to understand, to feel, to
will and the like: because actions which pass into outward matter,
are actions and perfections rather of the matter transformed; for
"movement is the act produced by the mover in the thing moved" (Phys.
iii, 3). Accordingly the aforesaid actions of the sensitive and
intellectual soul, are themselves a certain good of the agent, and
are known by sense and intellect. Wherefore from them also does
pleasure arise, and not only from their objects.

If therefore we compare intellectual pleasures with sensible
pleasures, according as we delight in the very actions, for instance
in sensitive and in intellectual knowledge; without doubt
intellectual pleasures are much greater than sensible pleasures. For
man takes much more delight in knowing something, by understanding
it, than in knowing something by perceiving it with his sense.
Because intellectual knowledge is more perfect; and because it is
better known, since the intellect reflects on its own act more than
sense does. Moreover intellectual knowledge is more beloved: for
there is no one who would not forfeit his bodily sight rather than
his intellectual vision, as beasts or fools are deprived thereof, as
Augustine says in De Civ. Dei (De Trin. xiv, 14).

If, however, intellectual spiritual pleasures be compared with
sensible bodily pleasures, then, in themselves and absolutely
speaking, spiritual pleasures are greater. And this appears from the
consideration of the three things needed for pleasure, viz. the good
which is brought into conjunction, that to which it is conjoined, and
the conjunction itself. For spiritual good is both greater and more
beloved than bodily good: a sign whereof is that men abstain from
even the greatest bodily pleasures, rather than suffer loss of honor
which is an intellectual good. Likewise the intellectual faculty is
much more noble and more knowing than the sensitive faculty. Also the
conjunction is more intimate, more perfect and more firm. More
intimate, because the senses stop at the outward accidents of a
thing, whereas the intellect penetrates to the essence; for the
object of the intellect is "what a thing is." More perfect, because
the conjunction of the sensible to the sense implies movement, which
is an imperfect act: wherefore sensible pleasures are not perceived
all at once, but some part of them is passing away, while some other
part is looked forward to as yet to be realized, as is manifest in
pleasures of the table and in sexual pleasures: whereas intelligible
things are without movement: hence pleasures of this kind are
realized all at once. More firm; because the objects of bodily
pleasure are corruptible, and soon pass away; whereas spiritual goods
are incorruptible.

On the other hand, in relation to us, bodily pleasures are more
vehement, for three reasons. First, because sensible things are more
known to us, than intelligible things. Secondly, because sensible
pleasures, through being passions of the sensitive appetite, are
accompanied by some alteration in the body: whereas this does not
occur in spiritual pleasures, save by reason of a certain reaction of
the superior appetite on the lower. Thirdly, because bodily pleasures
are sought as remedies for bodily defects or troubles, whence various
griefs arise. Wherefore bodily pleasures, by reason of their
succeeding griefs of this kind, are felt the more, and consequently
are welcomed more than spiritual pleasures, which have no contrary
griefs, as we shall state farther on (Q. 35, A. 5).

Reply Obj. 1: The reason why more seek bodily pleasures is
because sensible goods are known better and more generally: and,
again, because men need pleasures as remedies for many kinds of sorrow
and sadness: and since the majority cannot attain spiritual pleasures,
which are proper to the virtuous, hence it is that they turn aside to
seek those of the body.

Reply Obj. 2: Bodily transmutation arises more from bodily
pleasures, inasmuch as they are passions of the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily pleasures are realized in the sensitive
faculty which is governed by reason: wherefore they need to be
tempered and checked by reason. But spiritual pleasures are in the
mind, which is itself the rule: wherefore they are in themselves both
sober and moderate.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 6]

Whether the Pleasures of Touch Are Greater Than the Pleasures
Afforded by the Other Senses?

Objection 1: It would seem that the pleasures of touch are not
greater than the pleasures afforded by the other senses. Because the
greatest pleasure seems to be that without which all joy is at an
end. But such is the pleasure afforded by the sight, according to the
words of Tob. 5:12: "What manner of joy shall be to me, who sit in
darkness, and see not the light of heaven?" Therefore the pleasure
afforded by the sight is the greatest of sensible pleasures.

Obj. 2: Further, "every one finds treasure in what he loves," as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). But "of all the senses the sight is
loved most" [*Metaph. i, 1]. Therefore the greatest pleasure seems to
be afforded by sight.

Obj. 3: Further, the beginning of friendship which is for the sake of
the pleasant is principally sight. But pleasure is the cause of such
friendship. Therefore the greatest pleasure seems to be afforded by
sight.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10), that the
greatest pleasures are those which are afforded by the touch.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 25, A. 2, ad 1; Q. 27, A. 4, ad
1), everything gives pleasure according as it is loved. Now, as
stated in _Metaph._ i, 1, the senses are loved for two reasons: for
the purpose of knowledge, and on account of their usefulness.
Wherefore the senses afford pleasure in both these ways. But because
it is proper to man to apprehend knowledge itself as something good,
it follows that the former pleasures of the senses, i.e. those which
arise from knowledge, are proper to man: whereas pleasures of the
senses, as loved for their usefulness, are common to all animals.

If therefore we speak of that sensible pleasure which is by reason of
knowledge, it is evident that the sight affords greater pleasure than
any other sense. On the other hand, if we speak of that sensible
pleasure which is by reason of usefulness, then the greatest pleasure
is afforded by the touch. For the usefulness of sensible things is
gauged by their relation to the preservation of the animal's nature.
Now the sensible objects of touch bear the closest relation to this
usefulness: for the touch takes cognizance of those things which are
vital to an animal, namely, of things hot and cold and the like.
Wherefore in this respect, the pleasures of touch are greater as
being more closely related to the end. For this reason, too, other
animals which do not experience sensible pleasure save by reason of
usefulness, derive no pleasure from the other senses except as
subordinated to the sensible objects of the touch: "for dogs do not
take delight in the smell of hares, but in eating them; . . . nor
does the lion feel pleasure in the lowing of an ox, but in devouring
it" (Ethic. iii, 10).

Since then the pleasure afforded by touch is the greatest in respect
of usefulness, and the pleasure afforded by sight the greatest in
respect of knowledge; if anyone wish to compare these two, he will
find that the pleasure of touch is, absolutely speaking, greater than
the pleasure of sight, so far as the latter remains within the limits
of sensible pleasure. Because it is evident that in everything, that
which is natural is most powerful: and it is to these pleasures of
the touch that the natural concupiscences, such as those of food,
sexual union, and the like, are ordained. If, however, we consider
the pleasures of sight, inasmuch sight is the handmaid of the mind,
then the pleasures of sight are greater, forasmuch as intellectual
pleasures are greater than sensible.

Reply Obj. 1: Joy, as stated above (A. 3), denotes pleasure of the
soul; and this belongs principally to the sight. But natural pleasure
belongs principally to the touch.

Reply Obj. 2: The sight is loved most, "on account of knowledge,
because it helps us to distinguish many things," as is stated in the
same passage (Metaph. i, 1).

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasure causes carnal love in one way; the sight, in
another. For pleasure, especially that which is afforded by the
touch, is the final cause of the friendship which is for the sake of
the pleasant: whereas the sight is a cause like that from which a
movement has its beginning, inasmuch as the beholder on seeing the
lovable object receives an impression of its image, which entices him
to love it and to seek its delight.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 7]

Whether Any Pleasure Is Not Natural?

Objection 1: It would seem that no pleasure is not natural. For
pleasure is to the emotions of the soul what repose is to bodies. But
the appetite of a natural body does not repose save in a connatural
place. Neither, therefore, can the repose of the animal appetite,
which is pleasure, be elsewhere than in something connatural.
Therefore no pleasure is non-natural.

Obj. 2: Further, what is against nature is violent. But "whatever is
violent causes grief" (Metaph. v, 5). Therefore nothing which is
unnatural can give pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, the fact of being established in one's own nature,
if perceived, gives rise to pleasure, as is evident from the
Philosopher's definition quoted above (A. 1). But it is natural to
every thing to be established in its nature; because natural movement
tends to a natural end. Therefore every pleasure is natural.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5, 6) that some
things are pleasant "not from nature but from disease."

_I answer that,_ We speak of that as being natural, which is in
accord with nature, as stated in _Phys._ ii, 1. Now, in man, nature
can be taken in two ways. First, inasmuch as intellect and reason is
the principal part of man's nature, since in respect thereof he has
his own specific nature. And in this sense, those pleasures may be
called natural to man, which are derived from things pertaining to
man in respect of his reason: for instance, it is natural to man to
take pleasure in contemplating the truth and in doing works of
virtue. Secondly, nature in man may be taken as contrasted with
reason, and as denoting that which is common to man and other
animals, especially that part of man which does not obey reason. And
in this sense, that which pertains to the preservation of the body,
either as regards the individual, as food, drink, sleep, and the
like, or as regards the species, as sexual intercourse, are said to
afford man natural pleasure. Under each kind of pleasures, we find
some that are _not natural_ speaking absolutely, and yet _connatural_
in some respect. For it happens in an individual that some one of the
natural principles of the species is corrupted, so that something
which is contrary to the specific nature, becomes accidentally
natural to this individual: thus it is natural to this hot water to
give heat. Consequently it happens that something which is not
natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the
preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man,
on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this
corruption may be either on the part of the body--from some ailment;
thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and
vice versa--or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in
eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus
from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural
intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in
accord with human nature.

This suffices for the answers to the objections.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 8]

Whether One Pleasure Can Be Contrary to Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that one pleasure cannot be contrary to
another. Because the passions of the soul derive their species and
contrariety from their objects. Now the object of pleasure is the
good. Since therefore good is not contrary to good, but "good is
contrary to evil, and evil to good," as stated in Praedic. viii;
it seems that one pleasure is not contrary to another.

Obj. 2: Further, to one thing there is one contrary, as is proved in
_Metaph._ x, 4. But sadness is contrary to pleasure. Therefore
pleasure is not contrary to pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, if one pleasure is contrary to another, this is only
on account of the contrariety of the things which give pleasure. But
this difference is material: whereas contrariety is a difference of
form, as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4. Therefore there is no contrariety
between one pleasure and another.

_On the contrary,_ Things of the same genus that impede one another
are contraries, as the Philosopher states (Phys. viii, 8). But some
pleasures impede one another, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 5. Therefore
some pleasures are contrary to one another.

_I answer that,_ Pleasure, in the emotions of the soul, is likened to
repose in natural bodies, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Now one
repose is said to be contrary to another when they are in contrary
termini; thus, "repose in a high place is contrary to repose in a low
place" (Phys. v, 6). Wherefore it happens in the emotions of the soul
that one pleasure is contrary to another.

Reply Obj. 1: This saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of
good and evil as applied to virtues and vices: because one vice may
be contrary to another vice, whereas no virtue can be contrary to
another virtue. But in other things nothing prevents one good from
being contrary to another, such as hot and cold, of which the former
is good in relation to fire, the latter, in relation to water. And in
this way one pleasure can be contrary to another. That this is
impossible with regard to the good of virtue, is due to the fact that
virtue's good depends on fittingness in relation to some one
thing--i.e. the reason.

Reply Obj. 2: Pleasure, in the emotions of the soul, is likened to
natural repose in bodies: because its object is something suitable
and connatural, so to speak. But sadness is like a violent repose;
because its object is disagreeable to the animal appetite, just as
the place of violent repose is disagreeable to the natural appetite.
Now natural repose is contrary both to violent repose of the same
body, and to the natural repose of another, as stated in _Phys._ v,
6. Wherefore pleasure is contrary to both to another pleasure and to
sadness.

Reply Obj. 3: The things in which we take pleasure, since they are
the objects of pleasure, cause not only a material, but also a formal
difference, if the formality of pleasurableness be different. Because
difference in the formal object causes a specific difference in acts
and passions, as stated above (Q. 23, AA. 1, 4; Q. 30, A. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 32

OF THE CAUSE OF PLEASURE
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the causes of pleasure: and under this head
there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether operation is the proper cause of pleasure?

(2) Whether movement is a cause of pleasure?

(3) Whether hope and memory cause pleasure?

(4) Whether sadness causes pleasure?

(5) Whether the actions of others are a cause of pleasure to us?

(6) Whether doing good to another is a cause of pleasure?

(7) Whether likeness is a cause of pleasure?

(8) Whether wonder is a cause of pleasure?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 1]

Whether Operation Is the Proper Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that operation is not the proper and first
cause of pleasure. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11),
"pleasure consists in a perception of the senses," since knowledge is
requisite for pleasure, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1). But the
objects of operations are knowable before the operations themselves.
Therefore operation is not the proper cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, pleasure consists especially in an end gained: since
it is this that is chiefly desired. But the end is not always an
operation, but is sometimes the effect of the operation. Therefore
operation is not the proper and direct cause of pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, leisure and rest consist in cessation from work: and
they are objects of pleasure (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore operation is
not the proper cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12, 13; x, 4)
that "pleasure is a connatural and uninterrupted operation."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 31, A. 1), two things are
requisite for pleasure: namely, the attainment of the suitable good,
and knowledge of this attainment. Now each of these consists in a
kind of operation: because actual knowledge is an operation; and the
attainment of the suitable good is by means of an operation.
Moreover, the proper operation itself is a suitable good. Wherefore
every pleasure must needs be the result of some operation.

Reply Obj. 1: The objects of operations are not pleasurable save
inasmuch as they are united to us; either by knowledge alone, as when
we take pleasure in thinking of or looking at certain things; or in
some other way in addition to knowledge; as when a man takes pleasure
in knowing that he has something good--riches, honor, or the like;
which would not be pleasurable unless they were apprehended as
possessed. For as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 2) "we take
great pleasure in looking upon a thing as our own, by reason of the
natural love we have for ourselves." Now to have such like things is
nothing else but to use them or to be able to use them: and this is
through some operation. Wherefore it is evident that every pleasure
is traced to some operation as its cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Even when it is not an operation, but the effect of an
operation, that is the end, this effect is pleasant in so far as
possessed or effected: and this implies use or operation.

Reply Obj. 3: Operations are pleasant, in so far as they are
proportionate and connatural to the agent. Now, since human power is
finite, operation is proportionate thereto according to a certain
measure. Wherefore if it exceed that measure, it will be no longer
proportionate or pleasant, but, on the contrary, painful and irksome.
And in this sense, leisure and play and other things pertaining to
repose, are pleasant, inasmuch as they banish sadness which results
from labor.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 2]

Whether Movement Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that movement is not a cause of pleasure.
Because, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1), the good which is obtained
and is actually possessed, is the cause of pleasure: wherefore the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12) that pleasure is not compared with
generation, but with the operation of a thing already in existence.
Now that which is being moved towards something has it not as yet;
but, so to speak, is being generated in its regard, forasmuch as
generation or corruption are united to every movement, as stated in
_Phys._ viii, 3. Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, movement is the chief cause of toil and fatigue in
our works. But operations through being toilsome and fatiguing are
not pleasant but disagreeable. Therefore movement is not a cause of
pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, movement implies a certain innovation, which is the
opposite of custom. But things "which we are accustomed to, are
pleasant," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore movement
is not a cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. viii, 3): "What means
this, O Lord my God, whereas Thou art everlasting joy to Thyself, and
some things around Thee evermore rejoice in Thee? What means this,
that this portion of things ebbs and flows alternately displeased and
reconciled?" From these words we gather that man rejoices and takes
pleasure in some kind of alterations: and therefore movement seems to
cause pleasure.

_I answer that,_ Three things are requisite for pleasure; two, i.e.
the one that is pleased and the pleasurable object conjoined to him;
and a third, which is knowledge of this conjunction: and in respect
of these three, movement is pleasant, as the Philosopher says (Ethic.
vii, 14 and Rhetor. i, 11). For as far as we who feel pleasure are
concerned, change is pleasant to us because our nature is changeable:
for which reason that which is suitable to us at one time is not
suitable at another; thus to warm himself at a fire is suitable to
man in winter but not in summer. Again, on the part of the pleasing
good which is united to us, change is pleasant. Because the continued
action of an agent increases its effect: thus the longer a person
remains near the fire, the more he is warmed and dried. Now the
natural mode of being consists in a certain measure; and therefore
when the continued presence of a pleasant object exceeds the measure
of one's natural mode of being, the removal of that object becomes
pleasant. On the part of the knowledge itself (change becomes
pleasant), because man desires to know something whole and perfect:
when therefore a thing cannot be apprehended all at once as a whole,
change in such a thing is pleasant, so that one part may pass and
another succeed, and thus the whole be perceived. Hence Augustine
says (Confess. iv, 11): "Thou wouldst not have the syllables stay,
but fly away, that others may come, and thou hear the whole. And so
whenever any one thing is made up of many, all of which do not exist
together, all would please collectively more than they do severally,
if all could be perceived collectively."

If therefore there be any thing, whose nature is unchangeable; the
natural mode of whose being cannot be exceeded by the continuation of
any pleasing object; and which can behold the whole object of its
delight at once--to such a one change will afford no delight. And the
more any pleasures approach to this, the more are they capable of
being continual.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the subject of movement has not yet perfectly
that to which it is moved, nevertheless it is beginning to have
something thereof: and in this respect movement itself has something
of pleasure. But it falls short of the perfection of pleasure;
because the more perfect pleasures regard things that are
unchangeable. Moreover movement becomes the cause of pleasure, in so
far as thereby something which previously was unsuitable, becomes
suitable or ceases to be, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Movement causes toil and fatigue, when it exceeds our
natural aptitude. It is not thus that it causes pleasure, but by
removing the obstacles to our natural aptitude.

Reply Obj. 3: What is customary becomes pleasant, in so far as it
becomes natural: because custom is like a second nature. But the
movement which gives pleasure is not that which departs from custom,
but rather that which prevents the corruption of the natural mode of
being, that might result from continued operation. And thus from the
same cause of connaturalness, both custom and movement become
pleasant.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 3]

Whether Hope and Memory Cause Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that memory and hope do not cause
pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by present good, as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). But hope and memory regard what is
absent: since memory is of the past, and hope of the future.
Therefore memory and hope do not cause pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But
hope causes affliction, according to Prov. 13:12: "Hope that is
deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope does not cause pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, just as hope agrees with pleasure in regarding good,
so also do desire and love. Therefore hope should not be assigned as
a cause of pleasure, any more than desire or love.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 12:12): "Rejoicing in hope";
and (Ps. 76:4): "I remembered God, and was delighted."

_I answer that,_ Pleasure is caused by the presence of suitable good,
in so far as it is felt, or perceived in any way. Now a thing is
present to us in two ways. First, in knowledge--i.e. according as the
thing known is in the knower by its likeness; secondly, in
reality--i.e. according as one thing is in real conjunction of any
kind with another, either actually or potentially. And since real
conjunction is greater than conjunction by likeness, which is the
conjunction of knowledge; and again, since actual is greater than
potential conjunction: therefore the greatest pleasure is that which
arises from sensation which requires the presence of the sensible
object. The second place belongs to the pleasure of hope, wherein
there is pleasurable conjunction, not only in respect of
apprehension, but also in respect of the faculty or power of
obtaining the pleasurable object. The third place belongs to the
pleasure of memory, which has only the conjunction of apprehension.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope and memory are indeed of things which, absolutely
speaking, are absent: and yet those are, after a fashion, present,
i.e. either according to apprehension only; or according to
apprehension and possibility, at least supposed, of attainment.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing prevents the same thing, in different ways,
being the cause of contraries. And so hope, inasmuch as it implies a
present appraising of a future good, causes pleasure; whereas,
inasmuch as it implies absence of that good, it causes affliction.

Reply Obj. 3: Love and concupiscence also cause pleasure. For
everything that is loved becomes pleasing to the lover, since love is
a kind of union or connaturalness of lover and beloved. In like
manner every object of desire is pleasing to the one that desires,
since desire is chiefly a craving for pleasure. However hope, as
implying a certainty of the real presence of the pleasing good, that
is not implied either by love or by concupiscence, is reckoned in
preference to them as causing pleasure; and also in preference to
memory, which is of that which has already passed away.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 4]

Whether sadness causes pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that sadness does not cause pleasure. For
nothing causes its own contrary. But sadness is contrary to pleasure.
Therefore it does not cause it.

Obj. 2: Further, contraries have contrary effects. But pleasures,
when called to mind, cause pleasure. Therefore sad things, when
remembered, cause sorrow and not pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, as sadness is to pleasure, so is hatred to love. But
hatred does not cause love, but rather the other way about, as stated
above (Q. 29, A. 2). Therefore sadness does not cause pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 41:4): "My tears have been my
bread day and night": where bread denotes the refreshment of
pleasure. Therefore tears, which arise from sadness, can give
pleasure.

_I answer that,_ Sadness may be considered in two ways: as existing
actually, and as existing in the memory: and in both ways sadness can
cause pleasure. Because sadness, as actually existing, causes
pleasure, inasmuch as it brings to mind that which is loved, the
absence of which causes sadness; and yet the mere thought of it gives
pleasure. The recollection of sadness becomes a cause of pleasure, on
account of the deliverance which ensued: because absence of evil is
looked upon as something good; wherefore so far as a man thinks that
he has been delivered from that which caused him sorrow and pain, so
much reason has he to rejoice. Hence Augustine says in _De Civ. Dei_
xxii, 31 [*Gregory, Moral. iv.] that "oftentimes in joy we call to
mind sad things . . . and in the season of health we recall past
pains without feeling pain . . . and in proportion are the more
filled with joy and gladness": and again (Confess. viii, 3) he says
that "the more peril there was in the battle, so much the more joy
will there be in the triumph."

Reply Obj. 1: Sometimes accidentally a thing is the cause of its
contrary: thus "that which is cold sometimes causes heat," as stated
in _Phys._ viii, 1. In like manner sadness is the accidental cause of
pleasure, in so far as it gives rise to the apprehension of something
pleasant.

Reply Obj. 2: Sad things, called to mind, cause pleasure, not in so
far as they are sad and contrary to pleasant things; but in so far as
man is delivered from them. In like manner the recollection of
pleasant things, by reason of these being lost, may cause sadness.

Reply Obj. 3: Hatred also can be the accidental cause of love: i.e.
so far as some love one another, inasmuch as they agree in hating one
and the same thing.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 5]

Whether the Actions of Others Are a Cause of Pleasure to Us?

Objection 1: It would seem that the actions of others are not a cause
of pleasure to us. Because the cause of pleasure is our own good when
conjoined to us. But the actions of others are not conjoined to us.
Therefore they are not a cause of pleasure to us.

Obj. 2: Further, the action is the agent's own good. If, therefore,
the actions of others are a cause of pleasure to us, for the same
reason all goods belonging to others will be pleasing to us: which is
evidently untrue.

Obj. 3: Further, action is pleasant through proceeding from an innate
habit; hence it is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 3 that "we must reckon the
pleasure which follows after action, as being the sign of a habit
existing in us." But the actions of others do not proceed from habits
existing in us, but, sometimes, from habits existing in the agents.
Therefore the actions of others are not pleasing to us, but to the
agents themselves.

_On the contrary,_ It is written in the second canonical epistle of
John (verse 4): "I was exceeding glad that I found thy children
walking in truth."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; Q. 31, A. 1), two things are
requisite for pleasure, namely, the attainment of one's proper good,
and the knowledge of having obtained it. Wherefore the action of
another may cause pleasure to us in three ways. First, from the fact
that we obtain some good through the action of another. And in this
way, the actions of those who do some good to us, are pleasing to us:
since it is pleasant to be benefited by another. Secondly, from the
fact that another's action makes us to know or appreciate our own
good: and for this reason men take pleasure in being praised or
honored by others, because, to wit, they thus become aware of some
good existing in themselves. And since this appreciation receives
greater weight from the testimony of good and wise men, hence men
take greater pleasure in being praised and honored by them. And
because a flatterer appears to praise, therefore flattery is pleasing
to some. And as love is for something good, while admiration is for
something great, so it is pleasant to be loved and admired by others,
inasmuch as a man thus becomes aware of his own goodness or
greatness, through their giving pleasure to others. Thirdly, from the
fact that another's actions, if they be good, are reckoned as one's
own good, by reason of the power of love, which makes a man to regard
his friend as one with himself. And on account of hatred, which makes
one to reckon another's good as being in opposition to oneself, the
evil action of an enemy becomes an object of pleasure: whence it is
written (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
rejoiceth with the truth."

Reply Obj. 1: Another's action may be conjoined to me, either by its
effect, as in the first way, or by knowledge, as in the second way;
or by affection, as in the third way.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument avails for the third mode, but not for
the first two.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the actions of another do not proceed from
habits that are in me, yet they either produce in me something that
gives pleasure; or they make me appreciate or know a habit of mind;
or they proceed from the habit of one who is united to me by love.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 6]

Whether Doing Good to Another Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that doing good to another is not a cause
of pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by one's obtaining one's
proper good, as stated above (AA. 1, 5; Q. 31, A. 1). But doing good
pertains not to the obtaining but to the spending of one's proper
good. Therefore it seems to be the cause of sadness rather than of
pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that
"illiberality is more connatural to man than prodigality." Now it is
a mark of prodigality to do good to others; while it is a mark of
illiberality to desist from doing good. Since therefore everyone
takes pleasure in a connatural operation, as stated in _Ethic._ vii,
14 and x, 4, it seems that doing good to others is not a cause of
pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, contrary effects proceed from contrary causes. But
man takes a natural pleasure in certain kinds of ill-doing, such as
overcoming, contradicting or scolding others, or, if he be angry, in
punishing them, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore
doing good to others is a cause of sadness rather than pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that "it is
most pleasant to give presents or assistance to friends and
strangers."

_I answer that,_ Doing good to another may give pleasure in three
ways. First, in consideration of the effect, which is the good
conferred on another. In this respect, inasmuch as through being
united to others by love, we look upon their good as being our own,
we take pleasure in the good we do to others, especially to our
friends, as in our own good. Secondly, in consideration of the end;
as when a man, from doing good to another, hopes to get some good for
himself, either from God or from man: for hope is a cause of
pleasure. Thirdly, in consideration of the principle: and thus, doing
good to another, can give pleasure in respect of a threefold
principle. One is the faculty of doing good: and in this regard,
doing good to another becomes pleasant, in so far as it arouses in
man an imagination of abundant good existing in him, whereof he is
able to give others a share. Wherefore men take pleasure in their
children, and in their own works, as being things on which they
bestow a share of their own good. Another principle is man's habitual
inclination to do good, by reason of which doing good becomes
connatural to him: for which reason the liberal man takes pleasure in
giving to others. The third principle is the motive: for instance
when a man is moved by one whom he loves, to do good to someone: for
whatever we do or suffer for a friend is pleasant, because love is
the principal cause of pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: Spending gives pleasure as showing forth one's good.
But in so far as it empties us of our own good it may be a cause of
sadness; for instance when it is excessive.

Reply Obj. 2: Prodigality is an excessive spending, which is
unnatural: wherefore prodigality is said to be contrary to nature.

Reply Obj. 3: To overcome, to contradict, and to punish, give
pleasure, not as tending to another's ill, but as pertaining to one's
own good, which man loves more than he hates another's ill. For it is
naturally pleasant to overcome, inasmuch as it makes a man to
appreciate his own superiority. Wherefore all those games in which
there is a striving for the mastery, and a possibility of winning it,
afford the greatest pleasure: and speaking generally all contests, in
so far as they admit hope of victory. To contradict and to scold can
give pleasure in two ways. First, as making man imagine himself to be
wise and excellent; since it belongs to wise men and elders to
reprove and to scold. Secondly, in so far as by scolding and
reproving, one does good to another: for this gives one pleasure, as
stated above. It is pleasant to an angry man to punish, in so far as
he thinks himself to be removing an apparent slight, which seems to
be due to a previous hurt: for when a man is hurt by another, he
seems to be slighted thereby; and therefore he wishes to be quit of
this slight by paying back the hurt. And thus it is clear that doing
good to another may be of itself pleasant: whereas doing evil to
another is not pleasant, except in so far as it seems to affect one's
own good.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 7]

Whether Likeness Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that likeness is not a cause of pleasure.
Because ruling and presiding seem to imply a certain unlikeness. But
"it is natural to take pleasure in ruling and presiding," as stated
in _Rhetor._ i, 11. Therefore unlikeness, rather than likeness, is a
cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing is more unlike pleasure than sorrow. But
those who are burdened by sorrow are most inclined to seek pleasures,
as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore unlikeness,
rather than likeness, is a cause of pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, those who are satiated with certain delights, derive
not pleasure but disgust from them; as when one is satiated with
food. Therefore likeness is not a cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Likeness is a cause of love, as above stated (Q.
27, A. 3): and love is the cause of pleasure. Therefore likeness is a
cause of pleasure.

_I answer that,_ Likeness is a kind of unity; hence that which is
like us, as being one with us, causes pleasure; just at it causes
love, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 3). And if that which is like us
does not hurt our own good, but increase it, it is pleasurable
simply; for instance one man in respect of another, one youth in
relation to another. But if it be hurtful to our own good, thus
accidentally it causes disgust or sadness, not as being like and one
with us, but as hurtful to that which is yet more one with us.

Now it happens in two ways that something like is hurtful to our own
good. First, by destroying the measure of our own good, by a kind of
excess; because good, especially bodily good, as health, is
conditioned by a certain measure: wherefore superfluous good or any
bodily pleasure, causes disgust. Secondly, by being directly contrary
to one's own good: thus a potter dislikes other potters, not because
they are potters, but because they deprive him of his own excellence
or profits, which he seeks as his own good.

Reply Obj. 1: Since ruler and subject are in communion with one
another, there is a certain likeness between them: but this likeness
is conditioned by a certain superiority, since ruling and presiding
pertain to the excellence of a man's own good: because they belong to
men who are wise and better than others; the result being that they
give man an idea of his own excellence. Another reason is that by
ruling and presiding, a man does good to others, which is pleasant.

Reply Obj. 2: That which gives pleasure to the sorrowful man, though
it be unlike sorrow, bears some likeness to the man that is
sorrowful: because sorrows are contrary to his own good. Wherefore
the sorrowful man seeks pleasure as making for his own good, in so
far as it is a remedy for its contrary. And this is why bodily
pleasures, which are contrary to certain sorrows, are more sought
than intellectual pleasures, which have no contrary sorrow, as we
shall state later on (Q. 35, A. 5). And this explains why all animals
naturally desire pleasure: because animals ever work through sense
and movement. For this reason also young people are most inclined to
seek pleasures; on account of the many changes to which they are
subject, while yet growing. Moreover this is why the melancholic has
a strong desire for pleasures, in order to drive away sorrow: because
his "body is corroded by a base humor," as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 14.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily goods are conditioned by a certain fixed
measure: wherefore surfeit of such things destroys the proper good,
and consequently gives rise to disgust and sorrow, through being
contrary to the proper good of man.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 8]

Whether Wonder Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that wonder is not a cause of pleasure.
Because wonder is the act of one who is ignorant of the nature of
something, as Damascene says. But knowledge, rather than ignorance,
is a cause of pleasure. Therefore wonder is not a cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, wonder is the beginning of wisdom, being as it were,
the road to the search of truth, as stated in the beginning of
_Metaph._ i, 2. But "it is more pleasant to think of what we know,
than to seek what we know not," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x,
7): since in the latter case we encounter difficulties and
hindrances, in the former not; while pleasure arises from an
operation which is unhindered, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 12, 13.
Therefore wonder hinders rather than causes pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, everyone takes pleasure in what he is accustomed to:
wherefore the actions of habits acquired by custom, are pleasant. But
"we wonder at what is unwonted," as Augustine says (Tract. xxiv in
Joan.). Therefore wonder is contrary to the cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that wonder is
the cause of pleasure.

_I answer that,_ It is pleasant to get what one desires, as stated
above (Q. 23, A. 4): and therefore the greater the desire for the
thing loved, the greater the pleasure when it is attained: indeed the
very increase of desire brings with it an increase of pleasure,
according as it gives rise to the hope of obtaining that which is
loved, since it was stated above (A. 3, ad 3) that desire resulting
from hope is a cause of pleasure. Now wonder is a kind of desire for
knowledge; a desire which comes to man when he sees an effect of
which the cause either is unknown to him, or surpasses his knowledge
or faculty of understanding. Consequently wonder is a cause of
pleasure, in so far as it includes a hope of getting the knowledge
which one desires to have. For this reason whatever is wonderful is
pleasing, for instance things that are scarce. Also, representations
of things, even of those which are not pleasant in themselves, give
rise to pleasure; for the soul rejoices in comparing one thing with
another, because comparison of one thing with another is the proper
and connatural act of the reason, as the Philosopher says (Poet. iv).
This again is why "it is more delightful to be delivered from great
danger, because it is something wonderful," as stated in _Rhetor._ i,
11.

Reply Obj. 1: Wonder gives pleasure, not because it implies
ignorance, but in so far as it includes the desire of learning the
cause, and in so far as the wonderer learns something new, i.e. that
the cause is other than he had thought it to be. [*According to
another reading:--that he is other than he thought himself to be.]

Reply Obj. 2: Pleasure includes two things; rest in the good, and
perception of this rest. As to the former therefore, since it is more
perfect to contemplate the known truth, than to seek for the unknown,
the contemplation of what we know, is in itself more pleasing than
the research of what we do not know. Nevertheless, as to the second,
it happens that research is sometimes more pleasing accidentally, in
so far as it proceeds from a greater desire: for greater desire is
awakened when we are conscious of our ignorance. This is why man
takes the greatest pleasure in finding or learning things for the
first time.

Reply Obj. 3: It is pleasant to do what we are wont to do, inasmuch
as this is connatural to us, as it were. And yet things that are of
rare occurrence can be pleasant, either as regards knowledge, from
the fact that we desire to know something about them, in so far as
they are wonderful; or as regards action, from the fact that "the
mind is more inclined by desire to act intensely in things that are
new," as stated in _Ethic._ x, 4, since more perfect operation
causes more perfect pleasure.
________________________

QUESTION 33

OF THE EFFECTS OF PLEASURE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of pleasure; and under this head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether expansion is an effect of pleasure?

(2) Whether pleasure causes thirst or desire for itself?

(3) Whether pleasure hinders the use of reason?

(4) Whether pleasure perfects operation?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 1]

Whether Expansion Is an Effect of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that expansion is not an effect of
pleasure. For expansion seems to pertain more to love, according to
the Apostle (2 Cor. 6:11): "Our heart is enlarged." Wherefore it is
written (Ps. 118:96) concerning the precept of charity: "Thy
commandment is exceeding broad." But pleasure is a distinct passion
from love. Therefore expansion is not an effect of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, when a thing expands it is enabled to receive more.
But receiving pertains to desire, which is for something not yet
possessed. Therefore expansion seems to belong to desire rather than
to pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, contraction is contrary to expansion. But
contraction seems to belong to pleasure, for the hand closes on that
which we wish to grasp firmly: and such is the affection of appetite
in regard to that which pleases it. Therefore expansion does not
pertain to pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ In order to express joy, it is written (Isa.
60:5): "Thou shall see and abound, thy heart shall wonder and be
enlarged." Moreover pleasure is called by the name of "laetitia" as
being derived from "dilatatio" (expansion), as stated above (Q. 31,
A. 3, ad 3).

_I answer that,_ Breadth (_latitudo_)is a dimension of bodily
magnitude: hence it is not applied to the emotions of the soul, save
metaphorically. Now expansion denotes a kind of movement towards
breadth; and it belongs to pleasure in respect of the two things
requisite for pleasure. One of these is on the part of the
apprehensive power, which is cognizant of the conjunction with some
suitable good. As a result of this apprehension, man perceives that
he has attained a certain perfection, which is a magnitude of the
spiritual order: and in this respect man's mind is said to be
magnified or expanded by pleasure. The other requisite for pleasure
is on the part of the appetitive power, which acquiesces in the
pleasurable object, and rests therein, offering, as it were, to
enfold it within itself. And thus man's affection is expanded by
pleasure, as though it surrendered itself to hold within itself the
object of its pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: In metaphorical expressions nothing hinders one and the
same thing from being attributed to different things according to
different likenesses. And in this way expansion pertains to love by
reason of a certain spreading out, in so far as the affection of the
lover spreads out to others, so as to care, not only for his own
interests, but also for what concerns others. On the other hand
expansion pertains to pleasure, in so far as a thing becomes more
ample in itself so as to become more capacious.

Reply Obj. 2: Desire includes a certain expansion arising from the
imagination of the thing desired; but this expansion increases at the
presence of the pleasurable object: because the mind surrenders
itself more to that object when it is already taking pleasure in it,
than when it desires it before possessing it; since pleasure is the
end of desire.

Reply Obj. 3: He that takes pleasure in a thing holds it fast, by
clinging to it with all his might: but he opens his heart to it that
he may enjoy it perfectly.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 2]

Whether Pleasure Causes Thirst or Desire for Itself?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure does not cause desire for
itself. Because all movement ceases when repose is reached. But
pleasure is, as it were, a certain repose of the movement of desire,
as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4; Q. 25, A. 2). Therefore the movement of
desire ceases when pleasure is reached. Therefore pleasure does not
cause desire.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing does not cause its contrary. But pleasure
is, in a way, contrary to desire, on the part of the object: since
desire regards a good which is not yet possessed, whereas pleasure
regards the good that is possessed. Therefore pleasure does not cause
desire for itself.

Obj. 3: Further, distaste is incompatible with desire. But pleasure
often causes distaste. Therefore it does not cause desire.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of
this water, shall thirst again": where, according to Augustine
(Tract. xv in Joan.), water denotes pleasures of the body.

_I answer that,_ Pleasure can be considered in two ways; first, as
existing in reality; secondly, as existing in the memory. Again
thirst, or desire, can be taken in two ways; first, properly, as
denoting a craving for something not possessed; secondly, in general,
as excluding distaste.

Considered as existing in reality, pleasure does not of itself cause
thirst or desire for itself, but only accidentally; provided we take
thirst or desire as denoting a craving for some thing not possessed:
because pleasure is an emotion of the appetite in respect of
something actually present. But it may happen that what is actually
present is not perfectly possessed: and this may be on the part of
the thing possessed, or on the part of the possessor. On the part of
the thing possessed, this happens through the thing possessed not
being a simultaneous whole; wherefore one obtains possession of it
successively, and while taking pleasure in what one has, one desires
to possess the remainder: thus if a man is pleased with the first
part of a verse, he desires to hear the second part, as Augustine
says (Confess. iv, 11). In this way nearly all bodily pleasures cause
thirst for themselves, until they are fully realized, because
pleasures of this kind arise from some movement: as is evident in
pleasures of the table. On the part of the possessor, this happens
when a man possesses a thing which is perfect in itself, yet does not
possess it perfectly, but obtains possession of it little by little.
Thus in this life, a faint perception of Divine knowledge affords us
delight, and delight sets up a thirst or desire for perfect
knowledge; in which sense we may understand the words of Ecclus.
24:29: "They that drink me shall yet thirst."

On the other hand, if by thirst or desire we understand the mere
intensity of the emotion, that excludes distaste, thus more than all
others spiritual pleasures cause thirst or desire for themselves.
Because bodily pleasures become distasteful by reason of their
causing an excess in the natural mode of being, when they are
increased or even when they are protracted; as is evident in the case
of pleasures of the table. This is why, when a man arrives at the
point of perfection in bodily pleasures, he wearies of them, and
sometimes desires another kind. Spiritual pleasures, on the contrary,
do not exceed the natural mode of being, but perfect nature. Hence
when their point of perfection is reached, then do they afford the
greatest delight: except, perchance, accidentally, in so far as the
work of contemplation is accompanied by some operation of the bodily
powers, which tire from protracted activity. And in this sense also
we may understand those words of Ecclus. 24:29: "They that drink me
shall yet thirst": for, even of the angels, who know God perfectly,
and delight in Him, it is written (1 Pet. 1:12) that they "desire to
look at Him."

Lastly, if we consider pleasure, not as existing in reality, but as
existing in the memory, thus it has of itself a natural tendency to
cause thirst and desire for itself: when, to wit, man returns to that
disposition, in which he was when he experienced the pleasure that is
past. But if he be changed from that disposition, the memory of that
pleasure does not give him pleasure, but distaste: for instance, the
memory of food in respect of a man who has eaten to repletion.

Reply Obj. 1: When pleasure is perfect, then it includes complete
rest; and the movement of desire, tending to what was not possessed,
ceases. But when it is imperfect, then the desire, tending to what
was not possessed, does not cease altogether.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is possessed imperfectly, is possessed in
one respect, and in another respect is not possessed. Consequently it
may be the object of desire and pleasure at the same time.

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasures cause distaste in one way, desire in another,
as stated above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 3]

Whether Pleasure Hinders the Use of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure does not hinder the use of
reason. Because repose facilitates very much the due use of reason:
wherefore the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, 3) that "while we sit and
rest, the soul is inclined to knowledge and prudence"; and it is
written (Wis. 8:16): "When I go into my house, I shall repose myself
with her," i.e. wisdom. But pleasure is a kind of repose. Therefore
it helps rather than hinders the use of reason.

Obj. 2: Further, things which are not in the same subject though they
be contraries, do not hinder one another. But pleasure is in the
appetitive faculty, while the use of reason is in the apprehensive
power. Therefore pleasure does not hinder the use of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is hindered by another, seems to be
moved, as it were, thereby. But the use of an apprehensive power
moves pleasure rather than is moved by it: because it is the cause of
pleasure. Therefore pleasure does not hinder the use of reason.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5), that
"pleasure destroys the estimate of prudence."

_I answer that,_ As is stated in _Ethic._ x, 5, "appropriate
pleasures increase activity . . . whereas pleasures arising from
other sources are impediments to activity." Accordingly there is a
certain pleasure that is taken in the very act of reason, as when one
takes pleasure in contemplating or in reasoning: and such pleasure
does not hinder the act of reason, but helps it; because we are more
attentive in doing that which gives us pleasure, and attention
fosters activity.

On the other hand bodily pleasures hinder the use of reason in three
ways. First, by distracting the reason. Because, as we have just
observed, we attend much to that which pleases us. Now when the
attention is firmly fixed on one thing, it is either weakened in
respect of other things, or it is entirely withdrawn from them; and
thus if the bodily pleasure be great, either it entirely hinders the
use of reason, by concentrating the mind's attention on itself; or
else it hinders it considerably. Secondly, by being contrary to
reason. Because some pleasures, especially those that are in excess,
are contrary to the order of reason: and in this sense the
Philosopher says that "bodily pleasures destroy the estimate of
prudence, but not the speculative estimate," to which they are not
opposed, "for instance that the three angles of a triangle are
together equal to two right angles." In the first sense, however,
they hinder both estimates. Thirdly, by fettering the reason: in so
far as bodily pleasure is followed by a certain alteration in the
body, greater even than in the other passions, in proportion as the
appetite is more vehemently affected towards a present than towards
an absent thing. Now such bodily disturbances hinder the use of
reason; as may be seen in the case of drunkards, in whom the use of
reason is fettered or hindered.

Reply Obj. 1: Bodily pleasure implies indeed repose of the appetite
in the object of pleasure; which repose is sometimes contrary to
reason; but on the part of the body it always implies alteration.
And in respect of both points, it hinders the use of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The powers of the appetite and of apprehension are
indeed distinct parts, but belonging to the one soul. Consequently
when the soul is very intent on the action of one part, it is
hindered from attending to a contrary act of the other part.

Reply Obj. 3: The use of reason requires the due use of the
imagination and of the other sensitive powers, which are exercised
through a bodily organ. Consequently alteration in the body hinders
the use of reason, because it hinders the act of the imagination
and of the other sensitive powers.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 4]

Whether Pleasure Perfects Operation?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure does not perfect operation.
For every human operation depends on the use of reason. But pleasure
hinders the use of reason, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore
pleasure does not perfect, but weakens human operation.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing perfects itself or its cause. But
pleasure is an operation (Ethic. vii, 12; x, 4), i.e. either in its
essence or in its cause. Therefore pleasure does not perfect
operation.

Obj. 3: Further, if pleasure perfects operation, it does so
either as end, or as form, or as agent. But not as end; because
operation is not sought for the sake of pleasure, but rather the
reverse, as stated above (Q. 4, A. 2): nor as agent, because
rather is it the operation that causes pleasure: nor again as form,
because, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 4), "pleasure does
not perfect operation, as a habit does." Therefore pleasure does not
perfect operation.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure
perfects operation."

_I answer that,_ Pleasure perfects operation in two ways. First, as an
end: not indeed according as an end is that on "account of which a
thing is"; but according as every good which is added to a thing and
completes it, can be called its end. And in this sense the Philosopher
says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure perfects operation . . . as some end
added to it": that is to say, inasmuch as to this good, which is
operation, there is added another good, which is pleasure, denoting
the repose of the appetite in a good that is presupposed. Secondly, as
agent; not indeed directly, for the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4)
that "pleasure perfects operation, not as a physician makes a man
healthy, but as health does": but it does so indirectly; inasmuch as
the agent, through taking pleasure in his action, is more eagerly
intent on it, and carries it out with greater care. And in this sense
it is said in _Ethic._ x, 5 that "pleasures increase their appropriate
activities, and hinder those that are not appropriate."

Reply Obj. 1: It is not every pleasure that hinders the act of
reason, but only bodily pleasure; for this arises, not from the act
of reason, but from the act of the concupiscible faculty, which act
is intensified by pleasure. _On the contrary,_ pleasure that arises
from the act of reason, strengthens the use of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated in _Phys._ ii, 3 two things may be causes of
one another, if one be the efficient, the other the final cause. And
in this way, operation is the efficient cause of pleasure, while
pleasure perfects operation by way of final cause, as stated above.

The Reply to the Third Objection is evident for what has been said.
________________________

QUESTION 34

OF THE GOODNESS AND MALICE OF PLEASURES
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the goodness and malice of pleasures: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether every pleasure is evil?

(2) If not, whether every pleasure is good?

(3) Whether any pleasure is the greatest good?

(4) Whether pleasure is the measure or rule by which to judge of
moral good and evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 1]

Whether Every Pleasure Is Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that every pleasure is evil. For that
which destroys prudence and hinders the use of reason, seems to be
evil in itself: since man's good is to be "in accord with reason," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure destroys prudence and
hinders the use of reason; and so much the more, as the pleasure is
greater: wherefore "in sexual pleasures," which are the greatest of
all, "it is impossible to understand anything," as stated in _Ethic._
vii, 11. Moreover, Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew [*Origen,
Hom. vi in Num.] that "at the time of conjugal intercourse, the
presence of the Holy Ghost is not vouchsafed, even if it be a prophet
that fulfils the conjugal duty." Therefore pleasure is evil in
itself; and consequently every pleasure is evil.

Obj. 2: Further, that which the virtuous man shuns, and the man
lacking in virtue seeks, seems to be evil in itself, and should be
avoided; because, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 5 "the virtuous man is a
kind of measure and rule of human actions"; and the Apostle says (1
Cor. 2:15): "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But children and
dumb animals, in whom there is no virtue, seek pleasure: whereas the
man who is master of himself does not. Therefore pleasures are evil
in themselves and should be avoided.

Obj. 3: Further, "virtue and art are concerned about the difficult
and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no art is ordained to pleasure.
Therefore pleasure is not something good.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 36:4): "Delight in the Lord."
Since, therefore, Divine authority leads to no evil, it seems that
not every pleasure is evil.

_I answer that,_ As stated in _Ethic._ x, 2, 3, some have maintained
that all pleasure is evil. The reason seems to have been that they
took account only of sensible and bodily pleasures which are more
manifest; since, also in other respects, the ancient philosophers did
not discriminate between the intelligible and the sensible, nor
between intellect and sense (De Anima iii, 3). And they held that all
bodily pleasures should be reckoned as bad, and thus that man, being
prone to immoderate pleasures, arrives at the mean of virtue by
abstaining from pleasure. But they were wrong in holding this
opinion. Because, since none can live without some sensible and
bodily pleasure, if they who teach that all pleasures are evil, are
found in the act of taking pleasure; men will be more inclined to
pleasure by following the example of their works instead of listening
to the doctrine of their words: since, in human actions and passions,
wherein experience is of great weight, example moves more than words.

We must therefore say that some pleasures are good, and that some are
evil. For pleasure is a repose of the appetitive power in some loved
good, and resulting from some operation; wherefore we assign a
twofold reason for this assertion. The first is in respect of the
good in which a man reposes with pleasure. For good and evil in the
moral order depend on agreement or disagreement with reason, as
stated above (Q. 18, A. 5): just as in the order of nature, a thing
is said to be natural, if it agrees with nature, and unnatural, if
it disagrees. Accordingly, just as in the natural order there is a
certain natural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which agrees
with its nature, for instance, when a heavy body rests down below;
and again an unnatural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which
disagrees with its nature, as when a heavy body rests up aloft: so,
in the moral order, there is a good pleasure, whereby the higher or
lower appetite rests in that which is in accord with reason; and an
evil pleasure, whereby the appetite rests in that which is discordant
from reason and the law of God.

The second reason can be found by considering the actions, some of
which are good, some evil. Now pleasures which are conjoined to
actions are more akin to those actions, than desires, which precede
them in point of time. Wherefore, since the desires of good actions
are good, and of evil actions, evil; much more are the pleasures of
good actions good, and those of evil actions evil.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 33, A. 3), it is not the pleasures
which result from an act of reason, that hinder the reason or destroy
prudence, but extraneous pleasures, such as the pleasures of the
body. These indeed hinder the use of reason, as stated above (Q. 33,
A. 3), either by contrariety of the appetite that rests in something
repugnant to reason, which makes the pleasure morally bad; or by
fettering the reason: thus in conjugal intercourse, though the
pleasure be in accord with reason, yet it hinders the use of reason,
on account of the accompanying bodily change. But in this case the
pleasure is not morally evil; as neither is sleep, whereby the reason
is fettered, morally evil, if it be taken according to reason: for
reason itself demands that the use of reason be interrupted at times.
We must add, however, that although this fettering of the reason
through the pleasure of conjugal intercourse has no moral malice,
since it is neither a mortal nor a venial sin; yet it proceeds from a
kind of moral malice, namely, from the sin of our first parent;
because, as stated in the First Part (Q. 98, A. 2) the case was
different in the state of innocence.

Reply Obj. 2: The temperate man does not shun all pleasures, but
those that are immoderate, and contrary to reason. The fact that
children and dumb animals seek pleasures, does not prove that all
pleasures are evil: because they have from God their natural
appetite, which is moved to that which is naturally suitable to them.

Reply Obj. 3: Art is not concerned with all kinds of good, but with
the making of external things, as we shall state further on (Q. 57,
A. 3). But actions and passions, which are within us, are more the
concern of prudence and virtue than of art. Nevertheless there is an
art of making pleasure, namely, "the art of cookery and the art of
making arguments," as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 12.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 2]

Whether Every Pleasure Is Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that every pleasure is good. Because as
stated in the First Part (Q. 5, A. 6) there are three kinds of good:
the virtuous, the useful, and the pleasant. But everything virtuous
is good; and in like manner everything useful is good. Therefore also
every pleasure is good.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is not sought for the sake of something
else, is good in itself, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 6, 7. But pleasure
is not sought for the sake of something else; for it seems absurd to
ask anyone why he seeks to be pleased. Therefore pleasure is good in
itself. Now that which is predicated of a thing considered in itself,
is predicated thereof universally. Therefore every pleasure is good.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is desired by all, seems to be good of
itself: because good is "what all things seek," as stated in _Ethic._
i, 1. But everyone seeks some kind of pleasure, even children and
dumb animals. Therefore pleasure is good in itself: and consequently
all pleasure is good.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 2:14): "Who are glad when
they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things."

_I answer that,_ While some of the Stoics maintained that all
pleasures are evil, the Epicureans held that pleasure is good in
itself, and that consequently all pleasures are good. They seem to
have thus erred through not discriminating between that which is good
simply, and that which is good in respect of a particular individual.
That which is good simply, is good in itself. Now that which is not
good in itself, may be good in respect of some individual in two
ways. In one way, because it is suitable to him by reason of a
disposition in which he is now, which disposition, however, is not
natural: thus it is sometimes good for a leper to eat things that are
poisonous, which are not suitable simply to the human temperament. In
another way, through something unsuitable being esteemed suitable.
And since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in some good, if the
appetite reposes in that which is good simply, the pleasure will be
pleasure simply, and good simply. But if a man's appetite repose in
that which is good, not simply, but in respect of that particular
man, then his pleasure will not be pleasure simply, but a pleasure to
him; neither will it be good simply, but in a certain respect, or an
apparent good.

Reply Obj. 1: The virtuous and the useful depend on accordance with
reason, and consequently nothing is virtuous or useful, without being
good. But the pleasant depends on agreement with the appetite, which
tends sometimes to that which is discordant from reason. Consequently
not every object of pleasure is good in the moral order which depends
on the order of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason why pleasure is not sought for the sake of
something else is because it is repose in the end. Now the end may be
either good or evil; although nothing can be an end except in so far
as it is good in respect of such and such a man: and so too with
regard to pleasure.

Reply Obj. 3: All things seek pleasure in the same way as they seek
good: since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in good. But, just
as it happens that not every good which is desired, is of itself and
verily good; so not every pleasure is of itself and verily good.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 3]

Whether Any Pleasure Is the Greatest Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that no pleasure is the greatest good.
Because nothing generated is the greatest good: since generation
cannot be the last end. But pleasure is a consequence of generation:
for the fact that a thing takes pleasure is due to its being
established in its own nature, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1).
Therefore no pleasure is the greatest good.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is the greatest good cannot be made
better by addition. But pleasure is made better by addition; since
pleasure together with virtue is better than pleasure without virtue.
Therefore pleasure is not the greatest good.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is the greatest good is universally good,
as being good of itself: since that which is such of itself is prior
to and greater than that which is such accidentally. But pleasure is
not universally good, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore pleasure is
not the greatest good.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is the greatest good: since it is the
end of man's life. But Happiness is not without pleasure: for it is
written (Ps. 15:11): "Thou shalt fill me with joy with Thy
countenance; at Thy right hand are delights even to the end."

_I answer that,_ Plato held neither with the Stoics, who asserted
that all pleasures are evil, nor with the Epicureans, who maintained
that all pleasures are good; but he said that some are good, and some
evil; yet, so that no pleasure be the sovereign or greatest good.
But, judging from his arguments, he fails in two points. First,
because, from observing that sensible and bodily pleasure consists in
a certain movement and "becoming," as is evident in satiety from
eating and the like; he concluded that all pleasure arises from some
"becoming" and movement: and from this, since "becoming" and movement
are the acts of something imperfect, it would follow that pleasure is
not of the nature of ultimate perfection. But this is seen to be
evidently false as regards intellectual pleasures: because one takes
pleasure, not only in the "becoming" of knowledge, for instance, when
one learns or wonders, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 8, ad 2); but also
in the act of contemplation, by making use of knowledge already
acquired.

Secondly, because by greatest good he understood that which is the
supreme good simply, i.e. the good as existing apart from, and
unparticipated by, all else, in which sense God is the Supreme Good;
whereas we are speaking of the greatest good in human things. Now the
greatest good of everything is its last end. And the end, as stated
above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7) is twofold; namely, the thing itself,
and the use of that thing; thus the miser's end is either money or
the possession of money. Accordingly, man's last end may be said to
be either God Who is the Supreme Good simply; or the enjoyment of
God, which implies a certain pleasure in the last end. And in this
sense a certain pleasure of man may be said to be the greatest among
human goods.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every pleasure arises from a "becoming"; for some
pleasures result from perfect operations, as stated above.
Accordingly nothing prevents some pleasure being the greatest good,
although every pleasure is not such.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument is true of the greatest good simply, by
participation of which all things are good; wherefore no addition can
make it better: whereas in regard to other goods, it is universally
true that any good becomes better by the addition of another good.
Moreover it might be said that pleasure is not something extraneous
to the operation of virtue, but that it accompanies it, as stated in
_Ethic._ i, 8.

Reply Obj. 3: That pleasure is the greatest good is due not to the
mere fact that it is pleasure, but to the fact that it is perfect
repose in the perfect good. Hence it does not follow that every
pleasure is supremely good, or even good at all. Thus a certain
science is supremely good, but not every science is.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 4]

Whether Pleasure Is the Measure or Rule by Which to Judge of Moral
Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure is not the measure or rule
of moral good and evil. Because "that which is first in a genus is
the measure of all the rest" (Metaph. x, 1). But pleasure is not the
first thing in the moral genus, for it is preceded by love and
desire. Therefore it is not the rule of goodness and malice in moral
matters.

Obj. 2: Further, a measure or rule should be uniform; hence that
movement which is the most uniform, is the measure and rule of all
movements (Metaph. x, 1). But pleasures are various and multiform:
since some of them are good, and some evil. Therefore pleasure is not
the measure and rule of morals.

Obj. 3: Further, judgment of the effect from its cause is more
certain than judgment of cause from effect. Now goodness or malice of
operation is the cause of goodness or malice of pleasure: because
"those pleasures are good which result from good operations, and
those are evil which arise from evil operations," as stated in
_Ethic._ x, 5. Therefore pleasures are not the rule and measure of
moral goodness and malice.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine, commenting on Ps. 7:10 "The searcher of
hearts and reins is God," says: "The end of care and thought is the
pleasure which each one aims at achieving." And the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 11) that "pleasure is the architect," i.e. the
principal, "end [*St. Thomas took _finis_ as being the nominative,
whereas it is the genitive--_tou telous_; and the Greek reads "He"
(i.e. the political philosopher), "is the architect of the end."], in
regard to which, we say absolutely that this is evil, and that, good."

_I answer that,_ Moral goodness or malice depends chiefly on the
will, as stated above (Q. 20, A. 1); and it is chiefly from the end
that we discern whether the will is good or evil. Now the end is
taken to be that in which the will reposes: and the repose of the
will and of every appetite in the good is pleasure. And therefore man
is reckoned to be good or bad chiefly according to the pleasure of
the human will; since that man is good and virtuous, who takes
pleasure in the works of virtue; and that man evil, who takes
pleasure in evil works.

On the other hand, pleasures of the sensitive appetite are not the
rule of moral goodness and malice; since food is universally
pleasurable to the sensitive appetite both of good and of evil men.
But the will of the good man takes pleasure in them in accordance
with reason, to which the will of the evil man gives no heed.

Reply Obj. 1: Love and desire precede pleasure in the order of
generation. But pleasure precedes them in the order of the end, which
serves a principle in actions; and it is by the principle, which is
the rule and measure of such matters, that we form our judgment.

Reply Obj. 2: All pleasures are uniform in the point of their being
the repose of the appetite in something good: and in this respect
pleasure can be a rule or measure. Because that man is good, whose
will rests in the true good: and that man evil, whose will rests in
evil.

Reply Obj. 3: Since pleasure perfects operation as its end, as stated
above (Q. 33, A. 4); an operation cannot be perfectly good, unless
there be also pleasure in good: because the goodness of a thing
depends on its end. And thus, in a way, the goodness of the pleasure
is the cause of goodness in the operation.
________________________

QUESTION 35

OF PAIN OR SORROW, IN ITSELF
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider pain and sorrow: concerning which we must
consider: (1) Sorrow or pain in itself; (2) Its cause; (3) Its
effects; (4) Its remedies; (5) Its goodness or malice.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether pain is a passion of the soul?

(2) Whether sorrow is the same as pain?

(3) Whether sorrow or pain is contrary [to] pleasure?

(4) Whether all sorrow is contrary to all pleasure?

(5) Whether there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of
contemplation?

(6) Whether sorrow is to be shunned more than pleasure is to be
sought?

(7) Whether exterior pain is greater than interior?

(8) Of the species of sorrow.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 1]

Whether Pain Is a Passion of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that pain is not a passion of the soul.
Because no passion of the soul is in the body. But pain can be in the
body, since Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xii), that "bodily pain is
a sudden corruption of the well-being of that thing which the soul,
by making evil use of it, made subject to corruption." Therefore pain
is not a passion of the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the appetitive
faculty. But pain does not belong to the appetitive, but rather to
the apprehensive part: for Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx) that
"bodily pain is caused by the sense resisting a more powerful body."
Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the animal
appetite. But pain does not belong to the animal appetite, but rather
to the natural appetite; for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 14):
"Had not some good remained in nature, we should feel no pain in
being punished by the loss of good." Therefore pain is not a passion
of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8) reckons pain among
the passions of the soul; quoting Virgil (Aeneid, vi, 733):

"hence wild desires and grovelling fears
And human laughter, human tears."
[Translation: Conington.]

_I answer that,_ Just as two things are requisite for pleasure;
namely, conjunction with good and perception of this conjunction; so
also two things are requisite for pain: namely, conjunction with some
evil (which is in so far evil as it deprives one of some good), and
perception of this conjunction. Now whatever is conjoined, if it have
not the aspect of good or evil in regard to the being to which it is
conjoined, cannot cause pleasure or pain. Whence it is evident that
something under the aspect of good or evil is the object of the
pleasure or pain. But good and evil, as such, are objects of the
appetite. Consequently it is clear that pleasure and pain belong to
the appetite.

Now every appetitive movement or inclination consequent to
apprehension, belongs to the intellective or sensitive appetite:
since the inclination of the natural appetite is not consequent to an
apprehension of the subject of that appetite, but to the apprehension
of another, as stated in the First Part (Q. 103, AA. 1, 3). Since
then pleasure and pain presuppose some sense or apprehension in the
same subject, it is evident that pain, like pleasure, is in the
intellective or sensitive appetite.

Again every movement of the sensitive appetite is called a passion,
as stated above (Q. 22, AA. 1, 3): and especially those which tend to
some defect. Consequently pain, according as it is in the sensitive
appetite, is most properly called a passion of the soul: just as
bodily ailments are properly called passions of the body. Hence
Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 8 [*Quoting Cicero]) reckons pain
especially as being a kind of ailment.

Reply Obj. 1: We speak of the body, because the cause of pain is in
the body: as when we suffer something hurtful to the body. But the
movement of pain is always in the soul; since "the body cannot feel
pain unless the soul feel it," as Augustine says (Super Psalm. 87:4).

Reply Obj. 2: We speak of pain of the senses, not as though it were
an act of the sensitive power; but because the senses are required
for bodily pain, in the same way as for bodily pleasure.

Reply Obj. 3: Pain at the loss of good proves the goodness of the
nature, not because pain is an act of the natural appetite, but
because nature desires something as good, the removal of which being
perceived, there results the passion of pain in the sensitive
appetite.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 2]

Whether Sorrow Is the Same As Pain?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not pain. For Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) that "pain is used to express bodily suffering."
But sorrow is used more in reference to the soul. Therefore sorrow is
not pain.

Obj. 2: Further, pain is only in respect of present evil. But sorrow
can refer to both past and future evil: thus repentance is sorrow for
the past, and anxiety for the future. Therefore sorrow is quite
different from pain.

Obj. 3: Further, pain seems not to follow save from the sense of
touch. But sorrow can arise from all the senses. Therefore sorrow is
not pain, and extends to more objects.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 9:2): "I have great sorrow
[Douay: 'sadness'] and continual pain [Douay: 'sorrow'] in my heart,"
thus denoting the same thing by sorrow and pain.

_I answer that,_ Pleasure and pain can arise from a twofold
apprehension, namely, from the apprehension of an exterior sense; and
from the interior apprehension of the intellect or of the
imagination. Now the interior apprehension extends to more objects
than the exterior apprehension: because whatever things come under
the exterior apprehension, come under the interior, but not
conversely. Consequently that pleasure alone which is caused by an
interior apprehension is called joy, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 3):
and in like manner that pain alone which is caused by an interior
apprehension, is called sorrow. And just as that pleasure which is
caused by an exterior apprehension, is called pleasure but not joy;
so too that pain which is caused by an exterior apprehension, is
called pain indeed but not sorrow. Accordingly sorrow is a species of
pain, as joy is a species of pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there of the use of the word:
because "pain" is more generally used in reference to bodily pains,
which are better known, than in reference to spiritual pains.

Reply Obj. 2: External sense perceives only what is present; but the
interior cognitive power can perceive the present, past and future.
Consequently sorrow can regard present, past and future: whereas
bodily pain, which follows apprehension of the external sense, can
only regard something present.

Reply Obj. 3: The sensibles of touch are painful, not only in so far
as they are disproportionate to the apprehensive power, but also in
so far as they are contrary to nature: whereas the objects of the
other senses can indeed be disproportionate to the apprehensive
power, but they are not contrary to nature, save as they are
subordinate to the sensibles of touch. Consequently man alone, who is
a perfectly cognizant animal, takes pleasure in the objects of the
other senses for their own sake; whereas other animals take no
pleasure in them save as referable to the sensibles of touch, as
stated in _Ethic._ iii, 10. Accordingly, in referring to the objects
of the other senses, we do not speak of pain in so far as it is
contrary to natural pleasure: but rather of sorrow, which is contrary
to joy. So then if pain be taken as denoting bodily pain, which is
its more usual meaning, then it is contrasted with sorrow, according
to the distinction of interior and exterior apprehension; although,
on the part of the objects, pleasure extends further than does bodily
pain. But if pain be taken in a wide sense, then it is the genus of
sorrow, as stated above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow or Pain Is Contrary to Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not contrary to pleasure.
For one of two contraries is not the cause of the other. But sorrow
can be the cause of pleasure; for it is written (Matt. 5:5): "Blessed
are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Therefore they are
not contrary to one another.

Obj. 2: Further, one contrary does not denominate the other. But to
some, pain or sorrow gives pleasure: thus Augustine says (Confess.
iii, 2) that in stage-plays sorrow itself gives pleasure: and
(Confess. iv, 5) that "weeping is a bitter thing, and yet it
sometimes pleases us." Therefore pain is not contrary to pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, one contrary is not the matter of the other; because
contraries cannot co-exist together. But sorrow can be the matter of
pleasure; for Augustine says (De Poenit. xiii): "The penitent should
ever sorrow, and rejoice in his sorrow." The Philosopher too says
(Ethic. ix, 4) that, on the other hand, "the evil man feels pain at
having been pleased." Therefore pleasure and pain are not contrary to
one another.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "joy is
the volition of consent to the things we wish: and that sorrow is the
volition of dissent from the things we do not wish." But consent and
dissent are contraries. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are contrary to
one another.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, 4), contrariety
is a difference in respect of a form. Now the form or species of a
passion or movement is taken from the object or term. Consequently,
since the objects of pleasure and sorrow or pain, viz. present good
and present evil, are contrary to one another, it follows that pain
and pleasure are contrary to one another.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders one contrary causing the other
accidentally: and thus sorrow can be the cause of pleasure. In one
way, in so far as from sorrow at the absence of something, or at the
presence of its contrary, one seeks the more eagerly for something
pleasant: thus a thirsty man seeks more eagerly the pleasure of a
drink, as a remedy for the pain he suffers. In another way, in so far
as, from a strong desire for a certain pleasure, one does not shrink
from undergoing pain, so as to obtain that pleasure. In each of these
ways, the sorrows of the present life lead us to the comfort of the
future life. Because by the mere fact that man mourns for his sins,
or for the delay of glory, he merits the consolation of eternity. In
like manner a man merits it when he shrinks not from hardships and
straits in order to obtain it.

Reply Obj. 2: Pain itself can be pleasurable accidentally in so far
as it is accompanied by wonder, as in stage-plays; or in so far as it
recalls a beloved object to one's memory, and makes one feel one's
love for the thing, whose absence gives us pain. Consequently, since
love is pleasant, both pain and whatever else results from love,
forasmuch as they remind us of our love, are pleasant. And, for this
reason, we derive pleasure even from pains depicted on the stage: in
so far as, in witnessing them, we perceive ourselves to conceive a
certain love for those who are there represented.

Reply Obj. 3: The will and the reason reflect on their own acts,
inasmuch as the acts themselves of the will and reason are considered
under the aspect of good or evil. In this way sorrow can be the
matter of pleasure, or vice versa, not essentially but accidentally:
that is, in so far as either of them is considered under the aspect
of good or evil.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 4]

Whether All Sorrow Is Contrary to All Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that all sorrow is contrary to all
pleasure. Because, just as whiteness and blackness are contrary
species of color, so pleasure and sorrow are contrary species of the
soul's passions. But whiteness and blackness are universally contrary
to one another. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are so too.

Obj. 2: Further, remedies are made of things contrary (to the evil).
But every pleasure is a remedy for all manner of sorrow, as the
Philosopher declares (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore every pleasure is
contrary to every sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, contraries are hindrances to one another. But every
sorrow hinders any kind of pleasure: as is evident from _Ethic._
x, 5. Therefore every sorrow is contrary to every pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The same thing is not the cause of contraries. But
joy for one thing, and sorrow for the opposite thing, proceed from
the same habit: thus from charity it happens that we "rejoice with
them that rejoice," and "weep with them that weep" (Rom. 12:15).
Therefore not every sorrow is contrary to every pleasure.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, 4), contrariety
is a difference in respect of a form. Now a form may be generic or
specific. Consequently things may be contraries in respect of a
generic form, as virtue and vice; or in respect of a specific form,
as justice and injustice.

Now we must observe that some things are specified by absolute forms,
e.g. substances and qualities; whereas other things are specified in
relation to something extrinsic, e.g. passions and movements, which
derive their species from their terms or objects. Accordingly in
those things that are specified by absolute forms, it happens that
species contained under contrary genera are not contrary as to their
specific nature: but it does not happen for them to have any affinity
or fittingness to one another. For intemperance and justice, which
are in the contrary genera of virtue and vice, are not contrary to
one another in respect of their specific nature; and yet they have no
affinity or fittingness to one another. On the other hand, in those
things that are specified in relation to something extrinsic, it
happens that species belonging to contrary genera, are not only not
contrary to one another, but also that they have a certain mutual
affinity or fittingness. The reason of this is that where there is
one same relation to two contraries, there is contrariety; e.g. to
approach to a white thing, and to approach to a black thing, are
contraries; whereas contrary relations to contrary things, implies a
certain likeness, e.g. to recede from something white, and to
approach to something black. This is most evident in the case of
contradiction, which is the principle of opposition: because
opposition consists in affirming and denying the same thing, e.g.
"white" and "non-white"; while there is fittingness and likeness in
the affirmation of one contrary and the denial of the other, as, if
I were to say "black" and "not white."

Now sorrow and pleasure, being passions, are specified by their
objects. According to their respective genera, they are contrary to
one another: since one is a kind of _pursuit,_ the other a kind of
_avoidance,_ which "are to the appetite, what affirmation and denial
are to the intellect" (Ethic. vi, 2). Consequently sorrow and
pleasure in respect of the same object, are specifically contrary to
one another: whereas sorrow and pleasure in respect of objects that
are not contrary but disparate, are not specifically contrary to one
another, but are also disparate; for instance, sorrow at the death of
a friend, and pleasure in contemplation. If, however, those diverse
objects be contrary to one another, then pleasure and sorrow are not
only specifically contrary, but they also have a certain mutual
fittingness and affinity: for instance to rejoice in good and to
sorrow for evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Whiteness and blackness do not take their species from
their relationship to something extrinsic, as pleasure and sorrow do:
wherefore the comparison does not hold.

Reply Obj. 2: Genus is taken from matter, as is stated in _Metaph._
viii, 2; and in accidents the subject takes the place of matter. Now
it has been said above that pleasure and sorrow are generically
contrary to one another. Consequently in every sorrow the subject has
a disposition contrary to the disposition of the subject of pleasure:
because in every pleasure the appetite is viewed as accepting what it
possesses, and in every sorrow, as avoiding it. And therefore on the
part of the subject every pleasure is a remedy for any kind of
sorrow, and every sorrow is a hindrance of all manner of pleasure:
but chiefly when pleasure is opposed to sorrow specifically.

Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection is evident. Or we may say
that, although not every sorrow is specifically contrary to every
pleasure, yet they are contrary to one another in regard to their
effects: since one has the effect of strengthening the animal nature,
while the other results in a kind of discomfort.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 5]

Whether There Is Any Sorrow Contrary to the Pleasure of Contemplation?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is a sorrow that is contrary to
the pleasure of contemplation. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:10):
"The sorrow that is according to God, worketh penance steadfast unto
salvation." Now to look at God belongs to the higher reason, whose act
is to give itself to contemplation, according to Augustine (De Trin.
xii, 3, 4). Therefore there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of
contemplation.

Obj. 2: Further, contrary things have contrary effects. If therefore
the contemplation of one contrary gives pleasure, the other contrary
will give sorrow: and so there will be a sorrow contrary to the
pleasure of contemplation.

Obj. 3: Further, as the object of pleasure is good, so the object of
sorrow is evil. But contemplation can be an evil: since the
Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, 9) that "it is unfitting to think of
certain things." Therefore sorrow can be contrary to the pleasure of
contemplation.

Obj. 4: Further, any work, so far as it is unhindered, can be a cause
of pleasure, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 12, 13; x, 4. But the work of
contemplation can be hindered in many ways, either so as to destroy
it altogether, or as to make it difficult. Therefore in contemplation
there can be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure.

Obj. 5: Further, affliction of the flesh is a cause of sorrow. But,
as it is written (Eccles. 12:12) "much study is an affliction of the
flesh." Therefore contemplation admits of sorrow contrary to its
pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 8:16): "Her," i.e. wisdom's,
"conversation hath no bitterness nor her company any tediousness; but
joy and gladness." Now the conversation and company of wisdom are
found in contemplation. Therefore there is no sorrow contrary to the
pleasure of contemplation.

_I answer that,_ The pleasure of contemplation can be understood in
two ways. In one way, so that contemplation is the cause, but not the
object of pleasure: and then pleasure is taken not in contemplating
but in the thing contemplated. Now it is possible to contemplate
something harmful and sorrowful, just as to contemplate something
suitable and pleasant. Consequently if the pleasure of contemplation
be taken in this way, nothing hinders some sorrow being contrary to
the pleasure of contemplation.

In another way, the pleasure of contemplation is understood, so that
contemplation is its object and cause; as when one takes pleasure in
the very act of contemplating. And thus, according to Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.], "no sorrow is contrary to
that pleasure which is about contemplation": and the Philosopher says
the same (Topic. i, 13; Ethic. x, 3). This, however, is to be
understood as being the case properly speaking. The reason is because
sorrow is of itself contrary to pleasure in a contrary object: thus
pleasure in heat is contrary to sorrow caused by cold. But there is
no contrary to the object of contemplation: because contraries, as
apprehended by the mind, are not contrary, but one is the means of
knowing the other. Wherefore, properly speaking, there cannot be a
sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. Nor has it any
sorrow annexed to it, as bodily pleasures have, which are like
remedies against certain annoyances; thus a man takes pleasure in
drinking through being troubled with thirst, but when the thirst is
quite driven out, the pleasure of drinking ceases also. Because the
pleasure of contemplation is not caused by one's being quit of an
annoyance, but by the fact that contemplation is pleasant in itself:
for pleasure is not a "becoming" but a perfect operation, as stated
above (Q. 31, A. 1).

Accidentally, however, sorrow is mingled with the pleasure of
contemplation; and this in two ways: first, on the part of an organ,
secondly, through some impediment in the apprehension. On the part of
an organ, sorrow or pain is mingled with apprehension, directly, as
regards the apprehensive powers of the sensitive part, which have a
bodily organ; either from the sensible object disagreeing with the
normal condition of the organ, as the taste of something bitter, and
the smell of something foul; or from the sensible object, though
agreeable, being so continuous in its action on the sense, that it
exceeds the normal condition of the organ, as stated above (Q. 33, A.
2), the result being that an apprehension which at first was pleasant
becomes tedious. But these two things cannot occur directly in the
contemplation of the mind; because the mind has no corporeal organ:
wherefore it was said in the authority quoted above that intellectual
contemplation has neither "bitterness," nor "tediousness." Since,
however, the human mind, in contemplation, makes use of the sensitive
powers of apprehension, to whose acts weariness is incidental;
therefore some affliction or pain is indirectly mingled with
contemplation.

Nevertheless, in neither of these ways, is the pain thus accidentally
mingled with contemplation, contrary to the pleasure thereof. Because
pain caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not contrary to the
pleasure of contemplation, but rather is in affinity and in harmony
with it, as is evident from what has been said above (A. 4): while
pain or sorrow caused by bodily weariness, does not belong to the
same genus, wherefore it is altogether disparate. Accordingly it is
evident that no sorrow is contrary to pleasure taken in the very act
of contemplation; nor is any sorrow connected with it save
accidentally.

Reply Obj. 1: The "sorrow which is according to God," is not caused
by the very act of intellectual contemplation, but by something which
the mind contemplates: viz. by sin, which the mind considers as
contrary to the love of God.

Reply Obj. 2: Things which are contrary according to nature are not
contrary according as they exist in the mind: for things that are
contrary in reality are not contrary in the order of thought; indeed
rather is one contrary the reason for knowing the other. Hence one
and the same science considers contraries.

Reply Obj. 3: Contemplation, in itself, is never evil, since it is
nothing else than the consideration of truth, which is the good of
the intellect: it can, however, be evil accidentally, i.e. in so far
as the contemplation of a less noble object hinders the contemplation
of a more noble object; or on the part of the object contemplated, to
which the appetite is inordinately attached.

Reply Obj. 4: Sorrow caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not
contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, but is in harmony with it,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 5: Affliction of the flesh affects contemplation
accidentally and indirectly, as stated above.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 6]

Whether Sorrow Is to Be Shunned More Than Pleasure Is to Be Sought?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is to be shunned more than
pleasure is to be sought. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 63): "There
is nobody that does not shun sorrow more than he seeks pleasure." Now
that which all agree in doing, seems to be natural. Therefore it is
natural and right for sorrow to be shunned more than pleasure is
sought.

Obj. 2: Further, the action of a contrary conduces to rapidity and
intensity of movement: for "hot water freezes quicker and harder," as
the Philosopher says (Meteor. i, 12). But the shunning of sorrow is
due to the contrariety of the cause of sorrow; whereas the desire for
pleasure does not arise from any contrariety, but rather from the
suitableness of the pleasant object. Therefore sorrow is shunned more
eagerly than pleasure is sought.

Obj. 3: Further, the stronger the passion which a man resists
according to reason, the more worthy is he of praise, and the more
virtuous: since "virtue is concerned with the difficult and the good"
(Ethic. ii, 3). But the brave man who resists the movement of
shunning sorrow, is more virtuous than the temperate man, who resists
the movement of desire for pleasure: since the Philosopher says
(Rhet. ii, 4) that "the brave and the just are chiefly praised."
Therefore the movement of shunning sorrow is more eager than the
movement of seeking pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Good is stronger than evil, as Dionysius declares
(Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure is desirable for the sake of the good
which is its object; whereas the shunning of sorrow is on account of
evil. Therefore the desire for pleasure is more eager than the
shunning of sorrow.

_I answer that,_ The desire for pleasure is of itself more eager than
the shunning of sorrow. The reason of this is that the cause of
pleasure is a suitable good; while the cause of pain or sorrow is an
unsuitable evil. Now it happens that a certain good is suitable
without any repugnance at all: but it is not possible for any evil to
be so unsuitable as not to be suitable in some way. Wherefore
pleasure can be entire and perfect: whereas sorrow is always partial.
Therefore desire for pleasure is naturally greater than the shunning
of sorrow. Another reason is because the good, which is the object of
pleasure, is sought for its own sake: whereas the evil, which is the
object of sorrow, is to be shunned as being a privation of good: and
that which is by reason of itself is stronger than that which is by
reason of something else. Moreover we find a confirmation of this in
natural movements. For every natural movement is more intense in the
end, when a thing approaches the term that is suitable to its nature,
than at the beginning, when it leaves the term that is unsuitable to
its nature: as though nature were more eager in tending to what is
suitable to it, than in shunning what is unsuitable. Therefore the
inclination of the appetitive power is, of itself, more eager in
tending to pleasure than in shunning sorrow.

But it happens accidentally that a man shuns sorrow more eagerly than
he seeks pleasure: and this for three reasons. First, on the part of
the apprehension. Because, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 12), "love
is felt more keenly, when we lack that which we love." Now from the
lack of what we love, sorrow results, which is caused either by the
loss of some loved good, or by the presence of some contrary evil.
But pleasure suffers no lack of the good loved, for it rests in
possession of it. Since then love is the cause of pleasure and
sorrow, the latter is the more shunned, according as love is the more
keenly felt on account of that which is contrary to it. Secondly, on
the part of the cause of sorrow or pain, which cause is repugnant to
a good that is more loved than the good in which we take pleasure.
For we love the natural well-being of the body more than the pleasure
of eating: and consequently we would leave the pleasure of eating and
the like, from fear of the pain occasioned by blows or other such
causes, which are contrary to the well-being of the body. Thirdly, on
the part of the effect: namely, in so far as sorrow hinders not only
one pleasure, but all.

Reply Obj. 1: The saying of Augustine that "sorrow is shunned more
than pleasure is sought" is true accidentally but not simply. And
this is clear from what he says after: "Since we see that the most
savage animals are deterred from the greatest pleasures by fear of
pain," which pain is contrary to life which is loved above all.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the same with movement from within and
movement from without. For movement from within tends to what is
suitable more than it recedes from that which is unsuitable; as we
remarked above in regard to natural movement. But movement from
without is intensified by the very opposition: because each thing
strives in its own way to resist anything contrary to it, as aiming
at its own preservation. Hence violent movement is intense at first,
and slackens towards the end. Now the movement of the appetitive
faculty is from within: since it tends from the soul to the object.
Consequently pleasure is, of itself, more to be sought than sorrow is
to be shunned. But the movement of the sensitive faculty is from
without, as it were from the object of the soul. Consequently the
more contrary a thing is the more it is felt. And then too,
accidentally, in so far as the senses are requisite for pleasure and
pain, pain is shunned more than pleasure is sought.

Reply Obj. 3: A brave man is not praised because, in accordance with
reason, he is not overcome by any kind of sorrow or pain whatever,
but because he is not overcome by that which is concerned with the
dangers of death. And this kind of sorrow is more shunned, than
pleasures of the table or of sexual intercourse are sought, which
latter pleasures are the object of temperance: thus life is loved
more than food and sexual pleasure. But the temperate man is praised
for refraining from pleasures of touch, more than for not shunning
the pains which are contrary to them, as is stated in _Ethic._ iii,
11.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 7]

Whether Outward Pain Is Greater Than Interior Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that outward pain is greater than interior
sorrow of the heart. Because outward pain arises from a cause
repugnant to the well-being of the body in which is life: whereas
interior sorrow is caused by some evil in the imagination. Since,
therefore, life is loved more than an imagined good, it seems that,
according to what has been said above (A. 6), outward pain is greater
than interior sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, the reality moves more than its likeness does. But
outward pain arises from the real conjunction of some contrary;
whereas inward sorrow arises from the apprehended likeness of a
contrary. Therefore outward pain is greater than inward sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, a cause is known by its effect. But outward pain has
more striking effects: since man dies sooner of outward pain than of
interior sorrow. Therefore outward pain is greater and is shunned
more than interior sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ it is written (Ecclus. 25:17): "The sadness of the
heart is every wound [Douay: 'plague'], and the wickedness of a woman
is all evil." Therefore, just as the wickedness of a woman surpasses
all other wickedness, as the text implies; so sadness of the heart
surpasses every outward wound.

_I answer that,_ Interior and exterior pain agree in one point and
differ in two. They agree in this, that each is a movement of the
appetitive power, as stated above (A. 1). But they differ in respect
of those two things which are requisite for pain and pleasure;
namely, in respect of the cause, which is a conjoined good or evil;
and in respect of the apprehension. For the cause of outward pain is
a conjoined evil repugnant to the body; while the cause of inward
pain is a conjoined evil repugnant to the appetite. Again, outward
pain arises from an apprehension of sense, chiefly of touch; while
inward pain arises from an interior apprehension, of the imagination
or of the reason.

If then we compare the cause of inward pain to the cause of outward
pain, the former belongs, of itself, to the appetite to which both
these pains belong: while the latter belongs to the appetite
directly. Because inward pain arises from something being repugnant
to the appetite itself, while outward pain arises from something
being repugnant to the appetite, through being repugnant to the body.
Now, that which is of itself is always prior to that which is by
reason of another. Wherefore, from this point of view, inward pain
surpasses outward pain. In like manner also on the part of
apprehension: because the apprehension of reason and imagination is
of a higher order than the apprehension of the sense of touch.
Consequently inward pain is, simply and of itself, more keen than
outward pain: a sign whereof is that one willingly undergoes outward
pain in order to avoid inward pain: and in so far as outward pain is
not repugnant to the interior appetite, it becomes in a manner
pleasant and agreeable by way of inward joy. Sometimes, however,
outward pain is accompanied by inward pain, and then the pain is
increased. Because inward pain is not only greater than outward pain,
it is also more universal: since whatever is repugnant to the body,
can be repugnant to the interior appetite; and whatever is
apprehended by sense may be apprehended by imagination and reason,
but not conversely. Hence in the passage quoted above it is said
expressively: "Sadness of the heart is every wound," because even the
pains of outward wounds are comprised in the interior sorrows of the
heart.

Reply Obj. 1: Inward pain can also arise from things that are
destructive of life. And then the comparison of inward to outward
pain must not be taken in reference to the various evils that cause
pain; but in regard to the various ways in which this cause of pain
is compared to the appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: Inward pain is not caused by the apprehended likeness
of a thing: for a man is not inwardly pained by the apprehended
likeness itself, but by the thing which the likeness represents. And
this thing is all the more perfectly apprehended by means of its
likeness, as this likeness is more immaterial and abstract.
Consequently inward pain is, of itself, greater, as being caused by a
greater evil, forasmuch as evil is better known by an inward
apprehension.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily changes are more liable to be caused by outward
pain, both from the fact that outward pain is caused by a corruptive
conjoined corporally, which is a necessary condition of the sense of
touch; and from the fact that the outward sense is more material than
the inward sense, just as the sensitive appetite is more material
than the intellective. For this reason, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3;
Q. 31, A. 5), the body undergoes a greater change from the movement
of the sensitive appetite: and, in like manner, from outward than
from inward pain.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 8]

Whether There Are Only Four Species of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that Damascene's (De Fide Orth. ii, 14)
division of sorrow into four species is incorrect; viz. into "torpor,
distress," which Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.]
calls "anxiety,"--"pity," and "envy." For sorrow is contrary to
pleasure. But there are not several species of pleasure. Therefore it
is incorrect to assign different species of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, _Repentance_ is a species of sorrow; and so are
_indignation_ and _jealousy,_ as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 9,
11). But these are not included in the above species. Therefore this
division is insufficient.

Obj. 3: Further, the members of a division should be things that are
opposed to one another. But these species are not opposed to one
another. For according to Gregory [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.]
"torpor is sorrow depriving of speech; anxiety is the sorrow that
weighs down; envy is sorrow for another's good; pity is sorrow for
another's wrongs." But it is possible for one to sorrow for another's
wrongs, and for another's good, and at the same time to be weighed
down inwardly, and outwardly to be speechless. Therefore this
division is incorrect.

_On the contrary,_ stands the twofold authority of Gregory of Nyssa
[*Nemesius] and of Damascene.

_I answer that,_ It belongs to the notion of a species that it is
something added to the genus. But a thing can be added to a genus in
two ways. First, as something belonging of itself to the genus, and
virtually contained therein: thus "rational" is added to "animal."
Such an addition makes true species of a genus: as the Philosopher
says (Metaph. vii, 12; viii, 2, 3). But, secondly, a thing may be
added to a genus, that is, as it were, foreign to the notion conveyed
by that genus: thus "white" or something of the kind may be added to
"animal." Such an addition does not make true species of the genus,
according to the usual sense in which we speak of genera and species.
But sometimes a thing is said to be a species of a certain genus,
through having something foreign to that genus indeed, but to which
the notion of that genus is applicable: thus a live coal or a flame
is said to be a species of fire, because in each of them the nature
of fire is applied to a foreign matter. In like manner we speak of
astronomy and perspective as being species of mathematics, inasmuch
as the principles of mathematics are applied to natural matter.

In accordance with this manner of speaking, the species of sorrow
are reckoned by an application of the notion of sorrow to something
foreign to it. This foreign matter may be taken on the part of the
cause or the object, or of the effect. For the proper object of
sorrow is _one's own evil._ Hence sorrow may be concerned for an
object foreign to it either through one's being sorry for an evil
that is not one's own; and thus we have _pity_ which is sorrow for
another's evil, considered, however, as one's own: or through one's
being sorry for something that is neither evil nor one's own, but
another's good, considered, however, as one's own evil: and thus we
have _envy._ The proper effect of sorrow consists in a certain
_flight of the appetite._ Wherefore the foreign element in the effect
of sorrow, may be taken so as to affect the first part only, by
excluding flight: and thus we have _anxiety_ which weighs on the
mind, so as to make escape seem impossible: hence it is also called
_perplexity._ If, however, the mind be weighed down so much, that
even the limbs become motionless, which belongs to _torpor,_ then we
have the foreign element affecting both, since there is neither
flight, nor is the effect in the appetite. And the reason why torpor
especially is said to deprive one of speech is because of all the
external movements the voice is the best expression of the inward
thought and desire, not only in men, but also in other animals, as is
stated in _Polit._ i, 1.

Reply Obj. 1: Pleasure is caused by good, which has only one meaning:
and so pleasure is not divided into several species as sorrow is; for
the latter is caused by evil, which "happens in many ways," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).

Reply Obj. 2: Repentance is for one's own evil, which is the proper
object of sorrow: wherefore it does not belong to these species.
Jealousy and indignation are included in envy, as we shall explain
later (II-II, Q. 36, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: This division is not according to opposite species; but
according to the diversity of foreign matter to which the notion of
sorrow is applied, as stated above.
________________________

QUESTION 36

OF THE CAUSES OF SORROW OR PAIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the causes of sorrow: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether sorrow is caused by the loss of a good or rather by the
presence of an evil?

(2) Whether desire is a cause of sorrow?

(3) Whether the craving for unity is a cause of sorrow?

(4) Whether an irresistible power is a cause of sorrow?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 1]

Whether Sorrow Is Caused by the Loss of Good or by the Presence of
Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is caused by the loss of a
good rather than by the presence of an evil. For Augustine says (De
viii QQ. Dulcit. qu. 1) that sorrow is caused by the loss of temporal
goods. Therefore, in like manner, every sorrow is caused by the loss
of some good.

Obj. 2: Further, it was said above (Q. 35, A. 4) that the sorrow
which is contrary to a pleasure, has the same object as that
pleasure. But the object of pleasure is good, as stated above (Q. 23,
A. 4; Q. 31, A. 1; Q. 35, A. 3). Therefore sorrow is caused chiefly
by the loss of good.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), love
is the cause of sorrow, as of the other emotions of the soul. But the
object of love is good. Therefore pain or sorrow is felt for the loss
of good rather than for an evil that is present.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that "the
dreaded evil gives rise to fear, the present evil is the cause of
sorrow."

_I answer that,_ If privations, as considered by the mind, were what
they are in reality, this question would seem to be of no importance.
For, as stated in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 10; Q. 48, A. 3), evil is
the privation of good: and privation is in reality nothing else than
the lack of the contrary habit; so that, in this respect, to sorrow
for the loss of good, would be the same as to sorrow for the presence
of evil. But sorrow is a movement of the appetite in consequence of
an apprehension: and even a privation, as apprehended, has the aspect
of a being, wherefore it is called "a being of reason." And in this
way evil, being a privation, is regarded as a "contrary."
Accordingly, so far as the movement of the appetite is concerned, it
makes a difference which of the two it regards chiefly, the present
evil or the good which is lost.

Again, since the movement of the animal appetite holds the same place
in the actions of the soul, as natural movement in natural things;
the truth of the matter is to be found by considering natural
movements. For if, in natural movements, we observe those of approach
and withdrawal, approach is of itself directed to something suitable
to nature; while withdrawal is of itself directed to something
contrary to nature; thus a heavy body, of itself, withdraws from a
higher place, and approaches naturally to a lower place. But if we
consider the cause of both these movements, viz. gravity, then
gravity itself inclines towards the lower place more than it
withdraws from the higher place, since withdrawal from the latter is
the reason for its downward tendency.

Accordingly, since, in the movements of the appetite, sorrow is a
kind of flight or withdrawal, while pleasure is a kind of pursuit or
approach; just as pleasure regards first the good possessed, as its
proper object, so sorrow regards the evil that is present. On the
other hand love, which is the cause of pleasure and sorrow, regards
good rather than evil: and therefore, forasmuch as the object is the
cause of a passion, the present evil is more properly the cause of
sorrow or pain, than the good which is lost.

Reply Obj. 1: The loss itself of good is apprehended as an evil, just
as the loss of evil is apprehended as a good: and in this sense
Augustine says that pain results from the loss of temporal goods.

Reply Obj. 2: Pleasure and its contrary pain have the same object,
but under contrary aspects: because if the presence of a particular
thing be the object of pleasure, the absence of that same thing is
the object of sorrow. Now one contrary includes the privation of the
other, as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4: and consequently sorrow in
respect of one contrary is, in a way, directed to the same thing
under a contrary aspect.

Reply Obj. 3: When many movements arise from one cause, it does not
follow that they all regard chiefly that which the cause regards
chiefly, but only the first of them. And each of the others regards
chiefly that which is suitable to it according to its own nature.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 2]

Whether Desire Is a Cause of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that desire is not a cause of pain or
sorrow. Because sorrow of itself regards evil, as stated above (A.
1): whereas desire is a movement of the appetite towards good. Now
movement towards one contrary is not a cause of movement towards the
other contrary. Therefore desire is not a cause of pain.

Obj. 2: Further, pain, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 12),
is caused by something present; whereas the object of desire is
something future. Therefore desire is not a cause of pain.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is pleasant in itself is not a cause of
pain. But desire is pleasant in itself, as the Philosopher says
(Rhet. i, 11). Therefore desire is not a cause of pain or sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xxiv): "When ignorance
of things necessary to be done, and desire of things hurtful, found
their way in: error and pain stole an entrance in their company." But
ignorance is the cause of error. Therefore desire is a cause of
sorrow.

_I answer that,_ Sorrow is a movement of the animal appetite. Now,
as stated above (A. 1), the appetitive movement is likened to the
natural appetite; a likeness, that may be assigned to a twofold
cause; one, on the part of the end, the other, on the part of the
principle of movement. Thus, on the part of the end, the cause of a
heavy body's downward movement is the lower place; while the
principle of that movement is a natural inclination resulting from
gravity.

Now the cause of the appetitive movement, on the part of the end, is
the object of that movement. And thus, it has been said above (A. 1)
that the cause of pain or sorrow is a present evil. On the other
hand, the cause, by way of principle, of that movement, is the inward
inclination of the appetite; which inclination regards, first of all,
the good, and in consequence, the rejection of a contrary evil. Hence
the first principle of this appetitive movement is love, which is the
first inclination of the appetite towards the possession of good:
while the second principle is hatred, which is the first inclination
of the appetite towards the avoidance of evil. But since
concupiscence or desire is the first effect of love, which gives rise
to the greatest pleasure, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 6); hence it is
that Augustine often speaks of desire or concupiscence in the sense
of love, as was also stated (Q. 30, A. 2, ad 2): and in this sense he
says that desire is the universal cause of sorrow. Sometimes,
however, desire taken in its proper sense, is the cause of sorrow.
Because whatever hinders a movement from reaching its end is contrary
to that movement. Now that which is contrary to the movement of the
appetite, is a cause of sorrow. Consequently, desire becomes a cause
of sorrow, in so far as we sorrow for the delay of a desired good, or
for its entire removal. But it cannot be a universal cause of sorrow:
since we sorrow more for the loss of present good, in which we have
already taken pleasure, than for the withdrawal of future good which
we desire to have.

Reply Obj. 1: The inclination of the appetite to the possession of
good causes the inclination of the appetite to fly from evil, as
stated above. And hence it is that the appetitive movements that
regard good, are reckoned as causing the appetitive movements that
regard evil.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is desired, though really future, is,
nevertheless, in a way, present, inasmuch as it is hoped for. Or we
may say that although the desired good itself is future, yet the
hindrance is reckoned as present, and so gives rise to sorrow.

Reply Obj. 3: Desire gives pleasure, so long as there is hope of
obtaining that which is desired. But, when hope is removed through
the presence of an obstacle, desire causes sorrow.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 3]

Whether the Craving for Unity Is a Cause of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that the craving for unity is not a cause
of sorrow. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 3) that "this
opinion," which held repletion to be the cause of pleasure, and
division [*Aristotle wrote _endeian_, 'want'; St. Thomas, in the
Latin version, read 'incisionem'; should he have read
'indigentiam'?], the cause of sorrow, "seems to have originated in
pains and pleasures connected with food." But not every pleasure or
sorrow is of this kind. Therefore the craving for unity is not the
universal cause of sorrow; since repletion pertains to unity, and
division is the cause of multitude.

Obj. 2: Further, every separation is opposed to unity. If therefore
sorrow were caused by a craving for unity, no separation would be
pleasant: and this is clearly untrue as regards the separation of
whatever is superfluous.

Obj. 3: Further, for the same reason we desire the conjunction of
good and the removal of evil. But as conjunction regards unity, since
it is a kind of union; so separation is contrary to unity. Therefore
the craving for unity should not be reckoned, rather than the craving
for separation, as causing sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 23), that "from
the pain that dumb animals feel, it is quite evident how their souls
desire unity, in ruling and quickening their bodies. For what else is
pain but a feeling of impatience of division or corruption?"

_I answer that,_ Forasmuch as the desire or craving for good is
reckoned as a cause of sorrow, so must a craving for unity, and love,
be accounted as causing sorrow. Because the good of each thing
consists in a certain unity, inasmuch as each thing has, united in
itself, the elements of which its perfection consists: wherefore the
Platonists held that _one_ is a principle, just as _good_ is. Hence
everything naturally desires unity, just as it desires goodness: and
therefore, just as love or desire for good is a cause of sorrow, so
also is the love or craving for unity.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every kind of union causes perfect goodness, but
only that on which the perfect being of a thing depends. Hence
neither does the desire of any kind of unity cause pain or sorrow, as
some have maintained: whose opinion is refuted by the Philosopher
from the fact that repletion is not always pleasant; for instance,
when a man has eaten to repletion, he takes no further pleasure in
eating; because repletion or union of this kind, is repugnant rather
than conducive to perfect being. Consequently sorrow is caused by the
craving, not for any kind of unity, but for that unity in which the
perfection of nature consists.

Reply Obj. 2: Separation can be pleasant, either because it removes
something contrary to a thing's perfection, or because it has some
union connected with it, such as union of the sense to its object.

Reply Obj. 3: Separation from things hurtful and corruptive is
desired, in so far as they destroy the unity which is due. Wherefore
the desire for such like separation is not the first cause of sorrow,
whereas the craving for unity is.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 4]

Whether an Irresistible Power Is a Cause of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that a greater power should not be
reckoned a cause of sorrow. For that which is in the power of the
agent is not present but future. But sorrow is for present evil.
Therefore a greater power is not a cause of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, hurt inflicted is the cause of sorrow. But hurt can
be inflicted even by a lesser power. Therefore a greater power should
not be reckoned as a cause of sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, the interior inclinations of the soul are the causes
of the movements of appetite. But a greater power is something
external. Therefore it should not be reckoned as a cause of sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx): "Sorrow in the
soul is caused by the will resisting a stronger power: while pain in
the body is caused by sense resisting a stronger body."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), a present evil, is cause of
sorrow or pain, by way of object. Therefore that which is the cause
of the evil being present, should be reckoned as causing pain or
sorrow. Now it is evident that it is contrary to the inclination of
the appetite to be united with a present evil: and whatever is
contrary to a thing's inclination does not happen to it save by the
action of something stronger. Wherefore Augustine reckons a greater
power as being the cause of sorrow.

But it must be noted that if the stronger power goes so far as to
transform the contrary inclination into its own inclination there
will be no longer repugnance or violence: thus if a stronger agent,
by its action on a heavy body, deprives it of its downward tendency,
its consequent upward tendency is not violent but natural to it.

Accordingly if some greater power prevail so far as to take away from
the will or the sensitive appetite, their respective inclinations,
pain or sorrow will not result therefrom; such is the result only
when the contrary inclination of the appetite remains. And hence
Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx) that sorrow is caused by the will
"resisting a stronger power": for were it not to resist, but to yield
by consenting, the result would be not sorrow but pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: A greater power causes sorrow, as acting not
potentially but actually, i.e. by causing the actual presence of the
corruptive evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing hinders a power which is not simply greater,
from being greater in some respect: and accordingly it is able to
inflict some harm. But if it be nowise stronger, it can do no harm at
all: wherefore it cannot bring about that which causes sorrow.

Reply Obj. 3: External agents can be the causes of appetitive
movements, in so far as they cause the presence of the object: and it
is thus that a greater power is reckoned to be the cause of sorrow.
________________________

QUESTION 37

OF THE EFFECTS OF PAIN OR SORROW
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of pain or of sorrow: under which
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether pain deprives one of the power to learn?

(2) Whether the effect of sorrow or pain is to burden the soul?

(3) Whether sorrow or pain weakens all activity?

(4) Whether sorrow is more harmful to the body than all the other
passions of the soul?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 1]

Whether Pain Deprives One of the Power to Learn?

Objection 1: It would seem that pain does not deprive one of the
power to learn. For it is written (Isa. 26:9): "When Thou shalt do
Thy judgments on the earth, the inhabitants of the world shall learn
justice": and further on (verse 16): "In the tribulation of murmuring
Thy instruction was with them." But the judgments of God and
tribulation cause sorrow in men's hearts. Therefore pain or sorrow,
far from destroying, increases the power of learning.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 28:9): "Whom shall He teach
knowledge? And whom shall He make to understand the hearing? Them
that are weaned from the milk, that are drawn away from the breasts,"
i.e. from pleasures. But pain and sorrow are most destructive of
pleasure; since sorrow hinders all pleasure, as stated in _Ethic._
vii, 14: and (Ecclus. 11:29) it is stated that "the affliction of an
hour maketh one forget great delights." Therefore pain, instead of
taking away, increases the faculty of learning.

Obj. 3: Further, inward sorrow surpasses outward pain, as stated
above (Q. 35, A. 7). But man can learn while sorrowful. Much more,
therefore, can he learn while in bodily pain.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 12): "Although during
those days I was tormented with a violent tooth-ache, I was not able
to turn over in my mind other things than those I had already learnt;
and as to learning anything, I was quite unequal to it, because it
required undivided attention."

_I answer that,_ Since all the powers of the soul are rooted in the
one essence of the soul, it must needs happen, when the intention of
the soul is strongly drawn towards the action of one power, that it
is withdrawn from the action of another power: because the soul,
being one, can only have one intention. The result is that if one
thing draws upon itself the entire intention of the soul, or a great
portion thereof, anything else requiring considerable attention is
incompatible therewith.

Now it is evident that sensible pain above all draws the soul's
attention to itself; because it is natural for each thing to tend
wholly to repel whatever is contrary to it, as may be observed even
in natural things. It is likewise evident that in order to learn
anything new, we require study and effort with a strong intention,
as is clearly stated in Prov. 2:4, 5: "If thou shalt seek wisdom as
money, and shall dig for her as for a treasure, then shalt thou
understand learning" [Vulg: 'the fear of the Lord']. Consequently if
the pain be acute, man is prevented at the time from learning
anything: indeed it can be so acute, that, as long as it lasts, a man
is unable to give his attention even to that which he knew already.
However a difference is to be observed according to the difference of
love that a man has for learning or for considering: because the
greater his love, the more will he retain the intention of his mind
so as to prevent it from turning entirely to the pain.

Reply Obj. 1: Moderate sorrow, that does not cause the mind to
wander, can conduce to the acquisition of learning especially in
regard to those things by which a man hopes to be freed from sorrow.
And thus, "in the tribulation of murmuring," men are more apt to be
taught by God.

Reply Obj. 2: Both pleasure and pain, in so far as they draw upon
themselves the soul's intention, hinder the reason from the act of
consideration, wherefore it is stated in _Ethic._ vii, 11 that "in
the moment of sexual pleasure, a man cannot understand anything."
Nevertheless pain attracts the soul's intention more than pleasure
does: thus we observe in natural things that the action of a natural
body is more intense in regard to its contrary; for instance, hot
water is more accessible to the action of cold, and in consequence
freezes harder. If therefore pain or sorrow be moderate, it can
conduce accidentally to the facility of learning, in so far as it
takes away an excess of pleasure. But, of itself, it is a hindrance;
and if it be intense, it prevents it altogether.

Reply Obj. 3: External pain arises from hurt done to the body, so
that it involves bodily transmutation more than inward sorrow does:
and yet the latter is greater in regard to the formal element of pain,
which belongs to the soul. Consequently bodily pain is a greater
hindrance to contemplation which requires complete repose, than inward
sorrow is. Nevertheless if inward sorrow be very intense, it attracts
the intention, so that man is unable to learn anything for the first
time: wherefore on account of sorrow Gregory interrupted his
commentary on Ezechiel (Hom. xxii in Ezechiel).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 2]

Whether the Effect of Sorrow or Pain Is to Burden the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not an effect of sorrow to
burden the soul. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:11): "Behold this
self-same thing, that you were made sorrowful according to God, how
great carefulness it worketh in you: yea, defence, yea indignation,"
etc. Now carefulness and indignation imply that the soul is uplifted,
which is contrary to being depressed. Therefore depression is not an
effect of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow is contrary to pleasure. But the effect of
pleasure is expansion: the opposite of which is not depression but
contraction. Therefore depression should not be reckoned as an effect
of sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, sorrow consumes those who are inflicted therewith,
as may be gathered from the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. 2:7): "Lest
perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." But that
which is depressed is not consumed; nay, it is weighed down by
something heavy, whereas that which is consumed enters within the
consumer. Therefore depression should not be reckoned an effect of
sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.]
and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) speak of "depressing sorrow."

_I answer that,_ The effects of the soul's passions are sometimes
named metaphorically, from a likeness to sensible bodies: for the
reason that the movements of the animal appetite are like the
inclinations of the natural appetite. And in this way fervor is
ascribed to love, expansion to pleasure, and depression to sorrow.
For a man is said to be depressed, through being hindered in his own
movement by some weight. Now it is evident from what has been said
above (Q. 23, A. 4; Q. 25, A. 4; Q. 36, A. 1) that sorrow is caused
by a present evil: and this evil, from the very fact that it is
repugnant to the movement of the will, depresses the soul, inasmuch
as it hinders it from enjoying that which it wishes to enjoy. And if
the evil which is the cause of sorrow be not so strong as to deprive
one of the hope of avoiding it, although the soul be depressed in so
far as, for the present, it fails to grasp that which it craves for;
yet it retains the movement whereby to repulse that evil. If, on the
other hand, the strength of the evil be such as to exclude the hope
of evasion, then even the interior movement of the afflicted soul is
absolutely hindered, so that it cannot turn aside either this way or
that. Sometimes even the external movement of the body is paralyzed,
so that a man becomes completely stupefied.

Reply Obj. 1: That uplifting of the soul ensues from the sorrow which
is according to God, because it brings with it the hope of the
forgiveness of sin.

Reply Obj. 2: As far as the movement of the appetite is concerned,
contraction and depression amount to the same: because the soul,
through being depressed so as to be unable to attend freely to
outward things, withdraws to itself, closing itself up as it were.

Reply Obj. 3: Sorrow is said to consume man, when the force of the
afflicting evil is such as to shut out all hope of evasion: and thus
also it both depresses and consumes at the same time. For certain
things, taken metaphorically, imply one another, which taken
literally, appear to exclude one another.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow or Pain Weakens All Activity?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow does not weaken all activity.
Because carefulness is caused by sorrow, as is clear from the passage
of the Apostle quoted above (A. 2, Obj. 1). But carefulness conduces
to good work: wherefore the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:15): "Carefully
study to present thyself . . . a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed." Therefore sorrow is not a hindrance to work, but helps one
to work well.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow causes desire in many cases, as stated in
_Ethic._ vii, 14. But desire causes intensity of action. Therefore
sorrow does too.

Obj. 3: Further, as some actions are proper to the joyful, so are
others proper to the sorrowful; for instance, to mourn. Now a thing
is improved by that which is suitable to it. Therefore certain
actions are not hindered but improved by reason of sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure
perfects action," whereas on the other hand, "sorrow hinders it"
(Ethic. x, 5).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), sorrow at times does not
depress or consume the soul, so as to shut out all movement, internal
or external; but certain movements are sometimes caused by sorrow
itself. Accordingly action stands in a twofold relation to sorrow.
First, as being the object of sorrow: and thus sorrow hinders any
action: for we never do that which we do with sorrow, so well as that
which we do with pleasure, or without sorrow. The reason for this is
that the will is the cause of human actions: and consequently when we
do something that gives pain, the action must of necessity be
weakened in consequence. Secondly, action stands in relation to
sorrow, as to its principle and cause: and such action must needs be
improved by sorrow: thus the more one sorrows on account of a certain
thing, the more one strives to shake off sorrow, provided there is a
hope of shaking it off: otherwise no movement or action would result
from that sorrow.

From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 4]

Whether Sorrow Is More Harmful to the Body Than the Other Passions of
the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not most harmful to the
body. For sorrow has a spiritual existence in the soul. But those
things which have only a spiritual existence do not cause a
transmutation in the body: as is evident with regard to the images of
colors, which images are in the air and do not give color to bodies.
Therefore sorrow is not harmful to the body.

Obj. 2: Further if it be harmful to the body, this can only be due to
its having a bodily transmutation in conjunction with it. But bodily
transmutation takes place in all the passions of the soul, as stated
above (Q. 22, AA. 1, 3). Therefore sorrow is not more harmful to the
body than the other passions of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 3) that "anger and
desire drive some to madness": which seems to be a very great harm,
since reason is the most excellent thing in man. Moreover, despair
seems to be more harmful than sorrow; for it is the cause of sorrow.
Therefore sorrow is not more harmful to the body than the other
passions of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 17:22): "A joyful mind maketh
age flourishing: a sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones": and (Prov.
25:20): "As a moth doth by a garment, and a worm by the wood: so the
sadness of a man consumeth the heart": and (Ecclus. 38:19): "Of
sadness cometh death."

_I answer that,_ Of all the soul's passions, sorrow is most harmful
to the body. The reason of this is because sorrow is repugnant to
man's life in respect of the species of its movement, and not merely
in respect of its measure or quantity, as is the case with the other
passions of the soul. For man's life consists in a certain movement,
which flows from the heart to the other parts of the body: and this
movement is befitting to human nature according to a certain fixed
measure. Consequently if this movement goes beyond the right measure,
it will be repugnant to man's life in respect of the measure of
quantity; but not in respect of its specific character: whereas if
this movement be hindered in its progress, it will be repugnant to
life in respect of its species.

Now it must be noted that, in all the passions of the soul, the
bodily transmutation which is their material element, is in
conformity with and in proportion to the appetitive movement, which
is the formal element: just as in everything matter is proportionate
to form. Consequently those passions that imply a movement of the
appetite in pursuit of something, are not repugnant to the vital
movement as regards its species, but they may be repugnant thereto as
regards its measure: such are love, joy, desire and the like;
wherefore these passions conduce to the well-being of the body;
though, if they be excessive, they may be harmful to it. On the other
hand, those passions which denote in the appetite a movement of
flight or contraction, are repugnant to the vital movement, not only
as regards its measure, but also as regards its species; wherefore
they are simply harmful: such are fear and despair, and above all
sorrow which depresses the soul by reason of a present evil, which
makes a stronger impression than future evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Since the soul naturally moves the body, the spiritual
movement of the soul is naturally the cause of bodily transmutation.
Nor is there any parallel with spiritual images, because they are not
naturally ordained to move such other bodies as are not naturally
moved by the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: Other passions imply a bodily transmutation
which is specifically in conformity with the vital movement: whereas
sorrow implies a transmutation that is repugnant thereto, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 3: A lesser cause suffices to hinder the use of
reason, than to destroy life: since we observe that many ailments
deprive one of the use of reason, before depriving one of life.
Nevertheless fear and anger cause very great harm to the body, by
reason of the sorrow which they imply, and which arises from the
absence of the thing desired. Moreover sorrow too sometimes deprives
man of the use of reason: as may be seen in those who through sorrow
become a prey to melancholy or madness.
________________________

QUESTION 38

OF THE REMEDIES OF SORROW OR PAIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the remedies of pain or sorrow: under which head
there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether pain or sorrow is assuaged by every pleasure?

(2) Whether it is assuaged by weeping?

(3) Whether it is assuaged by the sympathy of friends?

(4) Whether it is assuaged by contemplating the truth?

(5) Whether it is assuaged by sleep and baths?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 1]

Whether Pain or Sorrow Is Assuaged by Every Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that not every pleasure assuages every
pain or sorrow. For pleasure does not assuage sorrow, save in so far
as it is contrary to it: for "remedies work by contraries" (Ethic.
ii, 3). But not every pleasure is contrary to every sorrow; as stated
above (Q. 35, A. 4). Therefore not every pleasure assuages every
sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, that which causes sorrow does not assuage it. But
some pleasures cause sorrow; since, as stated in _Ethic._ ix, 4, "the
wicked man feels pain at having been pleased." Therefore not every
pleasure assuages sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 7) that he fled from
his country, where he had been wont to associate with his friend, now
dead: "for so should his eyes look for him less, where they were not
wont to see him." Hence we may gather that those things which united
us to our dead or absent friends, become burdensome to us when we
mourn their death or absence. But nothing united us more than the
pleasures we enjoyed in common. Therefore these very pleasures become
burdensome to us when we mourn. Therefore not every pleasure assuages
every sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14) that "sorrow
is driven forth by pleasure, both by a contrary pleasure and by any
other, provided it be intense."

_I answer that,_ As is evident from what has been said above (Q. 23,
A. 4), pleasure is a kind of repose of the appetite in a suitable
good; while sorrow arises from something unsuited to the appetite.
Consequently in movements of the appetite pleasure is to sorrow,
what, in bodies, repose is to weariness, which is due to a
non-natural transmutation; for sorrow itself implies a certain
weariness or ailing of the appetitive faculty. Therefore just as all
repose of the body brings relief to any kind of weariness, ensuing
from any non-natural cause; so every pleasure brings relief by
assuaging any kind of sorrow, due to any cause whatever.

Reply Obj. 1: Although not every pleasure is specifically contrary to
every sorrow, yet it is generically, as stated above (Q. 35, A. 4).
And consequently, on the part of the disposition of the subject, any
sorrow can be assuaged by any pleasure.

Reply Obj. 2: The pleasures of wicked men are not a cause of sorrow
while they are enjoyed, but afterwards: that is to say, in so far as
wicked men repent of those things in which they took pleasure. This
sorrow is healed by contrary pleasures.

Reply Obj. 3: When there are two causes inclining to contrary
movements, each hinders the other; yet the one which is stronger and
more persistent, prevails in the end. Now when a man is made
sorrowful by those things in which he took pleasure in common with a
deceased or absent friend, there are two causes producing contrary
movements. For the thought of the friend's death or absence, inclines
him to sorrow: whereas the present good inclines him to pleasure.
Consequently each is modified by the other. And yet, since the
perception of the present moves more strongly than the memory of the
past, and since love of self is more persistent than love of another;
hence it is that, in the end, the pleasure drives out the sorrow.
Wherefore a little further on (Confess. iv, 8) Augustine says that
his "sorrow gave way to his former pleasures."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 2]

Whether Pain or Sorrow Is Assuaged by Tears?

Objection 1: It would seem that tears do not assuage sorrow. Because
no effect diminishes its cause. But tears or groans are an effect of
sorrow. Therefore they do not diminish sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, just as tears or groans are an effect of sorrow, so
laughter is an effect of joy. But laughter does not lessen joy.
Therefore tears do not lessen sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, when we weep, the evil that saddens us is present to
the imagination. But the image of that which saddens us increases
sorrow, just as the image of a pleasant thing adds to joy. Therefore
it seems that tears do not assuage sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. iv, 7) that when he
mourned the death of his friend, "in groans and in tears alone did he
find some little refreshment."

_I answer that,_ Tears and groans naturally assuage sorrow: and this
for two reasons. First, because a hurtful thing hurts yet more if we
keep it shut up, because the soul is more intent on it: whereas if it
be allowed to escape, the soul's intention is dispersed as it were on
outward things, so that the inward sorrow is lessened. This is why
men, burdened with sorrow, make outward show of their sorrow, by
tears or groans or even by words, their sorrow is assuaged. Secondly,
because an action, that befits a man according to his actual
disposition, is always pleasant to him. Now tears and groans are
actions befitting a man who is in sorrow or pain; and consequently
they become pleasant to him. Since then, as stated above (A. 1),
every pleasure assuages sorrow or pain somewhat, it follows that
sorrow is assuaged by weeping and groans.

Reply Obj. 1: This relation of the cause to effect is opposed to the
relation existing between the cause of sorrow and the sorrowing man.
For every effect is suited to its cause, and consequently is pleasant
to it; but the cause of sorrow is disagreeable to him that sorrows.
Hence the effect of sorrow is not related to him that sorrows in the
same way as the cause of sorrow is. For this reason sorrow is
assuaged by its effect, on account of the aforesaid contrariety.

Reply Obj. 2: The relation of effect to cause is like the relation of
the object of pleasure to him that takes pleasure in it: because in
each case the one agrees with the other. Now every like thing
increases its like. Therefore joy is increased by laughter and the
other effects of joy: except they be excessive, in which case,
accidentally, they lessen it.

Reply Obj. 3: The image of that which saddens us, considered in
itself, has a natural tendency to increase sorrow: yet from the very
fact that a man imagines himself to be doing that which is fitting
according to his actual state, he feels a certain amount of pleasure.
For the same reason if laughter escapes a man when he is so disposed
that he thinks he ought to weep, he is sorry for it, as having done
something unbecoming to him, as Cicero says (De Tusc. Quaest. iii,
27).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 3]

Whether Pain or Sorrow Are Assuaged by the Sympathy of Friends?

Objection 1: It would seem that the sorrow of sympathizing friends
does not assuage our own sorrow. For contraries have contrary
effects. Now as Augustine says (Confess. viii, 4), "when many rejoice
together, each one has more exuberant joy, for they are kindled and
inflamed one by the other." Therefore, in like manner, when many are
sorrowful, it seems that their sorrow is greater.

Obj. 2: Further, friendship demands mutual love, as Augustine
declares (Confess. iv, 9). But a sympathizing friend is pained at the
sorrow of his friend with whom he sympathizes. Consequently the pain
of a sympathizing friend becomes, to the friend in sorrow, a further
cause of sorrow: so that, his pain being doubled his sorrow seems to
increase.

Obj. 3: Further, sorrow arises from every evil affecting a friend, as
though it affected oneself: since "a friend is one's other self"
(Ethic. ix, 4, 9). But sorrow is an evil. Therefore the sorrow of the
sympathizing friend increases the sorrow of the friend with whom he
sympathizes.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 11) that those
who are in pain are consoled when their friends sympathize with them.

_I answer that,_ When one is in pain, it is natural that the sympathy
of a friend should afford consolation: whereof the Philosopher
indicates a twofold reason (Ethic. ix, 11). The first is because,
since sorrow has a depressing effect, it is like a weight whereof we
strive to unburden ourselves: so that when a man sees others saddened
by his own sorrow, it seems as though others were bearing the burden
with him, striving, as it were, to lessen its weight; wherefore the
load of sorrow becomes lighter for him: something like what occurs in
the carrying of bodily burdens. The second and better reason is
because when a man's friends condole with him, he sees that he is
loved by them, and this affords him pleasure, as stated above (Q. 32,
A. 5). Consequently, since every pleasure assuages sorrow, as stated
above (A. 1), it follows that sorrow is mitigated by a sympathizing
friend.

Reply Obj. 1: In either case there is a proof of friendship, viz.
when a man rejoices with the joyful, and when he sorrows with the
sorrowful. Consequently each becomes an object of pleasure by reason
of its cause.

Reply Obj. 2: The friend's sorrow itself would be a cause of sorrow:
but consideration of its cause, viz. his love, gives rise rather to
pleasure.

And this suffices for the reply to the Third Objection.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 4]

Whether Pain and Sorrow Are Assuaged by the Contemplation of Truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that the contemplation of truth does not
assuage sorrow. For it is written (Eccles. 1:18): "He that addeth
knowledge addeth also sorrow" [Vulg.: 'labor']. But knowledge
pertains to the contemplation of truth. Therefore the contemplation
of truth does not assuage sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, the contemplation of truth belongs to the
speculative intellect. But "the speculative intellect is not a
principle of movement"; as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 11. Therefore,
since joy and sorrow are movements of the soul, it seems that the
contemplation of truth does not help to assuage sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, the remedy for an ailment should be applied to the
part which ails. But contemplation of truth is in the intellect.
Therefore it does not assuage bodily pain, which is in the senses.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 12): "It seemed to me
that if the light of that truth were to dawn on our minds, either I
should not feel that pain, or at least that pain would seem nothing
to me."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 3, A. 5), the greatest of all
pleasures consists in the contemplation of truth. Now every pleasure
assuages pain as stated above (A. 1): hence the contemplation of
truth assuages pain or sorrow, and the more so, the more perfectly
one is a lover of wisdom. And therefore in the midst of tribulations
men rejoice in the contemplation of Divine things and of future
Happiness, according to James 1:2: "My brethren, count it all joy,
when you shall fall into divers temptations": and, what is more, even
in the midst of bodily tortures this joy is found; as the "martyr
Tiburtius, when he was walking barefoot on the burning coals, said:
Methinks, I walk on roses, in the name of Jesus Christ." [*Cf.
Dominican Breviary, August 11th, commemoration of St. Tiburtius.]

Reply Obj. 1: "He that addeth knowledge, addeth sorrow," either on
account of the difficulty and disappointment in the search for truth;
or because knowledge makes man acquainted with many things that are
contrary to his will. Accordingly, on the part of the things known,
knowledge causes sorrow: but on the part of the contemplation of
truth, it causes pleasure.

Reply Obj. 2: The speculative intellect does not move the mind on the
part of the thing contemplated: but on the part of contemplation
itself, which is man's good and naturally pleasant to him.

Reply Obj. 3: In the powers of the soul there is an overflow from the
higher to the lower powers: and accordingly, the pleasure of
contemplation, which is in the higher part, overflows so as to
mitigate even that pain which is in the senses.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 5]

Whether Pain and Sorrow Are Assuaged by Sleep and Baths?

Objection 1: It would seem that sleep and baths do not assuage
sorrow. For sorrow is in the soul: whereas sleep and baths regard the
body. Therefore they do not conduce to the assuaging of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, the same effect does not seem to ensue from contrary
causes. But these, being bodily things, are incompatible with the
contemplation of truth which is a cause of the assuaging of sorrow,
as stated above (A. 4). Therefore sorrow is not mitigated by the like.

Obj. 3: Further, sorrow and pain, in so far as they affect the body,
denote a certain transmutation of the heart. But such remedies as
these seem to pertain to the outward senses and limbs, rather than to
the interior disposition of the heart. Therefore they do not assuage
sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ix, 12): "I had heard
that the bath had its name [*_Balneum,_ from the Greek _balaneion_]
. . . from the fact of its driving sadness from the mind." And
further on, he says: "I slept, and woke up again, and found my grief
not a little assuaged": and quotes the words from the hymn of Ambrose
[*Cf. Sarum Breviary: First Sunday after the octave of the Epiphany,
Hymn for first Vespers], in which it is said that "Sleep restores the
tired limbs to labor, refreshes the weary mind, and banishes sorrow."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 37, A. 4), sorrow, by reason of
its specific nature, is repugnant to the vital movement of the body;
and consequently whatever restores the bodily nature to its due state
of vital movement, is opposed to sorrow and assuages it. Moreover
such remedies, from the very fact that they bring nature back to its
normal state, are causes of pleasure; for this is precisely in what
pleasure consists, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1). Therefore, since
every pleasure assuages sorrow, sorrow is assuaged by such like
bodily remedies.

Reply Obj. 1: The normal disposition of the body, so far as it is
felt, is itself a cause of pleasure, and consequently assuages sorrow.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 31, A. 8), one pleasure hinders
another; and yet every pleasure assuages sorrow. Consequently it is
not unreasonable that sorrow should be assuaged by causes which
hinder one another.

Reply Obj. 3: Every good disposition of the body reacts somewhat on
the heart, which is the beginning and end of bodily movements, as
stated in _De Causa Mot. Animal._ xi.
________________________

QUESTION 39

OF THE GOODNESS AND MALICE OF SORROW OR PAIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the goodness and malice of pain or sorrow:
under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether all sorrow is evil?

(2) Whether sorrow can be a virtuous good?

(3) Whether it can be a useful good?

(4) Whether bodily pain is the greatest evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 1]

Whether All Sorrow Is Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that all sorrow is evil. For Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.] says: "All sorrow is evil, from
its very nature." Now what is naturally evil, is evil always and
everywhere. Therefore, all sorrow is evil.

Obj. 2: Further, that which all, even the virtuous, avoid, is evil.
But all avoid sorrow, even the virtuous, since as stated in _Ethic._
vii, 11, "though the prudent man does not aim at pleasure, yet he
aims at avoiding sorrow." Therefore sorrow is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, just as bodily evil is the object and cause of
bodily pain, so spiritual evil is the object and cause of sorrow in
the soul. But every bodily pain is a bodily evil. Therefore every
spiritual sorrow is an evil of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Sorrow for evil is contrary to pleasure in evil.
But pleasure in evil is evil: wherefore in condemnation of certain
men, it is written (Prov. 2:14), that "they were glad when they had
done evil." Therefore sorrow for evil is good.

_I answer that,_ A thing may be good or evil in two ways: first
considered simply and in itself; and thus all sorrow is an evil,
because the mere fact of a man's appetite being uneasy about a
present evil, is itself an evil, because it hinders the response of
the appetite in good. Secondly, a thing is said to be good or evil,
on the supposition of something else: thus shame is said to be good,
on the supposition of a shameful deed done, as stated in _Ethic._ iv,
9. Accordingly, supposing the presence of something saddening or
painful, it is a sign of goodness if a man is in sorrow or pain on
account of this present evil. For if he were not to be in sorrow or
pain, this could only be either because he feels it not, or because
he does not reckon it as something unbecoming, both of which are
manifest evils. Consequently it is a condition of goodness, that,
supposing an evil to be present, sorrow or pain should ensue.
Wherefore Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 14): "It is also a good
thing that he sorrows for the good he has lost: for had not some good
remained in his nature, he could not be punished by the loss of
good." Because, however, in the science of Morals, we consider things
individually--for actions are concerned about individuals--that which
is good on some supposition, should be considered as good: just as
that which is voluntary on some supposition, is judged to be
voluntary, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 1, and likewise above (Q. 6, A.
6).

Reply Obj. 1: Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius] is speaking of sorrow on
the part of the evil that causes it, but not on the part of the
subject that feels and rejects the evil. And from this point of view,
all shun sorrow, inasmuch as they shun evil: but they do not shun the
perception and rejection of evil. The same also applies to bodily
pain: because the perception and rejection of bodily evil is the
proof of the goodness of nature.

This suffices for the Replies to the Second and Third Objections.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 2]

Whether Sorrow Can Be a Virtuous Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not a virtuous good. For
that which leads to hell is not a virtuous good. But, as Augustine
says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 33), "Jacob seems to have feared lest he
should be troubled overmuch by sorrow, and so, instead of entering
into the rest of the blessed, be consigned to the hell of sinners."
Therefore sorrow is not a virtuous good.

Obj. 2: Further, the virtuous good is praiseworthy and meritorious.
But sorrow lessens praise or merit: for the Apostle says (2 Cor.
9:7): "Everyone, as he hath determined in his heart, not with
sadness, or of necessity." Therefore sorrow is not a virtuous good.

Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15), "sorrow is
concerned about those things which happen against our will." But not
to will those things which are actually taking place, is to have a
will opposed to the decree of God, to Whose providence whatever is
done is subject. Since, then, conformity of the human to the Divine
will is a condition of the rectitude of the will, as stated above (Q.
19, A. 9), it seems that sorrow is incompatible with rectitude of the
will, and that consequently it is not virtuous.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever merits the reward of eternal life is
virtuous. But such is sorrow; as is evident from Matt. 5:5: "Blessed
are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Therefore sorrow
is a virtuous good.

_I answer that,_ In so far as sorrow is good, it can be a virtuous
good. For it has been said above (A. 1) that sorrow is a good
inasmuch as it denotes perception and rejection of evil. These two
things, as regards bodily pain, are a proof of the goodness of
nature, to which it is due that the senses perceive, and that nature
shuns, the harmful thing that causes pain. As regards interior
sorrow, perception of the evil is sometimes due to a right judgment
of reason; while the rejection of the evil is the act of the will,
well disposed and detesting that evil. Now every virtuous good
results from these two things, the rectitude of the reason and the
will. Wherefore it is evident that sorrow may be a virtuous good.

Reply Obj. 1: All the passions of the soul should be regulated
according to the rule of reason, which is the root of the virtuous
good; but excessive sorrow, of which Augustine is speaking, oversteps
this rule, and therefore it fails to be a virtuous good.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as sorrow for an evil arises from a right will and
reason, which detest the evil, so sorrow for a good is due to a
perverse reason and will, which detest the good. Consequently such
sorrow is an obstacle to the praise and merit of the virtuous good;
for instance, when a man gives an alms sorrowfully.

Reply Obj. 3: Some things do actually happen, not because God wills,
but because He permits them to happen--such as sins. Consequently a
will that is opposed to sin, whether in oneself or in another, is not
discordant from the Divine will. Penal evils happen actually, even by
God's will. But it is not necessary for the rectitude of his will,
that man should will them in themselves: but only that he should not
revolt against the order of Divine justice, as stated above (Q. 19,
A. 10).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow Can Be a Useful Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow cannot be a useful good. For
it is written (Ecclus. 30:25): "Sadness hath killed many, and there
is no profit in it."

Obj. 2: Further, choice is of that which is useful to an end. But
sorrow is not an object of choice; in fact, "a thing without sorrow
is to be chosen rather than the same thing with sorrow" (Topic. iii,
2). Therefore sorrow is not a useful good.

Obj. 3: Further, "Everything is for the sake of its own operation,"
as stated in _De Coelo_ ii, 3. But "sorrow hinders operation," as
stated in _Ethic._ x, 5. Therefore sorrow is not a useful good.

_On the contrary,_ The wise man seeks only that which is useful. But
according to Eccles. 7:5, "the heart of the wise is where there is
mourning, and the heart of fools where there is mirth." Therefore
sorrow is useful.

_I answer that,_ A twofold movement of the appetite ensues from a
present evil. One is that whereby the appetite is opposed to the
present evil; and, in this respect, sorrow is of no use; because that
which is present, cannot be not present. The other movement arises in
the appetite to the effect of avoiding or expelling the saddening
evil: and, in this respect, sorrow is of use, if it be for something
which ought to be avoided. Because there are two reasons for which it
may be right to avoid a thing. First, because it should be avoided in
itself, on account of its being contrary to good; for instance, sin.
Wherefore sorrow for sin is useful as inducing a man to avoid sin:
hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:9): "I am glad: not because you were
made sorrowful, but because you were made sorrowful unto penance."
Secondly, a thing is to be avoided, not as though it were evil in
itself, but because it is an occasion of evil; either through one's
being attached to it, and loving it too much, or through one's being
thrown headlong thereby into an evil, as is evident in the case of
temporal goods. And, in this respect, sorrow for temporal goods may
be useful; according to Eccles. 7:3: "It is better to go to the house
of mourning, than to the house of feasting: for in that we are put in
mind of the end of all."

Moreover, sorrow for that which ought to be avoided is always useful,
since it adds another motive for avoiding it. Because the very evil
is in itself a thing to be avoided: while everyone avoids sorrow for
its own sake, just as everyone seeks the good, and pleasure in the
good. Therefore just as pleasure in the good makes one seek the good
more earnestly, so sorrow for evil makes one avoid evil more eagerly.

Reply Obj. 1: This passage is to be taken as referring to excessive
sorrow, which consumes the soul: for such sorrow paralyzes the soul,
and hinders it from shunning evil, as stated above (Q. 37, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: Just as any object of choice becomes less eligible by
reason of sorrow, so that which ought to be shunned is still more to
be shunned by reason of sorrow: and, in this respect, sorrow is
useful.

Reply Obj. 3: Sorrow caused by an action hinders that action: but
sorrow for the cessation of an action, makes one do it more earnestly.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 4]

Whether Bodily Pain Is the Greatest Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that pain is the greatest evil. Because
"the worst is contrary to the best" (Ethic. viii, 10). But a certain
pleasure is the greatest good, viz. the pleasure of bliss. Therefore
a certain pain is the greatest evil.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is man's greatest good, because it is his
last end. But man's Happiness consists in his "having whatever he
will, and in willing naught amiss," as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4, Obj.
5; Q. 5, A. 8, Obj. 3). Therefore man's greatest good consists in the
fulfilment of his will. Now pain consists in something happening
contrary to the will, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6, 15).
Therefore pain is man's greatest evil.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine argues thus (Soliloq. i, 12): "We are
composed of two parts, i.e. of a soul and a body, whereof the body is
the inferior. Now the sovereign good is the greatest good of the
better part: while the supreme evil is the greatest evil of the
inferior part. But wisdom is the greatest good of the soul; while the
worst thing in the body is pain. Therefore man's greatest good is to
be wise: while his greatest evil is to suffer pain."

_On the contrary,_ Guilt is a greater evil than punishment, as was
stated in the First Part (Q. 48, A. 6). But sorrow or pain belongs to
the punishment of sin, just as the enjoyment of changeable things is
an evil of guilt. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xii): "What is
pain of the soul, except for the soul to be deprived of that which it
was wont to enjoy, or had hoped to enjoy? And this is all that is
called evil, i.e. sin, and the punishment of sin." Therefore sorrow
or pain is not man's greatest evil.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any sorrow or pain to be man's
greatest evil. For all sorrow or pain is either for something that is
truly evil, or for something that is apparently evil, but good in
reality. Now pain or sorrow for that which is truly evil cannot be
the greatest evil: for there is something worse, namely, either not
to reckon as evil that which is really evil, or not to reject it.
Again, sorrow or pain, for that which is apparently evil, but really
good, cannot be the greatest evil, for it would be worse to be
altogether separated from that which is truly good. Hence it is
impossible for any sorrow or pain to be man's greatest evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Pleasure and sorrow have two good points in common:
namely, a true judgment concerning good and evil; and the right order
of the will in approving of good and rejecting evil. Thus it is clear
that in pain or sorrow there is a good, by the removal of which they
become worse: and yet there is not an evil in every pleasure, by the
removal of which the pleasure is better. Consequently, a pleasure can
be man's highest good, in the way above stated (Q. 34, A. 3): whereas
sorrow cannot be man's greatest evil.

Reply Obj. 2: The very fact of the will being opposed to evil is a
good. And for this reason, sorrow or pain cannot be the greatest
evil; because it has an admixture of good.

Reply Obj. 3: That which harms the better thing is worse than that
which harms the worse. Now a thing is called evil "because it harms,"
as Augustine says (Enchiridion xii). Therefore that which is an evil
to the soul is a greater evil than that which is an evil to the body.
Therefore this argument does not prove: nor does Augustine give it as
his own, but as taken from another [*Cornelius Celsus].
________________________

QUESTION 40

OF THE IRASCIBLE PASSIONS, AND FIRST, OF HOPE AND DESPAIR
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the irascible passions: (1) Hope and despair;
(2) Fear and daring; (3) Anger. Under first head there are eight
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether hope is the same as desire or cupidity?

(2) Whether hope is in the apprehensive, or in the appetitive
faculty?

(3) Whether hope is in dumb animals?

(4) Whether despair is contrary to hope?

(5) Whether experience is a cause of hope?

(6) Whether hope abounds in young men and drunkards?

(7) Concerning the order of hope to love;

(8) Whether love conduces to action?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 1]

Whether Hope Is the Same As Desire or Cupidity?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is the same as desire or
cupidity. Because hope is reckoned as one of the four principal
passions. But Augustine in setting down the four principal passions
puts cupidity in the place of hope (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3, 7). Therefore
hope is the same as cupidity or desire.

Obj. 2: Further, passions differ according to their objects. But the
object of hope is the same as the object of cupidity or desire, viz.
the future good. Therefore hope is the same as cupidity or desire.

Obj. 3: If it be said that hope, in addition to desire, denotes the
possibility of obtaining the future good; on the contrary, whatever
is accidental to the object does not make a different species of
passion. But possibility of acquisition is accidental to a future
good, which is the object of cupidity or desire, and of hope.
Therefore hope does not differ specifically from desire or cupidity.

_On the contrary,_ To different powers belong different species of
passions. But hope is in the irascible power; whereas desire or
cupidity is in the concupiscible. Therefore hope differs specifically
from desire or cupidity.

_I answer that,_ The species of a passion is taken from the object.
Now, in the object of hope, we may note four conditions. First, that
it is something good; since, properly speaking, hope regards only the
good; in this respect, hope differs from fear, which regards evil.
Secondly, that it is future; for hope does not regard that which is
present and already possessed: in this respect, hope differs from joy
which regards a present good. Thirdly, that it must be something
arduous and difficult to obtain, for we do not speak of any one
hoping for trifles, which are in one's power to have at any time: in
this respect, hope differs from desire or cupidity, which regards the
future good absolutely: wherefore it belongs to the concupiscible,
while hope belongs to the irascible faculty. Fourthly, that this
difficult thing is something possible to obtain: for one does not
hope for that which one cannot get at all: and, in this respect, hope
differs from despair. It is therefore evident that hope differs from
desire, as the irascible passions differ from the concupiscible. For
this reason, moreover, hope presupposes desire: just as all irascible
passions presuppose the passions of the concupiscible faculty, as
stated above (Q. 25, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine mentions desire instead of hope, because each
regards future good; and because the good which is not arduous is
reckoned as nothing: thus implying that desire seems to tend chiefly
to the arduous good, to which hope tends likewise.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of hope is the future good considered, not
absolutely, but as arduous and difficult of attainment, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 3: The object of hope adds not only possibility to the
object of desire, but also difficulty: and this makes hope belong to
another power, viz. the irascible, which regards something difficult,
as stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2). Moreover, possibility and
impossibility are not altogether accidental to the object of the
appetitive power: because the appetite is a principle of movement;
and nothing is moved to anything except under the aspect of being
possible; for no one is moved to that which he reckons impossible to
get. Consequently hope differs from despair according to the
difference of possible and impossible.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 2]

Whether Hope Is in the Apprehensive or in the Appetitive Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope belongs to the cognitive power.
Because hope, seemingly, is a kind of awaiting; for the Apostle says
(Rom. 8:25): "If we hope for that which we see not; we wait for it
with patience." But awaiting seems to belong to the cognitive power,
which we exercise by _looking out._ Therefore hope belongs to the
cognitive power.

Obj. 2: Further, apparently hope is the same as confidence; hence
when a man hopes he is said to be confident, as though to hope and to
be confident were the same thing. But confidence, like faith, seems
to belong to the cognitive power. Therefore hope does too.

Obj. 3: Further, certainty is a property of the cognitive power. But
certainty is ascribed to hope. Therefore hope belongs to the
cognitive power.

_On the contrary,_ Hope regards good, as stated above (A. 1). Now
good, as such, is not the object of the cognitive, but of the
appetitive power. Therefore hope belongs, not to the cognitive, but
to the appetitive power.

_I answer that,_ Since hope denotes a certain stretching out of the
appetite towards good, it evidently belongs to the appetitive power;
since movement towards things belongs properly to the appetite:
whereas the action of the cognitive power is accomplished not by the
movement of the knower towards things, but rather according as the
things known are in the knower. But since the cognitive power moves
the appetite, by presenting its object to it; there arise in the
appetite various movements according to various aspects of the
apprehended object. For the apprehension of good gives rise to one
kind of movement in the appetite, while the apprehension of evil
gives rise to another: in like manner various movements arise from
the apprehension of something present and of something future; of
something considered absolutely, and of something considered as
arduous; of something possible, and of something impossible. And
accordingly hope is a movement of the appetitive power ensuing from
the apprehension of a future good, difficult but possible to obtain;
namely, a stretching forth of the appetite to such a good.

Reply Obj. 1: Since hope regards a possible good, there arises in man
a twofold movement of hope; for a thing may be possible to him in two
ways, viz. by his own power, or by another's. Accordingly when a man
hopes to obtain something by his own power, he is not said to wait
for it, but simply to hope for it. But, properly speaking, he is said
to await that which he hopes to get by another's help, as though to
await (_exspectare_) implied keeping one's eyes on another (_ex alio
spectare_), in so far as the apprehensive power, by going ahead, not
only keeps its eye on the good which man intends to get, but also on
the thing by whose power he hopes to get it; according to Ecclus.
51:10, "I looked for the succor of men." Wherefore the movement of
hope is sometimes called expectation, on account of the preceding
inspection of the cognitive power.

Reply Obj. 2: When a man desires a thing and reckons that he can get
it, he believes that he can get it, he believes that he will get it;
and from this belief which precedes in the cognitive power, the
ensuing movement in the appetite is called confidence. Because the
movement of the appetite takes its name from the knowledge that
precedes it, as an effect from a cause which is better known; for the
apprehensive power knows its own act better than that of the appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Certainty is ascribed to the movement, not only of the
sensitive, but also of the natural appetite; thus we say that a stone
is certain to tend downwards. This is owing to the inerrancy which
the movement of the sensitive or even natural appetite derives from
the certainty of the knowledge that precedes it.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 3]

Whether Hope Is in Dumb Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no hope in dumb animals.
Because hope is for some future good, as Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. ii, 12). But knowledge of the future is not in the competency
of dumb animals, whose knowledge is confined to the senses and does
not extend to the future. Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals.

Obj. 2: Further, the object of hope is a future good, possible of
attainment. But possible and impossible are differences of the true
and the false, which are only in the mind, as the Philosopher states
(Metaph. vi, 4). Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals, since
they have no mind.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 14) that "animals
are moved by the things that they see." But hope is of things unseen:
"for what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" (Rom. 8:24). Therefore
there is no hope in dumb animals.

_On the contrary,_ Hope is an irascible passion. But the irascible
faculty is in dumb animals. Therefore hope is also.

_I answer that,_ The internal passions of animals can be gathered
from their outward movements: from which it is clear that hope is in
dumb animals. For if a dog see a hare, or a hawk see a bird, too far
off, it makes no movement towards it, as having no hope to catch it:
whereas, if it be near, it makes a movement towards it, as being in
hopes of catching it. Because as stated above (Q. 1, A. 2; Q. 26, A.
1; Q. 35, A. 1), the sensitive appetite of dumb animals, and
likewise the natural appetite of insensible things, result from the
apprehension of an intellect, just as the appetite of the
intellectual nature, which is called the will. But there is a
difference, in that the will is moved by an apprehension of the
intellect in the same subject; whereas the movement of the natural
appetite results from the apprehension of the separate Intellect, Who
is the Author of nature; as does also the sensitive appetite of dumb
animals, who act from a certain natural instinct. Consequently, in
the actions of irrational animals and of other natural things, we
observe a procedure which is similar to that which we observe in the
actions of art: and in this way hope and despair are in dumb animals.

Reply Obj. 1: Although dumb animals do not know the future, yet an
animal is moved by its natural instinct to something future, as
though it foresaw the future. Because this instinct is planted in
them by the Divine Intellect that foresees the future.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of hope is not the possible as
differentiating the true, for thus the possible ensues from the
relation of a predicate to a subject. The object of hope is the
possible as compared to a power. For such is the division of the
possible given in _Metaph._ v, 12, i.e. into the two kinds we have
just mentioned.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the thing which is future does not come under
the object of sight; nevertheless through seeing something present,
an animal's appetite is moved to seek or avoid something future.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 4]

Whether Despair Is Contrary to Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not contrary to hope.
Because "to one thing there is one contrary" (Metaph. x, 5). But fear
is contrary to hope. Therefore despair is not contrary to hope.

Obj. 2: Further, contraries seem to bear on the same thing. But hope
and despair do not bear on the same thing: since hope regards the
good, whereas despair arises from some evil that is in the way of
obtaining good. Therefore hope is not contrary to despair.

Obj. 3: Further, movement is contrary to movement: while repose is in
opposition to movement as a privation thereof. But despair seems to
imply immobility rather than movement. Therefore it is not contrary
to hope, which implies movement of stretching out towards the
hoped-for good.

_On the contrary,_ The very name of despair (_desperatio_) implies that
it is contrary to hope (_spes_).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 23, A. 2), there is a twofold
contrariety of movements. One is in respect of approach to contrary
terms: and this contrariety alone is to be found in the concupiscible
passions, for instance between love and hatred. The other is
according to approach and withdrawal with regard to the same term;
and is to be found in the irascible passions, as stated above (Q. 23,
A. 2). Now the object of hope, which is the arduous good, has the
character of a principle of attraction, if it be considered in the
light of something attainable; and thus hope tends thereto, for it
denotes a kind of approach. But in so far as it is considered as
unobtainable, it has the character of a principle of repulsion,
because, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 3, "when men come to an
impossibility they disperse." And this is how despair stands in
regard to this object, wherefore it implies a movement of withdrawal:
and consequently it is contrary to hope, as withdrawal is to approach.

Reply Obj. 1: Fear is contrary to hope, because their objects, i.e.
good and evil, are contrary: for this contrariety is found in the
irascible passions, according as they ensue from the passions of the
concupiscible. But despair is contrary to hope, only by contrariety
of approach and withdrawal.

Reply Obj. 2: Despair does not regard evil as such; sometimes however
it regards evil accidentally, as making the difficult good impossible
to obtain. But it can arise from the mere excess of good.

Reply Obj. 3: Despair implies not only privation of hope, but also a
recoil from the thing desired, by reason of its being esteemed
impossible to get. Hence despair, like hope, presupposes desire;
because we neither hope for nor despair of that which we do not
desire to have. For this reason, too, each of them regards the good,
which is the object of desire.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 5]

Whether Experience Is a Cause of Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that experience is not a cause of hope.
Because experience belongs to the cognitive power; wherefore the
Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that "intellectual virtue needs
experience and time." But hope is not in the cognitive power, but in
the appetite, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore experience is not a
cause of hope.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 13) that "the old
are slow to hope, on account of their experience"; whence it seems to
follow that experience causes want of hope. But the same cause is not
productive of opposites. Therefore experience is not a cause of hope.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Coel. ii, 5) that "to have
something to say about everything, without leaving anything out, is
sometimes a proof of folly." But to attempt everything seems to point
to great hopes; while folly arises from inexperience. Therefore
inexperience, rather than experience, seems to be a cause of hope.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) "some are
hopeful, through having been victorious often and over many
opponents": which seems to pertain to experience. Therefore
experience is a cause of hope.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the object of hope is a
future good, difficult but possible to obtain. Consequently a thing
may be a cause of hope, either because it makes something possible to
a man: or because it makes him think something possible. In the first
way hope is caused by everything that increases a man's power; e.g.
riches, strength, and, among others, experience: since by experience
man acquires the faculty of doing something easily, and the result of
this is hope. Wherefore Vegetius says (De Re Milit. i): "No one fears
to do that which he is sure of having learned well."

In the second way, hope is caused by everything that makes man think
that he can obtain something: and thus both teaching and persuasion
may be a cause of hope. And then again experience is a cause of hope,
in so far as it makes him reckon something possible, which before his
experience he looked upon as impossible. However, in this way,
experience can cause a lack of hope: because just as it makes a man
think possible what he had previously thought impossible; so,
conversely, experience makes a man consider as impossible that which
hitherto he had thought possible. Accordingly experience causes hope
in two ways, despair in one way: and for this reason we may say
rather that it causes hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Experience in matters pertaining to action not only
produces knowledge; it also causes a certain habit, by reason of
custom, which renders the action easier. Moreover, the intellectual
virtue itself adds to the power of acting with ease: because it
shows something to be possible; and thus is a cause of hope.

Reply Obj. 2: The old are wanting in hope because of their
experience, in so far as experience makes them think something
impossible. Hence he adds (Rhet. ii, 13) that "many evils have
befallen them."

Reply Obj. 3: Folly and inexperience can be a cause of hope
accidentally as it were, by removing the knowledge which would help
one to judge truly a thing to be impossible. Wherefore inexperience
is a cause of hope, for the same reason as experience causes lack of
hope.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 6]

Whether Hope Abounds in Young Men and Drunkards?

Objection 1: It would seem that youth and drunkenness are not causes
of hope. Because hope implies certainty and steadiness; so much so
that it is compared to an anchor (Heb. 6:19). But young men and
drunkards are wanting in steadiness; since their minds are easily
changed. Therefore youth and drunkenness are not causes of hope.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 5), the cause of hope is chiefly
whatever increases one's power. But youth and drunkenness are united
to weakness. Therefore they are not causes of hope.

Obj. 3: Further, experience is a cause of hope, as stated above (A.
5). But youth lacks experience. Therefore it is not a cause of hope.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "drunken
men are hopeful": and (Rhet. ii, 12) that "the young are full of
hope."

_I answer that,_ Youth is a cause of hope for three reasons, as the
Philosopher states in _Rhet._ ii, 12: and these three reasons may be
gathered from the three conditions of the good which is the object of
hope--namely, that it is future, arduous and possible, as stated
above (A. 1). For youth has much of the future before it, and little
of the past: and therefore since memory is of the past, and hope of
the future, it has little to remember and lives very much in hope.
Again, youths, on account of the heat of their nature, are full of
spirit; so that their heart expands: and it is owing to the heart
being expanded that one tends to that which is arduous; wherefore
youths are spirited and hopeful. Likewise they who have not suffered
defeat, nor had experience of obstacles to their efforts, are prone
to count a thing possible to them. Wherefore youths, through
inexperience of obstacles and of their own shortcomings, easily count
a thing possible; and consequently are of good hope. Two of these
causes are also in those who are in drink--viz. heat and high
spirits, on account of wine, and heedlessness of dangers and
shortcomings. For the same reason all foolish and thoughtless persons
attempt everything and are full of hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Although youths and men in drink lack steadiness in
reality, yet they are steady in their own estimation, for they think
that they will steadily obtain that which they hope for.

In like manner, in reply to the Second Objection, we must observe
that young people and men in drink are indeed unsteady in reality:
but, in their own estimation, they are capable, for they know not
their shortcomings.

Reply Obj. 3: Not only experience, but also lack of experience, is,
in some way, a cause of hope, as explained above (A. 5, ad 3).
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 7]

Whether Hope Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a cause of love. Because,
according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), love is the first of
the soul's emotions. But hope is an emotion of the soul. Therefore
love precedes hope, and consequently hope does not cause love.

Obj. 2: Further, desire precedes hope. But desire is caused by love,
as stated above (Q. 25, A. 2). Therefore hope, too, follows love, and
consequently is not its cause.

Obj. 3: Further, hope causes pleasure, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 3).
But pleasure is only of the good that is loved. Therefore love
precedes hope.

_On the contrary,_ The gloss commenting on Matt. 1:2, "Abraham begot
Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob," says, i.e. "faith begets hope, and
hope begets charity." But charity is love. Therefore love is caused
by hope.

_I answer that,_ Hope can regard two things. For it regards as its
object, the good which one hopes for. But since the good we hope for
is something difficult but possible to obtain; and since it happens
sometimes that what is difficult becomes possible to us, not through
ourselves but through others; hence it is that hope regards also that
by which something becomes possible to us.

In so far, then, as hope regards the good we hope to get, it is
caused by love: since we do not hope save for that which we desire
and love. But in so far as hope regards one through whom something
becomes possible to us, love is caused by hope, and not vice versa.
Because by the very fact that we hope that good will accrue to us
through someone, we are moved towards him as to our own good; and
thus we begin to love him. Whereas from the fact that we love someone
we do not hope in him, except accidentally, that is, in so far as we
think that he returns our love. Wherefore the fact of being loved by
another makes us hope in him; but our love for him is caused by the
hope we have in him.

Wherefore the Replies to the Objections are evident.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 8]

Whether Hope Is a Help or a Hindrance to Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a help but a hindrance to
action. Because hope implies security. But security begets negligence
which hinders action. Therefore hope is a hindrance to action.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow hinders action, as stated above (Q. 37, A.
3). But hope sometimes causes sorrow: for it is written (Prov.
13:12): "Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope
hinders action.

Obj. 3: Further, despair is contrary to hope, as stated above (A. 4).
But despair, especially in matters of war, conduces to action; for it
is written (2 Kings 2:26), that "it is dangerous to drive people to
despair." Therefore hope has a contrary effect, namely, by hindering
action.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 9:10) that "he that
plougheth should plough in hope . . . to receive fruit": and the same
applies to all other actions.

_I answer that,_ Hope of its very nature is a help to action by
making it more intense: and this for two reasons. First, by reason of
its object, which is a good, difficult but possible. For the thought
of its being difficult arouses our attention; while the thought that
it is possible is no drag on our effort. Hence it follows that by
reason of hope man is intent on his action. Secondly, on account of
its effect. Because hope, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 3), causes
pleasure; which is a help to action, as stated above (Q. 33, A. 4).
Therefore hope is conducive to action.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope regards a good to be obtained; security regards an
evil to be avoided. Wherefore security seems to be contrary to fear
rather than to belong to hope. Yet security does not beget
negligence, save in so far as it lessens the idea of difficulty:
whereby it also lessens the character of hope: for the things in
which a man fears no hindrance, are no longer looked upon as
difficult.

Reply Obj. 2: Hope of itself causes pleasure; it is by accident that
it causes sorrow, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 3, ad 2).

Reply Obj. 3: Despair threatens danger in war, on account of a
certain hope that attaches to it. For they who despair of flight,
strive less to fly, but hope to avenge their death: and therefore
in this hope they fight the more bravely, and consequently prove
dangerous to the foe.
________________________

QUESTION 41

OF FEAR, IN ITSELF
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider, in the first place, fear; and, secondly, daring.
With regard to fear, four things must be considered: (1) Fear, in
itself; (2) Its object; (3) Its cause; (4) Its effect. Under the first
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether fear is a passion of the soul?

(2) Whether fear is a special passion?

(3) Whether there is a natural fear?

(4) Of the species of fear.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 1]

Whether Fear Is a Passion of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear is not a passion of the soul.
For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that "fear is a power, by
way of _systole_"--i.e. of contraction--"desirous of vindicating
nature." But no virtue is a passion, as is proved in _Ethic._ ii, 5.
Therefore fear is not a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, every passion is an effect due to the presence of an
agent. But fear is not of something present, but of something future,
as Damascene declares (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). Therefore fear is not a
passion.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul is a movement of the
sensitive appetite, in consequence of an apprehension of the senses.
But sense apprehends, not the future but the present. Since, then,
fear is of future evil, it seems that it is not a passion of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 5, seqq.) reckons fear
among the other passions of the soul.

_I answer that,_ Among the other passions of the soul, after sorrow,
fear chiefly has the character of passion. For as we have stated
above (Q. 22), the notion of passion implies first of all a movement
of a passive power--i.e. of a power whose object is compared to it as
its active principle: since passion is the effect of an agent. In
this way, both _to feel_ and _to understand_ are passions. Secondly,
more properly speaking, passion is a movement of the appetitive
power; and more properly still, it is a movement of an appetitive
power that has a bodily organ, such movement being accompanied by a
bodily transmutation. And, again, most properly those movements are
called passions, which imply some deterioration. Now it is evident
that fear, since it regards evil, belongs to the appetitive power,
which of itself regards good and evil. Moreover, it belongs to the
sensitive appetite: for it is accompanied by a certain
transmutation--i.e. contraction--as Damascene says (Cf. Obj. 1).
Again, it implies relation to evil as overcoming, so to speak, some
particular good. Wherefore it has most properly the character of
passion; less, however, than sorrow, which regards the present evil:
because fear regards future evil, which is not so strong a motive as
present evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue denotes a principle of action: wherefore, in so
far as the interior movements of the appetitive faculty are
principles of external action, they are called virtues. But the
Philosopher denies that passion is a virtue by way of habit.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the passion of a natural body is due to the
bodily presence of an agent, so is the passion of the soul due to the
agent being present to the soul, although neither corporally nor
really present: that is to say, in so far as the evil which is really
future, is present in the apprehension of the soul.

Reply Obj. 3: The senses do not apprehend the future: but from
apprehending the present, an animal is moved by natural instinct to
hope for a future good, or to fear a future evil.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 2]

Whether Fear Is a Special Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear is not a special passion. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33) that "the man who is not distraught
by fear, is neither harassed by desire, nor wounded by
sickness"--i.e. sorrow--"nor tossed about in transports of empty
joys." Wherefore it seems that, if fear be set aside, all the other
passions are removed. Therefore fear is not a special but a general
passion.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that "pursuit
and avoidance in the appetite are what affirmation and denial are in
the intellect." But denial is nothing special in the intellect, as
neither is affirmation, but something common to many. Therefore
neither is avoidance anything special in the appetite. But fear is
nothing but a kind of avoidance of evil. Therefore it is not a
special passion.

Obj. 3: Further, if fear were a special passion, it would be chiefly
in the irascible part. But fear is also in the concupiscible: since
the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "fear is a kind of sorrow";
and Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that fear is "a power of
desire": and both sorrow and desire are in the concupiscible faculty,
as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Therefore fear is not a special
passion, since it belongs to different powers.

_On the contrary,_ Fear is condivided with the other passions of the
soul, as is clear from Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 12, 15).

_I answer that,_ The passions of the soul derive their species from
their objects: hence that is a special passion, which has a special
object. Now fear has a special object, as hope has. For just as the
object of hope is a future good, difficult but possible to obtain; so
the object of fear is a future evil, difficult and irresistible.
Consequently fear is a special passion of the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: All the passions of the soul arise from one source,
viz. love, wherein they are connected with one another. By reason of
this connection, when fear is put aside, the other passions of the
soul are dispersed; not, however, as though it were a general passion.

Reply Obj. 2: Not every avoidance in the appetite is fear, but
avoidance of a special object, as stated. Wherefore, though avoidance
be something common, yet fear is a special passion.

Reply Obj. 3: Fear is nowise in the concupiscible: for it regards
evil, not absolutely, but as difficult or arduous, so as to be almost
unavoidable. But since the irascible passions arise from the passions
of the concupiscible faculty, and terminate therein, as stated above
(Q. 25, A. 1); hence it is that what belongs to the concupiscible is
ascribed to fear. For fear is called sorrow, in so far as the object
of fear causes sorrow when present: wherefore the Philosopher says
(Rhet. ii, 5) that fear arises "from the representation of a future
evil which is either corruptive or painful." In like manner desire is
ascribed by Damascene to fear, because just as hope arises from the
desire of good, so fear arises from avoidance of evil; while
avoidance of evil arises from the desire of good, as is evident from
what has been said above (Q. 25, A. 2; Q. 29, A. 2; Q. 36, A. 2).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 3]

Whether There Is a Natural Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is a natural fear. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that "there is a natural fear,
through the soul refusing to be severed from the body."

Obj. 2: Further, fear arises from love, as stated above (A. 2, ad 1).
But there is a natural love, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
Therefore there is also a natural fear.

Obj. 3: Further, fear is opposed to hope, as stated above (Q. 40, A.
4, ad 1). But there is a hope of nature, as is evident from Rom.
4:18, where it is said of Abraham that "against hope" of nature, "he
believed in hope" of grace. Therefore there is also a fear of nature.

_On the contrary,_ That which is natural is common to things animate
and inanimate. But fear is not in things inanimate. Therefore there
is no natural fear.

_I answer that,_ A movement is said to be natural, because nature
inclines thereto. Now this happens in two ways. First, so that it is
entirely accomplished by nature, without any operation of the
apprehensive faculty: thus to have an upward movement is natural to
fire, and to grow is the natural movement of animals and plants.
Secondly, a movement is said to be natural, if nature inclines
thereto, though it be accomplished by the apprehensive faculty alone:
since, as stated above (Q. 10, A. 1), the movements of the cognitive
and appetitive faculties are reducible to nature as to their first
principle. In this way, even the acts of the apprehensive power, such
as understanding, feeling, and remembering, as well as the movements
of the animal appetite, are sometimes said to be natural.

And in this sense we may say that there is a natural fear; and it is
distinguished from non-natural fear, by reason of the diversity of
its object. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), there is a
fear of "corruptive evil," which nature shrinks from on account of
its natural desire to exist; and such fear is said to be natural.
Again, there is a fear of "painful evil," which is repugnant not to
nature, but to the desire of the appetite; and such fear is not
natural. In this sense we have stated above (Q. 26, A. 1; Q. 30, A.
3; Q. 31, A. 7) that love, desire, and pleasure are divisible into
natural and non-natural.

But in the first sense of the word "natural," we must observe that
certain passions of the soul are sometimes said to be natural, as
love, desire, and hope; whereas the others cannot be called natural.
The reason of this is because love and hatred, desire and avoidance,
imply a certain inclination to pursue what is good or to avoid what
is evil; which inclination is to be found in the natural appetite
also. Consequently there is a natural love; while we may also speak
of desire and hope as being even in natural things devoid of
knowledge. On the other hand the other passions of the soul denote
certain movements, whereto the natural inclination is nowise
sufficient. This is due either to the fact that perception or
knowledge is essential to these passions (thus we have said, Q. 31,
AA. 1, 3; Q. 35, A. 1, that apprehension is a necessary condition of
pleasure and sorrow), wherefore things devoid of knowledge cannot be
said to take pleasure or to be sorrowful: or else it is because such
like movements are contrary to the very nature of natural
inclination: for instance, despair flies from good on account of some
difficulty; and fear shrinks from repelling a contrary evil; both of
which are contrary to the inclination of nature. Wherefore such like
passions are in no way ascribed to inanimate beings.

Thus the Replies to the Objections are evident.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 4]

Whether the Species of Fear Are Suitably Assigned?

Objection 1: It would seem that six species of fear are unsuitably
assigned by Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15); namely, "laziness,
shamefacedness, shame, amazement, stupor, and anxiety." Because, as
the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), "fear regards a saddening evil."
Therefore the species of fear should correspond to the species of
sorrow. Now there are four species of sorrow, as stated above (Q. 35,
A. 8). Therefore there should only be four species of fear
corresponding to them.

Obj. 2: Further, that which consists in an action of our own is in
our power. But fear regards an evil that surpasses our power, as
stated above (A. 2). Therefore laziness, shamefacedness, and shame,
which regard our own actions, should not be reckoned as species of
fear.

Obj. 3: Further, fear is of the future, as stated above (AA. 1, 2).
But "shame regards a disgraceful deed already done," as Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xx.] says. Therefore shame is not a
species of fear.

Obj. 4: Further, fear is only of evil. But amazement and stupor
regard great and unwonted things, whether good or evil. Therefore
amazement and stupor are not species of fear.

Obj. 5: Further, Philosophers have been led by amazement to seek the
truth, as stated in the beginning of _Metaph._ But fear leads to
flight rather than to search. Therefore amazement is not a species of
fear.

On the contrary suffices the authority of Damascene and Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius] (Cf. Obj. 1, 3).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), fear regards a future evil
which surpasses the power of him that fears, so that it is
irresistible. Now man's evil, like his good, may be considered either
in his action or in external things. In his action he has a twofold
evil to fear. First, there is the toil that burdens his nature: and
hence arises _laziness,_ as when a man shrinks from work for fear of
too much toil. Secondly, there is the disgrace which damages him in
the opinion of others. And thus, if disgrace is feared in a deed that
is yet to be done, there is _shamefacedness_; if, however, it be a
deed already done, there is _shame._

On the other hand, the evil that consists in external things may
surpass man's faculty of resistance in three ways. First by reason of
its magnitude; when, that is to say, a man considers some great evil
the outcome of which he is unable to gauge: and then there is
_amazement._ Secondly, by reason of its being unwonted; because, to
wit, some unwonted evil arises before us, and on that account is
great in our estimation: and then there is _stupor,_ which is caused
by the representation of something unwonted. Thirdly, by reason of
its being unforeseen: thus future misfortunes are feared, and fear of
this kind is called _anxiety._

Reply Obj. 1: Those species of sorrow given above are not derived
from the diversity of objects, but from the diversity of effects, and
for certain special reasons. Consequently there is no need for those
species of sorrow to correspond with these species of fear, which are
derived from the proper division of the object of fear itself.

Reply Obj. 2: A deed considered as being actually done, is in the
power of the doer. But it is possible to take into consideration
something connected with the deed, and surpassing the faculty of the
doer, for which reason he shrinks from the deed. It is in this sense
that laziness, shamefacedness, and shame are reckoned as species of
fear.

Reply Obj. 3: The past deed may be the occasion of fear of future
reproach or disgrace: and in this sense shame is a species of fear.

Reply Obj. 4: Not every amazement and stupor are species of fear, but
that amazement which is caused by a great evil, and that stupor which
arises from an unwonted evil. Or else we may say that, just as
laziness shrinks from the toil of external work, so amazement and
stupor shrink from the difficulty of considering a great and unwonted
thing, whether good or evil: so that amazement and stupor stand in
relation to the act of the intellect, as laziness does to external
work.

Reply Obj. 5: He who is amazed shrinks at present from forming a
judgment of that which amazes him, fearing to fall short of the
truth, but inquires afterwards: whereas he who is overcome by stupor
fears both to judge at present, and to inquire afterwards. Wherefore
amazement is a beginning of philosophical research: whereas stupor
is a hindrance thereto.
________________________

QUESTION 42

OF THE OBJECT OF FEAR
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the object of fear: under which head there are
six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether good or evil is the object of fear?

(2) Whether evil of nature is the object of fear?

(3) Whether the evil of sin is an object of fear?

(4) Whether fear itself can be feared?

(5) Whether sudden things are especially feared?

(6) Whether those things are more feared against which there is no
remedy?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 1]

Whether the Object of Fear Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that good is the object of fear. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 83) that "we fear nothing save to lose
what we love and possess, or not to obtain that which we hope for."
But that which we love is good. Therefore fear regards good as its
proper object.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "power and
to be above another is a thing to be feared." But this is a good
thing. Therefore good is the object of fear.

Obj. 3: Further, there can be no evil in God. But we are commanded to
fear God, according to Ps. 33:10: "Fear the Lord, all ye saints."
Therefore even the good is an object of fear.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that fear is
of future evil.

_I answer that,_ Fear is a movement of the appetitive power. Now it
belongs to the appetitive power to pursue and to avoid, as stated in
_Ethic._ vi, 2: and pursuit is of good, while avoidance is of evil.
Consequently whatever movement of the appetitive power implies
pursuit, has some good for its object: and whatever movement implies
avoidance, has an evil for its object. Wherefore, since fear implies
an avoidance, in the first place and of its very nature it regards
evil as its proper object.

It can, however, regard good also, in so far as referable to evil.
This can be in two ways. In one way, inasmuch as an evil causes
privation of good. Now a thing is evil from the very fact that it is
a privation of some good. Wherefore, since evil is shunned because it
is evil, it follows that it is shunned because it deprives one of the
good that one pursues through love thereof. And in this sense
Augustine says that there is no cause for fear, save loss of the good
we love.

In another way, good stands related to evil as its cause: in so far
as some good can by its power bring harm to the good we love: and so,
just as hope, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 7), regards two things,
namely, the good to which it tends, and the thing through which there
is a hope of obtaining the desired good; so also does fear regard two
things, namely, the evil from which it shrinks, and that good which,
by its power, can inflict that evil. In this way God is feared by
man, inasmuch as He can inflict punishment, spiritual or corporal. In
this way, too, we fear the power of man; especially when it has been
thwarted, or when it is unjust, because then it is more likely to do
us a harm.

In like manner one fears _to be over another,_ i.e. to lean on
another, so that it is in his power to do us a harm: thus a man fears
another, who knows him to be guilty of a crime, lest he reveal it to
others.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 2]

Whether Evil of Nature Is an Object of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that evil of nature is not an object of
fear. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "fear makes us take
counsel." But we do not take counsel about things which happen
naturally, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 3. Therefore evil of nature is
not an object of fear.

Obj. 2: Further, natural defects such as death and the like are
always threatening man. If therefore such like evils were an object
of fear, man would needs be always in fear.

Obj. 3: Further, nature does not move to contraries. But evil of
nature is an effect of nature. Therefore if a man shrinks from such
like evils through fear thereof, this is not an effect of nature.
Therefore natural fear is not of the evil of nature; and yet it seems
that it should be.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 6) that "the
most terrible of all things is death," which is an evil of nature.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), fear is
caused by the "imagination of a future evil which is either
corruptive or painful." Now just as a painful evil is that which is
contrary to the will, so a corruptive evil is that which is contrary
to nature: and this is the evil of nature. Consequently evil of
nature can be the object of fear.

But it must be observed that evil of nature sometimes arises from a
natural cause; and then it is called evil of nature, not merely from
being a privation of the good of nature, but also from being an
effect of nature; such are natural death and other like defects. But
sometimes evil of nature arises from a non-natural cause; such as
violent death inflicted by an assailant. In either case evil of
nature is feared to a certain extent, and to a certain extent not.
For since fear arises "from the imagination of future evil," as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), whatever removes the imagination of
the future evil, removes fear also. Now it may happen in two ways
that an evil may not appear as about to be. First, through being
remote and far off: for, on account of the distance, such a thing is
considered as though it were not to be. Hence we either do not fear
it, or fear it but little; for, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii,
5), "we do not fear things that are very far off; since all know that
they shall die, but as death is not near, they heed it not."
Secondly, a future evil is considered as though it were not to be, on
account of its being inevitable, wherefore we look upon it as already
present. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those who are
already on the scaffold, are not afraid," seeing that they are on the
very point of a death from which there is no escape; "but in order
that a man be afraid, there must be some hope of escape for him."

Consequently evil of nature is not feared if it be not apprehended as
future: but if evil of nature, that is corruptive, be apprehended as
near at hand, and yet with some hope of escape, then it will be
feared.

Reply Obj. 1: The evil of nature sometimes is not an effect of
nature, as stated above. But in so far as it is an effect of nature,
although it may be impossible to avoid it entirely, yet it may be
possible to delay it. And with this hope one may take counsel about
avoiding it.

Reply Obj. 2: Although evil of nature ever threatens, yet it does not
always threaten from near at hand: and consequently it is not always
feared.

Reply Obj. 3: Death and other defects of nature are the effects of
the common nature; and yet the individual nature rebels against them
as far as it can. Accordingly, from the inclination of the individual
nature arise pain and sorrow for such like evils, when present; fear
when threatening in the future.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 3]

Whether the Evil of Sin Is an Object of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that the evil of sin can be an object of
fear. For Augustine says on the canonical Epistle of John (Tract.
ix), that "by chaste fear man fears to be severed from God." Now
nothing but sin severs us from God; according to Isa. 59:2: "Your
iniquities have divided between you and your God." Therefore the evil
of sin can be an object of fear.

Obj. 2: Further, Cicero says (Quaest. Tusc. iv, 4, 6) that "we fear
when they are yet to come, those things which give us pain when they
are present." But it is possible for one to be pained or sorrowful on
account of the evil of sin. Therefore one can also fear the evil of
sin.

Obj. 3: Further, hope is contrary to fear. But the good of virtue can
be the object of hope, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4):
and the Apostle says (Gal. 5:10): "I have confidence in you in the
Lord, that you will not be of another mind." Therefore fear can
regard evil of sin.

Obj. 4: Further, shame is a kind of fear, as stated above (Q. 41, A.
4). But shame regards a disgraceful deed, which is an evil of sin.
Therefore fear does so likewise.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "not all
evils are feared, for instance that someone be unjust or slow."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 40, A. 1; Q. 41, A. 2), as the
object of hope is a future good difficult but possible to obtain, so
the object of fear is a future evil, arduous and not to be easily
avoided. From this we may gather that whatever is entirely subject to
our power and will, is not an object of fear; and that nothing gives
rise to fear save what is due to an external cause. Now human will is
the proper cause of the evil of sin: and consequently evil of sin,
properly speaking, is not an object of fear.

But since the human will may be inclined to sin by an extrinsic
cause; if this cause have a strong power of inclination, in that
respect a man may fear the evil of sin, in so far as it arises from
that extrinsic cause: as when he fears to dwell in the company of
wicked men, lest he be led by them to sin. But, properly speaking, a
man thus disposed, fears the being led astray rather than the sin
considered in its proper nature, i.e. as a voluntary act; for
considered in this light it is not an object of fear to him.

Reply Obj. 1: Separation from God is a punishment resulting from sin:
and every punishment is, in some way, due to an extrinsic cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Sorrow and fear agree in one point, since each regards
evil: they differ, however, in two points. First, because sorrow is
about present evil, whereas fear is future evil. Secondly, because
sorrow, being in the concupiscible faculty, regards evil absolutely;
wherefore it can be about any evil, great or small; whereas fear,
being in the irascible part, regards evil with the addition of a
certain arduousness or difficulty; which difficulty ceases in so far
as a thing is subject to the will. Consequently not all things that
give us pain when they are present, make us fear when they are yet to
come, but only some things, namely, those that are difficult.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope is of good that is obtainable. Now one may obtain
a good either of oneself, or through another: and so, hope may be of
an act of virtue, which lies within our own power. On the other hand,
fear is of an evil that does not lie in our own power: and
consequently the evil which is feared is always from an extrinsic
cause; while the good that is hoped for may be both from an intrinsic
and from an extrinsic cause.

Reply Obj. 4: As stated above (Q. 41, A. 4, ad 2, 3), shame is not
fear of the very act of sin, but of the disgrace or ignominy which
arises therefrom, and which is due to an extrinsic cause.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 4]

Whether Fear Itself Can Be Feared?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear cannot be feared. For whatever
is feared, is prevented from being lost, through fear thereof: thus a
man who fears to lose his health, keeps it, through fearing its loss.
If therefore a man be afraid of fear, he will keep himself from fear
by being afraid: which seems absurd.

Obj. 2: Further, fear is a kind of flight. But nothing flies from
itself. Therefore fear cannot be the object of fear.

Obj. 3: Further, fear is about the future. But fear is present to him
that fears. Therefore it cannot be the object of his fear.

_On the contrary,_ A man can love his own love, and can grieve at his
own sorrow. Therefore, in like manner, he can fear his own fear.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), nothing can be an object of
fear, save what is due to an extrinsic cause; but not that which
ensues from our own will. Now fear partly arises from an extrinsic
cause, and is partly subject to the will. It is due to an extrinsic
cause, in so far as it is a passion resulting from the imagination of
an imminent evil. In this sense it is possible for fear to be the
object of fear, i.e. a man may fear lest he should be threatened by
the necessity of fearing, through being assailed by some great evil.
It is subject to the will, in so far as the lower appetite obeys
reason; wherefore man is able to drive fear away. In this sense fear
cannot be the object of fear, as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33).
Lest, however, anyone make use of his arguments, in order to prove
that fear cannot be at all be the object of fear, we must add a
solution to the same.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every fear is identically the same; there are
various fears according to the various objects of fear. Nothing,
then, prevents a man from keeping himself from fearing one thing, by
fearing another, so that the fear which he has preserves him from the
fear which he has not.

Reply Obj. 2: Since fear of an imminent evil is not identical with
the fear of the fear of imminent evil; it does not follow that a
thing flies from itself, or that it is the same flight in both cases.

Reply Obj. 3: On account of the various kinds of fear already alluded
to (ad 2) a man's present fear may have a future fear for its object.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 5]

Whether Sudden Things Are Especially Feared?

Objection 1: It would seem that unwonted and sudden things are not
especially feared. Because, as hope is about good things, so fear is
about evil things. But experience conduces to the increase of hope in
good things. Therefore it also adds to fear in evil things.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those are
feared most, not who are quick-tempered, but who are gentle and
cunning." Now it is clear that those who are quick-tempered are more
subject to sudden emotions. Therefore sudden things are less to be
feared.

Obj. 3: Further, we think less about things that happen suddenly. But
the more we think about a thing, the more we fear it; hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "some appear to be courageous
through ignorance, but as soon as they discover that the case is
different from what they expected, they run away." Therefore sudden
things are feared less.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6): "Fear is startled
at things unwonted and sudden, which endanger things beloved, and
takes forethought for their safety."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3; Q. 41, A. 2), the object of
fear is an imminent evil, which can be repelled, but with difficulty.
Now this is due to one of two causes: to the greatness of the evil,
or to the weakness of him that fears; while unwontedness and
suddenness conduce to both of these causes. First, it helps an
imminent evil to seem greater. Because all material things, whether
good or evil, the more we consider them, the smaller they seem.
Consequently, just as sorrow for a present evil is mitigated in
course of time, as Cicero states (De Quaest. Tusc. iii, 30); so, too,
fear of a future evil is diminished by thinking about it beforehand.
Secondly, unwontedness and suddenness increase the weakness of him
that fears, in so far as they deprive him of the remedies with which
he might otherwise provide himself to forestall the coming evil, were
it not for the evil taking him by surprise.

Reply Obj. 1: The object of hope is a good that is possible to
obtain. Consequently whatever increases a man's power, is of a nature
to increase hope, and, for the same reason, to diminish fear, since
fear is about an evil which cannot be easily repelled. Since,
therefore, experience increases a man's power of action, therefore,
as it increases hope, so does it diminish fear.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who are quick-tempered do not hide their anger;
wherefore the harm they do others is not so sudden, as not to be
foreseen. On the other hand, those who are gentle or cunning hide
their anger; wherefore the harm which may be impending from them,
cannot be foreseen, but takes one by surprise. For this reason the
Philosopher says that such men are feared more than others.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily good or evil, considered in itself, seems
greater at first. The reason for this is that a thing is more obvious
when seen in juxtaposition with its contrary. Hence, when a man
passes unexpectedly from penury to wealth, he thinks more of his
wealth on account of his previous poverty: while, on the other hand,
the rich man who suddenly becomes poor, finds poverty all the more
disagreeable. For this reason sudden evil is feared more, because it
seems more to be evil. However, it may happen through some accident
that the greatness of some evil is hidden; for instance if the foe
hides himself in ambush: and then it is true that evil inspires
greater fear through being much thought about.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 6]

Whether Those Things Are More Feared, for Which There Is No Remedy?

Objection 1: It would seem that those things are not more to be
feared, for which there is no remedy. Because it is a condition of
fear, that there be some hope of safety, as stated above (A. 2). But
an evil that cannot be remedied leaves no hope of escape. Therefore
such things are not feared at all.

Obj. 2: Further, there is no remedy for the evil of death: since, in
the natural course of things, there is no return from death to life.
And yet death is not the most feared of all things, as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5). Therefore those things are not feared
most, for which there is no remedy.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 6) that "a thing
which lasts long is no better than that which lasts but one day: nor
is that which lasts for ever any better than that which is not
everlasting": and the same applies to evil. But things that cannot be
remedied seem to differ from other things, merely in the point of
their lasting long or for ever. Consequently they are not therefore
any worse or more to be feared.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those
things are most to be feared which when done wrong cannot be put
right . . . or for which there is no help, or which are not easy."

_I answer that,_ The object of fear is evil: consequently whatever
tends to increase evil, conduces to the increase of fear. Now evil
is increased not only in its species of evil, but also in respect of
circumstances, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 3). And of all the
circumstances, longlastingness, or even everlastingness, seems to
have the greatest bearing on the increase of evil. Because things
that exist in time are measured, in a way, according to the duration
of time: wherefore if it be an evil to suffer something for a certain
length of time, we should reckon the evil doubled, if it be suffered
for twice that length of time. And accordingly, to suffer the same
thing for an infinite length of time, i.e. for ever, implies, so to
speak, an infinite increase. Now those evils which, after they have
come, cannot be remedied at all, or at least not easily, are
considered as lasting for ever or for a long time: for which reason
they inspire the greatest fear.

Reply Obj. 1: Remedy for an evil is twofold. One, by which a future
evil is warded off from coming. If such a remedy be removed, there is
an end to hope and consequently to fear; wherefore we do not speak
now of remedies of that kind. The other remedy is one by which an
already present evil is removed: and of such a remedy we speak now.

Reply Obj. 2: Although death be an evil without remedy, yet, since it
threatens not from near, it is not feared, as stated above (A. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher is speaking there of things that are
good in themselves, i.e., good specifically. And such like good is no
better for lasting long or for ever: its goodness depends on its very
nature.
________________________

QUESTION 43

OF THE CAUSE OF FEAR
(In Two Articles)

We must now consider the cause of fear: under which head there are
two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether love is the cause of fear?

(2) Whether defect is the cause of fear?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 43, Art. 1]

Whether Love Is the Cause of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not the cause of fear. For
that which leads to a thing is its cause. But "fear leads to the love
of charity" as Augustine says on the canonical epistle of John
(Tract. ix). Therefore fear is the cause of love, and not conversely.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those are
feared most from whom we dread the advent of some evil." But the
dread of evil being caused by someone, makes us hate rather than love
him. Therefore fear is caused by hate rather than by love.

Obj. 3: Further, it has been stated above (Q. 42, A. 3) that those
things which occur by our own doing are not fearful. But that which
we do from love, is done from our inmost heart. Therefore fear is not
caused by love.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33): "There can be no
doubt that there is no cause for fear save the loss of what we love,
when we possess it, or the failure to obtain what we hope for."
Therefore all fear is caused by our loving something: and
consequently love is the cause of fear.

_I answer that,_ The objects of the soul's passions stand in relation
thereto as the forms to things natural or artificial: because the
passions of the soul take their species from their objects, as the
aforesaid things do from their forms. Therefore, just as whatever is
a cause of the form, is a cause of the thing constituted by that
form, so whatever is a cause, in any way whatever, of the object, is
a cause of the passion. Now a thing may be a cause of the object,
either by way of efficient cause, or by way of material disposition.
Thus the object of pleasure is good apprehended as suitable and
conjoined: and its efficient cause is that which causes the
conjunction, or the suitableness, or goodness, or apprehension of
that good thing; while its cause by way of material disposition, is a
habit or any sort of disposition by reason of which this conjoined
good becomes suitable or is apprehended as such.

Accordingly, as to the matter in question, the object of fear is
something reckoned as an evil to come, near at hand and difficult to
avoid. Therefore that which can inflict such an evil, is the
efficient cause of the object of fear, and, consequently, of fear
itself. While that which renders a man so disposed that thing is such
an evil to him, is a cause of fear and of its object, by way of
material disposition. And thus it is that love causes fear: since it
is through his loving a certain good, that whatever deprives a man of
that good is an evil to him, and that consequently he fears it as an
evil.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 42, A. 1), fear, of itself and in
the first place, regards the evil from which it recoils as being
contrary to some loved good: and thus fear, of itself, is born of
love. But, in the second place, it regards the cause from which that
evil ensues: so that sometimes, accidentally, fear gives rise to
love; in so far as, for instance, through fear of God's punishments,
man keeps His commandments, and thus begins to hope, while hope leads
to love, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 7).

Reply Obj. 2: He, from whom evil is expected, is indeed hated at
first; but afterwards, when once we begin to hope for good from him,
we begin to love him. But the good, the contrary evil of which is
feared, was loved from the beginning.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of that which is the efficient
cause of the evil to be feared: whereas love causes fear by way of
material disposition, as stated above.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 43, Art. 2]

Whether Defect Is the Cause of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that defect is not a cause of fear.
Because those who are in power are very much feared. But defect is
contrary to power. Therefore defect is not a cause of fear.

Obj. 2: Further, the defect of those who are already being executed
is extreme. But such like do not fear as stated in _Rhet._ ii, 5.
Therefore defect is not a cause of fear.

Obj. 3: Further, contests arise from strength not from defect. But
"those who contend fear those who contend with them" (Rhet. ii, 5).
Therefore defect is not a cause of fear.

_On the contrary,_ Contraries ensue from contrary causes. But
"wealth, strength, a multitude of friends, and power drive fear away"
(Rhet. ii, 5). Therefore fear is caused by lack of these.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), fear may be set down to a
twofold cause: one is by way of a material disposition, on the part
of him that fears; the other is by way of efficient cause, on the
part of the person feared. As to the first then, some defect is, of
itself, the cause of fear: for it is owing to some lack of power that
one is unable easily to repulse a threatening evil. And yet, in order
to cause fear, this defect must be according to a measure. For the
defect which causes fear of a future evil, is less than the defect
caused by evil present, which is the object of sorrow. And still
greater would be the defect, if perception of the evil, or love of
the good whose contrary is feared, were entirely absent.

But as to the second, power and strength are, of themselves, the
cause of fear: because it is owing to the fact that the cause
apprehended as harmful is powerful, that its effect cannot be
repulsed. It may happen, however, in this respect, that some defect
causes fear accidentally, in so far as owing to some defect someone
wishes to hurt another; for instance, by reason of injustice, either
because that other has already done him a harm, or because he fears
to be harmed by him.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of the cause of fear, on the part
of the efficient cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who are already being executed, are actually
suffering from a present evil; wherefore their defect exceeds the
measure of fear.

Reply Obj. 3: Those who contend with one another are afraid, not on
account of the power which enables them to contend: but on account of
the lack of power, owing to which they are not confident of victory.
________________________

QUESTION 44

OF THE EFFECTS OF FEAR
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of fear: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether fear causes contraction?

(2) Whether it makes men suitable for counsel?

(3) Whether it makes one tremble?

(4) Whether it hinders action?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 1]

Whether Fear Causes Contraction?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear does not cause contraction. For
when contraction takes place, the heat and vital spirits are
withdrawn inwardly. But accumulation of heat and vital spirits in the
interior parts of the body, dilates the heart unto endeavors of
daring, as may be seen in those who are angered: while the contrary
happens in those who are afraid. Therefore fear does not cause
contraction.

Obj. 2: Further, when, as a result of contraction, the vital spirits
and heat are accumulated in the interior parts, man cries out, as may
be seen in those who are in pain. But those who fear utter nothing:
on the contrary they lose their speech. Therefore fear does not cause
contraction.

Obj. 3: Further, shame is a kind of fear, as stated above (Q. 41, A.
4). But "those who are ashamed blush," as Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc.
iv, 8), and the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9) observe. But blushing is
an indication, not of contraction, but of the reverse. Therefore
contraction is not an effect of fear.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 23) that "fear
is a power according to _systole_," i.e. contraction.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 28, A. 5), in the passions of
the soul, the formal element is the movement of the appetitive power,
while the bodily transmutation is the material element. Both of these
are mutually proportionate; and consequently the bodily transmutation
assumes a resemblance to and the very nature of the appetitive
movement. Now, as to the appetitive movement of the soul, fear
implies a certain contraction: the reason of which is that fear
arises from the imagination of some threatening evil which is
difficult to repel, as stated above (Q. 41, A. 2). But that a thing
be difficult to repel is due to lack of power, as stated above (Q.
43, A. 2): and the weaker a power is, the fewer the things to which
it extends. Wherefore from the very imagination that causes fear
there ensues a certain contraction in the appetite. Thus we observe
in one who is dying that nature withdraws inwardly, on account of the
lack of power: and again we see the inhabitants of a city, when
seized with fear, leave the outskirts, and, as far as possible, make
for the inner quarters. It is in resemblance to this contraction,
which pertains to the appetite of the soul, that in fear a similar
contraction of heat and vital spirits towards the inner parts takes
place in regard to the body.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 3),
although in those who fear, the vital spirits recede from outer to
the inner parts of the body, yet the movement of vital spirits is not
the same in those who are angry and those who are afraid. For in
those who are angry, by reason of the heat and subtlety of the vital
spirits, which result from the craving for vengeance, the inward
movement has an upward direction: wherefore the vital spirits and
heat concentrate around the heart: the result being that an angry man
is quick and brave in attacking. But in those who are afraid, on
account of the condensation caused by cold, the vital spirits have a
downward movement; the said cold being due to the imagined lack of
power. Consequently the heat and vital spirits abandon the heart
instead of concentrating around it: the result being that a man who
is afraid is not quick to attack, but is more inclined to run away.

Reply Obj. 2: To everyone that is in pain, whether man or animal, it
is natural to use all possible means of repelling the harmful thing
that causes pain but its presence: thus we observe that animals, when
in pain, attack with their jaws or with their horns. Now the greatest
help for all purposes, in animals, is heat and vital spirits:
wherefore when they are in pain, their nature stores up the heat and
vital spirits within them, in order to make use thereof in repelling
the harmful object. Hence the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 9)
when the vital spirits and heat are concentrated together within,
they require to find a vent in the voice: for which reason those who
are in pain can scarcely refrain from crying aloud. On the other
hand, in those who are afraid, the internal heat and vital spirits
move from the heart downwards, as stated above (ad 1): wherefore fear
hinders speech which ensues from the emission of the vital spirits in
an upward direction through the mouth: the result being that fear
makes its subject speechless. For this reason, too, fear "makes its
subject tremble," as the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 1, 6,
7).

Reply Obj. 3: Mortal perils are contrary not only to the appetite of
the soul, but also to nature. Consequently in such like fear, there
is contraction not only in the appetite, but also in the corporeal
nature: for when an animal is moved by the imagination of death, it
experiences a contraction of heat towards the inner parts of the
body, as though it were threatened by a natural death. Hence it is
that "those who are in fear of death turn pale" (Ethic. iv, 9). But
the evil that shame fears, is contrary, not to nature, but only to
the appetite of the soul. Consequently there results a contraction in
this appetite, but not in the corporeal nature; in fact, the soul, as
though contracted in itself, is free to set the vital spirits and
heat in movement, so that they spread to the outward parts of the
body: the result being that those who are ashamed blush.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 2]

Whether Fear Makes One Suitable for Counsel?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear does not make one suitable for
counsel. For the same thing cannot be conducive to counsel, and a
hindrance thereto. But fear hinders counsel: because every passion
disturbs repose, which is requisite for the good use of reason.
Therefore fear does not make a man suitable for counsel.

Obj. 2: Further, counsel is an act of reason, in thinking and
deliberating about the future. But a certain fear "drives away all
thought, and dislocates the mind," as Cicero observes (De Quaest.
Tusc. iv, 8). Therefore fear does not conduce to counsel, but
hinders it.

Obj. 3: Further, just as we have recourse to counsel in order to
avoid evil, so do we, in order to attain good things. But whereas
fear is of evil to be avoided, so is hope of good things to be
obtained. Therefore fear is not more conducive to counsel, than hope
is.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "fear
makes men of counsel."

_I answer that,_ A man of counsel may be taken in two ways. First,
from his being willing or anxious to take counsel. And thus fear
makes men of counsel. Because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii,
3), "we take counsel on great matters, because therein we distrust
ourselves." Now things which make us afraid, are not simply evil, but
have a certain magnitude, both because they seem difficult to repel,
and because they are apprehended as near to us, as stated above (Q.
42, A. 2). Wherefore men seek for counsel especially when they are
afraid.

Secondly, a man of counsel means one who is apt for giving good
counsel: and in this sense, neither fear nor any passion makes men of
counsel. Because when a man is affected by a passion, things seem to
him greater or smaller than they really are: thus to a lover, what he
loves seems better; to him that fears, what he fears seems more
dreadful. Consequently owing to the want of right judgment, every
passion, considered in itself, hinders the faculty of giving good
counsel.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: The stronger a passion is, the greater the hindrance is
it to the man who is swayed by it. Consequently, when fear is
intense, man does indeed wish to take counsel, but his thoughts are
so disturbed, that he can find no counsel. If, however, the fear be
slight, so as to make a man wish to take counsel, without gravely
disturbing the reason; it may even make it easier for him to take
good counsel, by reason of his ensuing carefulness.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope also makes man a good counsellor: because, as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), "no man takes counsel in matters he
despairs of," nor about impossible things, as he says in _Ethic._
iii, 3. But fear incites to counsel more than hope does. Because hope
is of good things, as being possible of attainment; whereas fear is
of evil things, as being difficult to repel, so that fear regards the
aspect of difficulty more than hope does. And it is in matters of
difficulty, especially when we distrust ourselves, that we take
counsel, as stated above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 3]

Whether Fear Makes One Tremble?

Objection 1: It would seem that trembling is not an effect of fear.
Because trembling is occasioned by cold; thus we observe that a cold
person trembles. Now fear does not seem to make one cold, but rather
to cause a parching heat: a sign whereof is that those who fear are
thirsty, especially if their fear be very great, as in the case of
those who are being led to execution. Therefore fear does not cause
trembling.

Obj. 2: Further, faecal evacuation is occasioned by heat; hence
laxative medicines are generally warm. But these evacuations are
often caused by fear. Therefore fear apparently causes heat; and
consequently does not cause trembling.

Obj. 3: Further, in fear, the heat is withdrawn from the outer to the
inner parts of the body. If, therefore, man trembles in his outward
parts, through the heat being withdrawn thus; it seems that fear
should cause this trembling in all the external members. But such is
not the case. Therefore trembling of the body is not caused by fear.

_On the contrary,_ Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 8) that "fear is
followed by trembling, pallor and chattering of the teeth."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), in fear there takes place a
certain contraction from the outward to the inner parts of the body,
the result being that the outer parts become cold; and for this
reason trembling is occasioned in these parts, being caused by a lack
of power in controlling the members: which lack of power is due to
the want of heat, which is the instrument whereby the soul moves
those members, as stated in _De Anima_ ii, 4.

Reply Obj. 1: When the heat withdraws from the outer to the inner
parts, the inward heat increases, especially in the inferior or
nutritive parts. Consequently the humid element being spent, thirst
ensues; sometimes indeed the result is a loosening of the bowels, and
urinary or even seminal evacuation. Or else such like evacuations are
due to contraction of the abdomen and testicles, as the Philosopher
says (De Problem. xxii, 11).

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: In fear, heat abandons the heart, with a downward
movement: hence in those who are afraid the heart especially
trembles, as also those members which are connected with the breast
where the heart resides. Hence those who fear tremble especially in
their speech, on account of the tracheal artery being near the heart.
The lower lip, too, and the lower jaw tremble, through their
connection with the heart; which explains the chattering of the
teeth. For the same reason the arms and hands tremble. Or else
because the aforesaid members are more mobile. For which reason the
knees tremble in those who are afraid, according to Isa. 35:3:
"Strengthen ye the feeble hands, and confirm the trembling [Vulg.:
'weak'] knees."
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 4]

Whether Fear Hinders Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear hinders action. For action is
hindered chiefly by a disturbance in the reason, which directs
action. But fear disturbs reason, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore
fear hinders action.

Obj. 2: Further, those who fear while doing anything, are more apt to
fail: thus a man who walks on a plank placed aloft, easily falls
through fear; whereas, if he were to walk on the same plank down
below, he would not fall, through not being afraid. Therefore fear
hinders action.

Obj. 3: Further, laziness or sloth is a kind of fear. But laziness
hinders action. Therefore fear does too.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 2:12): "With fear and
trembling work out your salvation": and he would not say this if fear
were a hindrance to a good work. Therefore fear does not hinder a
good action.

_I answer that,_ Man's exterior actions are caused by the soul as
first mover, but by the bodily members as instruments. Now action may
be hindered both by defect of the instrument, and by defect of the
principal mover. On the part of the bodily instruments, fear,
considered in itself, is always apt to hinder exterior action, on
account of the outward members being deprived, through fear, of their
heat. But on the part of the soul, if the fear be moderate, without
much disturbance of the reason, it conduces to working well, in so
far as it causes a certain solicitude, and makes a man take counsel
and work with greater attention. If, however, fear increases so much
as to disturb the reason, it hinders action even on the part of the
soul. But of such a fear the Apostle does not speak.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: He that falls from a plank placed aloft, suffers a
disturbance of his imagination, through fear of the fall that is
pictured to his imagination.

Reply Obj. 3: Everyone in fear shuns that which he fears: and
therefore, since laziness is a fear of work itself as being toilsome,
it hinders work by withdrawing the will from it. But fear of other
things conduces to action, in so far as it inclines the will to do
that whereby a man escapes from what he fears.
________________________

QUESTION 45

OF DARING
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider daring: under which head there are four points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether daring is contrary to fear?

(2) How is daring related to hope?

(3) Of the cause of daring;

(4) Of its effect.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 1]

Whether Daring Is Contrary to Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that daring is not contrary to fear. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 31) that "daring is a vice." Now vice is
contrary to virtue. Since, therefore, fear is not a virtue but a
passion, it seems that daring is not contrary to fear.

Obj. 2: Further, to one thing there is one contrary. But hope is
contrary to fear. Therefore daring is not contrary to fear.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion excludes its opposite. But fear
excludes safety; for Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6) that "fear takes
forethought for safety." Therefore safety is contrary to fear.
Therefore daring is not contrary to fear.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "daring is
contrary to fear."

_I answer that,_ It is of the essence of contraries to be "farthest
removed from one another," as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4. Now that
which is farthest removed from fear, is daring: since fear turns away
from the future hurt, on account of its victory over him that fears
it; whereas daring turns on threatened danger because of its own
victory over that same danger. Consequently it is evident that daring
is contrary to fear.

Reply Obj. 1: Anger, daring and all the names of the passions can be
taken in two ways. First, as denoting absolutely movements of the
sensitive appetite in respect of some object, good or bad: and thus
they are names of passions. Secondly, as denoting besides this
movement, a straying from the order of reason: and thus they are
names of vices. It is in this sense that Augustine speaks of daring:
but we are speaking of it in the first sense.

Reply Obj. 2: To one thing, in the same respect, there are not
several contraries; but in different respects nothing prevents one
thing having several contraries. Accordingly it has been said above
(Q. 23, A. 2; Q. 40, A. 4) that the irascible passions admit of a
twofold contrariety: one, according to the opposition of good and
evil, and thus fear is contrary to hope: the other, according to the
opposition of approach and withdrawal, and thus daring is contrary to
fear, and despair contrary to hope.

Reply Obj. 3: Safety does not denote something contrary to fear, but
merely the exclusion of fear: for he is said to be safe, who fears
not. Wherefore safety is opposed to fear, as a privation: while
daring is opposed thereto as a contrary. And as contrariety implies
privation, so daring implies safety.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 2]

Whether Daring Ensues from Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that daring does not ensue from hope.
Because daring regards evil and fearful things, as stated in _Ethic._
iii, 7. But hope regards good things, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 1).
Therefore they have different objects and are not in the same order.
Therefore daring does not ensue from hope.

Obj. 2: Further, just as daring is contrary to fear, so is despair
contrary to hope. But fear does not ensue from despair: in fact,
despair excludes fear, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5).
Therefore daring does not result from hope.

Obj. 3: Further, daring is intent on something good, viz. victory.
But it belongs to hope to tend to that which is good and difficult.
Therefore daring is the same as hope; and consequently does not
result from it.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "those
are hopeful are full of daring." Therefore it seems that daring
ensues from hope.

_I answer that,_ As we have often stated (Q. 22, A. 2; Q. 35, A. 1;
Q. 41, A. 1), all these passions belong to the appetitive power. Now
every movement of the appetitive power is reducible to one either of
pursuit or of avoidance. Again, pursuit or avoidance is of something
either by reason of itself or by reason of something else. By reason
of itself, good is the object of pursuit, and evil, the object of
avoidance: but by reason of something else, evil can be the object of
pursuit, through some good attaching to it; and good can be the
object of avoidance, through some evil attaching to it. Now that
which is by reason of something else, follows that which is by reason
of itself. Consequently pursuit of evil follows pursuit of good; and
avoidance of good follows avoidance of evil. Now these four things
belong to four passions, since pursuit of good belongs to hope,
avoidance of evil to fear, the pursuit of the fearful evil belongs to
daring, and the avoidance of good to despair. It follows, therefore,
that daring results from hope; since it is in the hope of overcoming
the threatening object of fear, that one attacks it boldly. But
despair results from fear: since the reason why a man despairs is
because he fears the difficulty attaching to the good he should hope
for.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument would hold, if good and evil were not
co-ordinate objects. But because evil has a certain relation to good,
since it comes after good, as privation comes after habit;
consequently daring which pursues evil, comes after hope which
pursues good.

Reply Obj. 2: Although good, absolutely speaking, is prior to evil,
yet avoidance of evil precedes avoidance of good; just as the pursuit
of good precedes the pursuit of evil. Consequently just as hope
precedes daring, so fear precedes despair. And just as fear does not
always lead to despair, but only when it is intense; so hope does not
always lead to daring, save only when it is strong.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the object of daring is an evil to which, in
the estimation of the daring man, the good of victory is conjoined;
yet daring regards the evil, and hope regards the conjoined good. In
like manner despair regards directly the good which it turns away
from, while fear regards the conjoined evil. Hence, properly
speaking, daring is not a part of hope, but its effect: just as
despair is an effect, not a part, of fear. For this reason, too,
daring cannot be a principal passion.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 3]

Whether Some Defect Is a Cause of Daring?

Objection 1: It would seem that some defect is a cause of daring. For
the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 4) that "lovers of wine are
strong and daring." But from wine ensues the effect of drunkenness.
Therefore daring is caused by a defect.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those who
have no experience of danger are bold." But want of experience is a
defect. Therefore daring is caused by a defect.

Obj. 3: Further, those who have suffered wrongs are wont to be
daring; "like the beasts when beaten," as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 5.
But the suffering of wrongs pertains to defect. Therefore daring is
caused by a defect.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that the cause
of daring "is the presence in the imagination of the hope that the
means of safety are nigh, and that the things to be feared are either
non-existent or far off." But anything pertaining to defect implies
either the removal of the means of safety, or the proximity of
something to be feared. Therefore nothing pertaining to defect is a
cause of daring.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2) daring results from hope
and is contrary to fear: wherefore whatever is naturally apt to cause
hope or banish fear, is a cause of daring. Since, however, fear and
hope, and also daring, being passions, consist in a movement of the
appetite, and in a certain bodily transmutation; a thing may be
considered as the cause of daring in two ways, whether by raising
hope, or by banishing fear; in one way, in the part of the appetitive
movement; in another way, on the part of the bodily transmutation.

On the part of the appetitive movement which follows apprehension,
hope that leads to daring is roused by those things that make us
reckon victory as possible. Such things regard either our own power,
as bodily strength, experience of dangers, abundance of wealth, and
the like; or they regard the powers of others, such as having a great
number of friends or any other means of help, especially if a man
trust in the Divine assistance: wherefore "those are more daring,
with whom it is well in regard to godlike things," as the Philosopher
says (Rhet. ii, 5). Fear is banished, in this way, by the removal of
threatening causes of fear; for instance, by the fact that a man has
no enemies, through having harmed nobody, so that he is not aware of
any imminent danger; since those especially appear to be threatened
by danger, who have harmed others.

On the part of the bodily transmutation, daring is caused through the
incitement of hope and the banishment of fear, by those things which
raise the temperature about the heart. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(De Part. Animal. iii, 4) that "those whose heart is small in size,
are more daring; while animals whose heart is large are timid;
because the natural heat is unable to give the same degree of
temperature to a large as to a small heart; just as a fire does not
heat a large house as well as it does a small house." He says also
(De Problem. xxvii, 4), that "those whose lungs contain much blood,
are more daring, through the heat in the heart that results
therefrom." He says also in the same passage that "lovers of wine are
more daring, on account of the heat of the wine": hence it has been
said above (Q. 40, A. 6) that drunkenness conduces to hope, since the
heat in the heart banishes fear and raises hope, by reason of the
dilatation and enlargement of the heart.

Reply Obj. 1: Drunkenness causes daring, not through being a defect,
but through dilating the heart: and again through making a man think
greatly of himself.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who have no experience of dangers are more
daring, not on account of a defect, but accidentally, i.e. in so far
as through being inexperienced they do not know their own failings,
nor the dangers that threaten. Hence it is that the removal of the
cause of fear gives rise to daring.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) "those who have
been wronged are courageous, because they think that God comes to the
assistance of those who suffer unjustly."

Hence it is evident that no defect causes daring except accidentally,
i.e. in so far as some excellence attaches thereto, real or
imaginary, either in oneself or in another.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 4]

Whether the Brave Are More Eager at First Than in the Midst of Danger?

Objection 1: It would seem that the daring are not more eager at
first than in the midst of danger. Because trembling is caused by
fear, which is contrary to daring, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 44, A.
3). But the daring sometimes tremble at first, as the Philosopher
says (De Problem. xxvii, 3). Therefore they are not more eager at
first than in the midst of danger.

Obj. 2: Further, passion is intensified by an increase in its object:
thus since a good is lovable, what is better is yet more lovable. But
the object of daring is something difficult. Therefore the greater
the difficulty, the greater the daring. But danger is more arduous
and difficult when present. It is then therefore that daring is
greatest.

Obj. 3: Further, anger is provoked by the infliction of wounds. But
anger causes daring; for the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that
"anger makes man bold." Therefore when man is in the midst of danger
and when he is being beaten, then is he most daring.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in _Ethic._ iii, 7 that "the daring are
precipitate and full of eagerness before the danger, yet in the midst
of dangers they stand aloof."

_I answer that,_ Daring, being a movement of the sensitive appetite,
follows an apprehension of the sensitive faculty. But the sensitive
faculty cannot make comparisons, nor can it inquire into
circumstances; its judgment is instantaneous. Now it happens
sometimes that it is impossible for a man to take note in an instant
of all the difficulties of a certain situation: hence there arises
the movement of daring to face the danger; so that when he comes to
experience the danger, he feels the difficulty to be greater than he
expected, and so gives way.

On the other hand, reason discusses all the difficulties of a
situation. Consequently men of fortitude who face danger according to
the judgment of reason, at first seem slack, because they face the
danger not from passion but with due deliberation. Yet when they are
in the midst of danger, they experience nothing unforeseen, but
sometimes the difficulty turns out to be less than they anticipated;
wherefore they are more persevering. Moreover, it may be because they
face the danger on account of the good of virtue which is the abiding
object of their will, however great the danger may prove: whereas men
of daring face the danger on account of a mere thought giving rise to
hope and banishing fear, as stated above (A. 3).

Reply Obj. 1: Trembling does occur in men of daring, on account of
the heat being withdrawn from the outer to the inner parts of the
body, as occurs also in those who are afraid. But in men of daring
the heat withdraws to the heart; whereas in those who are afraid, it
withdraws to the inferior parts.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of love is good simply, wherefore if it be
increased, love is increased simply. But the object of daring is a
compound of good and evil; and the movement of daring towards evil
presupposes the movement of hope towards good. If, therefore, so much
difficulty be added to the danger that it overcomes hope, the
movement of daring does not ensue, but fails. But if the movement of
daring does ensue, the greater the danger, the greater is the daring
considered to be.

Reply Obj. 3: Hurt does not give rise to anger unless there be some
kind of hope, as we shall see later on (Q. 46, A. 1). Consequently if
the danger be so great as to banish all hope of victory, anger does
not ensue. It is true, however, that if anger does ensue, there will
be greater daring.
________________________

QUESTION 46

OF ANGER, IN ITSELF
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider anger: and (1) anger in itself; (2) the cause of
anger and its remedy; (3) the effect of anger.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether anger is a special passion?

(2) Whether the object of anger is good or evil?

(3) Whether anger is in the concupiscible faculty?

(4) Whether anger is accompanied by an act of reason?

(5) Whether anger is more natural than desire?

(6) Whether anger is more grievous than hatred?

(7) Whether anger is only towards those with whom we have a relation
of justice?

(8) Of the species of anger.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 1]

Whether Anger Is a Special Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is not a special passion. For
the irascible power takes its name from anger (_ira_). But there are
several passions in this power, not only one. Therefore anger is not
one special passion.

Obj. 2: Further, to every special passion there is a contrary
passion; as is evident by going through them one by one. But no
passion is contrary to anger, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 3).
Therefore anger is not a special passion.

Obj. 3: Further, one special passion does not include another. But
anger includes several passions: since it accompanies sorrow,
pleasure, and hope, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 2).
Therefore anger is not a special passion.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) calls anger a
special passion: and so does Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 7).

_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be general in two ways. First,
by predication; thus "animal" is general in respect of all animals.
Secondly, by causality; thus the sun is the general cause of all
things generated here below, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv).
Because just as a genus contains potentially many differences,
according to a likeness of matter; so an efficient cause contains
many effects according to its active power. Now it happens that an
effect is produced by the concurrence of various causes; and since
every cause remains somewhat in its effect, we may say that, in yet
a third way, an effect which is due to the concurrence of several
causes, has a certain generality, inasmuch as several causes are,
in a fashion, actually existing therein.

Accordingly in the first way, anger is not a general passion but is
condivided with the other passions, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). In
like manner, neither is it in the second way: since it is not a cause
of the other passions. But in this way, love may be called a general
passion, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), because love
is the primary root of all the other passions, as stated above (Q.
27, A. 4). But, in a third way, anger may be called a general
passion, inasmuch as it is caused by a concurrence of several
passions. Because the movement of anger does not arise save on
account of some pain inflicted, and unless there be desire and hope
of revenge: for, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2), "the angry
man hopes to punish; since he craves for revenge as being possible."
Consequently if the person, who inflicted the injury, excel very
much, anger does not ensue, but only sorrow, as Avicenna states (De
Anima iv, 6).

Reply Obj. 1: The irascible power takes its name from "ira" (anger),
not because every movement of that power is one of anger; but because
all its movements terminate in anger; and because, of all these
movements, anger is the most patent.

Reply Obj. 2: From the very fact that anger is caused by contrary
passions, i.e. by hope, which is of good, and by sorrow, which is of
evil, it includes in itself contrariety: and consequently it has no
contrary outside itself. Thus also in mixed colors there is no
contrariety, except that of the simple colors from which they are
made.

Reply Obj. 3: Anger includes several passions, not indeed as a genus
includes several species; but rather according to the inclusion of
cause and effect.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 2]

Whether the Object of Anger Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that the object of anger is evil. For
Gregory of Nyssa says [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.] that anger is
"the sword-bearer of desire," inasmuch, to wit, as it assails
whatever obstacle stands in the way of desire. But an obstacle has
the character of evil. Therefore anger regards evil as its object.

Obj. 2: Further, anger and hatred agree in their effect, since each
seeks to inflict harm on another. But hatred regards evil as its
object, as stated above (Q. 29, A. 1). Therefore anger does also.

Obj. 3: Further, anger arises from sorrow; wherefore the Philosopher
says (Ethic. viii, 6) that "anger acts with sorrow." But evil is the
object of sorrow. Therefore it is also the object of anger.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6) that "anger craves
for revenge." But the desire for revenge is a desire for something
good: since revenge belongs to justice. Therefore the object of anger
is good.

Moreover, anger is always accompanied by hope, wherefore it causes
pleasure, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2). But the object of
hope and of pleasure is good. Therefore good is also the object of
anger.

_I answer that,_ The movement of the appetitive power follows an act
of the apprehensive power. Now the apprehensive power apprehends a
thing in two ways. First, by way of an incomplex object, as when we
understand what a man is; secondly, by way of a complex object, as
when we understand that whiteness is in a man. Consequently in each
of these ways the appetitive power can tend to both good and evil: by
way of a simple and incomplex object, when the appetite simply
follows and adheres to good, or recoils from evil: and such movements
are desire, hope, pleasure, sorrow, and so forth: by way of a complex
object, as when the appetite is concerned with some good or evil
being in, or being done to, another, either seeking this or recoiling
from it. This is evident in the case of love and hatred: for we love
someone, in so far as we wish some good to be in him; and we hate
someone, in so far as we wish some evil to be in him. It is the same
with anger; for when a man is angry, he wishes to be avenged on
someone. Hence the movement of anger has a twofold tendency: viz. to
vengeance itself, which it desires and hopes for as being a good,
wherefore it takes pleasure in it; and to the person on whom it seeks
vengeance, as to something contrary and hurtful, which bears the
character of evil.

We must, however, observe a twofold difference in this respect,
between anger on the one side, and hatred and love on the other. The
first difference is that anger always regards two objects: whereas
love and hatred sometimes regard but one object, as when a man is
said to love wine or something of the kind, or to hate it. The second
difference is, that both the objects of love are good: since the
lover wishes good to someone, as to something agreeable to himself:
while both the objects of hatred bear the character of evil: for the
man who hates, wishes evil to someone, as to something disagreeable
to him. Whereas anger regards one object under the aspect of evil,
viz. the noxious person, on whom it seeks to be avenged. Consequently
it is a passion somewhat made up of contrary passions.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 3]

Whether Anger Is in the Concupiscible Faculty?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is in the concupiscible
faculty. For Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that anger is a
kind of "desire." But desire is in the concupiscible faculty.
Therefore anger is too.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says in his Rule, that "anger grows into
hatred": and Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that "hatred is
inveterate anger." But hatred, like love, is a concupiscible passion.
Therefore anger is in the concupiscible faculty.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) and Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.] say that "anger is made up of
sorrow and desire." Both of these are in the concupiscible faculty.
Therefore anger is a concupiscible passion.

_On the contrary,_ The concupiscible is distinct from the irascible
faculty. If, therefore, anger were in the concupiscible power, the
irascible would not take its name from it.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 23, A. 1), the passions of the
irascible part differ from the passions of the concupiscible faculty,
in that the objects of the concupiscible passions are good and evil
absolutely considered, whereas the objects of the irascible passions
are good and evil in a certain elevation or arduousness. Now it has
been stated (A. 2) that anger regards two objects: viz. the vengeance
that it seeks; and the person on whom it seeks vengeance; and in
respect of both, anger requires a certain arduousness: for the
movement of anger does not arise, unless there be some magnitude
about both these objects; since "we make no ado about things that are
naught or very minute," as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 2). It
is therefore evident that anger is not in the concupiscible, but in
the irascible faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: Cicero gives the name of desire to any kind of craving
for a future good, without discriminating between that which is
arduous and that which is not. Accordingly he reckons anger as a kind
of desire, inasmuch as it is a desire of vengeance. In this sense,
however, desire is common to the irascible and concupiscible
faculties.

Reply Obj. 2: Anger is said to grow into hatred, not as though the
same passion which at first was anger, afterwards becomes hatred by
becoming inveterate; but by a process of causality. For anger when it
lasts a long time engenders hatred.

Reply Obj. 3: Anger is said to be composed of sorrow and desire, not
as though they were its parts, but because they are its causes: and
it has been said above (Q. 25, A. 2) that the concupiscible passions
are the causes of the irascible passions.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 4]

Whether Anger Requires an Act of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not require an act of
reason. For, since anger is a passion, it is in the sensitive
appetite. But the sensitive appetite follows an apprehension, not of
reason, but of the sensitive faculty. Therefore anger does not
require an act of reason.

Obj. 2: Further, dumb animals are devoid of reason: and yet they are
seen to be angry. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, drunkenness fetters the reason; whereas it is
conducive to anger. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger
listens to reason somewhat."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), anger is a desire for
vengeance. Now vengeance implies a comparison between the punishment
to be inflicted and the hurt done; wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger, as if it had drawn the inference that it
ought to quarrel with such a person, is therefore immediately
exasperated." Now to compare and to draw an inference is an act of
reason. Therefore anger, in a fashion, requires an act of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The movement of the appetitive power may follow an act
of reason in two ways. In the first way, it follows the reason in so
far as the reason commands: and thus the will follows reason,
wherefore it is called the rational appetite. In another way, it
follows reason in so far as the reason denounces, and thus anger
follows reason. For the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxviii, 3) that
"anger follows reason, not in obedience to reason's command, but as a
result of reason's denouncing the injury." Because the sensitive
appetite is subject to the reason, not immediately but through the
will.

Reply Obj. 2: Dumb animals have a natural instinct imparted to them
by the Divine Reason, in virtue of which they are gifted with
movements, both internal and external, like unto rational movements,
as stated above (Q. 40, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6, "anger listens somewhat
to reason" in so far as reason denounces the injury inflicted, "but
listens not perfectly," because it does not observe the rule of
reason as to the measure of vengeance. Anger, therefore, requires an
act of reason; and yet proves a hindrance to reason. Wherefore the
Philosopher says (De Problem. iii, 2, 27) that whose who are very
drunk, so as to be incapable of the use of reason, do not get angry:
but those who are slightly drunk, do get angry, through being still
able, though hampered, to form a judgment of reason.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 5]

Whether Anger Is More Natural Than Desire?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is not more natural than
desire. Because it is proper to man to be by nature a gentle animal.
But "gentleness is contrary to anger," as the Philosopher states
(Rhet. ii, 3). Therefore anger is no more natural than desire, in
fact it seems to be altogether unnatural to man.

Obj. 2: Further, reason is contrasted with nature: since those things
that act according to reason, are not said to act according to
nature. Now "anger requires an act of reason, but desire does not,"
as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6. Therefore desire is more natural than
anger.

Obj. 3: Further, anger is a craving for vengeance: while desire is a
craving for those things especially which are pleasant to the touch,
viz. for pleasures of the table and for sexual pleasures. But these
things are more natural to man than vengeance. Therefore desire is
more natural than anger.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger
is more natural than desire."

_I answer that,_ By "natural" we mean that which is caused by nature,
as stated in _Phys._ ii, 1. Consequently the question as to whether a
particular passion is more or less natural cannot be decided without
reference to the cause of that passion. Now the cause of a passion,
as stated above (Q. 36, A. 2), may be considered in two ways: first,
on the part of the object; secondly, on the part of the subject. If
then we consider the cause of anger and of desire, on the part of the
object, thus desire, especially of pleasures of the table, and of
sexual pleasures, is more natural than anger; in so far as these
pleasures are more natural to man than vengeance.

If, however, we consider the cause of anger on the part of the
subject, thus anger, in a manner, is more natural; and, in a manner,
desire is more natural. Because the nature of an individual man may
be considered either as to the generic, or as to the specific nature,
or again as to the particular temperament of the individual. If then
we consider the generic nature, i.e. the nature of this man
considered as an animal; thus desire is more natural than anger;
because it is from this very generic nature that man is inclined to
desire those things which tend to preserve in him the life both of
the species and of the individual. If, however, we consider the
specific nature, i.e. the nature of this man as a rational being;
then anger is more natural to man than desire, in so far as anger
follows reason more than desire does. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. iv, 5) that "revenge" which pertains to anger "is more
natural to man than meekness": for it is natural to everything to
rise up against things contrary and hurtful. And if we consider the
nature of the individual, in respect of his particular temperament,
thus anger is more natural than desire; for the reason that anger is
prone to ensue from the natural tendency to anger, more than desire,
or any other passion, is to ensue from a natural tendency to desire,
which tendencies result from a man's individual temperament. Because
disposition to anger is due to a bilious temperament; and of all the
humors, the bile moves quickest; for it is like fire. Consequently he
that is temperamentally disposed to anger is sooner incensed with
anger, than he that is temperamentally disposed to desire, is
inflamed with desire: and for this reason the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 6) that a disposition to anger is more liable to be
transmitted from parent to child, than a disposition to desire.

Reply Obj. 1: We may consider in man both the natural temperament on
the part of the body, and the reason. On the part of the bodily
temperament, a man, considered specifically, does not naturally excel
others either in anger or in any other passion, on account of the
moderation of his temperament. But other animals, for as much as
their temperament recedes from this moderation and approaches to an
extreme disposition, are naturally disposed to some excess of
passion, such as the lion in daring, the hound in anger, the hare in
fear, and so forth. On the part of reason, however, it is natural to
man, both to be angry and to be gentle: in so far as reason somewhat
causes anger, by denouncing the injury which causes anger; and
somewhat appeases anger, in so far as the angry man "does not listen
perfectly to the command of reason," as stated above (A. 4, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 2: Reason itself belongs to the nature of man: wherefore
from the very fact that anger requires an act of reason, it follows
that it is, in a manner, natural to man.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument regards anger and desire on the part of
the object.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 6]

Whether Anger Is More Grievous Than Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is more grievous than hatred.
For it is written (Prov. 27:4) that "anger hath no mercy, nor fury
when it breaketh forth." But hatred sometimes has mercy. Therefore
anger is more grievous than hatred.

Obj. 2: Further, it is worse to suffer evil and to grieve for it,
than merely to suffer it. But when a man hates, he is contented if
the object of his hatred suffer evil: whereas the angry man is not
satisfied unless the object of his anger know it and be aggrieved
thereby, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4). Therefore, anger is
more grievous than hatred.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing seems to be so much the more firm according
as more things concur to set it up: thus a habit is all the more
settled through being caused by several acts. But anger is caused by
the concurrence of several passions, as stated above (A. 1): whereas
hatred is not. Therefore anger is more settled and more grievous than
hatred.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine, in his Rule, compares hatred to "a
beam," but anger to "a mote."

_I answer that,_ The species and nature of a passion are taken from
its object. Now the object of anger is the same in substance as the
object of hatred; since, just as the hater wishes evil to him whom he
hates, so does the angry man wish evil to him with whom he is angry.
But there is a difference of aspect: for the hater wishes evil to his
enemy, as evil, whereas the angry man wishes evil to him with whom he
is angry, not as evil but in so far as it has an aspect of good, that
is, in so far as he reckons it as just, since it is a means of
vengeance. Wherefore also it has been said above (A. 2) that hatred
implies application of evil to evil, whereas anger denotes
application of good to evil. Now it is evident that to seek evil
under the aspect of justice, is a lesser evil, than simply to seek
evil to someone. Because to wish evil to someone under the aspect of
justice, may be according to the virtue of justice, if it be in
conformity with the order of reason; and anger fails only in this,
that it does not obey the precept of reason in taking vengeance.
Consequently it is evident that hatred is far worse and graver than
anger.

Reply Obj. 1: In anger and hatred two points may be considered:
namely, the thing desired, and the intensity of the desire. As to the
thing desired, anger has more mercy than hatred has. For since hatred
desires another's evil for evil's sake, it is satisfied with no
particular measure of evil: because those things that are desired for
their own sake, are desired without measure, as the Philosopher
states (Polit. i, 3), instancing a miser with regard to riches. Hence
it is written (Ecclus. 12:16): "An enemy . . . if he find an
opportunity, will not be satisfied with blood." Anger, on the other
hand, seeks evil only under the aspect of a just means of vengeance.
Consequently when the evil inflicted goes beyond the measure of
justice according to the estimate of the angry man, then he has
mercy. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "the angry
man is appeased if many evils befall, whereas the hater is never
appeased."

As to the intensity of the desire, anger excludes mercy more than
hatred does; because the movement of anger is more impetuous, through
the heating of the bile. Hence the passage quoted continues: "Who can
bear the violence of one provoked?"

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, an angry man wishes evil to someone,
in so far as this evil is a means of just vengeance. Now vengeance is
wrought by the infliction of a punishment: and the nature of
punishment consists in being contrary to the will, painful, and
inflicted for some fault. Consequently an angry man desires this,
that the person whom he is hurting, may feel it and be in pain, and
know that this has befallen him on account of the harm he has done
the other. The hater, on the other hand, cares not for all this,
since he desires another's evil as such. It is not true, however,
that an evil is worse through giving pain: because "injustice and
imprudence, although evil," yet, being voluntary, "do not grieve
those in whom they are," as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 4).

Reply Obj. 3: That which proceeds from several causes, is more
settled when these causes are of one kind: but it may be that one
cause prevails over many others. Now hatred ensues from a more
lasting cause than anger does. Because anger arises from an emotion
of the soul due to the wrong inflicted; whereas hatred ensues from a
disposition in a man, by reason of which he considers that which he
hates to be contrary and hurtful to him. Consequently, as passion is
more transitory than disposition or habit, so anger is less lasting
than hatred; although hatred itself is a passion ensuing from this
disposition. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "hatred
is more incurable than anger."
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 7]

Whether Anger Is Only Towards Those to Whom One Has an Obligation of
Justice?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is not only towards those to
whom one has an obligation of justice. For there is no justice
between man and irrational beings. And yet sometimes one is angry
with irrational beings; thus, out of anger, a writer throws away his
pen, or a rider strikes his horse. Therefore anger is not only
towards those to whom one has an obligation of justice.

Obj. 2: Further, "there is no justice towards oneself . . . nor is
there justice towards one's own" (Ethic. v, 6). But sometimes a man
is angry with himself; for instance, a penitent, on account of his
sin; hence it is written (Ps. 4:5): "Be ye angry and sin not."
Therefore anger is not only towards those with whom one has a
relation of justice.

Obj. 3: Further, justice and injustice can be of one man towards an
entire class, or a whole community: for instance, when the state
injures an individual. But anger is not towards a class but only
towards an individual, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 4).
Therefore properly speaking, anger is not towards those with whom one
is in relation of justice or injustice.

The contrary, however, may be gathered from the Philosopher (Rhet.
ii, 2, 3).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), anger desires evil as being
a means of just vengeance. Consequently, anger is towards those to
whom we are just or unjust: since vengeance is an act of justice, and
wrong-doing is an act of injustice. Therefore both on the part of the
cause, viz. the harm done by another, and on the part of the
vengeance sought by the angry man, it is evident that anger concerns
those to whom one is just or unjust.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 4, ad 2), anger, though it follows
an act of reason, can nevertheless be in dumb animals that are devoid
of reason, in so far as through their natural instinct they are moved
by their imagination to something like rational action. Since then in
man there is both reason and imagination, the movement of anger can
be aroused in man in two ways. First, when only his imagination
denounces the injury: and, in this way, man is aroused to a movement
of anger even against irrational and inanimate beings, which movement
is like that which occurs in animals against anything that injures
them. Secondly, by the reason denouncing the injury: and thus,
according to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 3), "it is impossible to be
angry with insensible things, or with the dead": both because they
feel no pain, which is, above all, what the angry man seeks in those
with whom he is angry: and because there is no question of vengeance
on them, since they can do us no harm.

Reply Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11), "metaphorically
speaking there is a certain justice and injustice between a man and
himself," in so far as the reason rules the irascible and
concupiscible parts of the soul. And in this sense a man is said to
be avenged on himself, and consequently, to be angry with himself.
But properly, and in accordance with the nature of things, a man is
never angry with himself.

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 4) assigns as one difference
between hatred and anger, that "hatred may be felt towards a class,
as we hate the entire class of thieves; whereas anger is directed
only towards an individual." The reason is that hatred arises from
our considering a quality as disagreeing with our disposition; and
this may refer to a thing in general or in particular. Anger, on the
other hand, ensues from someone having injured us by his action. Now
all actions are the deeds of individuals: and consequently anger is
always pointed at an individual. When the whole state hurts us, the
whole state is reckoned as one individual [*Cf. Q. 29, A. 6].
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 8]

Whether the Species of Anger Are Suitably Assigned?

Objection 1: It would seem that Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16)
unsuitably assigns three species of anger--"wrath," "ill-will" and
"rancor." For no genus derives its specific differences from
accidents. But these three are diversified in respect of an accident:
because "the beginning of the movement of anger is called wrath
(_cholos_), if anger continue it is called ill-will (_menis_); while
rancor (_kotos_) is anger waiting for an opportunity of vengeance."
Therefore these are not different species of anger.

Obj. 2: Further, Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that
"_excandescentia_ (irascibility) is what the Greeks call _thymosis_,
and is a kind of anger that arises and subsides intermittently";
while according to Damascene _thymosis_, is the same as _kotos_
(rancor). Therefore _kotos_ does not bide its time for taking
vengeance, but in course of time spends itself.

Obj. 3: Further, Gregory (Moral. xxi, 4) gives three degrees of
anger, namely, "anger without utterance, anger with utterance, and
anger with perfection of speech," corresponding to the three degrees
mentioned by Our Lord (Matt. 5:22): "Whosoever is angry with his
brother" (thus implying "anger without utterance"), and then,
"whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca'" (implying anger with
utterance yet without full expression), and lastly, "whosoever shall
say 'Thou fool'" (where we have "perfection of speech"). Therefore
Damascene's division is imperfect, since it takes no account of
utterance.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Damascene (De Fide Orth.
ii, 16) and Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.].

_I answer that,_ The species of anger given by Damascene and Gregory
of Nyssa are taken from those things which give increase to anger.
This happens in three ways. First from facility of the movement
itself, and he calls this kind of anger _cholos_ (bile) because it
quickly aroused. Secondly, on the part of the grief that causes
anger, and which dwells some time in the memory; this belongs to
_menis_ (ill-will) which is derived from _menein_ (to dwell).
Thirdly, on the part of that which the angry man seeks, viz.
vengeance; and this pertains to _kotos_ (rancor) which never rests
until it is avenged [*Eph. 4:31: "Let all bitterness and anger and
indignation . . . be put away from you."]. Hence the Philosopher
(Ethic. iv, 5) calls some angry persons _akrocholoi_ (choleric),
because they are easily angered; some he calls _pikroi_ (bitter),
because they retain their anger for a long time; and some he calls
_chalepoi_ (ill-tempered), because they never rest until they have
retaliated [*Cf. II-II, Q. 158, A. 5].

Reply Obj. 1: All those things which give anger some kind of
perfection are not altogether accidental to anger; and consequently
nothing prevents them from causing a certain specific difference
thereof.

Reply Obj. 2: Irascibility, which Cicero mentions, seems to pertain
to the first species of anger, which consists in a certain quickness
of temper, rather than to rancor (_furor_). And there is no reason
why the Greek _thymosis_, which is denoted by the Latin _furor,_
should not signify both quickness to anger, and firmness of purpose
in being avenged.

Reply Obj. 3: These degrees are distinguished according to various
effects of anger; and not according to degrees of perfection in the
very movement of anger.
________________________

QUESTION 47

OF THE CAUSE THAT PROVOKES ANGER, AND OF THE REMEDIES OF ANGER
(In Four Articles)
[*There is no further mention of these remedies in the text, except
in A. 4].

We must now consider the cause that provokes anger, and its remedies.
Under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the motive of anger is always something done against the
one who is angry?

(2) Whether slight or contempt is the sole motive of anger?

(3) Of the cause of anger on the part of the angry person;

(4) Of the cause of anger on the part of the person with whom one is
angry.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 1]

Whether the Motive of Anger Is Always Something Done Against the One
Who Is Angry?

Objection 1: It would seem that the motive of anger is not always
something done against the one who is angry. Because man, by sinning,
can do nothing against God; since it is written (Job 35:6): "If thy
iniquities be multiplied, what shalt thou do against Him?" And yet
God is spoken of as being angry with man on account of sin, according
to Ps. 105:40: "The Lord was exceedingly angry with His people."
Therefore it is not always on account of something done against him,
that a man is angry.

Obj. 2: Further, anger is a desire for vengeance. But one may desire
vengeance for things done against others. Therefore we are not always
angry on account of something done against us.

Obj. 3: Further, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) man is angry
especially with those "who despise what he takes a great interest in;
thus men who study philosophy are angry with those who despise
philosophy," and so forth. But contempt of philosophy does not harm
the philosopher. Therefore it is not always a harm done to us that
makes us angry.

Obj. 4: Further, he that holds his tongue when another insults him,
provokes him to greater anger, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. xxii, in
Ep. ad Rom.). But by holding his tongue he does the other no harm.
Therefore a man is not always provoked to anger by something done
against him.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "anger is
always due to something done to oneself: whereas hatred may arise
without anything being done to us, for we hate a man simply because
we think him such."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 46, A. 6), anger is the desire
to hurt another for the purpose of just vengeance. Now unless some
injury has been done, there is no question of vengeance: nor does any
injury provoke one to vengeance, but only that which is done to the
person who seeks vengeance: for just as everything naturally seeks
its own good, so does it naturally repel its own evil. But injury
done by anyone does not affect a man unless in some way it be
something done against him. Consequently the motive of a man's anger
is always something done against him.

Reply Obj. 1: We speak of anger in God, not as of a passion of the
soul but as of judgment of justice, inasmuch as He wills to take
vengeance on sin. Because the sinner, by sinning, cannot do God any
actual harm: but so far as he himself is concerned, he acts against
God in two ways. First, in so far as he despises God in His
commandments. Secondly, in so far as he harms himself or another;
which injury redounds to God, inasmuch as the person injured is an
object of God's providence and protection.

Reply Obj. 2: If we are angry with those who harm others, and seek to
be avenged on them, it is because those who are injured belong in
some way to us: either by some kinship or friendship, or at least
because of the nature we have in common.

Reply Obj. 3: When we take a very great interest in a thing, we look
upon it as our own good; so that if anyone despise it, it seems as
though we ourselves were despised and injured.

Reply Obj. 4: Silence provokes the insulter to anger when he thinks
it is due to contempt, as though his anger were slighted: and a
slight is an action.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 2]

Whether the Sole Motive of Anger Is Slight or Contempt?

Objection 1: It would seem that slight or contempt is not the sole
motive of anger. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that we
are angry "when we suffer, or think that we are suffering, an
injury." But one may suffer an injury without being despised or
slighted. Therefore a slight is not the only motive of anger.

Obj. 2: Further, desire for honor and grief for a slight belong to
the same subject. But dumb animals do not desire honor. Therefore
they are not grieved by being slighted. And yet "they are roused to
anger, when wounded," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8).
Therefore a slight is not the sole motive of anger.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 2) gives many other
causes of anger, for instance, "being forgotten by others; that
others should rejoice in our misfortunes; that they should make known
our evils; being hindered from doing as we like." Therefore being
slighted is not the only motive for being angry.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that anger is
"a desire, with sorrow, for vengeance, on account of a seeming slight
done unbecomingly."

_I answer that,_ All the causes of anger are reduced to slight. For
slight is of three kinds, as stated in Rhet. ii, 2, viz. "contempt,"
  "despiteful treatment," i.e. hindering one from doing one's will,
and "insolence": and all motives of anger are reduced to these three.
Two reasons may be assigned for this. First, because anger seeks
another's hurt as being a means of just vengeance: wherefore it seeks
vengeance in so far as it seems just. Now just vengeance is taken
only for that which is done unjustly; hence that which provokes anger
is always something considered in the light of an injustice.
Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "men are not
angry,--if they think they have wronged some one and are suffering
justly on that account; because there is no anger at what is just."
Now injury is done to another in three ways: namely, through
ignorance, through passion, and through choice. Then, most of all, a
man does an injustice, when he does an injury from choice, on
purpose, or from deliberate malice, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 8.
Wherefore we are most of all angry with those who, in our opinion,
have hurt us on purpose. For if we think that some one has done us an
injury through ignorance or through passion, either we are not angry
with them at all, or very much less: since to do anything through
ignorance or through passion takes away from the notion of injury,
and to a certain extent calls for mercy and forgiveness. Those, on
the other hand, who do an injury on purpose, seem to sin from
contempt; wherefore we are angry with them most of all. Hence the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "we are either not angry at all,
or not very angry with those who have acted through anger, because
they do not seem to have acted slightingly."

The second reason is because a slight is opposed to a man's
excellence: because "men think little of things that are not worth
much ado" (Rhet. ii, 2). Now we seek for some kind of excellence from
all our goods. Consequently whatever injury is inflicted on us, in so
far as it is derogatory to our excellence, seems to savor of a slight.

Reply Obj. 1: Any other cause, besides contempt, through which a man
suffers an injury, takes away from the notion of injury: contempt or
slight alone adds to the motive of anger, and consequently is of
itself the cause of anger.

Reply Obj. 2: Although a dumb animal does not seek honor as
such, yet it naturally seeks a certain superiority, and is angry with
anything derogatory thereto.

Reply Obj. 3: Each of those causes amounts to some kind of
slight. Thus forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the
more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory. Again if
a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this
seems to show that he thinks little of him: and those too who show
signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little
about his good or evil. Again he that hinders another from carrying
out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems
not to care much for his friendship. Consequently all those things, in
so far as they are signs of contempt, provoke anger.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 3]

Whether a Man's Excellence Is the Cause of His Being Angry?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man's excellence is not the cause
of his being more easily angry. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii,
2) that "some are angry especially when they are grieved, for
instance, the sick, the poor, and those who are disappointed." But
these things seem to pertain to defect. Therefore defect rather than
excellence makes one prone to anger.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "some are
very much inclined to be angry when they are despised for some
failing or weakness of the existence of which there are grounds for
suspicion; but if they think they excel in those points, they do not
trouble." But a suspicion of this kind is due to some defect.
Therefore defect rather than excellence is a cause of a man being
angry.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever savors of excellence makes a man agreeable
and hopeful. But the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "men are not
angry when they play, make jokes, or take part in a feast, nor when
they are prosperous or successful, nor in moderate pleasures and
well-founded hope." Therefore excellence is not a cause of anger.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 9) that excellence
makes men prone to anger.

_I answer that,_ The cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be
taken in two ways. First in respect of the motive of anger: and thus
excellence is the cause of a man being easily angered. Because the
motive of anger is an unjust slight, as stated above (A. 2). Now it
is evident that the more excellent a man is, the more unjust is a
slight offered him in the matter in which he excels. Consequently
those who excel in any matter, are most of all angry, if they be
slighted in that matter; for instance, a wealthy man in his riches,
or an orator in his eloquence, and so forth.

Secondly, the cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be
considered on the part of the disposition produced in him by the
motive aforesaid. Now it is evident that nothing moves a man to anger
except a hurt that grieves him: while whatever savors of defect is
above all a cause of grief; since men who suffer from some defect are
more easily hurt. And this is why men who are weak, or subject to
some other defect, are more easily angered, since they are more
easily grieved.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: If a man be despised in a matter in which he evidently
excels greatly, he does not consider himself the loser thereby, and
therefore is not grieved: and in this respect he is less angered. But
in another respect, in so far as he is more undeservedly despised, he
has more reason for being angry: unless perhaps he thinks that he is
envied or insulted not through contempt but through ignorance, or
some other like cause.

Reply Obj. 3: All these things hinder anger in so far as they hinder
sorrow. But in another respect they are naturally apt to provoke
anger, because they make it more unseemly to insult anyone.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 4]

Whether a Person's Defect Is a Reason for Being More Easily Angry
with Him?

Objection 1: It would seem that a person's defect is not a reason for
being more easily angry with him. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii,
3) that "we are not angry with those who confess and repent and
humble themselves; on the contrary, we are gentle with them.
Wherefore dogs bite not those who sit down." But these things savor
of littleness and defect. Therefore littleness of a person is a
reason for being less angry with him.

Obj. 2: Further, there is no greater defect than death. But anger
ceases at the sight of death. Therefore defect of a person does not
provoke anger against him.

Obj. 3: Further, no one thinks little of a man through his being
friendly towards him. But we are more angry with friends, if they
offend us or refuse to help us; hence it is written (Ps. 54:13): "If
my enemy had reviled me I would verily have borne with it." Therefore
a person's defect is not a reason for being more easily angry with
him.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "the rich
man is angry with the poor man, if the latter despise him; and in
like manner the prince is angry with his subject."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 3) unmerited contempt more
than anything else is a provocative of anger. Consequently deficiency
or littleness in the person with whom we are angry, tends to increase
our anger, in so far as it adds to the unmeritedness of being
despised. For just as the higher a man's position is, the more
undeservedly he is despised; so the lower it is, the less reason he
has for despising. Thus a nobleman is angry if he be insulted by a
peasant; a wise man, if by a fool; a master, if by a servant.

If, however, the littleness or deficiency lessens the unmerited
contempt, then it does not increase but lessens anger. In this way
those who repent of their ill-deeds, and confess that they have done
wrong, who humble themselves and ask pardon, mitigate anger,
according to Prov. 15:1: "A mild answer breaketh wrath": because, to
wit, they seem not to despise, but rather to think much of those
before whom they humble themselves.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: There are two reasons why anger ceases at the sight of
death. One is because the dead are incapable of sorrow and sensation;
and this is chiefly what the angry seek in those with whom they are
angered. Another reason is because the dead seem to have attained to
the limit of evils. Hence anger ceases in regard to all who are
grievously hurt, in so far as this hurt surpasses the measure of just
retaliation.

Reply Obj. 3: To be despised by one's friends seems also a greater
indignity. Consequently if they despise us by hurting or by failing
to help, we are angry with them for the same reason for which we are
angry with those who are beneath us.
________________________

QUESTION 48

OF THE EFFECTS OF ANGER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of anger: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether anger causes pleasure?

(2) Whether above all it causes heat in the heart?

(3) Whether above all it hinders the use of reason?

(4) Whether it causes taciturnity?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 1]

Whether Anger Causes Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not cause pleasure.
Because sorrow excludes pleasure. But anger is never without sorrow,
since, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6, "everyone that acts from anger,
acts with pain." Therefore anger does not cause pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "vengeance
makes anger to cease, because it substitutes pleasure for pain":
whence we may gather that the angry man derives pleasure from
vengeance, and that vengeance quells his anger. Therefore on the
advent of pleasure, anger departs: and consequently anger is not an
effect united with pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, no effect hinders its cause, since it is conformed
to its cause. But pleasure hinders anger as stated in _Rhet._ ii, 3.
Therefore pleasure is not an effect of anger.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) quotes the saying
that anger is "Sweet to the soul as honey to the taste" (Iliad,
xviii, 109, trl. Pope).

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14), pleasures,
chiefly sensible and bodily pleasures, are remedies against sorrow:
and therefore the greater the sorrow or anxiety, the more sensible
are we to the pleasure which heals it, as is evident in the case of
thirst which increases the pleasure of drink. Now it is clear from
what has been said (Q. 47, AA. 1, 3), that the movement of anger
arises from a wrong done that causes sorrow, for which sorrow
vengeance is sought as a remedy. Consequently as soon as vengeance is
present, pleasure ensues, and so much the greater according as the
sorrow was greater. Therefore if vengeance be really present, perfect
pleasure ensues, entirely excluding sorrow, so that the movement of
anger ceases. But before vengeance is really present, it becomes
present to the angry man in two ways: in one way, by hope; because
none is angry except he hopes for vengeance, as stated above (Q. 46,
A. 1); in another way, by thinking of it continually, for to everyone
that desires a thing it is pleasant to dwell on the thought of what
he desires; wherefore the imaginings of dreams are pleasant.
Accordingly an angry man takes pleasure in thinking much about
vengeance. This pleasure, however, is not perfect, so as to banish
sorrow and consequently anger.

Reply Obj. 1: The angry man does not grieve and rejoice at the same
thing; he grieves for the wrong done, while he takes pleasure in the
thought and hope of vengeance. Consequently sorrow is to anger as its
beginning; while pleasure is the effect or terminus of anger.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument holds in regard to pleasure caused by the
real presence of vengeance, which banishes anger altogether.

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasure that precedes hinders sorrow from ensuing, and
consequently is a hindrance to anger. But pleasure felt in taking
vengeance follows from anger.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 2]

Whether Anger Above All Causes Fervor in the Heart?

Objection 1: It would seem that heat is not above all the effect of
anger. For fervor, as stated above (Q. 28, A. 5; Q. 37, A. 2),
belongs to love. But love, as above stated, is the beginning and
cause of all the passions. Since then the cause is more powerful than
its effect, it seems that anger is not the chief cause of fervor.

Obj. 2: Further, those things which, of themselves, arouse fervor,
increase as time goes on; thus love grows stronger the longer it
lasts. But in course of time anger grows weaker; for the Philosopher
says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "time puts an end to anger." Therefore fervor
is not the proper effect of anger.

Obj. 3: Further, fervor added to fervor produces greater fervor. But
"the addition of a greater anger banishes already existing anger," as
the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3). Therefore anger does not cause
fervor.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that "anger
is fervor of the blood around the heart, resulting from an exhalation
of the bile."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 44, A. 1), the bodily
transmutation that occurs in the passions of the soul is
proportionate to the movement of the appetite. Now it is evident that
every appetite, even the natural appetite, tends with greater force
to repel that which is contrary to it, if it be present: hence we see
that hot water freezes harder, as though the cold acted with greater
force on the hot object. Since then the appetitive movement of anger
is caused by some injury inflicted, as by a contrary that is present;
it follows that the appetite tends with great force to repel the
injury by the desire of vengeance; and hence ensues great vehemence
and impetuosity in the movement of anger. And because the movement of
anger is not one of recoil, which corresponds to the action of cold,
but one of prosecution, which corresponds to the action of heat, the
result is that the movement of anger produces fervor of the blood and
vital spirits around the heart, which is the instrument of the soul's
passions. And hence it is that, on account of the heart being so
disturbed by anger, those chiefly who are angry betray signs thereof
in their outer members. For, as Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) "the
heart that is inflamed with the stings of its own anger beats quick,
the body trembles, the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire,
the eyes grow fierce, they that are well known are not recognized.
With the mouth indeed he shapes a sound, but the understanding knows
not what it says."

Reply Obj. 1: "Love itself is not felt so keenly as in the absence of
the beloved," as Augustine observes (De Trin. x, 12). Consequently
when a man suffers from a hurt done to the excellence that he loves,
he feels his love thereof the more: the result being that his heart
is moved with greater heat to remove the hindrance to the object of
his love; so that anger increases the fervor of love and makes it to
be felt more.

Nevertheless, the fervor arising from heat differs according as it is
to be referred to love or to anger. Because the fervor of love has a
certain sweetness and gentleness; for it tends to the good that one
loves: whence it is likened to the warmth of the air and of the
blood. For this reason sanguine temperaments are more inclined to
love; and hence the saying that "love springs from the liver,"
because of the blood being formed there. On the other hand, the
fervor of anger has a certain bitterness with a tendency to destroy,
for it seeks to be avenged on the contrary evil: whence it is likened
to the heat of fire and of the bile, and for this reason Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that it "results from an exhalation of
the bile whence it takes its name _chole_."

Reply Obj. 2: Time, of necessity, weakens all those things, the
causes of which are impaired by time. Now it is evident that memory
is weakened by time; for things which happened long ago easily slip
from our memory. But anger is caused by the memory of a wrong done.
Consequently the cause of anger is impaired little by little as time
goes on, until at length it vanishes altogether. Moreover a wrong
seems greater when it is first felt; and our estimate thereof is
gradually lessened the further the sense of present wrong recedes
into the past. The same applies to love, so long as the cause of love
is in the memory alone; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii,
5) that "if a friend's absence lasts long, it seems to make men
forget their friendship." But in the presence of a friend, the cause
of friendship is continually being multiplied by time: wherefore the
friendship increases: and the same would apply to anger, were its
cause continually multiplied.

Nevertheless the very fact that anger soon spends itself proves the
strength of its fervor: for as a great fire is soon spent having
burnt up all the fuel; so too anger, by reason of its vehemence, soon
dies away.

Reply Obj. 3: Every power that is divided in itself is weakened.
Consequently if a man being already angry with one, becomes angry
with another, by this very fact his anger with the former is
weakened. Especially is this so if his anger in the second case be
greater: because the wrong done which aroused his former anger, will,
in comparison with the second wrong, which is reckoned greater, seem
to be of little or no account.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 3]

Whether Anger Above All Hinders the Use of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not hinder the use of
reason. Because that which presupposes an act of reason, does not
seem to hinder the use of reason. But "anger listens to reason," as
stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6. Therefore anger does not hinder reason.

Obj. 2: Further, the more the reason is hindered, the less does a man
show his thoughts. But the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "an
angry man is not cunning but is open." Therefore anger does not seem
to hinder the use of reason, as desire does; for desire is cunning,
as he also states (Ethic. vii, 6.).

Obj. 3: Further, the judgment of reason becomes more evident by
juxtaposition of the contrary: because contraries stand out more
clearly when placed beside one another. But this also increases
anger: for the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "men are more
angry if they receive unwonted treatment; for instance, honorable
men, if they be dishonored": and so forth. Therefore the same cause
increases anger, and facilitates the judgment of reason. Therefore
anger does not hinder the judgment of reason.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) that anger "withdraws
the light of understanding, while by agitating it troubles the mind."

_I answer that,_ Although the mind or reason makes no use of a bodily
organ in its proper act, yet, since it needs certain sensitive powers
for the execution of its act, the acts of which powers are hindered
when the body is disturbed, it follows of necessity that any
disturbance in the body hinders even the judgment of reason; as is
clear in the case of drunkenness or sleep. Now it has been stated (A.
2) that anger, above all, causes a bodily disturbance in the region
of the heart, so much as to effect even the outward members.
Consequently, of all the passions, anger is the most manifest
obstacle to the judgment of reason, according to Ps. 30:10: "My eye
is troubled with wrath."

Reply Obj. 1: The beginning of anger is in the reason, as regards the
appetitive movement, which is the formal element of anger. But the
passion of anger forestalls the perfect judgment of reason, as though
it listened but imperfectly to reason, on account of the commotion of
the heat urging to instant action, which commotion is the material
element of anger. In this respect it hinders the judgment of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: An angry man is said to be open, not because it is
clear to him what he ought to do, but because he acts openly, without
thought of hiding himself. This is due partly to the reason being
hindered, so as not to discern what should be hidden and what done
openly, nor to devise the means of hiding; and partly to the
dilatation of the heart which pertains to magnanimity which is an
effect of anger: wherefore the Philosopher says of the magnanimous
man (Ethic. iv, 3) that "he is open in his hatreds and his
friendships . . . and speaks and acts openly." Desire, on the other
hand, is said to lie low and to be cunning, because, in many cases,
the pleasurable things that are desired, savor of shame and
voluptuousness, wherein man wishes not to be seen. But in those
things that savor of manliness and excellence, such as matters of
vengeance, man seeks to be in the open.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (ad 1), the movement of anger begins in
the reason, wherefore the juxtaposition of one contrary with another
facilitates the judgment of reason, on the same grounds as it
increases anger. For when a man who is possessed of honor or wealth,
suffers a loss therein, the loss seems all the greater, both on
account of the contrast, and because it was unforeseen. Consequently
it causes greater grief: just as a great good, through being received
unexpectedly, causes greater delight. And in proportion to the
increase of the grief that precedes, anger is increased also.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 4]

Whether Anger Above All Causes Taciturnity?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not cause taciturnity.
Because taciturnity is opposed to speech. But increase in anger
conduces to speech; as is evident from the degrees of anger laid down
by Our Lord (Matt. 5:22): where He says: "Whosoever is angry with his
brother"; and " . . . whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca'";
and " . . . whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Thou fool.'"
Therefore anger does not cause taciturnity.

Obj. 2: Further, through failing to obey reason, man sometimes breaks
out into unbecoming words: hence it is written (Prov. 25:28): "As a
city that lieth open and is not compassed with walls, so is a man
that cannot refrain his own spirit in speaking." But anger, above
all, hinders the judgment of reason, as stated above (A. 3).
Consequently above all it makes one break out into unbecoming words.
Therefore it does not cause taciturnity.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 12:34): "Out of the abundance
of the heart the mouth speaketh." But anger, above all, causes a
disturbance in the heart, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore above all
it conduces to speech. Therefore it does not cause taciturnity.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) that "when anger does
not vent itself outwardly by the lips, inwardly it burns the more
fiercely."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3; Q. 46, A. 4), anger both
follows an act of reason, and hinders the reason: and in both
respects it may cause taciturnity. On the part of the reason, when
the judgment of reason prevails so far, that although it does not
curb the appetite in its inordinate desire for vengeance, yet it
curbs the tongue from unbridled speech. Wherefore Gregory says
(Moral. v, 30): "Sometimes when the mind is disturbed, anger, as if
in judgment, commands silence." On the part of the impediment to
reason because, as stated above (A. 2), the disturbance of anger
reaches to the outward members, and chiefly to those members which
reflect more distinctly the emotions of the heart, such as the eyes,
face and tongue; wherefore, as observed above (A. 2), "the tongue
stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce."
Consequently anger may cause such a disturbance, that the tongue is
altogether deprived of speech; and taciturnity is the result.

Reply Obj. 1: Anger sometimes goes so far as to hinder the reason
from curbing the tongue: but sometimes it goes yet farther, so as to
paralyze the tongue and other outward members.

And this suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: The disturbance of the heart may sometimes superabound
to the extend that the movements of the outward members are hindered
by the inordinate movement of the heart. Thence ensue taciturnity and
immobility of the outward members; and sometimes even death. If,
however, the disturbance be not so great, then "out of the abundance
of the heart" thus disturbed, the mouth proceeds to speak.
________________________

TREATISE ON HABITS (QQ. 49-54)
________________________

QUESTION 49

OF HABITS IN GENERAL, AS TO THEIR SUBSTANCE
(In Four Articles)

After treating of human acts and passions, we now pass on to the
consideration of the principles of human acts, and firstly of
intrinsic principles, secondly of extrinsic principles. The intrinsic
principle is power and habit; but as we have treated of powers in the
First Part (Q. 77, seqq.), it remains for us to consider them in general:
in the second place we shall consider virtues and vices and other like
habits, which are the principles of human acts.

Concerning habits in general there are four points to consider: First,
the substance of habits; second, their subject; third, the cause of
their generation, increase, and corruption; fourth, how they are
distinguished from one another.

Under the first head, there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether habit is a quality?

(2) Whether it is a distinct species of quality?

(3) Whether habit implies an order to an act?

(4) Of the necessity of habit.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 49, Art. 1]

Whether Habit Is a Quality?

Objection 1: It would seem that habit is not a quality. For Augustine
says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 73): "this word 'habit' is derived from the
verb 'to have.'" But "to have" belongs not only to quality, but also
to the other categories: for we speak of ourselves as "having"
quantity and money and other like things. Therefore habit is not a
quality.

Obj. 2: Further, habit is reckoned as one of the predicaments; as may
be clearly seen in the _Book on the Predicaments_ (Categor. vi). But
one predicament is not contained under another. Therefore habit is
not a quality.

Obj. 3: Further, "every habit is a disposition," as is stated in the
_Book of the Predicaments_ (Categor. vi). Now disposition is "the
order of that which has parts," as stated in _Metaph._ v, text. 24.
But this belongs to the predicament Position. Therefore habit is not
a quality.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says in the Book of Predicaments
(Categor. vi) that "habit is a quality which is difficult to change."

_I answer that,_ This word _habitus_ (habit) is derived from _habere_
(to have). Now habit is taken from this word in two ways; in one way,
inasmuch as man, or any other thing, is said to "have" something; in
another way, inasmuch as a particular thing has a relation (_se
habet_) either in regard to itself, or in regard to something else.

Concerning the first, we must observe that "to have," as said in
regard to anything that is "had," is common to the various
predicaments. And so the Philosopher puts "to have" among the
"post-predicaments," so called because they result from the various
predicaments; as, for instance, opposition, priority, posterity, and
such like. Now among things which are had, there seems to be this
distinction, that there are some in which there is no medium between
the "haver" and that which is had: as, for instance, there is no
medium between the subject and quality or quantity. Then there are
some in which there is a medium, but only a relation: as, for
instance, a man is said to have a companion or a friend. And,
further, there are some in which there is a medium, not indeed an
action or passion, but something after the manner of action or
passion: thus, for instance, something adorns or covers, and
something else is adorned or covered: wherefore the Philosopher says
(Metaph. v, text. 25) that "a habit is said to be, as it were, an
action or a passion of the haver and that which is had"; as is the
case in those things which we have about ourselves. And therefore
these constitute a special genus of things, which are comprised under
the predicament of "habit": of which the Philosopher says (Metaph. v,
text. 25) that "there is a habit between clothing and the man who is
clothed."

But if "to have" be taken according as a thing has a relation in
regard to itself or to something else; in that case habit is a
quality; since this mode of having is in respect of some quality: and
of this the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 25) that "habit is a
disposition whereby that which is disposed is disposed well or ill,
and this, either in regard to itself or in regard to another: thus
health is a habit." And in this sense we speak of habit now.
Wherefore we must say that habit is a quality.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument takes "to have" in the general sense: for
thus it is common to many predicaments, as we have said.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument takes habit in the sense in which we
understand it to be a medium between the haver, and that which is
had: and in this sense it is a predicament, as we have said.

Reply Obj. 3: Disposition does always, indeed, imply an order of that
which has parts: but this happens in three ways, as the Philosopher
goes on at once to says (Metaph. v, text. 25): namely, "either as to
place, or as to power, or as to species." "In saying this," as
Simplicius observes in his _Commentary on the Predicaments,_ "he
includes all dispositions: bodily dispositions, when he says 'as  to
place,'" and this belongs to the predicament "Position," which is the
order of parts in a place: "when he says 'as to power,' he includes
all those dispositions which are in course of formation and not yet
arrived at perfect usefulness," such as inchoate science and virtue:
"and when he says, 'as to species,' he includes perfect dispositions,
which are called habits," such as perfected science and virtue.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 49, Art. 2]

Whether Habit Is a Distinct Species of Quality?

Objection 1: It would seem that habit is not a distinct species of
quality. Because, as we have said (A. 1), habit, in so far as it is a
quality, is "a disposition whereby that which is disposed is disposed
well or ill." But this happens in regard to any quality: for a thing
happens to be well or ill disposed in regard also to shape, and in
like manner, in regard to heat and cold, and in regard to all such
things. Therefore habit is not a distinct species of quality.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says in the _Book of the
Predicaments_ (Categor. vi), that heat and cold are dispositions or
habits, just as sickness and health. Therefore habit or disposition
is not distinct from the other species of quality.

Obj. 3: Further, "difficult to change" is not a difference belonging
to the predicament of quality, but rather to movement or passion.
Now, no genus should be contracted to a species by a difference of
another genus; but "differences should be proper to a genus," as the
Philosopher says in _Metaph._ vii, text. 42. Therefore, since habit
is "a quality difficult to change," it seems not to be a distinct
species of quality.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says in the _Book of the
Predicaments_ (Categor. vi) that "one species of quality is habit
and disposition."

_I answer that,_ The Philosopher in the _Book of Predicaments_
(Categor. vi) reckons disposition and habit as the first species of
quality. Now Simplicius, in his _Commentary on the Predicaments,_
explains the difference of these species as follows. He says "that
some qualities are natural, and are in their subject in virtue of its
nature, and are always there: but some are adventitious, being caused
from without, and these can be lost. Now the latter," i.e. those
which are adventitious, "are habits and dispositions, differing in
the point of being easily or difficultly lost. As to natural
qualities, some regard a thing in the point of its being in a state
of potentiality; and thus we have the second species of quality:
while others regard a thing which is in act; and this either deeply
rooted therein or only on its surface. If deeply rooted, we have the
third species of quality: if on the surface, we have the fourth
species of quality, as shape, and form which is the shape of an
animated being." But this distinction of the species of quality seems
unsuitable. For there are many shapes, and passion-like qualities,
which are not natural but adventitious: and there are also many
dispositions which are not adventitious but natural, as health,
beauty, and the like. Moreover, it does not suit the order of the
species, since that which is the more natural is always first.

Therefore we must explain otherwise the distinction of dispositions
and habits from other qualities. For quality, properly speaking,
implies a certain mode of substance. Now mode, as Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. iv, 3), "is that which a measure determines": wherefore
it implies a certain determination according to a certain measure.
Therefore, just as that in accordance with which the material
potentiality (_potentia materiae_) is determined to its substantial
being, is called quality, which is a difference affecting the
substance, so that, in accordance with the potentiality of the
subject is determined to its accidental being, is called an
accidental quality, which is also a kind of difference, as is clear
from the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 19).

Now the mode o[r] determination of the subject to accidental being
may be taken in regard to the very nature of the subject, or in
regard to action, and passion resulting from its natural principles,
which are matter and form; or again in regard to quantity. If we take
the mode or determination of the subject in regard to quantity, we
shall then have the fourth species of quality. And because quantity,
considered in itself, is devoid of movement, and does not imply the
notion of good or evil, so it does not concern the fourth species of
quality whether a thing be well or ill disposed, nor quickly or
slowly transitory.

But the mode o[r] determination of the subject, in regard to action
or passion, is considered in the second and third species of quality.
And therefore in both, we take into account whether a thing be done
with ease or difficulty; whether it be transitory or lasting. But in
them, we do not consider anything pertaining to the notion of good or
evil: because movements and passions have not the aspect of an end,
whereas good and evil are said in respect of an end.

On the other hand, the mode or determination of the subject, in
regard to the nature of the thing, belongs to the first species of
quality, which is habit and disposition: for the Philosopher says
(Phys. vii, text. 17), when speaking of habits of the soul and of the
body, that they are "dispositions of the perfect to the best; and by
perfect I mean that which is disposed in accordance with its nature."
And since the form itself and the nature of a thing is the end and
the cause why a thing is made (Phys. ii, text. 25), therefore in the
first species we consider both evil and good, and also
changeableness, whether easy or difficult; inasmuch as a certain
nature is the end of generation and movement. And so the Philosopher
(Metaph. v, text. 25) defines habit, a "disposition whereby someone
is disposed, well or ill"; and in _Ethic._ ii, 4, he says that by
"habits we are directed well or ill in reference to the passions."
For when the mode is suitable to the thing's nature, it has the
aspect of good: and when it is unsuitable, it has the aspect of evil.
And since nature is the first object of consideration in anything,
for this reason habit is reckoned as the first species of quality.

Reply Obj. 1: Disposition implies a certain order, as stated above
(A. 1, ad 3). Wherefore a man is not said to be disposed by some
quality except in relation to something else. And if we add "well or
ill," which belongs to the essential notion of habit, we must
consider the quality's relation to the nature, which is the end. So
in regard to shape, or heat, or cold, a man is not said to be well or
ill disposed, except by reason of a relation to the nature of a
thing, with regard to its suitability or unsuitability. Consequently
even shapes and passion-like qualities, in so far as they are
considered to be suitable or unsuitable to the nature of a thing,
belong to habits or dispositions: for shape and color, according to
their suitability to the nature of thing, concern beauty; while heat
and cold, according to their suitability to the nature of a thing,
concern health. And in this way heat and cold are put, by the
Philosopher, in the first species of quality.

Wherefore it is clear how to answer the second objection: though some
give another solution, as Simplicius says in his _Commentary on the
Predicaments._

Reply Obj. 3: This difference, "difficult to change," does not
distinguish habit from the other species of quality, but from
disposition. Now disposition may be taken in two ways; in one way, as
the genus of habit, for disposition is included in the definition of
habit (Metaph. v, text. 25): in another way, according as it is
divided against habit. Again, disposition, properly so called, can be
divided against habit in two ways: first, as perfect and imperfect
within the same species; and thus we call it a disposition, retaining
the name of the genus, when it is had imperfectly, so as to be easily
lost: whereas we call it a habit, when it is had perfectly, so as not
to be lost easily. And thus a disposition becomes a habit, just as a
boy becomes a man. Secondly, they may be distinguished as diverse
species of the one subaltern genus: so that we call dispositions,
those qualities of the first species, which by reason of their very
nature are easily lost, because they have changeable causes; e.g.
sickness and health: whereas we call habits those qualities which, by
reason of their very nature, are not easily changed, in that they
have unchangeable causes, e.g. sciences and virtues. And in this
sense, disposition does not become habit. The latter explanation
seems more in keeping with the intention of Aristotle: for in order
to confirm this distinction he adduces the common mode of speaking,
according to which, when a quality is, by reason of its nature,
easily changeable, and, through some accident, becomes difficultly
changeable, then it is called a habit: while the contrary happens in
regard to qualities, by reason of their nature, difficultly
changeable: for supposing a man to have a science imperfectly, so as
to be liable to lose it easily, we say that he is disposed to that
science, rather than that he has the science. From this it is clear
that the word "habit" implies a certain lastingness: while the word
"disposition" does not.

Nor does it matter that thus to be easy and difficult to change are
specific differences (of a quality), although they belong to passion
and movement, and not the genus of quality. For these differences,
though apparently accidental to quality, nevertheless designate
differences which are proper and essential to quality. In the same
way, in the genus of substance we often take accidental instead of
substantial differences, in so far as by the former, essential
principles are designated.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 49, Art. 3]

Whether Habit Implies Order to an Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that habit does not imply order to an act.
For everything acts according as it is in act. But the Philosopher
says (De Anima iii, text 8), that "when one is become knowing by
habit, one is still in a state of potentiality, but otherwise than
before learning." Therefore habit does not imply the relation of a
principle to an act.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is put in the definition of a thing,
belongs to it essentially. But to be a principle of action, is put in
the definition of power, as we read in _Metaph._ v, text. 17.
Therefore to be the principle of an act belongs to power essentially.
Now that which is essential is first in every genus. If therefore,
habit also is a principle of act, it follows that it is posterior to
power. And so habit and disposition will not be the first species of
quality.

Obj. 3: Further, health is sometimes a habit, and so are leanness and
beauty. But these do not indicate relation to an act. Therefore it is
not essential to habit to be a principle of act.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxi) that "habit
is that whereby something is done when necessary." And the
Commentator says (De Anima iii) that "habit is that whereby we act
when we will."

_I answer that,_ To have relation to an act may belong to habit, both
in regard to the nature of habit, and in regard to the subject in
which the habit is. In regard to the nature of habit, it belongs to
every habit to have relation to an act. For it is essential to habit
to imply some relation to a thing's nature, in so far as it is
suitable or unsuitable thereto. But a thing's nature, which is the
end of generation, is further ordained to another end, which is
either an operation, or the product of an operation, to which one
attains by means of operation. Wherefore habit implies relation not
only to the very nature of a thing, but also, consequently, to
operation, inasmuch as this is the end of nature, or conducive to the
end. Whence also it is stated (Metaph. v, text. 25) in the definition
of habit, that it is a disposition whereby that which is disposed, is
well or ill disposed either in regard to itself, that is to its
nature, or in regard to something else, that is to the end.

But there are some habits, which even on the part of the subject in
which they are, imply primarily and principally relation to an act.
For, as we have said, habit primarily and of itself implies a
relation to the thing's nature. If therefore the nature of a thing,
in which the habit is, consists in this very relation to an act, it
follows that the habit principally implies relation to an act. Now it
is clear that the nature and the notion of power is that it should be
a principle of act. Wherefore every habit is subjected in a power,
implies principally relation to an act.

Reply Obj. 1: Habit is an act, in so far as it is a quality: and in
this respect it can be a principle of operation. It is, however, in a
state of potentiality in respect to operation. Wherefore habit is
called first act, and operation, second act; as it is explained in
_De Anima_ ii, text. 5.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the essence of habit to be related to power,
but to be related to nature. And as nature precedes action, to which
power is related, therefore habit is put before power as a species of
quality.

Reply Obj. 3: Health is said to be a habit, or a habitual
disposition, in relation to nature, as stated above. But in so far as
nature is a principle of act, it consequently implies a relation to
act. Wherefore the Philosopher says (De Hist. Animal. x, 1), that
man, or one of his members, is called healthy, "when he can perform
the operation of a healthy man." And the same applies to other habits.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 49, Art. 4]

Whether Habits Are Necessary?

Objection 1: It would seem that habits are not necessary. For by
habits we are well or ill disposed in respect of something, as stated
above. But a thing is well or ill disposed by its form: for in
respect of its form a thing is good, even as it is a being. Therefore
there is no necessity for habits.

Obj. 2: Further, habit implies relation to an act. But power implies
sufficiently a principle of act: for even the natural powers, without
any habits, are principles of acts. Therefore there was no necessity
for habits.

Obj. 3: Further, as power is related to good and evil, so also is
habit: and as power does not always act, so neither does habit.
Given, therefore, the powers, habits become superfluous.

_On the contrary,_ Habits are perfections (Phys. vii, text. 17). But
perfection is of the greatest necessity to a thing: since it is in
the nature of an end. Therefore it is necessary that there should be
habits.

_I answer that,_ As we have said above (AA. 2, 3), habit implies a
disposition in relation to a thing's nature, and to its operation or
end, by reason of which disposition a thing is well or ill disposed
thereto. Now for a thing to need to be disposed to something else,
three conditions are necessary. The first condition is that which is
disposed should be distinct from that to which it is disposed; and
so, that it should be related to it as potentiality is to act.
Whence, if there is a being whose nature is not composed of
potentiality and act, and whose substance is its own operation, which
itself is for itself, there we can find no room for habit and
disposition, as is clearly the case in God.

The second condition is, that that which is in a state of
potentiality in regard to something else, be capable of determination
in several ways and to various things. Whence if something be in a
state of potentiality in regard to something else, but in regard to
that only, there we find no room for disposition and habit: for such
a subject from its own nature has the due relation to such an act.
Wherefore if a heavenly body be composed of matter and form, since
that matter is not in a state of potentiality to another form, as we
said in the First Part (Q. 56, A. 2) there is no need for disposition
or habit in respect of the form, or even in respect of operation,
since the nature of the heavenly body is not in a state of
potentiality to more than one fixed movement.

The third condition is that in disposing the subject to one of those
things to which it is in potentiality, several things should occur,
capable of being adjusted in various ways: so as to dispose the
subject well or ill to its form or to its operation. Wherefore the
simple qualities of the elements which suit the natures of the
elements in one single fixed way, are not called dispositions or
habits, but "simple qualities": but we call dispositions or habits,
such things as health, beauty, and so forth, which imply the
adjustment of several things which may vary in their relative
adjustability. For this reason the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text.
24, 25) that "habit is a disposition": and disposition is "the order
of that which has parts either as to place, or as to potentiality, or
as to species," as we have said above (A. 1, ad 3). Wherefore, since
there are many things for whose natures and operations several things
must concur which may vary in their relative adjustability, it
follows that habit is necessary.

Reply Obj. 1: By the form the nature of a thing is perfected: yet the
subject needs to be disposed in regard to the form by some
disposition. But the form itself is further ordained to operation,
which is either the end, or the means to the end. And if the form is
limited to one fixed operation, no further disposition, besides the
form itself, is needed for the operation. But if the form be such
that it can operate in diverse ways, as the soul; it needs to be
disposed to its operations by means of habits.

Reply Obj. 2: Power sometimes has a relation to many things: and then
it needs to be determined by something else. But if a power has not a
relation to many things, it does not need a habit to determine it, as
we have said. For this reason the natural forces do not perform their
operations by means of habits: because they are of themselves
determined to one mode of operation.

Reply Obj. 3: The same habit has not a relation to good and evil, as
will be made clear further on (Q. 54, A. 3): whereas the same power
has a relation to good and evil. And, therefore, habits are necessary
that the powers be determined to good.
________________________

QUESTION 50

OF THE SUBJECT OF HABITS
(In Six Articles)

We consider next the subject of habits: and under this head there are
six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is a habit in the body?

(2) Whether the soul is a subject of habit, in respect of its essence
or in respect of its power?

(3) Whether in the powers of the sensitive part there can be a habit?

(4) Whether there is a habit in the intellect?

(5) Whether there is a habit in the will?

(6) Whether there is a habit in separate substances?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 50, Art. 1]

Whether There Is a Habit in the Body?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is not a habit in the body.
For, as the Commentator says (De Anima iii), "a habit is that whereby
we act when we will." But bodily actions are not subject to the will,
since they are natural. Therefore there can be no habit in the body.

Obj. 2: Further, all bodily dispositions are easy to change. But
habit is a quality, difficult to change. Therefore no bodily
disposition can be a habit.

Obj. 3: Further, all bodily dispositions are subject to change. But
change can only be in the third species of quality, which is divided
against habit. Therefore there is no habit in the body.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says in the _Book of Predicaments_
(De Categor. vi) that health of the body and incurable disease are
called habits.

_I answer that,_ As we have said above (Q. 49, AA. 2 seqq.), habit is
a disposition of a subject which is in a state of potentiality either
to form or to operation. Therefore in so far as habit implies
disposition to operation, no habit is principally in the body as its
subject. For every operation of the body proceeds either from a
natural quality of the body or from the soul moving the body.
Consequently, as to those operations which proceed from its nature,
the body is not disposed by a habit: because the natural forces are
determined to one mode of operation; and we have already said (Q. 49,
A. 4) that it is when the subject is in potentiality to many things
that a habitual disposition is required. As to the operations which
proceed from the soul through the body, they belong principally to
the soul, and secondarily to the body. Now habits are in proportion
to their operations: whence "by like acts like habits are formed"
(Ethic. ii, 1, 2). And therefore the dispositions to such operations
are principally in the soul. But they can be secondarily in the body:
to wit, in so far as the body is disposed and enabled with
promptitude to help in the operations of the soul.

If, however, we speak of the disposition of the subject to form, thus
a habitual disposition can be in the body, which is related to the
soul as a subject is to its form. And in this way health and beauty
and such like are called habitual dispositions. Yet they have not the
nature of habit perfectly: because their causes, of their very nature,
are easily changeable.

On the other hand, as Simplicius reports in his _Commentary on the
Predicaments,_ Alexander denied absolutely that habits or
dispositions of the first species are in the body: and held that the
first species of quality belonged to the soul alone. And he held that
Aristotle mentions health and sickness in the _Book on the
Predicaments_ not as though they belonged to the first species of
quality, but by way of example: so that he would mean that just as
health and sickness may be easy or difficult to change, so also are
all the qualities of the first species, which are called habits and
dispositions. But this is clearly contrary to the intention of
Aristotle: both because he speaks in the same way of health and
sickness as examples, as of virtue and science; and because in
_Phys._ vii, text. 17, he expressly mentions beauty and health among
habits.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection runs in the sense of habit as a
disposition to operation, and of those actions of the body which are
from nature: but not in the sense of those actions which proceed from
the soul, and the principle of which is the will.

Reply Obj. 2: Bodily dispositions are not simply difficult to change
on account of the changeableness of their bodily causes. But they may
be difficult to change by comparison to such a subject, because, to
wit, as long as such a subject endures, they cannot be removed; or
because they are difficult to change, by comparison to other
dispositions. But qualities of the soul are simply difficult to
change, on account of the unchangeableness of the subject. And
therefore he does not say that health which is difficult to change is
a habit simply: but that it is "as a habit," as we read in the Greek
[*_isos hexin_ (Categor. viii)]. On the other hand, the qualities of
the soul are called habits simply.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily dispositions which are in the first species of
quality, as some maintained, differ from qualities of the third
species, in this, that the qualities of the third species consist in
some "becoming" and movement, as it were, wherefore they are called
passions or passible qualities. But when they have attained to
perfection (specific perfection, so to speak), they have then passed
into the first species of quality. But Simplicius in his _Commentary_
disapproves of this; for in this way heating would be in the third
species, and heat in the first species of quality; whereas Aristotle
puts heat in the third.

Wherefore Porphyrius, as Simplicius reports (Commentary), says that
passion or passion-like quality, disposition and habit, differ in
bodies by way of intensity and remissness. For when a thing receives
heat in this only that it is being heated, and not so as to be able
to give heat, then we have passion, if it is transitory; or
passion-like quality if it is permanent. But when it has been brought
to the point that it is able to heat something else, then it is a
disposition; and if it goes so far as to be firmly fixed and to
become difficult to change, then it will be a habit: so that
disposition would be a certain intensity of passion or passion-like
quality, and habit an intensity or disposition. But Simplicius
disapproves of this, for such intensity and remissness do not imply
diversity on the part of the form itself, but on the part of the
diverse participation thereof by the subject; so that there would be
no diversity among the species of quality. And therefore we must say
otherwise that, as was explained above (Q. 49, A. 2, ad 1), the
adjustment of the passion-like qualities themselves, according to
their suitability to nature, implies the notion of disposition: and
so, when a change takes place in these same passion-like qualities,
which are heat and cold, moisture and dryness, there results a change
as to sickness and health. But change does not occur in regard to
like habits and dispositions, primarily and of themselves.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 50, art. 2]

Whether the Soul Is the Subject of Habit in Respect of Its Essence or
in Respect of Its Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that habit is in the soul in respect of
its essence rather than in respect of its powers. For we speak of
dispositions and habits in relation to nature, as stated above (Q.
49, A. 2). But nature regards the essence of the soul rather than the
powers; because it is in respect of its essence that the soul is the
nature of such a body and the form thereof. Therefore habits are in
the soul in respect of its essence and not in respect of its powers.

Obj. 2: Further, accident is not the subject of accident. Now habit
is an accident. But the powers of the soul are in the genus of
accident, as we have said in the First Part (Q. 77, A. 1, ad 5).
Therefore habit is not in the soul in respect of its powers.

Obj. 3: Further, the subject is prior to that which is in the
subject. But since habit belongs to the first species of quality, it
is prior to power, which belongs to the second species. Therefore
habit is not in a power of the soul as its subject.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13) puts various habits
in the various powers of the soul.

_I answer that,_ As we have said above (Q. 49, AA. 2, 3), habit
implies a certain disposition in relation to nature or to operation.
If therefore we take habit as having a relation to nature, it cannot
be in the soul--that is, if we speak of human nature: for the soul
itself is the form completing the human nature; so that, regarded in
this way, habit or disposition is rather to be found in the body by
reason of its relation to the soul, than in the soul by reason of its
relation to the body. But if we speak of a higher nature, of which
man may become a partaker, according to 2 Pet. 1, "that we may be
partakers of the Divine Nature": thus nothing hinders some habit,
namely, grace, from being in the soul in respect of its essence, as
we shall state later on (Q. 110, A. 4).

On the other hand, if we take habit in its relation to operation, it
is chiefly thus that habits are found in the soul: in so far as the
soul is not determined to one operation, but is indifferent to many,
which is a condition for a habit, as we have said above (Q. 49, A.
4). And since the soul is the principle of operation through its
powers, therefore, regarded in this sense, habits are in the soul in
respect of its powers.

Reply Obj. 1: The essence of the soul belongs to human nature, not as
a subject requiring to be disposed to something further, but as a
form and nature to which someone is disposed.

Reply Obj. 2: Accident is not of itself the subject of accident. But
since among accidents themselves there is a certain order, the
subject, according as it is under one accident, is conceived as the
subject of a further accident. In this way we say that one accident
is the subject of another; as superficies is the subject of color, in
which sense power is the subject of habit.

Reply Obj. 3: Habit takes precedence of power, according as it
implies a disposition to nature: whereas power always implies a
relation to operation, which is posterior, since nature is the
principle of operation. But the habit whose subject is a power, does
not imply relation to nature, but to operation. Wherefore it is
posterior to power. Or, we may say that habit takes precedence of
power, as the complete takes precedence of the incomplete, and as act
takes precedence of potentiality. For act is naturally prior to
potentiality, though potentiality is prior in order of generation and
time, as stated in _Metaph._ vii, text. 17; ix, text. 13.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 50, Art. 3]

Whether There Can Be Any Habits in the Powers of the Sensitive Part?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be any habits in the
powers of the sensitive part. For as the nutritive power is an
irrational part, so is the sensitive power. But there can be no
habits in the powers of the nutritive part. Therefore we ought not to
put any habit in the powers of the sensitive part.

Obj. 2: Further, the sensitive parts are common to us and the brutes.
But there are not any habits in brutes: for in them there is no will,
which is put in the definition of habit, as we have said above (Q.
49, A. 3). Therefore there are no habits in the sensitive powers.

Obj. 3: Further, the habits of the soul are sciences and virtues: and
just as science is related to the apprehensive power, so it virtue
related to the appetitive power. But in the sensitive powers there
are no sciences: since science is of universals, which the sensitive
powers cannot apprehend. Therefore, neither can there be habits of
virtue in the sensitive part.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10) that "some
virtues," namely, temperance and fortitude, "belong to the irrational
part."

_I answer that,_ The sensitive powers can be considered in two ways:
first, according as they act from natural instinct: secondly,
according as they act at the command of reason. According as they act
from natural instinct, they are ordained to one thing, even as nature
is; but according as they act at the command of reason, they can be
ordained to various things. And thus there can be habits in them, by
which they are well or ill disposed in regard to something.

Reply Obj. 1: The powers of the nutritive part have not an inborn
aptitude to obey the command of reason, and therefore there are no
habits in them. But the sensitive powers have an inborn aptitude to
obey the command of reason; and therefore habits can be in them: for
in so far as they obey reason, in a certain sense they are said to be
rational, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13.

Reply Obj. 2: The sensitive powers of dumb animals do not act at the
command of reason; but if they are left to themselves, such animals
act from natural instinct: and so in them there are no habits
ordained to operations. There are in them, however, certain
dispositions in relation to nature, as health and beauty. But whereas
by man's reason brutes are disposed by a sort of custom to do things
in this or that way, so in this sense, to a certain extent, we can
admit the existence of habits in dumb animals: wherefore Augustine
says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 36): "We find the most untamed beasts,
deterred by fear of pain, from that wherein they took the keenest
pleasure; and when this has become a custom in them, we say that they
are tame and gentle." But the habit is incomplete, as to the use of
the will, for they have not that power of using or of refraining,
which seems to belong to the notion of habit: and therefore, properly
speaking, there can be no habits in them.

Reply Obj. 3: The sensitive appetite has an inborn aptitude to be
moved by the rational appetite, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, text.
57: but the rational powers of apprehension have an inborn aptitude
to receive from the sensitive powers. And therefore it is more
suitable that habits should be in the powers of sensitive appetite
than in the powers of sensitive apprehension, since in the powers of
sensitive appetite habits do not exist except according as they act
at the command of the reason. And yet even in the interior powers of
sensitive apprehension, we may admit of certain habits whereby man
has a facility of memory, thought or imagination: wherefore also the
Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. ii) that "custom conduces much
to a good memory": the reason of which is that these powers also are
moved to act at the command of the reason.

On the other hand the exterior apprehensive powers, as sight, hearing
and the like, are not susceptible of habits, but are ordained to
their fixed acts, according to the disposition of their nature, just
as the members of the body, for there are no habits in them, but
rather in the powers which command their movements.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 50, Art. 4]

Whether There Is Any Habit in the Intellect?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are no habits in the intellect.
For habits are in conformity with operations, as stated above (A. 1).
But the operations of man are common to soul and body, as stated in
_De Anima_ i, text. 64. Therefore also are habits. But the intellect
is not an act of the body (De Anima iii, text. 6). Therefore the
intellect is not the subject of a habit.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is in a thing, is there according to the
mode of that in which it is. But that which is form without matter,
is act only: whereas what is composed of form and matter, has
potentiality and act at the same time. Therefore nothing at the same
time potential and actual can be in that which is form only, but only
in that which is composed of matter and form. Now the intellect is
form without matter. Therefore habit, which has potentiality at the
same time as act, being a sort of medium between the two, cannot be
in the intellect; but only in the _conjunction,_ which is composed of
soul and body.

Obj. 3: Further, habit is a disposition whereby we are well or ill
disposed in regard to something, as is said (Metaph. v, text. 25).
But that anyone should be well or ill disposed to an act of the
intellect is due to some disposition of the body: wherefore also it
is stated (De Anima ii, text. 94) that "we observe men with soft
flesh to be quick witted." Therefore the habits of knowledge are not
in the intellect, which is separate, but in some power which is the
act of some part of the body.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 2, 3, 10) puts
science, wisdom and understanding, which is the habit of first
principles, in the intellective part of the soul.

_I answer that,_ concerning intellective habits there have been
various opinions. Some, supposing that there was only one _possible_
[*See First Part, Q. 79, A. 2, ad 2] intellect for all men, were
bound to hold that habits of knowledge are not in the intellect
itself, but in the interior sensitive powers. For it is manifest that
men differ in habits; and so it was impossible to put the habits of
knowledge directly in that, which, being only one, would be common to
all men. Wherefore if there were but one single "possible" intellect
of all men, the habits of science, in which men differ from one
another, could not be in the "possible" intellect as their subject,
but would be in the interior sensitive powers, which differ in
various men.

Now, in the first place, this supposition is contrary to the mind of
Aristotle. For it is manifest that the sensitive powers are rational,
not by their essence, but only by participation (Ethic. i, 13). Now
the Philosopher puts the intellectual virtues, which are wisdom,
science and understanding, in that which is rational by its essence.
Wherefore they are not in the sensitive powers, but in the intellect
itself. Moreover he says expressly (De Anima iii, text. 8, 18) that
when the "possible" intellect "is thus identified with each thing,"
that is, when it is reduced to act in respect of singulars by the
intelligible species, "then it is said to be in act, as the knower is
said to be in act; and this happens when the intellect can act of
itself," i.e. by considering: "and even then it is in potentiality in
a sense; but not in the same way as before learning and discovering."
Therefore the "possible" intellect itself is the subject of the habit
of science, by which the intellect, even though it be not actually
considering, is able to consider. In the second place, this
supposition is contrary to the truth. For as to whom belongs the
operation, belongs also the power to operate, belongs also the habit.
But to understand and to consider is the proper act of the intellect.
Therefore also the habit whereby one considers is properly in the
intellect itself.

Reply Obj. 1: Some said, as Simplicius reports in his
_Commentary on the Predicaments,_ that, since every operation of man is
to a certain extent an operation of the _conjunctum,_ as the
Philosopher says (De Anima i, text. 64); therefore no habit is in the
soul only, but in the _conjunctum._ And from this it follows that no
habit is in the intellect, for the intellect is separate, as ran the
argument, given above. But the argument is not cogent. For habit is not
a disposition of the object to the power, but rather a disposition of
the power to the object: wherefore the habit needs to be in that power
which is principle of the act, and not in that which is compared to
the power as its object.

Now the act of understanding is not said to be common to soul and
body, except in respect of the phantasm, as is stated in _De Anima_,
text. 66. But it is clear that the phantasm is compared as object to
the passive intellect (De Anima iii, text. 3, 39). Whence it follows
that the intellective habit is chiefly on the part of the intellect
itself; and not on the part of the phantasm, which is common to soul
and body. And therefore we must say that the "possible" intellect is
the subject of habit, which is in potentiality to many: and this
belongs, above all, to the "possible" intellect. Wherefore the
"possible" intellect is the subject of intellectual habits.

Reply Obj. 2: As potentiality to sensible being belongs to
corporeal matter, so potentiality to intellectual being belongs to the
"possible" intellect. Wherefore nothing forbids habit to be in the
"possible" intellect, for it is midway between pure potentiality and
perfect act.

Reply Obj. 3: Because the apprehensive powers inwardly prepare
their proper objects for the _possible intellect,_ therefore it is by
the good disposition of these powers, to which the good disposition of
the body cooperates, that man is rendered apt to understand. And so in
a secondary way the intellective habit can be in these powers. But
principally it is in the "possible" intellect.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 50, Art. 5]

Whether Any Habit Is in the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is not a habit in the will. For
the habit which is in the intellect is the intelligible species, by
means of which the intellect actually understands. But the will does
not act by means of species. Therefore the will is not the subject of
habit.

Obj. 2: Further, no habit is allotted to the active intellect, as
there is to the "possible" intellect, because the former is an active
power. But the will is above all an active power, because it moves
all the powers to their acts, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1). Therefore
there is no habit in the will.

Obj. 3: Further, in the natural powers there is no habit, because, by
reason of their nature, they are determinate to one thing. But the
will, by reason of its nature, is ordained to tend to the good which
reason directs. Therefore there is no habit in the will.

_On the contrary,_ Justice is a habit. But justice is in the will;
for it is "a habit whereby men will and do that which is just"
(Ethic. v, 1). Therefore the will is the subject of a habit.

_I answer that,_ Every power which may be variously directed to act,
needs a habit whereby it is well disposed to its act. Now since the
will is a rational power, it may be variously directed to act. And
therefore in the will we must admit the presence of a habit whereby
it is well disposed to its act. Moreover, from the very nature of
habit, it is clear that it is principally related to the will;
inasmuch as habit "is that which one uses when one wills," as stated
above (A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Even as in the intellect there is a species which is
the likeness of the object; so in the will, and in every appetitive
power there must be something by which the power is inclined to its
object; for the act of the appetitive power is nothing but a certain
inclination, as we have said above (Q. 6, A. 4; Q. 22, A. 2). And
therefore in respect of those things to which it is inclined
sufficiently by the nature of the power itself, the power needs no
quality to incline it. But since it is necessary, for the end of
human life, that the appetitive power be inclined to something fixed,
to which it is not inclined by the nature of the power, which has a
relation to many and various things, therefore it is necessary that,
in the will and in the other appetitive powers, there be certain
qualities to incline them, and these are called habits.

Reply Obj. 2: The active intellect is active only, and in no way
passive. But the will, and every appetitive power, is both mover and
moved (De Anima iii, text. 54). And therefore the comparison between
them does not hold; for to be susceptible of habit belongs to that
which is somehow in potentiality.

Reply Obj. 3: The will from the very nature of the power is inclined
to the good of the reason. But because this good is varied in many
ways, the will needs to be inclined, by means of a habit, to some
fixed good of the reason, in order that action may follow more
promptly.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 50, Art. 6]

Whether There Are Habits in the Angels?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are no habits in the angels.
For Maximus, commentator of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), says: "It is
not proper to suppose that there are intellectual (i.e. spiritual)
powers in the divine intelligences (i.e. in the angels) after the
manner of accidents, as in us: as though one were in the other as in
a subject: for accident of any kind is foreign to them." But every
habit is an accident. Therefore there are no habits in the angels.

Obj. 2: Further, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The holy
dispositions of the heavenly essences participate, above all other
things, in God's goodness." But that which is of itself (_per se_) is
prior to and more powerful than that which is by another (_per
aliud_). Therefore the angelic essences are perfected of themselves
unto conformity with God, and therefore not by means of habits. And
this seems to have been the reasoning of Maximus, who in the same
passage adds: "For if this were the case, surely their essence would
not remain in itself, nor could it have been as far as possible
deified of itself."

Obj. 3: Further, habit is a disposition (Metaph. v, text. 25). But
disposition, as is said in the same book, is "the order of that which
has parts." Since, therefore, angels are simple substances, it seems
that there are no dispositions and habits in them.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that the angels
of the first hierarchy are called: "Fire-bearers and Thrones and
Outpouring of Wisdom, by which is indicated the godlike nature of
their habits."

_I answer that,_ Some have thought that there are no habits in the
angels, and that whatever is said of them, is said essentially.
Whence Maximus, after the words which we have quoted, says: "Their
dispositions, and the powers which are in them, are essential,
through the absence of matter in them." And Simplicius says the same
in his _Commentary on the Predicaments:_ "Wisdom which is in the soul
is its habit: but that which is in the intellect, is its substance.
For everything divine is sufficient of itself, and exists in itself."

Now this opinion contains some truth, and some error. For it is
manifest from what we have said (Q. 49, A. 4) that only a being in
potentiality is the subject of habit. So the above-mentioned
commentators considered that angels are immaterial substances, and
that there is no material potentiality in them, and on that account,
excluded from them habit and any kind of accident. Yet since though
there is no material potentiality in angels, there is still some
potentiality in them (for to be pure act belongs to God alone),
therefore, as far as potentiality is found to be in them, so far may
habits be found in them. But because the potentiality of matter and
the potentiality of intellectual substance are not of the same kind.
Whence, Simplicius says in his _Commentary on the Predicaments_ that:
"The habits of the intellectual substance are not like the habits
here below, but rather are they like simple and immaterial images
which it contains in itself."

However, the angelic intellect and the human intellect differ with
regard to this habit. For the human intellect, being the lowest in
the intellectual order, is in potentiality as regards all
intelligible things, just as primal matter is in respect of all
sensible forms; and therefore for the understanding of all things, it
needs some habit. But the angelic intellect is not as a pure
potentiality in the order of intelligible things, but as an act; not
indeed as pure act (for this belongs to God alone), but with an
admixture of some potentiality: and the higher it is, the less
potentiality it has. And therefore, as we said in the First Part (Q.
55, A. 1), so far as it is in potentiality, so far is it in need of
habitual perfection by means of intelligible species in regard to its
proper operation: but so far as it is in act, through its own essence
it can understand some things, at least itself, and other things
according to the mode of its substance, as stated in _De Causis:_ and
the more perfect it is, the more perfectly will it understand.

But since no angel attains to the perfection of God, but all are
infinitely distant therefrom; for this reason, in order to attain to
God Himself, through intellect and will, the angels need some habits,
being as it were in potentiality in regard to that Pure Act.
Wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that their habits are
"godlike," that is to say, that by them they are made like to God.

But those habits that are dispositions to the natural being are not
in angels, since they are immaterial.

Reply Obj. 1: This saying of Maximus must be understood of material
habits and accidents.

Reply Obj. 2: As to that which belongs to angels by their essence,
they do not need a habit. But as they are not so far beings of
themselves, as not to partake of Divine wisdom and goodness,
therefore, so far as they need to partake of something from without,
so far do they need to have habits.

Reply Obj. 3: In angels there are no essential parts: but
there are potential parts, in so far as their intellect is perfected
by several species, and in so far as their will has a relation to
several things.
________________________

QUESTION 51

OF THE CAUSE OF HABITS, AS TO THEIR FORMATION
(In Four Articles)

We must next consider the cause of habits: and firstly, as to their
formation; secondly, as to their increase; thirdly, as to their
diminution and corruption. Under the first head there are four points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether any habit is from nature?

(2) Whether any habit is caused by acts?

(3) Whether any habit can be caused by one act?

(4) Whether any habits are infused in man by God?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 51, Art. 1]

Whether Any Habit Is from Nature?

Objection 1: It would seem that no habit is from nature. For the use
of those things which are from nature does not depend on the will.
But habit "is that which we use when we will," as the Commentator
says on _De Anima_ iii. Therefore habit is not from nature.

Obj. 2: Further, nature does not employ two where one is sufficient.
But the powers of the soul are from nature. If therefore the habits
of the powers were from nature, habit and power would be one.

Obj. 3: Further, nature does not fail in necessaries. But habits are
necessary in order to act well, as we have stated above (Q. 49, A.
4). If therefore any habits were from nature, it seems that nature
would not fail to cause all necessary habits: but this is clearly
false. Therefore habits are not from nature.

_On the contrary,_ In _Ethic._ vi, 6, among other habits, place is
given to understanding of first principles, which habit is from
nature: wherefore also first principles are said to be known
naturally.

_I answer that,_ One thing can be natural to another in two ways.
First in respect of the specific nature, as the faculty of laughing
is natural to man, and it is natural to fire to have an upward
tendency. Secondly, in respect of the individual nature, as it is
natural to Socrates or Plato to be prone to sickness or inclined to
health, in accordance with their respective temperaments. Again, in
respect of both natures, something may be called natural in two ways:
first, because it entirely is from the nature; secondly, because it
is partly from nature, and partly from an extrinsic principle. For
instance, when a man is healed by himself, his health is entirely
from nature; but when a man is healed by means of medicine, health
is partly from nature, partly from an extrinsic principle.

Thus, then, if we speak of habit as a disposition of the subject in
relation to form or nature, it may be natural in either of the
foregoing ways. For there is a certain natural disposition demanded
by the human species, so that no man can be without it. And this
disposition is natural in respect of the specific nature. But since
such a disposition has a certain latitude, it happens that different
grades of this disposition are becoming to different men in respect
of the individual nature. And this disposition may be either entirely
from nature, or partly from nature, and partly from an extrinsic
principle, as we have said of those who are healed by means of art.

But the habit which is a disposition to operation, and whose subject
is a power of the soul, as stated above (Q. 50, A. 2), may be natural
whether in respect of the specific nature or in respect of the
individual nature: in respect of the specific nature, on the part of
the soul itself, which, since it is the form of the body, is the
specific principle; but in respect of the individual nature, on the
part of the body, which is the material principle. Yet in neither way
does it happen that there are natural habits in man, so that they be
entirely from nature. In the angels, indeed, this does happen, since
they have intelligible species naturally impressed on them, which
cannot be said of the human soul, as we have said in the First Part
(Q. 55, A. 2; Q. 84, A. 3).

There are, therefore, in man certain natural habits, owing their
existence, partly to nature, and partly to some extrinsic principle:
in one way, indeed, in the apprehensive powers; in another way, in
the appetitive powers. For in the apprehensive powers there may be a
natural habit by way of a beginning, both in respect of the specific
nature, and in respect of the individual nature. This happens with
regard to the specific nature, on the part of the soul itself: thus
the understanding of first principles is called a natural habit. For
it is owing to the very nature of the intellectual soul that man,
having once grasped what is a whole and what is a part, should at
once perceive that every whole is larger than its part: and in like
manner with regard to other such principles. Yet what is a whole, and
what is a part--this he cannot know except through the intelligible
species which he has received from phantasms: and for this reason,
the Philosopher at the end of the _Posterior Analytics_ shows that
knowledge of principles comes to us from the senses.

But in respect of the individual nature, a habit of knowledge is
natural as to its beginning, in so far as one man, from the
disposition of his organs of sense, is more apt than another to
understand well, since we need the sensitive powers for the operation
of the intellect.

In the appetitive powers, however, no habit is natural in its
beginning, on the part of the soul itself, as to the substance of the
habit; but only as to certain principles thereof, as, for instance,
the principles of common law are called the "nurseries of virtue."
The reason of this is because the inclination to its proper objects,
which seems to be the beginning of a habit, does not belong to the
habit, but rather to the very nature of the powers.

But on the part of the body, in respect of the individual nature,
there are some appetitive habits by way of natural beginnings. For
some are disposed from their own bodily temperament to chastity or
meekness or such like.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection takes nature as divided against reason
and will; whereas reason itself and will belong to the nature of man.

Reply Obj. 2: Something may be added even naturally to the nature of
a power, while it cannot belong to the power itself. For instance,
with regard to the angels, it cannot belong to the intellective power
itself capable of knowing all things: for thus it would have to be
the act of all things, which belongs to God alone. Because that by
which something is known, must needs be the actual likeness of the
thing known: whence it would follow, if the power of the angel knew
all things by itself, that it was the likeness and act of all things.
Wherefore there must needs be added to the angels' intellective
power, some intelligible species, which are likenesses of things
understood: for it is by participation of the Divine wisdom and not
by their own essence, that their intellect can be actually those
things which they understand. And so it is clear that not everything
belonging to a natural habit can belong to the power.

Reply Obj. 3: Nature is not equally inclined to cause all the various
kinds of habits: since some can be caused by nature, and some not, as
we have said above. And so it does not follow that because some
habits are natural, therefore all are natural.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 51, Art. 2]

Whether Any Habit Is Caused by Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that no habit is caused by acts. For habit
is a quality, as we have said above (Q. 49, A. 1). Now every quality
is caused in a subject, according to the latter's receptivity. Since
then the agent, inasmuch as it acts, does not receive but rather
gives: it seems impossible for a habit to be caused in an agent by
its own acts.

Obj. 2: Further, the thing wherein a quality is caused is moved to
that quality, as may be clearly seen in that which is heated or
cooled: whereas that which produces the act that causes the quality,
moves, as may be seen in that which heats or cools. If therefore
habits were caused in anything by its own act, it would follow that
the same would be mover and moved, active and passive: which is
impossible, as stated in Physics iii, 8.

Obj. 3: Further, the effect cannot be more noble than its cause. But
habit is more noble than the act which precedes the habit; as is
clear from the fact that the latter produces more noble acts.
Therefore habit cannot be caused by an act which precedes the habit.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1, 2) teaches that
habits of virtue and vice are caused by acts.

_I answer that,_ In the agent there is sometimes only the active
principle of its act: for instance in fire there is only the active
principle of heating. And in such an agent a habit cannot be caused
by its own act: for which reason natural things cannot become
accustomed or unaccustomed, as is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 1. But a
certain agent is to be found, in which there is both the active and
the passive principle of its act, as we see in human acts. For the
acts of the appetitive power proceed from that same power according
as it is moved by the apprehensive power presenting the object: and
further, the intellective power, according as it reasons about
conclusions, has, as it were, an active principle in a self-evident
proposition. Wherefore by such acts habits can be caused in their
agents; not indeed with regard to the first active principle, but
with regard to that principle of the act, which principle is a mover
moved. For everything that is passive and moved by another, is
disposed by the action of the agent; wherefore if the acts be
multiplied a certain quality is formed in the power which is passive
and moved, which quality is called a habit: just as the habits of
moral virtue are caused in the appetitive powers, according as they
are moved by the reason, and as the habits of science are caused in
the intellect, according as it is moved by first propositions.

Reply Obj. 1: The agent, as agent, does not receive anything. But
in so far as it moves through being moved by another, it receives
something from that which moves it: and thus is a habit caused.

Reply Obj. 2: The same thing, and in the same respect, cannot be
mover and moved; but nothing prevents a thing from being moved by
itself as to different respects, as is proved in Physics viii, text.
28, 29.

Reply Obj. 3: The act which precedes the habit, in so far as
it comes from an active principle, proceeds from a more excellent
principle than is the habit caused thereby: just as the reason is a
more excellent principle than the habit of moral virtue produced in
the appetitive power by repeated acts, and as the understanding of
first principles is a more excellent principle than the science of
conclusions.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 51, Art. 3]

Whether a Habit Can Be Caused by One Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that a habit can be caused by one act. For
demonstration is an act of reason. But science, which is the habit of
one conclusion, is caused by one demonstration. Therefore habit can
be caused by one act.

Obj. 2: Further, as acts happen to increase by multiplication so do
they happen to increase by intensity. But a habit is caused by
multiplication of acts. Therefore also if an act be very intense, it
can be the generating cause of a habit.

Obj. 3: Further, health and sickness are habits. But it happens that
a man is healed or becomes ill, by one act. Therefore one act can
cause a habit.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. i, 7): "As neither does
one swallow nor one day make spring: so neither does one day nor a
short time make a man blessed and happy." But "happiness is an
operation in respect of a habit of perfect virtue" (Ethic. i, 7, 10,
13). Therefore a habit of virtue, and for the same reason, other
habits, is not caused by one act.

_I answer that,_ As we have said already (A. 2), habit is caused by
act, because a passive power is moved by an active principle. But in
order that some quality be caused in that which is passive the active
principle must entirely overcome the passive. Whence we see that
because fire cannot at once overcome the combustible, it does not
enkindle at once; but it gradually expels contrary dispositions, so
that by overcoming it entirely, it may impress its likeness on it.
Now it is clear that the active principle which is reason, cannot
entirely overcome the appetitive power in one act: because the
appetitive power is inclined variously, and to many things; while the
reason judges in a single act, what should be willed in regard to
various aspects and circumstances. Wherefore the appetitive power is
not thereby entirely overcome, so as to be inclined like nature to
the same thing, in the majority of cases; which inclination belongs
to the habit of virtue. Therefore a habit of virtue cannot be caused
by one act, but only by many.

But in the apprehensive powers, we must observe that there are two
passive principles: one is the _possible_ (See First Part, Q. 79, A.
2, ad 2) intellect itself; the other is the intellect which Aristotle
(De Anima iii, text. 20) calls "passive," and is the "particular
reason," that is the cogitative power, with memory and imagination.
With regard then to the former passive principle, it is possible for
a certain active principle to entirely overcome, by one act, the
power of its passive principle: thus one self-evident proposition
convinces the intellect, so that it gives a firm assent to the
conclusion, but a probable proposition cannot do this. Wherefore a
habit of opinion needs to be caused by many acts of the reason, even
on the part of the "possible" intellect: whereas a habit of science
can be caused by a single act of the reason, so far as the _possible_
intellect is concerned. But with regard to the lower apprehensive
powers, the same acts need to be repeated many times for anything to
be firmly impressed on the memory. And so the Philosopher says (De
Memor. et Remin. 1) that "meditation strengthens memory." Bodily
habits, however, can be caused by one act, if the active principle is
of great power: sometimes, for instance, a strong dose of medicine
restores health at once.

Hence the solutions to the objections are clear.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 51, Art. 4]

Whether Any Habits Are Infused in Man by God?

Objection 1: It would seem that no habit is infused in man by God.
For God treats all equally. If therefore He infuses habits into some,
He would infuse them into all: which is clearly untrue.

Obj. 2: Further, God works in all things according to the mode which
is suitable to their nature: for "it belongs to Divine providence to
preserve nature," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But habits are
naturally caused in man by acts, as we have said above (A. 2).
Therefore God does not cause habits to be in man except by acts.

Obj. 3: Further, if any habit be infused into man by God, man can by
that habit perform many acts. But "from those acts a like habit is
caused" (Ethic. ii, 1, 2). Consequently there will be two habits of
the same species in the same man, one acquired, the other infused.
Now this seems impossible: for the two forms of the same species
cannot be in the same subject. Therefore a habit is not infused into
man by God.

_On the contrary,_ it is written (Ecclus. 15:5): "God filled him with
the spirit of wisdom and understanding." Now wisdom and understanding
are habits. Therefore some habits are infused into man by God.

_I answer that,_ Some habits are infused by God into man, for two
reasons.

The first reason is because there are some habits by which man is
disposed to an end which exceeds the proportion of human nature,
namely, the ultimate and perfect happiness of man, as stated above
(Q. 5, A. 5). And since habits need to be in proportion with that to
which man is disposed by them, therefore is it necessary that those
habits, which dispose to this end, exceed the proportion of human
nature. Wherefore such habits can never be in man except by Divine
infusion, as is the case with all gratuitous virtues.

The other reason is, because God can produce the effects of second
causes, without these second causes, as we have said in the First
Part (Q. 105, A. 6). Just as, therefore, sometimes, in order to show
His power, He causes health, without its natural cause, but which
nature could have caused, so also, at times, for the manifestation of
His power, He infuses into man even those habits which can be caused
by a natural power. Thus He gave to the apostles the science of the
Scriptures and of all tongues, which men can acquire by study or by
custom, but not so perfectly.

Reply Obj. 1: God, in respect of His Nature, is the same to all, but
in respect of the order of His Wisdom, for some fixed motive, gives
certain things to some, which He does not give to others.

Reply Obj. 2: That God works in all according to their mode, does not
hinder God from doing what nature cannot do: but it follows from this
that He does nothing contrary to that which is suitable to nature.

Reply Obj. 3: Acts produced by an infused habit, do not cause a
habit, but strengthen the already existing habit; just as the
remedies of medicine given to a man who is naturally health, do not
cause a kind of health, but give new strength to the health he had
before.
________________________

QUESTION 52

OF THE INCREASE OF HABITS
(In Three Articles)

We have now to consider the increase of habits; under which head
there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether habits increase?

(2) Whether they increase by addition?

(3) Whether each act increases the habit?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 52, Art. 1]

Whether Habits Increase?

Objection 1: It would seem that habits cannot increase. For increase
concerns quantity (Phys. v, text. 18). But habits are not in the
genus [of] quantity, but in that of quality. Therefore there can be
no increase of habits.

Obj. 2: Further, habit is a perfection (Phys. vii, text. 17, 18). But
since perfection conveys a notion of end and term, it seems that it
cannot be more or less. Therefore a habit cannot increase.

Obj. 3: Further, those things which can be more or less are subject
to alteration: for that which from being less hot becomes more hot,
is said to be altered. But in habits there is no alteration, as is
proved in _Phys._ vii, text. 15, 17. Therefore habits cannot increase.

_On the contrary,_ Faith is a habit, and yet it increases: wherefore
the disciples said to our Lord (Luke 17:5): "Lord, increase our
faith." Therefore habits increase.

_I answer that,_ Increase, like other things pertaining to quantity,
is transferred from bodily quantities to intelligible spiritual
things, on account of the natural connection of the intellect with
corporeal things, which come under the imagination. Now in corporeal
quantities, a thing is said to be great, according as it reaches the
perfection of quantity due to it; wherefore a certain quantity is
reputed great in man, which is not reputed great in an elephant. And
so also in forms, we say a thing is great because it is perfect. And
since good has the nature of perfection, therefore "in things which
are great, but not in quantity, to be greater is the same as to be
better," as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8).

Now the perfection of a form may be considered in two ways: first, in
respect of the form itself: secondly, in respect of the participation
of the form by its subject. In so far as we consider the perfections
of a form in respect of the form itself, thus the form is said to be
"little" or "great": for instance great or little health or science.
But in so far as we consider the perfection of a form in respect of
the participation thereof by the subject, it is said to be "more" or
"less": for instance more or less white or healthy. Now this
distinction is not to be understood as implying that the form has a
being outside its matter or subject, but that it is one thing to
consider the form according to its specific nature, and another to
consider it in respect of its participation by a subject.

In this way, then, there were four opinions among philosophers
concerning intensity and remission of habits and forms, as Simplicius
relates in his _Commentary on the Predicaments._ For Plotinus and the
other Platonists held that qualities and habits themselves were
susceptible of more or less, for the reason that they were material
and so had a certain want of definiteness, on account of the infinity
of matter. Others, on the contrary, held that qualities and habits of
themselves were not susceptible of more or less; but that the things
affected by them (_qualia_) are said to be more or less, in respect
of the participation of the subject: that, for instance, justice is
not more or less, but the just thing. Aristotle alludes to this
opinion in the _Predicaments_ (Categor. vi). The third opinion was
that of the Stoics, and lies between the two preceding opinions. For
they held that some habits are of themselves susceptible of more and
less, for instance, the arts; and that some are not, as the virtues.
The fourth opinion was held by some who said that qualities and
immaterial forms are not susceptible of more or less, but that
material forms are.

In order that the truth in this matter be made clear, we must observe
that [that], in respect of which a thing receives its species, must
be something fixed and stationary, and as it were indivisible: for
whatever attains to that thing, is contained under the species, and
whatever recedes from it more or less, belongs to another species,
more or less perfect. Wherefore, the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii,
text. 10) that species of things are like numbers, in which addition
or subtraction changes the species. If, therefore, a form, or
anything at all, receives its specific nature in respect of itself,
or in respect of something belonging to it, it is necessary that,
considered in itself, it be something of a definite nature, which can
be neither more nor less. Such are heat, whiteness or other like
qualities which are not denominated from a relation to something
else: and much more so, substance, which is _per se_ being. But those
things which receive their species from something to which they are
related, can be diversified, in respect of themselves, according to
more or less: and nonetheless they remain in the same species, on
account of the oneness of that to which they are related, and from
which they receive their species. For example, movement is in itself
more intense or more remiss: and yet it remains in the same species,
on account of the oneness of the term by which it is specified. We
may observe the same thing in health; for a body attains to the
nature of health, according as it has a disposition suitable to an
animal's nature, to which various dispositions may be suitable; which
disposition is therefore variable as regards more or less, and withal
the nature of health remains. Whence the Philosopher says (Ethic. x,
2, 3): "Health itself may be more or less: for the measure is not the
same in all, nor is it always the same in one individual; but down to
a certain point it may decrease and still remain health."

Now these various dispositions and measures of health are by way of
excess and defect: wherefore if the name of health were given to the
most perfect measure, then we should not speak of health as greater
or less. Thus therefore it is clear how a quality or form may
increase or decrease of itself, and how it cannot.

But if we consider a quality or form in respect of its participation
by the subject, thus again we find that some qualities and forms are
susceptible of more or less, and some not. Now Simplicius assigns the
cause of this diversity to the fact that substance in itself cannot
be susceptible of more or less, because it is _per se_ being. And
therefore every form which is participated substantially by its
subject, cannot vary in intensity and remission: wherefore in the
genus of substance nothing is said to be more or less. And because
quantity is nigh to substance, and because shape follows on quantity,
therefore is it that neither in these can there be such a thing as
more or less. Whence the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 15) that
when a thing receives form and shape, it is not said to be altered,
but to be made. But other qualities which are further removed from
quantity, and are connected with passions and actions, are
susceptible of more or less, in respect of their participation by the
subject.

Now it is possible to explain yet further the reason of this
diversity. For, as we have said, that from which a thing receives its
species must remain indivisibly fixed and constant in something
indivisible. Wherefore in two ways it may happen that a form cannot
be participated more or less. First because the participator has its
species in respect of that form. And for this reason no substantial
form is participated more or less. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(Metaph. viii, text. 10) that, "as a number cannot be more or less,
so neither can that which is in the species of substance," that is,
in respect of its participation of the specific form: "but in so far
as substance may be with matter," i.e. in respect of material
dispositions, "more or less are found in substance."

Secondly this may happen from the fact that the form is essentially
indivisible: wherefore if anything participate that form, it must
needs participate it in respect of its indivisibility. For this
reason we do not speak of the species of number as varying in respect
of more or less; because each species thereof is constituted by an
indivisible unity. The same is to be said of the species of
continuous quantity, which are denominated from numbers, as
two-cubits-long, three-cubits-long, and of relations of quantity, as
double and treble, and of figures of quantity, as triangle and
tetragon.

This same explanation is given by Aristotle in the _Predicaments_
(Categor. vi), where in explaining why figures are not susceptible of
more or less, he says: "Things which are given the nature of a
triangle or a circle, are accordingly triangles and circles": to wit,
because indivisibility is essential to the motion of such, wherefore
whatever participates their nature must participate it in its
indivisibility.

It is clear, therefore, since we speak of habits and dispositions in
respect of a relation to something (Phys. vii, text. 17), that in two
ways intensity and remission may be observed in habits and
dispositions. First, in respect of the habit itself: thus, for
instance, we speak of greater or less health; greater or less
science, which extends to more or fewer things. Secondly, in respect
of participation by the subject: in so far as equal science or health
is participated more in one than in another, according to a diverse
aptitude arising either from nature, or from custom. For habit and
disposition do not give species to the subject: nor again do they
essentially imply indivisibility.

We shall say further on (Q. 66, A. 1) how it is with the virtues.

Reply Obj. 1: As the word "great" is taken from corporeal quantities
and applied to the intelligible perfections of forms; so also is the
word "growth," the term of which is something great.

Reply Obj. 2: Habit is indeed a perfection, but not a perfection
which is the term of its subject; for instance, a term giving the
subject its specific being. Nor again does the nature of a habit
include the notion of term, as do the species of numbers. Wherefore
there is nothing to hinder it from being susceptible of more or less.

Reply Obj. 3: Alteration is primarily indeed in the qualities of the
third species; but secondarily it may be in the qualities of the
first species: for, supposing an alteration as to hot and cold, there
follows in an animal an alteration as to health and sickness. In like
manner, if an alteration take place in the passions of the sensitive
appetite, or the sensitive powers of apprehension, an alteration
follows as to science and virtue (Phys. viii, text. 20).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 52, Art. 2]

Whether Habit Increases by Addition?

Objection 1: It would seem that the increase of habits is by way of
addition. For the word "increase," as we have said, is transferred to
forms, from corporeal quantities. But in corporeal quantities there
is no increase without addition: wherefore (De Gener. i, text. 31) it
is said that "increase is an addition to a magnitude already
existing." Therefore in habits also there is no increase without
addition.

Obj. 2: Further, habit is not increased except by means of some
agent. But every agent does something in the passive subject: for
instance, that which heats, causes heat in that which is heated.
Therefore there is no increase without addition.

Obj. 3: Further, as that which is not white, is in potentiality to be
white: so that which is less white, is in potentiality to be more
white. But that which is not white, is not made white except by the
addition of whiteness. Therefore that which is less white, is not
made more white, except by an added whiteness.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Phys. iv, text. 84): "That
which is hot is made hotter, without making, in the matter, something
hot, that was not hot, when the thing was less hot." Therefore, in
like manner, neither is any addition made in other forms when they
increase.

_I answer that,_ The solution of this question depends on what we
have said above (A. 1). For we said that increase and decrease in
forms which are capable of intensity and remissness, happen in one
way not on the part of the very form considered in itself, through
the diverse participation thereof by the subject. Wherefore such
increase of habits and other forms, is not caused by an addition of
form to form; but by the subject participating more or less
perfectly, one and the same form. And just as, by an agent which is
in act, something is made actually hot, beginning, as it were, to
participate a form, not as though the form itself were made, as is
proved in _Metaph._ vii, text. 32, so, by an intense action of the
agent, something is made more hot, as it were participating the form
more perfectly, not as though something were added to the form.

For if this increase in forms were understood to be by way of
addition, this could only be either in the form itself or in the
subject. If it be understood of the form itself, it has already been
stated (A. 1) that such an addition or subtraction would change the
species; even as the species of color is changed when a thing from
being pale becomes white. If, on the other hand, this addition be
understood as applying to the subject, this could only be either
because one part of the subject receives a form which it had not
previously (thus we may say cold increases in a man who, after being
cold in one part of his body, is cold in several parts), or because
some other subject is added sharing in the same form (as when a hot
thing is added to another, or one white thing to another). But in
either of these two ways we have not a more white or a more hot
thing, but a greater white or hot thing.

Since, however, as stated above (A. 1), certain accidents are of
themselves susceptible of more or less, in some of these we may find
increase by addition. For movement increases by an addition either to
the time it lasts, or to the course it follows: and yet the species
remains the same on account of the oneness of the term. Yet movement
increases the intensity as to participation in its subject: i.e. in
so far as the same movement can be executed more or less speedily or
readily. In like manner, science can increase in itself by addition;
thus when anyone learns several conclusions of geometry, the same
specific habit of science increases in that man. Yet a man's science
increases, as to the subject's participation thereof, in intensity,
in so far as one man is quicker and readier than another in
considering the same conclusions.

As to bodily habits, it does not seem very probable that they receive
increase by way of addition. For an animal is not said to be simply
healthy or beautiful, unless it be such in all its parts. And if it
be brought to a more perfect measure, this is the result of a change
in the simple qualities, which are not susceptible of increase save
in intensity on the part of the subject partaking of them.

How this question affects virtues we shall state further on (Q. 66,
A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Even in bodily bulk increase is twofold. First, by
addition of one subject to another; such is the increase of living
things. Secondly, by mere intensity, without any addition at all;
such is the case with things subject to rarefaction, as is stated in
_Phys._ iv, text. 63.

Reply Obj. 2: The cause that increases a habit, always effects
something in the subject, but not a new form. But it causes the
subject to partake more perfectly of a pre-existing form, or it makes
the form to extend further.

Reply Obj. 3: What is not already white, is potentially white, as not
yet possessing the form of whiteness: hence the agent causes a new
form in the subject. But that which is less hot or white, is not in
potentiality to those forms, since it has them already actually: but
it is in potentiality to a perfect mode of participation; and this it
receives through the agent's action.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 52, Art. 3]

Whether Every Act Increases Its Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that every act increases its habit. For
when the cause is increased the effect is increased. Now acts are
causes of habits, as stated above (Q. 51, A. 2). Therefore a habit
increases when its acts are multiplied.

Obj. 2: Further, of like things a like judgment should be formed. But
all the acts proceeding from one and the same habit are alike (Ethic.
ii, 1, 2). Therefore if some acts increase a habit, every act should
increase it.

Obj. 3: Further, like is increased by like. But any act is like the
habit whence it proceeds. Therefore every act increases the habit.

_On the contrary,_ Opposite effects do not result from the same
cause. But according to _Ethic._ ii, 2, some acts lessen the habit
whence they proceed, for instance if they be done carelessly.
Therefore it is not every act that increases a habit.

_I answer that,_ "Like acts cause like habits" (Ethic. ii, 1, 2). Now
things are like or unlike not only in respect of their qualities
being the same or various, but also in respect of the same or a
different mode of participation. For it is not only black that is
unlike white, but also less white is unlike more white, since there
is movement from less white to more white, even as from one opposite
to another, as stated in _Phys._ v, text. 52.

But since use of habits depends on the will, as was shown above (Q.
50, A. 5); just as one who has a habit may fail to use it or may act
contrary to it; so may he happen to use the habit by performing an
act that is not in proportion to the intensity of the habit.
Accordingly, if the intensity of the act correspond in proportion to
the intensity of the habit, or even surpass it, every such act either
increases the habit or disposes to an increase thereof, if we may
speak of the increase of habits as we do of the increase of an
animal. For not every morsel of food actually increases the animal's
size as neither does every drop of water hollow out the stone: but
the multiplication of food results at last in an increase of the
body. So, too, repeated acts cause a habit to grow. If, however, the
act falls short of the intensity of the habit, such an act does not
dispose to an increase of that habit, but rather to a lessening
thereof.

From this it is clear how to solve the objections.
________________________

QUESTION 53

HOW HABITS ARE CORRUPTED OR DIMINISHED
(In Three Articles)

We must now consider how habits are lost or weakened; and under this
head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a habit can be corrupted?

(2) Whether it can be diminished?

(3) How are habits corrupted or diminished?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 53, Art. 1]

Whether a Habit Can Be Corrupted?

Objection 1: It would seem that a habit cannot be corrupted. For
habit is within its subject like a second nature; wherefore it is
pleasant to act from habit. Now so long as a thing is, its nature is
not corrupted. Therefore neither can a habit be corrupted so long as
its subject remains.

Obj. 2: Further, whenever a form is corrupted, this is due either to
corruption of its subject, or to its contrary: thus sickness ceases
through corruption of the animal, or through the advent of health.
Now science, which is a habit, cannot be lost through corruption of
its subject: since "the intellect," which is its subject, "is a
substance that is incorruptible" (De Anima i, text. 65). In like
manner, neither can it be lost through the action of its contrary:
since intelligible species are not contrary to one another (Metaph.
vii, text. 52). Therefore the habit of science can nowise be lost.

Obj. 3: Further, all corruption results from some movement. But the
habit of science, which is in the soul, cannot be corrupted by a
direct movement of the soul itself, since the soul is not moved
directly. It is, however, moved indirectly through the movement of
the body: and yet no bodily change seems capable of corrupting the
intelligible species residing in the intellect: since the intellect
independently of the body is the proper abode of the species; for
which reason it is held that habits are not lost either through old
age or through death. Therefore science cannot be corrupted. For the
same reason neither can habits of virtue be corrupted, since they
also are in the rational soul, and, as the Philosopher declares
(Ethic. i, 10), "virtue is more lasting than learning."

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii)
that "forgetfulness and deception are the corruption of science."
Moreover, by sinning a man loses a habit of virtue: and again,
virtues are engendered and corrupted by contrary acts (Ethic. ii, 2).

_I answer that,_ A form is said to be corrupted directly by its
contrary; indirectly, through its subject being corrupted. When
therefore a habit has a corruptible subject, and a cause that has a
contrary, it can be corrupted both ways. This is clearly the case with
bodily habits--for instance, health and sickness. But those habits
that have an incorruptible subject, cannot be corrupted indirectly.
There are, however, some habits which, while residing chiefly in an
incorruptible subject, reside nevertheless secondarily in a
corruptible subject; such is the habit of science which is chiefly
indeed in the "possible" intellect, but secondarily in the sensitive
powers of apprehension, as stated above (Q. 50, A. 3, ad 3).
Consequently the habit of science cannot be corrupted indirectly, on
the part of the "possible" intellect, but only on the part of the
lower sensitive powers.

We must therefore inquire whether habits of this kind can be
corrupted directly. If then there be a habit having a contrary,
either on the part of itself or on the part of its cause, it can be
corrupted directly: but if it has no contrary, it cannot be corrupted
directly. Now it is evident that an intelligible species residing in
the "possible" intellect, has no contrary; nor can the active
intellect, which is the cause of that species, have a contrary.
Wherefore if in the "possible" intellect there be a habit caused
immediately by the active intellect, such a habit is incorruptible
both directly and indirectly. Such are the habits of the first
principles, both speculative and practical, which cannot be corrupted
by any forgetfulness or deception whatever: even as the Philosopher
says about prudence (Ethic. vi, 5) that "it cannot be lost by being
forgotten." There is, however, in the "possible" intellect a habit
caused by the reason, to wit, the habit of conclusions, which is
called science, to the cause of which something may be contrary in
two ways. First, on the part of those very propositions which are the
starting point of the reason: for the assertion "Good is not good" is
contrary to the assertion "Good is good" (Peri Herm. ii). Secondly,
on the part of the process of reasoning; forasmuch as a sophistical
syllogism is contrary to a dialectic or demonstrative syllogism.
Wherefore it is clear that a false reason can corrupt the habit of a
true opinion or even of science. Hence the Philosopher, as stated
above, says that "deception is the corruption of science." As to
virtues, some of them are intellectual, residing in reason itself, as
stated in _Ethic._ vi, 1: and to these applies what we have said of
science and opinion. Some, however, viz. the moral virtues, are in
the appetitive part of the soul; and the same may be said of the
contrary vices. Now the habits of the appetitive part are caused
therein because it is natural to it to be moved by the reason.
Therefore a habit either of virtue or of vice, may be corrupted by a
judgment of reason, whenever its motion is contrary to such vice or
virtue, whether through ignorance, passion or deliberate choice.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _Ethic._ vii, 10, a habit is like a second
nature, and yet it falls short of it. And so it is that while the
nature of a thing cannot in any way be taken away from a thing, a
habit is removed, though with difficulty.

Reply Obj. 2: Although there is no contrary to intelligible species,
yet there can be a contrary to assertions and to the process of
reason, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Science is not taken away by movement of the body, if
we consider the root itself of the habit, but only as it may prove an
obstacle to the act of science; in so far as the intellect, in its
act, has need of the sensitive powers, which are impeded by corporal
transmutation. But the intellectual movement of the reason can
corrupt the habit of science, even as regards the very root of the
habit. In like manner a habit of virtue can be corrupted.
Nevertheless when it is said that "virtue is more lasting than
learning," this must be understood in respect, not of the subject or
cause, but of the act: because the use of virtue continues through
the whole of life, whereas the use of learning does not.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 53, Art. 2]

Whether a Habit Can Diminish?

Objection 1: It would seem that a habit cannot diminish. Because a
habit is a simple quality and form. Now a simple thing is possessed
either wholly or not at all. Therefore although a habit can be lost
it cannot diminish.

Obj. 2: Further, if a thing is befitting an accident, this is by
reason either of the accident or of its subject. Now a habit does not
become more or less intense by reason of itself; else it would follow
that a species might be predicated of its individuals more or less.
And if it can become less intense as to its participation by its
subject, it would follow that something is accidental to a habit,
proper thereto and not common to the habit and its subject. Now
whenever a form has something proper to it besides its subject, that
form can be separate, as stated in _De Anima_ i, text. 13. Hence it
follows that a habit is a separable form; which is impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, the very notion and nature of a habit as of any
accident, is inherence in a subject: wherefore any accident is
defined with reference to its subject. Therefore if a habit does not
become more or less intense in itself, neither can it in its
inherence in its subject: and consequently it will be nowise less
intense.

_On the contrary,_ It is natural for contraries to be applicable to
the same thing. Now increase and decrease are contraries. Since
therefore a habit can increase, it seems that it can also diminish.

_I answer that,_ Habits diminish, just as they increase, in two ways,
as we have already explained (Q. 52, A. 1). And since they increase
through the same cause as that which engenders them, so too they
diminish by the same cause as that which corrupts them: since the
diminishing of a habit is the road which leads to its corruption,
even as, on the other hand, the engendering of a habit is a
foundation of its increase.

Reply Obj. 1: A habit, considered in itself, is a simple form. It is
not thus that it is subject to decrease; but according to the
different ways in which its subject participates in it. This is due
to the fact that the subject's potentiality is indeterminate, through
its being able to participate a form in various ways, or to extend to
a greater or a smaller number of things.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument would hold, if the essence itself of a
habit were nowise subject to decrease. This we do not say; but that a
certain decrease in the essence of a habit has its origin, not in the
habit, but in its subject.

Reply Obj. 3: No matter how we take an accident, its very notion
implies dependence on a subject, but in different ways. For if we
take an accident in the abstract, it implies relation to a subject,
which relation begins in the accident and terminates in the subject:
for "whiteness is that whereby a thing is white." Accordingly in
defining an accident in the abstract, we do not put the subject as
though it were the first part of the definition, viz. the genus; but
we give it the second place, which is that of the difference; thus we
say that _simitas_ is "a curvature of the nose." But if we take
accidents in the concrete, the relation begins in the subject and
terminates in the concrete, the relation begins in the subject and
terminates at the accident: for "a white thing" is "something that
has whiteness." Accordingly in defining this kind of accident, we
place the subject as the genus, which is the first part of a
definition; for we say that a _simum_ is a "snub-nose." Accordingly
whatever is befitting an accident on the part of the subject, but is
not of the very essence of the accident, is ascribed to that
accident, not in the abstract, but in the concrete. Such are increase
and decrease in certain accidents: wherefore to be more or less white
is not ascribed to whiteness but to a white thing. The same applies
to habits and other qualities; save that certain habits and other
qualities; save that certain habits increase or diminish by a kind of
addition, as we have already clearly explained (Q. 52, A. 2).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 53, Art. 3]

Whether a Habit Is Corrupted or Diminished Through Mere Cessation
from Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that a habit is not corrupted or
diminished through mere cessation from act. For habits are more
lasting than passion-like qualities, as we have explained above (Q.
49, A. 2, ad 3; Q. 50, A. 1). But passion-like qualities are neither
corrupted nor diminished by cessation from act: for whiteness is not
lessened through not affecting the sight, nor heat through ceasing to
make something hot. Therefore neither are habits diminished or
corrupted through cessation from act.

Obj. 2: Further, corruption and diminution are changes. Now nothing
is changed without a moving cause. Since therefore cessation from act
does not imply a moving cause, it does not appear how a habit can be
diminished or corrupted through cessation from act.

Obj. 3: Further, the habits of science and virtue are in the
intellectual soul which is above time. Now those things that are
above time are neither destroyed nor diminished by length of time.
Neither, therefore, are such habits destroyed or diminished through
length of time, if one fails for long to exercise them.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii)
that not only "deception," but also "forgetfulness, is the corruption
of science." Moreover he says (Ethic. viii, 5) that "want of
intercourse has dissolved many a friendship." In like manner other
habits of virtue are diminished or destroyed through cessation from
act.

_I answer that,_ As stated in _Phys._ vii, text. 27, a thing is a
cause of movement in two ways. First, directly; and such a thing
causes movement by reason of its proper form; thus fire causes heat.
Secondly, indirectly; for instance, that which removes an obstacle.
It is in this latter way that the destruction or diminution of a
habit results through cessation from act, in so far, to wit, as we
cease from exercising an act which overcame the causes that destroyed
or weakened that habit. For it has been stated (A. 1) that habits are
destroyed or diminished directly through some contrary agency.
Consequently all habits that are gradually undermined by contrary
agencies which need to be counteracted by acts proceeding from those
habits, are diminished or even destroyed altogether by long cessation
from act, as is clearly seen in the case both of science and of
virtue. For it is evident that a habit of moral virtue makes a man
ready to choose the mean in deeds and passions. And when a man fails
to make use of his virtuous habit in order to moderate his own
passions or deeds, the necessary result is that many passions and
deeds fail to observe the mode of virtue, by reason of the
inclination of the sensitive appetite and of other external agencies.
Wherefore virtue is destroyed or lessened through cessation from act.
The same applies to the intellectual habits, which render man ready
to judge aright of those things that are pictured by his imagination.
Hence when man ceases to make use of his intellectual habits, strange
fancies, sometimes in opposition to them, arise in his imagination;
so that unless those fancies be, as it were, cut off or kept back by
frequent use of his intellectual habits, man becomes less fit to
judge aright, and sometimes is even wholly disposed to the contrary,
and thus the intellectual habit is diminished or even wholly
destroyed by cessation from act.

Reply Obj. 1: Even heat would be destroyed through ceasing to give
heat, if, for this same reason, cold which is destructive of heat
were to increase.

Reply Obj. 2: Cessation from act is a moving cause, conducive of
corruption or diminution, by removing the obstacles thereto, as
explained above.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellectual part of the soul, considered in
itself, is above time, but the sensitive part is subject to time, and
therefore in course of time it undergoes change as to the passions of
the sensitive part, and also as to the powers of apprehension. Hence
the Philosopher says (Phys. iv. text. 117) that time makes us forget.
________________________

QUESTION 54

OF THE DISTINCTION OF HABITS
(In Four Articles)

We have now to consider the distinction of habits; and under this
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether many habits can be in one power?

(2) Whether habits are distinguished by their objects?

(3) Whether habits are divided into good and bad?

(4) Whether one habit may be made up of many habits?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 54, Art. 1]

Whether Many Habits Can Be in One Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be many habits in one
power. For when several things are distinguished in respect of the
same thing, if one of them be multiplied, the others are too. Now
habits and powers are distinguished in respect of the same thing,
viz. their acts and objects. Therefore they are multiplied in like
manner. Therefore there cannot be many habits in one power.

Obj. 2: Further, a power is a simple force. Now in one simple subject
there cannot be diversity of accidents; for the subject is the cause
of its accidents; and it does not appear how diverse effects can
proceed from one simple cause. Therefore there cannot be many habits
in one power.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the body is informed by its shape, so is a
power informed by a habit. But one body cannot be informed at the
same time by various shapes. Therefore neither can a power be
informed at the same time by many habits. Therefore several habits
cannot be at the same time in one power.

_On the contrary,_ The intellect is one power; wherein, nevertheless,
are the habits of various sciences.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 49, A. 4), habits are
dispositions of a thing that is in potentiality to something, either
to nature, or to operation, which is the end of nature. As to those
habits which are dispositions to nature, it is clear that several can
be in one same subject: since in one subject we may take parts in
various ways, according to the various dispositions of which parts
there are various habits. Thus, if we take the humors as being parts
of the human body, according to their disposition in respect of human
nature, we have the habit or disposition of health: while, if we take
like parts, such as nerves, bones, and flesh, the disposition of
these in respect of nature is strength or weakness; whereas, if we
take the limbs, i.e. the hands, feet, and so on, the disposition of
these in proportion to nature, is beauty: and thus there are several
habits or dispositions in the same subject.

If, however, we speak of those habits that are dispositions to
operation, and belong properly to the powers; thus, again, there may
be several habits in one power. The reason for this is that the
subject of a habit is a passive power, as stated above (Q. 51, A. 2):
for it is only an active power that cannot be the subject of a habit,
as was clearly shown above (Q. 51, A. 2). Now a passive power is
compared to the determinate act of any species, as matter to form:
because, just as matter is determinate to one form by one agent, so,
too, is a passive power determined by the nature of one active object
to an act specifically one. Wherefore, just as several objects can
move one passive power, so can one passive power be the subject of
several acts or perfections specifically diverse. Now habits are
qualities or forms adhering to a power, and inclining that power to
acts of a determinate species. Consequently several habits, even as
several specifically different acts, can belong to one power.

Reply Obj. 1: Even as in natural things, diversity of species is
according to the form, and diversity of genus, according to matter,
as stated in _Metaph._ v, text. 33 (since things that differ in
matter belong to different genera): so, too, generic diversity of
objects entails a difference of powers (wherefore the Philosopher
says in _Ethic._ vi, 1, that "those objects that differ generically
belong to different departments of the soul"); while specific
difference of objects entails a specific difference of acts, and
consequently of habits also. Now things that differ in genus differ
in species, but not vice versa. Wherefore the acts and habits of
different powers differ in species: but it does not follow that
different habits are in different powers, for several can be in one
power. And even as several genera may be included in one genus, and
several species be contained in one species; so does it happen that
there are several species of habits and powers.

Reply Obj. 2: Although a power is simple as to its essence, it is
multiple virtually, inasmuch as it extends to many specifically
different acts. Consequently there is nothing to prevent many
superficially different habits from being in one power.

Reply Obj. 3: A body is informed by its shape as by its own
terminal boundaries: whereas a habit is not the terminal boundary of a
power, but the disposition of a power to an act as to its ultimate
term. Consequently one same power cannot have several acts at the same
time, except in so far as perchance one act is comprised in another;
just as neither can a body have several shapes, save in so far as one
shape enters into another, as a three-sided in a four-sided figure.
For the intellect cannot understand several things at the same time
_actually;_ and yet it can know several things at the same time
_habitually._
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 54, Art. 2]

Whether Habits Are Distinguished by Their Objects?

Objection 1: It would seem that habits are not distinguished by their
objects. For contraries differ in species. Now the same habit of
science regards contraries: thus medicine regards the healthy and the
unhealthy. Therefore habits are not distinguished by objects
specifically distinct.

Obj. 2: Further, different sciences are different habits. But the
same scientific truth belongs to different sciences: thus both the
physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round, as stated
in _Phys._ ii, text. 17. Therefore habits are not distinguished by
their objects.

Obj. 3: Further, wherever the act is the same, the object is the
same. But the same act can belong to different habits of virtue, if
it be directed to different ends; thus to give money to anyone, if it
be done for God's sake, is an act of charity; while, if it be done in
order to pay a debt, it is an act of justice. Therefore the same
object can also belong to different habits. Therefore diversity of
habits does not follow diversity of objects.

_On the contrary,_ Acts differ in species according to the diversity
of their objects, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 5). But habits are
dispositions to acts. Therefore habits also are distinguished
according to the diversity of objects.

_I answer that,_ A habit is both a form and a habit. Hence the
specific distinction of habits may be taken in the ordinary way in
which forms differ specifically; or according to that mode of
distinction which is proper to habits. Accordingly forms are
distinguished from one another in reference to the diversity of their
active principles, since every agent produces its like in species.
Habits, however, imply order to something: and all things that imply
order to something, are distinguished according to the distinction of
the things to which they are ordained. Now a habit is a disposition
implying a twofold order: viz. to nature and to an operation
consequent to nature.

Accordingly habits are specifically distinct in respect of three
things. First, in respect of the active principles of such
dispositions; secondly, in respect of nature; thirdly, in respect of
specifically different objects, as will appear from what follows.

Reply Obj. 1: In distinguishing powers, or also habits, we must
consider the object not in its material but in its formal aspect,
which may differ in species or even in genus. And though the
distinction between specific contraries is a real distinction yet
they are both known under one aspect, since one is known through the
other. And consequently in so far as they concur in the one aspect of
cognoscibility, they belong to one cognitive habit.

Reply Obj. 2: The physicist proves the earth to be round by one
means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means
of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the
sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the
movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth. Now the
whole force of a demonstration, which is "a syllogism producing
science," as stated in Poster. i, text. 5, depends on the mean. And
consequently various means are as so many active principles, in
respect of which the habits of science are distinguished.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, text. 89; Ethic.
vii, 8), the end is, in practical matters, what the principle is in
speculative matters. Consequently diversity of ends demands a
diversity of virtues, even as diversity of active principles does.
Moreover the ends are objects of the internal acts, with which, above
all, the virtues are concerned, as is evident from what has been said
(Q. 18, A. 6; Q. 19, A. 2, ad 1; Q. 34, A. 4).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 54, Art. 3]

Whether Habits Are Divided into Good and Bad?

Objection 1: It would seem that habits are not divided into good and
bad. For good and bad are contraries. Now the same habit regards
contraries, as was stated above (A. 2, Obj. 1). Therefore habits are
not divided into good and bad.

Obj. 2: Further, good is convertible with being; so that, since it is
common to all, it cannot be accounted a specific difference, as the
Philosopher declares (Topic. iv). Again, evil, since it is a
privation and a non-being, cannot differentiate any being. Therefore
habits cannot be specifically divided into good and evil.

Obj. 3: Further, there can be different evil habits about one same
object; for instance, intemperance and insensibility about matters of
concupiscence: and in like manner there can be several good habits;
for instance, human virtue and heroic or godlike virtue, as the
Philosopher clearly states (Ethic. vii, 1). Therefore, habits are not
divided into good and bad.

_On the contrary,_ A good habit is contrary to a bad habit, as virtue
to vice. Now contraries are divided specifically into good and bad
habits.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), habits are specifically
distinct not only in respect of their objects and active principles,
but also in their relation to nature. Now, this happens in two ways.
First, by reason of their suitableness or unsuitableness to nature.
In this way a good habit is specifically distinct from a bad habit:
since a good habit is one which disposes to an act suitable to the
agent's nature, while an evil habit is one which disposes to an act
unsuitable to nature. Thus, acts of virtue are suitable to human
nature, since they are according to reason, whereas acts of vice are
discordant from human nature, since they are against reason. Hence it
is clear that habits are distinguished specifically by the difference
of good and bad.

Secondly, habits are distinguished in relation to nature, from the
fact that one habit disposes to an act that is suitable to a lower
nature, while another habit disposes to an act befitting a higher
nature. And thus human virtue, which disposes to an act befitting
human nature, is distinct from godlike or heroic virtue, which
disposes to an act befitting some higher nature.

Reply Obj. 1: The same habit may be about contraries in so far as
contraries agree in one common aspect. Never, however, does it happen
that contrary habits are in one species: since contrariety of habits
follows contrariety of aspect. Accordingly habits are divided into
good and bad, namely, inasmuch as one habit is good, and another bad;
but not by reason of one habit being [about] something good, and
another about something bad.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the good which is common to every being, that
is a difference constituting the species of a habit; but some
determinate good by reason of suitability to some determinate, viz.
the human, nature. In like manner the evil that constitutes a
difference of habits is not a pure privation, but something
determinate repugnant to a determinate nature.

Reply Obj. 3: Several good habits about one same specific thing are
distinct in reference to their suitability to various natures, as
stated above. But several bad habits in respect of one action are
distinct in reference to their diverse repugnance to that which is in
keeping with nature: thus, various vices about one same matter are
contrary to one virtue.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 54, Art. 4]

Whether One Habit Is Made Up of Many Habits?

Objection 1: It would seem that one habit is made up of many habits.
For whatever is engendered, not at once, but little by little, seems
to be made up of several parts. But a habit is engendered, not at
once, but little by little out of several acts, as stated above
(Q. 51, A. 3). Therefore one habit is made up of several.

Obj. 2: Further, a whole is made up of its parts. Now many parts are
assigned to one habit: thus Tully assigns many parts of fortitude,
temperance, and other virtues. Therefore one habit is made up of many.

Obj. 3: Further, one conclusion suffices both for an act and for a
habit of scientific knowledge. But many conclusions belong to but one
science, to geometry, for instance, or to arithmetic. Therefore one
habit is made up of many.

_On the contrary,_ A habit, since it is a quality, is a simple form.
But nothing simple is made up of many. Therefore one habit is not
made up of many.

_I answer that,_ A habit directed to operation, such as we are
chiefly concerned with at present, is a perfection of a power. Now
every perfection should be in proportion with that which it perfects.
Hence, just as a power, while it is one, extends to many things, in
so far as they have something in common, i.e. some general objective
aspect, so also a habit extends to many things, in so far as they are
related to one, for instance, to some specific objective aspect, or
to one nature, or to one principle, as was clearly stated above (AA.
2, 3).

If then we consider a habit as to the extent of its object, we shall
find a certain multiplicity therein. But since this multiplicity is
directed to one thing, on which the habit is chiefly intent, hence it
is that a habit is a simple quality, not composed to several habits,
even though it extend to many things. For a habit does not extend to
many things save in relation to one, whence it derives its unity.

Reply Obj. 1: That a habit is engendered little by little, is due,
not to one part being engendered after another, but to the fact that
the subject does not acquire all at once a firm and difficultly
changeable disposition; and also to the fact that it begins by being
imperfectly in the subject, and is gradually perfected. The same
applies to other qualities.

Reply Obj. 2: The parts which are assigned to each cardinal virtue,
are not integral parts that combine to form a whole; but subjective
or potential parts, as we shall explain further on (Q. 57, A. 6, ad
4; II-II, Q. 48).

Reply Obj. 3: In any science, he who acquires, by demonstration,
scientific knowledge of one conclusion, has the habit indeed, yet
imperfectly. And when he obtains, by demonstration, the scientific
knowledge of another conclusion, no additional habit is engendered in
him: but the habit which was in him previously is perfected,
forasmuch as it has increased in extent; because the conclusions and
demonstrations of one science are coordinate, and one flows from
another.
________________________

TREATISE ON HABITS IN PARTICULAR (QQ. 55-89):
GOOD HABITS, i.e., VIRTUES (QQ. 55-70)
________________________

QUESTION 55

OF THE VIRTUES, AS TO THEIR ESSENCE
(In Four Articles)

We come now to the consideration of habits specifically. And since
habits, as we have said (Q. 54, A. 3), are divided into good and bad,
we must speak in the first place of good habits, which are virtues,
and of other matters connected with them, namely the Gifts,
Beatitudes and Fruits; in the second place, of bad habits, namely of
vices and sins. Now five things must be considered about virtues:
(1) the essence of virtue; (2) its subject; (3) the division of
virtue; (4) the cause of virtue; (5) certain properties of virtue.

Under the first head, there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether human virtue is a habit?

(2) Whether it is an operative habit?

(3) Whether it is a good habit?

(4) Of the definition of virtue.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 55, Art. 1]

Whether Human Virtue Is a Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that human virtue is not a habit: For
virtue is "the limit of power" (De Coelo i, text. 116). But the limit
of anything is reducible to the genus of that of which it is the
limit; as a point is reducible to the genus of line. Therefore virtue
is reducible to the genus of power, and not to the genus of habit.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) [*Retract. ix; cf.
De Lib. Arb. ii, 19] that "virtue is good use of free-will." But use
of free-will is an act. Therefore virtue is not a habit, but an act.

Obj. 3: Further, we do not merit by our habits, but by our actions:
otherwise a man would merit continually, even while asleep. But we do
merit by our virtues. Therefore virtues are not habits, but acts.

Obj. 4: Further, Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xv) that "virtue is
the order of love," and (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 30) that "the ordering
which is called virtue consists in enjoying what we ought to enjoy,
and using what we ought to use." Now order, or ordering, denominates
either an action or a relation. Therefore virtue is not a habit, but
an action or a relation.

Obj. 5: Further, just as there are human virtues, so are there
natural virtues. But natural virtues are not habits, but powers.
Neither therefore are human virtues habits.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Categor. vi) that science
and virtue are habits.

_I answer that,_ Virtue denotes a certain perfection of a power. Now
a thing's perfection is considered chiefly in regard to its end. But
the end of power is act. Wherefore power is said to be perfect,
according as it is determinate to its act.

Now there are some powers which of themselves are determinate to
their acts; for instance, the active natural powers. And therefore
these natural powers are in themselves called virtues. But the
rational powers, which are proper to man, are not determinate to one
particular action, but are inclined indifferently to many: and they
are determinate to acts by means of habits, as is clear from what we
have said above (Q. 49, A. 4). Therefore human virtues are habits.

Reply Obj. 1: Sometimes we give the name of a virtue to that to which
the virtue is directed, namely, either to its object, or to its act:
for instance, we give the name Faith, to that which we believe, or to
the act of believing, as also to the habit by which we believe. When
therefore we say that "virtue is the limit of power," virtue is taken
for the object of virtue. For the furthest point to which a power can
reach, is said to be its virtue; for instance, if a man can carry a
hundredweight and not more, his virtue [*In English we should say
'strength,' which is the original signification of the Latin
'virtus': thus we speak of an engine being so many horse-power, to
indicate its 'strength'] is put at a hundredweight, and not at sixty.
But the objection takes virtue as being essentially the limit of
power.

Reply Obj. 2: Good use of free-will is said to be a virtue, in the
same sense as above (ad 1); that is to say, because it is that to
which virtue is directed as to its proper act. For the act of virtue
is nothing else than the good use of free-will.

Reply Obj. 3: We are said to merit by something in two ways. First,
as by merit itself, just as we are said to run by running; and thus
we merit by acts. Secondly, we are said to merit by something as by
the principle whereby we merit, as we are said to run by the motive
power; and thus are we said to merit by virtues and habits.

Reply Obj. 4: When we say that virtue is the order or ordering of
love, we refer to the end to which virtue is ordered: because in us
love is set in order by virtue.

Reply Obj. 5: Natural powers are of themselves determinate to one
act: not so the rational powers. And so there is no comparison, as we
have said.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 55, Art. 2]

Whether Human Virtue Is an Operative Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not essential to human virtue
to be an operative habit. For Tully says (Tuscul. iv) that as health
and beauty belong to the body, so virtue belongs to the soul. But
health and beauty are not operative habits. Therefore neither is
virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, in natural things we find virtue not only in
reference to act, but also in reference to being: as is clear from
the Philosopher (De Coelo i), since some have a virtue to be always,
while some have a virtue to be not always, but at some definite time.
Now as natural virtue is in natural things, so is human virtue in
rational beings. Therefore also human virtue is referred not only to
act, but also to being.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 17) that
virtue "is the disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best."
Now the best thing to which man needs to be disposed by virtue is God
Himself, as Augustine proves (De Moribus Eccl. 3, 6, 14) to Whom the
soul is disposed by being made like to Him. Therefore it seems that
virtue is a quality of the soul in reference to God, likening it, as
it were, to Him; and not in reference to operation. It is not,
therefore, an operative habit.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6) says that "virtue
of a thing is that which makes its work good."

_I answer that,_ Virtue, from the very nature of the word, implies
some perfection of power, as we have said above (A. 1). Wherefore,
since power [*The one Latin word _potentia_ is rendered
'potentiality' in the first case, and 'power' in the second] is of
two kinds, namely, power in reference to being, and power in
reference to act; the perfection of each of these is called virtue.
But power in reference to being is on the part of matter, which is
potential being, whereas power in reference to act, is on the part of
the form, which is the principle of action, since everything acts in
so far as it is in act.

Now man is so constituted that the body holds the place of matter,
the soul that of form. The body, indeed, man has in common with other
animals; and the same is to be said of the forces which are common to
the soul and body: and only those forces which are proper to the
soul, namely, the rational forces, belong to man alone. And
therefore, human virtue, of which we are speaking now, cannot belong
to the body, but belongs only to that which is proper to the soul.
Wherefore human virtue does not imply reference to being, but rather
to act. Consequently it is essential to human virtue to be an
operative habit.

Reply Obj. 1: Mode of action follows on the disposition of the agent:
for such as a thing is, such is its act. And therefore, since virtue
is the principle of some kind of operation, there must needs
pre-exist in the operator in respect of virtue some corresponding
disposition. Now virtue causes an ordered operation. Therefore virtue
itself is an ordered disposition of the soul, in so far as, to wit,
the powers of the soul are in some way ordered to one another, and to
that which is outside. Hence virtue, inasmuch as it is a suitable
disposition of the soul, is like health and beauty, which are
suitable dispositions of the body. But this does not hinder virtue
from being a principle of operation.

Reply Obj. 2: Virtue which is referred to being is not proper to man;
but only that virtue which is referred to works of reason, which are
proper to man.

Reply Obj. 3: As God's substance is His act, the highest likeness of
man to God is in respect of some operation. Wherefore, as we have
said above (Q. 3, A. 2), happiness or bliss by which man is made most
perfectly conformed to God, and which is the end of human life,
consists in an operation.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 55, Art. 3]

Whether Human Virtue Is a Good Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not essential to virtue that it
should be a good habit. For sin is always taken in a bad sense. But
there is a virtue even of sin; according to 1 Cor. 15:56: "The virtue
[Douay: 'strength'] of sin is the Law." Therefore virtue is not
always a good habit.

Obj. 2: Further, Virtue corresponds to power. But power is not only
referred to good, but also to evil: according to Isa. 5: "Woe to you
that are mighty to drink wine, and stout men at drunkenness."
Therefore virtue also is referred to good and evil.

Obj. 3: Further, according to the Apostle (2 Cor. 12:9): "Virtue
[Douay: 'power'] is made perfect in infirmity." But infirmity is an
evil. Therefore virtue is referred not only to good, but also to evil.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. vi): "No one can
doubt that virtue makes the soul exceeding good": and the Philosopher
says (Ethic. ii, 6): "Virtue is that which makes its possessor good,
and his work good likewise."

_I answer that,_ As we have said above (A. 1), virtue implies a
perfection of power: wherefore the virtue of a thing is fixed by the
limit of its power (De Coelo i). Now the limit of any power must
needs be good: for all evil implies defect; wherefore Dionysius says
(Div. Hom. ii) that every evil is a weakness. And for this reason the
virtue of a thing must be regarded in reference to good. Therefore
human virtue which is an operative habit, is a good habit, productive
of good works.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as bad things are said metaphorically to be
perfect, so are they said to be good: for we speak of a perfect thief
or robber; and of a good thief or robber, as the Philosopher explains
(Metaph. v, text. 21). In this way therefore virtue is applied to
evil things: so that the "virtue" of sin is said to be law, in so far
as occasionally sin is aggravated through the law, so as to attain to
the limit of its possibility.

Reply Obj. 2: The evil of drunkenness and excessive drink, consists
in a falling away from the order of reason. Now it happens that,
together with this falling away from reason, some lower power is
perfect in reference to that which belongs to its own kind, even in
direct opposition to reason, or with some falling away therefrom. But
the perfection of that power, since it is compatible with a falling
away from reason, cannot be called a human virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: Reason is shown to be so much the more perfect,
according as it is able to overcome or endure more easily the
weakness of the body and of the lower powers. And therefore human
virtue, which is attributed to reason, is said to be "made perfect
in infirmity," not of the reason indeed, but of the body and of the
lower powers.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 55, Art. 4]

Whether Virtue Is Suitably Defined?

Objection 1: It would seem that the definition, usually given, of
virtue, is not suitable, to wit: "Virtue is a good quality of the
mind, by which we live righteously, of which no one can make bad use,
which God works in us, without us." For virtue is man's goodness,
since virtue it is that makes its subject good. But goodness does not
seem to be good, as neither is whiteness white. It is therefore
unsuitable to describe virtue as a "good quality."

Obj. 2: Further, no difference is more common than its genus; since
it is that which divides the genus. But good is more common than
quality, since it is convertible with being. Therefore "good" should
not be put in the definition of virtue, as a difference of quality.

Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 3): "When we come
across anything that is not common to us and the beasts of the field,
it is something appertaining to the mind." But there are virtues even
of the irrational parts; as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10).
Every virtue, therefore, is not a good quality "of the mind."

Obj. 4: Further, righteousness seems to belong to justice; whence the
righteous are called just. But justice is a species of virtue. It is
therefore unsuitable to put "righteous" in the definition of virtue,
when we say that virtue is that "by which we live righteously."

Obj. 5: Further, whoever is proud of a thing, makes bad use of it.
But many are proud of virtue, for Augustine says in his Rule, that
"pride lies in wait for good works in order to slay them." It is
untrue, therefore, "that no one can make bad use of virtue."

Obj. 6: Further, man is justified by virtue. But Augustine commenting
on John 15:11: "He shall do greater things than these," says [*Tract.
xxvii in Joan.: Serm. xv de Verb. Ap. 11]: "He who created thee
without thee, will not justify thee without thee." It is therefore
unsuitable to say that "God works virtue in us, without us."

_On the contrary,_ We have the authority of Augustine from whose
words this definition is gathered, and principally in _De Libero
Arbitrio_ ii, 19.

_I answer that,_ This definition comprises perfectly the whole
essential notion of virtue. For the perfect essential notion of
anything is gathered from all its causes. Now the above definition
comprises all the causes of virtue. For the formal cause of virtue,
as of everything, is gathered from its genus and difference, when it
is defined as "a good quality": for "quality" is the genus of virtue,
and the difference, "good." But the definition would be more suitable
if for "quality" we substitute "habit," which is the proximate genus.

Now virtue has no matter "out of which" it is formed, as neither has
any other accident; but it has matter "about which" it is concerned,
and matter "in which" it exists, namely, the subject. The matter
about which virtue is concerned is its object, and this could not be
included in the above definition, because the object fixes the virtue
to a certain species, and here we are giving the definition of virtue
in general. And so for material cause we have the subject, which is
mentioned when we say that virtue is a good quality "of the mind."

The end of virtue, since it is an operative habit, is operation. But
it must be observed that some operative habits are always referred to
evil, as vicious habits: others are sometimes referred to good,
sometimes to evil; for instance, opinion is referred both to the true
and to the untrue: whereas virtue is a habit which is always referred
to good: and so the distinction of virtue from those habits which are
always referred to evil, is expressed in the words "by which we live
righteously": and its distinction from those habits which are
sometimes directed unto good, sometimes unto evil, in the words, "of
which no one makes bad use."

Lastly, God is the efficient cause of infused virtue, to which this
definition applies; and this is expressed in the words "which God
works in us without us." If we omit this phrase, the remainder of the
definition will apply to all virtues in general, whether acquired or
infused.

Reply Obj. 1: That which is first seized by the intellect is being:
wherefore everything that we apprehend we consider as being, and
consequently as one, and as good, which are convertible with being.
Wherefore we say that essence is being and is one and is good; and
that oneness is being and one and good: and in like manner goodness.
But this is not the case with specific forms, as whiteness and
health; for everything that we apprehend, is not apprehended with the
notion of white and healthy. We must, however, observe that, as
accidents and non-subsistent forms are called beings, not as if they
themselves had being, but because things are by them; so also are
they called good or one, not by some distinct goodness or oneness,
but because by them something is good or one. So also is virtue
called good, because by it something is good.

Reply Obj. 2: Good, which is put in the definition of virtue, is not
good in general which is convertible with being, and which extends
further than quality, but the good as fixed by reason, with regard to
which Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) "that the good of the soul is to
be in accord with reason."

Reply Obj. 3: Virtue cannot be in the irrational part of the soul,
except in so far as this participates in the reason (Ethic. i, 13).
And therefore reason, or the mind, is the proper subject of virtue.

Reply Obj. 4: Justice has a righteousness of its own by which it puts
those outward things right which come into human use, and are the
proper matter of justice, as we shall show further on (Q. 60, A. 2;
II-II, Q. 58, A. 8). But the righteousness which denotes order to a
due end and to the Divine law, which is the rule of the human will,
as stated above (Q. 19, A. 4), is common to all virtues.

Reply Obj. 5: One can make bad use of a virtue objectively, for
instance by having evil thoughts about a virtue, e.g. by hating it,
or by being proud of it: but one cannot make bad use of virtue as
principle of action, so that an act of virtue be evil.

Reply Obj. 6: Infused virtue is caused in us by God without any
action on our part, but not without our consent. This is the sense of
the words, "which God works in us without us." As to those things
which are done by us, God causes them in us, yet not without action
on our part, for He works in every will and in every nature.
________________________

QUESTION 56

OF THE SUBJECT OF VIRTUE
(In Six Articles)

We now have to consider the subject of virtue, about which there are
six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the subject of virtue is a power of the soul?

(2) Whether one virtue can be in several powers?

(3) Whether the intellect can be the subject of virtue?

(4) Whether the irascible and concupiscible faculties can be the
subject of virtue?

(5) Whether the sensitive powers of apprehension can be the subject of
virtue?

(6) Whether the will can be the subject of virtue?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 1]

Whether the Subject of Virtue Is a Power of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that the subject of virtue is not a power
of the soul. For Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19) that "virtue is
that by which we live righteously." But we live by the essence of the
soul, and not by a power of the soul. Therefore virtue is not a
power, but in the essence of the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "virtue is
that which makes its possessor good, and his work good likewise." But
as work is set up by power, so he that has a virtue is set up by the
essence of the soul. Therefore virtue does not belong to the power,
any more than to the essence of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, power is in the second species of quality. But
virtue is a quality, as we have said above (Q. 55, A. 4): and quality
is not the subject of quality. Therefore a power of the soul is not
the subject of virtue.

_On the contrary,_ "Virtue is the limit of power" (De Coelo ii). But
the limit is in that of which it is the limit. Therefore virtue is in
a power of the soul.

_I answer that,_ It can be proved in three ways that virtue belongs
to a power of the soul. First, from the notion of the very essence of
virtue, which implies perfection of a power; for perfection is in
that which it perfects. Secondly, from the fact that virtue is an
operative habit, as we have said above (Q. 55, A. 2): for all
operation proceeds from the soul through a power. Thirdly, from the
fact that virtue disposes to that which is best: for the best is the
end, which is either a thing's operation, or something acquired by an
operation proceeding from the thing's power. Therefore a power of the
soul is the subject of virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: "To live" may be taken in two ways. Sometimes it is
taken for the very existence of the living thing: in this way it
belongs to the essence of the soul, which is the principle of
existence in the living thing. But sometimes "to live" is taken for
the operation of the living thing: in this sense, by virtue we live
righteously, inasmuch as by virtue we perform righteous actions.

Reply Obj. 2: Good is either the end, or something referred to the
end. And therefore, since the good of the worker consists in the
work, this fact also, that virtue makes the worker good, is referred
to the work, and consequently, to the power.

Reply Obj. 3: One accident is said to be the subject of another, not
as though one accident could uphold another; but because one accident
inheres to substance by means of another, as color to the body by
means of the surface; so that surface is said to be the subject of
color. In this way a power of the soul is said to be the subject of
virtue.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 2]

Whether One Virtue Can Be in Several Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that one virtue can be in several powers.
For habits are known by their acts. But one act proceeds in various
way from several powers: thus walking proceeds from the reason as
directing, from the will as moving, and from the motive power as
executing. Therefore also one habit can be in several powers.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 4) that three
things are required for virtue, namely: "to know, to will, and to
work steadfastly." But "to know" belongs to the intellect, and "to
will" belongs to the will. Therefore virtue can be in several powers.

Obj. 3: Further, prudence is in the reason since it is "the right
reason of things to be done" (Ethic. vi, 5). And it is also in the
will: for it cannot exist together with a perverse will (Ethic. vi,
12). Therefore one virtue can be in two powers.

_On the contrary,_ The subject of virtue is a power of the soul. But
the same accident cannot be in several subjects. Therefore one virtue
cannot be in several powers of the soul.

_I answer that,_ It happens in two ways that one thing is subjected
in two. First, so that it is in both on an equal footing. In this way
it is impossible for one virtue to be in two powers: since diversity
of powers follows the generic conditions of the objects, while
diversity of habits follows the specific conditions thereof: and so
wherever there is diversity of powers, there is diversity of habits;
but not vice versa. In another way one thing can be subjected in two
or more, not on an equal footing, but in a certain order. And thus
one virtue can belong to several powers, so that it is in one
chiefly, while it extends to others by a kind of diffusion, or by way
of a disposition, in so far as one power is moved by another, and one
power receives from another.

Reply Obj. 1: One act cannot belong to several powers equally, and in
the same degree; but only from different points of view, and in
various degrees.

Reply Obj. 2: "To know" is a condition required for moral virtue,
inasmuch as moral virtue works according to right reason. But moral
virtue is essentially in the appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Prudence is really subjected in reason: but it
presupposes as its principle the rectitude of the will, as we shall
see further on (A. 3; Q. 57, A. 4).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 3]

Whether the Intellect Can Be the Subject of Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that the intellect is not the subject of
virtue. For Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xv) that all virtue is
love. But the subject of love is not the intellect, but the
appetitive power alone. Therefore no virtue is in the intellect.

Obj. 2: Further, virtue is referred to good, as is clear from what
has been said above (Q. 55, A. 3). Now good is not the object of the
intellect, but of the appetitive power. Therefore the subject of
virtue is not the intellect, but the appetitive power.

Obj. 3: Further, virtue is that "which makes its possessor good," as
the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6). But the habit which perfects the
intellect does not make its possessor good: since a man is not said
to be a good man on account of his science or his art. Therefore the
intellect is not the subject of virtue.

_On the contrary,_ The mind is chiefly called the intellect. But the
subject of virtue is the mind, as is clear from the definition, above
given, of virtue (Q. 55, A. 4). Therefore the intellect is the
subject of virtue.

_I answer that,_ As we have said above (Q. 55, A. 3), a virtue is a
habit by which we work well. Now a habit may be directed to a good
act in two ways. First, in so far as by the habit a man acquires an
aptness to a good act; for instance, by the habit of grammar man has
the aptness to speak correctly. But grammar does not make a man
always speak correctly: for a grammarian may be guilty of a barbarism
or make a solecism: and the case is the same with other sciences and
arts. Secondly, a habit may confer not only aptness to act, but also
the right use of that aptness: for instance, justice not only gives
man the prompt will to do just actions, but also makes him act justly.

And since good, and, in like manner, being, is said of a thing
simply, in respect, not of what it is potentially, but of what it is
actually: therefore from having habits of the latter sort, man is
said simply to do good, and to be good; for instance, because he is
just, or temperate; and in like manner as regards other such virtues.
And since virtue is that "which makes its possessor good, and his
work good likewise," these latter habits are called virtuous simply:
because they make the work to be actually good, and the subject good
simply. But the first kind of habits are not called virtues simply:
because they do not make the work good except in regard to a certain
aptness, nor do they make their possessor good simply. For through
being gifted in science or art, a man is said to be good, not simply,
but relatively; for instance, a good grammarian or a good smith. And
for this reason science and art are often divided against virtue;
while at other times they are called virtues (Ethic. vi, 2).

Hence the subject of a habit which is called a virtue in a relative
sense, can be the intellect, and not only the practical intellect,
but also the speculative, without any reference to the will: for thus
the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3) holds that science, wisdom and
understanding, and also art, are intellectual virtues. But the
subject of a habit which is called a virtue simply, can only be the
will, or some power in so far as it is moved by the will. And the
reason of this is, that the will moves to their acts all those other
powers that are in some way rational, as we have said above (Q. 9, A.
1; Q. 17, AA. 1, 5; I, Q. 82, A. 4): and therefore if man do well
actually, this is because he has a good will. Therefore the virtue
which makes a man to do well actually, and not merely to have the
aptness to do well, must be either in the will itself; or in some
power as moved by the will.

Now it happens that the intellect is moved by the will, just as are
the other powers: for a man considers something actually, because he
wills to do so. And therefore the intellect, in so far as it is
subordinate to the will, can be the subject of virtue absolutely so
called. And in this way the speculative intellect, or the reason, is
the subject of Faith: for the intellect is moved by the command of
the will to assent to what is of faith: for "no man believeth, unless
he will" [*Augustine: Tract. xxvi in Joan.]. But the practical
intellect is the subject of prudence. For since prudence is the right
reason of things to be done, it is a condition thereof that man be
rightly disposed in regard to the principles of this reason of things
to be done, that is in regard to their ends, to which man is rightly
disposed by the rectitude of the will, just as to the principles of
speculative truth he is rightly disposed by the natural light of the
active intellect. And therefore as the subject of science, which is
the right reason of speculative truths, is the speculative intellect
in its relation to the active intellect, so the subject of prudence
is the practical intellect in its relation to the right will.

Reply Obj. 1: The saying of Augustine is to be understood of virtue
simply so called: not that every virtue is love simply: but that it
depends in some way on love, in so far as it depends on the will,
whose first movement consists in love, as we have said above (Q. 25,
AA. 1, 2, 3; Q. 27, A. 4; I, Q. 20, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 2: The good of each thing is its end: and therefore, as
truth is the end of the intellect, so to know truth is the good act
of the intellect. Whence the habit, which perfects the intellect in
regard to the knowledge of truth, whether speculative or practical,
is a virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection considers virtue simply so called.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 4]

Whether the Irascible and Concupiscible Powers Are the Subject of
Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that the irascible and concupiscible
powers cannot be the subject of virtue. For these powers are common
to us and dumb animals. But we are now speaking of virtue as proper
to man, since for this reason it is called human virtue. It is
therefore impossible for human virtue to be in the irascible and
concupiscible powers which are parts of the sensitive appetite, as we
have said in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2).

Obj. 2: Further, the sensitive appetite is a power which makes use of
a corporeal organ. But the good of virtue cannot be in man's body:
for the Apostle says (Rom. 7): "I know that good does not dwell in my
flesh." Therefore the sensitive appetite cannot be the subject of
virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine proves (De Moribus Eccl. v) that virtue is
not in the body but in the soul, for the reason that the body is
ruled by the soul: wherefore it is entirely due to his soul that a
man make good use of his body: "For instance, if my coachman, through
obedience to my orders, guides well the horses which he is driving;
this is all due to me." But just as the soul rules the body, so also
does the reason rule the sensitive appetite. Therefore that the
irascible and concupiscible powers are rightly ruled, is entirely due
to the rational powers. Now "virtue is that by which we live
rightly," as we have said above (Q. 55, A. 4). Therefore virtue is
not in the irascible and concupiscible powers, but only in the
rational powers.

Obj. 4: Further, "the principal act of moral virtue is choice"
(Ethic. viii, 13). Now choice is not an act of the irascible and
concupiscible powers, but of the rational power, as we have said
above (Q. 13, A. 2). Therefore moral virtue is not in the irascible
and concupiscible powers, but in the reason.

_On the contrary,_ Fortitude is assigned to the irascible power, and
temperance to the concupiscible power. Whence the Philosopher (Ethic.
iii, 10) says that "these virtues belong to the irrational part of
the soul."

_I answer that,_ The irascible and concupiscible powers can be
considered in two ways. First, in themselves, in so far as they are
parts of the sensitive appetite: and in this way they are not
competent to be the subject of virtue. Secondly, they can be
considered as participating in the reason, from the fact that they
have a natural aptitude to obey reason. And thus the irascible or
concupiscible power can be the subject of human virtue: for, in so
far as it participates in the reason, it is the principle of a human
act. And to these powers we must needs assign virtues.

For it is clear that there are some virtues in the irascible and
concupiscible powers. Because an act, which proceeds from one power
according as it is moved by another power, cannot be perfect, unless
both powers be well disposed to the act: for instance, the act of a
craftsman cannot be successful unless both the craftsman and his
instrument be well disposed to act. Therefore in the matter of the
operations of the irascible and concupiscible powers, according as
they are moved by reason, there must needs be some habit perfecting
in respect of acting well, not only the reason, but also the
irascible and concupiscible powers. And since the good disposition of
the power which moves through being moved, depends on its conformity
with the power that moves it: therefore the virtue which is in the
irascible and concupiscible powers is nothing else but a certain
habitual conformity of these powers to reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The irascible and concupiscible powers considered in
themselves, as parts of the sensitive appetite, are common to us and
dumb animals. But in so far as they are rational by participation,
and are obedient to the reason, they are proper to man. And in this
way they can be the subject of human virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as human flesh has not of itself the good of
virtue, but is made the instrument of a virtuous act, inasmuch as
being moved by reason, we "yield our members to serve justice"; so
also, the irascible and concupiscible powers, of themselves indeed,
have not the good of virtue, but rather the infection of the _fomes:_
whereas, inasmuch as they are in conformity with reason, the good of
reason is begotten in them.

Reply Obj. 3: The body is ruled by the soul, and the irascible and
concupiscible powers by the reason, but in different ways. For the
body obeys the soul blindly without any contradiction, in those
things in which it has a natural aptitude to be moved by the soul:
whence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3) that the "soul rules the
body with a despotic command" as the master rules his slave:
wherefore the entire movement of the body is referred to the soul.
For this reason virtue is not in the body, but in the soul. But the
irascible and concupiscible powers do not obey the reason blindly; on
the contrary, they have their own proper movements, by which, at
times, they go against reason, whence the Philosopher says (Polit. i,
3) that the "reason rules the irascible and concupiscible powers by a
political command" such as that by which free men are ruled, who have
in some respects a will of their own. And for this reason also must
there be some virtues in the irascible and concupiscible powers, by
which these powers are well disposed to act.

Reply Obj. 4: In choice there are two things, namely, the intention
of the end, and this belongs to the moral virtue; and the
preferential choice of that which is unto the end, and this belongs
to prudence (Ethic. vi, 2, 5). But that the irascible and
concupiscible powers have a right intention of the end in regard to
the passions of the soul, is due to the good disposition of these
powers. And therefore those moral virtues which are concerned with
the passions are in the irascible and concupiscible powers, but
prudence is in the reason.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 5]

Whether the Sensitive Powers of Apprehension Are the Subject of
Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is possible for virtue to be in
the interior sensitive powers of apprehension. For the sensitive
appetite can be the subject of virtue, in so far as it obeys reason.
But the interior sensitive powers of apprehension obey reason: for
the powers of imagination, of cogitation, and of memory [*Cf. I, Q.
78, A. 4] act at the command of reason. Therefore in these powers
there can be virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, as the rational appetite, which is the will, can be
hindered or helped in its act, by the sensitive appetite, so also can
the intellect or reason be hindered or helped by the powers mentioned
above. As, therefore, there can be virtue in the interior powers of
appetite, so also can there be virtue in the interior powers of
apprehension.

Obj. 3: Further, prudence is a virtue, of which Cicero (De Invent.
Rhetor. ii) says that memory is a part. Therefore also in the power
of memory there can be a virtue: and in like manner, in the other
interior sensitive powers of apprehension.

_On the contrary,_ All virtues are either intellectual or moral
(Ethic. ii, 1). Now all the moral virtues are in the appetite; while
the intellectual virtues are in the intellect or reason, as is clear
from _Ethic._ vi, 1. Therefore there is no virtue in the interior
sensitive powers of apprehension.

_I answer that,_ In the interior sensitive powers of apprehension
there are some habits. And this is made clear principally from what
the Philosopher says (De Memoria ii), that "in remembering one thing
after another, we become used to it; and use is a second nature." Now
a habit of use is nothing else than a habit acquired by use, which is
like unto nature. Wherefore Tully says of virtue in his _Rhetoric_
that "it is a habit like a second nature in accord with reason." Yet,
in man, that which he acquires by use, in his memory and other
sensitive powers of apprehension, is not a habit properly so called,
but something annexed to the habits of the intellective faculty, as
we have said above (Q. 50, A. 4, ad 3).

Nevertheless even if there be habits in such powers, they cannot be
virtues. For virtue is a perfect habit, by which it never happens
that anything but good is done: and so virtue must needs be in that
power which consummates the good act. But the knowledge of truth is
not consummated in the sensitive powers of apprehension: for such
powers prepare the way to the intellective knowledge. And therefore
in these powers there are none of the virtues, by which we know
truth: these are rather in the intellect or reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The sensitive appetite is related to the will, which is
the rational appetite, through being moved by it. And therefore the
act of the appetitive power is consummated in the sensitive appetite:
and for this reason the sensitive appetite is the subject of virtue.
Whereas the sensitive powers of apprehension are related to the
intellect rather through moving it; for the reason that the phantasms
are related to the intellective soul, as colors to sight (De Anima
iii, text. 18). And therefore the act of knowledge is terminated in
the intellect; and for this reason the cognoscitive virtues are in
the intellect itself, or the reason.

And thus is made clear the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: Memory is not a part of prudence, as species is of a
genus, as though memory were a virtue properly so called: but one of
the conditions required for prudence is a good memory; so that, in a
fashion, it is after the manner of an integral part.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 6]

Whether the Will Can Be the Subject of Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not the subject of
virtue. Because no habit is required for that which belongs to a
power by reason of its very nature. But since the will is in the
reason, it is of the very essence of the will, according to the
Philosopher (De Anima iii, text. 42), to tend to that which is good,
according to reason. And to this good every virtue is ordered, since
everything naturally desires its own proper good; for virtue, as
Tully says in his Rhetoric, is a "habit like a second nature in
accord with reason." Therefore the will is not the subject of virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, every virtue is either intellectual or moral (Ethic.
i, 13; ii, 1). But intellectual virtue is subjected in the intellect
and reason, and not in the will: while moral virtue is subjected in
the irascible and concupiscible powers which are rational by
participation. Therefore no virtue is subjected in the will.

Obj. 3: Further, all human acts, to which virtues are ordained, are
voluntary. If therefore there be a virtue in the will in respect of
some human acts, in like manner there will be a virtue in the will in
respect of all human acts. Either, therefore, there will be no virtue
in any other power, or there will be two virtues ordained to the same
act, which seems unreasonable. Therefore the will cannot be the
subject of virtue.

_On the contrary,_ Greater perfection is required in the mover than
in the moved. But the will moves the irascible and concupiscible
powers. Much more therefore should there be virtue in the will than
in the irascible and concupiscible powers.

_I answer that,_ Since the habit perfects the power in reference to
act, then does the power need a habit perfecting it unto doing well,
which habit is a virtue, when the power's own proper nature does not
suffice for the purpose.

Now the proper nature of a power is seen in its relation to its
object. Since, therefore, as we have said above (Q. 19, A. 3), the
object of the will is the good of reason proportionate to the will,
in respect of this the will does not need a virtue perfecting it. But
if man's will is confronted with a good that exceeds its capacity,
whether as regards the whole human species, such as Divine good,
which transcends the limits of human nature, or as regards the
individual, such as the good of one's neighbor, then does the will
need virtue. And therefore such virtues as those which direct man's
affections to God or to his neighbor are subjected in the will, as
charity, justice, and such like.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection is true of those virtues which are
ordained to the willer's own good; such as temperance and fortitude,
which are concerned with the human passions, and the like, as is
clear from what we have said (Q. 35, A. 6).

Reply Obj. 2: Not only the irascible and concupiscible powers are
rational by participation but "the appetitive power altogether," i.e.
in its entirety (Ethic. i, 13). Now the will is included in the
appetitive power. And therefore whatever virtue is in the will must
be a moral virtue, unless it be theological, as we shall see later on
(Q. 62, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 3: Some virtues are directed to the good of moderated
passion, which is the proper good of this or that man: and in these
cases there is no need for virtue in the will, for the nature of the
power suffices for the purpose, as we have said. This need exists
only in the case of virtues which are directed to some extrinsic good.
________________________

QUESTION 57

OF THE INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES
(In Six Articles)

We now have to consider the various kinds of virtue: and (1) the
intellectual virtues; (2) the moral virtues; (3) the theological
virtues. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether habits of the speculative intellect are virtues?

(2) Whether they are three, namely, wisdom, science and understanding?

(3) Whether the intellectual habit, which is art, is a virtue?

(4) Whether prudence is a virtue distinct from art?

(5) Whether prudence is a virtue necessary to man?

(6) Whether "eubulia," "synesis" and "gnome" are virtues annexed to
prudence?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 1]

Whether the Habits of the Speculative Intellect Are Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that the habits of the speculative
intellect are not virtues. For virtue is an operative habit, as we
have said above (Q. 55, A. 2). But speculative habits are not
operative: for speculative matter is distinct from practical, i.e.
operative matter. Therefore the habits of the speculative intellect
are not virtues.

Obj. 2: Further, virtue is about those things by which man is made
happy or blessed: for "happiness is the reward of virtue" (Ethic. i,
9). Now intellectual habits do not consider human acts or other human
goods, by which man acquires happiness, but rather things pertaining
to nature or to God. Therefore such like habits cannot be called
virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, science is a speculative habit. But science and
virtue are distinct from one another as genera which are not
subalternate, as the Philosopher proves in _Topic._ iv. Therefore
speculative habits are not virtues.

_On the contrary,_ The speculative habits alone consider necessary
things which cannot be otherwise than they are. Now the Philosopher
(Ethic. vi, 1) places certain intellectual virtues in that part of
the soul which considers necessary things that cannot be otherwise
than they are. Therefore the habits of the speculative intellect are
virtues.

_I answer that,_ Since every virtue is ordained to some good, as
stated above (Q. 55, A. 3), a habit, as we have already observed (Q.
56, A. 3), may be called a virtue for two reasons: first, because it
confers aptness in doing good; secondly, because besides aptness, it
confers the right use of it. The latter condition, as above stated
(Q. 55, A. 3), belongs to those habits alone which affect the
appetitive part of the soul: since it is the soul's appetitive power
that puts all the powers and habits to their respective uses.

Since, then, the habits of the speculative intellect do not perfect
the appetitive part, nor affect it in any way, but only the
intellective part; they may indeed be called virtues in so far as
they confer aptness for a good work, viz. the consideration of truth
(since this is the good work of the intellect): yet they are not
called virtues in the second way, as though they conferred the right
use of a power or habit. For if a man possess a habit of speculative
science, it does not follow that he is inclined to make use of it,
but he is made able to consider the truth in those matters of which
he has scientific knowledge: that he make use of the knowledge which
he has, is due to the motion of his will. Consequently a virtue which
perfects the will, as charity or justice, confers the right use of
these speculative habits. And in this way too there can be merit in
the acts of these habits, if they be done out of charity: thus
Gregory says (Moral. vi) that the "contemplative life has greater
merit than the active life."

Reply Obj. 1: Work is of two kinds, exterior and interior.
Accordingly the practical or active faculty which is contrasted with
the speculative faculty, is concerned with exterior work, to which
the speculative habit is not ordained. Yet it is ordained to the
interior act of the intellect which is to consider the truth. And in
this way it is an operative habit.

Reply Obj. 2: Virtue is about certain things in two ways. In the
first place a virtue is about its object. And thus these speculative
virtues are not about those things whereby man is made happy; except
perhaps, in so far as the word "whereby" indicates the efficient
cause or object of complete happiness, i.e. God, Who is the supreme
object of contemplation. Secondly, a virtue is said to be about its
acts: and in this sense the intellectual virtues are about those
things whereby a man is made happy; both because the acts of these
virtues can be meritorious, as stated above, and because they are a
kind of beginning of perfect bliss, which consists in the
contemplation of truth, as we have already stated (Q. 3, A. 7).

Reply Obj. 3: Science is contrasted with virtue taken in the second
sense, wherein it belongs to the appetitive faculty.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 2]

Whether There Are Only Three Habits of the Speculative Intellect, Viz.
Wisdom, Science and Understanding?

Objection 1: It would seem unfitting to distinguish three virtues of
the speculative intellect, viz. wisdom, science and understanding.
Because a species is a kind of science, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 7.
Therefore wisdom should not be condivided with science among the
intellectual virtues.

Obj. 2: Further, in differentiating powers, habits and acts in
respect of their objects, we consider chiefly the formal aspect of
these objects, as we have already explained (I, Q. 77, A. 3).
Therefore diversity of habits is taken, not from their material
objects, but from the formal aspect of those objects. Now the
principle of a demonstration is the formal aspect under which the
conclusion is known. Therefore the understanding of principles should
not be set down as a habit or virtue distinct from the knowledge of
conclusions.

Obj. 3: Further, an intellectual virtue is one which resides in the
essentially rational faculty. Now even the speculative reason employs
the dialectic syllogism for the sake of argument, just as it employs
the demonstrative syllogism. Therefore as science, which is the
result of a demonstrative syllogism, is set down as an intellectual
virtue, so also should opinion be.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 1) reckons these three
alone as being intellectual virtues, viz. wisdom, science and
understanding.

_I answer that,_ As already stated (A. 1), the virtues of the
speculative intellect are those which perfect the speculative
intellect for the consideration of truth: for this is its good work.
Now a truth is subject to a twofold consideration--as known in
itself, and as known through another. What is known in itself, is as
a _principle,_ and is at once understood by the intellect: wherefore
the habit that perfects the intellect for the consideration of such
truth is called _understanding,_ which is the habit of principles.

On the other hand, a truth which is known through another, is
understood by the intellect, not at once, but by means of the
reason's inquiry, and is as a _term._ This may happen in two ways:
first, so that it is the last in some particular genus; secondly, so
that it is the ultimate term of all human knowledge. And, since
"things that are knowable last from our standpoint, are knowable
first and chiefly in their nature" (Phys. i, text. 2, 3); hence that
which is last with respect to all human knowledge, is that which is
knowable first and chiefly in its nature. And about these is
_wisdom,_ which considers the highest causes, as stated in _Metaph._
i, 1, 2. Wherefore it rightly judges all things and sets them in
order, because there can be no perfect and universal judgment that is
not based on the first causes. But in regard to that which is last in
this or that genus of knowable matter, it is _science_ which perfects
the intellect. Wherefore according to the different kinds of knowable
matter, there are different habits of scientific knowledge; whereas
there is but one wisdom.

Reply Obj. 1: Wisdom is a kind of science, in so far as it has that
which is common to all the sciences; viz. to demonstrate conclusions
from principles. But since it has something proper to itself above
the other sciences, inasmuch as it judges of them all, not only as to
their conclusions, but also as to their first principles, therefore
it is a more perfect virtue than science.

Reply Obj. 2: When the formal aspect of the object is referred to a
power or habit by one same act, there is no distinction of habit or
power in respect of the formal aspect and of the material object:
thus it belongs to the same power of sight to see both color, and
light, which is the formal aspect under which color is seen, and is
seen at the same time as the color. On the other hand, the principles
of a demonstration can be considered apart, without the conclusion
being considered at all. Again they can be considered together with
the conclusions, since the conclusions can be deduced from them.
Accordingly, to consider the principles in this second way, belongs
to science, which considers the conclusions also: while to consider
the principles in themselves belongs to understanding.

Consequently, if we consider the point aright, these three virtues
are distinct, not as being on a par with one another, but in a
certain order. The same is to be observed in potential wholes,
wherein one part is more perfect than another; for instance, the
rational soul is more perfect than the sensitive soul; and the
sensitive, than the vegetal. For it is thus that science depends on
understanding as on a virtue of higher degree: and both of these
depend on wisdom, as obtaining the highest place, and containing
beneath itself both understanding and science, by judging both of the
conclusions of science, and of the principles on which they are based.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 55, AA. 3, 4), a virtuous habit has
a fixed relation to good, and is nowise referable to evil. Now the
good of the intellect is truth, and falsehood is its evil. Wherefore
those habits alone are called intellectual virtues, whereby we tell
the truth and never tell a falsehood. But opinion and suspicion can
be about both truth and falsehood: and so, as stated in _Ethic._ vi,
3, they are not intellectual virtues.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 3]

Whether the Intellectual Habit, Art, Is a Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that art is not an intellectual virtue.
For Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18, 19) that "no one makes bad
use of virtue." But one may make bad use of art: for a craftsman can
work badly according to the knowledge of his art. Therefore art is
not a virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, there is no virtue of a virtue. But "there is a
virtue of art," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5).
Therefore art is not a virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, the liberal arts excel the mechanical arts. But just
as the mechanical arts are practical, so the liberal arts are
speculative. Therefore, if art were an intellectual virtue, it would
have to be reckoned among the speculative virtues.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3, 4) says that art is
a virtue; and yet he does not reckon it among the speculative
virtues, which, according to him, reside in the scientific part of
the soul.

_I answer that,_ Art is nothing else but "the right reason about
certain works to be made." And yet the good of these things depends,
not on man's appetitive faculty being affected in this or that way,
but on the goodness of the work done. For a craftsman, as such, is
commendable, not for the will with which he does a work, but for the
quality of the work. Art, therefore, properly speaking, is an
operative habit. And yet it has something in common with the
speculative habits: since the quality of the object considered by the
latter is a matter of concern to them also, but not how the human
appetite may be affected towards that object. For as long as the
geometrician demonstrates the truth, it matters not how his
appetitive faculty may be affected, whether he be joyful or angry:
even as neither does this matter in a craftsman, as we have observed.
And so art has the nature of a virtue in the same way as the
speculative habits, in so far, to wit, as neither art nor speculative
habit makes a good work as regards the use of the habit, which is the
property of a virtue that perfects the appetite, but only as regards
the aptness to work well.

Reply Obj. 1: When anyone endowed with an art produces bad
workmanship, this is not the work of that art, in fact it is contrary
to the art: even as when a man lies, while knowing the truth, his
words are not in accord with his knowledge, but contrary thereto.
Wherefore, just as science has always a relation to good, as stated
above (A. 2, ad 3), so it is with art: and it is for this reason that
it is called a virtue. And yet it falls short of being a perfect
virtue, because it does not make its possessor to use it well; for
which purpose something further is requisite: although there cannot
be a good use without the art.

Reply Obj. 2: In order that man may make good use of the art he has,
he needs a good will, which is perfected by moral virtue; and for
this reason the Philosopher says that there is a virtue of art;
namely, a moral virtue, in so far as the good use of art requires a
moral virtue. For it is evident that a craftsman is inclined by
justice, which rectifies his will, to do his work faithfully.

Reply Obj. 3: Even in speculative matters there is something by way
of work: e.g. the making of a syllogism or of a fitting speech, or
the work of counting or measuring. Hence whatever habits are ordained
to such like works of the speculative reason, are, by a kind of
comparison, called arts indeed, but "liberal" arts, in order to
distinguish them from those arts that are ordained to works done by
the body, which arts are, in a fashion, servile, inasmuch as the body
is in servile subjection to the soul, and man, as regards his soul,
is free (_liber_). On the other hand, those sciences which are not
ordained to any such like work, are called sciences simply, and not
arts. Nor, if the liberal arts be more excellent, does it follow that
the notion of art is more applicable to them.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 4]

Whether Prudence Is a Distinct Virtue from Art?

Objection 1: It would seem that prudence is not a distinct virtue
from art. For art is the right reason about certain works. But
diversity of works does not make a habit cease to be an art; since
there are various arts about works widely different. Since therefore
prudence is also right reason about works, it seems that it too
should be reckoned a virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, prudence has more in common with art than the
speculative habits have; for they are both "about contingent matters
that may be otherwise than they are" (Ethic. vi, 4, 5). Now some
speculative habits are called arts. Much more, therefore, should
prudence be called an art.

Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to prudence, "to be of good counsel"
(Ethic. vi, 5). But counselling takes place in certain arts also, as
stated in _Ethic._ iii, 3, e.g. in the arts of warfare, of
seamanship, and of medicine. Therefore prudence is not distinct from
art.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher distinguishes prudence from art
(Ethic. vi, 5).

_I answer that,_ Where the nature of virtue differs, there is a
different kind of virtue. Now it has been stated above (A. 1; Q. 56,
A. 3) that some habits have the nature of virtue, through merely
conferring aptness for a good work: while some habits are virtues,
not only through conferring aptness for a good work, but also through
conferring the use. But art confers the mere aptness for good work;
since it does not regard the appetite; whereas prudence confers not
only aptness for a good work, but also the use: for it regards the
appetite, since it presupposes the rectitude thereof.

The reason for this difference is that art is the "right reason of
things to be made"; whereas prudence is the "right reason of things
to be done." Now "making" and "doing" differ, as stated in _Metaph._
ix, text. 16, in that "making" is an action passing into outward
matter, e.g. "to build," "to saw," and so forth; whereas "doing" is
an action abiding in the agent, e.g. "to see," "to will," and the
like. Accordingly prudence stands in the same relation to such like
human actions, consisting in the use of powers and habits, as art
does to outward making: since each is the perfect reason about the
things with which it is concerned. But perfection and rectitude of
reason in speculative matters, depend on the principles from which
reason argues; just as we have said above (A. 2, ad 2) that science
depends on and presupposes understanding, which is the habit of
principles. Now in human acts the end is what the principles are in
speculative matters, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 8. Consequently, it
is requisite for prudence, which is right reason about things to be
done, that man be well disposed with regard to the ends: and this
depends on the rectitude of his appetite. Wherefore, for prudence
there is need of a moral virtue, which rectifies the appetite. On the
other hand the good of things made by art is not the good of man's
appetite, but the good of those things themselves: wherefore art does
not presuppose rectitude of the appetite. The consequence is that
more praise is given to a craftsman who is at fault willingly, than
to one who is unwillingly; whereas it is more contrary to prudence to
sin willingly than unwillingly, since rectitude of the will is
essential to prudence, but not to art. Accordingly it is evident that
prudence is a virtue distinct from art.

Reply Obj. 1: The various kinds of things made by art are all
external to man: hence they do not cause a different kind of virtue.
But prudence is right reason about human acts themselves: hence it is
a distinct kind of virtue, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Prudence has more in common with art than a speculative
habit has, if we consider their subject and matter: for they are both
in the thinking part of the soul, and about things that may be
otherwise than they are. But if we consider them as virtues, then art
has more in common with the speculative habits, as is clear from what
has been said.

Reply Obj. 3: Prudence is of good counsel about matters regarding
man's entire life, and the end of human life. But in some arts there
is counsel about matters concerning the ends proper to those arts.
Hence some men, in so far as they are good counselors in matters of
warfare, or seamanship, are said to be prudent officers or pilots,
but not simply prudent: only those are simply prudent who give good
counsel about all the concerns of life.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 5]

Whether Prudence Is a Virtue Necessary to Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that prudence is not a virtue necessary to
lead a good life. For as art is to things that are made, of which it
is the right reason, so is prudence to things that are done, in
respect of which we judge of a man's life: for prudence is the right
reason about these things, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 5. Now art is
not necessary in things that are made, save in order that they be
made, but not after they have been made. Neither, therefore is
prudence necessary to man in order to lead a good life, after he has
become virtuous; but perhaps only in order that he may become
virtuous.

Obj. 2: Further, "It is by prudence that we are of good counsel," as
stated in _Ethic._ vi, 5. But man can act not only from his own, but
also from another's good counsel. Therefore man does not need
prudence in order to lead a good life, but it is enough that he
follow the counsels of prudent men.

Obj. 3: Further, an intellectual virtue is one by which one always
tells the truth, and never a falsehood. But this does not seem to be
the case with prudence: for it is not human never to err in taking
counsel about what is to be done; since human actions are about
things that may be otherwise than they are. Hence it is written (Wis.
9:14): "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels
uncertain." Therefore it seems that prudence should not be reckoned
an intellectual virtue.

_On the contrary,_ It is reckoned with other virtues necessary for
human life, when it is written (Wis. 8:7) of Divine Wisdom: "She
teacheth temperance and prudence and justice and fortitude, which
are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life."

_I answer that,_ Prudence is a virtue most necessary for human life.
For a good life consists in good deeds. Now in order to do good
deeds, it matters not only what a man does, but also how he does it;
to wit, that he do it from right choice and not merely from impulse
or passion. And, since choice is about things in reference to the
end, rectitude of choice requires two things: namely, the due end,
and something suitably ordained to that due end. Now man is suitably
directed to his due end by a virtue which perfects the soul in the
appetitive part, the object of which is the good and the end. And to
that which is suitably ordained to the due end man needs to be
rightly disposed by a habit in his reason, because counsel and
choice, which are about things ordained to the end, are acts of the
reason. Consequently an intellectual virtue is needed in the reason,
to perfect the reason, and make it suitably affected towards things
ordained to the end; and this virtue is prudence. Consequently
prudence is a virtue necessary to lead a good life.

Reply Obj. 1: The good of an art is to be found, not in the
craftsman, but in the product of the art, since art is right reason
about things to be made: for since the making of a thing passes into
external matter, it is a perfection not of the maker, but of the
thing made, even as movement is the act of the thing moved: and art
is concerned with the making of things. On the other hand, the good
of prudence is in the active principle, whose activity is its
perfection: for prudence is right reason about things to be done, as
stated above (A. 4). Consequently art does not require of the
craftsman that his act be a good act, but that his work be good.
Rather would it be necessary for the thing made to act well (e.g.
that a knife should carve well, or that a saw should cut well), if it
were proper to such things to act, rather than to be acted on,
because they have not dominion over their actions. Wherefore the
craftsman needs art, not that he may live well, but that he may
produce a good work of art, and have it in good keeping: whereas
prudence is necessary to man, that he may lead a good life, and not
merely that he may be a good man.

Reply Obj. 2: When a man does a good deed, not of his own counsel,
but moved by that of another, his deed is not yet quite perfect, as
regards his reason in directing him and his appetite in moving him.
Wherefore, if he do a good deed, he does not do well simply; and yet
this is required in order that he may lead a good life.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Ethic._ vi, 2, truth is not the same for
the practical as for the speculative intellect. Because the truth of
the speculative intellect depends on conformity between the intellect
and the thing. And since the intellect cannot be infallibly in
conformity with things in contingent matters, but only in necessary
matters, therefore no speculative habit about contingent things is an
intellectual virtue, but only such as is about necessary things. On
the other hand, the truth of the practical intellect depends on
conformity with right appetite. This conformity has no place in
necessary matters, which are not affected by the human will; but only
in contingent matters which can be effected by us, whether they be
matters of interior action, or the products of external work. Hence
it is only about contingent matters that an intellectual virtue is
assigned to the practical intellect, viz. art, as regards things to
be made, and prudence, as regards things to be done.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 6]

Whether "Eubulia," "Synesis," and "Gnome" Are Virtues Annexed to
Prudence?

Objection 1: It would seem that "_eubulia, synesis_, and _gnome_" are
unfittingly assigned as virtues annexed to prudence. For _eubulia_ is
"a habit whereby we take good counsel" (Ethic. vi, 9). Now it
"belongs to prudence to take good counsel," as stated (Ethic. vi, 9).
Therefore _eubulia_ is not a virtue annexed to prudence, but rather
is prudence itself.

Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to the higher to judge the lower. The
highest virtue would therefore seem to be the one whose act is
judgment. Now _synesis_ enables us to judge well. Therefore _synesis_
is not a virtue annexed to prudence, but rather is a principal virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, just as there are various matters to pass judgment
on, so are there different points on which one has to take counsel.
But there is one virtue referring to all matters of counsel.
Therefore, in order to judge well of what has to be done, there is no
need, besides _synesis,_ of the virtue of _gnome_.

Obj. 4: Further, Cicero (De Invent. Rhet. iii) mentions three other
parts of prudence; viz. "memory of the past, understanding of the
present, and foresight of the future." Moreover, Macrobius (Super
Somn. Scip. 1) mentions yet others: viz. "caution, docility," and the
like. Therefore it seems that the above are not the only virtues
annexed to prudence.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of the Philosopher (Ethic.
vi, 9, 10, 11), who assigns these three virtues as being annexed to
prudence.

_I answer that,_ Wherever several powers are subordinate to one
another, that power is the highest which is ordained to the highest
act. Now there are three acts of reason in respect of anything done
by man: the first of these is counsel; the second, judgment; the
third, command. The first two correspond to those acts of the
speculative intellect, which are inquiry and judgment, for counsel is
a kind of inquiry: but the third is proper to the practical
intellect, in so far as this is ordained to operation; for reason
does not have to command in things that man cannot do. Now it is
evident that in things done by man, the chief act is that of command,
to which all the rest are subordinate. Consequently, that virtue
which perfects the command, viz. prudence, as obtaining the highest
place, has other secondary virtues annexed to it, viz. _eustochia_,
which perfects counsel; and _synesis_ and _gnome_, which are parts of
prudence in relation to judgment, and of whose distinction we shall
speak further on (ad 3).

Reply Obj. 1: Prudence makes us be of good counsel, not as though its
immediate act consisted in being of good counsel, but because it
perfects the latter act by means of a subordinate virtue, viz.
_euboulia_.

Reply Obj. 2: Judgment about what is to be done is directed to
something further: for it may happen in some matter of action that a
man's judgment is sound, while his execution is wrong. The matter
does not attain to its final complement until the reason has
commanded aright in the point of what has to be done.

Reply Obj. 3: Judgment of anything should be based on that thing's
proper principles. But inquiry does not reach to the proper
principles: because, if we were in possession of these, we should
need no more to inquire, the truth would be already discovered. Hence
only one virtue is directed to being of good counsel, wheres there
are two virtues for good judgment: because difference is based not on
common but on proper principles. Consequently, even in speculative
matters, there is one science of dialectics, which inquires about all
matters; whereas demonstrative sciences, which pronounce judgment,
differ according to their different objects. _Synesis_ and _gnome_
differ in respect of the different rules on which judgment is based:
for _synesis_ judges of actions according to the common law; while
_gnome_ bases its judgment on the natural law, in those cases where
the common law fails to apply, as we shall explain further on (II-II,
Q. 51, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 4: Memory, understanding and foresight, as also caution
and docility and the like, are not virtues distinct from prudence:
but are, as it were, integral parts thereof, in so far as they are
all requisite for perfect prudence. There are, moreover, subjective
parts or species of prudence, e.g. domestic and political economy,
and the like. But the three first names are, in a fashion, potential
parts of prudence; because they are subordinate thereto, as secondary
virtues to a principal virtue: and we shall speak of them later
(II-II, Q. 48, seqq.).
________________________

QUESTION 58

OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider moral virtues. We shall speak (1) of the
difference between them and intellectual virtues; (2) of their
distinction, one from another, in respect of their proper matter;
(3) of the difference between the chief or cardinal virtues and
the others.

Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether every virtue is a moral virtue?

(2) Whether moral virtue differs from intellectual virtue?

(3) Whether virtue is adequately divided into moral and intellectual
virtue?

(4) Whether there can be moral without intellectual virtue?

(5) Whether, on the other hand, there can be intellectual without
moral virtue?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 58, Art. 1]

Whether Every Virtue Is a Moral Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that every virtue is a moral virtue.
Because moral virtue is so called from the Latin _mos,_ i.e. custom.
Now, we can accustom ourselves to the acts of all the virtues.
Therefore every virtue is a moral virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that moral
virtue is "a habit of choosing the rational mean." But every virtue
is a habit of choosing: since the acts of any virtue can be done
from choice. And, moreover, every virtue consists in following the
rational mean in some way, as we shall explain further on (Q. 64,
AA. 1, 2, 3). Therefore every virtue is a moral virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, Cicero says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "virtue is a
habit like a second nature, in accord with reason." But since every
human virtue is directed to man's good, it must be in accord with
reason: since man's good "consists in that which agrees with his
reason," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore every virtue
is a moral virtue.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher [says] (Ethic. i, 13): "When we
speak of a man's morals, we do not say that he is wise or
intelligent, but that he is gentle or sober." Accordingly, then,
wisdom and understanding are not moral virtues: and yet they are
virtues, as stated above (Q. 57, A. 2). Therefore not every virtue
is a moral virtue.

_I answer that,_ In order to answer this question clearly, we must
consider the meaning of the Latin word _mos;_ for thus we shall be
able to discover what a _moral_ virtue is. Now _mos_ has a twofold
meaning. For sometimes it means custom, in which sense we read (Acts
15:1): "Except you be circumcised after the manner (_morem_) of
Moses, you cannot be saved." Sometimes it means a natural or
quasi-natural inclination to do some particular action, in which
sense the word is applied to dumb animals. Thus we read (2 Macc. 1:2)
that "rushing violently upon the enemy, like lions [*Leonum more,
i.e. as lions are in the habit of doing], they slew them": and the
word is used in the same sense in Ps. 67:7, where we read: "Who
maketh men of one manner (_moris_) to dwell in a house." For both
these significations there is but one word in Latin; but in the Greek
there is a distinct word for each, for the word _ethos_is written
sometimes with a long, and sometimes a short _e._

Now _moral_ virtue is so called from _mos_ in the sense of a natural
or quasi-natural inclination to do some particular action. And the
other meaning of _mos,_ i.e. _custom,_ is akin to this: because
custom becomes a second nature, and produces an inclination similar
to a natural one. But it is evident that inclination to an action
belongs properly to the appetitive power, whose function it is to
move all the powers to their acts, as explained above (Q. 9, A. 1).
Therefore not every virtue is a moral virtue, but only those that are
in the appetitive faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument takes _mos_ in the sense of _custom._

Reply Obj. 2: Every act of virtue can be done from choice: but no
virtue makes us choose aright, save that which is in the appetitive
part of the soul: for it has been stated above that choice is an act
of the appetitive faculty (Q. 13, A. 1). Wherefore a habit of
choosing, i.e. a habit which is the principle whereby we choose, is
that habit alone which perfects the appetitive faculty: although the
acts of other habits also may be a matter of choice.

Reply Obj. 3: "Nature is the principle of movement" (Phys. ii, text.
3). Now to move the faculties to act is the proper function of the
appetitive power. Consequently to become as a second nature by
consenting to the reason, is proper to those virtues which are in the
appetitive faculty.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 58, Art. 2]

Whether Moral Virtue Differs from Intellectual Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtue does not differ from
intellectual virtue. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei iv, 21) "that
virtue is the art of right conduct." But art is an intellectual
virtue. Therefore moral and intellectual virtue do not differ.

Obj. 2: Further, some authors put science in the definition of
virtues: thus some define perseverance as a "science or habit
regarding those things to which we should hold or not hold"; and
holiness as "a science which makes man to be faithful and to do his
duty to God." Now science is an intellectual virtue. Therefore moral
virtue should not be distinguished from intellectual virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 6) that "virtue is the
rectitude and perfection of reason." But this belongs to the
intellectual virtues, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 13. Therefore moral
virtue does not differ from intellectual.

Obj. 4: Further, a thing does not differ from that which is included
in its definition. But intellectual virtue is included in the
definition of moral virtue: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6)
that "moral virtue is a habit of choosing the mean appointed by
reason as a prudent man would appoint it." Now this right reason that
fixes the mean of moral virtue, belongs to an intellectual virtue, as
stated in _Ethic._ vi, 13. Therefore moral virtue does not differ
from intellectual.

_On the contrary,_ It is stated in _Ethic._ i, 13 that "there are two
kinds of virtue: some we call intellectual; some moral."

_I answer that,_ Reason is the first principle of all human acts; and
whatever other principles of human acts may be found, they obey
reason somewhat, but in various ways. For some obey reason blindly
and without any contradiction whatever: such are the limbs of the
body, provided they be in a healthy condition, for as soon as reason
commands, the hand or the foot proceeds to action. Hence the
Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3) that "the soul rules the body like a
despot," i.e. as a master rules his slave, who has no right to rebel.
Accordingly some held that all the active principles in man are
subordinate to reason in this way. If this were true, for man to act
well it would suffice that his reason be perfect. Consequently, since
virtue is a habit perfecting man in view of his doing good actions,
it would follow that it is only in the reason, so that there would be
none but intellectual virtues. This was the opinion of Socrates, who
said "every virtue is a kind of prudence," as stated in _Ethic._ vi,
13. Hence he maintained that as long as man is in possession of
knowledge, he cannot sin; and that every one who sins, does so
through ignorance.

Now this is based on a false supposition. Because the appetitive
faculty obeys the reason, not blindly, but with a certain power of
opposition; wherefore the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3) that "reason
commands the appetitive faculty by a politic power," whereby a man
rules over subjects that are free, having a certain right of
opposition. Hence Augustine says on Ps. 118 (Serm. 8) that "sometimes
we understand (what is right) while desire is slow, or follows not at
all," in so far as the habits or passions of the appetitive faculty
cause the use of reason to be impeded in some particular action. And
in this way, there is some truth in the saying of Socrates that so
long as a man is in possession of knowledge he does not sin:
provided, however, that this knowledge is made to include the use of
reason in this individual act of choice.

Accordingly for a man to do a good deed, it is requisite not only
that his reason be well disposed by means of a habit of intellectual
virtue; but also that his appetite be well disposed by means of a
habit of moral virtue. And so moral differs from intellectual virtue,
even as the appetite differs from the reason. Hence just as the
appetite is the principle of human acts, in so far as it partakes of
reason, so are moral habits to be considered virtues in so far as
they are in conformity with reason.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine usually applies the term "art" to any form of
right reason; in which sense art includes prudence which is the right
reason about things to be done, even as art is the right reason about
things to be made. Accordingly, when he says that "virtue is the art
of right conduct," this applies to prudence essentially; but to other
virtues, by participation, for as much as they are directed by
prudence.

Reply Obj. 2: All such definitions, by whomsoever given, were based
on the Socratic theory, and should be explained according to what we
have said about art (ad 1).

The same applies to the Third Objection.

Reply Obj. 4: Right reason which is in accord with prudence is
included in the definition of moral virtue, not as part of its
essence, but as something belonging by way of participation to all
the moral virtues, in so far as they are all under the direction of
prudence.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 58, Art. 3]

Whether Virtue Is Adequately Divided into Moral and Intellectual?

Objection 1: It would seem that virtue is not adequately divided into
moral and intellectual. For prudence seems to be a mean between moral
and intellectual virtue, since it is reckoned among the intellectual
virtues (Ethic. vi, 3, 5); and again is placed by all among the four
cardinal virtues, which are moral virtues, as we shall show further
on (Q. 61, A. 1). Therefore virtue is not adequately divided into
intellectual and moral, as though there were no mean between them.

Obj. 2: Further, continency, perseverance, and patience are not
reckoned to be intellectual virtues. Yet neither are they moral
virtues; since they do not reduce the passions to a mean, and are
consistent with an abundance of passion. Therefore virtue is not
adequately divided into intellectual and moral.

Obj. 3: Further, faith, hope, and charity are virtues. Yet they are
not intellectual virtues: for there are only five of these, viz.
science, wisdom, understanding, prudence, and art, as stated above
(Q. 57, AA. 2, 3, 5). Neither are they moral virtues; since they are
not about the passions, which are the chief concern of moral virtue.
Therefore virtue is not adequately divided into intellectual and
moral.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that "virtue
is twofold, intellectual and moral."

_I answer that,_ Human virtue is a habit perfecting man in view of
his doing good deeds. Now, in man there are but two principles of
human actions, viz. the intellect or reason and the appetite: for
these are the two principles of movement in man as stated in _De
Anima_ iii, text. 48. Consequently every human virtue must needs be a
perfection of one of these principles. Accordingly if it perfects
man's speculative or practical intellect in order that his deed may
be good, it will be an intellectual virtue: whereas if it perfects
his appetite, it will be a moral virtue. It follows therefore that
every human virtue is either intellectual or moral.

Reply Obj. 1: Prudence is essentially an intellectual virtue. But
considered on the part of its matter, it has something in common with
the moral virtues: for it is right reason about things to be done, as
stated above (Q. 57, A. 4). It is in this sense that it is reckoned
with the moral virtues.

Reply Obj. 2: Continency and perseverance are not perfections of the
sensitive appetite. This is clear from the fact that passions abound
in the continent and persevering man, which would not be the case if
his sensitive appetite were perfected by a habit making it
conformable to reason. Continency and perseverance are, however,
perfections of the rational faculty, and withstand the passions lest
reason be led astray. But they fall short of being virtues: since
intellectual virtue, which makes reason to hold itself well in
respect of moral matters, presupposes a right appetite of the end, so
that it may hold itself aright in respect of principles, i.e. the
ends, on which it builds its argument: and this is wanting in the
continent and persevering man. Nor again can an action proceeding
from two principles be perfect, unless each principle be perfected by
the habit corresponding to that operation: thus, however perfect be
the principal agent employing an instrument, it will produce an
imperfect effect, if the instrument be not well disposed also. Hence
if the sensitive faculty, which is moved by the rational faculty, is
not perfect; however perfect the rational faculty may be, the
resulting action will be imperfect: and consequently the principle of
that action will not be a virtue. And for this reason, continency,
desisting from pleasures, and perseverance in the midst of pains, are
not virtues, but something less than a virtue, as the Philosopher
maintains (Ethic. vii, 1, 9).

Reply Obj. 3: Faith, hope, and charity are superhuman virtues: for
they are virtues of man as sharing in the grace of God.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 58, Art. 4]

Whether There Can Be Moral Without Intellectual Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral can be without intellectual
virtue. Because moral virtue, as Cicero says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) is
"a habit like a second nature in accord with reason." Now though
nature may be in accord with some sovereign reason that moves it,
there is no need for that reason to be united to nature in the same
subject, as is evident of natural things devoid of knowledge.
Therefore in a man there may be a moral virtue like a second nature,
inclining him to consent to his reason, without his reason being
perfected by an intellectual virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, by means of intellectual virtue man obtains perfect
use of reason. But it happens at times that men are virtuous and
acceptable to God, without being vigorous in the use of reason.
Therefore it seems that moral virtue can be without intellectual.

Obj. 3: Further moral virtue makes us inclined to do good works. But
some, without depending on the judgment of reason, have a natural
inclination to do good works. Therefore moral virtues can be without
intellectual virtues.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xxii) that "the other
virtues, unless we do prudently what we desire to do, cannot be real
virtues." But prudence is an intellectual virtue, as stated above (Q.
57, A. 5). Therefore moral virtues cannot be without intellectual
virtues.

_I answer that,_ Moral virtue can be without some of the intellectual
virtues, viz. wisdom, science, and art; but not without understanding
and prudence. Moral virtue cannot be without prudence, because it is
a habit of choosing, i.e. making us choose well. Now in order that a
choice be good, two things are required. First, that the intention be
directed to a due end; and this is done by moral virtue, which
inclines the appetitive faculty to the good that is in accord with
reason, which is a due end. Secondly, that man take rightly those
things which have reference to the end: and this he cannot do unless
his reason counsel, judge and command aright, which is the function
of prudence and the virtues annexed to it, as stated above (Q. 57,
AA. 5, 6). Wherefore there can be no moral virtue without prudence:
and consequently neither can there be without understanding. For it
is by the virtue of understanding that we know self-evident
principles both in speculative and in practical matters. Consequently
just as right reason in speculative matters, in so far as it proceeds
from naturally known principles, presupposes the understanding of
those principles, so also does prudence, which is the right reason
about things to be done.

Reply Obj. 1: The inclination of nature in things devoid of reason is
without choice: wherefore such an inclination does not of necessity
require reason. But the inclination of moral virtue is with choice:
and consequently in order that it may be perfect it requires that
reason be perfected by intellectual virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: A man may be virtuous without having full use of reason
as to everything, provided he have it with regard to those things
which have to be done virtuously. In this way all virtuous men have
full use of reason. Hence those who seem to be simple, through lack
of worldly cunning, may possibly be prudent, according to Matt.
10:16: "Be ye therefore prudent (Douay: 'wise') as serpents, and
simple as doves."

Reply Obj. 3: The natural inclination to a good of virtue is a kind
of beginning of virtue, but is not perfect virtue. For the stronger
this inclination is, the more perilous may it prove to be, unless it
be accompanied by right reason, which rectifies the choice of fitting
means towards the due end. Thus if a running horse be blind, the
faster it runs the more heavily will it fall, and the more grievously
will it be hurt. And consequently, although moral virtue be not right
reason, as Socrates held, yet not only is it "according to right
reason," in so far as it inclines man to that which is, according to
right reason, as the Platonists maintained [*Cf. Plato, Meno xli.];
but also it needs to be "joined with right reason," as Aristotle
declares (Ethic. vi, 13).
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 58, Art. 5]

Whether There Can Be Intellectual Without Moral Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that there can be intellectual without
moral virtue. Because perfection of what precedes does not depend on
the perfection of what follows. Now reason precedes and moves the
sensitive appetite. Therefore intellectual virtue, which is a
perfection of the reason, does not depend on moral virtue, which is a
perfection of the appetitive faculty; and can be without it.

Obj. 2: Further, morals are the matter of prudence, even as things
makeable are the matter of art. Now art can be without its proper
matter, as a smith without iron. Therefore prudence can be without
the moral virtues, although of all the intellectual virtues, it seems
most akin to the moral virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, prudence is "a virtue whereby we are of good
counsel" (Ethic. vi, 9). Now many are of good counsel without having
the moral virtues. Therefore prudence can be without a moral virtue.

_On the contrary,_ To wish to do evil is directly opposed to moral
virtue; and yet it is not opposed to anything that can be without
moral virtue. Now it is contrary to prudence "to sin willingly"
(Ethic. vi, 5). Therefore prudence cannot be without moral virtue.

_I answer that,_ Other intellectual virtues can, but prudence cannot,
be without moral virtue. The reason for this is that prudence is the
right reason about things to be done (and this, not merely in
general, but also in particular); about which things actions are. Now
right reason demands principles from which reason proceeds to argue.
And when reason argues about particular cases, it needs not only
universal but also particular principles. As to universal principles
of action, man is rightly disposed by the natural understanding of
principles, whereby he understands that he should do no evil; or
again by some practical science. But this is not enough in order that
man may reason aright about particular cases. For it happens
sometimes that the aforesaid universal principle, known by means of
understanding or science, is destroyed in a particular case by a
passion: thus to one who is swayed by concupiscence, when he is
overcome thereby, the object of his desire seems good, although it is
opposed to the universal judgment of his reason. Consequently, as by
the habit of natural understanding or of science, man is made to be
rightly disposed in regard to the universal principles of action; so,
in order that he be rightly disposed with regard to the particular
principles of action, viz. the ends, he needs to be perfected by
certain habits, whereby it becomes connatural, as it were, to man to
judge aright to the end. This is done by moral virtue: for the
virtuous man judges aright of the end of virtue, because "such a man
is, such does the end seem to him" (Ethic. iii, 5). Consequently the
right reason about things to be done, viz. prudence, requires man to
have moral virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Reason, as apprehending the end, precedes the appetite
for the end: but appetite for the end precedes the reason, as arguing
about the choice of the means, which is the concern of prudence. Even
so, in speculative matters the understanding of principles is the
foundation on which the syllogism of the reason is based.

Reply Obj. 2: It does not depend on the disposition of our appetite
whether we judge well or ill of the principles of art, as it does,
when we judge of the end which is the principle in moral matters: in
the former case our judgment depends on reason alone. Hence art does
not require a virtue perfecting the appetite, as prudence does.

Reply Obj. 3: Prudence not only helps us to be of good counsel, but
also to judge and command well. This is not possible unless the
impediment of the passions, destroying the judgment and command of
prudence, be removed; and this is done by moral virtue.
________________________

QUESTION 59

OF MORAL VIRTUE IN RELATION TO THE PASSIONS
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider the difference of one moral virtue from another.
And since those moral virtues which are about the passions, differ
accordingly to the difference of passions, we must consider (1) the
relation of virtue to passion; (2) the different kinds of moral
virtue in relation to the passions. Under the first head there are
five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether moral virtue is a passion?

(2) Whether there can be moral virtue with passion?

(3) Whether sorrow is compatible with moral virtue?

(4) Whether every moral virtue is about a passion?

(5) Whether there can be moral virtue without passion?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 59, Art. 1]

Whether Moral Virtue Is a Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtue is a passion. Because
the mean is of the same genus as the extremes. But moral virtue is a
mean between two passions. Therefore moral virtue is a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, virtue and vice, being contrary to one another, are
in the same genus. But some passions are reckoned to be vices, such
as envy and anger. Therefore some passions are virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, pity is a passion, since it is sorrow for another's
ills, as stated above (Q. 35, A. 8). Now "Cicero the renowned orator
did not hesitate to call pity a virtue," as Augustine states in _De
Civ. Dei_ ix, 5. Therefore a passion may be a moral virtue.

_On the contrary,_ It is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 5 that "passions are
neither virtues nor vices."

_I answer that,_ Moral virtue cannot be a passion. This is clear for
three reasons. First, because a passion is a movement of the sensitive
appetite, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3): whereas moral virtue is not
a movement, but rather a principle of the movement of the appetite,
being a kind of habit. Secondly, because passions are not in
themselves good or evil. For man's good or evil is something in
reference to reason: wherefore the passions, considered in
themselves, are referable both to good and evil, for as much as they
may accord or disaccord with reason. Now nothing of this sort can be
a virtue: since virtue is referable to good alone, as stated above
(Q. 55, A. 3). Thirdly, because, granted that some passions are, in
some way, referable to good only, or to evil only; even then the
movement of passion, as passion, begins in the appetite, and ends in
the reason, since the appetite tends to conformity with reason. On
the other hand, the movement of virtue is the reverse, for it begins
in the reason and ends in the appetite, inasmuch as the latter is
moved by reason. Hence the definition of moral virtue (Ethic. ii, 6)
states that it is "a habit of choosing the mean appointed by reason
as a prudent man would appoint it."

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue is a mean between passions, not by reason of its
essence, but on account of its effect; because, to wit, it
establishes the mean between passions.

Reply Obj. 2: If by vice we understand a habit of doing evil deeds,
it is evident that no passion is a vice. But if vice is taken to mean
sin which is a vicious act, nothing hinders a passion from being a
vice, or, on the other hand, from concurring in an act of virtue; in
so far as a passion is either opposed to reason or in accordance with
reason.

Reply Obj. 3: Pity is said to be a virtue, i.e. an act of virtue, in
so far as "that movement of the soul is obedient to reason"; viz.
"when pity is bestowed without violating right, as when the poor are
relieved, or the penitent forgiven," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
ix, 5). But if by pity we understand a habit perfecting man so that
he bestows pity reasonably, nothing hinders pity, in this sense, from
being a virtue. The same applies to similar passions.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 59, Art. 2]

Whether There Can Be Moral Virtue with Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtue cannot be with passion.
For the Philosopher says (Topic. iv) that "a gentle man is one who is
not passionate; but a patient man is one who is passionate but does
not give way." The same applies to all the moral virtues. Therefore
all moral virtues are without passion.

Obj. 2: Further, virtue is a right affection of the soul, as health
is to the body, as stated _Phys._ vii, text. 17: wherefore "virtue is
a kind of health of the soul," as Cicero says (Quaest. Tusc. iv). But
the soul's passions are "the soul's diseases," as he says in the same
book. Now health is incompatible with disease. Therefore neither is
passion compatible with virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, moral virtue requires perfect use of reason even in
particular matters. But the passions are an obstacle to this: for the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that "pleasures destroy the judgment
of prudence": and Sallust says (Catilin.) that "when they," i.e. the
soul's passions, "interfere, it is not easy for the mind to grasp the
truth." Therefore passion is incompatible with moral virtue.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6): "If the will
is perverse, these movements," viz. the passions, "are perverse also:
but if it is upright, they are not only blameless, but even
praiseworthy." But nothing praiseworthy is incompatible with moral
virtue. Therefore moral virtue does not exclude the passions, but is
consistent with them.

_I answer that,_ The Stoics and Peripatetics disagreed on this point,
as Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei ix, 4). For the Stoics held that
the soul's passions cannot be in a wise or virtuous man: whereas the
Peripatetics, who were founded by Aristotle, as Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei ix, 4), maintained that the passions are compatible with
moral virtue, if they be reduced to the mean.

This difference, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei ix, 4), was one
of words rather than of opinions. Because the Stoics, through not
discriminating between the intellective appetite, i.e. the will, and
the sensitive appetite, which is divided into irascible and
concupiscible, did not, as the Peripatetics did, distinguish the
passions from the other affections of the human soul, in the point of
their being movements of the sensitive appetite, whereas the other
emotions of the soul, which are not passions, are movements of the
intellective appetite or will; but only in the point of the passions
being, as they maintained, any emotions in disaccord with reason.
These emotions could not be in a wise or virtuous man if they arose
deliberately: while it would be possible for them to be in a wise
man, if they arose suddenly: because, in the words of Aulus Gellius
[*Noct. Attic. xix, 1], quoted by Augustine (De Civ. Dei ix, 4), "it
is not in our power to call up the visions of the soul, known as its
fancies; and when they arise from awesome things, they must needs
disturb the mind of a wise man, so that he is slightly startled by
fear, or depressed with sorrow," in so far as "these passions
forestall the use of reason without his approving of such things or
consenting thereto."

Accordingly, if the passions be taken for inordinate emotions, they
cannot be in a virtuous man, so that he consent to them deliberately;
as the Stoics maintained. But if the passions be taken for any
movements of the sensitive appetite, they can be in a virtuous man,
in so far as they are subordinate to reason. Hence Aristotle says
(Ethic. ii, 3) that "some describe virtue as being a kind of freedom
from passion and disturbance; this is incorrect, because the
assertion should be qualified": they should have said virtue is
freedom from those passions "that are not as they should be as to
manner and time."

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher quotes this, as well as many other
examples in his books on Logic, in order to illustrate, not his own
mind, but that of others. It was the opinion of the Stoics that the
passions of the soul were incompatible with virtue: and the
Philosopher rejects this opinion (Ethic. ii, 3), when he says that
virtue is not freedom from passion. It may be said, however, that
when he says "a gentle man is not passionate," we are to understand
this of inordinate passion.

Reply Obj. 2: This and all similar arguments which Tully brings
forward in _De Tusc. Quaest._ iv take the passions in the execution
of reason's command.

Reply Obj. 3: When a passion forestalls the judgment of reason, so as
to prevail on the mind to give its consent, it hinders counsel and
the judgment of reason. But when it follows that judgment, as through
being commanded by reason, it helps towards the execution of reason's
command.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 59, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow Is Compatible with Moral Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is incompatible with virtue.
Because the virtues are effects of wisdom, according to Wis. 8:7:
"She," i.e. Divine wisdom, "teacheth temperance, and prudence, and
justice, and fortitude." Now the "conversation" of wisdom "hath no
bitterness," as we read further on (verse 16). Therefore sorrow is
incompatible with virtue also.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow is a hindrance to work, as the Philosopher
states (Ethic. vii, 13; x, 5). But a hindrance to good works is
incompatible with virtue. Therefore sorrow is incompatible with
virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, Tully calls sorrow a disease of the mind (De Tusc.
Quaest. iv). But disease of the mind is incompatible with virtue,
which is a good condition of the mind. Therefore sorrow is opposed to
virtue and is incompatible with it.

_On the contrary,_ Christ was perfect in virtue. But there was sorrow
in Him, for He said (Matt. 26:38): "My soul is sorrowful even unto
death." Therefore sorrow is compatible with virtue.

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8), the Stoics
held that in the mind of the wise man there are three _eupatheiai_,
i.e. "three good passions," in place of the three disturbances: viz.
instead of covetousness, "desire"; instead of mirth, "joy"; instead
of fear, "caution." But they denied that anything corresponding to
sorrow could be in the mind of a wise man, for two reasons.

First, because sorrow is for an evil that is already present. Now
they held that no evil can happen to a wise man: for they thought
that, just as man's only good is virtue, and bodily goods are no good
to man; so man's only evil is vice, which cannot be in a virtuous
man. But this is unreasonable. For, since man is composed of soul and
body, whatever conduces to preserve the life of the body, is some
good to man; yet not his supreme good, because he can abuse it.
Consequently the evil which is contrary to this good can be in a wise
man, and can cause him moderate sorrow. Again, although a virtuous
man can be without grave sin, yet no man is to be found to live
without committing slight sins, according to 1 John 1:8: "If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." A third reason is because
a virtuous man, though not actually in a state of sin, may have been
so in the past. And he is to be commended if he sorrow for that sin,
according to 2 Cor. 7:10: "The sorrow that is according to God
worketh penance steadfast unto salvation." Fourthly, because he may
praiseworthily sorrow for another's sin. Therefore sorrow is
compatible with moral virtue in the same way as the other passions
are when moderated by reason.

Their second reason for holding this opinion was that sorrow is about
evil present, whereas fear is for evil to come: even as pleasure is
about a present good, while desire is for a future good. Now the
enjoyment of a good possessed, or the desire to have good that one
possesses not, may be consistent with virtue: but depression of the
mind resulting from sorrow for a present evil, is altogether contrary
to reason: wherefore it is incompatible with virtue. But this is
unreasonable. For there is an evil which can be present to the
virtuous man, as we have just stated; which evil is rejected by
reason. Wherefore the sensitive appetite follows reason's rejection
by sorrowing for that evil; yet moderately, according as reason
dictates. Now it pertains to virtue that the sensitive appetite be
conformed to reason, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2). Wherefore
moderated sorrow for an object which ought to make us sorrowful, is a
mark of virtue; as also the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6, 7).
Moreover, this proves useful for avoiding evil: since, just as good
is more readily sought for the sake of pleasure, so is evil more
undauntedly shunned on account of sorrow.

Accordingly we must allow that sorrow for things pertaining to virtue
is incompatible with virtue: since virtue rejoices in its own. On the
other hand, virtue sorrows moderately for all that thwarts virtue, no
matter how.

Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted proves that the wise man is not made
sorrowful by wisdom. Yet he sorrows for anything that hinders wisdom.
Consequently there is no room for sorrow in the blessed, in whom
there can be no hindrance to wisdom.

Reply Obj. 2: Sorrow hinders the work that makes us sorrowful: but it
helps us to do more readily whatever banishes sorrow.

Reply Obj. 3: Immoderate sorrow is a disease of the mind: but
moderate sorrow is the mark of a well-conditioned mind, according to
the present state of life.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 59, Art. 4]

Whether All the Moral Virtues Are About the Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that all the moral virtues are about the
passions. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that "moral virtue
is about objects of pleasure and sorrow." But pleasure and sorrow are
passions, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4; Q. 31, A. 1; Q. 35, AA. 1,
2). Therefore all the moral virtues are about the passions.

Obj. 2: Further, the subject of the moral virtues is a faculty which
is rational by participation, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i,
13). But the passions are in this part of the soul, as stated above
(Q. 22, A. 3). Therefore every moral virtue is about the passions.

Obj. 3: Further, some passion is to be found in every moral virtue:
and so either all are about the passions, or none are. But some are
about the passions, as fortitude and temperance, as stated in
_Ethic._ iii, 6, 10. Therefore all the moral virtues are about the
passions.

_On the contrary,_ Justice, which is a moral virtue, is not about the
passions; as stated in _Ethic._ v, 1, seqq.

_I answer that,_ Moral virtue perfects the appetitive part of the
soul by directing it to good as defined by reason. Now good as
defined by reason is that which is moderated or directed by reason.
Consequently there are moral virtues about all matters that are
subject to reason's direction and moderation. Now reason directs, not
only the passions of the sensitive appetite, but also the operations
of the intellective appetite, i.e. the will, which is not the subject
of a passion, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3). Therefore not all the
moral virtues are about passions, but some are about passions, some
about operations.

Reply Obj. 1: The moral virtues are not all about pleasures and
sorrows, as being their proper matter; but as being something
resulting from their proper acts. For every virtuous man rejoices in
acts of virtue, and sorrows for the contrary. Hence the Philosopher,
after the words quoted, adds, "if virtues are about actions and
passions; now every action and passion is followed by pleasure or
sorrow, so that in this way virtue is about pleasures and sorrows,"
viz. as about something that results from virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: Not only the sensitive appetite which is the subject of
the passions, is rational by participation, but also the will, where
there are no passions, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Some virtues have passions as their proper matter, but
some virtues not. Hence the comparison does not hold for all cases.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 59, Art. 5]

Whether There Can Be Moral Virtue Without Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtue can be without passion.
For the more perfect moral virtue is, the more does it overcome the
passions. Therefore at its highest point of perfection it is
altogether without passion.

Obj. 2: Further, then is a thing perfect, when it is removed from its
contrary and from whatever inclines to its contrary. Now the passions
incline us to sin which is contrary to virtue: hence (Rom. 7:5) they
are called "passions of sins." Therefore perfect virtue is altogether
without passion.

Obj. 3: Further, it is by virtue that we are conformed to God, as
Augustine declares (De Moribus Eccl. vi, xi, xiii). But God does all
things without passion at all. Therefore the most perfect virtue is
without any passion.

_On the contrary,_ "No man is just who rejoices not in his deeds," as
stated in _Ethic._ i, 8. But joy is a passion. Therefore justice
cannot be without passion; and still less can the other virtues be.

_I answer that,_ If we take the passions as being inordinate
emotions, as the Stoics did, it is evident that in this sense perfect
virtue is without the passions. But if by passions we understand any
movement of the sensitive appetite, it is plain that moral virtues,
which are about the passions as about their proper matter, cannot be
without passions. The reason for this is that otherwise it would
follow that moral virtue makes the sensitive appetite altogether
idle: whereas it is not the function of virtue to deprive the powers
subordinate to reason of their proper activities, but to make them
execute the commands of reason, by exercising their proper acts.
Wherefore just as virtue directs the bodily limbs to their due
external acts, so does it direct the sensitive appetite to its proper
regulated movements.

Those moral virtues, however, which are not about the passions, but
about operations, can be without passions. Such a virtue is justice:
because it applies the will to its proper act, which is not a
passion. Nevertheless, joy results from the act of justice; at least
in the will, in which case it is not a passion. And if this joy be
increased through the perfection of justice, it will overflow into
the sensitive appetite; in so far as the lower powers follow the
movement of the higher, as stated above (Q. 17, A. 7; Q. 24, A. 3).
Wherefore by reason of this kind of overflow, the more perfect a
virtue is, the more does it cause passion.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue overcomes inordinate passion; it produces
ordinate passion.

Reply Obj. 2: It is inordinate, not ordinate, passion that leads to
sin.

Reply Obj. 3: The good of anything depends on the condition of its
nature. Now there is no sensitive appetite in God and the angels, as
there is in man. Consequently good operation in God and the angels is
altogether without passion, as it is without a body: whereas the good
operation of man is with passion, even as it is produced with the
body's help.
________________________

QUESTION 60

HOW THE MORAL VIRTUES DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER (FIVE ARTICLES)

We must now consider how the moral virtues differ from one another:
under which head there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is only one moral virtue?

(2) Whether those moral virtues which are about operations, are
distinct from those which are about passions?

(3) Whether there is but one moral virtue about operations?

(4) Whether there are different moral virtues about different
passions?

(5) Whether the moral virtues differ in point of the various objects
of the passions?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 60, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Only One Moral Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is only one moral virtue.
Because just as the direction of moral actions belongs to reason
which is the subject of the intellectual virtues; so does their
inclination belong to the appetite which is the subject of moral
virtues. But there is only one intellectual virtue to direct all
moral acts, viz. prudence. Therefore there is also but one moral
virtue to give all moral acts their respective inclinations.

Obj. 2: Further, habits differ, not in respect of their material
objects, but according to the formal aspect of their objects. Now the
formal aspect of the good to which moral virtue is directed, is one
thing, viz. the mean defined by reason. Therefore, seemingly, there
is but one moral virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, things pertaining to morals are specified by their
end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 3). Now there is but one common end of
all moral virtues, viz. happiness, while the proper and proximate
ends are infinite in number. But the moral virtues themselves are not
infinite in number. Therefore it seems that there is but one.

_On the contrary,_ One habit cannot be in several powers, as stated
above (Q. 56, A. 2). But the subject of the moral virtues is the
appetitive part of the soul, which is divided into several powers, as
stated in the First Part (Q. 80, A. 2; Q. 81, A. 2). Therefore there
cannot be only one moral virtue.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 58, AA. 1, 2, 3), the moral
virtues are habits of the appetitive faculty. Now habits differ
specifically according to the specific differences of their objects,
as stated above (Q. 54, A. 2). Again, the species of the object of
appetite, as of any thing, depends on its specific form which it
receives from the agent. But we must observe that the matter of the
passive subject bears a twofold relation to the agent. For sometimes
it receives the form of the agent, in the same kind specifically as
the agent has that form, as happens with all univocal agents, so that
if the agent be one specifically, the matter must of necessity
receive a form specifically one: thus the univocal effect of fire is
of necessity something in the species of fire. Sometimes, however,
the matter receives the form from the agent, but not in the same kind
specifically as the agent, as is the case with non-univocal causes of
generation: thus an animal is generated by the sun. In this case the
forms received into matter are not of one species, but vary according
to the adaptability of the matter to receive the influx of the agent:
for instance, we see that owing to the one action of the sun, animals
of various species are produced by putrefaction according to the
various adaptability of matter.

Now it is evident that in moral matters the reason holds the place of
commander and mover, while the appetitive power is commanded and
moved. But the appetite does not receive the direction of reason
univocally so to say; because it is rational, not essentially, but by
participation (Ethic. i, 13). Consequently objects made appetible by
the direction of reason belong to various species, according to their
various relations to reason: so that it follows that moral virtues
are of various species and are not one only.

Reply Obj. 1: The object of the reason is truth. Now in all moral
matters, which are contingent matters of action, there is but one
kind of truth. Consequently, there is but one virtue to direct all
such matters, viz. prudence. On the other hand, the object of the
appetitive power is the appetible good, which varies in kind
according to its various relations to reason, the directing power.

Reply Obj. 2: This formal element is one generically, on account of
the unity of the agent: but it varies in species, on account of the
various relations of the receiving matter, as explained above.

Reply Obj. 3: Moral matters do not receive their species from the
last end, but from their proximate ends: and these, although they be
infinite in number, are not infinite in species.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 60, Art. 2]

Whether Moral Virtues About Operations Are Different from Those That
Are About Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtues are not divided into
those which are about operations and those which are about passions.
For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that moral virtue is "an
operative habit whereby we do what is best in matters of pleasure or
sorrow." Now pleasure and sorrow are passions, as stated above (Q.
31, A. 1; Q. 35, A. 1). Therefore the same virtue which is about
passions is also about operations, since it is an operative habit.

Obj. 2: Further, the passions are principles of external action. If
therefore some virtues regulate the passions, they must, as a
consequence, regulate operations also. Therefore the same moral
virtues are about both passions and operations.

Obj. 3: Further, the sensitive appetite is moved well or ill towards
every external operation. Now movements of the sensitive appetite are
passions. Therefore the same virtues that are about operations are
also about passions.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher reckons justice to be about
operations; and temperance, fortitude and gentleness, about passions
(Ethic. ii, 3, 7; v, 1, seqq.).

_I answer that,_ Operation and passion stand in a twofold relation to
virtue. First, as its effects; and in this way every moral virtue has
some good operations as its product; and a certain pleasure or sorrow
which are passions, as stated above (Q. 59, A. 4, ad 1).

Secondly, operation may be compared to moral virtue as the matter
about which virtue is concerned: and in this sense those moral
virtues which are about operations must needs differ from those which
are about passions. The reason for this is that good and evil, in
certain operations, are taken from the very nature of those
operations, no matter how man may be affected towards them: viz. in
so far as good and evil in them depend on their being commensurate
with someone else. In operations of this kind there needs to be some
power to regulate the operations in themselves: such are buying and
selling, and all such operations in which there is an element of
something due or undue to another. For this reason justice and its
parts are properly about operations as their proper matter. On the
other hand, in some operations, good and evil depend only on
commensuration with the agent. Consequently good and evil in these
operations depend on the way in which man is affected to them. And
for this reason in such like operations virtue must needs be chiefly
about internal emotions which are called the passions of the soul, as
is evidently the case with temperance, fortitude and the like.

It happens, however, in operations which are directed to another,
that the good of virtue is overlooked by reason of some inordinate
passion of the soul. In such cases justice is destroyed in so far as
the due measure of the external act is destroyed: while some other
virtue is destroyed in so far as the internal passions exceed their
due measure. Thus when through anger, one man strikes another,
justice is destroyed in the undue blow; while gentleness is destroyed
by the immoderate anger. The same may be clearly applied to other
virtues.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. For the first
considers operations as the effect of virtue, while the other two
consider operation and passion as concurring in the same effect. But
in some cases virtue is chiefly about operations, in others, about
passions, for the reason given above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 60, Art. 3]

Whether There Is Only One Moral Virtue About Operations?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one moral virtue about
operations. Because the rectitude of all external operations seems to
belong to justice. Now justice is but one virtue. Therefore there is
but one virtue about operations.

Obj. 2: Further, those operations seem to differ most, which are
directed on the one side to the good of the individual, and on the
other to the good of the many. But this diversity does not cause
diversity among the moral virtues: for the Philosopher says (Ethic.
v, 1) that legal justice, which directs human acts to the common
good, does not differ, save logically, from the virtue which directs
a man's actions to one man only. Therefore diversity of operations
does not cause a diversity of moral virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, if there are various moral virtues about various
operations, diversity of moral virtues would needs follow diversity
of operations. But this is clearly untrue: for it is the function of
justice to establish rectitude in various kinds of commutations, and
again in distributions, as is set down in _Ethic._ v, 2. Therefore
there are not different virtues about different operations.

_On the contrary,_ Religion is a moral virtue distinct from piety,
both of which are about operations.

_I answer that,_ All the moral virtues that are about operations
agree in one general notion of justice, which is in respect of
something due to another: but they differ in respect of various
special notions. The reason for this is that in external operations,
the order of reason is established, as we have stated (A. 2), not
according as how man is affected towards such operations, but
according to the becomingness of the thing itself; from which
becomingness we derive the notion of something due which is the
formal aspect of justice: for, seemingly, it pertains to justice that
a man give another his due. Wherefore all such virtues as are about
operations, bear, in some way, the character of justice. But the
thing due is not of the same kind in all these virtues: for something
is due to an equal in one way, to a superior, in another way, to an
inferior, in yet another; and the nature of a debt differs according
as it arises from a contract, a promise, or a favor already
conferred. And corresponding to these various kinds of debt there are
various virtues: e.g. _Religion_ whereby we pay our debt to God;
_Piety,_ whereby we pay our debt to our parents or to our country;
_Gratitude,_ whereby we pay our debt to our benefactors, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 1: Justice properly so called is one special virtue, whose
object is the perfect due, which can be paid in the equivalent. But
the name of justice is extended also to all cases in which something
due is rendered: in this sense it is not as a special virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: That justice which seeks the common good is
another virtue from that which is directed to the private good of an
individual: wherefore common right differs from private right; and
Tully (De Inv. ii) reckons as a special virtue, piety which directs
man to the good of his country. But that justice which directs man to
the common good is a general virtue through its act of command: since
it directs all the acts of the virtues to its own end, viz. the common
good. And the virtues, in so far as they are commanded by that
justice, receive the name of justice: so that virtue does not differ,
save logically, from legal justice; just as there is only a logical
difference between a virtue that is active of itself, and a virtue
that is active through the command of another virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: There is the same kind of due in all the
operations belonging to special justice. Consequently, there is the
same virtue of justice, especially in regard to commutations. For it
may be that distributive justice is of another species from
commutative justice; but about this we shall inquire later on
(II-II, Q. 61, A. 1).
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 60, Art. 4]

Whether There Are Different Moral Virtues About Different Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not different moral virtues
about different passions. For there is but one habit about things
that concur in their source and end: as is evident especially in the
case of sciences. But the passions all concur in one source, viz.
love; and they all terminate in the same end, viz. joy or sorrow, as
we stated above (Q. 25, AA. 1, 2, 4; Q. 27, A. 4). Therefore there is
but one moral virtue about all the passions.

Obj. 2: Further, if there were different moral virtues about
different passions, it would follow that there are as many moral
virtues as passions. But this clearly is not the case: since there is
one moral virtue about contrary passions; namely, fortitude, about
fear and daring; temperance, about pleasure and sorrow. Therefore
there is no need for different moral virtues about different passions.

Obj. 3: Further, love, desire, and pleasure are passions of different
species, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Now there is but one virtue
about all these three, viz. temperance. Therefore there are not
different moral virtues about different passions.

_On the contrary,_ Fortitude is about fear and daring; temperance
about desire; meekness about anger; as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 6, 10;
iv, 5.

_I answer that,_ It cannot be said that there is only one moral
virtue about all the passions: since some passions are not in the
same power as other passions; for some belong to the irascible,
others to the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1).

On the other hand, neither does every diversity of passions
necessarily suffice for a diversity of moral virtues. First, because
some passions are in contrary opposition to one another, such as joy
and sorrow, fear and daring, and so on. About such passions as are
thus in opposition to one another there must needs be one same
virtue. Because, since moral virtue consists in a kind of mean, the
mean in contrary passions stands in the same ratio to both, even as
in the natural order there is but one mean between contraries, e.g.
between black and white. Secondly, because there are different
passions contradicting reason in the same manner, e.g. by impelling
to that which is contrary to reason, or by withdrawing from that
which is in accord with reason. Wherefore the different passions of
the concupiscible faculty do not require different moral virtues,
because their movements follow one another in a certain order, as
being directed to the one same thing, viz. the attainment of some
good or the avoidance of some evil: thus from love proceeds desire,
and from desire we arrive at pleasure; and it is the same with the
opposite passions, for hatred leads to avoidance or dislike, and this
leads to sorrow. On the other hand, the irascible passions are not
all of one order, but are directed to different things: for daring
and fear are about some great danger; hope and despair are about some
difficult good; while anger seeks to overcome something contrary
which has wrought harm. Consequently there are different virtues
about such like passions: e.g. temperance, about the concupiscible
passions; fortitude, about fear and daring; magnanimity, about hope
and despair; meekness, about anger.

Reply Obj. 1: All the passions concur in one common principle and
end; but not in one proper principle or end: and so this does not
suffice for the unity of moral virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as in the natural order the same principle causes
movement from one extreme and movement towards the other; and as in
the intellectual order contraries have one common ratio; so too
between contrary passions there is but one moral virtue, which, like
a second nature, consents to reason's dictates.

Reply Obj. 3: Those three passions are directed to the same object in
a certain order, as stated above: and so they belong to the same
virtue.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 60, Art. 5]

Whether the Moral Virtues Differ in Point of the Various Objects of
the Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues do not differ
according to the objects of the passions. For just as there are
objects of passions, so are there objects of operations. Now those
moral virtues that are about operations, do not differ according to
the objects of those operations: for the buying and selling either of
a house or of a horse belong to the one same virtue of justice.
Therefore neither do those moral virtues that are about passions
differ according to the objects of those passions.

Obj. 2: Further, the passions are acts or movements of the sensitive
appetite. Now it needs a greater difference to differentiate habits
than acts. Hence diverse objects which do not diversify the species
of passions, do not diversify the species of moral virtue: so that
there is but one moral virtue about all objects of pleasure, and the
same applies to the other passions.

Obj. 3: Further, more or less do not change a species. Now various
objects of pleasure differ only by reason of being more or less
pleasurable. Therefore all objects of pleasure belong to one species
of virtue: and for the same reason so do all fearful objects, and the
same applies to others. Therefore moral virtue is not diversified
according to the objects of the passions.

Obj. 4: Further, virtue hinders evil, even as it produces good. But
there are various virtues about the desires for good things: thus
temperance is about desires for the pleasure of touch, and
_eutrapelia_ about pleasures in games. Therefore there should be
different virtues about fears of evils.

_On the contrary,_ Chastity is about sexual pleasures, abstinence
about pleasures of the table, and _eutrapelia_ about pleasures in
games.

_I answer that,_ The perfection of a virtue depends on the reason;
whereas the perfection of a passion depends on the sensitive
appetite. Consequently virtues must needs be differentiated according
to their relation to reason, but the passions according to their
relation to the appetite. Hence the objects of the passions,
according as they are variously related to the sensitive appetite,
cause the different species of passions: while, according as they are
related to reason, they cause the different species of virtues. Now
the movement of reason is not the same as that of the sensitive
appetite. Wherefore nothing hinders a difference of objects from
causing diversity of passions, without causing diversity of virtues,
as when one virtue is about several passions, as stated above (A. 4);
and again, a difference of objects from causing different virtues,
without causing a difference of passions, since several virtues are
directed about one passion, e.g. pleasure.

And because diverse passions belonging to diverse powers, always
belong to diverse virtues, as stated above (A. 4); therefore a
difference of objects that corresponds to a difference of powers
always causes a specific difference of virtues--for instance the
difference between that which is good absolutely speaking, and that
which is good and difficult to obtain. Moreover since the reason
rules man's lower powers in a certain order, and even extends to
outward things; hence, one single object of the passions, according
as it is apprehended by sense, imagination, or reason, and again,
according as it belongs to the soul, body, or external things, has
various relations to reason, and consequently is of a nature to cause
a difference of virtues. Consequently man's good which is the object
of love, desire and pleasure, may be taken as referred either to a
bodily sense, or to the inner apprehension of the mind: and this same
good may be directed to man's good in himself, either in his body or
in his soul, or to man's good in relation to other men. And every
such difference, being differently related to reason, differentiates
virtues.

Accordingly, if we take a good, and it be something discerned by the
sense of touch, and something pertaining to the upkeep of human life
either in the individual or in the species, such as the pleasures of
the table or of sexual intercourse, it will belong to the virtue of
_temperance._ As regards the pleasures of the other senses, they are
not intense, and so do not present much difficulty to the reason:
hence there is no virtue corresponding to them; for virtue, "like
art, is about difficult things" (Ethic. ii, 3).

On the other hand, good discerned not by the senses, but by an inner
power, and belonging to man in himself, is like money and honor; the
former, by its very nature, being employable for the good of the
body, while the latter is based on the apprehension of the mind.
These goods again may be considered either absolutely, in which way
they concern the concupiscible faculty, or as being difficult to
obtain, in which way they belong to the irascible part: which
distinction, however, has no place in pleasurable objects of touch;
since such are of base condition, and are becoming to man in so far
as he has something in common with irrational animals. Accordingly in
reference to money considered as a good absolutely, as an object of
desire, pleasure, or love, there is _liberality_: but if we consider
this good as difficult to get, and as being the object of our hope,
there is _magnificence_ [*_megaloprepeia_]. With regard to that good
which we call honor, taken absolutely, as the object of love, we have
a virtue called _philotimia,_ i.e. _love of honor_: while if we
consider it as hard to attain, and as an object of hope, then we have
_magnanimity._ Wherefore liberality and _philotimia_ seem to be in
the concupiscible part, while magnificence and magnanimity are in the
irascible.

As regards man's good in relation to other men, it does not seem hard
to obtain, but is considered absolutely, as the object of the
concupiscible passions. This good may be pleasurable to a man in his
behavior towards another either in some serious matter, in actions,
to wit, that are directed by reason to a due end, or in playful
actions, viz. that are done for mere pleasure, and which do not stand
in the same relation to reason as the former. Now one man behaves
towards another in serious matters, in two ways. First, as being
pleasant in his regard, by becoming speech and deeds: and this
belongs to a virtue which Aristotle (Ethic. ii, 7) calls "friendship"
[*_philia_], and may be rendered "affability." Secondly, one man
behaves towards another by being frank with him, in words and deeds:
this belongs to another virtue which (Ethic. iv, 7) he calls
"truthfulness" [*_aletheia_]. For frankness is more akin to the
reason than pleasure, and serious matters than play. Hence there is
another virtue about the pleasures of games, which the Philosopher
calls _eutrapelia_ (Ethic. iv, 8).

It is therefore evident that, according to Aristotle, there are ten
moral virtues about the passions, viz. fortitude, temperance,
liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, _philotimia,_ gentleness,
friendship, truthfulness, and _eutrapelia,_ all of which differ in
respect of their diverse matter, passions, or objects: so that if we
add _justice,_ which is about operations, there will be eleven in all.

Reply Obj. 1: All objects of the same specific operation have the
same relation to reason: not so all the objects of the same specific
passion; because operations do not thwart reason as the passions do.

Reply Obj. 2: Passions are not differentiated by the same rule as
virtues are, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: More and less do not cause a difference of species,
unless they bear different relations to reason.

Reply Obj. 4: Good is a more potent mover than evil: because evil
does not cause movement save in virtue of good, as Dionysius states
(Div. Nom. iv). Hence an evil does not prove an obstacle to reason,
so as to require virtues unless that evil be great; there being,
seemingly, one such evil corresponding to each kind of passion. Hence
there is but one virtue, meekness, for every form of anger; and,
again, but one virtue, fortitude, for all forms of daring. On the
other hand, good involves difficulty, which requires virtue, even if
it be not a great good in that particular kind of passion.
Consequently there are various moral virtues about desires, as stated
above.
________________________

QUESTION 61

OF THE CARDINAL VIRTUES
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider the cardinal virtues: under which head there are
five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the moral virtues should be called cardinal or principal
virtues?

(2) Of their number;

(3) Which are they?

(4) Whether they differ from one another?

(5) Whether they are fittingly divided into social, perfecting,
perfect, and exemplar virtues?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 61, Art. 1]

Whether the Moral Virtues Should Be Called Cardinal or Principal
Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtues should not be called
cardinal or principal virtues. For "the opposite members of a
division are by nature simultaneous" (Categor. x), so that one is not
principal rather than another. Now all the virtues are opposite
members of the division of the genus "virtue." Therefore none of them
should be called principal.

Obj. 2: Further, the end is principal as compared to the means. But
the theological virtues are about the end; while the moral virtues
are about the means. Therefore the theological virtues, rather than
the moral virtues, should be called principal or cardinal.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is essentially so is principal in
comparison with that which is so by participation. But the
intellectual virtues belong to that which is essentially rational:
whereas the moral virtues belong to that which is rational by
participation, as stated above (Q. 58, A. 3). Therefore the
intellectual virtues are principal, rather than the moral virtues.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose in explaining the words, "Blessed are the
poor in spirit" (Luke 6:20) says: "We know that there are four
cardinal virtues, viz. temperance, justice, prudence, and fortitude."
But these are moral virtues. Therefore the moral virtues are cardinal
virtues.

_I answer that,_ When we speak of virtue simply, we are understood to
speak of human virtue. Now human virtue, as stated above (Q. 56, A.
3), is one that answers to the perfect idea of virtue, which requires
rectitude of the appetite: for such like virtue not only confers the
faculty of doing well, but also causes the good deed done. On the
other hand, the name virtue is applied to one that answers
imperfectly to the idea of virtue, and does not require rectitude of
the appetite: because it merely confers the faculty of doing well
without causing the good deed to be done. Now it is evident that the
perfect is principal as compared to the imperfect: and so those
virtues which imply rectitude of the appetite are called principal
virtues. Such are the moral virtues, and prudence alone, of the
intellectual virtues, for it is also something of a moral virtue, as
was clearly shown above (Q. 57, A. 4). Consequently, those virtues
which are called principal or cardinal are fittingly placed among the
moral virtues.

Reply Obj. 1: When a univocal genus is divided into its species, the
members of the division are on a par in the point of the generic
idea; although considered in their nature as things, one species may
surpass another in rank and perfection, as man in respect of other
animals. But when we divide an analogous term, which is applied to
several things, but to one before it is applied to another, nothing
hinders one from ranking before another, even in the point of the
generic idea; as the notion of being is applied to substance
principally in relation to accident. Such is the division of virtue
into various kinds of virtue: since the good defined by reason is not
found in the same way in all things.

Reply Obj. 2: The theological virtues are above man, as stated above
(Q. 58, A. 3, ad 3). Hence they should properly be called not human,
but "super-human" or godlike virtues.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the intellectual virtues, except in prudence,
rank before the moral virtues, in the point of their subject, they do
not rank before them as virtues; for a virtue, as such, regards good,
which is the object of the appetite.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 61, Art. 5]

Whether There Are Four Cardinal Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not four cardinal virtues.
For prudence is the directing principle of the other moral virtues,
as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 58, A. 4). But that
which directs other things ranks before them. Therefore prudence
alone is a principal virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, the principal virtues are, in a way, moral virtues.
Now we are directed to moral works both by the practical reason, and
by a right appetite, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 2. Therefore there are
only two cardinal virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, even among the other virtues one ranks higher than
another. But in order that a virtue be principal, it needs not to
rank above all the others, but above some. Therefore it seems that
there are many more principal virtues.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. ii): "The entire structure of
good works is built on four virtues."

_I answer that,_ Things may be numbered either in respect of their
formal principles, or according to the subjects in which they are:
and either way we find that there are four cardinal virtues.

For the formal principle of the virtue of which we speak now is good
as defined by reason; which good is considered in two ways. First, as
existing in the very act of reason: and thus we have one principal
virtue, called "Prudence." Secondly, according as the reason puts its
order into something else; either into operations, and then we have
"Justice"; or into passions, and then we need two virtues. For the
need of putting the order of reason into the passions is due to their
thwarting reason: and this occurs in two ways. First, by the passions
inciting to something against reason, and then the passions need a
curb, which we call "Temperance." Secondly, by the passions
withdrawing us from following the dictate of reason, e.g. through
fear of danger or toil: and then man needs to be strengthened for
that which reason dictates, lest he turn back; and to this end there
is "Fortitude."

In like manner, we find the same number if we consider the subjects
of virtue. For there are four subjects of the virtue we speak of now:
viz. the power which is rational in its essence, and this is
perfected by "Prudence"; and that which is rational by participation,
and is threefold, the will, subject of "Justice," the concupiscible
faculty, subject of "Temperance," and the irascible faculty, subject
of "Fortitude."

Reply Obj. 1: Prudence is the principal of all the virtues simply.
The others are principal, each in its own genus.

Reply Obj. 2: That part of the soul which is rational by
participation is threefold, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: All the other virtues among which one ranks before
another, are reducible to the above four, both as to the subject and
as to the formal principle.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 61, Art. 3]

Whether Any Other Virtues Should Be Called Principal Rather Than These?

Objection 1: It would seem that other virtues should be called
principal rather than these. For, seemingly, the greatest is the
principal in any genus. Now "magnanimity has a great influence on all
the virtues" (Ethic. iv, 3). Therefore magnanimity should more than
any be called a principal virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, that which strengthens the other virtues should
above all be called a principal virtue. But such is humility: for
Gregory says (Hom. iv in Ev.) that "he who gathers the other virtues
without humility is as one who carries straw against the wind."
Therefore humility seems above all to be a principal virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is most perfect seems to be principal.
But this applies to patience, according to James 1:4: "Patience hath
a perfect work." Therefore patience should be reckoned a principal
virtue.

_On the contrary,_ Cicero reduces all other virtues to these four (De
Invent. Rhet. ii).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), these four are reckoned as
cardinal virtues, in respect of the four formal principles of virtue
as we understand it now. These principles are found chiefly in
certain acts and passions. Thus the good which exists in the act of
reason, is found chiefly in reason's command, but not in its counsel
or its judgment, as stated above (Q. 57, A. 6). Again, good as
defined by reason and put into our operations as something right and
due, is found chiefly in commutations and distributions in respect of
another person, and on a basis of equality. The good of curbing the
passions is found chiefly in those passions which are most difficult
to curb, viz. in the pleasures of touch. The good of being firm in
holding to the good defined by reason, against the impulse of
passion, is found chiefly in perils of death, which are most
difficult to withstand.

Accordingly the above four virtues may be considered in two ways.
First, in respect of their common formal principles. In this way they
are called principal, being general, as it were, in comparison with
all the virtues: so that, for instance, any virtue that causes good
in reason's act of consideration, may be called prudence; every
virtue that causes the good of right and due in operation, be called
justice; every virtue that curbs and represses the passions, be
called temperance; and every virtue that strengthens the mind against
any passions whatever, be called fortitude. Many, both holy doctors,
as also philosophers, speak about these virtues in this sense: and in
this way the other virtues are contained under them. Wherefore all
the objections fail.

Secondly, they may be considered in point of their being denominated,
each one from that which is foremost in its respective matter, and
thus they are specific virtues, condivided with the others. Yet they
are called principal in comparison with the other virtues, on account
of the importance of their matter: so that prudence is the virtue
which commands; justice, the virtue which is about due actions
between equals; temperance, the virtue which suppresses desires for
the pleasures of touch; and fortitude, the virtue which strengthens
against dangers of death. Thus again do the objections fail: because
the other virtues may be principal in some other way, but these are
called principal by reason of their matter, as stated above.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 61, Art. 4]

Whether the Four Cardinal Virtues Differ from One Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that the above four virtues are not
diverse and distinct from one another. For Gregory says (Moral. xxii,
1): "There is no true prudence, unless it be just, temperate and
brave; no perfect temperance, that is not brave, just and prudent; no
sound fortitude, that is not prudent, temperate and just; no real
justice, without prudence, fortitude and temperance." But this would
not be so, if the above virtues were distinct from one another: since
the different species of one genus do not qualify one another.
Therefore the aforesaid virtues are not distinct from one another.

Obj. 2: Further, among things distinct from one another the function
of one is not attributed to another. But the function of temperance
is attributed to fortitude: for Ambrose says (De Offic. xxxvi):
"Rightly do we call it fortitude, when a man conquers himself, and is
not weakened and bent by any enticement." And of temperance he says
(De Offic. xliii, xlv) that it "safeguards the manner and order in
all things that we decide to do and say." Therefore it seems that
these virtues are not distinct from one another.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 4) that the
necessary conditions of virtue are first of all "that a man should
have knowledge; secondly, that he should exercise choice for a
particular end; thirdly, that he should possess the habit and act
with firmness and steadfastness." But the first of these seems to
belong to prudence which is rectitude of reason in things to be done;
the second, i.e. choice, belongs to temperance, whereby a man,
holding his passions on the curb, acts, not from passion but from
choice; the third, that a man should act for the sake of a due end,
implies a certain rectitude, which seemingly belongs to justice;
while the last, viz. firmness and steadfastness, belongs to
fortitude. Therefore each of these virtues is general in comparison
to other virtues. Therefore they are not distinct from one another.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xi) that "there
are four virtues, corresponding to the various emotions of love," and
he applies this to the four virtues mentioned above. Therefore the
same four virtues are distinct from one another.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), these four virtues are
understood differently by various writers. For some take them as
signifying certain general conditions of the human mind, to be found
in all the virtues: so that, to wit, prudence is merely a certain
rectitude of discretion in any actions or matters whatever; justice,
a certain rectitude of the mind, whereby a man does what he ought in
any matters; temperance, a disposition of the mind, moderating any
passions or operations, so as to keep them within bounds; and
fortitude, a disposition whereby the soul is strengthened for that
which is in accord with reason, against any assaults of the passions,
or the toil involved by any operations. To distinguish these four
virtues in this way does not imply that justice, temperance and
fortitude are distinct virtuous habits: because it is fitting that
every moral virtue, from the fact that it is a _habit,_ should be
accompanied by a certain firmness so as not to be moved by its
contrary: and this, we have said, belongs to fortitude. Moreover,
inasmuch as it is a _virtue,_ it is directed to good which involves
the notion of right and due; and this, we have said, belongs to
justice. Again, owing to the fact that it is a _moral virtue_
partaking of reason, it observes the mode of reason in all things,
and does not exceed its bounds, which has been stated to belong to
temperance. It is only in the point of having discretion, which we
ascribed to prudence, that there seems to be a distinction from the
other three, inasmuch as discretion belongs essentially to reason;
whereas the other three imply a certain share of reason by way of a
kind of application (of reason) to passions or operations. According
to the above explanation, then, prudence would be distinct from the
other three virtues: but these would not be distinct from one
another; for it is evident that one and the same virtue is both
habit, and virtue, and moral virtue.

Others, however, with better reason, take these four virtues,
according as they have their special determinate matter; each of its
own matter, in which special commendation is given to that general
condition from which the virtue's name is taken as stated above (A.
3). In this way it is clear that the aforesaid virtues are distinct
habits, differentiated in respect of their diverse objects.

Reply Obj. 1: Gregory is speaking of these four virtues in the first
sense given above. It may also be said that these four virtues
qualify one another by a kind of overflow. For the qualities of
prudence overflow on to the other virtues in so far as they are
directed by prudence. And each of the others overflows on to the
rest, for the reason that whoever can do what is harder, can do what
is less difficult. Wherefore whoever can curb his desires for the
pleasures of touch, so that they keep within bounds, which is a very
hard thing to do, for this very reason is more able to check his
daring in dangers of death, so as not to go too far, which is much
easier; and in this sense fortitude is said to be temperate. Again,
temperance is said to be brave, by reason of fortitude overflowing
into temperance: in so far, to wit, as he whose mind is strengthened
by fortitude against dangers of death, which is a matter of very
great difficulty, is more able to remain firm against the onslaught
of pleasures; for as Cicero says (De Offic. i), "it would be
inconsistent for a man to be unbroken by fear, and yet vanquished by
cupidity; or that he should be conquered by lust, after showing
himself to be unconquered by toil."

From this the Reply to the Second Objection is clear. For temperance
observes the mean in all things, and fortitude keeps the mind unbent
by the enticements of pleasures, either in so far as these virtues
are taken to denote certain general conditions of virtue, or in the
sense that they overflow on to one another, as explained above.

Reply Obj. 3: These four general conditions of virtue set down by the
Philosopher, are not proper to the aforesaid virtues. They may,
however, be appropriated to them, in the way above stated.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 61, Art. 5]

Whether the Cardinal Virtues Are Fittingly Divided into Social
Virtues, Perfecting, Perfect, and Exemplar Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that these four virtues are unfittingly
divided into exemplar virtues, perfecting virtues, perfect virtues,
and social virtues. For as Macrobius says (Super Somn. Scip. 1), the
"exemplar virtues are such as exist in the mind of God." Now the
Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that "it is absurd to ascribe justice,
fortitude, temperance, and prudence to God." Therefore these virtues
cannot be exemplar.

Obj. 2: Further, the _perfect_ virtues are those which are without
any passion: for Macrobius says (Super Somn. Scip. 1) that "in a soul
that is cleansed, temperance has not to check worldly desires, for it
has forgotten all about them: fortitude knows nothing about the
passions; it does not have to conquer them." Now it was stated above
(Q. 59, A. 5) that the aforesaid virtues cannot be without passions.
Therefore there is no such thing as _perfect_ virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, he says (Macrobius: Super Somn. Scip. 1) that the
"perfecting" virtues are those of the man "who flies from human
affairs and devotes himself exclusively to the things of God." But it
seems wrong to do this, for Cicero says (De Offic. i): "I reckon that
it is not only unworthy of praise, but wicked for a man to say that
he despises what most men admire, viz. power and office." Therefore
there are no "perfecting" virtues.

Obj. 4: Further, he says (Macrobius: Super Somn. Scip. 1) that the
"social" virtues are those "whereby good men work for the good of
their country and for the safety of the city." But it is only legal
justice that is directed to the common weal, as the Philosopher states
(Ethic. v, 1). Therefore other virtues should not be called "social."

_On the contrary,_ Macrobius says (Super Somn. Scip. 1): "Plotinus,
together with Plato foremost among teachers of philosophy, says: 'The
four kinds of virtue are fourfold: In the first place there are
social* virtues; secondly, there are perfecting virtues [*Virtutes
purgatoriae: literally meaning, cleansing virtues]; thirdly, there
are perfect [*Virtutes purgati animi: literally, virtues of the clean
soul] virtues; and fourthly, there are exemplar virtues.'" [*Cf.
Chrysostom's fifteenth homily on St. Matthew, where he says: "The
gentle, the modest, the merciful, the just man does not shut up his
good deeds within himself . . . He that is clean of heart and
peaceful, and suffers persecution for the sake of the truth, lives
for the common weal."]

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. vi), "the soul
needs to follow something in order to give birth to virtue: this
something is God: if we follow Him we shall live aright."
Consequently the exemplar of human virtue must needs pre-exist in
God, just as in Him pre-exist the types of all things. Accordingly
virtue may be considered as existing originally in God, and thus we
speak of "exemplar" virtues: so that in God the Divine Mind itself
may be called prudence; while temperance is the turning of God's gaze
on Himself, even as in us it is that which conforms the appetite to
reason. God's fortitude is His unchangeableness; His justice is the
observance of the Eternal Law in His works, as Plotinus states (Cf.
Macrobius, Super Somn. Scip. 1).

Again, since man by his nature is a social [*See above note on
Chrysostom] animal, these virtues, in so far as they are in him
according to the condition of his nature, are called "social"
virtues; since it is by reason of them that man behaves himself well
in the conduct of human affairs. It is in this sense that we have
been speaking of these virtues until now.

But since it behooves a man to do his utmost to strive onward even to
Divine things, as even the Philosopher declares in _Ethic._ x, 7, and
as Scripture often admonishes us--for instance: "Be ye . . . perfect,
as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48), we must needs place
some virtues between the social or human virtues, and the exemplar
virtues which are Divine. Now these virtues differ by reason of a
difference of movement and term: so that some are virtues of men who
are on their way and tending towards the Divine similitude; and these
are called "perfecting" virtues. Thus prudence, by contemplating the
things of God, counts as nothing all things of the world, and directs
all the thoughts of the soul to God alone: temperance, so far as
nature allows, neglects the needs of the body; fortitude prevents the
soul from being afraid of neglecting the body and rising to heavenly
things; and justice consists in the soul giving a whole-hearted
consent to follow the way thus proposed. Besides these there are the
virtues of those who have already attained to the Divine similitude:
these are called the "perfect virtues." Thus prudence sees nought
else but the things of God; temperance knows no earthly desires;
fortitude has no knowledge of passion; and justice, by imitating the
Divine Mind, is united thereto by an everlasting covenant. Such as
the virtues attributed to the Blessed, or, in this life, to some who
are at the summit of perfection.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking of these virtues according
as they relate to human affairs; for instance, justice, about buying
and selling; fortitude, about fear; temperance, about desires; for in
this sense it is absurd to attribute them to God.

Reply Obj. 2: Human virtues, that is to say, virtues of men living
together in this world, are about the passions. But the virtues of
those who have attained to perfect bliss are without passions. Hence
Plotinus says (Cf. Macrobius, Super Somn. Scip. 1) that "the social
virtues check the passions," i.e. they bring them to the relative
mean; "the second kind," viz. the perfecting virtues, "uproot them";
"the third kind," viz. the perfect virtues, "forget them; while it is
impious to mention them in connection with virtues of the fourth
kind," viz. the exemplar virtues. It may also be said that here he is
speaking of passions as denoting inordinate emotions.

Reply Obj. 3: To neglect human affairs when necessity forbids is
wicked; otherwise it is virtuous. Hence Cicero says a little earlier:
"Perhaps one should make allowances for those who by reason of their
exceptional talents have devoted themselves to learning; as also to
those who have retired from public life on account of failing health,
or for some other yet weightier motive; when such men yielded to
others the power and renown of authority." This agrees with what
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The love of truth demands a
hallowed leisure; charity necessitates good works. If no one lays
this burden on us we may devote ourselves to the study and
contemplation of truth; but if the burden is laid on us it is to be
taken up under the pressure of charity."

Reply Obj. 4: Legal justice alone regards the common weal directly:
but by commanding the other virtues it draws them all into the
service of the common weal, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v,
1). For we must take note that it concerns the human virtues, as we
understand them here, to do well not only towards the community, but
also towards the parts of the community, viz. towards the household,
or even towards one individual.
________________________

QUESTION 62

OF THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the Theological Virtues: under which head there
are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there are any theological virtues?

(2) Whether the theological virtues are distinct from the intellectual
and moral virtues?

(3) How many, and which are they?

(4) Of their order.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 62, Art. 1]

Whether There Are Any Theological Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not any theological
virtues. For according to _Phys._ vii, text. 17, "virtue is the
disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best: and by perfect,
I mean that which is disposed according to nature." But that which is
Divine is above man's nature. Therefore the theological virtues are
not virtues of a man.

Obj. 2: Further, theological virtues are quasi-Divine virtues. But
the Divine virtues are exemplars, as stated above (Q. 61, A. 5),
which are not in us but in God. Therefore the theological virtues are
not virtues of man.

Obj. 3: Further, the theological virtues are so called because they
direct us to God, Who is the first beginning and last end of all
things. But by the very nature of his reason and will, man is
directed to his first beginning and last end. Therefore there is no
need for any habits of theological virtue, to direct the reason and
will to God.

_On the contrary,_ The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue.
Now the Divine Law contains precepts about the acts of faith, hope,
and charity: for it is written (Ecclus. 2:8, seqq.): "Ye that fear
the Lord believe Him," and again, "hope in Him," and again, "love
Him." Therefore faith, hope, and charity are virtues directing us to
God. Therefore they are theological virtues.

_I answer that,_ Man is perfected by virtue, for those actions
whereby he is directed to happiness, as was explained above (Q. 5, A.
7). Now man's happiness is twofold, as was also stated above (Q. 5,
A. 5). One is proportionate to human nature, a happiness, to wit,
which man can obtain by means of his natural principles. The other is
a happiness surpassing man's nature, and which man can obtain by the
power of God alone, by a kind of participation of the Godhead, about
which it is written (2 Pet. 1:4) that by Christ we are made
"partakers of the Divine nature." And because such happiness
surpasses the capacity of human nature, man's natural principles
which enable him to act well according to his capacity, do not
suffice to direct man to this same happiness. Hence it is necessary
for man to receive from God some additional principles, whereby he
may be directed to supernatural happiness, even as he is directed to
his connatural end, by means of his natural principles, albeit not
without Divine assistance. Such like principles are called
"theological virtues": first, because their object is God, inasmuch
as they direct us aright to God: secondly, because they are infused
in us by God alone: thirdly, because these virtues are not made known
to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ.

Reply Obj. 1: A certain nature may be ascribed to a certain thing in
two ways. First, essentially: and thus these theological virtues
surpass the nature of man. Secondly, by participation, as kindled
wood partakes of the nature of fire: and thus, after a fashion, man
becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature, as stated above: so that
these virtues are proportionate to man in respect of the Nature of
which he is made a partaker.

Reply Obj. 2: These virtues are called Divine, not as though God were
virtuous by reason of them, but because of them God makes us
virtuous, and directs us to Himself. Hence they are not exemplar but
exemplate virtues.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason and will are naturally directed to
God, inasmuch as He is the beginning and end of nature, but in
proportion to nature. But the reason and will, according to their
nature, are not sufficiently directed to Him in so far as He is the
object of supernatural happiness.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 62, Art. 2]

Whether the Theological Virtues Are Distinct from the Intellectual
and Moral Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that the theological virtues are not
distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues. For the theological
virtues, if they be in a human soul, must needs perfect it, either as
to the intellective, or as to the appetitive part. Now the virtues
which perfect the intellective part are called intellectual; and the
virtues which perfect the appetitive part, are called moral.
Therefore, the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral
and intellectual virtues.

Obj. 2: Further, the theological virtues are those which direct us to
God. Now, among the intellectual virtues there is one which directs
us to God: this is wisdom, which is about Divine things, since it
considers the highest cause. Therefore the theological virtues are
not distinct from the intellectual virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv) shows how the four
cardinal virtues are the "order of love." Now love is charity, which
is a theological virtue. Therefore the moral virtues are not distinct
from the theological.

_On the contrary,_ That which is above man's nature is distinct from
that which is according to his nature. But the theological virtues
are above man's nature; while the intellectual and moral virtues are
in proportion to his nature, as clearly shown above (Q. 58, A. 3).
Therefore they are distinct from one another.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 54, A. 2, ad 1), habits are
specifically distinct from one another in respect of the formal
difference of their objects. Now the object of the theological
virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the
knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the
intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human
reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct
from the moral and intellectual virtues.

Reply Obj. 1: The intellectual and moral virtues perfect man's
intellect and appetite according to the capacity of human nature; the
theological virtues, supernaturally.

Reply Obj. 2: The wisdom which the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3, 7)
reckons as an intellectual virtue, considers Divine things so far as
they are open to the research of human reason. Theological virtue, on
the other hand, is about those same things so far as they surpass
human reason.

Reply Obj. 3: Though charity is love, yet love is not always charity.
When, then, it is stated that every virtue is the order of love, this
can be understood either of love in the general sense, or of the love
of charity. If it be understood of love, commonly so called, then
each virtue is stated to be the order of love, in so far as each
cardinal virtue requires ordinate emotions; and love is the root and
cause of every emotion, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 4; Q. 28, A. 6, ad
2; Q. 41, A. 2, ad 1). If, however, it be understood of the love of
charity, it does not mean that every other virtue is charity
essentially: but that all other virtues depend on charity in some
way, as we shall show further on (Q. 65, AA. 2, 5; II-II, Q. 23, A.
7).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 62, Art. 3]

Whether Faith, Hope, and Charity Are Fittingly Reckoned As
Theological Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that faith, hope, and charity are not
fittingly reckoned as three theological virtues. For the theological
virtues are in relation to Divine happiness, what the natural
inclination is in relation to the connatural end. Now among the
virtues directed to the connatural end there is but one natural
virtue, viz. the understanding of principles. Therefore there should
be but one theological virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, the theological virtues are more perfect than the
intellectual and moral virtues. Now faith is not reckoned among the
intellectual virtues, but is something less than a virtue, since it
is imperfect knowledge. Likewise hope is not reckoned among the moral
virtues, but is something less than a virtue, since it is a passion.
Much less therefore should they be reckoned as theological virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, the theological virtues direct man's soul to God.
Now man's soul cannot be directed to God, save through the
intellective part, wherein are the intellect and will. Therefore
there should be only two theological virtues, one perfecting the
intellect, the other, the will.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:13): "Now there remain
faith, hope, charity, these three."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the theological virtues
direct man to supernatural happiness in the same way as by the
natural inclination man is directed to his connatural end. Now the
latter happens in respect of two things. First, in respect of the
reason or intellect, in so far as it contains the first universal
principles which are known to us by the natural light of the
intellect, and which are reason's starting-point, both in speculative
and in practical matters. Secondly, through the rectitude of the will
which tends naturally to good as defined by reason.

But these two fall short of the order of supernatural happiness,
according to 1 Cor. 2:9: "The eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath
prepared for them that love Him." Consequently in respect of both the
above things man needed to receive in addition something supernatural
to direct him to a supernatural end. First, as regards the intellect,
man receives certain supernatural principles, which are held by means
of a Divine light: these are the articles of faith, about which is
faith. Secondly, the will is directed to this end, both as to that
end as something attainable--and this pertains to hope--and as to a
certain spiritual union, whereby the will is, so to speak,
transformed into that end--and this belongs to charity. For the
appetite of a thing is moved and tends towards its connatural end
naturally; and this movement is due to a certain conformity of the
thing with its end.

Reply Obj. 1: The intellect requires intelligible species whereby to
understand: consequently there is need of a natural habit in addition
to the power. But the very nature of the will suffices for it to be
directed naturally to the end, both as to the intention of the end
and as to its conformity with the end. But the nature of the power is
insufficient in either of these respects, for the will to be directed
to things that are above its nature. Consequently there was need for
an additional supernatural habit in both respects.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith and hope imply a certain imperfection: since
faith is of things unseen, and hope, of things not possessed. Hence
faith and hope, in things that are subject to human power, fall short
of the notion of virtue. But faith and hope in things which are above
the capacity of human nature surpass all virtue that is in proportion
to man, according to 1 Cor. 1:25: "The weakness of God is stronger
than men."

Reply Obj. 3: Two things pertain to the appetite, viz. movement to
the end, and conformity with the end by means of love. Hence there
must needs be two theological virtues in the human appetite, namely,
hope and charity.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 62, Art. 4]

Whether Faith Precedes Hope, and Hope Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that the order of the theological virtues
is not that faith precedes hope, and hope charity. For the root
precedes that which grows from it. Now charity is the root of all the
virtues, according to Eph. 3:17: "Being rooted and founded in
charity." Therefore charity precedes the others.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i): "A man cannot
love what he does not believe to exist. But if he believes and loves,
by doing good works he ends in hoping." Therefore it seems that faith
precedes charity, and charity hope.

Obj. 3: Further, love is the principle of all our emotions, as stated
above (A. 2, ad 3). Now hope is a kind of emotion, since it is a
passion, as stated above (Q. 25, A. 2). Therefore charity, which is
love, precedes hope.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle enumerates them thus (1 Cor. 13:13):
"Now there remain faith, hope, charity."

_I answer that,_ Order is twofold: order of generation, and order of
perfection. By order of generation, in respect of which matter
precedes form, and the imperfect precedes the perfect, in one same
subject faith precedes hope, and hope charity, as to their acts:
because habits are all infused together. For the movement of the
appetite cannot tend to anything, either by hoping or loving, unless
that thing be apprehended by the sense or by the intellect. Now it is
by faith that the intellect apprehends the object of hope and love.
Hence in the order of generation, faith precedes hope and charity. In
like manner a man loves a thing because he apprehends it as his good.
Now from the very fact that a man hopes to be able to obtain some
good through someone, he looks on the man in whom he hopes as a good
of his own. Hence for the very reason that a man hopes in someone, he
proceeds to love him: so that in the order of generation, hope
precedes charity as regards their respective acts.

But in the order of perfection, charity precedes faith and hope:
because both faith and hope are quickened by charity, and receive
from charity their full complement as virtues. For thus charity is
the mother and the root of all the virtues, inasmuch as it is the
form of them all, as we shall state further on (II-II, Q. 23, A. 8).

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: Augustine is speaking of that hope whereby a man hopes
to obtain bliss through the merits which he has already: this belongs
to hope quickened by and following charity. But it is possible for a
man before having charity, to hope through merits not already
possessed, but which he hopes to possess.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 40, A. 7), in treating of the
passions, hope regards two things. One as its principal object, viz.
the good hoped for. With regard to this, love always precedes hope:
for good is never hoped for unless it be desired and loved. Hope also
regards the person from whom a man hopes to be able to obtain some
good. With regard to this, hope precedes love at first; though
afterwards hope is increased by love. Because from the fact that a
man thinks that he can obtain a good through someone, he begins to
love him: and from the fact that he loves him, he then hopes all the
more in him.
________________________

QUESTION 63

OF THE CAUSE OF VIRTUES
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the cause of virtues; and under this head there
are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether virtue is in us by nature?

(2) Whether any virtue is caused in us by habituation?

(3) Whether any moral virtues are in us by infusion?

(4) Whether virtue acquired by habituation, is of the same species
as infused virtue?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 63, Art. 1]

Whether Virtue Is in Us by Nature?

Objection 1: It would seem that virtue is in us by nature. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14): "Virtues are natural to us
and are equally in all of us." And Antony says in his sermon to the
monks: "If the will contradicts nature it is perverse, if it follow
nature it is virtuous." Moreover, a gloss on Matt. 4:23, "Jesus went
about," etc., says: "He taught them natural virtues, i.e. chastity,
justice, humility, which man possesses naturally."

Obj. 2: Further, the virtuous good consists in accord with reason, as
was clearly shown above (Q. 55, A. 4, ad 2). But that which accords
with reason is natural to man; since reason is part of man's nature.
Therefore virtue is in man by nature.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is in us from birth is said to be natural
to us. Now virtues are in some from birth: for it is written (Job
31:18): "From my infancy mercy grew up with me; and it came out with
me from my mother's womb." Therefore virtue is in man by nature.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is in man by nature is common to all men,
and is not taken away by sin, since even in the demons natural gifts
remain, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). But virtue is not in all
men; and is cast out by sin. Therefore it is not in man by nature.

_I answer that,_ With regard to corporeal forms, it has been
maintained by some that they are wholly from within, by those, for
instance, who upheld the theory of "latent forms" [*Anaxagoras; Cf.
I, Q. 45, A. 8; Q. 65, A. 4]. Others held that forms are entirely
from without, those, for instance, who thought that corporeal forms
originated from some separate cause. Others, however, esteemed that
they are partly from within, in so far as they pre-exist potentially
in matter; and partly from without, in so far as they are brought
into act by the agent.

In like manner with regard to sciences and virtues, some held that
they are wholly from within, so that all virtues and sciences would
pre-exist in the soul naturally, but that the hindrances to science
and virtue, which are due to the soul being weighed down by the body,
are removed by study and practice, even as iron is made bright by
being polished. This was the opinion of the Platonists. Others said
that they are wholly from without, being due to the inflow of the
active intellect, as Avicenna maintained. Others said that sciences
and virtues are within us by nature, so far as we are adapted to
them, but not in their perfection: this is the teaching of the
Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1), and is nearer the truth.

To make this clear, it must be observed that there are two ways in
which something is said to be natural to a man; one is according to
his specific nature, the other according to his individual nature.
And, since each thing derives its species from its form, and its
individuation from matter, and, again, since man's form is his
rational soul, while his matter is his body, whatever belongs to him
in respect of his rational soul, is natural to him in respect of his
specific nature; while whatever belongs to him in respect of the
particular temperament of his body, is natural to him in respect of
his individual nature. For whatever is natural to man in respect of
his body, considered as part of his species, is to be referred, in a
way, to the soul, in so far as this particular body is adapted to
this particular soul.

In both these ways virtue is natural to man inchoatively. This is so
in respect of the specific nature, in so far as in man's reason are
to be found instilled by nature certain naturally known principles of
both knowledge and action, which are the nurseries of intellectual
and moral virtues, and in so far as there is in the will a natural
appetite for good in accordance with reason. Again, this is so in
respect of the individual nature, in so far as by reason of a
disposition in the body, some are disposed either well or ill to
certain virtues: because, to wit, certain sensitive powers are acts
of certain parts of the body, according to the disposition of which
these powers are helped or hindered in the exercise of their acts,
and, in consequence, the rational powers also, which the aforesaid
sensitive powers assist. In this way one man has a natural aptitude
for science, another for fortitude, another for temperance: and in
these ways, both intellectual and moral virtues are in us by way of a
natural aptitude, inchoatively, but not perfectly, since nature is
determined to one, while the perfection of these virtues does not
depend on one particular mode of action, but on various modes, in
respect of the various matters, which constitute the sphere of
virtue's action, and according to various circumstances.

It is therefore evident that all virtues are in us by nature,
according to aptitude and inchoation, but not according to
perfection, except the theological virtues, which are entirely from
without.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. For the first two
argue about the nurseries of virtue which are in us by nature,
inasmuch as we are rational beings. The third objection must be taken
in the sense that, owing to the natural disposition which the body
has from birth, one has an aptitude for pity, another for living
temperately, another for some other virtue.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 63, Art. 2]

Whether Any Virtue Is Caused in Us by Habituation?

Objection 1: It would seem that virtues can not be caused in us by
habituation. Because a gloss of Augustine [*Cf. Lib. Sentent.
Prosperi cvi.] commenting on Rom. 14:23, "All that is not of faith is
sin," says: "The whole life of an unbeliever is a sin: and there is
no good without the Sovereign Good. Where knowledge of the truth is
lacking, virtue is a mockery even in the best behaved people." Now
faith cannot be acquired by means of works, but is caused in us by
God, according to Eph. 2:8: "By grace you are saved through faith."
Therefore no acquired virtue can be in us by habituation.

Obj. 2: Further, sin and virtue are contraries, so that they are
incompatible. Now man cannot avoid sin except by the grace of God,
according to Wis. 8:21: "I knew that I could not otherwise be
continent, except God gave it." Therefore neither can any virtues be
caused in us by habituation, but only by the gift of God.

Obj. 3: Further, actions which lead toward virtue, lack the
perfection of virtue. But an effect cannot be more perfect than its
cause. Therefore a virtue cannot be caused by actions that precede it.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that good is more
efficacious than evil. But vicious habits are caused by evil acts.
Much more, therefore, can virtuous habits be caused by good acts.

_I answer that,_ We have spoken above (Q. 51, AA. 2, 3) in a general
way about the production of habits from acts; and speaking now in a
special way of this matter in relation to virtue, we must take note
that, as stated above (Q. 55, AA. 3, 4), man's virtue perfects him in
relation to good. Now since the notion of good consists in "mode,
species, and order," as Augustine states (De Nat. Boni. iii) or in
"number, weight, and measure," as expressed in Wis. 11:21, man's good
must needs be appraised with respect to some rule. Now this rule is
twofold, as stated above (Q. 19, AA. 3, 4), viz. human reason and
Divine Law. And since Divine Law is the higher rule, it extends to
more things, so that whatever is ruled by human reason, is ruled by
the Divine Law too; but the converse does not hold.

It follows that human virtue directed to the good which is defined
according to the rule of human reason can be caused by human acts:
inasmuch as such acts proceed from reason, by whose power and rule
the aforesaid good is established. On the other hand, virtue which
directs man to good as defined by the Divine Law, and not by human
reason, cannot be caused by human acts, the principle of which is
reason, but is produced in us by the Divine operation alone. Hence
Augustine in giving the definition of the latter virtue inserts the
words, "which God works in us without us" (Super Ps. 118, Serm.
xxvi). It is also of these virtues that the First Objection holds
good.

Reply Obj. 2: Mortal sin is incompatible with divinely infused
virtue, especially if this be considered in its perfect state. But
actual sin, even mortal, is compatible with humanly acquired virtue;
because the use of a habit in us is subject to our will, as stated
above (Q. 49, A. 3): and one sinful act does not destroy a habit of
acquired virtue, since it is not an act but a habit, that is directly
contrary to a habit. Wherefore, though man cannot avoid mortal sin
without grace, so as never to sin mortally, yet he is not hindered
from acquiring a habit of virtue, whereby he may abstain from evil in
the majority of cases, and chiefly in matters most opposed to reason.
There are also certain mortal sins which man can nowise avoid without
grace, those, namely, which are directly opposed to the theological
virtues, which are in us through the gift of grace. This, however,
will be more fully explained later (Q. 109, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (A. 1; Q. 51, A. 1), certain seeds or
principles of acquired virtue pre-exist in us by nature. These
principles are more excellent than the virtues acquired through them:
thus the understanding of speculative principles is more excellent
than the science of conclusions, and the natural rectitude of the
reason is more excellent than the rectification of the appetite which
results through the appetite partaking of reason, which rectification
belongs to moral virtue. Accordingly human acts, in so far as they
proceed from higher principles, can cause acquired human virtues.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 63, Art. 3]

Whether Any Moral Virtues Are in Us by Infusion?

Objection 1: It would seem that no virtues besides the theological
virtues are infused in us by God. Because God does not do by Himself,
save perhaps sometimes miraculously, those things that can be done by
second causes; for, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), "it is God's
rule to bring about extremes through the mean." Now intellectual and
moral virtues can be caused in us by our acts, as stated above (A.
2). Therefore it is not reasonable that they should be caused in us
by infusion.

Obj. 2: Further, much less superfluity is found in God's works than
in the works of nature. Now the theological virtues suffice to direct
us to supernatural good. Therefore there are no other supernatural
virtues needing to be caused in us by God.

Obj. 3: Further, nature does not employ two means where one suffices:
much less does God. But God sowed the seeds of virtue in our souls,
according to a gloss on Heb. 1 [*Cf. Jerome on Gal. 1: 15, 16].
Therefore it is unfitting for Him to cause in us other virtues by
means of infusion.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 8:7): "She teacheth temperance
and prudence and justice and fortitude."

_I answer that,_ Effects must needs be proportionate to their causes
and principles. Now all virtues, intellectual and moral, that are
acquired by our actions, arise from certain natural principles
pre-existing in us, as above stated (A. 1; Q. 51, A. 1): instead of
which natural principles, God bestows on us the theological virtues,
whereby we are directed to a supernatural end, as stated (Q. 62, A.
1). Wherefore we need to receive from God other habits corresponding,
in due proportion, to the theological virtues, which habits are to
the theological virtues, what the moral and intellectual virtues are
to the natural principles of virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Some moral and intellectual virtues can indeed be
caused in us by our actions: but such are not proportionate to the
theological virtues. Therefore it was necessary for us to receive,
from God immediately, others that are proportionate to these virtues.

Reply Obj. 2: The theological virtues direct us sufficiently to our
supernatural end, inchoatively: i.e. to God Himself immediately. But
the soul needs further to be perfected by infused virtues in regard
to other things, yet in relation to God.

Reply Obj. 3: The power of those naturally instilled principles does
not extend beyond the capacity of nature. Consequently man needs in
addition to be perfected by other principles in relation to his
supernatural end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 63, Art. 4]

Whether Virtue by Habituation Belongs to the Same Species As Infused
Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that infused virtue does not differ in
species from acquired virtue. Because acquired and infused virtues,
according to what has been said (A. 3), do not differ seemingly, save
in relation to the last end. Now human habits and acts are specified,
not by their last, but by their proximate end. Therefore the infused
moral or intellectual virtue does not differ from the acquired virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, habits are known by their acts. But the act of
infused and acquired temperance is the same, viz. to moderate desires
of touch. Therefore they do not differ in species.

Obj. 3: Further, acquired and infused virtue differ as that which is
wrought by God immediately, from that which is wrought by a creature.
But the man whom God made, is of the same species as a man begotten
naturally; and the eye which He gave to the man born blind, as one
produced by the power of generation. Therefore it seems that acquired
and infused virtue belong to the same species.

_On the contrary,_ Any change introduced into the difference
expressed in a definition involves a difference of species. But the
definition of infused virtue contains the words, "which God works in
us without us," as stated above (Q. 55, A. 4). Therefore acquired
virtue, to which these words cannot apply, is not of the same species
as infused virtue.

_I answer that,_ There is a twofold specific difference among habits.
The first, as stated above (Q. 54, A. 2; Q. 56, A. 2; Q. 60, A. 1),
is taken from the specific and formal aspects of their objects. Now
the object of every virtue is a good considered as in that virtue's
proper matter: thus the object of temperance is a good in respect of
the pleasures connected with the concupiscence of touch. The formal
aspect of this object is from reason which fixes the mean in these
concupiscences: while the material element is something on the part
of the concupiscences. Now it is evident that the mean that is
appointed in such like concupiscences according to the rule of human
reason, is seen under a different aspect from the mean which is fixed
according to Divine rule. For instance, in the consumption of food,
the mean fixed by human reason, is that food should not harm the
health of the body, nor hinder the use of reason: whereas, according
to the Divine rule, it behooves man to "chastise his body, and bring
it into subjection" (1 Cor. 9:27), by abstinence in food, drink and
the like. It is therefore evident that infused and acquired
temperance differ in species; and the same applies to the other
virtues.

The other specific difference among habits is taken from the things
to which they are directed: for a man's health and a horse's are not
of the same species, on account of the difference between the natures
to which their respective healths are directed. In the same sense,
the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3) that citizens have diverse
virtues according as they are well directed to diverse forms of
government. In the same way, too, those infused moral virtues,
whereby men behave well in respect of their being "fellow-citizens
with the saints, and of the household [Douay: 'domestics'] of God"
(Eph. 2:19), differ from the acquired virtues, whereby man behaves
well in respect of human affairs.

Reply Obj. 1: Infused and acquired virtue differ not only in relation
to the ultimate end, but also in relation to their proper objects, as
stated.

Reply Obj. 2: Both acquired and infused temperance moderate desires
for pleasures of touch, but for different reasons, as stated:
wherefore their respective acts are not identical.

Reply Obj. 3: God gave the man born blind an eye for the same act as
the act for which other eyes are formed naturally: consequently it
was of the same species. It would be the same if God wished to give a
man miraculously virtues, such as those that are acquired by acts.
But the case is not so in the question before us, as stated.
________________________

QUESTION 64

OF THE MEAN OF VIRTUE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the properties of virtues: and (1) the mean of
virtue, (2) the connection between virtues, (3) equality of virtues,
(4) the duration of virtues. Under the first head there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether moral virtue observes the mean?

(2) Whether the mean of moral virtue is the real mean or the rational
mean?

(3) Whether the intellectual virtues observe the mean?

(4) Whether the theological virtues do?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 64, Art. 1]

Whether Moral Virtues Observe the Mean?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtue does not observe the
mean. For the nature of a mean is incompatible with that which is
extreme. Now the nature of virtue is to be something extreme; for it
is stated in _De Coelo_ i that "virtue is the limit of power."
Therefore moral virtue does not observe the mean.

Obj. 2: Further, the maximum is not a mean. Now some moral virtues
tend to a maximum: for instance, magnanimity to very great honors,
and magnificence to very large expenditure, as stated in _Ethic._ iv,
2, 3. Therefore not every moral virtue observes the mean.

Obj. 3: Further, if it is essential to a moral virtue to observe the
mean, it follows that a moral virtue is not perfected, but the
contrary corrupted, through tending to something extreme. Now some
moral virtues are perfected by tending to something extreme; thus
virginity, which abstains from all sexual pleasure, observes the
extreme, and is the most perfect chastity: and to give all to the
poor is the most perfect mercy or liberality. Therefore it seems that
it is not essential to moral virtue that it should observe the mean.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "moral
virtue is a habit of choosing the mean."

_I answer that,_ As already explained (Q. 55, A. 3), the nature of
virtue is that it should direct man to good. Now moral virtue is
properly a perfection of the appetitive part of the soul in regard to
some determinate matter: and the measure or rule of the appetitive
movement in respect of appetible objects is the reason. But the good
of that which is measured or ruled consists in its conformity with
its rule: thus the good things made by art is that they follow the
rule of art. Consequently, in things of this sort, evil consists in
discordance from their rule or measure. Now this may happen either by
their exceeding the measure or by their falling short of it; as is
clearly the case in all things ruled or measured. Hence it is evident
that the good of moral virtue consists in conformity with the rule of
reason. Now it is clear that between excess and deficiency the mean
is equality or conformity. Therefore it is evident that moral virtue
observes the mean.

Reply Obj. 1: Moral virtue derives goodness from the rule of reason,
while its matter consists in passions or operations. If therefore we
compare moral virtue to reason, then, if we look at that which it has
of reason, it holds the position of one extreme, viz. conformity;
while excess and defect take the position of the other extreme, viz.
deformity. But if we consider moral virtue in respect of its matter,
then it holds the position of mean, in so far as it makes the passion
conform to the rule of reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii,
6) that "virtue, as to its essence, is a mean state," in so far as
the rule of virtue is imposed on its proper matter: "but it is an
extreme in reference to the 'best' and the 'excellent, '" viz. as to
its conformity with reason.

Reply Obj. 2: In actions and passions the mean and the extremes
depend on various circumstances: hence nothing hinders something from
being extreme in a particular virtue as to one circumstance, while
the same thing is a mean in respect of other circumstances, through
being in conformity with reason. This is the case with magnanimity
and magnificence. For if we look at the absolute quantity of the
respective objects of these virtues, we shall call it an extreme and
a maximum: but if we consider the quantity in relation to other
circumstances, then it has the character of a mean: since these
virtues tend to this maximum in accordance with the rule of reason,
i.e. _where_ it is right, _when_ it is right, and for an _end_ that
is right. There will be excess, if one tends to this maximum _when_
it is not right, or _where_ it is not right, or for an undue _end;_
and there will be deficiency if one fails to tend thereto _where_ one
ought, and _when_ one ought. This agrees with the saying of the
Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3) that the "magnanimous man observes the
extreme in quantity, but the mean in the right mode of his action."

Reply Obj. 3: The same is to be said of virginity and poverty as of
magnanimity. For virginity abstains from all sexual matters, and
poverty from all wealth, for a right end, and in a right manner, i.e.
according to God's word, and for the sake of eternal life. But if
this be done in an undue manner, i.e. out of unlawful superstition,
or again for vainglory, it will be in excess. And if it be not done
when it ought to be done, or as it ought to be done, it is a vice by
deficiency: for instance, in those who break their vows of virginity
or poverty.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 64, Art. 2]

Whether the Mean of Moral Virtue Is the Real Mean, or the Rational
Mean?

Objection 1: It would seem that the mean of moral virtue is not the
rational mean, but the real mean. For the good of moral virtue
consists in its observing the mean. Now, good, as stated in _Metaph._
ii, text. 8, is in things themselves. Therefore the mean of moral
virtue is a real mean.

Obj. 2: Further, the reason is a power of apprehension. But moral
virtue does not observe a mean between apprehensions, but rather a
mean between operations or passions. Therefore the mean of moral
virtue is not the rational, but the real mean.

Obj. 3: Further, a mean that is observed according to arithmetical or
geometrical proportion is a real mean. Now such is the mean of
justice, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 3. Therefore the mean of moral
virtue is not the rational, but the real mean.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "moral
virtue observes the mean fixed, in our regard, by reason."

_I answer that,_ The rational mean can be understood in two ways.
First, according as the mean is observed in the act itself of reason,
as though the very act of reason were made to observe the mean: in
this sense, since moral virtue perfects not the act of reason, but
the act of the appetitive power, the mean of moral virtue is not the
rational mean. Secondly, the mean of reason may be considered as that
which the reason puts into some particular matter. In this sense
every mean of moral virtue is a rational mean, since, as above stated
(A. 1), moral virtue is said to observe the mean, through conformity
with right reason.

But it happens sometimes that the rational mean is also the real
mean: in which case the mean of moral virtue is the real mean, for
instance, in justice. On the other hand, sometimes the rational mean
is not the real mean, but is considered in relation to us: and such
is the mean in all the other moral virtues. The reason for this is
that justice is about operations, which deal with external things,
wherein the right has to be established simply and absolutely, as
stated above (Q. 60, A. 2): wherefore the rational mean in justice is
the same as the real mean, in so far, to wit as justice gives to each
one his due, neither more nor less. But the other moral virtues deal
with interior passions wherein the right cannot be established in the
same way, since men are variously situated in relation to their
passions; hence the rectitude of reason has to be established in the
passions, with due regard to us, who are moved in respect of the
passions.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. For the first two
arguments take the rational mean as being in the very act of reason,
while the third argues from the mean of justice.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 64, Art. 3]

Whether the Intellectual Virtues Observe the Mean?

Objection 1: It would seem that the intellectual virtues do not
observe the mean. Because moral virtue observes the mean by
conforming to the rule of reason. But the intellectual virtues are in
reason itself, so that they seem to have no higher rule. Therefore
the intellectual virtues do not observe the mean.

Obj. 2: Further, the mean of moral virtue is fixed by an intellectual
virtue: for it is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 6, that "virtue observes the
mean appointed by reason, as a prudent man would appoint it." If
therefore intellectual virtue also observe the mean, this mean will
have to be appointed for them by another virtue, so that there would
be an indefinite series of virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, a mean is, properly speaking, between contraries, as
the Philosopher explains (Metaph. x, text. 22, 23). But there seems
to be no contrariety in the intellect; since contraries themselves,
as they are in the intellect, are not in opposition to one another,
but are understood together, as white and black, healthy and sick.
Therefore there is no mean in the intellectual virtues.

_On the contrary,_ Art is an intellectual virtue; and yet there is a
mean in art (Ethic. ii, 6). Therefore also intellectual virtue
observes the mean.

_I answer that,_ The good of anything consists in its observing the
mean, by conforming with a rule or measure in respect of which it may
happen to be excessive or deficient, as stated above (A. 1). Now
intellectual virtue, like moral virtue, is directed to the good, as
stated above (Q. 56, A. 3). Hence the good of an intellectual virtue
consists in observing the mean, in so far as it is subject to a
measure. Now the good of intellectual virtue is the true; in the case
of contemplative virtue, it is the true taken absolutely (Ethic. vi,
2); in the case of practical virtue, it is the true in conformity
with a right appetite.

Now truth apprehended by our intellect, if we consider it absolutely,
is measured by things; since things are the measure of our intellect,
as stated in _Metaph._ x, text. 5; because there is truth in what we
think or say, according as the thing is so or not. Accordingly the
good of speculative intellectual virtue consists in a certain mean,
by way of conformity with things themselves, in so far as the
intellect expresses them as being what they are, or as not being what
they are not: and it is in this that the nature of truth consists.
There will be excess if something false is affirmed, as though
something were, which in reality it is not: and there will be
deficiency if something is falsely denied, and declared not to be,
whereas in reality it is.

The truth of practical intellectual virtue, if we consider it in
relation to things, is by way of that which is measured; so that both
in practical and in speculative intellectual virtues, the mean
consists in conformity with things. But if we consider it in relation
to the appetite, it has the character of a rule and measure.
Consequently the rectitude of reason is the mean of moral virtue, and
also the mean of prudence--of prudence as ruling and measuring, of
moral virtue, as ruled and measured by that mean. In like manner the
difference between excess and deficiency is to be applied in both
cases.

Reply Obj. 1: Intellectual virtues also have their measure, as
stated, and they observe the mean according as they conform to that
measure.

Reply Obj. 2: There is no need for an indefinite series of virtues:
because the measure and rule of intellectual virtue is not another
kind of virtue, but things themselves.

Reply Obj. 3: The things themselves that are contrary have no
contrariety in the mind, because one is the reason for knowing the
other: nevertheless there is in the intellect contrariety of
affirmation and negation, which are contraries, as stated at the end
of _Peri Hermen[e]ias._ For though "to be" and "not to be" are not in
contrary, but in contradictory opposition to one another, so long as
we consider their signification in things themselves, for on the one
hand we have "being" and on the other we have simply "non-being"; yet
if we refer them to the act of the mind, there is something positive
in both cases. Hence "to be" and "not to be" are contradictory: but
the opinion stating that "good is good" is contrary to the opinion
stating that "good is not good": and between two such contraries
intellectual virtue observes the mean.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 64, Art. 4]

Whether the Theological Virtues Observe the Mean?

Objection 1: It would seem that theological virtue observes the mean.
For the good of other virtues consists in their observing the mean.
Now the theological virtues surpass the others in goodness. Therefore
much more does theological virtue observe the mean.

Obj. 2: Further, the mean of moral virtue depends on the appetite
being ruled by reason; while the mean of intellectual virtue consists
in the intellect being measured by things. Now theological virtue
perfects both intellect and appetite, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 3).
Therefore theological virtue also observes the mean.

Obj. 3: Further, hope, which is a theological virtue, is a mean
between despair and presumption. Likewise faith holds a middle course
between contrary heresies, as Boethius states (De Duab. Natur. vii):
thus, by confessing one Person and two natures in Christ, we observe
the mean between the heresy of Nestorius, who maintained the
existence of two persons and two natures, and the heresy of Eutyches,
who held to one person and one nature. Therefore theological virtue
observes the mean.

_On the contrary,_ Wherever virtue observes the mean it is possible
to sin by excess as well as by deficiency. But there is no sinning by
excess against God, Who is the object of theological virtue: for it
is written (Ecclus. 43:33): "Blessing the Lord, exalt Him as much as
you can: for He is above all praise." Therefore theological virtue
does not observe the mean.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the mean of virtue depends
on conformity with virtue's rule or measure, in so far as one may
exceed or fall short of that rule. Now the measure of theological
virtue may be twofold. One is taken from the very nature of virtue,
and thus the measure and rule of theological virtue is God Himself:
because our faith is ruled according to Divine truth; charity,
according to His goodness; hope, according to the immensity of His
omnipotence and loving kindness. This measure surpasses all human
power: so that never can we love God as much as He ought to be loved,
nor believe and hope in Him as much as we should. Much less therefore
can there be excess in such things. Accordingly the good of such
virtues does not consist in a mean, but increases the more we
approach to the summit.

The other rule or measure of theological virtue is by comparison with
us: for although we cannot be borne towards God as much as we ought,
yet we should approach to Him by believing, hoping and loving,
according to the measure of our condition. Consequently it is
possible to find a mean and extremes in theological virtue,
accidentally and in reference to us.

Reply Obj. 1: The good of intellectual and moral virtues consists in
a mean of reason by conformity with a measure that may be exceeded:
whereas this is not so in the case of theological virtue, considered
in itself, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Moral and intellectual virtues perfect our intellect
and appetite in relation to a created measure and rule; whereas the
theological virtues perfect them in relation to an uncreated rule and
measure. Wherefore the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope observes the mean between presumption and
despair, in relation to us, in so far, to wit, as a man is said to be
presumptuous, through hoping to receive from God a good in excess of
his condition; or to despair through failing to hope for that which
according to his condition he might hope for. But there can be no
excess of hope in comparison with God, Whose goodness is infinite. In
like manner faith holds a middle course between contrary heresies, not
by comparison with its object, which is God, in Whom we cannot believe
too much; but in so far as human opinion itself takes a middle
position between contrary opinions, as was explained above.
________________________

QUESTION 65

OF THE CONNECTION OF VIRTUES
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider the connection of virtues: under which head
there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the moral virtues are connected with one another?

(2) Whether the moral virtues can be without charity?

(3) Whether charity can be without them?

(4) Whether faith and hope can be without charity?

(5) Whether charity can be without them?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 65, Art. 1]

Whether the Moral Virtues Are Connected with One Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues are not connected
with one another. Because moral virtues are sometimes caused by the
exercise of acts, as is proved in _Ethic._ ii, 1, 2. But man can
exercise himself in the acts of one virtue, without exercising
himself in the acts of some other virtue. Therefore it is possible to
have one moral virtue without another.

Obj. 2: Further, magnificence and magnanimity are moral virtues. Now
a man may have other moral virtues without having magnificence or
magnanimity: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 2, 3) that "a poor
man cannot be magnificent," and yet he may have other virtues; and
(Ethic. iv) that "he who is worthy of small things, and so accounts
his worth, is modest, but not magnanimous." Therefore the moral
virtues are not connected with one another.

Obj. 3: Further, as the moral virtues perfect the appetitive part of
the soul, so do the intellectual virtues perfect the intellective
part. But the intellectual virtues are not mutually connected: since
we may have one science, without having another. Neither, therefore,
are the moral virtues connected with one another.

Obj. 4: Further, if the moral virtues are mutually connected, this
can only be because they are united together in prudence. But this
does not suffice to connect the moral virtues together. For,
seemingly, one may be prudent about things to be done in relation to
one virtue, without being prudent in those that concern another
virtue: even as one may have the art of making certain things,
without the art of making certain others. Now prudence is right
reason about things to be done. Therefore the moral virtues are not
necessarily connected with one another.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says on Luke 6:20: "The virtues are
connected and linked together, so that whoever has one, is seen to
have several": and Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 4) that "the virtues
that reside in the human mind are quite inseparable from one
another": and Gregory says (Moral. xxii, 1) that "one virtue without
the other is either of no account whatever, or very imperfect": and
Cicero says (Quaest. Tusc. ii): "If you confess to not having one
particular virtue, it must needs be that you have none at all."

_I answer that,_ Moral virtue may be considered either as perfect or
as imperfect. An imperfect moral virtue, temperance for instance, or
fortitude, is nothing but an inclination in us to do some kind of
good deed, whether such inclination be in us by nature or by
habituation. If we take the moral virtues in this way, they are not
connected: since we find men who, by natural temperament or by being
accustomed, are prompt in doing deeds of liberality, but are not
prompt in doing deeds of chastity.

But the perfect moral virtue is a habit that inclines us to do a good
deed well; and if we take moral virtues in this way, we must say that
they are connected, as nearly as all are agreed in saying. For this
two reasons are given, corresponding to the different ways of
assigning the distinction of the cardinal virtues. For, as we stated
above (Q. 61, AA. 3, 4), some distinguish them according to certain
general properties of the virtues: for instance, by saying that
discretion belongs to prudence, rectitude to justice, moderation to
temperance, and strength of mind to fortitude, in whatever matter we
consider these properties to be. In this way the reason for the
connection is evident: for strength of mind is not commended as
virtuous, if it be without moderation or rectitude or discretion: and
so forth. This, too, is the reason assigned for the connection by
Gregory, who says (Moral. xxii, 1) that "a virtue cannot be perfect"
as a virtue, "if isolated from the others: for there can be no true
prudence without temperance, justice and fortitude": and he continues
to speak in like manner of the other virtues (cf. Q. 61, A. 4, Obj.
1). Augustine also gives the same reason (De Trin. vi, 4).

Others, however, differentiate these virtues in respect of their
matters, and it is in this way that Aristotle assigns the reason for
their connection (Ethic. vi, 13). Because, as stated above (Q. 58, A.
4), no moral virtue can be without prudence; since it is proper to
moral virtue to make a right choice, for it is an elective habit. Now
right choice requires not only the inclination to a due end, which
inclination is the direct outcome of moral virtue, but also correct
choice of things conducive to the end, which choice is made by
prudence, that counsels, judges, and commands in those things that
are directed to the end. In like manner one cannot have prudence
unless one has the moral virtues: since prudence is "right reason
about things to be done," and the starting point of reason is the end
of the thing to be done, to which end man is rightly disposed by
moral virtue. Hence, just as we cannot have speculative science
unless we have the understanding of the principles, so neither can we
have prudence without the moral virtues: and from this it follows
clearly that the moral virtues are connected with one another.

Reply Obj. 1: Some moral virtues perfect man as regards his general
state, in other words, with regard to those things which have to be
done in every kind of human life. Hence man needs to exercise himself
at the same time in the matters of all moral virtues. And if he
exercise himself, by good deeds, in all such matters, he will acquire
the habits of all the moral virtues. But if he exercise himself by
good deeds in regard to one matter, but not in regard to another, for
instance, by behaving well in matters of anger, but not in matters of
concupiscence; he will indeed acquire a certain habit of restraining
his anger; but this habit will lack the nature of virtue, through the
absence of prudence, which is wanting in matters of concupiscence. In
the same way, natural inclinations fail to have the complete
character of virtue, if prudence be lacking.

But there are some moral virtues which perfect man with regard to
some eminent state, such as magnificence and magnanimity; and since
it does not happen to all in common to be exercised in the matter of
such virtues, it is possible for a man to have the other moral
virtues, without actually having the habits of these
virtues--provided we speak of acquired virtue. Nevertheless, when
once a man has acquired those other virtues he possesses these in
proximate potentiality. Because when, by practice, a man has acquired
liberality in small gifts and expenditure, if he were to come in for
a large sum of money, he would acquire the habit of magnificence with
but little practice: even as a geometrician, by dint of little study,
acquires scientific knowledge about some conclusion which had never
been presented to his mind before. Now we speak of having a thing
when we are on the point of having it, according to the saying of the
Philosopher (Phys. ii, text. 56): "That which is scarcely lacking is
not lacking at all."

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellectual virtues are about divers matters
having no relation to one another, as is clearly the case with the
various sciences and arts. Hence we do not observe in them the
connection that is to be found among the moral virtues, which are
about passions and operations, that are clearly related to one
another. For all the passions have their rise in certain initial
passions, viz. love and hatred, and terminate in certain others, viz.
pleasure and sorrow. In like manner all the operations that are the
matter of moral virtue are related to one another, and to the
passions. Hence the whole matter of moral virtues falls under the one
rule of prudence.

Nevertheless, all intelligible things are related to first
principles. And in this way, all the intellectual virtues depend on
the understanding of principles; even as prudence depends on the
moral virtues, as stated. On the other hand, the universal principles
which are the object of the virtue of understanding of principles, do
not depend on the conclusions, which are the objects of the other
intellectual virtues, as do the moral virtues depend on prudence,
because the appetite, in a fashion, moves the reason, and the reason
the appetite, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1; Q. 58, A. 5, ad 1).

Reply Obj. 4: Those things to which the moral virtues incline, are as
the principles of prudence: whereas the products of art are not the
principles, but the matter of art. Now it is evident that, though
reason may be right in one part of the matter, and not in another,
yet in no way can it be called right reason, if it be deficient in
any principle whatever. Thus, if a man be wrong about the principle,
"A whole is greater than its part," he cannot acquire the science of
geometry, because he must necessarily wander from the truth in his
conclusion. Moreover, things _done_ are related to one another, but
not things _made,_ as stated above (ad 3). Consequently the lack of
prudence in one department of things to be done, would result in a
deficiency affecting other things to be done: whereas this does not
occur in things to be made.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 65, Art. 2]

Whether Moral Virtues Can Be Without Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtues can be without charity.
For it is stated in the _Liber Sentent. Prosperi_ vii, that "every
virtue save charity may be common to the good and bad." But "charity
can be in none except the good," as stated in the same book.
Therefore the other virtues can be had without charity.

Obj. 2: Further, moral virtues can be acquired by means of human
acts, as stated in _Ethic._ ii, 1, 2, whereas charity cannot be had
otherwise than by infusion, according to Rom. 5:5: "The charity of
God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who is given to
us." Therefore it is possible to have the other virtues without
charity.

Obj. 3: Further, the moral virtues are connected together, through
depending on prudence. But charity does not depend on prudence;
indeed, it surpasses prudence, according to Eph. 3:19: "The charity
of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge." Therefore the moral
virtues are not connected with charity, and can be without it.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 3:14): "He that loveth not,
abideth in death." Now the spiritual life is perfected by the
virtues, since it is "by them" that "we lead a good life," as
Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. ii, 17, 19). Therefore they cannot be
without the love of charity.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 63, A. 2), it is possible by
means of human works to acquire moral virtues, in so far as they
produce good works that are directed to an end not surpassing the
natural power of man: and when they are acquired thus, they can be
without charity, even as they were in many of the Gentiles. But in so
far as they produce good works in proportion to a supernatural last
end, thus they have the character of virtue, truly and perfectly; and
cannot be acquired by human acts, but are infused by God. Such like
moral virtues cannot be without charity. For it has been stated above
(A. 1; Q. 58, AA. 4, 5) that the other moral virtues cannot be
without prudence; and that prudence cannot be without the moral
virtues, because these latter make man well disposed to certain ends,
which are the starting-point of the procedure of prudence. Now for
prudence to proceed aright, it is much more necessary that man be
well disposed towards his ultimate end, which is the effect of
charity, than that he be well disposed in respect of other ends,
which is the effect of moral virtue: just as in speculative matters
right reason has greatest need of the first indemonstrable principle,
that "contradictories cannot both be true at the same time." It is
therefore evident that neither can infused prudence be without
charity; nor, consequently, the other moral virtues, since they
cannot be without prudence.

It is therefore clear from what has been said that only the infused
virtues are perfect, and deserve to be called virtues simply: since
they direct man well to the ultimate end. But the other virtues,
those, namely, that are acquired, are virtues in a restricted sense,
but not simply: for they direct man well in respect of the last end
in some particular genus of action, but not in respect of the last
end simply. Hence a gloss of Augustine [*Cf. Lib. Sentent. Prosperi
cvi.] on the words, "All that is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23),
says: "He that fails to acknowledge the truth, has no true virtue,
even if his conduct be good."

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue, in the words quoted, denotes imperfect virtue.
Else if we take moral virtue in its perfect state, "it makes its
possessor good," and consequently cannot be in the wicked.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument holds good of virtue in the sense of
acquired virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: Though charity surpasses science and prudence, yet
prudence depends on charity, as stated: and consequently so do all
the infused moral virtues.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 65, Art. 3]

Whether Charity Can Be Without Moral Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem possible to have charity without the moral
virtues. For when one thing suffices for a certain purpose, it is
superfluous to employ others. Now charity alone suffices for the
fulfilment of all the works of virtue, as is clear from 1 Cor. 13:4,
seqq.: "Charity is patient, is kind," etc. Therefore it seems that if
one has charity, other virtues are superfluous.

Obj. 2: Further, he that has a habit of virtue easily performs the
works of that virtue, and those works are pleasing to him for their
own sake: hence "pleasure taken in a work is a sign of habit" (Ethic.
ii, 3). Now many have charity, being free from mortal sin, and yet
they find it difficult to do works of virtue; nor are these works
pleasing to them for their own sake, but only for the sake of
charity. Therefore many have charity without the other virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, charity is to be found in every saint: and yet there
are some saints who are without certain virtues. For Bede says (on
Luke 17:10) that the saints are more humbled on account of their not
having certain virtues, than rejoiced at the virtues they have.
Therefore, if a man has charity, it does not follow of necessity that
he has all the moral virtues.

_On the contrary,_ The whole Law is fulfilled through charity, for it
is written (Rom. 13:8): "He that loveth his neighbor, hath fulfilled
the Law." Now it is not possible to fulfil the whole Law, without
having all the moral virtues: since the law contains precepts about
all acts of virtue, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 1, 2. Therefore he that
has charity, has all the moral virtues. Moreover, Augustine says in a
letter (Epis. clxvii) [*Cf. Serm. xxxix and xlvi de Temp.] that
charity contains all the cardinal virtues.

_I answer that,_ All the moral virtues are infused together with
charity. The reason for this is that God operates no less perfectly
in works of grace than in works of nature. Now, in the works of
nature, we find that whenever a thing contains a principle of certain
works, it has also whatever is necessary for their execution: thus
animals are provided with organs whereby to perform the actions that
their souls empower them to do. Now it is evident that charity,
inasmuch as it directs man to his last end, is the principle of all
the good works that are referable to his last end. Wherefore all the
moral virtues must needs be infused together with charity, since it
is through them that man performs each different kind of good work.

It is therefore clear that the infused moral virtues are connected,
not only through prudence, but also on account of charity: and,
again, that whoever loses charity through mortal sin, forfeits all
the infused moral virtues.

Reply Obj. 1: In order that the act of a lower power be perfect, not
only must there be perfection in the higher, but also in the lower
power: for if the principal agent were well disposed, perfect action
would not follow, if the instrument also were not well disposed.
Consequently, in order that man work well in things referred to the
end, he needs not only a virtue disposing him well to the end, but
also those virtues which dispose him well to whatever is referred to
the end: for the virtue which regards the end is the chief and moving
principle in respect of those things that are referred to the end.
Therefore it is necessary to have the moral virtues together with
charity.

Reply Obj. 2: It happens sometimes that a man who has a habit, finds
it difficult to act in accordance with the habit, and consequently
feels no pleasure and complacency in the act, on account of some
impediment supervening from without: thus a man who has a habit of
science, finds it difficult to understand, through being sleepy or
unwell. In like manner sometimes the habits of moral virtue
experience difficulty in their works, by reason of certain ordinary
dispositions remaining from previous acts. This difficulty does not
occur in respect of acquired moral virtue: because the repeated acts
by which they are acquired, remove also the contrary dispositions.

Reply Obj. 3: Certain saints are said not to have certain virtues, in
so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues,
for the reason stated; although they have the habits of all the
virtues.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 65, Art. 4]

Whether Faith and Hope Can Be Without Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that faith and hope are never without
charity. Because, since they are theological virtues, they seem to be
more excellent than even the infused moral virtues. But the infused
moral virtues cannot be without charity. Neither therefore can faith
and hope be without charity.

Obj. 2: Further, "no man believes unwillingly" as Augustine says
(Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But charity is in the will as a perfection
thereof, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 3). Therefore faith cannot be
without charity.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion viii) that "there can be
no hope without love." But love is charity: for it is of this love
that he speaks. Therefore hope cannot be without charity.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Matt. 1:2 says that "faith begets hope,
and hope, charity." Now the begetter precedes the begotten, and can
be without it. Therefore faith can be without hope; and hope, without
charity.

_I answer that,_ Faith and hope, like the moral virtues, can be
considered in two ways; first in an inchoate state; secondly, as
complete virtues. For since virtue is directed to the doing of good
works, perfect virtue is that which gives the faculty of doing a
perfectly good work, and this consists in not only doing what is
good, but also in doing it well. Else, if what is done is good, but
not well done, it will not be perfectly good; wherefore neither will
the habit that is the principle of such an act, have the perfect
character of virtue. For instance, if a man do what is just, what he
does is good: but it will not be the work of a perfect virtue unless
he do it well, i.e. by choosing rightly, which is the result of
prudence; for which reason justice cannot be a perfect virtue without
prudence.

Accordingly faith and hope can exist indeed in a fashion without
charity: but they have not the perfect character of virtue without
charity. For, since the act of faith is to believe in God; and since
to believe is to assent to someone of one's own free will: to will
not as one ought, will not be a perfect act of faith. To will as one
ought is the outcome of charity which perfects the will: since every
right movement of the will proceeds from a right love, as Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9). Hence faith may be without charity, but
not as a perfect virtue: just as temperance and fortitude can be
without prudence. The same applies to hope. Because the act of hope
consists in looking to God for future bliss. This act is perfect, if
it is based on the merits which we have; and this cannot be without
charity. But to expect future bliss through merits which one has not
yet, but which one proposes to acquire at some future time, will be
an imperfect act; and this is possible without charity. Consequently,
faith and hope can be without charity; yet, without charity, they are
not virtues properly so-called; because the nature of virtue requires
that by it, we should not only do what is good, but also that we
should do it well (Ethic. ii, 6).

Reply Obj. 1: Moral virtue depends on prudence: and not even infused
prudence has the character of prudence without charity; for this
involves the absence of due order to the first principle, viz. the
ultimate end. On the other hand faith and hope, as such, do not
depend either on prudence or charity; so that they can be without
charity, although they are not virtues without charity, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument is true of faith considered as a perfect
virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: Augustine is speaking here of that hope whereby we look
to gain future bliss through merits which we have already; and this
is not without charity.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 65, Art. 5]

Whether Charity Can Be Without Faith and Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that charity can be without faith and
hope. For charity is the love of God. But it is possible for us to
love God naturally, without already having faith, or hope in future
bliss. Therefore charity can be without faith and hope.

Obj. 2: Further, charity is the root of all the virtues, according to
Eph. 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity." Now the root is sometimes
without branches. Therefore charity can sometimes be without faith
and hope, and the other virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, there was perfect charity in Christ. And yet He had
neither faith nor hope: because He was a perfect comprehensor, as we
shall explain further on (III, Q. 7, AA. 3, 4). Therefore charity can
be without faith and hope.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 11:6): "Without faith it is
impossible to please God"; and this evidently belongs most to
charity, according to Prov. 8:17: "I love them that love me." Again,
it is by hope that we are brought to charity, as stated above (Q. 62,
A. 4). Therefore it is not possible to have charity without faith and
hope.

_I answer that,_ Charity signifies not only the love of God, but also
a certain friendship with Him; which implies, besides love, a certain
mutual return of love, together with mutual communion, as stated in
_Ethic._ viii, 2. That this belongs to charity is evident from 1 John
4:16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him,"
and from 1 Cor. 1:9, where it is written: "God is faithful, by Whom
you are called unto the fellowship of His Son." Now this fellowship
of man with God, which consists in a certain familiar colloquy with
Him, is begun here, in this life, by grace, but will be perfected in
the future life, by glory; each of which things we hold by faith and
hope. Wherefore just as friendship with a person would be impossible,
if one disbelieved in, or despaired of, the possibility of their
fellowship or familiar colloquy; so too, friendship with God, which
is charity, is impossible without faith, so as to believe in this
fellowship and colloquy with God, and to hope to attain to this
fellowship. Therefore charity is quite impossible without faith and
hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Charity is not any kind of love of God, but that love
of God, by which He is loved as the object of bliss, to which object
we are directed by faith and hope.

Reply Obj. 2: Charity is the root of faith and hope, in so far as it
gives them the perfection of virtue. But faith and hope as such are
the precursors of charity, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 4), and so
charity is impossible without them.

Reply Obj. 3: In Christ there was neither faith nor hope, on account
of their implying an imperfection. But instead of faith, He had
manifest vision, and instead of hope, full comprehension [*See above,
Q. 4, A. 3]: so that in Him was perfect charity.
________________________

QUESTION 66

OF EQUALITY AMONG THE VIRTUES
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider equality among the virtues: under which head
there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether one virtue can be greater or less than another?

(2) Whether all the virtues existing together in one subject are
equal?

(3) Of moral virtue in comparison with intellectual virtue;

(4) Of the moral virtues as compared with one another;

(5) Of the intellectual virtues in comparison with one another;

(6) Of the theological virtues in comparison with one another.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 1]

Whether One Virtue Can Be Greater or Less Than Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that one virtue cannot be greater or less
than another. For it is written (Apoc. 21:16) that the sides of the
city of Jerusalem are equal; and a gloss says that the sides denote
the virtues. Therefore all virtues are equal; and consequently one
cannot be greater than another.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing that, by its nature, consists in a maximum,
cannot be more or less. Now the nature of virtue consists in a
maximum, for virtue is "the limit of power," as the Philosopher
states (De Coelo i, text. 116); and Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii,
19) that "virtues are very great boons, and no one can use them to
evil purpose." Therefore it seems that one virtue cannot be greater
or less than another.

Obj. 3: Further, the quantity of an effect is measured by the power
of the agent. But perfect, viz. infused virtues, are from God Whose
power is uniform and infinite. Therefore it seems that one virtue
cannot be greater than another.

_On the contrary,_ Wherever there can be increase and greater
abundance, there can be inequality. Now virtues admit of greater
abundance and increase: for it is written (Matt. 5:20): "Unless your
justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven": and (Prov. 15:5): "In abundant
justice there is the greatest strength (_virtus_)." Therefore it
seems that a virtue can be greater or less than another.

_I answer that,_ When it is asked whether one virtue can be greater
than another, the question can be taken in two senses. First, as
applying to virtues of different species. In this sense it is clear
that one virtue is greater than another; since a cause is always more
excellent than its effect; and among effects, those nearest to the
cause are the most excellent. Now it is clear from what has been said
(Q. 18, A. 5; Q. 61, A. 2) that the cause and root of human good is
the reason. Hence prudence which perfects the reason, surpasses in
goodness the other moral virtues which perfect the appetitive power,
in so far as it partakes of reason. And among these, one is better
than another, according as it approaches nearer to the reason.
Consequently justice, which is in the will, excels the remaining
moral virtues; and fortitude, which is in the irascible part, stands
before temperance, which is in the concupiscible, which has a smaller
share of reason, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6.

The question can be taken in another way, as referring to virtues of
the same species. In this way, according to what was said above (Q.
52, A. 1), when we were treating of the intensity of habits, virtue
may be said to be greater or less in two ways: first, in itself;
secondly with regard to the subject that partakes of it. If we
consider it in itself, we shall call it great or little, according to
the things to which it extends. Now whosoever has a virtue, e.g.
temperance, has it in respect of whatever temperance extends to. But
this does not apply to science and art: for every grammarian does not
know everything relating to grammar. And in this sense the Stoics
said rightly, as Simplicius states in his _Commentary on the
Predicaments,_ that virtue cannot be more or less, as science and art
can; because the nature of virtue consists in a maximum.

If, however, we consider virtue on the part of the subject, it may
then be greater or less, either in relation to different times, or in
different men. Because one man is better disposed than another to
attain to the mean of virtue which is defined by right reason; and
this, on account of either greater habituation, or a better natural
disposition, or a more discerning judgment of reason, or again a
greater gift of grace, which is given to each one "according to the
measure of the giving of Christ," as stated in Eph. 4:9. And here the
Stoics erred, for they held that no man should be deemed virtuous,
unless he were, in the highest degree, disposed to virtue. Because
the nature of virtue does not require that man should reach the mean
of right reason as though it were an indivisible point, as the Stoics
thought; but it is enough that he should approach the mean, as stated
in _Ethic._ ii, 6. Moreover, one same indivisible mark is reached
more nearly and more readily by one than by another: as may be seen
when several archers aim at a fixed target.

Reply Obj. 1: This equality is not one of absolute quantity, but of
proportion: because all virtues grow in a man proportionately, as we
shall see further on (A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: This "limit" which belongs to virtue, can have the
character of something _more_ or _less_ good, in the ways explained
above: since, as stated, it is not an indivisible limit.

Reply Obj. 3: God does not work by necessity of nature, but according
to the order of His wisdom, whereby He bestows on men various
measures of virtue, according to Eph. 4:7: "To every one of you
[Vulg.: 'us'] is given grace according to the measure of the giving
of Christ."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 2]

Whether All the Virtues That Are Together in One Man, Are Equal?

Objection 1: It would seem that the virtues in one same man are not
all equally intense. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:7): "Everyone
hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another
after that." Now one gift would not be more proper than another to a
man, if God infused all the virtues equally into each man. Therefore
it seems that the virtues are not all equal in one and the same man.

Obj. 2: Further, if all the virtues were equally intense in one and
the same man, it would follow that whoever surpasses another in one
virtue, would surpass him in all the others. But this is clearly not
the case: since various saints are specially praised for different
virtues; e.g. Abraham for faith (Rom. 4), Moses for his meekness
(Num. 7:3), Job for his patience (Tob. 2:12). This is why of each
Confessor the Church sings: "There was not found his like in keeping
the law of the most High," [*See _Lesson_ in the Mass _Statuit_
(Dominican Missal)], since each one was remarkable for some virtue or
other. Therefore the virtues are not all equal in one and the same
man.

Obj. 3: Further, the more intense a habit is, the greater one's
pleasure and readiness in making use of it. Now experience shows that
a man is more pleased and ready to make use of one virtue than of
another. Therefore the virtues are not all equal in one and the same
man.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 4) that "those who
are equal in fortitude are equal in prudence and temperance," and so
on. Now it would not be so, unless all the virtues in one man were
equal. Therefore all virtues are equal in one man.

_I answer that,_ As explained above (A. 1), the comparative greatness
of virtues can be understood in two ways. First, as referring to
their specific nature: and in this way there is no doubt that in a
man one virtue is greater than another, for example, charity, than
faith and hope. Secondly, it may be taken as referring to the degree
of participation by the subject, according as a virtue becomes
intense or remiss in its subject. In this sense all the virtues in
one man are equal with an equality of proportion, in so far as their
growth in man is equal: thus the fingers are unequal in size, but
equal in proportion, since they grow in proportion to one another.

Now the nature of this equality is to be explained in the same way as
the connection of virtues; for equality among virtues is their
connection as to greatness. Now it has been stated above (Q. 65, A.
1) that a twofold connection of virtues may be assigned. The first is
according to the opinion of those who understood these four virtues
to be four general properties of virtues, each of which is found
together with the other in any matter. In this way virtues cannot be
said to be equal in any matter unless they have all these properties
equal. Augustine alludes to this kind of equality (De Trin. vi, 4)
when he says: "If you say these men are equal in fortitude, but that
one is more prudent than the other; it follows that the fortitude of
the latter is less prudent. Consequently they are not really equal in
fortitude, since the former's fortitude is more prudent. You will
find that this applies to the other virtues if you run over them all
in the same way."

The other kind of connection among virtues followed the opinion of
those who hold these virtues to have their own proper respective
matters (Q. 65, AA. 1, 2). In this way the connection among moral
virtues results from prudence, and, as to the infused virtues, from
charity, and not from the inclination, which is on the part of the
subject, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1). Accordingly the nature of the
equality among virtues can also be considered on the part of
prudence, in regard to that which is formal in all the moral virtues:
for in one and the same man, so long as his reason has the same
degree of perfection, the mean will be proportionately defined
according to right reason in each matter of virtue.

But in regard to that which is material in the moral virtues, viz.
the inclination to the virtuous act, one may be readier to perform
the act of one virtue, than the act of another virtue, and this
either from nature, or from habituation, or again by the grace of God.

Reply Obj. 1: This saying of the Apostle may be taken to refer to the
gifts of gratuitous grace, which are not common to all, nor are all
of them equal in the one same subject. We might also say that it
refers to the measure of sanctifying grace, by reason of which one
man has all the virtues in greater abundance than another man, on
account of his greater abundance of prudence, or also of charity, in
which all the infused virtues are connected.

Reply Obj. 2: One saint is praised chiefly for one virtue, another
saint for another virtue, on account of his more admirable readiness
for the act of one virtue than for the act of another virtue.

This suffices for the Reply to the Third Objection.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 3]

Whether the Moral Virtues Are Better Than the Intellectual Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues are better than the
intellectual. Because that which is more necessary, and more lasting,
is better. Now the moral virtues are "more lasting even than the
sciences" (Ethic. i) which are intellectual virtues: and, moreover,
they are more necessary for human life. Therefore they are preferable
to the intellectual virtues.

Obj. 2: Further, virtue is defined as "that which makes its possessor
good." Now man is said to be good in respect of moral virtue, and art
in respect of intellectual virtue, except perhaps in respect of
prudence alone. Therefore moral is better than intellectual virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, the end is more excellent than the means. But
according to _Ethic._ vi, 12, "moral virtue gives right intention of
the end; whereas prudence gives right choice of the means." Therefore
moral virtue is more excellent than prudence, which is the
intellectual virtue that regards moral matters.

_On the contrary,_ Moral virtue is in that part of the soul which is
rational by participation; while intellectual virtue is in the
essentially rational part, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13. Now rational
by essence is more excellent than rational by participation.
Therefore intellectual virtue is better than moral virtue.

_I answer that,_ A thing may be said to be greater or less in two
ways: first, simply; secondly, relatively. For nothing hinders
something from being better simply, e.g. "learning than riches," and
yet not better relatively, i.e. "for one who is in want" [*Aristotle,
_Topic._ iii.]. Now to consider a thing simply is to consider it in
its proper specific nature. Accordingly, a virtue takes its species
from its object, as explained above (Q. 54, A. 2; Q. 60, A. 1).
Hence, speaking simply, that virtue is more excellent, which has the
more excellent object. Now it is evident that the object of the
reason is more excellent than the object of the appetite: since the
reason apprehends things in the universal, while the appetite tends
to things themselves, whose being is restricted to the particular.
Consequently, speaking simply, the intellectual virtues, which
perfect the reason, are more excellent than the moral virtues, which
perfect the appetite.

But if we consider virtue in its relation to act, then moral virtue,
which perfects the appetite, whose function it is to move the other
powers to act, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1), is more excellent. And
since virtue is so called from its being a principle of action, for
it is the perfection of a power, it follows again that the nature of
virtue agrees more with moral than with intellectual virtue, though
the intellectual virtues are more excellent habits, simply speaking.

Reply Obj. 1: The moral virtues are more lasting than the
intellectual virtues, because they are practised in matters
pertaining to the life of the community. Yet it is evident that the
objects of the sciences, which are necessary and invariable, are more
lasting than the objects of moral virtue, which are certain
particular matters of action. That the moral virtues are more
necessary for human life, proves that they are more excellent, not
simply, but relatively. Indeed, the speculative intellectual virtues,
from the very fact that they are not referred to something else, as a
useful thing is referred to an end, are more excellent. The reason
for this is that in them we have a kind of beginning of that
happiness which consists in the knowledge of truth, as stated above
(Q. 3, A. 6).

Reply Obj. 2: The reason why man is said to be good simply, in
respect of moral virtue, but not in respect of intellectual virtue,
is because the appetite moves the other powers to their acts, as
stated above (Q. 56, A. 3). Wherefore this argument, too, proves
merely that moral virtue is better relatively.

Reply Obj. 3: Prudence directs the moral virtues not only in the
choice of the means, but also in appointing the end. Now the end of
each moral virtue is to attain the mean in the matter proper to that
virtue; which mean is appointed according to the right ruling of
prudence, as stated in _Ethic._ ii, 6; vi, 13.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 4]

Whether Justice Is the Chief of the Moral Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that justice is not the chief of the moral
virtues. For it is better to give of one's own than to pay what is
due. Now the former belongs to liberality, the latter to justice.
Therefore liberality is apparently a greater virtue than justice.

Obj. 2: Further, the chief quality of a thing is, seemingly, that in
which it is most perfect. Now, according to Jam. 1:4, "Patience hath
a perfect work." Therefore it would seem that patience is greater
than justice.

Obj. 3: Further, "Magnanimity has a great influence on every virtue,"
as stated in _Ethic._ iv, 3. Therefore it magnifies even justice.
Therefore it is greater than justice.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "justice
is the most excellent of the virtues."

_I answer that,_ A virtue considered in its species may be greater or
less, either simply or relatively. A virtue is said to be greater
simply, whereby a greater rational good shines forth, as stated above
(A. 1). In this way justice is the most excellent of all the moral
virtues, as being most akin to reason. This is made evident by
considering its subject and its object: its subject, because this is
the will, and the will is the rational appetite, as stated above (Q.
8, A. 1; Q. 26, A. 1): its object or matter, because it is about
operations, whereby man is set in order not only in himself, but also
in regard to another. Hence "justice is the most excellent of
virtues" (Ethic. v, 1). Among the other moral virtues, which are
about the passions, the more excellent the matter in which the
appetitive movement is subjected to reason, so much the more does the
rational good shine forth in each. Now in things touching man, the
chief of all is life, on which all other things depend. Consequently
fortitude which subjects the appetitive movement to reason in matters
of life and death, holds the first place among those moral virtues
that are about the passions, but is subordinate to justice. Hence the
Philosopher says (Rhet. 1) that "those virtues must needs be greatest
which receive the most praise: since virtue is a power of doing good.
Hence the brave man and the just man are honored more than others;
because the former," i.e. fortitude, "is useful in war, and the
latter," i.e. justice, "both in war and in peace." After fortitude
comes temperance, which subjects the appetite to reason in matters
directly relating to life, in the one individual, or in the one
species, viz. in matters of food and of sex. And so these three
virtues, together with prudence, are called principal virtues, in
excellence also.

A virtue is said to be greater relatively, by reason of its helping
or adorning a principal virtue: even as substance is more excellent
simply than accident: and yet relatively some particular accident is
more excellent than substance in so far as it perfects substance in
some accidental mode of being.

Reply Obj. 1: The act of liberality needs to be founded on an act of
justice, for "a man is not liberal in giving, unless he gives of his
own" (Polit. ii, 3). Hence there could be no liberality apart from
justice, which discerns between "meum" and "tuum": whereas justice
can be without liberality. Hence justice is simply greater than
liberality, as being more universal, and as being its foundation:
while liberality is greater relatively since it is an ornament and an
addition to justice.

Reply Obj. 2: Patience is said to have "a perfect work," by enduring
evils, wherein it excludes not only unjust revenge, which is also
excluded by justice; not only hatred, which is also suppressed by
charity; nor only anger, which is calmed by gentleness; but also
inordinate sorrow, which is the root of all the above. Wherefore it
is more perfect and excellent through plucking up the root in this
matter. It is not, however, more perfect than all the other virtues
simply. Because fortitude not only endures trouble without being
disturbed, but also fights against it if necessary. Hence whoever is
brave is patient; but the converse does not hold, for patience is a
part of fortitude.

Reply Obj. 3: There can be no magnanimity without the other virtues,
as stated in _Ethic._ iv, 3. Hence it is compared to them as their
ornament, so that relatively it is greater than all the others, but
not simply.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 5]

Whether Wisdom Is the Greatest of the Intellectual Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that wisdom is not the greatest of the
intellectual virtues. Because the commander is greater than the one
commanded. Now prudence seems to command wisdom, for it is stated in
_Ethic._ i, 2 that political science, which belongs to prudence
(Ethic. vi, 8), "orders that sciences should be cultivated in states,
and to which of these each individual should devote himself, and to
what extent." Since, then, wisdom is one of the sciences, it seems
that prudence is greater than wisdom.

Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to the nature of virtue to direct man to
happiness: because virtue is "the disposition of a perfect thing to
that which is best," as stated in _Phys._ vii, text. 17. Now prudence
is "right reason about things to be done," whereby man is brought to
happiness: whereas wisdom takes no notice of human acts, whereby man
attains happiness. Therefore prudence is a greater virtue than wisdom.

Obj. 3: Further, the more perfect knowledge is, the greater it seems
to be. Now we can have more perfect knowledge of human affairs, which
are the subject of science, than of Divine things, which are the
object of wisdom, which is the distinction given by Augustine (De
Trin. xii, 14): because Divine things are incomprehensible, according
to Job 26:26: "Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge."
Therefore science is a greater virtue than wisdom.

Obj. 4: Further, knowledge of principles is more excellent than
knowledge of conclusions. But wisdom draws conclusions from
indemonstrable principles which are the object of the virtue of
understanding, even as other sciences do. Therefore understanding is
a greater virtue than wisdom.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 7) that wisdom is
"the head" among "the intellectual virtues."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), the greatness of a virtue,
as to its species, is taken from its object. Now the object of wisdom
surpasses the objects of all the intellectual virtues: because wisdom
considers the Supreme Cause, which is God, as stated at the beginning
of the _Metaphysics._ And since it is by the cause that we judge of
an effect, and by the higher cause that we judge of the lower
effects; hence it is that wisdom exercises judgment over all the
other intellectual virtues, directs them all, and is the architect of
them all.

Reply Obj. 1: Since prudence is about human affairs, and wisdom about
the Supreme Cause, it is impossible for prudence to be a greater
virtue than wisdom, "unless," as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 7, "man were
the greatest thing in the world." Wherefore we must say, as stated in
the same book (Ethic. vi), that prudence does not command wisdom, but
vice versa: because "the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he
himself is judged by no man" (1 Cor. 2:15). For prudence has no
business with supreme matters which are the object of wisdom: but its
command covers things directed to wisdom, viz. how men are to obtain
wisdom. Wherefore prudence, or political science, is, in this way,
the servant of wisdom; for it leads to wisdom, preparing the way for
her, as the doorkeeper for the king.

Reply Obj. 2: Prudence considers the means of acquiring happiness,
but wisdom considers the very object of happiness, viz. the Supreme
Intelligible. And if indeed the consideration of wisdom were perfect
in respect of its object, there would be perfect happiness in the act
of wisdom: but as, in this life, the act of wisdom is imperfect in
respect of its principal object, which is God, it follows that the
act of wisdom is a beginning or participation of future happiness, so
that wisdom is nearer than prudence to happiness.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (De Anima i, text. 1), "one
knowledge is preferable to another, either because it is about a
higher object, or because it is more certain." Hence if the objects
be equally good and sublime, that virtue will be greater which
possesses more certain knowledge. But a virtue which is less certain
about a higher and better object, is preferable to that which is more
certain about an object of inferior degree. Wherefore the Philosopher
says (De Coelo ii, text. 60) that "it is a great thing to be able to
know something about celestial beings, though it be based on weak and
probable reasoning"; and again (De Part. Animal. i, 5) that "it is
better to know a little about sublime things, than much about mean
things." Accordingly wisdom, to which knowledge about God pertains,
is beyond the reach of man, especially in this life, so as to be his
possession: for this "belongs to God alone" (Metaph. i, 2): and yet
this little knowledge about God which we can have through wisdom is
preferable to all other knowledge.

Reply Obj. 4: The truth and knowledge of indemonstrable principles
depends on the meaning of the terms: for as soon as we know what is a
whole, and what is a part, we know at once that every whole is
greater than its part. Now to know the meaning of being and
non-being, of whole and part, and of other things consequent to
being, which are the terms whereof indemonstrable principles are
constituted, is the function of wisdom: since universal being is the
proper effect of the Supreme Cause, which is God. And so wisdom makes
use of indemonstrable principles which are the object of
understanding, not only by drawing conclusions from them, as other
sciences do, but also by passing its judgment on them, and by
vindicating them against those who deny them. Hence it follows that
wisdom is a greater virtue than understanding.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 6]

Whether Charity Is the Greatest of the Theological Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that charity is not the greatest of the
theological virtues. Because, since faith is in the intellect, while
hope and charity are in the appetitive power, it seems that faith is
compared to hope and charity, as intellectual to moral virtue. Now
intellectual virtue is greater than moral virtue, as was made evident
above (Q. 62, A. 3). Therefore faith is greater than hope and charity.

Obj. 2: Further, when two things are added together, the result is
greater than either one. Now hope results from something added to
charity; for it presupposes love, as Augustine says (Enchiridion
viii), and it adds a certain movement of stretching forward to the
beloved. Therefore hope is greater than charity.

Obj. 3: Further, a cause is more noble than its effect. Now faith and
hope are the cause of charity: for a gloss on Matt. 1:3 says that
"faith begets hope, and hope charity." Therefore faith and hope are
greater than charity.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:13): "Now there remain
faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is
charity."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), the greatness of a virtue,
as to its species, is taken from its object. Now, since the three
theological virtues look at God as their proper object, it cannot be
said that any one of them is greater than another by reason of its
having a greater object, but only from the fact that it approaches
nearer than another to that object; and in this way charity is
greater than the others. Because the others, in their very nature,
imply a certain distance from the object: since faith is of what is
not seen, and hope is of what is not possessed. But the love of
charity is of that which is already possessed: since the beloved is,
in a manner, in the lover, and, again, the lover is drawn by desire
to union with the beloved; hence it is written (1 John 4:16): "He
that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him."

Reply Obj. 1: Faith and hope are not related to charity in the same
way as prudence to moral virtue; and for two reasons. First, because
the theological virtues have an object surpassing the human soul:
whereas prudence and the moral virtues are about things beneath man.
Now in things that are above man, to love them is more excellent than
to know them. Because knowledge is perfected by the known being in
the knower: whereas love is perfected by the lover being drawn to the
beloved. Now that which is above man is more excellent in itself than
in man: since a thing is contained according to the mode of the
container. But it is the other way about in things beneath man.
Secondly, because prudence moderates the appetitive movements
pertaining to the moral virtues, whereas faith does not moderate the
appetitive movement tending to God, which movement belongs to the
theological virtues: it only shows the object. And this appetitive
movement towards its object surpasses human knowledge, according to
Eph. 3:19: "The charity of Christ which surpasseth all knowledge."

Reply Obj. 2: Hope presupposes love of that which a man hopes to
obtain; and such love is love of concupiscence, whereby he who
desires good, loves himself rather than something else. On the other
hand, charity implies love of friendship, to which we are led by
hope, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 3: An efficient cause is more noble than its effect: but
not a disposing cause. For otherwise the heat of fire would be more
noble than the soul, to which the heat disposes the matter. It is in
this way that faith begets hope, and hope charity: in the sense, to
wit, that one is a disposition to the other.
________________________

QUESTION 67

OF THE DURATION OF VIRTUES AFTER THIS LIFE
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the duration of virtues after this life, under
which head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the moral virtues remain after this life?

(2) Whether the intellectual virtues remain?

(3) Whether faith remains?

(4) Whether hope remains?

(5) Whether anything remains of faith or hope?

(6) Whether charity remains?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 1]

Whether the Moral Virtues Remain After This Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues do not remain after
this life. For in the future state of glory men will be like angels,
according to Matt. 22:30. But it is absurd to put moral virtues in
the angels [*"Whatever relates to moral action is petty, and unworthy
of the gods" (Ethic. x, 8)], as stated in _Ethic._ x, 8. Therefore
neither in man will there be moral virtues after this life.

Obj. 2: Further, moral virtues perfect man in the active life. But
the active life does not remain after this life: for Gregory says
(Moral. iv, 18): "The works of the active life pass away from the
body." Therefore moral virtues do not remain after this life.

Obj. 3: Further, temperance and fortitude, which are moral virtues,
are in the irrational parts of the soul, as the Philosopher states
(Ethic. iii, 10). Now the irrational parts of the soul are corrupted,
when the body is corrupted: since they are acts of bodily organs.
Therefore it seems that the moral virtues do not remain after this
life.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 1:15) that "justice is
perpetual and immortal."

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9), Cicero held
that the cardinal virtues do not remain after this life; and that, as
Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9), "in the other life men are made
happy by the mere knowledge of that nature, than which nothing is
better or more lovable, that Nature, to wit, which created all
others." Afterwards he concludes that these four virtues remain in
the future life, but after a different manner.

In order to make this evident, we must note that in these virtues
there is a formal element, and a quasi-material element. The material
element in these virtues is a certain inclination of the appetitive
part to the passions and operations according to a certain mode: and
since this mode is fixed by reason, the formal element is precisely
this order of reason.

Accordingly we must say that these moral virtues do not remain in the
future life, as regards their material element. For in the future
life there will be no concupiscences and pleasures in matters of food
and sex; nor fear and daring about dangers of death; nor
distributions and commutations of things employed in this present
life. But, as regards the formal element, they will remain most
perfect, after this life, in the Blessed, in as much as each one's
reason will have most perfect rectitude in regard to things
concerning him in respect of that state of life: and his appetitive
power will be moved entirely according to the order of reason, in
things pertaining to that same state. Hence Augustine says (De Trin.
xiv, 9) that "prudence will be there without any danger of error;
fortitude, without the anxiety of bearing with evil; temperance,
without the rebellion of the desires: so that prudence will neither
prefer nor equal any good to God; fortitude will adhere to Him most
steadfastly; and temperance will delight in Him Who knows no
imperfection." As to justice, it is yet more evident what will be its
act in that life, viz. "to be subject to God": because even in this
life subjection to a superior is part of justice.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking there of these moral
virtues, as to their material element; thus he speaks of justice, as
regards "commutations and distributions"; of fortitude, as to
"matters of terror and danger"; of temperance, in respect of "lewd
desires."

The same applies to the Second Objection. For those things that
concern the active life, belong to the material element of the
virtues.

Reply Obj. 3: There is a twofold state after this life; one before
the resurrection, during which the soul will be separate from the
body; the other, after the resurrection, when the souls will be
reunited to their bodies. In this state of resurrection, the
irrational powers will be in the bodily organs, just as they now are.
Hence it will be possible for fortitude to be in the irascible, and
temperance in the concupiscible part, in so far as each power will be
perfectly disposed to obey the reason. But in the state preceding the
resurrection, the irrational parts will not be in the soul actually,
but only radically in its essence, as stated in the First Part (Q.
77, A. 8). Wherefore neither will these virtues be actually, but only
in their root, i.e. in the reason and will, wherein are certain
nurseries of these virtues, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 1). Justice,
however, will remain because it is in the will. Hence of justice it
is specially said that it is "perpetual and immortal"; both by reason
of its subject, since the will is incorruptible; and because its act
will not change, as stated.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 2]

Whether the Intellectual Virtues Remain After This Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that the intellectual virtues do not
remain after this life. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:8, 9) that
"knowledge shall be destroyed," and he states the reason to be
because "we know in part." Now just as the knowledge of science is in
part, i.e. imperfect; so also is the knowledge of the other
intellectual virtues, as long as this life lasts. Therefore all the
intellectual virtues will cease after this life.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Categor. vi) that since
science is a habit, it is a quality difficult to remove: for it is
not easily lost, except by reason of some great change or sickness.
But no bodily change is so great as that of death. Therefore science
and the other intellectual virtues do not remain after death.

Obj. 3: Further, the intellectual virtues perfect the intellect so
that it may perform its proper act well. Now there seems to be no act
of the intellect after this life, since "the soul understands nothing
without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, text. 30); and, after this life,
the phantasms do not remain, since their only subject is an organ of
the body. Therefore the intellectual virtues do not remain after this
life.

_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of what is universal and necessary
is more constant than that of particular and contingent things. Now
the knowledge of contingent particulars remains in man after this
life; for instance, the knowledge of what one has done or suffered,
according to Luke 16:25: "Son, remember that thou didst receive good
things in thy life-time, and likewise Lazarus evil things." Much
more, therefore, does the knowledge of universal and necessary things
remain, which belong to science and the other intellectual virtues.

_I answer that,_ As stated in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 6) some have
held that the intelligible species do not remain in the passive
intellect except when it actually understands; and that so long as
actual consideration ceases, the species are not preserved save in
the sensitive powers which are acts of bodily organs, viz. in the
powers of imagination and memory. Now these powers cease when the
body is corrupted: and consequently, according to this opinion,
neither science nor any other intellectual virtue will remain after
this life when once the body is corrupted.

But this opinion is contrary to the mind of Aristotle, who states (De
Anima iii, text. 8) that "the possible intellect is in act when it is
identified with each thing as knowing it; and yet, even then, it is
in potentiality to consider it actually." It is also contrary to
reason, because intelligible species are contained by the "possible"
intellect immovably, according to the mode of their container. Hence
the "possible" intellect is called "the abode of the species" (De
Anima iii) because it preserves the intelligible species.

And yet the phantasms, by turning to which man understands in this
life, by applying the intelligible species to them as stated in the
First Part (Q. 84, A. 7; Q. 85, A. 1, ad 5), cease as soon as the
body is corrupted. Hence, so far as the phantasms are concerned,
which are the quasi-material element in the intellectual virtues,
these latter cease when the body is destroyed: but as regards the
intelligible species, which are in the "possible" intellect, the
intellectual virtues remain. Now the species are the quasi-formal
element of the intellectual virtues. Therefore these remain after
this life, as regards their formal element, just as we have stated
concerning the moral virtues (A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: The saying of the Apostle is to be understood as
referring to the material element in science, and to the mode of
understanding; because, to it, neither do the phantasms remain, when
the body is destroyed; nor will science be applied by turning to the
phantasms.

Reply Obj. 2: Sickness destroys the habit of science as to its
material element, viz. the phantasms, but not as to the intelligible
species, which are in the "possible" intellect.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in the First Part (Q. 89, A. 1), the
separated soul has a mode of understanding, other than by turning to
the phantasms. Consequently science remains, yet not as to the same
mode of operation; as we have stated concerning the moral virtues
(A. 1).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 3]

Whether Faith Remains After This Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that faith remains after this life.
Because faith is more excellent than science. Now science remains
after this life, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore faith remains also.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 3:11): "Other foundation no
man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus," i.e.
faith in Jesus Christ. Now if the foundation is removed, that which
is built upon it remains no more. Therefore, if faith remains not
after this life, no other virtue remains.

Obj. 3: Further, the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of glory
differ as perfect from imperfect. Now imperfect knowledge is
compatible with perfect knowledge: thus in an angel there can be
"evening" and "morning" knowledge [*Cf. I, Q. 58, A. 6]; and a man
can have science through a demonstrative syllogism, together with
opinion through a probable syllogism, about one same conclusion.
Therefore after this life faith also is compatible with the knowledge
of glory.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6, 7): "While we are in
the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith and not
by sight." But those who are in glory are not absent from the Lord,
but present to Him. Therefore after this life faith does not remain
in the life of glory.

_I answer that,_ Opposition is of itself the proper cause of one
thing being excluded from another, in so far, to wit, as wherever two
things are opposite to one another, we find opposition of affirmation
and negation. Now in some things we find opposition in respect of
contrary forms; thus in colors we find white and black. In others we
find opposition in respect of perfection and imperfection: wherefore
in alterations, more and less are considered to be contraries, as
when a thing from being less hot is made more hot (Phys. v, text.
19). And since perfect and imperfect are opposite to one another, it
is impossible for perfection and imperfection to affect the same
thing at the same time.

Now we must take note that sometimes imperfection belongs to a
thing's very nature, and belongs to its species: even as lack of
reason belongs to the very specific nature of a horse and an ox. And
since a thing, so long as it remains the same identically, cannot
pass from one species to another, it follows that if such an
imperfection be removed, the species of that thing is changed: even
as it would no longer be an ox or a horse, were it to be rational.
Sometimes, however, the imperfection does not belong to the specific
nature, but is accidental to the individual by reason of something
else; even as sometimes lack of reason is accidental to a man,
because he is asleep, or because he is drunk, or for some like
reason; and it is evident, that if such an imperfection be removed,
the thing remains substantially.

Now it is clear that imperfect knowledge belongs to the very nature
of faith: for it is included in its definition; faith being defined
as "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things
that appear not" (Heb. 11:1). Wherefore Augustine says (Tract. xl in
Joan.): "What is faith? Believing without seeing." But it is an
imperfect knowledge that is of things unapparent or unseen.
Consequently imperfect knowledge belongs to the very nature of faith:
therefore it is clear that the knowledge of faith cannot be perfect
and remain identically the same.

But we must also consider whether it is compatible with perfect
knowledge: for there is nothing to prevent some kind of imperfect
knowledge from being sometimes with perfect knowledge. Accordingly we
must observe that knowledge can be imperfect in three ways: first, on
the part of the knowable object; secondly, on the part of the medium;
thirdly, on the part of the subject. The difference of perfect and
imperfect knowledge on the part of the knowable object is seen in the
"morning" and "evening" knowledge of the angels: for the "morning"
knowledge is about things according to the being which they have in
the Word, while the "evening" knowledge is about things according as
they have being in their own natures, which being is imperfect in
comparison with the First Being. On the part of the medium, perfect
and imperfect knowledge are exemplified in the knowledge of a
conclusion through a demonstrative medium, and through a probable
medium. On the part of the subject the difference of perfect and
imperfect knowledge applies to opinion, faith, and science. For it is
essential to opinion that we assent to one of two opposite assertions
with fear of the other, so that our adhesion is not firm: to science
it is essential to have firm adhesion with intellectual vision, for
science possesses certitude which results from the understanding of
principles: while faith holds a middle place, for it surpasses
opinion in so far as its adhesion is firm, but falls short of science
in so far as it lacks vision.

Now it is evident that a thing cannot be perfect and imperfect in the
same respect; yet the things which differ as perfect and imperfect
can be together in the same respect in one and the same other thing.
Accordingly, knowledge which is perfect on the part of the object is
quite incompatible with imperfect knowledge about the same object;
but they are compatible with one another in respect of the same
medium or the same subject: for nothing hinders a man from having at
one and the same time, through one and the same medium, perfect and
imperfect knowledge about two things, one perfect, the other
imperfect, e.g. about health and sickness, good and evil. In like
manner knowledge that is perfect on the part of the medium is
incompatible with imperfect knowledge through one and the same
medium: but nothing hinders them being about the same subject or in
the same subject: for one man can know the same conclusions through a
probable and through a demonstrative medium. Again, knowledge that is
perfect on the part of the subject is incompatible with imperfect
knowledge in the same subject. Now faith, of its very nature,
contains an imperfection on the part of the subject, viz. that the
believer sees not what he believes: whereas bliss, of its very
nature, implies perfection on the part of the subject, viz. that the
Blessed see that which makes them happy, as stated above (Q. 3, A.
8). Hence it is manifest that faith and bliss are incompatible in one
and the same subject.

Reply Obj. 1: Faith is more excellent than science, on the part of
the object, because its object is the First Truth. Yet science has a
more perfect mode of knowing its object, which is not incompatible
with vision which is the perfection of happiness, as the mode of
faith is incompatible.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith is the foundation in as much as it is knowledge:
consequently when this knowledge is perfected, the foundation will be
perfected also.

The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 4]

Whether Hope Remains After Death, in the State of Glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope remains after death, in the
state of glory. Because hope perfects the human appetite in a more
excellent manner than the moral virtues. But the moral virtues remain
after this life, as Augustine clearly states (De Trin. xiv, 9). Much
more then does hope remain.

Obj. 2: Further, fear is opposed to hope. But fear remains after this
life: in the Blessed, filial fear, which abides for ever--in the
lost, the fear of punishment. Therefore, in a like manner, hope can
remain.

Obj. 3: Further, just as hope is of future good, so is desire. Now in
the Blessed there is desire for future good; both for the glory of
the body, which the souls of the Blessed desire, as Augustine
declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35); and for the glory of the soul,
according to Ecclus. 24:29: "They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and
they that drink me, shall yet thirst," and 1 Pet. 1:12: "On Whom the
angels desire to look." Therefore it seems that there can be hope in
the Blessed after this life is past.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 8:24): "What a man seeth,
why doth he hope for?" But the Blessed see that which is the object
of hope, viz. God. Therefore they do not hope.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), that which, in its very
nature, implies imperfection of its subject, is incompatible with the
opposite perfection in that subject. Thus it is evident that movement
of its very nature implies imperfection of its subject, since it is
"the act of that which is in potentiality as such" (Phys. iii): so
that as soon as this potentiality is brought into act, the movement
ceases; for a thing does not continue to become white, when once it
is made white. Now hope denotes a movement towards that which is not
possessed, as is clear from what we have said above about the passion
of hope (Q. 40, AA. 1, 2). Therefore when we possess that which we
hope for, viz. the enjoyment of God, it will no longer be possible to
have hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope surpasses the moral virtues as to its object,
which is God. But the acts of the moral virtues are not incompatible
with the perfection of happiness, as the act of hope is; except
perhaps, as regards their matter, in respect of which they do not
remain. For moral virtue perfects the appetite, not only in respect
of what is not yet possessed, but also as regards something which is
in our actual possession.

Reply Obj. 2: Fear is twofold, servile and filial, as we shall state
further on (II-II, Q. 19, A. 2). Servile fear regards punishment, and
will be impossible in the life of glory, since there will no longer
be possibility of being punished. Filial fear has two acts: one is an
act of reverence to God, and with regard to this act, it remains: the
other is an act of fear lest we be separated from God, and as regards
this act, it does not remain. Because separation from God is in the
nature of an evil: and no evil will be feared there, according to
Prov. 1:33: "He . . . shall enjoy abundance without fear of evils."
Now fear is opposed to hope by opposition of good and evil, as stated
above (Q. 23, A. 2; Q. 40, A. 1), and therefore the fear which will
remain in glory is not opposed to hope. In the lost there can be fear
of punishment, rather than hope of glory in the Blessed. Because in
the lost there will be a succession of punishments, so that the
notion of something future remains there, which is the object of
fear: but the glory of the saints has no succession, by reason of its
being a kind of participation of eternity, wherein there is neither
past nor future, but only the present. And yet, properly speaking,
neither in the lost is there fear. For, as stated above (Q. 42, A.
2), fear is never without some hope of escape: and the lost have no
such hope. Consequently neither will there be fear in them; except
speaking in a general way, in so far as any expectation of future
evil is called fear.

Reply Obj. 3: As to the glory of the soul, there can be no desire in
the Blessed, in so far as desire looks for something future, for the
reason already given (ad 2). Yet hunger and thirst are said to be in
them because they never weary, and for the same reason desire is said
to be in the angels. With regard to the glory of the body, there can
be desire in the souls of the saints, but not hope, properly
speaking; neither as a theological virtue, for thus its object is
God, and not a created good; nor in its general signification.
Because the object of hope is something difficult, as stated above
(Q. 40, A. 1): while a good whose unerring cause we already possess,
is not compared to us as something difficult. Hence he that has money
is not, properly speaking, said to hope for what he can buy at once.
In like manner those who have the glory of the soul are not, properly
speaking, said to hope for the glory of the body, but only to desire
it.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 5]

Whether Anything of Faith or Hope Remains in Glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that something of faith and hope remains
in glory. For when that which is proper to a thing is removed, there
remains what is common; thus it is stated in _De Causis_ that "if you
take away rational, there remains living, and when you remove living,
there remains being." Now in faith there is something that it has in
common with beatitude, viz. knowledge: and there is something proper
to it, viz. darkness, for faith is knowledge in a dark manner.
Therefore, the darkness of faith removed, the knowledge of faith
still remains.

Obj. 2: Further, faith is a spiritual light of the soul, according to
Eph. 1:17, 18: "The eyes of your heart enlightened . . . in the
knowledge of God"; yet this light is imperfect in comparison with the
light of glory, of which it is written (Ps. 35:10): "In Thy light we
shall see light." Now an imperfect light remains when a perfect light
supervenes: for a candle is not extinguished when the sun's rays
appear. Therefore it seems that the light of faith itself remains
with the light of glory.

Obj. 3: Further, the substance of a habit does not cease through the
withdrawal of its matter: for a man may retain the habit of
liberality, though he have lost his money: yet he cannot exercise the
act. Now the object of faith is the First Truth as unseen. Therefore
when this ceases through being seen, the habit of faith can still
remain.

_On the contrary,_ Faith is a simple habit. Now a simple thing is
either withdrawn entirely, or remains entirely. Since therefore faith
does not remain entirely, but is taken away as stated above (A. 3),
it seems that it is withdrawn entirely.

_I answer that,_ Some have held that hope is taken away entirely: but
that faith is taken away in part, viz. as to its obscurity, and
remains in part, viz. as to the substance of its knowledge. And if
this be understood to mean that it remains the same, not identically
but generically, it is absolutely true; since faith is of the same
genus, viz. knowledge, as the beatific vision. On the other hand,
hope is not of the same genus as heavenly bliss: because it is
compared to the enjoyment of bliss, as movement is to rest in the
term of movement.

But if it be understood to mean that in heaven the knowledge of faith
remains identically the same, this is absolutely impossible. Because
when you remove a specific difference, the substance of the genus
does not remain identically the same: thus if you remove the
difference constituting whiteness, the substance of color does not
remain identically the same, as though the identical color were at
one time whiteness, and, at another, blackness. The reason is that
genus is not related to difference as matter to form, so that the
substance of the genus remains identically the same, when the
difference is removed, as the substance of matter remains identically
the same, when the form is changed: for genus and difference are not
the parts of a species, else they would not be predicated of the
species. But even as the species denotes the whole, i.e. the compound
of matter and form in material things, so does the difference, and
likewise the genus; the genus denotes the whole by signifying that
which is material; the difference, by signifying that which is
formal; the species, by signifying both. Thus, in man, the sensitive
nature is as matter to the intellectual nature, and animal is
predicated of that which has a sensitive nature, rational of that
which has an intellectual nature, and man of that which has both. So
that the one same whole is denoted by these three, but not under the
same aspect.

It is therefore evident that, since the signification of the
difference is confined to the genus if the difference be removed, the
substance of the genus cannot remain the same: for the same animal
nature does not remain, if another kind of soul constitute the
animal. Hence it is impossible for the identical knowledge, which was
previously obscure, to become clear vision. It is therefore evident
that, in heaven, nothing remains of faith, either identically or
specifically the same, but only generically.

Reply Obj. 1: If "rational" be withdrawn, the remaining "living"
thing is the same, not identically, but generically, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: The imperfection of candlelight is not opposed to the
perfection of sunlight, since they do not regard the same subject:
whereas the imperfection of faith and the perfection of glory are
opposed to one another and regard the same subject. Consequently they
are incompatible with one another, just as light and darkness in the
air.

Reply Obj. 3: He that loses his money does not therefore lose the
possibility of having money, and therefore it is reasonable for the
habit of liberality to remain. But in the state of glory not only is
the object of faith, which is the unseen, removed actually, but even
its possibility, by reason of the unchangeableness of heavenly bliss:
and so such a habit would remain to no purpose.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 6]

Whether Charity Remains After This Life, in Glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that charity does not remain after this
life, in glory. Because according to 1 Cor. 13:10, "when that which
is perfect is come, that which is in part," i.e. that which is
imperfect, "shall be done away." Now the charity of the wayfarer is
imperfect. Therefore it will be done away when the perfection of
glory is attained.

Obj. 2: Further, habits and acts are differentiated by their objects.
But the object of love is good apprehended. Since therefore the
apprehension of the present life differs from the apprehension of the
life to come, it seems that charity is not the same in both cases.

Obj. 3: Further, things of the same kind can advance from
imperfection to perfection by continuous increase. But the charity of
the wayfarer can never attain to equality with the charity of heaven,
however much it be increased. Therefore it seems that the charity of
the wayfarer does not remain in heaven.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:8): "Charity never
falleth away."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), when the imperfection of a
thing does not belong to its specific nature, there is nothing to
hinder the identical thing passing from imperfection to perfection,
even as man is perfected by growth, and whiteness by intensity. Now
charity is love, the nature of which does not include imperfection,
since it may relate to an object either possessed or not possessed,
either seen or not seen. Therefore charity is not done away by the
perfection of glory, but remains identically the same.

Reply Obj. 1: The imperfection of charity is accidental to it;
because imperfection is not included in the nature of love. Now
although that which is accidental to a thing be withdrawn, the
substance remains. Hence the imperfection of charity being done away,
charity itself is not done away.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of charity is not knowledge itself;
if it were, the charity of the wayfarer would not be the same as the
charity of heaven: its object is the thing known, which remains the
same, viz. God Himself.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason why charity of the wayfarer cannot
attain to the perfection of the charity of heaven, is a difference on
the part of the cause: for vision is a cause of love, as stated in
_Ethic._ ix, 5: and the more perfectly we know God, the more perfectly
we love Him.
________________________

QUESTION 68

OF THE GIFTS
(In Eight Articles)

We now come to consider the Gifts; under which head there are eight
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Gifts differ from the virtues?

(2) Of the necessity of the Gifts?

(3) Whether the Gifts are habits?

(4) Which, and how many are they?

(5) Whether the Gifts are connected?

(6) Whether they remain in heaven?

(7) Of their comparison with one another;

(8) Of their comparison with the virtues.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 1]

Whether the Gifts Differ from the Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts do not differ from the
virtues. For Gregory commenting on Job 1:2, "There were born to him
seven sons," says (Moral. i, 12): "Seven sons were born to us, when
through the conception of heavenly thought, the seven virtues of the
Holy Ghost take birth in us": and he quotes the words of Isa. 11:2,
3: "And the Spirit . . . of understanding . . . shall rest upon him,"
etc. where the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are enumerated.
Therefore the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are virtues.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine commenting on Matt. 12:45, "Then he goeth
and taketh with him seven other spirits," etc., says (De Quaest.
Evang. i, qu. 8): "The seven vices are opposed to the seven virtues
of the Holy Ghost," i.e. to the seven gifts. Now the seven vices are
opposed to the seven virtues, commonly so called. Therefore the gifts
do not differ from the virtues commonly so called.

Obj. 3: Further, things whose definitions are the same, are
themselves the same. But the definition of virtue applies to the
gifts; for each gift is "a good quality of the mind, whereby we lead
a good life," etc. [*Cf. Q. 55, A. 4]. Likewise the definition of a
gift can apply to the infused virtues: for a gift is "an unreturnable
giving," according to the Philosopher (Topic. iv, 4). Therefore the
virtues and gifts do not differ from one another.

Obj. 4: Several of the things mentioned among the gifts, are virtues:
for, as stated above (Q. 57, A. 2), wisdom, understanding, and
knowledge are intellectual virtues, counsel pertains to prudence,
piety to a kind of justice, and fortitude is a moral virtue.
Therefore it seems that the gifts do not differ from the virtues.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. i, 12) distinguishes seven gifts,
which he states to be denoted by the seven sons of Job, from the
three theological virtues, which, he says, are signified by Job's
three daughters. He also distinguishes (Moral. ii, 26) the same seven
gifts from the four cardinal virtues, which he says were signified by
the four corners of the house.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of gift and virtue with regard to the
notion conveyed by the words themselves, there is no opposition
between them. Because the word "virtue" conveys the notion that it
perfects man in relation to well-doing, while the word "gift" refers
to the cause from which it proceeds. Now there is no reason why that
which proceeds from one as a gift should not perfect another in
well-doing: especially as we have already stated (Q. 63, A. 3) that
some virtues are infused into us by God. Wherefore in this respect we
cannot differentiate gifts from virtues. Consequently some have held
that the gifts are not to be distinguished from the virtues. But
there remains no less a difficulty for them to solve; for they must
explain why some virtues are called gifts and some not; and why among
the gifts there are some, fear, for instance, that are not reckoned
virtues.

Hence it is that others have said that the gifts should be held as
being distinct from the virtues; yet they have not assigned a
suitable reason for this distinction, a reason, to wit, which would
apply either to all the virtues, and to none of the gifts, or vice
versa. For, seeing that of the seven gifts, four belong to the
reason, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding and counsel, and three
to the appetite, viz. fortitude, piety and fear; they held that the
gifts perfect the free-will according as it is a faculty of the
reason, while the virtues perfect it as a faculty of the will: since
they observed only two virtues in the reason or intellect, viz. faith
and prudence, the others being in the appetitive power or the
affections. If this distinction were true, all the virtues would have
to be in the appetite, and all the gifts in the reason.

Others observing that Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the gift of
the Holy Ghost, by coming into the soul endows it with prudence,
temperance, justice, and fortitude, and at the same time strengthens
it against every kind of temptation by His sevenfold gift," said that
the virtues are given us that we may do good works, and the gifts,
that we may resist temptation. But neither is this distinction
sufficient. Because the virtues also resist those temptations which
lead to the sins that are contrary to the virtues; for everything
naturally resists its contrary: which is especially clear with regard
to charity, of which it is written (Cant. 8:7): "Many waters cannot
quench charity."

Others again, seeing that these gifts are set down in Holy Writ as
having been in Christ, according to Isa. 11:2, 3, said that the
virtues are given simply that we may do good works, but the gifts, in
order to conform us to Christ, chiefly with regard to His Passion,
for it was then that these gifts shone with the greatest splendor.
Yet neither does this appear to be a satisfactory distinction.
Because Our Lord Himself wished us to be conformed to Him, chiefly in
humility and meekness, according to Matt. 11:29: "Learn of Me,
because I am meek and humble of heart," and in charity, according to
John 15:12: "Love one another, as I have loved you." Moreover, these
virtues were especially resplendent in Christ's Passion.

Accordingly, in order to differentiate the gifts from the virtues, we
must be guided by the way in which Scripture expresses itself, for we
find there that the term employed is "spirit" rather than "gift." For
thus it is written (Isa. 11:2, 3): "The spirit . . . of wisdom and of
understanding . . . shall rest upon him," etc.: from which words we
are clearly given to understand that these seven are there set down
as being in us by Divine inspiration. Now inspiration denotes motion
from without. For it must be noted that in man there is a twofold
principle of movement, one within him, viz. the reason; the other
extrinsic to him, viz. God, as stated above (Q. 9, AA. 4, 6):
moreover the Philosopher says this in the chapter On Good Fortune
(Ethic. Eudem. vii, 8).

Now it is evident that whatever is moved must be proportionate to its
mover: and the perfection of the mobile as such, consists in a
disposition whereby it is disposed to be well moved by its mover.
Hence the more exalted the mover, the more perfect must be the
disposition whereby the mobile is made proportionate to its mover:
thus we see that a disciple needs a more perfect disposition in order
to receive a higher teaching from his master. Now it is manifest that
human virtues perfect man according as it is natural for him to be
moved by his reason in his interior and exterior actions.
Consequently man needs yet higher perfections, whereby to be disposed
to be moved by God. These perfections are called gifts, not only
because they are infused by God, but also because by them man is
disposed to become amenable to the Divine inspiration, according to
Isa. 50:5: "The Lord . . . hath opened my ear, and I do not resist; I
have not gone back." Even the Philosopher says in the chapter On Good
Fortune (Ethic. Eudem., vii, 8) that for those who are moved by
Divine instinct, there is no need to take counsel according to human
reason, but only to follow their inner promptings, since they are
moved by a principle higher than human reason. This then is what some
say, viz. that the gifts perfect man for acts which are higher than
acts of virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Sometimes these gifts are called virtues, in the broad
sense of the word. Nevertheless, they have something over and above
the virtues understood in this broad way, in so far as they are
Divine virtues, perfecting man as moved by God. Hence the Philosopher
(Ethic. vii, 1) above virtue commonly so called, places a kind of
"heroic" or "divine virtue [*_arete heroike kai theia_]," in respect
of which some men are called "divine."

Reply Obj. 2: The vices are opposed to the virtues, in so far as they
are opposed to the good as appointed by reason; but they are opposed
to the gifts, in as much as they are opposed to the Divine instinct.
For the same thing is opposed both to God and to reason, whose light
flows from God.

Reply Obj. 3: This definition applies to virtue taken in its general
sense. Consequently, if we wish to restrict it to virtue as
distinguished from the gifts, we must explain the words, "whereby we
lead a good life" as referring to the rectitude of life which is
measured by the rule of reason. Likewise the gifts, as distinct from
infused virtue, may be defined as something given by God in relation
to His motion; something, to wit, that makes man to follow well the
promptings of God.

Reply Obj. 4: Wisdom is called an intellectual virtue, so far as it
proceeds from the judgment of reason: but it is called a gift,
according as its work proceeds from the Divine prompting. The same
applies to the other virtues.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 2]

Whether the Gifts Are Necessary to Man for Salvation?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts are not necessary to man
for salvation. Because the gifts are ordained to a perfection
surpassing the ordinary perfection of virtue. Now it is not necessary
for man's salvation that he should attain to a perfection surpassing
the ordinary standard of virtue; because such perfection falls, not
under the precept, but under a counsel. Therefore the gifts are not
necessary to man for salvation.

Obj. 2: Further, it is enough, for man's salvation, that he behave
well in matters concerning God and matters concerning man. Now man's
behavior to God is sufficiently directed by the theological virtues;
and his behavior towards men, by the moral virtues. Therefore gifts
are not necessary to man for salvation.

Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the Holy Ghost
gives wisdom against folly, understanding against dullness, counsel
against rashness, fortitude against fears, knowledge against
ignorance, piety against hardness of our heart, and fear against
pride." But a sufficient remedy for all these things is to be found
in the virtues. Therefore the gifts are not necessary to man for
salvation.

_On the contrary,_ Of all the gifts, wisdom seems to be the highest,
and fear the lowest. Now each of these is necessary for salvation:
since of wisdom it is written (Wis. 7:28): "God loveth none but him
that dwelleth with wisdom"; and of fear (Ecclus. 1:28): "He that is
without fear cannot be justified." Therefore the other gifts that are
placed between these are also necessary for salvation.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the gifts are perfections of
man, whereby he is disposed so as to be amenable to the promptings of
God. Wherefore in those matters where the prompting of reason is not
sufficient, and there is need for the prompting of the Holy Ghost,
there is, in consequence, need for a gift.

Now man's reason is perfected by God in two ways: first, with its
natural perfection, to wit, the natural light of reason; secondly,
with a supernatural perfection, to wit, the theological virtues, as
stated above (Q. 62, A. 1). And, though this latter perfection is
greater than the former, yet the former is possessed by man in a more
perfect manner than the latter: because man has the former in his
full possession, whereas he possesses the latter imperfectly, since
we love and know God imperfectly. Now it is evident that anything
that has a nature or a form or a virtue perfectly, can of itself work
according to them: not, however, excluding the operation of God, Who
works inwardly in every nature and in every will. On the other hand,
that which has a nature, or form, or virtue imperfectly, cannot of
itself work, unless it be moved by another. Thus the sun which
possesses light perfectly, can shine by itself; whereas the moon
which has the nature of light imperfectly, sheds only a borrowed
light. Again, a physician, who knows the medical art perfectly, can
work by himself; but his pupil, who is not yet fully instructed,
cannot work by himself, but needs to receive instructions from him.

Accordingly, in matters subject to human reason, and directed to
man's connatural end, man can work through the judgment of his
reason. If, however, even in these things man receive help in the
shape of special promptings from God, this will be out of God's
superabundant goodness: hence, according to the philosophers, not
every one that had the acquired moral virtues, had also the heroic or
divine virtues. But in matters directed to the supernatural end, to
which man's reason moves him, according as it is, in a manner, and
imperfectly, informed by the theological virtues, the motion of
reason does not suffice, unless it receive in addition the prompting
or motion of the Holy Ghost, according to Rom. 8:14, 17: "Whosoever
are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God . . . and if sons,
heirs also": and Ps. 142:10: "Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the
right land," because, to wit, none can receive the inheritance of
that land of the Blessed, except he be moved and led thither by the
Holy Ghost. Therefore, in order to accomplish this end, it is
necessary for man to have the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 1: The gifts surpass the ordinary perfection of the
virtues, not as regards the kind of works (as the counsels surpass
the commandments), but as regards the manner of working, in respect
of man being moved by a higher principle.

Reply Obj. 2: By the theological and moral virtues, man is not so
perfected in respect of his last end, as not to stand in continual
need of being moved by the yet higher promptings of the Holy Ghost,
for the reason already given.

Reply Obj. 3: Whether we consider human reason as perfected in its
natural perfection, or as perfected by the theological virtues, it
does not know all things, nor all possible things. Consequently it is
unable to avoid folly and other like things mentioned in the
objection. God, however, to Whose knowledge and power all things are
subject, by His motion safeguards us from all folly, ignorance,
dullness of mind and hardness of heart, and the rest. Consequently
the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which make us amenable to His
promptings, are said to be given as remedies to these defects.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 3]

Whether the Gifts of the Holy Ghost Are Habits?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not
habits. Because a habit is a quality abiding in man, being defined as
"a quality difficult to remove," as stated in the _Predicaments_
(Categor. vi). Now it is proper to Christ that the gifts of the Holy
Ghost rest in Him, as stated in Isa. 11:2, 3: "He upon Whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that
baptizeth"; on which words Gregory comments as follows (Moral. ii,
27): "The Holy Ghost comes upon all the faithful; but, in a singular
way, He dwells always in the Mediator." Therefore the gifts of the
Holy Ghost are not habits.

Obj. 2: Further, the gifts of the Holy Ghost perfect man according as
he is moved by the Spirit of God, as stated above (AA. 1, 2). But in
so far as man is moved by the Spirit of God, he is somewhat like an
instrument in His regard. Now to be perfected by a habit is
befitting, not an instrument, but a principal agent. Therefore the
gifts of the Holy Ghost are not habits.

Obj. 3: Further, as the gifts of the Holy Ghost are due to Divine
inspiration, so is the gift of prophecy. Now prophecy is not a habit:
for "the spirit of prophecy does not always reside in the prophets,"
as Gregory states (Hom. i in Ezechiel). Neither, therefore, are the
gifts of the Holy Ghost.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord in speaking of the Holy Ghost said to His
disciples (John 14:17): "He shall abide with you, and shall be in
you." Now the Holy Ghost is not in a man without His gifts. Therefore
His gifts abide in man. Therefore they are not merely acts or
passions but abiding habits.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the gifts are perfections of
man, whereby he becomes amenable to the promptings of the Holy Ghost.
Now it is evident from what has been already said (Q. 56, A. 4; Q.
58, A. 2), that the moral virtues perfect the appetitive power
according as it partakes somewhat of the reason, in so far, to wit,
as it has a natural aptitude to be moved by the command of reason.
Accordingly the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as compared with the Holy
Ghost Himself, are related to man, even as the moral virtues, in
comparison with the reason, are related to the appetitive power. Now
the moral virtues are habits, whereby the powers of appetite are
disposed to obey reason promptly. Therefore the gifts of the Holy
Ghost are habits whereby man is perfected to obey readily the Holy
Ghost.

Reply Obj. 1: Gregory solves this objection (Moral. ii, 27) by saying
that "by those gifts without which one cannot obtain life, the Holy
Ghost ever abides in all the elect, but not by His other gifts." Now
the seven gifts are necessary for salvation, as stated above (A. 2).
Therefore, with regard to them, the Holy Ghost ever abides in holy
men.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument holds, in the case of an instrument which
has no faculty of action, but only of being acted upon. But man is
not an instrument of that kind; for he is so acted upon, by the Holy
Ghost, that he also acts himself, in so far as he has a free-will.
Therefore he needs a habit.

Reply Obj. 3: Prophecy is one of those gifts which are for the
manifestation of the Spirit, not for the necessity of salvation:
hence the comparison fails.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 4]

Whether the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost Are Suitably Enumerated?

Objection 1: It would seem that seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are
unsuitably enumerated. For in that enumeration four are set down
corresponding to the intellectual virtues, viz. wisdom,
understanding, knowledge, and counsel, which corresponds to prudence;
whereas nothing is set down corresponding to art, which is the fifth
intellectual virtue. Moreover, something is included corresponding to
justice, viz. piety, and something corresponding to fortitude, viz.
the gift of fortitude; while there is nothing to correspond to
temperance. Therefore the gifts are enumerated insufficiently.

Obj. 2: Further, piety is a part of justice. But no part of fortitude
is assigned to correspond thereto, but fortitude itself. Therefore
justice itself, and not piety, ought to have been set down.

Obj. 3: Further, the theological virtues, more than any, direct us to
God. Since, then, the gifts perfect man according as he is moved by
God, it seems that some gifts, corresponding to the theological
virtues, should have been included.

Obj. 4: Further, even as God is an object of fear, so is He of love,
of hope, and of joy. Now love, hope, and joy are passions condivided
with fear. Therefore, as fear is set down as a gift, so ought the
other three.

Obj. 5: Further, wisdom is added in order to direct understanding;
counsel, to direct fortitude; knowledge, to direct piety. Therefore,
some gift should have been added for the purpose of directing fear.
Therefore the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are unsuitably enumerated.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Holy Writ (Isa. 11:2, 3).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), the gifts are habits
perfecting man so that he is ready to follow the promptings of the
Holy Ghost, even as the moral virtues perfect the appetitive powers
so that they obey the reason. Now just as it is natural for the
appetitive powers to be moved by the command of reason, so it is
natural for all the forces in man to be moved by the instinct of God,
as by a superior power. Therefore whatever powers in man can be the
principles of human actions, can also be the subjects of gifts, even
as they are virtues; and such powers are the reason and appetite.

Now the reason is speculative and practical: and in both we find the
apprehension of truth (which pertains to the discovery of truth), and
judgment concerning the truth. Accordingly, for the apprehension of
truth, the speculative reason is perfected by _understanding;_ the
practical reason, by _counsel._ In order to judge aright, the
speculative reason is perfected by _wisdom_; the practical reason by
_knowledge._ The appetitive power, in matters touching a man's
relations to another, is perfected by _piety;_ in matters touching
himself, it is perfected by _fortitude_ against the fear of dangers;
and against inordinate lust for pleasures, by _fear,_ according to
Prov. 15:27: "By the fear of the Lord every one declineth from evil,"
and Ps. 118:120: "Pierce Thou my flesh with Thy fear: for I am afraid
of Thy judgments." Hence it is clear that these gifts extend to all
those things to which the virtues, both intellectual and moral,
extend.

Reply Obj. 1: The gifts of the Holy Ghost perfect man in matters
concerning a good life: whereas art is not directed to such matters,
but to external things that can be made, since art is the right
reason, not about things to be done, but about things to be made
(Ethic. vi, 4). However, we may say that, as regards the infusion of
the gifts, the art is on the part of the Holy Ghost, Who is the
principal mover, and not on the part of men, who are His organs when
He moves them. The gift of fear corresponds, in a manner, to
temperance: for just as it belongs to temperance, properly speaking,
to restrain man from evil pleasures for the sake of the good
appointed by reason, so does it belong to the gift of fear, to
withdraw man from evil pleasures through fear of God.

Reply Obj. 2: Justice is so called from the rectitude of the reason,
and so it is more suitably called a virtue than a gift. But the name
of piety denotes the reverence which we give to our father and to our
country. And since God is the Father of all, the worship of God is
also called piety, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 1). Therefore
the gift whereby a man, through reverence for God, works good to all,
is fittingly called piety.

Reply Obj. 3: The mind of man is not moved by the Holy Ghost, unless
in some way it be united to Him: even as the instrument is not moved
by the craftsman, unless there by contact or some other kind of union
between them. Now the primal union of man with God is by faith, hope
and charity: and, consequently, these virtues are presupposed to the
gifts, as being their roots. Therefore all the gifts correspond to
these three virtues, as being derived therefrom.

Reply Obj. 4: Love, hope and joy have good for their object. Now God
is the Sovereign Good: wherefore the names of these passions are
transferred to the theological virtues which unite man to God. On the
other hand, the object of fear is evil, which can nowise apply to
God: hence fear does not denote union with God, but withdrawal from
certain things through reverence for God. Hence it does not give its
name to a theological virtue, but to a gift, which withdraws us from
evil, for higher motives than moral virtue does.

Reply Obj. 5: Wisdom directs both the intellect and the affections of
man. Hence two gifts are set down as corresponding to wisdom as their
directing principle; on the part of the intellect, the gift of
understanding; on the part of the affections, the gift of fear.
Because the principal reason for fearing God is taken from a
consideration of the Divine excellence, which wisdom considers.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 5]

Whether the Gifts of the Holy Ghost Are Connected?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts are not connected, for the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:8): "To one . . . by the Spirit, is given the
word of wisdom, and to another, the word of knowledge, according to
the same Spirit." Now wisdom and knowledge are reckoned among the
gifts of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the gifts of the Holy Ghost are
given to divers men, and are not connected together in the same man.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) that "many of the
faithful have not knowledge, though they have faith." But some of the
gifts, at least the gift of fear, accompany faith. Therefore it seems
that the gifts are not necessarily connected together in one and the
same man.

Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. i) that wisdom "is of small
account if it lack understanding, and understanding is wholly useless
if it be not based upon wisdom . . . Counsel is worthless, when the
strength of fortitude is lacking thereto . . . and fortitude is very
weak if it be not supported by counsel . . . Knowledge is nought if
it hath not the use of piety . . . and piety is very useless if it
lack the discernment of knowledge . . . and assuredly, unless it has
these virtues with it, fear itself rises up to the doing of no good
action": from which it seems that it is possible to have one gift
without another. Therefore the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not
connected.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory prefaces the passage above quoted, with
the following remark: "It is worthy of note in this feast of Job's
sons, that by turns they fed one another." Now the sons of Job, of
whom he is speaking, denote the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Therefore
the gifts of the Holy Ghost are connected together by strengthening
one another.

_I answer that,_ The true answer to this question is easily gathered
from what has been already set down. For it has been stated (A. 3)
that as the powers of the appetite are disposed by the moral virtues
as regards the governance of reason, so all the powers of the soul
are disposed by the gifts as regards the motion of the Holy Ghost.
Now the Holy Ghost dwells in us by charity, according to Rom. 5:5:
"The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost,
Who is given to us," even as our reason is perfected by prudence.
Wherefore, just as the moral virtues are united together in prudence,
so the gifts of the Holy Ghost are connected together in charity: so
that whoever has charity has all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, none of
which can one possess without charity.

Reply Obj. 1: Wisdom and knowledge can be considered in one way as
gratuitous graces, in so far, to wit, as man so far abounds in the
knowledge of things Divine and human, that he is able both to
instruct the believer and confound the unbeliever. It is in this
sense that the Apostle speaks, in this passage, about wisdom and
knowledge: hence he mentions pointedly the "word" of wisdom and the
"word" of knowledge. They may be taken in another way for the gifts
of the Holy Ghost: and thus wisdom and knowledge are nothing else but
perfections of the human mind, rendering it amenable to the
promptings of the Holy Ghost in the knowledge of things Divine and
human. Consequently it is clear that these gifts are in all who are
possessed of charity.

Reply Obj. 2: Augustine is speaking there of knowledge, while
expounding the passage of the Apostle quoted above (Obj. 1): hence he
is referring to knowledge, in the sense already explained, as a
gratuitous grace. This is clear from the context which follows: "For
it is one thing to know only what a man must believe in order to gain
the blissful life, which is no other than eternal life; and another,
to know how to impart this to godly souls, and to defend it against
the ungodly, which latter the Apostle seems to have styled by the
proper name of knowledge."

Reply Obj. 3: Just as the connection of the cardinal virtues
is proved in one way from the fact that one is, in a manner, perfected
by another, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1); so Gregory wishes to
prove the connection of the gifts, in the same way, from the fact that
one cannot be perfect without the other. Hence he had already observed
that "each particular virtue is to the last degree destitute, unless
one virtue lend its support to another." We are therefore not to
understand that one gift can be without another; but that if
understanding were without wisdom, it would not be a gift; even as
temperance, without justice, would not be a virtue.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 6]

Whether the Gifts of the Holy Ghost Remain in Heaven?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts of the Holy Ghost do not
remain in heaven. For Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that by means of
His sevenfold gift the "Holy Ghost instructs the mind against all
temptations." Now there will be no temptations in heaven, according
to Isa. 11:9: "They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all My
holy mountain." Therefore there will be no gifts of the Holy Ghost in
heaven.

Obj. 2: Further, the gifts of the Holy Ghost are habits, as stated
above (A. 3). But habits are of no use, where their acts are
impossible. Now the acts of some gifts are not possible in heaven;
for Gregory says (Moral. i, 15) that "understanding . . . penetrates
the truths heard . . . counsel . . . stays us from acting rashly . .
. fortitude . . . has no fear of adversity . . . piety satisfies the
inmost heart with deeds of mercy," all of which are incompatible with
the heavenly state. Therefore these gifts will not remain in the
state of glory.

Obj. 3: Further, some of the gifts perfect man in the contemplative
life, e.g. wisdom and understanding: and some in the active life,
e.g. piety and fortitude. Now the active life ends with this as
Gregory states (Moral. vi). Therefore not all the gifts of the Holy
Ghost will be in the state of glory.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Spiritu Sancto i, 20): "The city
of God, the heavenly Jerusalem is not washed with the waters of an
earthly river: it is the Holy Ghost, of Whose outpouring we but
taste, Who, proceeding from the Fount of life, seems to flow more
abundantly in those celestial spirits, a seething torrent of
sevenfold heavenly virtue."

_I answer that,_ We may speak of the gifts in two ways: first, as to
their essence; and thus they will be most perfectly in heaven, as may
be gathered from the passage of Ambrose, just quoted. The reason for
this is that the gifts of the Holy Ghost render the human mind
amenable to the motion of the Holy Ghost: which will be especially
realized in heaven, where God will be "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28),
and man entirely subject unto Him. Secondly, they may be considered
as regards the matter about which their operations are: and thus, in
the present life they have an operation about a matter, in respect of
which they will have no operation in the state of glory. Considered
in this way, they will not remain in the state of glory; just as we
have stated to be the case with regard to the cardinal virtues (Q.
67, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Gregory is speaking there of the gifts according as
they are compatible with the present state: for it is thus that they
afford us protection against evil temptations. But in the state of
glory, where all evil will have ceased, we shall be perfected in good
by the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 2: Gregory, in almost every gift, includes something that
passes away with the present state, and something that remains in the
future state. For he says that "wisdom strengthens the mind with the
hope and certainty of eternal things"; of which two, hope passes, and
certainty remains. Of understanding, he says "that it penetrates the
truths heard, refreshing the heart and enlightening its darkness," of
which, hearing passes away, since "they shall teach no more every man
. . . his brother" (Jer. 31:3, 4); but the enlightening of the mind
remains. Of counsel he says that it "prevents us from being
impetuous," which is necessary in the present life; and also that "it
makes the mind full of reason," which is necessary even in the future
state. Of fortitude he says that it "fears not adversity," which is
necessary in the present life; and further, that it "sets before us
the viands of confidence," which remains also in the future life.
With regard to knowledge he mentions only one thing, viz. that "she
overcomes the void of ignorance," which refers to the present state.
When, however, he adds "in the womb of the mind," this may refer
figuratively to the fulness of knowledge, which belongs to the future
state. Of piety he says that "it satisfies the inmost heart with
deeds of mercy." These words taken literally refer only to the
present state: yet the inward regard for our neighbor, signified by
"the inmost heart," belongs also to the future state, when piety will
achieve, not works of mercy, but fellowship of joy. Of fear he says
that "it oppresses the mind, lest it pride itself in present things,"
which refers to the present state, and that "it strengthens it with
the meat of hope for the future," which also belongs to the present
state, as regards hope, but may also refer to the future state, as
regards being "strengthened" for things we hope are here, and obtain
there.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the gifts as to their matter.
For the matter of the gifts will not be the works of the active life;
but all the gifts will have their respective acts about things
pertaining to the contemplative life, which is the life of heavenly
bliss.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 7]

Whether the Gifts Are Set Down by Isaias in Their Order of Dignity?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts are not set down by Isaias
in their order of dignity. For the principal gift is, seemingly, that
which, more than the others, God requires of man. Now God requires of
man fear, more than the other gifts: for it is written (Deut. 10:12):
"And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but
that thou fear the Lord thy God?" and (Malachi 1:6): "If . . . I be a
master, where is My fear?" Therefore it seems that fear, which is
mentioned last, is not the lowest but the greatest of the gifts.

Obj. 2: Further, piety seems to be a kind of common good; since the
Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:8): "Piety [Douay: 'Godliness'] is profitable
to all things." Now a common good is preferable to particular goods.
Therefore piety, which is given the last place but one, seems to be
the most excellent gift.

Obj. 3: Further, knowledge perfects man's judgment, while counsel
pertains to inquiry. But judgment is more excellent than inquiry.
Therefore knowledge is a more excellent gift than counsel; and yet it
is set down as being below it.

Obj. 4: Further, fortitude pertains to the appetitive power, while
science belongs to reason. But reason is a more excellent power than
the appetite. Therefore knowledge is a more excellent gift than
fortitude; and yet the latter is given the precedence. Therefore the
gifts are not set down in their order of dignity.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says [*De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4]: "It
seems to me that the sevenfold operation of the Holy Ghost, of which
Isaias speaks, agrees in degrees and expression with these" (of which
we read in Matt. 5:3): "but there is a difference of order, for
there" (viz. in Isaias) "the enumeration begins with the more
excellent gifts, here, with the lower gifts."

_I answer that,_ The excellence of the gifts can be measured in two
ways: first, simply, viz. by comparison to their proper acts as
proceeding from their principles; secondly, relatively, viz. by
comparison to their matter. If we consider the excellence of the
gifts simply, they follow the same rule as the virtues, as to their
comparison one with another; because the gifts perfect man for all
the acts of the soul's powers, even as the virtues do, as stated
above (A. 4). Hence, as the intellectual virtues have the precedence
of the moral virtues, and among the intellectual virtues, the
contemplative are preferable to the active, viz. wisdom,
understanding and science to prudence and art (yet so that wisdom
stands before understanding, and understanding before science, and
prudence and synesis before eubulia): so also among the gifts,
wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and counsel are more excellent than
piety, fortitude, and fear; and among the latter, piety excels
fortitude, and fortitude fear, even as justice surpasses fortitude,
and fortitude temperance. But in regard to their matter, fortitude
and counsel precede knowledge and piety: because fortitude and
counsel are concerned with difficult matters, whereas piety and
knowledge regard ordinary matters. Consequently the excellence of the
gifts corresponds with the order in which they are enumerated; but so
far as wisdom and understanding are given the preference to the
others, their excellence is considered simply, while, so far, as
counsel and fortitude are preferred to knowledge and piety, it is
considered with regard to their matter.

Reply Obj. 1: Fear is chiefly required as being the foundation, so to
speak, of the perfection of the other gifts, for "the fear of the
Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Ps. 110:10; Ecclus. 1:16), and not
as though it were more excellent than the others. Because, in the
order of generation, man departs from evil on account of fear (Prov.
16:16), before doing good works, and which result from the other
gifts.

Reply Obj. 2: In the words quoted from the Apostle, piety is not
compared with all God's gifts, but only with "bodily exercise," of
which he had said it "is profitable to little."

Reply Obj. 3: Although knowledge stands before counsel by reason of
its judgment, yet counsel is more excellent by reason of its matter:
for counsel is only concerned with matters of difficulty (Ethic. iii,
3), whereas the judgment of knowledge embraces all matters.

Reply Obj. 4: The directive gifts which pertain to the reason are
more excellent than the executive gifts, if we consider them in
relation to their acts as proceeding from their powers, because
reason transcends the appetite as a rule transcends the thing ruled.
But on the part of the matter, counsel is united to fortitude as the
directive power to the executive, and so is knowledge united to
piety: because counsel and fortitude are concerned with matters of
difficulty, while knowledge and piety are concerned with ordinary
matters. Hence counsel together with fortitude, by reason of their
matter, are given the preference to knowledge and piety.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 8]

Whether the Virtues Are More Excellent Than the Gifts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the virtues are more excellent than
the gifts. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 18) while speaking of
charity: "No gift of God is more excellent than this. It is this
alone which divides the children of the eternal kingdom from the
children of eternal damnation. Other gifts are bestowed by the Holy
Ghost, but, without charity, they avail nothing." But charity is a
virtue. Therefore a virtue is more excellent than the gifts of the
Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is first naturally, seems to be more
excellent. Now the virtues precede the gifts of the Holy Ghost; for
Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the gift of the Holy Ghost in the
mind it works on, forms first of all justice, prudence, fortitude,
temperance . . . and doth afterwards give it a temper in the seven
virtues" (viz. the gifts), so "as against folly to bestow wisdom;
against dullness, understanding; against rashness, counsel; against
fear, fortitude; against ignorance, knowledge; against hardness of
heart, piety; against piety, fear." Therefore the virtues are more
excellent than the gifts.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19) that "the
virtues cannot be used to evil purpose." But it is possible to make
evil use of the gifts, for Gregory says (Moral. i, 18): "We offer up
the sacrifice of prayer . . . lest wisdom may uplift; or
understanding, while it runs nimbly, deviate from the right path; or
counsel, while it multiplies itself, grow into confusion; that
fortitude, while it gives confidence, may not make us rash; lest
knowledge, while it knows and yet loves not, may swell the mind; lest
piety, while it swerves from the right line, may become distorted;
and lest fear, while it is unduly alarmed, may plunge us into the pit
of despair." Therefore the virtues are more excellent than the gifts
of the Holy Ghost.

_On the contrary,_ The gifts are bestowed to assist the virtues and
to remedy certain defects, as is shown in the passage quoted (Obj.
2), so that, seemingly, they accomplish what the virtues cannot.
Therefore the gifts are more excellent than the virtues.

_I answer that,_ As was shown above (Q. 58, A. 3; Q. 62, A. 1), there
are three kinds of virtues: for some are theological, some
intellectual, and some moral. The theological virtues are those
whereby man's mind is united to God; the intellectual virtues are
those whereby reason itself is perfected; and the moral virtues are
those which perfect the powers of appetite in obedience to the
reason. On the other hand the gifts of the Holy Ghost dispose all the
powers of the soul to be amenable to the Divine motion.

Accordingly the gifts seem to be compared to the theological virtues,
by which man is united to the Holy Ghost his Mover, in the same way
as the moral virtues are compared to the intellectual virtues, which
perfect the reason, the moving principle of the moral virtues.
Wherefore as the intellectual virtues are more excellent than the
moral virtues and control them, so the theological virtues are more
excellent than the gifts of the Holy Ghost and regulate them. Hence
Gregory says (Moral. i, 12) that "the seven sons," i.e. the seven
gifts, "never attain the perfection of the number ten, unless all
they do be done in faith, hope, and charity."

But if we compare the gifts to the other virtues, intellectual and
moral, then the gifts have the precedence of the virtues. Because the
gifts perfect the soul's powers in relation to the Holy Ghost their
Mover; whereas the virtues perfect, either the reason itself, or the
other powers in relation to reason: and it is evident that the more
exalted the mover, the more excellent the disposition whereby the
thing moved requires to be disposed. Therefore the gifts are more
perfect than the virtues.

Reply Obj. 1: Charity is a theological virtue; and such we grant to
be more perfect than the gifts.

Reply Obj. 2: There are two ways in which one thing precedes another.
One is in order of perfection and dignity, as love of God precedes
love of our neighbor: and in this way the gifts precede the
intellectual and moral virtues, but follow the theological virtues.
The other is the order of generation or disposition: thus love of
one's neighbor precedes love of God, as regards the act: and in this
way moral and intellectual virtues precede the gifts, since man,
through being well subordinate to his own reason, is disposed to be
rightly subordinate to God.

Reply Obj. 3: Wisdom and understanding and the like are gifts of the
Holy Ghost, according as they are quickened by charity, which
"dealeth not perversely" (1 Cor. 13:4). Consequently wisdom and
understanding and the like cannot be used to evil purpose, in so far
as they are gifts of the Holy Ghost. But, lest they depart from the
perfection of charity, they assist one another. This is what Gregory
means to say.
________________________

QUESTION 69

OF THE BEATITUDES
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the beatitudes: under which head there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the beatitudes differ from the gifts and virtues?

(2) Of the rewards of the beatitudes: whether they refer to this life?

(3) Of the number of the beatitudes;

(4) Of the fittingness of the rewards ascribed to the beatitudes.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 69, Art. 1]

Whether the Beatitudes Differ from the Virtues and Gifts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the beatitudes do not differ from the
virtues and gifts. For Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4)
assigns the beatitudes recited by Matthew (v 3, seqq.) to the gifts
of the Holy Ghost; and Ambrose in his commentary on Luke 6:20, seqq.,
ascribes the beatitudes mentioned there, to the four cardinal
virtues. Therefore the beatitudes do not differ from the virtues and
gifts.

Obj. 2: Further, there are but two rules of the human will: the
reason and the eternal law, as stated above (Q. 19, A. 3; Q. 21, A.
1). Now the virtues perfect man in relation to reason; while the
gifts perfect him in relation to the eternal law of the Holy Ghost,
as is clear from what has been said (Q. 68, AA. 1, 3, seqq.).
Therefore there cannot be anything else pertaining to the rectitude
of the human will, besides the virtues and gifts. Therefore the
beatitudes do not differ from them.

Obj. 3: Further, among the beatitudes are included meekness, justice,
and mercy, which are said to be virtues. Therefore the beatitudes do
not differ from the virtues and gifts.

_On the contrary,_ Certain things are included among the beatitudes,
that are neither virtues nor gifts, e.g. poverty, mourning, and
peace. Therefore the beatitudes differ from the virtues and gifts.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 2, A. 7; Q. 3, A. 1), happiness
is the last end of human life. Now one is said to possess the end
already, when one hopes to possess it; wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. i, 9) that "children are said to be happy because they are
full of hope"; and the Apostle says (Rom. 8:24): "We are saved by
hope." Again, we hope to obtain an end, because we are suitably moved
towards that end, and approach thereto; and this implies some action.
And a man is moved towards, and approaches the happy end by works of
virtue, and above all by the works of the gifts, if we speak of
eternal happiness, for which our reason is not sufficient, since we
need to be moved by the Holy Ghost, and to be perfected with His
gifts that we may obey and follow him. Consequently the beatitudes
differ from the virtues and gifts, not as habit from habit, but as
act from habit.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine and Ambrose assign the beatitudes to the
gifts and virtues, as acts are ascribed to habits. But the gifts are
more excellent than the cardinal virtues, as stated above (Q. 68, A.
8). Wherefore Ambrose, in explaining the beatitudes propounded to the
throng, assigns them to the cardinal virtues, whereas Augustine, who
is explaining the beatitudes delivered to the disciples on the
mountain, and so to those who were more perfect, ascribes them to the
gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument proves that no other habits, besides the
virtues and gifts, rectify human conduct.

Reply Obj. 3: Meekness is to be taken as denoting the act of
meekness: and the same applies to justice and mercy. And though these
might seem to be virtues, they are nevertheless ascribed to gifts,
because the gifts perfect man in all matters wherein the virtues
perfect him, as stated above (Q. 68, A. 2).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 69, Art. 2]

Whether the Rewards Assigned to the Beatitudes Refer to This Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that the rewards assigned to the
beatitudes do not refer to this life. Because some are said to be
happy because they hope for a reward, as stated above (A. 1). Now the
object of hope is future happiness. Therefore these rewards refer to
the life to come.

Obj. 2: Further, certain punishments are set down in opposition to
the beatitudes, Luke 6:25, where we read: "Woe to you that are
filled; for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh, for you
shall mourn and weep." Now these punishments do not refer to this
life, because frequently men are not punished in this life, according
to Job 21:13: "They spend their days in wealth." Therefore neither do
the rewards of the beatitudes refer to this life.

Obj. 3: Further, the kingdom of heaven which is set down as the
reward of poverty is the happiness of heaven, as Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xix) [*Cf. De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 1]. Again, abundant
fullness is not to be had save in the life to come, according to Ps.
16:15: "I shall be filled [Douay: 'satisfied'] when Thy glory shall
appear." Again, it is only in the future life that we shall see God,
and that our Divine sonship will be made manifest, according to 1
John 3:2: "We are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared
what we shall be. We know that, when He shall appear, we shall be
like to Him, because we shall see Him as He is." Therefore these
rewards refer to the future life.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4):
"These promises can be fulfilled in this life, as we believe them to
have been fulfilled in the apostles. For no words can express that
complete change into the likeness even of an angel, which is promised
to us after this life."

_I answer that,_ Expounders of Holy Writ are not agreed in speaking
of these rewards. For some, with Ambrose (Super Luc. v), hold that
all these rewards refer to the life to come; while Augustine (De
Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4) holds them to refer to the present life;
and Chrysostom in his homilies (In Matth. xv) says that some refer to
the future, and some to the present life.

In order to make the matter clear we must take note that hope of
future happiness may be in us for two reasons. First, by reason of
our having a preparation for, or a disposition to future happiness;
and this is by way of merit; secondly, by a kind of imperfect
inchoation of future happiness in holy men, even in this life. For it
is one thing to hope that the tree will bear fruit, when the leaves
begin to appear, and another, when we see the first signs of the
fruit.

Accordingly, those things which are set down as merits in the
beatitudes, are a kind of preparation for, or disposition to
happiness, either perfect or inchoate: while those that are assigned
as rewards, may be either perfect happiness, so as to refer to the
future life, or some beginning of happiness, such as is found in
those who have attained perfection, in which case they refer to the
present life. Because when a man begins to make progress in the acts
of the virtues and gifts, it is to be hoped that he will arrive at
perfection, both as a wayfarer, and as a citizen of the heavenly
kingdom.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope regards future happiness as the last end: yet it
may also regard the assistance of grace as that which leads to that
end, according to Ps. 27:7: "In Him hath my heart hoped, and I have
been helped."

Reply Obj. 2: Although sometimes the wicked do not undergo temporal
punishment in this life, yet they suffer spiritual punishment. Hence
Augustine says (Confess. i): "Thou hast decreed, and it is so,
Lord--that the disordered mind should be its own punishment." The
Philosopher, too, says of the wicked (Ethic. ix, 4) that "their soul
is divided against itself . . . one part pulls this way, another
that"; and afterwards he concludes, saying: "If wickedness makes a
man so miserable, he should strain every nerve to avoid vice." In
like manner, although, on the other hand, the good sometimes do not
receive material rewards in this life, yet they never lack spiritual
rewards, even in this life, according to Matt. 19:29, and Mk. 10:30:
"Ye shall receive a hundred times as much" even "in this time."

Reply Obj. 3: All these rewards will be fully consummated in the life
to come: but meanwhile they are, in a manner, begun, even in this
life. Because the "kingdom of heaven," as Augustine says (loc. cit.),
can denote the beginning of perfect wisdom, in so far as "the spirit"
begins to reign in men. The "possession" of the land denotes the
well-ordered affections of the soul that rests, by its desire, on the
solid foundation of the eternal inheritance, signified by "the land."
They are "comforted" in this life, by receiving the Holy Ghost, Who
is called the "Paraclete," i.e. the Comforter. They "have their
fill," even in this life, of that food of which Our Lord said (John
4:34): "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me." Again, in
this life, men "obtain" God's "Mercy." Again, the eye being cleansed
by the gift of understanding, we can, so to speak, "see God."
Likewise, in this life, those who are the "peacemakers" of their own
movements, approach to likeness to God, and are called "the children
of God." Nevertheless these things will be more perfectly fulfilled
in heaven.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 69, Art. 3]

Whether the Beatitudes Are Suitably Enumerated?

Objection 1: It would seem that the beatitudes are unsuitably
enumerated. For the beatitudes are assigned to the gifts, as stated
above (A. 1, ad 1). Now some of the gifts, viz. wisdom and
understanding, belong to the contemplative life: yet no beatitude is
assigned to the act of contemplation, for all are assigned to matters
connected with the active life. Therefore the beatitudes are
insufficiently enumerated.

Obj. 2: Further, not only do the executive gifts belong to the active
life, but also some of the directive gifts, e.g. knowledge and
counsel: yet none of the beatitudes seems to be directly connected
with the acts of knowledge or counsel. Therefore the beatitudes are
insufficiently indicated.

Obj. 3: Further, among the executive gifts connected with the active
life, fear is said to be connected with poverty, while piety seems to
correspond to the beatitude of mercy: yet nothing is included
directly connected with justice. Therefore the beatitudes are
insufficiently enumerated.

Obj. 4: Further, many other beatitudes are mentioned in Holy Writ.
Thus, it is written (Job 5:17): "Blessed is the man whom God
correcteth"; and (Ps. i, 1): "Blessed is the man who hath not walked
in the counsel of the ungodly"; and (Prov. 3:13): "Blessed is the man
that findeth wisdom." Therefore the beatitudes are insufficiently
enumerated.

Obj. 5: On the other hand, it seems that too many are mentioned. For
there are seven gifts of the Holy Ghost: whereas eight beatitudes are
indicated.

Obj. 6: Further, only four beatitudes are indicated in the sixth
chapter of Luke. Therefore the seven or eight mentioned in Matthew 5
are too many.

_I answer that,_ These beatitudes are most suitably enumerated. To
make this evident it must be observed that beatitude has been held to
consist in one of three things: for some have ascribed it to a
sensual life, some, to an active life, and some, to a contemplative
life [*See Q. 3]. Now these three kinds of happiness stand in
different relations to future beatitude, by hoping for which we are
said to be happy. Because sensual happiness, being false and contrary
to reason, is an obstacle to future beatitude; while happiness of the
active life is a disposition of future beatitude; and contemplative
happiness, if perfect, is the very essence of future beatitude, and,
if imperfect, is a beginning thereof.

And so Our Lord, in the first place, indicated certain beatitudes as
removing the obstacle of sensual happiness. For a life of pleasure
consists of two things. First, in the affluence of external goods,
whether riches or honors; from which man is withdrawn--by a virtue so
that he uses them in moderation--and by a gift, in a more excellent
way, so that he despises them altogether. Hence the first beatitude
is: "Blessed are the poor in spirit," which may refer either to the
contempt of riches, or to the contempt of honors, which results from
humility. Secondly, the sensual life consists in following the bent
of one's passions, whether irascible or concupiscible. From following
the irascible passions man is withdrawn--by a virtue, so that they
are kept within the bounds appointed by the ruling of reason--and by
a gift, in a more excellent manner, so that man, according to God's
will, is altogether undisturbed by them: hence the second beatitude
is: "Blessed are the meek." From following the concupiscible
passions, man is withdrawn--by a virtue, so that man uses these
passions in moderation--and by a gift, so that, if necessary, he
casts them aside altogether; nay more, so that, if need be, he makes
a deliberate choice of sorrow [*Cf. Q. 35, A. 3]; hence the third
beatitude is: "Blessed are they that mourn."

Active life consists chiefly in man's relations with his neighbor,
either by way of duty or by way of spontaneous gratuity. To the
former we are disposed--by a virtue, so that we do not refuse to do
our duty to our neighbor, which pertains to justice--and by a gift,
so that we do the same much more heartily, by accomplishing works of
justice with an ardent desire, even as a hungry and thirsty man eats
and drinks with eager appetite. Hence the fourth beatitude is:
"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice." With regard
to spontaneous favors we are perfected--by a virtue, so that we give
where reason dictates we should give, e.g. to our friends or others
united to us; which pertains to the virtue of liberality--and by a
gift, so that, through reverence for God, we consider only the needs
of those on whom we bestow our gratuitous bounty: hence it is written
(Luke 14:12, 13): "When thou makest a dinner or supper, call not thy
friends, nor thy brethren," etc . . . "but . . . call the poor, the
maimed," etc.; which, properly, is to have mercy: hence the fifth
beatitude is: "Blessed are the merciful."

Those things which concern the contemplative life, are either final
beatitude itself, or some beginning thereof: wherefore they are
included in the beatitudes, not as merits, but as rewards. Yet the
effects of the active life, which dispose man for the contemplative
life, are included in the beatitudes. Now the effect of the active
life, as regards those virtues and gifts whereby man is perfected in
himself, is the cleansing of man's heart, so that it is not defiled
by the passions: hence the sixth beatitude is: "Blessed are the clean
of heart." But as regards the virtues and gifts whereby man is
perfected in relation to his neighbor, the effect of the active life
is peace, according to Isa. 32:17: "The work of justice shall be
peace": hence the seventh beatitude is "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Reply Obj. 1: The acts of the gifts which belong to the active life
are indicated in the merits: but the acts of the gifts pertaining to
the contemplative life are indicated in the rewards, for the reason
given above. Because to "see God" corresponds to the gift of
understanding; and to be like God by being adoptive "children of
God,"    corresponds to the gift of wisdom.

Reply Obj. 2: In things pertaining to the active life, knowledge is
not sought for its own sake, but for the sake of operation, as even
the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 2). And therefore, since beatitude
implies something ultimate, the beatitudes do not include the acts of
those gifts which direct man in the active life, such acts, to wit,
as are elicited by those gifts, as, e.g. to counsel is the act of
counsel, and to judge, the act of knowledge: but, on the other hand,
they include those operative acts of which the gifts have the
direction, as, e.g. mourning in respect of knowledge, and mercy in
respect of counsel.

Reply Obj. 3: In applying the beatitudes to the gifts we may consider
two things. One is likeness of matter. In this way all the first five
beatitudes may be assigned to knowledge and counsel as to their
directing principles: whereas they must be distributed among the
executive gifts: so that, to wit, hunger and thirst for justice, and
mercy too, correspond to piety, which perfects man in his relations
to others; meekness to fortitude, for Ambrose says on Luke 6:22: "It
is the business of fortitude to conquer anger, and to curb
indignation,"    fortitude being about the irascible passions:
poverty and mourning to the gift of fear, whereby man withdraws from
the lusts and pleasures of the world.

Secondly, we may consider the motives of the beatitudes: and, in this
way, some of them will have to be assigned differently. Because the
principal motive for meekness is reverence for God, which belongs to
piety. The chief motive for mourning is knowledge, whereby man knows
his failings and those of worldly things, according to Eccles. 1:18:
"He that addeth knowledge, addeth also sorrow [Vulg: labor]." The
principal motive for hungering after the works of justice is
fortitude of the soul: and the chief motive for being merciful is
God's counsel, according to Dan. 4:24: "Let my counsel be acceptable
to the king [Vulg: to thee, O king]: and redeem thou thy sins with
alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor." It is thus
that Augustine assigns them (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4).

Reply Obj. 4: All the beatitudes mentioned in Holy Writ must be
reduced to these, either as to the merits or as to the rewards:
because they must all belong either to the active or to the
contemplative life. Accordingly, when we read, "Blessed is the man
whom the Lord correcteth," we must refer this to the beatitude of
mourning: when we read, "Blessed is the man that hath not walked in
the counsel of the ungodly," we must refer it to cleanness of heart:
and when we read, "Blessed is the man that findeth wisdom," this must
be referred to the reward of the seventh beatitude. The same applies
to all others that can be adduced.

Reply Obj. 5: The eighth beatitude is a confirmation and declaration
of all those that precede. Because from the very fact that a man is
confirmed in poverty of spirit, meekness, and the rest, it follows
that no persecution will induce him to renounce them. Hence the
eighth beatitude corresponds, in a way, to all the preceding seven.

Reply Obj. 6: Luke relates Our Lord's sermon as addressed to the
multitude (Luke 6:17). Hence he sets down the beatitudes according to
the capacity of the multitude, who know no other happiness than
pleasure, temporal and earthly: wherefore by these four beatitudes
Our Lord excludes four things which seem to belong to such happiness.
The first of these is abundance of external goods, which he sets
aside by saying: "Blessed are ye poor." The second is that man be
well off as to his body, in food and drink, and so forth; this he
excludes by saying in the second place: "Blessed are ye that hunger."
The third is that it should be well with man as to joyfulness of
heart, and this he puts aside by saying: "Blessed are ye that weep
now." The fourth is the outward favor of man; and this he excludes,
saying, fourthly: "Blessed shall you be, when men shall hate you."
And as Ambrose says on Luke 6:20, "poverty corresponds to temperance,
which is unmoved by delights; hunger, to justice, since who hungers
is compassionate and, through compassion gives; mourning, to
prudence, which deplores perishable things; endurance of men's hatred
belongs to fortitude."
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 69, Art. 4]

Whether the Rewards of the Beatitudes Are Suitably Enumerated?

Objection 1: It would seem that the rewards of the beatitudes are
unsuitably enumerated. Because the kingdom of heaven, which is
eternal life, contains all good things. Therefore, once given the
kingdom of heaven, no other rewards should be mentioned.

Obj. 2: Further, the kingdom of heaven is assigned as the reward,
both of the first and of the eighth beatitude. Therefore, on the same
ground it should have been assigned to all.

Obj. 3: Further, the beatitudes are arranged in the ascending order,
as Augustine remarks (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4): whereas the
rewards seem to be placed in the descending order, since to "possess
the land" is less than to possess "the kingdom of heaven." Therefore
these rewards are unsuitably enumerated.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Our Lord Who propounded
these rewards.

_I answer that,_ These rewards are most suitably assigned,
considering the nature of the beatitudes in relation to the three
kinds of happiness indicated above (A. 3). For the first three
beatitudes concerned the withdrawal of man from those things in which
sensual happiness consists: which happiness man desires by seeking
the object of his natural desire, not where he should seek it, viz.
in God, but in temporal and perishable things. Wherefore the rewards
of the first three beatitudes correspond to these things which some
men seek to find in earthly happiness. For men seek in external
things, viz. riches and honors, a certain excellence and abundance,
both of which are implied in the kingdom of heaven, whereby man
attains to excellence and abundance of good things in God. Hence Our
Lord promised the kingdom of heaven to the poor in spirit. Again,
cruel and pitiless men seek by wrangling and fighting to destroy
their enemies so as to gain security for themselves. Hence Our Lord
promised the meek a secure and peaceful possession of the land of the
living, whereby the solid reality of eternal goods is denoted. Again,
men seek consolation for the toils of the present life, in the lusts
and pleasures of the world. Hence Our Lord promises comfort to those
that mourn.

Two other beatitudes belong to the works of active happiness, which
are the works of virtues directing man in his relations to his
neighbor: from which operations some men withdraw through inordinate
love of their own good. Hence Our Lord assigns to these beatitudes
rewards in correspondence with the motives for which men recede from
them. For there are some who recede from acts of justice, and instead
of rendering what is due, lay hands on what is not theirs, that they
may abound in temporal goods. Wherefore Our Lord promised those who
hunger after justice, that they shall have their fill. Some, again,
recede from works of mercy, lest they be busied with other people's
misery. Hence Our Lord promised the merciful that they should obtain
mercy, and be delivered from all misery.

The last two beatitudes belong to contemplative happiness or
beatitude: hence the rewards are assigned in correspondence with the
dispositions included in the merit. For cleanness of the eye disposes
one to see clearly: hence the clean of heart are promised that they
shall see God. Again, to make peace either in oneself or among
others, shows a man to be a follower of God, Who is the God of unity
and peace. Hence, as a reward, he is promised the glory of the Divine
sonship, consisting in perfect union with God through consummate
wisdom.

Reply Obj. 1: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xv in Matth.), all these
rewards are one in reality, viz. eternal happiness, which the human
intellect cannot grasp. Hence it was necessary to describe it by
means of various boons known to us, while observing due proportion to
the merits to which those rewards are assigned.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the eighth beatitude is a confirmation of all
the beatitudes, so it deserves all the rewards of the beatitudes.
Hence it returns to the first, that we may understand all the other
rewards to be attributed to it in consequence. Or else, according to
Ambrose (Super Luc. v), the kingdom of heaven is promised to the poor
in spirit, as regards the glory of the soul; but to those who suffer
persecution in their bodies, it is promised as regards the glory of
the body.

Reply Obj. 3: The rewards are also arranged in ascending order. For
it is more to possess the land of the heavenly kingdom than simply to
have it: since we have many things without possessing them firmly and
peacefully. Again, it is more to be comforted in the kingdom than to
have and possess it, for there are many things the possession of
which is accompanied by sorrow. Again, it is more to have one's fill
than simply to be comforted, because fulness implies abundance of
comfort. And mercy surpasses satiety, for thereby man receives more
than he merited or was able to desire. And yet more is it to see God,
even as he is a greater man who not only dines at court, but also
sees the king's countenance. Lastly, the highest place in the royal
palace belongs to the king's son.
________________________

QUESTION 70

OF THE FRUITS OF THE HOLY GHOST
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the Fruits of the Holy Ghost: under which head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the fruits of the Holy Ghost are acts?

(2) Whether they differ from the beatitudes?

(3) Of their number?

(4) Of their opposition to the works of the flesh.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 70, Art. 1]

Whether the Fruits of the Holy Ghost Which the Apostle Enumerates
(Gal. 5) Are Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the fruits of the Holy Ghost,
enumerated by the Apostle (Gal. 5:22, 23), are not acts. For that
which bears fruit, should not itself be called a fruit, else we
should go on indefinitely. But our actions bear fruit: for it is
written (Wis. 3:15): "The fruit of good labor is glorious," and (John
4:36): "He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto
life everlasting." Therefore our actions are not to be called fruits.

Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 10), "we enjoy
[*'Fruimur', from which verb we have the Latin 'fructus' and the
English 'fruit'] the things we know, when the will rests by rejoicing
in them." But our will should not rest in our actions for their own
sake. Therefore our actions should not be called fruits.

Obj. 3: Further, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle
numbers certain virtues, viz. charity, meekness, faith, and chastity.
Now virtues are not actions but habits, as stated above (Q. 55, A.
1). Therefore the fruits are not actions.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 12:33): "By the fruit the
tree is known"; that is to say, man is known by his works, as holy
men explain the passage. Therefore human actions are called fruits.

_I answer that,_ The word "fruit" has been transferred from the
material to the spiritual world. Now fruit, among material things, is
the product of a plant when it comes to perfection, and has a certain
sweetness. This fruit has a twofold relation: to the tree that
produces it, and to the man who gathers the fruit from the tree.
Accordingly, in spiritual matters, we may take the word "fruit" in
two ways: first, so that the fruit of man, who is likened to the
tree, is that which he produces; secondly, so that man's fruit is
what he gathers.

Yet not all that man gathers is fruit, but only that which is last
and gives pleasure. For a man has both a field and a tree, and yet
these are not called fruits; but that only which is last, to wit,
that which man intends to derive from the field and from the tree. In
this sense man's fruit is his last end which is intended for his
enjoyment.

If, however, by man's fruit we understand a product of man, then
human actions are called fruits: because operation is the second act
of the operator, and gives pleasure if it is suitable to him. If then
man's operation proceeds from man in virtue of his reason, it is said
to be the fruit of his reason: but if it proceeds from him in respect
of a higher power, which is the power of the Holy Ghost, then man's
operation is said to be the fruit of the Holy Ghost, as of a Divine
seed, for it is written (1 John 3:9): "Whosoever is born of God,
committeth no sin, for His seed abideth in him."

Reply Obj. 1: Since fruit is something last and final, nothing
hinders one fruit bearing another fruit, even as one end is
subordinate to another. And so our works, in so far as they are
produced by the Holy Ghost working in us, are fruits: but, in so far
as they are referred to the end which is eternal life, they should
rather be called flowers: hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:23): "My
flowers are the fruits of honor and riches."

Reply Obj. 2: When the will is said to delight in a thing for its own
sake, this may be understood in two ways. First, so that the
expression "for the sake of" be taken to designate the final cause;
and in this way, man delights in nothing for its own sake, except the
last end. Secondly, so that it expresses the formal cause; and in
this way, a man may delight in anything that is delightful by reason
of its form. Thus it is clear that a sick man delights in health, for
its own sake, as in an end; in a nice medicine, not as in an end, but
as in something tasty; and in a nasty medicine, nowise for its own
sake, but only for the sake of something else. Accordingly we must
say that man must delight in God for His own sake, as being his last
end, and in virtuous deeds, not as being his end, but for the sake of
their inherent goodness which is delightful to the virtuous. Hence
Ambrose says (De Parad. xiii) that virtuous deeds are called fruits
because "they refresh those that have them, with a holy and genuine
delight."

Reply Obj. 3: Sometimes the names of the virtues are applied to their
actions: thus Augustine writes (Tract. xl in Joan.): "Faith is to
believe what thou seest not"; and (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 10):
"Charity is the movement of the soul in loving God and our neighbor."
It is thus that the names of the virtues are used in reckoning the
fruits.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 70, Art. 2]

Whether the Fruits Differ from the Beatitudes?

Objection 1: It would seem that the fruits do not differ from the
beatitudes. For the beatitudes are assigned to the gifts, as stated
above (Q. 69, A. 1, ad 1). But the gifts perfect man in so far as he
is moved by the Holy Ghost. Therefore the beatitudes themselves are
fruits of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, as the fruit of eternal life is to future beatitude
which is that of actual possession, so are the fruits of the present
life to the beatitudes of the present life, which are based on hope.
Now the fruit of eternal life is identified with future beatitude.
Therefore the fruits of the present life are the beatitudes.

Obj. 3: Further, fruit is essentially something ultimate and
delightful. Now this is the very nature of beatitude, as stated above
(Q. 3, A. 1; Q. 4, A. 1). Therefore fruit and beatitude have the same
nature, and consequently should not be distinguished from one another.

_On the contrary,_ Things divided into different species, differ from
one another. But fruits and beatitudes are divided into different
parts, as is clear from the way in which they are enumerated.
Therefore the fruits differ from the beatitudes.

_I answer that,_ More is required for a beatitude than for a fruit.
Because it is sufficient for a fruit to be something ultimate and
delightful; whereas for a beatitude, it must be something perfect and
excellent. Hence all the beatitudes may be called fruits, but not
vice versa. For the fruits are any virtuous deeds in which one
delights: whereas the beatitudes are none but perfect works, and
which, by reason of their perfection, are assigned to the gifts
rather than to the virtues, as already stated (Q. 69, A. 1, ad 1).

Reply Obj. 1: This argument proves the beatitudes to be fruits, but
not that all the fruits are beatitudes.

Reply Obj. 2: The fruit of eternal life is ultimate and perfect
simply: hence it nowise differs from future beatitude. On the other
hand the fruits of the present life are not simply ultimate and
perfect; wherefore not all the fruits are beatitudes.

Reply Obj. 3: More is required for a beatitude than for a fruit, as
stated.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 70, Art. 3]

Whether the Fruits Are Suitably Enumerated by the Apostle?

Objection 1: It would seem that the fruits are unsuitably enumerated
by the Apostle (Gal. 5:22, 23). Because, elsewhere, he says that
there is only one fruit of the present life; according to Rom. 6:22:
"You have your fruit unto sanctification." Moreover it is written
(Isa. 27:9): "This is all the fruit . . . that the sin . . . be taken
away." Therefore we should not reckon twelve fruits.

Obj. 2: Further, fruit is the product of spiritual seed, as stated
(A. 1). But Our Lord mentions (Matt. 13:23) a threefold fruit as
growing from a spiritual seed in a good ground, viz. "hundredfold,
sixtyfold," and "thirtyfold." Therefore one should not reckon twelve
fruits.

Obj. 3: Further, the very nature of fruit is to be something ultimate
and delightful. But this does not apply to all the fruits mentioned
by the Apostle: for patience and long-suffering seem to imply a
painful object, while faith is not something ultimate, but rather
something primary and fundamental. Therefore too many fruits are
enumerated.

Obj. 4: On the other hand, It seems that they are enumerated
insufficiently and incompletely. For it has been stated (A. 2) that
all the beatitudes may be called fruits; yet not all are mentioned
here. Nor is there anything corresponding to the acts of wisdom, and
of many other virtues. Therefore it seems that the fruits are
insufficiently enumerated.

_I answer that,_ The number of the twelve fruits enumerated by the
Apostle is suitable, and that there may be a reference to them in the
twelve fruits of which it is written (Apoc. 22:2): "On both sides of
the river was the tree bearing twelve fruits." Since, however, a
fruit is something that proceeds from a source as from a seed or
root, the difference between these fruits must be gathered from the
various ways in which the Holy Ghost proceeds in us: which process
consists in this, that the mind of man is set in order, first of all,
in regard to itself; secondly, in regard to things that are near it;
thirdly, in regard to things that are below it.

Accordingly man's mind is well disposed in regard to itself when it
has a good disposition towards good things and towards evil things.
Now the first disposition of the human mind towards the good is
effected by love, which is the first of our emotions and the root of
them all, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 4). Wherefore among the fruits
of the Holy Ghost, we reckon "charity," wherein the Holy Ghost is
given in a special manner, as in His own likeness, since He Himself
is love. Hence it is written (Rom. 5:5): "The charity of God is
poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us."
The necessary result of the love of charity is joy: because every
lover rejoices at being united to the beloved. Now charity has always
actual presence in God Whom it loves, according to 1 John 4:16: "He
that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in Him": wherefore
the sequel of charity is "joy." Now the perfection of joy is peace in
two respects. First, as regards freedom from outward disturbance; for
it is impossible to rejoice perfectly in the beloved good, if one is
disturbed in the enjoyment thereof; and again, if a man's heart is
perfectly set at peace in one object, he cannot be disquieted by any
other, since he accounts all others as nothing; hence it is written
(Ps. 118:165): "Much peace have they that love Thy Law, and to them
there is no stumbling-block," because, to wit, external things do not
disturb them in their enjoyment of God. Secondly, as regards the calm
of the restless desire: for he does not perfectly rejoice, who is not
satisfied with the object of his joy. Now peace implies these two
things, namely, that we be not disturbed by external things, and that
our desires rest altogether in one object. Wherefore after charity
and joy, "peace" is given the third place. In evil things the mind
has a good disposition, in respect of two things. First, by not being
disturbed whenever evil threatens: which pertains to "patience";
secondly, by not being disturbed, whenever good things are delayed;
which belongs to "long suffering," since "to lack good is a kind of
evil" (Ethic. v, 3).

Man's mind is well disposed as regards what is near him, viz. his
neighbor, first, as to the will to do good; and to this belongs
_goodness._ Secondly, as to the execution of well-doing; and to this
belongs _benignity,_ for the benign are those in whom the salutary
flame (_bonus ignis_) of love has enkindled the desire to be kind to
their neighbor. Thirdly, as to his suffering with equanimity the
evils his neighbor inflicts on him. To this belongs _meekness,_ which
curbs anger. Fourthly, in the point of our refraining from doing harm
to our neighbor not only through anger, but also through fraud or
deceit. To this pertains _faith,_ if we take it as denoting fidelity.
But if we take it for the faith whereby we believe in God, then man
is directed thereby to that which is above him, so that he subject
his intellect and, consequently, all that is his, to God.

Man is well disposed in respect of that which is below him, as
regards external action, by _modesty,_ whereby we observe the _mode_
in all our words and deeds: as regards internal desires, by
_continency_ and _chastity:_ whether these two differ because
chastity withdraws man from unlawful desires, continency also from
lawful desires: or because the continent man is subject to
concupiscence, but is not led away; whereas the chaste man is neither
subject to, nor led away from them.

Reply Obj. 1: Sanctification is effected by all the virtues, by which
also sins are taken away. Consequently fruit is mentioned there in
the singular, on account of its being generically one, though divided
into many species which are spoken of as so many fruits.

Reply Obj. 2: The hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold fruits do
not differ as various species of virtuous acts, but as various
degrees of perfection, even in the same virtue. Thus continency of
the married state is said to be signified by the thirtyfold fruit;
the continency of widowhood, by the sixtyfold; and virginal
continency, by the hundredfold fruit. There are, moreover, other ways
in which holy men distinguish three evangelical fruits according to
the three degrees of virtue: and they speak of three degrees, because
the perfection of anything is considered with respect to its
beginning, its middle, and its end.

Reply Obj. 3: The fact of not being disturbed by painful things is
something to delight in. And as to faith, if we consider it as the
foundation, it has the aspect of being ultimate and delightful, in as
much as it contains certainty: hence a gloss expounds thus: "Faith,
which is certainly about the unseen."

Reply Obj. 4: As Augustine says on Gal. 5:22, 23, "the Apostle had no
intention of teaching us how many (either works of the flesh, or
fruits of the Spirit) there are; but to show how the former should be
avoided, and the latter sought after." Hence either more or fewer
fruits might have been mentioned. Nevertheless, all the acts of the
gifts and virtues can be reduced to these by a certain kind of
fittingness, in so far as all the virtues and gifts must needs direct
the mind in one of the above-mentioned ways. Wherefore the acts of
wisdom and of any gifts directing to good, are reduced to charity,
joy and peace. The reason why he mentions these rather than others,
is that these imply either enjoyment of good things, or relief from
evils, which things seem to belong to the notion of fruit.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 70, Art. 4]

Whether the Fruits of the Holy Ghost Are Contrary to the Works of the
Flesh?

Objection 1: It would seem that the fruits of the Holy Ghost are not
contrary to the works of the flesh, which the Apostle enumerates
(Gal. 5:19, seqq.). Because contraries are in the same genus. But the
works of the flesh are not called fruits. Therefore the fruits of the
Spirit are not contrary to them.

Obj. 2: Further, one thing has a contrary. Now the Apostle mentions
more works of the flesh than fruits of the Spirit. Therefore the
fruits of the Spirit and the works of the flesh are not contrary to
one another.

Obj. 3: Further, among the fruits of the Spirit, the first place is
given to charity, joy, and peace: to which, fornication, uncleanness,
and immodesty, which are the first of the works of the flesh, are not
opposed. Therefore the fruits of the Spirit are not contrary to the
works of the flesh.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 5:17) that "the flesh
lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh."

_I answer that,_ The works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit
may be taken in two ways. First, in general: and in this way the
fruits of the Holy Ghost considered in general are contrary to the
works of the flesh. Because the Holy Ghost moves the human mind to
that which is in accord with reason, or rather to that which
surpasses reason: whereas the fleshly, viz. the sensitive, appetite
draws man to sensible goods which are beneath him. Wherefore, since
upward and downward are contrary movements in the physical order, so
in human actions the works of the flesh are contrary to the fruits of
the Spirit.

Secondly, both fruits and fleshly works as enumerated may be
considered singly, each according to its specific nature. And in this
they are not of necessity contrary each to each: because, as stated
above (A. 3, ad 4), the Apostle did not intend to enumerate all the
works, whether spiritual or carnal. However, by a kind of adaptation,
Augustine, commenting on Gal. 5:22, 23, contrasts the fruits with the
carnal works, each to each. Thus "to fornication, which is the love
of satisfying lust outside lawful wedlock, we may contrast charity,
whereby the soul is wedded to God: wherein also is true chastity. By
uncleanness we must understand whatever disturbances arise from
fornication: and to these the joy of tranquillity is opposed.
Idolatry, by reason of which war was waged against the Gospel of God,
is opposed to peace. Against witchcrafts, enmities, contentions,
emulations, wraths and quarrels, there is longsuffering, which helps
us to bear the evils inflicted on us by those among whom we dwell;
while kindness helps us to cure those evils; and goodness, to forgive
them. In contrast to heresy there is faith; to envy, mildness; to
drunkenness and revellings, contingency."

Reply Obj. 1: That which proceeds from a tree against the tree's
nature, is not called its fruit, but rather its corruption. And since
works of virtue are connatural to reason, while works of vice are
contrary to nature, therefore it is that works of virtue are called
fruits, but not so works of vice.

Reply Obj. 2: "Good happens in one way, evil in all manner of ways,"
as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): so that to one virtue many vices
are contrary. Consequently we must not be surprised if the works of
the flesh are more numerous than the fruits of the spirit.

The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said.
________________________

EVIL HABITS, i.e. VICES AND SINS (QQ. 71-89)
________________________

QUESTION 71

OF VICE AND SIN CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES
(In Six Articles)

We have in the next place to consider vice and sin: about which six
points have to be considered: (1) Vice and sin considered in
themselves; (2) their distinction; (3) their comparison with one
another; (4) the subject of sin; (5) the cause of sin; (6) the effect
of sin.

Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether vice is contrary to virtue?

(2) Whether vice is contrary to nature?

(3) Which is worse, a vice or a vicious act?

(4) Whether a vicious act is compatible with virtue?

(5) Whether every sin includes action?

(6) Of the definition of sin proposed by Augustine (Contra Faust.
xxii): "Sin is a word, deed, or desire against the eternal law."
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 1]

Whether Vice Is Contrary to Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that vice is not contrary to virtue. For
one thing has one contrary, as proved in _Metaph._ x, text. 17. Now
sin and malice are contrary to virtue. Therefore vice is not contrary
to it: since vice applies also to undue disposition of bodily members
or of any things whatever.

Obj. 2: Further, virtue denotes a certain perfection of power. But
vice does not denote anything relative to power. Therefore vice is
not contrary to virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv) says that "virtue is
the soul's health." Now sickness or disease, rather than vice, is
opposed to health. Therefore vice is not contrary to virtue.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. ii) that "vice
is a quality in respect of which the soul is evil." But "virtue is a
quality which makes its subject good," as was shown above (Q. 55, AA.
3, 4). Therefore vice is contrary to virtue.

_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in virtue--the essence
of virtue, and that to which virtue is ordained. In the essence of
virtue we may consider something directly, and we may consider
something consequently. Virtue implies _directly_ a disposition
whereby the subject is well disposed according to the mode of its
nature: wherefore the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 17) that
"virtue is a disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best;
and by perfect I mean that which is disposed according to its
nature." That which virtue implies _consequently_ is that it is a
kind of goodness: because the goodness of a thing consists in its
being well disposed according to the mode of its nature. That to
which virtue is directed is a good act, as was shown above (Q. 56,
A. 3).

Accordingly three things are found to be contrary to virtue. One of
these is _sin,_ which is opposed to virtue in respect of that to
which virtue is ordained: since, properly speaking, sin denotes an
inordinate act; even as an act of virtue is an ordinate and due act:
in respect of that which virtue implies consequently, viz. that it is
a kind of goodness, the contrary of virtue is _malice_: while in
respect of that which belongs to the essence of virtue directly, its
contrary is _vice_: because the vice of a thing seems to consist in
its not being disposed in a way befitting its nature: hence Augustine
says (De Lib. Arb. iii): "Whatever is lacking for a thing's natural
perfection may be called a vice."

Reply Obj. 1: These three things are contrary to virtue, but not in
the same respect: for sin is opposed to virtue, according as the
latter is productive of a good work; malice, according as virtue is a
kind of goodness; while vice is opposed to virtue properly as such.

Reply Obj. 2: Virtue implies not only perfection of power, the
principle of action; but also the due disposition of its subject. The
reason for this is because a thing operates according as it is in
act: so that a thing needs to be well disposed if it has to produce a
good work. It is in this respect that vice is contrary to virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: As Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv), "disease and
sickness are vicious qualities," for in speaking of the body he calls
it disease "when the whole body is infected," for instance, with
fever or the like; he calls it sickness "when the disease is attended
with weakness"; and vice "when the parts of the body are not well
compacted together." And although at times there may be disease in
the body without sickness, for instance, when a man has a hidden
complaint without being hindered outwardly from his wonted
occupations; "yet, in the soul," as he says, "these two things are
indistinguishable, except in thought." For whenever a man is
ill-disposed inwardly, through some inordinate affection, he is
rendered thereby unfit for fulfilling his duties: since "a tree is
known by its fruit," i.e. man by his works, according to Matt. 12:33.
But "vice of the soul," as Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv), "is a
habit or affection of the soul discordant and inconsistent with
itself through life": and this is to be found even without disease
and sickness, e.g. when a man sins from weakness or passion.
Consequently vice is of wider extent than sickness or disease; even
as virtue extends to more things than health; for health itself is
reckoned a kind of virtue (Phys. vii, text. 17). Consequently vice is
reckoned as contrary to virtue, more fittingly than sickness or
disease.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 2]

Whether Vice Is Contrary to Nature?

Objection 1: It would seem that vice is not contrary to nature.
Because vice is contrary to virtue, as stated above (A. 1). Now
virtue is in us, not by nature but by infusion or habituation, as
stated above (Q. 63, AA. 1, 2, 3). Therefore vice is not contrary to
nature.

Obj. 2: Further, it is impossible to become habituated to that which
is contrary to nature: thus "a stone never becomes habituated to
upward movement" (Ethic. ii, 1). But some men become habituated to
vice. Therefore vice is not contrary to nature.

Obj. 3: Further, anything contrary to a nature, is not found in the
greater number of individuals possessed of that nature. Now vice is
found in the greater number of men; for it is written (Matt. 7:13):
"Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who
go in thereat." Therefore vice is not contrary to nature.

Obj. 4: Further, sin is compared to vice, as act to habit, as stated
above (A. 1). Now sin is defined as "a word, deed, or desire,
contrary to the Law of God," as Augustine shows (Contra Faust. xxii,
27). But the Law of God is above nature. Therefore we should say that
vice is contrary to the Law, rather than to nature.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 13): "Every
vice, simply because it is a vice, is contrary to nature."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), vice is contrary to virtue.
Now the virtue of a thing consists in its being well disposed in a
manner befitting its nature, as stated above (A. 1). Hence the vice
of any thing consists in its being disposed in a manner not befitting
its nature, and for this reason is that thing "vituperated," which
word is derived from "vice" according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. iii,
14).

But it must be observed that the nature of a thing is chiefly the
form from which that thing derives its species. Now man derives his
species from his rational soul: and consequently whatever is contrary
to the order of reason is, properly speaking, contrary to the nature
of man, as man; while whatever is in accord with reason, is in accord
with the nature of man, as man. Now "man's good is to be in accord
with reason, and his evil is to be against reason," as Dionysius
states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore human virtue, which makes a man
good, and his work good, is in accord with man's nature, for as much
as it accords with his reason: while vice is contrary to man's
nature, in so far as it is contrary to the order of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the virtues are not caused by nature as
regards their perfection of being, yet they incline us to that which
accords with reason, i.e. with the order of reason. For Cicero says
(De Inv. Rhet. ii) that "virtue is a habit in accord with reason,
like a second nature": and it is in this sense that virtue is said to
be in accord with nature, and on the other hand that vice is contrary
to nature.

Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher is speaking there of a thing being
against nature, in so far as "being against nature" is contrary to
"being from nature": and not in so far as "being against nature" is
contrary to "being in accord with nature," in which latter sense
virtues are said to be in accord with nature, in as much as they
incline us to that which is suitable to nature.

Reply Obj. 3: There is a twofold nature in man, rational nature, and
the sensitive nature. And since it is through the operation of his
senses that man accomplishes acts of reason, hence there are more who
follow the inclinations of the sensitive nature, than who follow the
order of reason: because more reach the beginning of a business than
achieve its completion. Now the presence of vices and sins in man is
owing to the fact that he follows the inclination of his sensitive
nature against the order of his reason.

Reply Obj. 4: Whatever is irregular in a work of art, is unnatural to
the art which produced that work. Now the eternal law is compared to
the order of human reason, as art to a work of art. Therefore it
amounts to the same that vice and sin are against the order of human
reason, and that they are contrary to the eternal law. Hence
Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 6) that "every nature, as such, is
from God; and is a vicious nature, in so far as it fails from the
Divine art whereby it was made."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 3]

Whether Vice Is Worse Than a Vicious Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that vice, i.e. a bad habit, is worse than
a sin, i.e. a bad act. For, as the more lasting a good is, the better
it is, so the longer an evil lasts, the worse it is. Now a vicious
habit is more lasting than vicious acts, that pass forthwith.
Therefore a vicious habit is worse than a vicious act.

Obj. 2: Further, several evils are more to be shunned than one. But a
bad habit is virtually the cause of many bad acts. Therefore a
vicious habit is worse than a vicious act.

Obj. 3: Further, a cause is more potent than its effect. But a habit
produces its actions both as to their goodness and as to their
badness. Therefore a habit is more potent than its act, both in
goodness and in badness.

_On the contrary,_ A man is justly punished for a vicious act; but
not for a vicious habit, so long as no act ensues. Therefore a
vicious action is worse than a vicious habit.

_I answer that,_ A habit stands midway between power and act. Now it
is evident that both in good and in evil, act precedes power, as
stated in _Metaph._ ix, 19. For it is better to do well than to be
able to do well, and in like manner, it is more blameworthy to do
evil, than to be able to do evil: whence it also follows that both in
goodness and in badness, habit stands midway between power and act,
so that, to wit, even as a good or evil habit stands above the
corresponding power in goodness or in badness, so does it stand below
the corresponding act. This is also made clear from the fact that a
habit is not called good or bad, save in so far as it induces to a
good or bad act: wherefore a habit is called good or bad by reason of
the goodness or badness of its act: so that an act surpasses its
habit in goodness or badness, since "the cause of a thing being such,
is yet more so."

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders one thing from standing above another
simply, and below it in some respect. Now a thing is deemed above
another simply if it surpasses it in a point which is proper to both;
while it is deemed above it in a certain respect, if it surpasses it
in something which is accidental to both. Now it has been shown from
the very nature of act and habit, that act surpasses habit both in
goodness and in badness. Whereas the fact that habit is more lasting
than act, is accidental to them, and is due to the fact that they are
both found in a nature such that it cannot always be in action, and
whose action consists in a transient movement. Consequently act
simply excels in goodness and badness, but habit excels in a certain
respect.

Reply Obj. 2: A habit is several acts, not simply, but in a certain
respect, i.e. virtually. Wherefore this does not prove that habit
precedes act simply, both in goodness and in badness.

Reply Obj. 3: Habit causes act by way of efficient causality: but act
causes habit, by way of final causality, in respect of which we
consider the nature of good and evil. Consequently act surpasses
habit both in goodness and in badness.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 4]

Whether Sin Is Compatible with Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that a vicious act, i.e. sin, is
incompatible with virtue. For contraries cannot be together in the
same subject. Now sin is, in some way, contrary to virtue, as stated
above (A. 1). Therefore sin is incompatible with virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is worse than vice, i.e. evil act than evil
habit. But vice cannot be in the same subject with virtue: neither,
therefore, can sin.

Obj. 3: Further, sin occurs in natural things, even as in voluntary
matters (Phys. ii, text. 82). Now sin never happens in natural
things, except through some corruption of the natural power; thus
monsters are due to corruption of some elemental force in the seed,
as stated in _Phys._ ii. Therefore no sin occurs in voluntary
matters, except through the corruption of some virtue in the soul: so
that sin and virtue cannot be together in the same subject.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 2, 3) that
"virtue is engendered and corrupted by contrary causes." Now one
virtuous act does not cause a virtue, as stated above (Q. 51, A. 3):
and, consequently, one sinful act does not corrupt virtue. Therefore
they can be together in the same subject.

_I answer that,_ Sin is compared to virtue, as evil act to good habit.
Now the position of a habit in the soul is not the same as that of a
form in a natural thing. For the form of a natural thing produces, of
necessity, an operation befitting itself; wherefore a natural form is
incompatible with the act of a contrary form: thus heat is
incompatible with the act of cooling, and lightness with downward
movement (except perhaps violence be used by some extrinsic mover):
whereas the habit that resides in the soul, does not, of necessity,
produce its operation, but is used by man when he wills. Consequently
man, while possessing a habit, may either fail to use the habit, or
produce a contrary act; and so a man having a virtue may produce an
act of sin. And this sinful act, so long as there is but one, cannot
corrupt virtue, if we compare the act to the virtue itself as a habit:
since, just as habit is not engendered by one act, so neither is it
destroyed by one act as stated above (Q. 63, A. 2, ad 2). But if
we compare the sinful act to the cause of the virtues, then it is
possible for some virtues to be destroyed by one sinful act. For every
mortal sin is contrary to charity, which is the root of all the
infused virtues, as virtues; and consequently, charity being banished
by one act of mortal sin, it follows that all the infused virtues are
expelled _as virtues._ And I say [this] on account of faith and hope, whose
habits remain unquickened after mortal sin, so that they are no longer
virtues. On the other hand, since venial sin is neither contrary to
charity, nor banishes it, as a consequence, neither does it expel the
other virtues. As to the acquired virtues, they are not destroyed by
one act of any kind of sin.

Accordingly, mortal sin is incompatible with the infused virtues, but
is consistent with acquired virtue: while venial sin is compatible
with virtues, whether infused or acquired.

Reply Obj. 1: Sin is contrary to virtue, not by reason of
itself, but by reason of its act. Hence sin is incompatible with the
act, but not with the habit, of virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: Vice is directly contrary to virtue, even as sin
to virtuous act: and so vice excludes virtue, just as sin excludes
acts of virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: The natural powers act of necessity, and hence
so long as the power is unimpaired, no sin can be found in the act. On
the other hand, the virtues of the soul do not produce their acts of
necessity; hence the comparison fails.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 5]

Whether Every Sin Includes an Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that every sin includes an action. For as
merit is compared with virtue, even so is sin compared with vice. Now
there can be no merit without an action. Neither, therefore, can
there be sin without action.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [*Cf. De Vera
Relig. xiv.]: So "true is it that every sin is voluntary, that,
unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all." Now nothing can be
voluntary, save through an act of the will. Therefore every sin
implies an act.

Obj. 3: Further, if sin could be without act, it would follow that a
man sins as soon as he ceases doing what he ought. Now he who never
does something that he ought to do, ceases continually doing what he
ought. Therefore it would follow that he sins continually; and this
is untrue. Therefore there is no sin without an act.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who
knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is a sin." Now "not to
do" does not imply an act. Therefore sin can be without act.

_I answer that,_ The reason for urging this question has reference to
the sin of omission, about which there have been various opinions.
For some say that in every sin of omission there is some act, either
interior or exterior--interior, as when a man wills _not to go to
church,_ when he is bound to go--exterior, as when a man, at the very
hour that he is bound to go to church (or even before), occupies
himself in such a way that he is hindered from going. This seems, in
a way, to amount to the same as the first, for whoever wills one
thing that is incompatible with this other, wills, consequently, to
go without this other: unless, perchance, it does not occur to him,
that what he wishes to do, will hinder him from that which he is
bound to do, in which case he might be deemed guilty of negligence.
On the other hand, others say, that a sin of omission does not
necessarily suppose an act: for the mere fact of not doing what one
is bound to do is a sin.

Now each of these opinions has some truth in it. For if in the sin of
omission we look merely at that in which the essence of the sin
consists, the sin of omission will be sometimes with an interior act,
as when a man wills _not to go to church:_ while sometimes it will be
without any act at all, whether interior or exterior, as when a man,
at the time that he is bound to go to church, does not think of going
or not going to church.

If, however, in the sin of omission, we consider also the causes, or
occasions of the omission, then the sin of omission must of necessity
include some act. For there is no sin of omission, unless we omit
what we can do or not do: and that we turn aside so as not to do what
we can do or not do, must needs be due to some cause or occasion,
either united with the omission or preceding it. Now if this cause be
not in man's power, the omission will not be sinful, as when anyone
omits going to church on account of sickness: but if the cause or
occasion be subject to the will, the omission is sinful; and such
cause, in so far as it is voluntary, must needs always include some
act, at least the interior act of the will: which act sometimes bears
directly on the omission, as when a man wills _not to go to church,_
because it is too much trouble; and in this case this act, of its
very nature, belongs to the omission, because the volition of any sin
whatever, pertains, of itself, to that sin, since voluntariness is
essential to sin. Sometimes, however, the act of the will bears
directly on something else which hinders man from doing what he
ought, whether this something else be united with the omission, as
when a man wills to play at the time he ought to go to church--or,
precede the omission, as when a man wills to sit up late at night,
the result being that he does not go to church in the morning. In
this case the act, interior or exterior, is accidental to the
omission, since the omission follows outside the intention, and that
which is outside the intention is said to be accidental (Phys. ii,
text. 49, 50). Wherefore it is evident that then the sin of omission
has indeed an act united with, or preceding the omission, but that
this act is accidental to the sin of omission.

Now in judging about things, we must be guided by that which is
proper to them, and not by that which is accidental: and consequently
it is truer to say that a sin can be without any act; else the
circumstantial acts and occasions would be essential to other actual
sins.

Reply Obj. 1: More things are required for good than for evil, since
"good results from a whole and entire cause, whereas evil results
from each single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv): so that
sin may arise from a man doing what he ought not, or by his not doing
what he ought; while there can be no merit, unless a man do willingly
what he ought to do: wherefore there can be no merit without act,
whereas there can be sin without act.

Reply Obj. 2: The term "voluntary" is applied not only to that on
which the act of the will is brought to bear, but also to that which
we have the power to do or not to do, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 5.
Hence even not to will may be called voluntary, in so far as man has
it in his power to will, and not to will.

Reply Obj. 3: The sin of omission is contrary to an affirmative
precept which binds always, but not for always. Hence, by omitting to
act, a man sins only for the time at which the affirmative precept
binds him to act.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 6]

Whether Sin Is Fittingly Defined As a Word, Deed, or Desire Contrary
to the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin is unfittingly defined by saying:
"Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law."
Because "word," "deed," and "desire" imply an act; whereas not every
sin implies an act, as stated above (A. 5). Therefore this definition
does not include every sin.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Duab. Anim. xii): "Sin is the
will to retain or obtain what justice forbids." Now will is comprised
under desire, in so far as desire denotes any act of the appetite.
Therefore it was enough to say: "Sin is a desire contrary to the
eternal law," nor was there need to add "word" or "deed."

Obj. 3: Further, sin apparently consists properly in aversion from
the end: because good and evil are measured chiefly with regard to
the end as explained above (Q. 1, A. 3; Q. 18, AA. 4, 6; Q. 20, AA.
2, 3): wherefore Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i) defines sin in reference
to the end, by saying that "sin is nothing else than to neglect
eternal things, and seek after temporal things": and again he says
(Qq. lxxxii, qu. 30) that "all human wickedness consists in using
what we should enjoy, and in enjoying what we should use." Now the
definition in question contains no mention of aversion from our due
end: therefore it is an insufficient definition of sin.

Obj. 4: Further, a thing is said to be forbidden, because it is
contrary to the law. Now not all sins are evil through being
forbidden, but some are forbidden because they are evil. Therefore
sin in general should not be defined as being against the law of God.

Obj. 5: Further, a sin denotes a bad human act, as was explained
above (A. 1). Now man's evil is to be against reason, as Dionysius
states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore it would have been better to say
that sin is against reason than to say that it is contrary to the
eternal law.

_On the contrary,_ the authority of Augustine suffices (Contra Faust.
xxii, 27).

_I answer that,_ As was shown above (A. 1), sin is nothing else than
a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being
voluntary, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1), whether it be voluntary, as
being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being
commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or
operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with
its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a
rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now
there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and
homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz.
the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. Accordingly
Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) includes two things in the
definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act,
and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says "word,
deed, or desire"; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and
which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, "contrary to the
eternal law."

Reply Obj. 1: Affirmation and negation are reduced to one same genus:
e.g. in Divine things, begotten and unbegotten are reduced to the
genus "relation," as Augustine states (De Trin. v, 6, 7): and so
"word" and "deed" denote equally what is said and what is not said,
what is done and what is not done.

Reply Obj. 2: The first cause of sin is in the will, which commands
all voluntary acts, in which alone is sin to be found: and hence it
is that Augustine sometimes defines sin in reference to the will
alone. But since external acts also pertain to the substance of sin,
through being evil of themselves, as stated, it was necessary in
defining sin to include something referring to external action.

Reply Obj. 3: The eternal law first and foremost directs man to his
end, and in consequence, makes man to be well disposed in regard to
things which are directed to the end: hence when he says, "contrary
to the eternal law," he includes aversion from the end and all other
forms of inordinateness.

Reply Obj. 4: When it is said that not every sin is evil through
being forbidden, this must be understood of prohibition by positive
law. If, however, the prohibition be referred to the natural law,
which is contained primarily in the eternal law, but secondarily in
the natural code of the human reason, then every sin is evil through
being prohibited: since it is contrary to natural law, precisely
because it is inordinate.

Reply Obj. 5: The theologian considers sin chiefly as an offense
against God; and the moral philosopher, as something contrary to
reason. Hence Augustine defines sin with reference to its being
"contrary to the eternal law," more fittingly than with reference to
its being contrary to reason; the more so, as the eternal law directs
us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith.
________________________

QUESTION 72

OF THE DISTINCTION OF SINS
(In Nine Articles)

We must now consider the distinction of sins or vices: under which
head there are nine points of inquiry:

(1) Whether sins are distinguished specifically by their objects?

(2) Of the distinction between spiritual and carnal sins;

(3) Whether sins differ in reference to their causes?

(4) Whether they differ with respect to those who are sinned against?

(5) Whether sins differ in relation to the debt of punishment?

(6) Whether they differ in regard to omission and commission?

(7) Whether they differ according to their various stages?

(8) Whether they differ in respect of excess and deficiency?

(9) Whether they differ according to their various circumstances?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 1]

Whether Sins Differ in Species According to Their Objects?

Objection 1: It would seem that sins do not differ in species,
according to their objects. For acts are said to be good or evil, in
relation, chiefly, to their end, as shown above (Q. 1, A. 3; Q. 18,
AA. 4, 6). Since then sin is nothing else than a bad human act, as
stated above (Q. 71, A. 1), it seems that sins should differ
specifically according to their ends rather than according to their
objects.

Obj. 2: Further, evil, being a privation, differs specifically
according to the different species of opposites. Now sin is an evil
in the genus of human acts. Therefore sins differ specifically
according to their opposites rather than according to their objects.

Obj. 3: Further, if sins differed specifically according to their
objects, it would be impossible to find the same specific sin with
diverse objects: and yet such sins are to be found. For pride is
about things spiritual and material as Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv,
18); and avarice is about different kinds of things. Therefore sins
do not differ in species according to their objects.

_On the contrary,_ "Sin is a word, deed, or desire against God's
law." Now words, deeds, and desires differ in species according to
their various objects: since acts differ by their objects, as stated
above (Q. 18, A. 2). Therefore sins, also differ in species according
to their objects.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 71, A. 6), two things concur in
the nature of sin, viz. the voluntary act, and its inordinateness,
which consists in departing from God's law. Of these two, one is
referred essentially to the sinner, who intends such and such an act
in such and such matter; while the other, viz. the inordinateness of
the act, is referred accidentally to the intention of the sinner, for
"no one acts intending evil," as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv).
Now it is evident that a thing derives its species from that which is
essential and not from that which is accidental: because what is
accidental is outside the specific nature. Consequently sins differ
specifically on the part of the voluntary acts rather than of the
inordinateness inherent to sin. Now voluntary acts differ in species
according to their objects, as was proved above (Q. 18, A. 2).
Therefore it follows that sins are properly distinguished in species
by their objects.

Reply Obj. 1: The aspect of good is found chiefly in the end: and
therefore the end stands in the relation of object to the act of the
will which is at the root of every sin. Consequently it amounts to
the same whether sins differ by their objects or by their ends.

Reply Obj. 2: Sin is not a pure privation but an act deprived of its
due order: hence sins differ specifically according to the objects of
their acts rather than according to their opposites, although, even
if they were distinguished in reference to their opposite virtues, it
would come to the same: since virtues differ specifically according
to their objects, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 5).

Reply Obj. 3: In various things, differing in species or genus,
nothing hinders our finding one formal aspect of the object, from
which aspect sin receives its species. It is thus that pride seeks
excellence in reference to various things; and avarice seeks
abundance of things adapted to human use.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 2]

Whether Spiritual Sins Are Fittingly Distinguished from Carnal Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that spiritual sins are unfittingly
distinguished from carnal sins. For the Apostle says (Gal. 5:19):
"The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication,
uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts," etc. from
which it seems that all kinds of sins are works of the flesh. Now
carnal sins are called works of the flesh. Therefore carnal sins
should not be distinguished from spiritual sins.

Obj. 2: Further, whosoever sins, walks according to the flesh, as
stated in Rom. 8:13: "If you live according to the flesh, you shall
die. But if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you
shall live." Now to live or walk according to the flesh seems to
pertain to the nature of carnal sin. Therefore carnal sins should not
be distinguished from spiritual sins.

Obj. 3: Further, the higher part of the soul, which is the mind or
reason, is called the spirit, according to Eph. 4:23: "Be renewed in
the spirit of your mind," where spirit stands for reason, according
to a gloss. Now every sin, which is committed in accordance with the
flesh, flows from the reason by its consent; since consent in a
sinful act belongs to the higher reason, as we shall state further on
(Q. 74, A. 7). Therefore the same sins are both carnal and spiritual,
and consequently they should not be distinguished from one another.

Obj. 4: Further, if some sins are carnal specifically, this,
seemingly, should apply chiefly to those sins whereby man sins
against his own body. But, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 6:18),
"every sin that a man doth, is without the body: but he that
committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body." Therefore
fornication would be the only carnal sin, whereas the Apostle (Eph.
5:3) reckons covetousness with the carnal sins.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17) says that "of the seven
capital sins five are spiritual, and two carnal."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), sins take their species from
their objects. Now every sin consists in the desire for some mutable
good, for which man has an inordinate desire, and the possession of
which gives him inordinate pleasure. Now, as explained above (Q. 31,
A. 3), pleasure is twofold. One belongs to the soul, and is
consummated in the mere apprehension of a thing possessed in
accordance with desire; this can also be called spiritual pleasure,
e.g. when one takes pleasure in human praise or the like. The other
pleasure is bodily or natural, and is realized in bodily touch, and
this can also be called carnal pleasure.

Accordingly, those sins which consist in spiritual pleasure, are
called spiritual sins; while those which consist in carnal pleasure,
are called carnal sins, e.g. gluttony, which consists in the
pleasures of the table; and lust, which consists in sexual pleasures.
Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:1): "Let us cleanse ourselves from
all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit."

Reply Obj. 1: As a gloss says on the same passage, these vices are
called works of the flesh, not as though they consisted in carnal
pleasure; but flesh here denotes man, who is said to live according
to the flesh, when he lives according to himself, as Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xiv, 2, 3). The reason of this is because every failing
in the human reason is due in some way to the carnal sense.

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: Even in the carnal sins there is a spiritual act, viz.
the act of reason: but the end of these sins, from which they are
named, is carnal pleasure.

Reply Obj. 4: As the gloss says, "in the sin of fornication the soul
is the body's slave in a special sense, because at the moment of
sinning it can think of nothing else": whereas the pleasure of
gluttony, although carnal, does not so utterly absorb the reason. It
may also be said that in this sin, an injury is done to the body
also, for it is defiled inordinately: wherefore by this sin alone is
man said specifically to sin against his body. While covetousness,
which is reckoned among the carnal sins, stands here for adultery,
which is the unjust appropriation of another's wife. Again, it may be
said that the thing in which the covetous man takes pleasure is
something bodily, and in this respect covetousness is numbered with
the carnal sins: but the pleasure itself does not belong to the body,
but to the spirit, wherefore Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 17) that it
is a spiritual sin.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 3]

Whether Sins Differ Specifically in Reference to Their Causes?

Objection 1: It would seem that sins differ specifically in reference
to their causes. For a thing takes its species from that whence it
derives its being. Now sins derive their being from their causes.
Therefore they take their species from them also. Therefore they
differ specifically in reference to their causes.

Obj. 2: Further, of all the causes the material cause seems to have
least reference to the species. Now the object in a sin is like its
material cause. Since, therefore, sins differ specifically according
to their objects, it seems that much more do they differ in reference
to their other causes.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine, commenting on Ps. 79:17, "Things set on
fire and dug down," says that "every sin is due either to fear
inducing false humility, or to love enkindling us to undue ardor."
For it is written (1 John 2:16) that "all that is in the world, is
the concupiscence of the flesh, or [Vulg.: 'and'] the concupiscence
of the eyes, or [Vulg.: 'and'] the pride of life." Now a thing is
said to be in the world on account of sin, in as much as the world
denotes lovers of the world, as Augustine observes (Tract. ii in
Joan.). Gregory, too (Moral. xxxi, 17), distinguishes all sins
according to the seven capital vices. Now all these divisions refer
to the causes of sins. Therefore, seemingly, sins differ specifically
according to the diversity of their causes.

_On the contrary,_ If this were the case all sins would belong to one
species, since they are due to one cause. For it is written (Ecclus.
10:15) that "pride is the beginning of all sin," and (1 Tim. 6:10)
that "the desire of money is the root of all evils." Now it is
evident that there are various species of sins. Therefore sins do not
differ specifically according to their different causes.

_I answer that,_ Since there are four kinds of causes, they are
attributed to various things in various ways. Because the _formal_
and the _material_ cause regard properly the substance of a thing;
and consequently substances differ in respect of their matter and
form, both in species and in genus. The _agent_ and the _end_ regard
directly movement and operation: wherefore movements and operations
differ specifically in respect of these causes; in different ways,
however, because the natural active principles are always determined
to the same acts; so that the different species of natural acts are
taken not only from the objects, which are the ends or terms of those
acts, but also from their active principles: thus heating and cooling
are specifically distinct with reference to hot and cold. On the
other hand, the active principles in voluntary acts, such as the acts
of sins, are not determined, of necessity, to one act, and
consequently from one active or motive principle, diverse species of
sins can proceed: thus from fear engendering false humility man may
proceed to theft, or murder, or to neglect the flock committed to his
care; and these same things may proceed from love enkindling to undue
ardor. Hence it is evident that sins do not differ specifically
according to their various active or motive causes, but only in
respect of diversity in the final cause, which is the end and object
of the will. For it has been shown above (Q. 1, A. 3; Q. 18, AA. 4,
6) that human acts take their species from the end.

Reply Obj. 1: The active principles in voluntary acts, not being
determined to one act, do not suffice for the production of human
acts, unless the will be determined to one by the intention of the
end, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. ix, text. 15, 16), and
consequently sin derives both its being and its species from the end.

Reply Obj. 2: Objects, in relation to external acts, have the
character of matter "about which"; but, in relation to the interior
act of the will, they have the character of end; and it is owing to
this that they give the act its species. Nevertheless, even
considered as the matter "about which," they have the character of
term, from which movement takes its species (Phys. v, text. 4;
_Ethic._ x, 4); yet even terms of movement specify movements, in so
far as term has the character of end.

Reply Obj. 3: These distinctions of sins are given, not as distinct
species of sins, but to show their various causes.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 4]

Whether Sin Is Fittingly Divided into Sin Against God, Against
Oneself, and Against One's Neighbor?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin is unfittingly divided into sin
against God, against one's neighbor, and against oneself. For that
which is common to all sins should not be reckoned as a part in the
division of sin. But it is common to all sins to be against God: for
it is stated in the definition of sin that it is "against God's law,"
as stated above (Q. 66, A. 6). Therefore sin against God should not
be reckoned a part of the division of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, every division should consist of things in
opposition to one another. But these three kinds of sin are not
opposed to one another: for whoever sins against his neighbor, sins
against himself and against God. Therefore sin is not fittingly
divided into these three.

Obj. 3: Further, specification is not taken from things external. But
God and our neighbor are external to us. Therefore sins are not
distinguished specifically with regard to them: and consequently sin
is unfittingly divided according to these three.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore (De Summo Bono), in giving the division of
sins, says that "man is said to sin against himself, against God, and
against his neighbor."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 71, AA. 1, 6), sin is an
inordinate act. Now there should be a threefold order in man: one in
relation to the rule of reason, in so far as all our actions and
passions should be commensurate with the rule of reason: another
order is in relation to the rule of the Divine Law, whereby man
should be directed in all things: and if man were by nature a
solitary animal, this twofold order would suffice. But since man is
naturally a civic and social animal, as is proved in _Polit._ i, 2,
hence a third order is necessary, whereby man is directed in relation
to other men among whom he has to dwell. Of these orders the second
contains the first and surpasses it. For whatever things are
comprised under the order of reason, are comprised under the order of
God Himself. Yet some things are comprised under the order of God,
which surpass the human reason, such as matters of faith, and things
due to God alone. Hence he that sins in such matters, for instance,
by heresy, sacrilege, or blasphemy, is said to sin against God. In
like manner, the first order includes the third and surpasses it,
because in all things wherein we are directed in reference to our
neighbor, we need to be directed according to the order of reason.
Yet in some things we are directed according to reason, in relation
to ourselves only, and not in reference to our neighbor; and when man
sins in these matters, he is said to sin against himself, as is seen
in the glutton, the lustful, and the prodigal. But when man sins in
matters concerning his neighbor, he is said to sin against his
neighbor, as appears in the thief and murderer. Now the things
whereby man is directed to God, his neighbor, and himself are
diverse. Wherefore this distinction of sins is in respect of their
objects, according to which the species of sins are diversified: and
consequently this distinction of sins is properly one of different
species of sins: because the virtues also, to which sins are opposed,
differ specifically in respect of these three. For it is evident from
what has been said (Q. 62, AA. 1, 2, 3) that by the theological
virtues man is directed to God; by temperance and fortitude, to
himself; and by justice to his neighbor.

Reply Obj. 1: To sin against God is common to all sins, in so far as
the order to God includes every human order; but in so far as order
to God surpasses the other two orders, sin against God is a special
kind of sin.

Reply Obj. 2: When several things, of which one includes another, are
distinct from one another, this distinction is understood to refer,
not to the part contained in another, but to that in which one goes
beyond another. This may be seen in the division of numbers and
figures: for a triangle is distinguished from a four-sided figure not
in respect of its being contained thereby, but in respect of that in
which it is surpassed thereby: and the same applies to the numbers
three and four.

Reply Obj. 3: Although God and our neighbor are external to the
sinner himself, they are not external to the act of sin, but are
related to it as to its object.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 5]

Whether the Division of Sins According to Their Debt of Punishment
Diversifies Their Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that the division of sins according to
their debt of punishment diversifies their species; for instance,
when sin is divided into "mortal" and "venial." For things which are
infinitely apart, cannot belong to the same species, nor even to the
same genus. But venial and mortal sin are infinitely apart, since
temporal punishment is due to venial sin, and eternal punishment to
mortal sin; and the measure of the punishment corresponds to the
gravity of the fault, according to Deut. 25:2: "According to the
measure of the sin shall the measure be also of the stripes be."
Therefore venial and mortal sins are not of the same genus, nor can
they be said to belong to the same species.

Obj. 2: Further, some sins are mortal in virtue of their species
[*_Ex genere,_ genus in this case denoting the species], as murder
and adultery; and some are venial in virtue of their species, as in
an idle word, and excessive laughter. Therefore venial and mortal
sins differ specifically.

Obj. 3: Further, just as a virtuous act stands in relation to its
reward, so does sin stand in relation to punishment. But the reward
is the end of the virtuous act. Therefore punishment is the end of
sin. Now sins differ specifically in relation to their ends, as
stated above (A. 1, ad 1). Therefore they are also specifically
distinct according to the debt of punishment.

_On the contrary,_ Those things that constitute a species are prior
to the species, e.g. specific differences. But punishment follows sin
as the effect thereof. Therefore sins do not differ specifically
according to the debt of punishment.

_I answer that,_ In things that differ specifically we find a twofold
difference: the first causes the diversity of species, and is not to
be found save in different species, e.g. "rational" and "irrational,"
"animate," and "inanimate": the other difference is consequent to
specific diversity; and though, in some cases, it may [follow from
the diversity of species], yet, in others, it may be found within the
same species; thus "white" and "black" are consequent to the specific
diversity of crow and swan, and yet this difference is found within
the one species of man.

We must therefore say that the difference between venial and mortal
sin, or any other difference is respect of the debt of punishment,
cannot be a difference constituting specific diversity. For what is
accidental never constitutes a species; and what is outside the
agent's intention is accidental (Phys. ii, text. 50). Now it is
evident that punishment is outside the intention of the sinner,
wherefore it is accidentally referred to sin on the part of the
sinner. Nevertheless it is referred to sin by an extrinsic principle,
viz. the justice of the judge, who imposes various punishments
according to the various manners of sin. Therefore the difference
derived from the debt of punishment, may be consequent to the
specific  diversity of sins, but cannot constitute it.

Now the difference between venial and mortal sin is consequent to the
diversity of that inordinateness which constitutes the notion of sin.
For inordinateness is twofold, one that destroys the principle of
order, and another which, without destroying the principle of order,
implies inordinateness in the things which follow the principle:
thus, in an animal's body, the frame may be so out of order that the
vital principle is destroyed; this is the inordinateness of death;
while, on the other hand, saving the vital principle, there may be
disorder in the bodily humors; and then there is sickness. Now the
principle of the entire moral order is the last end, which stands in
the same relation to matters of action, as the indemonstrable
principle does to matters of speculation (Ethic. vii, 8). Therefore
when the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last
end, viz. God, to Whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin;
but when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is
venial sin. For even as in the body, the disorder of death which
results from the destruction of the principle of life, is irreparable
according to nature, while the disorder of sickness can be repaired
by reason of the vital principle being preserved, so it is in matters
concerning the soul. Because, in speculative matters, it is
impossible to convince one who errs in the principles, whereas one
who errs, but retains the principles, can be brought back to the
truth by means of the principles. Likewise in practical matters, he
who, by sinning, turns away from his last end, if we consider the
nature of his sin, falls irreparably, and therefore is said to sin
mortally and to deserve eternal punishment: whereas when a man sins
without turning away from God, by the very nature of his sin, his
disorder can be repaired, because the principle of the order is not
destroyed; wherefore he is said to sin venially, because, to wit, he
does not sin so as to deserve to be punished eternally.

Reply Obj. 1: Mortal and venial sins are infinitely apart as regards
what they _turn away from,_ not as regards what they _turn to,_ viz.
the object which specifies them. Hence nothing hinders the same
species from including mortal and venial sins; for instance, in the
species "adultery" the first movement is a venial sin; while an idle
word, which is, generally speaking, venial, may even be a mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 2: From the fact that one sin is mortal by reason of its
species, and another venial by reason of its species, it follows that
this difference is consequent to the specific difference of sins, not
that it is the cause thereof. And this difference may be found even
in things of the same species, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: The reward is intended by him that merits or acts
virtu[ous]ly; whereas the punishment is not intended by the sinner,
but, on the contrary, is against his will. Hence the comparison fails.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 6]

Whether Sins of Commission and Omission Differ Specifically?

Objection 1: It would seem that sins of commission and omission
differ specifically. For "offense" and "sin" are condivided with one
another (Eph. 2:1), where it is written: "When you were dead in your
offenses and sins," which words a gloss explains, saying:
"'Offenses,' by omitting to do what was commanded, and 'sins,' by
doing what was forbidden." Whence it is evident that "offenses" here
denotes sins of omission; while "sin" denotes sins of commission.
Therefore they differ specifically, since they are contrasted with
one another as different species.

Obj. 2: Further, it is essential to sin to be against God's law, for
this is part of its definition, as is clear from what has been said
(Q. 71, A. 6). Now in God's law, the affirmative precepts, against
which is the sin of omission, are different from the negative
precepts, against which is the sin of omission. Therefore sins of
omission and commission differ specifically.

Obj. 3: Further, omission and commission differ as affirmation and
negation. Now affirmation and negation cannot be in the same species,
since negation has no species; for "there is neither species nor
difference of non-being," as the Philosopher states (Phys. iv, text.
67). Therefore omission and commission cannot belong to the same
species.

_On the contrary,_ Omission and commission are found in the same
species of sin. For the covetous man both takes what belongs to
others, which is a sin of commission; and gives not of his own to
whom he should give, which is a sin of omission. Therefore omission
and commission do not differ specifically.

_I answer that,_ There is a twofold difference in sins; a material
difference and a formal difference: the material difference is to be
observed in the natural species of the sinful act; while the formal
difference is gathered from their relation to one proper end, which
is also their proper object. Hence we find certain acts differing
from one another in the material specific difference, which are
nevertheless formally in the same species of sin, because they are
directed to the one same end: thus strangling, stoning, and stabbing
come under the one species of murder, although the actions themselves
differ specifically according to the natural species. Accordingly, if
we refer to the material species in sins of omission and commission,
they differ specifically, using species in a broad sense, in so far
as negation and privation may have a species. But if we refer to the
formal species of sins of omission and commission, they do not differ
specifically, because they are directed to the same end, and proceed
from the same motive. For the covetous man, in order to hoard money,
both robs, and omits to give what he ought, and in like manner, the
glutton, to satiate his appetite, both eats too much and omits the
prescribed fasts. The same applies to other sins: for in things,
negation is always founded on affirmation, which, in a manner, is its
cause. Hence in the physical order it comes under the same head, that
fire gives forth heat, and that it does not give forth cold.

Reply Obj. 1: This division in respect of commission and omission, is
not according to different formal species, but only according to
material species, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: In God's law, the necessity for various affirmative and
negative precepts, was that men might be gradually led to virtue,
first by abstaining from evil, being induced to this by the negative
precepts, and afterwards by doing good, to which we are induced by
the affirmative precepts. Wherefore the affirmative and negative
precepts do not belong to different virtues, but to different degrees
of virtue; and consequently they are not, of necessity, opposed to
sins of different species. Moreover sin is not specified by that from
which it turns away, because in this respect it is a negation or
privation, but by that to which it turns, in so far as sin is an act.
Consequently sins do not differ specifically according to the various
precepts of the Law.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection considers the material diversity of
sins. It must be observed, however, that although, properly speaking,
negation is not in a species, yet it is allotted to a species by
reduction to the affirmation on which it is based.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 7]

Whether Sins Are Fittingly Divided into Sins of Thought, Word, and
Deed?

Objection 1: It would seem that sins are unfittingly divided into
sins of thought, word, and deed. For Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12)
describes three stages of sin, of which the first is "when the carnal
sense offers a bait," which is the sin of thought; the second stage
is reached "when one is satisfied with the mere pleasure of thought";
and the third stage, "when consent is given to the deed." Now these
three belong to the sin of thought. Therefore it is unfitting to
reckon sin of thought as one kind of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, Gregory (Moral. iv, 25) reckons four degrees of sin;
the first of which is "a fault hidden in the heart"; the second,
"when it is done openly"; the third, "when it is formed into a
habit"; and the fourth, "when man goes so far as to presume on God's
mercy or to give himself up to despair": where no distinction is made
between sins of deed and sins of word, and two other degrees of sin
are added. Therefore the first division was unfitting.

Obj. 3: Further, there can be no sin of word or deed unless there
precede sin of thought. Therefore these sins do not differ
specifically. Therefore they should not be condivided with one
another.

_On the contrary,_ Jerome in commenting on Ezech. 43:23, says: "The
human race is subject to three kinds of sin, for when we sin, it is
either by thought, or word, or deed."

_I answer that,_ Things differ specifically in two ways: first, when
each has the complete species; thus a horse and an ox differ
specifically: secondly, when the diversity of species is derived from
diversity of degree in generation or movement: thus the building is
the complete generation of a house, while the laying of the
foundations, and the setting up of the walls are incomplete species,
as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. x, 4); and the same can apply to
the generation of animals. Accordingly sins are divided into these
three, viz. sins of thought, word, and deed, not as into various
complete species: for the consummation of sin is in the deed,
wherefore sins of deed have the complete species; but the first
beginning of sin is its foundation, as it were, in the sin of
thought; the second degree is the sin of word, in so far as man is
ready to break out into a declaration of his thought; while the third
degree consists in the consummation of the deed. Consequently these
three differ in respect of the various degrees of sin. Nevertheless
it is evident that these three belong to the one complete species of
sin, since they proceed from the same motive. For the angry man,
through desire of vengeance, is at first disturbed in thought, then
he breaks out into words of abuse, and lastly he goes on to wrongful
deeds; and the same applies to lust and to any other sin.

Reply Obj. 1: All sins of thought have the common note of secrecy, in
respect of which they form one degree, which is, however, divided
into three stages, viz. of cogitation, pleasure, and consent.

Reply Obj. 2: Sins of words and deed are both done openly, and for
this reason Gregory (Moral. iv, 25) reckons them under one head:
whereas Jerome (in commenting on Ezech. 43:23) distinguishes between
them, because in sins of word there is nothing but manifestation
which is intended principally; while in sins of deed, it is the
consummation of the inward thought which is principally intended, and
the outward manifestation is by way of sequel. Habit and despair are
stages following the complete species of sin, even as boyhood and
youth follow the complete generation of a man.

Reply Obj. 3: Sin of thought and sin of word are not distinct from
the sin of deed when they are united together with it, but when each
is found by itself: even as one part of a movement is not distinct
from the whole movement, when the movement is continuous, but only
when there is a break in the movement.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 8]

Whether Excess and Deficiency Diversify the Species of Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that excess and deficiency do not
diversify the species of sins. For excess and deficiency differ in
respect of more and less. Now "more" and "less" do not diversify a
species. Therefore excess and deficiency do not diversify the species
of sins.

Obj. 2: Further, just as sin, in matters of action, is due to
straying from the rectitude of reason, so falsehood, in speculative
matters, is due to straying from the truth of the reality. Now the
species of falsehood is not diversified by saying more or less than
the reality. Therefore neither is the species of sin diversified by
straying more or less from the rectitude of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, "one species cannot be made out of two," as Porphyry
declares [*Isagog.; cf. Arist. _Metaph._ i]. Now excess and
deficiency are united in one sin; for some are at once illiberal and
wasteful--illiberality being a sin of deficiency, and prodigality, by
excess. Therefore excess and deficiency do not diversify the species
of sins.

_On the contrary,_ Contraries differ specifically, for "contrariety
is a difference of form," as stated in _Metaph._ x, text. 13, 14. Now
vices that differ according to excess and deficiency are contrary to
one another, as illiberality to wastefulness. Therefore they differ
specifically.

_I answer that,_ While there are two things in sin, viz. the act
itself and its inordinateness, in so far as sin is a departure from
the order of reason and the Divine law, the species of sin is
gathered, not from its inordinateness, which is outside the sinner's
intention, as stated above (A. 1), but one the contrary, from the act
itself as terminating in the object to which the sinner's intention
is directed. Consequently wherever we find a different motive
inclining the intention to sin, there will be a different species of
sin. Now it is evident that the motive for sinning, in sins by
excess, is not the same as the motive for sinning, in sins of
deficiency; in fact, they are contrary to one another, just as the
motive in the sin of intemperance is love for bodily pleasures, while
the motive in the sin of insensibility is hatred of the same.
Therefore these sins not only differ specifically, but are contrary
to one another.

Reply Obj. 1: Although _more_ and _less_ do not cause diversity of
species, yet they are sometimes consequent to specific difference, in
so far as they are the result of diversity of form; thus we may say
that fire is lighter than air. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic.
viii, 1) that "those who held that there are no different species of
friendship, by reason of its admitting of degree, were led by
insufficient proof." In this way to exceed reason or to fall short
thereof belongs to sins specifically different, in so far as they
result from different motives.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the sinner's intention to depart from reason;
and so sins of excess and deficiency do not become of one kind
through departing from the one rectitude of reason. On the other
hand, sometimes he who utters a falsehood, intends to hide the truth,
wherefore in this respect, it matters not whether he tells more or
less. If, however, departure from the truth be not outside the
intention, it is evident that then one is moved by different causes
to tell more or less; and in this respect there are different kinds
of falsehood, as is evident of the _boaster,_ who exceeds in telling
untruths for the sake of fame, and the _cheat,_ who tells less than
the truth, in order to escape from paying his debts. This also
explains how some false opinions are contrary to one another.

Reply Obj. 3: One may be prodigal and illiberal with regard to
different objects: for instance one may be illiberal [*Cf. II-II, Q.
119, A. 1, ad 1] in taking what one ought not: and nothing hinders
contraries from being in the same subject, in different respects.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 9]

Whether Sins Differ Specifically in Respect of Different Circumstances?

Objection 1: It would seem that vices and sins differ in respect of
different circumstances. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "evil
results from each single defect." Now individual defects are
corruptions of individual circumstances. Therefore from the
corruption of each circumstance there results a corresponding species
of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, sins are human acts. But human acts sometimes take
their species from circumstances, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 10).
Therefore sins differ specifically according as different
circumstances are corrupted.

Obj. 3: Further, diverse species are assigned to gluttony, according
to the words contained in the following verse:

"Hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily."

Now these pertain to various circumstances, for "hastily" means
sooner than is right; "too much," more than is right, and so on with
the others. Therefore the species of sin is diversified according to
the various circumstances.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7; iv, 1) that
"every vice sins by doing more than one ought, and when one ought
not"; and in like manner as to the other circumstances. Therefore the
species of sins are not diversified in this respect.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 8), wherever there is a special
motive for sinning, there is a different species of sin, because the
motive for sinning is the end and object of sin. Now it happens
sometimes that although different circumstances are corrupted, there
is but one motive: thus the illiberal man, for the same motive, takes
when he ought not, where he ought not, and more than he ought, and so
on with the circumstances, since he does this through an inordinate
desire of hoarding money: and in such cases the corruption of
different circumstances does not diversify the species of sins, but
belongs to one and the same species.

Sometimes, however, the corruption of different circumstances arises
from different motives: for instance that a man eat hastily, may be
due to the fact that he cannot brook the delay in taking food, on
account of a rapid exhaustion of the digestive humors; and that he
desire too much food, may be due to a naturally strong digestion;
that he desire choice meats, is due to his desire for pleasure in
taking food. Hence in such matters, the corruption of different
circumstances entails different species of sins.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil, as such, is a privation, and so it has different
species in respect of the thing which the subject is deprived, even
as other privations. But sin does not take its species from the
privation or aversion, as stated above (A. 1), but from turning to
the object of the act.

Reply Obj. 2: A circumstance never transfers an act from one species
to another, save when there is another motive.

Reply Obj. 3: In the various species of gluttony there are various
motives, as stated.
________________________

QUESTION 73

OF THE COMPARISON OF ONE SIN WITH ANOTHER
(In Ten Articles)

We must now consider the comparison of one sin with another: under
which head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether all sins and vices are connected with one another?

(2) Whether all are equal?

(3) Whether the gravity of sin depends on its object?

(4) Whether it depends on the excellence of the virtue to which it is
opposed?

(5) Whether carnal sins are more grievous than spiritual sins?

(6) Whether the gravity of sins depends on their causes?

(7) Whether it depends on their circumstances?

(8) Whether it depends on how much harm ensues?

(9) Whether on the position of the person sinned against?

(10) Whether sin is aggravated by reason of the excellence of the
person sinning?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 1]

Whether All Sins Are Connected with One Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that all sins are connected. For it is
written (James 2:10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, but offend
in one point, is become guilty of all." Now to be guilty of
transgressing all the precepts of Law, is the same as to commit all
sins, because, as Ambrose says (De Parad. viii), "sin is a
transgression of the Divine law, and disobedience of the heavenly
commandments." Therefore whoever commits one sin is guilty of all.

Obj. 2: Further, each sin banishes its opposite virtue. Now whoever
lacks one virtue lacks them all, as was shown above (Q. 65, A. 1).
Therefore whoever commits one sin, is deprived of all the virtues.
Therefore whoever commits one sin, is guilty of all sins.

Obj. 3: Further, all virtues are connected, because they have a
principle in common, as stated above (Q. 65, AA. 1, 2). Now as the
virtues have a common principle, so have sins, because, as the love
of God, which builds the city of God, is the beginning and root of
all the virtues, so self-love, which builds the city of Babylon, is
the root of all sins, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28).
Therefore all vices and sins are also connected so that whoever has
one, has them all.

_On the contrary,_ Some vices are contrary to one another, as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 8). But contraries cannot be together
in the same subject. Therefore it is impossible for all sins and
vices to be connected with one another.

_I answer that,_ The intention of the man who acts according to
virtue in pursuance of his reason, is different from the intention of
the sinner in straying from the path of reason. For the intention of
every man acting according to virtue is to follow the rule of reason,
wherefore the intention of all the virtues is directed to the same
end, so that all the virtues are connected together in the right
reason of things to be done, viz. prudence, as stated above (Q. 65,
A. 1). But the intention of the sinner is not directed to the point
of straying from the path of reason; rather is it directed to tend to
some appetible good whence it derives its species. Now these goods,
to which the sinner's intention is directed when departing from
reason, are of various kinds, having no mutual connection; in fact
they are sometimes contrary to one another. Since, therefore, vices
and sins take their species from that to which they turn, it is
evident that, in respect of that which completes a sin's species,
sins are not connected with one another. For sin does not consist in
passing from the many to the one, as is the case with virtues, which
are connected, but rather in forsaking the one for the many.

Reply Obj. 1: James is speaking of sin, not as regards the thing to
which it turns and which causes the distinction of sins, as stated
above (Q. 72, A. 1), but as regards that from which sin turns away,
in as much as man, by sinning, departs from a commandment of the law.
Now all the commandments of the law are from one and the same, as he
also says in the same passage, so that the same God is despised in
every sin; and in this sense he says that whoever "offends in one
point, is become guilty of all," for as much as, by committing one
sin, he incurs the debt of punishment through his contempt of God,
which is the origin of all sins.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 71, A. 4), the opposite virtue is
not banished by every act of sin; because venial sin does not destroy
virtue; while mortal sin destroys infused virtue, by turning man away
from God. Yet one act, even of mortal sin, does not destroy the habit
of acquired virtue; though if such acts be repeated so as to engender
a contrary habit, the habit of acquired virtue is destroyed, the
destruction of which entails the loss of prudence, since when man
acts against any virtue whatever, he acts against prudence, without
which no moral virtue is possible, as stated above (Q. 58, A. 4; Q.
65, A. 1). Consequently all the moral virtues are destroyed as to the
perfect and formal being of virtue, which they have in so far as they
partake of prudence, yet there remain the inclinations to virtuous
acts, which inclinations, however, are not virtues. Nevertheless it
does not follow that for this reason man contracts all vices of
sins--first, because several vices are opposed to one virtue, so that
a virtue can be destroyed by one of them, without the others being
present; secondly, because sin is directly opposed to virtue, as
regards the virtue's inclination to act, as stated above (Q. 71, A.
1). Wherefore, as long as any virtuous inclinations remain, it cannot
be said that man has the opposite vices or sins.

Reply Obj. 3: The love of God is unitive, in as much as it draws
man's affections from the many to the one; so that the virtues, which
flow from the love of God, are connected together. But self-love
disunites man's affections among different things, in so far as man
loves himself, by desiring for himself temporal goods, which are
various and of many kinds: hence vices and sins, which arise from
self-love, are not connected together.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 2]

Whether All Sins Are Equal?

Objection 1: It would seem that all sins are equal. Because sin is to
do what is unlawful. Now to do what is unlawful is reproved in one
and the same way in all things. Therefore sin is reproved in one and
the same way. Therefore one sin is not graver than another.

Obj. 2: Further, every sin is a transgression of the rule of reason,
which is to human acts what a linear rule is in corporeal things.
Therefore to sin is the same as to pass over a line. But passing over
a line occurs equally and in the same way, even if one go a long way
from it or stay near it, since privations do not admit of more or
less. Therefore all sins are equal.

Obj. 3: Further, sins are opposed to virtues. But all virtues are
equal, as Cicero states (Paradox. iii). Therefore all sins are equal.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): "He that
hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin," and yet it is
evident that Pilate was guilty of some sin. Therefore one sin is
greater than another.

_I answer that,_ The opinion of the Stoics, which Cicero adopts in
the book on _Paradoxes_ (Paradox. iii), was that all sins are equal:
from which opinion arose the error of certain heretics, who not only
hold all sins to be equal, but also maintain that all the pains of
hell are equal. So far as can be gathered from the words of Cicero
the Stoics arrived at their conclusion through looking at sin on the
side of the privation only, in so far, to wit, as it is a departure
from reason; wherefore considering simply that no privation admits of
more or less, they held that all sins are equal. Yet, if we consider
the matter carefully, we shall see that there are two kinds of
privation. For there is a simple and pure privation, which consists,
so to speak, in _being_ corrupted; thus death is privation of life,
and darkness is privation of light. Such like privations do not admit
of more or less, because nothing remains of the opposite habit; hence
a man is not less dead on the first day after his death, or on the
third or fourth days, than after a year, when his corpse is already
dissolved; and, in like manner, a house is no darker if the light be
covered with several shades, than if it were covered by a single
shade shutting out all the light. There is, however, another
privation which is not simple, but retains something of the opposite
habit; it consists in _becoming_ corrupted rather than in _being_
corrupted, like sickness which is a privation of the due
commensuration of the humors, yet so that something remains of that
commensuration, else the animal would cease to live: and the same
applies to deformity and the like. Such privations admit of more or
less on the part of what remains or the contrary habit. For it
matters much in sickness or deformity, whether one departs more or
less from the due commensuration of humors or members. The same
applies to vices and sins: because in them the privation of the due
commensuration of reason is such as not to destroy the order of
reason altogether; else evil, if total, destroys itself, as stated in
_Ethic._ iv, 5. For the substance of the act, or the affection of the
agent could not remain, unless something remained of the order of
reason. Therefore it matters much to the gravity of a sin whether one
departs more or less from the rectitude of reason: and accordingly we
must say that sins are not all equal.

Reply Obj. 1: To commit sin is unlawful on account of some
inordinateness therein: wherefore those which contain a greater
inordinateness are more unlawful, and consequently graver sins.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument looks upon sin as though it were a pure
privation.

Reply Obj. 3: Virtues are proportionately equal in one and the same
subject: yet one virtue surpasses another in excellence according to
its species; and again, one man is more virtuous than another, in the
same species of virtue, as stated above (Q. 66, AA. 1, 2). Moreover,
even if virtues were equal, it would not follow that vices are equal,
since virtues are connected, and vices or sins are not.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 3]

Whether the Gravity of Sins Varies According to Their Objects?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gravity of sins does not vary
according to their objects. Because the gravity of a sin pertains to
its mode or quality: whereas the object is the matter of the sin.
Therefore the gravity of sins does not vary according to their
various objects.

Obj. 2: Further, the gravity of a sin is the intensity of its malice.
Now sin does not derive its malice from its proper object to which it
turns, and which is some appetible good, but rather from that which
it turns away from. Therefore the gravity of sins does not vary
according to their various objects.

Obj. 3: Further, sins that have different objects are of different
kinds. But things of different kinds cannot be compared with one
another, as is proved in _Phys._ vii, text. 30, seqq. Therefore one
sin is not graver than another by reason of the difference of objects.

_On the contrary,_ Sins take their species from their objects, as was
shown above (Q. 72, A. 1). But some sins are graver than others in
respect of their species, as murder is graver than theft. Therefore
the gravity of sins varies according to their objects.

_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said (Q. 71, A. 5),
the gravity of sins varies in the same way as one sickness is graver
than another: for just as the good of health consists in a certain
commensuration of the humors, in keeping with an animal's nature, so
the good of virtue consists in a certain commensuration of the human
act in accord with the rule of reason. Now it is evident that the
higher the principle the disorder of which causes the disorder in the
humors, the graver is the sickness: thus a sickness which comes on
the human body from the heart, which is the principle of life, or
from some neighboring part, is more dangerous. Wherefore a sin must
needs be so much the graver, as the disorder occurs in a principle
which is higher in the order of reason. Now in matters of action the
reason directs all things in view of the end: wherefore the higher
the end which attaches to sins in human acts, the graver the sin. Now
the object of an act is its end, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 3, ad 2);
and consequently the difference of gravity in sins depends on their
objects. Thus it is clear that external things are directed to man as
their end, while man is further directed to God as his end. Wherefore
a sin which is about the very substance of man, e.g. murder, is
graver than a sin which is about external things, e.g. theft; and
graver still is a sin committed directly against God, e.g. unbelief,
blasphemy, and the like: and in each of these grades of sin, one sin
will be graver than another according as it is about a higher or
lower principle. And forasmuch as sins take their species from their
objects, the difference of gravity which is derived from the objects
is first and foremost, as resulting from the species.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the object is the matter about which an act is
concerned, yet it has the character of an end, in so far as the
intention of the agent is fixed on it, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 3,
ad 2). Now the form of a moral act depends on the end, as was shown
above (Q. 72, A. 6; Q. 18, A. 6).

Reply Obj. 2: From the very fact that man turns unduly to some
mutable good, it follows that he turns away from the immutable Good,
which aversion completes the nature of evil. Hence the various
degrees of malice in sins must needs follow the diversity of those
things to which man turns.

Reply Obj. 3: All the objects of human acts are related to one
another, wherefore all human acts are somewhat of one kind, in so far
as they are directed to the last end. Therefore nothing prevents all
sins from being compared with one another.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 4]

Whether the Gravity of Sins Depends on the Excellence of the Virtues
to Which They Are Opposed?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gravity of sins does not vary
according to the excellence of the virtues to which they are opposed,
so that, to wit, the graver sin is opposed to the greater virtue.
For, according to Prov. 15:5, "In abundant justice there is the
greatest strength." Now, as Our Lord says (Matt. 5:20, seqq.)
abundant justice restrains anger, which is a less grievous sin than
murder, which less abundant justice restrains. Therefore the least
grievous sin is opposed to the greatest virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, it is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 3 that "virtue is about
the difficult and the good": whence it seems to follow that the
greater virtue is about what is more difficult. But it is a less
grievous sin to fail in what is more difficult, than in what is less
difficult. Therefore the less grievous sin is opposed to the greater
virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, charity is a greater virtue than faith or hope (1
Cor. 13:13). Now hatred which is opposed to charity is a less
grievous sin than unbelief or despair which are opposed to faith and
hope. Therefore the less grievous sin is opposed to the greater
virtue.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. 8:10) that the "worst
is opposed to the best." Now in morals the best is the greatest
virtue; and the worst is the most grievous sin. Therefore the most
grievous sin is opposed to the greatest virtue.

_I answer that,_ A sin is opposed to a virtue in two ways: first,
principally and directly; that sin, to wit, which is about the same
object: because contraries are about the same thing. In this way, the
more grievous sin must needs be opposed to the greater virtue:
because, just as the degrees of gravity in a sin depend on the
object, so also does the greatness of a virtue, since both sin and
virtue take their species from the object, as shown above (Q. 60, A.
5; Q. 72, A. 1). Wherefore the greatest sin must needs be directly
opposed to the greatest virtue, as being furthest removed from it in
the same genus. Secondly, the opposition of virtue to sin may be
considered in respect of a certain extension of the virtue in
checking sin. For the greater a virtue is, the further it removes man
from the contrary sin, so that it withdraws man not only from that
sin, but also from whatever leads to it. And thus it is evident that
the greater a virtue is, the more it withdraws man also from less
grievous sins: even as the more perfect health is, the more does it
ward off even minor ailments. And in this way the less grievous sin
is opposed to the greater virtue, on the part of the latter's effect.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the opposition which consists
in restraining from sin; for thus abundant justice checks even minor
sins.

Reply Obj. 2: The greater virtue that is about a more difficult good
is opposed directly to the sin which is about a more difficult evil.
For in each case there is a certain superiority, in that the will is
shown to be more intent on good or evil, through not being overcome
by the difficulty.

Reply Obj. 3: Charity is not any kind of love, but the love of God:
hence not any kind of hatred is opposed to it directly, but the
hatred of God, which is the most grievous of all sins.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 5]

Whether Carnal Sins Are of Less Guilt Than Spiritual Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that carnal sins are not of less guilt
than spiritual sins. Because adultery is a more grievous sin than
theft: for it is written (Prov. 6:30, 32): "The fault is not so great
when a man has stolen . . . but he that is an adulterer, for the
folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul." Now theft belongs to
covetousness, which is a spiritual sin; while adultery pertains to
lust, which is a carnal sin. Therefore carnal sins are of greater
guilt than spiritual sins.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says in his commentary on Leviticus [*The
quotation is from De Civ. Dei ii, 4 and iv, 31.] that "the devil
rejoices chiefly in lust and idolatry." But he rejoices more in the
greater sin. Therefore, since lust is a carnal sin, it seems that the
carnal sins are of most guilt.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher proves (Ethic. vii, 6) that "it is
more shameful to be incontinent in lust than in anger." But anger is
a spiritual sin, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17); while lust
pertains to carnal sins. Therefore carnal sin is more grievous than
spiritual sin.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xxxiii, 11) that carnal sins
are of less guilt, but of more shame than spiritual sins.

_I answer that,_ Spiritual sins are of greater guilt than carnal
sins: yet this does not mean that each spiritual sin is of greater
guilt than each carnal sin; but that, considering the sole difference
between spiritual and carnal, spiritual sins are more grievous than
carnal sins, other things being equal. Three reasons may be assigned
for this. The first is on the part of the subject: because spiritual
sins belong to the spirit, to which it is proper to turn to God, and
to turn away from Him; whereas carnal sins are consummated in the
carnal pleasure of the appetite, to which it chiefly belongs to turn
to goods of the body; so that carnal sin, as such, denotes more a
_turning to_ something, and for that reason, implies a closer
cleaving; whereas spiritual sin denotes more a _turning from_
something, whence the notion of guilt arises; and for this reason it
involves greater guilt. A second reason may be taken on the part of
the person against whom sin is committed: because carnal sin, as
such, is against the sinner's own body, which he ought to love less,
in the order of charity, than God and his neighbor, against whom he
commits spiritual sins, and consequently spiritual sins, as such, are
of greater guilt. A third reason may be taken from the motive, since
the stronger the impulse to sin, the less grievous the sin, as we
shall state further on (A. 6). Now carnal sins have a stronger
impulse, viz. our innate concupiscence of the flesh. Therefore
spiritual sins, as such, are of greater guilt.

Reply Obj. 1: Adultery belongs not only to the sin of lust, but also
to the sin of injustice, and in this respect may be brought under the
head of covetousness, as a gloss observes on Eph. 5:5. "No
fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person," etc.; so that adultery
is so much more grievous than theft, as a man loves his wife more
than his chattels.

Reply Obj. 2: The devil is said to rejoice chiefly in the sin of
lust, because it is of the greatest adhesion, and man can with
difficulty be withdrawn from it. "For the desire of pleasure is
insatiable," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 12).

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher himself says (Ethic. vii, 6), the
reason why it is more shameful to be incontinent in lust than in
anger, is that lust partakes less of reason; and in the same sense he
says (Ethic. iii, 10) that "sins of intemperance are most worthy of
reproach, because they are about those pleasures which are common to
us and irrational animals": hence, by these sins man is, so to speak,
brutalized; for which same reason Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 17) that
they are more shameful.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 6]

Whether the Gravity of a Sin Depends on Its Cause?

Objection 1: It would seem that the gravity of a sin does not depend
on its cause. Because the greater a sin's cause, the more forcibly it
moves to sin, and so the more difficult is it to resist. But sin is
lessened by the fact that it is difficult to resist; for it denotes
weakness in the sinner, if he cannot easily resist sin; and a sin
that is due to weakness is deemed less grievous. Therefore sin does
not derive its gravity from its cause.

Obj. 2: Further, concupiscence is a general cause of sin; wherefore
a gloss on Rom. 7:7, "For I had not known concupiscence," says:
"The law is good, since by forbidding concupiscence, it forbids all
evils." Now the greater the concupiscence by which man is overcome,
the less grievous his sin. Therefore the gravity of a sin is
diminished by the greatness of its cause.

Obj. 3: Further, as rectitude of the reason is the cause of a
virtuous act, so defect in the reason seems to be the cause of sin.
Now the greater the defect in the reason, the less grievous the sin:
so much so that he who lacks the use of reason, is altogether excused
from sin, and he who sins through ignorance, sins less grievously.
Therefore the gravity of a sin is not increased by the greatness of
its cause.

_On the contrary,_ If the cause be increased, the effect is
increased. Therefore the greater the cause of sin, the more grievous
the sin.

_I answer that,_ In the genus of sin, as in every other genus, two
causes may be observed. The first is the direct and proper cause of
sin, and is the will to sin: for it is compared to the sinful act, as
a tree to its fruit, as a gloss observes on Matt. 7:18, "A good tree
cannot bring forth evil fruit": and the greater this cause is, the
more grievous will the sin be, since the greater the will to sin, the
more grievously does man sin.

The other causes of sin are extrinsic and remote, as it were, being
those whereby the will is inclined to sin. Among these causes we must
make a distinction; for some of them induce the will to sin in accord
with the very nature of the will: such is the end, which is the
proper object of the will; and by a such like cause sin is made more
grievous, because a man sins more grievously if his will is induced
to sin by the intention of a more evil end. Other causes incline the
will to sin, against the nature and order of the will, whose natural
inclination is to be moved freely of itself in accord with the
judgment of reason. Wherefore those causes which weaken the judgment
of reason (e.g. ignorance), or which weaken the free movement of the
will, (e.g. weakness, violence, fear, or the like), diminish the
gravity of sin, even as they diminish its voluntariness; and so much
so, that if the act be altogether involuntary, it is no longer sinful.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the extrinsic moving cause,
which diminishes voluntariness. The increase of such a cause
diminishes the sin, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: If concupiscence be understood to include the movement
of the will, then, where there is greater concupiscence, there is a
greater sin. But if by concupiscence we understand a passion, which
is a movement of the concupiscible power, then a greater
concupiscence, forestalling the judgment of reason and the movement
of the will, diminishes the sin, because the man who sins, being
stimulated by a greater concupiscence, falls through a more grievous
temptation, wherefore he is less to be blamed. On the other hand, if
concupiscence be taken in this sense follows the judgment of reason,
and the movement of the will, then the greater concupiscence, the
graver the sin: because sometimes the movement of concupiscence is
redoubled by the will tending unrestrainedly to its object.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the cause which renders the act
involuntary, and such a cause diminishes the gravity of sin, as
stated.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 7]

Whether a Circumstance Aggravates a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance does not aggravate a
sin. Because sin takes its gravity from its species. Now a
circumstance does not specify a sin, for it is an accident thereof.
Therefore the gravity of a sin is not taken from a circumstance.

Obj. 2: Further, a circumstance is either evil or not: if it is evil,
it causes, of itself, a species of evil; and if it is not evil, it
cannot make a thing worse. Therefore a circumstance nowise aggravates
a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the malice of a sin is derived from its turning away
(from God). But circumstances affect sin on the part of the object to
which it turns. Therefore they do not add to the sin's malice.

_On the contrary,_ Ignorance of a circumstance diminishes sin: for he
who sins through ignorance of a circumstance, deserves to be forgiven
(Ethic. iii, 1). Now this would not be the case unless a circumstance
aggravated a sin. Therefore a circumstance makes a sin more grievous.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says in speaking of habits of
virtue (Ethic. ii, 1, 2), "it is natural for a thing to be increased
by that which causes it." Now it is evident that a sin is caused by a
defect in some circumstance: because the fact that a man departs from
the order of reason is due to his not observing the due circumstances
in his action. Wherefore it is evident that it is natural for a sin
to be aggravated by reason of its circumstances. This happens in
three ways. First, in so far as a circumstance draws a sin from one
kind to another: thus fornication is the intercourse of a man with
one who is not his wife: but if to this be added the circumstance
that the latter is the wife of another, the sin is drawn to another
kind of sin, viz. injustice, in so far as he usurps another's
property; and in this respect adultery is a more grievous sin than
fornication. Secondly, a circumstance aggravates a sin, not by
drawing it into another genus, but only by multiplying the ratio of
sin: thus if a wasteful man gives both when he ought not, and to whom
he ought not to give, he commits the same kind of sin in more ways
than if he were to merely to give to whom he ought not, and for that
very reason his sin is more grievous; even as that sickness is the
graver which affects more parts of the body. Hence Cicero says
(Paradox. iii) that "in taking his father's life a man commits many
sins; for he outrages one who begot him, who fed him, who educated
him, to whom he owes his lands, his house, his position in the
republic." Thirdly, a circumstance aggravates a sin by adding to the
deformity which the sin derives from another circumstance: thus,
taking another's property constitutes the sin of theft; but if to
this be added the circumstance that much is taken of another's
property, the sin will be more grievous; although in itself, to take
more or less has not the character of a good or of an evil act.

Reply Obj. 1: Some circumstances do specify a moral act, as stated
above (Q. 18, A. 10). Nevertheless a circumstance which does not give
the species, may aggravate a sin; because, even as the goodness of a
thing is weighed, not only in reference to its species, but also in
reference to an accident, so the malice of an act is measured, not
only according to the species of that act, but also according to a
circumstance.

Reply Obj. 2: A circumstance may aggravate a sin either way. For if
it is evil, it does not follow that it constitutes the sin's species;
because it may multiply the ratio of evil within the same species, as
stated above. And if it be not evil, it may aggravate a sin in
relation to the malice of another circumstance.

Reply Obj. 3: Reason should direct the action not only as regards the
object, but also as regards every circumstance. Therefore one may
turn aside from the rule of reason through corruption of any single
circumstance; for instance, by doing something when one ought not or
where one ought not; and to depart thus from the rule of reason
suffices to make the act evil. This turning aside from the rule of
reason results from man's turning away from God, to Whom man ought
to be united by right reason.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 8]

Whether Sin Is Aggravated by Reason of Its Causing More Harm?

Objection 1: It would seem that a sin is not aggravated by reason of
its causing more harm. Because the harm done is an issue consequent
to the sinful act. But the issue of an act does not add to its
goodness or malice, as stated above (Q. 20, A. 5). Therefore a sin is
not aggravated on account of its causing more harm.

Obj. 2: Further, harm is inflicted by sins against our neighbor.
Because no one wishes to harm himself: and no one can harm God,
according to Job 35:6, 8: "If thy iniquities be multiplied, what
shalt thou do against Him? . . . Thy wickedness may hurt a man that
is like thee." If, therefore, sins were aggravated through causing
more harm, it would follow that sins against our neighbor are more
grievous than sins against God or oneself.

Obj. 3: Further, greater harm is inflicted on a man by depriving him
of the life of grace, than by taking away his natural life; because
the life of grace is better than the life of nature, so far that man
ought to despise his natural life lest he lose the life of grace.
Now, speaking absolutely, a man who leads a woman to commit
fornication deprives her of the life of grace by leading her into
mortal sin. If therefore a sin were more grievous on account of its
causing a greater harm, it would follow that fornication, absolutely
speaking, is a more grievous sin than murder, which is evidently
untrue. Therefore a sin is not more grievous on account of its
causing a greater harm.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 14): "Since vice
is contrary to nature, a vice is the more grievous according as it
diminishes the integrity of nature." Now the diminution of the
integrity of nature is a harm. Therefore a sin is graver according as
it does more harm.

_I answer that,_ Harm may bear a threefold relation to sin. Because
sometimes the harm resulting from a sin is foreseen and intended, as
when a man does something with a mind to harm another, e.g. a
murderer or a thief. In this case the quantity of harm aggravates the
sin directly, because then the harm is the direct object of the sin.
Sometimes the harm is foreseen, but not intended; for instance, when
a man takes a short cut through a field, the result being that he
knowingly injures the growing crops, although his intention is not to
do this harm, but to commit fornication. In this case again the
quantity of the harm done aggravates the sin; indirectly, however, in
so far, to wit, as it is owing to his will being strongly inclined to
sin, that a man does not forbear from doing, to himself or to
another, a harm which he would not wish simply. Sometimes, however,
the harm is neither foreseen nor intended: and then if this harm is
connected with the sin accidentally, it does not aggravate the sin
directly; but, on account of his neglecting to consider the harm that
might ensue, a man is deemed punishable for the evil results of his
action if it be unlawful. If, on the other hand, the harm follow
directly from the sinful act, although it be neither foreseen nor
intended, it aggravates the sin directly, because whatever is
directly consequent to a sin, belongs, in a manner, to the very
species of that sin: for instance, if a man is a notorious
fornicator, the result is that many are scandalized; and although
such was not his intention, nor was it perhaps foreseen by him, yet
it aggravates his sin directly.

But this does not seem to apply to penal harm, which the sinner
himself incurs. Such like harm, if accidentally connected with the
sinful act, and if neither foreseen nor intended, does not aggravate
a sin, nor does it correspond with the gravity of the sin: for
instance, if a man in running to slay, slips and hurts his foot. If,
on the other hand, this harm is directly consequent to the sinful
act, although perhaps it be neither foreseen nor intended, then
greater harm does not make greater sin, but, on the contrary, a
graver sin calls for the infliction of a greater harm. Thus, an
unbeliever who has heard nothing about the pains of hell, would
suffer greater pain in hell for a sin of murder than for a sin of
theft: but his sin is not aggravated on account of his neither
intending nor foreseeing this, as it would be in the case of a
believer, who, seemingly, sins more grievously in the very fact that
he despises a greater punishment, that he may satisfy his desire to
sin; but the gravity of this harm is caused by the sole gravity of
sin.

Reply Obj. 1: As we have already stated (Q. 20, A. 5), in treating of
the goodness and malice of external actions, the result of an action
if foreseen and intended adds to the goodness and malice of an act.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the harm done aggravates a sin, it does not
follow that this alone renders a sin more grievous: in fact, it is
inordinateness which of itself aggravates a sin. Wherefore the harm
itself that ensues aggravates a sin, in so far only as it renders the
act more inordinate. Hence it does not follow, supposing harm to be
inflicted chiefly by sins against our neighbor, that such sins are
the most grievous, since a much greater inordinateness is to be found
in sins which man commits against God, and in some which he commits
against himself. Moreover we might say that although no man can do
God any harm in His substance, yet he can endeavor to do so in things
concerning Him, e.g. by destroying faith, by outraging holy things,
which are most grievous sins. Again, a man sometimes knowingly and
freely inflicts harm on himself, as in the case of suicide, though
this be referred finally to some apparent good, for example, delivery
from some anxiety.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument does not prove, for two reasons: first,
because the murderer intends directly to do harm to his neighbors;
whereas the fornicator who solicits the woman intends not harm but
pleasure; secondly, because murder is the direct and sufficient cause
of bodily death; whereas no man can of himself be the sufficient
cause of another's spiritual death, because no man dies spiritually
except by sinning of his own will.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 9]

Whether a Sin Is Aggravated by Reason of the Condition of the Person
Against Whom It Is Committed?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin is not aggravated by reason of
the condition of the person against whom it is committed. For if this
were the case a sin would be aggravated chiefly by being committed
against a just and holy man. But this does not aggravate a sin:
because a virtuous man who bears a wrong with equanimity is less
harmed by the wrong done him, than others, who, through being
scandalized, are also hurt inwardly. Therefore the condition of the
person against whom a sin is committed does not aggravate the sin.

Obj. 2: Further, if the condition of the person aggravated the sin,
this would be still more the case if the person be near of kin,
because, as Cicero says (Paradox. iii): "The man who kills his slave
sins once: he that takes his father's life sins many times." But the
kinship of a person sinned against does not apparently aggravate a
sin, because every man is most akin to himself; and yet it is less
grievous to harm oneself than another, e.g. to kill one's own, than
another's horse, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11).
Therefore kinship of the person sinned against does not aggravate
the sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the condition of the person who sins aggravates a
sin chiefly on account of his position or knowledge, according to
Wis. 6:7: "The mighty shall be mightily tormented," and Luke 12:47:
"The servant who knew the will of his lord . . . and did it not . . .
shall be beaten with many stripes." Therefore, in like manner, on the
part of the person sinned against, the sin is made more grievous by
reason of his position and knowledge. But, apparently, it is not a
more grievous sin to inflict an injury on a rich and powerful person
than on a poor man, since "there is no respect of persons with God"
(Col. 3:25), according to Whose judgment the gravity of a sin is
measured. Therefore the condition of the person sinned against does
not aggravate the sin.

_On the contrary,_ Holy Writ censures especially those sins that are
committed against the servants of God. Thus it is written (3 Kings
19:14): "They have destroyed Thy altars, they have slain Thy prophets
with the sword." Moreover much blame is attached to the sin committed
by a man against those who are akin to him, according to Micah 7:6:
"the son dishonoreth the father, and the daughter riseth up against
her mother." Furthermore sins committed against persons of rank are
expressly condemned: thus it is written (Job 34:18): "Who saith to
the king: 'Thou art an apostate'; who calleth rulers ungodly."
Therefore the condition of the person sinned against aggravates the
sin.

_I answer that,_ The person sinned against is, in a manner, the
object of the sin. Now it has been stated above (A. 3) that the
primary gravity of a sin is derived from its object; so that a sin is
deemed to be so much the more grave, as its object is a more
principal end. But the principal ends of human acts are God, man
himself, and his neighbor: for whatever we do, it is on account of
one of these that we do it; although one of them is subordinate to
the other. Therefore the greater or lesser gravity of a sin, in
respect of the person sinned against, may be considered on the part
of these three.

First, on the part of God, to Whom man is the more closely united, as
he is more virtuous or more sacred to God: so that an injury
inflicted on such a person redounds on to God according to Zech. 2:8:
"He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of My eye." Wherefore a sin
is the more grievous, according as it is committed against a person
more closely united to God by reason of personal sanctity, or
official station. On the part of man himself, it is evident that he
sins all the more grievously, according as the person against whom he
sins, is more united to him, either through natural affinity or
kindness received or any other bond; because he seems to sin against
himself rather than the other, and, for this very reason, sins all
the more grievously, according to Ecclus. 14:5: "He that is evil to
himself, to whom will he be good?" On the part of his neighbor, a man
sins the more grievously, according as his sin affects more persons:
so that a sin committed against a public personage, e.g. a sovereign
prince who stands in the place of the whole people, is more grievous
than a sin committed against a private person; hence it is expressly
prohibited (Ex. 22:28): "The prince of thy people thou shalt not
curse." In like manner it would seem that an injury done to a person
of prominence, is all the more grave, on account of the scandal and
the disturbance it would cause among many people.

Reply Obj. 1: He who inflicts an injury on a virtuous person, so far
as he is concerned, disturbs him internally and externally; but that
the latter is not disturbed internally is due to his goodness, which
does not extenuate the sin of the injurer.

Reply Obj. 2: The injury which a man inflicts on himself in those
things which are subject to the dominion of his will, for instance
his possessions, is less sinful than if it were inflicted on another,
because he does it of his own will; but in those things that are not
subject to the dominion of his will, such as natural and spiritual
goods, it is a graver sin to inflict an injury on oneself: for it is
more grievous for a man to kill himself than another. Since, however,
things belonging to our neighbor are not subject to the dominion of
our will, the argument fails to prove, in respect of injuries done to
such like things, that it is less grievous to sin in their regard,
unless indeed our neighbor be willing, or give his approval.

Reply Obj. 3: There is no respect for persons if God punishes more
severely those who sin against a person of higher rank; for this is
done because such an injury redounds to the harm of many.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 73, Art. 10]

Whether the Excellence of the Person Sinning Aggravates the Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the excellence of the person sinning
does not aggravate the sin. For man becomes great chiefly by cleaving
to God, according to Ecclus. 25:13: "How great is he that findeth
wisdom and knowledge! but there is none above him that feareth the
Lord." Now the more a man cleaves to God, the less is a sin imputed
to him: for it is written (2 Paral. 30: 18, 19): "The Lord Who is
good will show mercy to all them, who with their whole heart seek the
Lord the God of their fathers; and will not impute it to them that
they are not sanctified." Therefore a sin is not aggravated by the
excellence of the person sinning.

Obj. 2: Further, "there is no respect of persons with God" (Rom.
2:11). Therefore He does not punish one man more than another, for
one and the same sin. Therefore a sin is not aggravated by the
excellence of the person sinning.

Obj. 3: Further, no one should reap disadvantage from good. But he
would, if his action were the more blameworthy on account of his
goodness. Therefore a sin is not aggravated by reason of the
excellence of the person sinning.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii, 18): "A sin is
deemed so much the more grievous as the sinner is held to be a more
excellent person."

_I answer that,_ Sin is twofold. There is a sin which takes us
unawares on account of the weakness of human nature: and such like
sins are less imputable to one who is more virtuous, because he is
less negligent in checking those sins, which nevertheless human
weakness does not allow us to escape altogether. But there are other
sins which proceed from deliberation: and these sins are all the more
imputed to man according as he is more excellent. Four reasons may be
assigned for this. First, because a more excellent person, e.g. one
who excels in knowledge and virtue, can more easily resist sin; hence
Our Lord said (Luke 12:47) that the "servant who knew the will of his
lord . . . and did it not . . . shall be beaten with many stripes."
Secondly, on account of ingratitude, because every good in which a
man excels, is a gift of God, to Whom man is ungrateful when he sins:
and in this respect any excellence, even in temporal goods,
aggravates a sin, according to Wis. 6:7: "The mighty shall be
mightily tormented." Thirdly, on account of the sinful act being
specially inconsistent with the excellence of the person sinning: for
instance, if a prince were to violate justice, whereas he is set up
as the guardian of justice, or if a priest were to be a fornicator,
whereas he has taken the vow of chastity. Fourthly, on account of the
example or scandal; because, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 2): "Sin
becomes much more scandalous, when the sinner is honored for his
position": and the sins of the great are much more notorious and men
are wont to bear them with more indignation.

Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted alludes to those things which are
done negligently when we are taken unawares through human weakness.

Reply Obj. 2: God does not respect persons in punishing the great
more severely, because their excellence conduces to the gravity of
their sin, as stated.

Reply Obj. 3: The man who excels in anything reaps disadvantage, not
from the good which he has, but from his abuse thereof.
________________________

QUESTION 74

OF THE SUBJECT OF SIN
(In Ten Articles)

We must now consider the subject of vice or sin: under which head
there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will can be the subject of sin?

(2) Whether the will alone is the subject of sin?

(3) Whether the sensuality can be the subject of sin?

(4) Whether it can be the subject of mortal sin?

(5) Whether the reason can be the subject of sin?

(6) Whether morose delectation or non-morose delectation be subjected
in the higher reason?

(7) Whether the sin of consent in the act of sin is subjected in the
higher reason?

(8) Whether the lower reason can be the subject of mortal sin?

(9) Whether the higher reason can be the subject of venial sin?

(10) Whether there can be in the higher reason a venial sin directed
to its proper object?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is a Subject of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will cannot be a subject of sin.
For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "evil is outside the will and
the intention." But sin has the character of evil. Therefore sin
cannot be in the will.

Obj. 2: Further, the will is directed either to the good or to what
seems good. Now from the fact that will wishes the good, it does not
sin: and that it wishes what seems good but is not truly good, points
to a defect in the apprehensive power rather than in the will.
Therefore sin is nowise in the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing cannot be both subject and efficient
cause of sin: because "the efficient and the material cause do not
coincide" (Phys. 2, text. 70). Now the will is the efficient cause of
sin: because the first cause of sinning is the will, as Augustine
states (De Duabus Anim. x, 10, 11). Therefore it is not the subject
of sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 9) that "it is by the
will that we sin, and live righteously."

_I answer that,_ Sin is an act, as stated above (Q. 71, AA. 1, 6).
Now some acts pass into external matter, e.g. _to cut_ and _to burn_:
and such acts have for their matter and subject, the thing into which
the action passes: thus the Philosopher states (Phys. iii, text. 18)
that "movement is the act of the thing moved, caused by a mover." On
the other hand, there are acts which do not pass into external
matter, but remain in the agent, e.g. _to desire_ and _to know_: and
such are all moral acts, whether virtuous or sinful. Consequently the
proper subject of sin must needs be the power which is the principle
of the act. Now since it is proper to moral acts that they are
voluntary, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1; Q. 18, A. 6), it follows that
the will, which is the principle of voluntary acts, both of good
acts, and of evil acts or sins, is the principle of sins. Therefore
it follows that sin is in the will as its subject.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil is said to be outside the will, because the will
does not tend to it under the aspect of evil. But since some evil is
an apparent good, the will sometimes desires an evil, and in this
sense is in the will.

Reply Obj. 2: If the defect in the apprehensive power were nowise
subject to the will, there would be no sin, either in the will, or in
the apprehensive power, as in the case of those whose ignorance is
invincible. It remains therefore that when there is in the
apprehensive power a defect that is subject to the will, this defect
also is deemed a sin.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument applies to those efficient causes whose
actions pass into external matter, and which do not move themselves,
but move other things; the contrary of which is to be observed in the
will; hence the argument does not prove.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 2]

Whether the Will Alone Is the Subject of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will alone is the subject of sin.
For Augustine says (De Duabus Anim. x, 10) that "no one sins except
by the will." Now the subject of sin is the power by which we sin.
Therefore the will alone is the subject of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is an evil contrary to reason. Now good and evil
pertaining to reason are the object of the will alone. Therefore the
will alone is the subject of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, every sin is a voluntary act, because, as Augustine
states (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [*Cf. De Vera Relig. xiv.], "so true is
it that every sin is voluntary, that unless it be voluntary, it is no
sin at all." Now the acts of the other powers are not voluntary,
except in so far as those powers are moved by the will; nor does this
suffice for them to be the subject of sin, because then even the
external members of the body, which are moved by the will, would be a
subject of sin; which is clearly untrue. Therefore the will alone is
the subject of sin.

_On the contrary,_ Sin is contrary to virtue: and contraries are
about one same thing. But the other powers of the soul, besides the
will, are the subject of virtues, as stated above (Q. 56). Therefore
the will is not the only subject of sin.

_I answer that,_ As was shown above (A. 1), whatever is the a
principle of a voluntary act is a subject of sin. Now voluntary acts
are not only those which are elicited by the will, but also those
which are commanded by the will, as we stated above (Q. 6, A. 4) in
treating of voluntariness. Therefore not only the will can be a
subject of sin, but also all those powers which can be moved to their
acts, or restrained from their acts, by the will; and these same
powers are the subjects of good and evil moral habits, because act
and habit belong to the same subject.

Reply Obj. 1: We do not sin except by the will as first mover; but we
sin by the other powers as moved by the will.

Reply Obj. 2: Good and evil pertain to the will as its proper
objects; but the other powers have certain determinate goods and
evils, by reason of which they can be the subject of virtue, vice,
and sin, in so far as they partake of will and reason.

Reply Obj. 3: The members of the body are not principles but merely
organs of action: wherefore they are compared to the soul which moves
them, as a slave who is moved but moves no other. On the other hand,
the internal appetitive powers are compared to reason as free agents,
because they both act and are acted upon, as is made clear in
_Polit._i, 3. Moreover, the acts of the external members are actions
that pass into external matter, as may be seen in the blow that is
inflicted in the sin of murder. Consequently there is no comparison.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 3]

Whether There Can Be Sin in the Sensuality?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be sin in the
sensuality. For sin is proper to man who is praised or blamed for his
actions. Now sensuality is common to us and irrational animals.
Therefore sin cannot be in the sensuality.

Obj. 2: Further, "no man sins in what he cannot avoid," as Augustine
states (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18). But man cannot prevent the movement of
the sensuality from being inordinate, since "the sensuality ever
remains corrupt, so long as we abide in this mortal life; wherefore
it is signified by the serpent," as Augustine declares (De Trin. xii,
12, 13). Therefore the inordinate movement of the sensuality is not a
sin.

Obj. 3: Further, that which man himself does not do is not imputed to
him as a sin. Now "that alone do we seem to do ourselves, which we do
with the deliberation of reason," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix,
8). Therefore the movement of the sensuality, which is without the
deliberation of reason, is not imputed to a man as a sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 7:19): "The good which I will
I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do": which words
Augustine explains (Contra Julian. iii, 26; De Verb. Apost. xii, 2,
3), as referring to the evil of concupiscence, which is clearly a
movement of the sensuality. Therefore there can be sin in the
sensuality.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 3), sin may be found in any
power whose act can be voluntary and inordinate, wherein consists the
nature of sin. Now it is evident that the act of the sensuality, or
sensitive appetite, is naturally inclined to be moved by the will.
Wherefore it follows that sin can be in the sensuality.

Reply Obj. 1: Although some of the powers of the sensitive part are
common to us and irrational animals, nevertheless, in us, they have a
certain excellence through being united to the reason; thus we
surpass other animals in the sensitive part for as much as we have
the powers of cogitation and reminiscence, as stated in the First
Part (Q. 78, A. 4). In the same way our sensitive appetite surpasses
that of other animals by reason of a certain excellence consisting in
its natural aptitude to obey the reason; and in this respect it can
be the principle of a voluntary action, and, consequently, the
subject of sin.

Reply Obj. 2: The continual corruption of the sensuality is to be
understood as referring to the _fomes,_ which is never completely
destroyed in this life, since, though the stain of original sin
passes, its effect remains. However, this corruption of the _fomes_
does not hinder man from using his rational will to check individual
inordinate movements, if he be presentient of them, for instance by
turning his thoughts to other things. Yet while he is turning his
thoughts to something else, an inordinate movement may arise about
this also: thus when a man, in order to avoid the movements of
concupiscence, turns his thoughts away from carnal pleasures, to the
considerations of science, sometimes an unpremeditated movement of
vainglory will arise. Consequently, a man cannot avoid all such
movements, on account of the aforesaid corruption: but it is enough,
for the conditions of a voluntary sin, that he be able to avoid each
single one.

Reply Obj. 3: Man does not do perfectly himself what he does without
the deliberation of reason, since the principal part of man does
nothing therein: wherefore such is not perfectly a human act; and
consequently it cannot be a perfect act of virtue or of sin, but is
something imperfect of that kind. Therefore such movement of the
sensuality as forestalls the reason, is a venial sin, which is
something imperfect in the genus of sin.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 4]

Whether Mortal Sin Can Be in the Sensuality?

Objection 1: It would seem that mortal sin can be in the sensuality.
Because an act is discerned by its object. Now it is possible to
commit a mortal sin about the objects of the sensuality, e.g. about
carnal pleasures. Therefore the act of the sensuality can be a mortal
sin, so that mortal sin can be found in the sensuality.

Obj. 2: Further, mortal sin is opposed to virtue. But virtue can be
in the sensuality; for temperance and fortitude are virtues of the
irrational parts, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 10).
Therefore, since it is natural to contraries to be about the same
subject, sensuality can be the subject of mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, venial sin is a disposition to mortal sin. Now
disposition and habit are in the same subject. Since therefore venial
sin may be in the sensuality, as stated above (A. 3, ad 3), mortal
sin can be there also.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 23): "The inordinate
movement of concupiscence, which is the sin of the sensuality, can
even be in those who are in a state of grace," in whom, however,
mortal sin is not to be found. Therefore the inordinate movement of
the sensuality is not a mortal sin.

_I answer that,_ Just as a disorder which destroys the principle of
the body's life causes the body's death, so too a disorder which
destroys the principle of spiritual life, viz. the last end, causes
spiritual death, which is mortal sin, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 5).
Now it belongs to the reason alone, and not to the sensuality, to
order anything to the end: and disorder in respect of the end can
only belong to the power whose function it is to order others to the
end. Wherefore mortal sin cannot be in the sensuality, but only in
the reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The act of the sensuality can concur towards a mortal
sin: yet the fact of its being a mortal sin is due, not to its being
an act of the sensuality, but to its being an act of reason, to whom
the ordering to the end belongs. Consequently mortal sin is imputed,
not to the sensuality, but to reason.

Reply Obj. 2: An act of virtue is perfected not only in that it is an
act of the sensuality, but still more in the fact of its being an act
of reason and will, whose function it is to choose: for the act of
moral virtue is not without the exercise of choice: wherefore the act
of moral virtue, which perfects the appetitive power, is always
accompanied by an act of prudence, which perfects the rational power;
and the same applies to mortal sin, as stated (ad 1).

Reply Obj. 3: A disposition may be related in three ways to that to
which it disposes: for sometimes it is the same thing and is in the
same subject; thus inchoate science is a disposition to perfect
science: sometimes it is in the same subject, but is not the same
thing; thus heat is a disposition to the form of fire: sometimes it
is neither the same thing, nor in the same subject, as in those
things which are subordinate to one another in such a way that we can
arrive at one through the other, e.g. goodness of the imagination is
a disposition to science which is in the intellect. In this way the
venial sin that is in the sensuality, may be a disposition to mortal
sin, which is in the reason.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 5]

Whether Sin Can Be in the Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin cannot be in the reason. For the
sin of any power is a defect thereof. But the fault of the reason is
not a sin, on the contrary, it excuses sin: for a man is excused from
sin on account of ignorance. Therefore sin cannot be in the reason.

Obj. 2: Further, the primary object of sin is the will, as stated
above (A. 1). Now reason precedes the will, since it directs it.
Therefore sin cannot be in the reason.

Obj. 3: Further, there can be no sin except about things which are
under our control. Now perfection and defect of reason are not among
those things which are under our control: since by nature some are
mentally deficient, and some shrewd-minded. Therefore no sin is in
the reason.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12) that sin is in
the lower and in the higher reason.

_I answer that,_ The sin of any power is an act of that power, as we
have clearly shown (AA. 1, 2, 3). Now reason has a twofold act: one
is its proper act in respect of its proper object, and this is the
act of knowing the truth; the other is the act of reason as directing
the other powers. Now in both of these ways there may be sin in the
reason. First, in so far as it errs in the knowledge of truth, which
error is imputed to the reason as a sin, when it is in ignorance or
error about what it is able and ought to know: secondly, when it
either commands the inordinate movements of the lower powers, or
deliberately fails to check them.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the defect in the proper act of
the reason in respect of its proper object, and with regard to the
case when it is a defect of knowledge about something which one is
unable to know: for then this defect of reason is not a sin, and
excuses from sin, as is evident with regard to the actions of madmen.
If, however, the defect of reason be about something which a man is
able and ought to know, he is not altogether excused from sin, and
the defect is imputed to him as a sin. The defect which belongs only
to the act of directing the other powers, is always imputed to reason
as a sin, because it can always obviate this defect by means of its
proper act.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 17, A. 1), when we were treating of
the acts of the will and reason, the will moves and precedes the
reason, in one way, and the reason moves and precedes the will in
another: so that both the movement of the will can be called
rational, and the act of the reason, voluntary. Accordingly sin is
found in the reason, either through being a voluntary defect of the
reason, or through the reason being the principle of the will's act.

The Reply to the Third Objection is evident from what has been said
(ad 1).
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 6]

Whether the Sin of Morose Delectation Is in the Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the sin of morose delectation is not
in the reason. For delectation denotes a movement of the appetitive
power, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1). But the appetitive power is
distinct from the reason, which is an apprehensive power. Therefore
morose delectation is not in the reason.

Obj. 2: Further, the object shows to which power an act belongs,
since it is through the act that the power is directed to its object.
Now a morose delectation is sometimes about sensible goods, and not
about the goods of the reason. Therefore the sin of morose
delectation is not in the reason.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing is said to be morose [*From the Latin
_mora_--delay] through taking a length of time. But length of time is
no reason why an act should belong to a particular power. Therefore
morose delectation does not belong to the reason.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12) that "if the
consent to a sensual delectation goes no further than the mere
thought of the pleasure, I deem this to be like as though the woman
alone had partaken of the forbidden fruit." Now "the woman" denotes
the lower reason, as he himself explains (De Trin. xii, 12).
Therefore the sin of morose delectation is in the reason.

_I answer that,_ As stated (A. 5), sin may be in the reason, not only
in respect of reason's proper act, but sometimes in respect of its
directing human actions. Now it is evident that reason directs not
only external acts, but also internal passions. Consequently when the
reason fails in directing the internal passions, sin is said to be in
the reason, as also when it fails in directing external actions. Now
it fails, in two ways, in directing internal passions: first, when it
commands unlawful passions; for instance, when a man deliberately
provokes himself to a movement of anger, or of lust: secondly, when
it fails to check the unlawful movement of a passion; for instance,
when a man, having deliberately considered that a rising movement of
passion is inordinate, continues, notwithstanding, to dwell
(_immoratur_) upon it, and fails to drive it away. And in this sense
the sin of morose delectation is said to be in the reason.

Reply Obj. 1: Delectation is indeed in the appetitive power as its
proximate principle; but it is in the reason as its first mover, in
accordance with what has been stated above (A. 1), viz. that actions
which do not pass into external matter are subjected in their
principles.

Reply Obj. 2: Reason has its proper elicited act about its proper
object; but it exercises the direction of all the objects of those
lower powers that can be directed by the reason: and accordingly
delectation about sensible objects comes also under the direction of
reason.

Reply Obj. 3: Delectation is said to be morose not from a delay of
time, but because the reason in deliberating dwells (_immoratur_)
thereon, and fails to drive it away, "deliberately holding and
turning over what should have been cast aside as soon as it touched
the mind," as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12).
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 7]

Whether the Sin of Consent to the Act Is in the Higher Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the sin of consent to the act is not
in the higher reason. For consent is an act of the appetitive power,
as stated above (Q. 15, A. 1): whereas the reason is an apprehensive
power. Therefore the sin of consent to the act is not in the higher
reason.

Obj. 2: Further, "the higher reason is intent on contemplating and
consulting the eternal law," as Augustine states (De Trin. xii, 7).
[*_Rationes aeternae,_ cf. I, Q. 15, AA. 2, 3, where as in similar
passages _ratio_ has been rendered by the English _type,_ because St.
Thomas was speaking of the Divine _idea_ as the archetype of the
creature. Hence the type or idea is a rule of conduct, and is
identified with the eternal law, (cf. A. 8, Obj. 1; A. 9)]. But
sometimes consent is given to an act, without consulting the eternal
law: since man does not always think about Divine things, whenever he
consents to an act. Therefore the sin of consent to the act is not
always in the higher reason.

Obj. 3: Further, just as man can regulate his external actions
according to the eternal law, so can he regulate his internal
pleasures or other passions. But "consent to a pleasure without
deciding to fulfil it by deed, belongs to the lower reason," as
Augustine states (De Trin. xii, 2). Therefore the consent to a sinful
act should also be sometimes ascribed to the lower reason.

Obj. 4: Further, just as the higher reason excels the lower, so does
the reason excel the imagination. Now sometimes man proceeds to act
through the apprehension of the power of imagination, without any
deliberation of his reason, as when, without premeditation, he moves
his hand, or foot. Therefore sometimes also the lower reason may
consent to a sinful act, independently of the higher reason.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12): "If the consent
to the evil use of things that can be perceived by the bodily senses,
so far approves of any sin, as to point, if possible, to its
consummation by deed, we are to understand that the woman has offered
the forbidden fruit to her husband."

_I answer that,_ Consent implies a judgment about the thing to which
consent is given. For just as the speculative reason judges and
delivers its sentence about intelligible matters, so the practical
reason judges and pronounces sentence on matters of action. Now we
must observe that in every case brought up for judgment, the final
sentence belongs to the supreme court, even as we see that in
speculative matters the final sentence touching any proposition is
delivered by referring it to the first principles; since, so long as
there remains a yet higher principle, the question can yet be
submitted to it: wherefore the judgment is still in suspense, the
final sentence not being as yet pronounced. But it is evident that
human acts can be regulated by the rule of human reason, which rule
is derived from the created things that man knows naturally; and
further still, from the rule of the Divine law, as stated above (Q.
19, A. 4). Consequently, since the rule of the Divine law is the
higher rule, it follows that the ultimate sentence, whereby the
judgment is finally pronounced, belongs to the higher reason which is
intent on the eternal types. Now when judgment has to be pronounced
on several points, the final judgment deals with that which comes
last; and, in human acts, the action itself comes last, and the
delectation which is the inducement to the action is a preamble
thereto. Therefore the consent to an action belongs properly to the
higher reason, while the preliminary judgment which is about the
delectation belongs to the lower reason, which delivers judgment in a
lower court: although the higher reason can also judge of the
delectation, since whatever is subject to the judgment of the lower
court, is subject also to the judgment of the higher court, but not
conversely.

Reply Obj. 1: Consent is an act of the appetitive power, not
absolutely, but in consequence of an act of reason deliberating and
judging, as stated above (Q. 15, A. 3). Because the fact that the
consent is finally given to a thing is due to the fact that the will
tends to that upon which the reason has already passed its judgment.
Hence consent may be ascribed both to the will and to the reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The higher reason is said to consent, from the very
fact that it fails to direct the human act according to the Divine
law, whether or not it advert to the eternal law. For if it thinks of
God's law, it holds it in actual contempt: and if not, it neglects it
by a kind of omission. Therefore the consent to a sinful act always
proceeds from the higher reason: because, as Augustine says (De Trin.
xii, 12), "the mind cannot effectively decide on the commission of a
sin, unless by its consent, whereby it wields its sovereign power of
moving the members to action, or of restraining them from action, it
become the servant or slave of the evil deed."

Reply Obj. 3: The higher reason, by considering the eternal law, can
direct or restrain the internal delectation, even as it can direct or
restrain the external action: nevertheless, before the judgment of
the higher reason is pronounced the lower reason, while deliberating
the matter in reference to temporal principles, sometimes approves of
this delectation: and then the consent to the delectation belongs to
the lower reason. If, however, after considering the eternal law, man
persists in giving the same consent, such consent will then belong to
the higher reason.

Reply Obj. 4: The apprehension of the power of imagination is sudden
and indeliberate: wherefore it can cause an act before the higher or
lower reason has time to deliberate. But the judgment of the lower
reason is deliberate, and so requires time, during which the higher
reason can also deliberate; consequently, if by its deliberation it
does not check the sinful act, this will deservedly be imputed to it.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 8]

Whether Consent to Delectation Is a Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent to delectation is not a
mortal sin, for consent to delectation belongs to the lower reason,
which does not consider the eternal types, i.e. the eternal law, and
consequently does not turn away from them. Now every mortal sin
consists in turning away from the Divine law, as is evident from
Augustine's definition of mortal sin, which was quoted above (Q. 71,
A. 6). Therefore consent to delectation is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 2: Further, consent to a thing is not evil, unless the thing to
which consent is given be evil. Now "the cause of anything being such
is yet more so," or at any rate not less. Consequently the thing to
which a man consents cannot be a lesser evil than his consent. But
delectation without deed is not a mortal sin, but only a venial sin.
Therefore neither is the consent to the delectation a mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, delectations differ in goodness and malice,
according to the difference of the deeds, as the Philosopher states
(Ethic. x, 3, 5). Now the inward thought is one thing, and the
outward deed, e.g. fornication, is another. Therefore the delectation
consequent to the act of inward thought, differs in goodness and
malice from the pleasure of fornication, as much as the inward
thought differs from the outward deed; and consequently there is a
like difference of consent on either hand. But the inward thought is
not a mortal sin, nor is the consent to that thought: and therefore
neither is the consent to the delectation.

Obj. 4: Further, the external act of fornication or adultery is a
mortal sin, not by reason of the delectation, since this is found
also in the marriage act, but by reason of an inordinateness in the
act itself. Now he that consents to the delectation does not, for
this reason, consent to the inordinateness of the act. Therefore he
seems not to sin mortally.

Obj. 5: Further, the sin of murder is more grievous than simple
fornication. Now it is not a mortal sin to consent to the delectation
resulting from the thought of murder. Much less therefore is it a
mortal sin to consent to the delectation resulting from the thought
of fornication.

Obj. 6: Further, the Lord's prayer is recited every day for the
remission of venial sins, as Augustine asserts (Enchiridion lxxviii).
Now Augustine teaches that consent to delectation may be driven away
by means of the Lord's Prayer: for he says (De Trin. xii, 12) that
"this sin is much less grievous than if it be decided to fulfil it by
deed: wherefore we ought to ask pardon for such thoughts also, and we
should strike our breasts and say: 'Forgive us our trespasses.'"
Therefore consent to delectation is a venial sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine adds after a few words: "Man will be
altogether lost unless, through the grace of the Mediator, he be
forgiven those things which are deemed mere sins of thought, since
without the will to do them, he desires nevertheless to enjoy them."
But no man is lost except through mortal sin. Therefore consent to
delectation is a mortal sin.

_I answer that,_ There have been various opinions on this point, for
some have held that consent to delectation is not a mortal sin, but
only a venial sin, while others have held it to be a mortal sin, and
this opinion is more common and more probable. For we must take note
that since every delectation results from some action, as stated in
_Ethic._ x, 4, and again, that since every delectation may be
compared to two things, viz. to the operation from which it results,
and to the object in which a person takes delight. Now it happens
that an action, just as a thing, is an object of delectation, because
the action itself can be considered as a good and an end, in which
the person who delights in it, rests. Sometimes the action itself,
which results in delectation, is the object of delectation, in so far
as the appetitive power, to which it belongs to take delight in
anything, is brought to bear on the action itself as a good: for
instance, when a man thinks and delights in his thought, in so far as
his thought pleases him; while at other times the delight consequent
to an action, e.g. a thought, has for its object another action, as
being the object of his thought; and then his thought proceeds from
the inclination of the appetite, not indeed to the thought, but to
the action thought of. Accordingly a man who is thinking of
fornication, may delight in either of two things: first, in the
thought itself, secondly, in the fornication thought of. Now the
delectation in the thought itself results from the inclination of the
appetite to the thought; and the thought itself is not in itself a
mortal sin; sometimes indeed it is only a venial sin, as when a man
thinks of such a thing for no purpose; and sometimes it is no sin at
all, as when a man has a purpose in thinking of it; for instance, he
may wish to preach or dispute about it. Consequently such affection
or delectation in respect of the thought of fornication is not a
mortal sin in virtue of its genus, but is sometimes a venial sin and
sometimes no sin at all: wherefore neither is it a mortal sin to
consent to such a thought. In this sense the first opinion is true.

But that a man in thinking of fornication takes pleasure in the act
thought of, is due to his desire being inclined to this act.
Wherefore the fact that a man consents to such a delectation, amounts
to nothing less than a consent to the inclination of his appetite to
fornication: for no man takes pleasure except in that which is in
conformity with his appetite. Now it is a mortal sin, if a man
deliberately chooses that his appetite be conformed to what is in
itself a mortal sin. Wherefore such a consent to delectation in a
mortal sin, is itself a mortal sin, as the second opinion maintains.

Reply Obj. 1: Consent to delectation may be not only in the lower
reason, but also in the higher reason, as stated above (A. 7).
Nevertheless the lower reason may turn away from the eternal types,
for, though it is not intent on them, as regulating according to
them, which is proper to the higher reason, yet, it is intent on
them, as being regulated according to them: and by turning from them
in this sense, it may sin mortally; since even the acts of the lower
powers and of the external members may be mortal sins, in so far as
the direction of the higher reason fails in directing them according
to the eternal types.

Reply Obj. 2: Consent to a sin that is venial in its genus, is itself
a venial sin, and accordingly one may conclude that the consent to
take pleasure in a useless thought about fornication, is a venial
sin. But delectation in the act itself of fornication is, in its
genus, a mortal sin: and that it be a venial sin before the consent
is given, is accidental, viz. on account of the incompleteness of the
act: which incompleteness ceases when the deliberate consent has been
given, so that therefore it has its complete nature and is a mortal
sin.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the delectation which has the
thought for its object.

Reply Obj. 4: The delectation which has an external act for its
object, cannot be without complacency in the external act as such,
even though there be no decision to fulfil it, on account of the
prohibition of some higher authority: wherefore the act is
inordinate, and consequently the delectation will be inordinate also.

Reply Obj. 5: The consent to delectation, resulting from complacency
in an act of murder thought of, is a mortal sin also: but not the
consent to delectation resulting from complacency in the thought of
murder.

Reply Obj. 6: The Lord's Prayer is to be said in order that we may
be preserved not only from venial sin, but also from mortal sin.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 9]

Whether There Can Be Venial Sin in the Higher Reason As Directing
the Lower Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be venial sin in the
higher reason as directing the lower powers, i.e. as consenting to a
sinful act. For Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 7) that the "higher
reason is intent on considering and consulting the eternal law." But
mortal sin consists in turning away from the eternal law. Therefore
it seems that there can be no other than mortal sin in the higher
reason.

Obj. 2: Further, the higher reason is the principle of the spiritual
life, as the heart is of the body's life. But the diseases of the
heart are deadly. Therefore the sins of the higher reason are mortal.

Obj. 3: Further, a venial sin becomes a mortal sin if it be done out
of contempt. But it would seem impossible to commit even a venial
sin, deliberately, without contempt. Since then the consent of the
higher reason is always accompanied by deliberate consideration of
the eternal law, it seems that it cannot be without mortal sin, on
account of the contempt of the Divine law.

_On the contrary,_ Consent to a sinful act belongs to the higher
reason, as stated above (A. 7). But consent to an act of venial sin
is itself a venial sin. Therefore a venial sin can be in the higher
reason.

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 7), the higher
reason "is intent on contemplating or consulting the eternal law"; it
contemplates it by considering its truth; it consults it by judging
and directing other things according to it: and to this pertains the
fact that by deliberating through the eternal types, it consents to
an act or dissents from it. Now it may happen that the inordinateness
of the act to which it consents, is not contrary to the eternal law,
in the same way as mortal sin is, because it does not imply aversion
from the last end, but is beside that law, as an act of venial sin
is. Therefore when the higher reason consents to the act of a venial
sin, it does not turn away from the eternal law: wherefore it sins,
not mortally, but venially.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: Disease of the heart is twofold: one which is in the
very substance of the heart, and affects its natural consistency, and
such a disease is always mortal: the other is a disease of the heart
consisting in some disorder either of the movement or of the parts
surrounding the heart, and such a disease is not always mortal. In
like manner there is mortal sin in the higher reason whenever the
order itself of the higher reason to its proper object which is the
eternal law, is destroyed; but when the disorder leaves this
untouched, the sin is not mortal but venial.

Reply Obj. 3: Deliberate consent to a sin does not always amount to
contempt of the Divine law, but only when the sin is contrary to the
Divine law.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 74, Art. 10]

Whether Venial Sin Can Be in the Higher Reason As Such?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin cannot be in the higher
reason as such, i.e. as considering the eternal law. For the act of a
power is not found to fail except that power be inordinately disposed
with regard to its object. Now the object of the higher reason is the
eternal law, in respect of which there can be no disorder without
mortal sin. Therefore there can be no venial sin in the higher reason
as such.

Obj. 2: Further, since the reason is a deliberative power, there can
be no act of reason without deliberation. Now every inordinate
movement in things concerning God, if it be deliberate, is a mortal
sin. Therefore venial sin is never in the higher reason as such.

Obj. 3: Further, it happens sometimes that a sin which takes us
unawares, is a venial sin. Now a deliberate sin is a mortal sin,
through the reason, in deliberating, having recourse to some higher
good, by acting against which, man sins more grievously; just as when
the reason in deliberating about an inordinate pleasurable act,
considers that it is contrary to the law of God, it sins more
grievously in consenting, than if it only considered that it is
contrary to moral virtue. But the higher reason cannot have recourse
to any higher tribunal than its own object. Therefore if a movement
that takes us unawares is not a mortal sin, neither will the
subsequent deliberation make it a mortal sin; which is clearly false.
Therefore there can be no venial sin in the higher reason as such.

_On the contrary,_ A sudden movement of unbelief is a venial sin. But
it belongs to the higher reason as such. Therefore there can be a
venial sin in the higher reason as such.

_I answer that,_ The higher reason regards its own object otherwise
than the objects of the lower powers that are directed by the higher
reason. For it does not regard the objects of the lower powers,
except in so far as it consults the eternal law about them, and so it
does not regard them save by way of deliberation. Now deliberate
consent to what is a mortal sin in its genus, is itself a mortal sin;
and consequently the higher reason always sins mortally, if the acts
of the lower powers to which it consents are mortal sins.

With regard to its own object it has a twofold act, viz. simple
_intuition,_ and _deliberation,_ in respect of which it again
consults the eternal law about its own object. But in respect of
simple intuition, it can have an inordinate movement about Divine
things, as when a man suffers a sudden movement of unbelief. And
although unbelief, in its genus, is a mortal sin, yet a sudden
movement of unbelief is a venial sin, because there is no mortal sin
unless it be contrary to the law of God. Now it is possible for one
of the articles of faith to present itself to the reason suddenly
under some other aspect, before the eternal law, i.e. the law of God,
is consulted, or can be consulted, on the matter; as, for instance,
when a man suddenly apprehends the resurrection of the dead as
impossible naturally, and rejects it, as soon as he had thus
apprehended it, before he has had time to deliberate and consider
that this is proposed to our belief in accordance with the Divine
law. If, however, the movement of unbelief remains after this
deliberation, it is a mortal sin. Therefore, in sudden movements, the
higher reason may sin venially in respect of its proper object, even
if it be a mortal sin in its genus; or it may sin mortally in giving
a deliberate consent; but in things pertaining to the lower powers,
it always sins mortally, in things which are mortal sins in their
genus, but not in those which are venial sins in their genus.

Reply Obj. 1: A sin which is against the eternal law, though it be
mortal in its genus, may nevertheless be venial, on account of the
incompleteness of a sudden action, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: In matters of action, the simple intuition of the
principles from which deliberation proceeds, belongs to the reason,
as well as the act of deliberation: even as in speculative matters it
belongs to the reason both to syllogize and to form propositions:
consequently the reason also can have a sudden movement.

Reply Obj. 3: One and the same thing may be the subject of different
considerations, of which one is higher than the other; thus the
existence of God may be considered, either as possible to be known by
the human reason, or as delivered to us by Divine revelation, which
is a higher consideration. And therefore, although the object of the
higher reason is, in its nature, something sublime, yet it is
reducible to some yet higher consideration: and in this way, that
which in the sudden movement was not a mortal sin, becomes a mortal
sin in virtue of the deliberation which brought it into the light of
a higher consideration, as was explained above.
________________________

QUESTION 75

OF THE CAUSES OF SIN, IN GENERAL
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the causes of sin: (1) in general; (2) in
particular. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether sin has a cause?

(2) Whether it has an internal cause?

(3) Whether it has an external cause?

(4) Whether one sin is the cause of another?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 75, Art. 1]

Whether Sin Has a Cause?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin has no cause. For sin has the
nature of evil, as stated above (Q. 71, A. 6). But evil has no cause,
as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore sin has no cause.

Obj. 2: Further, a cause is that from which something follows of
necessity. Now that which is of necessity, seems to be no sin, for
every sin is voluntary. Therefore sin has no cause.

Obj. 3: Further, if sin has a cause, this cause is either good or
evil. It is not a good, because good produces nothing but good, for
"a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matt. 7:18). Likewise
neither can evil be the cause of sin, because the evil of punishment
is a sequel to sin, and the evil of guilt is the same as sin.
Therefore sin has no cause.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is done has a cause, for, according to
Job 5:6, "nothing upon earth is done without a cause." But sin is
something done; since it a "word, deed, or desire contrary to the law
of God." Therefore sin has a cause.

_I answer that,_ A sin is an inordinate act. Accordingly, so far as
it is an act, it can have a direct cause, even as any other act; but,
so far as it is inordinate, it has a cause, in the same way as a
negation or privation can have a cause. Now two causes may be
assigned to a negation: in the first place, absence of the cause of
affirmation; i.e. the negation of the cause itself, is the cause of
the negation in itself; since the result of removing the cause is the
removal of the effect: thus the absence of the sun is the cause of
darkness. In the second place, the cause of an affirmation, of which
a negation is a sequel, is the accidental cause of the resulting
negation: thus fire by causing heat in virtue of its principal
tendency, consequently causes a privation of cold. The first of these
suffices to cause a simple negation. But, since the inordinateness of
sin and of every evil is not a simple negation, but the privation of
that which something ought naturally to have, such an inordinateness
must needs have an accidental efficient cause. For that which
naturally is and ought to be in a thing, is never lacking except on
account of some impeding cause. And accordingly we are wont to say
that evil, which consists in a certain privation, has a deficient
cause, or an accidental efficient cause. Now every accidental cause
is reducible to the direct cause. Since then sin, on the part of its
inordinateness, has an accidental efficient cause, and on the part of
the act, a direct efficient cause, it follows that the inordinateness
of sin is a result of the cause of the act. Accordingly then, the
will lacking the direction of the rule of reason and of the Divine
law, and intent on some mutable good, causes the act of sin directly,
and the inordinateness of the act, indirectly, and beside the
intention: for the lack of order in the act results from the lack of
direction in the will.

Reply Obj. 1: Sin signifies not only the privation of good, which
privation is its inordinateness, but also the act which is the
subject of that privation, which has the nature of evil: and how this
evil has a cause, has been explained.

Reply Obj. 2: If this definition is to be verified in all cases, it
must be understood as applying to a cause which is sufficient and not
impeded. For it happens that a thing is the sufficient cause of
something else, and that the effect does not follow of necessity, on
account of some supervening impediment: else it would follow that all
things happen of necessity, as is proved in _Metaph._ vi, text. 5.
Accordingly, though sin has a cause, it does not follow that this is
a necessary cause, since its effect can be impeded.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above, the will in failing to apply the rule
of reason or of the Divine law, is the cause of sin. Now the fact of
not applying the rule of reason or of the Divine law, has not in
itself the nature of evil, whether of punishment or of guilt, before
it is applied to the act. Wherefore accordingly, evil is not the
cause of the first sin, but some good lacking some other good.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 75, Art. 2]

Whether Sin Has an Internal Cause?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin has no internal cause. For that
which is within a thing is always in it. If therefore sin had an
internal cause, man would always be sinning, since given the cause,
the effect follows.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing is not its own cause. But the internal
movements of a man are sins. Therefore they are not the cause of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever is within man is either natural or
voluntary. Now that which is natural cannot be the cause of sin, for
sin is contrary to nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 3;
iv, 21); while that which is voluntary, if it be inordinate, is
already a sin. Therefore nothing intrinsic can be the cause of the
first sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Duabus Anim. x, 10, 11;
Retract. i, 9) that "the will is the cause of sin."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the direct cause of sin must
be considered on the part of the act. Now we may distinguish a
twofold internal cause of human acts, one remote, the other
proximate. The proximate internal cause of the human act is the
reason and will, in respect of which man has a free-will; while the
remote cause is the apprehension of the sensitive part, and also the
sensitive appetite. For just as it is due to the judgment of reason,
that the will is moved to something in accord with reason, so it is
due to an apprehension of the senses that the sensitive appetite is
inclined to something; which inclination sometimes influences the
will and reason, as we shall explain further on (Q. 77, A. 1).
Accordingly a double interior cause of sin may be assigned; one
proximate, on the part of the reason and will; and the other remote,
on the part of the imagination or sensitive appetite.

But since we have said above (A. 1, ad 3) that the cause of sin is
some apparent good as motive, yet lacking the due motive, viz. the
rule of reason or the Divine law, this motive which is an apparent
good, appertains to the apprehension of the senses and to the
appetite; while the lack of the due rule appertains to the reason,
whose nature it is to consider this rule; and the completeness of the
voluntary sinful act appertains to the will, so that the act of the
will, given the conditions we have just mentioned, is already a sin.

Reply Obj. 1: That which is within a thing as its natural power, is
always in it: but that which is within it, as the internal act of the
appetitive or apprehensive power, is not always in it. Now the power
of the will is the potential cause of sin, but is made actual by the
preceding movements, both of the sensitive part, in the first place,
and afterwards, of the reason. For it is because a thing is proposed
as appetible to the senses, and because the appetite is inclined,
that the reason sometimes fails to consider the due rule, so that the
will produces the act of sin. Since therefore the movements that
precede it are not always actual, neither is man always actually
sinning.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not true that all the internal acts belong to the
substance of sin, for this consists principally in the act of the
will; but some precede and some follow the sin itself.

Reply Obj. 3: That which causes sin, as a power produces its act, is
natural; and again, the movement of the sensitive part, from which
sin follows, is natural sometimes, as, for instance, when anyone sins
through appetite for food. Yet sin results in being unnatural from
the very fact that the natural rule fails, which man, in accord with
his nature, ought to observe.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 75, Art. 3]

Whether Sin Has an External Cause?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin has no external cause. For sin is
a voluntary act. Now voluntary acts belong to principles that are
within us, so that they have no external cause. Therefore sin has no
external cause.

Obj. 2: Further, as nature is an internal principle, so is the will.
Now in natural things sin can be due to no other than an internal
cause; for instance, the birth of a monster is due to the corruption
of some internal principle. Therefore in the moral order, sin can
arise from no other than an internal cause. Therefore it has no
external cause.

Obj. 3: Further, if the cause is multiplied, the effect is
multiplied. Now the more numerous and weighty the external
inducements to sin are, the less is a man's inordinate act imputed
to him as a sin. Therefore nothing external is a cause of sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Num. 21:16): "Are not these they,
that deceived the children of Israel by the counsel of Balaam, and
made you transgress against the Lord by the sin of Phogor?" Therefore
something external can be a cause of sin.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), the internal cause of sin is
both the will, as completing the sinful act, and the reason, as
lacking the due rule, and the appetite, as inclining to sin.
Accordingly something external might be a cause of sin in three ways,
either by moving the will itself immediately, or by moving the
reason, or by moving the sensitive appetite. Now, as stated above (Q.
9, A. 6; Q. 10, A. 4), none can move the will inwardly save God
alone, who cannot be a cause of sin, as we shall prove further on (Q.
79, A. 1). Hence it follows that nothing external can be a cause of
sin, except by moving the reason, as a man or devil by enticing to
sin; or by moving the sensitive appetite, as certain external
sensibles move it. Yet neither does external enticement move the
reason, of necessity, in matters of action, nor do things proposed
externally, of necessity move the sensitive appetite, except perhaps
it be disposed thereto in a certain way; and even the sensitive
appetite does not, of necessity, move the reason and will. Therefore
something external can be a cause moving to sin, but not so as to be
a sufficient cause thereof: and the will alone is the sufficient
completive cause of sin being accomplished.

Reply Obj. 1: From the very fact that the external motive causes of
sin do not lead to sin sufficiently and necessarily, it follows that
it remains in our power to sin or not to sin.

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that sin has an internal cause does not
prevent its having an external cause; for nothing external is a cause
of sin, except through the medium of the internal cause, as stated.

Reply Obj. 3: If the external causes inclining to sin be multiplied,
the sinful acts are multiplied, because they incline to the sinful
act in both greater numbers and greater frequency. Nevertheless the
character of guilt is lessened, since this depends on the act being
voluntary and in our power.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 75, Art. 4]

Whether One Sin Is a Cause of Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that one sin cannot be the cause of
another. For there are four kinds of cause, none of which will fit in
with one sin causing another. Because the end has the character of
good; which is inconsistent with sin, which has the character of evil.
In like manner neither can a sin be an efficient cause, since "evil is
not an efficient cause, but is weak and powerless," as Dionysius
declares (Div. Nom. iv). The material and formal cause seems to have
no place except in natural bodies, which are composed of matter and
form. Therefore sin cannot have either a material or a formal cause.

Obj. 2: Further, "to produce its like belongs to a perfect
thing," as stated in _Meteor._ iv, 2 [*Cf. _De Anima_ ii.]. But sin is
essentially something imperfect. Therefore one sin cannot be a cause
of another.

Obj. 3: Further, if one sin is the cause of a second sin, in the
same way, yet another sin will be the cause of the first, and thus we
go on indefinitely, which is absurd. Therefore one sin is not the
cause of another.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says on Ezechiel (Hom. xi): "A sin that is
not quickly blotted out by repentance, is both a sin and a cause of
sin."

_I answer that,_ Forasmuch as a sin has a cause on the part of the
act of sin, it is possible for one sin to be the cause of another, in
the same way as one human act is the cause of another. Hence it
happens that one sin may be the cause of another in respect of the
four kinds of causes. First, after the manner of an efficient or
moving cause, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, as that which
removes an impediment is called an indirect cause of movement: for
when man, by one sinful act, loses grace, or charity, or shame, or
anything else that withdraws him from sin, he thereby falls into
another sin, so that the first sin is the accidental cause of the
second. Directly, as when, by one sinful act, man is disposed to
commit more readily another like act: because acts cause dispositions
and habits inclining to like acts. Secondly, after the manner of a
material cause, one sin is the cause of another, by preparing its
matter: thus covetousness prepares the matter for strife, which is
often about the wealth a man has amassed together. Thirdly, after the
manner of a final cause, one sin causes another, in so far as a man
commits one sin for the sake of another which is his end; as when a
man is guilty of simony for the end of ambition, or fornication for
the purpose of theft. And since the end gives the form to moral
matters, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 3; Q. 18, AA. 4, 6), it follows
that one sin is also the formal cause of another: because in the act
of fornication committed for the purpose of theft, the former is
material while the latter is formal.

Reply Obj. 1: Sin, in so far as it is inordinate, has the character
of evil; but, in so far as it is an act, it has some good, at least
apparent, for its end: so that, as an act, but not as being
inordinate, it can be the cause, both final and efficient, of another
sin. A sin has matter, not _of which_ but _about which_ it is: and it
has its form from its end. Consequently one sin can be the cause of
another, in respect of the four kinds of cause, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Sin is something imperfect on account of its moral
imperfection on the part of its inordinateness. Nevertheless, as an
act it can have natural perfection: and thus it can be the cause of
another sin.

Reply Obj. 3: Not every cause of one sin is another sin; so there is
no need to go on indefinitely: for one may come to one sin which is
not caused by another sin.
________________________

QUESTION 76

OF THE CAUSES OF SIN, IN PARTICULAR
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the causes of sin, in particular, and (1) The
internal causes of sin; (2) its external causes; and (3) sins which
are the causes of other sins. In view of what has been said above (A.
2), the first consideration will be threefold: so that in the first
place we shall treat of ignorance, which is the cause of sin on the
part of reason; secondly, of weakness or passion, which is the cause
of sin on the part of the sensitive appetite; thirdly, of malice,
which is the cause of sin on the part of the will.

Under the first head, there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether ignorance is a cause of sin?

(2) Whether ignorance is a sin?

(3) Whether it excuses from sin altogether?

(4) Whether it diminishes sin?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 76, Art. 1]

Whether Ignorance Can Be a Cause of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance cannot be a cause of sin:
because a non-being is not the cause of anything. Now ignorance is a
non-being, since it is a privation of knowledge. Therefore ignorance
is not a cause of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, causes of sin should be reckoned in respect of sin
being a _turning to_ something, as was stated above (Q. 75, A. 1).
Now ignorance seems to savor of _turning away_ from something.
Therefore it should not be reckoned a cause of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, every sin is seated in the will. Now the will does
not turn to that which is not known, because its object is the good
apprehended. Therefore ignorance cannot be a cause of sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. lxvii) "that some
sin through ignorance."

_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Phys. viii, 27) a
moving cause is twofold, direct and indirect. A direct cause is one
that moves by its own power, as the generator is the moving cause of
heavy and light things. An indirect cause, is either one that removes
an impediment, or the removal itself of an impediment: and it is in
this way that ignorance can be the cause of a sinful act; because it
is a privation of knowledge perfecting the reason that forbids the
act of sin, in so far as it directs human acts.

Now we must observe that the reason directs human acts in accordance
with a twofold knowledge, universal and particular: because in
conferring about what is to be done, it employs a syllogism, the
conclusion of which is an act of judgment, or of choice, or an
operation. Now actions are about singulars: wherefore the conclusion
of a practical syllogism is a singular proposition. But a singular
proposition does not follow from a universal proposition, except
through the medium of a particular proposition: thus a man is
restrained from an act of parricide, by the knowledge that it is
wrong to kill one's father, and that this man is his father. Hence
ignorance about either of these two propositions, viz. of the
universal principle which is a rule of reason, or of the particular
circumstance, could cause an act of parricide. Hence it is clear that
not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone
which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act.
Consequently if a man's will be so disposed that he would not be
restrained from the act of parricide, even though he recognized his
father, his ignorance about his father is not the cause of his
committing the sin, but is concomitant with the sin: wherefore such a
man sins, not "through ignorance" but "in ignorance," as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Non-being cannot be the direct cause of anything: but
it can be an accidental cause, as being the removal of an impediment.

Reply Obj. 2: As knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, regards
sin as turning towards something, so too, ignorance of this respect
of a sin is the cause of that sin, as removing its impediment.

Reply Obj. 3: The will cannot turn to that which is absolutely
unknown: but if something be known in one respect, and unknown in
another, the will can will it. It is thus that ignorance is the cause
of sin: for instance, when a man knows that what he is killing is a
man, but not that it is his own father; or when one knows that a
certain act is pleasurable, but not that it is a sin.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 76, Art. 2]

Whether Ignorance Is a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance is not a sin. For sin is "a
word, deed or desire contrary to God's law," as stated above (Q. 71,
A. 5). Now ignorance does not denote an act, either internal or
external. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is more directly opposed to grace than to
knowledge. Now privation of grace is not a sin, but a punishment
resulting from sin. Therefore ignorance which is privation of
knowledge is not a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, if ignorance is a sin, this can only be in so far as
it is voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin, through being voluntary,
it seems that the sin will consist in the act itself of the will,
rather than in the ignorance. Therefore the ignorance will not be a
sin, but rather a result of sin.

Obj. 4: Further, every sin is taken away by repentance, nor does any
sin, except only original sin, pass as to guilt, yet remain in act.
Now ignorance is not removed by repentance, but remains in act, all
its guilt being removed by repentance. Therefore ignorance is not a
sin, unless perchance it be original sin.

Obj. 5: Further, if ignorance be a sin, then a man will be sinning,
as long as he remains in ignorance. But ignorance is continual in the
one who is ignorant. Therefore a person in ignorance would be
continually sinning, which is clearly false, else ignorance would be
a most grievous sin. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

_On the contrary,_ Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance
deserves punishment, according to 1 Cor. 14:38: "If any man know not,
he shall not be known." Therefore ignorance is a sin.

_I answer that,_ Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience
denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge
about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense
Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the
other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of
knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know.
Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit,
without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act
rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of
faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is
bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there
are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet
he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and
contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is
evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or
do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence,
ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not
imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to
know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called
"invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason
such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our
power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no
invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance
is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it
be about things one is not bound to know.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 71, A. 6, ad 1), when we say that
sin is a "word, deed or desire," we include the opposite negations,
by reason of which omissions have the character of sin; so that
negligence, in as much as ignorance is a sin, is comprised in the
above definition of sin; in so far as one omits to say what one
ought, or to do what one ought, or to desire what one ought, in order
to acquire the knowledge which we ought to have.

Reply Obj. 2: Although privation of grace is not a sin in itself, yet
by reason of negligence in preparing oneself for grace, it may have
the character of sin, even as ignorance; nevertheless even here there
is a difference, since man can acquire knowledge by his acts, whereas
grace is not acquired by acts, but by God's favor.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as in a sin of transgression, the sin consists not
only in the act of the will, but also in the act willed, which is
commanded by the will; so in a sin of omission not only the act of
the will is a sin, but also the omission, in so far as it is in some
way voluntary; and accordingly, the neglect to know, or even lack of
consideration is a sin.

Reply Obj. 4: Although when the guilt has passed away through
repentance, the ignorance remains, according as it is a privation of
knowledge, nevertheless the negligence does not remain, by reason of
which the ignorance is said to be a sin.

Reply Obj. 5: Just as in other sins of omission, man sins actually
only at the time at which the affirmative precept is binding, so is
it with the sin of ignorance. For the ignorant man sins actually
indeed, not continually, but only at the time for acquiring the
knowledge that he ought to have.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 76, Art. 3]

Whether Ignorance Excuses from Sin Altogether?

Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance excuses from sin
altogether. For as Augustine says (Retract. i, 9), every sin is
voluntary. Now ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above (Q.
6, A. 8). Therefore ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is done beside the intention, is done
accidentally. Now the intention cannot be about what is unknown.
Therefore what a man does through ignorance is accidental in human
acts. But what is accidental does not give the species. Therefore
nothing that is done through ignorance in human acts, should be
deemed sinful or virtuous.

Obj. 3: Further, man is the subject of virtue and sin, inasmuch as he
is partaker of reason. Now ignorance excludes knowledge which
perfects the reason. Therefore ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) that "some
things done through ignorance are rightly reproved." Now those things
alone are rightly reproved which are sins. Therefore some things done
through ignorance are sins. Therefore ignorance does not altogether
excuse from sin.

_I answer that,_ Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which
it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (AA. 1, 2) that
ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would
have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be
contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary.
If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not
have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will
thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling,
but not willing, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 1: and such like
ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already
stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not
excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not
cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.

On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it
makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin,
because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse
altogether from sin, and this for two reasons. First, on the part of
the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin,
in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen
that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of
which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong
to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge
is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for
instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which
suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it
is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species
of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend
himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would
not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the
act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is
not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge
of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance
itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either
directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of
certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as
when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to
acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such
like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful,
provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know.
Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If,
however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either
through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not
bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated
above (Q. 6, A. 8). Hence not every ignorance excuses from sin
altogether.

Reply Obj. 2: So far as voluntariness remains in the ignorant person,
the intention of sin remains in him: so that, in this respect, his
sin is not accidental.

Reply Obj. 3: If the ignorance be such as to exclude the use of
reason entirely, it excuses from sin altogether, as is the case with
madmen and imbeciles: but such is not always the ignorance that
causes the sin; and so it does not always excuse from sin altogether.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 76, Art. 4]

Whether Ignorance Diminishes a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance does not diminish a sin.
For that which is common to all sins does not diminish sin. Now
ignorance is common to all sins, for the Philosopher says (Ethic.
iii, 1) that "every evil man is ignorant." Therefore ignorance does
not diminish sin.

Obj. 2: Further, one sin added to another makes a greater sin. But
ignorance is itself a sin, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore it does
not diminish a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing does not both aggravate and diminish
sin. Now ignorance aggravates sin; for Ambrose commenting on Rom.
2:4, "Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to
penance?" says: "Thy sin is most grievous if thou knowest not."
Therefore ignorance does not diminish sin.

Obj. 4: Further, if any kind of ignorance diminishes a sin, this
would seem to be chiefly the case as regards the ignorance which
removes the use of reason altogether. Now this kind of ignorance does
not diminish sin, but increases it: for the Philosopher says (Ethic.
iii, 5) that the "punishment is doubled for a drunken man." Therefore
ignorance does not diminish sin.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven,
diminishes sin. Now such is ignorance, as is clear from 1 Tim. 1:13:
"I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly." Therefore
ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin.

_I answer that,_ Since every sin is voluntary, ignorance can diminish
sin, in so far as it diminishes its voluntariness; and if it does not
render it less voluntary, it nowise alleviates the sin. Now it is
evident that the ignorance which excuses from sin altogether (through
making it altogether involuntary) does not diminish a sin, but does
away with it altogether. On the other hand, ignorance which is not
the cause of the sin being committed, but is concomitant with it,
neither diminishes nor increases the sin.

Therefore sin cannot be alleviated by any ignorance, but only by such
as is a cause of the sin being committed, and yet does not excuse
from the sin altogether. Now it happens sometimes that such like
ignorance is directly and essentially voluntary, as when a man is
purposely ignorant that he may sin more freely, and ignorance of this
kind seems rather to make the act more voluntary and more sinful,
since it is through the will's intention to sin that he is willing to
bear the hurt of ignorance, for the sake of freedom in sinning.
Sometimes, however, the ignorance which is the cause of a sin being
committed, is not directly voluntary, but indirectly or accidentally,
as when a man is unwilling to work hard at his studies, the result
being that he is ignorant, or as when a man willfully drinks too much
wine, the result being that he becomes drunk and indiscreet, and this
ignorance diminishes voluntariness and consequently alleviates the
sin. For when a thing is not known to be a sin, the will cannot be
said to consent to the sin directly, but only accidentally;
wherefore, in that case there is less contempt, and therefore less
sin.

Reply Obj. 1: The ignorance whereby "every evil man is ignorant," is
not the cause of sin being committed, but something resulting from
that cause, viz. of the passion or habit inclining to sin.

Reply Obj. 2: One sin added to another makes more sins, but it does
not always make a sin greater, since, perchance, the two sins do not
coincide, but are separate. It may happen, if the first diminishes
the second, that the two together have not the same gravity as one of
them alone would have; thus murder is a more grievous sin if
committed by a man when sober, than if committed by a man when drunk,
although in the latter case there are two sins: because drunkenness
diminishes the sinfulness of the resulting sin more than its own
gravity implies.

Reply Obj. 3: The words of Ambrose may be understood as referring to
simply affected ignorance; or they may have reference to a species of
the sin of ingratitude, the highest degree of which is that man even
ignores the benefits he has received; or again, they may be an
allusion to the ignorance of unbelief, which undermines the
foundation of the spiritual edifice.

Reply Obj. 4: The drunken man deserves a "double punishment" for the
two sins which he commits, viz. drunkenness, and the sin which
results from his drunkenness: and yet drunkenness, on account of the
ignorance connected therewith, diminishes the resulting sin, and
more, perhaps, than the gravity of the drunkenness implies, as stated
above (ad 2). It might also be said that the words quoted refer to an
ordinance of the legislator named Pittacus, who ordered drunkards to
be more severely punished if they assaulted anyone; having an eye,
not to the indulgence which the drunkard might claim, but to
expediency, since more harm is done by the drunk than by the sober,
as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii).
________________________

QUESTION 77

OF THE CAUSE OF SIN, ON THE PART OF THE SENSITIVE APPETITE
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the cause of sin, on the part of the sensitive
appetite, as to whether a passion of the soul may be a cause of sin:
and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a passion of the sensitive appetite can move or incline
the will?

(2) Whether it can overcome the reason against the latter's knowledge?

(3) Whether a sin resulting from a passion is a sin of weakness?

(4) Whether the passion of self-love is the cause of every sin?

(5) Of three causes mentioned in 1 John 2:16: "Concupiscence of the
eyes, Concupiscence of the flesh," and "Pride of life."

(6) Whether the passion which causes a sin diminishes it?

(7) Whether passion excuses from sin altogether?

(8) Whether a sin committed through passion can be mortal?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is Moved by a Passion of the Sensitive Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by a passion of
the sensitive appetite. For no passive power is moved except by its
object. Now the will is a power both passive and active, inasmuch as
it is mover and moved, as the Philosopher says of the appetitive
power in general (De Anima iii, text. 54). Since therefore the object
of the will is not a passion of the sensitive appetite, but good
defined by the reason, it seems that a passion of the sensitive
appetite does not move the will.

Obj. 2: Further, the higher mover is not moved by the lower; thus the
soul is not moved by the body. Now the will, which is the rational
appetite, is compared to the sensitive appetite, as a higher mover to
a lower: for the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, text. 57) that "the
rational appetite moves the sensitive appetite, even as, in the
heavenly bodies, one sphere moves another." Therefore the will cannot
be moved by a passion of the sensitive appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing immaterial can be moved by that which is
material. Now the will is an immaterial power, because it does not
use a corporeal organ, since it is in the reason, as stated in _De
Anima_ iii, text. 42: whereas the sensitive appetite is a material
force, since it is seated in an organ of the body. Therefore a
passion of the sensitive appetite cannot move the intellective
appetite.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Dan. 13:56): "Lust hath perverted
thy heart."

_I answer that,_ A passion of the sensitive appetite cannot draw or
move the will directly; but it can do so indirectly, and this in two
ways. First, by a kind of distraction: because, since all the soul's
powers are rooted in the one essence of the soul, it follows of
necessity that, when one power is intent in its act, another power
becomes remiss, or is even altogether impeded, in its act, both
because all energy is weakened through being divided, so that, on the
contrary, through being centered on one thing, it is less able to be
directed to several; and because, in the operations of the soul, a
certain attention is requisite, and if this be closely fixed on one
thing, less attention is given to another. In this way, by a kind of
distraction, when the movement of the sensitive appetite is enforced
in respect of any passion whatever, the proper movement of the
rational appetite or will must, of necessity, become remiss or
altogether impeded.

Secondly, this may happen on the part of the will's object, which is
good apprehended by reason. Because the judgment and apprehension of
reason is impeded on account of a vehement and inordinate
apprehension of the imagination and judgment of the estimative power,
as appears in those who are out of their mind. Now it is evident that
the apprehension of the imagination and the judgment of the
estimative power follow the passion of the sensitive appetite, even
as the verdict of the taste follows the disposition of the tongue:
for which reason we observe that those who are in some kind of
passion, do not easily turn their imagination away from the object of
their emotion, the result being that the judgment of the reason often
follows the passion of the sensitive appetite, and consequently the
will's movement follows it also, since it has a natural inclination
always to follow the judgment of the reason.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the passion of the sensitive appetite is not
the direct object of the will, yet it occasions a certain change in
the judgment about the object of the will, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: The higher mover is not directly moved by the lower;
but, in a manner, it can be moved by it indirectly, as stated.

The Third Objection is solved in like manner.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 2]

Whether the Reason Can Be Overcome by a Passion, Against Its
Knowledge?

Objection 1: It would seem that the reason cannot be overcome by a
passion, against its knowledge. For the stronger is not overcome by
the weaker. Now knowledge, on account of its certitude, is the
strongest thing in us. Therefore it cannot be overcome by a passion,
which is weak and soon passes away.

Obj. 2: Further, the will is not directed save to the good or the
apparent good. Now when a passion draws the will to that which is
really good, it does not influence the reason against its knowledge;
and when it draws it to that which is good apparently, but not
really, it draws it to that which appears good to the reason. But
what appears to the reason is in the knowledge of the reason.
Therefore a passion never influences the reason against its knowledge.

Obj. 3: Further, if it be said that it draws the reason from its
knowledge of something in general, to form a contrary judgment about
a particular matter--on the contrary, if a universal and a particular
proposition be opposed, they are opposed by contradiction, e.g.
"Every man," and "Not every man." Now if two opinions contradict one
another, they are contrary to one another, as stated in _Peri Herm._
ii. If therefore anyone, while knowing something in general, were to
pronounce an opposite judgment in a particular case, he would have
two contrary opinions at the same time, which is impossible.

Obj. 4: Further, whoever knows the universal, knows also the
particular which he knows to be contained in the universal: thus who
knows that every mule is sterile, knows that this particular animal
is sterile, provided he knows it to be a mule, as is clear from
_Poster._ i, text. 2. Now he who knows something in general, e.g.
that "no fornication is lawful," knows this general proposition to
contain, for example, the particular proposition, "This is an act of
fornication." Therefore it seems that his knowledge extends to the
particular.

Obj. 5: Further, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i), "words
express the thoughts of the mind." Now it often happens that man,
while in a state of passion, confesses that what he has chosen is an
evil, even in that particular case. Therefore he has knowledge, even
in particular.

Therefore it seems that the passions cannot draw the reason against
its universal knowledge; because it is impossible for it to have
universal knowledge together with an opposite particular judgment.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 7:23): "I see another law
in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating
me in the law of sin." Now the law that is in the members is
concupiscence, of which he had been speaking previously. Since then
concupiscence is a passion, it seems that a passion draws the reason
counter to its knowledge.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, 2), the
opinion of Socrates was that knowledge can never be overcome by
passion; wherefore he held every virtue to be a kind of knowledge,
and every sin a kind of ignorance. In this he was somewhat right,
because, since the object of the will is a good or an apparent good,
it is never moved to an evil, unless that which is not good appear
good in some respect to the reason; so that the will would never tend
to evil, unless there were ignorance or error in the reason. Hence it
is written (Prov. 14:22): "They err that work evil."

Experience, however, shows that many act contrary to the knowledge
that they have, and this is confirmed by Divine authority, according
to the words of Luke 12:47: "The servant who knew that the will of
his lord . . . and did not . . . shall be beaten with many stripes,"
and of James 4:17: "To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and doth it
not, to him it is a sin." Consequently he was not altogether right,
and it is necessary, with the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 3) to make a
distinction. Because, since man is directed to right action by a
twofold knowledge, viz. universal and particular, a defect in either
of them suffices to hinder the rectitude of the will and of the deed,
as stated above (Q. 76, A. 1). It may happen, then, that a man has
some knowledge in general, e.g. that no fornication is lawful, and
yet he does not know in particular that this act, which is
fornication, must not be done; and this suffices for the will not to
follow the universal knowledge of the reason. Again, it must be
observed that nothing prevents a thing which is known habitually from
not being considered actually: so that it is possible for a man to
have correct knowledge not only in general but also in particular,
and yet not to consider his knowledge actually: and in such a case it
does not seem difficult for a man to act counter to what he does not
actually consider. Now, that a man sometimes fails to consider in
particular what he knows habitually, may happen through mere lack of
attention: for instance, a man who knows geometry, may not attend to
the consideration of geometrical conclusions, which he is ready to
consider at any moment. Sometimes man fails to consider actually what
he knows habitually, on account of some hindrance supervening, e.g.
some external occupation, or some bodily infirmity; and, in this way,
a man who is in a state of passion, fails to consider in particular
what he knows in general, in so far as the passions hinder him from
considering it. Now it hinders him in three ways. First, by way of
distraction, as explained above (A. 1). Secondly, by way of
opposition, because a passion often inclines to something contrary to
what man knows in general. Thirdly, by way of bodily transmutation,
the result of which is that the reason is somehow fettered so as not
to exercise its act freely; even as sleep or drunkenness, on account
of some change wrought on the body, fetters the use of reason. That
this takes place in the passions is evident from the fact that
sometimes, when the passions are very intense, man loses the use of
reason altogether: for many have gone out of their minds through
excess of love or anger. It is in this way that passion draws the
reason to judge in particular, against the knowledge which it has in
general.

Reply Obj. 1: Universal knowledge, which is most certain, does not
hold the foremost place in action, but rather particular knowledge,
since actions are about singulars: wherefore it is not astonishing
that, in matters of action, passion acts counter to universal
knowledge, if the consideration of particular knowledge be lacking.

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that something appears good in particular to
the reason, whereas it is not good, is due to a passion: and yet this
particular judgment is contrary to the universal knowledge of the
reason.

Reply Obj. 3: It is impossible for anyone to have an actual knowledge
or true opinion about a universal affirmative proposition, and at the
same time a false opinion about a particular negative proposition, or
vice versa: but it may well happen that a man has true habitual
knowledge about a universal affirmative proposition, and actually a
false opinion about a particular negative: because an act is directly
opposed, not to a habit, but to an act.

Reply Obj. 4: He that has knowledge in a universal, is hindered, on
account of a passion, from reasoning about that universal, so as to
draw the conclusion: but he reasons about another universal
proposition suggested by the inclination of the passion, and draws
his conclusion accordingly. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii,
3) that the syllogism of an incontinent man has four propositions,
two particular and two universal, of which one is of the son, e.g. No
fornication is lawful, and the other, of passion, e.g. Pleasure is to
be pursued. Hence passion fetters the reason, and hinders it from
arguing and concluding under the first proposition; so that while the
passion lasts, the reason argues and concludes under the second.

Reply Obj. 5: Even as a drunken man sometimes gives utterance to
words of deep signification, of which, however, he is incompetent to
judge, his drunkenness hindering him; so that a man who is in a state
of passion, may indeed say in words that he ought not to do so and
so, yet his inner thought is that he must do it, as stated in
_Ethic._ vii, 3.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 3]

Whether a Sin Committed Through Passion, Should Be Called a Sin of
Weakness?

Objection 1: It would seem that a sin committed through passion
should not be called a sin of weakness. For a passion is a vehement
movement of the sensitive appetite, as stated above (A. 1). Now
vehemence of movements is evidence of strength rather than of
weakness. Therefore a sin committed through passion, should not be
called a sin of weakness.

Obj. 2: Further, weakness in man regards that which is most fragile
in him. Now this is the flesh; whence it is written (Ps. 77:39): "He
remembered that they are flesh." Therefore sins of weakness should be
those which result from bodily defects, rather than those which are
due to a passion.

Obj. 3: Further, man does not seem to be weak in respect of things
which are subject to his will. Now it is subject to man's will,
whether he do or do not the things to which his passions incline him,
according to Gen. 4:7: "Thy appetite shall be under thee [*Vulg.:
'The lust thereof shall be under thee.'], and thou shalt have dominion
over it." Therefore sin committed through passion is not a sin of
weakness.

_On the contrary,_ Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv) calls the passions
diseases of the soul. Now weakness is another name for disease.
Therefore a sin that arises from passion should be called a sin of
weakness.

_I answer that,_ The cause of sin is on the part of the soul, in
which, chiefly, sin resides. Now weakness may be applied to the soul
by way of likeness to weakness of the body. Accordingly, man's body
is said to be weak, when it is disabled or hindered in the execution
of its proper action, through some disorder of the body's parts, so
that the humors and members of the human body cease to be subject to
its governing and motive power. Hence a member is said to be weak,
when it cannot do the work of a healthy member, the eye, for
instance, when it cannot see clearly, as the Philosopher states (De
Hist. Animal. x, 1). Therefore weakness of the soul is when the soul
is hindered from fulfilling its proper action on account of a
disorder in its parts. Now as the parts of the body are said to be
out of order, when they fail to comply with the order of nature, so
too the parts of the soul are said to be inordinate, when they are
not subject to the order of reason, for the reason is the ruling
power of the soul's parts. Accordingly, when the concupiscible or
irascible power is affected by any passion contrary to the order of
reason, the result being that an impediment arises in the aforesaid
manner to the due action of man, it is said to be a sin of weakness.
Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 8) compares the incontinent man to
an epileptic, whose limbs move in a manner contrary to his intention.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as in the body the stronger the movement against
the order of nature, the greater the weakness, so likewise, the
stronger the movement of passion against the order of reason, the
greater the weakness of the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: Sin consists chiefly in an act of the will, which is
not hindered by weakness of the body: for he that is weak in body may
have a will ready for action, and yet be hindered by a passion, as
stated above (A. 1). Hence when we speak of sins of weakness, we
refer to weakness of soul rather than of body. And yet even weakness
of soul is called weakness of the flesh, in so far as it is owing to
a condition of the flesh that the passions of the soul arise in us
through the sensitive appetite being a power using a corporeal organ.

Reply Obj. 3: It is in the will's power to give or refuse its consent
to what passion inclines us to do, and it is in this sense that our
appetite is said to be under us; and yet this consent or dissent of
the will is hindered in the way already explained (A. 1).
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 4]

Whether Self-love Is the Source of Every Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that self-love is not the source of every
sin. For that which is good and right in itself is not the proper
cause of sin. Now love of self is a good and right thing in itself:
wherefore man is commanded to love his neighbor as himself (Lev.
19:18). Therefore self-love cannot be the proper cause of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 7:8): "Sin taking occasion by
the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence"; on which
words a gloss says that "the law is good, since by forbidding
concupiscence, it forbids all evils," the reason for which is that
concupiscence is the cause of every sin. Now concupiscence is a
distinct passion from love, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 2; Q. 23, A.
4). Therefore self-love is not the cause of every sin.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine in commenting on Ps. 79:17, "Things set on
fire and dug down," says that "every sin is due either to love
arousing us to undue ardor or to fear inducing false humility."
Therefore self-love is not the only cause of sin.

Obj. 4: Further, as man sins at times through inordinate love of
self, so does he sometimes through inordinate love of his neighbor.
Therefore self-love is not the cause of every sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28) that
"self-love, amounting to contempt of God, builds up the city of
Babylon." Now every sin makes man a citizen of Babylon. Therefore
self-love is the cause of every sin.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 75, A. 1), the proper and direct
cause of sin is to be considered on the part of the adherence to a
mutable good; in which respect every sinful act proceeds from
inordinate desire for some temporal good. Now the fact that anyone
desires a temporal good inordinately, is due to the fact that he
loves himself inordinately; for to wish anyone some good is to love
him. Therefore it is evident that inordinate love of self is the
cause of every sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Well ordered self-love, whereby man desires a fitting
good for himself, is right and natural; but it is inordinate
self-love, leading to contempt of God, that Augustine (De Civ. Dei
xiv, 28) reckons to be the cause of sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Concupiscence, whereby a man desires good for himself,
is reduced to self-love as to its cause, as stated.

Reply Obj. 3: Man is said to love both the good he desires for
himself, and himself to whom he desires it. Love, in so far as it is
directed to the object of desire (e.g. a man is said to love wine or
money) admits, as its cause, fear which pertains to avoidance of
evil: for every sin arises either from inordinate desire for some
good, or from inordinate avoidance of some evil. But each of these is
reduced to self-love, since it is through loving himself that man
either desires good things, or avoids evil things.

Reply Obj. 4: A friend is like another self (Ethic. ix): wherefore
the sin which is committed through love for a friend, seems to be
committed through self-love.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 5]

Whether Concupiscence of the Flesh, Concupiscence of the Eyes, and
Pride of Life Are Fittingly Described As Causes of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that "concupiscence of the flesh,
concupiscence of the eyes, and pride of life" are unfittingly
described as causes of sin. Because, according to the Apostle (1 Tim.
6:10), "covetousness [*Douay: 'The desire of money'] is the root of
all evils." Now pride of life is not included in covetousness.
Therefore it should not be reckoned among the causes of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, concupiscence of the flesh is aroused chiefly by
what is seen by the eyes, according to Dan. 13:56: "Beauty hath
deceived thee." Therefore concupiscence of the eyes should not be
condivided with concupiscence of the flesh.

Obj. 3: Further, concupiscence is desire for pleasure, as stated
above (Q. 30, A. 2). Now objects of pleasure are perceived not only
by the sight, but also by the other senses. Therefore "concupiscence
of the hearing" and of the other senses should also have been
mentioned.

Obj. 4: Further, just as man is induced to sin, through inordinate
desire of good things, so is he also, through inordinate avoidance of
evil things, as stated above (A. 4, ad 3). But nothing is mentioned
here pertaining to avoidance of evil. Therefore the causes of sin are
insufficiently described.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 2:16): "All that is in the
world is concupiscence of the flesh, or [Vulg.: 'and'] pride of
life." Now a thing is said to be "in the world" by reason of sin:
wherefore it is written (1 John 5:19): "The whole world is seated in
wickedness." Therefore these three are causes of sin.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), inordinate self-love is the
cause of every sin. Now self-love includes inordinate desire of good:
for a man desires good for the one he loves. Hence it is evident that
inordinate desire of good is the cause of every sin. Now good is, in
two ways, the object of the sensitive appetite, wherein are the
passions which are the cause of sin: first, absolutely, according as
it is the object of the concupiscible part; secondly, under the
aspect of difficulty, according as it is the object of the irascible
part, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1). Again, concupiscence is twofold,
as stated above (Q. 30, A. 3). One is natural, and is directed to
those things which sustain the nature of the body, whether as regards
the preservation of the individual, such as food, drink, and the
like, or as regards the preservation of the species, such as sexual
matters: and the inordinate appetite of such things is called
"concupiscence of the flesh." The other is spiritual concupiscence,
and is directed to those things which do not afford sustentation or
pleasure in respect of the fleshly senses, but are delectable in
respect of the apprehension or imagination, or some similar mode of
perception; such are money, apparel, and the like; and this spiritual
concupiscence is called "concupiscence of the eyes," whether this be
taken as referring to the sight itself, of which the eyes are the
organ, so as to denote curiosity according to Augustine's exposition
(Confess. x); or to the concupiscence of things which are proposed
outwardly to the eyes, so as to denote covetousness, according to the
explanation of others.

The inordinate appetite of the arduous good pertains to the "pride of
life"; for pride is the inordinate appetite of excellence, as we
shall state further on (Q. 84, A. 2; II-II, Q. 162, A. 1).

It is therefore evident that all passions that are a cause of sin can
be reduced to these three: since all the passions of the
concupiscible part can be reduced to the first two, and all the
irascible passions to the third, which is not divided into two
because all the irascible passions conform to spiritual concupiscence.

Reply Obj. 1: "Pride of life" is included in covetousness according
as the latter denotes any kind of appetite for any kind of good. How
covetousness, as a special vice, which goes by the name of "avarice,"
is the root of all sins, shall be explained further on (Q. 84, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 2: "Concupiscence of the eyes" does not mean here the
concupiscence for all things which can be seen by the eyes, but only
for such things as afford, not carnal pleasure in respect of touch,
but in respect of the eyes, i.e. of any apprehensive power.

Reply Obj. 3: The sense of sight is the most excellent of all the
senses, and covers a larger ground, as stated in _Metaph._ i: and so
its name is transferred to all the other senses, and even to the
inner apprehensions, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom., serm.
xxxiii).

Reply Obj. 4: Avoidance of evil is caused by the appetite for good,
as stated above (Q. 25, A. 2; Q. 39, A. 2); and so those passions
alone are mentioned which incline to good, as being the causes of
those which cause inordinately the avoidance of evil.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 6]

Whether Sin Is Alleviated on Account of a Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin is not alleviated on account of
passion. For increase of cause adds to the effect: thus if a hot
thing causes something to melt, a hotter will do so yet more. Now
passion is a cause of sin, as stated (A. 5). Therefore the more
intense the passion, the greater the sin. Therefore passion does not
diminish sin, but increases it.

Obj. 2: Further, a good passion stands in the same relation to merit,
as an evil passion does to sin. Now a good passion increases merit:
for a man seems to merit the more, according as he is moved by a
greater pity to help a poor man. Therefore an evil passion also
increases rather than diminishes a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, a man seems to sin the more grievously, according as
he sins with a more intense will. But the passion that impels the
will makes it tend with greater intensity to the sinful act.
Therefore passion aggravates a sin.

_On the contrary,_ The passion of concupiscence is called a
temptation of the flesh. But the greater the temptation that
overcomes a man, the less grievous his sin, as Augustine states (De
Civ. Dei iv, 12).

_I answer that,_ Sin consists essentially in an act of the free will,
which is a faculty of the will and reason; while passion is a
movement of the sensitive appetite. Now the sensitive appetite can be
related to the free-will, antecedently and consequently:
antecedently, according as a passion of the sensitive appetite draws
or inclines the reason or will, as stated above (AA. 1, 2; Q. 10, A.
3); and consequently, in so far as the movements of the higher powers
redound on to the lower, since it is not possible for the will to be
moved to anything intensely, without a passion being aroused in the
sensitive appetite.

Accordingly if we take passion as preceding the sinful act, it must
needs diminish the sin: because the act is a sin in so far as it is
voluntary, and under our control. Now a thing is said to be under our
control, through the reason and will: and therefore the more the
reason and will do anything of their own accord, and not through the
impulse of a passion, the more is it voluntary and under our control.
In this respect passion diminishes sin, in so far as it diminishes
its voluntariness.

On the other hand, a consequent passion does not diminish a sin, but
increases it; or rather it is a sign of its gravity, in so far, to
wit, as it shows the intensity of the will towards the sinful act;
and so it is true that the greater the pleasure or the concupiscence
with which anyone sins, the greater the sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Passion is the cause of sin on the part of that to
which the sinner turns. But the gravity of a sin is measured on the
part of that from which he turns, which results accidentally from his
turning to something else--accidentally, i.e. beside his intention.
Now an effect is increased by the increase, not of its accidental
cause, but of its direct cause.

Reply Obj. 2: A good passion consequent to the judgment of reason
increases merit; but if it precede, so that a man is moved to do
well, rather by his passion than by the judgment of his reason, such
a passion diminishes the goodness and praiseworthiness of his action.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the movement of the will incited by the
passion is more intense, yet it is not so much the will's own
movement, as if it were moved to sin by the reason alone.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 7]

Whether Passion Excuses from Sin Altogether?

Objection 1: It would seem that passion excuses from sin altogether.
For whatever causes an act to be involuntary, excuses from sin
altogether. But concupiscence of the flesh, which is a passion, makes
an act to be involuntary, according to Gal. 5:17: "The flesh lusteth
against the spirit . . . so that you do not the things that you
would." Therefore passion excuses from sin altogether.

Obj. 2: Further, passion causes a certain ignorance of a particular
matter, as stated above (A. 2; Q. 76, A. 3). But ignorance of a
particular matter excuses from sin altogether, as stated above (Q. 6,
A. 8). Therefore passion excuses from sin altogether.

Obj. 3: Further, disease of the soul is graver than disease of the
body. But bodily disease excuses from sin altogether, as in the case
of mad people. Much more, therefore, does passion, which is a disease
of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle (Rom. 7:5) speaks of the passions as
"passions of sins," for no other reason than that they cause sin:
which would not be the case if they excused from sin altogether.
Therefore passion does not excuse from sin altogether.

_I answer that,_ An act which, in its genus, is evil, cannot be
excused from sin altogether, unless it be rendered altogether
involuntary. Consequently, if the passion be such that it renders the
subsequent act wholly involuntary, it entirely excuses from sin;
otherwise, it does not excuse entirely. In this matter two points
apparently should be observed: first, that a thing may be voluntary
either _in itself,_ as when the will tends towards it directly; or
_in its cause,_ when the will tends towards that cause and not
towards the effect; as is the case with one who wilfully gets drunk,
for in that case he is considered to do voluntarily whatever he does
through being drunk. Secondly, we must observe that a thing is said
to be voluntary "directly" or "indirectly"; directly, if the will
tends towards it; indirectly, if the will could have prevented it,
but did not.

Accordingly therefore we must make a distinction: because a passion
is sometimes so strong as to take away the use of reason altogether,
as in the case of those who are mad through love or anger; and then
if such a passion were voluntary from the beginning, the act is
reckoned a sin, because it is voluntary in its cause, as we have
stated with regard to drunkenness. If, however, the cause be not
voluntary but natural, for instance, if anyone through sickness or
some such cause fall into such a passion as deprives him of the use
of reason, his act is rendered wholly involuntary, and he is entirely
excused from sin. Sometimes, however, the passion is not such as to
take away the use of reason altogether; and then reason can drive the
passion away, by turning to other thoughts, or it can prevent it from
having its full effect; since the members are not put to work, except
by the consent of reason, as stated above (Q. 17, A. 9): wherefore
such a passion does not excuse from sin altogether.

Reply Obj. 1: The words, "So that you do not the things that you
would" are not to be referred to outward deeds, but to the inner
movement of concupiscence; for a man would wish never to desire evil,
in which sense we are to understand the words of Rom. 7:19: "The evil
which I will not, that I do." Or again they may be referred to the
will as preceding the passion, as is the case with the incontinent,
who act counter to their resolution on account of their concupiscence.

Reply Obj. 2: The particular ignorance which excuses altogether, is
ignorance of a circumstance, which a man is unable to know even after
taking due precautions. But passion causes ignorance of law in a
particular case, by preventing universal knowledge from being applied
to a particular act, which passion the reason is able to drive away,
as stated.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily disease is involuntary: there would be a
comparison, however, if it were voluntary, as we have stated about
drunkenness, which is a kind of bodily disease.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 8]

Whether a Sin Committed Through Passion Can Be Mortal?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin committed through passion cannot
be mortal. Because venial sin is condivided with mortal sin. Now sin
committed from weakness is venial, since it has in itself a motive
for pardon (_venia_). Since therefore sin committed through passion
is a sin of weakness, it seems that it cannot be mortal.

Obj. 2: Further, the cause is more powerful than its effect. But
passion cannot be a mortal sin, for there is no mortal sin in the
sensuality, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 4). Therefore a sin committed
through passion cannot be mortal.

Obj. 3: Further, passion is a hindrance to reason, as explained above
(AA. 1, 2). Now it belongs to the reason to turn to God, or to turn
away from Him, which is the essence of a mortal sin. Therefore a sin
committed through passion cannot be mortal.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 7:5) that "the passions of
the sins . . . work [Vulg.: 'did work'] in our members to bring forth
fruit unto death." Now it is proper to mortal sin to bring forth
fruit unto death. Therefore sin committed through passion may be
mortal.

_I answer that,_ Mortal sin, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 5), consists
in turning away from our last end which is God, which aversion
pertains to the deliberating reason, whose function it is also to
direct towards the end. Therefore that which is contrary to the last
end can happen not to be a mortal sin, only when the deliberating
reason is unable to come to the rescue, which is the case in sudden
movements. Now when anyone proceeds from passion to a sinful act, or
to a deliberate consent, this does not happen suddenly: and so the
deliberating reason can come to the rescue here, since it can drive
the passion away, or at least prevent it from having its effect, as
stated above: wherefore if it does not come to the rescue, there is a
mortal sin; and it is thus, as we see, that many murders and
adulteries are committed through passion.

Reply Obj. 1: A sin may be venial in three ways. First, through its
cause, i.e. through having cause to be forgiven, which cause lessens
the sin; thus a sin that is committed through weakness or ignorance
is said to be venial. Secondly, through its issue; thus every sin,
through repentance, becomes venial, i.e. receives pardon (_veniam_).
Thirdly, by its genus, e.g. an idle word. This is the only kind of
venial sin that is opposed to mortal sin: whereas the objection
regards the first kind.

Reply Obj. 2: Passion causes sin as regards the adherence to
something. But that this be a mortal sin regards the aversion, which
follows accidentally from the adherence, as stated above (A. 6, ad
1): hence the argument does not prove.

Reply Obj. 3: Passion does not always hinder the act of reason
altogether: consequently the reason remains in possession of its
free-will, so as to turn away from God, or turn to Him. If, however,
the use of reason be taken away altogether, the sin is no longer
either mortal or venial.
________________________

QUESTION 78

OF THAT CAUSE OF SIN WHICH IS MALICE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the cause of sin on the part of the will, viz.
malice: and under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is possible for anyone to sin through certain malice,
i.e. purposely?

(2) Whether everyone that sins through habit, sins through certain
malice?

(3) Whether every one that sins through certain malice, sins through
habit?

(4) Whether it is more grievous to sin through certain malice, than
through passion?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 78, Art. 1]

Whether Anyone Sins Through Certain Malice?

Objection 1: It would seem that no one sins purposely, or through
certain malice. Because ignorance is opposed to purpose or certain
malice. Now "every evil man is ignorant," according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1); and it is written (Prov. 14:22): "They
err that work evil." Therefore no one sins through certain malice.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "no one works
intending evil." Now to sin through malice seems to denote the
intention of doing evil [*Alluding to the derivation of _malitia_
(malice) from _malum_ (evil)] in sinning, because an act is not
denominated from that which is unintentional and accidental.
Therefore no one sins through malice.

Obj. 3: Further, malice itself is a sin. If therefore malice is a
cause of sin, it follows that sin goes on causing sin indefinitely,
which is absurd. Therefore no one sins through malice.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 34:27): "[Who] as it were on
purpose have revolted from God [Vulg.: 'Him'], and would not
understand all His ways." Now to revolt from God is to sin. Therefore
some sin purposely or through certain malice.

_I answer that,_ Man like any other being has naturally an appetite
for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is
due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man:
for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now
the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite,
both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin
occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as
when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in
the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too
does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will.
Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good.
Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to
suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one
loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a
limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when
an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure,
more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or
some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of
some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some
temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so
a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply,
whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a
temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or
on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.

Reply Obj. 1: Ignorance sometimes excludes the simple knowledge that
a particular action is evil, and then man is said to sin through
ignorance: sometimes it excludes the knowledge that a particular
action is evil at this particular moment, as when he sins through
passion: and sometimes it excludes the knowledge that a particular
evil is not to be suffered for the sake of possessing a particular
good, but not the simple knowledge that it is an evil: it is thus
that a man is ignorant, when he sins through certain malice.

Reply Obj. 2: Evil cannot be intended by anyone for its own sake; but
it can be intended for the sake of avoiding another evil, or
obtaining another good, as stated above: and in this case anyone
would choose to obtain a good intended for its own sake, without
suffering loss of the other good; even as a lustful man would wish to
enjoy a pleasure without offending God; but with the two set before
him to choose from, he prefers sinning and thereby incurring God's
anger, to being deprived of the pleasure.

Reply Obj. 3: The malice through which anyone sins, may be taken to
denote habitual malice, in the sense in which the Philosopher (Ethic.
v, 1) calls an evil habit by the name of malice, just as a good habit
is called virtue: and in this way anyone is said to sin through
malice when he sins through the inclination of a habit. It may also
denote actual malice, whether by malice we mean the choice itself of
evil (and thus anyone is said to sin through malice, in so far as he
sins through making a choice of evil), or whether by malice we mean
some previous fault that gives rise to a subsequent fault, as when
anyone impugns the grace of his brother through envy. Nor does this
imply that a thing is its own cause: for the interior act is the
cause of the exterior act, and one sin is the cause of another; not
indefinitely, however, since we can trace it back to some previous
sin, which is not caused by any previous sin, as was explained above
(Q. 75, A. 4, ad 3).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 78, Art. 2]

Whether Everyone That Sins Through Habit, Sins Through Certain
Malice?

Objection 1: It would seem that not every one who sins through habit,
sins through certain malice. Because sin committed through certain
malice, seems to be most grievous. Now it happens sometimes that a
man commits a slight sin through habit, as when he utters an idle
word. Therefore sin committed from habit is not always committed
through certain malice.

Obj. 2: Further, "Acts proceeding from habits are like the acts by
which those habits were formed" (Ethic. ii, 1, 2). But the acts which
precede a vicious habit are not committed through certain malice.
Therefore the sins that arise from habit are not committed through
certain malice.

Obj. 3: Further, when a man commits a sin through certain malice, he
is glad after having done it, according to Prov. 2:14: "Who are glad
when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things": and
this, because it is pleasant to obtain what we desire, and to do
those actions which are connatural to us by reason of habit. But
those who sin through habit, are sorrowful after committing a sin:
because "bad men," i.e. those who have a vicious habit, "are full of
remorse" (Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore sins that arise from habit are not
committed through certain malice.

_On the contrary,_ A sin committed through certain malice is one that
is done through choice of evil. Now we make choice of those things to
which we are inclined by habit, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 2 with
regard to virtuous habits. Therefore a sin that arises from habit is
committed through certain malice.

_I answer that,_ There is a difference between a sin committed by one
who has the habit, and a sin committed by habit: for it is not
necessary to use a habit, since it is subject to the will of the
person who has that habit. Hence habit is defined as being "something
we use when we will," as stated above (Q. 50, A. 1). And thus, even
as it may happen that one who has a vicious habit may break forth
into a virtuous act, because a bad habit does not corrupt reason
altogether, something of which remains unimpaired, the result being
that a sinner does some works which are generically good; so too it
may happen sometimes that one who has a vicious habit, acts, not from
that habit, but through the uprising of a passion, or again through
ignorance. But whenever he uses the vicious habit he must needs sin
through certain malice: because to anyone that has a habit, whatever
is befitting to him in respect of that habit, has the aspect of
something lovable, since it thereby becomes, in a way, connatural to
him, according as custom and habit are a second nature. Now the very
thing which befits a man in respect of a vicious habit, is something
that excludes a spiritual good: the result being that a man chooses a
spiritual evil, that he may obtain possession of what befits him in
respect of that habit: and this is to sin through certain malice.
Wherefore it is evident that whoever sins through habit, sins through
certain malice.

Reply Obj. 1: Venial sin does not exclude spiritual good, consisting
in the grace of God or charity. Wherefore it is an evil, not simply,
but in a relative sense: and for that reason the habit thereof is not
a simple but a relative evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Acts proceeding from habits are of like species as the
acts from which those habits were formed: but they differ from them
as perfect from imperfect. Such is the difference between sin
committed through certain malice and sin committed through passion.

Reply Obj. 3: He that sins through habit is always glad for what he
does through habit, as long as he uses the habit. But since he is
able not to use the habit, and to think of something else, by means
of his reason, which is not altogether corrupted, it may happen that
while not using the habit he is sorry for what he has done through
the habit. And so it often happens that such a man is sorry for his
sin not because sin in itself is displeasing to him, but on account
of his reaping some disadvantage from the sin.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 78, Art. 3]

Whether One Who Sins Through Certain Malice, Sins Through Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that whoever sins through certain malice,
sins through habit. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 9) that "an
unjust action is not done as an unjust man does it," i.e. through
choice, "unless it be done through habit." Now to sin through certain
malice is to sin through making a choice of evil, as stated above (A.
1). Therefore no one sins through certain malice, unless he has the
habit of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, Origen says (Peri Archon iii) that "a man is not
suddenly ruined and lost, but must needs fall away little by little."
But the greatest fall seems to be that of the man who sins through
certain malice. Therefore a man comes to sin through certain malice,
not from the outset, but from inveterate custom, which may engender a
habit.

Obj. 3: Further, whenever a man sins through certain malice, his will
must needs be inclined of itself to the evil he chooses. But by the
nature of that power man is inclined, not to evil but to good.
Therefore if he chooses evil, this must be due to something
supervening, which is passion or habit. Now when a man sins through
passion, he sins not through certain malice, but through weakness, as
stated (Q. 77, A. 3). Therefore whenever anyone sins through certain
malice, he sins through habit.

_On the contrary,_ The good habit stands in the same relation to the
choice of something good, as the bad habit to the choice of something
evil. But it happens sometimes that a man, without having the habit
of a virtue, chooses that which is good according to that virtue.
Therefore sometimes also a man, without having the habit of a vice,
may choose evil, which is to sin through certain malice.

_I answer that,_ The will is related differently to good and to evil.
Because from the very nature of the power, it is inclined to the
rational good, as its proper object; wherefore every sin is said to
be contrary to nature. Hence, if a will be inclined, by its choice,
to some evil, this must be occasioned by something else. Sometimes,
in fact, this is occasioned through some defect in the reason, as
when anyone sins through ignorance; and sometimes this arises through
the impulse of the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through
passion. Yet neither of these amounts to a sin through certain
malice; for then alone does anyone sin through certain malice, when
his will is moved to evil of its own accord. This may happen in two
ways. First, through his having a corrupt disposition inclining him
to evil, so that, in respect of that disposition, some evil is, as it
were, suitable and similar to him; and to this thing, by reason of
its suitableness, the will tends, as to something good, because
everything tends, of its own accord, to that which is suitable to it.
Moreover this corrupt disposition is either a habit acquired by
custom, or a sickly condition on the part of the body, as in the case
of a man who is naturally inclined to certain sins, by reason of some
natural corruption in himself. Secondly, the will, of its own accord,
may tend to an evil, through the removal of some obstacle: for
instance, if a man be prevented from sinning, not through sin being
in itself displeasing to him, but through hope of eternal life, or
fear of hell, if hope give place to despair, or fear to presumption,
he will end in sinning through certain malice, being freed from the
bridle, as it were.

It is evident, therefore, that sin committed through certain malice,
always presupposes some inordinateness in man, which, however, is not
always a habit: so that it does not follow of necessity, if a man
sins through certain malice, that he sins through habit.

Reply Obj. 1: To do an action as an unjust man does, may be not only
to do unjust things through certain malice, but also to do them with
pleasure, and without any notable resistance on the part of reason,
and this occurs only in one who has a habit.

Reply Obj. 2: It is true that a man does not fall suddenly into sin
from certain malice, and that something is presupposed; but this
something is not always a habit, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: That which inclines the will to evil, is not always a
habit or a passion, but at times is something else. Moreover, there
is no comparison between choosing good and choosing evil: because
evil is never without some good of nature, whereas good can be
perfect without the evil of fault.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 78, Art. 4]

Whether It Is More Grievous to Sin Through Certain Malice Than
Through Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not more grievous to sin
through certain malice than through passion. Because ignorance
excuses from sin either altogether or in part. Now ignorance is
greater in one who sins through certain malice, than in one who sins
through passion; since he that sins through certain malice suffers
from the worst form of ignorance, which according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. vii, 8) is ignorance of principle, for he has a false
estimation of the end, which is the principle in matters of action.
Therefore there is more excuse for one who sins through certain
malice, than for one who sins through passion.

Obj. 2: Further, the more a man is impelled to sin, the less grievous
his sin, as is clear with regard to a man who is thrown headlong into
sin by a more impetuous passion. Now he that sins through certain
malice, is impelled by habit, the impulse of which is stronger than
that of passion. Therefore to sin through habit is less grievous than
to sin through passion.

Obj. 3: Further, to sin through certain malice is to sin through
choosing evil. Now he that sins through passion, also chooses evil.
Therefore he does not sin less than the man who sins through certain
malice.

_On the contrary,_ A sin that is committed on purpose, for this very
reason deserves heavier punishment, according to Job 34:26: "He hath
struck them as being wicked, in open sight, who, as it were, on
purpose, have revolted from Him." Now punishment is not increased
except for a graver fault. Therefore a sin is aggravated through
being done on purpose, i.e. through certain malice.

_I answer that,_ A sin committed through malice is more grievous than
a sin committed through passion, for three reasons. First, because,
as sin consists chiefly in an act of the will, it follows that, other
things being equal, a sin is all the more grievous, according as the
movement of the sin belongs more to the will. Now when a sin is
committed through malice, the movement of sin belongs more to the
will, which is then moved to evil of its own accord, than when a sin
is committed through passion, when the will is impelled to sin by
something extrinsic, as it were. Wherefore a sin is aggravated by the
very fact that it is committed through certain malice, and so much
the more, as the malice is greater; whereas it is diminished by being
committed through passion, and so much the more, as the passion is
stronger. Secondly, because the passion which incites the will to
sin, soon passes away, so that man repents of his sin, and soon
returns to his good intentions; whereas the habit, through which a
man sins, is a permanent quality, so that he who sins through malice,
abides longer in his sin. For this reason the Philosopher (Ethic.
vii, 8) compares the intemperate man, who sins through malice, to a
sick man who suffers from a chronic disease, while he compares the
incontinent man, who sins through passion, to one who suffers
intermittently. Thirdly, because he who sins through certain malice
is ill-disposed in respect of the end itself, which is the principle
in matters of action; and so the defect is more dangerous than in the
case of the man who sins through passion, whose purpose tends to a
good end, although this purpose is interrupted on account of the
passion, for the time being. Now the worst of all defects is defect
of principle. Therefore it is evident that a sin committed through
malice is more grievous than one committed through passion.

Reply Obj. 1: Ignorance of choice, to which the objection refers,
neither excuses nor diminishes a sin, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 4).
Therefore neither does a greater ignorance of the kind make a sin to
be less grave.

Reply Obj. 2: The impulse due to passion, is, as it were, due to a
defect which is outside the will: whereas, by a habit, the will is
inclined from within. Hence the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 3: It is one thing to sin while choosing, and another to
sin through choosing. For he that sins through passion, sins while
choosing, but not through choosing, because his choosing is not for
him the first principle of his sin; for he is induced through the
passion, to choose what he would not choose, were it not for the
passion. On the other hand, he that sins through certain malice,
chooses evil of his own accord, in the way already explained (AA. 2,
3), so that his choosing, of which he has full control, is the
principle of his sin: and for this reason he is said to sin "through"
choosing.
________________________

QUESTION 79

OF THE EXTERNAL CAUSES OF SIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the external causes of sin, and (1) on the part
of God; (2) on the part of the devil; (3) on the part of man.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God is a cause of sin?

(2) Whether the act of sin is from God?

(3) Whether God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of
heart?

(4) Whether these things are directed to the salvation of those who
are blinded or hardened?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 79, Art. 1]

Whether God Is a Cause of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that God is a cause of sin. For the
Apostle says of certain ones (Rom. 1:28): "God delivered them up to a
reprobate sense, to do those things which are not right [Douay:
'convenient']," and a gloss comments on this by saying that "God works
in men's hearts, by inclining their wills to whatever He wills,
whether to good or to evil." Now sin consists in doing what is not
right, and in having a will inclined to evil. Therefore God is to man
a cause of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Wis. 14:11): "The creatures of God
are turned to an abomination; and a temptation to the souls of men."
But a temptation usually denotes a provocation to sin. Since
therefore creatures were made by God alone, as was established in the
First Part (Q. 44, A. 1), it seems that God is a cause of sin, by
provoking man to sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the cause of the cause is the cause of the effect.
Now God is the cause of the free-will, which itself is the cause of
sin. Therefore God is the cause of sin.

Obj. 4: Further, every evil is opposed to good. But it is not
contrary to God's goodness that He should cause the evil of
punishment; since of this evil it is written (Isa. 45:7) that God
creates evil, and (Amos 3:6): "Shall there be evil in the city which
God [Vulg.: 'the Lord'] hath not done?" Therefore it is not
incompatible with God's goodness that He should cause the evil of
fault.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 11:25): "Thou . . . hatest
none of the things which Thou hast made." Now God hates sin,
according to Wis. 14:9: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are
hateful." Therefore God is not a cause of sin.

_I answer that,_ Man is, in two ways, a cause either of his own or of
another's sin. First, directly, namely by inclining his or another's
will to sin; secondly, indirectly, namely by not preventing someone
from sinning. Hence (Ezech. 3:18) it is said to the watchman: "If
thou say not to the wicked: 'Thou shalt surely die' [*Vulg.: "If,
when I say to the wicked, 'Thou shalt surely die,' thou declare it
not to him."] . . . I will require his blood at thy hand." Now God
cannot be directly the cause of sin, either in Himself or in another,
since every sin is a departure from the order which is to God as the
end: whereas God inclines and turns all things to Himself as to their
last end, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. i): so that it is impossible
that He should be either to Himself or to another the cause of
departing from the order which is to Himself. Therefore He cannot be
directly the cause of sin. In like manner neither can He cause sin
indirectly. For it happens that God does not give some the
assistance, whereby they may avoid sin, which assistance were He to
give, they would not sin. But He does all this according to the order
of His wisdom and justice, since He Himself is Wisdom and Justice: so
that if someone sin it is not imputable to Him as though He were the
cause of that sin; even as a pilot is not said to cause the wrecking
of the ship, through not steering the ship, unless he cease to steer
while able and bound to steer. It is therefore evident that God is
nowise a cause of sin.

Reply Obj. 1: As to the words of the Apostle, the solution is clear
from the text. For if God delivered some up to a reprobate sense, it
follows that they already had a reprobate sense, so as to do what was
not right. Accordingly He is said to deliver them up to a reprobate
sense, in so far as He does not hinder them from following that
reprobate sense, even as we are said to expose a person to danger if
we do not protect him. The saying of Augustine (De Grat. et Lib. Arb.
xxi, whence the gloss quoted is taken) to the effect that "God
inclines men's wills to good and evil," is to be understood as
meaning that He inclines the will directly to good; and to evil, in
so far as He does not hinder it, as stated above. And yet even this
is due as being deserved through a previous sin.

Reply Obj. 2: When it is said the "creatures of God are turned 'to'
an abomination, and a temptation to the souls of men," the
preposition "to" does not denote causality but sequel [*This is made
clear by the Douay Version: the Latin "factae sunt in abominationem"
admits of the translation "were made to be an abomination," which
might imply causality.]; for God did not make the creatures that they
might be an evil to man; this was the result of man's folly,
wherefore the text goes on to say, "and a snare to the feet of the
unwise," who, to wit, in their folly, use creatures for a purpose
other than that for which they were made.

Reply Obj. 3: The effect which proceeds from the middle cause,
according as it is subordinate to the first cause, is reduced to that
first cause; but if it proceed from the middle cause, according as it
goes outside the order of the first cause, it is not reduced to that
first cause: thus if a servant do anything contrary to his master's
orders, it is not ascribed to the master as though he were the cause
thereof. In like manner sin, which the free-will commits against the
commandment of God, is not attributed to God as being its cause.

Reply Obj. 4: Punishment is opposed to the good of the person
punished, who is thereby deprived of some good or other: but fault is
opposed to the good of subordination to God; and so it is directly
opposed to the Divine goodness; consequently there is no comparison
between fault and punishment.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 79, Art. 2]

Whether the Act of Sin Is from God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of sin is not from God. For
Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. ii) that "the act of sin is not a
thing." Now whatever is from God is a thing. Therefore the act of sin
is not from God.

Obj. 2: Further, man is not said to be the cause of sin, except
because he is the cause of the sinful act: for "no one works,
intending evil," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Now God is not a
cause of sin, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore God is not the cause
of the act of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, some actions are evil and sinful in their species,
as was shown above (Q. 18, AA. 2, 8). Now whatever is the cause of a
thing, causes whatever belongs to it in respect of its species. If
therefore God caused the act of sin, He would be the cause of sin,
which is false, as was proved above (A. 1). Therefore God is not the
cause of the act of sin.

_On the contrary,_ The act of sin is a movement of the free-will. Now
"the will of God is the cause of every movement," as Augustine
declares (De Trin. iii, 4, 9). Therefore God's will is the cause of
the act of sin.

_I answer that,_ The act of sin is both a being and an act; and in
both respects it is from God. Because every being, whatever the mode
of its being, must be derived from the First Being, as Dionysius
declares (Div. Nom. v). Again every action is caused by something
existing in act, since nothing produces an action save in so far as
it is in act; and every being in act is reduced to the First Act,
viz. God, as to its cause, Who is act by His Essence. Therefore God
is the cause of every action, in so far as it is an action. But sin
denotes a being and an action with a defect: and this defect is from
the created cause, viz. the free-will, as falling away from the order
of the First Agent, viz. God. Consequently this defect is not reduced
to God as its cause, but to the free-will: even as the defect of
limping is reduced to a crooked leg as its cause, but not to the
motive power, which nevertheless causes whatever there is of movement
in the limping. Accordingly God is the cause of the act of sin: and
yet He is not the cause of sin, because He does not cause the act to
have a defect.

Reply Obj. 1: In this passage Augustine calls by the name of "thing,"
that which is a thing simply, viz. substance; for in this sense the
act of sin is not a thing.

Reply Obj. 2: Not only the act, but also the defect, is reduced to
man as its cause, which defect consists in man not being subject to
Whom he ought to be, although he does not intend this principally.
Wherefore man is the cause of the sin: while God is the cause of the
act, in such a way, that nowise is He the cause of the defect
accompanying the act, so that He is not the cause of the sin.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 72, A. 1), acts and habits do not
take their species from the privation itself, wherein consists the
nature of evil, but from some object, to which that privation is
united: and so this defect which consists in not being from God,
belongs to the species of the act consequently, and not as a specific
difference.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 79, Art. 3]

Whether God Is the Cause of Spiritual Blindness and Hardness of
Heart?

Objection 1: It would seem that God is not the cause of spiritual
blindness and hardness of heart. For Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu.
3) that God is not the cause of that which makes man worse. Now man
is made worse by spiritual blindness and hardness of heart. Therefore
God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.

Obj. 2: Further, Fulgentius says (De Dupl. Praedest. i, 19): "God
does not punish what He causes." Now God punishes the hardened heart,
according to Ecclus. 3:27: "A hard heart shall fear evil at the
last." Therefore God is not the cause of hardness of heart.

Obj. 3: Further, the same effect is not put down to contrary causes.
But the cause of spiritual blindness is said to be the malice of man,
according to Wis. 2:21: "For their own malice blinded them," and
again, according to 2 Cor. 4:4: "The god of this world hath blinded
the minds of unbelievers": which causes seem to be opposed to God.
Therefore God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of
heart.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 6:10): "Blind the heart of
this people, and make their ears heavy," and Rom. 9:18: "He hath
mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth."

_I answer that,_ Spiritual blindness and hardness of heart imply two
things. One is the movement of the human mind in cleaving to evil,
and turning away from the Divine light; and as regards this, God is
not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, just as
He is not the cause of sin. The other thing is the withdrawal of
grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God
to see aright, and man's heart is not softened to live aright; and as
regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of
heart.

Now we must consider that God is the universal cause of the
enlightening of souls, according to John 1:9: "That was the true
light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world," even
as the sun is the universal cause of the enlightening of bodies,
though not in the same way; for the sun enlightens by necessity of
nature, whereas God works freely, through the order of His wisdom.
Now although the sun, so far as it is concerned, enlightens all
bodies, yet if it be encountered by an obstacle in a body, it leaves
it in darkness, as happens to a house whose window-shutters are
closed, although the sun is in no way the cause of the house being
darkened, since it does not act of its own accord in failing to light
up the interior of the house; and the cause of this is the person who
closed the shutters. On the other hand, God, of His own accord,
withholds His grace from those in whom He finds an obstacle: so that
the cause of grace being withheld is not only the man who raises an
obstacle to grace; but God, Who, of His own accord, withholds His
grace. In this way, God is the cause of spiritual blindness, deafness
of ear, and hardness of heart.

These differ from one another in respect of the effects of grace,
which both perfects the intellect by the gift of wisdom, and softens
the affections by the fire of charity. And since two of the senses
excel in rendering service to the intellect, viz. sight and hearing,
of which the former assists "discovery," and the latter, "teaching,"
hence it is that spiritual "blindness" corresponds to sight,
"heaviness of the ears" to hearing, and "hardness of heart" to the
affections.

Reply Obj. 1: Blindness and hardheartedness, as regards the
withholding of grace, are punishments, and therefore, in this
respect, they make man no worse. It is because he is already worsened
by sin that he incurs them, even as other punishments.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers hardheartedness in so far as it
is a sin.

Reply Obj. 3: Malice is the demeritorious cause of blindness, just as
sin is the cause of punishment: and in this way too, the devil is
said to blind, in so far as he induces man to sin.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 79, Art. 4]

Whether Blindness and Hardness of Heart Are Directed to the Salvation
of Those Who Are Blinded and Hardened?

Objection 1: It would seem that blindness and hardness of heart are
always directed to the salvation of those who are blinded and
hardened. For Augustine says (Enchiridion xi) that "as God is
supremely good, He would nowise allow evil to be done, unless He
could draw some good from every evil." Much more, therefore, does He
direct to some good, the evil of which He Himself is the cause. Now
God is the cause of blindness and hardness of heart, as stated above
(A. 3). Therefore they are directed to the salvation of those who are
blinded and hardened.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Wis. 1:13) that "God hath no pleasure
in the destruction of the ungodly [*Vulg.: 'God made not death,
neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living.']." Now He
would seem to take pleasure in their destruction, if He did not turn
their blindness to their profit: just as a physician would seem to
take pleasure in torturing the invalid, if he did not intend to heal
the invalid when he prescribes a bitter medicine for him. Therefore
God turns blindness to the profit of those who are blinded.

Obj. 3: Further, "God is not a respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34).
Now He directs the blinding of some, to their salvation, as in the
case of some of the Jews, who were blinded so as not to believe in
Christ, and, through not believing, to slay Him, and afterwards were
seized with compunction, and converted, as related by Augustine (De
Quaest. Evang. iii). Therefore God turns all blindness to the
spiritual welfare of those who are blinded.

Obj. 4: On the other hand, according to Rom. 3:8, evil should not be
done, that good may ensue. Now blindness is an evil. Therefore God
does not blind some for the sake of their welfare.

_I answer that,_ Blindness is a kind of preamble to sin. Now sin has
a twofold relation--to one thing directly, viz. to the sinner's
damnation--to another, by reason of God's mercy or providence, viz.
that the sinner may be healed, in so far as God permits some to fall
into sin, that by acknowledging their sin, they may be humbled and
converted, as Augustine states (De Nat. et Grat. xxii). Therefore
blindness, of its very nature, is directed to the damnation of those
who are blinded; for which reason it is accounted an effect of
reprobation. But, through God's mercy, temporary blindness is
directed medicinally to the spiritual welfare of those who are
blinded. This mercy, however, is not vouchsafed to all those who are
blinded, but only to the predestinated, to whom "all things work
together unto good" (Rom. 8:28). Therefore as regards some, blindness
is directed to their healing; but as regards others, to their
damnation; as Augustine says (De Quaest. Evang. iii).

Reply Obj. 1: Every evil that God does, or permits to be done, is
directed to some good; yet not always to the good of those in whom
the evil is, but sometimes to the good of others, or of the whole
universe: thus He directs the sin of tyrants to the good of the
martyrs, and the punishment of the lost to the glory of His justice.

Reply Obj. 2: God does not take pleasure in the loss of man, as
regards the loss itself, but by reason of His justice, or of the good
that ensues from the loss.

Reply Obj. 3: That God directs the blindness of some to their
spiritual welfare, is due to His mercy; but that the blindness of
others is directed to their loss is due to His justice: and that He
vouchsafes His mercy to some, and not to all, does not make God a
respecter of persons, as explained in the First Part (Q. 23, A. 5, ad
3).

Reply Obj. 4: Evil of fault must not be done, that good may ensue;
but evil of punishment must be inflicted for the sake of good.
________________________

QUESTION 80

OF THE CAUSE OF SIN, AS REGARDS THE DEVIL
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the cause of sin, as regards the devil; and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the devil is directly the cause of sin?

(2) Whether the devil induces us to sin, by persuading us inwardly?

(3) Whether he can make us sin of necessity?

(4) Whether all sins are due to the devil's suggestion?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 80, Art. 1]

Whether the Devil Is Directly the Cause of Man's Sinning?

Objection 1: It would seem that the devil is directly the cause of
man's sinning. For sin consists directly in an act of the appetite.
Now Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 12) that "the devil inspires his
friends with evil desires"; and Bede, commenting on Acts 5:3, says
that the devil "draws the mind to evil desires"; and Isidore says (De
Summo Bono ii, 41; iii, 5) that the devil "fills men's hearts with
secret lusts." Therefore the devil is directly the cause of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, Jerome says (Contra Jovin. ii, 2) that "as God is
the perfecter of good, so is the devil the perfecter of evil." But
God is directly the cause of our good. Therefore the devil is
directly the cause of our sins.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says in a chapter of the _Eudeme[a]n
Ethics_ (vii, 18): "There must needs be some extrinsic principle of
human counsel." Now human counsel is not only about good things but
also about evil things. Therefore, as God moves man to take good
counsel, and so is the cause of good, so the devil moves him to take
evil counsel, and consequently is directly the cause of sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine proves (De Lib. Arb. i, 11) that
"nothing else than his own will makes man's mind the slave of his
desire." Now man does not become a slave to his desires, except
through sin. Therefore the cause of sin cannot be the devil, but
man's own will alone.

_I answer that,_ Sin is an action: so that a thing can be directly
the cause of sin, in the same way as anyone is directly the cause of
an action; and this can only happen by moving that action's proper
principle to act. Now the proper principle of a sinful action is the
will, since every sin is voluntary. Consequently nothing can be
directly the cause of sin, except that which can move the will to act.

Now the will, as stated above (Q. 9, AA. 3, 4, 6), can be moved by
two things: first by its object, inasmuch as the apprehended
appetible is said to move the appetite: secondly by that agent which
moves the will inwardly to will, and this is no other than the will
itself, or God, as was shown above (Q. 9, AA. 3, 4, 6). Now God
cannot be the cause of sin, as stated above (Q. 79, A. 1). Therefore
it follows that in this respect, a man's will alone is directly the
cause of his sin.

As regards the object, a thing may be understood as moving the will
in three ways. First, the object itself which is proposed to the
will: thus we say that food arouses man's desire to eat. Secondly, he
that proposes or offers this object. Thirdly, he that persuades the
will that the object proposed has an aspect of good, because he also,
in a fashion, offers the will its proper object, which is a real or
apparent good of reason. Accordingly, in the first way the sensible
things, which approach from without, move a man's will to sin. In the
second and third ways, either the devil or a man may incite to sin,
either by offering an object of appetite to the senses, or by
persuading the reason. But in none of these three ways can anything
be the direct cause of sin, because the will is not, of necessity,
moved by any object except the last end, as stated above (Q. 10, AA.
1, 2). Consequently neither the thing offered from without, nor he
that proposes it, nor he that persuades, is the sufficient cause of
sin. Therefore it follows that the devil is a cause of sin, neither
directly nor sufficiently, but only by persuasion, or by proposing
the object of appetite.

Reply Obj. 1: All these, and other like authorities, if we meet with
them, are to be understood as denoting that the devil induces man to
affection for a sin, either by suggesting to him, or by offering him
objects of appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: This comparison is true in so far as the devil is
somewhat the cause of our sins, even as God is in a certain way the
cause of our good actions, but does not extend to the mode of
causation: for God causes good things in us by moving the will
inwardly, whereas the devil cannot move us in this way.

Reply Obj. 3: God is the universal principle of all inward movements
of man; but that the human will be determined to an evil counsel, is
directly due to the human will, and to the devil as persuading or
offering the object of appetite.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 80, Art. 2]

Whether the Devil Can Induce Man to Sin, by Internal Instigations?

Objection 1: It would seem that the devil cannot induce man to sin,
by internal instigations. Because the internal movements of the soul
are vital functions. Now no vital functions can be exercised except
by an intrinsic principle, not even those of the vegetal soul, which
are the lowest of vital functions. Therefore the devil cannot
instigate man to evil through his internal movements.

Obj. 2: Further, all the internal movements arise from the external
senses according to the order of nature. Now it belongs to God alone
to do anything beside the order of nature, as was stated in the First
Part (Q. 110, A. 4). Therefore the devil cannot effect anything in
man's internal movements, except in respect of things which are
perceived by the external senses.

Obj. 3: Further, the internal acts of the soul are to understand and
to imagine. Now the devil can do nothing in connection with either of
these, because, as stated in the First Part (Q. 111, AA. 2, 3, ad 2),
the devil cannot impress species on the human intellect, nor does it
seem possible for him to produce imaginary species, since imaginary
forms, being more spiritual, are more excellent than those which are
in sensible matter, which, nevertheless, the devil is unable to
produce, as is clear from what we have said in the First Part (Q.
110, A. 2; Q. 111, AA. 2, 3, ad 2). Therefore the devil cannot
through man's internal movements induce him to sin.

_On the contrary,_ In that case, the devil would never tempt man,
unless he appeared visibly; which is evidently false.

_I answer that,_ The interior part of the soul is intellective and
sensitive; and the intellective part contains the intellect and the
will. As regards the will, we have already stated (A. 1; I, Q. 111,
A. 1) what is the devil's relation thereto. Now the intellect, of its
very nature, is moved by that which enlightens it in the knowledge of
truth, which the devil has no intention of doing in man's regard;
rather does he darken man's reason so that it may consent to sin,
which darkness is due to the imagination and sensitive appetite.
Consequently the operation of the devil seems to be confined to the
imagination and sensitive appetite, by moving either of which he can
induce man to sin. For his operation may result in presenting certain
forms to the imagination; and he is able to incite the sensitive
appetite to some passion or other.

The reason of this is, that as stated in the First Part (Q. 110, A.
3), the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved locally
by the spiritual nature: so that the devil can produce all those
effects which can result from the local movement of bodies here
below, except he be restrained by the Divine power. Now the
representation of forms to the imagination is due, sometimes, to
local movement: for the Philosopher says (De Somno et Vigil.) [*De
Insomn. iii, iv.] that "when an animal sleeps, the blood descends in
abundance to the sensitive principle, and the movements descend with
it, viz. the impressions left by the action of sensible objects,
which impressions are preserved by means of sensible species, and
continue to move the apprehensive principle, so that they appear just
as though the sensitive principles were being affected by them at the
time." Hence such a local movement of the vital spirits or humors can
be procured by the demons, whether man sleep or wake: and so it
happens that man's imagination is brought into play.

In like manner, the sensitive appetite is incited to certain passions
according to certain fixed movements of the heart and the vital
spirits: wherefore the devil can cooperate in this also. And through
certain passions being aroused in the sensitive appetite, the result
is that man more easily perceives the movement or sensible image
which is brought in the manner explained, before the apprehensive
principle, since, as the Philosopher observes (De Somno et Virgil.:
De Insomn. iii, iv), "lovers are moved, by even a slight likeness, to
an apprehension of the beloved." It also happens, through the rousing
of a passion, that what is put before the imagination, is judged, as
being something to be pursued, because, to him who is held by a
passion, whatever the passion inclines him to, seems good. In this
way the devil induces man inwardly to sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Although vital functions are always from an intrinsic
principle, yet an extrinsic agent can cooperate with them, even as
external heat cooperates with the functions of the vegetal soul, that
food may be more easily digested.

Reply Obj. 2: This apparition of imaginary forms is not altogether
outside the order of nature, nor is it due to a command alone, but
according to local movement, as explained above.

Consequently the Reply to the Third Objection is clear, because these
forms are received originally from the senses.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q, 80, Art. 3]

Whether the Devil Can Induce Man to Sin of Necessity?

Objection 1: It would seem that the devil can induce man to sin of
necessity. Because the greater can compel the lesser. Now it is said
of the devil (Job 41:24) that "there is no power on earth that can
compare with him." Therefore he can compel man to sin, while he
dwells on the earth.

Obj. 2: Further, man's reason cannot be moved except in respect of
things that are offered outwardly to the senses, or are represented
to the imagination: because "all our knowledge arises from the
senses, and we cannot understand without a phantasm" (De Anima iii,
text. 30. 39). Now the devil can move man's imagination, as stated
above (A. 2); and also the external senses, for Augustine says (Qq.
lxxxiii, qu. 12) that "this evil," of which, to wit, the devil is the
cause, "extends gradually through all the approaches to the senses,
it adapts itself to shapes, blends with colors, mingles with sounds,
seasons every flavor." Therefore it can incline man's reason to sin
of necessity.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 4) that "there is
some sin when the flesh lusteth against the spirit." Now the devil
can cause concupiscence of the flesh, even as other passions, in the
way explained above (A. 2). Therefore he can induce man to sin of
necessity.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Pet. 5:8): "Your adversary the
devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour."
Now it would be useless to admonish thus, if it were true that man
were under the necessity of succumbing to the devil. Therefore he
cannot induce man to sin of necessity.

Further, it is likewise written (Jam. 4:7): "Be subject . . . to God,
but resist the devil, and he will fly from you," which would be said
neither rightly nor truly, if the devil were able to compel us, in
any way whatever, to sin; for then neither would it be possible to
resist him, nor would he fly from those who do. Therefore he does not
compel to sin.

_I answer that,_ The devil, by his own power, unless he be restrained
by God, can compel anyone to do an act which, in its genus, is a sin;
but he cannot bring about the necessity of sinning. This is evident
from the fact that man does not resist that which moves him to sin,
except by his reason; the use of which the devil is able to impede
altogether, by moving the imagination and the sensitive appetite; as
is the case with one who is possessed. But then, the reason being
thus fettered, whatever man may do, it is not imputed to him as a
sin. If, however, the reason is not altogether fettered, then, in so
far as it is free, it can resist sin, as stated above (Q. 77, A. 7).
It is consequently evident that the devil can nowise compel man to
sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every power that is greater than man, can move
man's will; God alone can do this, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 6).

Reply Obj. 2: That which is apprehended by the senses or the
imagination does not move the will, of necessity, so long as man has
the use of reason; nor does such an apprehension always fetter the
reason.

Reply Obj. 3: The lusting of the flesh against the spirit, when the
reason actually resists it, is not a sin, but is matter for the
exercise of virtue. That reason does not resist, is not in the
devil's power; wherefore he cannot bring about the necessity of
sinning.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 80, Art. 4]

Whether All the Sins of Men Are Due to the Devil's Suggestion?

Objection 1: It would seem that all the sins of men are due to the
devil's suggestion. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the "crowd
of demons are the cause of all evils, both to themselves and to
others."

Obj. 2: Further, whoever sins mortally, becomes the slave of the
devil, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the slave
[Douay: 'servant'] of sin." Now "by whom a man is overcome, of the
same also he is the slave" (2 Pet. 2:19). Therefore whoever commits a
sin, has been overcome by the devil.

Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. iv, 10) the sin of the devil is
irreparable, because he sinned at no other's suggestion. Therefore,
if any men were to sin of their own free-will and without suggestion
from any other, their sin would be irremediable: which is clearly
false. Therefore all the sins of men are due to the devil's
suggestion.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Eccl. Dogm. lxxxii): "Not all
our evil thoughts are incited by the devil; sometimes they are due to
a movement of the free-will."

_I answer that,_ the devil is the occasional and indirect cause of
all our sins, in so far as he induced the first man to sin, by reason
of whose sin human nature is so infected, that we are all prone to
sin: even as the burning of wood might be imputed to the man who
dried the wood so as to make it easily inflammable. He is not,
however, the direct cause of all the sins of men, as though each were
the result of his suggestion. Origen proves this (Peri Archon iii, 2)
from the fact that even if the devil were no more, men would still
have the desire for food, sexual pleasures and the like; which desire
might be inordinate, unless it were subordinate to reason, a matter
that is subject to the free-will.

Reply Obj. 1: The crowd of demons are the cause of all our evils, as
regards their original cause, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: A man becomes another's slave not only by being
overcome by him, but also by subjecting himself to him spontaneously:
it is thus that one who sins of his own accord, becomes the slave of
the devil.

Reply Obj. 3: The devil's sin was irremediable, not only because he
sinned without another's suggestion; but also because he was not
already prone to sin, on account of any previous sin; which can be
said of no sin of man.
________________________

QUESTION 81

OF THE CAUSE OF SIN, ON THE PART OF MAN
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider the cause of sin, on the part of man. Now, while
man, like the devil, is the cause of another's sin, by outward
suggestion, he has a certain special manner of causing sin, by way of
origin. Wherefore we must speak about original sin, the consideration
of which will be three-fold: (1) Of its transmission; (2) of its
essence; (3) of its subject.

Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether man's first sin is transmitted, by way of origin to his
descendants?

(2) Whether all the other sins of our first parent, or of any other
parents, are transmitted to their descendants, by way of origin?

(3) Whether original sin is contracted by all those who are begotten
of Adam by way of seminal generation?

(4) Whether it would be contracted by anyone formed miraculously from
some part of the human body?

(5) Whether original sin would have been contracted if the woman, and
not the man, had sinned?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 81, Art. 1]

Whether the First Sin of Our First Parent Is Contracted by His
Descendants, by Way of Origin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the first sin of our first parent is
not contracted by others, by way of origin. For it is written (Ezech.
18:20): "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." But he
would bear the iniquity if he contracted it from him. Therefore no
one contracts any sin from one of his parents by way of origin.

Obj. 2: Further, an accident is not transmitted by way of origin,
unless its subject be also transmitted, since accidents do not pass
from one subject to another. Now the rational soul which is the
subject of sin, is not transmitted by way of origin, as was shown in
the First Part (Q. 118, A. 2). Therefore neither can any sin be
transmitted by way of origin.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever is transmitted by way of human origin, is
caused by the semen. But the semen cannot cause sin, because it lacks
the rational part of the soul, which alone can be a cause of sin.
Therefore no sin can be contracted by way of origin.

Obj. 4: Further, that which is more perfect in nature, is more
powerful in action. Now perfect flesh cannot infect the soul united
to it, else the soul could not be cleansed of original sin, so long
as it is united to the body. Much less, therefore, can the semen
infect the soul.

Obj. 5: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "No one finds
fault with those who are ugly by nature, but only those who are so
through want of exercise and through carelessness." Now those are
said to be "naturally ugly," who are so from their origin. Therefore
nothing which comes by way of origin is blameworthy or sinful.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): "By one man sin
entered into this world, and by sin death." Nor can this be
understood as denoting imitation or suggestion, since it is written
(Wis. 2:24): "By the envy of the devil, death came into this world."
It follows therefore that through origin from the first man sin
entered into the world.

_I answer that,_ According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold
that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his
descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to
be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be
washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian
heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books [*For
instance, Retract. i, 9; De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. ix; Contra
Julian. iii, 1; De Dono Persev. xi, xii.]

In endeavoring to explain how the sin of our first parent could be
transmitted by way of origin to his descendants, various writers have
gone about it in various ways. For some, considering that the subject
of sin is the rational soul, maintained that the rational soul is
transmitted with the semen, so that thus an infected soul would seem
to produce other infected souls. Others, rejecting this as erroneous,
endeavored to show how the guilt of the parent's soul can be
transmitted to the children, even though the soul be not transmitted,
from the fact that defects of the body are transmitted from parent to
child--thus a leper may beget a leper, or a gouty man may be the
father of a gouty son, on account of some seminal corruption,
although this corruption is not leprosy or gout. Now since the body
is proportionate to the soul, and since the soul's defects redound
into the body, and vice versa, in like manner, say they, a culpable
defect of the soul is passed on to the child, through the
transmission of the semen, albeit the semen itself is not the subject
of the guilt.

But all these explanations are insufficient. Because, granted that
some bodily defects are transmitted by way of origin from parent to
child, and granted that even some defects of the soul are transmitted
in consequence, on account of a defect in the bodily habit, as in the
case of idiots begetting idiots; nevertheless the fact of having a
defect by the way of origin seems to exclude the notion of guilt,
which is essentially something voluntary. Wherefore granted that the
rational soul were transmitted, from the very fact that the stain on
the child's soul is not in its will, it would cease to be a guilty
stain binding its subject to punishment; for, as the Philosopher says
(Ethic. iii, 5), "no one reproaches a man born blind; one rather
takes pity on him."

Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men
born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one
common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as
in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as
one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says
(Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are
one man." Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so
many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body,
of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand,
but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members.
Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a
sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is
imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man's first
moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this
man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of
his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who
originate from him, even as the soul's will moves all the members to
their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first
parent to his descendants is called "original," just as the sin which
flows from the soul into the bodily members is called "actual." And
just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is
not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part
of the man, for which reason it is called a "human sin"; so original
sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person
receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is
called the "sin of nature," according to Eph. 2:3: "We . . . were by
nature children of wrath."

Reply Obj. 1: The son is said not to bear the iniquity of his father,
because he is not punished for his father's sin, unless he share in
his guilt. It is thus in the case before us: because guilt is
transmitted by the way of origin from father to son, even as actual
sin is transmitted through being imitated.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the soul is not transmitted, because the power
in the semen is not able to cause the rational soul, nevertheless the
motion of the semen is a disposition to the transmission of the
rational soul: so that the semen by its own power transmits the human
nature from parent to child, and with that nature, the stain which
infects it: for he that is born is associated with his first parent
in his guilt, through the fact that he inherits his nature from him
by a kind of movement which is that of generation.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the guilt is not actually in the semen, yet
human nature is there virtually accompanied by that guilt.

Reply Obj. 4: The semen is the principle of generation, which is an
act proper to nature, by helping it to propagate itself. Hence the
soul is more infected by the semen, than by the flesh which is
already perfect, and already affixed to a certain person.

Reply Obj. 5: A man is not blamed for that which he has from his
origin, if we consider the man born, in himself. But it we consider
him as referred to a principle, then he may be reproached for it:
thus a man may from his birth be under a family disgrace, on account
of a crime committed by one of his forbears.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 81, Art. 2]

Whether Also Other Sins of the First Parent or of Nearer Ancestors
Are Transmitted to Their Descendants?

Objection 1: It would seem that also other sins, whether of the first
parent or of nearer ancestors, are transmitted to their descendants.
For punishment is never due unless for fault. Now some are punished
by the judgment of God for the sin of their immediate parents,
according to Ex. 20:5: "I am . . . God . . . jealous, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation." Furthermore, according to human law, the children of
those who are guilty of high treason are disinherited. Therefore the
guilt of nearer ancestors is also transmitted to their descendants.

Obj. 2: Further, a man can better transmit to another, that which he
has of himself, than that which he has received from another: thus
fire heats better than hot water does. Now a man transmits to his
children, by the way, of origin, the sin which he has from Adam. Much
more therefore should he transmit the sin which he has contracted of
himself.

Obj. 3: Further, the reason why we contract original sin from our
first parent is because we were in him as in the principle of our
nature, which he corrupted. But we were likewise in our nearer
ancestors, as in principles of our nature, which however it be
corrupt, can be corrupted yet more by sin, according to Apoc. 22:11:
"He that is filthy, let him be filthier still." Therefore children
contract, by the way of origin, the sins of their nearer ancestors,
even as they contract the sin of their first parent.

_On the contrary,_ Good is more self-diffusive than evil. But the
merits of the nearer ancestors are not transmitted to their
descendants. Much less therefore are their sins.

_I answer that,_ Augustine puts this question in the _Enchiridion_
xlvi, xlvii, and leaves it unsolved. Yet if we look into the matter
carefully we shall see that it is impossible for the sins of the
nearer ancestors, or even any other but the first sin of our first
parent to be transmitted by way of origin. The reason is that a man
begets his like in species but not in individual. Consequently those
things that pertain directly to the individual, such as personal
actions and matters affecting them, are not transmitted by parents to
their children: for a grammarian does not transmit to his son the
knowledge of grammar that he has acquired by his own studies. On the
other hand, those things that concern the nature of the species, are
transmitted by parents to their children, unless there be a defect of
nature: thus a man with eyes begets a son having eyes, unless nature
fails. And if nature be strong, even certain accidents of the
individual pertaining to natural disposition, are transmitted to the
children, e.g. fleetness of body, acuteness of intellect, and so
forth; but nowise those that are purely personal, as stated above.

Now just as something may belong to the person as such, and also
something through the gift of grace, so may something belong to the
nature as such, viz. whatever is caused by the principles of nature,
and something too through the gift of grace. In this way original
justice, as stated in the First Part (Q. 100, A. 1), was a gift of
grace, conferred by God on all human nature in our first parent. This
gift the first man lost by his first sin. Wherefore as that original
justice together with the nature was to have been transmitted to his
posterity, so also was its disorder. Other actual sins, however,
whether of the first parent or of others, do not corrupt the nature
as nature, but only as the nature of that person, i.e. in respect of
the proneness to sin: and consequently other sins are not transmitted.

Reply Obj. 1: According to Augustine in his letter to Avitus [*Ep. ad
Auxilium ccl.], children are never inflicted with spiritual punishment
on account of their parents, unless they share in their guilt, either
in their origin, or by imitation, because every soul is God's
immediate property, as stated in Ezech. 18:4. Sometimes, however, by
Divine or human judgment, children receive bodily punishment on their
parents' account, inasmuch as the child, as to its body, is part of
its father.

Reply Obj. 2: A man can more easily transmit that which he has of
himself, provided it be transmissible. But the actual sins of our
nearer ancestors are not transmissible, because they are purely
personal, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: The first sin infects nature with a human corruption
pertaining to nature; whereas other sins infect it with a corruption
pertaining only to the person.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 81, Art. 3]

Whether the Sin of the First Parent Is Transmitted, by the Way of
Origin, to All Men?

Objection 1: It would seem that the sin of the first parent is not
transmitted, by the way of origin, to all men. Because death is a
punishment consequent upon original sin. But not all those, who are
born of the seed of Adam, will die: since those who will be still
living at the coming of our Lord, will never die, as, seemingly, may
be gathered from 1 Thess. 4:14: "We who are alive . . . unto the
coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept." Therefore
they do not contract original sin.

Obj. 2: Further, no one gives another what he has not himself. Now a
man who has been baptized has not original sin. Therefore he does not
transmit it to his children.

Obj. 3: Further, the gift of Christ is greater than the sin of Adam,
as the Apostle declares (Rom. 5:15, seqq). But the gift of Christ is
not transmitted to all men: neither, therefore, is the sin of Adam.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): "Death passed upon
all men in whom all have sinned."

_I answer that,_ According to the Catholic Faith we must firmly
believe that, Christ alone excepted, all men descended from Adam
contract original sin from him; else all would not need redemption
[*Cf. Translator's note inserted before III, Q. 27] which is through
Christ; and this is erroneous. The reason for this may be gathered
from what has been stated (A. 1), viz. that original sin, in virtue
of the sin of our first parent, is transmitted to his posterity, just
as, from the soul's will, actual sin is transmitted to the members of
the body, through their being moved by the will. Now it is evident
that actual sin can be transmitted to all such members as have an
inborn aptitude to be moved by the will. Therefore original sin is
transmitted to all those who are moved by Adam by the movement of
generation.

Reply Obj. 1: It is held with greater probability and more commonly
that all those that are alive at the coming of our Lord, will die,
and rise again shortly, as we shall state more fully in the Third
Part (Suppl., Q. 78, A. 1, Obj. 1). If, however, it be true, as
others hold, that they will never die, (an opinion which Jerome
mentions among others in a letter to Minerius, on the Resurrection of
the Body--Ep. cxix), then we must say in reply to the objection, that
although they are not to die, the debt of death is none the less in
them, and that the punishment of death will be remitted by God, since
He can also forgive the punishment due for actual sins.

Reply Obj. 1: Original sin is taken away by Baptism as to the guilt,
in so far as the soul recovers grace as regards the mind.
Nevertheless original sin remains in its effect as regards the
_fomes,_ which is the disorder of the lower parts of the soul and of
the body itself, in respect of which, and not of the mind, man
exercises his power of generation. Consequently those who are
baptized transmit original sin: since they do not beget as being
renewed in Baptism, but as still retaining something of the oldness
of the first sin.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as Adam's sin is transmitted to all who are born
of Adam corporally, so is the grace of Christ transmitted to all that
are begotten of Him spiritually, by faith and Baptism: and this, not
only unto the removal of sin of their first parent, but also unto the
removal of actual sins, and the obtaining of glory.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 81, Art. 4]

Whether Original Sin Would Be Contracted by a Person Formed
Miraculously from Human Flesh?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin would be contracted by a
person formed miraculously from human flesh. For a gloss on Gen. 4:1
says that "Adam's entire posterity was corrupted in his loins,
because they were not severed from him in the place of life, before
he sinned, but in the place of exile after he had sinned." But if a
man were to be formed in the aforesaid manner, his flesh would be
severed in the place of exile. Therefore it would contract original
sin.

Obj. 2: Further, original sin is caused in us by the soul being
infected through the flesh. But man's flesh is entirely corrupted.
Therefore a man's soul would contract the infection of original sin,
from whatever part of the flesh it was formed.

Obj. 3: Further, original sin comes upon all from our first parent,
in so far as we were all in him when he sinned. But those who might
be formed out of human flesh, would have been in Adam. Therefore they
would contract original sin.

_On the contrary,_ They would not have been in Adam _according to
seminal virtue,_ which alone is the cause of the transmission of
original sin, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. x, 18, seqq.).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 3), original sin is
transmitted from the first parent to his posterity, inasmuch as they
are moved by him through generation, even as the members are moved by
the soul to actual sin. Now there is no movement to generation except
by the active power of generation: so that those alone contract
original sin, who are descended from Adam through the active power of
generation originally derived from Adam, i.e. who are descended from
him through seminal power; for the seminal power is nothing else than
the active power of generation. But if anyone were to be formed by
God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not
be derived from Adam. Consequently he would not contract original
sin: even as a hand would have no part in a human sin, if it were
moved, not by the man's will, but by some external power.

Reply Obj. 1: Adam was not in the place of exile until after his sin.
Consequently it is not on account of the place of exile, but on
account of the sin, that original sin is transmitted to those to whom
his active generation extends.

Reply Obj. 2: The flesh does not corrupt the soul, except in so far
as it is the active principle in generation, as we have stated.

Reply Obj. 3: If a man were to be formed from human flesh, he would
have been in Adam, "by way of bodily substance" [*The expression is
St. Augustine's (Gen. ad lit. x). Cf. Summa Theologica, III, Q. 31,
A. 6, Reply to First Objection.], but not according to seminal
virtue, as stated above. Therefore he would not contract original sin.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 81, Art. 5]

Whether If Eve, and Not Adam, Had Sinned, Their Children Would Have
Contracted Original Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned,
their children would have contracted original sin. Because we
contract original sin from our parents, in so far as we were once in
them, according to the word of the Apostle (Rom. 5:12): "In whom all
have sinned." Now a man pre-exists in his mother as well as in his
father. Therefore a man would have contracted original sin from his
mother's sin as well as from his father's.

Obj. 2: Further, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children
would have been born liable to suffering and death, since it is "the
mother" that "provides the matter in generation" as the Philosopher
states (De Gener. Animal. ii, 1, 4), when death and liability to
suffering are the necessary results of matter. Now liability to
suffering and the necessity of dying are punishments of original sin.
Therefore if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would
contract original sin.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3) that "the Holy
Ghost came upon the Virgin," (of whom Christ was to be born without
original sin) "purifying her." But this purification would not have
been necessary, if the infection of original sin were not contracted
from the mother. Therefore the infection of original sin is
contracted from the mother: so that if Eve had sinned, her children
would have contracted original sin, even if Adam had not sinned.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): "By one man sin
entered into this world." Now if the woman would have transmitted
original sin to her children, he should have said that it entered by
two, since both of them sinned, or rather that it entered by a woman,
since she sinned first. Therefore original sin is transmitted to the
children, not by the mother, but by the father.

_I answer that,_ The solution of this question is made clear by what
has been said. For it has been stated (A. 1) that original sin is
transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the
begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said (A. 4) that if
anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not
contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of
philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father,
while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin is
contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that,
accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would
not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned,
they would contract it.

Reply Obj. 1: The child pre-exists in its father as in its active
principle, and in its mother, as in its material and passive
principle. Consequently the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 2: Some hold that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their
children would be immune from the sin, but would have been subject to
the necessity of dying and to other forms of suffering that are a
necessary result of the matter which is provided by the mother, not
as punishments, but as actual defects. This, however, seems
unreasonable. Because, as stated in the First Part (Q. 97, AA. 1, 2,
ad 4), immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a
result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice,
whereby the body was subjected to the soul, so long as the soul
remained subject to God. Now privation of original justice is
original sin. If, therefore, supposing Adam had not sinned, original
sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve's
sin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of
original justice: and consequently they would not have been liable to
suffer and subject to the necessity of dying.

Reply Obj. 3: This prevenient purification in the Blessed Virgin was
not needed to hinder the transmission of original sin, but because it
behooved the Mother of God "to shine with the greatest purity" [*Cf.
Anselm, De Concep. Virg. xviii.]. For nothing is worthy to receive
God unless it be pure, according to Ps. 92:5: "Holiness becometh Thy
House, O Lord."
________________________

QUESTION 82

OF ORIGINAL SIN, AS TO ITS ESSENCE
(Question 82)

We must now consider original sin as to its essence, and under this
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether original sin is a habit?

(2) Whether there is but one original sin in each man?

(3) Whether original sin is concupiscence?

(4) Whether original sin is equally in all?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 82, Art. 1]

Whether Original Sin Is a Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For
original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De
Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation.
But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin is not a
habit.

Obj. 2: Further, actual sin has the nature of fault more than
original sin, in so far as it is more voluntary. Now the habit of
actual sin has not the nature of a fault, else it would follow that a
man while asleep, would be guilty of sin. Therefore no original habit
has the nature of a fault.

Obj. 3: Further, in wickedness act always precedes habit, because
evil habits are not infused, but acquired. Now original sin is not
preceded by an act. Therefore original sin is not a habit.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of
infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account of
original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence
though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of
habit. Therefore original sin is a habit.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 49, A. 4; Q. 50, A. 1), habit is
twofold. The first is a habit whereby power is inclined to an act:
thus science and virtue are called habits. In this way original sin
is not a habit. The second kind of habit is the disposition of a
complex nature, whereby that nature is well or ill disposed to
something, chiefly when such a disposition has become like a second
nature, as in the case of sickness or health. In this sense original
sin is a habit. For it is an inordinate disposition, arising from the
destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice,
even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by
reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to
health. Hence it is that original sin is called the "languor of
nature" [*Cf. Augustine, In Ps. 118, serm. iii].

Reply Obj. 1: As bodily sickness is partly a privation, in so far as
it denotes the destruction of the equilibrium of health, and partly
something positive, viz. the very humors that are inordinately
disposed, so too original sin denotes the privation of original
justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of
the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but a corrupt
habit.

Reply Obj. 2: Actual sin is an inordinateness of an act: whereas
original sin, being the sin of nature, is an inordinate disposition
of nature, and has the character of fault through being transmitted
from our first parent, as stated above (Q. 81, A. 1). Now this
inordinate disposition of nature is a kind of habit, whereas the
inordinate disposition of an act is not: and for this reason original
sin can be a habit, whereas actual sin cannot.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection considers the habit which inclines a
power to an act: but original sin is not this kind of habit.
Nevertheless a certain inclination to an inordinate act does follow
from original sin, not directly, but indirectly, viz. by the removal
of the obstacle, i.e. original justice, which hindered inordinate
movements: just as an inclination to inordinate bodily movements
results indirectly from bodily sickness. Nor is it necessary to say
that original sin is a habit "infused," or a habit "acquired" (except
by the act of our first parent, but not by our own act): but it is a
habit "inborn" due to our corrupt origin.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 82, Art. 2]

Whether There Are Several Original Sins in One Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are many original sins in one
man. For it is written (Ps. 1:7): "Behold I was conceived in
iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me." But the sin in
which a man is conceived is original sin. Therefore there are several
original sins in man.

Obj. 2: Further, one and the same habit does not incline its subject
to contraries: since the inclination of habit is like that of nature
which tends to one thing. Now original sin, even in one man, inclines
to various and contrary sins. Therefore original sin is not one
habit; but several.

Obj. 3: Further, original sin infects every part of the soul. Now the
different parts of the soul are different subjects of sin, as shown
above (Q. 74). Since then one sin cannot be in different subjects, it
seems that original sin is not one but several.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:29): "Behold the Lamb of
God, behold Him Who taketh away the sin of the world": and the reason
for the employment of the singular is that the "sin of the world" is
original sin, as a gloss expounds this passage.

_I answer that,_ In one man there is one original sin. Two reasons
may be assigned for this. The first is on the part of the cause of
original sin. For it has been stated (Q. 81, A. 2), that the first
sin alone of our first parent was transmitted to his posterity.
Wherefore in one man original sin is one in number; and in all men,
it is one in proportion, i.e. in relation to its first principle. The
second reason may be taken from the very essence of original sin.
Because in every inordinate disposition, unity of species depends on
the cause, while the unity of number is derived from the subject. For
example, take bodily sickness: various species of sickness proceed
from different causes, e.g. from excessive heat or cold, or from a
lesion in the lung or liver; while one specific sickness in one man
will be one in number. Now the cause of this corrupt disposition that
is called original sin, is one only, viz. the privation of original
justice, removing the subjection of man's mind to God. Consequently
original sin is specifically one, and, in one man, can be only one in
number; while, in different men, it is one in species and in
proportion, but is numerically many.

Reply Obj. 1: The employment of the plural--"in sins"--may be
explained by the custom of the Divine Scriptures in the frequent use
of the plural for the singular, e.g. "They are dead that sought the
life of the child"; or by the fact that all actual sins virtually
pre-exist in original sin, as in a principle so that it is virtually
many; or by the fact of there being many deformities in the sin of
our first parent, viz. pride, disobedience, gluttony, and so forth;
or by several parts of the soul being infected by original sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Of itself and directly, i.e. by its own form, one habit
cannot incline its subject to contraries. But there is no reason why
it should not do so, indirectly and accidentally, i.e. by the removal
of an obstacle: thus, when the harmony of a mixed body is destroyed,
the elements have contrary local tendencies. In like manner, when the
harmony of original justice is destroyed, the various powers of the
soul have various opposite tendencies.

Reply Obj. 3: Original sin infects the different parts of the
soul, in so far as they are the parts of one whole; even as original
justice held all the soul's parts together in one. Consequently there
is but one original sin: just as there is but one fever in one man,
although the various parts of the body are affected.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 82, Art. 3]

Whether Original Sin Is Concupiscence?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not concupiscence.
For every sin is contrary to nature, according to Damascene (De Fide
Orth. ii, 4, 30). But concupiscence is in accordance with nature,
since it is the proper act of the concupiscible faculty which is a
natural power. Therefore concupiscence is not original sin.

Obj. 2: Further, through original sin "the passions of sins" are in
us, according to the Apostle (Rom. 7:5). Now there are several other
passions besides concupiscence, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4).
Therefore original sin is not concupiscence any more than another
passion.

Obj. 3: Further, by original sin, all the parts of the soul are
disordered, as stated above (A. 2, Obj. 3). But the intellect is the
highest of the soul's parts, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. x, 7).
Therefore original sin is ignorance rather than concupiscence.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): "Concupiscence is
the guilt of original sin."

_I answer that,_ Everything takes its species from its form: and it
has been stated (A. 2) that the species of original sin is taken from
its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin must be
considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But contraries
have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin must be
considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is
opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in
man's will being subject to God: which subjection, first and chiefly,
was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other parts to
the end, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1), so that the will being turned
away from God, all the other powers of the soul become inordinate.
Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was
made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while
every other disorder of the soul's powers, is a kind of material
element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the
other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning
inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by
the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is
concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice,
formally.

Reply Obj. 1: Since, in man, the concupiscible power is naturally
governed by reason, the act of concupiscence is so far natural to
man, as it is in accord with the order of reason; while, in so far as
it trespasses beyond the bounds of reason, it is, for a man, contrary
to reason. Such is the concupiscence of original sin.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 25, A. 1), all the irascible
passions are reducible to concupiscible passions, as holding the
princip[al] place: and of these, concupiscence is the most impetuous
in moving, and is felt most, as stated above (Q. 25, A. 2, ad 1).
Therefore original sin is ascribed to concupiscence, as being the
chief passion, and as including all the others, in a fashion.

Reply Obj. 3: As, in good things, the intellect and reason
stand first, so conversely in evil things, the lower part of the soul
is found to take precedence, for it clouds and draws the reason, as
stated above (Q. 77, AA. 1, 2;Q. 80, A. 2). Hence original
sin is called concupiscence rather than ignorance, although ignorance
is comprised among the material defects of original sin.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 82, Art. 4]

Whether Original Sin Is Equally in All?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not equally in all.
Because original sin is inordinate concupiscence, as stated above
(A. 3). Now all are not equally prone to acts of concupiscence.
Therefore original sin is not equally in all.

Obj. 2: Further, original sin is an inordinate disposition of the
soul, just as sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body. But
sickness is subject to degrees. Therefore original sin is subject to
degrees.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Nup. et Concep. i, 23) that "lust
transmits original sin to the child." But the act of generation may
be more lustful in one than in another. Therefore original sin may be
greater in one than in another.

_On the contrary,_ Original sin is the sin of nature, as stated above
(Q. 81, A. 1). But nature is equally in all. Therefore original sin
is too.

_I answer that,_ There are two things in original sin: one is the
privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this
privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted
to man through his corrupt origin. As to the first, original sin has
no degrees, since the gift of original justice is taken away
entirely; and privations that remove something entirely, such as
death and darkness, cannot be more or less, as stated above (Q. 73,
A. 2). In like manner, neither is this possible, as to the second:
since all are related equally to the first principle of our corrupt
origin, from which principle original sin takes the nature of guilt;
for relations cannot be more or less. Consequently it is evident that
original sin cannot be more in one than in another.

Reply Obj. 1: Through the bond of original justice being broken,
which held together all the powers of the soul in a certain order,
each power of the soul tends to its own proper movement, and the more
impetuously, as it is stronger. Now it happens that some of the
soul's powers are stronger in one man than in another, on account of
the different bodily temperaments. Consequently if one man is more
prone than another to acts of concupiscence, this is not due to
original sin, because the bond of original justice is equally broken
in all, and the lower parts of the soul are, in all, left to
themselves equally; but it is due to the various dispositions of the
powers, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: Sickness of the body, even sickness of the same
species, has not an equal cause in all; for instance if a fever be
caused by corruption of the bile, the corruption may be greater or
less, and nearer to, or further from a vital principle. But the cause
of original sin is equal to all, so that there is no comparison.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not the actual lust that transmits original sin:
for, supposing God were to grant to a man to feel no inordinate lust
in the act of generation, he would still transmit original sin; we
must understand this to be habitual lust, whereby the sensitive
appetite is not kept subject to reason by the bonds of original
justice. This lust is equally in all.
________________________

QUESTION 83

OF THE SUBJECT OF ORIGINAL SIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the subject of original sin, under which head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the subject of original sin is the flesh rather than the
soul?

(2) If it be the soul, whether this be through its essence, or
through its powers?

(3) Whether the will prior to the other powers is the subject of
original sin?

(4) Whether certain powers of the soul are specially infected, viz.
the generative power, the concupiscible part, and the sense of touch?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 83, Art. 1]

Whether Original Sin Is More in the Flesh Than in the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is more in the flesh
than in the soul. Because the rebellion of the flesh against the mind
arises from the corruption of original sin. Now the root of this
rebellion is seated in the flesh: for the Apostle says (Rom. 7:23):
"I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my
mind." Therefore original sin is seated chiefly in the flesh.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing is more in its cause than in its effect:
thus heat is in the heating fire more than in the hot water. Now the
soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal
semen. Therefore original sin is in the flesh rather than in the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, we contract original sin from our first parent, in
so far as we were in him by reason of seminal virtue. Now our souls
were not in him thus, but only our flesh. Therefore original sin is
not in the soul, but in the flesh.

Obj. 4: Further, the rational soul created by God is infused into the
body. If therefore the soul were infected with original sin, it would
follow that it is corrupted in its creation or infusion: and thus God
would be the cause of sin, since He is the author of the soul's
creation and fusion.

Obj. 5: Further, no wise man pours a precious liquid into a vessel,
knowing that the vessel will corrupt the liquid. But the rational
soul is more precious than any liquid. If therefore the soul, by
being united with the body, could be corrupted with the infection of
original sin, God, Who is wisdom itself, would never infuse the soul
into such a body. And yet He does; wherefore it is not corrupted by
the flesh. Therefore original sin is not in the soul but in the flesh.

_On the contrary,_ The same is the subject of a virtue and of the
vice or sin contrary to that virtue. But the flesh cannot be the
subject of virtue: for the Apostle says (Rom. 7:18): "I know that
there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is
good." Therefore the flesh cannot be the subject of original sin, but
only the soul.

_I answer that,_ One thing can be in another in two ways. First, as
in its cause, either principal, or instrumental; secondly, as in its
subject. Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed,
as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle
(Rom. 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily
semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power
of the semen that original sin together with human nature is
transmitted to the child. But original sin can nowise be in the flesh
as its subject, but only in the soul.

The reason for this is that, as stated above (Q. 81, A. 1), original
sin is transmitted from the will of our first parent to this
posterity by a certain movement of generation, in the same way as
actual sin is transmitted from any man's will to his other parts. Now
in this transmission it is to be observed, that whatever accrues from
the motion of the will consenting to sin, to any part of man that can
in any way share in that guilt, either as its subject or as its
instrument, has the character of sin. Thus from the will consenting
to gluttony, concupiscence of food accrues to the concupiscible
faculty, and partaking of food accrues to the hand and the mouth,
which, in so far as they are moved by the will to sin, are the
instruments of sin. But that further action is evoked in the
nutritive power and the internal members, which have no natural
aptitude for being moved by the will, does not bear the character of
guilt.

Accordingly, since the soul can be the subject of guilt, while the
flesh, of itself, cannot be the subject of guilt; whatever accrues to
the soul from the corruption of the first sin, has the character of
guilt, while whatever accrues to the flesh, has the character, not of
guilt but of punishment: so that, therefore, the soul is the subject
of original sin, and not the flesh.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Retract. i, 27) [*Cf. QQ. lxxxiii,
qu. 66], the Apostle is speaking, in that passage, of man already
redeemed, who is delivered from guilt, but is still liable to
punishment, by reason of which sin is stated to dwell "in the flesh."
Consequently it follows that the flesh is the subject, not of guilt,
but of punishment.

Reply Obj. 2: Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental
cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the
instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal
cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since
in him it had the nature of actual sin.

Reply Obj. 3: The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect
of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but
as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is
transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational
soul, but disposes the matter for it.

Reply Obj. 4: The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God,
but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation.
And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone,
it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On
the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to
the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God
infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being
infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused.

Reply Obj. 5: The common good takes precedence of private good.
Wherefore God, according to His wisdom, does not overlook the general
order of things (which is that such a soul be infused into such a
body), lest this soul contract a singular corruption: all the more
that the nature of the soul demands that it should not exist prior to
its infusion into the body, as stated in the First Part (Q. 90, A.
4; Q. 118, A. 3). And it is better for the soul to be thus,
according to its nature, than not to be at all, especially since it
can avoid damnation, by means of grace.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 83, Art. 2]

Whether Original Sin Is in the Essence of the Soul Rather Than in the
Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not in the essence of
the soul rather than in the powers. For the soul is naturally apt to
be the subject of sin, in respect of those parts which can be moved
by the will. Now the soul is moved by the will, not as to its essence
but only as to the powers. Therefore original sin is in the soul, not
according to its essence, but only according to the powers.

Obj. 2: Further, original sin is opposed to original justice. Now
original justice was in a power of the soul, because power is the
subject of virtue. Therefore original sin also is in a power of the
soul, rather than in its essence.

Obj. 3: Further, just as original sin is derived from the soul as
from the flesh, so is it derived by the powers from the essence. But
original sin is more in the soul than in the flesh. Therefore it is
more in the powers than in the essence of the soul.

Obj. 4: Further, original sin is said to be concupiscence, as stated
(Q. 82, A. 3). But concupiscence is in the powers of the soul.
Therefore original sin is also.

_On the contrary,_ Original sin is called the sin of nature, as
stated above (Q. 81, A. 1). Now the soul is the form and nature of
the body, in respect of its essence and not in respect of its powers,
as stated in the First Part (Q. 76, A. 6). Therefore the soul is the
subject of original sin chiefly in respect of its essence.

_I answer that,_ The subject of a sin is chiefly that part of the
soul to which the motive cause of that sin primarily pertains: thus
if the motive cause of a sin is sensual pleasure, which regards the
concupiscible power through being its proper object, it follows that
the concupiscible power is the proper subject of that sin. Now it is
evident that original sin is caused through our origin. Consequently
that part of the soul which is first reached by man's origin, is the
primary subject of original sin. Now the origin reaches the soul as
the term of generation, according as it is the form of the body: and
this belongs to the soul in respect of its essence, as was proved in
the First Part (Q. 76, A. 6). Therefore the soul, in respect of its
essence, is the primary subject of original sin.

Reply Obj. 1: As the motion of the will of an individual reaches to
the soul's powers and not to its essence, so the motion of the will
of the first generator, through the channel of generation, reaches
first of all to the essence of the soul, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: Even original justice pertained radically to the
essence of the soul, because it was God's gift to human nature, to
which the essence of the soul is related before the powers. For the
powers seem to regard the person, in as much as they are the
principles of personal acts. Hence they are the proper subjects of
actual sins, which are the sins of the person.

Reply Obj. 3: The body is related to the soul as matter to form,
which though it comes second in order of generation, nevertheless
comes first in the order of perfection and nature. But the essence of
the soul is related to the powers, as a subject to its proper
accidents, which follow their subject both in the order of generation
and in that of perfection. Consequently the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 4: Concupiscence, in relation to original sin, holds the
position of matter and effect, as stated above (Q. 82, A. 3).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 83, Art. 3]

Whether Original Sin Infects the Will Before the Other Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that original sin does not infect the will
before the other powers. For every sin belongs chiefly to that power
by whose act it was caused. Now original sin is caused by an act of
the generative power. Therefore it seems to belong to the generative
power more than to the others.

Obj. 2: Further, original sin is transmitted through the carnal
semen. But the other powers of the soul are more akin to the flesh
than the will is, as is evident with regard to all the sensitive
powers, which use a bodily organ. Therefore original sin is in them
more than in the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the intellect precedes the will, for the object of
the will is only the good understood. If therefore original sin
infects all the powers of the soul, it seems that it must first of
all infect the intellect, as preceding the others.

_On the contrary,_ Original justice has a prior relation to the will,
because it is "rectitude of the will," as Anselm states (De Concep.
Virg. iii). Therefore original sin, which is opposed to it, also has
a prior relation to the will.

_I answer that,_ Two things must be considered in the infection of
original sin. First, its inherence to its subject; and in this
respect it regards first the essence of the soul, as stated above (A.
2). In the second place we must consider its inclination to act; and
in this way it regards the powers of the soul. It must therefore
regard first of all that power in which is seated the first
inclination to commit a sin, and this is the will, as stated above
(Q. 74, AA. 1, 2). Therefore original sin regards first of all the
will.

Reply Obj. 1: Original sin, in man, is not caused by the generative
power of the child, but by the act of the parental generative power.
Consequently, it does not follow that the child's generative power is
the subject of original sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Original sin spreads in two ways; from the flesh to the
soul, and from the essence of the soul to the powers. The former
follows the order of generation, the latter follows the order of
perfection. Therefore, although the other, viz. the sensitive powers,
are more akin to the flesh, yet, since the will, being the higher
power, is more akin to the essence of the soul, the infection of
original sin reaches it first.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellect precedes the will, in one way, by
proposing its object to it. In another way, the will precedes the
intellect, in the order of motion to act, which motion pertains to
sin.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 83, Art. 4]

Whether the Aforesaid Powers Are More Infected Than the Others?

Objection 1: It would seem that the aforesaid powers are not more
infected than the others. For the infection of original sin seems to
pertain more to that part of the soul which can be first the subject
of sin. Now this is the rational part, and chiefly the will.
Therefore that power is most infected by original sin.

Obj. 2: Further, no power of the soul is infected by guilt, except in
so far as it can obey reason. Now the generative power cannot obey
reason, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13. Therefore the generative power
is not the most infected by original sin.

Obj. 3: Further, of all the senses the sight is the most spiritual
and the nearest to reason, in so far "as it shows us how a number of
things differ" (Metaph. i). But the infection of guilt is first of
all in the reason. Therefore the sight is more infected than touch.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 16, seqq., 24)
that the infection of original sin is most apparent in the movements
of the members of generation, which are not subject to reason. Now
those members serve the generative power in the mingling of sexes,
wherein there is the delectation of touch, which is the most powerful
incentive to concupiscence. Therefore the infection of original sin
regards these three chiefly, viz. the generative power, the
concupiscible faculty and the sense of touch.

_I answer that,_ Those corruptions especially are said to be
infectious, which are of such a nature as to be transmitted from one
subject to another: hence contagious diseases, such as leprosy and
murrain and the like, are said to be infectious. Now the corruption
of original sin is transmitted by the act of generation, as stated
above (Q. 81, A. 1). Therefore the powers which concur in this act,
are chiefly said to be infected. Now this act serves the generative
power, in as much as it is directed to generation; and it includes
delectation of the touch, which is the most powerful object of the
concupiscible faculty. Consequently, while all the parts of the soul
are said to be corrupted by original sin, these three are said
specially to be corrupted and infected.

Reply Obj. 1: Original sin, in so far as it inclines to actual sins,
belongs chiefly to the will, as stated above (A. 3). But in so far as
it is transmitted to the offspring, it belongs to the aforesaid
powers proximately, and to the will, remotely.

Reply Obj. 2: The infection of actual sin belongs only to the powers
which are moved by the will of the sinner. But the infection of
original sin is not derived from the will of the contractor, but
through his natural origin, which is effected by the generative
power. Hence it is this power that is infected by original sin.

Reply Obj. 3: Sight is not related to the act of generation except in
respect of remote disposition, in so far as the concupiscible species
is seen through the sight. But the delectation is completed in the
touch. Wherefore the aforesaid infection is ascribed to the touch
rather than to the sight.
________________________

QUESTION 84

OF THE CAUSE OF SIN, IN RESPECT OF ONE SIN BEING THE CAUSE OF ANOTHER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the cause of sin, in so far as one sin can be
the cause of another. Under this head there are four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether covetousness is the root of all sins?

(2) Whether pride is the beginning of every sin?

(3) Whether other special sins should be called capital vices,
besides pride and covetousness?

(4) How many capital vices there are, and which are they?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 84, Art. 1]

Whether Covetousness Is the Root of All Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that covetousness is not the root of all
sins. For covetousness, which is immoderate desire for riches, is
opposed to the virtue of liberality. But liberality is not the root
of all virtues. Therefore covetousness is not the root of all sins.

Obj. 2: Further, the desire for the means proceeds from desire for
the end. Now riches, the desire for which is called covetousness, are
not desired except as being useful for some end, as stated in
_Ethic._ i, 5. Therefore covetousness is not the root of all sins,
but proceeds from some deeper root.

Obj. 3: Further, it often happens that avarice, which is another name
for covetousness, arises from other sins; as when a man desires money
through ambition, or in order to sate his gluttony. Therefore it is
not the root of all sins.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Tim. 6:10): "The desire of
money is the root of all evil."

_I answer that,_ According to some, covetousness may be understood in
different ways. First, as denoting inordinate desire for riches: and
thus it is a special sin. Secondly, as denoting inordinate desire for
any temporal good: and thus it is a genus comprising all sins,
because every sin includes an inordinate turning to a mutable good,
as stated above (Q. 72, A. 2). Thirdly, as denoting an inclination of
a corrupt nature to desire corruptible goods inordinately: and they
say that in this sense covetousness is the root of all sins,
comparing it to the root of a tree, which draws its sustenance from
earth, just as every sin grows out of the love of temporal things.

Now, though all this is true, it does not seem to explain the mind of
the Apostle when he states that covetousness is the root of all sins.
For in that passage he clearly speaks against those who, because they
"will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the
devil . . . for covetousness is the root of all evils." Hence it is
evident that he is speaking of covetousness as denoting the
inordinate desire for riches. Accordingly, we must say that
covetousness, as denoting a special sin, is called the root of all
sins, in likeness to the root of a tree, in furnishing sustenance to
the whole tree. For we see that by riches man acquires the means of
committing any sin whatever, and of sating his desire for any sin
whatever, since money helps man to obtain all manner of temporal
goods, according to Eccles. 10:19: "All things obey money": so that
in this desire for riches is the root of all sins.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue and sin do not arise from the same source. For
sin arises from the desire of mutable good; and consequently the
desire of that good which helps one to obtain all temporal goods, is
called the root of all sins. But virtue arises from the desire for
the immutable God; and consequently charity, which is the love of
God, is called the root of the virtues, according to Eph. 3:17:
"Rooted and founded in charity."

Reply Obj. 2: The desire of money is said to be the root of sins, not
as though riches were sought for their own sake, as being the last
end; but because they are much sought after as useful for any
temporal end. And since a universal good is more desirable than a
particular good, they move the appetite more than any individual
goods, which along with many others can be procured by means of money.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as in natural things we do not ask what
always happens, but what happens most frequently, for the reason that
the nature of corruptible things can be hindered, so as not always to
act in the same way; so also in moral matters, we consider what
happens in the majority of cases, not what happens invariably, for the
reason that the will does not act of necessity. So when we say that
covetousness is the root of all evils, we do not assert that no other
evil can be its root, but that other evils more frequently arise
therefrom, for the reason given.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 84, Art. 2]

Whether Pride Is the Beginning of Every Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not the beginning of every
sin. For the root is a beginning of a tree, so that the beginning of
a sin seems to be the same as the root of sin. Now covetousness is
the root of every sin, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it is also
the beginning of every sin, and not pride.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 10:14): "The beginning of the
pride of man is apostasy [Douay: 'to fall off'] from God." But
apostasy from God is a sin. Therefore another sin is the beginning of
pride, so that the latter is not the beginning of every sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the beginning of every sin would seem to be that
which causes all sins. Now this is inordinate self-love, which,
according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv), "builds up the city of
Babylon." Therefore self-love and not pride, is the beginning of
every sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 10:15): "Pride is the
beginning of all sin."

_I answer that,_ Some say pride is to be taken in three ways. First,
as denoting inordinate desire to excel; and thus it is a special sin.
Secondly, as denoting actual contempt of God, to the effect of not
being subject to His commandment; and thus, they say, it is a generic
sin. Thirdly, as denoting an inclination to this contempt, owing to
the corruption of nature; and in this sense they say that it is the
beginning of every sin, and that it differs from covetousness,
because covetousness regards sin as turning towards the mutable good
by which sin is, as it were, nourished and fostered, for which reason
covetousness is called the "root"; whereas pride regards sin as
turning away from God, to Whose commandment man refuses to be
subject, for which reason it is called the "beginning," because the
beginning of evil consists in turning away from God.

Now though all this is true, nevertheless it does not explain the
mind of the wise man who said (Ecclus. 10:15): "Pride is the
beginning of all sin." For it is evident that he is speaking of pride
as denoting inordinate desire to excel, as is clear from what follows
(verse 17): "God hath overturned the thrones of proud princes";
indeed this is the point of nearly the whole chapter. We must
therefore say that pride, even as denoting a special sin, is the
beginning of every sin. For we must take note that, in voluntary
actions, such as sins, there is a twofold order, of intention, and of
execution. In the former order, the principle is the end, as we have
stated many times before (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 1; Q. 18, A. 7, ad 2; Q. 15,
A. 1, ad 2; Q. 25, A. 2). Now man's end in acquiring all temporal
goods is that, through their means, he may have some perfection and
excellence. Therefore, from this point of view, pride, which is the
desire to excel, is said to be the "beginning" of every sin. On the
other hand, in the order of execution, the first place belongs to
that which by furnishing the opportunity of fulfilling all desires of
sin, has the character of a root, and such are riches; so that, from
this point of view, covetousness is said to be the "root" of all
evils, as stated above (A. 1).

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: Apostasy from God is stated to be the beginning of
pride, in so far as it denotes a turning away from God, because from
the fact that man wishes not to be subject to God, it follows that he
desires inordinately his own excellence in temporal things.
Wherefore, in the passage quoted, apostasy from God does not denote
the special sin, but rather that general condition of every sin,
consisting in its turning away from God. It may also be said that
apostasy from God is said to be the beginning of pride, because it is
the first species of pride. For it is characteristic of pride to be
unwilling to be subject to any superior, and especially to God; the
result being that a man is unduly lifted up, in respect of the other
species of pride.

Reply Obj. 3: In desiring to excel, man loves himself, for to love
oneself is the same as to desire some good for oneself. Consequently
it amounts to the same whether we reckon pride or self-love as the
beginning of every evil.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 84, Art. 3]

Whether Any Other Special Sins, Besides Pride and Avarice, Should Be
Called Capital?

Objection 1: It would seem that no other special sins, besides pride
and avarice, should be called capital. Because "the head seems to be
to an animal, what the root is to a plant," as stated in _De Anima_
ii, text. 38: for the roots are like a mouth. If therefore
covetousness is called the "root of all evils," it seems that it
alone, and no other sin, should be called a capital vice.

Obj. 2: Further, the head bears a certain relation of order to the
other members, in so far as sensation and movement follow from the
head. But sin implies privation of order. Therefore sin has not the
character of head: so that no sins should be called capital.

Obj. 3: Further, capital crimes are those which receive capital
punishment. But every kind of sin comprises some that are punished
thus. Therefore the capital sins are not certain specific sins.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17) enumerates certain
special vices under the name of capital.

_I answer that,_ The word capital is derived from _caput_ (a head).
Now the head, properly speaking, is that part of an animal's body,
which is the principle and director of the whole animal. Hence,
metaphorically speaking, every principle is called a head, and even
men who direct and govern others are called heads. Accordingly a
capital vice is so called, in the first place, from "head" taken in
the proper sense, and thus the name "capital" is given to a sin for
which capital punishment is inflicted. It is not in this sense that
we are now speaking of capital sins, but in another sense, in which
the term "capital" is derived from head, taken metaphorically for a
principle or director of others. In this way a capital vice is one
from which other vices arise, chiefly by being their final cause,
which origin is formal, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 6). Wherefore a
capital vice is not only the principle of others, but is also their
director and, in a way, their leader: because the art or habit, to
which the end belongs, is always the principle and the commander in
matters concerning the means. Hence Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17)
compares these capital vices to the "leaders of an army."

Reply Obj. 1: The term "capital" is taken from _caput_ and applied to
something connected with, or partaking of the head, as having some
property thereof, but not as being the head taken literally. And
therefore the capital vices are not only those which have the
character of primary origin, as covetousness which is called the
"root," and pride which is called the beginning, but also those which
have the character of proximate origin in respect of several sins.

Reply Obj. 2: Sin lacks order in so far as it turns away from God,
for in this respect it is an evil, and evil, according to Augustine
(De Natura Boni iv), is "the privation of mode, species and order."
But in so far as sin implies a turning to something, it regards some
good: wherefore, in this respect, there can be order in sin.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection considers capital sin as so called from
the punishment it deserves, in which sense we are not taking it here.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 84, Art. 4]

Whether the Seven Capital Vices Are Suitably Reckoned?

Objection 1: It would seem that we ought not to reckon seven capital
vices, viz. vainglory, envy, anger, sloth, covetousness, gluttony,
lust. For sins are opposed to virtues. But there are four principal
virtues, as stated above (Q. 61, A. 2). Therefore there are only four
principal or capital vices.

Obj. 2: Further, the passions of the soul are causes of sin, as
stated above (Q. 77). But there are four principal passions of the
soul; two of which, viz. hope and fear, are not mentioned among the
above sins, whereas certain vices are mentioned to which pleasure and
sadness belong, since pleasure belongs to gluttony and lust, and
sadness to sloth and envy. Therefore the principal sins are
unfittingly enumerated.

Obj. 3: Further, anger is not a principal passion. Therefore it
should not be placed among the principal vices.

Obj. 4: Further, just as covetousness or avarice is the root of sin,
so is pride the beginning of sin, as stated above (A. 2). But avarice
is reckoned to be one of the capital vices. Therefore pride also
should be placed among the capital vices.

Obj. 5: Further, some sins are committed which cannot be caused
through any of these: as, for instance, when one sins through
ignorance, or when one commits a sin with a good intention, e.g.
steals in order to give an alms. Therefore the capital vices are
insufficiently enumerated.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Gregory who enumerates
them in this way (Moral. xxxi, 17).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), the capital vices are those
which give rise to others, especially by way of final cause. Now this
kind of origin may take place in two ways. First, on account of the
condition of the sinner, who is disposed so as to have a strong
inclination for one particular end, the result being that he
frequently goes forward to other sins. But this kind of origin does
not come under the consideration of art, because man's particular
dispositions are infinite in number. Secondly, on account of a
natural relationship of the ends to one another: and it is in this
way that most frequently one vice arises from another, so that this
kind of origin can come under the consideration of art.

Accordingly therefore, those vices are called capital, whose ends
have certain fundamental reasons for moving the appetite; and it is
in respect of these fundamental reasons that the capital vices are
differentiated. Now a thing moves the appetite in two ways. First,
directly and of its very nature: thus good moves the appetite to seek
it, while evil, for the same reason, moves the appetite to avoid it.
Secondly, indirectly and on account of something else, as it were:
thus one seeks an evil on account of some attendant good, or avoids a
good on account of some attendant evil.

Again, man's good is threefold. For, in the first place, there is a
certain good of the soul, which derives its aspect of appetibility,
merely through being apprehended, viz. the excellence of honor and
praise, and this good is sought inordinately by _vainglory._
Secondly, there is the good of the body, and this regards either the
preservation of the individual, e.g. meat and drink, which good is
pursued inordinately by _gluttony,_ or the preservation of the
species, e.g. sexual intercourse, which good is sought inordinately
by _lust._ Thirdly, there is external good, viz. riches, to which
_covetousness_ is referred. These same four vices avoid inordinately
the contrary evils.

Or again, good moves the appetite chiefly through possessing some
property of happiness, which all men seek naturally. Now in the first
place happiness implies perfection, since happiness is a perfect
good, to which belongs excellence or renown, which is desired by
_pride_ or _vainglory._ Secondly, it implies satiety, which
_covetousness_ seeks in riches that give promise thereof. Thirdly, it
implies pleasure, without which happiness is impossible, as stated in
_Ethic._ i, 7; x, 6, 7, 8 and this _gluttony_ and _lust_ pursue.

On the other hand, avoidance of good on account of an attendant evil
occurs in two ways. For this happens either in respect of one's own
good, and thus we have _sloth,_ which is sadness about one's
spiritual good, on account of the attendant bodily labor: or else it
happens in respect of another's good, and this, if it be without
recrimination, belongs to _envy,_ which is sadness about another's
good as being a hindrance to one's own excellence, while if it be
with recrimination with a view to vengeance, it is _anger._ Again,
these same vices seek the contrary evils.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue and vice do not originate in the same way: since
virtue is caused by the subordination of the appetite to reason, or
to the immutable good, which is God, whereas vice arises from the
appetite for mutable good. Wherefore there is no need for the
principal vices to be contrary to the principal virtues.

Reply Obj. 2: Fear and hope are irascible passions. Now all the
passions of the irascible part arise from passions of the
concupiscible part; and these are all, in a way, directed to pleasure
or sorrow. Hence pleasure and sorrow have a prominent place among the
capital sins, as being the most important of the passions, as stated
above (Q. 25, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 3: Although anger is not a principal passion, yet it has a
distinct place among the capital vices, because it implies a special
kind of movement in the appetite, in so far as recrimination against
another's good has the aspect of a virtuous good, i.e. of the right
to vengeance.

Reply Obj. 4: Pride is said to be the beginning of every sin, in the
order of the end, as stated above (A. 2): and it is in the same order
that we are to consider the capital sin as being principal. Wherefore
pride, like a universal vice, is not counted along with the others,
but is reckoned as the "queen of them all," as Gregory states (Moral.
xxxi, 27). But covetousness is said to be the root from another point
of view, as stated above (AA. 1, 2).

Reply Obj. 5: These vices are called capital because others, most
frequently, arise from them: so that nothing prevents some sins from
arising out of other causes. Nevertheless we might say that all the
sins which are due to ignorance, can be reduced to sloth, to which
pertains the negligence of a man who declines to acquire spiritual
goods on account of the attendant labor; for the ignorance that can
cause sin, is due to negligence, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 2). That
a man commit a sin with a good intention, seems to point to
ignorance, in so far as he knows not that evil should not be done
that good may come of it.
________________________

QUESTION 85

OF THE EFFECTS OF SIN, AND, FIRST, OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE GOOD OF
NATURE
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the effects of sin; and (1) the corruption of
the good of nature; (2) the stain on the soul; (3) the debt of
punishment.

Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the good of nature is diminished by sin?

(2) Whether it can be taken away altogether?

(3) Of the four wounds, mentioned by Bede, with which human nature is
stricken in consequence of sin.

(4) Whether privation of mode, species and order is an effect of sin?

(5) Whether death and other bodily defects are the result of sin?

(6) Whether they are, in any way, natural to man?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 85, Art. 1]

Whether Sin Diminishes the Good of Nature?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin does not diminish the good of
nature. For man's sin is no worse than the devil's. But natural good
remains unimpaired in devils after sin, as Dionysius states (Div.
Nom. iv). Therefore neither does sin diminish the good of human
nature.

Obj. 2: Further, when that which follows is changed, that which
precedes remains unchanged, since substance remains the same when its
accidents are changed. But nature exists before the voluntary action.
Therefore, when sin has caused a disorder in a voluntary act, nature
is not changed on that account, so that the good of nature be
diminished.

Obj. 3: Further, sin is an action, while diminution is a passion. Now
no agent is passive by the very reason of its acting, although it is
possible for it to act on one thing, and to be passive as regards
another. Therefore he who sins, does not, by his sin, diminish the
good of his nature.

Obj. 4: Further, no accident acts on its subject: because that which
is patient is a potential being, while that which is subjected to an
accident, is already an actual being as regards that accident. But
sin is in the good of nature as an accident in a subject. Therefore
sin does not diminish the good of nature, since to diminish is to act.

_On the contrary,_ "A certain man going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho (Luke 10:30), i.e. to the corruption of sin, was stripped of
his gifts, and wounded in his nature," as Bede [*The quotation is
from the _Glossa Ordinaria_ of Strabo] expounds the passage. Therefore
sin diminishes the good of nature.

_I answer that,_ The good of human nature is threefold. First, there
are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties
that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth.
Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as
stated above (Q. 60, A. 1; Q. 63, A. 1), this inclination to virtue
is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred
on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be
called a good of nature.

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed
nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely
destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of
nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin.
Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated
above (Q. 50, A. 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes
inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other
contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to
virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a
diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius is speaking of the first-mentioned good of
nature, which consists in "being, living and understanding," as
anyone may see who reads the context.

Reply Obj. 2: Although nature precedes the voluntary action, it has
an inclination to a certain voluntary action. Wherefore nature is not
changed in itself, through a change in the voluntary action: it is
the inclination that is changed in so far as it is directed to its
term.

Reply Obj. 3: A voluntary action proceeds from various powers, active
and passive. The result is that through voluntary actions something
is caused or taken away in the man who acts, as we have stated when
treating of the production of habits (Q. 51, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 4: An accident does not act effectively on its subject,
but it acts on it formally, in the same sense as when we say that
whiteness makes a thing white. In this way there is nothing to hinder
sin from diminishing the good of nature; but only in so far as sin is
itself a diminution of the good of nature, through being an
inordinateness of action. But as regards the inordinateness of the
agent, we must say that such like inordinateness is caused by the
fact that in the acts of the soul, there is an active, and a passive
element: thus the sensible object moves the sensitive appetite, and
the sensitive appetite inclines the reason and will, as stated above
(Q. 77, AA. 1, 2). The result of this is the inordinateness, not as
though an accident acted on its own subject, but in so far as the
object acts on the power, and one power acts on another and puts it
out of order.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 85, Art. 2]

Whether the Entire Good of Human Nature Can Be Destroyed by Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the entire good of human nature can
be destroyed by sin. For the good of human nature is finite, since
human nature itself is finite. Now any finite thing is entirely taken
away, if the subtraction be continuous. Since therefore the good of
nature can be continually diminished by sin, it seems that in the end
it can be entirely taken away.

Obj. 2: Further, in a thing of one nature, the whole and the parts
are uniform, as is evidently the case with air, water, flesh and all
bodies with similar parts. But the good of nature is wholly uniform.
Since therefore a part thereof can be taken away by sin, it seems
that the whole can also be taken away by sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the good of nature, that is weakened by sin, is
aptitude for virtue. Now this aptitude is destroyed entirely in some
on account of sin: thus the lost cannot be restored to virtue any
more than the blind can to sight. Therefore sin can take away the
good of nature entirely.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xiv) that "evil does
not exist except in some good." But the evil of sin cannot be in the
good of virtue or of grace, because they are contrary to it.
Therefore it must be in the good of nature, and consequently it does
not destroy it entirely.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the good of nature, that is
diminished by sin, is the natural inclination to virtue, which is
befitting to man from the very fact that he is a rational being; for
it is due to this that he performs actions in accord with reason,
which is to act virtuously. Now sin cannot entirely take away from
man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer
be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of
nature to be destroyed entirely.

Since, however, this same good of nature may be continually
diminished by sin, some, in order to illustrate this, have made use
of the example of a finite thing being diminished indefinitely,
without being entirely destroyed. For the Philosopher says (Phys. i,
text. 37) that if from a finite magnitude a continual subtraction be
made in the same quantity, it will at last be entirely destroyed, for
instance if from any finite length I continue to subtract the length
of a span. If, however, the subtraction be made each time in the same
proportion, and not in the same quantity, it may go on indefinitely,
as, for instance, if a quantity be halved, and one half be diminished
by half, it will be possible to go on thus indefinitely, provided
that what is subtracted in each case be less than what was subtracted
before. But this does not apply to the question at issue, since a
subsequent sin does not diminish the good of nature less than a
previous sin, but perhaps more, if it be a more grievous sin.

We must, therefore, explain the matter otherwise by saying that the
aforesaid inclination is to be considered as a middle term between
two others: for it is based on the rational nature as on its root,
and tends to the good of virtue, as to its term and end. Consequently
its diminution may be understood in two ways: first, on the part of
its root, secondly, on the part of its term. In the first way, it is
not diminished by sin, because sin does not diminish nature, as
stated above (A. 1). But it is diminished in the second way, in so
far as an obstacle is placed against its attaining its term. Now if
it were diminished in the first way, it would needs be entirely
destroyed at last by the rational nature being entirely destroyed.
Since, however, it is diminished on the part of the obstacle which is
placed against its attaining its term, it is evident that it can be
diminished indefinitely, because obstacles can be placed
indefinitely, inasmuch as man can go on indefinitely adding sin to
sin: and yet it cannot be destroyed entirely, because the root of
this inclination always remains. An example of this may be seen in a
transparent body, which has an inclination to receive light, from the
very fact that it is transparent; yet this inclination or aptitude is
diminished on the part of supervening clouds, although it always
remains rooted in the nature of the body.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection avails when diminution is made by
subtraction. But here the diminution is made by raising obstacles,
and this neither diminishes nor destroys the root of the inclination,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The natural inclination is indeed wholly uniform:
nevertheless it stands in relation both to its principle and to its
term, in respect of which diversity of relation, it is diminished on
the one hand, and not on the other.

Reply Obj. 3: Even in the lost the natural inclination to virtue
remains, else they would have no remorse of conscience. That it is
not reduced to act is owing to their being deprived of grace by
Divine justice. Thus even in a blind man the aptitude to see remains
in the very root of his nature, inasmuch as he is an animal naturally
endowed with sight: yet this aptitude is not reduced to act, for the
lack of a cause capable of reducing it, by forming the organ
requisite for sight.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 85, Art. 3]

Whether Weakness, Ignorance, Malice and Concupiscence Are Suitably
Reckoned As the Wounds of Nature Consequent Upon Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that weakness, ignorance, malice and
concupiscence are not suitably reckoned as the wounds of nature
consequent upon sin. For one same thing is not both effect and cause
of the same thing. But these are reckoned to be causes of sin, as
appears from what has been said above (Q. 76, A. 1; Q. 77, AA. 3, 5;
Q. 78, A. 1). Therefore they should not be reckoned as effects of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, malice is the name of a sin. Therefore it should
have no place among the effects of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, concupiscence is something natural, since it is an
act of the concupiscible power. But that which is natural should not
be reckoned a wound of nature. Therefore concupiscence should not be
reckoned a wound of nature.

Obj. 4: Further, it has been stated (Q. 77, A. 3) that to sin from
weakness is the same as to sin from passion. But concupiscence is a
passion. Therefore it should not be condivided with weakness.

Obj. 5: Further, Augustine (De Nat. et Grat. lxvii, 67) reckons "two
things to be punishments inflicted on the soul of the sinner, viz.
ignorance and difficulty," from which arise "error and vexation,"
which four do not coincide with the four in question. Therefore it
seems that one or the other reckoning is incomplete.

_On the contrary,_ The authority of Bede suffices [*Reference not
known].

_I answer that,_ As a result of original justice, the reason had
perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself
was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original
justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already
stated (Q. 81, A. 2); so that all the powers of the soul are left, as
it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally
directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature.

Again, there are four of the soul's powers that can be subject of
virtue, as stated above (Q. 61, A. 2), viz. the reason, where
prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the
subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of
temperance. Therefore in so far as the reason is deprived of its
order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the
will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice;
in so far as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous,
there is the wound of weakness; and in so far as the concupiscible is
deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there
is the wound of concupiscence.

Accordingly these are the four wounds inflicted on the whole of human
nature as a result of our first parent's sin. But since the
inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on
account of actual sin, as was explained above (AA. 1, 2), these four
wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin,
the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, the will
hardened to evil, good actions become more difficult and
concupiscence more impetuous.

Reply Obj. 1: There is no reason why the effect of one sin should not
be the cause of another: because the soul, through sinning once, is
more easily inclined to sin again.

Reply Obj. 2: Malice is not to be taken here as a sin, but as a
certain proneness of the will to evil, according to the words of Gen.
8:21: "Man's senses are prone to evil from his youth" [*Vulgate: 'The
imagination and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from his
youth.'].

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 82, A. 3, ad 1), concupiscence is
natural to man, in so far as it is subject to reason: whereas, in so
far as it is goes beyond the bounds of reason, it is unnatural to man.

Reply Obj. 4: Speaking in a general way, every passion can be called
a weakness, in so far as it weakens the soul's strength and clogs the
reason. Bede, however, took weakness in the strict sense, as contrary
to fortitude which pertains to the irascible.

Reply Obj. 5: The "difficulty" which is mentioned in this book of
Augustine, includes the three wounds affecting the appetitive powers,
viz. "malice," "weakness" and "concupiscence," for it is owing to
these three that a man finds it difficult to tend to the good.
"Error" and "vexation" are consequent wounds, since a man is vexed
through being weakened in respect of the objects of his concupiscence.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 85, Art. 4]

Whether Privation of Mode, Species and Order Is the Effect of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that privation of mode, species and order
is not the effect of sin. For Augustine says (De Natura Boni iii)
that "where these three abound, the good is great; where they are
less, there is less good; where they are not, there is no good at
all." But sin does not destroy the good of nature. Therefore it does
not destroy mode, species and order.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing is its own cause. But sin itself is the
"privation of mode, species and order," as Augustine states (De
Natura Boni iv). Therefore privation of mode, species and order is
not the effect of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, different effects result from different sins. Now
since mode, species and order are diverse, their corresponding
privations must be diverse also, and, consequently, must be the
result of different sins. Therefore privation of mode, species and
order is not the effect of each sin.

_On the contrary,_ Sin is to the soul what weakness is to the body,
according to Ps. 6:3, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak." Now
weakness deprives the body of mode, species and order.

_I answer that,_ As stated in the First Part, Q. 5, A. 5, mode,
species and order are consequent upon every created good, as such,
and also upon every being. Because every being and every good as such
depends on its form from which it derives its species. Again, any
kind of form, whether substantial or accidental, of anything
whatever, is according to some measure, wherefore it is stated in
_Metaph._ viii, that "the forms of things are like numbers," so that
a form has a certain _mode_ corresponding to its measure. Lastly
owing to its form, each thing has a relation of _order_ to something
else.

Accordingly there are different grades of mode, species and order,
corresponding to the different degrees of good. For there is a good
belonging to the very substance of nature, which good has its mode,
species and order, and is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin.
There is again the good of the natural inclination, which also has
its mode, species and order; and this is diminished by sin, as stated
above (AA. 1, 2), but is not entirely destroyed. Again, there is the
good of virtue and grace: this too has its mode, species and order,
and is entirely taken away by sin. Lastly, there is a good consisting
in the ordinate act itself, which also has its mode, species and
order, the privation of which is essentially sin. Hence it is clear
both how sin is privation of mode, species and order, and how it
destroys or diminishes mode, species and order.

This suffices for the Replies to the first two Objections.

Reply Obj. 3: Mode, species and order follow one from the other, as
explained above: and so they are destroyed or diminished together.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 85, Art. 5]

Whether Death and Other Bodily Defects Are the Result of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that death and other bodily defects are
not the result of sin. Because equal causes have equal effects. Now
these defects are not equal in all, but abound in some more than in
others, whereas original sin, from which especially these defects
seem to result, is equal in all, as stated above (Q. 82, A. 4).
Therefore death and suchlike defects are not the result of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, if the cause is removed, the effect is removed. But
these defects are not removed, when all sin is removed by Baptism or
Penance. Therefore they are not the effect of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, actual sin has more of the character of guilt than
original sin has. But actual sin does not change the nature of the
body by subjecting it to some defect. Much less, therefore, does
original sin. Therefore death and other bodily defects are not the
result of sin.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 5:12), "By one man sin
entered into this world, and by sin death."

_I answer that,_ One thing causes another in two ways: first, by
reason of itself; secondly, accidentally. By reason of itself, one
thing is the cause of another, if it produces its effect by reason of
the power of its nature or form, the result being that the effect is
directly intended by the cause. Consequently, as death and such like
defects are beside the intention of the sinner, it is evident that
sin is not, of itself, the cause of these defects. Accidentally, one
thing is the cause of another if it causes it by removing an
obstacle: thus it is stated in _Phys._ viii, text. 32, that "by
displacing a pillar a man moves accidentally the stone resting
thereon." In this way the sin of our first parent is the cause of
death and all such like defects in human nature, in so far as by the
sin of our first parent original justice was taken away, whereby not
only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the
control of reason, without any disorder whatever, but also the whole
body was held together in subjection to the soul, without any defect,
as stated in the First Part (Q. 97, A. 1). Wherefore, original
justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent; just as
human nature was stricken in the soul by the disorder among the
powers, as stated above (A. 3; Q. 82, A. 3), so also it became
subject to corruption, by reason of disorder in the body.

Now the withdrawal of original justice has the character of
punishment, even as the withdrawal of grace has. Consequently, death
and all consequent bodily defects are punishments of original sin.
And although the defects are not intended by the sinner, nevertheless
they are ordered according to the justice of God Who inflicts them as
punishments.

Reply Obj. 1: Causes that produce their effects of themselves, if
equal, produce equal effects: for if such causes be increased or
diminished, the effect is increased or diminished. But equal causes
of an obstacle being removed, do not point to equal effects. For
supposing a man employs equal force in displacing two columns, it
does not follow that the movements of the stones resting on them will
be equal; but that one will move with greater velocity, which has the
greater weight according to the property of its nature, to which it
is left when the obstacle to its falling is removed. Accordingly,
when original justice is removed, the nature of the human body is
left to itself, so that according to diverse natural temperaments,
some men's bodies are subject to more defects, some to fewer,
although original sin is equal in all.

Reply Obj. 2: Both original and actual sin are removed by the same
cause that removes these defects, according to the Apostle (Rom.
8:11): "He . . . shall quicken . . . your mortal bodies, because of
His Spirit that dwelleth in you": but each is done according to the
order of Divine wisdom, at a fitting time. Because it is right that
we should first of all be conformed to Christ's sufferings, before
attaining to the immortality and impassibility of glory, which was
begun in Him, and by Him acquired for us. Hence it behooves that our
bodies should remain, for a time, subject to suffering, in order that
we may merit the impassibility of glory, in conformity with Christ.

Reply Obj. 3: Two things may be considered in actual sin, the
substance of the act, and the aspect of fault. As regards the
substance of the act, actual sin can cause a bodily defect: thus some
sicken and die through eating too much. But as regards the fault, it
deprives us of grace which is given to us that we may regulate the
acts of the soul, but not that we may ward off defects of the body,
as original justice did. Wherefore actual sin does not cause those
defects, as original sin does.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 85, Art. 6]

Whether Death and Other Defects Are Natural to Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that death and such like defects are
natural to man. For "the corruptible and the incorruptible differ
generically" (Metaph. x, text. 26). But man is of the same genus as
other animals which are naturally corruptible. Therefore man is
naturally corruptible.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is composed of contraries is naturally
corruptible, as having within itself the cause of corruption. But
such is the human body. Therefore it is naturally corruptible.

Obj. 3: Further, a hot thing naturally consumes moisture. Now human
life is preserved by hot and moist elements. Since therefore the
vital functions are fulfilled by the action of natural heat, as
stated in _De Anima_ ii, text. 50, it seems that death and such like
defects are natural to man.

_On the contrary,_ (1) God made in man whatever is natural to him.
Now "God made not death" (Wis. 1:13). Therefore death is not natural
to man.

(2) Further, that which is natural cannot be called either a
punishment or an evil: since what is natural to a thing is suitable
to it. But death and such like defects are the punishment of original
sin, as stated above (A. 5). Therefore they are not natural to man.

(3) Further, matter is proportionate to form, and everything to its
end. Now man's end is everlasting happiness, as stated above (Q. 2,
A. 7; Q. 5, AA. 3, 4): and the form of the human body is the rational
soul, as was proved in the First Part (Q. 75, A. 6). Therefore the
human body is naturally incorruptible.

_I answer that,_ We may speak of any corruptible thing in two ways;
first, in respect of its universal nature, secondly, as regards its
particular nature. A thing's particular nature is its own power of
action and self-preservation. And in respect of this nature, every
corruption and defect is contrary to nature, as stated in _De Coelo_
ii, text. 37, since this power tends to the being and preservation of
the thing to which it belongs.

On the other hand, the universal nature is an active force in some
universal principle of nature, for instance in some heavenly body; or
again belonging to some superior substance, in which sense God is
said by some to be "the Nature Who makes nature." This force intends
the good and the preservation of the universe, for which alternate
generation and corruption in things are requisite: and in this
respect corruption and defect in things are natural, not indeed as
regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being
and perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which is
allotted proportionately to its particular form according to the
discretion of the universal agent. And although every form intends
perpetual being as far as it can, yet no form of a corruptible being
can achieve its own perpetuity, except the rational soul; for the
reason that the latter is not entirely subject to matter, as other
forms are; indeed it has an immaterial operation of its own, as
stated in the First Part (Q. 75, A. 2). Consequently as regards his
form, incorruption is more natural to man than to other corruptible
things. But since that very form has a matter composed of contraries,
from the inclination of that matter there results corruptibility in
the whole. In this respect man is naturally corruptible as regards
the nature of his matter left to itself, but not as regards the
nature of his form.

The first three objections argue on the side of the matter; while the
other three argue on the side of the form. Wherefore in order to
solve them, we must observe that the form of man which is the
rational soul, in respect of its incorruptibility is adapted to its
end, which is everlasting happiness: whereas the human body, which is
corruptible, considered in respect of its nature, is, in a way,
adapted to its form, and, in another way, it is not. For we may note
a twofold condition in any matter, one which the agent chooses, and
another which is not chosen by the agent, and is a natural condition
of matter. Thus, a smith in order to make a knife, chooses a matter
both hard and flexible, which can be sharpened so as to be useful for
cutting, and in respect of this condition iron is a matter adapted
for a knife: but that iron be breakable and inclined to rust, results
from the natural disposition of iron, nor does the workman choose
this in the iron, indeed he would do without it if he could:
wherefore this disposition of matter is not adapted to the workman's
intention, nor to the purpose of his art. In like manner the human
body is the matter chosen by nature in respect of its being of a
mixed temperament, in order that it may be most suitable as an organ
of touch and of the other sensitive and motive powers. Whereas the
fact that it is corruptible is due to a condition of matter, and is
not chosen by nature: indeed nature would choose an incorruptible
matter if it could. But God, to Whom every nature is subject, in
forming man supplied the defect of nature, and by the gift of
original justice, gave the body a certain incorruptibility, as was
stated in the First Part (Q. 97, A. 1). It is in this sense that it
is said that "God made not death," and that death is the punishment
of sin.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

QUESTION 86

OF THE STAIN OF SIN
(In Two Articles)

We must now consider the stain of sin; under which head there are two
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether an effect of sin is a stain on the soul?

(2) Whether it remains in the soul after the act of sin?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 86, Art. 1]

Whether Sin Causes a Stain on the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin causes no stain on the soul. For
a higher nature cannot be defiled by contact with a lower nature:
hence the sun's ray is not defiled by contact with tainted bodies, as
Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses v). Now the human soul is of
a much higher nature than mutable things, to which it turns by
sinning. Therefore it does not contract a stain from them by sinning.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is chiefly in the will, as stated above (Q. 74,
AA. 1, 2). Now the will is in the reason, as stated in _De _Anima
iii, text. 42. But the reason or intellect is not stained by
considering anything whatever; rather indeed is it perfected thereby.
Therefore neither is the will stained by sin.

Obj. 3: Further, if sin causes a stain, this stain is either
something positive, or a pure privation. If it be something positive,
it can only be either a disposition or a habit: for it seems that
nothing else can be caused by an act. But it is neither disposition
nor habit: for it happens that a stain remains even after the removal
of a disposition or habit; for instance, in a man who after
committing a mortal sin of prodigality, is so changed as to fall into
a sin of the opposite vice. Therefore the stain does not denote
anything positive in the soul. Again, neither is it a pure privation.
Because all sins agree on the part of aversion and privation of
grace: and so it would follow that there is but one stain caused by
all sins. Therefore the stain is not the effect of sin.

_On the contrary,_ It was said to Solomon (Ecclus. 47:22): "Thou hast
stained thy glory": and it is written (Eph. 5:27): "That He might
present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle":
and in each case it is question of the stain of sin. Therefore a
stain is the effect of sin.

_I answer that,_ A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things,
when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another
body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a
stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man's soul
has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural
light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other,
from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace,
whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and
fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there
is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to
certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as
shown above (Q. 71, A. 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness
occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the
soul.

Reply Obj. 1: The soul is not defiled by inferior things, by their
own power, as though they acted on the soul: on the contrary, the
soul, by its own action, defiles itself, through cleaving to them
inordinately, against the light of reason and of the Divine law.

Reply Obj. 2: The action of the intellect is accomplished by the
intelligible thing being in the intellect, according to the mode of
the intellect, so that the intellect is not defiled, but perfected,
by them. On the other hand, the act of the will consists in a
movement towards things themselves, so that love attaches the soul to
the thing loved. Thus it is that the soul is stained, when it cleaves
inordinately, according to Osee 9:10: "They . . . became abominable
as those things were which they loved."

Reply Obj. 3: The stain is neither something positive in the soul,
nor does it denote a pure privation: it denotes a privation of the
soul's brightness in relation to its cause, which is sin; wherefore
diverse sins occasion diverse stains. It is like a shadow, which is
the privation of light through the interposition of a body, and which
varies according to the diversity of the interposed bodies.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 86, Art. 2]

Whether the Stain Remains in the Soul After the Act of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the stain does not remain in the soul
after the act of sin. For after an action, nothing remains in the
soul except habit or disposition. But the stain is not a habit or
disposition, as stated above (A. 1, Obj. 3). Therefore the stain does
not remain in the soul after the act of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, the stain is to the sin what the shadow is to the
body, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But the shadow does not remain
when the body has passed by. Therefore the stain does not remain in
the soul when the act of sin is past.

Obj. 3: Further, every effect depends on its cause. Now the cause of
the stain is the act of sin. Therefore when the act of sin is no
longer there, neither is the stain in the soul.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jos. 22:17): "Is it a small thing
to you that you sinned with Beelphegor, and the stain of that crime
remaineth in you [Vulg.: 'us'] to this day?"

_I answer that,_ The stain of sin remains in the soul even when the
act of sin is past. The reason for this is that the stain, as stated
above (A. 1), denotes a blemish in the brightness of the soul, on
account of its withdrawing from the light of reason or of the Divine
law. And therefore so long as man remains out of this light, the
stain of sin remains in him: but as soon as, moved by grace, he
returns to the Divine light and to the light of reason, the stain is
removed. For although the act of sin ceases, whereby man withdrew
from the light of reason and of the Divine law, man does not at once
return to the state in which he was before, and it is necessary that
his will should have a movement contrary to the previous movement.
Thus if one man be parted from another on account of some kind of
movement, he is not reunited to him as soon as the movement ceases,
but he needs to draw nigh to him and to return by a contrary movement.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing positive remains in the soul after the act of
sin, except the disposition or habit; but there does remain something
privative, viz. the privation of union with the Divine light.

Reply Obj. 2: After the interposed body has passed by, the
transparent body remains in the same position and relation as regards
the illuminating body, and so the shadow passes at once. But when the
sin is past, the soul does not remain in the same relation to God:
and so there is no comparison.

Reply Obj. 3: The act of sin parts man from God, which parting causes
the defect of brightness, just as local movement causes local
parting. Wherefore, just as when movement ceases, local distance is
not removed, so neither, when the act of sin ceases, is the stain
removed.
________________________

QUESTION 87

OF THE DEBT OF PUNISHMENT
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the debt of punishment. We shall consider (1)
the debt itself; (2) mortal and venial sin, which differ in respect
of the punishment due to them.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the debt of punishment is an effect of sin?

(2) Whether one sin can be the punishment of another?

(3) Whether any sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment?

(4) Whether sin incurs a debt of punishment that is infinite in
quantity?

(5) Whether every sin incurs a debt of eternal and infinite
punishment?

(6) Whether the debt of punishment can remain after sin?

(7) Whether every punishment is inflicted for a sin?

(8) Whether one person can incur punishment for another's sin?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 1]

Whether the Debt of Punishment Is an Effect of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the debt of punishment is not an
effect of sin. For that which is accidentally related to a thing,
does not seem to be its proper effect. Now the debt of punishment is
accidentally related to sin, for it is beside the intention of the
sinner. Therefore the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, evil is not the cause of good. But punishment is
good, since it is just, and is from God. Therefore it is not an
effect of sin, which is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Confess. i) that "every inordinate
affection is its own punishment." But punishment does not incur a
further debt of punishment, because then it would go on indefinitely.
Therefore sin does not incur the debt of punishment.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 2:9): "Tribulation and anguish
upon every soul of man that worketh evil." But to work evil is to
sin. Therefore sin incurs a punishment which is signified by the
words "tribulation and anguish."

_I answer that,_ It has passed from natural things to human affairs
that whenever one thing rises up against another, it suffers some
detriment therefrom. For we observe in natural things that when one
contrary supervenes, the other acts with greater energy, for which
reason "hot water freezes more rapidly," as stated in _Meteor._ i,
12. Wherefore we find that the natural inclination of man is to
repress those who rise up against him. Now it is evident that all
things contained in an order, are, in a manner, one, in relation to
the principle of that order. Consequently, whatever rises up against
an order, is put down by that order or by the principle thereof. And
because sin is an inordinate act, it is evident that whoever sins,
commits an offense against an order: wherefore he is put down, in
consequence, by that same order, which repression is punishment.

Accordingly, man can be punished with a threefold punishment
corresponding to the three orders to which the human will is subject.
In the first place a man's nature is subjected to the order of his
own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who
governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters, as a member
either of the state or of the household; thirdly, it is subjected to
the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these
orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason,
and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold
punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience;
another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God.

Reply Obj. 1: Punishment follows sin, inasmuch as this is an evil by
reason of its being inordinate. Wherefore just as evil is accidental
to the sinner's act, being beside his intention, so also is the debt
of punishment.

Reply Obj. 2: Further, a just punishment may be inflicted either by
God or by man: wherefore the punishment itself is the effect of sin,
not directly but dispositively. Sin, however, makes man deserving of
punishment, and that is an evil: for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv)
that "punishment is not an evil, but to deserve punishment is."
Consequently the debt of punishment is considered to be directly the
effect of sin.

Reply Obj. 3: This punishment of the _inordinate affection_ is due to
sin as overturning the order of reason. Nevertheless sin incurs a
further punishment, through disturbing the order of the Divine or
human law.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 2]

Whether Sin Can Be the Punishment of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin cannot be the punishment of sin.
For the purpose of punishment is to bring man back to the good of
virtue, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. x, 9). Now sin does not
bring man back to the good of virtue, but leads him in the opposite
direction. Therefore sin is not the punishment of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, just punishments are from God, as Augustine says
(Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 82). But sin is not from God, and is an injustice.
Therefore sin cannot be the punishment of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the nature of punishment is to be something against
the will. But sin is something from the will, as shown above (Q. 74,
AA. 1, 2). Therefore sin cannot be the punishment of sin.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory speaks (Hom. xi in Ezech.) that some sins
are punishments of others.

_I answer that,_ We may speak of sin in two ways: first, in its
essence, as such; secondly, as to that which is accidental thereto.
Sin as such can nowise be the punishment of another. Because sin
considered in its essence is something proceeding from the will, for
it is from this that it derives the character of guilt. Whereas
punishment is essentially something against the will, as stated in
the First Part (Q. 48, A. 5). Consequently it is evident that sin
regarded in its essence can nowise be the punishment of sin.

On the other hand, sin can be the punishment of sin accidentally in
three ways. First, when one sin is the cause of another, by removing
an impediment thereto. For passions, temptations of the devil, and
the like are causes of sin, but are impeded by the help of Divine
grace which is withdrawn on account of sin. Wherefore since the
withdrawal of grace is a punishment, and is from God, as stated above
(Q. 79, A. 3), the result is that the sin which ensues from this is
also a punishment accidentally. It is in this sense that the Apostle
speaks (Rom. 1:24) when he says: "Wherefore God gave them up to the
desires of their heart," i.e. to their passions; because, to wit,
when men are deprived of the help of Divine grace, they are overcome
by their passions. In this way sin is always said to be the
punishment of a preceding sin. Secondly, by reason of the substance
of the act, which is such as to cause pain, whether it be an interior
act, as is clearly the case with anger or envy, or an exterior act,
as is the case with one who endures considerable trouble and loss in
order to achieve a sinful act, according to Wis. 5:7: "We wearied
ourselves in the way of iniquity." Thirdly, on the part of the
effect, so that one sin is said to be a punishment by reason of its
effect. In the last two ways, a sin is a punishment not only in
respect of a preceding sin, but also with regard to itself.

Reply Obj. 1: Even when God punishes men by permitting them to fall
into sin, this is directed to the good of virtue. Sometimes indeed it
is for the good of those who are punished, when, to wit, men arise
from sin, more humble and more cautious. But it is always for the
amendment of others, who seeing some men fall from sin to sin, are
the more fearful of sinning. With regard to the other two ways, it is
evident that the punishment is intended for the sinner's amendment,
since the very fact that man endures toil and loss in sinning, is of
a nature to withdraw man from sin.

Reply Obj. 2: This objection considers sin essentially as such: and
the same answer applies to the Third Objection.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 3]

Whether Any Sin Incurs a Debt of Eternal Punishment?

Objection 1: It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal
punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since
justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isa. 27:8): "In measure
against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it." Now
sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal
punishment.

Obj. 2: Further, "punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3).
But no medicine should be infinite, because it is directed to an end,
and "what is directed to an end, is not infinite," as the Philosopher
states (Polit. i, 6). Therefore no punishment should be infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, no one does a thing always unless he delights in it
for its own sake. But "God hath not pleasure in the destruction of
men" [Vulg.: 'of the living']. Therefore He will not inflict eternal
punishment on man.

Obj. 4: Further, nothing accidental is infinite. But punishment is
accidental, for it is not natural to the one who is punished.
Therefore it cannot be of infinite duration.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 25:46): "These shall go into
everlasting punishment"; and (Mk. 3:29): "He that shall blaspheme
against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be
guilty of an everlasting sin."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), sin incurs a debt of
punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so
long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of
the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now
disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes
irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is
irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be
repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle
of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine
power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there
arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied
by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby
one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the
principle of the order whereby man's will is subject to God, the
disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable,
although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the
principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by
charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to
destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal
punishment.

Reply Obj. 1: Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of
severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment,
however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for
punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that
adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a
momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by
imprisonment or banishment for life--sometimes even by death; wherein
account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of
the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the
living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the
eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory
(Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his
own eternity should be punished in God's eternity. A man is said to
have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual
sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very
fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin,
everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the "wicked
would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins
for ever."

Reply Obj. 2: Even the punishment that is inflicted according to
human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is
punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged,
this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that
at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the
punishment, according to Prov. 19:25: "The wicked man being scourged,
the fool shall be wiser." Accordingly the eternal punishments
inflicted by God on the reprobate, are medicinal punishments for
those who refrain from sin through the thought of those punishments,
according to Ps. 59:6: "Thou hast given a warning to them that fear
Thee, that they may flee from before the bow, that Thy beloved may be
delivered."

Reply Obj. 3: God does not delight in punishments for their own sake;
but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.

Reply Obj. 4: Although punishment is related indirectly to nature,
nevertheless it is essentially related to the disturbance of the
order, and to God's justice. Wherefore, so long as the disturbance
lasts, the punishment endures.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 4]

Whether Sin Incurs a Debt of Punishment Infinite in Quantity?

Objection 1: It would seem that sin incurs a debt of punishment
infinite in quantity. For it is written (Jer. 10:24): "Correct me, O
Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me
to nothing." Now God's anger or fury signifies metaphorically the
vengeance of Divine justice: and to be brought to nothing is an
infinite punishment, even as to make a thing out of nothing denotes
infinite power. Therefore according to God's vengeance, sin is
awarded a punishment infinite in quantity.

Obj. 2: Further, quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of
fault, according to Deut. 25:2: "According to the measure of the sin
shall the measure also of the stripes be." Now a sin which is
committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin
increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against
(thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a
private individual), and God's greatness is infinite. Therefore an
infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing may be infinite in two ways, in duration,
and in quantity. Now the punishment is infinite in duration.
Therefore it is infinite in quantity also.

_On the contrary,_ If this were the case, the punishments of all
mortal sins would be equal; because one infinite is not greater than
another.

_I answer that,_ Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin
comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the
immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is
infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good.
In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself
is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite,
since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so
far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding
punishment is the _pain of loss,_ which also is infinite, because it
is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin
turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the
_pain of sense,_ which is also finite.

Reply Obj. 1: It would be inconsistent with Divine justice for the
sinner to be brought to nothing absolutely, because this would be
incompatible with the perpetuity of punishment that Divine justice
requires, as stated above (A. 3). The expression "to be brought to
nothing" is applied to one who is deprived of spiritual goods,
according to 1 Cor. 13:2: "If I . . . have not charity, I am nothing."

Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers sin as turning away from
something, for it is thus that man sins against God.

Reply Obj. 3: Duration of punishment corresponds to duration of
fault, not indeed as regards the act, but on the part of the stain,
for as long as this remains, the debt of punishment remains. But
punishment corresponds to fault in the point of severity. And a fault
which is irreparable, is such that, of itself, it lasts for ever;
wherefore it incurs an everlasting punishment. But it is not infinite
as regards the thing it turns to; wherefore, in this respect, it does
not incur punishment of infinite quantity.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 5]

Whether Every Sin Incurs a Debt of Eternal Punishment?

Objection 1: It would seem that every sin incurs a debt of eternal
punishment. Because punishment, as stated above (A. 4), is
proportionate to the fault. Now eternal punishment differs infinitely
from temporal punishment: whereas no sin, apparently, differs
infinitely from another, since every sin is a human act, which cannot
be infinite. Since therefore some sins incur a debt of everlasting
punishment, as stated above (A. 4), it seems that no sin incurs a
debt of mere temporal punishment.

Obj. 2: Further, original sin is the least of all sins, wherefore
Augustine says (Enchiridion xciii) that "the lightest punishment is
incurred by those who are punished for original sin alone." But
original sin incurs everlasting punishment, since children who have
died in original sin through not being baptized, will never see the
kingdom of God, as shown by our Lord's words (John 3:3): "Unless a
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Much more,
therefore, will the punishments of all other sins be everlasting.

Obj. 3: Further, a sin does not deserve greater punishment through
being united to another sin; for Divine justice has allotted its
punishment to each sin. Now a venial sin deserves eternal punishment
if it be united to a mortal sin in a lost soul, because in hell there
is no remission of sins. Therefore venial sin by itself deserves
eternal punishment. Therefore temporal punishment is not due for any
sin.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Dial. iv, 39), that certain slighter
sins are remitted after this life. Therefore all sins are not
punished eternally.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), a sin incurs a debt of
eternal punishment, in so far as it causes an irreparable disorder in
the order of Divine justice, through being contrary to the very
principle of that order, viz. the last end. Now it is evident that in
some sins there is disorder indeed, but such as not to involve
contrariety in respect of the last end, but only in respect of things
referable to the end, in so far as one is too much or too little
intent on them without prejudicing the order to the last end: as, for
instance, when a man is too fond of some temporal thing, yet would
not offend God for its sake, by breaking one of His commandments.
Consequently such sins do not incur everlasting, but only temporal
punishment.

Reply Obj. 1: Sins do not differ infinitely from one another in
respect of their turning towards mutable good, which constitutes the
substance of the sinful act; but they do differ infinitely in respect
of their turning away from something. Because some sins consist in
turning away from the last end, and some in a disorder affecting
things referable to the end: and the last end differs infinitely from
the things that are referred to it.

Reply Obj. 2: Original sin incurs everlasting punishment, not on
account of its gravity, but by reason of the condition of the
subject, viz. a human being deprived of grace, without which there is
no remission of sin.

The same answer applies to the Third Objection about venial sin.
Because eternity of punishment does not correspond to the quantity of
the sin, but to its irremissibility, as stated above (A. 3).
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 6]

Whether the Debt of Punishment Remains After Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that there remains no debt of punishment
after sin. For if the cause be removed the effect is removed. But sin
is the cause of the debt of punishment. Therefore, when the sin is
removed, the debt of punishment ceases also.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is removed by man returning to virtue. Now a
virtuous man deserves, not punishment, but reward. Therefore, when
sin is removed, the debt of punishment no longer remains.

Obj. 3: Further, "Punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3).
But a man is not given medicine after being cured of his disease.
Therefore, when sin is removed the debt of punishment does not remain.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (2 Kings xii. 13, 14): "David said
to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David:
The Lord also hath taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
Nevertheless because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the
Lord to blaspheme . . . the child that is born to thee shall die."
Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven:
and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed.

_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act,
and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins,
when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of
sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses
the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay
some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality
of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who
has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God's
commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something
contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of
justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done
to one's fellow men. Consequently it is evident that when the sinful
or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of
punishment.

But if we speak of the removal of sin as to the stain, it is evident
that the stain of sin cannot be removed from the soul, without the
soul being united to God, since it was through being separated from
Him that it suffered the loss of its brightness, in which the stain
consists, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 1). Now man is united to God by
his will. Wherefore the stain of sin cannot be removed from man,
unless his will accept the order of Divine justice, that is to say,
unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment
of his past sin, or bear patiently the punishment which God inflicts
on him; and in both ways punishment avails for satisfaction. Now when
punishment is satisfactory, it loses somewhat of the nature of
punishment: for the nature of punishment is to be against the will;
and although satisfactory punishment, absolutely speaking, is against
the will, nevertheless in this particular case and for this
particular purpose, it is voluntary. Consequently it is voluntary
simply, but involuntary in a certain respect, as we have explained
when speaking of the voluntary and the involuntary (Q. 6, A. 6). We
must, therefore, say that, when the stain of sin has been removed,
there may remain a debt of punishment, not indeed of punishment
simply, but of satisfactory punishment.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as after the act of sin has ceased, the stain
remains, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 2), so the debt of punishment
also can remain. But when the stain has been removed, the debt of
punishment does not remain in the same way, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply,
but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue
demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God
or man.

Reply Obj. 3: When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed
as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that
the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered
by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied
by the contrary of that which caused it. Moreover punishment is
requisite in order to restore the equality of justice, and to remove
the scandal given to others, so that those who were scandalized at
the sin many be edified by the punishment, as may be seen in the
example of David quoted above.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 7]

Whether Every Punishment Is Inflicted for a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that not every punishment is inflicted for
a sin. For it is written (John 9:3, 2) about the man born blind:
"Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents . . . that he should
be born blind." In like manner we see that many children, those also
who have been baptized, suffer grievous punishments, fevers, for
instance, diabolical possession, and so forth, and yet there is no
sin in them after they have been baptized. Moreover before they are
baptized, there is no more sin in them than in the other children who
do not suffer such things. Therefore not every punishment is
inflicted for a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, that sinners should thrive and that the innocent
should be punished seem to come under the same head. Now each of
these is frequently observed in human affairs, for it is written
about the wicked (Ps. 72:5): "They are not in the labor of men:
neither shall they be scourged like other men"; and (Job 21:7): "[Why
then do] the wicked live, are [they] advanced, and strengthened with
riches" (?)[*The words in brackets show the readings of the Vulgate];
and (Hab. 1:13): "Why lookest Thou upon the contemptuous [Vulg.:
'them that do unjust things'], and holdest Thy peace, when the wicked
man oppresseth [Vulg.: 'devoureth'], the man that is more just than
himself?" Therefore not every punishment is inflicted for a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written of Christ (1 Pet. 2:22) that "He did
no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth." And yet it is said (1 Pet.
2:21) that "He suffered for us." Therefore punishment is not always
inflicted by God for sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 4:7, seqq.): "Who ever perished
innocent? Or when were the just destroyed? _On the contrary,_ I have
seen those who work iniquity . . . perishing by the blast of God";
and Augustine writes (Retract. i) that "all punishment is just, and
is inflicted for a sin."

_I answer that,_ As already stated (A. 6), punishment can be
considered in two ways--simply, and as being satisfactory. A
satisfactory punishment is, in a way, voluntary. And since those who
differ as to the debt of punishment, may be one in will by the union
of love, it happens that one who has not sinned, bears willingly the
punishment for another: thus even in human affairs we see men take
the debts of another upon themselves. If, however, we speak of
punishment simply, in respect of its being something penal, it has
always a relation to a sin in the one punished. Sometimes this is a
relation to actual sin, as when a man is punished by God or man for a
sin committed by him. Sometimes it is a relation to original sin: and
this, either principally or consequently--principally, the punishment
of original sin is that human nature is left to itself, and deprived
of original justice: and consequently, all the penalties which result
from this defect in human nature.

Nevertheless we must observe that sometimes a thing seems penal, and
yet is not so simply. Because punishment is a species of evil, as
stated in the First Part (Q. 48, A. 5). Now evil is privation of
good. And since man's good is manifold, viz. good of the soul, good
of the body, and external goods, it happens sometimes that man
suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater
good, as when he suffers loss of money for the sake of bodily health,
or loss of both of these, for the sake of his soul's health and the
glory of God. In such cases the loss is an evil to man, not simply
but relatively; wherefore it does not answer to the name of
punishment simply, but of medicinal punishment, because a medical man
prescribes bitter potions to his patients, that he may restore them
to health. And since such like are not punishments properly speaking,
they are not referred to sin as their cause, except in a restricted
sense: because the very fact that human nature needs a treatment of
penal medicines, is due to the corruption of nature which is itself
the punishment of original sin. For there was no need, in the state
of innocence, for penal exercises in order to make progress in
virtue; so that whatever is penal in the exercise of virtue, is
reduced to original sin as its cause.

Reply Obj. 1: Such like defects of those who are born with them, or
which children suffer from, are the effects and the punishments of
original sin, as stated above (Q. 85, A. 5); and they remain even
after baptism, for the cause stated above (Q. 85, A. 5, ad 2): and
that they are not equally in all, is due to the diversity of nature,
which is left to itself, as stated above (Q. 85, A. 5, ad 1).
Nevertheless, they are directed by Divine providence, to the
salvation of men, either of those who suffer, or of others who are
admonished by their means--and also to the glory of God.

Reply Obj. 2: Temporal and bodily goods are indeed goods of man, but
they are of small account: whereas spiritual goods are man's chief
goods. Consequently it belongs to Divine justice to give spiritual
goods to the virtuous, and to award them as much temporal goods or
evils, as suffices for virtue: for, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
viii), "Divine justice does not enfeeble the fortitude of the
virtuous man, by material gifts." The very fact that others receive
temporal goods, is detrimental to their spiritual good; wherefore the
psalm quoted concludes (verse 6): "Therefore pride hath held them
fast."

Reply Obj. 3: Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but
for our sins.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 8]

Whether Anyone Is Punished for Another's Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that one may be punished for another's
sin. For it is written (Ex. 20:5): "I am . . . God . . . jealous,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate Me"; and (Matt. 23:35):
"That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon
the earth."

Obj. 2: Further, human justice springs from Divine justice. Now,
according to human justice, children are sometimes punished for their
parents, as in the case of high treason. Therefore also according to
Divine justice, one is punished for another's sin.

Obj. 3: Further, if it be replied that the son is punished, not for
the father's sin, but for his own, inasmuch as he imitates his
father's wickedness; this would not be said of the children rather
than of outsiders, who are punished in like manner as those whose
crimes they imitate. It seems, therefore, that children are punished,
not for their own sins, but for those of their parents.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:20): "The son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father."

_I answer that,_ If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which
one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's
punishment, in so far as they are, in some way, one, as stated above
(A. 7). If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of
sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own
sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we
speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen
that one is punished for another's sin. For it has been stated (A. 7)
that ills sustained in bodily goods or even in the body itself, are
medicinal punishments intended for the health of the soul. Wherefore
there is no reason why one should not have such like punishments
inflicted on one for another's sin, either by God or by man; e.g. on
children for their parents, or on servants for their masters,
inasmuch as they are their property so to speak; in such a way,
however, that, if the children or the servants take part in the sin,
this penal ill has the character of punishment in regard to both the
one punished and the one he is punished for. But if they do not take
part in the sin, it has the character of punishment in regard to the
one for whom the punishment is borne, while, in regard to the one who
is punished, it is merely medicinal (except accidentally, if he
consent to the other's sin), since it is intended for the good of his
soul, if he bears it patiently.

With regard to spiritual punishments, these are not merely medicinal,
because the good of the soul is not directed to a yet higher good.
Consequently no one suffers loss in the goods of the soul without
some fault of his own. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ad Avit.) [*Ep.
ad Auxilium, ccl.], such like punishments are not inflicted on one
for another's sin, because, as regards the soul, the son is not the
father's property. Hence the Lord assigns the reason for this by
saying (Ezech. 18:4): "All souls are Mine."

Reply Obj. 1: Both the passages quoted should, seemingly, be referred
to temporal or bodily punishments, in so far as children are the
property of their parents, and posterity, of their forefathers. Else,
if they be referred to spiritual punishments, they must be understood
in reference to the imitation of sin, wherefore in Exodus these words
are added, "Of them that hate Me," and in the chapter quoted from
Matthew (verse 32) we read: "Fill ye up then the measure of your
fathers." The sins of the fathers are said to be punished in their
children, because the latter are the more prone to sin through being
brought up amid their parents' crimes, both by becoming accustomed to
them, and by imitating their parents' example, conforming to their
authority as it were. Moreover they deserve heavier punishment if,
seeing the punishment of their parents, they fail to mend their ways.
The text adds, "to the third and fourth generation," because men are
wont to live long enough to see the third and fourth generation, so
that both the children can witness their parents' sins so as to
imitate them, and the parents can see their children's punishments so
as to grieve for them.

Reply Obj. 2: The punishments which human justice inflicts on one for
another's sin are bodily and temporal. They are also remedies or
medicines against future sins, in order that either they who are
punished, or others may be restrained from similar faults.

Reply Obj. 3: Those who are near of kin are said to be punished,
rather than outsiders, for the sins of others, both because the
punishment of kindred redounds somewhat upon those who sinned, as
stated above, in so far as the child is the father's property, and
because the examples and the punishments that occur in one's own
household are more moving. Consequently when a man is brought up amid
the sins of his parents, he is more eager to imitate them, and if he
is not deterred by their punishments, he would seem to be the more
obstinate, and, therefore, to deserve more severe punishment.
________________________

QUESTION 88

OF VENIAL AND MORTAL SIN
(In Six Articles)

In the next place, since venial and mortal sins differ in respect of
the debt of punishment, we must consider them. First, we shall
consider venial sin as compared with mortal sin; secondly, we shall
consider venial sin in itself.

Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether venial sin is fittingly condivided with mortal sin?

(2) Whether they differ generically?

(3) Whether venial sin is a disposition to mortal sin?

(4) Whether a venial sin can become mortal?

(5) Whether a venial sin can become mortal by reason of an
aggravating circumstance?

(6) Whether a mortal sin can become venial?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 88, Art. 1]

Whether Venial Sin Is Fittingly Condivided with Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin is unfittingly condivided
with mortal sin. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 27): "Sin is
a word, deed or desire contrary to the eternal law." But the fact of
being against the eternal law makes a sin to be mortal. Consequently
every sin is mortal. Therefore venial sin is not condivided with
mortal sin.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:31): "Whether you eat or
drink, or whatever else you do; do all to the glory of God." Now
whoever sins breaks this commandment, because sin is not done for
God's glory. Consequently, since to break a commandment is to commit
a mortal sin, it seems that whoever sins, sins mortally.

Obj. 3: Further, whoever cleaves to a thing by love, cleaves either
as enjoying it, or as using it, as Augustine states (De Doctr.
Christ. i, 3, 4). But no person, in sinning, cleaves to a mutable
good as using it: because he does not refer it to that good which
gives us happiness, which, properly speaking, is to use, according to
Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 3, 4). Therefore whoever sins enjoys
a mutable good. Now "to enjoy what we should use is human
perverseness," as Augustine again says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 30).
Therefore, since "perverseness" [*The Latin 'pervertere' means to
overthrow, to destroy, hence 'perversion' of God's law is a mortal
sin.] denotes a mortal sin, it seems that whoever sins, sins mortally.

Obj. 4: Further, whoever approaches one term, from that very fact
turns away from the opposite. Now whoever sins, approaches a mutable
good, and, consequently turns away from the immutable good, so that
he sins mortally. Therefore venial sin is unfittingly condivided with
mortal sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. xli in Joan.), that "a
crime is one that merits damnation, and a venial sin, one that does
not." But a crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore venial sin is
fittingly condivided with mortal sin.

_I answer that,_ Certain terms do not appear to be mutually opposed,
if taken in their proper sense, whereas they are opposed if taken
metaphorically: thus "to smile" is not opposed to "being dry"; but if
we speak of the smiling meadows when they are decked with flowers and
fresh with green hues this is opposed to drought. In like manner if
mortal be taken literally as referring to the death of the body, it
does not imply opposition to venial, nor belong to the same genus.
But if mortal be taken metaphorically, as applied to sin, it is
opposed to that which is venial.

For sin, being a sickness of the soul, as stated above (Q. 71, A. 1,
ad 3; Q. 72, A. 5; Q. 74, A. 9, ad 2), is said to be mortal by
comparison with a disease, which is said to be mortal, through
causing an irreparable defect consisting in the corruption of a
principle, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 5). Now the principle of the
spiritual life, which is a life in accord with virtue, is the order
to the last end, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 5; Q. 87, A. 3): and if
this order be corrupted, it cannot be repaired by any intrinsic
principle, but by the power of God alone, as stated above (Q. 87, A.
3), because disorders in things referred to the end, are repaired
through the end, even as an error about conclusions can be repaired
through the truth of the principles. Hence the defect of order to the
last end cannot be repaired through something else as a higher
principle, as neither can an error about principles. Wherefore such
sins are called mortal, as being irreparable. On the other hand, sins
which imply a disorder in things referred to the end, the order to
the end itself being preserved, are reparable. These sins are called
venial: because a sin receives its acquittal (_veniam_) when the debt
of punishment is taken away, and this ceases when the sin ceases, as
explained above (Q. 87, A. 6).

Accordingly, mortal and venial are mutually opposed as reparable and
irreparable: and I say this with reference to the intrinsic
principle, but not to the Divine power, which can repair all
diseases, whether of the body or of the soul. Therefore venial sin is
fittingly condivided with mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 1: The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a
division of a genus into its species which have an equal share of the
generic nature: but it is the division of an analogous term into its
parts, of which it is predicated, of the one first, and of the other
afterwards. Consequently the perfect notion of sin, which Augustine
gives, applies to mortal sin. On the other hand, venial sin is called
a sin, in reference to an imperfect notion of sin, and in relation to
mortal sin: even as an accident is called a being, in relation to
substance, in reference to the imperfect notion of being. For it is
not _against_ the law, since he who sins venially neither does what
the law forbids, nor omits what the law prescribes to be done; but he
acts _beside_ the law, through not observing the mode of reason,
which the law intends.

Reply Obj. 2: This precept of the Apostle is affirmative, and so it
does not bind for all times. Consequently everyone who does not
actually refer all his actions to the glory of God, does not
therefore act against this precept. In order, therefore, to avoid
mortal sin each time that one fails actually to refer an action to
God's glory, it is enough to refer oneself and all that one has to
God habitually. Now venial sin excludes only actual reference of the
human act to God's glory, and not habitual reference: because it does
not exclude charity, which refers man to God habitually. Therefore it
does not follow that he who sins venially, sins mortally.

Reply Obj. 3: He that sins venially, cleaves to temporal good, not as
enjoying it, because he does not fix his end in it, but as using it,
by referring it to God, not actually but habitually.

Reply Obj. 4: Mutable good is not considered to be a term in
contraposition to the immutable good, unless one's end is fixed
therein: because what is referred to the end has not the character of
finality.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 88, Art. 2]

Whether Mortal and Venial Sin Differ Generically?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial and mortal sin do not differ
generically, so that some sins be generically mortal, and some
generically venial. Because human acts are considered to be
generically good or evil according to their matter or object, as
stated above (Q. 18, A. 2). Now either mortal or venial sin may be
committed in regard to any object or matter: since man can love any
mutable good, either less than God, which may be a venial sin, or
more than God, which is a mortal sin. Therefore venial and mortal sin
do not differ generically.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 72, A. 5; Q. 87, A. 3), a
sin is called mortal when it is irreparable, venial when it can be
repaired. Now irreparability belongs to sin committed out of malice,
which, according to some, is irremissible: whereas reparability
belongs to sins committed through weakness or ignorance, which are
remissible. Therefore mortal and venial sin differ as sin committed
through malice differs from sin committed through weakness or
ignorance. But, in this respect, sins differ not in genus but in
cause, as stated above (Q. 77, A. 8, ad 1). Therefore venial and
mortal sin do not differ generically.

Obj. 3: Further, it was stated above (Q. 74, A. 3, ad 3; A. 10) that
sudden movements both of the sensuality and of the reason are venial
sins. But sudden movements occur in every kind of sin. Therefore no
sins are generically venial.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine, in a sermon on Purgatory (De Sanctis,
serm. xli), enumerates certain generic venial sins, and certain
generic mortal sins.

_I answer that,_ Venial sin is so called from _venia_ (pardon).
Consequently a sin may be called venial, first of all, because it has
been pardoned: thus Ambrose says that "penance makes every sin
venial": and this is called venial "from the result." Secondly, a sin
is called venial because it does not contain anything either
partially or totally, to prevent its being pardoned: partially, as
when a sin contains something diminishing its guilt, e.g. a sin
committed through weakness or ignorance: and this is called venial
"from the cause": totally, through not destroying the order to the
last end, wherefore it deserves temporal, but not everlasting
punishment. It is of this venial sin that we wish to speak now.

For as regards the first two, it is evident that they have no
determinate genus: whereas venial sin, taken in the third sense, can
have a determinate genus, so that one sin may be venial generically,
and another generically mortal, according as the genus or species of
an act is determined by its object. For, when the will is directed to
a thing that is in itself contrary to charity, whereby man is
directed to his last end, the sin is mortal by reason of its object.
Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary
to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against
the love of one's neighbor, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like:
wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes,
however, the sinner's will is directed to a thing containing a
certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God
and one's neighbor, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so
forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus.

Nevertheless, since moral acts derive their character of goodness and
malice, not only from their objects, but also from some disposition
of the agent, as stated above (Q. 18, AA. 4, 6), it happens sometimes
that a sin which is venial generically by reason of its object,
becomes mortal on the part of the agent, either because he fixes his
last end therein, or because he directs it to something that is a
mortal sin in its own genus; for example, if a man direct an idle
word to the commission of adultery. In like manner it may happen, on
the part of the agent, that a sin generically mortal because venial,
by reason of the act being imperfect, i.e. not deliberated by reason,
which is the proper principle of an evil act, as we have said above
in reference to sudden movements of unbelief.

Reply Obj. 1: The very fact that anyone chooses something that is
contrary to divine charity, proves that he prefers it to the love of
God, and consequently, that he loves it more than he loves God. Hence
it belongs to the genus of some sins, which are of themselves
contrary to charity, that something is loved more than God; so that
they are mortal by reason of their genus.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers those sins which are venial
from their cause.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers those sins which are venial by
reason of the imperfection of the act.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 88, Art. 3]

Whether Venial Sin Is a Disposition to Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin is not a disposition to
mortal sin. For one contrary does not dispose to another. But venial
and mortal sin are condivided as contrary to one another, as stated
above (A. 1). Therefore venial sin is not a disposition to mortal sin.

Obj. 2: Further, an act disposes to something of like species,
wherefore it is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 1, 2, that "from like acts
like dispositions and habits are engendered." But mortal and venial
sin differ in genus or species, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore
venial sin does not dispose to mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, if a sin is called venial because it disposes to
mortal sin, it follows that whatever disposes to mortal sin is a
venial sin. Now every good work disposes to mortal sin; wherefore
Augustine says in his Rule (Ep. ccxi) that "pride lies in wait for
good works that it may destroy them." Therefore even good works would
be venial sins, which is absurd.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 19:1): "He that contemneth
small things shall fall by little and little." Now he that sins
venially seems to contemn small things. Therefore by little and
little he is disposed to fall away together into mortal sin.

_I answer that,_ A disposition is a kind of cause; wherefore as there
is a twofold manner of cause, so is there a twofold manner of
disposition. For there is a cause which moves directly to the
production of the effect, as a hot thing heats: and there is a cause
which moves indirectly, by removing an obstacle, as he who displaces
a pillar is said to displace the stone that rests on it. Accordingly
an act of sin disposes to something in two ways. First, directly, and
thus it disposes to an act of like species. In this way, a sin
generically venial does not, primarily and of its nature, dispose to
a sin generically mortal, for they differ in species. Nevertheless,
in this same way, a venial sin can dispose, by way of consequence, to
a sin which is mortal on the part of the agent: because the
disposition or habit may be so far strengthened by acts of venial
sin, that the lust of sinning increases, and the sinner fixes his end
in that venial sin: since the end for one who has a habit, as such,
is to work according to that habit; and the consequence will be that,
by sinning often venially, he becomes disposed to a mortal sin.
Secondly, a human act disposes to something by removing an obstacle
thereto. In this way a sin generically venial can dispose to a sin
generically mortal. Because he that commits a sin generically venial,
turns aside from some particular order; and through accustoming his
will not to be subject to the due order in lesser matters, is
disposed not to subject his will even to the order of the last end,
by choosing something that is a mortal sin in its genus.

Reply Obj. 1: Venial and mortal sin are not condivided in contrariety
to one another, as though they were species of one genus, as stated
above (A. 1, ad 1), but as an accident is condivided with substance.
Wherefore an accident can be a disposition to a substantial form, so
can a venial sin dispose to mortal.

Reply Obj. 2: Venial sin is not like mortal sin in species; but it is
in genus, inasmuch as they both imply a defect of due order, albeit
in different ways, as stated (AA. 1, 2).

Reply Obj. 3: A good work is not, of itself, a disposition to mortal
sin; but it can be the matter or occasion of mortal sin accidentally;
whereas a venial sin, of its very nature, disposes to mortal sin, as
stated.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 88, Art. 4]

Whether a Venial Sin Can Become Mortal?

Objection 1: It would seem that a venial sin can become a mortal sin.
For Augustine in explaining the words of John 3:36: "He that
believeth not the Son, shall not see life," says (Tract. xii in
Joan.): "The slightest," i.e. venial, "sins kill if we make little of
them." Now a sin is called mortal through causing the spiritual death
of the soul. Therefore a venial sin can become mortal.

Obj. 2: Further, a movement in the sensuality before the consent of
reason, is a venial sin, but after consent, is a mortal sin, as
stated above (Q. 74, A. 8, ad 2). Therefore a venial sin can become
mortal.

Obj. 3: Further, venial and mortal sin differ as curable and
incurable disease, as stated above (A. 1). But a curable disease may
become incurable. Therefore a venial sin may become mortal.

Obj. 4: Further, a disposition may become a habit. Now venial sin is
a disposition to mortal, as stated (A. 3). Therefore a venial sin can
become mortal.

_I answer that,_ The fact of a venial sin becoming a mortal sin may
be understood in three ways. First, so that the same identical act be
at first a venial, and then a mortal sin. This is impossible: because
a sin, like any moral act, consists chiefly in an act of the will: so
that an act is not one morally, if the will be changed, although the
act be continuous physically. If, however, the will be not changed,
it is not possible for a venial sin to become mortal.

Secondly, this may be taken to mean that a sin generically venial,
becomes mortal. This is possible, in so far as one may fix one's end
in that venial sin, or direct it to some mortal sin as end, as stated
above (A. 2).

Thirdly, this may be understood in the sense of many venial sins
constituting one mortal sin. If this be taken as meaning that many
venial sins added together make one mortal sin, it is false, because
all the venial sins in the world cannot incur a debt of punishment
equal to that of one mortal sin. This is evident as regards the
duration of the punishment, since mortal sin incurs a debt of eternal
punishment, while venial sin incurs a debt of temporal punishment, as
stated above (Q. 87, AA. 3, 5). It is also evident as regards the
pain of loss, because mortal sins deserve to be punished by the
privation of seeing God, to which no other punishment is comparable,
as Chrysostom states (Hom. xxiv in Matth.). It is also evident as
regards the pain of sense, as to the remorse of conscience; although
as to the pain of fire, the punishments may perhaps not be
improportionate to one another.

If, however, this be taken as meaning that many venial sins make one
mortal sin dispositively, it is true, as was shown above (A. 3) with
regard to the two different manners of disposition, whereby venial
sin disposes to mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is referring to the fact of many venial sins
making one mortal sin dispositively.

Reply Obj. 2: The same movement of the sensuality which preceded the
consent of reason can never become a mortal sin; but the movement of
the reason in consenting is a mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 3: Disease of the body is not an act, but an abiding
disposition; wherefore, while remaining the same disease, it may
undergo change. On the other hand, venial sin is a transient act,
which cannot be taken up again: so that in this respect the
comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 4: A disposition that becomes a habit, is like an
imperfect thing in the same species; thus imperfect science, by being
perfected, becomes a habit. On the other hand, venial sin is a
disposition to something differing generically, even as an accident
which disposes to a substantial form, into which it is never changed.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 88, Art. 5]

Whether a Circumstance Can Make a Venial Sin to Be Mortal?

Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance can make a venial sin
mortal. For Augustine says in a sermon on Purgatory (De Sanctis,
serm. xli) that "if anger continue for a long time, or if drunkenness
be frequent, they become mortal sins." But anger and drunkenness are
not mortal but venial sins generically, else they would always be
mortal sins. Therefore a circumstance makes a venial sin to be mortal.

Obj. 2: Further, the Master says (Sentent. ii, D, 24) that
delectation, if morose [*See Q. 74, A. 6], is a mortal sin, but that
if it be not morose, it is a venial sin. Now moroseness is a
circumstance. Therefore a circumstance makes a venial sin to be
mortal.

Obj. 3: Further, evil and good differ more than venial and mortal
sin, both of which are generically evil. But a circumstance makes a
good act to be evil, as when a man gives an alms for vainglory. Much
more, therefore, can it make a venial sin to be mortal.

_On the contrary,_ Since a circumstance is an accident, its quantity
cannot exceed that of the act itself, derived from the act's genus,
because the subject always excels its accident. If, therefore, an act
be venial by reason of its genus, it cannot become mortal by reason
of an accident: since, in a way, mortal sin infinitely surpasses the
quantity of venial sin, as is evident from what has been said (Q. 72,
A. 5, ad 1; Q. 87, A. 5, ad 1).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 7, A. 1; Q. 18, A. 5, ad 4; AA.
10, 11), when we were treating of circumstances, a circumstance, as
such, is an accident of the moral act: and yet a circumstance may
happen to be taken as the specific difference of a moral act, and
then it loses its nature of circumstance, and constitutes the species
of the moral act. This happens in sins when a circumstance adds the
deformity of another genus; thus when a man has knowledge of another
woman than his wife, the deformity of his act is opposed to chastity;
but if this other be another man's wife, there is an additional
deformity opposed to justice which forbids one to take what belongs
to another; and accordingly this circumstance constitutes a new
species of sin known as adultery.

It is, however, impossible for a circumstance to make a venial sin
become mortal, unless it adds the deformity of another species. For
it has been stated above (A. 1) that the deformity of a venial sin
consists in a disorder affecting things that are referred to the end,
whereas the deformity of a mortal sin consists in a disorder about
the last end. Consequently it is evident that a circumstance cannot
make a venial sin to be mortal, so long as it remains a circumstance,
but only when it transfers the sin to another species, and becomes,
as it were, the specific difference of the moral act.

Reply Obj. 1: Length of time is not a circumstance that draws a sin
to another species, nor is frequency or custom, except perhaps by
something accidental supervening. For an action does not acquire a
new species through being repeated or prolonged, unless by chance
something supervene in the repeated or prolonged act to change its
species, e.g. disobedience, contempt, or the like.

We must therefore reply to the objection by saying that since anger
is a movement of the soul tending to the hurt of one's neighbor, if
the angry movement tend to a hurt which is a mortal sin generically,
such as murder or robbery, that anger will be a mortal sin
generically: and if it be a venial sin, this will be due to the
imperfection of the act, in so far as it is a sudden movement of the
sensuality: whereas, if it last a long time, it returns to its
generic nature, through the consent of reason. If, on the other hand,
the hurt to which the angry movement tends, is a sin generically
venial, for instance, if a man be angry with someone, so as to wish
to say some trifling word in jest that would hurt him a little, the
anger will not be mortal sin, however long it last, unless perhaps
accidentally; for instance, if it were to give rise to great scandal
or something of the kind.

With regard to drunkenness we reply that it is a mortal sin by reason
of its genus; for, that a man, without necessity, and through the
mere lust of wine, make himself unable to use his reason, whereby he
is directed to God and avoids committing many sins, is expressly
contrary to virtue. That it be a venial sin, is due some sort of
ignorance or weakness, as when a man is ignorant of the strength of
the wine, or of his own unfitness, so that he has no thought of
getting drunk, for in that case the drunkenness is not imputed to him
as a sin, but only the excessive drink. If, however, he gets drunk
frequently, this ignorance no longer avails as an excuse, for his
will seems to choose to give way to drunkenness rather than to
refrain from excess of wine: wherefore the sin returns to its
specific nature.

Reply Obj. 2: Morose delectation is not a mortal sin except in those
matters which are mortal sins generically. In such matters, if the
delectation be not morose, there is a venial sin through imperfection
of the act, as we have said with regard to anger (ad 1): because
anger is said to be lasting, and delectation to be morose, on account
of the approval of the deliberating reason.

Reply Obj. 3: A circumstance does not make a good act to be evil,
unless it constitute the species of a sin, as we have stated above
(Q. 18, A. 5, ad 4).
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 88, Art. 6]

Whether a Mortal Sin Can Become Venial?

Objection 1: It would seem that a mortal sin can become venial.
Because venial sin is equally distant from mortal, as mortal sin is
from venial. But a venial sin can become mortal, as stated above (A.
5). Therefore also a mortal sin can become venial.

Obj. 2: Further, venial and mortal sin are said to differ in this,
that he who sins mortally loves a creature more than God, while he
who sins venially loves the creature less than God. Now it may happen
that a person in committing a sin generically mortal, loves a
creature less than God; for instance, if anyone being ignorant that
simple fornication is a mortal sin, and contrary to the love of God,
commits the sin of fornication, yet so as to be ready, for the love
of God, to refrain from that sin if he knew that by committing it he
was acting counter to the love of God. Therefore his will be a venial
sin; and accordingly a mortal sin can become venial.

Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 5, Obj. 3), good is more distant
from evil, than venial from mortal sin. But an act which is evil in
itself, can become good; thus to kill a man may be an act of justice,
as when a judge condemns a thief to death. Much more therefore can a
mortal sin become venial.

_On the contrary,_ An eternal thing can never become temporal. But
mortal sin deserves eternal punishment, whereas venial sin deserves
temporal punishment. Therefore a mortal sin can never become venial.

_I answer that,_ Venial and mortal differ as perfect and imperfect in
the genus of sin, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1). Now the imperfect can
become perfect, by some sort of addition: and, consequently, a venial
sin can become mortal, by the addition of some deformity pertaining
to the genus of mortal sin, as when a man utters an idle word for the
purpose of fornication. On the other hand, the perfect cannot become
imperfect, by addition; and so a mortal sin cannot become venial, by
the addition of a deformity pertaining to the genus of venial sin,
for the sin is not diminished if a man commit fornication in order to
utter an idle word; rather is it aggravated by the additional
deformity.

Nevertheless a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by
reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not
completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act, since it is not a
deliberate, but a sudden act, as is evident from what we have said
above (A. 2). This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of
deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from
deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the
species of the act is destroyed.

Reply Obj. 1: Venial differs from mortal as imperfect from
perfect, even as a boy differs from a man. But the boy becomes a man
and not vice versa. Hence the argument does not prove.

Reply Obj. 2: If the ignorance be such as to excuse sin
altogether, as the ignorance of a madman or an imbecile, then he that
commits fornication in a state of such ignorance, commits no sin
either mortal or venial. But if the ignorance be not invincible, then
the ignorance itself is a sin, and contains within itself the lack of
the love of God, in so far as a man neglects to learn those things
whereby he can safeguard himself in the love of God.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Mendacium vii), "those
things which are evil in themselves, cannot be well done for any good
end." Now murder is the slaying of the innocent, and this can nowise
be well done. But, as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. i, 4, 5), the
judge who sentences a thief to death, or the soldier who slays the
enemy of the common weal, are not murderers.
________________________

QUESTION 89

OF VENIAL SIN IN ITSELF
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider venial sin in itself, and under this head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether venial sin causes a stain in the soul?

(2) Of the different kinds of venial sin, as denoted by "wood,"
"hay," "stubble" (1 Cor. 3:12);

(3) Whether man could sin venially in the state of innocence?

(4) Whether a good or a wicked angel can sin venially?

(5) Whether the movements of unbelievers are venial sins?

(6) Whether venial sin can be in a man with original sin alone?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 89, Art. 1]

Whether Venial Sin Causes a Stain on the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin causes a stain in the
soul. For Augustine says (De Poenit.) [*Hom. 50, inter. L., 2], that
if venial sins be multiplied, they destroy the beauty of our souls so
as to deprive us of the embraces of our heavenly spouse. But the
stain of sin is nothing else but the loss of the soul's beauty.
Therefore venial sins cause a stain in the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, mortal sin causes a stain in the soul, on account of
the inordinateness of the act and of the sinner's affections. But, in
venial sin, there is an inordinateness of the act and of the
affections. Therefore venial sin causes a stain in the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, the stain on the soul is caused by contact with a
temporal thing, through love thereof as stated above (Q. 86, A. 1).
But, in venial sin, the soul is in contact with a temporal thing
through inordinate love. therefore, venial sin brings a stain on the
soul.

_On the contrary,_ it is written, (Eph. 5:27): "That He might present
it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle," on
which the gloss says: "i.e., some grievous sin." Therefore it seems
proper to mortal sin to cause a stain on the soul.

I answer that as stated above (Q. 86, A. 1), a stain denotes a loss
of comeliness due to contact with something, as may be seen in
corporeal matters, from which the term has been transferred to the
soul, by way of similitude. Now, just as in the body there is a
twofold comeliness, one resulting from the inward disposition of the
members and colors, the other resulting from outward refulgence
supervening, so too, in the soul, there is a twofold comeliness, one
habitual and, so to speak, intrinsic, the other actual like an
outward flash of light. Now venial sin is a hindrance to actual
comeliness, but not to habitual comeliness, because it neither
destroys nor diminishes the habit of charity and of the other
virtues, as we shall show further on (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10; Q. 133, A.
1, ad 2), but only hinders their acts. On the other hand a stain
denotes something permanent in the thing stained, wherefore it seems
in the nature of a loss of habitual rather than of actual comeliness.
Therefore, properly speaking, venial sin does not cause a stain in
the soul. If, however, we find it stated anywhere that it does induce
a stain, this is in a restricted sense, in so far as it hinders the
comeliness that results from acts of virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of the case in which many venial
sins lead to mortal sin dispositively: because otherwise they would
not sever the soul from its heavenly spouse.

Reply Obj. 2: In mortal sin the inordinateness of the act destroys
the habit of virtue, but not in venial sin.

Reply Obj. 3: In mortal sin the soul comes into contact with a
temporal thing as its end, so that the shedding of the light of
grace, which accrues to those who, by charity, cleave to God as their
last end, is entirely cut off. _On the contrary,_ in venial sin, man
does not cleave to a creature as his last end: hence there is no
comparison.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 89, Art. 2]

Whether Venial Sins Are Suitably Designated As "Wood, Hay, and
Stubble"?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial sins are unsuitably designated
as "wood, hay, and stubble." Because wood, hay, and stubble are said
(1 Cor. 3:12) to be built on a spiritual foundation. Now venial sins
are something outside a spiritual foundation, even as false opinions
are outside the pale of science. Therefore, venial sins are not
suitably designated as wood, hay, and stubble.

Obj. 2: Further, he who builds wood, hay, and stubble, "shall be
saved yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:15). But sometimes the man who
commits a venial sin, will not be saved, even by fire, e.g. when a
man dies in mortal sin to which venial sins are attached. Therefore,
venial sins are unsuitably designated by wood, hay, and stubble.

Obj. 3: Further, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 3:12) those who
build "gold, silver, precious stones," i.e. love of God and our
neighbor, and good works, are others from those who build wood, hay,
and stubble. But those even who love God and their neighbor, and do
good works, commit venial sins: for it is written (1 John 1:8): "If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore venial
sins are not suitably designated by these three.

Obj. 4: Further, there are many more than three differences and
degrees of venial sins. Therefore they are unsuitably comprised under
these three.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:15) that the man who
builds up wood, hay and stubble, "shall be saved yet so as by fire,"
so that he will suffer punishment, but not everlasting. Now the debt
of temporal punishment belongs properly to venial sin, as stated
above (Q. 87, A. 5). Therefore these three signify venial sins.

_I answer that,_ Some have understood the "foundation" to be dead
faith, upon which some build good works, signified by gold, silver,
and precious stones, while others build mortal sins, which according
to them are designated by wood, hay and stubble. But Augustine
disapproves of this explanation (De Fide et Oper. xv), because, as
the Apostle says (Gal. 5:21), he who does the works of the flesh,
"shall not obtain the kingdom of God," which signifies to be saved;
whereas the Apostle says that he who builds wood, hay, and stubble
"shall be saved yet so as by fire." Consequently wood, hay, stubble
cannot be understood to denote mortal sins.

Others say that wood, hay, stubble designate good works, which are
indeed built upon the spiritual edifice, but are mixed with venial
sins: as, when a man is charged with the care of a family, which is a
good thing, excessive love of his wife or of his children or of his
possessions insinuates itself into his life, under God however, so
that, to wit, for the sake of these things he would be unwilling to
do anything in opposition to God. But neither does this seem to be
reasonable. For it is evident that all good works are referred to the
love of God, and one's neighbor, wherefore they are designated by
"gold," "silver," and "precious stones," and consequently not by
"wood," "hay," and "stubble."

We must therefore say that the very venial sins that insinuate
themselves into those who have a care for earthly things, are
designated by wood, hay, and stubble. For just as these are stored in
a house, without belonging to the substance of the house, and can be
burnt, while the house is saved, so also venial sins are multiplied
in a man, while the spiritual edifice remains, and for them, man
suffers fire, either of temporal trials in this life, or of purgatory
after this life, and yet he is saved for ever.

Reply Obj. 1: Venial sins are not said to be built upon the spiritual
foundation, as though they were laid directly upon it, but because
they are laid beside it; in the same sense as it is written (Ps.
136:1): "Upon the waters of Babylon," i.e. "beside the waters":
because venial sins do not destroy the edifice.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not said that everyone who builds wood, hay and
stubble, shall be saved as by fire, but only those who build "upon"
the "foundation." And this foundation is not dead faith, as some have
esteemed, but faith quickened by charity, according to Eph. 3:17:
"Rooted and founded in charity." Accordingly, he that dies in mortal
sin with venial sins, has indeed wood, hay, and stubble, but not
built upon the spiritual edifice; and consequently he will not be
saved so as by fire.

Reply Obj. 3: Although those who are withdrawn from the care of
temporal things, sin venially sometimes, yet they commit but slight
venial sins, and in most cases they are cleansed by the fervor of
charity: wherefore they do not build up venial sins, because these do
not remain long in them. But the venial sins of those who are busy
about earthly things remain longer, because they are unable to have
such frequent recourse to the fervor of charity in order to remove
them.

Reply Obj. 4: As the Philosopher says (De Coelo i, text. 2), "all
things are comprised under three, the beginning, the middle, the
end." Accordingly all degrees of venial sins are reduced to three,
viz. to "wood," which remains longer in the fire; "stubble," which is
burnt up at once; and "hay," which is between these two: because
venial sins are removed by fire, quickly or slowly, according as man
is more or less attached to them.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 89, Art. 3]

Whether Man Could Commit a Venial Sin in the State of Innocence?

Objection 1: It would seem that man could commit a venial sin in the
state of innocence. Because on 1 Tim. 2:14, "Adam was not seduced," a
gloss says: "Having had no experience of God's severity, it was
possible for him to be so mistaken as to think that what he had done
was a venial sin." But he would not have thought this unless he could
have committed a venial sin. Therefore he could commit a venial sin
without sinning mortally.

Obj. 2: Further Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 5): "We must not
suppose that the tempter would have overcome man, unless first of all
there had arisen in man's soul a movement of vainglory which should
have been checked." Now the vainglory which preceded man's defeat,
which was accomplished through his falling into mortal sin, could be
nothing more than a venial sin. In like manner, Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. xi, 5) that "man was allured by a certain desire of making
the experiment, when he saw that the woman did not die when she had
taken the forbidden fruit." Again there seems to have been a certain
movement of unbelief in Eve, since she doubted what the Lord had
said, as appears from her saying (Gen. 3:3): "Lest perhaps we die."
Now these apparently were venial sins. Therefore man could commit a
venial sin before he committed a mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, mortal sin is more opposed to the integrity of the
original state, than venial sin is. Now man could sin mortally
notwithstanding the integrity of the original state. Therefore he
could also sin venially.

_On the contrary,_ Every sin deserves some punishment. But nothing
penal was possible in the state of innocence, as Augustine declares
(De Civ. Dei xiv, 10). Therefore he could not commit a sin that would
not deprive him of that state of integrity. But venial sin does not
change man's state. Therefore he could not sin venially.

_I answer that,_ It is generally admitted that man could not commit a
venial sin in the state of innocence. This, however, is not to be
understood as though on account of the perfection of his state, the
sin which is venial for us would have been mortal for him, if he had
committed it. Because the dignity of a person is circumstance that
aggravates a sin, but it does not transfer it to another species,
unless there be an additional deformity by reason of disobedience, or
vow or the like, which does not apply to the question in point.
Consequently what is venial in itself could not be changed into
mortal by reason of the excellence of the original state. We must
therefore understand this to mean that he could not sin venially,
because it was impossible for him to commit a sin which was venial in
itself, before losing the integrity of the original state by sinning
mortally.

The reason for this is because venial sin occurs in us, either
through the imperfection of the act, as in the case of sudden
movements, in a genus of mortal sin or through some inordinateness in
respect of things referred to the end, the due order of the end being
safeguarded. Now each of these happens on account of some defect of
order, by reason of the lower powers not being checked by the higher.
Because the sudden rising of a movement of the sensuality in us is
due to the sensuality not being perfectly subject to reason: and the
sudden rising of a movement of reason itself is due, in us, to the
fact that the execution of the act of reason is not subject to the
act of deliberation which proceeds from a higher good, as stated
above (Q. 74, A. 10); and that the human mind be out of order as
regards things directed to the end, the due order of the end being
safeguarded, is due to the fact that the things referred to the end
are not infallibly directed under the end, which holds the highest
place, being the beginning, as it were, in matters concerning the
appetite, as stated above (Q. 10, AA. 1, 2, ad 3; Q. 72, A. 5). Now,
in the state of innocence, as stated in the First Part (Q. 95, A. 1),
there was an unerring stability of order, so that the lower powers
were always subjected to the higher, so long as man remained subject
to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 13). Hence there can be
no inordinateness in man, unless first of all the highest part of man
were not subject to God, which constitutes a mortal sin. From this it
is evident that, in the state of innocence, man could not commit a
venial sin, before committing a mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 1: In the passage quoted, venial is not taken in the same
sense as we take it now; but by venial sin we mean that which is
easily forgiven.

Reply Obj. 2: This vainglory which preceded man's downfall, was his
first mortal sin, for it is stated to have preceded his downfall into
the outward act of sin. This vainglory was followed, in the man, by
the desire to make and experiment, and in the woman, by doubt, for
she gave way to vainglory, merely through hearing the serpent mention
the precept, as though she refused to be held in check by the precept.

Reply Obj. 3: Mortal sin is opposed to the integrity of the
original state in the fact of its destroying that state: this a venial
sin cannot do. And because the integrity of the primitive state is
incompatible with any inordinateness whatever, the result is that the
first man could not sin venially, before committing a mortal sin.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 89, Art. 4]

Whether a Good or a Wicked Angel Can Sin Venially?

Objection 1: It seems that a good or wicked angel can sin venially.
Because man agrees with the angels in the higher part of his soul
which is called the mind, according to Gregory, who says (Hom. xxix
in Evang.) that "man understands in common with the angels." But man
can commit a venial sin in the higher part of his soul. Therefore an
angel can commit a venial sin also.

Obj. 2: Further, He that can do more can do less. But an angel could
love a created good more than God, and he did, by sinning mortally.
Therefore he could also love a creature less than God inordinately,
by sinning venially.

Obj. 3: Further, wicked angels seem to do things which are venial
sins generically, by provoking men to laughter, and other like
frivolities. Now the circumstance of the person does not make a
mortal sin to be venial as stated above (A. 3), unless there is a
special prohibition, which is not the case in point. Therefore an
angel can sin venially.

_On the contrary,_ The perfection of an angel is greater than that of
man in the primitive state. But man could not sin venially in the
primitive state, and much less, therefore, can an angel.

_I answer that,_ An angel's intellect, as stated above in the First
Part (Q. 58, A. 3; Q. 79, A. 8), is not discursive, i.e. it does not
proceed from principles to conclusions, so as to understand both
separately, as we do. Consequently, whenever the angelic intellect
considers a conclusion, it must, of necessity, consider it in its
principles. Now in matters of appetite, as we have often stated (Q.
8, A. 2; Q. 10, A. 1; Q. 72, A. 5), ends are like principles, while
the means are like conclusions. Wherefore, an angel's mind is not
directed to the means, except as they stand under the order to the
end. Consequently, from their very nature, they can have no
inordinateness in respect of the means, unless at the same time they
have an inordinateness in respect of the end, and this is a mortal
sin. Now good angels are not moved to the means, except in
subordination to the due end which is God: wherefore all their acts
are acts of charity, so that no venial sin can be in them. On the
other hand, wicked angels are moved to nothing except in
subordination to the end which is their sin of pride. Therefore they
sin mortally in everything that they do of their own will. This does
not apply to the appetite for the natural good, which appetite we
have stated to be in them (I, Q. 63, A. 4; Q. 64, A. 2, ad 5).

Reply Obj. 1: Man does indeed agree with the angels in the mind or
intellect, but he differs in his mode of understanding, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 2: An angel could not love a creature less than God,
without, at the same time, either referring it to God, as the last
end, or to some inordinate end, for the reason given above.

Reply Obj. 3: The demons incite man to all such things which seem
venial, that he may become used to them, so as to lead him on to
mortal sin. Consequently in all such things they sin mortally, on
account of the end they have in view.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 89, Art. 5]

Whether the First Movements of the Sensuality in Unbelievers Are
Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that the first movements of the sensuality
in unbelievers are mortal sins. For the Apostle says (Rom. 8:1) that
"there is . . . no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who
walk not according to the flesh": and he is speaking there of the
concupiscence of the sensuality, as appears from the context (Rom.
7). Therefore the reason why concupiscence is not a matter of
condemnation to those who walk not according to the flesh, i.e. by
consenting to concupiscence, is because they are in Christ Jesus. But
unbelievers are not in Christ Jesus. Therefore in unbelievers this is
a matter of condemnation. Therefore the first movements of
unbelievers are mortal sins.

Obj. 2: Further Anselm says (De Gratia et Lib. Arb. vii): "Those who
are not in Christ, when they feel the sting of the flesh, follow the
road of damnation, even if they walk not according to the flesh." But
damnation is not due save to mortal sin. Therefore, since man feels
the sting of the flesh in the first movements of the concupiscence,
it seems that the first movements of concupiscence in unbelievers are
mortal sins.

Obj. 3: Further, Anselm says (De Gratia et Lib. Arb. vii): "Man was
so made that he was not liable to feel concupiscence." Now this
liability seems to be remitted to man by the grace of Baptism, which
the unbeliever has not. Therefore every act of concupiscence in an
unbeliever, even without his consent, is a mortal sin, because he
acts against his duty.

_On the contrary,_ It is stated in Acts 10:34 that "God is not a
respecter of persons." Therefore he does not impute to one unto
condemnation, what He does not impute to another. But he does not
impute first movements to believers, unto condemnation. Neither
therefore does He impute them to unbelievers.

_I answer that,_ It is unreasonable to say that the first movements
of unbelievers are mortal sins, when they do not consent to them.
This is evident for two reasons. First, because the sensuality itself
could not be the subject of mortal sin, as stated above (Q. 79, A.
4). Now the sensuality has the same nature in unbelievers as in
believers. Therefore it is not possible for the mere movements of the
sensuality in unbelievers, to be mortal sins.

Secondly, from the state of the sinner. Because excellence of the
person never diminishes sin, but, on the contrary, increases it, as
stated above (Q. 73, A. 10). Therefore a sin is not less grievous in
a believer than in an unbeliever, but much more so. For the sins of
an unbeliever are more deserving of forgiveness, on account of their
ignorance, according to 1 Tim. 1:13: "I obtained the mercy of God,
because I did it ignorantly in my unbelief": whereas the sins of
believers are more grievous on account of the sacraments of grace,
according to Heb. 10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth
worse punishments . . . who hath esteemed the blood of the testament
unclean, by which he was sanctified?"

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle is speaking of the condemnation due to
original sin, which condemnation is remitted by the grace of Jesus
Christ, although the _fomes_ of concupiscence remain. Wherefore the
fact that believers are subject to concupiscence is not in them a
sign of the condemnation due to original sin, as it is in unbelievers.

In this way also is to be understood the saying of Anselm, wherefore
the Reply to the Second Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 3: This freedom from liability to concupiscence was a
result of original justice. Wherefore that which is opposed to such
liability pertains, not to actual but to original sin.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 89, Art. 6]

Whether Venial Sin Can Be in Anyone with Original Sin Alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin can be in a man with
original sin alone. For disposition precedes habit. Now venial sin is
a disposition to mortal sin, as stated above (Q. 88, A. 3). Therefore
in an unbeliever, in whom original sin is not remitted, venial sin
exists before mortal sin: and so sometimes unbelievers have venial
together with original sin, and without mortal sins.

Obj. 2: Further, venial sin has less in common, and less connection
with mortal sin, than one mortal sin has with another. But an
unbeliever in the state of original sin, can commit one mortal sin
without committing another. Therefore he can also commit a venial sin
without committing a mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, it is possible to fix the time at which a child is
first able to commit an actual sin: and when the child comes to that
time, it can stay a short time at least, without committing a mortal
sin, because this happens in the worst criminals. Now it is possible
for the child to sin venially during that space of time, however
short it may be. Therefore venial sin can be in anyone with original
sin alone and without mortal sin.

_On the contrary,_ Man is punished for original sin in the children's
limbo, where there is no pain of sense as we shall state further on
(II-II, Q. 69, A. 6): whereas men are punished in hell for no other
than mortal sin. Therefore there will be no place where a man can be
punished for venial sin with no other than original sin.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with
original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is
because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of
years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin,
wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does
anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the
use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or
mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about
then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself
to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of
original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due
end, as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he
will sin mortally, through not doing that which is in his power to
do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him
without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to
him through grace.

Reply Obj. 1: Venial sin always precedes mortal sin not as a
necessary, but as a contingent disposition, just as work sometimes
disposes to fever, but not as heat disposes to the form of fire.

Reply Obj. 2: Venial sin is prevented from being with original sin
alone, not on account of its want of connection or likeness, but on
account of the lack of use of reason, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: The child that is beginning to have the use of reason
can refrain from other mortal sins for a time, but it is not free
from the aforesaid sin of omission, unless it turns to God as soon as
possible. For the first thing that occurs to a man who has
discretion, is to think of himself, and to direct other things to
himself as to their end, since the end is the first thing in the
intention. Therefore this is the time when man is bound by God's
affirmative precept, which the Lord expressed by saying (Zech. 1:3):
"Turn ye to Me . . . and I will turn to you."
________________________

TREATISE ON LAW (QQ. 90-108)
________________________

QUESTION 90

OF THE ESSENCE OF LAW
(In Four Articles)

We have now to consider the extrinsic principles of acts. Now the
extrinsic principle inclining to evil is the devil, of whose
temptations we have spoken in the First Part (Q. 114). But the
extrinsic principle moving to good is God, Who both instructs us by
means of His Law, and assists us by His Grace: wherefore in the first
place we must speak of law; in the second place, of grace.

Concerning law, we must consider: (1) Law itself in general; (2) its
parts. Concerning law in general three points offer themselves for
our consideration: (1) Its essence; (2) The different kinds of law;
(3) The effects of law.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether law is something pertaining to reason?

(2) Concerning the end of law;

(3) Its cause;

(4) The promulgation of law.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 90, Art. 1]

Whether Law Is Something Pertaining to Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that law is not something pertaining to
reason. For the Apostle says (Rom. 7:23): "I see another law in my
members," etc. But nothing pertaining to reason is in the members;
since the reason does not make use of a bodily organ. Therefore law
is not something pertaining to reason.

Obj. 2: Further, in the reason there is nothing else but power,
habit, and act. But law is not the power itself of reason. In like
manner, neither is it a habit of reason: because the habits of reason
are the intellectual virtues of which we have spoken above (Q. 57).
Nor again is it an act of reason: because then law would cease, when
the act of reason ceases, for instance, while we are asleep.
Therefore law is nothing pertaining to reason.

Obj. 3: Further, the law moves those who are subject to it to act
aright. But it belongs properly to the will to move to act, as is
evident from what has been said above (Q. 9, A. 1). Therefore law
pertains, not to the reason, but to the will; according to the words
of the Jurist (Lib. i, ff., De Const. Prin. leg. i): "Whatsoever
pleaseth the sovereign, has force of law."

_On the contrary,_ It belongs to the law to command and to forbid.
But it belongs to reason to command, as stated above (Q. 17, A. 1).
Therefore law is something pertaining to reason.

_I answer that,_ Law is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is
induced to act or is restrained from acting: for _lex_ (law) is
derived from _ligare_ (to bind), because it binds one to act. Now the
rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first
principle of human acts, as is evident from what has been stated
above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 3); since it belongs to the reason to direct to
the end, which is the first principle in all matters of action,
according to the Philosopher (Phys. ii). Now that which is the
principle in any genus, is the rule and measure of that genus: for
instance, unity in the genus of numbers, and the first movement in
the genus of movements. Consequently it follows that law is something
pertaining to reason.

Reply Obj. 1: Since law is a kind of rule and measure, it may be in
something in two ways. First, as in that which measures and rules:
and since this is proper to reason, it follows that, in this way, law
is in the reason alone. Secondly, as in that which is measured and
ruled. In this way, law is in all those things that are inclined to
something by reason of some law: so that any inclination arising from
a law, may be called a law, not essentially but by participation as
it were. And thus the inclination of the members to concupiscence is
called "the law of the members."

Reply Obj. 2: Just as, in external action, we may consider the work
and the work done, for instance the work of building and the house
built; so in the acts of reason, we may consider the act itself of
reason, i.e. to understand and to reason, and something produced by
this act. With regard to the speculative reason, this is first of all
the definition; secondly, the proposition; thirdly, the syllogism or
argument. And since also the practical reason makes use of a
syllogism in respect of the work to be done, as stated above (Q. 13,
A. 3; Q. 76, A. 1) and since as the Philosopher teaches (Ethic. vii,
3); hence we find in the practical reason something that holds the
same position in regard to operations, as, in the speculative
intellect, the proposition holds in regard to conclusions. Such like
universal propositions of the practical intellect that are directed
to actions have the nature of law. And these propositions are
sometimes under our actual consideration, while sometimes they are
retained in the reason by means of a habit.

Reply Obj. 3: Reason has its power of moving from the will, as stated
above (Q. 17, A. 1): for it is due to the fact that one wills the
end, that the reason issues its commands as regards things ordained
to the end. But in order that the volition of what is commanded may
have the nature of law, it needs to be in accord with some rule of
reason. And in this sense is to be understood the saying that the
will of the sovereign has the force of law; otherwise the sovereign's
will would savor of lawlessness rather than of law.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 90, Art. 2]

Whether the Law Is Always Something Directed to the Common Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that the law is not always directed to the
common good as to its end. For it belongs to law to command and to
forbid. But commands are directed to certain individual goods.
Therefore the end of the law is not always the common good.

Obj. 2: Further, the law directs man in his actions. But human
actions are concerned with particular matters. Therefore the law is
directed to some particular good.

Obj. 3: Further, Isidore says (Etym. v, 3): "If the law is based on
reason, whatever is based on reason will be a law." But reason is the
foundation not only of what is ordained to the common good, but also
of that which is directed to private good. Therefore the law is not
only directed to the good of all, but also to the private good of an
individual.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "laws are enacted
for no private profit, but for the common benefit of the citizens."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the law belongs to that
which is a principle of human acts, because it is their rule and
measure. Now as reason is a principle of human acts, so in reason
itself there is something which is the principle in respect of all
the rest: wherefore to this principle chiefly and mainly law must
needs be referred. Now the first principle in practical matters,
which are the object of the practical reason, is the last end: and
the last end of human life is bliss or happiness, as stated above (Q.
2, A. 7; Q. 3, A. 1). Consequently the law must needs regard
principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part
is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man
is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard
properly the relationship to universal happiness. Wherefore the
Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both
happiness and the body politic: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we
call those legal matters "just, which are adapted to produce and
preserve happiness and its parts for the body politic": since the
state is a perfect community, as he says in _Polit._ i, 1.

Now in every genus, that which belongs to it chiefly is the principle
of the others, and the others belong to that genus in subordination
to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the
cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these are said to be hot in so far
as they have a share of fire. Consequently, since the law is chiefly
ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some
individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in
so far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained
to the common good.

Reply Obj. 1: A command denotes an application of a law to matters
regulated by the law. Now the order to the common good, at which the
law aims, is applicable to particular ends. And in this way commands
are given even concerning particular matters.

Reply Obj. 2: Actions are indeed concerned with particular matters:
but those particular matters are referable to the common good, not as
to a common genus or species, but as to a common final cause,
according as the common good is said to be the common end.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as nothing stands firm with regard to the
speculative reason except that which is traced back to the first
indemonstrable principles, so nothing stands firm with regard to the
practical reason, unless it be directed to the last end which is the
common good: and whatever stands to reason in this sense, has the
nature of a law.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 90, Art. 3]

Whether the Reason of Any Man Is Competent to Make Laws?

Objection 1: It would seem that the reason of any man is competent to
make laws. For the Apostle says (Rom. 2:14) that "when the Gentiles,
who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law .
. . they are a law to themselves." Now he says this of all in
general. Therefore anyone can make a law for himself.

Obj. 2: Further, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1), "the
intention of the lawgiver is to lead men to virtue." But every man
can lead another to virtue. Therefore the reason of any man is
competent to make laws.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the sovereign of a state governs the state,
so every father of a family governs his household. But the sovereign
of a state can make laws for the state. Therefore every father of a
family can make laws for his household.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (Etym. v, 10): "A law is an ordinance
of the people, whereby something is sanctioned by the Elders together
with the Commonalty."

_I answer that,_ A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost
the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common
good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the
viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law
belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has
care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of
anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 1, ad 1), a law is in a person not
only as in one that rules, but also by participation as in one that
is ruled. In the latter way each one is a law to himself, in so far
as he shares the direction that he receives from one who rules him.
Hence the same text goes on: "Who show the work of the law written in
their hearts."

Reply Obj. 2: A private person cannot lead another to virtue
efficaciously: for he can only advise, and if his advice be not
taken, it has no coercive power, such as the law should have, in
order to prove an efficacious inducement to virtue, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9). But this coercive power is vested in
the whole people or in some public personage, to whom it belongs to
inflict penalties, as we shall state further on (Q. 92, A. 2, ad 3;
II-II, Q. 64, A. 3). Wherefore the framing of laws belongs to him
alone.

Reply Obj. 3: As one man is a part of the household, so a household
is a part of the state: and the state is a perfect community,
according to _Polit._ i, 1. And therefore, as the good of one man is
not the last end, but is ordained to the common good; so too the good
of one household is ordained to the good of a single state, which is
a perfect community. Consequently he that governs a family, can
indeed make certain commands or ordinances, but not such as to have
properly the force of law.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4]

Whether Promulgation Is Essential to a Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that promulgation is not essential to a
law. For the natural law above all has the character of law. But the
natural law needs no promulgation. Therefore it is not essential to a
law that it be promulgated.

Obj. 2: Further, it belongs properly to a law to bind one to do or
not to do something. But the obligation of fulfilling a law touches
not only those in whose presence it is promulgated, but also others.
Therefore promulgation is not essential to a law.

Obj. 3: Further, the binding force of a law extends even to the
future, since "laws are binding in matters of the future," as the
jurists say (Cod. 1, tit. De lege et constit. leg. vii). But
promulgation concerns those who are present. Therefore it is not
essential to a law.

_On the contrary,_ It is laid down in the _Decretals,_ dist. 4, that
"laws are established when they are promulgated."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), a law is imposed on others
by way of a rule and measure. Now a rule or measure is imposed by
being applied to those who are to be ruled and measured by it.
Wherefore, in order that a law obtain the binding force which is
proper to a law, it must needs be applied to the men who have to be
ruled by it. Such application is made by its being notified to them
by promulgation. Wherefore promulgation is necessary for the law to
obtain its force.

Thus from the four preceding articles, the definition of law may be
gathered; and it is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the
common good, made by him who has care of the community, and
promulgated.

Reply Obj. 1: The natural law is promulgated by the very fact that
God instilled it into man's mind so as to be known by him naturally.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who are not present when a law is promulgated,
are bound to observe the law, in so far as it is notified or can be
notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated.

Reply Obj. 3: The promulgation that takes place now, extends to
future time by reason of the durability of written characters, by
which means it is continually promulgated. Hence Isidore says (Etym.
v, 3; ii, 10) that "_lex_ (law) is derived from _legere_ (to read)
because it is written."
________________________

QUESTION 91

OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF LAW
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the various kinds of law: under which head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is an eternal law?

(2) Whether there is a natural law?

(3) Whether there is a human law?

(4) Whether there is a Divine law?

(5) Whether there is one Divine law, or several?

(6) Whether there is a law of sin?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 91, Art. 1]

Whether There Is an Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no eternal law. Because
every law is imposed on someone. But there was not someone from
eternity on whom a law could be imposed: since God alone was from
eternity. Therefore no law is eternal.

Obj. 2: Further, promulgation is essential to law. But promulgation
could not be from eternity: because there was no one to whom it could
be promulgated from eternity. Therefore no law can be eternal.

Obj. 3: Further, a law implies order to an end. But nothing ordained
to an end is eternal: for the last end alone is eternal. Therefore no
law is eternal.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "That Law
which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than
unchangeable and eternal."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, A. 1, ad 2; AA. 3, 4), a law
is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the
ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted
that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the
First Part (Q. 22, AA. 1, 2), that the whole community of the
universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very Idea of the
government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature
of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not
subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. 8:23, therefore it
is that this kind of law must be called eternal.

Reply Obj. 1: Those things that are not in themselves, exist with
God, inasmuch as they are foreknown and preordained by Him, according
to Rom. 4:17: "Who calls those things that are not, as those that
are." Accordingly the eternal concept of the Divine law bears the
character of an eternal law, in so far as it is ordained by God to
the government of things foreknown by Him.

Reply Obj. 2: Promulgation is made by word of mouth or in writing;
and in both ways the eternal law is promulgated: because both the
Divine Word and the writing of the Book of Life are eternal. But the
promulgation cannot be from eternity on the part of the creature that
hears or reads.

Reply Obj. 3: The law implies order to the end actively, in so far as
it directs certain things to the end; but not passively--that is to
say, the law itself is not ordained to the end--except accidentally,
in a governor whose end is extrinsic to him, and to which end his law
must needs be ordained. But the end of the Divine government is God
Himself, and His law is not distinct from Himself. Wherefore the
eternal law is not ordained to another end.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2]

Whether There Is in Us a Natural Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no natural law in us.
Because man is governed sufficiently by the eternal law: for
Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i) that "the eternal law is that by
which it is right that all things should be most orderly." But nature
does not abound in superfluities as neither does she fail in
necessaries. Therefore no law is natural to man.

Obj. 2: Further, by the law man is directed, in his acts, to the end,
as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2). But the directing of human acts to
their end is not a function of nature, as is the case in irrational
creatures, which act for an end solely by their natural appetite;
whereas man acts for an end by his reason and will. Therefore no law
is natural to man.

Obj. 3: Further, the more a man is free, the less is he under the
law. But man is freer than all the animals, on account of his
free-will, with which he is endowed above all other animals. Since
therefore other animals are not subject to a natural law, neither is
man subject to a natural law.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Rom. 2:14: "When the Gentiles, who have
not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law," comments
as follows: "Although they have no written law, yet they have the
natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is
good and what is evil."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, A. 1, ad 1), law, being a
rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in
him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is
ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as
it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things
subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal
law, as was stated above (A. 1); it is evident that all things
partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its
being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to
their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational
creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way,
in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident
both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the
Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper
act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the
rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after
saying (Ps. 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though
someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who
showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The
light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying
that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and
what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing
else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore
evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational
creature's participation of the eternal law.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument would hold, if the natural law were
something different from the eternal law: whereas it is nothing but a
participation thereof, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Every act of reason and will in us is based on that
which is according to nature, as stated above (Q. 10, A. 1): for
every act of reasoning is based on principles that are known
naturally, and every act of appetite in respect of the means is
derived from the natural appetite in respect of the last end.
Accordingly the first direction of our acts to their end must needs
be in virtue of the natural law.

Reply Obj. 3: Even irrational animals partake in their own way of the
Eternal Reason, just as the rational creature does. But because the
rational creature partakes thereof in an intellectual and rational
manner, therefore the participation of the eternal law in the
rational creature is properly called a law, since a law is something
pertaining to reason, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 1). Irrational
creatures, however, do not partake thereof in a rational manner,
wherefore there is no participation of the eternal law in them,
except by way of similitude.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 91, Art. 3]

Whether There Is a Human Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is not a human law. For the
natural law is a participation of the eternal law, as stated above
(A. 2). Now through the eternal law "all things are most orderly," as
Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Therefore the natural law
suffices for the ordering of all human affairs. Consequently there is
no need for a human law.

Obj. 2: Further, a law bears the character of a measure, as stated
above (Q. 90, A. 1). But human reason is not a measure of things, but
vice versa, as stated in _Metaph._ x, text. 5. Therefore no law can
emanate from human reason.

Obj. 3: Further, a measure should be most certain, as stated in
_Metaph._ x, text. 3. But the dictates of human reason in matters of
conduct are uncertain, according to Wis. 9:14: "The thoughts of
mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." Therefore no law
can emanate from human reason.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) distinguishes two
kinds of law, the one eternal, the other temporal, which he calls
human.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, A. 1, ad 2), a law is a
dictate of the practical reason. Now it is to be observed that the
same procedure takes place in the practical and in the speculative
reason: for each proceeds from principles to conclusions, as stated
above (ibid.). Accordingly we conclude that just as, in the
speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles,
we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of
which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of
reason, so too it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from
general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to
proceed to the more particular determination of certain matters.
These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called
human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be
observed, as stated above (Q. 90, AA. 2, 3, 4). Wherefore Tully says
in his _Rhetoric_ (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "justice has its source
in nature; thence certain things came into custom by reason of their
utility; afterwards these things which emanated from nature and were
approved by custom, were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the
law."

Reply Obj. 1: The human reason cannot have a full participation of
the dictate of the Divine Reason, but according to its own mode, and
imperfectly. Consequently, as on the part of the speculative reason,
by a natural participation of Divine Wisdom, there is in us the
knowledge of certain general principles, but not proper knowledge of
each single truth, such as that contained in the Divine Wisdom; so
too, on the part of the practical reason, man has a natural
participation of the eternal law, according to certain general
principles, but not as regards the particular determinations of
individual cases, which are, however, contained in the eternal law.
Hence the need for human reason to proceed further to sanction them
by law.

Reply Obj. 2: Human reason is not, of itself, the rule of things: but
the principles impressed on it by nature, are general rules and
measures of all things relating to human conduct, whereof the natural
reason is the rule and measure, although it is not the measure of
things that are from nature.

Reply Obj. 3: The practical reason is concerned with practical
matters, which are singular and contingent: but not with necessary
things, with which the speculative reason is concerned. Wherefore
human laws cannot have that inerrancy that belongs to the
demonstrated conclusions of sciences. Nor is it necessary for every
measure to be altogether unerring and certain, but according as it
is possible in its own particular genus.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 91, Art. 4]

Whether There Was Any Need for a Divine Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was no need for a Divine law.
Because, as stated above (A. 2), the natural law is a participation
in us of the eternal law. But the eternal law is a Divine law, as
stated above (A. 1). Therefore there was no need for a Divine law in
addition to the natural law, and human laws derived therefrom.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 15:14) that "God left man in
the hand of his own counsel." Now counsel is an act of reason, as
stated above (Q. 14, A. 1). Therefore man was left to the direction
of his reason. But a dictate of human reason is a human law as stated
above (A. 3). Therefore there is no need for man to be governed also
by a Divine law.

Obj. 3: Further, human nature is more self-sufficing than irrational
creatures. But irrational creatures have no Divine law besides the
natural inclination impressed on them. Much less, therefore, should
the rational creature have a Divine law in addition to the natural
law.

_On the contrary,_ David prayed God to set His law before him, saying
(Ps. 118:33): "Set before me for a law the way of Thy justifications,
O Lord."

_I answer that,_ Besides the natural and the human law it was
necessary for the directing of human conduct to have a Divine law.
And this for four reasons. First, because it is by law that man is
directed how to perform his proper acts in view of his last end. And
indeed if man were ordained to no other end than that which is
proportionate to his natural faculty, there would be no need for man
to have any further direction of the part of his reason, besides the
natural law and human law which is derived from it. But since man is
ordained to an end of eternal happiness which is improportionate to
man's natural faculty, as stated above (Q. 5, A. 5), therefore it was
necessary that, besides the natural and the human law, man should be
directed to his end by a law given by God.

Secondly, because, on account of the uncertainty of human judgment,
especially on contingent and particular matters, different people
form different judgments on human acts; whence also different and
contrary laws result. In order, therefore, that man may know without
any doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was
necessary for man to be directed in his proper acts by a law given by
God, for it is certain that such a law cannot err.

Thirdly, because man can make laws in those matters of which he is
competent to judge. But man is not competent to judge of interior
movements, that are hidden, but only of exterior acts which appear:
and yet for the perfection of virtue it is necessary for man to
conduct himself aright in both kinds of acts. Consequently human law
could not sufficiently curb and direct interior acts; and it was
necessary for this purpose that a Divine law should supervene.

Fourthly, because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5, 6), human
law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since while aiming at
doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things,
and would hinder the advance of the common good, which is necessary
for human intercourse. In order, therefore, that no evil might remain
unforbidden and unpunished, it was necessary for the Divine law to
supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.

And these four causes are touched upon in Ps. 118:8, where it is
said: "The law of the Lord is unspotted," i.e. allowing no foulness
of sin; "converting souls," because it directs not only exterior, but
also interior acts; "the testimony of the Lord is faithful," because
of the certainty of what is true and right; "giving wisdom to little
ones," by directing man to an end supernatural and Divine.

Reply Obj. 1: By the natural law the eternal law is participated
proportionately to the capacity of human nature. But to his
supernatural end man needs to be directed in a yet higher way. Hence
the additional law given by God, whereby man shares more perfectly in
the eternal law.

Reply Obj. 2: Counsel is a kind of inquiry: hence it must proceed
from some principles. Nor is it enough for it to proceed from
principles imparted by nature, which are the precepts of the natural
law, for the reasons given above: but there is need for certain
additional principles, namely, the precepts of the Divine law.

Reply Obj. 3: Irrational creatures are not ordained to an end higher
than that which is proportionate to their natural powers:
consequently the comparison fails.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 91, Art. 5]

Whether There Is but One Divine Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one Divine law. Because,
where there is one king in one kingdom there is but one law. Now the
whole of mankind is compared to God as to one king, according to Ps.
46:8: "God is the King of all the earth." Therefore there is but one
Divine law.

Obj. 2: Further, every law is directed to the end which the
lawgiver intends for those for whom he makes the law. But God intends
one and the same thing for all men; since according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "He
will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the
truth." Therefore there is but one Divine law.

Obj. 3: Further, the Divine law seems to be more akin to the
eternal law, which is one, than the natural law, according as the
revelation of grace is of a higher order than natural knowledge.
Therefore much more is the Divine law but one.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 7:12): "The priesthood being
translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the
law." But the priesthood is twofold, as stated in the same passage,
viz. the levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ. Therefore
the Divine law is twofold, namely the Old Law and the New Law.

_I answer that,_ As stated in the First Part (Q. 30, A. 3),
distinction is the cause of number. Now things may be distinguished
in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically
different, e.g. a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect
in the same species, e.g. a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine
law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Gal. 3:24, 25)
compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under
a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full
grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue."

Now the perfection and imperfection of these two laws is to be taken
in connection with the three conditions pertaining to law, as stated
above. For, in the first place, it belongs to law to be directed to
the common good as to its end, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2). This
good may be twofold. It may be a sensible and earthly good; and to
this, man was directly ordained by the Old Law: wherefore, at the
very outset of the law, the people were invited to the earthly
kingdom of the Chananaeans (Ex. 3:8, 17). Again it may be an
intelligible and heavenly good: and to this, man is ordained by the
New Law. Wherefore, at the very beginning of His preaching, Christ
invited men to the kingdom of heaven, saying (Matt. 4:17): "Do
penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Hence Augustine says
(Contra Faust. iv) that "promises of temporal goods are contained in
the Old Testament, for which reason it is called old; but the promise
of eternal life belongs to the New Testament."

Secondly, it belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the
order of righteousness (A. 4): wherein also the New Law surpasses the
Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to Matt. 5:20:
"Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and
Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Hence the
saying that "the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls
the mind" ( Sentent. iii, D, xl).

Thirdly, it belongs to the law to induce men to observe its
commandments. This the Old Law did by the fear of punishment: but the
New Law, by love, which is poured into our hearts by the grace of
Christ, bestowed in the New Law, but foreshadowed in the Old. Hence
Augustine says (Contra Adimant. Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is
little difference [*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words
'timor' and 'amor'--'fear' and 'love.'] between the Law and the
Gospel--fear and love."

Reply Obj. 1: As the father of a family issues different commands to
the children and to the adults, so also the one King, God, in His one
kingdom, gave one law to men, while they were yet imperfect, and
another more perfect law, when, by the preceding law, they had been
led to a greater capacity for Divine things.

Reply Obj. 2: The salvation of man could not be achieved otherwise
than through Christ, according to Acts 4:12: "There is no other name
. . . given to men, whereby we must be saved." Consequently the law
that brings all to salvation could not be given until after the
coming of Christ. But before His coming it was necessary to give to
the people, of whom Christ was to be born, a law containing certain
rudiments of righteousness unto salvation, in order to prepare them
to receive Him.

Reply Obj. 3: The natural law directs man by way of certain general
precepts, common to both the perfect and the imperfect: wherefore it
is one and the same for all. But the Divine law directs man also in
certain particular matters, to which the perfect and imperfect do not
stand in the same relation. Hence the necessity for the Divine law to
be twofold, as already explained.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 91, Art. 6]

Whether There Is a Law in the Fomes of Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no law of the _fomes_ of
sin. For Isidore says (Etym. v) that the "law is based on reason."
But the _fomes_ of sin is not based on reason, but deviates from it.
Therefore the _fomes_ has not the nature of a law.

Obj. 2: Further, every law is binding, so that those who do not obey
it are called transgressors. But man is not called a transgressor,
from not following the instigations of the _fomes;_ but rather from
his following them. Therefore the _fomes_ has not the nature of a law.

Obj. 3: Further, the law is ordained to the common good, as stated
above (Q. 90, A. 2). But the _fomes_ inclines us, not to the common,
but to our own private good. Therefore the _fomes_ has not the nature
of sin.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 7:23): "I see another law
in my members, fighting against the law of my mind."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2; Q. 90, A. 1, ad 1), the law,
as to its essence, resides in him that rules and measures; but, by
way of participation, in that which is ruled and measured; so that
every inclination or ordination which may be found in things subject
to the law, is called a law by participation, as stated above (A. 2;
Q. 90, A. 1, ad 1). Now those who are subject to a law may receive a
twofold inclination from the lawgiver. First, in so far as he
directly inclines his subjects to something; sometimes indeed
different subjects to different acts; in this way we may say that
there is a military law and a mercantile law. Secondly, indirectly;
thus by the very fact that a lawgiver deprives a subject of some
dignity, the latter passes into another order, so as to be under
another law, as it were: thus if a soldier be turned out of the army,
he becomes a subject of rural or of mercantile legislation.

Accordingly under the Divine Lawgiver various creatures have various
natural inclinations, so that what is, as it were, a law for one, is
against the law for another: thus I might say that fierceness is, in
a way, the law of a dog, but against the law of a sheep or another
meek animal. And so the law of man, which, by the Divine ordinance,
is allotted to him, according to his proper natural condition, is
that he should act in accordance with reason: and this law was so
effective in the primitive state, that nothing either beside or
against reason could take man unawares. But when man turned his back
on God, he fell under the influence of his sensual impulses: in fact
this happens to each one individually, the more he deviates from the
path of reason, so that, after a fashion, he is likened to the beasts
that are led by the impulse of sensuality, according to Ps. 48:21:
"Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he hath been compared
to senseless beasts, and made like to them."

So, then, this very inclination of sensuality which is called the
_fomes,_ in other animals has simply the nature of a law (yet only in
so far as a law may be said to be in such things), by reason of a
direct inclination. But in man, it has not the nature of law in this
way, rather is it a deviation from the law of reason. But since, by
the just sentence of God, man is destitute of original justice, and
his reason bereft of its vigor, this impulse of sensuality, whereby
he is led, in so far as it is a penalty following from the Divine law
depriving man of his proper dignity, has the nature of a law.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the _fomes_ in itself, as an
incentive to evil. It is not thus that it has the nature of a law, as
stated above, but according as it results from the justice of the
Divine law: it is as though we were to say that the law allows a
nobleman to be condemned to hard labor for some misdeed.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers law in the light of a rule or
measure: for it is in this sense that those who deviate from the law
become transgressors. But the _fomes_ is not a law in this respect,
but by a kind of participation, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the _fomes_ as to its proper
inclination, and not as to its origin. And yet if the inclination of
sensuality be considered as it is in other animals, thus it is
ordained to the common good, namely, to the preservation of nature in
the species or in the individual. And this is in man also, in so far
as sensuality is subject to reason. But it is called _fomes_ in so
far as it strays from the order of reason.
________________________

QUESTION 92

OF THE EFFECTS OF LAW
(In Two articles)

We must now consider the effects of law; under which head there are
two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether an effect of law is to make men good?

(2) Whether the effects of law are to command, to forbid, to permit,
and to punish, as the Jurist states?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 92, Art. 1]

Whether an Effect of Law Is to Make Men Good?

Objection 1: It seems that it is not an effect of law to make men
good. For men are good through virtue, since virtue, as stated in
_Ethic._ ii, 6 is "that which makes its subject good." But virtue is
in man from God alone, because He it is Who "works it in us without
us," as we stated above (Q. 55, A. 4) in giving the definition of
virtue. Therefore the law does not make men good.

Obj. 2: Further, Law does not profit a man unless he obeys it. But
the very fact that a man obeys a law is due to his being good.
Therefore in man goodness is presupposed to the law. Therefore the
law does not make men good.

Obj. 3: Further, Law is ordained to the common good, as stated above
(Q. 90, A. 2). But some behave well in things regarding the
community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore
it is not the business of the law to make men good.

Obj. 4: Further, some laws are tyrannical, as the Philosopher says
(Polit. iii, 6). But a tyrant does not intend the good of his
subjects, but considers only his own profit. Therefore law does not
make men good.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that the
"intention of every lawgiver is to make good citizens."

_I answer that,_ as stated above (Q. 90, A. 1, ad 2; AA. 3, 4), a law
is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his
subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing
consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is
regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and
concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason;
and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being
well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But
every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it.
Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead
its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which
makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is
to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some
particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on
true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine
justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good
simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that
which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in
opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good
simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way
good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man
is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to
his end.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue is twofold, as explained above (Q. 63, A. 2),
viz. acquired and infused. Now the fact of being accustomed to an
action contributes to both, but in different ways; for it causes the
acquired virtue; while it disposes to infused virtue, and preserves
and fosters it when it already exists. And since law is given for the
purpose of directing human acts; as far as human acts conduce to
virtue, so far does law make men good. Wherefore the Philosopher says
in the second book of the Politics (Ethic. ii) that "lawgivers make
men good by habituating them to good works."

Reply Obj. 2: It is not always through perfect goodness of virtue
that one obeys the law, but sometimes it is through fear of
punishment, and sometimes from the mere dictates of reason, which is
a beginning of virtue, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 3: The goodness of any part is considered in comparison
with the whole; hence Augustine says (Confess. iii) that "unseemly is
the part that harmonizes not with the whole." Since then every man is
a part of the state, it is impossible that a man be good, unless he
be well proportionate to the common good: nor can the whole be well
consistent unless its parts be proportionate to it. Consequently the
common good of the state cannot flourish, unless the citizens be
virtuous, at least those whose business it is to govern. But it is
enough for the good of the community, that the other citizens be so
far virtuous that they obey the commands of their rulers. Hence the
Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that "the virtue of a sovereign is
the same as that of a good man, but the virtue of any common citizen
is not the same as that of a good man."

Reply Obj. 4: A tyrannical law, through not being according to
reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of
law; and yet in so far as it is something in the nature of a law, it
aims at the citizens' being good. For all it has in the nature of a
law consists in its being an ordinance made by a superior to his
subjects, and aims at being obeyed by them, which is to make them
good, not simply, but with respect to that particular government.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 92, Art. 2]

Whether the Acts of Law Are Suitably Assigned?

Objection 1: It would seem that the acts of law are not suitably
assigned as consisting in "command, prohibition, permission, and
punishment." For "every law is a general precept," as the Jurist
states. But command and precept are the same. Therefore the other
three are superfluous.

Obj. 2: Further, the effect of a law is to induce its subjects to be
good, as stated above (A. 1). But counsel aims at a higher good than
a command does. Therefore it belongs to law to counsel rather than to
command.

Obj. 3: Further, just as punishment stirs a man to good deeds, so
does reward. Therefore if to punish is reckoned an effect of law, so
also is to reward.

Obj. 4: Further, the intention of a lawgiver is to make men good, as
stated above (A. 1). But he that obeys the law, merely through fear
of being punished, is not good: because "although a good deed may be
done through servile fear, i.e. fear of punishment, it is not done
well," as Augustine says (Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ii). Therefore
punishment is not a proper effect of law.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (Etym. v, 19): "Every law either
permits something, as: 'A brave man may demand his reward'": or
forbids something, as: "No man may ask a consecrated virgin in
marriage": or punishes, as: "Let him that commits a murder be put to
death."

_I answer that,_ Just as an assertion is a dictate of reason
asserting something, so is a law a dictate of reason, commanding
something. Now it is proper to reason to lead from one thing to
another. Wherefore just as, in demonstrative sciences, the reason
leads us from certain principles to assent to the conclusion, so it
induces us by some means to assent to the precept of the law.

Now the precepts of law are concerned with human acts, in which the
law directs, as stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2; Q. 91, A. 4). Again
there are three kinds of human acts: for, as stated above (Q. 18, A.
8), some acts are good generically, viz. acts of virtue; and in
respect of these the act of the law is a precept or command, for "the
law commands all acts of virtue" (Ethic. v, 1). Some acts are evil
generically, viz. acts of vice, and in respect of these the law
forbids. Some acts are generically indifferent, and in respect of
these the law permits; and all acts that are either not distinctly
good or not distinctly bad may be called indifferent. And it is the
fear of punishment that law makes use of in order to ensure
obedience: in which respect punishment is an effect of law.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as to cease from evil is a kind of good, so a
prohibition is a kind of precept: and accordingly, taking precept in
a wide sense, every law is a kind of precept.

Reply Obj. 2: To advise is not a proper act of law, but may be within
the competency even of a private person, who cannot make a law.
Wherefore too the Apostle, after giving a certain counsel (1 Cor.
7:12) says: "I speak, not the Lord." Consequently it is not reckoned
as an effect of law.

Reply Obj. 3: To reward may also pertain to anyone: but to punish
pertains to none but the framer of the law, by whose authority the
pain is inflicted. Wherefore to reward is not reckoned an effect of
law, but only to punish.

Reply Obj. 4: From becoming accustomed to avoid evil and fulfill what
is good, through fear of punishment, one is sometimes led on to do so
likewise, with delight and of one's own accord. Accordingly, law,
even by punishing, leads men on to being good.
________________________

QUESTION 93

OF THE ETERNAL LAW
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider each law by itself; and (1) The eternal law; (2)
The natural law; (3) The human law; (4) The old law; (5) The new law,
which is the law of the Gospel. Of the sixth law which is the law of
the _fomes,_ suffice what we have said when treating of original sin.

Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:

(1) What is the eternal law?

(2) Whether it is known to all?

(3) Whether every law is derived from it?

(4) Whether necessary things are subject to the eternal law?

(5) Whether natural contingencies are subject to the eternal law?

(6) Whether all human things are subject to it?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 93, Art. 1]

Whether the Eternal Law Is a Sovereign Type [*Ratio] Existing in God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the eternal law is not a sovereign
type existing in God. For there is only one eternal law. But there
are many types of things in the Divine mind; for Augustine says (Qq.
lxxxiii, qu. 46) that God "made each thing according to its type."
Therefore the eternal law does not seem to be a type existing in the
Divine mind.

Obj. 2: Further, it is essential to a law that it be promulgated by
word, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 4). But Word is a Personal name in
God, as stated in the First Part (Q. 34, A. 1): whereas type refers
to the Essence. Therefore the eternal law is not the same as a Divine
type.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxx): "We see a law
above our minds, which is called truth." But the law which is above
our minds is the eternal law. Therefore truth is the eternal law. But
the idea of truth is not the same as the idea of a type. Therefore
the eternal law is not the same as the sovereign type.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "the
eternal law is the sovereign type, to which we must always conform."

_I answer that,_ Just as in every artificer there pre-exists a type
of the things that are made by his art, so too in every governor
there must pre-exist the type of the order of those things that are
to be done by those who are subject to his government. And just as
the type of the things yet to be made by an art is called the art or
exemplar of the products of that art, so too the type in him who
governs the acts of his subjects, bears the character of a law,
provided the other conditions be present which we have mentioned
above (Q. 90). Now God, by His wisdom, is the Creator of all things
in relation to which He stands as the artificer to the products of
his art, as stated in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 8). Moreover He
governs all the acts and movements that are to be found in each
single creature, as was also stated in the First Part (Q. 103, A. 5).
Wherefore as the type of the Divine Wisdom, inasmuch as by It all
things are created, has the character of art, exemplar or idea; so
the type of Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end,
bears the character of law. Accordingly the eternal law is nothing
else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as directing all actions and
movements.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking in that passage of the ideal
types which regard the proper nature of each single thing; and
consequently in them there is a certain distinction and plurality,
according to their different relations to things, as stated in the
First Part (Q. 15, A. 2). But law is said to direct human acts by
ordaining them to the common good, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2). And
things, which are in themselves different, may be considered as one,
according as they are ordained to one common thing. Wherefore the
eternal law is one since it is the type of this order.

Reply Obj. 2: With regard to any sort of word, two points may be
considered: viz. the word itself, and that which is expressed by the
word. For the spoken word is something uttered by the mouth of man,
and expresses that which is signified by the human word. The same
applies to the human mental word, which is nothing else than
something conceived by the mind, by which man expresses his thoughts
mentally. So then in God the Word conceived by the intellect of the
Father is the name of a Person: but all things that are in the
Father's knowledge, whether they refer to the Essence or to the
Persons, or to the works of God, are expressed by this Word, as
Augustine declares (De Trin. xv, 14). And among other things
expressed by this Word, the eternal law itself is expressed thereby.
Nor does it follow that the eternal law is a Personal name in God:
yet it is appropriated to the Son, on account of the kinship between
type and word.

Reply Obj. 3: The types of the Divine intellect do not stand in the
same relation to things, as the types of the human intellect. For the
human intellect is measured by things, so that a human concept is not
true by reason of itself, but by reason of its being consonant with
things, since "an opinion is true or false according as it answers to
the reality." But the Divine intellect is the measure of things:
since each thing has so far truth in it, as it represents the Divine
intellect, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 16, A. 1).
Consequently the Divine intellect is true in itself; and its type is
truth itself.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 93, Art. 2]

Whether the Eternal Law Is Known to All?

Objection 1: It would seem that the eternal law is not known to all.
Because, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:11), "the things that are of
God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God." But the eternal law is a
type existing in the Divine mind. Therefore it is unknown to all save
God alone.

Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) "the eternal
law is that by which it is right that all things should be most
orderly." But all do not know how all things are most orderly.
Therefore all do not know the eternal law.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that "the
eternal law is not subject to the judgment of man." But according to
_Ethic._ i, "any man can judge well of what he knows." Therefore the
eternal law is not known to us.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "knowledge
of the eternal law is imprinted on us."

_I answer that,_ A thing may be known in two ways: first, in itself;
secondly, in its effect, wherein some likeness of that thing is
found: thus someone not seeing the sun in its substance, may know it
by its rays. So then no one can know the eternal law, as it is in
itself, except the blessed who see God in His Essence. But every
rational creature knows it in its reflection, greater or less. For
every knowledge of truth is a kind of reflection and participation of
the eternal law, which is the unchangeable truth, as Augustine says
(De Vera Relig. xxxi). Now all men know the truth to a certain
extent, at least as to the common principles of the natural law: and
as to the others, they partake of the knowledge of truth, some more,
some less; and in this respect are more or less cognizant of the
eternal law.

Reply Obj. 1: We cannot know the things that are of God, as they are
in themselves; but they are made known to us in their effects,
according to Rom. 1:20: "The invisible things of God . . . are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."

Reply Obj. 2: Although each one knows the eternal law according to
his own capacity, in the way explained above, yet none can comprehend
it: for it cannot be made perfectly known by its effects. Therefore
it does not follow that anyone who knows the eternal law in the way
aforesaid, knows also the whole order of things, whereby they are
most orderly.

Reply Obj. 3: To judge a thing may be understood in two ways. First,
as when a cognitive power judges of its proper object, according to
Job 12:11: "Doth not the ear discern words, and the palate of him
that eateth, the taste?" It is to this kind of judgment that the
Philosopher alludes when he says that "anyone can judge well of what
he knows," by judging, namely, whether what is put forward is true.
In another way we speak of a superior judging of a subordinate by a
kind of practical judgment, as to whether he should be such and such
or not. And thus none can judge of the eternal law.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 93, Art. 3]

Whether Every Law Is Derived from the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that not every law is derived from the
eternal law. For there is a law of the _fomes,_ as stated above (Q.
91, A. 6), which is not derived from that Divine law which is the
eternal law, since thereunto pertains the "prudence of the flesh," of
which the Apostle says (Rom. 8:7), that "it cannot be subject to the
law of God." Therefore not every law is derived from the eternal law.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing unjust can be derived from the eternal law,
because, as stated above (A. 2, Obj. 2), "the eternal law is that,
according to which it is right that all things should be most
orderly." But some laws are unjust, according to Isa. 10:1: "Woe to
them that make wicked laws." Therefore not every law is derived from
the eternal law.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) that "the law
which is framed for ruling the people, rightly permits many things
which are punished by Divine providence." But the type of Divine
providence is the eternal law, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore not
even every good law is derived from the eternal law.

_On the contrary,_ Divine Wisdom says (Prov. 8:15): "By Me kings
reign, and lawgivers decree just things." But the type of Divine
Wisdom is the eternal law, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore all laws
proceed from the eternal law.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2), the law denotes a
kind of plan directing acts towards an end. Now wherever there are
movers ordained to one another, the power of the second mover must
needs be derived from the power of the first mover; since the second
mover does not move except in so far as it is moved by the first.
Wherefore we observe the same in all those who govern, so that the
plan of government is derived by secondary governors from the
governor in chief; thus the plan of what is to be done in a state
flows from the king's command to his inferior administrators: and
again in things of art the plan of whatever is to be done by art
flows from the chief craftsman to the under-craftsmen, who work with
their hands. Since then the eternal law is the plan of government in
the Chief Governor, all the plans of government in the inferior
governors must be derived from the eternal law. But these plans of
inferior governors are all other laws besides the eternal law.
Therefore all laws, in so far as they partake of right reason, are
derived from the eternal law. Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i,
6) that "in temporal law there is nothing just and lawful, but what
man has drawn from the eternal law."

Reply Obj. 1: The _fomes_ has the nature of law in man, in so far as
it is a punishment resulting from Divine justice; and in this respect
it is evident that it is derived from the eternal law. But in so far
as it denotes a proneness to sin, it is contrary to the Divine law,
and has not the nature of law, as stated above (Q. 91, A. 6).

Reply Obj. 2: Human law has the nature of law in so far as it
partakes of right reason; and it is clear that, in this respect, it
is derived from the eternal law. But in so far as it deviates from
reason, it is called an unjust law, and has the nature, not of law
but of violence. Nevertheless even an unjust law, in so far as it
retains some appearance of law, though being framed by one who is in
power, is derived from the eternal law; since all power is from the
Lord God, according to Rom. 13:1.

Reply Obj. 3: Human law is said to permit certain things, not as
approving them, but as being unable to direct them. And many things
are directed by the Divine law, which human law is unable to direct,
because more things are subject to a higher than to a lower cause.
Hence the very fact that human law does not meddle with matters it
cannot direct, comes under the ordination of the eternal law. It
would be different, were human law to sanction what the eternal law
condemns. Consequently it does not follow that human law is not
derived from the eternal law, but that it is not on a perfect
equality with it.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 93, Art. 4]

Whether Necessary and Eternal Things Are Subject to the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that necessary and eternal things are
subject to the eternal law. For whatever is reasonable is subject to
reason. But the Divine will is reasonable, for it is just. Therefore
it is subject to (the Divine) reason. But the eternal law is the
Divine reason. Therefore God's will is subject to the eternal law.
But God's will is eternal. Therefore eternal and necessary things are
subject to the eternal law.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is subject to the King, is subject to the
King's law. Now the Son, according to 1 Cor. 15:28, 24, "shall be
subject . . . to God and the Father . . . when He shall have
delivered up the Kingdom to Him." Therefore the Son, Who is eternal,
is subject to the eternal law.

Obj. 3: Further, the eternal law is Divine providence as a type. But
many necessary things are subject to Divine providence: for instance,
the stability of incorporeal substances and of the heavenly bodies.
Therefore even necessary things are subject to the eternal law.

_On the contrary,_ Things that are necessary cannot be otherwise, and
consequently need no restraining. But laws are imposed on men, in
order to restrain them from evil, as explained above (Q. 92, A. 2).
Therefore necessary things are not subject to the eternal law.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the eternal law is the type
of the Divine government. Consequently whatever is subject to the
Divine government, is subject to the eternal law: while if anything
is not subject to the Divine government, neither is it subject to the
eternal law. The application of this distinction may be gathered by
looking around us. For those things are subject to human government,
which can be done by man; but what pertains to the nature of man is
not subject to human government; for instance, that he should have a
soul, hands, or feet. Accordingly all that is in things created by
God, whether it be contingent or necessary, is subject to the eternal
law: while things pertaining to the Divine Nature or Essence are not
subject to the eternal law, but are the eternal law itself.

Reply Obj. 1: We may speak of God's will in two ways. First, as to
the will itself: and thus, since God's will is His very Essence, it
is subject neither to the Divine government, nor to the eternal law,
but is the same thing as the eternal law. Secondly, we may speak of
God's will, as to the things themselves that God wills about
creatures; which things are subject to the eternal law, in so far as
they are planned by Divine Wisdom. In reference to these things God's
will is said to be reasonable (_rationalis_): though regarded in
itself it should rather be called their type (_ratio_).

Reply Obj. 2: God the Son was not made by God, but was naturally born
of God. Consequently He is not subject to Divine providence or to the
eternal law: but rather is Himself the eternal law by a kind of
appropriation, as Augustine explains (De Vera Relig. xxxi). But He is
said to be subject to the Father by reason of His human nature, in
respect of which also the Father is said to be greater than He.

The third objection we grant, because it deals with those necessary
things that are created.

Reply Obj. 4: As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 6), some
necessary things have a cause of their necessity: and thus they
derive from something else the fact that they cannot be otherwise.
And this is in itself a most effective restraint; for whatever is
restrained, is said to be restrained in so far as it cannot do
otherwise than it is allowed to.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 93, Art. 5]

Whether Natural Contingents Are Subject to the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that natural contingents are not subject
to the eternal law. Because promulgation is essential to law, as
stated above (Q. 90, A. 4). But a law cannot be promulgated except to
rational creatures, to whom it is possible to make an announcement.
Therefore none but rational creatures are subject to the eternal law;
and consequently natural contingents are not.

Obj. 2: Further, "Whatever obeys reason partakes somewhat of reason,"
as stated in _Ethic._ i. But the eternal law is the supreme type, as
stated above (A. 1). Since then natural contingents do not partake of
reason in any way, but are altogether void of reason, it seems that
they are not subject to the eternal law.

Obj. 3: Further, the eternal law is most efficient. But in natural
contingents defects occur. Therefore they are not subject to the
eternal law.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 8:29): "When He compassed the
sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters, that they should
not pass their limits."

_I answer that,_ We must speak otherwise of the law of man, than of
the eternal law which is the law of God. For the law of man extends
only to rational creatures subject to man. The reason of this is
because law directs the actions of those that are subject to the
government of someone: wherefore, properly speaking, none imposes a
law on his own actions. Now whatever is done regarding the use of
irrational things subject to man, is done by the act of man himself
moving those things, for these irrational creatures do not move
themselves, but are moved by others, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 2).
Consequently man cannot impose laws on irrational beings, however
much they may be subject to him. But he can impose laws on rational
beings subject to him, in so far as by his command or pronouncement
of any kind, he imprints on their minds a rule which is a principle
of action.

Now just as man, by such pronouncement, impresses a kind of inward
principle of action on the man that is subject to him, so God
imprints on the whole of nature the principles of its proper actions.
And so, in this way, God is said to command the whole of nature,
according to Ps. 148:6: "He hath made a decree, and it shall not pass
away." And thus all actions and movements of the whole of nature are
subject to the eternal law. Consequently irrational creatures are
subject to the eternal law, through being moved by Divine providence;
but not, as rational creatures are, through understanding the Divine
commandment.

Reply Obj. 1: The impression of an inward active principle is to
natural things, what the promulgation of law is to men: because law,
by being promulgated, imprints on man a directive principle of human
actions, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Irrational creatures neither partake of nor are
obedient to human reason: whereas they do partake of the Divine
Reason by obeying it; because the power of Divine Reason extends over
more things than human reason does. And as the members of the human
body are moved at the command of reason, and yet do not partake of
reason, since they have no apprehension subordinate to reason; so too
irrational creatures are moved by God, without, on that account,
being rational.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the defects which occur in natural things are
outside the order of particular causes, they are not outside the
order of universal causes, especially of the First Cause, i.e. God,
from Whose providence nothing can escape, as stated in the First Part
(Q. 22, A. 2). And since the eternal law is the type of Divine
providence, as stated above (A. 1), hence the defects of natural
things are subject to the eternal law.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 93, Art. 6]

Whether All Human Affairs Are Subject to the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all human affairs are subject to
the eternal law. For the Apostle says (Gal. 5:18): "If you are led by
the spirit you are not under the law." But the righteous who are the
sons of God by adoption, are led by the spirit of God, according to
Rom. 8:14: "Whosoever are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons
of God." Therefore not all men are under the eternal law.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 8:7): "The prudence [Vulg.:
'wisdom'] of the flesh is an enemy to God: for it is not subject to
the law of God." But many are those in whom the prudence of the flesh
dominates. Therefore all men are not subject to the eternal law which
is the law of God.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "the eternal
law is that by which the wicked deserve misery, the good, a life of
blessedness." But those who are already blessed, and those who are
already lost, are not in the state of merit. Therefore they are not
under the eternal law.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 12): "Nothing
evades the laws of the most high Creator and Governor, for by Him the
peace of the universe is administered."

_I answer that,_ There are two ways in which a thing is subject to
the eternal law, as explained above (A. 5): first, by partaking of
the eternal law by way of knowledge; secondly, by way of action and
passion, i.e. by partaking of the eternal law by way of an inward
motive principle: and in this second way, irrational creatures are
subject to the eternal law, as stated above (A. 5). But since the
rational nature, together with that which it has in common with all
creatures, has something proper to itself inasmuch as it is rational,
consequently it is subject to the eternal law in both ways; because
while each rational creature has some knowledge of the eternal law,
as stated above (A. 2), it also has a natural inclination to that
which is in harmony with the eternal law; for "we are naturally
adapted to the recipients of virtue" (Ethic. ii, 1).

Both ways, however, are imperfect, and to a certain extent destroyed,
in the wicked; because in them the natural inclination to virtue is
corrupted by vicious habits, and, moreover, the natural knowledge of
good is darkened by passions and habits of sin. But in the good both
ways are found more perfect: because in them, besides the natural
knowledge of good, there is the added knowledge of faith and wisdom;
and again, besides the natural inclination to good, there is the
added motive of grace and virtue.

Accordingly, the good are perfectly subject to the eternal law, as
always acting according to it: whereas the wicked are subject to the
eternal law, imperfectly as to their actions, indeed, since both
their knowledge of good, and their inclination thereto, are
imperfect; but this imperfection on the part of action is supplied on
the part of passion, in so far as they suffer what the eternal law
decrees concerning them, according as they fail to act in harmony
with that law. Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 15): "I esteem
that the righteous act according to the eternal law; and (De Catech.
Rud. xviii): Out of the just misery of the souls which deserted Him,
God knew how to furnish the inferior parts of His creation with most
suitable laws."

Reply Obj. 1: This saying of the Apostle may be understood in two
ways. First, so that a man is said to be under the law, through being
pinned down thereby, against his will, as by a load. Hence, on the
same passage a gloss says that "he is under the law, who refrains
from evil deeds, through fear of punishment threatened by the law,
and not from love of virtue." In this way the spiritual man is not
under the law, because he fulfils the law willingly, through charity
which is poured into his heart by the Holy Ghost. Secondly, it can be
understood as meaning that the works of a man, who is led by the Holy
Ghost, are the works of the Holy Ghost rather than his own.
Therefore, since the Holy Ghost is not under the law, as neither is
the Son, as stated above (A. 4, ad 2); it follows that such works, in
so far as they are of the Holy Ghost, are not under the law. The
Apostle witnesses to this when he says (2 Cor. 3:17): "Where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Reply Obj. 2: The prudence of the flesh cannot be subject to the law
of God as regards action; since it inclines to actions contrary to
the Divine law: yet it is subject to the law of God, as regards
passion; since it deserves to suffer punishment according to the law
of Divine justice. Nevertheless in no man does the prudence of the
flesh dominate so far as to destroy the whole good of his nature: and
consequently there remains in man the inclination to act in
accordance with the eternal law. For we have seen above (Q. 85, A. 2)
that sin does not destroy entirely the good of nature.

Reply Obj. 3: A thing is maintained in the end and moved towards the
end by one and the same cause: thus gravity which makes a heavy body
rest in the lower place is also the cause of its being moved thither.
We therefore reply that as it is according to the eternal law that
some deserve happiness, others unhappiness, so is it by the eternal
law that some are maintained in a happy state, others in an unhappy
state. Accordingly both the blessed and the damned are under the
eternal law.
________________________

QUESTION 94

OF THE NATURAL LAW
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the natural law; concerning which there are six
points of inquiry:

(1) What is the natural law?

(2) What are the precepts of the natural law?

(3) Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?

(4) Whether the natural law is the same in all?

(5) Whether it is changeable?

(6) Whether it can be abolished from the heart of man?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 94, Art. 1]

Whether the Natural Law Is a Habit?

Objection 1: It would seem that the natural law is a habit. Because,
as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5), "there are three things in
the soul: power, habit, and passion." But the natural law is not one
of the soul's powers: nor is it one of the passions; as we may see by
going through them one by one. Therefore the natural law is a habit.

Obj. 2: Further, Basil [*Damascene, De Fide Orth. iv, 22] says that
the conscience or _synderesis_ "is the law of our mind"; which can
only apply to the natural law. But the "synderesis" is a habit, as
was shown in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 12). Therefore the natural law
is a habit.

Obj. 3: Further, the natural law abides in man always, as will be
shown further on (A. 6). But man's reason, which the law regards,
does not always think about the natural law. Therefore the natural
law is not an act, but a habit.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxi) that "a habit
is that whereby something is done when necessary." But such is not
the natural law: since it is in infants and in the damned who cannot
act by it. Therefore the natural law is not a habit.

_I answer that,_ A thing may be called a habit in two ways. First,
properly and essentially: and thus the natural law is not a habit.
For it has been stated above (Q. 90, A. 1, ad 2) that the natural law
is something appointed by reason, just as a proposition is a work of
reason. Now that which a man does is not the same as that whereby he
does it: for he makes a becoming speech by the habit of grammar.
Since then a habit is that by which we act, a law cannot be a habit
properly and essentially.

Secondly, the term habit may be applied to that which we hold by a
habit: thus faith may mean that which we hold by faith. And
accordingly, since the precepts of the natural law are sometimes
considered by reason actually, while sometimes they are in the reason
only habitually, in this way the natural law may be called a habit.
Thus, in speculative matters, the indemonstrable principles are not
the habit itself whereby we hold those principles, but are the
principles the habit of which we possess.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher proposes there to discover the genus of
virtue; and since it is evident that virtue is a principle of action,
he mentions only those things which are principles of human acts,
viz. powers, habits and passions. But there are other things in the
soul besides these three: there are acts; thus _to will_ is in the
one that wills; again, things known are in the knower; moreover its
own natural properties are in the soul, such as immortality and the
like.

Reply Obj. 2: _Synderesis_ is said to be the law of our mind, because
it is a habit containing the precepts of the natural law, which are
the first principles of human actions.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument proves that the natural law is held
habitually; and this is granted.

To the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that
sometimes a man is unable to make use of that which is in him
habitually, on account of some impediment: thus, on account of sleep,
a man is unable to use the habit of science. In like manner, through
the deficiency of his age, a child cannot use the habit of
understanding of principles, or the natural law, which is in him
habitually.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 94, Art. 2]

Whether the Natural Law Contains Several Precepts, or Only One?

Objection 1: It would seem that the natural law contains, not several
precepts, but one only. For law is a kind of precept, as stated above
(Q. 92, A. 2). If therefore there were many precepts of the natural
law, it would follow that there are also many natural laws.

Obj. 2: Further, the natural law is consequent to human nature. But
human nature, as a whole, is one; though, as to its parts, it is
manifold. Therefore, either there is but one precept of the law of
nature, on account of the unity of nature as a whole; or there are
many, by reason of the number of parts of human nature. The result
would be that even things relating to the inclination of the
concupiscible faculty belong to the natural law.

Obj. 3: Further, law is something pertaining to reason, as stated
above (Q. 90, A. 1). Now reason is but one in man. Therefore there is
only one precept of the natural law.

_On the contrary,_ The precepts of the natural law in man stand in
relation to practical matters, as the first principles to matters of
demonstration. But there are several first indemonstrable principles.
Therefore there are also several precepts of the natural law.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 91, A. 3), the precepts of the
natural law are to the practical reason, what the first principles of
demonstrations are to the speculative reason; because both are
self-evident principles. Now a thing is said to be self-evident in
two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any
proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is
contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows
not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition
is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, "Man is a
rational being," is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says
"man," says "a rational being": and yet to one who knows not what a
man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as
Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are
universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions
whose terms are known to all, as, "Every whole is greater than its
part," and, "Things equal to one and the same are equal to one
another." But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise,
who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions: thus to
one who understands that an angel is not a body, it is self-evident
that an angel is not circumscriptively in a place: but this is not
evident to the unlearned, for they cannot grasp it.

Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are
apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls
under apprehension, is _being_, the notion of which is included in
all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first
indemonstrable principle is that "the same thing cannot be affirmed
and denied at the same time," which is based on the notion of _being_
and _not-being:_ and on this principle all others are based, as is
stated in _Metaph._ iv, text. 9. Now as _being_ is the first thing
that falls under the apprehension simply, so _good_ is the first
thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason,
which is directed to action: since every agent acts for an end under
the aspect of good. Consequently the first principle of practical
reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that "good is that
which all things seek after." Hence this is the first precept of law,
that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All
other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that
whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man's good (or
evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be
done or avoided.

Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature
of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a
natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being
good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as
evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore according to the order of
natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of the natural
law. Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in
accordance with the nature which he has in common with all
substances: inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its
own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this
inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of
warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law. Secondly,
there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more
specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other
animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to
belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animals"
[*Pandect. Just. I, tit. i], such as sexual intercourse, education of
offspring and so forth. Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to
good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper
to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about
God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains
to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun
ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has to live, and
other such things regarding the above inclination.

Reply Obj. 1: All these precepts of the law of nature have the
character of one natural law, inasmuch as they flow from one first
precept.

Reply Obj. 2: All the inclinations of any parts whatsoever of human
nature, e.g. of the concupiscible and irascible parts, in so far as
they are ruled by reason, belong to the natural law, and are reduced
to one first precept, as stated above: so that the precepts of the
natural law are many in themselves, but are based on one common
foundation.

Reply Obj. 3: Although reason is one in itself, yet it directs all
things regarding man; so that whatever can be ruled by reason, is
contained under the law of reason.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 94, Art. 3]

Whether All Acts of Virtue Are Prescribed by the Natural Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all acts of virtue are prescribed
by the natural law. Because, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2) it is
essential to a law that it be ordained to the common good. But some
acts of virtue are ordained to the private good of the individual, as
is evident especially in regards to acts of temperance. Therefore not
all acts of virtue are the subject of natural law.

Obj. 2: Further, every sin is opposed to some virtuous act. If
therefore all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law, it
seems to follow that all sins are against nature: whereas this
applies to certain special sins.

Obj. 3: Further, those things which are according to nature are
common to all. But acts of virtue are not common to all: since a
thing is virtuous in one, and vicious in another. Therefore not all
acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that
"virtues are natural." Therefore virtuous acts also are a subject of
the natural law.

_I answer that,_ We may speak of virtuous acts in two ways: first,
under the aspect of virtuous; secondly, as such and such acts
considered in their proper species. If then we speak of acts of
virtue, considered as virtuous, thus all virtuous acts belong to the
natural law. For it has been stated (A. 2) that to the natural law
belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his
nature. Now each thing is inclined naturally to an operation that is
suitable to it according to its form: thus fire is inclined to give
heat. Wherefore, since the rational soul is the proper form of man,
there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to
reason: and this is to act according to virtue. Consequently,
considered thus, all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural
law: since each one's reason naturally dictates to him to act
virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in
themselves, i.e. in their proper species, thus not all virtuous acts
are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done
virtuously, to which nature does not incline at first; but which,
through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive
to well-living.

Reply Obj. 1: Temperance is about the natural concupiscences of food,
drink and sexual matters, which are indeed ordained to the natural
common good, just as other matters of law are ordained to the moral
common good.

Reply Obj. 2: By human nature we may mean either that which is proper
to man--and in this sense all sins, as being against reason, are also
against nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 30): or we may
mean that nature which is common to man and other animals; and in
this sense, certain special sins are said to be against nature; thus
contrary to sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is
unisexual lust, which has received the special name of the unnatural
crime.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers acts in themselves. For it is
owing to the various conditions of men, that certain acts are
virtuous for some, as being proportionate and becoming to them, while
they are vicious for others, as being out of proportion to them.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 94, Art. 4]

Whether the Natural Law Is the Same in All Men?

Objection 1: It would seem that the natural law is not the same in
all. For it is stated in the Decretals (Dist. i) that "the natural
law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel." But this
is not common to all men; because, as it is written (Rom. 10:16),
"all do not obey the gospel." Therefore the natural law is not the
same in all men.

Obj. 2: Further, "Things which are according to the law are said to
be just," as stated in _Ethic._ v. But it is stated in the same book
that nothing is so universally just as not to be subject to change in
regard to some men. Therefore even the natural law is not the same in
all men.

Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), to the natural law
belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his
nature. Now different men are naturally inclined to different things;
some to the desire of pleasures, others to the desire of honors, and
other men to other things. Therefore there is not one natural law for
all.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (Etym. v, 4): "The natural law is
common to all nations."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 3), to the natural law
belong those things to which a man is inclined naturally: and among
these it is proper to man to be inclined to act according to reason.
Now the process of reason is from the common to the proper, as stated
in _Phys._ i. The speculative reason, however, is differently
situated in this matter, from the practical reason. For, since the
speculative reason is busied chiefly with necessary things, which
cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the
universal principles, contain the truth without fail. The practical
reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about
which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there
is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to
matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects.
Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men,
both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is
not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the
principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action,
truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters
of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is
the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to
all.

It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles
whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is
the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper
conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the same for all,
but is not equally known to all: thus it is true for all that the
three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles,
although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of
the practical reason, neither is the truth or rectitude the same for
all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it
is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this
principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to
another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the
majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it
would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held
in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of
fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to
fail the more, according as we descend further into detail, e.g. if
one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such
and such a guarantee, or in such and such a way; because the greater
the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in
which the principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or
not to restore.

Consequently we must say that the natural law, as to general
principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to
knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are
conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the same
for all in the majority of cases, both as to rectitude and as to
knowledge; and yet in some few cases it may fail, both as to
rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to
generation and corruption fail in some few cases on account of some
obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted
by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus
formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural
law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar
relates (De Bello Gall. vi).

Reply Obj. 1: The meaning of the sentence quoted is not that whatever
is contained in the Law and the Gospel belongs to the natural law,
since they contain many things that are above nature; but that
whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them.
Wherefore Gratian, after saying that "the natural law is what is
contained in the Law and the Gospel," adds at once, by way of
example, "by which everyone is commanded to do to others as he would
be done by."

Reply Obj. 2: The saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of
things that are naturally just, not as general principles, but as
conclusions drawn from them, having rectitude in the majority of
cases, but failing in a few.

Reply Obj. 3: As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers,
so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must
needs be directed according to reason. Wherefore it is universally
right for all men, that all their inclinations should be directed
according to reason.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 94, Art. 5]

Whether the Natural Law Can Be Changed?

Objection 1: It would seem that the natural law can be changed.
Because on Ecclus. 17:9, "He gave them instructions, and the law of
life," the gloss says: "He wished the law of the letter to be
written, in order to correct the law of nature." But that which is
corrected is changed. Therefore the natural law can be changed.

Obj. 2: Further, the slaying of the innocent, adultery, and theft are
against the natural law. But we find these things changed by God: as
when God commanded Abraham to slay his innocent son (Gen. 22:2); and
when he ordered the Jews to borrow and purloin the vessels of the
Egyptians (Ex. 12:35); and when He commanded Osee to take to himself
"a wife of fornications" (Osee 1:2). Therefore the natural law can be
changed.

Obj. 3: Further, Isidore says (Etym. 5:4) that "the possession of all
things in common, and universal freedom, are matters of natural law."
But these things are seen to be changed by human laws. Therefore it
seems that the natural law is subject to change.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Decretals (Dist. v): "The
natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does
not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable."

_I answer that,_ A change in the natural law may be understood in two
ways. First, by way of addition. In this sense nothing hinders the
natural law from being changed: since many things for the benefit of
human life have been added over and above the natural law, both by
the Divine law and by human laws.

Secondly, a change in the natural law may be understood by way of
subtraction, so that what previously was according to the natural
law, ceases to be so. In this sense, the natural law is altogether
unchangeable in its first principles: but in its secondary
principles, which, as we have said (A. 4), are certain detailed
proximate conclusions drawn from the first principles, the natural
law is not changed so that what it prescribes be not right in most
cases. But it may be changed in some particular cases of rare
occurrence, through some special causes hindering the observance of
such precepts, as stated above (A. 4).

Reply Obj. 1: The written law is said to be given for the correction
of the natural law, either because it supplies what was wanting to
the natural law; or because the natural law was perverted in the
hearts of some men, as to certain matters, so that they esteemed
those things good which are naturally evil; which perversion stood in
need of correction.

Reply Obj. 2: All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death
of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on
account of original sin, according to 1 Kings 2:6: "The Lord killeth
and maketh alive." Consequently, by the command of God, death can be
inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice
whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another's wife;
who is allotted to him by the law emanating from God. Consequently
intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither
adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft, which is the
taking of another's property. For whatever is taken by the command of
God, to Whom all things belong, is not taken against the will of its
owner, whereas it is in this that theft consists. Nor is it only in
human things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in
natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way, natural, as
stated in the First Part, Q. 105, A. 6, ad 1.

Reply Obj. 3: A thing is said to belong to the natural law in two
ways. First, because nature inclines thereto: e.g. that one should
not do harm to another. Secondly, because nature did not bring in the
contrary: thus we might say that for man to be naked is of the
natural law, because nature did not give him clothes, but art
invented them. In this sense, "the possession of all things in common
and universal freedom" are said to be of the natural law, because, to
wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in
by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit of human life.
Accordingly the law of nature was not changed in this respect, except
by addition.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 94, Art. 6]

Whether the Law of Nature Can Be Abolished from the Heart of Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that the natural law can be abolished from
the heart of man. Because on Rom. 2:14, "When the Gentiles who have
not the law," etc. a gloss says that "the law of righteousness, which
sin had blotted out, is graven on the heart of man when he is
restored by grace." But the law of righteousness is the law of
nature. Therefore the law of nature can be blotted out.

Obj. 2: Further, the law of grace is more efficacious than the law of
nature. But the law of grace is blotted out by sin. Much more
therefore can the law of nature be blotted out.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is established by law is made just. But
many things are enacted by men, which are contrary to the law of
nature. Therefore the law of nature can be abolished from the heart
of man.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Thy law is written
in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." But the law
which is written in men's hearts is the natural law. Therefore the
natural law cannot be blotted out.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 4, 5), there belong to the
natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to
all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts,
which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first
principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the
abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is
blotted out in the case of a particular action, in so far as reason
is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point
of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as
stated above (Q. 77, A. 2). But as to the other, i.e. the secondary
precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart,
either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors
occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and
corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices,
as the Apostle states (Rom. i), were not esteemed sinful.

Reply Obj. 1: Sin blots out the law of nature in particular cases,
not universally, except perchance in regard to the secondary precepts
of the natural law, in the way stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Although grace is more efficacious than nature, yet
nature is more essential to man, and therefore more enduring.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of the secondary precepts of the
natural law, against which some legislators have framed certain
enactments which are unjust.
________________________

QUESTION 95

OF HUMAN LAW
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider human law; and (1) this law considered in
itself; (2) its power; (3) its mutability. Under the first head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Its utility.

(2) Its origin.

(3) Its quality.

(4) Its division.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 95, Art. 1]

Whether It Was Useful for Laws to Be Framed by Men?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not useful for laws to be
framed by men. Because the purpose of every law is that man be made
good thereby, as stated above (Q. 92, A. 1). But men are more to be
induced to be good willingly by means of admonitions, than against
their will, by means of laws. Therefore there was no need to frame
laws.

Obj. 2: Further, As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 4), "men have
recourse to a judge as to animate justice." But animate justice is
better than inanimate justice, which contained in laws. Therefore it
would have been better for the execution of justice to be entrusted
to the decision of judges, than to frame laws in addition.

Obj. 3: Further, every law is framed for the direction of human
actions, as is evident from what has been stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1,
2). But since human actions are about singulars, which are infinite
in number, matter pertaining to the direction of human actions cannot
be taken into sufficient consideration except by a wise man, who
looks into each one of them. Therefore it would have been better for
human acts to be directed by the judgment of wise men, than by the
framing of laws. Therefore there was no need of human laws.

_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (Etym. v, 20): "Laws were made that
in fear thereof human audacity might be held in check, that innocence
might be safeguarded in the midst of wickedness, and that the dread
of punishment might prevent the wicked from doing harm." But these
things are most necessary to mankind. Therefore it was necessary that
human laws should be made.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 63, A. 1; Q. 94, A. 3), man has
a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection of virtue must be
acquired by man by means of some kind of training. Thus we observe
that man is helped by industry in his necessities, for instance, in
food and clothing. Certain beginnings of these he has from nature,
viz. his reason and his hands; but he has not the full complement, as
other animals have, to whom nature has given sufficiency of clothing
and food. Now it is difficult to see how man could suffice for
himself in the matter of this training: since the perfection of
virtue consists chiefly in withdrawing man from undue pleasures, to
which above all man is inclined, and especially the young, who are
more capable of being trained. Consequently a man needs to receive
this training from another, whereby to arrive at the perfection of
virtue. And as to those young people who are inclined to acts of
virtue, by their good natural disposition, or by custom, or rather by
the gift of God, paternal training suffices, which is by admonitions.
But since some are found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not
easily amenable to words, it was necessary for such to be restrained
from evil by force and fear, in order that, at least, they might
desist from evil-doing, and leave others in peace, and that they
themselves, by being habituated in this way, might be brought to do
willingly what hitherto they did from fear, and thus become virtuous.
Now this kind of training, which compels through fear of punishment,
is the discipline of laws. Therefore in order that man might have
peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed: for, as the
Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2), "as man is the most noble of animals
if he be perfect in virtue, so is he the lowest of all, if he be
severed from law and righteousness"; because man can use his reason
to devise means of satisfying his lusts and evil passions, which
other animals are unable to do.

Reply Obj. 1: Men who are well disposed are led willingly to virtue
by being admonished better than by coercion: but men who are evilly
disposed are not led to virtue unless they are compelled.

Reply Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 1), "it is better
that all things be regulated by law, than left to be decided by
judges": and this for three reasons. First, because it is easier to
find a few wise men competent to frame right laws, than to find the
many who would be necessary to judge aright of each single case.
Secondly, because those who make laws consider long beforehand what
laws to make; whereas judgment on each single case has to be
pronounced as soon as it arises: and it is easier for man to see what
is right, by taking many instances into consideration, than by
considering one solitary fact. Thirdly, because lawgivers judge in
the abstract and of future events; whereas those who sit in judgment
judge of things present, towards which they are affected by love,
hatred, or some kind of cupidity; wherefore their judgment is
perverted.

Since then the animated justice of the judge is not found in every
man, and since it can be deflected, therefore it was necessary,
whenever possible, for the law to determine how to judge, and for
very few matters to be left to the decision of men.

Reply Obj. 3: Certain individual facts which cannot be covered by the
law "have necessarily to be committed to judges," as the Philosopher
says in the same passage: for instance, "concerning something that
has happened or not happened," and the like.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 95, Art. 2]

Whether Every Human Law Is Derived from the Natural Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that not every human law is derived from
the natural law. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the
legal just is that which originally was a matter of indifference."
But those things which arise from the natural law are not matters of
indifference. Therefore the enactments of human laws are not derived
from the natural law.

Obj. 2: Further, positive law is contrasted with natural law, as
stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4) and the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7). But
those things which flow as conclusions from the general principles of
the natural law belong to the natural law, as stated above (Q. 94, A.
4). Therefore that which is established by human law does not belong
to the natural law.

Obj. 3: Further, the law of nature is the same for all; since the
Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the natural just is that which
is equally valid everywhere." If therefore human laws were derived
from the natural law, it would follow that they too are the same for
all: which is clearly false.

Obj. 4: Further, it is possible to give a reason for things which are
derived from the natural law. But "it is not possible to give the
reason for all the legal enactments of the lawgivers," as the jurist
says [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff, tit. iii, v; De Leg. et Senat.].
Therefore not all human laws are derived from the natural law.

_On the contrary,_ Tully says (Rhet. ii): "Things which emanated from
nature and were approved by custom, were sanctioned by fear and
reverence for the laws."

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is
not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law
depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is
said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason.
But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from
what has been stated above (Q. 91, A. 2, ad 2). Consequently every
human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived
from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law
of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural
law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by
way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like
to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn
from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that
whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details:
thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to
some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the
general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g.
that "one must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the
principle that "one should do harm to no man": while some are derived
therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that
the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or
that way, is a determination of the law of nature.

Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But
those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in
human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force
from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the
second way, have no other force than that of human law.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking of those enactments which
are by way of determination or specification of the precepts of the
natural law.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument avails for those things that are derived
from the natural law, by way of conclusions.

Reply Obj. 3: The general principles of the natural law cannot be
applied to all men in the same way on account of the great variety of
human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among
various people.

Reply Obj. 4: These words of the Jurist are to be understood as
referring to decisions of rulers in determining particular points of
the natural law: on which determinations the judgment of expert and
prudent men is based as on its principles; in so far, to wit, as they
see at once what is the best thing to decide.

Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11) that in such matters, "we
ought to pay as much attention to the undemonstrated sayings and
opinions of persons who surpass us in experience, age and prudence,
as to their demonstrations."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 95, Art. 3]

Whether Isidore's Description of the Quality of Positive Law Is
Appropriate?

Objection 1: It would seem that Isidore's description of the quality
of positive law is not appropriate, when he says (Etym. v, 21): "Law
shall be virtuous, just, possible to nature, according to the custom
of the country, suitable to place and time, necessary, useful;
clearly expressed, lest by its obscurity it lead to misunderstanding;
framed for no private benefit, but for the common good." Because he
had previously expressed the quality of law in three conditions,
saying that "law is anything founded on reason, provided that it
foster religion, be helpful to discipline, and further the common
weal." Therefore it was needless to add any further conditions to
these.

Obj. 2: Further, Justice is included in honesty, as Tully says (De
Offic. vii). Therefore after saying "honest" it was superfluous to
add "just."

Obj. 3: Further, written law is condivided with custom, according to
Isidore (Etym. ii, 10). Therefore it should not be stated in the
definition of law that it is "according to the custom of the country."

Obj. 4: Further, a thing may be necessary in two ways. It may be
necessary simply, because it cannot be otherwise: and that which is
necessary in this way, is not subject to human judgment, wherefore
human law is not concerned with necessity of this kind. Again a thing
may be necessary for an end: and this necessity is the same as
usefulness. Therefore it is superfluous to say both "necessary" and
"useful."

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Isidore.

_I answer that,_ Whenever a thing is for an end, its form must be
determined proportionately to that end; as the form of a saw is such
as to be suitable for cutting (Phys. ii, text. 88). Again, everything
that is ruled and measured must have a form proportionate to its rule
and measure. Now both these conditions are verified of human law:
since it is both something ordained to an end; and is a rule or
measure ruled or measured by a higher measure. And this higher
measure is twofold, viz. the Divine law and the natural law, as
explained above (A. 2; Q. 93, A. 3). Now the end of human law is to
be useful to man, as the Jurist states [*Pandect. Justin. lib. xxv,
ff., tit. iii; De Leg. et Senat.]. Wherefore Isidore in determining
the nature of law, lays down, at first, three conditions; viz. that
it "foster religion," inasmuch as it is proportionate to the Divine
law; that it be "helpful to discipline," inasmuch as it is
proportionate to the nature law; and that it "further the common
weal," inasmuch as it is proportionate to the utility of mankind.

All the other conditions mentioned by him are reduced to these three.
For it is called virtuous because it fosters religion. And when he
goes on to say that it should be "just, possible to nature, according
to the customs of the country, adapted to place and time," he implies
that it should be helpful to discipline. For human discipline depends
first on the order of reason, to which he refers by saying "just":
secondly, it depends on the ability of the agent; because discipline
should be adapted to each one according to his ability, taking also
into account the ability of nature (for the same burdens should not
be laid on children as adults); and should be according to human
customs; since man cannot live alone in society, paying no heed to
others: thirdly, it depends on certain circumstances, in respect of
which he says, "adapted to place and time." The remaining words,
"necessary, useful," etc. mean that law should further the common
weal: so that "necessity" refers to the removal of evils;
"usefulness" to the attainment of good; "clearness of expression," to
the need of preventing any harm ensuing from the law itself. And
since, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2), law is ordained to the common
good, this is expressed in the last part of the description.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 95, Art. 4]

Whether Isidore's Division of Human Laws Is Appropriate?

Objection 1: It would seem that Isidore wrongly divided human
statutes or human law (Etym. v, 4, seqq.). For under this law he
includes the "law of nations," so called, because, as he says,
"nearly all nations use it." But as he says, "natural law is that
which is common to all nations." Therefore the law of nations is not
contained under positive human law, but rather under natural law.

Obj. 2: Further, those laws which have the same force, seem to differ
not formally but only materially. But "statutes, decrees of the
commonalty, senatorial decrees," and the like which he mentions
(Etym. v, 9), all have the same force. Therefore they do not differ,
except materially. But art takes no notice of such a distinction:
since it may go on to infinity. Therefore this division of human laws
is not appropriate.

Obj. 3: Further, just as, in the state, there are princes, priests
and soldiers, so are there other human offices. Therefore it seems
that, as this division includes _military law,_ and _public law,_
referring to priests and magistrates; so also it should include other
laws pertaining to other offices of the state.

Obj. 4: Further, those things that are accidental should be passed
over. But it is accidental to law that it be framed by this or that
man. Therefore it is unreasonable to divide laws according to the
names of lawgivers, so that one be called the "Cornelian" law,
another the "Falcidian" law, etc.

_On the contrary,_ The authority of Isidore (Obj. 1) suffices.

_I answer that,_ A thing can of itself be divided in respect of
something contained in the notion of that thing. Thus a soul either
rational or irrational is contained in the notion of animal: and
therefore animal is divided properly and of itself in respect of its
being rational or irrational; but not in the point of its being white
or black, which are entirely beside the notion of animal. Now, in the
notion of human law, many things are contained, in respect of any of
which human law can be divided properly and of itself. For in the
first place it belongs to the notion of human law, to be derived from
the law of nature, as explained above (A. 2). In this respect
positive law is divided into the _law of nations_ and _civil law,_
according to the two ways in which something may be derived from the
law of nature, as stated above (A. 2). Because, to the law of nations
belong those things which are derived from the law of nature, as
conclusions from premises, e.g. just buyings and sellings, and the
like, without which men cannot live together, which is a point of the
law of nature, since man is by nature a social animal, as is proved
in _Polit._ i, 2. But those things which are derived from the law of
nature by way of particular determination, belong to the civil law,
according as each state decides on what is best for itself.

Secondly, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be ordained to
the common good of the state. In this respect human law may be
divided according to the different kinds of men who work in a special
way for the common good: e.g. priests, by praying to God for the
people; princes, by governing the people; soldiers, by fighting for
the safety of the people. Wherefore certain special kinds of law are
adapted to these men.

Thirdly, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be framed by that
one who governs the community of the state, as shown above (Q. 90, A.
3). In this respect, there are various human laws according to the
various forms of government. Of these, according to the Philosopher
(Polit. iii, 10) one is _monarchy,_ i.e. when the state is governed
by one; and then we have _Royal Ordinances._ Another form is
_aristocracy,_ i.e. government by the best men or men of highest
rank; and then we have the _Authoritative legal opinions_ (_Responsa
Prudentum_) and _Decrees of the Senate_ (_Senatus consulta_). Another
form is _oligarchy,_ i.e. government by a few rich and powerful men;
and then we have _Praetorian,_ also called _Honorary,_ law. Another
form of government is that of the people, which is called
_democracy,_ and there we have _Decrees of the commonalty_
(_Plebiscita_). There is also tyrannical government, which is
altogether corrupt, which, therefore, has no corresponding law.
Finally, there is a form of government made up of all these, and
which is the best: and in this respect we have law sanctioned by the
_Lords and Commons,_ as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4, seqq.).

Fourthly, it belongs to the notion of human law to direct human
actions. In this respect, according to the various matters of which
the law treats, there are various kinds of laws, which are sometimes
named after their authors: thus we have the _Lex Julia_ about
adultery, the _Lex Cornelia_ concerning assassins, and so on,
differentiated in this way, not on account of the authors, but on
account of the matters to which they refer.

Reply Obj. 1: The law of nations is indeed, in some way, natural to
man, in so far as he is a reasonable being, because it is derived
from the natural law by way of a conclusion that is not very remote
from its premises. Wherefore men easily agreed thereto. Nevertheless
it is distinct from the natural law, especially it is distinct from
the natural law which is common to all animals.

The Replies to the other Objections are evident from what has been
said.
________________________

QUESTION 96

OF THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the power of human law. Under this head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether human law should be framed for the community?

(2) Whether human law should repress all vices?

(3) Whether human law is competent to direct all acts of virtue?

(4) Whether it binds man in conscience?

(5) Whether all men are subject to human law?

(6) Whether those who are under the law may act beside the letter
of the law?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 96, Art. 1]

Whether Human Law Should Be Framed for the Community Rather Than for
the Individual?

Objection 1: It would seem that human law should be framed not for
the community, but rather for the individual. For the Philosopher
says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the legal just . . . includes all particular
acts of legislation . . . and all those matters which are the subject
of decrees," which are also individual matters, since decrees are
framed about individual actions. Therefore law is framed not only for
the community, but also for the individual.

Obj. 2: Further, law is the director of human acts, as stated above
(Q. 90, AA. 1, 2). But human acts are about individual matters.
Therefore human laws should be framed, not for the community, but
rather for the individual.

Obj. 3: Further, law is a rule and measure of human acts, as stated
above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2). But a measure should be most certain, as
stated in _Metaph._ x. Since therefore in human acts no general
proposition can be so certain as not to fail in some individual
cases, it seems that laws should be framed not in general but for
individual cases.

_On the contrary,_ The Jurist says (Pandect. Justin. lib. i, tit.
iii, art. ii; De legibus, etc.) that "laws should be made to suit the
majority of instances; and they are not framed according to what may
possibly happen in an individual case."

_I answer that,_ Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to
that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore
says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private
benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human
laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good
comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many
things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the
community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is
procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a
short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one
another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6).

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7) divides the legal just,
i.e. positive law, into three parts. For some things are laid down
simply in a general way: and these are the general laws. Of these he
says that "the legal is that which originally was a matter of
indifference, but which, when enacted, is so no longer": as the
fixing of the ransom of a captive. Some things affect the community
in one respect, and individuals in another. These are called
"privileges," i.e. "private laws," as it were, because they regard
private persons, although their power extends to many matters; and in
regard to these, he adds, "and further, all particular acts of
legislation." Other matters are legal, not through being laws, but
through being applications of general laws to particular cases: such
are decrees which have the force of law; and in regard to these, he
adds "all matters subject to decrees."

Reply Obj. 2: A principle of direction should be applicable to many;
wherefore (Metaph. x, text. 4) the Philosopher says that all things
belonging to one genus, are measured by one, which is the principle
in that genus. For if there were as many rules or measures as there
are things measured or ruled, they would cease to be of use, since
their use consists in being applicable to many things. Hence law
would be of no use, if it did not extend further than to one single
act. Because the decrees of prudent men are made for the purpose of
directing individual actions; whereas law is a general precept, as
stated above (Q. 92, A. 2, Obj. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: "We must not seek the same degree of certainty in all
things" (Ethic. i, 3). Consequently in contingent matters, such as
natural and human things, it is enough for a thing to be certain, as
being true in the greater number of instances, though at times and
less frequently it fail.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 96, Art. 2]

Whether It Belongs to the Human Law to Repress All Vices?

Objection 1: It would seem that it belongs to human law to repress
all vices. For Isidore says (Etym. v, 20) that "laws were made in
order that, in fear thereof, man's audacity might be held in check."
But it would not be held in check sufficiently, unless all evils were
repressed by law. Therefore human laws should repress all evils.

Obj. 2: Further, the intention of the lawgiver is to make the
citizens virtuous. But a man cannot be virtuous unless he forbear
from all kinds of vice. Therefore it belongs to human law to repress
all vices.

Obj. 3: Further, human law is derived from the natural law, as stated
above (Q. 95, A. 2). But all vices are contrary to the law of nature.
Therefore human law should repress all vices.

_On the contrary,_ We read in _De Lib. Arb._ i, 5: "It seems to me
that the law which is written for the governing of the people rightly
permits these things, and that Divine providence punishes them." But
Divine providence punishes nothing but vices. Therefore human law
rightly allows some vices, by not repressing them.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2), law is framed as
a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous
with that which it measures, as stated in _Metaph._ x, text. 3, 4,
since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore
laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition,
for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be "possible both
according to nature, and according to the customs of the country."
Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or
disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not
a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not
possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law
for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are
permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at
any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are
permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable
in a virtuous man.

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of
whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid
all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more
grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to
abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without
the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus
human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

Reply Obj. 1: Audacity seems to refer to the assailing of others.
Consequently it belongs to those sins chiefly whereby one's neighbor
is injured: and these sins are forbidden by human law, as stated.

Reply Obj. 2: The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not
suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude
of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz.
that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect
ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet
greater evils: thus it is written (Ps. 30:33): "He that violently
bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood"; and (Matt. 9:17) that if "new
wine," i.e. precepts of a perfect life, "is put into old bottles,"
i.e. into imperfect men, "the bottles break, and the wine runneth
out," i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt,
break into evils worse still.

Reply Obj. 3: The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal
law: while human law falls short of the eternal law. Now Augustine
says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "The law which is framed for the government
of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things that are punished
by Divine providence. Nor, if this law does not attempt to do
everything, is this a reason why it should be blamed for what it
does." Wherefore, too, human law does not prohibit everything that is
forbidden by the natural law.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 96, Art. 3]

Whether Human Law Prescribes Acts of All the Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that human law does not prescribe acts of
all the virtues. For vicious acts are contrary to acts of virtue. But
human law does not prohibit all vices, as stated above (A. 2).
Therefore neither does it prescribe all acts of virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, a virtuous act proceeds from a virtue. But virtue is
the end of law; so that whatever is from a virtue, cannot come under
a precept of law. Therefore human law does not prescribe all acts of
virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, law is ordained to the common good, as stated above
(Q. 90, A. 2). But some acts of virtue are ordained, not to the
common good, but to private good. Therefore the law does not
prescribe all acts of virtue.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that the law
"prescribes the performance of the acts of a brave man . . . and the
acts of the temperate man . . . and the acts of the meek man: and in
like manner as regards the other virtues and vices, prescribing the
former, forbidding the latter."

_I answer that,_ The species of virtues are distinguished by their
objects, as explained above (Q. 54, A. 2; Q. 60, A. 1; Q. 62, A. 2).
Now all the objects of virtues can be referred either to the private
good of an individual, or to the common good of the multitude: thus
matters of fortitude may be achieved either for the safety of the
state, or for upholding the rights of a friend, and in like manner
with the other virtues. But law, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2) is
ordained to the common good. Wherefore there is no virtue whose acts
cannot be prescribed by the law. Nevertheless human law does not
prescribe concerning all the acts of every virtue: but only in regard
to those that are ordainable to the common good--either immediately,
as when certain things are done directly for the common good--or
mediately, as when a lawgiver prescribes certain things pertaining to
good order, whereby the citizens are directed in the upholding of the
common good of justice and peace.

Reply Obj. 1: Human law does not forbid all vicious acts, by the
obligation of a precept, as neither does it prescribe all acts of
virtue. But it forbids certain acts of each vice, just as it
prescribes some acts of each virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: An act is said to be an act of virtue in two ways.
First, from the fact that a man does something virtuous; thus the act
of justice is to do what is right, and an act of fortitude is to do
brave things: and in this way law prescribes certain acts of virtue.
Secondly an act of virtue is when a man does a virtuous thing in a
way in which a virtuous man does it. Such an act always proceeds from
virtue: and it does not come under a precept of law, but is the end
at which every lawgiver aims.

Reply Obj. 3: There is no virtue whose act is not ordainable to the
common good, as stated above, either mediately or immediately.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 96, Art. 4]

Whether Human Law Binds a Man in Conscience?

Objection 1: It would seem that human law does not bind man in
conscience. For an inferior power has no jurisdiction in a court of
higher power. But the power of man, which frames human law, is
beneath the Divine power. Therefore human law cannot impose its
precept in a Divine court, such as is the court of conscience.

Obj. 2: Further, the judgment of conscience depends chiefly on the
commandments of God. But sometimes God's commandments are made void
by human laws, according to Matt. 15:6: "You have made void the
commandment of God for your tradition." Therefore human law does not
bind a man in conscience.

Obj. 3: Further, human laws often bring loss of character and injury
on man, according to Isa. 10:1 et seqq.: "Woe to them that make
wicked laws, and when they write, write injustice; to oppress the
poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of My
people." But it is lawful for anyone to avoid oppression and
violence. Therefore human laws do not bind man in conscience.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Pet. 2:19): "This is thankworthy,
if for conscience . . . a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully."

_I answer that,_ Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If
they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the
eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. 8:15: "By Me
kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to
be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the
common good--and from their author, that is to say, when the law that
is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver--and from their
form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an
equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since
one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and
has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is,
belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part,
in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as
these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in
conscience, and are legal laws.

On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being
contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned
above--either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on
his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but
rather to his own cupidity or vainglory--or in respect of the author,
as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to
him--or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally
on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like
are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De
Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all."
Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in
order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should
even yield his right, according to Matt. 5:40, 41: "If a man . . .
take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever
will force thee one mile, go with him other two."

Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine
good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to
anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must
nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, "we ought to
obey God rather than man."

Reply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1, 2), all human power is
from God . . . "therefore he that resisteth the power," in matters
that are within its scope, "resisteth the ordinance of God"; so that
he becomes guilty according to his conscience.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument is true of laws that are contrary to the
commandments of God, which is beyond the scope of (human) power.
Wherefore in such matters human law should not be obeyed.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of a law that inflicts unjust
hurt on its subjects. The power that man holds from God does not
extend to this: wherefore neither in such matters is man bound to
obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a more
grievous hurt.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 96, Art. 5]

Whether All Are Subject to the Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all are subject to the law. For
those alone are subject to a law for whom a law is made. But the
Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:9): "The law is not made for the just man."
Therefore the just are not subject to the law.

Obj. 2: Further, Pope Urban says [*Decretals. caus. xix, qu. 2]: "He
that is guided by a private law need not for any reason be bound by
the public law." Now all spiritual men are led by the private law of
the Holy Ghost, for they are the sons of God, of whom it is said
(Rom. 8:14): "Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the
sons of God." Therefore not all men are subject to human law.

Obj. 3: Further, the jurist says [*Pandect. Justin. i, ff., tit. 3,
De Leg. et Senat.] that "the sovereign is exempt from the laws." But
he that is exempt from the law is not bound thereby. Therefore not
all are subject to the law.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): "Let every soul be
subject to the higher powers." But subjection to a power seems to
imply subjection to the laws framed by that power. Therefore all men
should be subject to human law.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2; A. 3, ad 2), the
notion of law contains two things: first, that it is a rule of human
acts; secondly, that it has coercive power. Wherefore a man may be
subject to law in two ways. First, as the regulated is subject to the
regulator: and, in this way, whoever is subject to a power, is
subject to the law framed by that power. But it may happen in two
ways that one is not subject to a power. In one way, by being
altogether free from its authority: hence the subjects of one city or
kingdom are not bound by the laws of the sovereign of another city or
kingdom, since they are not subject to his authority. In another way,
by being under a yet higher law; thus the subject of a proconsul
should be ruled by his command, but not in those matters in which the
subject receives his orders from the emperor: for in these matters,
he is not bound by the mandate of the lower authority, since he is
directed by that of a higher. In this way, one who is simply subject
to a law, may not be subject thereto in certain matters, in respect
of which he is ruled by a higher law.

Secondly, a man is said to be subject to a law as the coerced is
subject to the coercer. In this way the virtuous and righteous are
not subject to the law, but only the wicked. Because coercion and
violence are contrary to the will: but the will of the good is in
harmony with the law, whereas the will of the wicked is discordant
from it. Wherefore in this sense the good are not subject to the law,
but only the wicked.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of subjection by way of coercion:
for, in this way, "the law is not made for the just men": because
"they are a law to themselves," since they "show the work of the law
written in their hearts," as the Apostle says (Rom. 2:14, 15).
Consequently the law does not enforce itself upon them as it does on
the wicked.

Reply Obj. 2: The law of the Holy Ghost is above all law framed by
man: and therefore spiritual men, in so far as they are led by the
law of the Holy Ghost, are not subject to the law in those matters
that are inconsistent with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Nevertheless the very fact that spiritual men are subject to law, is
due to the leading of the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Pet. 2:13: "Be
ye subject . . . to every human creature for God's sake."

Reply Obj. 3: The sovereign is said to be "exempt from the law," as
to its coercive power; since, properly speaking, no man is coerced by
himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the
sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be exempt from the law,
because none is competent to pass sentence on him, if he acts against
the law. Wherefore on Ps. 50:6: "To Thee only have I sinned," a gloss
says that "there is no man who can judge the deeds of a king." But as
to the directive force of law, the sovereign is subject to the law by
his own will, according to the statement (Extra, De Constit. cap. Cum
omnes) that "whatever law a man makes for another, he should keep
himself. And a wise authority [*Dionysius Cato, Dist. de Moribus]
says: 'Obey the law that thou makest thyself.'" Moreover the Lord
reproaches those who "say and do not"; and who "bind heavy burdens
and lay them on men's shoulders, but with a finger of their own they
will not move them" (Matt. 23:3, 4). Hence, in the judgment of God,
the sovereign is not exempt from the law, as to its directive force;
but he should fulfil it to his own free-will and not of constraint.
Again the sovereign is above the law, in so far as, when it is
expedient, he can change the law, and dispense in it according to
time and place.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 96, Art. 6]

Whether He Who Is Under a Law May Act Beside the Letter of the Law?

Objection 1: It seems that he who is subject to a law may not act
beside the letter of the law. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 31):
"Although men judge about temporal laws when they make them, yet when
once they are made they must pass judgment not on them, but according
to them." But if anyone disregard the letter of the law, saying that
he observes the intention of the lawgiver, he seems to pass judgment
on the law. Therefore it is not right for one who is under the law to
disregard the letter of the law, in order to observe the intention of
the lawgiver.

Obj. 2: Further, he alone is competent to interpret the law who can
make the law. But those who are subject to the law cannot make the
law. Therefore they have no right to interpret the intention of the
lawgiver, but should always act according to the letter of the law.

Obj. 3: Further, every wise man knows how to explain his intention by
words. But those who framed the laws should be reckoned wise: for
Wisdom says (Prov. 8:15): "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree
just things." Therefore we should not judge of the intention of the
lawgiver otherwise than by the words of the law.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "The meaning of what is
said is according to the motive for saying it: because things are not
subject to speech, but speech to things." Therefore we should take
account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than of his very words.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), every law is directed to the
common weal of men, and derives the force and nature of law
accordingly. Hence the jurist says [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff.,
tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.]: "By no reason of law, or favor of equity,
is it allowable for us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome,
those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of
man." Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law
conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in
some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in
view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens
most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good.
Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be
hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. For
instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law
that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for
public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the
enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the
city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not
opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened,
contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common
weal, which the lawgiver had in view.

Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law
according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing
instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is
useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this
who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have
the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so
sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter
to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since
necessity knows no law.

Reply Obj. 1: He who in a case of necessity acts beside the letter of
the law, does not judge the law; but of a particular case in which he
sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.

Reply Obj. 2: He who follows the intention of the lawgiver, does not
interpret the law simply; but in a case in which it is evident, by
reason of the manifest harm, that the lawgiver intended otherwise.
For if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the
letter of the law, or consult those in power.

Reply Obj. 3: No man is so wise as to be able to take account of
every single case; wherefore he is not able sufficiently to express
in words all those things that are suitable for the end he has in
view. And even if a lawgiver were able to take all the cases into
consideration, he ought not to mention them all, in order to avoid
confusion: but should frame the law according to that which is of
most common occurrence.
________________________

QUESTION 97

OF CHANGE IN LAWS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider change in laws: under which head there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether human law is changeable?

(2) Whether it should be always changed, whenever anything better
occurs?

(3) Whether it is abolished by custom, and whether custom obtains the
force of law?

(4) Whether the application of human law should be changed by
dispensation of those in authority?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 97, Art. 1]

Whether Human Law Should Be Changed in Any Way?

Objection 1: It would seem that human law should not be changed in
any way at all. Because human law is derived from the natural law, as
stated above (Q. 95, A. 2). But the natural law endures unchangeably.
Therefore human law should also remain without any change.

Obj. 2: Further, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), a measure
should be absolutely stable. But human law is the measure of human
acts, as stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2). Therefore it should remain
without change.

Obj. 3: Further, it is of the essence of law to be just and right, as
stated above (Q. 95, A. 2). But that which is right once is right
always. Therefore that which is law once, should be always law.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "A temporal
law, however just, may be justly changed in course of time."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 91, A. 3), human law is a
dictate of reason, whereby human acts are directed. Thus there may be
two causes for the just change of human law: one on the part of
reason; the other on the part of man whose acts are regulated by law.
The cause on the part of reason is that it seems natural to human
reason to advance gradually from the imperfect to the perfect. Hence,
in speculative sciences, we see that the teaching of the early
philosophers was imperfect, and that it was afterwards perfected by
those who succeeded them. So also in practical matters: for those who
first endeavored to discover something useful for the human
community, not being able by themselves to take everything into
consideration, set up certain institutions which were deficient in
many ways; and these were changed by subsequent lawgivers who made
institutions that might prove less frequently deficient in respect of
the common weal.

On the part of man, whose acts are regulated by law, the law can be
rightly changed on account of the changed condition of man, to whom
different things are expedient according to the difference of his
condition. An example is proposed by Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i, 6):
"If the people have a sense of moderation and responsibility, and are
most careful guardians of the common weal, it is right to enact a law
allowing such a people to choose their own magistrates for the
government of the commonwealth. But if, as time goes on, the same
people become so corrupt as to sell their votes, and entrust the
government to scoundrels and criminals; then the right of appointing
their public officials is rightly forfeit to such a people, and the
choice devolves to a few good men."

Reply Obj. 1: The natural law is a participation of the eternal law,
as stated above (Q. 91, A. 2), and therefore endures without change,
owing to the unchangeableness and perfection of the Divine Reason,
the Author of nature. But the reason of man is changeable and
imperfect: wherefore his law is subject to change. Moreover the
natural law contains certain universal precepts, which are
everlasting: whereas human law contains certain particular precepts,
according to various emergencies.

Reply Obj. 2: A measure should be as enduring as possible. But
nothing can be absolutely unchangeable in things that are subject to
change. And therefore human law cannot be altogether unchangeable.

Reply Obj. 3: In corporal things, right is predicated absolutely: and
therefore, as far as itself is concerned, always remains right. But
right is predicated of law with reference to the common weal, to
which one and the same thing is not always adapted, as stated above:
wherefore rectitude of this kind is subject to change.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 97, Art. 2]

Whether Human Law Should Always Be Changed, Whenever Something Better
Occurs?

Objection 1: It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever
something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human
reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former
times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the
same should apply to human laws.

Obj. 2: Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the
future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found
possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have
ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore
it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs
to be enacted.

Obj. 3: Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But
we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by
experience, which "requires time," as stated in _Ethic._ ii.
Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something
better to occur for legislation.

_On the contrary,_ It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It
is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those
traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of
old."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), human law is rightly
changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal.
But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself
prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the
observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general
custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave.
Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is
diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law
should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common
weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this
respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and
every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the
extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing
law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore
the Jurist says [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit.
Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of
the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long
been considered just."

Reply Obj. 1: Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and
therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed
hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from
custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they
should not be quickly changed.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not
in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in
a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to
the Third Objection.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 97, Art. 3]

Whether Custom Can Obtain Force of Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that custom cannot obtain force of law,
nor abolish a law. Because human law is derived from the natural law
and from the Divine law, as stated above (Q. 93, A. 3; Q. 95, A. 2).
But human custom cannot change either the law of nature or the Divine
law. Therefore neither can it change human law.

Obj. 2: Further, many evils cannot make one good. But he who first
acted against the law, did evil. Therefore by multiplying such acts,
nothing good is the result. Now a law is something good; since it is
a rule of human acts. Therefore law is not abolished by custom, so
that the mere custom should obtain force of law.

Obj. 3: Further, the framing of laws belongs to those public men
whose business it is to govern the community; wherefore private
individuals cannot make laws. But custom grows by the acts of private
individuals. Therefore custom cannot obtain force of law, so as to
abolish the law.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Casulan. xxxvi): "The
customs of God's people and the institutions of our ancestors are to
be considered as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of
the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God."

_I answer that,_ All law proceeds from the reason and will of the
lawgiver; the Divine and natural laws from the reasonable will of
God; the human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now
just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made
manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since
seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution.
But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and
expounded, in so far as it manifests the interior movement and
thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if
they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and
expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force
of law, in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward
movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually
declared; for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to
proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly, custom has
the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.

Reply Obj. 1: The natural and Divine laws proceed from the Divine
will, as stated above. Wherefore they cannot be changed by a custom
proceeding from the will of man, but only by Divine authority. Hence
it is that no custom can prevail over the Divine or natural laws: for
Isidore says (Synon. ii, 16): "Let custom yield to authority: evil
customs should be eradicated by law and reason."

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 96, A. 6), human laws fail in some
cases: wherefore it is possible sometimes to act beside the law;
namely, in a case where the law fails; yet the act will not be evil.
And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man,
then custom shows that the law is no longer useful: just as it might
be declared by the verbal promulgation of a law to the contrary. If,
however, the same reason remains, for which the law was useful
hitherto, then it is not the custom that prevails against the law,
but the law that overcomes the custom: unless perhaps the sole reason
for the law seeming useless, be that it is not "possible according to
the custom of the country" [*Q. 95, A. 3], which has been stated to
be one of the conditions of law. For it is not easy to set aside the
custom of a whole people.

Reply Obj. 3: The people among whom a custom is introduced may be of
two conditions. For if they are free, and able to make their own
laws, the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts
far more in favor of a particular observance, that does the authority
of the sovereign, who has not the power to frame laws, except as
representing the people. Wherefore although each individual cannot
make laws, yet the whole people can. If however the people have not
the free power to make their own laws, or to abolish a law made by a
higher authority; nevertheless with such a people a prevailing custom
obtains force of law, in so far as it is tolerated by those to whom
it belongs to make laws for that people: because by the very fact
that they tolerate it they seem to approve of that which is
introduced by custom.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 97, Art. 4]

Whether the Rulers of the People Can Dispense from Human Laws?

Objection 1: It would seem that the rulers of the people cannot
dispense from human laws. For the law is established for the "common
weal," as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21). But the common good should not
be set aside for the private convenience of an individual: because,
as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 2), "the good of the nation is
more godlike than the good of one man." Therefore it seems that a man
should not be dispensed from acting in compliance with the general
law.

Obj. 2: Further, those who are placed over others are commanded as
follows (Deut. 1:17): "You shall hear the little as well as the
great; neither shall you respect any man's person, because it is the
judgment of God." But to allow one man to do that which is equally
forbidden to all, seems to be respect of persons. Therefore the
rulers of a community cannot grant such dispensations, since this is
against a precept of the Divine law.

Obj. 3: Further, human law, in order to be just, should accord with
the natural and Divine laws: else it would not "foster religion," nor
be "helpful to discipline," which is requisite to the nature of law,
as laid down by Isidore (Etym. v, 3). But no man can dispense from
the Divine and natural laws. Neither, therefore, can he dispense from
the human law.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:17): "A dispensation is
committed to me."

_I answer that,_ Dispensation, properly speaking, denotes a measuring
out to individuals of some common goods: thus the head of a household
is called a dispenser, because to each member of the household he
distributes work and necessaries of life in due weight and measure.
Accordingly in every community a man is said to dispense, from the
very fact that he directs how some general precept is to be fulfilled
by each individual. Now it happens at times that a precept, which is
conducive to the common weal as a general rule, is not good for a
particular individual, or in some particular case, either because it
would hinder some greater good, or because it would be the occasion
of some evil, as explained above (Q. 96, A. 6). But it would be
dangerous to leave this to the discretion of each individual, except
perhaps by reason of an evident and sudden emergency, as stated above
(Q. 96, A. 6). Consequently he who is placed over a community is
empowered to dispense in a human law that rests upon his authority,
so that, when the law fails in its application to persons or
circumstances, he may allow the precept of the law not to be
observed. If however he grant this permission without any such
reason, and of his mere will, he will be an unfaithful or an
imprudent dispenser: unfaithful, if he has not the common good in
view; imprudent, if he ignores the reasons for granting
dispensations. Hence Our Lord says (Luke 12:42): "Who, thinkest thou,
is the faithful and wise dispenser [Douay: steward], whom his lord
setteth over his family?"

Reply Obj. 1: When a person is dispensed from observing the general
law, this should not be done to the prejudice of, but with the
intention of benefiting, the common good.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not respect of persons if unequal measures are
served out to those who are themselves unequal. Wherefore when the
condition of any person requires that he should reasonably receive
special treatment, it is not respect of persons if he be the object
of special favor.

Reply Obj. 3: Natural law, so far as it contains general precepts,
which never fail, does not allow of dispensations. In other precepts,
however, which are as conclusions of the general precepts, man
sometimes grants a dispensation: for instance, that a loan should not
be paid back to the betrayer of his country, or something similar.
But to the Divine law each man stands as a private person to the
public law to which he is subject. Wherefore just as none can
dispense from public human law, except the man from whom the law
derives its authority, or his delegate; so, in the precepts of the
Divine law, which are from God, none can dispense but God, or the man
to whom He may give special power for that purpose.
________________________

QUESTION 98

OF THE OLD LAW
(In Six Articles)

In due sequence we must now consider the Old Law; and (1) The Law
itself; (2) Its precepts. Under the first head there are six points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Old Law was good?

(2) Whether it was from God?

(3) Whether it came from Him through the angels?

(4) Whether it was given to all?

(5) Whether it was binding on all?

(6) Whether it was given at a suitable time?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 98, Art. 1]

Whether the Old Law Was Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law was not good. For it is
written (Ezech. 20:25): "I gave them statutes that were not good, and
judgments in which they shall not live." But a law is not said to be
good except on account of the goodness of the precepts that it
contains. Therefore the Old Law was not good.

Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to the goodness of a law that it conduce
to the common welfare, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3). But the Old Law
was not salutary; rather was it deadly and hurtful. For the Apostle
says (Rom. 7:8, seqq.): "Without the law sin was dead. And I lived
some time without the law. But when the commandment came sin revived;
and I died." Again he says (Rom. 5:20): "Law entered in that sin
might abound." Therefore the Old Law was not good.

Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to the goodness of the law that it should
be possible to obey it, both according to nature, and according to
human custom. But such the Old Law was not: since Peter said (Acts
15:10): "Why tempt you (God) to put a yoke on the necks of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
Therefore it seems that the Old Law was not good.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 7:12): "Wherefore the law
indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

_I answer that,_ Without any doubt, the Old Law was good. For just as
a doctrine is shown to be good by the fact that it accords with right
reason, so is a law proved to be good if it accords with reason. Now
the Old Law was in accordance with reason. Because it repressed
concupiscence which is in conflict with reason, as evidenced by the
commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" (Ex. 20:17).
Moreover the same law forbade all kinds of sin; and these too are
contrary to reason. Consequently it is evident that it was a good
law. The Apostle argues in the same way (Rom. 7): "I am delighted,"
says he (verse 22), "with the law of God, according to the inward
man": and again (verse 16): "I consent to the law, that is good."

But it must be noted that the good has various degrees, as Dionysius
states (Div. Nom. iv): for there is a perfect good, and an imperfect
good. In things ordained to an end, there is perfect goodness when a
thing is such that it is sufficient in itself to conduce to the end:
while there is imperfect goodness when a thing is of some assistance
in attaining the end, but is not sufficient for the realization
thereof. Thus a medicine is perfectly good, if it gives health to a
man; but it is imperfect, if it helps to cure him, without being able
to bring him back to health. Again it must be observed that the end
of human law is different from the end of Divine law. For the end of
human law is the temporal tranquillity of the state, which end law
effects by directing external actions, as regards those evils which
might disturb the peaceful condition of the state. On the other hand,
the end of the Divine law is to bring man to that end which is
everlasting happiness; which end is hindered by any sin, not only of
external, but also of internal action. Consequently that which
suffices for the perfection of human law, viz. the prohibition and
punishment of sin, does not suffice for the perfection of the Divine
law: but it is requisite that it should make man altogether fit to
partake of everlasting happiness. Now this cannot be done save by the
grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby "charity" which fulfilleth the law
. . . "is spread abroad in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5): since "the grace of
God is life everlasting" (Rom. 6:23). But the Old Law could not
confer this grace, for this was reserved to Christ; because, as it is
written (John 1:17), the law was given "by Moses, grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ." Consequently the Old Law was good indeed, but
imperfect, according to Heb. 7:19: "The law brought nothing to
perfection."

Reply Obj. 1: The Lord refers there to the ceremonial precepts; which
are said not to be good, because they did not confer grace unto the
remission of sins, although by fulfilling these precepts man
confessed himself a sinner. Hence it is said pointedly, "and
judgments in which they shall not live"; i.e. whereby they are unable
to obtain life; and so the text goes on: "And I polluted them," i.e.
showed them to be polluted, "in their own gifts, when they offered
all that opened the womb, for their offenses."

Reply Obj. 2: The law is said to have been deadly, as being not the
cause, but the occasion of death, on account of its imperfection: in
so far as it did not confer grace enabling man to fulfil what is
prescribed, and to avoid what it forbade. Hence this occasion was not
given to men, but taken by them. Wherefore the Apostle says (Rom.
5:11): "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me, and by
it killed me." In the same sense when it is said that "the law
entered in that sin might abound," the conjunction "that" must be
taken as consecutive and not final: in so far as men, taking occasion
from the law, sinned all the more, both because a sin became more
grievous after law had forbidden it, and because concupiscence
increased, since we desire a thing the more from its being forbidden.

Reply Obj. 3: The yoke of the law could not be borne without the help
of grace, which the law did not confer: for it is written (Rom.
9:16): "It is not him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," viz.
that he wills and runs in the commandments of God, "but of God that
showeth mercy." Wherefore it is written (Ps. 118:32): "I have run the
way of Thy commandments, when Thou didst enlarge my heart," i.e. by
giving me grace and charity.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 98, Art. 2]

Whether the Old Law Was from God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law was not from God. For it
is written (Deut. 32:4): "The works of God are perfect." But the Law
was imperfect, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore the Old Law was not
from God.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Eccles. 3:14): "I have learned that
all the works which God hath made continue for ever." But the Old Law
does not continue for ever: since the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18):
"There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because
of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Therefore the Old Law
was not from God.

Obj. 3: Further, a wise lawgiver should remove, not only evil, but
also the occasions of evil. But the Old Law was an occasion of sin,
as stated above (A. 1, ad 2). Therefore the giving of such a law does
not pertain to God, to Whom "none is like among the lawgivers" (Job
36:22).

Obj. 4: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 2:4) that God "will have all
men to be saved." But the Old Law did not suffice to save man, as
stated above (A. 1). Therefore the giving of such a law did not
appertain to God. Therefore the Old Law was not from God.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 15:6) while speaking to the
Jews, to whom the Law was given: "You have made void the commandment
of God for your tradition." And shortly before (verse 4) He had said:
"Honor thy father and mother," which is contained expressly in the
Old Law (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Therefore the Old Law was from God.

_I answer that,_ The Old Law was given by the good God, Who is the
Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For the Old Law ordained men to
Christ in two ways. First by bearing witness to Christ; wherefore He
Himself says (Luke 24:44): "All things must needs be fulfilled, which
are written in the law . . . and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
concerning Me": and (John 5:46): "If you did believe Moses, you would
perhaps believe Me also; for he wrote of Me." Secondly, as a kind of
disposition, since by withdrawing men from idolatrous worship, it
enclosed (_concludebat_) them in the worship of one God, by Whom the
human race was to be saved through Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says
(Gal. 3:23): "Before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut
up (_conclusi_), unto that faith which was to be revealed." Now it is
evident that the same thing it is, which gives a disposition to the
end, and which brings to the end; and when I say "the same," I mean
that it does so either by itself or through its subjects. For the
devil would not make a law whereby men would be led to Christ, Who
was to cast him out, according to Matt. 12:26: "If Satan cast out
Satan, his kingdom is divided" [Vulg.: 'he is divided against
himself']. Therefore the Old Law was given by the same God, from Whom
came salvation to man, through the grace of Christ.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing prevents a thing being not perfect simply, and
yet perfect in respect of time: thus a boy is said to be perfect, not
simply, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts
that are given to children are perfect in comparison with the
condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not
perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (Gal. 3:24): "The law was our
pedagogue in Christ."

Reply Obj. 2: Those works of God endure for ever which God so made
that they would endure for ever; and these are His perfect works. But
the Old Law was set aside when there came the perfection of grace;
not as though it were evil, but as being weak and useless for this
time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, "the law brought
nothing to perfection": hence he says (Gal. 3:25): "After the faith
is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 79, A. 4), God sometimes permits
certain ones to fall into sin, that they may thereby be humbled. So
also did He wish to give such a law as men by their own forces could
not fulfill, so that, while presuming on their own powers, they might
find themselves to be sinners, and being humbled might have recourse
to the help of grace.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the Old Law did not suffice to save man, yet
another help from God besides the Law was available for man, viz.
faith in the Mediator, by which the fathers of old were justified
even as we were. Accordingly God did not fail man by giving him
insufficient aids to salvation.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 98, Art. 3]

Whether the Old Law Was Given Through the Angels?

Objection 1: It seems that the Old Law was not given through the
angels, but immediately by God. For an angel means a "messenger"; so
that the word "angel" denotes ministry, not lordship, according to
Ps. 102:20, 21: "Bless the Lord, all ye His Angels . . . you
ministers of His." But the Old Law is related to have been given by
the Lord: for it is written (Ex. 20:1): "And the Lord spoke . . .
these words," and further on: "I am the Lord Thy God." Moreover the
same expression is often repeated in Exodus, and the later books of
the Law. Therefore the Law was given by God immediately.

Obj. 2: Further, according to John 1:17, "the Law was given by
Moses." But Moses received it from God immediately: for it is written
(Ex. 33:11): "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont
to speak to his friend." Therefore the Old Law was given by God
immediately.

Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to the sovereign alone to make a law, as
stated above (Q. 90, A. 3). But God alone is Sovereign as regards the
salvation of souls: while the angels are the "ministering spirits,"
as stated in Heb. 1:14. Therefore it was not meet for the Law to be
given through the angels, since it is ordained to the salvation of
souls.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle said (Gal. 3:19) that the Law was
"given [Vulg.: 'ordained'] by angels in the hand of a Mediator." And
Stephen said (Acts 7:53): "(Who) have received the Law by the
disposition of angels."

_I answer that,_ The Law was given by God through the angels. And
besides the general reason given by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), viz.
that "the gifts of God should be brought to men by means of the
angels," there is a special reason why the Old Law should have been
given through them. For it has been stated (AA. 1, 2) that the Old
Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of
the human race, which was to come through Christ. Now it is to be
observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that
holds the highest place, himself exercises the principal and perfect
acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are
effected by him through his subordinates: thus the ship-builder
himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by
means of the workmen who assist him under his direction. Consequently
it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be
given by the incarnate God immediately; but that the Old Law should
be given to men by the ministers of God, i.e. by the angels. It is
thus that the Apostle at the beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews
(1:2) proves the excellence of the New Law over the Old; because in
the New Testament "God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son," whereas
in the Old Testament "the word was spoken by angels" (Heb. 2:2).

Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says at the beginning of his Morals (Praef.
chap. i), "the angel who is described to have appeared to Moses, is
sometimes mentioned as an angel, sometimes as the Lord: an angel, in
truth, in respect of that which was subservient to the external
delivery; and the Lord, because He was the Director within, Who
supported the effectual power of speaking." Hence also it is that the
angel spoke as personating the Lord.

Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27), it is stated
in Exodus that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face"; and shortly
afterwards we read, "'Show me Thy glory.' Therefore He perceived what
he saw and he desired what he saw not." Hence he did not see the very
Essence of God; and consequently he was not taught by Him
immediately. Accordingly when Scripture states that "He spoke to him
face to face," this is to be understood as expressing the opinion of
the people, who thought that Moses was speaking with God mouth to
mouth, when God spoke and appeared to him, by means of a subordinate
creature, i.e. an angel and a cloud. Again we may say that this
vision "face to face" means some kind of sublime and familiar
contemplation, inferior to the vision of the Divine Essence.

Reply Obj. 3: It is for the sovereign alone to make a law by his own
authority; but sometimes after making a law, he promulgates it
through others. Thus God made the Law by His own authority, but He
promulgated it through the angels.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q, 98, Art. 4]

Whether the Old Law Should Have Been Given to the Jews Alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law should not have been
given to the Jews alone. For the Old Law disposed men for the
salvation which was to come through Christ, as stated above (AA. 2,
3). But that salvation was to come not to the Jews alone but to all
nations, according to Isa. 49:6: "It is a small thing that thou
shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to
convert the dregs of Israel. Behold I have given thee to be the light
of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation, even to the
farthest part of the earth." Therefore the Old Law should have been
given to all nations, and not to one people only.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Acts 10:34, 35, "God is not a respecter
of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh
justice, is acceptable to Him." Therefore the way of salvation should
not have been opened to one people more than to another.

Obj. 3: Further, the law was given through the angels, as stated
above (A. 3). But God always vouchsafed the ministrations of the
angels not to the Jews alone, but to all nations: for it is written
(Ecclus. 17:14): "Over every nation He set a ruler." Also on all
nations He bestows temporal goods, which are of less account with God
than spiritual goods. Therefore He should have given the Law also to
all peoples.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 3:1, 2): "What advantage then
hath the Jew? . . . Much every way. First indeed, because the words
of God were committed to them": and (Ps. 147:9): "He hath not done in
like manner to every nation: and His judgments He hath not made
manifest unto them."

_I answer that,_ It might be assigned as a reason for the Law being
given to the Jews rather than to other peoples, that the Jewish
people alone remained faithful to the worship of one God, while the
others turned away to idolatry; wherefore the latter were unworthy to
receive the Law, lest a holy thing should be given to dogs.

But this reason does not seem fitting: because that people turned to
idolatry, even after the Law had been made, which was more grievous,
as is clear from Ex. 32 and from Amos 5:25, 26: "Did you offer
victims and sacrifices to Me in the desert for forty years, O house
of Israel? But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the
image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to
yourselves." Moreover it is stated expressly (Deut. 9:6): "Know
therefore that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this excellent land
in possession for thy justices, for thou art a very stiff-necked
people": but the real reason is given in the preceding verse: "That
the Lord might accomplish His word, which He promised by oath to thy
fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

What this promise was is shown by the Apostle, who says (Gal. 3:16)
that "to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith
not, 'And to his seeds,' as of many: but as of one, 'And to thy
seed,' which is Christ." And so God vouchsafed both the Law and other
special boons to that people, on account of the promised made to
their fathers that Christ should be born of them. For it was fitting
that the people, of whom Christ was to be born, should be signalized
by a special sanctification, according to the words of Lev. 19:2: "Be
ye holy, because I . . . am holy." Nor again was it on account of the
merit of Abraham himself that this promise was made to him, viz. that
Christ should be born of his seed: but of gratuitous election and
vocation. Hence it is written (Isa. 41:2): "Who hath raised up the
just one form the east, hath called him to follow him?"

It is therefore evident that it was merely from gratuitous election
that the patriarchs received the promise, and that the people sprung
from them received the law; according to Deut. 4:36, 37: "Ye did
[Vulg.: 'Thou didst'] hear His words out of the midst of the fire,
because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them." And
if again it asked why He chose this people, and not another, that
Christ might be born thereof; a fitting answer is given by Augustine
(Tract. super Joan. xxvi): "Why He draweth one and draweth not
another, seek not thou to judge, if thou wish not to err."

Reply Obj. 1: Although the salvation, which was to come through
Christ, was prepared for all nations, yet it was necessary that
Christ should be born of one people, which, for this reason, was
privileged above other peoples; according to Rom. 9:4: "To whom,"
namely the Jews, "belongeth the adoption as of children (of God)
. . . and the testament, and the giving of the Law . . . whose are
the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh."

Reply Obj. 2: Respect of persons takes place in those things which
are given according to due; but it has no place in those things which
are bestowed gratuitously. Because he who, out of generosity, gives
of his own to one and not to another, is not a respecter of persons:
but if he were a dispenser of goods held in common, and were not to
distribute them according to personal merits, he would be a respecter
of persons. Now God bestows the benefits of salvation on the human
race gratuitously: wherefore He is not a respecter of persons, if He
gives them to some rather than to others. Hence Augustine says (De
Praedest. Sanct. viii): "All whom God teaches, he teaches out of
pity; but whom He teaches not, out of justice He teaches not": for
this is due to the condemnation of the human race for the sin of the
first parent.

Reply Obj. 3: The benefits of grace are forfeited by man on account
of sin: but not the benefits of nature. Among the latter are the
ministries of the angels, which the very order of various natures
demands, viz. that the lowest beings be governed through the
intermediate beings: and also bodily aids, which God vouchsafes not
only to men, but also to beasts, according to Ps. 35:7: "Men and
beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord."
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 98, Art. 5]

Whether All Men Were Bound to Observe the Old Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that all men were bound to observe the Old
Law. Because whoever is subject to the king, must needs be subject to
his law. But the Old Law was given by God, Who is "King of all the
earth" (Ps. 46:8). Therefore all the inhabitants of the earth were
bound to observe the Law.

Obj. 2: Further, the Jews could not be saved without observing the
Old Law: for it is written (Deut. 27:26): "Cursed be he that abideth
not in the words of this law, and fulfilleth them not in work." If
therefore other men could be saved without the observance of the Old
Law, the Jews would be in a worse plight than other men.

Obj. 3: Further, the Gentiles were admitted to the Jewish ritual and
to the observances of the Law: for it is written (Ex. 12:48): "If any
stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the
Lord, all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he
celebrate it according to the manner; and he shall be as he that is
born in the land." But it would have been useless to admit strangers
to the legal observances according to Divine ordinance, if they could
have been saved without the observance of the Law. Therefore none
could be saved without observing the Law.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix) that many of the
Gentiles were brought back to God by the angels. But it is clear that
the Gentiles did not observe the Law. Therefore some could be saved
without observing the Law.

_I answer that,_ The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural
law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those
precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound
to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but
because they belonged to the natural law. But as to those precepts
which were added by the Old Law, they were not binding on any save
the Jewish people alone.

The reason of this is because the Old Law, as stated above (A. 4),
was given to the Jewish people, that it might receive a prerogative
of holiness, in reverence for Christ Who was to be born of that
people. Now whatever laws are enacted for the special sanctification
of certain ones, are binding on them alone: thus clerics who are set
aside for the service of God are bound to certain obligations to
which the laity are not bound; likewise religious are bound by their
profession to certain works of perfection, to which people living in
the world are not bound. In like manner this people was bound to
certain special observances, to which other peoples were not bound.
Wherefore it is written (Deut. 18:13): "Thou shalt be perfect and
without spot before the Lord thy God": and for this reason they used
a kind of form of profession, as appears from Deut. 26:3: "I profess
this day before the Lord thy God," etc.

Reply Obj. 1: Whoever are subject to a king, are bound to observe his
law which he makes for all in general. But if he orders certain
things to be observed by the servants of his household, others are
not bound thereto.

Reply Obj. 2: The more a man is united to God, the better his state
becomes: wherefore the more the Jewish people were bound to the
worship of God, the greater their excellence over other peoples.
Hence it is written (Deut. 4:8): "What other nation is there so
renowned that hath ceremonies and just judgments, and all the law?"
In like manner, from this point of view, the state of clerics is
better than that of the laity, and the state of religious than that
of folk living in the world.

Reply Obj. 3: The Gentiles obtained salvation more perfectly and more
securely under the observances of the Law than under the mere natural
law: and for this reason they were admitted to them. So too the laity
are now admitted to the ranks of the clergy, and secular persons to
those of the religious, although they can be saved without this.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 98, Art. 6]

Whether the Old Law Was Suitably Given at the Time of Moses?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law was not suitably given at
the time of Moses. Because the Old Law disposed man for the salvation
which was to come through Christ, as stated above (AA. 2, 3). But man
needed this salutary remedy immediately after he had sinned.
Therefore the Law should have been given immediately after sin.

Obj. 2: Further, the Old Law was given for the sanctification of
those from whom Christ was to be born. Now the promise concerning the
"seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16) was first made to Abraham, as
related in Gen. 12:7. Therefore the Law should have been given at
once at the time of Abraham.

Obj. 3: Further, as Christ was born of those alone who descended from
Noe through Abraham, to whom the promise was made; so was He born of
no other of the descendants of Abraham but David, to whom the promise
was renewed, according to 2 Kings 23:1: "The man to whom it was
appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said."
Therefore the Old Law should have been given after David, just as it
was given after Abraham.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 3:19) that the Law "was set
because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He
made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a
Mediator": ordained, i.e. "given in orderly fashion," as the gloss
explains. Therefore it was fitting that the Old Law should be given
in this order of time.

_I answer that,_ It was most fitting for the Law to be given at the
time of Moses. The reason for this may be taken from two things in
respect of which every law is imposed on two kinds of men. Because it
is imposed on some men who are hard-hearted and proud, whom the law
restrains and tames: and it is imposed on good men, who, through
being instructed by the law, are helped to fulfil what they desire to
do. Hence it was fitting that the Law should be given at such a time
as would be appropriate for the overcoming of man's pride. For man
was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power. He was proud
of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him for
salvation: and accordingly, in order that his pride might be overcome
in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason without
the help of a written law: and man was able to learn from experience
that his reason was deficient, since about the time of Abraham man
had fallen headlong into idolatry and the most shameful vices.
Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written law to
be given as a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law is the
knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20). But, after man had been instructed by
the Law, his pride was convinced of his weakness, through his being
unable to fulfil what he knew. Hence, as the Apostle concludes (Rom.
8:3, 4), "what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sent [Vulg.: 'sending'] His own Son . . . that the
justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."

With regard to good men, the Law was given to them as a help; which
was most needed by the people, at the time when the natural law began
to be obscured on account of the exuberance of sin: for it was
fitting that this help should be bestowed on men in an orderly
manner, so that they might be led from imperfection to perfection;
wherefore it was becoming that the Old Law should be given between
the law of nature and the law of grace.

Reply Obj. 1: It was not fitting for the Old Law to be given at once
after the sin of the first man: both because man was so confident in
his own reason, that he did not acknowledge his need of the Old Law;
because as yet the dictate of the natural law was not darkened by
habitual sinning.

Reply Obj. 2: A law should not be given save to the people, since it
is a general precept, as stated above (Q. 90, AA. 2, 3); wherefore at
the time of Abraham God gave men certain familiar, and, as it were,
household precepts: but when Abraham's descendants had multiplied, so
as to form a people, and when they had been freed from slavery, it
was fitting that they should be given a law; for "slaves are not that
part of the people or state to which it is fitting for the law to be
directed," as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 2, 4, 5).

Reply Obj. 3: Since the Law had to be given to the people, not only
those, of whom Christ was born, received the Law, but the whole
people, who were marked with the seal of circumcision, which was the
sign of the promise made to Abraham, and in which he believed,
according to Rom. 4:11: hence even before David, the Law had to be
given to that people as soon as they were collected together.
________________________

QUESTION 99

OF THE PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the precepts of the Old Law; and (1) how they
are distinguished from one another; (2) each kind of precept. Under
the first head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Old Law contains several precepts or only one?

(2) Whether the Old Law contains any moral precepts?

(3) Whether it contains ceremonial precepts in addition to the moral
precepts?

(4) Whether besides these it contains judicial precepts?

(5) Whether it contains any others besides these?

(6) How the Old Law induced men to keep its precepts.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 1]

Whether the Old Law Contains Only One Precept?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law contains but one precept.
Because a law is nothing else than a precept, as stated above (Q. 90,
AA. 2, 3). Now there is but one Old Law. Therefore it contains but
one precept.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 13:9): "If there be any other
commandment, it is comprised in this word: Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself." But this is only one commandment. Therefore the
Old Law contained but one commandment.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 7:12): "All things . . .
whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them.
For this is the Law and the prophets." But the whole of the Old Law
is comprised in the Law and the prophets. Therefore the whole of the
Old Law contains but one commandment.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 2:15): "Making void the Law
of commandments contained in decrees": where he is referring to the
Old Law, as the gloss comments, on the passage. Therefore the Old Law
comprises many commandments.

_I answer that,_ Since a precept of law is binding, it is about
something which must be done: and, that a thing must be done, arises
from the necessity of some end. Hence it is evident that a precept
implies, in its very idea, relation to an end, in so far as a thing
is commanded as being necessary or expedient to an end. Now many
things may happen to be necessary or expedient to an end; and,
accordingly, precepts may be given about various things as being
ordained to one end. Consequently we must say that all the precepts
of the Old Law are one in respect of their relation to one end: and
yet they are many in respect of the diversity of those things that
are ordained to that end.

Reply Obj. 1: The Old Law is said to be one as being ordained to one
end: yet it comprises various precepts, according to the diversity of
the things which it directs to the end. Thus also the art of building
is one according to the unity of its end, because it aims at the
building of a house: and yet it contains various rules, according to
the variety of acts ordained thereto.

Reply Obj. 2: As the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:5), "the end of the
commandment is charity"; since every law aims at establishing
friendship, either between man and man, or between man and God.
Wherefore the whole Law is comprised in this one commandment, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," as expressing the end of all
commandments: because love of one's neighbor includes love of God,
when we love our neighbor for God's sake. Hence the Apostle put this
commandment in place of the two which are about the love of God and
of one's neighbor, and of which Our Lord said (Matt. 22:40): "On
these two commandments dependeth the whole Law and the prophets."

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Ethic._ ix, 8, "friendship towards
another arises from friendship towards oneself," in so far as man
looks on another as on himself. Hence when it is said, "All things
whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them,"
this is an explanation of the rule of neighborly love contained
implicitly in the words, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself":
so that it is an explanation of this commandment.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 2]

Whether the Old Law Contains Moral Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law contains no moral
precepts. For the Old Law is distinct from the law of nature, as
stated above (Q. 91, AA. 4, 5; Q. 98, A. 5). But the moral precepts
belong to the law of nature. Therefore they do not belong to the Old
Law.

Obj. 2: Further, the Divine Law should have come to man's assistance
where human reason fails him: as is evident in regard to things that
are of faith, which are above reason. But man's reason seems to
suffice for the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts do not
belong to the Old Law, which is a Divine law.

Obj. 3: Further, the Old Law is said to be "the letter that killeth"
(2 Cor. 3:6). But the moral precepts do not kill, but quicken,
according to Ps. 118:93: "Thy justifications I will never forget, for
by them Thou hast given me life." Therefore the moral precepts do not
belong to the Old Law.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 17:9): "Moreover, He gave
them discipline [Douay: 'instructions'] and the law of life for an
inheritance." Now discipline belongs to morals; for this gloss on
Heb. 12:11: "Now all chastisement (_disciplina_)," etc., says:
"Discipline is an exercise in morals by means of difficulties."
Therefore the Law which was given by God comprised moral precepts.

_I answer that,_ The Old Law contained some moral precepts; as is
evident from Ex. 20:13, 15: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not
steal." This was reasonable: because, just as the principal intention
of human law is to create friendship between man and man; so the
chief intention of the Divine law is to establish man in friendship
with God. Now since likeness is the reason of love, according to
Ecclus. 13:19: "Every beast loveth its like"; there cannot possibly
be any friendship of man to God, Who is supremely good, unless man
become good: wherefore it is written (Lev. 19:2; 11:45): "You shall
be holy, for I am holy." But the goodness of man is virtue, which
"makes its possessor good" (Ethic. ii, 6). Therefore it was necessary
for the Old Law to include precepts about acts of virtue: and these
are the moral precepts of the Law.

Reply Obj. 1: The Old Law is distinct from the natural law, not as
being altogether different from it, but as something added thereto.
For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law
presuppose the natural law.

Reply Obj. 2: It was fitting that the Divine law should come to man's
assistance not only in those things for which reason is insufficient,
but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be
impeded. Now human reason could not go astray in the abstract, as to
the universal principles of the natural law; but through being
habituated to sin, it became obscured in the point of things to be
done in detail. But with regard to the other moral precepts, which
are like conclusions drawn from the universal principles of the
natural law, the reason of many men went astray, to the extend of
judging to be lawful, things that are evil in themselves. Hence there
was need for the authority of the Divine law to rescue man from both
these defects. Thus among the articles of faith not only are those
things set forth to which reason cannot reach, such as the Trinity of
the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as
the Unity of the Godhead; in order to remove the manifold errors to
which reason is liable.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine proves (De Spiritu et Litera xiv), even
the letter of the law is said to be the occasion of death, as to the
moral precepts; in so far as, to wit, it prescribes what is good,
without furnishing the aid of grace for its fulfilment.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 3]

Whether the Old Law Comprises Ceremonial, Besides Moral, Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law does not comprise
ceremonial, besides moral, precepts. For every law that is given to
man is for the purpose of directing human actions. Now human actions
are called moral, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 3). Therefore it seems
that the Old Law given to men should not comprise other than moral
precepts.

Obj. 2: Further, those precepts that are styled ceremonial seem to
refer to the Divine worship. But Divine worship is the act of a
virtue, viz. religion, which, as Tully says (De Invent. ii) "offers
worship and ceremony to the Godhead." Since, then, the moral precepts
are about acts of virtue, as stated above (A. 2), it seems that the
ceremonial precepts should not be distinct from the moral.

Obj. 3: Further, the ceremonial precepts seem to be those which
signify something figuratively. But, as Augustine observes (De Doctr.
Christ. ii, 3, 4), "of all signs employed by men words hold the first
place." Therefore there is no need for the Law to contain ceremonial
precepts about certain figurative actions.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 4:13, 14): "Ten words . . .
He wrote in two tables of stone; and He commanded me at that time
that I should teach you the ceremonies and judgments which you shall
do." But the ten commandments of the Law are moral precepts.
Therefore besides the moral precepts there are others which are
ceremonial.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), the Divine law is instituted
chiefly in order to direct men to God; while human law is instituted
chiefly in order to direct men in relation to one another. Hence
human laws have not concerned themselves with the institution of
anything relating to Divine worship except as affecting the common
good of mankind: and for this reason they have devised many
institutions relating to Divine matters, according as it seemed
expedient for the formation of human morals; as may be seen in the
rites of the Gentiles. On the other hand the Divine law directed men
to one another according to the demands of that order whereby man is
directed to God, which order was the chief aim of that law. Now man
is directed to God not only by the interior acts of the mind, which
are faith, hope, and love, but also by certain external works,
whereby man makes profession of his subjection to God: and it is
these works that are said to belong to the Divine worship. This
worship is called "ceremony,"--the _munia,_ i.e. gifts, of Ceres (who
was the goddess of fruits), as some say: because, at first, offerings
were made to God from the fruits: or because, as Valerius Maximus
states [*Fact. et Dict. Memor. i, 1], the word "ceremony" was
introduced among the Latins, to signify the Divine worship, being
derived from a town near Rome called "Caere": since, when Rome was
taken by the Gauls, the sacred chattels of the Romans were taken
thither and most carefully preserved. Accordingly those precepts of
the Law which refer to the Divine worship are specially called
ceremonial.

Reply Obj. 1: Human acts extend also to the Divine worship: and
therefore the Old Law given to man contains precepts about these
matters also.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 91, A. 3), the precepts of the
natural law are general, and require to be determined: and they are
determined both by human law and by Divine law. And just as these
very determinations which are made by human law are said to be, not
of natural, but of positive law; so the determinations of the
precepts of the natural law, effected by the Divine law, are distinct
from the moral precepts which belong to the natural law. Wherefore to
worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral
precept; but the determination of this precept, namely that He is to
be worshipped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such
offerings, belongs to the ceremonial precepts. Consequently the
ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts.

Reply Obj. 3: As Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i), the things of God
cannot be manifested to men except by means of sensible similitudes.
Now these similitudes move the soul more when they are not only
expressed in words, but also offered to the senses. Wherefore the
things of God are set forth in the Scriptures not only by similitudes
expressed in words, as in the case of metaphorical expressions; but
also by similitudes of things set before the eyes, which pertains to
the ceremonial precepts.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 4]

Whether, Besides the Moral and Ceremonial Precepts, There Are Also
Judicial Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are no judicial precepts in
addition to the moral and ceremonial precepts in the Old Law. For
Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi, 2) that in the Old Law there are
"precepts concerning the life we have to lead, and precepts regarding
the life that is foreshadowed." Now the precepts of the life we have
to lead are moral precepts; and the precepts of the life that is
foreshadowed are ceremonial. Therefore besides these two kinds of
precepts we should not put any judicial precepts in the Law.

Obj. 2: Further, a gloss on Ps. 118:102, "I have not declined from
Thy judgments," says, i.e. "from the rule of life Thou hast set for
me." But a rule of life belongs to the moral precepts. Therefore the
judicial precepts should not be considered as distinct from the moral
precepts.

Obj. 3: Further, judgment seems to be an act of justice, according to
Ps. 93:15: "Until justice be turned into judgment." But acts of
justice, like the acts of other virtues, belong to the moral
precepts. Therefore the moral precepts include the judicial precepts,
and consequently should not be held as distinct from them.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 6:1): "These are the precepts
and ceremonies, and judgments": where "precepts" stands for "moral
precepts" antonomastically. Therefore there are judicial precepts
besides moral and ceremonial precepts.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 3), it belongs to the Divine
law to direct men to one another and to God. Now each of these
belongs in the abstract to the dictates of the natural law, to which
dictates the moral precepts are to be referred: yet each of them has
to be determined by Divine or human law, because naturally known
principles are universal, both in speculative and in practical
matters. Accordingly just as the determination of the universal
principle about Divine worship is effected by the ceremonial
precepts, so the determination of the general precepts of that
justice which is to be observed among men is effected by the judicial
precepts.

We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law;
viz. _moral_ precepts, which are dictated by the natural law;
_ceremonial_ precepts, which are determinations of the Divine
worship; and _judicial_ precepts, which are determinations of the
justice to be maintained among men. Wherefore the Apostle (Rom. 7:12)
after saying that the "Law is holy," adds that "the commandment is
just, and holy, and good": "just," in respect of the judicial
precepts; "holy," with regard to the ceremonial precepts (since the
word "sanctus"--"holy"--is applied to that which is consecrated to
God); and "good," i.e. conducive to virtue, as to the moral precepts.

Reply Obj. 1: Both the moral and the judicial precepts aim at the
ordering of human life: and consequently they are both comprised
under one of the heads mentioned by Augustine, viz. under the
precepts of the life we have to lead.

Reply Obj. 2: Judgment denotes execution of justice, by an
application of the reason to individual cases in a determinate way.
Hence the judicial precepts have something in common with the moral
precepts, in that they are derived from reason; and something in
common with the ceremonial precepts, in that they are determinations
of general precepts. This explains why sometimes "judgments" comprise
both judicial and moral precepts, as in Deut. 5:1: "Hear, O Israel,
the ceremonies and judgments"; and sometimes judicial and ceremonial
precepts, as in Lev. 18:4: "You shall do My judgments, and shall
observe My precepts," where "precepts" denotes moral precepts, while
"judgments" refers to judicial and ceremonial precepts.

Reply Obj. 3: The act of justice, in general, belongs to the moral
precepts; but its determination to some special kind of act belongs
to the judicial precepts.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 5]

Whether the Old Law Contains Any Others Besides the Moral, Judicial,
and Ceremonial Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law contains others besides
the moral, judicial, and ceremonial precepts. Because the judicial
precepts belong to the act of justice, which is between man and man;
while the ceremonial precepts belong to the act of religion, whereby
God is worshipped. Now besides these there are many other virtues,
viz. temperance, fortitude, liberality, and several others, as stated
above (Q. 60, A. 5). Therefore besides the aforesaid precepts, the
Old Law should comprise others.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Deut. 11:1): "Love the Lord thy God,
and observe His precepts and ceremonies, His judgments and
commandments." Now precepts concern moral matters, as stated above
(A. 4). Therefore besides the moral, judicial and ceremonial
precepts, the Law contains others which are called "commandments."
[*The "commandments" (mandata) spoken of here and in the body of this
article are not to be confused with the Commandments (praecepta) in
the ordinary acceptance of the word.]

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Deut. 6:17): "Keep the precepts of
the Lord thy God, and the testimonies and ceremonies which I have
[Vulg.: 'He hath'] commanded thee." Therefore in addition to the
above, the Law comprises "testimonies."

Obj. 4: Further, it is written (Ps. 118:93): "Thy justifications
(i.e. "Thy Law," according to a gloss) I will never forget."
Therefore in the Old Law there are not only moral, ceremonial and
judicial precepts, but also others, called "justifications."

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 6:1): "These are the precepts
and ceremonies and judgments which the Lord your God commanded . . .
you." And these words are placed at the beginning of the Law.
Therefore all the precepts of the Law are included under them.

_I answer that,_ Some things are included in the Law by way of
precept; other things, as being ordained to the fulfilment of the
precepts. Now the precepts refer to things which have to be done: and
to their fulfilment man is induced by two considerations, viz. the
authority of the lawgiver, and the benefit derived from the
fulfilment, which benefit consists in the attainment of some good,
useful, pleasurable or virtuous, or in the avoidance of some contrary
evil. Hence it was necessary that in the Old Law certain things
should be set forth to indicate the authority of God the lawgiver:
e.g. Deut. 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"; and
Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth": and these
are called "testimonies." Again it was necessary that in the Law
certain rewards should be appointed for those who observe the Law,
and punishments for those who transgress; as it may be seen in Deut.
28: "If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God . . . He will
make thee higher than all the nations," etc.: and these are called
"justifications," according as God punishes or rewards certain ones
justly.

The things that have to be done do not come under the precept except
in so far as they have the character of a duty. Now a duty is
twofold: one according to the rule of reason; the other according to
the rule of a law which prescribes that duty: thus the Philosopher
distinguishes a twofold just--moral and legal (Ethic. v, 7).

Moral duty is twofold: because reason dictates that something must be
done, either as being so necessary that without it the order of
virtue would be destroyed; or as being useful for the better
maintaining of the order of virtue. And in this sense some of the
moral precepts are expressed by way of absolute command or
prohibition, as "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal": and
these are properly called "precepts." Other things are prescribed or
forbidden, not as an absolute duty, but as something better to be
done. These may be called "commandments"; because they are expressed
by way of inducement and persuasion: an example whereof is seen in
Ex. 22:26: "If thou take of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou
shalt give it him again before sunset"; and in other like cases.
Wherefore Jerome (Praefat. in Comment. super Marc.) says that
"justice is in the precepts, charity in the commandments." Duty as
fixed by the Law, belongs to the judicial precepts, as regards human
affairs; to the ceremonial precepts, as regards Divine matters.

Nevertheless those ordinances also which refer to punishments and
rewards may be called "testimonies," in so far as they testify to the
Divine justice. Again all the precepts of the Law may be styled
"justifications," as being executions of legal justice. Furthermore
the commandments may be distinguished from the precepts, so that
those things be called "precepts" which God Himself prescribed; and
those things "commandments" which He enjoined (_mandavit_) through
others, as the very word seems to denote.

From this it is clear that all the precepts of the Law are either
moral, ceremonial, or judicial; and that other ordinances have not
the character of a precept, but are directed to the observance of the
precepts, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 1: Justice alone, of all the virtues, implies the notion
of duty. Consequently moral matters are determinable by law in so far
as they belong to justice: of which virtue religion is a part, as
Tully says (De Invent. ii). Wherefore the legal just cannot be
anything foreign to the ceremonial and judicial precepts.

The Replies to the other Objections are clear from what has been said.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 6]

Whether the Old Law Should Have Induced Men to the Observance of Its
Precepts, by Means of Temporal Promises and Threats?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law should not have induced
men to the observance of its precepts, by means of temporal promises
and threats. For the purpose of the Divine law is to subject man to
God by fear and love: hence it is written (Deut. 10:12): "And now,
Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but that thou
fear the Lord thy God, and walk in His ways, and love Him?" But the
desire for temporal goods leads man away from God: for Augustine says
(Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36), that "covetousness is the bane of charity."
Therefore temporal promises and threats seem to be contrary to the
intention of a lawgiver: and this makes a law worthy of rejection, as
the Philosopher declares (Polit. ii, 6).

Obj. 2: Further, the Divine law is more excellent than human law.
Now, in sciences, we notice that the loftier the science, the higher
the means of persuasion that it employs. Therefore, since human law
employs temporal threats and promises, as means of persuading man,
the Divine law should have used, not these, but more lofty means.

Obj. 3: Further, the reward of righteousness and the punishment of
guilt cannot be that which befalls equally the good and the wicked.
But as stated in Eccles. 9:2, "all" temporal "things equally happen
to the just and to the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean
and to the unclean, to him that offereth victims, and to him that
despiseth sacrifices." Therefore temporal goods or evils are not
suitably set forth as punishments or rewards of the commandments of
the Divine law.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 1:19, 20): "If you be willing,
and will hearken to Me, you shall eat the good things of the land.
But if you will not, and will provoke Me to wrath: the sword shall
devour you."

_I answer that,_ As in speculative sciences men are persuaded to
assent to the conclusions by means of syllogistic arguments, so too
in every law, men are persuaded to observe its precepts by means of
punishments and rewards. Now it is to be observed that, in
speculative sciences, the means of persuasion are adapted to the
conditions of the pupil: wherefore the process of argument in
sciences should be ordered becomingly, so that the instruction is
based on principles more generally known. And thus also he who would
persuade a man to the observance of any precepts, needs to move him
at first by things for which he has an affection; just as children
are induced to do something, by means of little childish gifts. Now
it has been said above (Q. 98, AA. 1, 2, 3) that the Old Law disposed
men to (the coming of) Christ, as the imperfect in comparison
disposes to the perfect, wherefore it was given to a people as yet
imperfect in comparison to the perfection which was to result from
Christ's coming: and for this reason, that people is compared to a
child that is still under a pedagogue (Gal. 3:24). But the perfection
of man consists in his despising temporal things and cleaving to
things spiritual, as is clear from the words of the Apostle (Phil.
3:13, 15): "Forgetting the things that are behind, I stretch [Vulg.:
'and stretching'] forth myself to those that are before . . . Let us
therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded." Those who are yet
imperfect desire temporal goods, albeit in subordination to God:
whereas the perverse place their end in temporalities. It was
therefore fitting that the Old Law should conduct men to God by means
of temporal goods for which the imperfect have an affection.

Reply Obj. 1: Covetousness whereby man places his end in
temporalities, is the bane of charity. But the attainment of temporal
goods which man desires in subordination to God is a road leading the
imperfect to the love of God, according to Ps. 48:19: "He will praise
Thee, when Thou shalt do well to him."

Reply Obj. 2: Human law persuades men by means of temporal rewards or
punishments to be inflicted by men: whereas the Divine law persuades
men by means of rewards or punishments to be received from God. In
this respect it employs higher means.

Reply Obj. 3: As any one can see, who reads carefully the story of
the Old Testament, the common weal of the people prospered under the
Law as long as they obeyed it; and as soon as they departed from the
precepts of the Law they were overtaken by many calamities. But
certain individuals, although they observed the justice of the Law,
met with misfortunes--either because they had already become
spiritual (so that misfortune might withdraw them all the more from
attachment to temporal things, and that their virtue might be
tried)--or because, while outwardly fulfilling the works of the Law,
their heart was altogether fixed on temporal goods, and far removed
from God, according to Isa. 29:13 (Matt. 15:8): "This people honoreth
Me with their lips; but their hearts is far from Me."
________________________

QUESTION 100

OF THE MORAL PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW
(In Twelve Articles)

We must now consider each kind of precept of the Old Law: and (1) the
moral precepts, (2) the ceremonial precepts, (3) the judicial
precepts. Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:

(1) Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law
of nature?

(2) Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law are about the acts of
all the virtues?

(3) Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law are reducible to
the ten precepts of the decalogue?

(4) How the precepts of the decalogue are distinguished from one
another?

(5) Their number;

(6) Their order;

(7) The manner in which they were given;

(8) Whether they are dispensable?

(9) Whether the mode of observing a virtue comes under the precept
of the Law?

(10) Whether the mode of charity comes under the precept?

(11) The distinction of other moral precepts;

(12) Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 1]

Whether All the Moral Precepts of the Old Law Belong to the Law of
Nature?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all the moral precepts belong to
the law of nature. For it is written (Ecclus. 17:9): "Moreover He
gave them instructions, and the law of life for an inheritance." But
instruction is in contradistinction to the law of nature; since the
law of nature is not learnt, but instilled by natural instinct.
Therefore not all the moral precepts belong to the natural law.

Obj. 2: Further, the Divine law is more perfect than human law. But
human law adds certain things concerning good morals, to those that
belong to the law of nature: as is evidenced by the fact that the
natural law is the same in all men, while these moral institutions
are various for various people. Much more reason therefore was there
why the Divine law should add to the law of nature, ordinances
pertaining to good morals.

Obj. 3: Further, just as natural reason leads to good morals in
certain matters, so does faith: hence it is written (Gal. 5:6) that
faith "worketh by charity." But faith is not included in the law of
nature; since that which is of faith is above nature. Therefore not
all the moral precepts of the Divine law belong to the law of nature.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 2:14) that "the Gentiles,
who have not the Law, do by nature those things that are of the Law":
which must be understood of things pertaining to good morals.
Therefore all the moral precepts of the Law belong to the law of
nature.

_I answer that,_ The moral precepts, distinct from the ceremonial and
judicial precepts, are about things pertaining of their very nature
to good morals. Now since human morals depend on their relation to
reason, which is the proper principle of human acts, those morals are
called good which accord with reason, and those are called bad which
are discordant from reason. And as every judgment of speculative
reason proceeds from the natural knowledge of first principles, so
every judgment of practical reason proceeds from principles known
naturally, as stated above (Q. 94, AA. 2, 4): from which principles
one may proceed in various ways to judge of various matters. For some
matters connected with human actions are so evident, that after very
little consideration one is able at once to approve or disapprove of
them by means of these general first principles: while some matters
cannot be the subject of judgment without much consideration of the
various circumstances, which all are not competent to do carefully,
but only those who are wise: just as it is not possible for all to
consider the particular conclusions of sciences, but only for those
who are versed in philosophy: and lastly there are some matters of
which man cannot judge unless he be helped by Divine instruction;
such as the articles of faith.

It is therefore evident that since the moral precepts are about
matters which concern good morals; and since good morals are those
which are in accord with reason; and since also every judgment of
human reason must needs by derived in some way from natural reason;
it follows, of necessity, that all the moral precepts belong to the
law of nature; but not all in the same way. For there are certain
things which the natural reason of every man, of its own accord and
at once, judges to be done or not to be done: e.g. "Honor thy father
and thy mother," and "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal":
and these belong to the law of nature absolutely. And there are
certain things which, after a more careful consideration, wise men
deem obligatory. Such belong to the law of nature, yet so that they
need to be inculcated, the wiser teaching the less wise: e.g. "Rise
up before the hoary head, and honor the person of the aged man," and
the like. And there are some things, to judge of which, human reason
needs Divine instruction, whereby we are taught about the things of
God: e.g. "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the
likeness of anything"; "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy
God in vain."

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 2]

Whether the Moral Precepts of the Law Are About All the Acts of
Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral precepts of the Law are not
about all the acts of virtue. For observance of the precepts of the
Old Law is called justification, according to Ps. 118:8: "I will keep
Thy justifications." But justification is the execution of justice.
Therefore the moral precepts are only about acts of justice.

Obj. 2: Further, that which comes under a precept has the character
of a duty. But the character of duty belongs to justice alone and to
none of the other virtues, for the proper act of justice consists in
rendering to each one his due. Therefore the precepts of the moral
law are not about the acts of the other virtues, but only about the
acts of justice.

Obj. 3: Further, every law is made for the common good, as Isidore
says (Etym. v, 21). But of all the virtues justice alone regards the
common good, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1). Therefore the
moral precepts are only about the acts of justice.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Paradiso viii) that "a sin is a
transgression of the Divine law, and a disobedience to the
commandments of heaven." But there are sins contrary to all the acts
of virtue. Therefore it belongs to Divine law to direct all the acts
of virtue.

_I answer that,_ Since the precepts of the Law are ordained to the
common good, as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2), the precepts of the Law
must needs be diversified according to the various kinds of
community: hence the Philosopher (Polit. iv, 1) teaches that the laws
which are made in a state which is ruled by a king must be different
from the laws of a state which is ruled by the people, or by a few
powerful men in the state. Now human law is ordained for one kind of
community, and the Divine law for another kind. Because human law is
ordained for the civil community, implying mutual duties of man and
his fellows: and men are ordained to one another by outward acts,
whereby men live in communion with one another. This life in common
of man with man pertains to justice, whose proper function consists
in directing the human community. Wherefore human law makes precepts
only about acts of justice; and if it commands acts of other virtues,
this is only in so far as they assume the nature of justice, as the
Philosopher explains (Ethic. v, 1).

But the community for which the Divine law is ordained, is that of
men in relation to God, either in this life or in the life to come.
And therefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those
matters whereby men are well ordered in their relations to God. Now
man is united to God by his reason or mind, in which is God's image.
Wherefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters
whereby human reason is well ordered. But this is effected by the
acts of all the virtues: since the intellectual virtues set in good
order the acts of the reason in themselves: while the moral virtues
set in good order the acts of the reason in reference to the interior
passions and exterior actions. It is therefore evident that the
Divine law fittingly proposes precepts about the acts of all the
virtues: yet so that certain matters, without which the order of
virtue, which is the order of reason, cannot even exist, come under
an obligation of precept; while other matters, which pertain to the
well-being of perfect virtue, come under an admonition of counsel.

Reply Obj. 1: The fulfilment of the commandments of the Law, even of
those which are about the acts of the other virtues, has the
character of justification, inasmuch as it is just that man should
obey God: or again, inasmuch as it is just that all that belongs to
man should be subject to reason.

Reply Obj. 2: Justice properly so called regards the duty of one man
to another: but all the other virtues regard the duty of the lower
powers to reason. It is in relation to this latter duty that the
Philosopher speaks (Ethic. v, 11) of a kind of metaphorical justice.

The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said
about the different kinds of community.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 3]

Whether All the Moral Precepts of the Old Law Are Reducible to the
Ten Precepts of the Decalogue?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all the moral precepts of the Old
Law are reducible to the ten precepts of the decalogue. For the first
and principal precepts of the Law are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor," as stated in Matt. 22:37,
39. But these two are not contained in the precepts of the decalogue.
Therefore not all the moral precepts are contained in the precepts of
the decalogue.

Obj. 2: Further, the moral precepts are not reducible to the
ceremonial precepts, but rather vice versa. But among the precepts of
the decalogue, one is ceremonial, viz. "Remember that thou keep holy
the Sabbath-day." Therefore the moral precepts are not reducible to
all the precepts of the decalogue.

Obj. 3: Further, the moral precepts are about all the acts of virtue.
But among the precepts of the decalogue are only such as regard acts
of justice; as may be seen by going through them all. Therefore the
precepts of the decalogue do not include all the moral precepts.

_On the contrary,_ The gloss on Matt. 5:11: "Blessed are ye when they
shall revile you," etc. says that "Moses, after propounding the ten
precepts, set them out in detail." Therefore all the precepts of the
Law are so many parts of the precepts of the decalogue.

_I answer that,_ The precepts of the decalogue differ from the other
precepts of the Law, in the fact that God Himself is said to have
given the precepts of the decalogue; whereas He gave the other
precepts to the people through Moses. Wherefore the decalogue
includes those precepts the knowledge of which man has immediately
from God. Such are those which with but slight reflection can be
gathered at once from the first general principles: and those also
which become known to man immediately through divinely infused faith.
Consequently two kinds of precepts are not reckoned among the
precepts of the decalogue: viz. first general principles, for they
need no further promulgation after being once imprinted on the
natural reason to which they are self-evident; as, for instance, that
one should do evil to no man, and other similar principles: and again
those which the careful reflection of wise men shows to be in accord
with reason; since the people receive these principles from God,
through being taught by wise men. Nevertheless both kinds of precepts
are contained in the precepts of the decalogue; yet in different
ways. For the first general principles are contained in them, as
principles in their proximate conclusions; while those which are
known through wise men are contained, conversely, as conclusions in
their principles.

Reply Obj. 1: Those two principles are the first general principles
of the natural law, and are self-evident to human reason, either
through nature or through faith. Wherefore all the precepts of the
decalogue are referred to these, as conclusions to general principles.

Reply Obj. 2: The precept of the Sabbath observance is moral in one
respect, in so far as it commands man to give some time to the things
of God, according to Ps. 45:11: "Be still and see that I am God." In
this respect it is placed among the precepts of the decalogue: but
not as to the fixing of the time, in which respect it is a ceremonial
precept.

Reply Obj. 3: The notion of duty is not so patent in the other
virtues as it is in justice. Hence the precepts about the acts of the
other virtues are not so well known to the people as are the precepts
about acts of justice. Wherefore the acts of justice especially come
under the precepts of the decalogue, which are the primary elements
of the Law.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 4]

Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Suitably Distinguished from
One Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are
unsuitably distinguished from one another. For worship is a virtue
distinct from faith. Now the precepts are about acts of virtue. But
that which is said at the beginning of the decalogue, "Thou shalt not
have strange gods before Me," belongs to faith: and that which is
added, "Thou shalt not make . . . any graven thing," etc. belongs to
worship. Therefore these are not one precept, as Augustine asserts
(Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi), but two.

Obj. 2: Further, the affirmative precepts in the Law are distinct
from the negative precepts; e.g. "Honor thy father and thy mother,"
and, "Thou shalt not kill." But this, "I am the Lord thy God," is
affirmative: and that which follows, "Thou shalt not have strange
gods before Me," is negative. Therefore these are two precepts, and
do not, as Augustine says (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi), make one.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 7:7): "I had not known
concupiscence, if the Law did not say: 'Thou shalt not covet.'" Hence
it seems that this precept, "Thou shalt not covet," is one precept;
and, therefore, should not be divided into two.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Augustine who, in
commenting on Exodus (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi) distinguishes three
precepts as referring to God, and seven as referring to our neighbor.

_I answer that,_ The precepts of the decalogue are differently
divided by different authorities. For Hesychius commenting on Lev.
26:26, "Ten women shall bake your bread in one oven," says that the
precept of the Sabbath-day observance is not one of the ten precepts,
because its observance, in the letter, is not binding for all time.
But he distinguishes four precepts pertaining to God, the first
being, "I am the Lord thy God"; the second, "Thou shalt not have
strange gods before Me," (thus also Jerome distinguishes these two
precepts, in his commentary on Osee 10:10, "On thy" [Vulg.: "their"]
"two iniquities"); the third precept according to him is, "Thou shalt
not make to thyself any graven thing"; and the fourth, "Thou shalt
not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." He states that there
are six precepts pertaining to our neighbor; the first, "Honor thy
father and thy mother"; the second, "Thou shalt not kill"; the third,
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"; the fourth, "Thou shalt not steal";
the fifth, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"; the sixth, "Thou
shalt not covet."

But, in the first place, it seems unbecoming for the precept of the
Sabbath-day observance to be put among the precepts of the decalogue,
if it nowise belonged to the decalogue. Secondly, because, since it
is written (Matt. 6:24), "No man can serve two masters," the two
statements, "I am the Lord thy God," and, "Thou shalt not have
strange gods before Me" seem to be of the same nature and to form one
precept. Hence Origen (Hom. viii in Exod.) who also distinguishes
four precepts as referring to God, unites these two under one
precept; and reckons in the second place, "Thou shalt not make . . .
any graven thing"; as third, "Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain"; and as fourth, "Remember that thou keep holy
the Sabbath-day." The other six he reckons in the same way as
Hesychius.

Since, however, the making of graven things or the likeness of
anything is not forbidden except as to the point of their being
worshipped as gods--for God commanded an image of the Seraphim
[Vulg.: Cherubim] to be made and placed in the tabernacle, as related
in Ex. 25:18--Augustine more fittingly unites these two, "Thou shalt
not have strange gods before Me," and, "Thou shalt not make . . . any
graven thing," into one precept. Likewise to covet another's wife,
for the purpose of carnal knowledge, belongs to the concupiscence of
the flesh; whereas, to covet other things, which are desired for the
purpose of possession, belongs to the concupiscence of the eyes;
wherefore Augustine reckons as distinct precepts, that which forbids
the coveting of another's goods, and that which prohibits the
coveting of another's wife. Thus he distinguishes three precepts as
referring to God, and seven as referring to our neighbor. And this is
better.

Reply Obj. 1: Worship is merely a declaration of faith: wherefore the
precepts about worship should not be reckoned as distinct from those
about faith. Nevertheless precepts should be given about worship
rather than about faith, because the precept about faith is
presupposed to the precepts of the decalogue, as is also the precept
of charity. For just as the first general principles of the natural
law are self-evident to a subject having natural reason, and need no
promulgation; so also to believe in God is a first and self-evident
principle to a subject possessed of faith: "for he that cometh to
God, must believe that He is" (Heb. 11:6). Hence it needs no other
promulgation that the infusion of faith.

Reply Obj. 2: The affirmative precepts are distinct from the
negative, when one is not comprised in the other: thus that man
should honor his parents does not include that he should not kill
another man; nor does the latter include the former. But when an
affirmative precept is included in a negative, or vice versa, we do
not find that two distinct precepts are given: thus there is not one
precept saying that "Thou shalt not steal," and another binding one
to keep another's property intact, or to give it back to its owner.
In the same way there are not different precepts about believing in
God, and about not believing in strange gods.

Reply Obj. 3: All covetousness has one common ratio: and therefore
the Apostle speaks of the commandment about covetousness as though it
were one. But because there are various special kinds of
covetousness, therefore Augustine distinguishes different
prohibitions against coveting: for covetousness differs specifically
in respect of the diversity of actions or things coveted, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 5).
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 5]

Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Suitably Set Forth?

Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are
unsuitably set forth. Because sin, as stated by Ambrose (De Paradiso
viii), is "a transgression of the Divine law and a disobedience to
the commandments of heaven." But sins are distinguished according as
man sins against God, or his neighbor, or himself. Since, then, the
decalogue does not include any precepts directing man in his
relations to himself, but only such as direct him in his relations to
God and himself, it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are
insufficiently enumerated.

Obj. 2: Further, just as the Sabbath-day observance pertained to the
worship of God, so also did the observance of other solemnities, and
the offering of sacrifices. But the decalogue contains a precept
about the Sabbath-day observance. Therefore it should contain others
also, pertaining to the other solemnities, and to the sacrificial
rite.

Obj. 3: Further, as sins against God include the sin of perjury, so
also do they include blasphemy, or other ways of lying against the
teaching of God. But there is a precept forbidding perjury, "Thou
shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Therefore there
should be also a precept of the decalogue forbidding blasphemy and
false doctrine.

Obj. 4: Further, just as man has a natural affection for his parents,
so has he also for his children. Moreover the commandment of charity
extends to all our neighbors. Now the precepts of the decalogue are
ordained unto charity, according to 1 Tim. 1:5: "The end of the
commandment is charity." Therefore as there is a precept referring to
parents, so should there have been some precepts referring to
children and other neighbors.

Obj. 5: Further, in every kind of sin, it is possible to sin in
thought or in deed. But in some kinds of sin, namely in theft and
adultery, the prohibition of sins of deed, when it is said, "Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal," is distinct from
the prohibition of the sin of thought, when it is said, "Thou shalt
not covet thy neighbor's goods," and, "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife." Therefore the same should have been done in regard
to the sins of homicide and false witness.

Obj. 6: Further, just as sin happens through disorder of the
concupiscible faculty, so does it arise through disorder of the
irascible part. But some precepts forbid inordinate concupiscence,
when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet." Therefore the decalogue
should have included some precepts forbidding the disorders of the
irascible faculty. Therefore it seems that the ten precepts of the
decalogue are unfittingly enumerated.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 4:13): "He shewed you His
covenant, which He commanded you to do, and the ten words that He
wrote in two tablets of stone."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), just as the precepts of
human law direct man in his relations to the human community, so the
precepts of the Divine law direct man in his relations to a community
or commonwealth of men under God. Now in order that any man may dwell
aright in a community, two things are required: the first is that he
behave well to the head of the community; the other is that he behave
well to those who are his fellows and partners in the community. It
is therefore necessary that the Divine law should contain in the
first place precepts ordering man in his relations to God; and in the
second place, other precepts ordering man in his relations to other
men who are his neighbors and live with him under God.

Now man owes three things to the head of the community: first,
fidelity; secondly, reverence; thirdly, service. Fidelity to his
master consists in his not giving sovereign honor to another: and
this is the sense of the first commandment, in the words "Thou shalt
not have strange gods." Reverence to his master requires that he
should do nothing injurious to him: and this is conveyed by the
second commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God
in vain." Service is due to the master in return for the benefits
which his subjects receive from him: and to this belongs the third
commandment of the sanctification of the Sabbath in memory of the
creation of all things.

To his neighbors a man behaves himself well both in particular and in
general. In particular, as to those to whom he is indebted, by paying
his debts: and in this sense is to be taken the commandment about
honoring one's parents. In general, as to all men, by doing harm to
none, either by deed, or by word, or by thought. By deed, harm is
done to one's neighbor--sometimes in his person, i.e. as to his
personal existence; and this is forbidden by the words, "Thou shalt
not kill": sometimes in a person united to him, as to the propagation
of offspring; and this is prohibited by the words, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery": sometimes in his possessions, which are directed to
both the aforesaid; and with this regard to this it is said, "Thou
shalt not steal." Harm done by word is forbidden when it is said,
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor": harm done
by thought is forbidden in the words, "Thou shalt not covet."

The three precepts that direct man in his behavior towards God may
also be differentiated in this same way. For the first refers to
deeds; wherefore it is said, "Thou shalt not make . . . a graven
thing": the second, to words; wherefore it is said, "Thou shalt not
take the name of the Lord thy God in vain": the third, to thoughts;
because the sanctification of the Sabbath, as the subject of a moral
precept, requires repose of the heart in God. Or, according to
Augustine (In Ps. 32: Conc. 1), by the first commandment we reverence
the unity of the First Principle; by the second, the Divine truth; by
the third, His goodness whereby we are sanctified, and wherein we
rest as in our last end.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection may be answered in two ways. First,
because the precepts of the decalogue can be reduced to the precepts
of charity. Now there was need for man to receive a precept about
loving God and his neighbor, because in this respect the natural law
had become obscured on account of sin: but not about the duty of
loving oneself, because in this respect the natural law retained its
vigor: or again, because love of oneself is contained in the love of
God and of one's neighbor: since true self-love consists in directing
oneself to God. And for this reason the decalogue includes those
precepts only which refer to our neighbor and to God.

Secondly, it may be answered that the precepts of the decalogue are
those which the people received from God immediately; wherefore it is
written (Deut. 10:4): "He wrote in the tables, according as He had
written before, the ten words, which the Lord spoke to you." Hence
the precepts of the decalogue need to be such as the people can
understand at once. Now a precept implies the notion of duty. But it
is easy for a man, especially for a believer, to understand that, of
necessity, he owes certain duties to God and to his neighbor. But
that, in matters which regard himself and not another, man has, of
necessity, certain duties to himself, is not so evident: for, at the
first glance, it seems that everyone is free in matters that concern
himself. And therefore the precepts which prohibit disorders of a man
with regard to himself, reach the people through the instruction of
men who are versed in such matters; and, consequently, they are not
contained in the decalogue.

Reply Obj. 2: All the solemnities of the Old Law were instituted in
celebration of some Divine favor, either in memory of past favors, or
in sign of some favor to come: in like manner all the sacrifices were
offered up with the same purpose. Now of all the Divine favors to be
commemorated the chief was that of the Creation, which was called to
mind by the sanctification of the Sabbath; wherefore the reason for
this precept is given in Ex. 20:11: "In six days the Lord made heaven
and earth," etc. And of all future blessings, the chief and final was
the repose of the mind in God, either, in the present life, by grace,
or, in the future life, by glory; which repose was also foreshadowed
in the Sabbath-day observance: wherefore it is written (Isa. 58:13):
"If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy own will
in My holy day, and call the Sabbath delightful, and the holy of the
Lord glorious." Because these favors first and chiefly are borne in
mind by men, especially by the faithful. But other solemnities were
celebrated on account of certain particular favors temporal and
transitory, such as the celebration of the Passover in memory of the
past favor of the delivery from Egypt, and as a sign of the future
Passion of Christ, which though temporal and transitory, brought us
to the repose of the spiritual Sabbath. Consequently, the Sabbath
alone, and none of the other solemnities and sacrifices, is mentioned
in the precepts of the decalogue.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 6:16), "men swear by one
greater than themselves; and an oath for confirmation is the end of
all their controversy." Hence, since oaths are common to all,
inordinate swearing is the matter of a special prohibition by a
precept of the decalogue. According to one interpretation, however,
the words, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain," are a prohibition of false doctrine, for one gloss expounds
them thus: "Thou shalt not say that Christ is a creature."

Reply Obj. 4: That a man should not do harm to anyone is an immediate
dictate of his natural reason: and therefore the precepts that forbid
the doing of harm are binding on all men. But it is not an immediate
dictate of natural reason that a man should do one thing in return
for another, unless he happen to be indebted to someone. Now a son's
debt to his father is so evident that one cannot get away from it by
denying it: since the father is the principle of generation and
being, and also of upbringing and teaching. Wherefore the decalogue
does not prescribe deeds of kindness or service to be done to anyone
except to one's parents. On the other hand parents do not seem to be
indebted to their children for any favors received, but rather the
reverse is the case. Again, a child is a part of his father; and
"parents love their children as being a part of themselves," as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 12). Hence, just as the decalogue
contains no ordinance as to man's behavior towards himself, so, for
the same reason, it includes no precept about loving one's children.

Reply Obj. 5: The pleasure of adultery and the usefulness of wealth,
in so far as they have the character of pleasurable or useful good,
are of themselves, objects of appetite: and for this reason they
needed to be forbidden not only in the deed but also in the desire.
But murder and falsehood are, of themselves, objects of repulsion
(since it is natural for man to love his neighbor and the truth): and
are desired only for the sake of something else. Consequently with
regard to sins of murder and false witness, it was necessary to
proscribe, not sins of thought, but only sins of deed.

Reply Obj. 6: As stated above (Q. 25, A. 1), all the passions of the
irascible faculty arise from the passions of the concupiscible part.
Hence, as the precepts of the decalogue are, as it were, the first
elements of the Law, there was no need for mention of the irascible
passions, but only of the concupiscible passions.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 6]

Whether the Ten Precepts of the Decalogue Are Set in Proper Order?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ten precepts of the decalogue are
not set in proper order. Because love of one's neighbor is seemingly
previous to love of God, since our neighbor is better known to us
than God is; according to 1 John 4:20: "He that loveth not his
brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, Whom he seeth not?" But
the first three precepts belong to the love of God, while the other
seven pertain to the love of our neighbor. Therefore the precepts of
the decalogue are not set in proper order.

Obj. 2: Further, the acts of virtue are prescribed by the affirmative
precepts, and acts of vice are forbidden by the negative precepts.
But according to Boethius in his commentary on the _Categories_
[*Lib. iv, cap. De Oppos.], vices should be uprooted before virtues
are sown. Therefore among the precepts concerning our neighbor, the
negative precepts should have preceded the affirmative.

Obj. 3: Further, the precepts of the Law are about men's actions. But
actions of thought precede actions of word or outward deed. Therefore
the precepts about not coveting, which regard our thoughts, are
unsuitably placed last in order.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): "The things that are
of God, are well ordered" [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of
God']. But the precepts of the decalogue were given immediately by
God, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore they are arranged in becoming
order.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 3, 5, ad 1), the precepts of
the decalogue are such as the mind of man is ready to grasp at once.
Now it is evident that a thing is so much the more easily grasped by
the reason, as its contrary is more grievous and repugnant to reason.
Moreover, it is clear, since the order of reason begins with the end,
that, for a man to be inordinately disposed towards his end, is
supremely contrary to reason. Now the end of human life and society
is God. Consequently it was necessary for the precepts of the
decalogue, first of all, to direct man to God; since the contrary to
this is most grievous. Thus also, in an army, which is ordained to
the commander as to its end, it is requisite first that the soldier
should be subject to the commander, and the opposite of this is most
grievous; and secondly it is requisite that he should be in
coordination with the other soldiers.

Now among those things whereby we are ordained to God, the first is
that man should be subjected to Him faithfully, by having nothing in
common with His enemies. The second is that he should show Him
reverence: the third that he should offer Him service. Thus, in an
army, it is a greater sin for a soldier to act treacherously and make
a compact with the foe, than to be insolent to his commander: and
this last is more grievous than if he be found wanting in some point
of service to him.

As to the precepts that direct man in his behavior towards his
neighbor, it is evident that it is more repugnant to reason, and a
more grievous sin, if man does not observe the due order as to those
persons to whom he is most indebted. Consequently, among those
precepts that direct man in his relations to his neighbor, the first
place is given to that one which regards his parents. Among the other
precepts we again find the order to be according to the gravity of
sin. For it is more grave and more repugnant to reason, to sin by
deed than by word; and by word than by thought. And among sins of
deed, murder which destroys life in one already living is more
grievous than adultery, which imperils the life of the unborn child;
and adultery is more grave than theft, which regards external goods.

Reply Obj. 1: Although our neighbor is better known than God by the
way of the senses, nevertheless the love of God is the reason for the
love of our neighbor, as shall be declared later on (II-II, Q. 25, A.
1; Q. 26, A. 2). Hence the precepts ordaining man to God demanded
precedence of the others.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as God is the universal principle of being in
respect of all things, so is a father a principle of being in respect
of his son. Therefore the precept regarding parents was fittingly
placed after the precepts regarding God. This argument holds in
respect of affirmative and negative precepts about the same kind of
deed: although even then it is not altogether cogent. For although in
the order of execution, vices should be uprooted before virtues are
sown, according to Ps. 33:15: "Turn away from evil, and do good," and
Isa. 1:16, 17: "Cease to do perversely; learn to do well"; yet, in
the order of knowledge, virtue precedes vice, because "the crooked
line is known by the straight" (De Anima i): and "by the law is the
knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20). Wherefore the affirmative precept
demanded the first place. However, this is not the reason for the
order, but that which is given above. Because in the precepts
regarding God, which belongs to the first table, an affirmative
precept is placed last, since its transgression implies a less
grievous sin.

Reply Obj. 3: Although sin of thought stands first in the order of
execution, yet its prohibition holds a later position in the order of
reason.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 7]

Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Suitably Formulated?

Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are
unsuitably formulated. Because the affirmative precepts direct man to
acts of virtue, while the negative precepts withdraw him from acts of
vice. But in every matter there are virtues and vices opposed to one
another. Therefore in whatever matter there is an ordinance of a
precept of the decalogue, there should have been an affirmative and a
negative precept. Therefore it was unfitting that affirmative
precepts should be framed in some matters, and negative precepts in
others.

Obj. 2: Further, Isidore says (Etym. ii, 10) that every law is based
on reason. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the Divine
law. Therefore the reason should have been pointed out in each
precept, and not only in the first and third.

Obj. 3: Further, by observing the precepts man deserves to be
rewarded by God. But the Divine promises concern the rewards of the
precepts. Therefore the promise should have been included in each
precept, and not only in the second and fourth.

Obj. 4: Further, the Old Law is called "the law of fear," in so far
as it induced men to observe the precepts, by means of the threat of
punishments. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the Old
Law. Therefore a threat of punishment should have been included in
each, and not only in the first and second.

Obj. 5: Further, all the commandments of God should be retained in
the memory: for it is written (Prov. 3:3): "Write them in the tables
of thy heart." Therefore it was not fitting that mention of the
memory should be made in the third commandment only. Consequently it
seems that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 11:21) that "God made all
things, in measure, number and weight." Much more therefore did He
observe a suitable manner in formulating His Law.

_I answer that,_ The highest wisdom is contained in the precepts of
the Divine law: wherefore it is written (Deut. 4:6): "This is your
wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations." Now it belongs to
wisdom to arrange all things in due manner and order. Therefore it
must be evident that the precepts of the Law are suitably set forth.

Reply Obj. 1: Affirmation of one thing always leads to the denial of
its opposite: but the denial of one opposite does not always lead to
the affirmation of the other. For it follows that if a thing is
white, it is not black: but it does not follow that if it is not
black, it is white: because negation extends further than
affirmation. And hence too, that one ought not to do harm to another,
which pertains to the negative precepts, extends to more persons, as
a primary dictate of reason, than that one ought to do someone a
service or kindness. Nevertheless it is a primary dictate of reason
that man is a debtor in the point of rendering a service or kindness
to those from whom he has received kindness, if he has not yet repaid
the debt. Now there are two whose favors no man can sufficiently
repay, viz. God and man's father, as stated in _Ethic._ viii, 14.
Therefore it is that there are only two affirmative precepts; one
about the honor due to parents, the other about the celebration of
the Sabbath in memory of the Divine favor.

Reply Obj. 2: The reasons for the purely moral precepts are manifest;
hence there was no need to add the reason. But some of the precepts
include ceremonial matter, or a determination of a general moral
precept; thus the first precept includes the determination, "Thou
shalt not make a graven thing"; and in the third precept the
Sabbath-day is fixed. Consequently there was need to state the reason
in each case.

Reply Obj. 3: Generally speaking, men direct their actions to some
point of utility. Consequently in those precepts in which it seemed
that there would be no useful result, or that some utility might be
hindered, it was necessary to add a promise of reward. And since
parents are already on the way to depart from us, no benefit is
expected from them: wherefore a promise of reward is added to the
precept about honoring one's parents. The same applies to the precept
forbidding idolatry: since thereby it seemed that men were hindered
from receiving the apparent benefit which they think they can get by
entering into a compact with the demons.

Reply Obj. 4: Punishments are necessary against those who are prone
to evil, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 9. Wherefore a threat of punishment
is only affixed to those precepts of the law which forbade evils to
which men were prone. Now men were prone to idolatry by reason of the
general custom of the nations. Likewise men are prone to perjury on
account of the frequent use of oaths. Hence it is that a threat is
affixed to the first two precepts.

Reply Obj. 5: The commandment about the Sabbath was made in memory of
a past blessing. Wherefore special mention of the memory is made
therein. Or again, the commandment about the Sabbath has a
determination affixed to it that does not belong to the natural law,
wherefore this precept needed a special admonition.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 8]

Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Dispensable?

Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are
dispensable. For the precepts of the decalogue belong to the natural
law. But the natural law fails in some cases and is changeable, like
human nature, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7). Now the failure
of law to apply in certain particular cases is a reason for
dispensation, as stated above (Q. 96, A. 6; Q. 97, A. 4). Therefore a
dispensation can be granted in the precepts of the decalogue.

Obj. 2: Further, man stands in the same relation to human law as God
does to Divine law. But man can dispense with the precepts of a law
made by man. Therefore, since the precepts of the decalogue are
ordained by God, it seems that God can dispense with them. Now our
superiors are God's viceregents on earth; for the Apostle says (2
Cor. 2:10): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything,
for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." Therefore
superiors can dispense with the precepts of the decalogue.

Obj. 3: Further, among the precepts of the decalogue is one
forbidding murder. But it seems that a dispensation is given by men
in this precept: for instance, when according to the prescription of
human law, such as evil-doers or enemies are lawfully slain.
Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.

Obj. 4: Further, the observance of the Sabbath is ordained by a
precept of the decalogue. But a dispensation was granted in this
precept; for it is written (1 Macc. 2:4): "And they determined in
that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up to fight against us on the
Sabbath-day, we will fight against him." Therefore the precepts of
the decalogue are dispensable.

_On the contrary,_ are the words of Isa. 24:5, where some are
reproved for that "they have changed the ordinance, they have broken
the everlasting covenant"; which, seemingly, apply principally to the
precepts of the decalogue. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue
cannot be changed by dispensation.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 96, A. 6; Q. 97, A. 4), precepts
admit of dispensation, when there occurs a particular case in which,
if the letter of the law be observed, the intention of the lawgiver
is frustrated. Now the intention of every lawgiver is directed first
and chiefly to the common good; secondly, to the order of justice and
virtue, whereby the common good is preserved and attained. If
therefore there be any precepts which contain the very preservation
of the common good, or the very order of justice and virtue, such
precepts contain the intention of the lawgiver, and therefore are
indispensable. For instance, if in some community a law were enacted,
such as this--that no man should work for the destruction of the
commonwealth, or betray the state to its enemies, or that no man
should do anything unjust or evil, such precepts would not admit of
dispensation. But if other precepts were enacted, subordinate to the
above, and determining certain special modes of procedure, these
latter precepts would admit of dispensation, in so far as the
omission of these precepts in certain cases would not be prejudicial
to the former precepts which contain the intention of the lawgiver.
For instance if, for the safeguarding of the commonwealth, it were
enacted in some city that from each ward some men should keep watch
as sentries in case of siege, some might be dispensed from this on
account of some greater utility.

Now the precepts of the decalogue contain the very intention of the
lawgiver, who is God. For the precepts of the first table, which
direct us to God, contain the very order to the common and final
good, which is God; while the precepts of the second table contain
the order of justice to be observed among men, that nothing undue be
done to anyone, and that each one be given his due; for it is in this
sense that we are to take the precepts of the decalogue. Consequently
the precepts of the decalogue admit of no dispensation whatever.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is not speaking of the natural law
which contains the very order of justice: for it is a never-failing
principle that "justice should be preserved." But he is speaking in
reference to certain fixed modes of observing justice, which fail to
apply in certain cases.

Reply Obj. 2: As the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:13), "God continueth
faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself if He
were to do away with the very order of His own justice, since He is
justice itself. Wherefore God cannot dispense a man so that it be
lawful for him not to direct himself to God, or not to be subject to
His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one
another.

Reply Obj. 3: The slaying of a man is forbidden in the decalogue, in
so far as it bears the character of something undue: for in this
sense the precept contains the very essence of justice. Human law
cannot make it lawful for a man to be slain unduly. But it is not
undue for evil-doers or foes of the common weal to be slain: hence
this is not contrary to the precept of the decalogue; and such a
killing is no murder as forbidden by that precept, as Augustine
observes (De Lib. Arb. i, 4). In like manner when a man's property is
taken from him, if it be due that he should lose it, this is not
theft or robbery as forbidden by the decalogue.

Consequently when the children of Israel, by God's command, took away
the spoils of the Egyptians, this was not theft; since it was due to
them by the sentence of God. Likewise when Abraham consented to slay
his son, he did not consent to murder, because his son was due to be
slain by the command of God, Who is Lord of life and death: for He it
is Who inflicts the punishment of death on all men, both godly and
ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be
the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no
murderer any more than God would be. Again Osee, by taking unto
himself a wife of fornications, or an adulterous woman, was not
guilty either of adultery or of fornication: because he took unto
himself one who was his by command of God, Who is the Author of the
institution of marriage.

Accordingly, therefore, the precepts of the decalogue, as to the
essence of justice which they contain, are unchangeable: but as to
any determination by application to individual actions--for instance,
that this or that be murder, theft or adultery, or not--in this point
they admit of change; sometimes by Divine authority alone, namely, in
such matters as are exclusively of Divine institution, as marriage
and the like; sometimes also by human authority, namely in such
matters as are subject to human jurisdiction: for in this respect men
stand in the place of God: and yet not in all respects.

Reply Obj. 4: This determination was an interpretation rather than a
dispensation. For a man is not taken to break the Sabbath, if he does
something necessary for human welfare; as Our Lord proves (Matt.
12:3, seqq.).
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 9]

Whether the Mode of Virtue Falls Under the Precept of the Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the mode of virtue falls under the
precept of the law. For the mode of virtue is that deeds of justice
should be done justly, that deeds of fortitude should be done
bravely, and in like manner as to the other virtues. But it is
commanded (Deut. 26:20) that "thou shalt follow justly after that
which is just." Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept.

Obj. 2: Further, that which belongs to the intention of the lawgiver
comes chiefly under the precept. But the intention of the lawgiver is
directed chiefly to make men virtuous, as stated in _Ethic._ ii: and
it belongs to a virtuous man to act virtuously. Therefore the mode of
virtue falls under the precept.

Obj. 3: Further, the mode of virtue seems to consist properly in
working willingly and with pleasure. But this falls under a precept
of the Divine law, for it is written (Ps. 99:2): "Serve ye the Lord
with gladness"; and (2 Cor. 9:7): "Not with sadness or necessity: for
God loveth a cheerful giver"; whereupon the gloss says: "Whatever ye
do, do gladly; and then you will do it well; whereas if you do it
sorrowfully, it is done in thee, not by thee." Therefore the mode of
virtue falls under the precept of the law.

_On the contrary,_ No man can act as a virtuous man acts unless he
has the habit of virtue, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii, 4;
v, 8). Now whoever transgresses a precept of the law, deserves to be
punished. Hence it would follow that a man who has not the habit of
virtue, would deserve to be punished, whatever he does. But this is
contrary to the intention of the law, which aims at leading man to
virtue, by habituating him to good works. Therefore the mode of
virtue does not fall under the precept.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, A. 3, ad 2), a precept of
law has compulsory power. Hence that on which the compulsion of the
law is brought to bear, falls directly under the precept of the law.
Now the law compels through fear of punishment, as stated in _Ethic._
x, 9, because that properly falls under the precept of the law, for
which the penalty of the law is inflicted. But Divine law and human
law are differently situated as to the appointment of penalties;
since the penalty of the law is inflicted only for those things which
come under the judgment of the lawgiver; for the law punishes in
accordance with the verdict given. Now man, the framer of human law,
is competent to judge only of outward acts; because "man seeth those
things that appear," according to 1 Kings 16:7: while God alone, the
framer of the Divine law, is competent to judge of the inward
movements of wills, according to Ps. 7:10: "The searcher of hearts
and reins is God."

Accordingly, therefore, we must say that the mode of virtue is in
some sort regarded both by human and by Divine law; in some respect
it is regarded by the Divine, but not by the human law; and in
another way, it is regarded neither by the human nor by the Divine
law. Now the mode of virtue consists in three things, as the
Philosopher states in _Ethic._ ii. The first is that man should act
"knowingly": and this is subject to the judgment of both Divine and
human law; because what a man does in ignorance, he does
accidentally. Hence according to both human and Divine law, certain
things are judged in respect of ignorance to be punishable or
pardonable.

The second point is that a man should act "deliberately," i.e. "from
choice, choosing that particular action for its own sake"; wherein a
twofold internal movement is implied, of volition and of intention,
about which we have spoken above (QQ. 8, 12): and concerning these
two, Divine law alone, and not human law, is competent to judge. For
human law does not punish the man who wishes to slay, and slays not:
whereas the Divine law does, according to Matt. 5:22: "Whosoever is
angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment."

The third point is that he should "act from a firm and immovable
principle": which firmness belongs properly to a habit, and implies
that the action proceeds from a rooted habit. In this respect, the
mode of virtue does not fall under the precept either of Divine or of
human law, since neither by man nor by God is he punished as breaking
the law, who gives due honor to his parents and yet has not the habit
of filial piety.

Reply Obj. 1: The mode of doing acts of justice, which falls under
the precept, is that they be done in accordance with right; but not
that they be done from the habit of justice.

Reply Obj. 2: The intention of the lawgiver is twofold. His aim, in
the first place, is to lead men to something by the precepts of the
law: and this is virtue. Secondly, his intention is brought to bear
on the matter itself of the precept: and this is something leading or
disposing to virtue, viz. an act of virtue. For the end of the
precept and the matter of the precept are not the same: just as
neither in other things is the end the same as that which conduces to
the end.

Reply Obj. 3: That works of virtue should be done without sadness,
falls under the precept of the Divine law; for whoever works with
sadness works unwillingly. But to work with pleasure, i.e. joyfully
or cheerfully, in one respect falls under the precept, viz. in so far
as pleasure ensues from the love of God and one's neighbor (which
love falls under the precept), and love causes pleasure: and in
another respect does not fall under the precept, in so far as
pleasure ensues from a habit; for "pleasure taken in a work proves
the existence of a habit," as stated in _Ethic._ ii, 3. For an act
may give pleasure either on account of its end, or through its
proceeding from a becoming habit.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 10]

Whether the Mode of Charity Falls Under the Precept of the Divine Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the mode of charity falls under the
precept of the Divine law. For it is written (Matt. 19:17): "If thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments": whence it seems to
follow that the observance of the commandments suffices for entrance
into life. But good works do not suffice for entrance into life,
except they be done from charity: for it is written (1 Cor. 13:3):
"If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I
should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it
profiteth me nothing." Therefore the mode of charity is included in
the commandment.

Obj. 2: Further, the mode of charity consists properly speaking in
doing all things for God. But this falls under the precept; for the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:31): "Do all to the glory of God." Therefore
the mode of charity falls under the precept.

Obj. 3: Further, if the mode of charity does not fall under the
precept, it follows that one can fulfil the precepts of the law
without having charity. Now what can be done without charity can be
done without grace, which is always united to charity. Therefore one
can fulfil the precepts of the law without grace. But this is the
error of Pelagius, as Augustine declares (De Haeres. lxxxviii).
Therefore the mode of charity is included in the commandment.

_On the contrary,_ Whoever breaks a commandment sins mortally. If
therefore the mode of charity falls under the precept, it follows
that whoever acts otherwise than from charity sins mortally. But
whoever has not charity, acts otherwise than from charity. Therefore
it follows that whoever has not charity, sins mortally in whatever he
does, however good this may be in itself: which is absurd.

_I answer that,_ Opinions have been contrary on this question. For
some have said absolutely that the mode of charity comes under the
precept; and yet that it is possible for one not having charity to
fulfil this precept: because he can dispose himself to receive
charity from God. Nor (say they) does it follow that a man not having
charity sins mortally whenever he does something good of its kind:
because it is an affirmative precept that binds one to act from
charity, and is binding not for all time, but only for such time as
one is in a state of charity. On the other hand, some have said that
the mode of charity is altogether outside the precept.

Both these opinions are true up to a certain point. Because the act
of charity can be considered in two ways. First, as an act by itself:
and thus it falls under the precept of the law which specially
prescribes it, viz. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," and "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor." In this sense, the first opinion is true.
Because it is not impossible to observe this precept which regards
the act of charity; since man can dispose himself to possess charity,
and when he possesses it, he can use it. Secondly, the act of charity
can be considered as being the mode of the acts of the other virtues,
i.e. inasmuch as the acts of the other virtues are ordained to
charity, which is "the end of the commandment," as stated in 1 Tim.
i, 5: for it has been said above (Q. 12, A. 4) that the intention of
the end is a formal mode of the act ordained to that end. In this
sense the second opinion is true in saying that the mode of charity
does not fall under the precept, that is to say that this
commandment, "Honor thy father," does not mean that a man must honor
his father from charity, but merely that he must honor him. Wherefore
he that honors his father, yet has not charity, does not break this
precept: although he does break the precept concerning the act of
charity, for which reason he deserves to be punished.

Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord did not say, "If thou wilt enter into life,
keep one commandment"; but "keep" all "the commandments": among which
is included the commandment concerning the love of God and our
neighbor.

Reply Obj. 2: The precept of charity contains the injunction that God
should be loved from our whole heart, which means that all things
would be referred to God. Consequently man cannot fulfil the precept
of charity, unless he also refer all things to God. Wherefore he that
honors his father and mother, is bound to honor them from charity,
not in virtue of the precept, "Honor thy father and mother," but in
virtue of the precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy
whole heart." And since these are two affirmative precepts, not
binding for all times, they can be binding, each one at a different
time: so that it may happen that a man fulfils the precept of
honoring his father and mother, without at the same time breaking the
precept concerning the omission of the mode of charity.

Reply Obj. 3: Man cannot fulfil all the precepts of the law, unless
he fulfil the precept of charity, which is impossible without
charity. Consequently it is not possible, as Pelagius maintained, for
man to fulfil the law without grace.
________________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 11]

Whether It Is Right to Distinguish Other Moral Precepts of the Law
Besides the Decalogue?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is wrong to distinguish other
moral precepts of the law besides the decalogue. Because, as Our Lord
declared (Matt. 22:40), "on these two commandments" of charity
"dependeth the whole law and the prophets." But these two
commandments are explained by the ten commandments of the decalogue.
Therefore there is no need for other moral precepts.

Obj. 2: Further, the moral precepts are distinct from the judicial
and ceremonial precepts, as stated above (Q. 99, AA. 3, 4). But the
determinations of the general moral precepts belong to the judicial
and ceremonial precepts: and the general moral precepts are contained
in the decalogue, or are even presupposed to the decalogue, as stated
above (A. 3). Therefore it was unsuitable to lay down other moral
precepts besides the decalogue.

Obj. 3: Further, the moral precepts are about the acts of all the
virtues, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore, as the Law contains,
besides the decalogue, moral precepts pertaining to religion,
liberality, mercy, and chastity; so there should have been added some
precepts pertaining to the other virtues, for instance, fortitude,
sobriety, and so forth. And yet such is not the case. It is therefore
unbecoming to distinguish other moral precepts in the Law besides
those of the decalogue.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 18:8): "The law of the Lord is
unspotted, converting souls." But man is preserved from the stain of
sin, and his soul is converted to God by other moral precepts besides
those of the decalogue. Therefore it was right for the Law to include
other moral precepts.

_I answer that,_ As is evident from what has been stated (Q. 99, AA.
3, 4), the judicial and ceremonial precepts derive their force from
their institution alone: since before they were instituted, it seemed
of no consequence whether things were done in this or that way. But
the moral precepts derive their efficacy from the very dictate of
natural reason, even if they were never included in the Law. Now of
these there are three grades: for some are most certain, and so
evident as to need no promulgation; such as the commandments of the
love of God and our neighbor, and others like these, as stated above
(A. 3), which are, as it were, the ends of the commandments;
wherefore no man can have an erroneous judgment about them. Some
precepts are more detailed, the reason of which even an uneducated
man can easily grasp; and yet they need to be promulgated, because
human judgment, in a few instances, happens to be led astray
concerning them: these are the precepts of the decalogue. Again,
there are some precepts the reason of which is not so evident to
everyone, but only the wise; these are moral precepts added to the
decalogue, and given to the people by God through Moses and Aaron.

But since the things that are evident are the principles whereby we
know those that are not evident, these other moral precepts added to
the decalogue are reducible to the precepts of the decalogue, as so
many corollaries. Thus the first commandment of the decalogue forbids
the worship of strange gods: and to this are added other precepts
forbidding things relating to worship of idols: thus it is written
(Deut. 18:10, 11): "Neither let there be found among you anyone that
shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the
fire: . . . neither let there by any wizard nor charmer, nor anyone
that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh
the truth from the dead." The second commandment forbids perjury. To
this is added the prohibition of blasphemy (Lev. 24:15, seqq) and the
prohibition of false doctrine (Deut. 13). To the third commandment
are added all the ceremonial precepts. To the fourth commandment
prescribing the honor due to parents, is added the precept about
honoring the aged, according to Lev. 19:32: "Rise up before the hoary
head, and honor the person of the aged man"; and likewise all the
precepts prescribing the reverence to be observed towards our
betters, or kindliness towards our equals or inferiors. To the fifth
commandment, which forbids murder, is added the prohibition of hatred
and of any kind of violence inflicted on our neighbor, according to
Lev. 19:16: "Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbor":
likewise the prohibition against hating one's brother (Lev. 19:17):
"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart." To the sixth
commandment which forbids adultery, is added the prohibition about
whoredom, according to Deut. 23:17: "There shall be no whore among
the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel";
and the prohibition against unnatural sins, according to Lev. 28:22,
23: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . thou shalt not copulate
with any beast." To the seventh commandment which prohibits theft, is
added the precept forbidding usury, according to Deut. 23:19: "Thou
shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury"; and the prohibition
against fraud, according to Deut. 25:13: "Thou shalt not have divers
weights in thy bag"; and universally all prohibitions relating to
peculations and larceny. To the eighth commandment, forbidding false
testimony, is added the prohibition against false judgment, according
to Ex. 23:2: "Neither shalt thou yield in judgment, to the opinion of
the most part, to stray from the truth"; and the prohibition against
lying (Ex. 23:7): "Thou shalt fly lying," and the prohibition against
detraction, according to Lev. 19:16: "Thou shalt not be a detractor,
nor a whisperer among the people." To the other two commandments no
further precepts are added, because thereby are forbidden all kinds
of evil desires.

Reply Obj. 1: The precepts of the decalogue are ordained to the love
of God and our neighbor as pertaining evidently to our duty towards
them; but the other precepts are so ordained as pertaining thereto
less evidently.

Reply Obj. 2: It is in virtue of their institution that the
ceremonial and judicial precepts are determinations of the precepts
of the decalogue, not by reason of a natural instinct, as in the case
of the superadded moral precepts.

Reply Obj. 3: The precepts of a law are ordained for the common good,
as stated above (Q. 90, A. 2). And since those virtues which direct
our conduct towards others pertain directly to the common good, as
also does the virtue of chastity, in so far as the generative act
conduces to the common good of the species; hence precepts bearing
directly on these virtues are given, both in the decalogue and in
addition thereto. As to the act of fortitude there are the order to
be given by the commanders in the war, which is undertaken for the
common good: as is clear from Deut. 20:3, where the priest is
commanded (to speak thus): "Be not afraid, do not give back." In like
manner the prohibition of acts of gluttony is left to paternal
admonition, since it is contrary to the good of the household; hence
it is said (Deut. 21:20) in the person of parents: "He slighteth
hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to revelling, and to
debauchery and banquetings."
________________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 12]

Whether the Moral Precepts of the Old Law Justified Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral precepts of the Old Law
justified man. Because the Apostle says (Rom. 2:13): "For not the
hearers of the Law are justified before God, but the doers of the Law
shall be justified." But the doers of the Law are those who fulfil
the precepts of the Law. Therefore the fulfilling of the precepts of
the Law was a cause of justification.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 18:5): "Keep My laws and My
judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them." But the
spiritual life of man is through justice. Therefore the fulfilling of
the precepts of the Law was a cause of justification.

Obj. 3: Further, the Divine law is more efficacious than human law.
But human law justifies man; since there is a kind of justice
consisting in fulfilling the precepts of law. Therefore the precepts
of the Law justified man.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6): "The letter
killeth": which, according to Augustine (De Spir. et Lit. xiv),
refers even to the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts did
not cause justice.

_I answer that,_ Just as "healthy" is said properly and first of that
which is possessed of health, and secondarily of that which is a sign
or a safeguard of health; so justification means first and properly
the causing of justice; while secondarily and improperly, as it were,
it may denote a sign of justice or a disposition thereto. If justice
be taken in the last two ways, it is evident that it was conferred by
the precepts of the Law; in so far, to wit, as they disposed men to
the justifying grace of Christ, which they also signified, because as
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 24), "even the life of that
people foretold and foreshadowed Christ."

But if we speak of justification properly so called, then we must
notice that it can be considered as in the habit or as in the act: so
that accordingly justification may be taken in two ways. First,
according as man is made just, by becoming possessed of the habit of
justice: secondly, according as he does works of justice, so that in
this sense justification is nothing else than the execution of
justice. Now justice, like the other virtues, may denote either the
acquired or the infused virtue, as is clear from what has been stated
(Q. 63, A. 4). The acquired virtue is caused by works; but the
infused virtue is caused by God Himself through His grace. The latter
is true justice, of which we are speaking now, and in this respect of
which a man is said to be just before God, according to Rom. 4:2: "If
Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not
before God." Hence this justice could not be caused by moral
precepts, which are about human actions: wherefore the moral precepts
could not justify man by causing justice.

If, on the other hand, by justification we understand the execution
of justice, thus all the precepts of the Law justified man, but in
various ways. Because the ceremonial precepts taken as a whole
contained something just in itself, in so far as they aimed at
offering worship to God; whereas taken individually they contained
that which is just, not in itself, but by being a determination of
the Divine law. Hence it is said of these precepts that they did not
justify man save through the devotion and obedience of those who
complied with them. On the other hand the moral and judicial
precepts, either in general or also in particular, contained that
which is just in itself: but the moral precepts contained that which
is just in itself according to that "general justice" which is "every
virtue" according to _Ethic._ v, 1: whereas the judicial precepts
belonged to "special justice," which is about contracts connected
with the human mode of life, between one man and another.

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle takes justification for the execution of
justice.

Reply Obj. 2: The man who fulfilled the precepts of the Law is said
to live in them, because he did not incur the penalty of death, which
the Law inflicted on its transgressors: in this sense the Apostle
quotes this passage (Gal. 3:12).

Reply Obj. 3: The precepts of human law justify man by acquired
justice: it is not about this that we are inquiring now, but only
about that justice which is before God.
________________________

QUESTION 101

OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS IN THEMSELVES
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the ceremonial precepts: and first we must
consider them in themselves; secondly, their cause; thirdly, their
duration. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) The nature of the ceremonial precepts;

(2) Whether they are figurative?

(3) Whether there should have been many of them?

(4) Of their various kinds.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 101, Art. 1]

Whether the Nature of the Ceremonial Precepts Consists in Their
Pertaining to the Worship of God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the nature of the ceremonial precepts
does not consist in their pertaining to the worship of God. Because,
in the Old Law, the Jews were given certain precepts about abstinence
from food (Lev. 11); and about refraining from certain kinds of
clothes, e.g. (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is
woven of two sorts"; and again (Num. 15:38): "To make to themselves
fringes in the corners of their garments." But these are not moral
precepts; since they do not remain in the New Law. Nor are they
judicial precepts; since they do not pertain to the pronouncing of
judgment between man and man. Therefore they are ceremonial precepts.
Yet they seem in no way to pertain to the worship of God. Therefore
the nature of the ceremonial precepts does not consist in their
pertaining to Divine worship.

Obj. 2: Further, some state that the ceremonial precepts are those
which pertain to solemnities; as though they were so called from the
_cerei_ (candles) which are lit up on those occasions. But many other
things besides solemnities pertain to the worship of God. Therefore
it does not seem that the ceremonial precepts are so called from
their pertaining to the Divine worship.

Obj. 3: Further, some say that the ceremonial precepts are patterns,
i.e. rules, of salvation: because the Greek _chaire_ is the same as
the Latin "salve." But all the precepts of the Law are rules of
salvation, and not only those that pertain to the worship of God.
Therefore not only those precepts which pertain to Divine worship are
called ceremonial.

Obj. 4: Further, Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii) that the
ceremonial precepts are those for which there is no evident reason.
But there is evident reason for many things pertaining to the worship
of God; such as the observance of the Sabbath, the feasts of the
Passover and of the Tabernacles, and many other things, the reason
for which is set down in the Law. Therefore the ceremonial precepts
are not those which pertain to the worship of God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ex. 18:19, 20): "Be thou to the
people in those things that pertain to God . . . and . . . shew the
people the ceremonies and the manner of worshipping."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 99, A. 4), the ceremonial
precepts are determinations of the moral precepts whereby man is
directed to God, just as the judicial precepts are determinations of
the moral precepts whereby he is directed to his neighbor. Now man is
directed to God by the worship due to Him. Wherefore those precepts
are properly called ceremonial, which pertain to the Divine worship.
The reason for their being so called was given above (Q. 99, A. 3),
when we established the distinction between the ceremonial and the
other precepts.

Reply Obj. 1: The Divine worship includes not only sacrifices and the
like, which seem to be directed to God immediately, but also those
things whereby His worshippers are duly prepared to worship Him: thus
too in other matters, whatever is preparatory to the end comes under
the science whose object is the end. Accordingly those precepts of
the Law which regard the clothing and food of God's worshippers, and
other such matters, pertain to a certain preparation of the
ministers, with the view of fitting them for the Divine worship: just
as those who administer to a king make use of certain special
observances. Consequently such are contained under the ceremonial
precepts.

Reply Obj. 2: The alleged explanation of the name does not seem very
probable: especially as the Law does not contain many instances of
the lighting of candles in solemnities; since, even the lamps of the
Candlestick were furnished with "oil of olives," as stated in Lev.
24:2. Nevertheless we may say that all things pertaining to the
Divine worship were more carefully observed on solemn festivals: so
that all ceremonial precepts may be included under the observance of
solemnities.

Reply Obj. 3: Neither does this explanation of the name appear to be
very much to the point, since the word "ceremony" is not Greek but
Latin. We may say, however, that, since man's salvation is from God,
those precepts above all seem to be rules of salvation, which direct
man to God: and accordingly those which refer to Divine worship are
called ceremonial precepts.

Reply Obj. 4: This explanation of the ceremonial precepts has a
certain amount of probability: not that they are called ceremonial
precisely because there is no evident reason for them; this is a kind
of consequence. For, since the precepts referring to the Divine
worship must needs be figurative, as we shall state further on (A.
2), the consequence is that the reason for them is not so very
evident.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 101, Art. 2]

Whether the Ceremonial Precepts Are Figurative?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonial precepts are not
figurative. For it is the duty of every teacher to express himself in
such a way as to be easily understood, as Augustine states (De Doctr.
Christ. iv, 4, 10) and this seems very necessary in the framing of a
law: because precepts of law are proposed to the populace; for which
reason a law should be manifest, as Isidore declares (Etym. v, 21).
If therefore the precepts of the Law were given as figures of
something, it seems unbecoming that Moses should have delivered these
precepts without explaining what they signified.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is done for the worship of God, should be
entirely free from unfittingness. But the performance of actions in
representation of others, seems to savor of the theatre or of the
drama: because formerly the actions performed in theatres were done
to represent the actions of others. Therefore it seems that such
things should not be done for the worship of God. But the ceremonial
precepts are ordained to the Divine worship, as stated above (A. 1).
Therefore they should not be figurative.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion iii, iv) that "God is
worshipped chiefly by faith, hope, and charity." But the precepts of
faith, hope, and charity are not figurative. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts should not be figurative.

Obj. 4: Further, Our Lord said (John 4:24): "God is a spirit, and
they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth." But a
figure is not the very truth: in fact one is condivided with the
other. Therefore the ceremonial precepts, which refer to the Divine
worship, should not be figurative.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Col. 2:16, 17): "Let no man . .
. judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or
of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; Q. 99, AA. 3, 4), the
ceremonial precepts are those which refer to the worship of God. Now
the Divine worship is twofold: internal, and external. For since man
is composed of soul and body, each of these should be applied to the
worship of God; the soul by an interior worship; the body by an
outward worship: hence it is written (Ps. 83:3): "My heart and my
flesh have rejoiced in the living God." And as the body is ordained
to God through the soul, so the outward worship is ordained to the
internal worship. Now interior worship consists in the soul being
united to God by the intellect and affections. Wherefore according to
the various ways in which the intellect and affections of the man who
worships God are rightly united to God, his external actions are
applied in various ways to the Divine worship.

For in the state of future bliss, the human intellect will gaze on
the Divine Truth in Itself. Wherefore the external worship will not
consist in anything figurative, but solely in the praise of God,
proceeding from the inward knowledge and affection, according to Isa.
51:3: "Joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the
voice of praise."

But in the present state of life, we are unable to gaze on the Divine
Truth in Itself, and we need the ray of Divine light to shine upon us
under the form of certain sensible figures, as Dionysius states
(Coel. Hier. i); in various ways, however, according to the various
states of human knowledge. For under the Old Law, neither was the
Divine Truth manifest in Itself, nor was the way leading to that
manifestation as yet opened out, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 9:8).
Hence the external worship of the Old Law needed to be figurative not
only of the future truth to be manifested in our heavenly country,
but also of Christ, Who is the way leading to that heavenly
manifestation. But under the New Law this way is already revealed:
and therefore it needs no longer to be foreshadowed as something
future, but to be brought to our minds as something past or present:
and the truth of the glory to come, which is not yet revealed, alone
needs to be foreshadowed. This is what the Apostle says (Heb. 11:1):
"The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to come,
not the very image of the things": for a shadow is less than an
image; so that the image belongs to the New Law, but the shadow to
the Old.

Reply Obj. 1: The things of God are not to be revealed to man except
in proportion to his capacity: else he would be in danger of
downfall, were he to despise what he cannot grasp. Hence it was more
beneficial that the Divine mysteries should be revealed to uncultured
people under a veil of figures, that thus they might know them at
least implicitly by using those figures to the honor of God.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as human reason fails to grasp poetical
expressions on account of their being lacking in truth, so does it
fail to grasp Divine things perfectly, on account of the sublimity of
the truth they contain: and therefore in both cases there is need of
signs by means of sensible figures.

Reply Obj. 3: Augustine is speaking there of internal worship; to
which, however, external worship should be ordained, as stated above.

The same answer applies to the Fourth Objection: because men were
taught by Him to practice more perfectly the spiritual worship of
God.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 101, Art. 3]

Whether There Should Have Been Many Ceremonial Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that there should not have been many
ceremonial precepts. For those things which conduce to an end should
be proportionate to that end. But the ceremonial precepts, as stated
above (AA. 1, 2), are ordained to the worship of God, and to the
foreshadowing of Christ. Now "there is but one God, of Whom are all
things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things" (1
Cor. 8:6). Therefore there should not have been many ceremonial
precepts.

Obj. 2: Further, the great number of the ceremonial precepts was an
occasion of transgression, according to the words of Peter (Acts
15:10): "Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
Now the transgression of the Divine precepts is an obstacle to man's
salvation. Since, therefore, every law should conduce to man's
salvation, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3), it seems that the ceremonial
precepts should not have been given in great number.

Obj. 3: Further, the ceremonial precepts referred to the outward and
bodily worship of God, as stated above (A. 2). But the Law should
have lessened this bodily worship: since it directed men to Christ,
Who taught them to worship God "in spirit and in truth," as stated in
John 4:23. Therefore there should not have been many ceremonial
precepts.

_On the contrary,_ (Osee 8:12): "I shall write to them [Vulg.: 'him']
My manifold laws"; and (Job 11:6): "That He might show thee the
secrets of His wisdom, and that His Law is manifold."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 96, A. 1), every law is given to
a people. Now a people contains two kinds of men: some, prone to
evil, who have to be coerced by the precepts of the law, as stated
above (Q. 95, A. 1); some, inclined to good, either from nature or
from custom, or rather from grace; and the like have to be taught and
improved by means of the precepts of the law. Accordingly, with
regard to both kinds of men it was expedient that the Old Law should
contain many ceremonial precepts. For in that people there were many
prone to idolatry; wherefore it was necessary to recall them by means
of ceremonial precepts from the worship of idols to the worship of
God. And since men served idols in many ways, it was necessary on the
other hand to devise many means of repressing every single one: and
again, to lay many obligations on such like men, in order that being
burdened, as it were, by their duties to the Divine worship, they
might have no time for the service of idols. As to those who were
inclined to good, it was again necessary that there should be many
ceremonial precepts; both because thus their mind turned to God in
many ways, and more continually; and because the mystery of Christ,
which was foreshadowed by these ceremonial precepts, brought many
boons to the world, and afforded men many considerations, which
needed to be signified by various ceremonies.

Reply Obj. 1: When that which conduces to an end is sufficient to
conduce thereto, then one such thing suffices for one end: thus one
remedy, if it be efficacious, suffices sometimes to restore men to
health, and then the remedy needs not to be repeated. But when that
which conduces to an end is weak and imperfect, it needs to be
multiplied: thus many remedies are given to a sick man, when one is
not enough to heal him. Now the ceremonies of the Old Law were weak
and imperfect, both for representing the mystery of Christ, on
account of its surpassing excellence; and for subjugating men's minds
to God. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18, 19): "There is a setting
aside of the former commandment because of the weakness and
unprofitableness thereof, for the law brought nothing to perfection."
Consequently these ceremonies needed to be in great number.

Reply Obj. 2: A wise lawgiver should suffer lesser transgressions,
that the greater may be avoided. And therefore, in order to avoid the
sin of idolatry, and the pride which would arise in the hearts of the
Jews, were they to fulfil all the precepts of the Law, the fact that
they would in consequence find many occasions of disobedience did not
prevent God from giving them many ceremonial precepts.

Reply Obj. 3: The Old Law lessened bodily worship in many ways. Thus
it forbade sacrifices to be offered in every place and by any person.
Many such like things did it enact for the lessening of bodily
worship; as Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian testifies (Doct. Perplex. iii).
Nevertheless it behooved not to attenuate the bodily worship of God
so much as to allow men to fall away into the worship of idols.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 101, Art. 4]

Whether the Ceremonies of the Old Law Are Suitably Divided into
Sacrifices, Sacred Things, Sacraments, and Observances?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law are
unsuitably divided into "sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and
observances." For the ceremonies of the Old Law foreshadowed Christ.
But this was done only by the sacrifices, which foreshadowed the
sacrifice in which Christ "delivered Himself an oblation and a
sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2). Therefore none but the sacrifices were
ceremonies.

Obj. 2: Further, the Old Law was ordained to the New. But in the New
Law the sacrifice is the Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore in the Old
Law there should be no distinction between "sacrifices" and
"sacraments."

Obj. 3: Further, a "sacred thing" is something dedicated to God: in
which sense the tabernacle and its vessels were said to be
consecrated. But all the ceremonial precepts were ordained to the
worship of God, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore all ceremonies were
sacred things. Therefore "sacred things" should not be taken as a
part of the ceremonies.

Obj. 4: Further, "observances" are so called from having to be
observed. But all the precepts of the Law had to be observed: for it
is written (Deut. 8:11): "Observe [Douay: 'Take heed'] and beware
lest at any time thou forget the Lord thy God, and neglect His
commandments and judgments and ceremonies." Therefore the
"observances" should not be considered as a part of the ceremonies.

Obj. 5: Further, the solemn festivals are reckoned as part of the
ceremonial: since they were a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16,
17): and the same may be said of the oblations and gifts, as appears
from the words of the Apostle (Heb. 9:9): and yet these do not seem
to be inclined in any of those mentioned above. Therefore the above
division of ceremonies is unsuitable.

_On the contrary,_ In the Old Law each of the above is called a
ceremony. For the sacrifices are called ceremonies (Num. 15:24):
"They shall offer a calf . . . and the sacrifices and libations
thereof, as the ceremonies require." Of the sacrament of Order it is
written (Lev. 7:35): "This is the anointing of Aaron and his sons in
the ceremonies." Of sacred things also it is written (Ex. 38:21):
"These are the instruments of the tabernacle of the testimony . . .
in the ceremonies of the Levites." And again of the observances it is
written (3 Kings 9:6): "If you . . . shall turn away from following
Me, and will not observe [Douay: 'keep'] My . . . ceremonies which I
have set before you."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2), the ceremonial precepts
are ordained to the Divine worship. Now in this worship we may
consider the worship itself, the worshippers, and the instruments of
worship. The worship consists specially in _sacrifices,_ which are
offered up in honor of God. The instruments of worship refer to the
_sacred things,_ such as the tabernacle, the vessels and so forth.
With regard to the worshippers two points may be considered. The
first point is their preparation for Divine worship, which is
effected by a sort of consecration either of the people or of the
ministers; and to this the _sacraments_ refer. The second point is
their particular mode of life, whereby they are distinguished from
those who do not worship God: and to this pertain the _observances,_
for instance, in matters of food, clothing, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 1: It was necessary for the sacrifices to be offered both
in some certain place and by some certain men: and all this pertained
to the worship of God. Wherefore just as their sacrifices signified
Christ the victim, so too their sacraments and sacred things
foreshadowed the sacraments and sacred things of the New Law; while
their observances foreshadowed the mode of life of the people under
the New Law: all of which things pertain to Christ.

Reply Obj. 2: The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist,
contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He
sanctified "the people by His own blood" (Heb. 13:12). Hence this
Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did
not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him; hence they are not called
sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments
apart from the sacrifices of the Old Law, which sacraments were
figures of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain
consecrations certain sacrifices were united.

Reply Obj. 3: The sacrifices and sacraments were of course sacred
things. But certain things were sacred, through being dedicated to
the Divine worship, and yet were not sacrifices or sacraments:
wherefore they retained the common designation of sacred things.

Reply Obj. 4: Those things which pertained to the mode of life of the
people who worshipped God, retained the common designation of
observances, in so far as they fell short of the above. For they were
not called sacred things, because they had no immediate connection
with the worship of God, such as the tabernacle and its vessels had.
But by a sort of consequence they were matters of ceremony, in so far
as they affected the fitness of the people who worshipped God.

Reply Obj. 5: Just as the sacrifices were offered in a fixed place,
so were they offered at fixed times: for which reason the solemn
festivals seem to be reckoned among the sacred things. The oblations
and gifts are counted together with the sacrifices; hence the Apostle
says (Heb. 5:1): "Every high-priest taken from among men, is ordained
for men in things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts
and sacrifices."
________________________

QUESTION 102

OF THE CAUSES OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the causes of the ceremonial precepts: under
which head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?

(2) Whether the cause of the ceremonial precepts was literal or
figurative?

(3) The causes of the sacrifices;

(4) The causes of the sacrifices;

(5) The causes of the sacred things;

(6) The causes of the observances.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 1]

Whether There Was Any Cause for the Ceremonial Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was no cause for the ceremonial
precepts. Because on Eph. 2:15, "Making void the law of the
commandments," the gloss says, (i.e.) "making void the Old Law as to
the carnal observances, by substituting decrees, i.e. evangelical
precepts, which are based on reason." But if the observances of the
Old Law were based on reason, it would have been useless to void them
by the reasonable decrees of the New Law. Therefore there was no
reason for the ceremonial observances of the Old Law.

Obj. 2: Further, the Old Law succeeded the law of nature. But in the
law of nature there was a precept for which there was no reason save
that man's obedience might be tested; as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit.
viii, 6, 13), concerning the prohibition about the tree of life.
Therefore in the Old Law there should have been some precepts for the
purpose of testing man's obedience, having no reason in themselves.

Obj. 3: Further, man's works are called moral according as they
proceed from reason. If therefore there is any reason for the
ceremonial precepts, they would not differ from the moral precepts.
It seems therefore that there was no cause for the ceremonial
precepts: for the reason of a precept is taken from some cause.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 18:9): "The commandment of the
Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes." But the ceremonial
precepts are commandments of God. Therefore they are lightsome: and
yet they would not be so, if they had no reasonable cause. Therefore
the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause.

_I answer that,_ Since, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2),
it is the function of a "wise man to do everything in order," those
things which proceed from the Divine wisdom must needs be well
ordered, as the Apostle states (Rom. 13:1). Now there are two
conditions required for things to be well ordered. First, that they
be ordained to their due end, which is the principle of the whole
order in matters of action: since those things that happen by chance
outside the intention of the end, or which are not done seriously but
for fun, are said to be inordinate. Secondly, that which is done in
view of the end should be proportionate to the end. From this it
follows that the reason for whatever conduces to the end is taken
from the end: thus the reason for the disposition of a saw is taken
from cutting, which is its end, as stated in _Phys._ ii, 9. Now it is
evident that the ceremonial precepts, like all the other precepts of
the Law, were institutions of Divine wisdom: hence it is written
(Deut. 4:6): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of
nations." Consequently we must needs say that the ceremonial precepts
were ordained to a certain end, wherefrom their reasonable causes can
be gathered.

Reply Obj. 1: It may be said there was no reason for the observances
of the Old Law, in the sense that there was no reason in the very
nature of the thing done: for instance that a garment should not be
made of wool and linen. But there could be a reason for them in
relation to something else: namely, in so far as something was
signified or excluded thereby. On the other hand, the decrees of the
New Law, which refer chiefly to faith and the love of God, are
reasonable from the very nature of the act.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason for the prohibition concerning the tree of
knowledge of good and evil was not that this tree was naturally evil:
and yet this prohibition was reasonable in its relation to something
else, in as much as it signified something. And so also the
ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were reasonable on account of
their relation to something else.

Reply Obj. 3: The moral precepts in their very nature have reasonable
causes: as for instance, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not
steal." But the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause in their
relation to something else, as stated above.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 2]

Whether the Ceremonial Precepts Have a Literal Cause or Merely a
Figurative Cause?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonial precepts have not a
literal, but merely a figurative cause. For among the ceremonial
precepts, the chief was circumcision and the sacrifice of the paschal
lamb. But neither of these had any but a figurative cause: because
each was given as a sign. For it is written (Gen. 17:11): "You shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be a sign of the
covenant between Me and you": and of the celebration of the Passover
it is written (Ex. 13:9): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand, and as
a memorial before thy eyes." Therefore much more did the other
ceremonial precepts have none but a figurative reason.

Obj. 2: Further, an effect is proportionate to its cause. But all the
ceremonial precepts are figurative, as stated above (Q. 101, A. 2).
Therefore they have no other than a figurative cause.

Obj. 3: Further, if it be a matter of indifference whether a certain
thing, considered in itself, be done in a particular way or not, it
seems that it has not a literal cause. Now there are certain points
in the ceremonial precepts, which appear to be a matter of
indifference, as to whether they be done in one way or in another:
for instance, the number of animals to be offered, and other such
particular circumstances. Therefore there is no literal cause for the
precepts of the Old Law.

_On the contrary,_ Just as the ceremonial precepts foreshadowed
Christ, so did the stories of the Old Testament: for it is written (1
Cor. 10:11) that "all (these things) happened to them in figure." Now
in the stories of the Old Testament, besides the mystical or
figurative, there is the literal sense. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts had also literal, besides their figurative causes.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the reason for whatever
conduces to an end must be taken from that end. Now the end of the
ceremonial precepts was twofold: for they were ordained to the Divine
worship, for that particular time, and to the foreshadowing of
Christ; just as the words of the prophets regarded the time being in
such a way as to be utterances figurative of the time to come, as
Jerome says on Osee 1:3. Accordingly the reasons for the ceremonial
precepts of the Old Law can be taken in two ways. First, in respect
of the Divine worship which was to be observed for that particular
time: and these reasons are literal: whether they refer to the
shunning of idolatry; or recall certain Divine benefits; or remind
men of the Divine excellence; or point out the disposition of mind
which was then required in those who worshipped God. Secondly, their
reasons can be gathered from the point of view of their being
ordained to foreshadow Christ: and thus their reasons are figurative
and mystical: whether they be taken from Christ Himself and the
Church, which pertains to the allegorical sense; or to the morals of
the Christian people, which pertains to the moral sense; or to the
state of future glory, in as much as we are brought thereto by
Christ, which refers to the anagogical sense.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the use of metaphorical expressions in
Scripture belongs to the literal sense, because the words are
employed in order to convey that particular meaning; so also the
meaning of those legal ceremonies which commemorated certain Divine
benefits, on account of which they were instituted, and of others
similar which belonged to that time, does not go beyond the order of
literal causes. Consequently when we assert that the cause of the
celebration of the Passover was its signification of the delivery
from Egypt, or that circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with
Abraham, we assign the literal cause.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument would avail if the ceremonial precepts
had been given merely as figures of things to come, and not for the
purpose of worshipping God then and there.

Reply Obj. 3: As we have stated when speaking of human laws (Q. 96,
AA. 1, 6), there is a reason for them in the abstract, but not in
regard to particular conditions, which depend on the judgment of
those who frame them; so also many particular determinations in the
ceremonies of the Old Law have no literal cause, but only a
figurative cause; whereas in the abstract they have a literal cause.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 3]

Whether a Suitable Cause Can Be Assigned for the Ceremonies Which
Pertained to Sacrifices?

Objection 1: It would seem that no suitable cause can be assigned for
the ceremonies pertaining to sacrifices. For those things which were
offered in sacrifice, are those which are necessary for sustaining
human life: such as certain animals and certain loaves. But God needs
no such sustenance; according to Ps. 49:13: "Shall I eat the flesh of
bullocks? Or shall I drink the blood of goats?" Therefore such
sacrifices were unfittingly offered to God.

Obj. 2: Further, only three kinds of quadrupeds were offered in
sacrifice to God, viz. oxen, sheep and goats; of birds, generally the
turtledove and the dove; but specially, in the cleansing of a leper,
an offering was made of sparrows. Now many other animals are more
noble than these. Since therefore whatever is best should be offered
to God, it seems that not only of these three should sacrifices have
been offered to Him.

Obj. 3: Further, just as man has received from God the dominion over
birds and beasts, so also has he received dominion over fishes.
Consequently it was unfitting for fishes to be excluded from the
divine sacrifices.

Obj. 4: Further, turtledoves and doves indifferently are commanded to
be offered up. Since then the young of the dove are commanded to be
offered, so also should the young of the turtledove.

Obj. 5: Further, God is the Author of life, not only of men, but also
of animals, as is clear from Gen. 1:20, seqq. Now death is opposed to
life. Therefore it was fitting that living animals rather than slain
animals should be offered to God, especially as the Apostle
admonishes us (Rom. 12:1), to present our bodies "a living sacrifice,
holy, pleasing unto God."

Obj. 6: Further, if none but slain animals were offered in sacrifice
to God, it seems that it mattered not how they were slain. Therefore
it was unfitting that the manner of immolation should be determined,
especially as regards birds (Lev. 1:15, seqq.).

Obj. 7: Further, every defect in an animal is a step towards
corruption and death. If therefore slain animals were offered to God,
it was unreasonable to forbid the offering of an imperfect animal,
e.g. a lame, or a blind, or otherwise defective animal.

Obj. 8: Further, those who offer victims to God should partake
thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:18): "Are
not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" It was
therefore unbecoming for the offerers to be denied certain parts of
the victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right
shoulder.

Objection 9: Further, just as holocausts were offered up in honor of
God, so also were the peace-offerings and sin-offerings. But no
female animals was offered up to God as a holocaust, although
holocausts were offered of both quadrupeds and birds. Therefore it
was inconsistent that female animals should be offered up in
peace-offerings and sin-offerings, and that nevertheless birds should
not be offered up in peace-offerings.

Objection 10: Further, all the peace-offerings seem to be of one
kind. Therefore it was unfitting to make a distinction among them, so
that it was forbidden to eat the flesh of certain peace-offerings on
the following day, while it was allowed to eat the flesh of other
peace-offerings, as laid down in Lev. 7:15, seqq.

Objection 11: Further, all sins agree in turning us from God.
Therefore, in order to reconcile us to God, one kind of sacrifice
should have been offered up for all sins.

Objection 12: Further, all animals that were offered up in sacrifice,
were offered up in one way, viz. slain. Therefore it does not seem to
be suitable that products of the soil should be offered up in various
ways; for sometimes an offering was made of ears of corn, sometimes
of flour, sometimes of bread, this being baked sometimes in an oven,
sometimes in a pan, sometimes on a gridiron.

Objection 13: Further, whatever things are serviceable to us should
be recognized as coming from God. It was therefore unbecoming that
besides animals, nothing but bread, wine, oil, incense, and salt
should be offered to God.

Objection 14: Further, bodily sacrifices denote the inward sacrifice
of the heart, whereby man offers his soul to God. But in the inward
sacrifice, the sweetness, which is denoted by honey, surpasses the
pungency which salt represents; for it is written (Ecclus. 24:27):
"My spirit is sweet above honey." Therefore it was unbecoming that
the use of honey, and of leaven which makes bread savory, should be
forbidden in a sacrifice; while the use was prescribed, of salt which
is pungent, and of incense which has a bitter taste. Consequently it
seems that things pertaining to the ceremonies of the sacrifices have
no reasonable cause.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lev. 1:13): "The priest shall offer
it all and burn it all upon the altar, for a holocaust, and most
sweet savor to the Lord." Now according to Wis. 7:28, "God loveth
none but him that dwelleth with wisdom": whence it seems to follow
that whatever is acceptable to God is wisely done. Therefore these
ceremonies of the sacrifices were wisely done, as having reasonable
causes.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), the ceremonies of the Old
Law had a twofold cause, viz. a literal cause, according as they were
intended for Divine worship; and a figurative or mystical cause,
according as they were intended to foreshadow Christ: and on either
hand the ceremonies pertaining to the sacrifices can be assigned to a
fitting cause.

For, according as the ceremonies of the sacrifices were intended for
the divine worship, the causes of the sacrifices can be taken in two
ways. First, in so far as the sacrifice represented the directing of
the mind to God, to which the offerer of the sacrifice was
stimulated. Now in order to direct his mind to God aright, man must
recognize that whatever he has is from God as from its first
principle, and direct it to God as its last end. This was denoted in
the offerings and sacrifices, by the fact that man offered some of
his own belongings in honor of God, as though in recognition of his
having received them from God, according to the saying of David (1
Paral. xxix, 14): "All things are Thine: and we have given Thee what
we received of Thy hand." Wherefore in offering up sacrifices man
made protestation that God is the first principle of the creation of
all things, and their last end, to which all things must be directed.
And since, for the human mind to be directed to God aright, it must
recognize no first author of things other than God, nor place its end
in any other; for this reason it was forbidden in the Law to offer
sacrifice to any other but God, according to Ex. 22:20: "He that
sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord."
Wherefore another reasonable cause may be assigned to the ceremonies
of the sacrifices, from the fact that thereby men were withdrawn from
offering sacrifices to idols. Hence too it is that the precepts about
the sacrifices were not given to the Jewish people until after they
had fallen into idolatry, by worshipping the molten calf: as though
those sacrifices were instituted, that the people, being ready to
offer sacrifices, might offer those sacrifices to God rather than to
idols. Thus it is written (Jer. 7:22): "I spake not to your fathers
and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the
land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt-offerings and
sacrifices."

Now of all the gifts which God vouchsafed to mankind after they had
fallen away by sin, the chief is that He gave His Son; wherefore it
is written (John 3:16): "God so loved the world, as to give His
only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish,
but may have life everlasting." Consequently the chief sacrifice is
that whereby Christ Himself "delivered Himself . . . to God for an
odor of sweetness" (Eph. 5:2). And for this reason all the other
sacrifices of the Old Law were offered up in order to foreshadow this
one individual and paramount sacrifice--the imperfect forecasting the
perfect. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 10:11) that the priest of the
Old Law "often" offered "the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins: but" Christ offered "one sacrifice for sins, for ever."
And since the reason of the figure is taken from that which the
figure represents, therefore the reasons of the figurative sacrifices
of the Old Law should be taken from the true sacrifice of Christ.

Reply Obj. 1: God did not wish these sacrifices to be offered to Him
on account of the things themselves that were offered, as though He
stood in need of them: wherefore it is written (Isa. 1:11): "I desire
not holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves and
lambs and buckgoats." But, as stated above, He wished them to be
offered to Him, in order to prevent idolatry; in order to signify the
right ordering of man's mind to God; and in order to represent the
mystery of the Redemption of man by Christ.

Reply Obj. 2: In all the respects mentioned above (ad 1), there was a
suitable reason for these animals, rather than others, being offered
in sacrifice to God. First, in order to prevent idolatry. Because
idolaters offered all other animals to their gods, or made use of
them in their sorceries: while the Egyptians (among whom the people
had been dwelling) considered it abominable to slay these animals,
wherefore they used not to offer them in sacrifice to their gods.
Hence it is written (Ex. 8:26): "We shall sacrifice the abominations
of the Egyptians to the Lord our God." For they worshipped the sheep;
they reverenced the ram (because demons appeared under the form
thereof); while they employed oxen for agriculture, which was
reckoned by them as something sacred.

Secondly, this was suitable for the aforesaid right ordering of man's
mind to God: and in two ways. First, because it is chiefly by means
of these animals that human life is sustained: and moreover they are
most clean, and partake of a most clean food: whereas other animals
are either wild, and not deputed to ordinary use among men: or, if
they be tame, they have unclean food, as pigs and geese: and nothing
but what is clean should be offered to God. These birds especially
were offered in sacrifice because there were plenty of them in the
land of promise. Secondly, because the sacrificing of these animals
represented purity of heart. Because as the gloss says on Lev. 1, "We
offer a calf, when we overcome the pride of the flesh; a lamb, when
we restrain our unreasonable motions; a goat, when we conquer
wantonness; a turtledove, when we keep chaste; unleavened bread, when
we feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity." And it is evident
that the dove denotes charity and simplicity of heart.

Thirdly, it was fitting that these animals should be offered, that
they might foreshadow Christ. Because, as the gloss observes, "Christ
is offered in the calf, to denote the strength of the cross; in the
lamb, to signify His innocence; in the ram, to foreshadow His
headship; and in the goat, to signify the likeness of 'sinful flesh'
[*An allusion to Col. 2:11 (Textus Receptus)]. The turtledove and
dove denoted the union of the two natures"; or else the turtledove
signified chastity; while the dove was a figure of charity. "The
wheat-flour foreshadowed the sprinkling of believers with the water
of Baptism."

Reply Obj. 3: Fish through living in water are further removed from
man than other animals, which, like man, live in the air. Again, fish
die as soon as they are taken out of water; hence they could not be
offered in the temple like other animals.

Reply Obj. 4: Among turtledoves the older ones are better than the
young; while with doves the case is the reverse. Wherefore, as Rabbi
Moses observes (Doct. Perplex. iii), turtledoves and young doves are
commanded to be offered, because nothing should be offered to God but
what is best.

Reply Obj. 5: The animals which were offered in sacrifice were slain,
because it is by being killed that they become useful to man,
forasmuch as God gave them to man for food. Wherefore also they were
burnt with fire: because it is by being cooked that they are made fit
for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified
the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved death on account
of his sins; as though those animals were slain in man's stead, in
order to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these
animals signified the slaying of Christ.

Reply Obj. 6: The Law fixed the special manner of slaying the
sacrificial animals in order to exclude other ways of killing,
whereby idolaters sacrificed animals to idols. Or again, as Rabbi
Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "the Law chose that manner of
slaying which was least painful to the slain animal." This excluded
cruelty on the part of the offerers, and any mangling of the animals
slain.

Reply Obj. 7: It is because unclean animals are wont to be held in
contempt among men, that it was forbidden to offer them in sacrifice
to God: and for this reason too they were forbidden (Deut. 23:18) to
offer "the hire of a strumpet or the price of a dog in the house of
. . . God." For the same reason they did not offer animals before the
seventh day, because such were abortive as it were, the flesh being
not yet firm on account of its exceeding softness.

Reply Obj. 8: There were three kinds of sacrifices. There was one in
which the victim was entirely consumed by fire: this was called "a
holocaust, i.e. all burnt." For this kind of sacrifice was offered to
God specially to show reverence to His majesty, and love of His
goodness: and typified the state of perfection as regards the
fulfilment of the counsels. Wherefore the whole was burnt up: so that
as the whole animal by being dissolved into vapor soared aloft, so it
might denote that the whole man, and whatever belongs to him, are
subject to the authority of God, and should be offered to Him.

Another sacrifice was the "sin-offering," which was offered to God on
account of man's need for the forgiveness of sin: and this typifies
the state of penitents in satisfying for sins. It was divided into
two parts: for one part was burnt; while the other was granted to the
use of the priests to signify that remission of sins is granted by
God through the ministry of His priests. When, however, this
sacrifice was offered for the sins of the whole people, or specially
for the sin of the priest, the whole victim was burnt up. For it was
not fitting that the priests should have the use of that which was
offered for their own sins, to signify that nothing sinful should
remain in them. Moreover, this would not be satisfaction for sin: for
if the offering were granted to the use of those for whose sins it
was offered, it would seem to be the same as if it had not been
offered.

The third kind of sacrifice was called the "peace-offering," which
was offered to God, either in thanksgiving, or for the welfare and
prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of benefits already
received or yet to be received: and this typifies the state of those
who are proficient in the observance of the commandments. These
sacrifices were divided into three parts: for one part was burnt in
honor of God; another part was allotted to the use of the priests;
and the third part to the use of the offerers; in order to signify
that man's salvation is from God, by the direction of God's
ministers, and through the cooperation of those who are saved.

But it was the universal rule that the blood and fat were not
allotted to the use either of the priests or of the offerers: the
blood being poured out at the foot of the altar, in honor of God,
while the fat was burnt upon the altar (Lev. 9:9, 10). The reason for
this was, first, in order to prevent idolatry: because idolaters used
to drink the blood and eat the fat of the victims, according to Deut.
32:38: "Of whose victims they eat the fat, and drank the wine of
their drink-offerings." Secondly, in order to form them to a right
way of living. For they were forbidden the use of the blood that they
might abhor the shedding of human blood; wherefore it is written
(Gen. 9:4, 5): "Flesh with blood you shall not eat: for I will
require the blood of your lives": and they were forbidden to eat the
fat, in order to withdraw them from lasciviousness; hence it is
written (Ezech. 34:3): "You have killed that which was fat." Thirdly,
on account of the reverence due to God: because blood is most
necessary for life, for which reason "life" is said to be "in the
blood" (Lev. 17:11, 14): while fat is a sign of abundant nourishment.
Wherefore, in order to show that to God we owe both life and a
sufficiency of all good things, the blood was poured out, and the fat
burnt up in His honor. Fourthly, in order to foreshadow the shedding
of Christ's blood, and the abundance of His charity, whereby He
offered Himself to God for us.

In the peace-offerings, the breast-bone and the right shoulder were
allotted to the use of the priest, in order to prevent a certain kind
of divination which is known as "spatulamantia," so called because it
was customary in divining to use the shoulder-blade (_spatula_), and
the breast-bone of the animals offered in sacrifice; wherefore these
things were taken away from the offerers. This is also denoted the
priest's need of wisdom in the heart, to instruct the people--this
was signified by the breast-bone, which covers the heart; and his
need of fortitude, in order to bear with human frailty--and this was
signified by the right shoulder.

Reply Obj. 9: Because the holocaust was the most perfect kind of
sacrifice, therefore none but a male was offered for a holocaust:
because the female is an imperfect animal. The offering of
turtledoves and doves was on account of the poverty of the offerers,
who were unable to offer bigger animals. And since peace-victims were
offered freely, and no one was bound to offer them against his will,
hence these birds were offered not among the peace-victims, but among
the holocausts and victims for sin, which man was obliged to offer at
times. Moreover these birds, on account of their lofty flight, were
befitting the perfection of the holocausts: and were suitable for
sin-offerings because their song is doleful.

Reply Obj. 10: The holocaust was the chief of all the sacrifices:
because all was burnt in honor of God, and nothing of it was eaten.
The second place in holiness, belongs to the sacrifice for sins,
which was eaten in the court only, and on the very day of the
sacrifice (Lev. 7:6, 15). The third place must be given to the
peace-offerings of thanksgiving, which were eaten on the same day,
but anywhere in Jerusalem. Fourth in order were the "ex-voto"
peace-offerings, the flesh of which could be eaten even on the
morrow. The reason for this order is that man is bound to God,
chiefly on account of His majesty; secondly, on account of the sins
he has committed; thirdly, because of the benefits he has already
received from Him; fourthly, by reason of the benefits he hopes to
receive from Him.

Reply Obj. 11: Sins are more grievous by reason of the state of the
sinner, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 10): wherefore different victims
are commanded to be offered for the sin of a priest, or of a prince,
or of some other private individual. "But," as Rabbi Moses says
(Doct. Perplex. iii), "we must take note that the more grievous the
sin, the lower the species of animals offered for it. Wherefore the
goat, which is a very base animal, was offered for idolatry; while a
calf was offered for a priest's ignorance, and a ram for the
negligence of a prince."

Reply Obj. 12: In the matter of sacrifices the Law had in view the
poverty of the offerers; so that those who could not have a
four-footed animal at their disposal, might at least offer a bird;
and that he who could not have a bird might at least offer bread; and
that if a man had not even bread he might offer flour or ears of corn.

The figurative cause is that the bread signifies Christ Who is the
"living bread" (John 6:41, 51). He was indeed an ear of corn, as it
were, during the state of the law of nature, in the faith of the
patriarchs; He was like flour in the doctrine of the Law of the
prophets; and He was like perfect bread after He had taken human
nature; baked in the fire, i.e. formed by the Holy Ghost in the oven
of the virginal womb; baked again in a pan by the toils which He
suffered in the world; and consumed by fire on the cross as on a
gridiron.

Reply Obj. 13: The products of the soil are useful to man, either as
food, and of these bread was offered; or as drink, and of these wine
was offered; or as seasoning, and of these oil and salt were offered;
or as healing, and of these they offered incense, which both smells
sweetly and binds easily together.

Now the bread foreshadowed the flesh of Christ; and the wine, His
blood, whereby we were redeemed; oil betokens the grace of Christ;
salt, His knowledge; incense, His prayer.

Reply Obj. 14: Honey was not offered in the sacrifices to God, both
because it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols; and in
order to denote the absence of all carnal sweetness and pleasure from
those who intend to sacrifice to God. Leaven was not offered, to
denote the exclusion of corruption. Perhaps too, it was wont to be
offered in the sacrifices to idols.

Salt, however, was offered, because it wards off the corruption of
putrefaction: for sacrifices offered to God should be incorrupt.
Moreover, salt signifies the discretion of wisdom, or again,
mortification of the flesh.

Incense was offered to denote devotion of the heart, which is
necessary in the offerer; and again, to signify the odor of a good
name: for incense is composed of matter, both rich and fragrant. And
since the sacrifice "of jealousy" did not proceed from devotion, but
rather from suspicion, therefore incense was not offered therein
(Num. 5:15).
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 4]

Whether Sufficient Reason Can Be Assigned for the Ceremonies
Pertaining to Holy Things?

Objection 1: It would seem that no sufficient reason can be assigned
for the ceremonies of the Old Law that pertain to holy things. For
Paul said (Acts 17:24): "God Who made the world and all things
therein; He being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples
made by hands." It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a
tabernacle or temple should be set up for the worship of God.

Obj. 2: Further, the state of the Old Law was not changed except by
Christ. But the tabernacle denoted the state of the Old Law.
Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.

Obj. 3: Further, the Divine Law, more than any other indeed, should
lead man to the worship of God. But an increase of divine worship
requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in
regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under the Old Law
there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.

Obj. 4: Further, the tabernacle or temple was ordained to the worship
of God. But in God we should worship above all His unity and
simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or
temple to be divided by means of veils.

Obj. 5: Further, the power of the First Mover, i.e. God, appears
first of all in the east, for it is in that quarter that the first
movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of
God. Therefore it should have been built so as to point to the east
rather than the west.

Obj. 6: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:4) that they should "not
make . . . a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything." It was
therefore unfitting for graven images of the cherubim to be set up in
the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory,
the candlestick, the table, the two altars, seem to have been placed
there without reasonable cause.

Obj. 7: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make an
altar of earth unto Me": and again (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go up
by steps unto My altar." It was therefore unfitting that subsequently
they should be commanded to make an altar of wood laid over with gold
or brass; and of such a height that it was impossible to go up to it
except by steps. For it is written (Ex. 27:1, 2): "Thou shalt make
also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits long, and as
many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and thou shalt cover it
with brass": and (Ex. 30:1, 3): "Thou shalt make . . . an altar to
burn incense, of setim wood . . . and thou shalt overlay it with the
purest gold."

Obj. 8: Further, in God's works nothing should be superfluous; for
not even in the works of nature is anything superfluous to be found.
But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was
unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many coverings, viz.
curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and
violet-colored skins (Ex. 26).

Objection 9: Further, exterior consecration signifies interior
holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore
unsuitable for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated,
since they were inanimate things.

Objection 10: Further, it is written (Ps. 33:2): "I will bless the
Lord at all times, His praise shall always be in my mouth." But the
solemn festivals were instituted for the praise of God. Therefore it
was not fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn
festivals; so that it seems that there was no suitable cause for the
ceremonies relating to holy things.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 8:4) that those who "offer
gifts according to the law . . . serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish
the tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to
the pattern which was shown thee on the mount." But that is most
reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore
the ceremonies relating to holy things had a reasonable cause.

_I answer that,_ The chief purpose of the whole external worship is
that man may give worship to God. Now man's tendency is to reverence
less those things which are common, and indistinct from other things;
whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct from
others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among
men for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced by their
subjects, to be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess
vaster and more beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved
special times, a special abode, special vessels, and special
ministers to be appointed for the divine worship, so that thereby the
soul of man might be brought to greater reverence for God.

In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above (A. 2; Q.
100, A. 12; Q. 101, A. 2), was instituted that it might foreshadow
the mystery of Christ. Now that which foreshadows something should be
determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto.
Consequently, certain special points had to be observed in matters
pertaining to the worship of God.

Reply Obj. 1: The divine worship regards two things: namely, God Who
is worshipped; and men, who worship Him. Accordingly God, Who is
worshipped, is confined to no bodily place: wherefore there was no
need, on His part, for a tabernacle or temple to be set up. But men,
who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was
need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for the worship
of God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together with the
thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they
might approach thither with greater reverence. Secondly, that certain
things relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature
might be signified by the arrangement of various details in such
temple or tabernacle.

To this Solomon refers (3 Kings 8:27) when he says: "If heaven and
the heavens of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house
which I have built" for Thee? And further on (3 Kings 8:29, 20) he
adds: "That Thy eyes may be open upon this house . . . of which Thou
hast said: My name shall be there; . . . that Thou mayest hearken to
the supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel." From this
it is evident that the house of the sanctuary was set up, not in
order to contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might
be made known there by means of things done and said there; and that
those who prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray
more devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.

Reply Obj. 2: Before the coming of Christ, the state of the Old Law
was not changed as regards the fulfilment of the Law, which was
effected in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition
of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the people
were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were
engaged in various wars with the neighboring nations; and lastly, at
the time of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one of
great peace. And then for the first time the temple was built in the
place which Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen for the purpose of
sacrifice. For it is written (Gen. 22:2) that the Lord commanded
Abraham to "offer" his son "for a holocaust upon one of the mountains
which I will show thee": and it is related further on (Gen. 22:14)
that "he calleth the name of that place, The Lord seeth," as though,
according to the Divine prevision, that place were chosen for the
worship of God. Hence it is written (Deut. 12:5, 6): "You shall come
to the place which the Lord your God shall choose . . . and you shall
offer . . . your holocausts and victims."

Now it was not meet for that place to be pointed out by the building
of the temple before the aforesaid time; for three reasons assigned
by Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that
place. Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy it. The third reason
is lest each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and
strifes and quarrels be the result. Hence the temple was not built
until they had a king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until
that time a portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no
place being as yet fixed for the worship of God. This is the literal
reason for the distinction between the tabernacle and the temple.

The figurative reason may be assigned to the fact that they signify a
twofold state. For the tabernacle, which was changeable, signifies
the state of the present changeable life: whereas the temple, which
was fixed and stable, signifies the state of future life which is
altogether unchangeable. For this reason it is said that in the
building of the temple no sound was heard of hammer or saw, to
signify that all movements of disturbance will be far removed from
the future state. Or else the tabernacle signifies the state of the
Old Law; while the temple built by Solomon betokens the state of the
New Law. Hence the Jews alone worked at the building of the
tabernacle; whereas the temple was built with the cooperation of the
Gentiles, viz. the Tyrians and Sidonians.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason for the unity of the temple or tabernacle
may be either literal or figurative. The literal reason was the
exclusion of idolatry. For the Gentiles put up various temples to
various gods: and so, to strengthen in the minds of men their belief
in the unity of the Godhead, God wished sacrifices to be offered to
Him in one place only. Another reason was in order to show that
bodily worship is not acceptable of itself: and so they restrained
from offering sacrifices anywhere and everywhere. But the worship of
the New Law, in the sacrifice whereof spiritual grace is contained,
is of itself acceptable to God; and consequently the multiplication
of altars and temples is permitted in the New Law.

As to those matters that regarded the spiritual worship of God,
consisting in the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, there were,
even under the Old Law, various places, called synagogues, appointed
for the people to gather together for the praise of God; just as now
there are places called churches in which the Christian people gather
together for the divine worship. Thus our church takes the place of
both temple and synagogue: since the very sacrifice of the Church is
spiritual; wherefore with us the place of sacrifice is not distinct
from the place of teaching. The figurative reason may be that hereby
is signified the unity of the Church, whether militant or triumphant.

Reply Obj. 4: Just as the unity of the temple or tabernacle betokened
the unity of God, or the unity of the Church, so also the division of
the tabernacle or temple signified the distinction of those things
that are subject to God, and from which we arise to the worship of
God. Now the tabernacle was divided into two parts: one was called
the "Holy of Holies," and was placed to the west; the other was
called the "Holy Place" [*Or 'Sanctuary'. The Douay version uses both
expressions], which was situated to the east. Moreover there was a
court facing the tabernacle. Accordingly there are two reasons for
this distinction. One is in respect of the tabernacle being ordained
to the worship of God. Because the different parts of the world are
thus betokened by the division of the tabernacle. For that part which
was called the Holy of Holies signified the higher world, which is
that of spiritual substances: while that part which is called the
Holy Place signified the corporeal world. Hence the Holy Place was
separated from the Holy of Holies by a veil, which was of four
different colors (denoting the four elements), viz. of linen,
signifying earth, because linen, i.e. flax, grows out of the earth;
purple, signifying water, because the purple tint was made from
certain shells found in the sea; violet, signifying air, because it
has the color of the air; and scarlet twice dyed, signifying fire:
and this because matter composed of the four elements is a veil
between us and incorporeal substances. Hence the high-priest alone,
and that once a year, entered into the inner tabernacle, i.e. the
Holy of Holies: whereby we are taught that man's final perfection
consists in his entering into that (higher) world: whereas into the
outward tabernacle, i.e. the Holy Place, the priests entered every
day: whereas the people were only admitted to the court; because the
people were able to perceived material things, the inner nature of
which only wise men by dint of study are able to discover.

But with regard to the figurative reason, the outward tabernacle,
which was called the Holy Place, betokened the state of the Old Law,
as the Apostle says (Heb. 9:6, seqq.): because into that tabernacle
"the priests always entered accomplishing the offices of sacrifices."
But the inner tabernacle, which was called the Holy of Holies,
signified either the glory of heaven or the spiritual state of the
New Law to come. To the latter state Christ brought us; and this was
signified by the high-priest entering alone, once a year, into the
Holy of Holies. The veil betokened the concealing of the spiritual
sacrifices under the sacrifices of old. This veil was adorned with
four colors: viz. that of linen, to designate purity of the flesh;
purple, to denote the sufferings which the saints underwent for God;
scarlet twice dyed, signifying the twofold love of God and our
neighbor; and violet, in token of heavenly contemplation. With regard
to the state of the Old Law the people and the priests were situated
differently from one another. For the people saw the mere corporeal
sacrifices which were offered in the court: whereas the priests were
intent on the inner meaning of the sacrifices, because their faith in
the mysteries of Christ was more explicit. Hence they entered into
the outer tabernacle. This outer tabernacle was divided from the
court by a veil; because some matters relating to the mystery of
Christ were hidden from the people, while they were known to the
priests: though they were not fully revealed to them, as they were
subsequently in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:5).

Reply Obj. 5: Worship towards the west was introduced in the Law to
the exclusion of idolatry: because all the Gentiles, in reverence to
the sun, worshipped towards the east; hence it is written (Ezech.
8:16) that certain men "had their backs towards the temple of the
Lord, and their faces to the east, and they adored towards the rising
of the sun." Accordingly, in order to prevent this, the tabernacle
had the Holy of Holies to westward, that they might adore toward the
west. A figurative reason may also be found in the fact that the
whole state of the first tabernacle was ordained to foreshadow the
death of Christ, which is signified by the west, according to Ps.
67:5: "Who ascendeth unto the west; the Lord is His name."

Reply Obj. 6: Both literal and figurative reasons may be assigned for
the things contained in the tabernacle. The literal reason is in
connection with the divine worship. And because, as already observed
(ad 4), the inner tabernacle, called the Holy of Holies, signified
the higher world of spiritual substances, hence that tabernacle
contained three things, viz. "the ark of the testament in which was a
golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed,
and the tables" (Heb. 9:4) on which were written the ten commandments
of the Law. Now the ark stood between two "cherubim" that looked one
towards the other: and over the ark was a table, called the
"propitiatory," raised above the wings of the cherubim, as though it
were held up by them; and appearing, to the imagination, to be the
very seat of God. For this reason it was called the "propitiatory,"
as though the people received propitiation thence at the prayers of
the high-priest. And so it was held up, so to speak, by the cherubim,
in obedience, as it were, to God: while the ark of the testament was
like the foot-stool to Him that sat on the propitiatory. These three
things denote three things in that higher world: namely, God Who is
above all, and incomprehensible to any creature. Hence no likeness of
Him was set up; to denote His invisibility. But there was something
to represent his seat; since, to wit, the creature, which is beneath
God, as the seat under the sitter, is comprehensible. Again in that
higher world there are spiritual substances called angels. These are
signified by the two cherubim, looking one towards the other, to show
that they are at peace with one another, according to Job 25:2: "Who
maketh peace in . . . high places." For this reason, too, there was
more than one cherub, to betoken the multitude of heavenly spirits,
and to prevent their receiving worship from those who had been
commanded to worship but one God. Moreover there are, enclosed as it
were in that spiritual world, the intelligible types of whatsoever
takes place in this world, just as in every cause are enclosed the
types of its effects, and in the craftsman the types of the works of
his craft. This was betokened by the ark, which represented, by means
of the three things it contained, the three things of greatest import
in human affairs. These are wisdom, signified by the tables of the
testament; the power of governing, betokened by the rod of Aaron; and
life, betokened by the manna which was the means of sustenance. Or
else these three things signified the three Divine attributes, viz.
wisdom, in the tables; power, in the rod; goodness, in the
manna--both by reason of its sweetness, and because it was through
the goodness of God that it was granted to man, wherefore it was
preserved as a memorial of the Divine mercy. Again, these three
things were represented in Isaias' vision. For he "saw the Lord
sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; and the seraphim standing
by; and that the house was filled with the glory of the Lord;
wherefrom the seraphim cried out: "All the earth is full of His
glory" (Isa. 6:1, 3). And so the images of the seraphim were set up,
not to be worshipped, for this was forbidden by the first
commandment; but as a sign of their function, as stated above.

The outer tabernacle, which denotes this present world, also contained
three things, viz. the "altar of incense," which was directly opposite
the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves of
proposition on it, which stood on the northern side; and the
"candlestick," which was placed towards the south. These three things
seem to correspond to the three which were enclosed in the ark; and
they represented the same things as the latter, but more clearly:
because, in order that wise men, denoted by the priests entering the
temple, might grasp the meaning of these types, it was necessary to
express them more manifestly than they are in the Divine or angelic
mind. Accordingly the candlestick betokened, as a sensible sign
thereof, the wisdom which was expressed on the tables (of the Law) in
intelligible words. The altar of incense signified the office of the
priest, whose duty it was to bring the people to God: and this was
signified also by the rod: because on that altar the sweet-smelling
incense was burnt, signifying the holiness of the people acceptable to
God: for it is written (Apoc. 8:3) that the smoke of the
sweet-smelling spices signifies the "justifications of the saints"
(cf. Apoc. 19:8). Moreover it was fitting that the dignity of the
priesthood should be denoted, in the ark, by the rod, and, in the
outer tabernacle, by the altar of incense: because the priest is the
mediator between God and the people, governing the people by Divine
power, denoted by the rod; and offering to God the fruit of His
government, i.e. the holiness of the people, on the altar of incense,
so to speak. The table signified the sustenance of life, just as the
manna did: but the former, a more general and a coarser kind of
nourishment; the latter, a sweeter and more delicate. Again, the
candlestick was fittingly placed on the southern side, while the table
was placed to the north: because the south is the right-hand side of
the world, while the north is the left-hand side, as stated in _De
Coelo et Mundo_ ii; and wisdom, like other spiritual goods, belongs to
the right hand, while temporal nourishment belongs on the left,
according to Prov. 3:16: "In her left hand (are) riches and glory."
And the priestly power is midway between temporal goods and spiritual
wisdom; because thereby both spiritual wisdom and temporal goods are
dispensed.

Another literal signification may be assigned. For the ark contained
the tables of the Law, in order to prevent forgetfulness of the Law,
wherefore it is written (Ex. 24:12): "I will give thee two tables of
stone, and the Law, and the commandments which I have written: that
thou mayest teach them" to the children of Israel. The rod of Aaron
was placed there to restrain the people from insubordination to the
priesthood of Aaron; wherefore it is written (Num. 17:10): "Carry
back the rod of Aaron into the tabernacle of the testimony, that it
may be kept there for a token of the rebellious children of Israel."
The manna was kept in the ark to remind them of the benefit conferred
by God on the children of Israel in the desert; wherefore it is
written (Ex. 16:32): "Fill a gomor of it, and let it be kept unto
generations to come hereafter, that they may know the bread wherewith
I fed you in the wilderness." The candlestick was set up to enhance
the beauty of the temple, for the magnificence of a house depends on
its being well lighted. Now the candlestick had seven branches, as
Josephus observes (Antiquit. iii, 7, 8), to signify the seven
planets, wherewith the whole world is illuminated. Hence the
candlestick was placed towards the south; because for us the course
of the planets is from that quarter. The altar of incense was
instituted that there might always be in the tabernacle a
sweet-smelling smoke; both through respect for the tabernacle, and as
a remedy for the stenches arising from the shedding of blood and the
slaying of animals. For men despise evil-smelling things as being
vile, whereas sweet-smelling things are much appreciated. The table
was placed there to signify that the priests who served the temple
should take their food in the temple: wherefore, as stated in Matt.
12:4, it was lawful for none but the priests to eat the twelve loaves
which were put on the table in memory of the twelve tribes. And the
table was not placed in the middle directly in front of the
propitiatory, in order to exclude an idolatrous rite: for the
Gentiles, on the feasts of the moon, set up a table in front of the
idol of the moon, wherefore it is written (Jer. 7:18): "The women
knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven."

In the court outside the tabernacle was the altar of holocausts, on
which sacrifices of those things which the people possessed were
offered to God: and consequently the people who offered these
sacrifices to God by the hands of the priest could be present in the
court. But the priests alone, whose function it was to offer the
people to God, could approach the inner altar, whereon the very
devotion and holiness of the people was offered to God. And this
altar was put up outside the tabernacle and in the court, to the
exclusion of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles placed altars
inside the temples to offer up sacrifices thereon to idols.

The figurative reason for all these things may be taken from the
relation of the tabernacle to Christ, who was foreshadowed therein.
Now it must be observed that to show the imperfection of the figures
of the Law, various figures were instituted in the temple to betoken
Christ. For He was foreshadowed by the "propitiatory," since He is "a
propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2). This propitiatory was
fittingly carried by cherubim, since of Him it is written (Heb. 1:6):
"Let all the angels of God adore Him." He is also signified by the
ark: because just as the ark was made of setim-wood, so was Christ's
body composed of most pure members. More over it was gilded: for
Christ was full of wisdom and charity, which are betokened by gold.
And in the ark was a golden pot, i.e. His holy soul, having manna,
i.e. "all the fulness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9). Also there was a
rod in the ark, i.e. His priestly power: for "He was made a . . .
priest for ever" (Heb. 6:20). And therein were the tables of the
Testament, to denote that Christ Himself is a lawgiver. Again, Christ
was signified by the candlestick, for He said Himself (John 8:12): "I
am the Light of the world"; while the seven lamps denoted the seven
gifts of the Holy Ghost. He is also betokened in the table, because
He is our spiritual food, according to John 6:41, 51: "I am the
living bread": and the twelve loaves signified the twelve apostles,
or their teaching. Or again, the candlestick and table may signify
the Church's teaching, and faith, which also enlightens and
refreshes. Again, Christ is signified by the two altars of holocausts
and incense. Because all works of virtue must be offered to us to God
through Him; both those whereby we afflict the body, which are
offered, as it were, on the altar of holocausts; and those which,
with greater perfection of mind, are offered to God in Christ, by the
spiritual desires of the perfect, on the altar of incense, as it
were, according to Heb. 13:15: "By Him therefore let us offer the
sacrifice of praise always to God."

Reply Obj. 7: The Lord commanded an altar to be made for the offering
of sacrifices and gifts, in honor of God, and for the upkeep of the
ministers who served the tabernacle. Now concerning the construction
of the altar the Lord issued a twofold precept. One was at the
beginning of the Law (Ex. 20:24, seqq.) when the Lord commanded them
to make "an altar of earth," or at least "not of hewn stones"; and
again, not to make the altar high, so as to make it necessary to "go
up" to it "by steps." This was in detestation of idolatrous worship:
for the Gentiles made their altars ornate and high, thinking that
there was something holy and divine in such things. For this reason,
too, the Lord commanded (Deut. 16:21): "Thou shalt plant no grove,
nor any tree near the altar of the Lord thy God": since idolaters
were wont to offer sacrifices beneath trees, on account of the
pleasantness and shade afforded by them. There was also a figurative
reason for these precepts. Because we must confess that in Christ,
Who is our altar, there is the true nature of flesh, as regards His
humanity--and this is to make an altar of earth; and again, in regard
to His Godhead, we must confess His equality with the Father--and
this is "not to go up" to the altar by steps. Moreover we should not
couple the doctrine of Christ to that of the Gentiles, which provokes
men to lewdness.

But when once the tabernacle had been constructed to the honor of
God, there was no longer reason to fear these occasions of idolatry.
Wherefore the Lord commanded the altar of holocausts to be made of
brass, and to be conspicuous to all the people; and the altar of
incense, which was visible to none but the priests. Nor was brass so
precious as to give the people an occasion for idolatry.

Since, however, the reason for the precept, "Thou shalt not go up by
steps unto My altar" (Ex. 20:26) is stated to have been "lest thy
nakedness be discovered," it should be observed that this too was
instituted with the purpose of preventing idolatry, for in the feasts
of Priapus the Gentiles uncovered their nakedness before the people.
But later on the priests were prescribed the use of loin-cloths for
the sake of decency: so that without any danger the altar could be
placed so high that the priests when offering sacrifices would go up
by steps of wood, not fixed but movable.

Reply Obj. 8: The body of the tabernacle consisted of boards placed
on end, and covered on the inside with curtains of four different
colors, viz. twisted linen, violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed.
These curtains, however, covered the sides only of the tabernacle;
and the roof of the tabernacle was covered with violet-colored skins;
and over this there was another covering of rams' skins dyed red; and
over this there was a third curtain made of goats' hair, which
covered not only the roof of the tabernacle, but also reached to the
ground and covered the boards of the tabernacle on the outside. The
literal reason of these coverings taken altogether was the adornment
and protection of the tabernacle, that it might be an object of
respect. Taken singly, according to some, the curtains denoted the
starry heaven, which is adorned with various stars; the curtain (of
goats' skin) signified the waters which are above the firmament; the
skins dyed red denoted the empyrean heaven, where the angels are; the
violet skins, the heaven of the Blessed Trinity.

The figurative meaning of these things is that the boards of which
the tabernacle was constructed signify the faithful of Christ, who
compose the Church. The boards were covered on the inner side by
curtains of four colors: because the faithful are inwardly adorned
with the four virtues: for "the twisted linen," as the gloss
observes, "signifies the flesh refulgent with purity; violet
signifies the mind desirous of heavenly things; purple denotes the
flesh subject to passions; the twice dyed scarlet betokens the mind
in the midst of the passions enlightened by the love of God and our
neighbor." The coverings of the building designate prelates and
doctors, who ought to be conspicuous for their heavenly manner of
life, signified by the violet colored skins: and who should also be
ready to suffer martyrdom, denoted by the skins dyed red; and austere
of life and patient in adversity, betokened by the curtains of goats'
hair, which were exposed to wind and rain, as the gloss observes.

Reply Obj. 9: The literal reason for the sanctification of the
tabernacle and vessels was that they might be treated with greater
reverence, being deputed, as it were, to the divine worship by this
consecration. The figurative reason is that this sanctification
signified the sanctification of the living tabernacle, i.e. the
faithful of whom the Church of Christ is composed.

Reply Obj. 10: Under the Old Law there were seven temporal
solemnities, and one continual solemnity, as may be gathered from
Num. 28, 29. There was a continual feast, since the lamb was
sacrificed every day, morning and evening: and this continual feast
of an abiding sacrifice signified the perpetuity of Divine bliss. Of
the temporal feasts the first was that which was repeated every week.
This was the solemnity of the "Sabbath," celebrated in memory of the
work of the creation of the universe. Another solemnity, viz. the
"New Moon," was repeated every month, and was observed in memory of
the work of the Divine government. For the things of this lower world
owe their variety chiefly to the movement of the moon; wherefore this
feast was kept at the new moon: and not at the full moon, to avoid
the worship of idolaters who used to offer sacrifices to the moon at
that particular time. And these two blessings are bestowed in common
on the whole human race; and hence they were repeated more frequently.

The other five feasts were celebrated once a year: and they
commemorated the benefits which had been conferred especially on that
people. For there was the feast of the "Passover" in the first month
to commemorate the blessing of being delivered out of Egypt. The
feast of "Pentecost" was celebrated fifty days later, to recall the
blessing of the giving of the Law. The other three feasts were kept
in the seventh month, nearly the whole of which was solemnized by
them, just as the seventh day. For on the first of the seventh month
was the feast of "Trumpets," in memory of the delivery of Isaac, when
Abraham found the ram caught by its horns, which they represented by
the horns which they blew. The feast of Trumpets was a kind of
invitation whereby they prepared themselves to keep the following
feast which was kept on the tenth day. This was the feast of
"Expiation," in memory of the blessing whereby, at the prayer of
Moses, God forgave the people's sin of worshipping the calf. After
this was the feast of "Scenopegia" or of "Tents," which was kept for
seven days, to commemorate the blessing of being protected and led by
God through the desert, where they lived in tents. Hence during this
feast they had to take "the fruits of the fairest tree," i.e. the
citron, "and the trees of dense foliage" [*Douay and A. V. and R. V.
read: 'Boughs of thick trees'], i.e. the myrtle, which is fragrant,
"and the branches of palm-trees, and willows of the brook," which
retain their greenness a long time; and these are to be found in the
Land of promise; to signify that God had brought them through the
arid land of the wilderness to a land of delights. On the eighth day
another feast was observed, of "Assembly and Congregation," on which
the people collected the expenses necessary for the divine worship:
and it signified the uniting of the people and the peace granted to
them in the Land of promise.

The figurative reason for these feasts was that the continual
sacrifice of the lamb foreshadowed the perpetuity of Christ, Who is
the "Lamb of God," according to Heb. 13:8: "Jesus Christ yesterday
and today, and the same for ever." The Sabbath signified the
spiritual rest bestowed by Christ, as stated in Heb. 4. The Neomenia,
which is the beginning of the new moon, signified the enlightening of
the primitive Church by Christ's preaching and miracles. The feast of
Pentecost signified the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles.
The feast of Trumpets signified the preaching of the apostles. The
feast of Expiation signified the cleansing of the Christian people
from sins: and the feast of Tabernacles signified their pilgrimage in
this world, wherein they walk by advancing in virtue. The feast of
Assembly or Congregation foreshadowed the assembly of the faithful in
the kingdom of heaven: wherefore this feast is described as "most
holy" (Lev. 23:36). These three feasts followed immediately on one
another, because those who expiate their vices should advance in
virtue, until they come to see God, as stated in Ps. 83:8.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 5]

Whether There Can Be Any Suitable Cause for the Sacraments of the Old
Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that there can be no suitable cause for
the sacraments of the Old Law. Because those things that are done for
the purpose of divine worship should not be like the observances of
idolaters: since it is written (Deut. 12:31): "Thou shalt not do in
like manner to the Lord thy God: for they have done to their gods all
the abominations which the Lord abhorreth." Now worshippers of idols
used to knive themselves to the shedding of blood: for it is related
(3 Kings 18:28) that they "cut themselves after their manner with
knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood." For this
reason the Lord commanded (Deut. 14:1): "You shall not cut yourselves
nor make any baldness for the dead." Therefore it was unfitting for
circumcision to be prescribed by the Law (Lev. 12:3).

Obj. 2: Further, those things which are done for the worship of God
should be marked with decorum and gravity; according to Ps. 34:18: "I
will praise Thee in a grave [Douay: 'strong'] people." But it seems
to savor of levity for a man to eat with haste. Therefore it was
unfittingly commanded (Ex. 12:11) that they should eat the Paschal
lamb "in haste." Other things too relative to the eating of the lamb
were prescribed, which seem altogether unreasonable.

Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the
sacraments of the New Law. Now the Paschal lamb signified the
sacrament of the Eucharist, according to 1 Cor. 5:7: "Christ our
Pasch is sacrificed." Therefore there should also have been some
sacraments of the Old Law to foreshadow the other sacraments of the
New Law, such as Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony, and so
forth.

Obj. 4: Further, purification can scarcely be done except by removing
something impure. But as far as God is concerned, no bodily thing is
reputed impure, because all bodies are God's creatures; and "every
creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received
with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). It was therefore unfitting for them
to be purified after contact with a corpse, or any similar corporeal
infection.

Obj. 5: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 34:4): "What can be made
clean by the unclean?" But the ashes of the red heifer [*Cf. Heb.
9:13] which was burnt, were unclean, since they made a man unclean:
for it is stated (Num. 19:7, seqq.) that the priest who immolated her
was rendered unclean "until the evening"; likewise he that burnt her;
and he that gathered up her ashes. Therefore it was unfittingly
prescribed there that the unclean should be purified by being
sprinkled with those cinders.

Obj. 6: Further, sins are not something corporeal that can be carried
from one place to another: nor can man be cleansed from sin by means
of something unclean. It was therefore unfitting for the purpose of
expiating the sins of the people that the priest should confess the
sins of the children of Israel on one of the buck-goats, that it
might carry them away into the wilderness: while they were rendered
unclean by the other, which they used for the purpose of
purification, by burning it together with the calf outside the camp;
so that they had to wash their clothes and their bodies with water
(Lev. 16).

Obj. 7: Further, what is already cleansed should not be cleansed
again. It was therefore unfitting to apply a second purification to a
man cleansed from leprosy, or to a house; as laid down in Lev. 14.

Obj. 8: Further, spiritual uncleanness cannot be cleansed by material
water or by shaving the hair. Therefore it seems unreasonable that
the Lord ordered (Ex. 30:18, seqq.) the making of a brazen laver with
its foot, that the priests might wash their hands and feet before
entering the temple; and that He commanded (Num. 8:7) the Levites to
be sprinkled with the water of purification, and to shave all the
hairs of their flesh.

Objection 9: Further, that which is greater cannot be cleansed by
that which is less. Therefore it was unfitting that, in the Law, the
higher and lower priests, as stated in Lev. 8 [*Cf. Ex. 29], and the
Levites, according to Num. 8, should be consecrated with any bodily
anointing, bodily sacrifices, and bodily oblations.

Objection 10: Further, as stated in 1 Kings 16:7, "Man seeth those
things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." But those
things that appear outwardly in man are the dispositions of his body
and his clothes. Therefore it was unfitting for certain special
garments to be appointed to the higher and lower priests, as related
in Ex. 28 [*Cf. Lev. 8:7, seqq.]. It seems, moreover, unreasonable
that anyone should be debarred from the priesthood on account of
defects in the body, as stated in Lev. 21:17, seqq.: "Whosoever of
thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not
offer bread to his God . . . if he be blind, if he be lame," etc. It
seems, therefore, that the sacraments of the Old Law were
unreasonable.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lev. 20:8): "I am the Lord that
sanctify you." But nothing unreasonable is done by God, for it is
written (Ps. 103:24): "Thou hast made all things in wisdom."
Therefore there was nothing without a reasonable cause in the
sacraments of the Old Law, which were ordained to the sanctification
of man.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 101, A. 4), the sacraments are,
properly speaking, things applied to the worshippers of God for their
consecration so as, in some way, to depute them to the worship of
God. Now the worship of God belonged in a general way to the whole
people; but in a special way, it belonged to the priests and Levites,
who were the ministers of divine worship. Consequently, in these
sacraments of the Old Law, certain things concerned the whole people
in general; while others belonged to the ministers.

In regard to both, three things were necessary. The first was to be
established in the state of worshipping God: and this institution was
brought about--for all in general, by circumcision, without which no
one was admitted to any of the legal observances--and for the
priests, by their consecration. The second thing required was the use
of those things that pertain to divine worship. And thus, as to the
people, there was the partaking of the paschal banquet, to which no
uncircumcised man was admitted, as is clear from Ex. 12:43, seqq.:
and, as to the priests, the offering of the victims, and the eating
of the loaves of proposition and of other things that were allotted
to the use of the priests. The third thing required was the removal
of all impediments to divine worship, viz. of uncleannesses. And
then, as to the people, certain purifications were instituted for the
removal of certain external uncleannesses; and also expiations from
sins; while, as to the priests and Levites, the washing of hands and
feet and the shaving of the hair were instituted.

And all these things had reasonable causes, both literal, in so far
as they were ordained to the worship of God for the time being, and
figurative, in so far as they were ordained to foreshadow Christ: as
we shall see by taking them one by one.

Reply Obj. 1: The chief literal reason for circumcision was in order
that man might profess his belief in one God. And because Abraham was
the first to sever himself from the infidels, by going out from his
house and kindred, for this reason he was the first to receive
circumcision. This reason is set forth by the Apostle (Rom. 4:9,
seqq.) thus: "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
justice of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised"; because, to
wit, we are told that "unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice,"
for the reason that "against hope he believed in hope," i.e. against
the hope that is of nature he believed in the hope that is of grace,
"that he might be made the father of many nations," when he was an
old man, and his wife an old and barren woman. And in order that this
declaration, and imitation of Abraham's faith, might be fixed firmly
in the hearts of the Jews, they received in their flesh such a sign
as they could not forget, wherefore it is written (Gen. 17:13): "My
covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant." This was
done on the eighth day, because until then a child is very tender,
and so might be seriously injured; and is considered as something not
yet consolidated: wherefore neither are animals offered before the
eighth day. And it was not delayed after that time, lest some might
refuse the sign of circumcision on account of the pain: and also lest
the parents, whose love for their children increases as they become
used to their presence and as they grow older, should withdraw their
children from circumcision. A second reason may have been the
weakening of concupiscence in that member. A third motive may have
been to revile the worship of Venus and Priapus, which gave honor to
that part of the body. The Lord's prohibition extended only to the
cutting of oneself in honor of idols: and such was not the
circumcision of which we have been speaking.

The figurative reason for circumcision was that it foreshadowed the
removal of corruption, which was to be brought about by Christ, and
will be perfectly fulfilled in the eighth age, which is the age of
those who rise from the dead. And since all corruption of guilt and
punishment comes to us through our carnal origin, from the sin of our
first parent, therefore circumcision was applied to the generative
member. Hence the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "You are circumcised" in
Christ "with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body
of the flesh, but in the circumcision of" Our Lord Jesus "Christ."

Reply Obj. 2: The literal reason of the paschal banquet was to
commemorate the blessing of being led by God out of Egypt. Hence by
celebrating this banquet they declared that they belonged to that
people which God had taken to Himself out of Egypt. For when they
were delivered from Egypt, they were commanded to sprinkle the lamb's
blood on the transoms of their house doors, as though declaring that
they were averse to the rites of the Egyptians who worshipped the
ram. Wherefore they were delivered by the sprinkling or rubbing of
the blood of the lamb on the door-posts, from the danger of
extermination which threatened the Egyptians.

Now two things are to be observed in their departure from Egypt:
namely, their haste in going, for the Egyptians pressed them to go
forth speedily, as related in Ex. 12:33; and there was danger that
anyone who did not hasten to go with the crowd might be slain by the
Egyptians. Their haste was shown in two ways. First by what they ate.
For they were commanded to eat unleavened bread, as a sign "that it
could not be leavened, the Egyptians pressing them to depart"; and to
eat roast meat, for this took less time to prepare; and that they
should not break a bone thereof, because in their haste there was no
time to break bones. Secondly, as to the manner of eating. For it is
written: "You shall gird your reins, and you shall have shoes on your
feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste":
which clearly designates men at the point of starting on a journey.
To this also is to be referred the command: "In one house shall it be
eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the
house": because, to wit, on account of their haste, they could not
send any gifts of it.

The stress they suffered while in Egypt was denoted by the wild
lettuces. The figurative reason is evident, because the sacrifice of
the paschal lamb signified the sacrifice of Christ according to 1
Cor. 5:7: "Christ our pasch is sacrificed." The blood of the lamb,
which ensured deliverance from the destroyer, by being sprinkled on
the ransoms, signified faith in Christ's Passion, in the hearts and
on the lips of the faithful, by which same Passion we are delivered
from sin and death, according to 1 Pet. 1:18: "You were . . .
redeemed . . . with the precious blood . . . of a lamb unspotted."
The partaking of its flesh signified the eating of Christ's body in
the Sacrament; and the flesh was roasted at the fire to signify
Christ's Passion or charity. And it was eaten with unleavened bread
to signify the blameless life of the faithful who partake of Christ's
body, according to 1 Cor. 5:8: "Let us feast . . . with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The wild lettuces were
added to denote repentance for sins, which is required of those who
receive the body of Christ. Their loins were girt in sign of
chastity: and the shoes of their feet are the examples of our dead
ancestors. The staves they were to hold in their hands denoted
pastoral authority: and it was commanded that the paschal lamb should
be eaten in one house, i.e. in a catholic church, and not in the
conventicles of heretics.

Reply Obj. 3: Some of the sacraments of the New Law had corresponding
figurative sacraments in the Old Law. For Baptism, which is the
sacrament of Faith, corresponds to circumcision. Hence it is written
(Col. 2:11, 12): "You are circumcised . . . in the circumcision of"
Our Lord Jesus "Christ: buried with Him in Baptism." In the New Law
the sacrament of the Eucharist corresponds to the banquet of the
paschal lamb. The sacrament of Penance in the New Law corresponds to
all the purifications of the Old Law. The sacrament of Orders
corresponds to the consecration of the pontiff and of the priests. To
the sacrament of Confirmation, which is the sacrament of the fulness
of grace, there would be no corresponding sacrament of the Old Law,
because the time of fulness had not yet come, since "the Law brought
no man [Vulg.: 'nothing'] to perfection" (Heb. 7:19). The same
applies to the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which is an immediate
preparation for entrance into glory, to which the way was not yet
opened out in the Old Law, since the price had not yet been paid.
Matrimony did indeed exist under the Old Law, as a function of
nature, but not as the sacrament of the union of Christ with the
Church, for that union was not as yet brought about. Hence under the
Old Law it was allowable to give a bill of divorce, which is contrary
to the nature of the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 4: As already stated, the purifications of the Old Law
were ordained for the removal of impediments to the divine worship:
which worship is twofold; viz. spiritual, consisting in devotion of
the mind to God; and corporal, consisting in sacrifices, oblations,
and so forth. Now men are hindered in the spiritual worship by sins,
whereby men were said to be polluted, for instance, by idolatry,
murder, adultery, or incest. From such pollutions men were purified
by certain sacrifices, offered either for the whole community in
general, or also for the sins of individuals; not that those carnal
sacrifices had of themselves the power of expiating sin; but that
they signified that expiation of sins which was to be effected by
Christ, and of which those of old became partakers by protesting
their faith in the Redeemer, while taking part in the figurative
sacrifices.

The impediments to external worship consisted in certain bodily
uncleannesses; which were considered in the first place as existing
in man, and consequently in other animals also, and in man's clothes,
dwelling-place, and vessels. In man himself uncleanness was
considered as arising partly from himself and partly from contact
with unclean things. Anything proceeding from man was reputed unclean
that was already subject to corruption, or exposed thereto: and
consequently since death is a kind of corruption, the human corpse
was considered unclean. In like manner, since leprosy arises from
corruption of the humors, which break out externally and infect other
persons, therefore were lepers also considered unclean; and, again,
women suffering from a flow of blood, whether from weakness, or from
nature (either at the monthly course or at the time of conception);
and, for the same reason, men were reputed unclean if they suffered
from a flow of seed, whether due to weakness, to nocturnal pollution,
or to sexual intercourse. Because every humor issuing from man in the
aforesaid ways involves some unclean infection. Again, man contracted
uncleanness by touching any unclean thing whatever.

Now there was both a literal and a figurative reason for these
uncleannesses. The literal reason was taken from the reverence due to
those things that belong to the divine worship: both because men are
not wont, when unclean, to touch precious things: and in order that
by rarely approaching sacred things they might have greater respect
for them. For since man could seldom avoid all the aforesaid
uncleannesses, the result was that men could seldom approach to touch
things belonging to the worship of God, so that when they did
approach, they did so with greater reverence and humility. Moreover,
in some of these the literal reason was that men should not be kept
away from worshipping God through fear of coming in contact with
lepers and others similarly afflicted with loathsome and contagious
diseases. In others, again, the reason was to avoid idolatrous
worship: because in their sacrificial rites the Gentiles sometimes
employed human blood and seed. All these bodily uncleannesses were
purified either by the mere sprinkling of water, or, in the case of
those which were more grievous, by some sacrifice of expiation for
the sin which was the occasion of the uncleanness in question.

The figurative reason for these uncleannesses was that they were
figures of various sins. For the uncleanness of any corpse signifies
the uncleanness of sin, which is the death of the soul. The
uncleanness of leprosy betokened the uncleanness of heretical
doctrine: both because heretical doctrine is contagious just as
leprosy is, and because no doctrine is so false as not to have some
truth mingled with error, just as on the surface of a leprous body
one may distinguish the healthy parts from those that are infected.
The uncleanness of a woman suffering from a flow of blood denotes the
uncleanness of idolatry, on account of the blood which is offered up.
The uncleanness of the man who has suffered seminal loss signifies
the uncleanness of empty words, for "the seed is the word of God."
The uncleanness of sexual intercourse and of the woman in child-birth
signifies the uncleanness of original sin. The uncleanness of the
woman in her periods signifies the uncleanness of a mind that is
sensualized by pleasure. Speaking generally, the uncleanness
contracted by touching an unclean thing denotes the uncleanness
arising from consent in another's sin, according to 2 Cor. 6:17: "Go
out from among them, and be ye separate . . . and touch not the
unclean thing."

Moreover, this uncleanness arising from the touch was contracted even
by inanimate objects; for whatever was touched in any way by an
unclean man, became itself unclean. Wherein the Law attenuated the
superstition of the Gentiles, who held that uncleanness was
contracted not only by touch, but also by speech or looks, as Rabbi
Moses states (Doct. Perplex. iii) of a woman in her periods. The
mystical sense of this was that "to God the wicked and his wickedness
are hateful alike" (Wis. 14:9).

There was also an uncleanness of inanimate things considered in
themselves, such as the uncleanness of leprosy in a house or in
clothes. For just as leprosy occurs in men through a corrupt humor
causing putrefaction and corruption in the flesh; so, too, through
some corruption and excess of humidity or dryness, there arises
sometimes a kind of corruption in the stones with which a house is
built, or in clothes. Hence the Law called this corruption by the
name of leprosy, whereby a house or a garment was deemed to be
unclean: both because all corruption savored of uncleanness, as
stated above, and because the Gentiles worshipped their household
gods as a preservative against this corruption. Hence the Law
prescribed such houses, where this kind of corruption was of a
lasting nature, to be destroyed; and such garments to be burnt, in
order to avoid all occasion of idolatry. There was also an
uncleanness of vessels, of which it is written (Num. 19:15): "The
vessel that hath no cover, and binding over it, shall be unclean."
The cause of this uncleanness was that anything unclean might easily
drop into such vessels, so as to render them unclean. Moreover, this
command aimed at the prevention of idolatry. For idolaters believed
that if mice, lizards, or the like, which they used to sacrifice to
the idols, fell into the vessels or into the water, these became more
pleasing to the gods. Even now some women let down uncovered vessels
in honor of the nocturnal deities which they call "Janae."

The figurative reason of these uncleannesses is that the leprosy of a
house signified the uncleanness of the assembly of heretics; the
leprosy of a linen garment signified an evil life arising from
bitterness of mind; the leprosy of a woolen garment denoted the
wickedness of flatterers; leprosy in the warp signified the vices of
the soul; leprosy on the woof denoted sins of the flesh, for as the
warp is in the woof, so is the soul in the body. The vessel that has
neither cover nor binding, betokens a man who lacks the veil of
taciturnity, and who is unrestrained by any severity of discipline.

Reply Obj. 5: As stated above (ad 4), there was a twofold uncleanness
in the Law; one by way of corruption in the mind or in the body; and
this was the graver uncleanness; the other was by mere contact with
an unclean thing, and this was less grave, and was more easily
expiated. Because the former uncleanness was expiated by sacrifices
for sins, since all corruption is due to sin, and signifies sin:
whereas the latter uncleanness was expiated by the mere sprinkling of
a certain water, of which water we read in Num. 19. For there God
commanded them to take a red cow in memory of the sin they had
committed in worshipping a calf. And a cow is mentioned rather than a
calf, because it was thus that the Lord was wont to designate the
synagogue, according to Osee 4:16: "Israel hath gone astray like a
wanton heifer": and this was, perhaps, because they worshipped
heifers after the custom of Egypt, according to Osee 10:5: "(They)
have worshipped the kine of Bethaven." And in detestation of the sin
of idolatry it was sacrificed outside the camp; in fact, whenever
sacrifice was offered up in expiation of the multitude of sins, it
was all burnt outside the camp. Moreover, in order to show that this
sacrifice cleansed the people from all their sins, "the priest"
dipped "his finger in her blood," and sprinkled "it over against the
door of the tabernacle seven times"; for the number seven signified
universality. Further, the very sprinkling of blood pertained to the
detestation of idolatry, in which the blood that was offered up was
not poured out, but was collected together, and men gathered round it
to eat in honor of the idols. Likewise it was burnt by fire, either
because God appeared to Moses in a fire, and the Law was given from
the midst of fire; or to denote that idolatry, together with all that
was connected therewith, was to be extirpated altogether; just as the
cow was burnt "with her skin and her flesh, her blood and dung being
delivered to the flames." To this burning were added "cedar-wood, and
hyssop, and scarlet twice dyed," to signify that just as cedar-wood
is not liable to putrefaction, and scarlet twice dyed does not easily
lose its color, and hyssop retains its odor after it has been dried;
so also was this sacrifice for the preservation of the whole people,
and for their good behavior and devotion. Hence it is said of the
ashes of the cow: "That they may be reserved for the multitude of the
children of Israel." Or, according to Josephus (Antiq. iii, 8, 9,
10), the four elements are indicated here: for "cedar-wood" was added
to the fire, to signify the earth, on account of its earthiness;
"hyssop," to signify the air, on account of its smell; "scarlet twice
dyed," to signify water, for the same reason as purple, on account of
the dyes which are taken out of the water: thus denoting the fact
that this sacrifice was offered to the Creator of the four elements.
And since this sacrifice was offered for the sin of idolatry, both
"he that burned her," and "he that gathered up the ashes," and "he
that sprinkled the water" in which the ashes were placed, were deemed
unclean in detestation of that sin, in order to show that whatever
was in any way connected with idolatry should be cast aside as being
unclean. From this uncleanness they were purified by the mere washing
of their clothes; nor did they need to be sprinkled with the water on
account of this kind of uncleanness, because otherwise the process
would have been unending, since he that sprinkled the water became
unclean, so that if he were to sprinkle himself he would remain
unclean; and if another were to sprinkle him, that one would have
become unclean, and in like manner, whoever might sprinkle him, and
so on indefinitely.

The figurative reason of this sacrifice was that the red cow
signified Christ in respect of his assumed weakness, denoted by the
female sex; while the color of the cow designated the blood of His
Passion. And the "red cow was of full age," because all Christ's
works are perfect, "in which there" was "no blemish"; "and which" had
"not carried the yoke," because Christ was innocent, nor did He carry
the yoke of sin. It was commanded to be taken to Moses, because they
blamed Him for transgressing the law of Moses by breaking the
Sabbath. And it was commanded to be delivered "to Eleazar the
priest," because Christ was delivered into the hands of the priests
to be slain. It was immolated "without the camp," because Christ
"suffered outside the gate" (Heb. 13:12). And the priest dipped "his
finger in her blood," because the mystery of Christ's Passion should
be considered and imitated.

It was sprinkled "over against . . . the tabernacle," which denotes
the synagogue, to signify either the condemnation of the unbelieving
Jews, or the purification of believers; and this "seven times," in
token either of the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, or of the seven
days wherein all time is comprised. Again, all things that pertain to
the Incarnation of Christ should be burnt with fire, i.e. they should
be understood spiritually; for the "skin" and "flesh" signified
Christ's outward works; the "blood" denoted the subtle inward force
which quickened His external deeds; the "dung" betokened His
weariness, His thirst, and all such like things pertaining to His
weakness. Three things were added, viz. "cedar-wood," which denotes
the height of hope or contemplation; "hyssop," in token of humility
or faith; "scarlet twice dyed," which denotes twofold charity; for it
is by these three that we should cling to Christ suffering. The ashes
of this burning were gathered by "a man that is clean," because the
relics of the Passion came into the possession of the Gentiles, who
were not guilty of Christ's death. The ashes were put into water for
the purpose of expiation, because Baptism receives from Christ's
Passion the power of washing away sins. The priest who immolated and
burned the cow, and he who burned, and he who gathered together the
ashes, were unclean, as also he that sprinkled the water: either
because the Jews became unclean through putting Christ to death,
whereby our sins are expiated; and this, until the evening, i.e.
until the end of the world, when the remnants of Israel will be
converted; or else because they who handle sacred things with a view
to the cleansing of others contract certain uncleannesses, as Gregory
says (Pastor. ii, 5); and this until the evening, i.e. until the end
of this life.

Reply Obj. 6: As stated above (ad 5), an uncleanness which was caused
by corruption either of mind or of body was expiated by
sin-offerings. Now special sacrifices were wont to be offered for the
sins of individuals: but since some were neglectful about expiating
such sins and uncleannesses; or, through ignorance, failed to offer
this expiation; it was laid down that once a year, on the tenth day
of the seventh month, a sacrifice of expiation should be offered for
the whole people. And because, as the Apostle says (Heb. 7:28), "the
Law maketh men priests, who have infirmity," it behooved the priest
first of all to offer a calf for his own sins, in memory of Aaron's
sin in fashioning the molten calf; and besides, to offer a ram for a
holocaust, which signified that the priestly sovereignty denoted by
the ram, who is the head of the flock, was to be ordained to the
glory of God. Then he offered two he-goats for the people: one of
which was offered in expiation of the sins of the multitude. For the
he-goat is an evil-smelling animal; and from its skin clothes are
made having a pungent odor; to signify the stench, uncleanness and
the sting of sin. After this he-goat had been immolated, its blood
was taken, together with the blood of the calf, into the Holy of
Holies, and the entire sanctuary was sprinkled with it; to signify
that the tabernacle was cleansed from the uncleanness of the children
of Israel. But the corpses of the he-goat and calf which had been
offered up for sin had to be burnt, to denote the destruction of
sins. They were not, however, burnt on the altar: since none but
holocausts were burnt thereon; but it was prescribed that they should
be burnt without the camp, in detestation of sin: for this was done
whenever sacrifice was offered for a grievous sin, or for the
multitude of sins. The other goat was let loose into the wilderness:
not indeed to offer it to the demons, whom the Gentiles worshipped in
desert places, because it was unlawful to offer aught to them; but in
order to point out the effect of the sacrifice which had been offered
up. Hence the priest put his hand on its head, while confessing the
sins of the children of Israel: as though that goat were to carry
them away into the wilderness, where it would be devoured by wild
beasts, because it bore the punishment of the people's sins. And it
was said to bear the sins of the people, either because the
forgiveness of the people's sins was signified by its being let
loose, or because on its head written lists of sins were fastened.

The figurative reason of these things was that Christ was
foreshadowed both by the calf, on account of His power; and by the
ram, because He is the Head of the faithful; and by the he-goat, on
account of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3). Moreover,
Christ was sacrificed for the sins of both priests and people: since
both those of high and those of low degree are cleansed from sin by
His Passion. The blood of the calf and of the goat was brought into
the Holies by the priest, because the entrance to the kingdom of
heaven was opened to us by the blood of Christ's Passion. Their
bodies were burnt without the camp, because "Christ suffered without
the gate," as the Apostle declares (Heb. 13:12). The scape-goat may
denote either Christ's Godhead Which went away into solitude when the
Man Christ suffered, not by going to another place, but by
restraining His power: or it may signify the base concupiscence which
we ought to cast away from ourselves, while we offer up to Our Lord
acts of virtue.

With regard to the uncleanness contracted by those who burnt these
sacrifices, the reason is the same as that which we assigned (ad 5)
to the sacrifice of the red heifer.

Reply Obj. 7: The legal rite did not cleanse the leper of his
deformity, but declared him to be cleansed. This is shown by the
words of Lev. 14:3, seqq., where it was said that the priest, "when
he shall find that the leprosy is cleansed," shall command "him that
is to be purified": consequently, the leper was already healed: but
he was said to be purified in so far as the verdict of the priest
restored him to the society of men and to the worship of God. It
happened sometimes, however, that bodily leprosy was miraculously
cured by the legal rite, when the priest erred in his judgment.

Now this purification of a leper was twofold: for, in the first
place, he was declared to be clean; and, secondly, he was restored,
as clean, to the society of men and to the worship of God, to wit,
after seven days. At the first purification the leper who sought to
be cleansed offered for himself "two living sparrows . . .
cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop," in such wise that a sparrow and
the hyssop should be tied to the cedar-wood with a scarlet thread, so
that the cedar-wood was like the handle of an aspersory: while the
hyssop and sparrow were that part of the aspersory which was dipped
into the blood of the other sparrow which was "immolated . . . over
living waters." These things he offered as an antidote to the four
defects of leprosy: for cedar-wood, which is not subject to
putrefaction, was offered against the putrefaction; hyssop, which is
a sweet-smelling herb, was offered up against the stench; a living
sparrow was offered up against numbness; and scarlet, which has a
vivid color, was offered up against the repulsive color of leprosy.
The living sparrow was let loose to fly away into the plain, because
the leper was restored to his former liberty.

On the eighth day he was admitted to divine worship, and was restored
to the society of men; but only after having shaved all the hair of
his body, and washed his clothes, because leprosy rots the hair,
infects the clothes, and gives them an evil smell. Afterwards a
sacrifice was offered for his sin, since leprosy was frequently a
result of sin: and some of the blood of the sacrifice was put on the
tip of the ear of the man that was to be cleansed, "and on the thumb
of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot"; because it
is in these parts that leprosy is first diagnosed and felt. In this
rite, moreover, three liquids were employed: viz. blood, against the
corruption of the blood; oil, to denote the healing of the disease;
and living waters, to wash away the filth.

The figurative reason was that the Divine and human natures in Christ
were denoted by the two sparrows, one of which, in likeness of His
human nature, was offered up in an earthen vessel over living waters,
because the waters of Baptism are sanctified by Christ's Passion. The
other sparrow, in token of His impassible Godhead, remained living,
because the Godhead cannot die: hence it flew away, for the Godhead
could not be encompassed by the Passion. Now this living sparrow,
together with the cedar-wood and scarlet or cochineal, and hyssop,
i.e. faith, hope and charity, as stated above (ad 5), was put into
the water for the purpose of sprinkling, because we are baptized in
the faith of the God-Man. By the waters of Baptism or of his tears
man washes his clothes, i.e. his works, and all his hair, i.e. his
thoughts. The tip of the right ear of the man to be cleansed is
moistened with some the blood and oil, in order to strengthen his
hearing against harmful words; and the thumb and toe of his right
hand and foot are moistened that his deeds may be holy. Other matters
pertaining to this purification, or to that also of any other
uncleannesses, call for no special remark, beyond what applies to
other sacrifices, whether for sins or for trespasses.

Reply Obj. 8 and 9: Just as the people were initiated by circumcision
to the divine worship, so were the ministers by some special
purification or consecration: wherefore they are commanded to be
separated from other men, as being specially deputed, rather than
others, to the ministry of the divine worship. And all that was done
touching them in their consecration or institution, was with a view
to show that they were in possession of a prerogative of purity,
power and dignity. Hence three things were done in the institution of
ministers: for first, they were purified; secondly, they were adorned
[*'Ornabantur.' Some editions have 'ordinabantur'--'were ordained':
the former reading is a reference to Lev. 8:7-9] and consecrated;
thirdly, they were employed in the ministry. All in general used to
be purified by washing in water, and by certain sacrifices; but the
Levites in particular shaved all the hair of their bodies, as stated
in Lev. 8 (cf. Num. 8).

With regard to the high-priests and priests the consecration was
performed as follows. First, when they had been washed, they were
clothed with certain special garments in designation of their
dignity. In particular, the high-priest was anointed on the head with
the oil of unction: to denote that the power of consecration was
poured forth by him on to others, just as oil flows from the head on
to the lower parts of the body; according to Ps. 132:2: "Like the
precious ointment on the head that ran down upon the beard, the beard
of Aaron." But the Levites received no other consecration besides
being offered to the Lord by the children of Israel through the hands
of the high-priest, who prayed for them. The lesser priests were
consecrated on the hands only, which were to be employed in the
sacrifices. The tip of their right ear and the thumb of their right
hand, and the great toe of their right foot were tinged with the
blood of the sacrificial animal, to denote that they should be
obedient to God's law in offering the sacrifices (this is denoted by
touching their right ear); and that they should be careful and ready
in performing the sacrifices (this is signified by the moistening of
the right foot and hand). They themselves and their garments were
sprinkled with the blood of the animal that had been sacrificed, in
memory of the blood of the lamb by which they had been delivered in
Egypt. At their consecration the following sacrifices were offered: a
calf, for sin, in memory of Aaron's sin in fashioning the molten
calf; a ram, for a holocaust, in memory of the sacrifice of Abraham,
whose obedience it behooved the high-priest to imitate; again, a ram
of consecration, which was a peace-offering, in memory of the
delivery from Egypt through the blood of the lamb; and a basket of
bread, in memory of the manna vouchsafed to the people.

In reference to their being destined to the ministry, the fat of the
ram, one roll of bread, and the right shoulder were placed on their
hands, to show that they received the power of offering these things
to the Lord: while the Levites were initiated to the ministry by
being brought into the tabernacle of the covenant, as being destined
to the ministry touching the vessels of the sanctuary.

The figurative reason of these things was that those who are to be
consecrated to the spiritual ministry of Christ, should be first of
all purified by the waters of Baptism, and by the waters of tears, in
their faith in Christ's Passion, which is a sacrifice both of
expiation and of purification. They have also to shave all the hair
of their body, i.e. all evil thoughts. They should, moreover, be
decked with virtues, and be consecrated with the oil of the Holy
Ghost, and with the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And thus they
should be intent on the fulfilment of their spiritual ministry.

Reply Obj. 10: As already stated (A. 4), the purpose of the Law was
to induce men to have reverence for the divine worship: and this in
two ways; first, by excluding from the worship of God whatever might
be an object of contempt; secondly, by introducing into the divine
worship all that seemed to savor of reverence. And, indeed, if this
was observed in regard to the tabernacle and its vessels, and in the
animals to be sacrificed, much more was it to be observed in the very
ministers. Wherefore, in order to obviate contempt for the ministers,
it was prescribed that they should have no bodily stain or defect:
since men so deformed are wont to be despised by others. For the same
reason it was also commanded that the choice of those who were to be
destined to the service of God was not to be made in a broadcast
manner from any family, but according to their descent from one
particular stock, thus giving them distinction and nobility.

In order that they might be revered, special ornate vestments were
appointed for their use, and a special form of consecration. This
indeed is the general reason of ornate garments. But the high-priest
in particular had eight vestments. First, he had a linen tunic.
Secondly, he had a purple tunic; round the bottom of which were
placed "little bells" and "pomegranates of violet, and purple, and
scarlet twice dyed." Thirdly, he had the ephod, which covered his
shoulders and his breast down to the girdle; and it was made of gold,
and violet and purple, and scarlet twice dyed and twisted linen: and
on his shoulders he bore two onyx stones, on which were graven the
names of the children of Israel. Fourthly, he had the rational, made
of the same material; it was square in shape, and was worn on the
breast, and was fastened to the ephod. On this rational there were
twelve precious stones set in four rows, on which also were graven
the names of the children of Israel, in token that the priest bore
the burden of the whole people, since he bore their names on his
shoulders; and that it was his duty ever to think of their welfare,
since he wore them on his breast, bearing them in his heart, so to
speak. And the Lord commanded the "Doctrine and Truth" to be put in
the rational: for certain matters regarding moral and dogmatic truth
were written on it. The Jews indeed pretend that on the rational was
placed a stone which changed color according to the various things
which were about to happen to the children of Israel: and this they
call the "Truth and Doctrine." Fifthly, he wore a belt or girdle made
of the four colors mentioned above. Sixthly, there was the tiara or
mitre which was made of linen. Seventhly, there was the golden plate
which hung over his forehead; on it was inscribed the Lord's name.
Eighthly, there were "the linen breeches to cover the flesh of their
nakedness," when they went up to the sanctuary or altar. Of these
eight vestments the lesser priests had four, viz. the linen tunic and
breeches, the belt and the tiara.

According to some, the literal reason for these vestments was that
they denoted the disposition of the terrestrial globe; as though the
high-priest confessed himself to be the minister of the Creator of
the world, wherefore it is written (Wis. 18:24): "In the robe" of
Aaron "was the whole world" described. For the linen breeches
signified the earth out of which the flax grows. The surrounding belt
signified the ocean which surrounds the earth. The violet tunic
denoted the air by its color: its little bells betoken the thunder;
the pomegranates, the lightning. The ephod, by its many colors,
signified the starry heaven; the two onyx stones denoted the two
hemispheres, or the sun and moon. The twelve precious stones on the
breast are the twelve signs of the zodiac: and they are said to have
been placed on the rational because in heaven are the types
(_rationes_) of earthly things, according to Job 38:33: "Dost thou
know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason
(_rationem_) thereof on the earth?" The turban or tiara signified the
empyrean: the golden plate was a token of God, the governor of the
universe.

The figurative reason is evident. Because bodily stains or defects
wherefrom the priests had to be immune, signify the various vices and
sins from which they should be free. Thus it is forbidden that he
should be blind, i.e. he ought not to be ignorant: he must not be
lame, i.e. vacillating and uncertain of purpose: that he must have "a
little, or a great, or a crooked nose," i.e. that he should not, from
lack of discretion, exceed in one direction or in another, or even
exercise some base occupation: for the nose signifies discretion,
because it discerns odors. It is forbidden that he should have "a
broken foot" or "hand," i.e. he should not lose the power of doing
good works or of advancing in virtue. He is rejected, too, if he have
a swelling either in front or behind [Vulg.: 'if he be
crook-backed']: by which is signified too much love of earthly
things: if he be blear-eyed, i.e. if his mind is darkened by carnal
affections: for running of the eyes is caused by a flow of matter. He
is also rejected if he had "a pearl in his eye," i.e. if he presumes
in his own estimation that he is clothed in the white robe of
righteousness. Again, he is rejected "if he have a continued scab,"
i.e. lustfulness of the flesh: also, if he have "a dry scurf," which
covers the body without giving pain, and is a blemish on the
comeliness of the members; which denotes avarice. Lastly, he is
rejected "if he have a rupture" or hernia; through baseness rending
his heart, though it appear not in his deeds.

The vestments denote the virtues of God's ministers. Now there are
four things that are necessary to all His ministers, viz. chastity
denoted by the breeches; a pure life, signified by the linen tunic;
the moderation of discretion, betokened by the girdle; and rectitude
of purpose, denoted by the mitre covering the head. But the
high-priests needed four other things in addition to these. First, a
continual recollection of God in their thoughts; and this was
signified by the golden plate worn over the forehead, with the name
of God engraved thereon. Secondly, they had to bear with the
shortcomings of the people: this was denoted by the ephod which they
bore on their shoulders. Thirdly, they had to carry the people in
their mind and heart by the solicitude of charity, in token of which
they wore the rational. Fourthly, they had to lead a godly life by
performing works of perfection; and this was signified by the violet
tunic. Hence little golden bells were fixed to the bottom of the
violet tunic, which bells signified the teaching of divine things
united in the high-priest to his godly mode of life. In addition to
these were the pomegranates, signifying unity of faith and concord in
good morals: because his doctrine should hold together in such a way
that it should not rend asunder the unity of faith and peace.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 6]

Whether There Was Any Reasonable Cause for the Ceremonial Observances?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was no reasonable cause for the
ceremonial observances. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:4),
"every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is
received with thanksgiving." It was therefore unfitting that they
should be forbidden to eat certain foods, as being unclean according
to Lev. 11 [*Cf. Deut. 14].

Obj. 2: Further, just as animals are given to man for food, so also
are herbs: wherefore it is written (Gen. 9:3): "As the green herbs
have I delivered all" flesh "to you." But the Law did not distinguish
any herbs from the rest as being unclean, although some are most
harmful, for instance, those that are poisonous. Therefore it seems
that neither should any animals have been prohibited as being unclean.

Obj. 3: Further, if the matter from which a thing is generated be
unclean, it seems that likewise the thing generated therefrom is
unclean. But flesh is generated from blood. Since therefore all flesh
was not prohibited as unclean, it seems that in like manner neither
should blood have been forbidden as unclean; nor the fat which is
engendered from blood.

Obj. 4: Further, Our Lord said (Matt. 10:28; cf. Luke 12:4), that
those should not be feared "that kill the body," since after death
they "have no more that they can do": which would not be true if
after death harm might come to man through anything done with his
body. Much less therefore does it matter to an animal already dead
how its flesh be cooked. Consequently there seems to be no reason in
what is said, Ex. 23:19: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of
its dam."

Obj. 5: Further, all that is first brought forth of man and beast, as
being most perfect, is commanded to be offered to the Lord (Ex. 13).
Therefore it is an unfitting command that is set forth in Lev. 19:23:
"when you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it
fruit trees, you shall take away the uncircumcision [*'Praeputia,'
which Douay version renders 'first fruits'] of them," i.e. the first
crops, and they "shall be unclean to you, neither shall you eat of
them."

Obj. 6: Further, clothing is something extraneous to man's body.
Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been forbidden to
the Jews: for instance (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not wear a garment
that is woven of two sorts": and (Deut. 22:5): "A woman shall not be
clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel":
and further on (Deut. 22:11): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is
woven of woolen and linen together."

Obj. 7: Further, to be mindful of God's commandments concerns not the
body but the heart. Therefore it is unsuitably prescribed (Deut. 6:8,
seqq.) that they should "bind" the commandments of God "as a sign" on
their hands; and that they should "write them in the entry"; and
(Num. 15:38, seqq.) that they should "make to themselves fringes in
the corners of their garments, putting in them ribands of blue . . .
they may remember . . . the commandments of the Lord."

Obj. 8: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9) that God does not
"take care for oxen," and, therefore, neither of other irrational
animals. Therefore without reason is it commanded (Deut. 22:6): "If
thou find, as thou walkest by the way, a bird's nest in a tree . . .
thou shalt not take the dam with her young"; and (Deut. 25:4): "Thou
shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn"; and (Lev.
19:19): "Thou shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any
other kind."

Objection 9: Further, no distinction was made between clean and
unclean plants. Much less therefore should any distinction have been
made about the cultivation of plants. Therefore it was unfittingly
prescribed (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not sow thy field with different
seeds"; and (Deut. 22:9, seqq.): "Thou shalt sow thy vineyard with
divers seeds"; and: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass
together."

Objection 10: Further, it is apparent that inanimate things are most
of all subject to the power of man. Therefore it was unfitting to
debar man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or
anything they found in the houses of idols, as expressed in the
commandment of the Law (Deut. 7:25, seqq.). It also seems an absurd
commandment set forth in Deut. 23:13, that they should "dig round
about and . . . cover with earth that which they were eased of."

Objection 11: Further, piety is required especially in priests. But
it seems to be an act of piety to assist at the burial of one's
friends: wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (Tob. 1:20,
seqq.). In like manner it is sometimes an act of piety to marry a
loose woman, because she is thereby delivered from sin and infamy.
Therefore it seems inconsistent for these things to be forbidden to
priests (Lev. 21).

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 18:14): "But thou art
otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God": from which words we may
gather that these observances were instituted by God to be a special
prerogative of that people. Therefore they are not without reason or
cause.

_I answer that,_ The Jewish people, as stated above (A. 5), were
specially chosen for the worship of God, and among them the priests
themselves were specially set apart for that purpose. And just as
other things that are applied to the divine worship, need to be
marked in some particular way so that they be worthy of the worship
of God; so too in that people's, and especially the priests', mode of
life, there needed to be certain special things befitting the divine
worship, whether spiritual or corporal. Now the worship prescribed by
the Law foreshadowed the mystery of Christ: so that whatever they did
was a figure of things pertaining to Christ, according to 1 Cor.
10:11: "All these things happened to them in figures." Consequently
the reasons for these observances may be taken in two ways, first
according to their fittingness to the worship of God; secondly,
according as they foreshadow something touching the Christian mode of
life.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 5, ad 4, 5), the Law distinguished
a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that of sin, whereby the
soul was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of corruption,
whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of the
first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is unclean, or can
defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we read (Matt.
15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but what
cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are
explained (Matt. 15:17) as referring to sins. Yet certain foods can
defile the soul accidentally; in so far as man partakes of them
against obedience or a vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or
through their being an incentive to lust, for which reason some
refrain from wine and flesh-meat.

If, however, we speak of bodily uncleanness, consisting in some kind
of corruption, the flesh of certain animals is unclean, either
because like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their
life is among unclean surroundings: thus certain animals, like moles
and mice and such like, live underground, whence they contract a
certain unpleasant smell; or because their flesh, through being too
moist or too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence
they were forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i.e.
animals having an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and
in like manner they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that
have many clefts in their feet, because such are very fierce and
their flesh is very dry, such as the flesh of lions and the like. For
the same reason they were forbidden to eat certain birds of prey the
flesh of which is very dry, and certain water-fowl on account of
their exceeding humidity. In like manner certain fish lacking fins
and scales were prohibited on account of their excessive moisture;
such as eels and the like. They were, however, allowed to eat
ruminants and animals with a divided hoof, because in such animals
the humors are well absorbed, and their nature well balanced: for
neither are they too moist, as is indicated by the hoof; nor are they
too earthy, which is shown by their having not a flat but a cloven
hoof. Of fishes they were allowed to partake of the drier kinds, of
which the fins and scales are an indication, because thereby the
moist nature of the fish is tempered. Of birds they were allowed to
eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the like. Another
reason was detestation of idolatry: because the Gentiles, and
especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up
these forbidden animals to their idols, or employed them for the
purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the
Jews were allowed to eat, but worshipped them as gods, or abstained,
for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (A. 3, ad
2). The third reason was to prevent excessive care about food:
wherefore they were allowed to eat those animals which could be
procured easily and promptly.

With regard to blood and fat, they were forbidden to partake of those
of any animals whatever without exception. Blood was forbidden, both
in order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of
human blood, as stated above (A. 3, ad 8); and in order to shun
idolatrous rites whereby it was customary for men to collect the
blood and to gather together around it for a banquet in honor of the
idols, to whom they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the
Lord commanded the blood to be poured out and to be covered with
earth (Lev. 17:13). For the same reason they were forbidden to eat
animals that had been suffocated or strangled: because the blood of
these animals would not be separated from the body: or because this
form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to
withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so
as to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through being used
to be kind to beasts. They were forbidden to eat the fat: both
because idolaters ate it in honor of their gods; and because it used
to be burnt in honor of God; and, again, because blood and fat are
not nutritious, which is the cause assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct.
Perplex. iii). The reason why they were forbidden to eat the sinews
is given in Gen. 32:32, where it is stated that "the children of
Israel . . . eat not the sinew . . . because he touched the sinew of"
Jacob's "thigh and it shrank."

The figurative reason for these things is that all these animals
signified certain sins, in token of which those animals were
prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If the
swine and lamb be called in question, both are clean by nature,
because all God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the
pig is unclean in a certain signification. Thus if you speak of a
foolish, and of a wise man, each of these expressions is clean
considered in the nature of the sound, letters and syllables of which
it is composed: but in signification, the one is clean, the other
unclean." The animal that chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is
clean in signification. Because division of the hoof is a figure of
the two Testaments: or of the Father and Son: or of the two natures
in Christ: of the distinction of good and evil. While chewing the cud
signifies meditation on the Scriptures and a sound understanding
thereof; and whoever lacks either of these is spiritually unclean. In
like manner those fish that have scales and fins are clean in
signification. Because fins signify the heavenly or contemplative
life; while scales signify a life of trials, each of which is
required for spiritual cleanness. Of birds certain kinds were
forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride is
forbidden: in the griffon which is hostile to horses and men, cruelty
of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very small
birds, signifies those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is full
of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings. The
vulture, which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases of
the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight among
themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind
signify those who are blackened by their lusts; or those who lack
kindly feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been
let loose from the ark. The ostrich which, though a bird, cannot fly,
and is always on the ground, signifies those who fight for God's
cause, and at the same time are taken up with worldly business. The
owl, which sees clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime,
denotes those who are clever in temporal affairs, but dull in
spiritual matters. The gull, which both flies in the air and swims in
the water, signifies those who are partial both to Circumcision and
to Baptism: or else it denotes those who would fly by contemplation,
yet dwell in the waters of sensual delights. The hawk, which helps
men to seize the prey, is a figure of those who assist the strong to
prey on the poor. The screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but
hides by day, signifies the lustful man who seeks to lie hidden in
his deeds of darkness. The cormorant, so constituted that it can stay
a long time under water, denotes the glutton who plunges into the
waters of pleasure. The ibis is an African bird with a long beak, and
feeds on snakes; and perhaps it is the same as the stork: it
signifies the envious man, who refreshes himself with the ills of
others, as with snakes. The swan is bright in color, and by the aid
of its long neck extracts its food from deep places on land or water:
it may denote those who seek earthly profit though an external
brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird of the East: it has a
long beak, and its jaws are furnished with follicules, wherein it
stores its food at first, after a time proceeding to digest it: it is
a figure of the miser, who is excessively careful in hoarding up the
necessaries of life. The coot [*Douay: _porphyrion._ St. Thomas'
description tallies with the coot or moorhen: though of course he is
mistaken about the feet differing from one another.] has this
peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has a webbed foot for
swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it swims like a duck in
the water, and walks like a partridge on land: it drinks only when it
bites, since it dips all its food in water: it is a figure of a man
who will not take advice, and does nothing but what is soaked in the
water of his own will. The heron [*Vulg.: _herodionem_], commonly
called a falcon, signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed blood"
(Ps. 13:3). The plover [*Here, again, the Douay translators
transcribed from the Vulgate: _charadrion;_ _charadrius_ is the
generic name for all plovers.], which is a garrulous bird, signifies
the gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its nest on dung, feeds on
foetid ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief
which works death in those who are unclean. The bat, which flies near
the ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge,
seek none but earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone
were permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so
that they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather
to the earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four
Evangelists, so that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed
unclean. By the prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we are to
understand the forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing
sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Men were wont to eat plants and other products of the
soil even before the deluge: but the eating of flesh seems to have
been introduced after the deluge; for it is written (Gen. 9:3): "Even
as the green herbs have I delivered . . . all" flesh "to you." The
reason for this was that the eating of the products of the soil
savors rather of a simple life; whereas the eating of flesh savors of
delicate and over-careful living. For the soil gives birth to the
herb of its own accord; and such like products of the earth may be
had in great quantities with very little effort: whereas no small
trouble is necessary either to rear or to catch an animal.
Consequently God being wishful to bring His people back to a more
simple way of living, forbade them to eat many kinds of animals, but
not those things that are produced by the soil. Another reason may be
that animals were offered to idols, while the products of the soil
were not.

The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said (ad
1).

Reply Obj. 4: Although the kid that is slain has no perception of the
manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would seem to savor of
heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended for the
nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish. It
might also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of
their idols prepared the flesh of kids in this manner, for the
purpose of sacrifice or banquet: hence (Ex. 23) after the solemnities
to be celebrated under the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou
shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam." The figurative reason
for this prohibition is this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account
of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3), was not to be seethed,
i.e. slain, by the Jews, "in the milk of its dam," i.e. during His
infancy. Or else it signifies that the kid, i.e. the sinner, should
not be boiled in the milk of its dam, i.e. should not be cajoled by
flattery.

Reply Obj. 5: The Gentiles offered their gods the first-fruits, which
they held to bring them good luck: or they burnt them for the purpose
of secrecy. Consequently (the Israelites) were commanded to look upon
the fruits of the first three years as unclean: for in that country
nearly all the trees bear fruit in three years' time; those trees, to
wit, that are cultivated either from seed, or from a graft, or from a
cutting: but it seldom happens that the fruit-stones or seeds encased
in a pod are sown: since it would take a longer time for these to
bear fruit: and the Law considered what happened most frequently. The
fruits, however, of the fourth year, as being the firstlings of clean
fruits, were offered to God: and from the fifth year onward they were
eaten.

The figurative reason was that this foreshadowed the fact that after
the three states of the Law (the first lasting from Abraham to David,
the second, until they were carried away to Babylon, the third until
the time of Christ), the Fruit of the Law, i.e. Christ, was to be
offered to God. Or again, that we must mistrust our first efforts, on
account of their imperfection.

Reply Obj. 6: It is said of a man in Ecclus. 19:27, that "the attire
of the body . . . " shows "what he is." Hence the Lord wished His
people to be distinguished from other nations, not only by the sign
of the circumcision, which was in the flesh, but also by a certain
difference of attire. Wherefore they were forbidden to wear garments
woven of woolen and linen together, and for a woman to be clothed
with man's apparel, or vice versa, for two reasons. First, to avoid
idolatrous worship. Because the Gentiles, in their religious rites,
used garments of this sort, made of various materials. Moreover in
the worship of Mars, women put on men's armor; while, conversely, in
the worship of Venus men donned women's attire. The second reason was
to preserve them from lust: because the employment of various
materials in the making of garments signified inordinate union of
sexes, while the use of male attire by a woman, or vice versa, has an
incentive to evil desires, and offers an occasion of lust. The
figurative reason is that the prohibition of wearing a garment woven
of woolen and linen signified that it was forbidden to unite the
simplicity of innocence, denoted by wool, with the duplicity of
malice, betokened by linen. It also signifies that woman is forbidden
to presume to teach, or perform other duties of men: or that man
should not adopt the effeminate manners of a woman.

Reply Obj. 7: As Jerome says on Matt. 23:6, "the Lord commanded them
to make violet-colored fringes in the four corners of their garments,
so that the Israelites might be distinguished from other nations."
Hence, in this way, they professed to be Jews: and consequently the
very sight of this sign reminded them of their law.

When we read: "Thou shalt bind them on thy hand, and they shall be
ever before thy eyes [Vulg.: 'they shall be and shall move between
thy eyes'], the Pharisees gave a false interpretation to these words,
and wrote the decalogue of Moses on a parchment, and tied it on their
foreheads like a wreath, so that it moved in front of their eyes":
whereas the intention of the Lord in giving this commandment was that
they should be bound in their hands, i.e. in their works; and that
they should be before their eyes, i.e. in their thoughts. The
violet-colored fillets which were inserted in their cloaks signify
the godly intention which should accompany our every deed. It may,
however, be said that, because they were a carnal-minded and
stiff-necked people, it was necessary for them to be stirred by these
sensible things to the observance of the Law.

Reply Obj. 8: Affection in man is twofold: it may be an affection of
reason, or it may be an affection of passion. If a man's affection be
one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to animals, because God
has subjected all things to man's power, according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou
hast subjected all things under his feet": and it is in this sense
that the Apostle says that "God has no care for oxen"; because God
does not ask of man what he does with oxen or other animals.

But if man's affection be one of passion, then it is moved also in
regard to other animals: for since the passion of pity is caused by
the afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational
animals are sensible to pain, it is possible for the affection of
pity to arise in a man with regard to the sufferings of animals. Now
it is evident that if a man practice a pitiful affection for animals,
he is all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men: wherefore
it is written (Prov. 11:10): "The just regardeth the lives of his
beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel." Consequently the
Lord, in order to inculcate pity to the Jewish people, who were prone
to cruelty, wished them to practice pity even with regard to dumb
animals, and forbade them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to
animals. Hence He prohibited them to "boil a kid in the milk of its
dam"; and to "muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"; and to slay
"the dam with her young." It may, nevertheless, be also said that
these prohibitions were made in hatred of idolatry. For the Egyptians
held it to be wicked to allow the ox to eat of the grain while
threshing the corn. Moreover certain sorcerers were wont to ensnare
the mother bird with her young during incubation, and to employ them
for the purpose of securing fruitfulness and good luck in bringing up
children: also because it was held to be a good omen to find the
mother sitting on her young.

As to the mingling of animals of divers species, the literal reason
may have been threefold. The first was to show detestation for the
idolatry of the Egyptians, who employed various mixtures in
worshipping the planets, which produce various effects, and on
various kinds of things according to their various conjunctions. The
second reason was in condemnation of unnatural sins. The third reason
was the entire removal of all occasions of concupiscence. Because
animals of different species do not easily breed, unless this be
brought about by man; and movements of lust are aroused by seeing
such things. Wherefore in the Jewish traditions we find it prescribed
as stated by Rabbi Moses that men shall turn away their eyes from
such sights.

The figurative reason for these things is that the necessities of
life should not be withdrawn from the ox that treadeth the corn, i.e.
from the preacher bearing the sheaves of doctrine, as the Apostle
states (1 Cor. 9:4, seqq.). Again, we should not take the dam with
her young: because in certain things we have to keep the spiritual
senses, i.e. the offspring, and set aside the observance of the
letter, i.e. the mother, for instance, in all the ceremonies of the
Law. It is also forbidden that a beast of burden, i.e. any of the
common people, should be allowed to engender, i.e. to have any
connection, with animals of another kind, i.e. with Gentiles or Jews.

Reply Obj. 9: All these minglings were forbidden in agriculture;
literally, in detestation of idolatry. For the Egyptians in
worshipping the stars employed various combinations of seeds, animals
and garments, in order to represent the various connections of the
stars. Or else all these minglings were forbidden in detestation of
the unnatural vice.

They have, however, a figurative reason. For the prohibition: "Thou
shalt not sow thy field with different seeds," is to be understood,
in the spiritual sense, of the prohibition to sow strange doctrine in
the Church, which is a spiritual vineyard. Likewise "the field," i.e.
the Church, must not be sown "with different seeds," i.e. with
Catholic and heretical doctrines. Neither is it allowed to plough
"with an ox and an ass together"; thus a fool should not accompany a
wise man in preaching, for one would hinder the other.

Reply Obj. 10: [*The Reply to the Tenth Objection is lacking in the
codices. The solution given here is found in some editions, and was
supplied by Nicolai.] Silver and gold were reasonably forbidden
(Deut. 7) not as though they were not subject to the power of man,
but because, like the idols themselves, all materials out of which
idols were made, were anathematized as hateful in God's sight. This
is clear from the same chapter, where we read further on (Deut.
7:26): "Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house,
lest thou become an anathema like it." Another reason was lest, by
taking silver and gold, they should be led by avarice into idolatry
to which the Jews were inclined. The other precept (Deut. 23) about
covering up excretions, was just and becoming, both for the sake of
bodily cleanliness; and in order to keep the air wholesome; and by
reason of the respect due to the tabernacle of the covenant which
stood in the midst of the camp, wherein the Lord was said to dwell;
as is clearly set forth in the same passage, where after expressing
the command, the reason thereof is at once added, to wit: "For the
Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and
to give up thy enemies to thee, and let thy camp be holy (i.e. clean),
and let no uncleanness appear therein." The figurative reason for
this precept, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), is that sins which
are the fetid excretions of the mind should be covered over by
repentance, that we may become acceptable to God, according to Ps.
31:1: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered." Or else according to a gloss, that we should recognize
the unhappy condition of human nature, and humbly cover and purify
the stains of a puffed-up and proud spirit in the deep furrow of
self-examination.

Reply Obj. 11: Sorcerers and idolatrous priests made use, in their
rites, of the bones and flesh of dead men. Wherefore, in order to
extirpate the customs of idolatrous worship, the Lord commanded that
the priests of inferior degree, who at fixed times served in the
temple, should not "incur an uncleanness at the death" of anyone
except of those who were closely related to them, viz. their father
or mother, and others thus near of kin to them. But the high-priest
had always to be ready for the service of the sanctuary; wherefore he
was absolutely forbidden to approach the dead, however nearly related
to him. They were also forbidden to marry a "harlot" or "one that has
been put away," or any other than a virgin: both on account of the
reverence due to the priesthood, the honor of which would seem to be
tarnished by such a marriage: and for the sake of the children who
would be disgraced by the mother's shame: which was most of all to be
avoided when the priestly dignity was passed on from father to son.
Again, they were commanded to shave neither head nor beard, and not
to make incisions in their flesh, in order to exclude the rites of
idolatry. For the priests of the Gentiles shaved both head and beard,
wherefore it is written (Bar 6:30): "Priests sit in their temples
having their garments rent, and their heads and beards shaven."
Moreover, in worshipping their idols "they cut themselves with knives
and lancets" (3 Kings 18:28). For this reason the priests of the Old
Law were commanded to do the contrary.

The spiritual reason for these things is that priests should be
entirely free from dead works, i.e. sins. And they should not shave
their heads, i.e. set wisdom aside; nor should they shave their
beards, i.e. set aside the perfection of wisdom; nor rend their
garments or cut their flesh, i.e. they should not incur the sin of
schism.
________________________

QUESTION 103

OF THE DURATION OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the duration of the ceremonial precepts: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the ceremonial precepts were in existence before the Law?

(2) Whether at the time of the Law the ceremonies of the Old Law had
any power of justification?

(3) Whether they ceased at the coming of Christ?

(4) Whether it is a mortal sin to observe them after the coming of
Christ?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 103, Art. 1]

Whether the Ceremonies of the Law Were in Existence Before the Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Law were in
existence before the Law. For sacrifices and holocausts were
ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated above (Q. 101, A. 4). But
sacrifices and holocausts preceded the Law: for it is written (Gen.
4:3, 4) that "Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the
Lord," and that "Abel offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of
their fat." Noe also "offered holocausts" to the Lord (Gen. 18:20),
and Abraham did in like manner (Gen. 22:13). Therefore the ceremonies
of the Old Law preceded the Law.

Obj. 2: Further, the erecting and consecrating of the altar were part
of the ceremonies relating to holy things. But these preceded the
Law. For we read (Gen. 13:18) that "Abraham . . . built . . . an
altar the Lord"; and (Gen. 28:18) that "Jacob . . . took the stone
. . . and set it up for a title, pouring oil upon the top of it."
Therefore the legal ceremonies preceded the Law.

Obj. 3: Further, the first of the legal sacraments seems to have been
circumcision. But circumcision preceded the Law, as appears from Gen.
17. In like manner the priesthood preceded the Law; for it is written
(Gen. 14:18) that "Melchisedech . . . was the priest of the most high
God." Therefore the sacramental ceremonies preceded the Law.

Obj. 4: Further, the distinction of clean from unclean animals
belongs to the ceremonies of observances, as stated above (Q. 100, 2,
A. 6, ad 1). But this distinction preceded the Law; for it is written
(Gen. 7:2, 3): "Of all clean beasts take seven and seven . . . but of
the beasts that are unclean, two and two." Therefore the legal
ceremonies preceded the Law.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 6:1): "These are the precepts
and ceremonies . . . which the Lord your God commanded that I should
teach you." But they would not have needed to be taught about these
things, if the aforesaid ceremonies had been already in existence.
Therefore the legal ceremonies did not precede the Law.

_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said (Q. 101, A. 2;
Q. 102, A. 2), the legal ceremonies were ordained for a double
purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ. Now
whoever worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain fixed
things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the divine
worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of our
relations with our neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial
precepts, as stated above (Q. 99, A. 4). Consequently, as among men
in general there were certain judicial precepts, not indeed
established by Divine authority, but ordained by human reason; so
also there were some ceremonies fixed, not by the authority of any
law, but according to the will and devotion of those that worship
God. Since, however, even before the Law some of the leading men were
gifted with the spirit of prophecy, it is to be believed that a
heavenly instinct, like a private law, prompted them to worship God
in a certain definite way, which would be both in keeping with the
interior worship, and a suitable token of Christ's mysteries, which
were foreshadowed also by other things that they did, according to 1
Cor. 10:11: "All . . . things happened to them in figure." Therefore
there were some ceremonies before the Law, but they were not legal
ceremonies, because they were not as yet established by legislation.

Reply Obj. 1: The patriarchs offered up these oblations, sacrifices
and holocausts previously to the Law, out of a certain devotion of
their own will, according as it seemed proper to them to offer up in
honor of God those things which they had received from Him, and thus
to testify that they worshipped God Who is the beginning and end of
all.

Reply Obj. 2: They also established certain sacred things, because
they thought that the honor due to God demanded that certain places
should be set apart from others for the purpose of divine worship.

Reply Obj. 3: The sacrament of circumcision was established by
command of God before the Law. Hence it cannot be called a sacrament
of the Law as though it were an institution of the Law, but only as
an observance included in the Law. Hence Our Lord said (John 7:20)
that circumcision was "not of Moses, but of his fathers." Again,
among those who worshipped God, the priesthood was in existence
before the Law by human appointment, for the Law allotted the
priestly dignity to the firstborn.

Reply Obj. 4: The distinction of clean from unclean animals was in
vogue before the Law, not with regard to eating them, since it is
written (Gen. 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat
for you": but only as to the offering of sacrifices because they used
only certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any
distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it was considered
illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by any law,
but from dislike or custom: thus even now we see that certain foods
are looked upon with disgust in some countries, while people partake
of them in others.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 103, Art. 2]

Whether, at the Time of the Law, the Ceremonies of the Old Law Had
Any Power of Justification?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law had the
power of justification at the time of the Law. Because expiation from
sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written
(Ex. 39:21) that the priests and their apparel were consecrated by
the sprinkling of blood and the anointing of oil; and (Lev. 16:16)
that, by sprinkling the blood of the calf, the priest expiated "the
sanctuary from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from
their transgressions and . . . their sins." Therefore the ceremonies
of the Old Law had the power of justification.

Obj. 2: Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to
justification, according to Ps. 10:8: "The Lord is just and hath
loved justice." But some pleased God by means of ceremonies,
according to Lev. 10:19: "How could I . . . please the Lord in the
ceremonies, having a sorrowful heart?" Therefore the ceremonies of
the Old Law had the power of justification.

Obj. 3: Further, things relating to the divine worship regard the
soul rather than the body, according to Ps. 18:8: "The Law of the
Lord is unspotted, converting souls." But the leper was cleansed by
means of the ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated in Lev. 14. Much
more therefore could the ceremonies of the Old Law cleanse the soul
by justifying it.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 2) [*The first words of the
quotation are from 3:21: St. Thomas probably quoting from memory,
substituted them for 2:21, which runs thus: 'If justice be by the
Law, then Christ died in vain.']: "If there had been a law given
which could justify [Vulg.: 'give life'], Christ died in vain," i.e.
without cause. But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of
the Old Law did not confer justice.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 102, A. 5, ad 4), a twofold
uncleanness was distinguished in the Old Law. One was spiritual and
is the uncleanness of sin. The other was corporal, which rendered a
man unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone that touched
carrion, was said to be unclean: and thus uncleanness was nothing but
a kind of irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the ceremonies
of the Old Law had the power to cleanse: because they were ordered by
the Law to be employed as remedies for the removal of the aforesaid
uncleannesses which were contracted in consequence of the
prescription of the Law. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:13) that "the
blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being
sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the
flesh." And just as this uncleanness which was washed away by such
like ceremonies, affected the flesh rather than the soul, so also the
ceremonies themselves are called by the Apostle shortly before (Heb.
9:10) justices of the flesh: "justices of the flesh," says he, "being
laid on them until the time of correction."

On the other hand, they had no power of cleansing from uncleanness of
the soul, i.e. from the uncleanness of sin. The reason of this was
that at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through
Christ, "Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world" (John
1:29). And since the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion had
not yet really taken place, those ceremonies of the Old Law could not
really contain in themselves a power flowing from Christ already
incarnate and crucified, such as the sacraments of the New Law
contain. Consequently they could not cleanse from sin: thus the
Apostle says (Heb. 10:4) that "it is impossible that with the blood
of oxen and goats sin should be taken away"; and for this reason he
calls them (Gal. 4:9) "weak and needy elements": weak indeed, because
they cannot take away sin; but this weakness results from their being
needy, i.e. from the fact that they do not contain grace within
themselves.

However, it was possible at the time of the Law, for the minds of the
faithful, to be united by faith to Christ incarnate and crucified; so
that they were justified by faith in Christ: of which faith the
observance of these ceremonies was a sort of profession, inasmuch as
they foreshadowed Christ. Hence in the Old Law certain sacrifices
were offered up for sins, not as though the sacrifices themselves
washed sins away, but because they were professions of faith which
cleansed from sin. In fact, the Law itself implies this in the terms
employed: for it is written (Lev. 4:26; 5:16) that in offering the
sacrifice for sin "the priest shall pray for him . . . and it shall
be forgiven him," as though the sin were forgiven, not in virtue of
the sacrifices, but through the faith and devotion of those who
offered them. It must be observed, however, that the very fact that
the ceremonies of the Old Law washed away uncleanness of the body,
was a figure of that expiation from sins which was effected by Christ.

It is therefore evident that under the state of the Old Law the
ceremonies had no power of justification.

Reply Obj. 1: That sanctification of priests and their sons, and of
their apparel or of anything else belonging to them, by sprinkling
them with blood, had no other effect but to appoint them to the
divine worship, and to remove impediments from them, "to the
cleansing of the flesh," as the Apostle states (Heb. 9:13) in token
of that sanctification whereby "Jesus" sanctified "the people by His
own blood" (Heb. 13:12). Moreover, the expiation must be understood
as referring to the removal of these bodily uncleannesses, not to the
forgiveness of sin. Hence even the sanctuary which could not be the
subject of sin is stated to be expiated.

Reply Obj. 2: The priests pleased God in the ceremonies by their
obedience and devotion, and by their faith in the reality
foreshadowed; not by reason of the things considered in themselves.

Reply Obj. 3: Those ceremonies which were prescribed in the cleansing
of a leper, were not ordained for the purpose of taking away the
defilement of leprosy. This is clear from the fact that these
ceremonies were not applied to a man until he was already healed:
hence it is written (Lev. 14:3, 4) that the priest, "going out of the
camp, when he shall find that the leprosy is cleansed, shall command
him that is to be purified to offer," etc.; whence it is evident that
the priest was appointed the judge of leprosy, not before, but after
cleansing. But these ceremonies were employed for the purpose of
taking away the uncleanness of irregularity. They do say, however,
that if a priest were to err in his judgment, the leper would be
cleansed miraculously by the power of God, but not in virtue of the
sacrifice. Thus also it was by miracle that the thigh of the
adulterous woman rotted, when she had drunk the water "on which" the
priest had "heaped curses," as stated in Num. 5:19-27.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 103, Art. 3]

Whether the Ceremonies of the Old Law Ceased at the Coming of Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law did not
cease at the coming of Christ. For it is written (Bar. 4:1): "This is
the book of the commandments of God, and the law that is for ever."
But the legal ceremonies were part of the Law. Therefore the legal
ceremonies were to last for ever.

Obj. 2: Further, the offering made by a leper after being cleansed
was a ceremony of the Law. But the Gospel commands the leper, who has
been cleansed, to make this offering (Matt. 8:4). Therefore the
ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at Christ's coming.

Obj. 3: Further, as long as the cause remains, the effect remains.
But the ceremonies of the Old Law had certain reasonable causes,
inasmuch as they were ordained to the worship of God, besides the
fact that they were intended to be figures of Christ. Therefore the
ceremonies of the Old Law should not have ceased.

Obj. 4: Further, circumcision was instituted as a sign of Abraham's
faith: the observance of the sabbath, to recall the blessing of
creation: and other solemnities, in memory of other Divine favors, as
stated above (Q. 102, A. 4, ad 10; A. 5, ad 1). But Abraham's faith
is ever to be imitated even by us: and the blessing of creation and
other Divine favors should never be forgotten. Therefore at least
circumcision and the other legal solemnities should not have ceased.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Col. 2:16, 17): "Let no man . .
. judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or
of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come": and (Heb. 8:13): "In saying a new (testament), he hath made
the former old: and that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its
end."

_I answer that,_ All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were
ordained to the worship of God as stated above (Q. 101, AA. 1, 2).
Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship,
which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently exterior
worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations
in the internal worship, in which a threefold state may be
distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope, both in
heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them--in both of these
considered as things to come. Such was the state of faith and hope in
the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we
have faith and hope in heavenly goods as things to come; but in the
means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such
is the state of the New Law. The third state is that in which both
are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking,
nothing hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the
Blessed.

In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of
God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving and
voice of praise" (Isa. 51:3). Hence it is written concerning the city
of the Blessed (Apoc. 21:22): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord
God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately,
therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which
foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the
advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced
which would be in keeping with the state of divine worship for that
particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future,
but the Divine favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a
thing of the present.

Reply Obj. 1: The Old Law is said to be "for ever" simply and
absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the
ceremonial precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which
those ceremonies foreshadowed.

Reply Obj. 2: The mystery of the redemption of the human race was
fulfilled in Christ's Passion: hence Our Lord said then: "It is
consummated" (John 19:30). Consequently the prescriptions of the Law
must have ceased then altogether through their reality being
fulfilled. As a sign of this, we read that at the Passion of Christ
"the veil of the temple was rent" (Matt. 27:51). Hence, before
Christ's Passion, while Christ was preaching and working miracles,
the Law and the Gospel were concurrent, since the mystery of Christ
had already begun, but was not as yet consummated. And for this
reason Our Lord, before His Passion, commanded the leper to observe
the legal ceremonies.

Reply Obj. 3: The literal reasons already given (Q. 102) for the
ceremonies refer to the divine worship, which was founded on faith in
that which was to come. Hence, at the advent of Him Who was to come,
both that worship ceased, and all the reasons referring thereto.

Reply Obj. 4: The faith of Abraham was commended in that he believed
in God's promise concerning his seed to come, in which all nations
were to blessed. Wherefore, as long as this seed was yet to come, it
was necessary to make profession of Abraham's faith by means of
circumcision. But now that it is consummated, the same thing needs to
be declared by means of another sign, viz. Baptism, which, in this
respect, took the place of circumcision, according to the saying of
the Apostle (Col. 2:11, 12): "You are circumcised with circumcision
not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the
circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."

As to the sabbath, which was a sign recalling the first creation, its
place is taken by the "Lord's Day," which recalls the beginning of
the new creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner other
solemnities of the Old Law are supplanted by new solemnities: because
the blessings vouchsafed to that people, foreshadowed the favors
granted us by Christ. Hence the feast of the Passover gave place to
the feast of Christ's Passion and Resurrection: the feast of
Pentecost when the Old Law was given, to the feast of Pentecost on
which was given the Law of the living spirit: the feast of the New
Moon, to Lady Day, when appeared the first rays of the sun, i.e.
Christ, by the fulness of grace: the feast of Trumpets, to the feasts
of the Apostles: the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and
Confessors: the feast of Tabernacles, to the feast of the Church
Dedication: the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the
Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 103, Art. 4]

Whether Since Christ's Passion the Legal Ceremonies Can Be Observed
Without Committing Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that since Christ's Passion the legal
ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin. For we must
not believe that the apostles committed mortal sin after receiving
the Holy Ghost: since by His fulness they were "endued with power
from on high" (Luke 24:49). But the apostles observed the legal
ceremonies after the coming of the Holy Ghost: for it is stated (Acts
16:3) that Paul circumcised Timothy: and (Acts 21:26) that Paul, at
the advice of James, "took the men, and . . . being purified with
them, entered into the temple, giving notice of the accomplishment of
the days of purification, until an oblation should be offered for
every one of them." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed
since the Passion of Christ without mortal sin.

Obj. 2: Further, one of the legal ceremonies consisted in shunning
the fellowship of Gentiles. But the first Pastor of the Church
complied with this observance; for it is stated (Gal. 2:12) that,
"when" certain men "had come" to Antioch, Peter "withdrew and
separated himself" from the Gentiles. Therefore the legal ceremonies
can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the commands of the apostles did not lead men into
sin. But it was commanded by apostolic decree that the Gentiles
should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (Acts
15:28, 29): "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay
no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you
abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore the legal
ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing
mortal sin.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 5:2): "If you be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." But nothing save
mortal sin hinders us from receiving Christ's fruit. Therefore since
Christ's Passion it is a mortal sin to be circumcised, or to observe
the other legal ceremonies.

_I answer that,_ All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which
the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of
his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either
profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now,
though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old;
yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the
same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by
them was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,"
where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same
by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and
bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ
as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments
signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just
as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of
faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old
said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to
observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with
devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching of Augustine (Contra
Faust. xix, 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be
born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments
were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has
suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which
Christians share, are the actual representation."

Reply Obj. 1: On this point there seems to have been a difference of
opinion between Jerome and Augustine. For Jerome (Super Galat. ii,
11, seqq.) distinguished two periods of time. One was the time
previous to Christ's Passion, during which the legal ceremonies were
neither dead, since they were obligatory, and did expiate in their
own fashion; nor deadly, because it was not sinful to observe them.
But immediately after Christ's Passion they began to be not only
dead, so as no longer to be either effectual or binding; but also
deadly, so that whoever observed them was guilty of mortal sin. Hence
he maintained that after the Passion the apostles never observed the
legal ceremonies in real earnest; but only by a kind of pious
pretense, lest, to wit, they should scandalize the Jews and hinder
their conversion. This pretense, however, is to be understood, not as
though they did not in reality perform those actions, but in the
sense that they performed them without the mind to observe the
ceremonies of the Law: thus a man might cut away his foreskin for
health's sake, not with the intention of observing legal circumcision.

But since it seems unbecoming that the apostles, in order to avoid
scandal, should have hidden things pertaining to the truth of life
and doctrine, and that they should have made use of pretense, in
things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful; therefore
Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods
of time. One was the time that preceded the Passion of Christ, during
which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another
period was after the publication of the Gospel, during which the
legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle
period, viz. from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the
Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because
they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly,
because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity to
observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to
hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though faith in Christ
could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand,
there was no reason why those who were converted from heathendom to
Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who
was born of a Jewish mother; but was unwilling to circumcise Titus,
who was of heathen nationality.

The reason why the Holy Ghost did not wish the converted Jews to be
debarred at once from observing the legal ceremonies, while converted
heathens were forbidden to observe the rites of heathendom, was in
order to show that there is a difference between these rites. For
heathenish ceremonial was rejected as absolutely unlawful, and as
prohibited by God for all time; whereas the legal ceremonial ceased
as being fulfilled through Christ's Passion, being instituted by God
as a figure of Christ.

Reply Obj. 2: According to Jerome, Peter withdrew himself from the
Gentiles by pretense, in order to avoid giving scandal to the Jews,
of whom he was the Apostle. Hence he did not sin at all in acting
thus. On the other hand, Paul in like manner made a pretense of
blaming him, in order to avoid scandalizing the Gentiles, whose
Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of this solution: because
in the canonical Scripture (viz. Gal. 2:11), wherein we must not hold
anything to be false, Paul says that Peter "was to be blamed."
Consequently it is true that Peter was at fault: and Paul blamed him
in very truth and not with pretense. Peter, however, did not sin, by
observing the legal ceremonial for the time being; because this was
lawful for him who was a converted Jew. But he did sin by excessive
minuteness in the observance of the legal rites lest he should
scandalize the Jews, the result being that he gave scandal to the
Gentiles.

Reply Obj. 3: Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is
not to be taken literally, but spiritually: namely, that the
prohibition of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the
prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the
prohibition of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while
fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they
gathered from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a
mystical sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be
unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give
this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from
heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were forbidden
literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in
order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says on Ezech. 44:31 ("The
priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those
priests who from gluttony did not keep these precepts."

But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more
conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should have
been forbidden more than the others.

We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods
were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing
compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the
union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and
things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while
the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry
if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these
things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles
and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with
the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the
Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that
which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matt. 15:11); and that
"nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1
Tim. 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made,
because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.
________________________

QUESTION 104

OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the judicial precepts: and first of all we shall
consider them in general; in the second place we shall consider their
reasons. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) What is meant by the judicial precepts?

(2) Whether they are figurative?

(3) Their duration;

(4) Their division.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 104, Art. 1]

Whether the Judicial Precepts Were Those Which Directed Man in
Relation to His Neighbor?

Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts were not those
which directed man in his relations to his neighbor. For judicial
precepts take their name from _judgment._ But there are many things
that direct man as to his neighbor, which are not subordinate to
judgment. Therefore the judicial precepts were not those which
directed man in his relations to his neighbor.

Obj. 2: Further, the judicial precepts are distinct from the moral
precepts, as stated above (Q. 99, A. 4). But there are many moral
precepts which direct man as to his neighbor: as is evidently the
case with the seven precepts of the second table. Therefore the
judicial precepts are not so called from directing man as to his
neighbor.

Obj. 3: Further, as the ceremonial precepts relate to God, so do the
judicial precepts relate to one's neighbor, as stated above (Q. 99,
A. 4; Q. 101, A. 1). But among the ceremonial precepts there are some
which concern man himself, such as observances in matter of food and
apparel, of which we have already spoken (Q. 102, A. 6, ad 1, 6).
Therefore the judicial precepts are not so called from directing man
as to his neighbor.

_On the contrary,_ It is reckoned (Ezech. 18:8) among other works of
a good and just man, that "he hath executed true judgment between man
and man." But judicial precepts are so called from "judgment."
Therefore it seems that the judicial precepts were those which
directed the relations between man and man.

_I answer that,_ As is evident from what we have stated above (Q. 95,
A. 2; Q. 99, A. 4), in every law, some precepts derive their binding
force from the dictate of reason itself, because natural reason
dictates that something ought to be done or to be avoided. These are
called "moral" precepts: since human morals are based on reason. At
the same time there are other precepts which derive their binding
force, not from the very dictate of reason (because, considered in
themselves, they do not imply an obligation of something due or
undue); but from some institution, Divine or human: and such are
certain determinations of the moral precepts. When therefore the
moral precepts are fixed by Divine institution in matters relating to
man's subordination to God, they are called "ceremonial" precepts:
but when they refer to man's relations to other men, they are called
"judicial" precepts. Hence there are two conditions attached to the
judicial precepts: viz. first, that they refer to man's relations to
other men; secondly, that they derive their binding force not from
reason alone, but in virtue of their institution.

Reply Obj. 1: Judgments emanate through the official pronouncement of
certain men who are at the head of affairs, and in whom the judicial
power is vested. Now it belongs to those who are at the head of
affairs to regulate not only litigious matters, but also voluntary
contracts which are concluded between man and man, and whatever
matters concern the community at large and the government thereof.
Consequently the judicial precepts are not only those which concern
actions at law; but also all those that are directed to the ordering
of one man in relation to another, which ordering is subject to the
direction of the sovereign as supreme judge.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument holds in respect of those precepts which
direct man in his relations to his neighbor, and derive their binding
force from the mere dictate of reason.

Reply Obj. 3: Even in those precepts which direct us to God, some are
moral precepts, which the reason itself dictates when it is quickened
by faith; such as that God is to be loved and worshipped. There are
also ceremonial precepts, which have no binding force except in
virtue of their Divine institution. Now God is concerned not only
with the sacrifices that are offered to Him, but also with whatever
relates to the fitness of those who offer sacrifices to Him and
worship Him. Because men are ordained to God as to their end;
wherefore it concerns God and, consequently, is a matter of
ceremonial precept, that man should show some fitness for the divine
worship. On the other hand, man is not ordained to his neighbor as to
his end, so as to need to be disposed in himself with regard to his
neighbor, for such is the relationship of a slave to his master,
since a slave "is his master's in all that he is," as the Philosopher
says (Polit. i, 2). Hence there are no judicial precepts ordaining
man in himself; all such precepts are moral: because the reason,
which is the princip[le] in moral matters, holds the same position,
in man, with regard to things that concern him, as a prince or judge
holds in the state. Nevertheless we must take note that, since the
relations of man to his neighbor are more subject to reason than the
relations of man to God, there are more precepts whereby man is
directed in his relations to his neighbor, than whereby he is
directed to God. For the same reason there had to be more ceremonial
than judicial precepts in the Law.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 104, Art. 2]

Whether the Judicial Precepts Were Figurative?

Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts were not
figurative. Because it seems proper to the ceremonial precepts to be
instituted as figures of something else. Therefore, if the judicial
precepts are figurative, there will be no difference between the
judicial and ceremonial precepts.

Obj. 2: Further, just as certain judicial precepts were given to the
Jewish people, so also were some given to other heathen peoples. But
the judicial precepts given to other peoples were not figurative, but
stated what had to be done. Therefore it seems that neither were the
judicial precepts of the Old Law figures of anything.

Obj. 3: Further, those things which relate to the divine worship had
to be taught under certain figures, because the things of God are
above our reason, as stated above (Q. 101, A. 2, ad 2). But things
concerning our neighbor are not above our reason. Therefore the
judicial precepts which direct us in relation to our neighbor should
not have been figurative.

_On the contrary,_ The judicial precepts are expounded both in the
allegorical and in the moral sense (Ex. 21).

_I answer that,_ A precept may be figurative in two ways. First,
primarily and in itself: because, to wit, it is instituted
principally that it may be the figure of something. In this way the
ceremonial precepts are figurative; since they were instituted for
the very purpose that they might foreshadow something relating to the
worship of God and the mystery of Christ. But some precepts are
figurative, not primarily and in themselves, but consequently. In
this way the judicial precepts of the Old Law are figurative. For
they were not instituted for the purpose of being figurative, but in
order that they might regulate the state of that people according to
justice and equity. Nevertheless they did foreshadow something
consequently: since, to wit, the entire state of that people, who
were directed by these precepts, was figurative, according to 1 Cor.
10:11: "All . . . things happened to them in figure."

Reply Obj. 1: The ceremonial precepts are not figurative in the same
way as the judicial precepts, as explained above.

Reply Obj. 2: The Jewish people were chosen by God that Christ might
be born of them. Consequently the entire state of that people had to
be prophetic and figurative, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xxii,
24). For this reason even the judicial precepts that were given to
this people were more figurative that those which were given to other
nations. Thus, too, the wars and deeds of this people are expounded
in the mystical sense: but not the wars and deeds of the Assyrians or
Romans, although the latter are more famous in the eyes of men.

Reply Obj. 3: In this people the direction of man in regard to his
neighbor, considered in itself, was subject to reason. But in so far
as it was referred to the worship of God, it was above reason: and in
this respect it was figurative.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 104, Art. 3]

Whether the Judicial Precepts of the Old Law Bind for Ever?

Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts of the Old Law
bind for ever. Because the judicial precepts relate to the virtue of
justice: since a judgment is an execution of the virtue of justice.
Now "justice is perpetual and immortal" (Wis. 1:15). Therefore the
judicial precepts bind for ever.

Obj. 2: Further, Divine institutions are more enduring than human
institutions. But the judicial precepts of human laws bind for ever.
Therefore much more do the judicial precepts of the Divine Law.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18) that "there is a
setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and
unprofitableness thereof." Now this is true of the ceremonial
precept, which "could [Vulg.: 'can'] not, as to the conscience, make
him perfect that serveth only in meats and in drinks, and divers
washings and justices of the flesh," as the Apostle declares (Heb.
9:9, 10). On the other hand, the judicial precepts were useful and
efficacious in respect of the purpose for which they were instituted,
viz. to establish justice and equity among men. Therefore the
judicial precepts of the Old Law are not set aside, but still retain
their efficacy.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 7:12) that "the priesthood
being translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of
the Law." But the priesthood was transferred from Aaron to Christ.
Therefore the entire Law was also transferred. Therefore the judicial
precepts are no longer in force.

_I answer that,_ The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but
were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the
ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far
as to be not only "dead," but also deadly to those who observe them
since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the
Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed,
because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a
sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his
kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or
ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force
through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly
sin to intend to observe them thus.

The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been
said above (A. 2). For it has been stated that the ceremonial
precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being
instituted chiefly for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of
Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not
instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the
state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently, when
the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the
judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law was a
pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in Gal. 3:24. Since,
however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose
of being figures, but for the performance of certain deeds, the
observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the
intention of observing them, as though one were bound by the Law, is
prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the
former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ has not yet
come.

Reply Obj. 1: The obligation of observing justice is indeed
perpetual. But the determination of those things that are just,
according to human or Divine institution, must needs be different,
according to the different states of mankind.

Reply Obj. 2: The judicial precepts established by men retain their
binding force for ever, so long as the state of government remains
the same. But if the state or nation pass to another form of
government, the laws must needs be changed. For democracy, which is
government by the people, demands different laws from those of
oligarchy, which is government by the rich, as the Philosopher shows
(Polit. iv, 1). Consequently when the state of that people changed,
the judicial precepts had to be changed also.

Reply Obj. 3: Those judicial precepts directed the people to justice
and equity, in keeping with the demands of that state. But after the
coming of Christ, there had to be a change in the state of that
people, so that in Christ there was no distinction between Gentile
and Jew, as there had been before. For this reason the judicial
precepts needed to be changed also.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 104, Art. 4]

Whether It Is Possible to Assign a Distinct Division of the Judicial
Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is impossible to assign a distinct
division of the judicial precepts. Because the judicial precepts
direct men in their relations to one another. But those things which
need to be directed, as pertaining to the relationship between man
and man, and which are made use of by men, are not subject to
division, since they are infinite in number. Therefore it is not
possible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts.

Obj. 2: Further, the judicial precepts are decisions on moral
matters. But moral precepts do not seem to be capable of division,
except in so far as they are reducible to the precepts of the
decalogue. Therefore there is no distinct division of the judicial
precepts.

Obj. 3: Further, because there is a distinct division of the
ceremonial precepts, the Law alludes to this division, by describing
some as "sacrifices," others as "observances." But the Law contains
no allusion to a division of the judicial precepts. Therefore it
seems that they have no distinct division.

_On the contrary,_ Wherever there is order there must needs be
division. But the notion of order is chiefly applicable to the
judicial precepts, since thereby that people was ordained. Therefore
it is most necessary that they should have a distinct division.

_I answer that,_ Since law is the art, as it were, of directing or
ordering the life of man, as in every art there is a distinct
division in the rules of art, so, in every law, there must be a
distinct division of precepts: else the law would be rendered useless
by confusion. We must therefore say that the judicial precepts of the
Old Law, whereby men were directed in their relations to one another,
are subject to division according to the divers ways in which man is
directed.

Now in every people a fourfold order is to be found: one, of the
people's sovereign to his subjects; a second of the subjects among
themselves; a third, of the citizens to foreigners; a fourth, of
members of the same household, such as the order of the father to his
son; of the wife to her husband; of the master to his servant: and
according to these four orders we may distinguish different kinds of
judicial precepts in the Old Law. For certain precepts are laid down
concerning the institution of the sovereign and relating to his
office, and about the respect due to him: this is one part of the
judicial precepts. Again, certain precepts are given in respect of a
man to his fellow citizens: for instance, about buying and selling,
judgments and penalties: this is the second part of the judicial
precepts. Again, certain precepts are enjoined with regard to
foreigners: for instance, about wars waged against their foes, and
about the way to receive travelers and strangers: this is the third
part of the judicial precepts. Lastly, certain precepts are given
relating to home life: for instance, about servants, wives and
children: this is the fourth part of the judicial precepts.

Reply Obj. 1: Things pertaining to the ordering of relations between
one man and another are indeed infinite in number: yet they are
reducible to certain distinct heads, according to the different
relations in which one man stands to another, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The precepts of the decalogue held the first place in
the moral order, as stated above (Q. 100, A. 3): and consequently it
is fitting that other moral precepts should be distinguished in
relation to them. But the judicial and ceremonial precepts have a
different binding force, derived, not from natural reason, but from
their institution alone. Hence there is a distinct reason for
distinguishing them.

Reply Obj. 3: The Law alludes to the division of the judicial
precepts in the very things themselves which are prescribed by the
judicial precepts of the Law.
________________________

QUESTION 105

OF THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the reason for the judicial precepts: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Concerning the reason for the judicial precepts relating to the
rulers;

(2) Concerning the fellowship of one man with another;

(3) Concerning matters relating to foreigners;

(4) Concerning things relating to domestic matters.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 1]

Whether the Old Law Enjoined Fitting Precepts Concerning Rulers?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts
concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4),
"the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler." But
the Law contains no precept relating to the institution of the chief
ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior
rulers: firstly (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise
[Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; again (Num. 11:16): "Gather unto Me
seventy men of the ancients of Israel"; and again (Deut. 1:13): "Let
Me have from among you wise and understanding men," etc. Therefore
the Law provided insufficiently in regard to the rulers of the people.

Obj. 2: Further, "The best gives of the best," as Plato states (Tim.
ii). Now the best ordering of a state or of any nation is to be ruled
by a king: because this kind of government approaches nearest in
resemblance to the Divine government, whereby God rules the world
from the beginning. Therefore the Law should have set a king over the
people, and they should not have been allowed a choice in the matter,
as indeed they were allowed (Deut. 17:14, 15): "When thou . . . shalt
say: I will set a king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Matt. 12:25: "Every kingdom divided
against itself shall be made desolate": a saying which was verified
in the Jewish people, whose destruction was brought about by the
division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at things
pertaining to the general well-being of the people. Therefore it
should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor
should this have been introduced even by Divine authority; as we read
of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the
Silonite (3 Kings 11:29, seqq.).

Obj. 4: Further, just as priests are instituted for the benefit of
the people in things concerning God, as stated in Heb. 5:1; so are
rulers set up for the benefit of the people in human affairs. But
certain things were allotted as a means of livelihood for the priests
and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and first-fruits, and many
like things. Therefore in like manner certain things should have been
determined for the livelihood of the rulers of the people: the more
that they were forbidden to accept presents, as is clearly stated in
Ex. 23:8: "You shall not [Vulg.: 'Neither shalt thou'] take bribes,
which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."

Obj. 5: Further, as a kingdom is the best form of government, so is
tyranny the most corrupt. But when the Lord appointed the king, He
established a tyrannical law; for it is written (1 Kings 8:11): "This
will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will
take your sons," etc. Therefore the Law made unfitting provision with
regard to the institution of rulers.

_On the contrary,_ The people of Israel is commended for the beauty
of its order (Num. 24:5): "How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O
Jacob, and thy tents." But the beautiful ordering of a people depends
on the right establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law made
right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.

_I answer that,_ Two points are to be observed concerning the right
ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take
some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures
peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring,
as stated in _Polit._ ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in
respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which
the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind,
as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first
place is held by the _kingdom,_ where the power of government is
vested in one; and _aristocracy,_ which signifies government by the
best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly,
the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is
given the power to preside over all; while under him are others
having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared
by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the
rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being
partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly
aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority;
partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the
rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right
to choose their rulers.

Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For
Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each
of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom.
Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for
it is written (Deut. 1:15): "I took out of your tribes wise and
honorable, and appointed them rulers": so that there was an element
of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the
rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Ex.
18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men,"
etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people;
wherefore it is written (Deut. 1:13): "Let me have from among you
wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the
ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.

Reply Obj. 1: This people was governed under the special care of God:
wherefore it is written (Deut. 7:6): "The Lord thy God hath chosen
thee to be His peculiar people": and this is why the Lord reserved to
Himself the institution of the chief ruler. For this too did Moses
pray (Num. 27:16): "May the Lord the God of the spirits of all the
flesh provide a man, that may be over this multitude." Thus by God's
orders Josue was set at the head in place of Moses; and we read about
each of the judges who succeeded Josue that God "raised . . . up a
saviour" for the people, and that "the spirit of the Lord was" in
them (Judges 3:9, 10, 15). Hence the Lord did not leave the choice of
a king to the people; but reserved this to Himself, as appears from
Deut. 17:15: "Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose."

Reply Obj. 2: A kingdom is the best form of government of the people,
so long as it is not corrupt. But since the power granted to a king
is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless he to whom
this power is given be a very virtuous man: for it is only the
virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity,
as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect virtue is to
be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to cruelty and
avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from the
very first the Lord did not set up the kingly authority with full
power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But
afterwards when the people asked Him to do so, being indignant with
them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His words
to Samuel (1 Kings 8:7): "They have not rejected thee, but Me, that I
should not reign over them."

Nevertheless, as regards the appointment of a king, He did establish
the manner of election from the very beginning (Deut. 17:14, seqq.):
and then He determined two points: first, that in choosing a king
they should wait for the Lord's decision; and that they should not
make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to
take little interest in the people they are set over, and
consequently to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He
prescribed how the king after his appointment should behave, in
regard to himself; namely, that he should not accumulate chariots and
horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through craving for
such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice. He also
appointed the manner in which they were to conduct themselves towards
God: namely, that they should continually read and ponder on God's
Law, and should ever fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they
should behave towards their subjects: namely, that they should not
proudly despise them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not
depart from the paths of justice.

Reply Obj. 3: The division of the kingdom, and a number of kings, was
rather a punishment inflicted on that people for their many
dissensions, specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit
conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (Osee 13:11):
"I will give thee a king in My wrath"; and (Osee 8:4): "They have
reigned, but not by Me: they have been princes, and I knew not."

Reply Obj. 4: The priestly office was bequeathed by succession from
father to son: and this, in order that it might be held in greater
respect, if not any man from the people could become a priest: since
honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine worship.
Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them both as
to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again, as to oblations and
sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of livelihood. On the
other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were chosen from the whole
people; wherefore they had their own possessions, from which to
derive a living: and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a
king to have superabundant wealth to make too much show of
magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of
pride and tyranny, arising from such things, and because, if the
rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and
anxiety, it would not tempt the ambition of the common people; and
would not become an occasion of sedition.

Reply Obj. 5: That right was not given to the king by Divine
institution: rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that
right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who
preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that
follows: "And you shall be his slaves [Douay: 'servants']": which is
significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as though
they were his slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them
from asking for a king; since the narrative continues: "But the
people would not hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however,
that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the
sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things
from his subjects in order to secure the common weal.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 2]

Whether the Judicial Precepts Were Suitably Framed As to the
Relations of One Man with Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts were not
suitably framed as regards the relations of one man with another.
Because men cannot live together in peace, if one man takes what
belongs to another. But this seems to have been approved by the Law:
since it is written (Deut. 23:24): "Going into thy neighbor's
vineyard, thou mayest eat as many grapes as thou pleasest." Therefore
the Old Law did not make suitable provisions for man's peace.

Obj. 2: Further, one of the chief causes of the downfall of states
has been the holding of property by women, as the Philosopher says
(Polit. ii, 6). But this was introduced by the Old Law; for it is
written (Num. 27:8): "When a man dieth without a son, his inheritance
shall pass to his daughter." Therefore the Law made unsuitable
provision for the welfare of the people.

Obj. 3: Further, it is most conducive to the preservation of human
society that men may provide themselves with necessaries by buying
and selling, as stated in _Polit._ i. But the Old Law took away the
force of sales; since it prescribes that in the 50th year of the
jubilee all that is sold shall return to the vendor (Lev. 25:28).
Therefore in this matter the Law gave the people an unfitting command.

Obj. 4: Further, man's needs require that men should be ready to
lend: which readiness ceases if the creditors do not return the
pledges: hence it is written (Ecclus. 29:10): "Many have refused to
lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded
without cause." And yet this was encouraged by the Law. First,
because it prescribed (Deut. 15:2): "He to whom any thing is owing
from his friend or neighbor or brother, cannot demand it again,
because it is the year of remission of the Lord"; and (Ex. 22:15) it
is stated that if a borrowed animal should die while the owner is
present, the borrower is not bound to make restitution. Secondly,
because the security acquired through the pledge is lost: for it is
written (Deut. 24:10): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor any
thing that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take
away a pledge"; and again (Deut. 24:12, 13): "The pledge shall not
lodge with thee that night, but thou shalt restore it to him
presently." Therefore the Law made insufficient provision in the
matter of loans.

Obj. 5: Further, considerable risk attaches to goods deposited with a
fraudulent depositary: wherefore great caution should be observed in
such matters: hence it is stated in 2 Mac. 3:15 that "the priests . .
. called upon Him from heaven, Who made the law concerning things
given to be kept, that He would preserve them safe, for them that had
deposited them." But the precepts of the Old Law observed little
caution in regard to deposits: since it is prescribed (Ex. 22:10, 11)
that when goods deposited are lost, the owner is to stand by the oath
of the depositary. Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision in
this matter.

Obj. 6: Further, just as a workman offers his work for hire, so do
men let houses and so forth. But there is no need for the tenant to
pay his rent as soon as he takes a house. Therefore it seems an
unnecessarily hard prescription (Lev. 19:13) that "the wages of him
that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until morning."

Obj. 7: Further, since there is often pressing need for a judge, it
should be easy to gain access to one. It was therefore unfitting that
the Law (Deut. 17:8, 9) should command them to go to a fixed place to
ask for judgment on doubtful matters.

Obj. 8: Further, it is possible that not only two, but three or more,
should agree to tell a lie. Therefore it is unreasonably stated
(Deut. 19:15) that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
shall stand."

Objection 9: Further, punishment should be fixed according to the
gravity of the fault: for which reason also it is written (Deut.
25:2): "According to the measure of the sin, shall the measure also
of the stripes be." Yet the Law fixed unequal punishments for certain
faults: for it is written (Ex. 22:1) that the thief "shall restore
five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Moreover,
certain slight offenses are severely punished: thus (Num. 15:32,
seqq.) a man is stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath day: and
(Deut. 21:18, seqq.) the unruly son is commanded to be stoned on
account of certain small transgressions, viz. because "he gave
himself to revelling . . . and banquetings." Therefore the Law
prescribed punishments in an unreasonable manner.

Objection 10: Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11),
"Tully writes that the laws recognize eight forms of punishment,
indemnity, prison, stripes, retaliation, public disgrace, exile,
death, slavery." Now some of these were prescribed by the Law.
"Indemnity," as when a thief was condemned to make restitution
fivefold or fourfold. "Prison," as when (Num. 15:34) a certain man is
ordered to be imprisoned. "Stripes"; thus (Deut. 25:2), "if they see
that the offender be worthy of stripes; they shall lay him down, and
shall cause him to be beaten before them." "Public disgrace" was
brought on to him who refused to take to himself the wife of his
deceased brother, for she took "off his shoe from his foot, and" did
"spit in his face" (Deut. 25:9). It prescribed the "death" penalty,
as is clear from (Lev. 20:9): "He that curseth his father, or mother,
dying let him die." The Law also recognized the "lex talionis," by
prescribing (Ex. 21:24): "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Therefore it
seems unreasonable that the Law should not have inflicted the two
other punishments, viz. "exile" and "slavery."

Objection 11: Further, no punishment is due except for a fault. But
dumb animals cannot commit a fault. Therefore the Law is unreasonable
in punishing them (Ex. 21:29): "If the ox . . . shall kill a man or a
woman," it "shall be stoned": and (Lev. 20:16): "The woman that shall
lie under any beast, shall be killed together with the same."
Therefore it seems that matters pertaining to the relations of one
man with another were unsuitably regulated by the Law.

Objection 12: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 21:12) a murderer to
be punished with death. But the death of a dumb animal is reckoned of
much less account than the slaying of a man. Hence murder cannot be
sufficiently punished by the slaying of a dumb animal. Therefore it
is unfittingly prescribed (Deut. 21:1, 4) that "when there shall be
found . . . the corpse of a man slain, and it is not known who is
guilty of the murder . . . the ancients" of the nearest city "shall
take a heifer of the herd, that hath not drawn in the yoke, nor
ploughed the ground, and they shall bring her into a rough and stony
valley, that never was ploughed, nor sown; and there they shall
strike off the head of the heifer."

_On the contrary,_ It is recalled as a special blessing (Ps. 147:20)
that "He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and His
judgments He hath not made manifest to them."

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21), quoting
Tully, "a nation is a body of men united together by consent to the
law and by community of welfare." Consequently it is of the essence
of a nation that the mutual relations of the citizens be ordered by
just laws. Now the relations of one man with another are twofold:
some are effected under the guidance of those in authority: others
are effected by the will of private individuals. And since whatever
is subject to the power of an individual can be disposed of according
to his will, hence it is that the decision of matters between one man
and another, and the punishment of evildoers, depend on the direction
of those in authority, to whom men are subject. On the other hand,
the power of private persons is exercised over the things they
possess: and consequently their dealings with one another, as regards
such things, depend on their own will, for instance in buying,
selling, giving, and so forth. Now the Law provided sufficiently in
respect of each of these relations between one man and another. For
it established judges, as is clearly indicated in Deut. 16:18: "Thou
shalt appoint judges and magistrates in all its [Vulg.: 'thy'] gates
. . . that they may judge the people with just judgment." It is also
directed the manner of pronouncing just judgments, according to Deut.
1:16, 17: "Judge that which is just, whether he be one of your own
country or a stranger: there shall be no difference of persons." It
also removed an occasion of pronouncing unjust judgment, by
forbidding judges to accept bribes (Ex. 23:8; Deut. 16:19). It
prescribed the number of witnesses, viz. two or three: and it
appointed certain punishments to certain crimes, as we shall state
farther on (ad 10).

But with regard to possessions, it is a very good thing, says the
Philosopher (Polit. ii, 2) that the things possessed should be
distinct, and the use thereof should be partly common, and partly
granted to others by the will of the possessors. These three points
were provided for by the Law. Because, in the first place, the
possessions themselves were divided among individuals: for it is
written (Num. 33:53, 54): "I have given you" the land "for a
possession: and you shall divide it among you by lot." And since many
states have been ruined through want of regulations in the matter of
possessions, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 6); therefore
the Law provided a threefold remedy against the irregularity of
possessions. The first was that they should be divided equally,
wherefore it is written (Num. 33:54): "To the more you shall give a
larger part, and to the fewer, a lesser." A second remedy was that
possessions could not be alienated for ever, but after a certain
lapse of time should return to their former owner, so as to avoid
confusion of possessions (cf. ad 3). The third remedy aimed at the
removal of this confusion, and provided that the dead should be
succeeded by their next of kin: in the first place, the son;
secondly, the daughter; thirdly, the brother; fourthly, the father's
brother; fifthly, any other next of kin. Furthermore, in order to
preserve the distinction of property, the Law enacted that heiresses
should marry within their own tribe, as recorded in Num. 36:6.

Secondly, the Law commanded that, in some respects, the use of things
should belong to all in common. Firstly, as regards the care of them;
for it was prescribed (Deut. 22:1-4): "Thou shalt not pass by, if
thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray; but thou shalt
bring them back to thy brother," and in like manner as to other
things. Secondly, as regards fruits. For all alike were allowed on
entering a friend's vineyard to eat of the fruit, but not to take any
away. And, specially, with respect to the poor, it was prescribed
that the forgotten sheaves, and the bunches of grapes and fruit,
should be left behind for them (Lev. 19:9; Deut. 24:19). Moreover,
whatever grew in the seventh year was common property, as stated in
Ex. 23:11 and Lev. 25:4.

Thirdly, the law recognized the transference of goods by the owner.
There was a purely gratuitous transfer: thus it is written (Deut.
14:28, 29): "The third day thou shalt separate another tithe . . .
and the Levite . . . and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the
widow . . . shall come and shall eat and be filled." And there was a
transfer for a consideration, for instance, by selling and buying, by
letting out and hiring, by loan and also by deposit, concerning all
of which we find that the Law made ample provision. Consequently it
is clear that the Old Law provided sufficiently concerning the mutual
relations of one man with another.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:8), "he that loveth his
neighbor hath fulfilled the Law": because, to wit, all the precepts
of the Law, chiefly those concerning our neighbor, seem to aim at the
end that men should love one another. Now it is an effect of love
that men give their own goods to others: because, as stated in 1 John
3:17: "He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up
his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" Hence
the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to give of their own to
others readily: thus the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:18) commands the rich "to
give easily and to communicate to others." Now a man does not give
easily to others if he will not suffer another man to take some
little thing from him without any great injury to him. And so the Law
laid down that it should be lawful for a man, on entering his
neighbor's vineyard, to eat of the fruit there: but not to carry any
away, lest this should lead to the infliction of a grievous harm, and
cause a disturbance of the peace: for among well-behaved people, the
taking of a little does not disturb the peace; in fact, it rather
strengthens friendship and accustoms men to give things to one
another.

Reply Obj. 2: The Law did not prescribe that women should succeed to
their father's estate except in default of male issue: failing which
it was necessary that succession should be granted to the female line
in order to comfort the father, who would have been sad to think that
his estate would pass to strangers. Nevertheless the Law observed due
caution in the matter, by providing that those women who succeeded to
their father's estate, should marry within their own tribe, in order
to avoid confusion of tribal possessions, as stated in Num. 36:7, 8.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 4), the regulation
of possessions conduces much to the preservation of a state or
nation. Consequently, as he himself observes, it was forbidden by the
law in some of the heathen states, "that anyone should sell his
possessions, except to avoid a manifest loss." For if possessions
were to be sold indiscriminately, they might happen to come into the
hands of a few: so that it might become necessary for a state or
country to become void of inhabitants. Hence the Old Law, in order to
remove this danger, ordered things in such a way that while provision
was made for men's needs, by allowing the sale of possessions to
avail for a certain period, at the same time the said danger was
removed, by prescribing the return of those possessions after that
period had elapsed. The reason for this law was to prevent confusion
of possessions, and to ensure the continuance of a definite
distinction among the tribes.

But as the town houses were not allotted to distinct estates,
therefore the Law allowed them to be sold in perpetuity, like movable
goods. Because the number of houses in a town was not fixed, whereas
there was a fixed limit to the amount of estates, which could not be
exceeded, while the number of houses in a town could be increased. On
the other hand, houses situated not in a town, but "in a village that
hath no walls," could not be sold in perpetuity: because such houses
are built merely with a view to the cultivation and care of
possessions; wherefore the Law rightly made the same prescription in
regard to both (Lev. 25).

Reply Obj. 4: As stated above (ad 1), the purpose of the Law was to
accustom men to its precepts, so as to be ready to come to one
another's assistance: because this is a very great incentive to
friendship. The Law granted these facilities for helping others in
the matter not only of gratuitous and absolute donations, but also of
mutual transfers: because the latter kind of succor is more frequent
and benefits the greater number: and it granted facilities for this
purpose in many ways. First of all by prescribing that men should be
ready to lend, and that they should not be less inclined to do so as
the year of remission drew nigh, as stated in Deut. 15:7, seqq.
Secondly, by forbidding them to burden a man to whom they might grant
a loan, either by exacting usury, or by accepting necessities of life
in security; and by prescribing that when this had been done they
should be restored at once. For it is written (Deut. 23:19): "Thou
shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury": and (Deut. 24:6):
"Thou shalt not take the nether nor the upper millstone to pledge;
for he hath pledged his life to thee": and (Ex. 22:26): "If thou take
of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again
before sunset." Thirdly, by forbidding them to be importunate in
exacting payment. Hence it is written (Ex. 22:25): "If thou lend
money to any of my people that is poor that dwelleth with thee, thou
shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner." For this reason, too,
it is enacted (Deut. 24:10, 11): "When thou shalt demand of thy
neighbor anything that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his
house to take away a pledge, but thou shalt stand without, and he
shall bring out to thee what he hath": both because a man's house is
his surest refuge, wherefore it is offensive to a man to be set upon
in his own house; and because the Law does not allow the creditor to
take away whatever he likes in security, but rather permits the
debtor to give what he needs least. Fourthly, the Law prescribed that
debts should cease together after the lapse of seven years. For it
was probable that those who could conveniently pay their debts, would
do so before the seventh year, and would not defraud the lender
without cause. But if they were altogether insolvent, there was the
same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was
for renewing the loan on account of their need.

As regards animals granted in loan, the Law enacted that if, through
the neglect of the person to whom they were lent, they perished or
deteriorated in his absence, he was bound to make restitution. But if
they perished or deteriorated while he was present and taking proper
care of them, he was not bound to make restitution, especially if
they were hired for a consideration: because they might have died or
deteriorated in the same way if they had remained in possession of
the lender, so that if the animal had been saved through being lent,
the lender would have gained something by the loan which would no
longer have been gratuitous. And especially was this to be observed
when animals were hired for a consideration: because then the owner
received a certain price for the use of the animals; wherefore he had
no right to any profit, by receiving indemnity for the animal, unless
the person who had charge of it were negligent. In the case, however,
of animals not hired for a consideration, equity demanded that he
should receive something by way of restitution at least to the value
of the hire of the animal that had perished or deteriorated.

Reply Obj. 5: The difference between a loan and a deposit is that a
loan is in respect of goods transferred for the use of the person to
whom they are transferred, whereas a deposit is for the benefit of
the depositor. Hence in certain cases there was a stricter obligation
of returning a loan than of restoring goods held in deposit. Because
the latter might be lost in two ways. First, unavoidably: i.e. either
through a natural cause, for instance if an animal held in deposit
were to die or depreciate in value; or through an extrinsic cause,
for instance, if it were taken by an enemy, or devoured by a beast
(in which case, however, a man was bound to restore to the owner what
was left of the animal thus slain): whereas in the other cases
mentioned above, he was not bound to make restitution; but only to
take an oath in order to clear himself of suspicion. Secondly, the
goods deposited might be lost through an avoidable cause, for
instance by theft: and then the depositary was bound to restitution
on account of his neglect. But, as stated above (ad 4), he who held
an animal on loan, was bound to restitution, even if he were absent
when it depreciated or died: because he was held responsible for less
negligence than a depositary, who was only held responsible in case
of theft.

Reply Obj. 6: Workmen who offer their labor for hire, are poor men
who toil for their daily bread: and therefore the Law commanded
wisely that they should be paid at once, lest they should lack food.
But they who offer other commodities for hire, are wont to be rich:
nor are they in such need of their price in order to gain a
livelihood: and consequently the comparison does not hold.

Reply Obj. 7: The purpose for which judges are appointed among men,
is that they may decide doubtful points in matters of justice. Now a
matter may be doubtful in two ways. First, among simple-minded
people: and in order to remove doubts of this kind, it was prescribed
(Deut. 16:18) that "judges and magistrates" should be appointed in
each tribe, "to judge the people with just judgment." Secondly, a
matter may be doubtful even among experts: and therefore, in order to
remove doubts of this kind, the Law prescribed that all should
foregather in some chief place chosen by God, where there would be
both the high-priest, who would decide doubtful matters relating to
the ceremonies of divine worship; and the chief judge of the people,
who would decide matters relating to the judgments of men: just as
even now cases are taken from a lower to a higher court either by
appeal or by consultation. Hence it is written (Deut. 17:8, 9): "If
thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in
judgment . . . and thou see that the words of the judges within thy
gates do vary; arise and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God
shall choose; and thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical
race, and to the judge that shall be at that time." But such like
doubtful matters did not often occur for judgment: wherefore the
people were not burdened on this account.

Reply Obj. 8: In the business affairs of men, there is no such thing
as demonstrative and infallible proof, and we must be content with a
certain conjectural probability, such as that which an orator employs
to persuade. Consequently, although it is quite possible for two or
three witnesses to agree to a falsehood, yet it is neither easy nor
probable that they succeed in so doing: wherefore their testimony is
taken as being true, especially if they do not waver in giving it, or
are not otherwise suspect. Moreover, in order that witnesses might
not easily depart from the truth, the Law commanded that they should
be most carefully examined, and that those who were found untruthful
should be severely punished, as stated in Deut. 19:16, seqq.

There was, however, a reason for fixing on this particular number, in
token of the unerring truth of the Divine Persons, Who are sometimes
mentioned as two, because the Holy Ghost is the bond of the other two
Persons; and sometimes as three: as Augustine observes on John 8:17:
"In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true."

Reply Obj. 9: A severe punishment is inflicted not only on account of
the gravity of a fault, but also for other reasons. First, on account
of the greatness of the sin, because a greater sin, other things
being equal, deserves a greater punishment. Secondly, on account of a
habitual sin, since men are not easily cured of habitual sin except
by severe punishments. Thirdly, on account of a great desire for or a
great pleasure in the sin: for men are not easily deterred from such
sins unless they be severely punished. Fourthly, on account of the
facility of committing a sin and of concealing it: for such like
sins, when discovered, should be more severely punished in order to
deter others from committing them.

Again, with regard to the greatness of a sin, four degrees may be
observed, even in respect of one single deed. The first is when a sin
is committed unwillingly; because then, if the sin be altogether
involuntary, man is altogether excused from punishment; for it is
written (Deut. 22:25, seqq.) that a damsel who suffers violence in a
field is not guilty of death, because "she cried, and there was no
man to help her." But if a man sinned in any way voluntarily, and yet
through weakness, as for instance when a man sins from passion, the
sin is diminished: and the punishment, according to true judgment,
should be diminished also; unless perchance the common weal requires
that the sin be severely punished in order to deter others from
committing such sins, as stated above. The second degree is when a
man sins through ignorance: and then he was held to be guilty to a
certain extent, on account of his negligence in acquiring knowledge:
yet he was not punished by the judges but expiated his sin by
sacrifices. Hence it is written (Lev. 4:2): "The soul that sinneth
through ignorance," etc. This is, however, to be taken as applying to
ignorance of fact; and not to ignorance of the Divine precept, which
all were bound to know. The third degree was when a man sinned from
pride, i.e. through deliberate choice or malice: and then he was
punished according to the greatness of the sin [*Cf. Deut. 25:2]. The
fourth degree was when a man sinned from stubbornness or obstinacy:
and then he was to be utterly cut off as a rebel and a destroyer of
the commandment of the Law [*Cf. Num. 15:30, 31].

Accordingly we must say that, in appointing the punishment for theft,
the Law considered what would be likely to happen most frequently
(Ex. 22:1-9): wherefore, as regards theft of other things which can
easily be safeguarded from a thief, the thief restored only twice
their value. But sheep cannot be easily safeguarded from a thief,
because they graze in the fields: wherefore it happened more
frequently that sheep were stolen in the fields. Consequently the Law
inflicted a heavier penalty, by ordering four sheep to be restored
for the theft of one. As to cattle, they were yet more difficult to
safeguard, because they are kept in the fields, and do not graze in
flocks as sheep do; wherefore a yet more heavy penalty was inflicted
in their regard, so that five oxen were to be restored for one ox.
And this I say, unless perchance the animal itself were discovered in
the thief's possession: because in that case he had to restore only
twice the number, as in the case of other thefts: for there was
reason to presume that he intended to restore the animal, since he
kept it alive. Again, we might say, according to a gloss, that "a cow
is useful in five ways: it may be used for sacrifice, for ploughing,
for food, for milk, and its hide is employed for various purposes":
and therefore for one cow five had to be restored. But the sheep was
useful in four ways: "for sacrifice, for meat, for milk, and for its
wool." The unruly son was slain, not because he ate and drank: but on
account of his stubbornness and rebellion, which was always punished
by death, as stated above. As to the man who gathered sticks on the
sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker of the Law, which commanded the
sabbath to be observed, to testify the belief in the newness of the
world, as stated above (Q. 100, A. 5): wherefore he was slain as an
unbeliever.

Reply Obj. 10: The Old Law inflicted the death penalty for the more
grievous crimes, viz. for those which are committed against God, and
for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents,
adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things it
inflicted punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows
and mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation; and likewise
for the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less degree
it prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.

The punishment of slavery was prescribed by the Law in two cases.
First, in the case of a slave who was unwilling to avail himself of
the privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in
the seventh year of remission: wherefore he was punished by remaining
a slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not
wherewith to make restitution, as stated in Ex. 22:3.

The punishment of absolute exile was not prescribed by the Law:
because God was worshipped by that people alone, whereas all other
nations were given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from
that people absolutely, he would be in danger of falling into
idolatry. For this reason it is related (1 Kings 26:19) that David
said to Saul: "They are cursed in the sight of the Lord, who have
cast me out this day, that I should not dwell in the inheritance of
the Lord, saying: Go, serve strange gods." There was, however, a
restricted sort of exile: for it is written in Deut. 19:4 [*Cf. Num.
35:25] that "he that striketh [Vulg.: 'killeth'] his neighbor
ignorantly, and is proved to have had no hatred against him, shall
flee to one of the cities" of refuge and "abide there until the death
of the high-priest." For then it became lawful for him to return
home, because when the whole people thus suffered a loss they forgot
their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the slain were not
so eager to kill the slayer.

Reply Obj. 11: Dumb animals were ordered to be slain, not on account
of any fault of theirs; but as a punishment to their owners, who had
not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the owner was
more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday or the
day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to avoid the
danger) than if it had taken to butting suddenly.--Or again, the
animal was slain in detestation of the sin; and lest men should be
horrified at the sight thereof.

Reply Obj. 12: The literal reason for this commandment, as Rabbi
Moses declares (Doct. Perplex. iii), was because the slayer was
frequently from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf
was a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought
about in three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore
that they had taken every measure for safeguarding the roads.
Secondly, the owner of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of
his beast, and if the murder was previously discovered, the beast was
not slain. Thirdly, the place, where the heifer was slain, remained
uncultivated. Wherefore, in order to avoid this twofold loss, the men
of the city would readily make known the murderer, if they knew who
he was: and it would seldom happen but that some word or sign would
escape about the matter. Or again, this was done in order to frighten
people, in detestation of murder. Because the slaying of a heifer,
which is a useful animal and full of strength, especially before it
has been put under the yoke, signified that whoever committed murder,
however useful and strong he might be, was to forfeit his life; and
that, by a cruel death, which was implied by the striking off of its
head; and that the murderer, as vile and abject, was to be cut off
from the fellowship of men, which was betokened by the fact that the
heifer after being slain was left to rot in a rough and uncultivated
place.

Mystically, the heifer taken from the herd signifies the flesh of
Christ; which had not drawn a yoke, since it had done no sin; nor did
it plough the ground, i.e. it never knew the stain of revolt. The
fact of the heifer being killed in an uncultivated valley signified
the despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and
the devil is shown to be the arch-murderer.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3]

Whether the Judicial Precepts Regarding Foreigners Were Framed in a
Suitable Manner?

Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts regarding
foreigners were not suitably framed. For Peter said (Acts 10:34, 35):
"In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons, but
in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh justice is
acceptable to Him." But those who are acceptable to God should not be
excluded from the Church of God. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded
(Deut. 23:3) that "the Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth
generation, shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever":
whereas, on the other hand, it is prescribed (Deut. 23:7) to be
observed with regard to certain other nations: "Thou shalt not abhor
the Edomite, because he is thy brother; nor the Egyptian because thou
wast a stranger in his land."

Obj. 2: Further, we do not deserve to be punished for those things
which are not in our power. But it is not in man's power to be an
eunuch, or born of a prostitute. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded
(Deut. 23:1, 2) that "an eunuch and one born of a prostitute shalt
not enter into the church of the Lord."

Obj. 3: Further, the Old Law mercifully forbade strangers to be
molested: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a
stranger, nor afflict him; for yourselves also were strangers in the
land of Egypt": and (Ex. 23:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger,
for you know the hearts of strangers, for you also were strangers in
the land of Egypt." But it is an affliction to be burdened with
usury. Therefore the Law unsuitably permitted them (Deut. 23:19, 20)
to lend money to the stranger for usury.

Obj. 4: Further, men are much more akin to us than trees. But we
should show greater care and love for those things that are nearest
to us, according to Ecclus. 13:19: "Every beast loveth its like: so
also every man him that is nearest to himself." Therefore the Lord
unsuitably commanded (Deut. 20:13-19) that all the inhabitants of a
captured hostile city were to be slain, but that the fruit-trees
should not be cut down.

Obj. 5: Further, every one should prefer the common good of virtue to
the good of the individual. But the common good is sought in a war
which men fight against their enemies. Therefore it is unsuitably
commanded (Deut. 20:5-7) that certain men should be sent home, for
instance a man that had built a new house, or who had planted a
vineyard, or who had married a wife.

Obj. 6: Further, no man should profit by his own fault. But it is a
man's fault if he be timid or faint-hearted: since this is contrary
to the virtue of fortitude. Therefore the timid and faint-hearted are
unfittingly excused from the toil of battle (Deut. 20:8).

_On the contrary,_ Divine Wisdom declares (Prov. 8:8): "All my words
are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them."

_I answer that,_ Man's relations with foreigners are twofold:
peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the
Law contained suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three
opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when
foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when
they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these
respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is
written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger (_advenam_)";
and again (Ex. 22:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger
(_peregrino_)." Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted
entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to
these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once
admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no
one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as
the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if
foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as
soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur,
since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart
might attempt something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the
Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations
with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and
educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother),
that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after
the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had
been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be
admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more
hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to
be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Ex. 17:16): "The war
of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation."

In like manner with regard to hostile relations with foreigners, the
Law contained suitable precepts. For, in the first place, it
commanded that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is
commanded (Deut. 20:10) that when they advanced to besiege a city,
they should at first make an offer of peace. Secondly, it enjoined
that when once they had entered on a war they should undauntedly
persevere in it, putting their trust in God. And in order that they
might be the more heedful of this command, it ordered that on the
approach of battle the priest should hearten them by promising them
God's aid. Thirdly, it prescribed the removal of whatever might prove
an obstacle to the fight, and that certain men, who might be in the
way, should be sent home. Fourthly, it enjoined that they should use
moderation in pursuing the advantage of victory, by sparing women and
children, and by not cutting down fruit-trees of that country.

Reply Obj. 1: The Law excluded the men of no nation from the worship
of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul: for it
is written (Ex. 12:48): "If any stranger be willing to dwell among
you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first be
circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner,
and he shall be as that which is born in the land." But in temporal
matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not
granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some,
i.e. the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while
others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past
offense, i.e. the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one
man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others
seeing this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one
nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain from
similar crimes.

Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted
to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related
(Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, "was
joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his
kindred." The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was "a virtuous
woman" (Ruth 3:11): although it may be said that this prohibition
regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be citizens
absolutely speaking.

Reply Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is said
to be a citizen in two ways: first, simply; secondly, in a restricted
sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of
citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the
popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen,
only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the state, even
common people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power
in matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards,
by reason of their base origin, were excluded from the _ecclesia,_
i.e. from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The
same applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive the honor
due to a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship
was continued through carnal generation: for even among the heathens,
those who had many children were marked with special honor, as the
Philosopher remarks (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters
pertaining to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from
others, as neither were strangers, as already stated: for it is
written (Isa. 56:3): "Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth
to the Lord speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from
His people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree."

Reply Obj. 3: It was not the intention of the Law to sanction the
acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on
account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to
promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a
profit.

Reply Obj. 4: A distinction was observed with regard to hostile
cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those
which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities,
they killed all the men who had fought against God's people; whereas
the women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities
which had been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on
account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the
Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Deut.
9:5) "because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy
coming in." The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for
the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory
was destined to be subjected.

Reply Obj. 5: The builder of a new house, the planter of a vineyard,
the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for two
reasons. First, because man is wont to give all his affection to
those things which he has lately acquired, or is on the point of
having, and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above
other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of this
affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less
brave in battle. Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys.
ii, 5), "it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented from
obtaining something good when it is within his grasp." And so lest
the surviving relations should be the more grieved at the death of
these men who had not entered into the possession of the good things
prepared for them; and also lest the people should be horror-stricken
at the sight of their misfortune: these men were taken away from the
danger of death by being removed from the battle.

Reply Obj. 6: The timid were sent back home, not that they might be
the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers by their
presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others to be
afraid and run away.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 4]

Whether the Old Law Set Forth Suitable Precepts About the Members of
the Household?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable
precepts about the members of the household. For a slave "is in every
respect his master's property," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i,
2). But that which is a man's property should be his always.
Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to command (Ex. 21:2) that
slaves should "go out free" in the seventh year.

Obj. 2: Further, a slave is his master's property, just as an animal,
e.g. an ass or an ox. But it is commanded (Deut. 22:1-3) with regard
to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if they be
found going astray. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Deut.
23:15): "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is
fled to thee."

Obj. 3: Further, the Divine Law should encourage mercy more even than
the human law. But according to human laws those who ill-treat their
servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse
treatment of all seems to be that which results in death. Therefore
it is unfittingly commanded (Ex. 21:20, 21) that "he that striketh
his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands
. . . if the party remain alive a day . . . he shall not be subject
to the punishment, because it is his money."

Obj. 4: Further, the dominion of a master over his slave differs from
that of the father over his son (Polit. i, 3). But the dominion of
master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or
maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to allow a man to
sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (Ex. 21:7).

Obj. 5: Further, a father has power over his son. But he who has
power over the sinner has the right to punish him for his offenses.
Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Deut. 21:18, seqq.) that a
father should bring his son to the ancients of the city for
punishment.

Obj. 6: Further, the Lord forbade them (Deut. 7:3, seqq.) to make
marriages with strange nations; and commanded the dissolution of such
as had been contracted (1 Esdras 10). Therefore it was unfitting to
allow them to marry captive women from strange nations (Deut. 21:10,
seqq.).

Obj. 7: Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain
degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to Lev. 18.
Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Deut. 25:5) that if any man
died without issue, his brother should marry his wife.

Obj. 8: Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man and
wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this is
impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was
unfitting for the Lord to allow (Deut. 24:1-4) a man to put his wife
away, by writing a bill of divorce; and besides, that he could not
take her again to wife.

Objection 9: Further, just as a wife can be faithless to her husband,
so can a slave be to his master, and a son to his father. But the Law
did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate
the injury done by a servant to his master, or by a son to his
father. Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to
prescribe the "sacrifice of jealousy" in order to investigate a
wife's adultery (Num. 5:12, seqq.). Consequently it seems that the
Law put forth unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the
household.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 18:10): "The judgments of the
Lord are true, justified in themselves."

_I answer that,_ The mutual relations of the members of a household
regard everyday actions directed to the necessities of life, as the
Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man's life
may be considered from two points of view. First, from the point of
view of the individual, i.e. in so far as man preserves his
individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life,
considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external
goods, by means of which he provides himself with food and clothing
and other such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has
need of servants. Secondly man's life is preserved from the point of
view of the species, by means of generation, for which purpose man
needs a wife, that she may bear him children. Accordingly the mutual
relations of the members of a household admit of a threefold
combination: viz. those of master and servant, those of husband and
wife, and those of father and son: and in respect of all these
relationships the Old Law contained fitting precepts. Thus, with
regard to servants, it commanded them to be treated with
moderation--both as to their work, lest, to wit, they should be
burdened with excessive labor, wherefore the Lord commanded (Deut.
5:14) that on the Sabbath day "thy manservant and thy maidservant"
should "rest even as thyself"--and also as to the infliction of
punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their servants, to set
them free (Ex. 21:26, 27). Similar provision was made in favor of a
maidservant when married to anyone (Ex. 21:7, seqq.). Moreover, with
regard to those servants in particular who were taken from among the
people, the Law prescribed that they should go out free in the
seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their
clothes (Ex. 21:2, seqq.): and furthermore it was commanded (Deut.
15:13) that they should be given provision for the journey.

With regard to wives the Law made certain prescriptions as to those
who were to be taken in marriage: for instance, that they should
marry a wife from their own tribe (Num. 36:6): and this lest
confusion should ensue in the property of various tribes. Also that a
man should marry the wife of his deceased brother when the latter
died without issue, as prescribed in Deut. 25:5, 6: and this in order
that he who could not have successors according to carnal origin,
might at least have them by a kind of adoption, and that thus the
deceased might not be entirely forgotten. It also forbade them to
marry certain women; to wit, women of strange nations, through fear
of their losing their faith; and those of their near kindred, on
account of the natural respect due to them. Furthermore it prescribed
in what way wives were to be treated after marriage. To wit, that
they should not be slandered without grave reason: wherefore it
ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who falsely accused his
wife of a crime (Deut. 22:13, seqq.). Also that a man's hatred of his
wife should not be detrimental to his son (Deut. 21:15, seqq.).
Again, that a man should not ill-use his wife through hatred of her,
but rather that he should write a bill of divorce and send her away
(Deut. 24:1). Furthermore, in order to foster conjugal love from the
very outset, it was prescribed that no public duties should be laid
on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice with
his wife.

With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by
instructing them in the faith: hence it is written (Ex. 12:26,
seqq.): "When your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of
this service? You shall say to them: It is the victim of the passage
of the Lord." Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of
right conduct: wherefore it is written (Deut. 21:20) that the parents
had to say: "He slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself
to revelling and to debauchery."

Reply Obj. 1: As the children of Israel had been delivered by the
Lord from slavery, and for this reason were bound to the service of
God, He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is
written (Lev. 25:39, seqq.): "If thy brother, constrained by poverty,
sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of
bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for
they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt:
let them not be sold as bondmen": and consequently, since they were
slaves, not absolutely but in a restricted sense, after a lapse of
time they were set free.

Reply Obj. 2: This commandment is to be understood as referring to a
servant whom his master seeks to kill, or to help him in committing
some sin.

Reply Obj. 3: With regard to the ill-treatment of servants, the Law
seems to have taken into consideration whether it was certain or not:
since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming, the
penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered to be given
his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a
murderer, when the slave died under the blow of his master. If,
however, the hurt was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not
impose any penalty as regards a man's own servant: for instance if
the servant did not die at once after being struck, but after some
days: for it would be uncertain whether he died as a result of the
blows he received. For when a man struck a free man, yet so that he
did not die at once, but "walked abroad again upon his staff," he
that struck him was quit of murder, even though afterwards he died.
Nevertheless he was bound to pay the doctor's fees incurred by the
victim of his assault. But this was not the case if a man killed his
own servant: because whatever the servant had, even his very person,
was the property of his master. Hence the reason for his not being
subject to a pecuniary penalty is set down as being "because it is
his money."

Reply Obj. 4: As stated above (ad 1), no Jew could own a Jew as a
slave absolutely: but only in a restricted sense, as a hireling for a
fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of
poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is shown by the
very words of the Law, where we read: "If any man sell his daughter
to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go
out." Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son, but
even himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to Lev.
25:39, 40: "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to
thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants:
but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner."

Reply Obj. 5: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the paternal
authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of coercion,
whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled. Hence in
this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished by the
rulers of the city.

Reply Obj. 6: The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on account
of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into
idolatry. And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to
those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that
they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman
was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent of the Law,
it was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with Ruth whom
Booz married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16):
"Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Accordingly it
was not permitted to marry a captive woman unless she first shaved
her hair, and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she
was taken, and mourned for her father and mother, in token that she
renounced idolatry for ever.

Reply Obj. 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth.), "because
death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything with a
view to the present life, it was ordained that children should be
born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording a certain
mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other
than his brother or one next of kin should marry the wife of the
deceased, because" the offspring of this union "would not be looked
upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be
under the obligation to support the household of the deceased, as his
brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of
his relationship." Hence it is evident that in marrying the wife of
his dead brother, he took his dead brother's place.

Reply Obj. 8: The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as though
it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews'
hardness of heart, as Our Lord declared (Matt. 19:8). Of this,
however, we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony
(Supp., Q. 67).

Reply Obj. 9: Wives break their conjugal faith by adultery, both
easily, for motives of pleasure, and hiddenly, since "the eye of the
adulterer observeth darkness" (Job 24:15). But this does not apply to
a son in respect of his father, or to a servant in respect of his
master: because the latter infidelity is not the result of the lust
of pleasure, but rather of malice: nor can it remain hidden like the
infidelity of an adulterous woman.
________________________

QUESTION 106

OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF
(In Four Articles)

In proper sequence we have to consider now the Law of the Gospel
which is called the New Law: and in the first place we must consider
it in itself; secondly, in comparison with the Old Law; thirdly, we
shall treat of those things that are contained in the New Law. Under
the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) What kind of law is it? i.e. Is it a written law or is it
instilled in the heart?

(2) Of its efficacy, i.e. does it justify?

(3) Of its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of
the world?

(4) Of its end: i.e. whether it will last until the end, or will
another law take its place?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 106, Art. 1]

Whether the New Law Is a Written Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is a written law. For the
New Law is just the same as the Gospel. But the Gospel is set forth
in writing, according to John 20:31: "But these are written that you
may believe." Therefore the New Law is a written law.

Obj. 2: Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the
natural law, according to Rom. 2:14, 15: "(The Gentiles) do by nature
those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulg.: 'show'] the
work of the law written in their hearts." If therefore the law of the
Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from
the law of nature.

Obj. 3: Further, the law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in
the state of the New Testament. But the law that is instilled in the
heart is common to those who are in the New Testament and to those
who are in the Old Testament: for it is written (Wis. 7:27) that
Divine Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she
maketh the friends of God and prophets." Therefore the New Law is not
instilled in our hearts.

_On the contrary,_ The New Law is the law of the New Testament. But
the law of the New Testament is instilled in our hearts. For the
Apostle, quoting the authority of Jeremiah 31:31, 33: "Behold the
days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of
Israel, and unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says,
explaining what this statement is (Heb. 8:8, 10): "For this is the
testament which I will make to the house of Israel . . . by giving
[Vulg.: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart
will I write them." Therefore the New Law is instilled in our hearts.

_I answer that,_ "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates
in it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is
preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its
efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given
through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the
grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe
in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Rom.
3:27): "Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of
works? No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of
faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (Rom. 8:2): "The
law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from
the law of sin and of death." Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit.
xxiv) that "as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is
the law of faith inscribed on the hearts of the faithful": and
elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws
written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of His
Holy Spirit?"

Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to
receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of
that grace: such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in
the New Law; and the faithful need to be instructed concerning them,
both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as
to what they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is
in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that
secondarily it is a written law.

Reply Obj. 1: The Gospel writings contain only such things as pertain
to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto, or by
directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the intellect,
the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the manifestation
of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by means of faith
through which we receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: and with regard
to the affections, it contains matters touching the contempt of the
world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace of the Holy
Ghost: for "the world," i.e. worldly men, "cannot receive" the Holy
Ghost (John 14:17). As to the use of spiritual grace, this consists
in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament exhort
men in divers ways.

Reply Obj. 2: There are two ways in which a thing may be instilled
into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus the
natural law is instilled into man. Secondly, a thing is instilled
into man by being, as it were, added on to his nature by a gift of
grace. In this way the New Law is instilled into man, not only by
indicating to him what he should do, but also by helping him to
accomplish it.

Reply Obj. 3: No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except
through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in
Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the
law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 106, Art. 2]

Whether the New Law Justifies?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no
man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to Heb. 5:9:
"He," i.e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal
salvation." But the Gospel does not always cause men to believe in
it: for it is written (Rom. 10:16): "All do not obey the Gospel."
Therefore the New Law does not justify.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans that
the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased at its
advent: for it is stated (Rom. 4:15): "The Law worketh wrath: for
where there is no law, neither is there transgression." But much more
did the New Law increase transgression: since he who sins after the
giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to Heb.
10:28, 29: "A man making void the Law of Moses dieth without any
mercy under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he
deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of
God," etc.? Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.

Obj. 3: Further, justification is an effect proper to God, according
to Rom. 8:33: "God that justifieth." But the Old Law was from God
just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any more
than the Old Law.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 1:16): "I am not ashamed of
the Gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone
that believeth." But there is no salvation but to those who are
justified. Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), there is a twofold element
in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace
of the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law
justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There,"
i.e. in the Old Testament, "the Law was set forth in an outward
fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i.e. in the New
Testament, "it is given in an inward manner, that they may be
justified." The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary:
namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments which direct
human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does
not justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6) "The letter killeth,
but the spirit quickeneth": and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et
Lit. xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing
external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are
contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel
would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the healing
grace of faith.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument holds true of the New Law, not as to its
principal, but as to its secondary element: i.e. as to the dogmas and
precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in writing.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the grace of the New Testament helps man to
avoid sin, yet it does not so confirm man in good that he cannot sin:
for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after
receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater
punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not
using the help given to him. And this is why the New Law is not said
to "work wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man
sufficient help to avoid sin.

Reply Obj. 3: The same God gave both the New and the Old Law, but in
different ways. For He gave the Old Law written on tables of stone:
whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of the
heart," as the Apostle expresses it (2 Cor. 3:3). Wherefore, as
Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this
letter which is written outside man, a ministration of death and a
ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls the other letter, i.e.
the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the
ministration of justice: because through the gift of the Spirit we
work justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to
transgression."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 106, Art. 3]

Whether the New Law Should Have Been Given from the Beginning of the
World?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law should have been given
from the beginning of the world. "For there is no respect of persons
with God" (Rom. 2:11). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the
glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Therefore the Law of the Gospel should
have been given from the beginning of the world, in order that it
might bring succor to all.

Obj. 2: Further, as men dwell in various places, so do they live in
various times. But God, "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim.
2:4), commanded the Gospel to be preached in all places, as may be
seen in the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Therefore the Law of
the Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given
from the beginning of the world.

Obj. 3: Further, man needs to save his soul, which is for all
eternity, more than to save his body, which is a temporal matter. But
God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are
necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting to his power
whatever was created for the sake of man (Gen. 1:26-29). Therefore
the New Law also, which is very necessary for the health of the soul,
should have been given to man from the beginning of the world.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:46): "That was not
first which is spiritual, but that which is natural." But the New Law
is highly spiritual. Therefore it was not fitting for it to be given
from the beginning of the world.

_I answer that,_ Three reasons may be assigned why it was not fitting
for the New Law to be given from the beginning of the world. The
first is because the New Law, as stated above (A. 1), consists
chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost: which it behoved not to be
given abundantly until sin, which is an obstacle to grace, had been
cast out of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by
Christ: wherefore it is written (John 7:39): "As yet the Spirit was
not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This reason the
Apostle states clearly (Rom. 8:2, seqq.) where, after speaking of
"the Law of the Spirit of life," he adds: "God sending His own Son,
in the likeness of sinful flesh, of sin* hath condemned sin in the
flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."
[*St. Thomas, quoting perhaps from memory, omits the "et" (and),
after "sinful flesh." The text quoted should read thus: "in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and a sin offering (_peri hamartias_),
hath," etc.]

A second reason may be taken from the perfection of the New Law.
Because a thing is not brought to perfection at once from the outset,
but through an orderly succession of time; thus one is at first a
boy, and then a man. And this reason is stated by the Apostle (Gal.
3:24, 25): "The Law was our pedagogue in Christ that we might be
justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer
under a pedagogue."

The third reason is found in the fact that the New Law is the law of
grace: wherefore it behoved man first of all to be left to himself
under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he
might realize his weakness, and acknowledge his need of grace. This
reason is set down by the Apostle (Rom. 5:20): "The Law entered in,
that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound."

Reply Obj. 1: Mankind on account of the sin of our first parents
deserved to be deprived of the aid of grace: and so "from whom it is
withheld it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is
mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [*Cf.
Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19]. Consequently it does not
follow that there is respect of persons with God, from the fact that
He did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the
world, which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 2: The state of mankind does not vary according to
diversity of place, but according to succession of time. Hence the
New Law avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all
times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament, as
stated above (A. 1, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 3: Things pertaining to the health of the body are of
service to man as regards his nature, which sin does not destroy:
whereas things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to
grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison will
not hold.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 106, Art. 4]

Whether the New Law Will Last Till the End of the World?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law will not last until the
end of the world. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:10), "when
that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done
away." But the New Law is "in part," since the Apostle says (1 Cor.
13:9): "We know in part and we prophesy in part." Therefore the New
Law is to be done away, and will be succeeded by a more perfect state.

Obj. 2: Further, Our Lord (John 16:13) promised His disciples the
knowledge of all truth when the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, should
come. But the Church knows not yet all truth in the state of the New
Testament. Therefore we must look forward to another state, wherein
all truth will be revealed by the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the Father is distinct from the Son and the
Son from the Father, so is the Holy Ghost distinct from the Father
and the Son. But there was a state corresponding with the Person of
the Father, viz. the state of the Old Law, wherein men were intent on
begetting children: and likewise there is a state corresponding to
the Person of the Son: viz. the state of the New Law, wherein the
clergy who are intent on wisdom (which is appropriated to the Son)
hold a prominent place. Therefore there will be a third state
corresponding to the Holy Ghost, wherein spiritual men will hold the
first place.

Obj. 4: Further, Our Lord said (Matt. 24:14): "This Gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in the whole world . . . and then shall the
consummation come." But the Gospel of Christ is already preached
throughout the whole world: and yet the consummation has not yet
come. Therefore the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the
kingdom, but another Gospel, that of the Holy Ghost, is to come yet,
like unto another Law.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 24:34): "I say to you that
this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done":
which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to "the
generation of those that believe in Christ." Therefore the state of
those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the
world.

_I answer that,_ The state of the world may change in two ways. In
one way, according to a change of law: and thus no other state will
succeed this state of the New Law. Because the state of the New Law
succeeded the state of the Old Law, as a more perfect law a less
perfect one. Now no state of the present life can be more perfect
that the state of the New Law: since nothing can approach nearer to
the last end than that which is the immediate cause of our being
brought to the last end. But the New Law does this: wherefore the
Apostle says (Heb. 10:19-22): "Having therefore, brethren, a
confidence in the entering into the Holies by the blood of Christ, a
new . . . way which He hath dedicated for us . . . let us draw near."
Therefore no state of the present life can be more perfect than that
of the New Law, since the nearer a thing is to the last end the more
perfect it is.

In another way the state of mankind may change according as man
stands in relation to one and the same law more or less perfectly.
And thus the state of the Old Law underwent frequent changes, since
at times the laws were very well kept, and at other times were
altogether unheeded. Thus, too, the state of the New Law is subject
to change with regard to various places, times, and persons,
according as the grace of the Holy Ghost dwells in man more or less
perfectly. Nevertheless we are not to look forward to a state wherein
man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he
has possessed it hitherto, especially the apostles who "received the
firstfruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than
others," as a gloss expounds on Rom. 8:23.

Reply Obj. 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a threefold
state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that
of the New Law; the third will take place not in this life, but in
heaven. But as the first state is figurative and imperfect in
comparison with the state of the Gospel; so is the present state
figurative and imperfect in comparison with the heavenly state, with
the advent of which the present state will be done away as expressed
in that very passage (1 Cor. 13:12): "We see now through a glass in a
dark manner; but then face to face."

Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 31), Montanus and
Priscilla pretended that Our Lord's promise to give the Holy Ghost
was fulfilled, not in the apostles, but in themselves. In like manner
the Manicheans maintained that it was fulfilled in Manes whom they
held to be the Paraclete. Hence none of the above received the Acts
of the Apostles, where it is clearly shown that the aforesaid promise
was fulfilled in the apostles: just as Our Lord promised them a
second time (Acts 1:5): "You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,
not many days hence": which we read as having been fulfilled in Acts
2. However, these foolish notions are refuted by the statement (John
7:39) that "as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not
yet glorified"; from which we gather that the Holy Ghost was given as
soon as Christ was glorified in His Resurrection and Ascension.
Moreover, this puts out of court the senseless idea that the Holy
Ghost is to be expected to come at some other time.

Now the Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth in respect of
matters necessary for salvation; those things, to wit, that we are
bound to believe and to do. But He did not teach them about all
future events: for this did not regard them according to Acts 1:7:
"It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath
put in His own power."

Reply Obj. 3: The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father, but
also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law.
Hence Our Lord said (John 5:46): "If you did believe Moses, you would
perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me." In like manner the New
Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost;
according to Rom. 8:2: "The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus," etc. Hence we are not to look forward to another law
corresponding to the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 4: Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching
of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17), it is
most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the
kingdom. But the preaching of the Gospel of Christ may be understood
in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge
of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the world even
at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in
Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow--"and then shall the
consummation come," refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which
He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may
be understood as extending throughout the world and producing its
full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every
nation. And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist.
cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when
it is, the consummation of the world will come.
________________________

QUESTION 107

OF THE NEW LAW AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the New Law as compared with the Old: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?

(2) Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?

(3) Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?

(4) Which is the more burdensome, the New or the Old Law?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 107, Art. 1]

Whether the New Law Is Distinct from the Old Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is not distinct from the
Old. Because both these laws were given to those who believe in God:
since "without faith it is impossible to please God," according to
Heb. 11:6. But the faith of olden times and of nowadays is the same,
as the gloss says on Matt. 21:9. Therefore the law is the same also.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Contra Adamant. Manich. discip.
xvii) that "there is little difference between the Law and Gospel"
[*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words 'timor' and
'amor']--"fear and love." But the New and Old Laws cannot be
differentiated in respect of these two things: since even the Old Law
comprised precepts of charity: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor" (Lev.
19:18), and: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Deut. 6:5). In like
manner neither can they differ according to the other difference
which Augustine assigns (Contra Faust. iv, 2), viz. that "the Old
Testament contained temporal promises, whereas the New Testament
contains spiritual and eternal promises": since even the New
Testament contains temporal promises, according to Mk. 10:30: He
shall receive "a hundred times as much . . . in this time, houses and
brethren," etc.: while in the Old Testament they hoped in promises
spiritual and eternal, according to Heb. 11:16: "But now they desire
a better, that is to say, a heavenly country," which is said of the
patriarchs. Therefore it seems that the New Law is not distinct from
the Old.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle seems to distinguish both laws by
calling the Old Law "a law of works," and the New Law "a law of
faith" (Rom. 3:27). But the Old Law was also a law of faith,
according to Heb. 11:39: "All were [Vulg.: 'All these being']
approved by the testimony of faith," which he says of the fathers of
the Old Testament. In like manner the New Law is a law of works:
since it is written (Matt. 5:44): "Do good to them that hate you";
and (Luke 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore the
New Law is not distinct from the Old.

_On the contrary,_ the Apostle says (Heb. 7:12): "The priesthood
being translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of
the Law." But the priesthood of the New Testament is distinct from
that of the Old, as the Apostle shows in the same place. Therefore
the Law is also distinct.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 90, A. 2; Q. 91, A. 4), every
law ordains human conduct to some end. Now things ordained to an end
may be divided in two ways, considered from the point of view of the
end. First, through being ordained to different ends: and this
difference will be specific, especially if such ends are proximate.
Secondly, by reason of being closely or remotely connected with the
end. Thus it is clear that movements differ in species through being
directed to different terms: while according as one part of a
movement is nearer to the term than another part, the difference of
perfect and imperfect movement is assessed.

Accordingly then two laws may be distinguished from one another in
two ways. First, through being altogether diverse, from the fact that
they are ordained to diverse ends: thus a state-law ordained to
democratic government, would differ specifically from a law ordained
to government by the aristocracy. Secondly, two laws may be
distinguished from one another, through one of them being more
closely connected with the end, and the other more remotely: thus in
one and the same state there is one law enjoined on men of mature
age, who can forthwith accomplish that which pertains to the common
good; and another law regulating the education of children who need
to be taught how they are to achieve manly deeds later on.

We must therefore say that, according to the first way, the New Law
is not distinct from the Old Law: because they both have the same
end, namely, man's subjection to God; and there is but one God of the
New and of the Old Testament, according to Rom. 3:30: "It is one God
that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through
faith." According to the second way, the New Law is distinct from the
Old Law: because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of children, as the
Apostle says (Gal. 3:24), whereas the New Law is the law of
perfection, since it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says
(Col. 3:14) that it is "the bond of perfection."

Reply Obj. 1: The unity of faith under both Testaments witnesses to
the unity of end: for it has been stated above (Q. 62, A. 2) that the
object of the theological virtues, among which is faith, is the last
end. Yet faith had a different state in the Old and in the New Law:
since what they believed as future, we believe as fact.

Reply Obj. 2: All the differences assigned between the Old and New
Laws are gathered from their relative perfection and imperfection.
For the precepts of every law prescribe acts of virtue. Now the
imperfect, who as yet are not possessed of a virtuous habit, are
directed in one way to perform virtuous acts, while those who are
perfected by the possession of virtuous habits are directed in
another way. For those who as yet are not endowed with virtuous
habits, are directed to the performance of virtuous acts by reason of
some outward cause: for instance, by the threat of punishment, or the
promise of some extrinsic rewards, such as honor, riches, or the
like. Hence the Old Law, which was given to men who were imperfect,
that is, who had not yet received spiritual grace, was called the
"law of fear," inasmuch as it induced men to observe its commandments
by threatening them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing
temporal promises. On the other hand, those who are possessed of
virtue, are inclined to do virtuous deeds through love of virtue, not
on account of some extrinsic punishment or reward. Hence the New Law
which derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled
into our hearts, is called the "Law of love": and it is described as
containing spiritual and eternal promises, which are objects of the
virtues, chiefly of charity. Accordingly such persons are inclined of
themselves to those objects, not as to something foreign but as to
something of their own. For this reason, too, the Old Law is
described as "restraining the hand, not the will" [*Peter Lombard,
Sent. iii, D, 40]; since when a man refrains from some sins through
fear of being punished, his will does not shrink simply from sin, as
does the will of a man who refrains from sin through love of
righteousness: and hence the New Law, which is the Law of love, is
said to restrain the will.

Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who,
having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to
spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to
the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament there are some
carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New
Law; and these it was necessary, even under the New Testament, to
lead to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal
promises.

But although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless
it did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom "charity . . . is spread
abroad in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5).

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 106, AA. 1, 2), the New Law is
called the law of faith, in so far as its pre-eminence is derived
from that very grace which is given inwardly to believers, and for
this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless it consists
secondarily in certain deeds, moral and sacramental: but the New Law
does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law.
As to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable
to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they
were not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author
of the New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (Heb. 11:26)
that he esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasure of the Egyptians."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 107, Art. 2]

Whether the New Law Fulfils the Old?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law does not fulfil the Old.
Because to fulfil and to void are contrary. But the New Law voids or
excludes the observances of the Old Law: for the Apostle says (Gal.
5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
Therefore the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.

Obj. 2: Further, one contrary is not the fulfilment of another. But
Our Lord propounded in the New Law precepts that were contrary to
precepts of the Old Law. For we read (Matt. 5:27-32): "You have heard
that it was said to them of old: . . . 'Whosoever shall put away his
wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you that
whosoever shall put away his wife . . . maketh her to commit
adultery.'" Furthermore, the same evidently applies to the
prohibition against swearing, against retaliation, and against hating
one's enemies. In like manner Our Lord seems to have done away with
the precepts of the Old Law relating to the different kinds of foods
(Matt. 15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man:
but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Therefore the
New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.

Obj. 3: Further, whoever acts against a law does not fulfil the law.
But Christ in certain cases acted against the Law. For He touched the
leper (Matt. 8:3), which was contrary to the Law. Likewise He seems
to have frequently broken the sabbath; since the Jews used to say of
Him (John 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the
sabbath." Therefore Christ did not fulfil the Law: and so the New Law
given by Christ is not a fulfilment of the Old.

Obj. 4: Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral, ceremonial,
and judicial, as stated above (Q. 99, A. 4). But Our Lord (Matt. 5)
fulfilled the Law in some respects, but without mentioning the
judicial and ceremonial precepts. Therefore it seems that the New Law
is not a complete fulfilment of the Old.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 5:17): "I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil": and went on to say (Matt. 5:18): "One jot or
one tittle shall not pass of the Law till all be fulfilled."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the New Law is compared to
the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. Now everything perfect
fulfils that which is lacking in the imperfect. And accordingly the
New Law fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the
Old Law.

Now two things in the Old Law offer themselves to our consideration:
viz., the end, and the precepts contained in the Law.

Now the end of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as
was stated above (Q. 92, A. 1): and consequently the end of the Old
Law was the justification of men. The Law, however, could not
accomplish this: but foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions,
and promised it in words. And in this respect, the New Law fulfils
the Old by justifying men through the power of Christ's Passion. This
is what the Apostle says (Rom. 8:3, 4): "What the Law could not do
. . . God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . .
hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law
might be fulfilled in us." And in this respect, the New Law gives
what the Old Law promised, according to 2 Cor. 1:20: "Whatever are
the promises of God, in Him," i.e. in Christ, "they are 'Yea'." [*The
Douay version reads thus: "All the promises of God are in Him, 'It
is'."] Again, in this respect, it also fulfils what the Old Law
foreshadowed. Hence it is written (Col. 2:17) concerning the
ceremonial precepts that they were "a shadow of things to come, but
the body is of Christ"; in other words, the reality is found in
Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality; whereas
the Old Law is called the law of shadow or of figure.

Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works
and in His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing to be
circumcised and to fulfil the other legal observances, which were
binding for the time being; according to Gal. 4:4: "Made under the
Law." In His doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three
ways. First, by explaining the true sense of the Law. This is clear
in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which the
Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act:
wherefore Our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that the prohibition
extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord
fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing the safest way of
complying with the statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade
perjury: and this is more safely avoided, by abstaining altogether
from swearing, save in cases of urgency. Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled
the precepts of the Law, by adding some counsels of perfection: this
is clearly seen in Matt. 19:21, where Our Lord said to the man who
affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the Old Law: "One thing
is wanting to thee: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell whatsoever thou
hast," etc. [*St. Thomas combines Matt. 19:21 with Mk. 10:21].

Reply Obj. 1: The New Law does not void observance of the Old Law
except in the point of ceremonial precepts, as stated above (Q. 103,
AA. 3, 4). Now the latter were figurative of something to come.
Wherefore from the very fact that the ceremonial precepts were
fulfilled when those things were accomplished which they
foreshadowed, it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for
if they were to be observed, this would mean that something is still
to be accomplished and is not yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a
future gift holds no longer when it has been fulfilled by the
presentation of the gift. In this way the legal ceremonies are
abolished by being fulfilled.

Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 26), those
precepts of Our Lord are not contrary to the precepts of the Old Law.
For what Our Lord commanded about a man not putting away his wife, is
not contrary to what the Law prescribed. "For the Law did not say:
'Let him that wills, put his wife away': the contrary of which would
be not to put her away. _On the contrary,_ the Law was unwilling that
a man should put away his wife, since it prescribed a delay, so that
excessive eagerness for divorce might cease through being weakened
during the writing of the bill. Hence Our Lord, in order to impress
the fact that a wife ought not easily to be put away, allowed no
exception save in the case of fornication." The same applies to the
prohibition about swearing, as stated above. The same is also clear
with respect to the prohibition of retaliation. For the Law fixed a
limit to revenge, by forbidding men to seek vengeance unreasonably:
whereas Our Lord deprived them of vengeance more completely by
commanding them to abstain from it altogether. With regard to the
hatred of one's enemies, He dispelled the false interpretation of the
Pharisees, by admonishing us to hate, not the person, but his sin. As
to discriminating between various foods, which was a ceremonial
matter, Our Lord did not forbid this to be observed: but He showed
that no foods are naturally unclean, but only in token of something
else, as stated above (Q. 102, A. 6, ad 1).

Reply Obj. 3: It was forbidden by the Law to touch a leper; because
by doing so, man incurred a certain uncleanness of irregularity, as
also by touching the dead, as stated above (Q. 102, A. 5, ad 4). But
Our Lord, Who healed the leper, could not contract an uncleanness. By
those things which He did on the sabbath, He did not break the
sabbath in reality, as the Master Himself shows in the Gospel: both
because He worked miracles by His Divine power, which is ever active
among things; and because His works were concerned with the salvation
of man, while the Pharisees were concerned for the well-being of
animals even on the sabbath; and again because on account of urgency
He excused His disciples for gathering the ears of corn on the
sabbath. But He did seem to break the sabbath according to the
superstitious interpretation of the Pharisees, who thought that man
ought to abstain from doing even works of kindness on the sabbath;
which was contrary to the intention of the Law.

Reply Obj. 4: The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law are
not mentioned in Matt. 5 is because, as stated above (ad 1), their
observance was abolished by their fulfilment. But of the judicial
precepts He mentioned that of retaliation: so that what He said about
it should refer to all the others. With regard to this precept, He
taught that the intention of the Law was that retaliation should be
sought out of love of justice, and not as a punishment out of
revengeful spite, which He forbade, admonishing man to be ready to
suffer yet greater insults; and this remains still in the New Law.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 107, Art. 3]

Whether the New Law Is Contained in the Old?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is not contained in the
Old. Because the New Law consists chiefly in faith: wherefore it is
called the "law of faith" (Rom. 3:27). But many points of faith are
set forth in the New Law, which are not contained in the Old.
Therefore the New Law is not contained in the Old.

Obj. 2: Further, a gloss says on Matt. 5:19, "He that shall break one
of these least commandments," that the lesser commandments are those
of the Law, and the greater commandments, those contained in the
Gospel. Now the greater cannot be contained in the lesser. Therefore
the New Law is not contained in the Old.

Obj. 3: Further, who holds the container holds the contents. If,
therefore, the New Law is contained in the Old, it follows that
whoever had the Old Law had the New: so that it was superfluous to
give men a New Law when once they had the Old. Therefore the New Law
is not contained in the Old.

_On the contrary,_ As expressed in Ezech. 1:16, there was "a wheel in
the midst of a wheel," i.e. "the New Testament within the Old,"
according to Gregory's exposition.

_I answer that,_ One thing may be contained in another in two ways.
First, actually; as a located thing is in a place. Secondly,
virtually; as an effect in its cause, or as the complement in that
which is incomplete; thus a genus contains its species, and a seed
contains the whole tree, virtually. It is in this way that the New
Law is contained in the Old: for it has been stated (A. 1) that the
New Law is compared to the Old as perfect to imperfect. Hence
Chrysostom, expounding Mk. 4:28, "The earth of itself bringeth forth
fruit, first the blade, then the ear, afterwards the full corn in the
ear," expresses himself as follows: "He brought forth first the
blade, i.e. the Law of Nature; then the ear, i.e. the Law of Moses;
lastly, the full corn, i.e. the Law of the Gospel." Hence then the
New Law is in the Old as the corn in the ear.

Reply Obj. 1: Whatsoever is set down in the New Testament explicitly
and openly as a point of faith, is contained in the Old Testament as
a matter of belief, but implicitly, under a figure. And accordingly,
even as to those things which we are bound to believe, the New Law is
contained in the Old.

Reply Obj. 2: The precepts of the New Law are said to be greater than
those of the Old Law, in the point of their being set forth
explicitly. But as to the substance itself of the precepts of the New
Testament, they are all contained in the Old. Hence Augustine says
(Contra Faust. xix, 23, 28) that "nearly all Our Lord's admonitions
or precepts, where He expressed Himself by saying: 'But I say unto
you,' are to be found also in those ancient books. Yet, since they
thought that murder was only the slaying of the human body, Our Lord
declared to them that every wicked impulse to hurt our brother is to
be looked on as a kind of murder." And it is in the point of
declarations of this kind that the precepts of the New Law are said
to be greater than those of the Old. Nothing, however, prevents the
greater from being contained in the lesser virtually; just as a tree
is contained in the seed.

Reply Obj. 3: What is set forth implicitly needs to be declared
explicitly. Hence after the publishing of the Old Law, a New Law also
had to be given.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 107, Art. 4]

Whether the New Law Is More Burdensome Than the Old?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is more burdensome than
the Old. For Chrysostom (Opus Imp. in Matth., Hom. x [*The work of an
unknown author]) say: "The commandments given to Moses are easy to
obey: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery: but the
commandments of Christ are difficult to accomplish, for instance:
Thou shalt not give way to anger, or to lust." Therefore the New Law
is more burdensome than the Old.

Obj. 2: Further, it is easier to make use of earthly prosperity than
to suffer tribulations. But in the Old Testament observance of the
Law was followed by temporal prosperity, as may be gathered from
Deut. 28:1-14; whereas many kinds of trouble ensue to those who
observe the New Law, as stated in 2 Cor. 6:4-10: "Let us exhibit
ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation,
in necessities, in distresses," etc. Therefore the New Law is more
burdensome than the Old.

Obj. 3: The more one has to do, the more difficult it is. But the New
Law is something added to the Old. For the Old Law forbade perjury,
while the New Law proscribed even swearing: the Old Law forbade a man
to cast off his wife without a bill of divorce, while the New Law
forbade divorce altogether; as is clearly stated in Matt. 5:31,
seqq., according to Augustine's expounding. Therefore the New Law is
more burdensome than the Old.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 11:28): "Come to Me, all you
that labor and are burdened": which words are expounded by Hilary
thus: "He calls to Himself all those that labor under the difficulty
of observing the Law, and are burdened with the sins of this world."
And further on He says of the yoke of the Gospel: "For My yoke is
sweet and My burden light." Therefore the New Law is a lighter burden
than the Old.

_I answer that,_ A twofold difficulty may attach to works of virtue
with which the precepts of the Law are concerned. One is on the part
of the outward works, which of themselves are, in a way, difficult
and burdensome. And in this respect the Old Law is a much heavier
burden than the New: since the Old Law by its numerous ceremonies
prescribed many more outward acts than the New Law, which, in the
teaching of Christ and the apostles, added very few precepts to those
of the natural law; although afterwards some were added, through
being instituted by the holy Fathers. Even in these Augustine says
that moderation should be observed, lest good conduct should become a
burden to the faithful. For he says in reply to the queries of
Januarius (Ep. lv) that, "whereas God in His mercy wished religion to
be a free service rendered by the public solemnization of a small
number of most manifest sacraments, certain persons make it a slave's
burden; so much so that the state of the Jews who were subject to the
sacraments of the Law, and not to the presumptuous devices of man,
was more tolerable."

The other difficulty attaches to works of virtue as to interior acts:
for instance, that a virtuous deed be done with promptitude and
pleasure. It is this difficulty that virtue solves: because to act
thus is difficult for a man without virtue: but through virtue it
becomes easy for him. In this respect the precepts of the New Law are
more burdensome than those of the Old; because the New Law prohibits
certain interior movements of the soul, which were not expressly
forbidden in the Old Law in all cases, although they were forbidden
in some, without, however, any punishment being attached to the
prohibition. Now this is very difficult to a man without virtue: thus
even the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 9) that it is easy to do what
a righteous man does; but that to do it in the same way, viz. with
pleasure and promptitude, is difficult to a man who is not righteous.
Accordingly we read also (1 John 5:3) that "His commandments are not
heavy": which words Augustine expounds by saying that "they are not
heavy to the man that loveth; whereas they are a burden to him that
loveth not."

Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted speaks expressly of the difficulty
of the New Law as to the deliberate curbing of interior movements.

Reply Obj. 2: The tribulations suffered by those who observe the New
Law are not imposed by the Law itself. Moreover they are easily
borne, on account of the love in which the same Law consists: since,
as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxx), "love makes light and
nothing of things that seem arduous and beyond our power."

Reply Obj. 3: The object of these additions to the precepts of the
Old Law was to render it easier to do what it prescribed, as
Augustine states [*De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 17, 21; xix, 23, 26].
Accordingly this does not prove that the New Law is more burdensome,
but rather that it is a lighter burden.
________________________

QUESTION 108

OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE NEW LAW
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider those things that are contained in the New Law:
under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or to forbid any outward
works?

(2) Whether the New Law makes sufficient provision in prescribing
and forbidding external acts?

(3) Whether in the matter of internal acts it directs man
sufficiently?

(4) Whether it fittingly adds counsels to precepts?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 108, Art. 1]

Whether the New Law Ought to Prescribe or Prohibit Any External Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law should not prescribe or
prohibit any external acts. For the New Law is the Gospel of the
kingdom, according to Matt. 24:14: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall
be preached in the whole world." But the kingdom of God consists not
in exterior, but only in interior acts, according to Luke 17:21: "The
kingdom of God is within you"; and Rom. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is
not meat and drink; but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Therefore the New Law should not prescribe or forbid any external
acts.

Obj. 2: Further, the New Law is "the law of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:2).
But "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor.
3:17). Now there is no liberty when man is bound to do or avoid
certain external acts. Therefore the New Law does not prescribe or
forbid any external acts.

Obj. 3: Further, all external acts are understood as referable to the
hand, just as interior acts belong to the mind. But this is assigned
as the difference between the New and Old Laws that the "Old Law
restrains the hand, whereas the New Law curbs the will" [*Peter
Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]. Therefore the New Law should not contain
prohibitions and commands about exterior deeds, but only about
interior acts.

_On the contrary,_ Through the New Law, men are made "children of
light": wherefore it is written (John 12:36): "Believe in the light
that you may be the children of light." Now it is becoming that
children of the light should do deeds of light and cast aside deeds
of darkness, according to Eph. 5:8: "You were heretofore darkness,
but now light in the Lord. Walk . . . as children of the light."
Therefore the New Law had to forbid certain external acts and
prescribe others.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 106, AA. 1, 2), the New Law
consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth
by faith that worketh through love. Now men become receivers of this
grace through God's Son made man, Whose humanity grace filled first,
and thence flowed forth to us. Hence it is written (John 1:14): "The
Word was made flesh," and afterwards: "full of grace and truth"; and
further on: "Of His fulness we all have received, and grace for
grace." Hence it is added that "grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." Consequently it was becoming that the grace which flows from
the incarnate Word should be given to us by means of certain external
sensible objects; and that from this inward grace, whereby the flesh
is subjected to the Spirit, certain external works should ensue.

Accordingly external acts may have a twofold connection with grace.
In the first place, as leading in some way to grace. Such are the
sacramental acts which are instituted in the New Law, e.g. Baptism,
the Eucharist, and the like.

In the second place there are those external acts which ensue from
the promptings of grace: and herein we must observe a difference. For
there are some which are necessarily in keeping with, or in
opposition to inward grace consisting in faith that worketh through
love. Such external works are prescribed or forbidden in the New Law;
thus confession of faith is prescribed, and denial of faith is
forbidden; for it is written (Matt. 10:32, 33) "(Every one) that
shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father
. . . But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him
before My Father." On the other hand, there are works which are not
necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith that worketh through
love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by
virtue of its primitive institution; but have been left by the
Lawgiver, i.e. Christ, to the discretion of each individual. And so
to each one it is free to decide what he should do or avoid; and to
each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what
they must do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is
called the "law of liberty" [*Cf. Reply Obj. 2]: since the Old Law
decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.

Reply Obj. 1: The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts:
but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts
belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is
internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external acts
that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy,
are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently should be
forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom. On the other hand, those
things that are indifferent as regards the aforesaid, for instance,
to eat of this or that food, are not part of the kingdom of God;
wherefore the Apostle says before the words quoted: "The kingdom of
God is not meat and drink."

Reply Obj. 2: According to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), what is
"free is cause of itself." Therefore he acts freely, who acts of his
own accord. Now man does of his own accord that which he does from a
habit that is suitable to his nature: since a habit inclines one as a
second nature. If, however, a habit be in opposition to nature, man
would not act according to his nature, but according to some
corruption affecting that nature. Since then the grace of the Holy
Ghost is like an interior habit bestowed on us and inclining us to
act aright, it makes us do freely those things that are becoming to
grace, and shun what is opposed to it.

Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects.
First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain things,
except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation,
and come under the prescription or prohibition of the law. Secondly,
because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and
prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through the promptings of grace.
It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of
perfect liberty" (James 1:25).

Reply Obj. 3: The New Law, by restraining the mind from inordinate
movements, must needs also restrain the hand from inordinate acts,
which ensue from inward movements.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 108, Art. 2]

Whether the New Law Made Sufficient Ordinations About External Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law made insufficient
ordinations about external acts. Because faith that worketh through
charity seems chiefly to belong to the New Law, according to Gal.
5:6: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision: but faith that worketh through charity." But the New
Law declared explicitly certain points of faith which were not set
forth explicitly in the Old Law; for instance, belief in the Trinity.
Therefore it should also have added certain outward moral deeds,
which were not fixed in the Old Law.

Obj. 2: Further, in the Old Law not only were sacraments instituted,
but also certain sacred things, as stated above (Q. 101, A. 4; Q.
102, A. 4). But in the New Law, although certain sacraments are
instituted by Our Lord; for instance, pertaining either to the
sanctification of a temple or of the vessels, or to the celebration
of some particular feast. Therefore the New Law made insufficient
ordinations about external matters.

Obj. 3: Further, in the Old Law, just as there were certain
observances pertaining to God's ministers, so also were there certain
observances pertaining to the people: as was stated above when we
were treating of the ceremonial of the Old Law (Q. 101, A. 4; Q. 102,
A. 6). Now in the New Law certain observances seem to have been
prescribed to the ministers of God; as may be gathered from Matt.
10:9: "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses,"
nor other things which are mentioned here and Luke 9, 10. Therefore
certain observances pertaining to the faithful should also have been
instituted in the New Law.

Obj. 4: Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and ceremonial
precepts, there were certain judicial precepts. But in the New Law
there are no judicial precepts. Therefore the New Law made
insufficient ordinations about external works.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 7:24): "Every one . . . that
heareth these My words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man
that built his house upon a rock." But a wise builder leaves out
nothing that is necessary to the building. Therefore Christ's words
contain all things necessary for man's salvation.

_I answer that,_ as stated above (A. 1), the New Law had to make such
prescriptions or prohibitions alone as are essential for the
reception or right use of grace. And since we cannot of ourselves
obtain grace, but through Christ alone, hence Christ of Himself
instituted the sacraments whereby we obtain grace: viz. Baptism,
Eucharist, Orders of the ministers of the New Law, by the institution
of the apostles and seventy-two disciples, Penance, and indissoluble
Matrimony. He promised Confirmation through the sending of the Holy
Ghost: and we read that by His institution the apostles healed the
sick by anointing them with oil (Mk. 6:13). These are the sacraments
of the New Law.

The right use of grace is by means of works of charity. These, in so
far as they are essential to virtue, pertain to the moral precepts,
which also formed part of the Old Law. Hence, in this respect, the
New Law had nothing to add as regards external action. The
determination of these works in their relation to the divine worship,
belongs to the ceremonial precepts of the Law; and, in relation to
our neighbor, to the judicial precepts, as stated above (Q. 99, A.
4). And therefore, since these determinations are not in themselves
necessarily connected with inward grace wherein the Law consists,
they do not come under a precept of the New Law, but are left to the
decision of man; some relating to inferiors--as when a precept is
given to an individual; others, relating to superiors, temporal or
spiritual, referring, namely, to the common good.

Accordingly the New Law had no other external works to determine, by
prescribing or forbidding, except the sacraments, and those moral
precepts which have a necessary connection with virtue, for instance,
that one must not kill, or steal, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 1: Matters of faith are above human reason, and so we
cannot attain to them except through grace. Consequently, when grace
came to be bestowed more abundantly, the result was an increase in
the number of explicit points of faith. On the other hand, it is
through human reason that we are directed to works of virtue, for it
is the rule of human action, as stated above (Q. 19, A. 3; Q. 63, A.
2). Wherefore in such matters as these there was no need for any
precepts to be given besides the moral precepts of the Law, which
proceed from the dictate of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: In the sacraments of the New Law grace is bestowed,
which cannot be received except through Christ: consequently they had
to be instituted by Him. But in the sacred things no grace is given:
for instance, in the consecration of a temple, an altar or the like,
or, again, in the celebration of feasts. Wherefore Our Lord left the
institution of such things to the discretion of the faithful, since
they have not of themselves any necessary connection with inward
grace.

Reply Obj. 3: Our Lord gave the apostles those precepts not as
ceremonial observances, but as moral statutes: and they can be
understood in two ways. First, following Augustine (De Consensu
Evang. 30), as being not commands but permissions. For He permitted
them to set forth to preach without scrip or stick, and so on, since
they were empowered to accept their livelihood from those to whom
they preached: wherefore He goes on to say: "For the laborer is
worthy of his hire." Nor is it a sin, but a work of supererogation
for a preacher to take means of livelihood with him, without
accepting supplies from those to whom he preaches; as Paul did (1
Cor. 9:4, seqq.).

Secondly, according to the explanation of other holy men, they may be
considered as temporal commands laid upon the apostles for the time
during which they were sent to preach in Judea before Christ's
Passion. For the disciples, being yet as little children under
Christ's care, needed to receive some special commands from Christ,
such as all subjects receive from their superiors: and especially so,
since they were to be accustomed little by little to renounce the
care of temporalities, so as to become fitted for the preaching of
the Gospel throughout the whole world. Nor must we wonder if He
established certain fixed modes of life, as long as the state of the
Old Law endured and the people had not as yet achieved the perfect
liberty of the Spirit. These statutes He abolished shortly before His
Passion, as though the disciples had by their means become
sufficiently practiced. Hence He said (Luke 22:35, 36) "When I sent
you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But
they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now, he that hath a
purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip." Because the time of
perfect liberty was already at hand, when they would be left entirely
to their own judgment in matters not necessarily connected with
virtue.

Reply Obj. 4: Judicial precepts also, are not essential to virtue in
respect of any particular determination, but only in regard to the
common notion of justice. Consequently Our Lord left the judicial
precepts to the discretion of those who were to have spiritual or
temporal charge of others. But as regards the judicial precepts of
the Old Law, some of them He explained, because they were
misunderstood by the Pharisees, as we shall state later on (A. 3, ad
2).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 108, Art. 3]

Whether the New Law Directed Man Sufficiently As Regards Interior
Actions?

Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law directed man
insufficiently as regards interior actions. For there are ten
commandments of the decalogue directing man to God and his neighbor.
But Our Lord partly fulfilled only three of them: as regards, namely,
the prohibition of murder, of adultery, and of perjury. Therefore it
seems that, by omitting to fulfil the other precepts, He directed man
insufficiently.

Obj. 2: Further, as regards the judicial precepts, Our Lord ordained
nothing in the Gospel, except in the matter of divorcing a wife, of
punishment by retaliation, and of persecuting one's enemies. But
there are many other judicial precepts of the Old Law, as stated
above (Q. 104, A. 4; Q. 105). Therefore, in this respect, He directed
human life insufficiently.

Obj. 3: Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and judicial, there
were ceremonial precepts about which Our Lord made no ordination.
Therefore it seems that He ordained insufficiently.

Obj. 4: Further, in order that the mind be inwardly well disposed,
man should do no good deed for any temporal end whatever. But there
are many other temporal goods besides the favor of man: and there are
many other good works besides fasting, alms-deeds, and prayer.
Therefore Our Lord unbecomingly taught that only in respect of these
three works, and of no other earthly goods ought we to shun the glory
of human favor.

Obj. 5: Further, solicitude for the necessary means of livelihood is
by nature instilled into man, and this solicitude even other animals
share with man: wherefore it is written (Prov. 6:6, 8): "Go to the
ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways . . . she provideth her meat
for herself in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest."
But every command issued against the inclination of nature is an
unjust command, forasmuch as it is contrary to the law of nature.
Therefore it seems that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade solicitude
about food and raiment.

Obj. 6: Further, no act of virtue should be the subject of a
prohibition. Now judgment is an act of justice, according to Ps.
18:15: "Until justice be turned into judgment." Therefore it seems
that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade judgment: and consequently that
the New Law directed man insufficiently in the matter of interior
acts.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 1): We
should take note that, when He said: "'He that heareth these My
words,' He indicates clearly that this sermon of the Lord is replete
with all the precepts whereby a Christian's life is formed."

_I answer that,_ As is evident from Augustine's words just quoted,
the sermon, which Our Lord delivered on the mountain, contains the
whole process of forming the life of a Christian. Therein man's
interior movements are ordered. Because after declaring that his end
is Beatitude; and after commending the authority of the apostles,
through whom the teaching of the Gospel was to be promulgated, He
orders man's interior movements, first in regard to man himself,
secondly in regard to his neighbor.

This he does in regard to man himself, in two ways, corresponding to
man's two interior movements in respect of any prospective action,
viz. volition of what has to be done, and intention of the end.
Wherefore, in the first place, He directs man's will in respect of
the various precepts of the Law: by prescribing that man should
refrain not merely from those external works that are evil in
themselves, but also from internal acts, and from the occasions of
evil deeds. In the second place He directs man's intention, by
teaching that in our good works, we should seek neither human praise,
nor worldly riches, which is to lay up treasures on earth.

Afterwards He directs man's interior movement in respect of his
neighbor, by forbidding us, on the one hand, to judge him rashly,
unjustly, or presumptuously; and, on the other, to entrust him too
readily with sacred things if he be unworthy.

Lastly, He teaches us how to fulfil the teaching of the Gospel; viz.
by imploring the help of God; by striving to enter by the narrow door
of perfect virtue; and by being wary lest we be led astray by evil
influences. Moreover, He declares that we must observe His
commandments, and that it is not enough to make profession of faith,
or to work miracles, or merely to hear His words.

Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord explained the manner of fulfilling those
precepts which the Scribes and Pharisees did not rightly understand:
and this affected chiefly those precepts of the decalogue. For they
thought that the prohibition of adultery and murder covered the
external act only, and not the internal desire. And they held this
opinion about murder and adultery rather than about theft and false
witness, because the movement of anger tending to murder, and the
movement of desire tending to adultery, seem to be in us from nature
somewhat, but not the desire of stealing or bearing false witness.
They held a false opinion about perjury, for they thought that
perjury indeed was a sin; but that oaths were of themselves to be
desired and to be taken frequently, since they seem to proceed from
reverence to God. Hence Our Lord shows that an oath is not desirable
as a good thing; and that it is better to speak without oaths, unless
necessity forces us to have recourse to them.

Reply Obj. 2: The Scribes and Pharisees erred about the judicial
precepts in two ways. First, because they considered certain matters
contained in the Law of Moses by way of permission, to be right in
themselves: namely, divorce of a wife, and the taking of usury from
strangers. Wherefore Our Lord forbade a man to divorce his wife
(Matt. 5:32); and to receive usury (Luke 6:35), when He said: "Lend,
hoping for nothing thereby."

In another way they erred by thinking that certain things which the
Old Law commanded to be done for justice's sake, should be done out
of desire for revenge, or out of lust for temporal goods, or out of
hatred of one's enemies; and this in respect of three precepts. For
they thought that desire for revenge was lawful, on account of the
precept concerning punishment by retaliation: whereas this precept
was given that justice might be safeguarded, not that man might seek
revenge. Wherefore, in order to do away with this, Our Lord teaches
that man should be prepared in his mind to suffer yet more if
necessary. They thought that movements of covetousness were lawful on
account of those judicial precepts which prescribed restitution of
what had been purloined, together with something added thereto, as
stated above (Q. 105, A. 2, ad 9); whereas the Law commanded this to
be done in order to safeguard justice, not to encourage covetousness.
Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should not demand our goods from
motives of cupidity, and that we should be ready to give yet more if
necessary. They thought that the movement of hatred was lawful, on
account of the commandments of the Law about the slaying of one's
enemies: whereas the Law ordered this for the fulfilment of justice,
as stated above (Q. 105, A. 3, ad 4), not to satisfy hatred.
Wherefore Our Lord teaches us that we ought to love our enemies, and
to be ready to do good to them if necessary. For these precepts are
to be taken as binding "the mind to be prepared to fulfil them," as
Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19).

Reply Obj. 3: The moral precepts necessarily retained their force
under the New Law, because they are of themselves essential to
virtue: whereas the judicial precepts did not necessarily continue to
bind in exactly the same way as had been fixed by the Law: this was
left to man to decide in one way or another. Hence Our Lord directed
us becomingly with regard to these two kinds of precepts. On the
other hand, the observance of the ceremonial precepts was totally
abolished by the advent of the reality; wherefore in regard to these
precepts He commanded nothing on this occasion when He was giving the
general points of His doctrine. Elsewhere, however, He makes it clear
that the entire bodily worship which was fixed by the Law, was to be
changed into spiritual worship: as is evident from John 4:21, 23,
where He says: "The hour cometh when you shall neither on this
mountain, nor in Jerusalem adore the Father . . . but . . . the true
adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth."

Reply Obj. 4: All worldly goods may be reduced to three--honors,
riches, and pleasures; according to 1 John 2:16: "All that is in the
world is the concupiscence of the flesh," which refers to pleasures
of the flesh, "and the concupiscence of the eyes," which refers to
riches, "and the pride of life," which refers to ambition for renown
and honor. Now the Law did not promise an abundance of carnal
pleasures; on the contrary, it forbade them. But it did promise
exalted honors and abundant riches; for it is written in reference to
the former (Deut. 28:1): "If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy
God . . . He will make thee higher than all the nations"; and in
reference to the latter, we read a little further on (Deut. 28:11):
"He will make thee abound with all goods." But the Jews so distorted
the true meaning of these promises, as to think that we ought to
serve God, with these things as the end in view. Wherefore Our Lord
set this aside by teaching, first of all, that works of virtue should
not be done for human glory. And He mentions three works, to which
all others may be reduced: since whatever a man does in order to curb
his desires, comes under the head of fasting; and whatever a man does
for the love of his neighbor, comes under the head of alms-deeds; and
whatever a man does for the worship of God, comes under the head of
prayer. And He mentions these three specifically, as they hold the
principal place, and are most often used by men in order to gain
glory. In the second place He taught us that we must not place our
end in riches, when He said: "Lay not up to yourselves treasures on
earth" (Matt. 6:19).

Reply Obj. 5: Our Lord forbade, not necessary, but inordinate
solicitude. Now there is a fourfold solicitude to be avoided in
temporal matters. First, we must not place our end in them, nor serve
God for the sake of the necessities of food and raiment. Wherefore He
says: "Lay not up for yourselves," etc. Secondly, we must not be so
anxious about temporal things, as to despair of God's help: wherefore
Our Lord says (Matt. 6:32): "Your Father knoweth that you have need
of all these things." Thirdly, we must not add presumption to our
solicitude; in other words, we must not be confident of getting the
necessaries of life by our own efforts without God's help: such
solicitude Our Lord sets aside by saying that a man cannot add
anything to his stature (Matt. 6:27). We must not anticipate the time
for anxiety; namely, by being solicitous now, for the needs, not of
the present, but of a future time: wherefore He says (Matt. 6:34):
"Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow."

Reply Obj. 6: Our Lord did not forbid the judgment of justice,
without which holy things could not be withdrawn from the unworthy.
But he forbade inordinate judgment, as stated above.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 108, Art. 4]

Whether Certain Definite Counsels Are Fittingly Proposed in the New
Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that certain definite counsels are not
fittingly proposed in the New Law. For counsels are given about that
which is expedient for an end, as we stated above, when treating of
counsel (Q. 14, A. 2). But the same things are not expedient for all.
Therefore certain definite counsels should not be proposed to all.

Obj. 2: Further, counsels regard a greater good. But there are no
definite degrees to the greater good. Therefore definite counsels
should not be given.

Obj. 3: Further, counsels pertain to the life of perfection. But
obedience pertains to the life of perfection. Therefore it was
unfitting that no counsel of obedience should be contained in the
Gospel.

Obj. 4: Further, many matters pertaining to the life of perfection
are found among the commandments, as, for instance, "Love your
enemies" (Matt. 5:44), and those precepts which Our Lord gave His
apostles (Matt. 10). Therefore the counsels are unfittingly given in
the New Law: both because they are not all mentioned; and because
they are not distinguished from the commandments.

_On the contrary,_ The counsels of a wise friend are of great use,
according to Prov. (27:9): "Ointment and perfumes rejoice the heart:
and the good counsels of a friend rejoice the soul." But Christ is
our wisest and greatest friend. Therefore His counsels are supremely
useful and becoming.

_I answer that,_ The difference between a counsel and a commandment
is that a commandment implies obligation, whereas a counsel is left
to the option of the one to whom it is given. Consequently in the New
Law, which is the law of liberty, counsels are added to the
commandments, and not in the Old Law, which is the law of bondage. We
must therefore understand the commandments of the New Law to have
been given about matters that are necessary to gain the end of
eternal bliss, to which end the New Law brings us forthwith: but that
the counsels are about matters that render the gaining of this end
more assured and expeditious.

Now man is placed between the things of this world, and spiritual
goods wherein eternal happiness consists: so that the more he cleaves
to the one, the more he withdraws from the other, and conversely.
Wherefore he that cleaves wholly to the things of this world, so as
to make them his end, and to look upon them as the reason and rule of
all he does, falls away altogether from spiritual goods. Hence this
disorder is removed by the commandments. Nevertheless, for man to
gain the end aforesaid, he does not need to renounce the things of
the world altogether: since he can, while using the things of this
world, attain to eternal happiness, provided he does not place his
end in them: but he will attain more speedily thereto by giving up
the goods of this world entirely: wherefore the evangelical counsels
are given for this purpose.

Now the goods of this world which come into use in human life,
consist in three things: viz. in external wealth pertaining to the
"concupiscence of the eyes"; carnal pleasures pertaining to the
"concupiscence of the flesh"; and honors, which pertain to the "pride
of life," according to 1 John 2:16: and it is in renouncing these
altogether, as far as possible, that the evangelical counsels
consist. Moreover, every form of the religious life that professes
the state of perfection is based on these three: since riches are
renounced by poverty; carnal pleasures by perpetual chastity; and the
pride of life by the bondage of obedience.

Now if a man observe these absolutely, this is in accordance with the
counsels as they stand. But if a man observe any one of them in a
particular case, this is taking that counsel in a restricted sense,
namely, as applying to that particular case. For instance, when
anyone gives an alms to a poor man, not being bound so to do, he
follows the counsels in that particular case. In like manner, when a
man for some fixed time refrains from carnal pleasures that he may
give himself to prayer, he follows the counsel for that particular
time. And again, when a man follows not his will as to some deed
which he might do lawfully, he follows the counsel in that particular
case: for instance, if he do good to his enemies when he is not bound
to, or if he forgive an injury of which he might justly seek to be
avenged. In this way, too, all particular counsels may be reduced to
these three general and perfect counsels.

Reply Obj. 1: The aforesaid counsels, considered in themselves, are
expedient to all; but owing to some people being ill-disposed, it
happens that some of them are inexpedient, because their disposition
is not inclined to such things. Hence Our Lord, in proposing the
evangelical counsels, always makes mention of man's fitness for
observing the counsels. For in giving the counsel of perpetual
poverty (Matt. 19:21), He begins with the words: "If thou wilt be
perfect," and then He adds: "Go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast."
In like manner when He gave the counsel of perpetual chastity, saying
(Matt. 19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven," He adds straightway: "He that can take,
let him take it." And again, the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:35), after giving
the counsel of virginity, says: "And this I speak for your profit;
not to cast a snare upon you."

Reply Obj. 2: The greater goods are not definitely fixed in the
individual; but those which are simply and absolutely the greater
good in general are fixed: and to these all the above particular
goods may be reduced, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Even the counsel of obedience is understood to have
been given by Our Lord in the words: "And [let him] follow Me." For
we follow Him not only by imitating His works, but also by obeying
His commandments, according to John 10:27: "My sheep hear My voice
. . . and they follow Me."

Reply Obj. 4: Those things which Our Lord prescribed about the true
love of our enemies, and other similar sayings (Matt. 5; Luke 6), may
be referred to the preparation of the mind, and then they are
necessary for salvation; for instance, that man be prepared to do
good to his enemies, and other similar actions, when there is need.
Hence these things are placed among the precepts. But that anyone
should actually and promptly behave thus towards an enemy when there
is no special need, is to be referred to the particular counsels, as
stated above. As to those matters which are set down in Matt. 10 and
Luke 9 and 10, they were either disciplinary commands for that
particular time, or concessions, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3). Hence
they are not set down among the counsels.
________________________

TREATISE ON GRACE (QQ. 109-114)
________________________

QUESTION 109

OF THE NECESSITY OF GRACE
(In Ten Articles)

We must now consider the exterior principle of human acts, i.e. God,
in so far as, through grace, we are helped by Him to do right: and,
first, we must consider the grace of God; secondly, its cause;
thirdly, its effects.

The first point of consideration will be threefold: for we shall
consider (1) The necessity of grace; (2) grace itself, as to its
essence; (3) its division.

Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether without grace man can know anything?

(2) Whether without God's grace man can do or wish any good?

(3) Whether without grace man can love God above all things?

(4) Whether without grace man can keep the commandments of the Law?

(5) Whether without grace he can merit eternal life?

(6) Whether without grace man can prepare himself for grace?

(7) Whether without grace he can rise from sin?

(8) Whether without grace man can avoid sin?

(9) Whether man having received grace can do good and avoid sin
without any further Divine help?

(10) Whether he can of himself persevere in good?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 1]

Whether Without Grace Man Can Know Any Truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that without grace man can know no truth.
For, on 1 Cor. 12:3: "No man can say, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy
Ghost," a gloss says: "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken is from the
Holy Ghost." Now the Holy Ghost dwells in us by grace. Therefore we
cannot know truth without grace.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Solil. i, 6) that "the most certain
sciences are like things lit up by the sun so as to be seen. Now God
Himself is He Who sheds the light. And reason is in the mind as sight
is in the eye. And the eyes of the mind are the senses of the soul."
Now the bodily senses, however pure, cannot see any visible object,
without the sun's light. Therefore the human mind, however perfect,
cannot, by reasoning, know any truth without Divine light: and this
pertains to the aid of grace.

Obj. 3: Further, the human mind can only understand truth by
thinking, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7). But the
Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:5): "Not that we are sufficient to think
anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from
God." Therefore man cannot, of himself, know truth without the help
of grace.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 4): "I do not approve
having said in the prayer, O God, Who dost wish the sinless alone to
know the truth; for it may be answered that many who are not sinless
know many truths." Now man is cleansed from sin by grace, according
to Ps. 50:12: "Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right
spirit within my bowels." Therefore without grace man of himself can
know truth.

_I answer that,_ To know truth is a use or act of intellectual light,
since, according to the Apostle (Eph. 5:13): "All that is made
manifest is light." Now every use implies movement, taking movement
broadly, so as to call thinking and willing movements, as is clear
from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 4). Now in corporeal things we
see that for movement there is required not merely the form which is
the principle of the movement or action, but there is also required
the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of
corporeal things is the heavenly body. Hence no matter how perfectly
fire has heat, it would not bring about alteration, except by the
motion of the heavenly body. But it is clear that as all corporeal
movements are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to the
first corporeal mover, so all movements, both corporeal and
spiritual, are reduced to the simple First Mover, Who is God. And
hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is
supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by
God; but this motion is according to the plan of His providence, and
not by necessity of nature, as the motion of the heavenly body. Now
not only is every motion from God as from the First Mover, but all
formal perfection is from Him as from the First Act. And thus the act
of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God
in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form
whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.

Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a
determined act, which it can bring about in proportion to its own
proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a
superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And
thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light,
which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible
things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses. Higher
intelligible things the human intellect cannot know, unless it be
perfected by a stronger light, viz. the light of faith or prophecy
which is called the "light of grace," inasmuch as it is added to
nature.

Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man
needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act.
But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order
to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his
natural knowledge. And yet at times God miraculously instructs some
by His grace in things that can be known by natural reason, even as
He sometimes brings about miraculously what nature can do.

Reply Obj. 1: Every truth by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost
as bestowing the natural light, and moving us to understand and speak
the truth, but not as dwelling in us by sanctifying grace, or as
bestowing any habitual gift superadded to nature. For this only takes
place with regard to certain truths that are known and spoken, and
especially in regard to such as pertain to faith, of which the
Apostle speaks.

Reply Obj. 2: The material sun sheds its light outside us; but the
intelligible Sun, Who is God, shines within us. Hence the natural
light bestowed upon the soul is God's enlightenment, whereby we are
enlightened to see what pertains to natural knowledge; and for this
there is required no further knowledge, but only for such things as
surpass natural knowledge.

Reply Obj. 3: We always need God's help for every thought, inasmuch
as He moves the understanding to act; for actually to understand
anything is to think, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 2]

Whether Man Can Wish or Do Any Good Without Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can wish and do good without
grace. For that is in man's power, whereof he is master. Now man is
master of his acts, and especially of his willing, as stated above
(Q. 1, A. 1; Q. 13, A. 6). Hence man, of himself, can wish and do
good without the help of grace.

Obj. 2: Further, man has more power over what is according to his
nature than over what is beyond his nature. Now sin is against his
nature, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 30); whereas deeds of
virtue are according to his nature, as stated above (Q. 71, A. 1).
Therefore since man can sin of himself he can wish and do good.

Obj. 3: Further, the understanding's good is truth, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2). Now the intellect can of itself know
truth, even as every other thing can work its own operation of
itself. Therefore, much more can man, of himself, do and wish good.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 9:16): "It is not of him
that willeth," namely, to will, "nor of him that runneth," namely to
run, "but of God that showeth mercy." And Augustine says (De Corrept.
et Gratia ii) that "without grace men do nothing good when they
either think or wish or love or act."

_I answer that,_ Man's nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in
its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as
it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both
states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or
wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (A. 1). But in the state of
integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by
his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to
his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing
good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt
nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he
is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human
nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every
natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue
of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build
dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the
good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick
man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly
moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of
medicine he be cured.

And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous
strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order
to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state
of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in
order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are
meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help,
that he may be moved to act well.

Reply Obj. 1: Man is master of his acts and of his willing or not
willing, because of his deliberate reason, which can be bent to one
side or another. And although he is master of his deliberating or not
deliberating, yet this can only be by a previous deliberation; and
since it cannot go on to infinity, we must come at length to this,
that man's free-will is moved by an extrinsic principle, which is
above the human mind, to wit by God, as the Philosopher proves in the
chapter "On Good Fortune" (Ethic. Eudem. vii). Hence the mind of man
still unweakened is not so much master of its act that it does not
need to be moved by God; and much more the free-will of man weakened
by sin, whereby it is hindered from good by the corruption of the
nature.

Reply Obj. 2: To sin is nothing else than to fail in the good which
belongs to any being according to its nature. Now as every created
thing has its being from another, and, considered in itself, is
nothing, so does it need to be preserved by another in the good which
pertains to its nature. For it can of itself fail in good, even as of
itself it can fall into non-existence, unless it is upheld by God.

Reply Obj. 3: Man cannot even know truth without Divine help, as
stated above (A. 1). And yet human nature is more corrupt by sin in
regard to the desire for good, than in regard to the knowledge of
truth.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 3]

Whether by His Own Natural Powers and Without Grace Man Can Love God
Above All Things?

Objection 1: It would seem that without grace man cannot love God
above all things by his own natural powers. For to love God above all
things is the proper and principal act of charity. Now man cannot of
himself possess charity, since the "charity of God is poured forth in
our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who is given to us," as is said Rom.
5:5. Therefore man by his natural powers alone cannot love God above
all things.

Obj. 2: Further, no nature can rise above itself. But to love God
above all things is to tend above oneself. Therefore without the help
of grace no created nature can love God above itself.

Obj. 3: Further, to God, Who is the Highest Good, is due the best
love, which is that He be loved above all things. Now without grace
man is not capable of giving God the best love, which is His due;
otherwise it would be useless to add grace. Hence man, without grace
and with his natural powers alone, cannot love God above all things.

_On the contrary,_ As some maintain, man was first made with only
natural endowments; and in this state it is manifest that he loved
God to some extent. But he did not love God equally with himself, or
less than himself, otherwise he would have sinned. Therefore he loved
God above himself. Therefore man, by his natural powers alone, can
love God more than himself and above all things.

_I answer that,_ As was said above (I, Q. 60, A. 5), where the
various opinions concerning the natural love of the angels were set
forth, man in a state of perfect nature, could by his natural power,
do the good natural to him without the addition of any gratuitous
gift, though not without the help of God moving him. Now to love God
above all things is natural to man and to every nature, not only
rational but irrational, and even to inanimate nature according to
the manner of love which can belong to each creature. And the reason
of this is that it is natural to all to seek and love things
according as they are naturally fit (to be sought and loved) since
"all things act according as they are naturally fit" as stated in
_Phys._ ii, 8. Now it is manifest that the good of the part is for
the good of the whole; hence everything, by its natural appetite and
love, loves its own proper good on account of the common good of the
whole universe, which is God. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv)
that "God leads everything to love of Himself." Hence in the state of
perfect nature man referred the love of himself and of all other
things to the love of God as to its end; and thus he loved God more
than himself and above all things. But in the state of corrupt nature
man falls short of this in the appetite of his rational will, which,
unless it is cured by God's grace, follows its private good, on
account of the corruption of nature. And hence we must say that in
the state of perfect nature man did not need the gift of grace added
to his natural endowments, in order to love God above all things
naturally, although he needed God's help to move him to it; but in
the state of corrupt nature man needs, even for this, the help of
grace to heal his nature.

Reply Obj. 1: Charity loves God above all things in a higher way than
nature does. For nature loves God above all things inasmuch as He is
the beginning and the end of natural good; whereas charity loves Him,
as He is the object of beatitude, and inasmuch as man has a spiritual
fellowship with God. Moreover charity adds to natural love of God a
certain quickness and joy, in the same way that every habit of virtue
adds to the good act which is done merely by the natural reason of a
man who has not the habit of virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: When it is said that nature cannot rise above itself,
we must not understand this as if it could not be drawn to any object
above itself, for it is clear that our intellect by its natural
knowledge can know things above itself, as is shown in our natural
knowledge of God. But we are to understand that nature cannot rise to
an act exceeding the proportion of its strength. Now to love God
above all things is not such an act; for it is natural to every
creature, as was said above.

Reply Obj. 3: Love is said to be best, both with respect to degree of
love, and with regard to the motive of loving, and the mode of love.
And thus the highest degree of love is that whereby charity loves God
as the giver of beatitude, as was said above.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 4]

Whether Man Without Grace and by His Own Natural Powers Can Fulfil
the Commandments of the Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that man without grace, and by his own
natural powers, can fulfil the commandments of the Law. For the
Apostle says (Rom. 2:14) that "the Gentiles who have not the law, do
by nature those things that are of the Law." Now what a man does
naturally he can do of himself without grace. Hence a man can fulfil
the commandments of the Law without grace.

Obj. 2: Further, Jerome says (Expos. Cathol. Fide [*Symboli
Explanatio ad Damasum, among the supposititious works of St. Jerome:
now ascribed to Pelagius]) that "they are anathema who say God has
laid impossibilities upon man." Now what a man cannot fulfil by
himself is impossible to him. Therefore a man can fulfil all the
commandments of himself.

Obj. 3: Further, of all the commandments of the Law, the greatest is
this, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart" (Matt.
27:37). Now man with his natural endowments can fulfil this command
by loving God above all things, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore man
can fulfil all the commandments of the Law without grace.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Haeres. lxxxviii) that it is
part of the Pelagian heresy that "they believe that without grace man
can fulfil all the Divine commandments."

_I answer that,_ There are two ways of fulfilling the commandments of
the Law. The first regards the substance of the works, as when a man
does works of justice, fortitude, and of other virtues. And in this
way man in the state of perfect nature could fulfil all the
commandments of the Law; otherwise he would have been unable to sin
in that state, since to sin is nothing else than to transgress the
Divine commandments. But in the state of corrupted nature man cannot
fulfil all the Divine commandments without healing grace. Secondly,
the commandments of the law can be fulfilled, not merely as regards
the substance of the act, but also as regards the mode of acting,
i.e. their being done out of charity. And in this way, neither in the
state of perfect nature, nor in the state of corrupt nature can man
fulfil the commandments of the law without grace. Hence, Augustine
(De Corrept. et Grat. ii) having stated that "without grace men can
do no good whatever," adds: "Not only do they know by its light what
to do, but by its help they do lovingly what they know." Beyond this,
in both states they need the help of God's motion in order to fulfil
the commandments, as stated above (AA. 2, 3).

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxvii), "do not be
disturbed at his saying that they do by nature those things that are
of the Law; for the Spirit of grace works this, in order to restore
in us the image of God, after which we were naturally made."

Reply Obj. 2: What we can do with the Divine assistance is not
altogether impossible to us; according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
iii, 3): "What we can do through our friends, we can do, in some
sense, by ourselves." Hence Jerome [*Symboli Explanatio ad Damasum,
among the supposititious works of St. Jerome: now ascribed to
Pelagius] concedes that "our will is in such a way free that we must
confess we still require God's help."

Reply Obj. 3: Man cannot, with his purely natural endowments, fulfil
the precept of the love of God, as stated above (A. 3).
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 5]

Whether Man Can Merit Everlasting Life Without Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can merit everlasting life
without grace. For Our Lord says (Matt. 19:17): "If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments"; from which it would seem that to
enter into everlasting life rests with man's will. But what rests
with our will, we can do of ourselves. Hence it seems that man can
merit everlasting life of himself.

Obj. 2: Further, eternal life is the wage of reward bestowed by God
on men, according to Matt. 5:12: "Your reward is very great in
heaven." But wage or reward is meted by God to everyone according to
his works, according to Ps. 61:12: "Thou wilt render to every man
according to his works." Hence, since man is master of his works, it
seems that it is within his power to reach everlasting life.

Obj. 3: Further, everlasting life is the last end of human life. Now
every natural thing by its natural endowments can attain its end.
Much more, therefore, may man attain to life everlasting by his
natural endowments, without grace.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 6:23): "The grace of God is
life everlasting." And as a gloss says, this is said "that we may
understand that God, of His own mercy, leads us to everlasting life."

_I answer that,_ Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the
end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and
hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation
bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such
as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end
exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we
have said above (Q. 5, A. 5). Hence man, by his natural endowments,
cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life;
and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And
thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can
perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to
toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends," and the
like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians
[*Hypognosticon iii, among the spurious works of St. Augustine].

Reply Obj. 1: Man, by his will, does works meritorious of everlasting
life; but as Augustine says, in the same book, for this it is
necessary that the will of man should be prepared with grace by God.

Reply Obj. 2: As the gloss upon Rom. 6:23, "The grace of God is life
everlasting," says, "It is certain that everlasting life is meted to
good works; but the works to which it is meted, belong to God's
grace." And it has been said (A. 4), that to fulfil the commandments
of the Law, in their due way, whereby their fulfilment may be
meritorious, requires grace.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection has to do with the natural end of man.
Now human nature, since it is nobler, can be raised by the help of
grace to a higher end, which lower natures can nowise reach; even as
a man who can recover his health by the help of medicines is better
disposed to health than one who can nowise recover it, as the
Philosopher observes (De Coelo ii, 12).
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 109, Art. 6]

Whether a Man, by Himself and Without the External Aid of Grace, Can
Prepare Himself for Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that man, by himself and without the
external help of grace, can prepare himself for grace. For nothing
impossible is laid upon man, as stated above (A. 4, ad 1). But it is
written (Zech. 1:3): "Turn ye to Me . . . and I will turn to you."
Now to prepare for grace is nothing more than to turn to God.
Therefore it seems that man of himself, and without the external help
of grace, can prepare himself for grace.

Obj. 2: Further, man prepares himself for grace by doing what is in
him to do, since if man does what is in him to do, God will not deny
him grace, for it is written (Matt. 7:11) that God gives His good
Spirit "to them that ask Him." But what is in our power is in us to
do. Therefore it seems to be in our power to prepare ourselves for
grace.

Obj. 3: Further, if a man needs grace in order to prepare for grace,
with equal reason will he need grace to prepare himself for the first
grace; and thus to infinity, which is impossible. Hence it seems that
we must not go beyond what was said first, viz. that man, of himself
and without grace, can prepare himself for grace.

Obj. 4: Further, it is written (Prov. 16:1) that "it is the part of
man to prepare the soul." Now an action is said to be part of a man,
when he can do it by himself. Hence it seems that man by himself can
prepare himself for grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 6:44): "No man can come to Me
except the Father, Who hath sent Me, draw him." But if man could
prepare himself, he would not need to be drawn by another. Hence man
cannot prepare himself without the help of grace.

_I answer that,_ The preparation of the human will for good is
twofold: the first, whereby it is prepared to operate rightly and to
enjoy God; and this preparation of the will cannot take place without
the habitual gift of grace, which is the principle of meritorious
works, as stated above (A. 5). There is a second way in which the
human will may be taken to be prepared for the gift of habitual grace
itself. Now in order that man prepare himself to receive this gift,
it is not necessary to presuppose any further habitual gift in the
soul, otherwise we should go on to infinity. But we must presuppose a
gratuitous gift of God, Who moves the soul inwardly or inspires the
good wish. For in these two ways do we need the Divine assistance, as
stated above (AA. 2, 3). Now that we need the help of God to move us,
is manifest. For since every agent acts for an end, every cause must
direct is effect to its end, and hence since the order of ends is
according to the order of agents or movers, man must be directed to
the last end by the motion of the first mover, and to the proximate
end by the motion of any of the subordinate movers; as the spirit of
the soldier is bent towards seeking the victory by the motion of the
leader of the army--and towards following the standard of a regiment
by the motion of the standard-bearer. And thus since God is the First
Mover, simply, it is by His motion that everything seeks to be
likened to God in its own way. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv)
that "God turns all to Himself." But He directs righteous men to
Himself as to a special end, which they seek, and to which they wish
to cling, according to Ps. 72:28, "it is good for Me to adhere to my
God." And that they are "turned" to God can only spring from God's
having "turned" them. Now to prepare oneself for grace is, as it were,
to be turned to God; just as, whoever has his eyes turned away from
the light of the sun, prepares himself to receive the sun's light, by
turning his eyes towards the sun. Hence it is clear that man cannot
prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the
gratuitous help of God moving him inwardly.

Reply Obj. 1: Man's turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is
bidden to turn himself to God. But free-will can only be turned to
God, when God turns it, according to Jer. 31:18: "Convert me and I
shall be converted, for Thou art the Lord, my God"; and Lam. 5:21:
"Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted."

Reply Obj. 2: Man can do nothing unless moved by God, according to
John 15:5: "Without Me, you can do nothing." Hence when a man is said
to do what is in him to do, this is said to be in his power according
as he is moved by God.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection regards habitual grace, for which some
preparation is required, since every form requires a disposition in
that which is to be its subject. But in order that man should be
moved by God, no further motion is presupposed since God is the First
Mover. Hence we need not go to infinity.

Reply Obj. 4: It is the part of man to prepare his soul, since he
does this by his free-will. And yet he does not do this without the
help of God moving him, and drawing him to Himself, as was said above.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 7]

Whether Man Can Rise from Sin Without the Help of Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can rise from sin without the
help of grace. For what is presupposed to grace, takes place without
grace. But to rise from sin is presupposed to the enlightenment of
grace; since it is written (Eph. 5:14): "Arise from the dead and
Christ shall enlighten thee." Therefore man can rise from sin without
grace.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is opposed to virtue as illness to health, as
stated above (Q. 71, A. 1, ad 3). Now, man, by force of his nature,
can rise from illness to health, without the external help of
medicine, since there still remains in him the principle of life,
from which the natural operation proceeds. Hence it seems that, with
equal reason, man may be restored by himself, and return from the
state of sin to the state of justice without the help of external
grace.

Obj. 3: Further, every natural thing can return by itself to the act
befitting its nature, as hot water returns by itself to its natural
coldness, and a stone cast upwards returns by itself to its natural
movement. Now a sin is an act against nature, as is clear from
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 30). Hence it seems that man by himself
can return from sin to the state of justice.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 2:21; Cf. Gal. 3:21): "For
if there had been a law given which could give life--then Christ died
in vain," i.e. to no purpose. Hence with equal reason, if man has a
nature, whereby he can he justified, "Christ died in vain," i.e. to
no purpose. But this cannot fittingly be said. Therefore by himself
he cannot be justified, i.e. he cannot return from a state of sin to
a state of justice.

_I answer that,_ Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the
help of grace. For since sin is transient as to the act and abiding
in its guilt, as stated above (Q. 87, A. 6), to rise from sin is not
the same as to cease the act of sin; but to rise from sin means that
man has restored to him what he lost by sinning. Now man incurs a
triple loss by sinning, as was clearly shown above (Q. 85, A. 1; Q.
86, A. 1; Q. 87, A. 1), viz. stain, corruption of natural good, and
debt of punishment. He incurs a stain, inasmuch as he forfeits the
lustre of grace through the deformity of sin. Natural good is
corrupted, inasmuch as man's nature is disordered by man's will not
being subject to God's; and this order being overthrown, the
consequence is that the whole nature of sinful man remains
disordered. Lastly, there is the debt of punishment, inasmuch as by
sinning man deserves everlasting damnation.

Now it is manifest that none of these three can be restored except by
God. For since the lustre of grace springs from the shedding of
Divine light, this lustre cannot be brought back, except God sheds
His light anew: hence a habitual gift is necessary, and this is the
light of grace. Likewise, the order of nature can only be restored,
i.e. man's will can only be subject to God when God draws man's will
to Himself, as stated above (A. 6). So, too, the guilt of eternal
punishment can be remitted by God alone, against Whom the offense was
committed and Who is man's Judge. And thus in order that man rise
from sin there is required the help of grace, both as regards a
habitual gift, and as regards the internal motion of God.

Reply Obj. 1: To man is bidden that which pertains to the act of
free-will, as this act is required in order that man should rise from
sin. Hence when it is said, "Arise, and Christ shall enlighten thee,"
we are not to think that the complete rising from sin precedes the
enlightenment of grace; but that when man by his free-will, moved by
God, strives to rise from sin, he receives the light of justifying
grace.

Reply Obj. 2: The natural reason is not the sufficient principle of
the health that is in man by justifying grace. This principle is
grace which is taken away by sin. Hence man cannot be restored by
himself; but he requires the light of grace to be poured upon him
anew, as if the soul were infused into a dead body for its
resurrection.

Reply Obj. 3: When nature is perfect, it can be restored by itself to
its befitting and proportionate condition; but without exterior help
it cannot be restored to what surpasses its measure. And thus human
nature undone by reason of the act of sin, remains no longer perfect,
but corrupted, as stated above (Q. 85); nor can it be restored, by
itself, to its connatural good, much less to the supernatural good of
justice.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 8]

Whether Man Without Grace Can Avoid Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that without grace man can avoid sin.
Because "no one sins in what he cannot avoid," as Augustine says (De
Duab. Anim. x, xi; De Libero Arbit. iii, 18). Hence if a man in
mortal sin cannot avoid sin, it would seem that in sinning he does
not sin, which is impossible.

Obj. 2: Further, men are corrected that they may not sin. If
therefore a man in mortal sin cannot avoid sin, correction would seem
to be given to no purpose; which is absurd.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 15:18): "Before man is life
and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given
him." But by sinning no one ceases to be a man. Hence it is still in
his power to choose good or evil; and thus man can avoid sin without
grace.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Perfect Just. xxi): "Whoever
denies that we ought to say the prayer 'Lead us not into temptation'
(and they deny it who maintain that the help of God's grace is not
necessary to man for salvation, but that the gift of the law is
enough for the human will) ought without doubt to be removed beyond
all hearing, and to be anathematized by the tongues of all."

_I answer that,_ We may speak of man in two ways: first, in the state
of perfect nature; secondly, in the state of corrupted nature. Now in
the state of perfect nature, man, without habitual grace, could avoid
sinning either mortally or venially; since to sin is nothing else
than to stray from what is according to our nature--and in the state
of perfect nature man could avoid this. Nevertheless he could not
have done it without God's help to uphold him in good, since if this
had been withdrawn, even his nature would have fallen back into
nothingness.

But in the state of corrupt nature man needs grace to heal his nature
in order that he may entirely abstain from sin. And in the present
life this healing is wrought in the mind--the carnal appetite being
not yet restored. Hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:25) says in the person of
one who is restored: "I myself, with the mind, serve the law of God,
but with the flesh, the law of sin." And in this state man can
abstain from all mortal sin, which takes its stand in his reason, as
stated above (Q. 74, A. 5); but man cannot abstain from all venial
sin on account of the corruption of his lower appetite of sensuality.
For man can, indeed, repress each of its movements (and hence they
are sinful and voluntary), but not all, because whilst he is
resisting one, another may arise, and also because the reason is not
always alert to avoid these movements, as was said above (Q. 74, A.
3, ad 2).

So, too, before man's reason, wherein is mortal sin, is restored by
justifying grace, he can avoid each mortal sin, and for a time, since
it is not necessary that he should be always actually sinning. But it
cannot be that he remains for a long time without mortal sin. Hence
Gregory says (Super Ezech. Hom. xi) that "a sin not at once taken
away by repentance, by its weight drags us down to other sins": and
this because, as the lower appetite ought to be subject to the
reason, so should the reason be subject to God, and should place in
Him the end of its will. Now it is by the end that all human acts
ought to be regulated, even as it is by the judgment of the reason
that the movements of the lower appetite should be regulated. And
thus, even as inordinate movements of the sensitive appetite cannot
help occurring since the lower appetite is not subject to reason, so
likewise, since man's reason is not entirely subject to God, the
consequence is that many disorders occur in the reason. For when
man's heart is not so fixed on God as to be unwilling to be parted
from Him for the sake of finding any good or avoiding any evil, many
things happen for the achieving or avoiding of which a man strays
from God and breaks His commandments, and thus sins mortally:
especially since, when surprised, a man acts according to his
preconceived end and his pre-existing habits, as the Philosopher says
(Ethic. iii); although with premeditation of his reason a man may do
something outside the order of his preconceived end and the
inclination of his habit. But because a man cannot always have this
premeditation, it cannot help occurring that he acts in accordance
with his will turned aside from God, unless, by grace, he is quickly
brought back to the due order.

Reply Obj. 1: Man can avoid each but not every act of sin, except by
grace, as stated above. Nevertheless, since it is by his own
shortcoming that he does not prepare himself to have grace, the fact
that he cannot avoid sin without grace does not excuse him from sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Correction is useful "in order that out of the sorrow
of correction may spring the wish to be regenerate; if indeed he who
is corrected is a son of promise, in such sort that whilst the noise
of correction is outwardly resounding and punishing, God by hidden
inspirations is inwardly causing to will," as Augustine says (De
Corr. et Gratia vi). Correction is therefore necessary, from the fact
that man's will is required in order to abstain from sin; yet it is
not sufficient without God's help. Hence it is written (Eccles.
7:14): "Consider the works of God that no man can correct whom He
hath despised."

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Hypognosticon iii [*Among the
spurious works of St. Augustine]), this saying is to be understood of
man in the state of perfect nature, when as yet he was not a slave of
sin. Hence he was able to sin and not to sin. Now, too, whatever a
man wills, is given to him; but his willing good, he has by God's
assistance.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 9]

Whether One Who Has Already Obtained Grace, Can, of Himself and
Without Further Help of Grace, Do Good and Avoid Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that whoever has already obtained grace,
can by himself and without further help of grace, do good and avoid
sin. For a thing is useless or imperfect, if it does not fulfil what
it was given for. Now grace is given to us that we may do good and
keep from sin. Hence if with grace man cannot do this, it seems that
grace is either useless or imperfect.

Obj. 2: Further, by grace the Holy Spirit dwells in us, according to
1 Cor. 3:16: "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Now since the Spirit of God is
omnipotent, He is sufficient to ensure our doing good and to keep us
from sin. Hence a man who has obtained grace can do the above two
things without any further assistance of grace.

Obj. 3: Further, if a man who has obtained grace needs further aid of
grace in order to live righteously and to keep free from sin, with
equal reason, will he need yet another grace, even though he has
obtained this first help of grace. Therefore we must go on to
infinity; which is impossible. Hence whoever is in grace needs no
further help of grace in order to do righteously and to keep free
from sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxvi) that "as
the eye of the body though most healthy cannot see unless it is
helped by the brightness of light, so, neither can a man, even if he
is most righteous, live righteously unless he be helped by the
eternal light of justice." But justification is by grace, according
to Rom. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace." Hence even a man
who already possesses grace needs a further assistance of grace in
order to live righteously.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), in order to live righteously
a man needs a twofold help of God--first, a habitual gift whereby
corrupted human nature is healed, and after being healed is lifted up
so as to work deeds meritorious of everlasting life, which exceed the
capability of nature. Secondly, man needs the help of grace in order
to be moved by God to act.

Now with regard to the first kind of help, man does not need a
further help of grace, e.g. a further infused habit. Yet he needs the
help of grace in another way, i.e. in order to be moved by God to act
righteously, and this for two reasons: first, for the general reason
that no created thing can put forth any act, unless by virtue of the
Divine motion. Secondly, for this special reason--the condition of
the state of human nature. For although healed by grace as to the
mind, yet it remains corrupted and poisoned in the flesh, whereby it
serves "the law of sin," Rom. 7:25. In the intellect, too, there
remains the darkness of ignorance, whereby, as is written (Rom.
8:26): "We know not what we should pray for as we ought"; since on
account of the various turns of circumstances, and because we do not
know ourselves perfectly, we cannot fully know what is for our good,
according to Wis. 9:14: "For the thoughts of mortal men are fearful
and our counsels uncertain." Hence we must be guided and guarded by
God, Who knows and can do all things. For which reason also it is
becoming in those who have been born again as sons of God, to say:
"Lead us not into temptation," and "Thy Will be done on earth as it
is in heaven," and whatever else is contained in the Lord's Prayer
pertaining to this.

Reply Obj. 1: The gift of habitual grace is not therefore given to us
that we may no longer need the Divine help; for every creature needs
to be preserved in the good received from Him. Hence if after having
received grace man still needs the Divine help, it cannot be
concluded that grace is given to no purpose, or that it is imperfect,
since man will need the Divine help even in the state of glory, when
grace shall be fully perfected. But here grace is to some extent
imperfect, inasmuch as it does not completely heal man, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 2: The operation of the Holy Ghost, which moves and
protects, is not circumscribed by the effect of habitual grace which
it causes in us; but beyond this effect He, together with the Father
and the Son, moves and protects us.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument merely proves that man needs no further
habitual grace.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 109, Art. 10]

Whether Man Possessed of Grace Needs the Help of Grace in Order to
Persevere?

Objection 1: It would seem that man possessed of grace needs no help
to persevere. For perseverance is something less than virtue, even as
continence is, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 7, 9).
Now since man is justified by grace, he needs no further help of
grace in order to have the virtues. Much less, therefore, does he
need the help of grace to have perseverance.

Obj. 2: Further, all the virtues are infused at once. But
perseverance is put down as a virtue. Hence it seems that, together
with grace, perseverance is given to the other infused virtues.

Obj. 3: Further, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:20) more was restored to
man by Christ's gift, than he had lost by Adam's sin. But Adam
received what enabled him to persevere; and thus man does not need
grace in order to persevere.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Persev. ii): "Why is
perseverance besought of God, if it is not bestowed by God? For is it
not a mocking request to seek what we know He does not give, and what
is in our power without His giving it?" Now perseverance is besought
by even those who are hallowed by grace; and this is seen, when we
say "Hallowed be Thy name," which Augustine confirms by the words of
Cyprian (De Correp. et Grat. xii). Hence man, even when possessed of
grace, needs perseverance to be given to him by God.

_I answer that,_ Perseverance is taken in three ways. First, to
signify a habit of the mind whereby a man stands steadfastly, lest he
be moved by the assault of sadness from what is virtuous. And thus
perseverance is to sadness as continence is to concupiscence and
pleasure, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7). Secondly,
perseverance may be called a habit, whereby a man has the purpose of
persevering in good unto the end. And in both these ways perseverance
is infused together with grace, even as continence and the other
virtues are. Thirdly, perseverance is called the abiding in good to
the end of life. And in order to have this perseverance man does not,
indeed, need another habitual grace, but he needs the Divine
assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the
passions, as appears from the preceding article. And hence after
anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for
the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil
till the end of his life. For to many grace is given to whom
perseverance in grace is not given.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection regards the first mode of perseverance,
as the second objection regards the second.

Hence the solution of the second objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xliii) [*Cf. De
Correp. et Grat. xii]: "in the original state man received a gift
whereby he could persevere, but to persevere was not given him. But
now, by the grace of Christ, many receive both the gift of grace
whereby they may persevere, and the further gift of persevering," and
thus Christ's gift is greater than Adam's fault. Nevertheless it was
easier for man to persevere, with the gift of grace in the state of
innocence in which the flesh was not rebellious against the spirit,
than it is now. For the restoration by Christ's grace, although it is
already begun in the mind, is not yet completed in the flesh, as it
will be in heaven, where man will not merely be able to persevere but
will be unable to sin.
________________________

QUESTION 110

OF THE GRACE OF GOD AS REGARDS ITS ESSENCE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the grace of God as regards its essence; and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether grace implies something in the soul?

(2) Whether grace is a quality?

(3) Whether grace differs from infused virtue?

(4) Of the subject of grace.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 110, Art. 1]

Whether Grace Implies Anything in the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace does not imply anything in the
soul. For man is said to have the grace of God even as the grace of
man. Hence it is written (Gen. 39:21) that the Lord gave to Joseph
"grace [Douay: 'favor'] in the sight of the chief keeper of the
prison." Now when we say that a man has the favor of another, nothing
is implied in him who has the favor of the other, but an acceptance
is implied in him whose favor he has. Hence when we say that a man
has the grace of God, nothing is implied in his soul; but we merely
signify the Divine acceptance.

Obj. 2: Further, as the soul quickens the body so does God quicken
the soul; hence it is written (Deut. 30:20): "He is thy life." Now
the soul quickens the body immediately. Therefore nothing can come as
a medium between God and the soul. Hence grace implies nothing
created in the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, on Rom. 1:7, "Grace to you and peace," the gloss
says: "Grace, i.e. the remission of sins." Now the remission of sin
implies nothing in the soul, but only in God, Who does not impute the
sin, according to Ps. 31:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath
not imputed sin." Hence neither does grace imply anything in the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Light implies something in what is enlightened.
But grace is a light of the soul; hence Augustine says (De Natura et
Gratia xxii): "The light of truth rightly deserts the prevaricator of
the law, and those who have been thus deserted become blind."
Therefore grace implies something in the soul.

_I answer that,_ According to the common manner of speech, grace is
usually taken in three ways. First, for anyone's love, as we are
accustomed to say that the soldier is in the good graces of the king,
i.e. the king looks on him with favor. Secondly, it is taken for any
gift freely bestowed, as we are accustomed to say: I do you this act
of grace. Thirdly, it is taken for the recompense of a gift given
"gratis," inasmuch as we are said to be "grateful" for benefits. Of
these three the second depends on the first, since one bestows
something on another "gratis" from the love wherewith he receives him
into his good "graces." And from the second proceeds the third, since
from benefits bestowed "gratis" arises "gratitude."

Now as regards the last two, it is clear that grace implies something
in him who receives grace: first, the gift given gratis; secondly,
the acknowledgment of the gift. But as regards the first, a
difference must be noted between the grace of God and the grace of
man; for since the creature's good springs from the Divine will, some
good in the creature flows from God's love, whereby He wishes the
good of the creature. On the other hand, the will of man is moved by
the good pre-existing in things; and hence man's love does not wholly
cause the good of the thing, but pre-supposes it either in part or
wholly. Therefore it is clear that every love of God is followed at
some time by a good caused in the creature, but not co-eternal with
the eternal love. And according to this difference of good the love
of God to the creature is looked at differently. For one is common,
whereby He loves "all things that are" (Wis. 11:25), and thereby
gives things their natural being. But the second is a special love,
whereby He draws the rational creature above the condition of its
nature to a participation of the Divine good; and according to this
love He is said to love anyone simply, since it is by this love that
God simply wishes the eternal good, which is Himself, for the
creature.

Accordingly when a man is said to have the grace of God, there is
signified something bestowed on man by God. Nevertheless the grace of
God sometimes signifies God's eternal love, as we say the grace of
predestination, inasmuch as God gratuitously and not from merits
predestines or elects some; for it is written (Eph. 1:5): "He hath
predestinated us into the adoption of children . . . unto the praise
of the glory of His grace."

Reply Obj. 1: Even when a man is said to be in another's good graces,
it is understood that there is something in him pleasing to the
other; even as anyone is said to have God's grace--with this
difference, that what is pleasing to a man in another is presupposed
to his love, but whatever is pleasing to God in a man is caused by
the Divine love, as was said above.

Reply Obj. 2: God is the life of the soul after the manner of an
efficient cause; but the soul is the life of the body after the
manner of a formal cause. Now there is no medium between form and
matter, since the form, of itself, _informs_ the matter or subject;
whereas the agent _informs_ the subject, not by its substance, but by
the form, which it causes in the matter.

Reply Obj. 3: Augustine says (Retract. i, 25): "When I said that
grace was for the remission of sins, and peace for our reconciliation
with God, you must not take it to mean that peace and reconciliation
do not pertain to general peace, but that the special name of grace
signifies the remission of sins." Not only grace, therefore, but many
other of God's gifts pertain to grace. And hence the remission of
sins does not take place without some effect divinely caused in us,
as will appear later (Q. 113, A. 2).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 110, Art. 2]

Whether Grace Is a Quality of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not a quality of the soul.
For no quality acts on its subject, since the action of a quality is
not without the action of its subject, and thus the subject would
necessarily act upon itself. But grace acts upon the soul, by
justifying it. Therefore grace is not a quality.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, substance is nobler than quality. But grace is
nobler than the nature of the soul, since we can do many things by
grace, to which nature is not equal, as stated above (Q. 109, AA. 1,
2, 3). Therefore grace is not a quality.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, no quality remains after it has ceased to be in
its subject. But grace remains; since it is not corrupted, for thus
it would be reduced to nothing, since it was created from nothing;
hence it is called a "new creature"(Gal. 6:15).

_On the contrary,_ on Ps. 103:15: "That he may make the face cheerful
with oil"; the gloss says: "Grace is a certain beauty of soul, which
wins the Divine love." But beauty of soul is a quality, even as
beauty of body. Therefore grace is a quality.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), there is understood to be an
effect of God's gratuitous will in whoever is said to have God's
grace. Now it was stated (Q. 109, A. 1) that man is aided by God's
gratuitous will in two ways: first, inasmuch as man's soul is moved
by God to know or will or do something, and in this way the
gratuitous effect in man is not a quality, but a movement of the
soul; for "motion is the act of the mover in the moved." Secondly,
man is helped by God's gratuitous will, inasmuch as a habitual gift
is infused by God into the soul; and for this reason, that it is not
fitting that God should provide less for those He loves, that they
may acquire supernatural good, than for creatures, whom He loves that
they may acquire natural good. Now He so provides for natural
creatures, that not merely does He move them to their natural acts,
but He bestows upon them certain forms and powers, which are the
principles of acts, in order that they may of themselves be inclined
to these movements, and thus the movements whereby they are moved by
God become natural and easy to creatures, according to Wis. 8:1: "she
. . . ordereth all things sweetly." Much more therefore does He
infuse into such as He moves towards the acquisition of supernatural
good, certain forms or supernatural qualities, whereby they may be
moved by Him sweetly and promptly to acquire eternal good; and thus
the gift of grace is a quality.

Reply Obj. 1: Grace, as a quality, is said to act upon the soul, not
after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a
formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just.

Reply Obj. 2: Every substance is either the nature of the thing
whereof it is the substance or is a part of the nature, even as
matter and form are called substance. And because grace is above
human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is
an accidental form of the soul. Now what is substantially in God,
becomes accidental in the soul participating the Divine goodness, as
is clear in the case of knowledge. And thus because the soul
participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of
the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a
less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless,
inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine
goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its
mode of being.

Reply Obj. 3: As Boethius [*Pseudo-Bede, Sent. Phil. ex Artist.]
says, the "being of an accident is to inhere." Hence no accident is
called being as if it had being, but because by it something is;
hence it is said to belong to a being rather to be a being (Metaph.
vii, text. 2). And because to become and to be corrupted belong to
what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is
corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted
inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be in act with this
accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are
created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of
nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Eph. 2:10, "created in
Jesus Christ in good works."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 110, Art. 3]

Whether Grace Is the Same As Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is the same as virtue. For
Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xiv) that "operating grace is faith
that worketh by charity." But faith that worketh by charity is a
virtue. Therefore grace is a virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, what fits the definition, fits the defined. But the
definitions of virtue given by saints and philosophers fit grace,
since "it makes its subject good, and his work good," and "it is a
good quality of the mind, whereby we live righteously," etc.
Therefore grace is virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, grace is a quality. Now it is clearly not in the
_fourth_ species of quality; viz. _form_ which is the "abiding figure
of things," since it does not belong to bodies. Nor is it in the
_third,_ since it is not a "passion nor a passion-like quality,"
which is in the sensitive part of the soul, as is proved in _Physic._
viii; and grace is principally in the mind. Nor is it in the _second_
species, which is "natural power" or "impotence"; since grace is
above nature and does not regard good and evil, as does natural
power. Therefore it must be in the _first_ species which is "habit"
or "disposition." Now habits of the mind are virtues; since even
knowledge itself is a virtue after a manner, as stated above (Q. 57,
AA. 1, 2). Therefore grace is the same as virtue.

_On the contrary,_ If grace is a virtue, it would seem before all to
be one of the three theological virtues. But grace is neither faith
nor hope, for these can be without sanctifying grace. Nor is it
charity, since "grace foreruns charity," as Augustine says in his
book on the _Predestination of the Saints_ (De Dono Persev. xvi).
Therefore grace is not virtue.

_I answer that,_ Some held that grace and virtue were identical in
essence, and differed only logically--in the sense that we speak of
grace inasmuch as it makes man pleasing to God, or is given
gratuitously--and of virtue inasmuch as it empowers us to act
rightly. And the Master seems to have thought this (Sent. ii, D 27).

But if anyone rightly considers the nature of virtue, this cannot
hold, since, as the Philosopher says (Physic. vii, text. 17), "virtue
is disposition of what is perfect--and I call perfect what is
disposed according to its nature." Now from this it is clear that the
virtue of a thing has reference to some pre-existing nature, from the
fact that everything is disposed with reference to what befits its
nature. But it is manifest that the virtues acquired by human acts of
which we spoke above (Q. 55, seqq.) are dispositions, whereby a man
is fittingly disposed with reference to the nature whereby he is a
man; whereas infused virtues dispose man in a higher manner and
towards a higher end, and consequently in relation to some higher
nature, i.e. in relation to a participation of the Divine Nature,
according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "He hath given us most great and most
precious promises; that by these you may be made partakers of the
Divine Nature." And it is in respect of receiving this nature that we
are said to be born again sons of God.

And thus, even as the natural light of reason is something besides
the acquired virtues, which are ordained to this natural light, so
also the light of grace which is a participation of the Divine Nature
is something besides the infused virtues which are derived from and
are ordained to this light, hence the Apostle says (Eph. 5:8): "For
you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as
children of the light." For as the acquired virtues enable a man to
walk, in accordance with the natural light of reason, so do the
infused virtues enable a man to walk as befits the light of grace.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine calls "faith that worketh by charity" grace,
since the act of faith of him that worketh by charity is the first
act by which sanctifying grace is manifested.

Reply Obj. 2: Good is placed in the definition of virtue with
reference to its fitness with some pre-existing nature essential or
participated. Now good is not attributed to grace in this manner, but
as to the root of goodness in man, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Grace is reduced to the first species of quality; and
yet it is not the same as virtue, but is a certain disposition which
is presupposed to the infused virtues, as their principle and root.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 110, Art. 4]

Whether Grace Is in the Essence of the Soul As in a Subject, or in
One of the Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not in the essence of the
soul, as in a subject, but in one of the powers. For Augustine says
(Hypognosticon iii [*Among the spurious works of St. Augustine]) that
grace is related to the will or to the free will "as a rider to his
horse." Now the will or the free will is a power, as stated above (I,
Q. 83, A. 2). Hence grace is in a power of the soul, as in a subject.

Obj. 2: Further, "Man's merit springs from grace" as Augustine says
(De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. vi). Now merit consists in acts, which
proceed from a power. Hence it seems that grace is a perfection of a
power of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, if the essence of the soul is the proper subject of
grace, the soul, inasmuch as it has an essence, must be capable of
grace. But this is false; since it would follow that every soul would
be capable of grace. Therefore the essence of the soul is not the
proper subject of grace.

Obj. 4: Further, the essence of the soul is prior to its powers. Now
what is prior may be understood without what is posterior. Hence it
follows that grace may be taken to be in the soul, although we
suppose no part or power of the soul--viz. neither the will, nor the
intellect, nor anything else; which is impossible.

_On the contrary,_ By grace we are born again sons of God. But
generation terminates at the essence prior to the powers. Therefore
grace is in the soul's essence prior to being in the powers.

_I answer that,_ This question depends on the preceding. For if grace
is the same as virtue, it must necessarily be in the powers of the
soul as in a subject; since the soul's powers are the proper subject
of virtue, as stated above (Q. 56, A. 1). But if grace differs from
virtue, it cannot be said that a power of the soul is the subject of
grace, since every perfection of the soul's powers has the nature of
virtue, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 1; Q. 56, A. 1). Hence it remains
that grace, as it is prior to virtue, has a subject prior to the
powers of the soul, so that it is in the essence of the soul. For as
man in his intellective powers participates in the Divine knowledge
through the virtue of faith, and in his power of will participates in
the Divine love through the virtue of charity, so also in the nature
of the soul does he participate in the Divine Nature, after the
manner of a likeness, through a certain regeneration or re-creation.

Reply Obj. 1: As from the essence of the soul flows its powers, which
are the principles of deeds, so likewise the virtues, whereby the
powers are moved to act, flow into the powers of the soul from grace.
And thus grace is compared to the will as the mover to the moved,
which is the same comparison as that of a horseman to the horse--but
not as an accident to a subject.

And thereby is made clear the Reply to the Second Objection. For
grace is the principle of meritorious works through the medium of
virtues, as the essence of the soul is the principal of vital deeds
through the medium of the powers.

Reply Obj. 3: The soul is the subject of grace, as being in the
species of intellectual or rational nature. But the soul is not
classed in a species by any of its powers, since the powers are
natural properties of the soul following upon the species. Hence the
soul differs specifically in its essence from other souls, viz. of
dumb animals, and of plants. Consequently it does not follow that, if
the essence of the human soul is the subject of grace, every soul may
be the subject of grace; since it belongs to the essence of the soul,
inasmuch as it is of such a species.

Reply Obj. 4: Since the powers of the soul are natural properties
following upon the species, the soul cannot be without them. Yet,
granted that it was without them, the soul would still be called
intellectual or rational in its species, not that it would actually
have these powers, but on account of the essence of such a species,
from which these powers naturally flow.
________________________

QUESTION 111

OF THE DIVISION OF GRACE
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider the division of grace; under which head there
are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether grace is fittingly divided into gratuitous grace and
sanctifying grace?

(2) Of the division into operating and cooperating grace;

(3) Of the division of it into prevenient and subsequent grace;

(4) Of the division of gratuitous grace;

(5) Of the comparison between sanctifying and gratuitous grace.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 111, Art. 1]

Whether Grace Is Fittingly Divided into Sanctifying Grace and
Gratuitous Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into
sanctifying grace and gratuitous grace. For grace is a gift of God,
as is clear from what has been already stated (Q. 110, A. 1). But man
is not therefore pleasing to God because something is given him by
God, but rather on the contrary; since something is freely given by
God, because man is pleasing to Him. Hence there is no sanctifying
grace.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is not given on account of preceding merits
is given gratis. Now even natural good is given to man without
preceding merit, since nature is presupposed to merit. Therefore
nature itself is given gratuitously by God. But nature is condivided
with grace. Therefore to be gratuitously given is not fittingly set
down as a difference of grace, since it is found outside the genus of
grace.

Obj. 3: Further, members of a division are mutually opposed. But even
sanctifying grace, whereby we are justified, is given to us
gratuitously, according to Rom. 3:24: "Being justified freely
(_gratis_) by His grace." Hence sanctifying grace ought not to be
divided against gratuitous grace.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle attributes both to grace, viz. to
sanctify and to be gratuitously given. For with regard to the first
he says (Eph. 1:6): "He hath graced us in His beloved son." And with
regard to the second (Rom. 2:6): "And if by grace, it is not now by
works, otherwise grace is no more grace." Therefore grace can be
distinguished by its having one only or both.

_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1), "those things that
are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'those that are, are ordained by
God]." Now the order of things consists in this, that things are led
to God by other things, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). And hence
since grace is ordained to lead men to God, this takes place in a
certain order, so that some are led to God by others.

And thus there is a twofold grace: one whereby man himself is united
to God, and this is called "sanctifying grace"; the other is that
whereby one man cooperates with another in leading him to God, and
this gift is called "gratuitous grace," since it is bestowed on a man
beyond the capability of nature, and beyond the merit of the person.
But whereas it is bestowed on a man, not to justify him, but rather
that he may cooperate in the justification of another, it is not
called sanctifying grace. And it is of this that the Apostle says (1
Cor. 12:7): "And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every
man unto utility," i.e. of others.

Reply Obj. 1: Grace is said to make pleasing, not efficiently but
formally, i.e. because thereby a man is justified, and is made worthy
to be called pleasing to God, according to Col. 1:21: "He hath made
us worthy to be made partakers of the lot of the saints in light."

Reply Obj. 2: Grace, inasmuch as it is gratuitously given, excludes
the notion of debt. Now debt may be taken in two ways: first, as
arising from merit; and this regards the person whose it is to do
meritorious works, according to Rom. 4:4: "Now to him that worketh,
the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to
debt." The second debt regards the condition of nature. Thus we say
it is due to a man to have reason, and whatever else belongs to human
nature. Yet in neither way is debt taken to mean that God is under an
obligation to His creature, but rather that the creature ought to be
subject to God, that the Divine ordination may be fulfilled in it,
which is that a certain nature should have certain conditions or
properties, and that by doing certain works it should attain to
something further. And hence natural endowments are not a debt in the
first sense but in the second. But supernatural gifts are due in
neither sense. Hence they especially merit the name of grace.

Reply Obj. 3: Sanctifying grace adds to the notion of gratuitous
grace something pertaining to the nature of grace, since it makes man
pleasing to God. And hence gratuitous grace which does not do this
keeps the common name, as happens in many other cases; and thus the
two parts of the division are opposed as sanctifying and
non-sanctifying grace.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 111, Art. 2]

Whether Grace Is Fittingly Divided into Operating and Cooperating
Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into
operating and cooperating grace. For grace is an accident, as stated
above (Q. 110, A. 2). Now no accident can act upon its subject.
Therefore no grace can be called operating.

Obj. 2: Further, if grace operates anything in us it assuredly brings
about justification. But not only grace works this. For Augustine
says, on John 14:12, "the works that I do he also shall do," says
(Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee without thyself, will not justify
thee without thyself." Therefore no grace ought to be called simply
operating.

Obj. 3: Further, to cooperate seems to pertain to the inferior agent,
and not to the principal agent. But grace works in us more than
free-will, according to Rom. 9:16: "It is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Therefore no
grace ought to be called cooperating.

Obj. 4: Further, division ought to rest on opposition. But to operate
and to cooperate are not opposed; for one and the same thing can both
operate and cooperate. Therefore grace is not fittingly divided into
operating and cooperating.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. xvii):
"God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in
us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing,
begins by operating that they may will." But the operations of God
whereby He moves us to good pertain to grace. Therefore grace is
fittingly divided into operating and cooperating.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 110, A. 2) grace may be taken in
two ways; first, as a Divine help, whereby God moves us to will and
to act; secondly, as a habitual gift divinely bestowed on us.

Now in both these ways grace is fittingly divided into operating and
cooperating. For the operation of an effect is not attributed to the
thing moved but to the mover. Hence in that effect in which our mind
is moved and does not move, but in which God is the sole mover, the
operation is attributed to God, and it is with reference to this that
we speak of "operating grace." But in that effect in which our mind
both moves and is moved, the operation is not only attributed to God,
but also to the soul; and it is with reference to this that we speak
of "cooperating grace." Now there is a double act in us. First, there
is the interior act of the will, and with regard to this act the will
is a thing moved, and God is the mover; and especially when the will,
which hitherto willed evil, begins to will good. And hence, inasmuch
as God moves the human mind to this act, we speak of operating grace.
But there is another, exterior act; and since it is commanded by the
will, as was shown above (Q. 17, A. 9) the operation of this act is
attributed to the will. And because God assists us in this act, both
by strengthening our will interiorly so as to attain to the act, and
by granting outwardly the capability of operating, it is with respect
to this that we speak of cooperating grace. Hence after the aforesaid
words Augustine subjoins: "He operates that we may will; and when we
will, He cooperates that we may perfect." And thus if grace is taken
for God's gratuitous motion whereby He moves us to meritorious good,
it is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace.

But if grace is taken for the habitual gift, then again there is a
double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of
which is _being,_ and the second, _operation;_ thus the work of heat
is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus
habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes
it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is
the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will,
it is called cooperating grace.

Reply Obj. 1: Inasmuch as grace is a certain accidental quality, it
does not act upon the soul efficiently, but formally, as whiteness
makes a surface white.

Reply Obj. 2: God does not justify us without ourselves, because
whilst we are being justified we consent to God's justification
(_justitiae_) by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this
movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole
operation pertains to grace.

Reply Obj. 3: One thing is said to cooperate with another not merely
when it is a secondary agent under a principal agent, but when it
helps to the end intended. Now man is helped by God to will the good,
through the means of operating grace. And hence, the end being
already intended, grace cooperates with us.

Reply Obj. 4: Operating and cooperating grace are the same grace; but
are distinguished by their different effects, as is plain from what
has been said.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 111, Art. 3]

Whether Grace Is Fittingly Divided into Prevenient and Subsequent
Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into
prevenient and subsequent. For grace is an effect of the Divine love.
But God's love is never subsequent, but always prevenient, according
to 1 John 4:10: "Not as though we had loved God, but because He hath
first loved us." Therefore grace ought not to be divided into
prevenient and subsequent.

Obj. 2: Further, there is but one sanctifying grace in man, since it
is sufficient, according to 2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for
thee." But the same thing cannot be before and after. Therefore grace
is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent.

Obj. 3: Further, grace is known by its effects. Now there are an
infinite number of effects--one preceding another. Hence if with
regard to these, grace must be divided into prevenient and
subsequent, it would seem that there are infinite species of grace.
Now no art takes note of the infinite in number. Hence grace is not
fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent.

_On the contrary,_ God's grace is the outcome of His mercy. Now both
are said in Ps. 58:11: "His mercy shall prevent me," and again, Ps.
22:6: "Thy mercy will follow me." Therefore grace is fittingly
divided into prevenient and subsequent.

_I answer that,_ As grace is divided into operating and cooperating,
with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into
prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are
five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the
soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the
good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach
glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us,
is called prevenient with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it
causes the second, it is called subsequent with respect to the first
effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to
that, so may grace be called prevenient and subsequent on account of
the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what
Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): "It is prevenient,
inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we
are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and
subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified."

Reply Obj. 1: God's love signifies something eternal; and hence can
never be called anything but prevenient. But grace signifies a
temporal effect, which can precede and follow another; and thus grace
may be both prevenient and subsequent.

Reply Obj. 2: The division into prevenient and subsequent grace does
not divide grace in its essence, but only in its effects, as was
already said of operating and cooperating grace. For subsequent
grace, inasmuch as it pertains to glory, is not numerically distinct
from prevenient grace whereby we are at present justified. For even
as the charity of the earth is not voided in heaven, so must the same
be said of the light of grace, since the notion of neither implies
imperfection.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the effects of grace may be infinite in
number, even as human acts are infinite, nevertheless all are reduced
to some of a determinate species, and moreover all coincide in
this--that one precedes another.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 111, Art. 4]

Whether Gratuitous Grace Is Rightly Divided by the Apostle?

Objection 1: It would seem that gratuitous grace is not rightly
divided by the Apostle. For every gift vouchsafed to us by God, may
be called a gratuitous grace. Now there are an infinite number of
gifts freely bestowed on us by God as regards both the good of the
soul and the good of the body--and yet they do not make us pleasing
to God. Hence gratuitous graces cannot be contained under any certain
division.

Obj. 2: Further, gratuitous grace is distinguished from sanctifying
grace. But faith pertains to sanctifying grace, since we are
justified by it, according to Rom. 5:1: "Being justified therefore by
faith." Hence it is not right to place faith amongst the gratuitous
graces, especially since the other virtues are not so placed, as hope
and charity.

Obj. 3: Further, the operation of healing, and speaking divers
tongues are miracles. Again, the interpretation of speeches pertains
either to wisdom or to knowledge, according to Dan. 1:17: "And to
these children God gave knowledge and understanding in every book and
wisdom." Hence it is not correct to divide the grace of healing and
kinds of tongues against the working of miracles; and the
interpretation of speeches against the word of wisdom and knowledge.

Obj. 4: Further, as wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the Holy Ghost,
so also are understanding, counsel, piety, fortitude, and fear, as
stated above (Q. 68, A. 4). Therefore these also ought to be placed
amongst the gratuitous gifts.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:8, 9, 10): "To one
indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom; and to another the
word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another, the
working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning
of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another
interpretation of speeches."

_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), gratuitous grace is
ordained to this, viz. that a man may help another to be led to God.
Now no man can help in this by moving interiorly (for this belongs to
God alone), but only exteriorly by teaching or persuading. Hence
gratuitous grace embraces whatever a man needs in order to instruct
another in Divine things which are above reason. Now for this three
things are required: first, a man must possess the fullness of
knowledge of Divine things, so as to be capable of teaching others.
Secondly, he must be able to confirm or prove what he says, otherwise
his words would have no weight. Thirdly, he must be capable of
fittingly presenting to his hearers what he knows.

Now as regards the first, three things are necessary, as may be seen
in human teaching. For whoever would teach another in any science
must first be certain of the principles of the science, and with
regard to this there is _faith,_ which is certitude of invisible
things, the principles of Catholic doctrine. Secondly, it behooves
the teacher to know the principal conclusions of the science, and
hence we have the word of _wisdom,_ which is the knowledge of Divine
things. Thirdly, he ought to abound with examples and a knowledge of
effects, whereby at times he needs to manifest causes; and thus we
have the word of _knowledge,_ which is the knowledge of human things,
since "the invisible things of Him . . . are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20).

Now the confirmation of such things as are within reason rests upon
arguments; but the confirmation of what is above reason rests on what
is proper to the Divine power, and this in two ways: first, when the
teacher of sacred doctrine does what God alone can do, in miraculous
deeds, whether with respect to bodily health--and thus there is the
_grace of healing,_ or merely for the purpose of manifesting the
Divine power; for instance, that the sun should stand still or
darken, or that the sea should be divided--and thus there is the
_working of miracles._ Secondly, when he can manifest what God alone
can know, and these are either future contingents--and thus there is
_prophecy,_ or also the secrets of hearts--and thus there is the
_discerning of spirits._

But the capability of speaking can regard either the idiom in which a
person can be understood, and thus there is _kinds of tongues_; or it
can regard the sense of what is said, and thus there is the
_interpretation of speeches._

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 1), not all the benefits divinely
conferred upon us are called gratuitous graces, but only those that
surpass the power of nature--e.g. that a fisherman should be replete
with the word of wisdom and of knowledge and the like; and such as
these are here set down as gratuitous graces.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith is enumerated here under the gratuitous graces,
not as a virtue justifying man in himself, but as implying a
super-eminent certitude of faith, whereby a man is fitted for
instructing others concerning such things as belong to the faith.
With regard to hope and charity, they belong to the appetitive power,
according as man is ordained thereby to God.

Reply Obj. 3: The grace of healing is distinguished from the general
working of miracles because it has a special reason for inducing one
to the faith, since a man is all the more ready to believe when he
has received the gift of bodily health through the virtue of faith.
So, too, to speak with divers tongues and to interpret speeches have
special efficacy in bestowing faith. Hence they are set down as
special gratuitous graces.

Reply Obj. 4: Wisdom and knowledge are not numbered among the
gratuitous graces in the same way as they are reckoned among the
gifts of the Holy Ghost, i.e. inasmuch as man's mind is rendered
easily movable by the Holy Ghost to the things of wisdom and
knowledge; for thus they are gifts of the Holy Ghost, as stated above
(Q. 68, AA. 1, 4). But they are numbered amongst the gratuitous
graces, inasmuch as they imply such a fullness of knowledge and
wisdom that a man may not merely think aright of Divine things, but
may instruct others and overpower adversaries. Hence it is
significant that it is the "word" of wisdom and the "word" of
knowledge that are placed in the gratuitous graces, since, as
Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1), "It is one thing merely to know
what a man must believe in order to reach everlasting life, and
another thing to know how this may benefit the godly and may be
defended against the ungodly."
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 111, Art. 5]

Whether Gratuitous Grace Is Nobler Than Sanctifying Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that gratuitous grace is nobler than
sanctifying grace. For "the people's good is better than the
individual good," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 2). Now
sanctifying grace is ordained to the good of one man alone, whereas
gratuitous grace is ordained to the common good of the whole Church,
as stated above (AA. 1, 4). Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than
sanctifying grace.

Obj. 2: Further, it is a greater power that is able to act upon
another, than that which is confined to itself, even as greater is
the brightness of the body that can illuminate other bodies, than of
that which can only shine but cannot illuminate; and hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) "that justice is the most excellent of
the virtues," since by it a man bears himself rightly towards others.
But by sanctifying grace a man is perfected only in himself; whereas
by gratuitous grace a man works for the perfection of others. Hence
gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace.

Obj. 3: Further, what is proper to the best is nobler than what is
common to all; thus to reason, which is proper to man, is nobler than
to feel, which is common to all animals. Now sanctifying grace is
common to all members of the Church, but gratuitous grace is the
proper gift of the more exalted members of the Church. Hence
gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle (1 Cor. 12:31), having enumerated the
gratuitous graces, adds: "And I shew unto you yet a more excellent
way"; and as the sequel proves he is speaking of charity, which
pertains to sanctifying grace. Hence sanctifying grace is more noble
than gratuitous grace.

_I answer that,_ The higher the good to which a virtue is ordained,
the more excellent is the virtue. Now the end is always greater than
the means. But sanctifying grace ordains a man immediately to a union
with his last end, whereas gratuitous grace ordains a man to what is
preparatory to the end; i.e. by prophecy and miracles and so forth,
men are induced to unite themselves to their last end. And hence
sanctifying grace is nobler than gratuitous grace.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, text. 52), a
multitude, as an army, has a double good; the first is in the
multitude itself, viz. the order of the army; the second is separate
from the multitude, viz. the good of the leader--and this is better
good, since the other is ordained to it. Now gratuitous grace is
ordained to the common good of the Church, which is ecclesiastical
order, whereas sanctifying grace is ordained to the separate common
good, which is God. Hence sanctifying grace is the nobler.

Reply Obj. 2: If gratuitous grace could cause a man to have
sanctifying grace, it would follow that the gratuitous grace was the
nobler; even as the brightness of the sun that enlightens is more
excellent than that of an object that is lit up. But by gratuitous
grace a man cannot cause another to have union with God, which he
himself has by sanctifying grace; but he causes certain dispositions
towards it. Hence gratuitous grace needs not to be the more
excellent, even as in fire, the heat, which manifests its species
whereby it produces heat in other things, is not more noble than its
substantial form.

Reply Obj. 3: Feeling is ordained to reason, as to an end; and thus,
to reason is nobler. But here it is the contrary; for what is proper
is ordained to what is common as to an end. Hence there is no
comparison.
________________________

QUESTION 112

OF THE CAUSE OF GRACE
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider the cause of grace; and under this head there
are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether God alone is the efficient cause of grace?

(2) Whether any disposition towards grace is needed on the part of
the recipient, by an act of free-will?

(3) Whether such a disposition can make grace follow of necessity?

(4) Whether grace is equal in all?

(5) Whether anyone may know that he has grace?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 112, Art. 1]

Whether God Alone Is the Cause of Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that God alone is not the cause of grace.
For it is written (John 1:17): "Grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." Now, by the name of Jesus Christ is understood not merely
the Divine Nature assuming, but the created nature assumed. Therefore
a creature may be the cause of grace.

Obj. 2: Further, there is this difference between the sacraments of
the New Law and those of the Old, that the sacraments of the New Law
cause grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law merely signify it.
Now the sacraments of the New Law are certain visible elements.
Therefore God is not the only cause of grace.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iii, iv, vii,
viii), "Angels cleanse, enlighten, and perfect both lesser angels and
men." Now the rational creature is cleansed, enlightened, and
perfected by grace. Therefore God is not the only cause of grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give
grace and glory."

_I answer that,_ Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause
must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace
surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing
short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other
nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause
grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing
a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is
impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ's humanity is an "organ of His Godhead," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19). Now an instrument does not
bring forth the action of the principal agent by its own power, but
in virtue of the principal agent. Hence Christ's humanity does not
cause grace by its own power, but by virtue of the Divine Nature
joined to it, whereby the actions of Christ's humanity are saving
actions.

Reply Obj. 2: As in the person of Christ the humanity causes our
salvation by grace, the Divine power being the principal agent, so
likewise in the sacraments of the New Law, which are derived from
Christ, grace is instrumentally caused by the sacraments, and
principally by the power of the Holy Ghost working in the sacraments,
according to John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Reply Obj. 3: Angels cleanse, enlighten, and perfect angels or men,
by instruction, and not by justifying them through grace. Hence
Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that "this cleansing and
enlightenment and perfecting is nothing else than the assumption of
Divine knowledge."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 112, Art. 2]

Whether Any Preparation and Disposition for Grace Is Required on
Man's Part?

Objection 1: It would seem that no preparation or disposition for
grace is required on man's part, since, as the Apostle says (Rom.
4:4), "To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to
grace, but according to debt." Now a man's preparation by free-will
can only be through some operation. Hence it would do away with the
notion of grace.

Obj. 2: Further, whoever is going on sinning, is not preparing
himself to have grace. But to some who are going on sinning grace is
given, as is clear in the case of Paul, who received grace whilst he
was "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples
of the Lord" (Act 9:1). Hence no preparation for grace is required on
man's part.

Obj. 3: Further, an agent of infinite power needs no disposition in
matter, since it does not even require matter, as appears in
creation, to which grace is compared, which is called "a new
creature" (Gal. 6:15). But only God, Who has infinite power, causes
grace, as stated above (A. 1). Hence no preparation is required on
man's part to obtain grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Amos 4:12): "Be prepared to meet
thy God, O Israel," and (1 Kings 7:3): "Prepare your hearts unto the
Lord."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 111, A. 2), grace is taken in
two ways: first, as a habitual gift of God. Secondly, as a help from
God, Who moves the soul to good. Now taking grace in the first sense,
a certain preparation of grace is required for it, since a form can
only be in disposed matter. But if we speak of grace as it signifies
a help from God to move us to good, no preparation is required on
man's part, that, as it were, anticipates the Divine help, but
rather, every preparation in man must be by the help of God moving
the soul to good. And thus even the good movement of the free-will,
whereby anyone is prepared for receiving the gift of grace, is an act
of the free-will moved by God. And thus man is said to prepare
himself, according to Prov. 16:1: "It is the part of man to prepare
the soul"; yet it is principally from God, Who moves the free-will.
Hence it is said that man's will is prepared by God, and that man's
steps are guided by God.

Reply Obj. 1: A certain preparation of man for grace is simultaneous
with the infusion of grace; and this operation is meritorious, not
indeed of grace, which is already possessed--but of glory which is
not yet possessed. But there is another imperfect preparation, which
sometimes precedes the gift of sanctifying grace, and yet it is from
God's motion. But it does not suffice for merit, since man is not yet
justified by grace, and merit can only arise from grace, as will be
seen further on (Q. 114, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: Since a man cannot prepare himself for grace unless God
prevent and move him to good, it is of no account whether anyone
arrive at perfect preparation instantaneously, or step by step. For
it is written (Ecclus. 11:23): "It is easy in the eyes of God on a
sudden to make the poor man rich." Now it sometimes happens that God
moves a man to good, but not perfect good, and this preparation
precedes grace. But He sometimes moves him suddenly and perfectly to
good, and man receives grace suddenly, according to John 6:45: "Every
one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me."
And thus it happened to Paul, since, suddenly when he was in the
midst of sin, his heart was perfectly moved by God to hear, to learn,
to come; and hence he received grace suddenly.

Reply Obj. 3: An agent of infinite power needs no matter or
disposition of matter, brought about by the action of something else;
and yet, looking to the condition of the thing caused, it must cause,
in the thing caused, both the matter and the due disposition for the
form. So likewise, when God infuses grace into a soul, no preparation
is required which He Himself does not bring about.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 112, Art. 3]

Whether Grace Is Necessarily Given to Whoever Prepares Himself for
It, or to Whoever Does What He Can?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is necessarily given to whoever
prepares himself for grace, or to whoever does what he can, because,
on Rom. 5:1, "Being justified . . . by faith, let us have peace,"
etc. the gloss says: "God welcomes whoever flies to Him, otherwise
there would be injustice with Him." But it is impossible for
injustice to be with God. Therefore it is impossible for God not to
welcome whoever flies to Him. Hence he receives grace of necessity.

Obj. 2: Further, Anselm says (De Casu Diaboli. iii) that the reason
why God does not bestow grace on the devil, is that he did not wish,
nor was he prepared, to receive it. But if the cause be removed, the
effect must needs be removed also. Therefore, if anyone is willing to
receive grace it is bestowed on them of necessity.

Obj. 3: Further, good is diffusive of itself, as appears from
Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Now the good of grace is better than the
good of nature. Hence, since natural forms necessarily come to
disposed matter, much more does it seem that grace is necessarily
bestowed on whoever prepares himself for grace.

_On the contrary,_ Man is compared to God as clay to the potter,
according to Jer. 18:6: "As clay is in the hand of the potter, so are
you in My hand." But however much the clay is prepared, it does not
necessarily receive its shape from the potter. Hence, however much a
man prepares himself, he does not necessarily receive grace from God.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), man's preparation for grace
is from God, as Mover, and from the free-will, as moved. Hence the
preparation may be looked at in two ways: first, as it is from
free-will, and thus there is no necessity that it should obtain
grace, since the gift of grace exceeds every preparation of human
power. But it may be considered, secondly, as it is from God the
Mover, and thus it has a necessity--not indeed of coercion, but of
infallibility--as regards what it is ordained to by God, since God's
intention cannot fail, according to the saying of Augustine in his
book on the _Predestination of the Saints_ (De Dono Persev. xiv) that
"by God's good gifts whoever is liberated, is most certainly
liberated." Hence if God intends, while moving, that the one whose
heart He moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to
it, according to John 6:45: "Every one that hath heard of the Father,
and hath learned, cometh to Me."

Reply Obj. 1: This gloss is speaking of such as fly to God by a
meritorious act of their free-will, already _informed_ with grace;
for if they did not receive grace, it would be against the justice
which He Himself established. Or if it refers to the movement of
free-will before grace, it is speaking in the sense that man's flight
to God is by a Divine motion, which ought not, in justice, to fail.

Reply Obj. 2: The first cause of the defect of grace is on our part;
but the first cause of the bestowal of grace is on God's according to
Osee 13:9: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me."

Reply Obj. 3: Even in natural things, the form does not necessarily
ensue the disposition of the matter, except by the power of the agent
that causes the disposition.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 112, Art. 4]

Whether Grace Is Greater in One Than in Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not greater in one than in
another. For grace is caused in us by the Divine love, as stated
above (Q. 110, A. 1). Now it is written (Wis. 6:8): "He made the
little and the great and He hath equally care of all." Therefore all
obtain grace from Him equally.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is the greatest possible, cannot be more or
less. But grace is the greatest possible, since it joins us with our
last end. Therefore there is no greater or less in it. Hence it is
not greater in one than in another.

Obj. 3: Further, grace is the soul's life, as stated above (Q. 110,
A. 1, ad 2). But there is no greater or less in life. Hence, neither
is there in grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 4:7): "But to every one of us
is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ." Now
what is given in measure, is not given to all equally. Hence all have
not an equal grace.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 52, AA. 1, 2; Q. 56, AA. 1, 2),
habits can have a double magnitude: one, as regards the end or
object, as when a virtue is said to be more noble through being
ordained to a greater good; the other on the part of the subject,
which more or less participates in the habit inhering to it.

Now as regards the first magnitude, sanctifying grace cannot be
greater or less, since, of its nature, grace joins man to the Highest
Good, which is God. But as regards the subject, grace can receive
more or less, inasmuch as one may be more perfectly enlightened by
grace than another. And a certain reason for this is on the part of
him who prepares himself for grace; since he who is better prepared
for grace, receives more grace. Yet it is not here that we must seek
the first cause of this diversity, since man prepares himself, only
inasmuch as his free-will is prepared by God. Hence the first cause
of this diversity is to be sought on the part of God, Who dispenses
His gifts of grace variously, in order that the beauty and perfection
of the Church may result from these various degrees; even as He
instituted the various conditions of things, that the universe might
be perfect. Hence after the Apostle had said (Eph. 4:7): "To every
one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of
Christ," having enumerated the various graces, he adds (Eph. 4:12):
"For the perfecting of the saints . . . for the edifying of the body
of Christ."

Reply Obj. 1: The Divine care may be looked at in two ways: first, as
regards the Divine act, which is simple and uniform; and thus His
care looks equally to all, since by one simple act He administers
great things and little. But, secondly, it may be considered in those
things which come to be considered by the Divine care; and thus,
inequality is found, inasmuch as God by His care provides greater
gifts to some, and lesser gifts for others.

Reply Obj. 2: This objection is based on the first kind of magnitude
of grace; since grace cannot be greater by ordaining to a greater
good, but inasmuch as it more or less ordains to a greater or less
participation of the same good. For there may be diversity of
intensity and remissness, both in grace and in final glory as regards
the subjects' participation.

Reply Obj. 3: Natural life pertains to man's substance, and hence
cannot be more or less; but man partakes of the life of grace
accidentally, and hence man may possess it more or less.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 112, Art. 5]

Whether Man Can Know That He Has Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can know that he has grace. For
grace by its physical reality is in the soul. Now the soul has most
certain knowledge of those things that are in it by their physical
reality, as appears from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 31). Hence
grace may be known most certainly by one who has grace.

Obj. 2: Further, as knowledge is a gift of God, so is grace. But
whoever receives knowledge from God, knows that he has knowledge,
according to Wis. 7:17: The Lord "hath given me the true knowledge of
the things that are." Hence, with equal reason, whoever receives
grace from God, knows that he has grace.

Obj. 3: Further, light is more knowable than darkness, since,
according to the Apostle (Eph. 5:13), "all that is made manifest is
light." Now sin, which is spiritual darkness, may be known with
certainty by one that is in sin. Much more, therefore, may grace,
which is spiritual light, be known.

Obj. 4: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:12): "Now we have
received not the Spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God;
that we may know the things that are given us from God." Now grace is
God's first gift. Hence, the man who receives grace by the Holy
Spirit, by the same Holy Spirit knows the grace given to him.

Obj. 5: Further, it was said by the Lord to Abraham (Gen. 22:12):
"Now I know that thou fearest God," i.e. "I have made thee know." Now
He is speaking there of chaste fear, which is not apart from grace.
Hence a man may know that he has grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eccles. 9:1): "Man knoweth not
whether he be worthy of love or hatred." Now sanctifying grace maketh
a man worthy of God's love. Therefore no one can know whether he has
sanctifying grace.

_I answer that,_ There are three ways of knowing a thing: first, by
revelation, and thus anyone may know that he has grace, for God by a
special privilege reveals this at times to some, in order that the
joy of safety may begin in them even in this life, and that they may
carry on toilsome works with greater trust and greater energy, and
may bear the evils of this present life, as when it was said to Paul
(2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee."

Secondly, a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty;
and in this way no one can know that he has grace. For certitude
about a thing can only be had when we may judge of it by its proper
principle. Thus it is by undemonstrable universal principles that
certitude is obtained concerning demonstrative conclusions. Now no
one can know he has the knowledge of a conclusion if he does not know
its principle. But the principle of grace and its object is God, Who
by reason of His very excellence is unknown to us, according to Job
36:26: "Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge." And hence His
presence in us and His absence cannot be known with certainty,
according to Job 9:11: "If He come to me, I shall not see Him; if He
depart I shall not understand." And hence man cannot judge with
certainty that he has grace, according to 1 Cor. 4:3, 4: "But neither
do I judge my own self . . . but He that judgeth me is the Lord."

Thirdly, things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may
know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of
despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of
any mortal sin. And thus it is written (Apoc. 2:17): "To him that
overcometh I will give the hidden manna . . . which no man knoweth,
but he that receiveth it," because whoever receives it knows, by
experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it,
does not experience. Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything,
yet am I not hereby justified," since, according to Ps. 18:13: "Who
can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from
those of others spare Thy servant."

Reply Obj. 1: Those things which are in the soul by their physical
reality, are known through experimental knowledge; in so far as
through acts man has experience of their inward principles: thus when
we wish, we perceive that we have a will; and when we exercise the
functions of life, we observe that there is life in us.

Reply Obj. 2: It is an essential condition of knowledge that a man
should have certitude of the objects of knowledge; and again, it is
an essential condition of faith that a man should be certain of the
things of faith, and this, because certitude belongs to the
perfection of the intellect, wherein these gifts exist. Hence,
whoever has knowledge or faith is certain that he has them. But it is
otherwise with grace and charity and such like, which perfect the
appetitive faculty.

Reply Obj. 3: Sin has for its principal object commutable good, which
is known to us. But the object or end of grace is unknown to us on
account of the greatness of its light, according to 1 Tim. 6:16: "Who
. . . inhabiteth light inaccessible."

Reply Obj. 4: The Apostle is here speaking of the gifts of glory,
which have been given to us in hope, and these we know most certainly
by faith, although we do not know for certain that we have grace to
enable us to merit them. Or it may be said that he is speaking of the
privileged knowledge, which comes of revelation. Hence he adds (1
Cor. 2:10): "But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit."

Reply Obj. 5: What was said to Abraham may refer to experimental
knowledge which springs from deeds of which we are cognizant. For in
the deed that Abraham had just wrought, he could know experimentally
that he had the fear of God. Or it may refer to a revelation.
________________________

QUESTION 113

OF THE EFFECTS OF GRACE
(In Ten Articles)

We have now to consider the effect of grace; (1) the justification of
the ungodly, which is the effect of operating grace; and (2) merit,
which is the effect of cooperating grace. Under the first head there
are ten points of inquiry:

(1) What is the justification of the ungodly?

(2) Whether grace is required for it?

(3) Whether any movement of the free-will is required?

(4) Whether a movement of faith is required?

(5) Whether a movement of the free-will against sin is required?

(6) Whether the remission of sins is to be reckoned with the
foregoing?

(7) Whether the justification of the ungodly is a work of time or is
sudden?

(8) Of the natural order of the things concurring to justification;

(9) Whether the justification of the ungodly is God's greatest work?

(10) Whether the justification of the ungodly is miraculous?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 1]

Whether the Justification of the Ungodly Is the Remission of Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is
not the remission of sins. For sin is opposed not only to justice,
but to all the other virtues, as stated above (Q. 71, A. 1). Now
justification signifies a certain movement towards justice. Therefore
not even remission of sin is justification, since movement is from
one contrary to the other.

Obj. 2: Further, everything ought to be named from what is
predominant in it, according to _De Anima_ ii, text. 49. Now the
remission of sins is brought about chiefly by faith, according to
Acts 15:9: "Purifying their hearts by faith"; and by charity,
according to Prov. 10:12: "Charity covereth all sins." Therefore the
remission of sins ought to be named after faith or charity rather
than justice.

Obj. 3: Further, the remission of sins seems to be the same as being
called, for whoever is called is afar off, and we are afar off from
God by sin. But one is called before being justified according to
Rom. 8:30: "And whom He called, them He also justified." Therefore
justification is not the remission of sins.

_On the contrary,_ On Rom. 8:30, "Whom He called, them He also
justified," the gloss says i.e. "by the remission of sins." Therefore
the remission of sins is justification.

_I answer that,_ Justification taken passively implies a movement
towards justice, as heating implies a movement towards heat. But
since justice, by its nature, implies a certain rectitude of order,
it may be taken in two ways: first, inasmuch as it implies a right
order in man's act, and thus justice is placed amongst the
virtues--either as particular justice, which directs a man's acts by
regulating them in relation to his fellowman--or as legal justice,
which directs a man's acts by regulating them in their relation to
the common good of society, as appears from _Ethic._ v, 1.

Secondly, justice is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain
rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as
what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of
the soul are subject to the superior, i.e. to the reason; and this
disposition the Philosopher calls "justice metaphorically speaking"
(Ethic. v, 11). Now this justice may be in man in two ways: first, by
simple generation, which is from privation to form; and thus
justification may belong even to such as are not in sin, when they
receive this justice from God, as Adam is said to have received
original justice. Secondly, this justice may be brought about in man
by a movement from one contrary to the other, and thus justification
implies a transmutation from the state of injustice to the aforesaid
state of justice. And it is thus we are now speaking of the
justification of the ungodly, according to the Apostle (Rom. 4:5):
"But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth
the ungodly," etc. And because movement is named after its term
_whereto_ rather than from its term _whence,_ the transmutation
whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of
ungodliness to the state of justice, borrows its name from its term
_whereto,_ and is called "justification of the ungodly."

Reply Obj. 1: Every sin, inasmuch as it implies the disorder of a
mind not subject to God, may be called injustice, as being contrary
to the aforesaid justice, according to 1 John 3:4: "Whosoever
committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity." And
thus the removal of any sin is called the justification of the
ungodly.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith and charity imply a special directing of the
human mind to God by the intellect and will; whereas justice implies
a general rectitude of order. Hence this transmutation is named after
justice rather than after charity or faith.

Reply Obj. 3: Being called refers to God's help moving and exciting
our mind to give up sin, and this motion of God is not the remission
of sins, but its cause.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 2]

Whether the Infusion of Grace Is Required for the Remission of Guilt,
i.e., for the Justification of the Ungodly?

Objection 1: It would seem that for the remission of guilt, which is
the justification of the ungodly, no infusion of grace is required.
For anyone may be moved from one contrary without being led to the
other, if the contraries are not immediate. Now the state of guilt
and the state of grace are not immediate contraries; for there is the
middle state of innocence wherein a man has neither grace nor guilt.
Hence a man may be pardoned his guilt without his being brought to a
state of grace.

Obj. 2: Further, the remission of guilt consists in the Divine
imputation, according to Ps. 31:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the
Lord hath not imputed sin." Now the infusion of grace puts something
into our soul, as stated above (Q. 110, A. 1). Hence the infusion of
grace is not required for the remission of guilt.

Obj. 3: Further, no one can be subject to two contraries at once. Now
some sins are contraries, as wastefulness and miserliness. Hence
whoever is subject to the sin of wastefulness is not simultaneously
subject to the sin of miserliness, yet it may happen that he has been
subject to it hitherto. Hence by sinning with the vice of
wastefulness he is freed from the sin of miserliness. And thus a sin
is remitted without grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 3:24): "Justified freely by
His grace."

_I answer that,_ by sinning a man offends God as stated above (Q. 71,
A. 5). Now an offense is remitted to anyone, only when the soul of
the offender is at peace with the offended. Hence sin is remitted to
us, when God is at peace with us, and this peace consists in the love
whereby God loves us. Now God's love, considered on the part of the
Divine act, is eternal and unchangeable; whereas, as regards the
effect it imprints on us, it is sometimes interrupted, inasmuch as we
sometimes fall short of it and once more require it. Now the effect
of the Divine love in us, which is taken away by sin, is grace,
whereby a man is made worthy of eternal life, from which sin shuts
him out. Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without
the infusion of grace.

Reply Obj. 1: More is required for an offender to pardon an offense,
than for one who has committed no offense, not to be hated. For it
may happen amongst men that one man neither hates nor loves another.
But if the other offends him, then the forgiveness of the offense can
only spring from a special goodwill. Now God's goodwill is said to be
restored to man by the gift of grace; and hence although a man before
sinning may be without grace and without guilt, yet that he is
without guilt after sinning can only be because he has grace.

Reply Obj. 2: As God's love consists not merely in the act of the
Divine will but also implies a certain effect of grace, as stated
above (Q. 110, A. 1), so likewise, when God does not impute sin to a
man, there is implied a certain effect in him to whom the sin is not
imputed; for it proceeds from the Divine love, that sin is not
imputed to a man by God.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i, 26), if to
leave off sinning was the same as to have no sin, it would be enough
if Scripture warned us thus: "'My son, hast thou sinned? do so no
more?' Now this is not enough, but it is added: 'But for thy former
sins also pray that they may be forgiven thee.'" For the act of sin
passes, but the guilt remains, as stated above (Q. 87, A. 6). Hence
when anyone passes from the sin of one vice to the sin of a contrary
vice, he ceases to have the act of the former sin, but he does not
cease to have the guilt, hence he may have the guilt of both sins at
once. For sins are not contrary to each other on the part of their
turning from God, wherein sin has its guilt.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 3]

Whether for the Justification of the Ungodly Is Required a Movement
of the Free-will?

Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of the free-will is
required for the justification of the ungodly. For we see that by the
sacrament of Baptism, infants and sometimes adults are justified
without a movement of their free-will: hence Augustine says (Confess.
iv) that when one of his friends was taken with a fever, "he lay for
a long time senseless and in a deadly sweat, and when he was
despaired of, he was baptized without his knowing, and was
regenerated"; which is effected by sanctifying grace. Now God does
not confine His power to the sacraments. Hence He can justify a man
without the sacraments, and without any movement of the free-will.

Obj. 2: Further, a man has not the use of reason when asleep, and
without it there can be no movement of the free-will. But Solomon
received from God the gift of wisdom when asleep, as related in 3
Kings 3 and 2 Paral 1. Hence with equal reason the gift of
sanctifying grace is sometimes bestowed by God on man without the
movement of his free-will.

Obj. 3: Further, grace is preserved by the same cause as brings it
into being, for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) that "so ought
man to turn to God as he is ever made just by Him." Now grace is
preserved in man without a movement of his free-will. Hence it can be
infused in the beginning without a movement of the free-will.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 6:45): "Every one that hath
heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me." Now to learn
cannot be without a movement of the free-will, since the learner
assents to the teacher. Hence, no one comes to the Father by
justifying grace without a movement of the free-will.

_I answer that,_ The justification of the ungodly is brought about by
God moving man to justice. For He it is "that justifieth the ungodly"
according to Rom. 4:5. Now God moves everything in its own manner,
just as we see that in natural things, what is heavy and what is
light are moved differently, on account of their diverse natures.
Hence He moves man to justice according to the condition of his human
nature. But it is man's proper nature to have free-will. Hence in him
who has the use of reason, God's motion to justice does not take
place without a movement of the free-will; but He so infuses the gift
of justifying grace that at the same time He moves the free-will to
accept the gift of grace, in such as are capable of being moved thus.

Reply Obj. 1: Infants are not capable of the movement of their
free-will; hence it is by the mere infusion of their souls that God
moves them to justice. Now this cannot be brought about without a
sacrament; because as original sin, from which they are justified,
does not come to them from their own will, but by carnal generation,
so also is grace given them by Christ through spiritual regeneration.
And the same reason holds good with madmen and idiots that have never
had the use of their free-will. But in the case of one who has had
the use of his free-will and afterwards has lost it either through
sickness or sleep, he does not obtain justifying grace by the
exterior rite of Baptism, or of any other sacrament, unless he
intended to make use of this sacrament, and this can only be by the
use of his free-will. And it was in this way that he of whom
Augustine speaks was regenerated, because both previously and
afterwards he assented to the Baptism.

Reply Obj. 2: Solomon neither merited nor received wisdom whilst
asleep; but it was declared to him in his sleep that on account of
his previous desire wisdom would be infused into him by God. Hence it
is said in his person (Wis. 7:7): "I wished, and understanding was
given unto me."

Or it may be said that his sleep was not natural, but was the sleep
of prophecy, according to Num. 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet
of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him
in a dream." In such cases the use of free-will remains.

And yet it must be observed that the comparison between the gift of
wisdom and the gift of justifying grace does not hold. For the gift
of justifying grace especially ordains a man to good, which is the
object of the will; and hence a man is moved to it by a movement of
the will which is a movement of free-will. But wisdom perfects the
intellect which precedes the will; hence without any complete
movement of the free-will, the intellect can be enlightened with the
gift of wisdom, even as we see that things are revealed to men in
sleep, according to Job 33:15, 16: "When deep sleep falleth upon men
and they are sleeping in their beds, then He openeth the ears of men,
and teaching, instructeth them in what they are to learn."

Reply Obj. 3: In the infusion of justifying grace there is a certain
transmutation of the human soul, and hence a proper movement of the
human soul is required in order that the soul may be moved in its own
manner. But the conservation of grace is without transmutation: no
movement on the part of the soul is required but only a continuation
of the Divine influx.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 4]

Whether a Movement of Faith Is Required for the Justification of the
Ungodly?

Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of faith is required for
the justification of the ungodly. For as a man is justified by faith,
so also by other things, viz. by fear, of which it is written
(Ecclus. 1:27): "The fear of the Lord driveth out sin, for he that is
without fear cannot be justified"; and again by charity, according to
Luke 7:47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much";
and again by humility, according to James 4:6: "God resisteth the
proud and giveth grace to the humble"; and again by mercy, according
to Prov. 15:27: "By mercy and faith sins are purged away." Hence the
movement of faith is no more required for the justification of the
ungodly, than the movements of the aforesaid virtues.

Obj. 2: Further, the act of faith is required for justification only
inasmuch as a man knows God by faith. But a man may know God in other
ways, viz. by natural knowledge, and by the gift of wisdom. Hence no
act of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly.

Obj. 3: Further, there are several articles of faith. Therefore if
the act of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly, it
would seem that a man ought to think on every article of faith when
he is first justified. But this seems inconvenient, since such
thought would require a long delay of time. Hence it seems that an
act of faith is not required for the justification of the ungodly.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 5:1): "Being justified
therefore by faith, let us have peace with God."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3) a movement of free-will is
required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man's mind
is moved by God. Now God moves man's soul by turning it to Himself
according to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): "Thou wilt turn us, O God, and
bring us to life." Hence for the justification of the ungodly a
movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now
the first turning to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: "He
that cometh to God must believe that He is." Hence a movement of
faith is required for the justification of the ungodly.

Reply Obj. 1: The movement of faith is not perfect unless it is
quickened by charity; hence in the justification of the ungodly, a
movement of charity is infused together with the movement of faith.
Now free-will is moved to God by being subject to Him; hence an act
of filial fear and an act of humility also concur. For it may happen
that one and the same act of free-will springs from different
virtues, when one commands and another is commanded, inasmuch as the
act may be ordained to various ends. But the act of mercy counteracts
sin either by way of satisfying for it, and thus it follows
justification; or by way of preparation, inasmuch as the merciful
obtain mercy; and thus it can either precede justification, or concur
with the other virtues towards justification, inasmuch as mercy is
included in the love of our neighbor.

Reply Obj. 2: By natural knowledge a man is not turned to God,
according as He is the object of beatitude and the cause of
justification. Hence such knowledge does not suffice for
justification. But the gift of wisdom presupposes the knowledge of
faith, as stated above (Q. 68, A. 4, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 3: As the Apostle says (Rom. 4:5), "to him that . . .
believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is reputed to
justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God." Hence it is
clear that in the justification of the ungodly an act of faith is
required in order that a man may believe that God justifies man
through the mystery of Christ.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 5]

Whether for the Justification of the Ungodly There Is Required a
Movement of the Free-will Towards Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of the free-will towards
sin is required for the justification of the ungodly. For charity
alone suffices to take away sin, according to Prov. 10:12: "Charity
covereth all sins." Now the object of charity is not sin. Therefore
for this justification of the ungodly no movement of the free-will
towards sin is required.

Obj. 2: Further, whoever is tending onward, ought not to look back,
according to Phil. 3:13, 14: "Forgetting the things that are behind,
and stretching forth myself to those that are before, I press towards
the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation." But whoever is
stretching forth to righteousness has his sins behind him. Hence he
ought to forget them, and not stretch forth to them by a movement of
his free-will.

Obj. 3: Further, in the justification of the ungodly one sin is not
remitted without another, for "it is irreverent to expect half a
pardon from God" [*Cap., Sunt. plures: Dist. iii, De Poenit.]. Hence,
in the justification of the ungodly, if man's free-will must move
against sin, he ought to think of all his sins. But this is unseemly,
both because a great space of time would be required for such
thought, and because a man could not obtain the forgiveness of such
sins as he had forgotten. Hence for the justification of the ungodly
no movement of the free-will is required.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 31:5): "I will confess against
myself my injustice to the Lord; and Thou hast forgiven the
wickedness of my sin."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the justification of the
ungodly is a certain movement whereby the human mind is moved by God
from the state of sin to the state of justice. Hence it is necessary
for the human mind to regard both extremes by an act of free-will, as
a body in local movement is related to both terms of the movement.
Now it is clear that in local movement the moving body leaves the
term _whence_ and nears the term _whereto._ Hence the human mind
whilst it is being justified, must, by a movement of its free-will
withdraw from sin and draw near to justice.

Now to withdraw from sin and to draw near to justice, in an act of
free-will, means detestation and desire. For Augustine says on the
words "the hireling fleeth," etc. (John 10:12): "Our emotions are the
movements of our soul; joy is the soul's outpouring; fear is the
soul's flight; your soul goes forward when you seek; your soul flees,
when you are afraid." Hence in the justification of the ungodly there
must be two acts of the free-will--one, whereby it tends to God's
justice; the other whereby it hates sin.

Reply Obj. 1: It belongs to the same virtue to seek one contrary and
to avoid the other; and hence, as it belongs to charity to love God,
so likewise, to detest sin whereby the soul is separated from God.

Reply Obj. 2: A man ought not to return to those things that are
behind, by loving them; but, for that matter, he ought to forget
them, lest he be drawn to them. Yet he ought to recall them to mind,
in order to detest them; for this is to fly from them.

Reply Obj. 3: Previous to justification a man must detest each sin he
remembers to have committed, and from this remembrance the soul goes
on to have a general movement of detestation with regard to all sins
committed, in which are included such sins as have been forgotten.
For a man is then in such a frame of mind that he would be sorry even
for those he does not remember, if they were present to his memory;
and this movement cooperates in his justification.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 6]

Whether the Remission of Sins Ought to Be Reckoned Amongst the Things
Required for Justification?

Objection 1: It would seem that the remission of sins ought not to be
reckoned amongst the things required for justification. For the
substance of a thing is not reckoned together with those that are
required for a thing; thus a man is not reckoned together with his
body and soul. But the justification of the ungodly is itself the
remission of sins, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore the remission of
sins ought not to be reckoned among the things required for the
justification of the ungodly.

Obj. 2: Further, infusion of grace and remission of sins are the
same; as illumination and expulsion of darkness are the same. But a
thing ought not to be reckoned together with itself; for unity is
opposed to multitude. Therefore the remission of sins ought not to be
reckoned with the infusion of grace.

Obj. 3: Further, the remission of sin follows as effect from cause,
from the free-will's movement towards God and sin; since it is by
faith and contrition that sin is forgiven. But an effect ought not to
be reckoned with its cause; since things thus enumerated together,
and, as it were, condivided, are by nature simultaneous. Hence the
remission of sins ought not to be reckoned with the things required
for the justification of the ungodly.

_On the contrary,_ In reckoning what is required for a thing we ought
not to pass over the end, which is the chief part of everything. Now
the remission of sins is the end of the justification of the ungodly;
for it is written (Isa. 27:9): "This is all the fruit, that the sin
thereof should be taken away." Hence the remission of sins ought to
be reckoned amongst the things required for justification.

_I answer that,_ There are four things which are accounted to be
necessary for the justification of the ungodly, viz. the infusion of
grace, the movement of the free-will towards God by faith, the
movement of the free-will towards sin, and the remission of sins. The
reason for this is that, as stated above (A. 1), the
justification of the ungodly is a movement whereby the soul is moved
by God from a state of sin to a state of justice. Now in the movement
whereby one thing is moved by another, three things are required:
first, the motion of the mover; secondly, the movement of the moved;
thirdly, the consummation of the movement, or the attainment of the
end. On the part of the Divine motion, there is the infusion of grace;
on the part of the free-will which is moved, there are two
movements--of departure from the term _whence,_ and of approach to
the term _whereto_; but the consummation of the movement or the
attainment of the end of the movement is implied in the remission of
sins; for in this is the justification of the ungodly completed.

Reply Obj. 1: The justification of the ungodly is called the
remission of sins, even as every movement has its species from its
term. Nevertheless, many other things are required in order to reach
the term, as stated above (A. 5).

Reply Obj. 2: The infusion of grace and the remission of sin
may be considered in two ways: first, with respect to the substance of
the act, and thus they are the same; for by the same act God bestows
grace and remits sin. Secondly, they may be considered on the part of
the objects; and thus they differ by the difference between guilt,
which is taken away, and grace, which is infused; just as in natural
things generation and corruption differ, although the generation of
one thing is the corruption of another.

Reply Obj. 3: This enumeration is not the division of a genus
into its species, in which the things enumerated must be simultaneous;
but it is division of the things required for the completion of
anything; and in this enumeration we may have what precedes and what
follows, since some of the principles and parts of a composite thing
may precede and some follow.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 7]

Whether the Justification of the Ungodly Takes Place in an Instant or
Successively?

Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly does
not take place in an instant, but successively, since, as already
stated (A. 3), for the justification of the ungodly, there is
required a movement of free-will. Now the act of the free-will is
choice, which requires the deliberation of counsel, as stated above
(Q. 13, A. 1). Hence, since deliberation implies a certain reasoning
process, and this implies succession, the justification of the
ungodly would seem to be successive.

Obj. 2: Further, the free-will's movement is not without actual
consideration. But it is impossible to understand many things
actually and at once, as stated above (I, Q. 85, A. 4). Hence, since
for the justification of the ungodly there is required a movement of
the free-will towards several things, viz. towards God and towards
sin, it would seem impossible for the justification of the ungodly to
be in an instant.

Obj. 3: Further, a form that may be greater or less, e.g. blackness
or whiteness, is received successively by its subject. Now grace may
be greater or less, as stated above (Q. 112, A. 4). Hence it is not
received suddenly by its subject. Therefore, seeing that the infusion
of grace is required for the justification of the ungodly, it would
seem that the justification of the ungodly cannot be in an instant.

Obj. 4: Further, the free-will's movement, which cooperates in
justification, is meritorious; and hence it must proceed from grace,
without which there is no merit, as we shall state further on (Q.
114, A. 2). Now a thing receives its form before operating by this
form. Hence grace is first infused, and then the free-will is moved
towards God and to detest sin. Hence justification is not all at once.

Obj. 5: Further, if grace is infused into the soul, there must be an
instant when it first dwells in the soul; so, too, if sin is forgiven
there must be a last instant that man is in sin. But it cannot be the
same instant, otherwise opposites would be in the same
simultaneously. Hence they must be two successive instants; between
which there must be time, as the Philosopher says (Phys. vi, 1).
Therefore the justification of the ungodly takes place not all at
once, but successively.

_On the contrary,_ The justification of the ungodly is caused by the
justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit comes to
men's minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: "And suddenly there came
a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming," upon which the gloss
says that "the grace of the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts." Hence
the justification of the ungodly is not successive, but instantaneous.

_I answer that,_ The entire justification of the ungodly consists as
to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that
free-will is moved and sin is remitted. Now the infusion of grace
takes place in an instant and without succession. And the reason of
this is that if a form be not suddenly impressed upon its subject, it
is either because that subject is not disposed, or because the agent
needs time to dispose the subject. Hence we see that immediately the
matter is disposed by a preceding alteration, the substantial form
accrues to the matter; thus because the atmosphere of itself is
disposed to receive light, it is suddenly illuminated by a body
actually luminous. Now it was stated (Q. 112, A. 2) that God, in
order to infuse grace into the soul, needs no disposition, save what
He Himself has made. And sometimes this sufficient disposition for
the reception of grace He makes suddenly, sometimes gradually and
successively, as stated above (Q. 112, A. 2, ad 2). For the reason
why a natural agent cannot suddenly dispose matter is that in the
matter there is a resistant which has some disproportion with the
power of the agent; and hence we see that the stronger the agent, the
more speedily is the matter disposed. Therefore, since the Divine
power is infinite, it can suddenly dispose any matter whatsoever to
its form; and much more man's free-will, whose movement is by nature
instantaneous. Therefore the justification of the ungodly by God
takes place in an instant.

Reply Obj. 1: The movement of the free-will, which concurs in the
justification of the ungodly, is a consent to detest sin, and to draw
near to God; and this consent takes place suddenly. Sometimes,
indeed, it happens that deliberation precedes, yet this is not of the
substance of justification, but a way of justification; as local
movement is a way of illumination, and alteration to generation.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (I, Q. 85, A. 5), there is nothing to
prevent two things being understood at once, in so far as they are
somehow one; thus we understand the subject and predicate together,
inasmuch as they are united in the order of one affirmation. And in
the same manner can the free-will be moved to two things at once in
so far as one is ordained to the other. Now the free-will's movement
towards sin is ordained to the free-will's movement towards God,
since a man detests sin, as contrary to God, to Whom he wishes to
cling. Hence in the justification of the ungodly the free-will
simultaneously detests sin and turns to God, even as a body
approaches one point and withdraws from another simultaneously.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason why a form is not received instantaneously
in the matter is not the fact that it can inhere more or less; for
thus the light would not be suddenly received in the air, which can
be illumined more or less. But the reason is to be sought on the part
of the disposition of the matter or subject, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 4: The same instant the form is acquired, the thing begins
to operate with the form; as fire, the instant it is generated moves
upwards, and if its movement was instantaneous, it would be
terminated in the same instant. Now to will and not to will--the
movements of the free-will--are not successive, but instantaneous.
Hence the justification of the ungodly must not be successive.

Reply Obj. 5: The succession of opposites in the same subject must be
looked at differently in the things that are subject to time and in
those that are above time. For in those that are in time, there is no
last instant in which the previous form inheres in the subject; but
there is the last time, and the first instant that the subsequent
form inheres in the matter or subject; and this for the reason, that
in time we are not to consider one instant, since neither do instants
succeed each other immediately in time, nor points in a line, as is
proved in _Physic._ vi, 1. But time is terminated by an instant.
Hence in the whole of the previous time wherein anything is moving
towards its form, it is under the opposite form; but in the last
instant of this time, which is the first instant of the subsequent
time, it has the form which is the term of the movement.

But in those that are above time, it is otherwise. For if there be
any succession of affections or intellectual conceptions in them (as
in the angels), such succession is not measured by continuous time,
but by discrete time, even as the things measured are not continuous,
as stated above (I, Q. 53, AA. 2, 3). In these, therefore, there is a
last instant in which the preceding is, and a first instant in which
the subsequent is. Nor must there be time in between, since there is
no continuity of time, which this would necessitate.

Now the human mind, which is justified, is, in itself, above time,
but is subject to time accidentally, inasmuch as it understands with
continuity and time, with respect to the phantasms in which it
considers the intelligible species, as stated above (I, Q. 85, AA. 1,
2). We must, therefore, decide from this about its change as regards
the condition of temporal movements, i.e. we must say that there is
no last instant that sin inheres, but a last time; whereas there is a
first instant that grace inheres; and in all the time previous sin
inhered.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 8]

Whether the Infusion of Grace Is Naturally the First of the Things
Required for the Justification of the Ungodly?

Objection 1: It would seem that the infusion of grace is not what is
naturally required first for the justification of the ungodly. For we
withdraw from evil before drawing near to good, according to Ps.
33:15: "Turn away from evil, and do good." Now the remission of sins
regards the turning away from evil, and the infusion of grace regards
the turning to good. Hence the remission of sin is naturally before
the infusion of grace.

Obj. 2: Further, the disposition naturally precedes the form to which
it disposes. Now the free-will's movement is a disposition for the
reception of grace. Therefore it naturally precedes the infusion of
grace.

Obj. 3: Further, sin hinders the soul from tending freely to God. Now
a hindrance to movement must be removed before the movement takes
place. Hence the remission of sin and the free-will's movement
towards sin are naturally before the infusion of grace.

_On the contrary,_ The cause is naturally prior to its effect. Now
the infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the
justification of the ungodly, as stated above (A. 7). Therefore it is
naturally prior to it.

_I answer that,_ The aforesaid four things required for the
justification of the ungodly are simultaneous in time, since the
justification of the ungodly is not successive, as stated above (A.
7); but in the order of nature, one is prior to another; and in their
natural order the first is the infusion of grace; the second, the
free-will's movement towards God; the third, the free-will's movement
towards sin; the fourth, the remission of sin.

The reason for this is that in every movement the motion of the mover
is naturally first; the disposition of the matter, or the movement of
the moved, is second; the end or term of the movement in which the
motion of the mover rests, is last. Now the motion of God the Mover
is the infusion of grace, as stated above (A. 6); the movement or
disposition of the moved is the free-will's double movement; and the
term or end of the movement is the remission of sin, as stated above
(A. 6). Hence in their natural order the first in the justification
of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the
free-will's movement towards God; the third is the free-will's
movement towards sin, for he who is being justified detests sin
because it is against God, and thus the free-will's movement towards
God naturally precedes the free-will's movement towards sin, since it
is its cause and reason; the fourth and last is the remission of sin,
to which this transmutation is ordained as to an end, as stated above
(AA. 1, 6).

Reply Obj. 1: The withdrawal from one term and approach to another
may be looked at in two ways: first, on the part of the thing moved,
and thus the withdrawal from a term naturally precedes the approach
to a term, since in the subject of movement the opposite which is put
away is prior to the opposite which the subject moved attains to by
its movement. But on the part of the agent it is the other way about,
since the agent, by the form pre-existing in it, acts for the removal
of the opposite form; as the sun by its light acts for the removal of
darkness, and hence on the part of the sun, illumination is prior to
the removal of darkness; but on the part of the atmosphere to be
illuminated, to be freed from darkness is, in the order of nature,
prior to being illuminated, although both are simultaneous in time.
And since the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God
Who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of grace is
prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on the part
of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order
of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of
justifying grace. Or it may be said that the term _whence_ of
justification is sin; and the term _whereto_ is justice; and that
grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of
justice.

Reply Obj. 2: The disposition of the subject precedes the reception
of the form, in the order of nature; yet it follows the action of the
agent, whereby the subject is disposed. And hence the free-will's
movement precedes the reception of grace in the order of nature, and
follows the infusion of grace.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 9), in movements of
the soul the movement toward the speculative principle or the
practical end is the very first, but in exterior movements the
removal of the impediment precedes the attainment of the end. And as
the free-will's movement is a movement of the soul, in the order of
nature it moves towards God as to its end, before removing the
impediment of sin.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 9]

Whether the Justification of the Ungodly Is God's Greatest Work?

Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is
not God's greatest work. For it is by the justification of the
ungodly that we attain the grace of a wayfarer. Now by glorification
we receive heavenly grace, which is greater. Hence the glorification
of angels and men is a greater work than the justification of the
ungodly.

Obj. 2: Further, the justification of the ungodly is ordained to the
particular good of one man. But the good of the universe is greater
than the good of one man, as is plain from _Ethic._ i, 2. Hence the
creation of heaven and earth is a greater work than the justification
of the ungodly.

Obj. 3: Further, to make something from nothing, where there is
nought to cooperate with the agent, is greater than to make something
with the cooperation of the recipient. Now in the work of creation
something is made from nothing, and hence nothing can cooperate with
the agent; but in the justification of the ungodly God makes
something from something, i.e. a just man from a sinner, and there is
a cooperation on man's part, since there is a movement of the
free-will, as stated above (A. 3). Hence the justification of the
ungodly is not God's greatest work.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 144:9): "His tender mercies are
over all His works," and in a collect [*Tenth Sunday after Pentecost]
we say: "O God, Who dost show forth Thine all-mightiness most by
pardoning and having mercy," and Augustine, expounding the words,
"greater than these shall he do" (John 14:12) says that "for a just
man to be made from a sinner, is greater than to create heaven and
earth."

_I answer that,_ A work may be called great in two ways: first, on the
part of the mode of action, and thus the work of creation is the
greatest work, wherein something is made from nothing; secondly, a
work may be called great on account of what is made, and thus the
justification of the ungodly, which terminates at the eternal good of
a share in the Godhead, is greater than the creation of heaven and
earth, which terminates at the good of mutable nature. Hence,
Augustine, after saying that "for a just man to be made from a sinner
is greater than to create heaven and earth," adds, "for heaven and
earth shall pass away, but the justification of the ungodly shall
endure."

Again, we must bear in mind that a thing is called great in two ways:
first, in an absolute quantity, and thus the gift of glory is greater
than the gift of grace that sanctifies the ungodly; and in this
respect the glorification of the just is greater than the
justification of the ungodly. Secondly, a thing may be said to be
great in proportionate quantity, and thus the gift of grace that
justifies the ungodly is greater than the gift of glory that beatifies
the just, for the gift of grace exceeds the worthiness of the ungodly,
who are worthy of punishment, more than the gift of glory exceeds the
worthiness of the just, who by the fact of their justification are
worthy of glory. Hence Augustine says: "Let him that can, judge
whether it is greater to create the angels just, than to justify the
ungodly. Certainly, if they both betoken equal power, one betokens
greater mercy."

And thus the reply to the first [objection] is clear.

Reply Obj. 2: The good of the universe is greater than the
particular good of one, if we consider both in the same genus. But the
good of grace in one is greater than the good of nature in the whole
universe.

Reply Obj. 3: This objection rests on the manner of acting, in
which way creation is God's greatest work.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 10]

Whether the Justification of the Ungodly Is a Miraculous Work?

Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is a
miraculous work. For miraculous works are greater than
non-miraculous. Now the justification of the ungodly is greater than
the other miraculous works, as is clear from the quotation from
Augustine (A. 9). Hence the justification of the ungodly is a
miraculous work.

Obj. 2: Further, the movement of the will in the soul is like the
natural inclination in natural things. But when God works in natural
things against their inclination of their nature, it is a miraculous
work, as when He gave sight to the blind or raised the dead. Now the
will of the ungodly is bent on evil. Hence, since God in justifying a
man moves him to good, it would seem that the justification of the
ungodly is miraculous.

Obj. 3: Further, as wisdom is a gift of God, so also is justice. Now
it is miraculous that anyone should suddenly obtain wisdom from God
without study. Therefore it is miraculous that the ungodly should be
justified by God.

_On the contrary,_ Miraculous works are beyond natural power. Now the
justification of the ungodly is not beyond natural power; for
Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. v) that "to be capable of having
faith and to be capable of having charity belongs to man's nature;
but to have faith and charity belongs to the grace of the faithful."
Therefore the justification of the ungodly is not miraculous.

_I answer that,_ In miraculous works it is usual to find three
things: the first is on the part of the active power, because they
can only be performed by Divine power; and they are simply wondrous,
since their cause is hidden, as stated above (I, Q. 105, A. 7). And
thus both the justification of the ungodly and the creation of the
world, and, generally speaking, every work that can be done by God
alone, is miraculous.

Secondly, in certain miraculous works it is found that the form
introduced is beyond the natural power of such matter, as in the
resurrection of the dead, life is above the natural power of such a
body. And thus the justification of the ungodly is not miraculous,
because the soul is naturally capable of grace; since from its having
been made to the likeness of God, it is fit to receive God by grace,
as Augustine says, in the above quotation.

Thirdly, in miraculous works something is found besides the usual and
customary order of causing an effect, as when a sick man suddenly and
beyond the wonted course of healing by nature or art, receives
perfect health; and thus the justification of the ungodly is
sometimes miraculous and sometimes not. For the common and wonted
course of justification is that God moves the soul interiorly and
that man is converted to God, first by an imperfect conversion, that
it may afterwards become perfect; because "charity begun merits
increase, and when increased merits perfection," as Augustine says
(In Epist. Joan. Tract. v). Yet God sometimes moves the soul so
vehemently that it reaches the perfection of justice at once, as took
place in the conversion of Paul, which was accompanied at the same
time by a miraculous external prostration. Hence the conversion of
Paul is commemorated in the Church as miraculous.

Reply Obj. 1: Certain miraculous works, although they are less than
the justification of the ungodly, as regards the good caused, are
beyond the wonted order of such effects, and thus have more of the
nature of a miracle.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not a miraculous work, whenever a natural thing
is moved contrary to its inclination, otherwise it would be
miraculous for water to be heated, or for a stone to be thrown
upwards; but only whenever this takes place beyond the order of the
proper cause, which naturally does this. Now no other cause save God
can justify the ungodly, even as nothing save fire can heat water.
Hence the justification of the ungodly by God is not miraculous in
this respect.

Reply Obj. 3: A man naturally acquires wisdom and knowledge
from God by his own talent and study. Hence it is miraculous when a
man is made wise or learned outside this order. But a man does not
naturally acquire justifying grace by his own action, but by God's.
Hence there is no parity.
________________________

QUESTION 114

OF MERIT
(In Ten Articles)

We must now consider merit, which is the effect of cooperating grace;
and under this head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a man can merit anything from God?

(2) Whether without grace anyone can merit eternal life?

(3) Whether anyone with grace may merit eternal life condignly?

(4) Whether it is chiefly through the instrumentality of charity that
grace is the principle of merit?

(5) Whether a man may merit the first grace for himself?

(6) Whether he may merit it for someone else?

(7) Whether anyone can merit restoration after sin?

(8) Whether he can merit for himself an increase of grace or charity?

(9) Whether he can merit final perseverance?

(10) Whether temporal goods fall under merit?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 1]

Whether a Man May Merit Anything from God?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man can merit nothing from God. For
no one, it would seem, merits by giving another his due. But by all
the good we do, we cannot make sufficient return to God, since yet
more is His due, as also the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 14).
Hence it is written (Luke 17:10): "When you have done all these
things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we
have done that which we ought to do." Therefore a man can merit
nothing from God.

Obj. 2: Further, it would seem that a man merits nothing from God, by
what profits himself only, and profits God nothing. Now by acting
well, a man profits himself or another man, but not God, for it is
written (Job 35:7): "If thou do justly, what shalt thou give Him, or
what shall He receive of thy hand." Hence a man can merit nothing
from God.

Obj. 3: Further, whoever merits anything from another makes him his
debtor; for a man's wage is a debt due to him. Now God is no one's
debtor; hence it is written (Rom. 11:35): "Who hath first given to
Him, and recompense shall be made to him?" Hence no one can merit
anything from God.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 31:16): "There is a reward for
thy work." Now a reward means something bestowed by reason of merit.
Hence it would seem that a man may merit from God.

_I answer that,_ Merit and reward refer to the same, for a reward
means something given anyone in return for work or toil, as a price
for it. Hence, as it is an act of justice to give a just price for
anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to
make a return for work or toil. Now justice is a kind of equality, as
is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3), and hence justice is
simply between those that are simply equal; but where there is no
absolute equality between them, neither is there absolute justice,
but there may be a certain manner of justice, as when we speak of a
father's or a master's right (Ethic. v, 6), as the Philosopher says.
And hence where there is justice simply, there is the character of
merit and reward simply. But where there is no simple right, but only
relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively,
in so far as the character of justice is found there, since the child
merits something from his father and the slave from his lord.

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest
inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man's good is from
God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man
and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate
after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is
in man from God. Hence man's merit with God only exists on the
presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from
God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of
operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and
operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God;
differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act
by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which
is not so in other creatures.

Reply Obj. 1: Man merits, inasmuch as he does what he ought, by his
free-will; otherwise the act of justice whereby anyone discharges a
debt would not be meritorious.

Reply Obj. 2: God seeks from our goods not profit, but glory, i.e.
the manifestation of His goodness; even as He seeks it also in
His own works. Now nothing accrues to Him, but only to ourselves, by
our worship of Him. Hence we merit from God, not that by our works
anything accrues to Him, but inasmuch as we work for His glory.

Reply Obj. 3: Since our action has the character of merit, only on
the presupposition of the Divine ordination, it does not follow
that God is made our debtor simply, but His own, inasmuch as it
is right that His will should be carried out.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 2]

Whether Anyone Without Grace Can Merit Eternal Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that without grace anyone can merit
eternal life. For man merits from God what he is divinely ordained
to, as stated above (A. 1). Now man by his nature is ordained to
beatitude as his end; hence, too, he naturally wishes to be blessed.
Hence man by his natural endowments and without grace can merit
beatitude which is eternal life.

Obj. 2: Further, the less a work is due, the more meritorious it is.
Now, less due is that work which is done by one who has received
fewer benefits. Hence, since he who has only natural endowments has
received fewer gifts from God, than he who has gratuitous gifts as
well as nature, it would seem that his works are more meritorious
with God. And thus if he who has grace can merit eternal life to some
extent, much more may he who has no grace.

Obj. 3: Further, God's mercy and liberality infinitely surpass human
mercy and liberality. Now a man may merit from another, even though
he has not hitherto had his grace. Much more, therefore, would it
seem that a man without grace may merit eternal life.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 6:23): "The grace of God,
life everlasting."

_I answer that,_ Man without grace may be looked at in two states, as
was said above (Q. 109, A. 2): the first, a state of perfect nature,
in which Adam was before his sin; the second, a state of corrupt
nature, in which we are before being restored by grace. Therefore, if
we speak of man in the first state, there is only one reason why man
cannot merit eternal life without grace, by his purely natural
endowments, viz. because man's merit depends on the Divine
pre-ordination. Now no act of anything whatsoever is divinely
ordained to anything exceeding the proportion of the powers which are
the principles of its act; for it is a law of Divine providence that
nothing shall act beyond its powers. Now everlasting life is a good
exceeding the proportion of created nature; since it exceeds its
knowledge and desire, according to 1 Cor. 2:9: "Eye hath not seen,
nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man." And
hence it is that no created nature is a sufficient principle of an
act meritorious of eternal life, unless there is added a supernatural
gift, which we call grace. But if we speak of man as existing in sin,
a second reason is added to this, viz. the impediment of sin. For
since sin is an offense against God, excluding us from eternal life,
as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 71, A. 6; Q. 113, A.
2), no one existing in a state of mortal sin can merit eternal life
unless first he be reconciled to God, through his sin being forgiven,
which is brought about by grace. For the sinner deserves not life,
but death, according to Rom. 6:23: "The wages of sin is death."

Reply Obj. 1: God ordained human nature to attain the end of eternal
life, not by its own strength, but by the help of grace; and in this
way its act can be meritorious of eternal life.

Reply Obj. 2: Without grace a man cannot have a work equal to a work
proceeding from grace, since the more perfect the principle, the more
perfect the action. But the objection would hold good, if we supposed
the operations equal in both cases.

Reply Obj. 3: With regard to the first reason adduced, the case is
different in God and in man. For a man receives all his power of
well-doing from God, and not from man. Hence a man can merit nothing
from God except by His gift, which the Apostle expresses aptly saying
(Rom. 11:35): "Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be
made to him?" But man may merit from man, before he has received
anything from him, by what he has received from God.

But as regards the second proof taken from the impediment of sin, the
case is similar with man and God, since one man cannot merit from
another whom he has offended, unless he makes satisfaction to him and
is reconciled.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 3]

Whether a Man in Grace Can Merit Eternal Life Condignly?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man in grace cannot merit eternal
life condignly, for the Apostle says (Rom. 8:18): "The sufferings of
this time are not worthy (_condignae_) to be compared with the glory
to come, that shall be revealed in us." But of all meritorious works,
the sufferings of the saints would seem the most meritorious.
Therefore no works of men are meritorious of eternal life condignly.

Obj. 2: Further, on Rom. 6:23, "The grace of God, life everlasting,"
a gloss says: "He might have truly said: 'The wages of justice, life
everlasting'; but He preferred to say 'The grace of God, life
everlasting,' that we may know that God leads us to life everlasting
of His own mercy and not by our merits." Now when anyone merits
something condignly he receives it not from mercy, but from merit.
Hence it would seem that a man with grace cannot merit life
everlasting condignly.

Obj. 3: Further, merit that equals the reward, would seem to be
condign. Now no act of the present life can equal everlasting life,
which surpasses our knowledge and our desire, and moreover, surpasses
the charity or love of the wayfarer, even as it exceeds nature.
Therefore with grace a man cannot merit eternal life condignly.

_On the contrary,_ What is granted in accordance with a fair
judgment, would seem a condign reward. But life everlasting is
granted by God, in accordance with the judgment of justice, according
to 2 Tim. 4:8: "As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of
justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that
day." Therefore man merits everlasting life condignly.

_I answer that,_ Man's meritorious work may be considered in two
ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds
from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the
substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will,
there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But
there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it
would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should
reward him according to the excellence of his power.

If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds
from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is
meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its
merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life
everlasting according to John 4:14: "Shall become in him a fount of
water springing up into life everlasting." And the worth of the work
depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker
of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the
inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Rom. 8:17: "If
sons, heirs also."

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle is speaking of the substance of these
sufferings.

Reply Obj. 2: This saying is to be understood of the first cause of
our reaching everlasting life, viz. God's mercy. But our merit is a
subsequent cause.

Reply Obj. 3: The grace of the Holy Ghost which we have at present,
although unequal to glory in act, is equal to it virtually as the
seed of a tree, wherein the whole tree is virtually. So likewise by
grace of the Holy Ghost dwells in man; and He is a sufficient cause
of life everlasting; hence, 2 Cor. 1:22, He is called the "pledge" of
our inheritance.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 4]

Whether Grace Is the Principle of Merit Through Charity Rather Than
the Other Virtues?

Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not the principle of merit
through charity rather than the other virtues. For wages are due to
work, according to Matt. 20:8: "Call the laborers and pay them their
hire." Now every virtue is a principle of some operation, since
virtue is an operative habit, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 2). Hence
every virtue is equally a principle of merit.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:8): "Every man shall
receive his own reward according to his labor." Now charity lessens
rather than increases the labor, because as Augustine says (De Verbis
Dom., Serm. lxx), "love makes all hard and repulsive tasks easy and
next to nothing." Hence charity is no greater principle of merit than
any other virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, the greatest principle of merit would seem to be the
one whose acts are most meritorious. But the acts of faith and
patience or fortitude would seem to be the most meritorious, as
appears in the martyrs, who strove for the faith patiently and
bravely even till death. Hence other virtues are a greater principle
of merit than charity.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 14:21): "He that loveth Me,
shall be loved of My Father; and I will love him and will manifest
Myself to him." Now everlasting life consists in the manifest
knowledge of God, according to John 17:3: "This is eternal life: that
they may know Thee, the only true" and living "God." Hence the merit
of eternal life rests chiefly with charity.

_I answer that,_ As we may gather from what has been stated above (A.
1), human acts have the nature of merit from two causes: first and
chiefly from the Divine ordination, inasmuch as acts are said to
merit that good to which man is divinely ordained. Secondly, on the
part of free-will, inasmuch as man, more than other creatures, has
the power of voluntary acts by acting by himself. And in both these
ways does merit chiefly rest with charity. For we must bear in mind
that everlasting life consists in the enjoyment of God. Now the human
mind's movement to the fruition of the Divine good is the proper act
of charity, whereby all the acts of the other virtues are ordained to
this end, since all the other virtues are commanded by charity. Hence
the merit of life everlasting pertains first to charity, and
secondly, to the other virtues, inasmuch as their acts are commanded
by charity. So, likewise, is it manifest that what we do out of love
we do most willingly. Hence, even inasmuch as merit depends on
voluntariness, merit is chiefly attributed to charity.

Reply Obj. 1: Charity, inasmuch as it has the last end for object,
moves the other virtues to act. For the habit to which the end
pertains always commands the habits to which the means pertain, as
was said above (Q. 9, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 2: A work can be toilsome and difficult in two ways:
first, from the greatness of the work, and thus the greatness of the
work pertains to the increase of merit; and thus charity does not
lessen the toil--rather, it makes us undertake the greatest toils,
"for it does great things, if it exists," as Gregory says (Hom. in
Evang. xxx). Secondly, from the defect of the operator; for what is
not done with a ready will is hard and difficult to all of us, and
this toil lessens merit and is removed by charity.

Reply Obj. 3: The act of faith is not meritorious unless "faith . . .
worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). So, too, the acts of patience and
fortitude are not meritorious unless a man does them out of charity,
according to 1 Cor. 13:3: "If I should deliver my body to be burned,
and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 5]

Whether a Man May Merit for Himself the First Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man may merit for himself the first
grace, because, as Augustine says (Ep. clxxxvi), "faith merits
justification." Now a man is justified by the first grace. Therefore
a man may merit the first grace.

Obj. 2: Further, God gives grace only to the worthy. Now, no one is
said to be worthy of some good, unless he has merited it condignly.
Therefore we may merit the first grace condignly.

Obj. 3: Further, with men we may merit a gift already received. Thus
if a man receives a horse from his master, he merits it by a good use
of it in his master's service. Now God is much more bountiful than
man. Much more, therefore, may a man, by subsequent works, merit the
first grace already received from God.

_On the contrary,_ The nature of grace is repugnant to reward of
works, according to Rom. 4:4: "Now to him that worketh, the reward is
not reckoned according to grace but according to debt." Now a man
merits what is reckoned to him according to debt, as the reward of
his works. Hence a man may not merit the first grace.

_I answer that,_ The gift of grace may be considered in two ways:
first in the nature of a gratuitous gift, and thus it is manifest
that all merit is repugnant to grace, since as the Apostle says (Rom.
11:6), "if by grace, it is not now by works." Secondly, it may be
considered as regards the nature of the thing given, and thus, also,
it cannot come under the merit of him who has not grace, both because
it exceeds the proportion of nature, and because previous to grace a
man in the state of sin has an obstacle to his meriting grace, viz.
sin. But when anyone has grace, the grace already possessed cannot
come under merit, since reward is the term of the work, but grace is
the principle of all our good works, as stated above (Q. 109). But of
anyone merits a further gratuitous gift by virtue of the preceding
grace, it would not be the first grace. Hence it is manifest that no
one can merit for himself the first grace.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Retract. i, 23), he was deceived on
this point for a time, believing the beginning of faith to be from
us, and its consummation to be granted us by God; and this he here
retracts. And seemingly it is in this sense that he speaks of faith
as meriting justification. But if we suppose, as indeed it is a truth
of faith, that the beginning of faith is in us from God, the first
act must flow from grace; and thus it cannot be meritorious of the
first grace. Therefore man is justified by faith, not as though man,
by believing, were to merit justification, but that, he believes,
whilst he is being justified; inasmuch as a movement of faith is
required for the justification of the ungodly, as stated above (Q.
113, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 2: God gives grace to none but to the worthy, not that
they were previously worthy, but that by His grace He makes them
worthy, Who alone "can make him clean that is conceived of unclean
seed" (Job 14:4).

Reply Obj. 3: Man's every good work proceeds from the first grace as
from its principle; but not from any gift of man. Consequently, there
is no comparison between gifts of grace and gifts of men.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 6]

Whether a Man Can Merit the First Grace for Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man can merit the first grace for
another. Because on Matt. 9:2: "Jesus seeing their faith," etc. a
gloss says: "How much is our personal faith worth with God, Who set
such a price on another's faith, as to heal the man both inwardly and
outwardly!" Now inward healing is brought about by grace. Hence a man
can merit the first grace for another.

Obj. 2: Further, the prayers of the just are not void, but
efficacious, according to James 5:16: "The continued prayer of a just
man availeth much." Now he had previously said: "Pray one for
another, that you may be saved." Hence, since man's salvation can
only be brought about by grace, it seems that one man may merit for
another his first grace.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Luke 16:9): "Make unto you friends of
the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail they may receive you
into everlasting dwellings." Now it is through grace alone that
anyone is received into everlasting dwellings, for by it alone does
anyone merit everlasting life as stated above (A. 2; Q. 109, A. 5).
Hence one man may by merit obtain for another his first grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 15:1): "If Moses and Samuel
shall stand before Me, My soul is not towards this people"--yet they
had great merit with God. Hence it seems that no one can merit the
first grace for another.

_I answer that,_ As shown above (AA. 1, 3, 4), our works are
meritorious from two causes: first, by virtue of the Divine motion;
and thus we merit condignly; secondly, according as they proceed from
free-will in so far as we do them willingly, and thus they have
congruous merit, since it is congruous that when a man makes good use
of his power God should by His super-excellent power work still
higher things. And therefore it is clear that no one can merit
condignly for another his first grace, save Christ alone; since each
one of us is moved by God to reach life everlasting through the gift
of grace; hence condign merit does not reach beyond this motion. But
Christ's soul is moved by God through grace, not only so as to reach
the glory of life everlasting, but so as to lead others to it,
inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, and the Author of human
salvation, according to Heb. 2:10: "Who hath brought many children
into glory [to perfect] the Author of their salvation."

But one may merit the first grace for another congruously; because a
man in grace fulfils God's will, and it is congruous and in harmony
with friendship that God should fulfil man's desire for the salvation
of another, although sometimes there may be an impediment on the part
of him whose salvation the just man desires. And it is in this sense
that the passage from Jeremias speaks.

Reply Obj. 1: A man's faith avails for another's salvation by
congruous and not by condign merit.

Reply Obj. 2: The impetration of prayer rests on mercy, whereas
condign merit rests on justice; hence a man may impetrate many things
from the Divine mercy in prayer, which he does not merit in justice,
according to Dan. 9:18: "For it is not for our justifications that we
present our prayers before Thy face, but for the multitude of Thy
tender mercies."

Reply Obj. 3: The poor who receive alms are said to receive others
into everlasting dwellings, either by impetrating their forgiveness
in prayer, or by meriting congruously by other good works, or
materially speaking, inasmuch as by these good works of mercy,
exercised towards the poor, we merit to be received into everlasting
dwellings.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 7]

Whether a Man May Merit Restoration After a Fall?

Objection 1: It would seem that anyone may merit for himself
restoration after a fall. For what a man may justly ask of God, he
may justly merit. Now nothing may more justly be besought of God than
to be restored after a fall, as Augustine says [*Cf. Ennar. i super
Ps. lxx.], according to Ps. 70:9: "When my strength shall fail, do
not Thou forsake me." Hence a man may merit to be restored after a
fall.

Obj. 2: Further, a man's works benefit himself more than another. Now
a man may, to some extent, merit for another his restoration after a
fall, even as his first grace. Much more, therefore, may he merit for
himself restoration after a fall.

Obj. 3: Further, when a man is once in grace he merits life
everlasting by the good works he does, as was shown above (A. 2; Q.
109, A. 5). Now no one can attain life everlasting unless he is
restored by grace. Hence it would seem that he merits for himself
restoration.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:24): "If the just man
turn himself away from his justice and do iniquity . . . all his
justices which he hath done shall not be remembered." Therefore his
previous merits will nowise help him to rise again. Hence no one can
merit for himself restoration after a fall.

_I answer that,_ No one can merit for himself restoration after a
future fall, either condignly or congruously. He cannot merit for
himself condignly, since the reason of this merit depends on the
motion of Divine grace, and this motion is interrupted by the
subsequent sin; hence all benefits which he afterwards obtains from
God, whereby he is restored, do not fall under merit--the motion of
the preceding grace not extending to them. Again, congruous merit,
whereby one merits the first grace for another, is prevented from
having its effect on account of the impediment of sin in the one for
whom it is merited. Much more, therefore, is the efficacy of such
merit impeded by the obstacle which is in him who merits, and in him
for whom it is merited; for both these are in the same person. And
therefore a man can nowise merit for himself restoration after a fall.

Reply Obj. 1: The desire whereby we seek for restoration after a fall
is called just, and likewise the prayer whereby this restoration is
besought is called just, because it tends to justice; and not that it
depends on justice by way of merit, but only on mercy.

Reply Obj. 2: Anyone may congruously merit for another his first
grace, because there is no impediment (at least, on the part of him
who merits), such as is found when anyone recedes from justice after
the merit of grace.

Reply Obj. 3: Some have said that no one _absolutely_ merits life
everlasting except by the act of final grace, but only
_conditionally,_ i.e. if he perseveres. But it is unreasonable to say
this, for sometimes the act of the last grace is not more, but less
meritorious than preceding acts, on account of the prostration of
illness. Hence it must be said that every act of charity merits
eternal life absolutely; but by subsequent sin, there arises an
impediment to the preceding merit, so that it does not obtain its
effect; just as natural causes fail of their effects on account of a
supervening impediment.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 8]

Whether a Man May Merit the Increase of Grace or Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man cannot merit an increase of
grace or charity. For when anyone receives the reward he merited no
other reward is due to him; thus it was said of some (Matt. 6:2):
"They have received their reward." Hence, if anyone were to merit the
increase of charity or grace, it would follow that, when his grace
has been increased, he could not expect any further reward, which is
unfitting.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing acts beyond its species. But the principle
of merit is grace or charity, as was shown above (AA. 2, 4).
Therefore no one can merit greater grace or charity than he has.

Obj. 3: Further, what falls under merit a man merits by every act
flowing from grace or charity, as by every such act a man merits life
everlasting. If, therefore, the increase of grace or charity falls
under merit, it would seem that by every act quickened by charity a
man would merit an increase of charity. But what a man merits, he
infallibly receives from God, unless hindered by subsequent sin; for
it is written (2 Tim. 1:12): "I know Whom I have believed, and I am
certain that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto
Him." Hence it would follow that grace or charity is increased by
every meritorious act; and this would seem impossible since at times
meritorious acts are not very fervent, and would not suffice for the
increase of charity. Therefore the increase of charity does not come
under merit.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (super Ep. Joan.; cf. Ep. clxxxvi)
that "charity merits increase, and being increased merits to be
perfected." Hence the increase of grace or charity falls under merit.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 6, 7), whatever the motion of
grace reaches to, falls under condign merit. Now the motion of a
mover extends not merely to the last term of the movement, but to the
whole progress of the movement. But the term of the movement of grace
is eternal life; and progress in this movement is by the increase of
charity or grace according to Prov. 4:18: "But the path of the just
as a shining light, goeth forward and increaseth even to perfect
day," which is the day of glory. And thus the increase of grace falls
under condign merit.

Reply Obj. 1: Reward is the term of merit. But there is a double term
of movement, viz. the last, and the intermediate, which is both
beginning and term; and this term is the reward of increase. Now the
reward of human favor is as the last end to those who place their end
in it; hence such as these receive no other reward.

Reply Obj. 2: The increase of grace is not above the virtuality of
the pre-existing grace, although it is above its quantity, even as a
tree is not above the virtuality of the seed, although above its
quantity.

Reply Obj. 3: By every meritorious act a man merits the increase of
grace, equally with the consummation of grace which is eternal life.
But just as eternal life is not given at once, but in its own time,
so neither is grace increased at once, but in its own time, viz. when
a man is sufficiently disposed for the increase of grace.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 9]

Whether a Man May Merit Perseverance?

Objection 1: It would seem that anyone may merit perseverance. For
what a man obtains by asking, can come under the merit of anyone that
is in grace. Now men obtain perseverance by asking it of God;
otherwise it would be useless to ask it of God in the petitions of
the Lord's Prayer, as Augustine says (De Dono Persev. ii). Therefore
perseverance may come under the merit of whoever has grace.

Obj. 2: Further, it is more not to be able to sin than not to sin.
But not to be able to sin comes under merit, for we merit eternal
life, of which impeccability is an essential part. Much more,
therefore, may we merit not to sin, i.e. to persevere.

Obj. 3: Further, increase of grace is greater than perseverance in
the grace we already possess. But a man may merit an increase of
grace, as was stated above (A. 8). Much more, therefore, may he merit
perseverance in the grace he has already.

_On the contrary,_ What we merit, we obtain from God, unless it is
hindered by sin. Now many have meritorious works, who do not obtain
perseverance; nor can it be urged that this takes place because of
the impediment of sin, since sin itself is opposed to perseverance;
and thus if anyone were to merit perseverance, God would not permit
him to fall into sin. Hence perseverance does not come under merit.

_I answer that,_ Since man's free-will is naturally flexible towards
good and evil, there are two ways of obtaining from God perseverance
in good: first, inasmuch as free-will is determined to good by
consummate grace, which will be in glory; secondly, on the part of
the Divine motion, which inclines man to good unto the end. Now as
explained above (AA. 6, 7, 8), that which is related as a term to the
free-will's movement directed to God the mover, falls under human
merit; and not what is related to the aforesaid movement as
principle. Hence it is clear that the perseverance of glory which is
the term of the aforesaid movement falls under merit; but
perseverance of the wayfarer does not fall under merit, since it
depends solely on the Divine motion, which is the principle of all
merit. Now God freely bestows the good of perseverance, on whomsoever
He bestows it.

Reply Obj. 1: We impetrate in prayer things that we do not merit,
since God hears sinners who beseech the pardon of their sins, which
they do not merit, as appears from Augustine [*Tract. xliv in Joan.]
on John 11:31, "Now we know that God doth not hear sinners,"
otherwise it would have been useless for the publican to say: "O God,
be merciful to me a sinner," Luke 18:13. So too may we impetrate of
God in prayer the grace of perseverance either for ourselves or for
others, although it does not fall under merit.

Reply Obj. 2: The perseverance which is in heaven is compared as term
to the free-will's movement; not so, the perseverance of the
wayfarer, for the reason given in the body of the article.

In the same way may we answer the third objection which concerns the
increase of grace, as was explained above.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 114, Art. 10]

Whether Temporal Goods Fall Under Merit?

Objection 1: It would seem that temporal goods fall under merit. For
what is promised to some as a reward of justice, falls under merit.
Now, temporal goods were promised in the Old Law as the reward of
justice, as appears from Deut. 28. Hence it seems that temporal goods
fall under merit.

Obj. 2: Further, that would seem to fall under merit, which God
bestows on anyone for a service done. But God sometimes bestows
temporal goods on men for services done for Him. For it is written
(Ex. 1:21): "And because the midwives feared God, He built them
houses"; on which a gloss of Gregory (Moral. xviii, 4) says that
"life everlasting might have been awarded them as the fruit of their
goodwill, but on account of their sin of falsehood they received an
earthly reward." And it is written (Ezech. 29:18): "The King of
Babylon hath made his army to undergo hard service against Tyre . . .
and there hath been no reward given him," and further on: "And it
shall be wages for his army . . . I have given him the land of Egypt
because he hath labored for me." Therefore temporal goods fall under
merit.

Obj. 3: Further, as good is to merit so is evil to demerit. But on
account of the demerit of sin some are punished by God with temporal
punishments, as appears from the Sodomites, Gen. 19. Hence temporal
goods fall under merit.

Obj. 4: _On the contrary,_ What falls under merit does not come upon
all alike. But temporal goods regard the good and the wicked alike;
according to Eccles. 9:2: "All things equally happen to the just and
the wicked, to the good and to the evil, to the clean and to the
unclean, to him that offereth victims and to him that despiseth
sacrifices." Therefore temporal goods do not fall under merit.

_I answer that,_ What falls under merit is the reward or wage, which
is a kind of good. Now man's good is twofold: the first, simply; the
second, relatively. Now man's good simply is his last end (according
to Ps. 72:27: "But it is good for men to adhere to my God") and
consequently what is ordained and leads to this end; and these fall
simply under merit. But the relative, not the simple, good of man is
what is good to him now, or what is a good to him relatively; and
this does not fall under merit simply, but relatively.

Hence we must say that if temporal goods are considered as they are
useful for virtuous works, whereby we are led to heaven, they fall
directly and simply under merit, even as increase of grace, and
everything whereby a man is helped to attain beatitude after the
first grace. For God gives men, both just and wicked, enough temporal
goods to enable them to attain to everlasting life; and thus these
temporal goods are simply good. Hence it is written (Ps. 33:10): "For
there is no want to them that fear Him," and again, Ps. 36:25: "I
have not seen the just forsaken," etc.

But if these temporal goods are considered in themselves, they are
not man's good simply, but relatively, and thus they do not fall
under merit simply, but relatively, inasmuch as men are moved by God
to do temporal works, in which with God's help they reach their
purpose. And thus as life everlasting is simply the reward of the
works of justice in relation to the Divine motion, as stated above
(AA. 3, 6), so have temporal goods, considered in themselves, the
nature of reward, with respect to the Divine motion, whereby men's
wills are moved to undertake these works, even though, sometimes, men
have not a right intention in them.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv, 2), "in these
temporal promises were figures of spiritual things to come. For the
carnal people were adhering to the promises of the present life; and
not merely their speech but even their life was prophetic."

Reply Obj. 2: These rewards are said to have been divinely brought
about in relation to the Divine motion, and not in relation to the
malice of their wills, especially as regards the King of Babylon,
since he did not besiege Tyre as if wishing to serve God, but rather
in order to usurp dominion. So, too, although the midwives had a good
will with regard to saving the children, yet their will was not
right, inasmuch as they framed falsehoods.

Reply Obj. 3: Temporal evils are imposed as a punishment on the
wicked, inasmuch as they are not thereby helped to reach life
everlasting. But to the just who are aided by these evils they are
not punishments but medicines as stated above (Q. 87, A. 8).

Reply Obj. 4: All things happen equally to the good and the wicked,
as regards the substance of temporal good or evil; but not as regards
the end, since the good and not the wicked are led to beatitude by
them.

And now enough has been said regarding morals in general.