St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]

TREATISE ON GRACE (Questions [109]-114)

OF THE NECESSITY OF GRACE (TEN ARTICLES)

Consequenter considerandum est de exteriori principio humanorum actuum, scilicet de Deo, prout ab ipso per gratiam adiuvamur ad recte agendum.
  • Et primo, considerandum est de gratia Dei;
  • secundo, de causa eius;
  • tertio, de eius effectibus.
   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.
Prima autem consideratio erit tripartita, nam
  • primo considerabimus de necessitate gratiae;
  • secundo, de ipsa gratia quantum ad eius essentiam;
  • tertio, de eius divisione.
   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.
Circa primum quaeruntur decem.    Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum absque gratia possit homo aliquod verum cognoscere.     (1) Whether without grace man can know anything?
Secundo, utrum absque gratia Dei possit homo aliquod bonum facere vel velle.     (2) Whether without God's grace man can do or wish any good?
Tertio, utrum homo absque gratia possit Deum diligere super omnia.     (3) Whether without grace man can love God above all things?
Quarto, utrum absque gratia possit praecepta legis observare.     (4) Whether without grace man can keep the commandments of the Law?
Quinto, utrum absque gratia possit mereri vitam aeternam.     (5) Whether without grace he can merit eternal life?
Sexto, utrum homo possit se ad gratiam praeparare sine gratia.     (6) Whether without grace man can prepare himself for grace?
Septimo, utrum homo sine gratia possit resurgere a peccato.     (7) Whether without grace he can rise from sin?
Octavo, utrum absque gratia possit homo vitare peccatum.     (8) Whether without grace man can avoid sin?
Nono, utrum homo gratiam consecutus possit, absque alio divino auxilio, bonum facere et vitare peccatum.     (9) Whether man having received grace can do good and avoid sin without any further Divine help?
Decimo, utrum possit perseverare in bono per seipsum.     (10) Whether he can of himself persevere in good?

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether without grace man can know any truth?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo sine gratia nullum verum cognoscere possit. Quia super illud I Cor. XII, nemo potest dicere, dominus Iesus, nisi in spiritu sancto, dicit Glossa Ambrosii, omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a spiritu sancto est. Sed spiritus sanctus habitat in nobis per gratiam. Ergo veritatem cognoscere non possumus sine gratia.   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.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in I Soliloq., quod disciplinarum certissima talia sunt qualia illa quae a sole illustrantur ut videri possint; Deus autem ipse est qui illustrat; ratio autem ita est in mentibus ut in oculis est aspectus; mentis autem oculi sunt sensus animae. Sed sensus corporis, quantumcumque sit purus, non potest aliquod visibile videre sine solis illustratione. Ergo humana mens, quantumcumque sit perfecta, non potest ratiocinando veritatem cognoscere absque illustratione divina. Quae ad auxilium gratiae pertinet.   Objection 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 Whom 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.
Praeterea, humana mens non potest veritatem intelligere nisi cogitando; ut patet per Augustinum XIV de Trin. Sed apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III, non sufficientes sumus aliquid cogitare a nobis, quasi ex nobis. Ergo homo non potest cognoscere veritatem per seipsum sine auxilio gratiae.   Objection 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.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I Retract., non approbo quod in oratione dixi, Deus, qui non nisi mundos verum scire voluisti. Responderi enim potest multos etiam non mundos multa scire vera. Sed per gratiam homo mundus efficitur; secundum illud Psalmi l, cor mundum crea in me, Deus; et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis. Ergo sine gratia potest homo per seipsum veritatem cognoscere.   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.
Respondeo dicendum quod cognoscere veritatem est usus quidam, vel actus, intellectualis luminis, quia secundum apostolum, ad Ephes. V, omne quod manifestatur, lumen est. Usus autem quilibet quendam motum importat, large accipiendo motum secundum quod intelligere et velle motus quidam esse dicuntur, ut patet per philosophum in III de anima. Videmus autem in corporalibus quod ad motum non solum requiritur ipsa forma quae est principium motus vel actionis; sed etiam requiritur motio primi moventis. Primum autem movens in ordine corporalium est corpus caeleste. Unde quantumcumque ignis habeat perfectum calorem, non alteraret nisi per motionem caelestis corporis. Manifestum est autem quod, sicut omnes motus corporales reducuntur in motum caelestis corporis sicut in primum movens corporale; ita omnes motus tam corporales quam spirituales reducuntur in primum movens simpliciter, quod est Deus. Et ideo quantumcumque natura aliqua corporalis vel spiritualis ponatur perfecta, non potest in suum actum procedere nisi moveatur a Deo. Quae quidem motio est secundum suae providentiae rationem; non secundum necessitatem naturae, sicut motio corporis caelestis. Non solum autem a Deo est omnis motio sicut a primo movente; sed etiam ab ipso est omnis formalis perfectio sicut a primo actu. Sic igitur actio intellectus, et cuiuscumque entis creati, dependet a Deo quantum ad duo, uno modo, inquantum ab ipso habet formam per quam agit; alio modo, inquantum ab ipso movetur ad agendum.   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.
Unaquaeque autem forma indita rebus creatis a Deo, habet efficaciam respectu alicuius actus determinati, in quem potest secundum suam proprietatem, ultra autem non potest nisi per aliquam formam superadditam, sicut aqua non potest calefacere nisi calefacta ab igne. Sic igitur intellectus humanus habet aliquam formam, scilicet ipsum intelligibile lumen, quod est de se sufficiens ad quaedam intelligibilia cognoscenda, ad ea scilicet in quorum notitiam per sensibilia possumus devenire. Altiora vero intelligibilia intellectus humanus cognoscere non potest nisi fortiori lumine perficiatur, sicut lumine fidei vel prophetiae; quod dicitur lumen gratiae, inquantum est naturae superadditum.    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 of 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.
Sic igitur dicendum est quod ad cognitionem cuiuscumque veri, homo indiget auxilio divino ut intellectus a Deo moveatur ad suum actum. Non autem indiget ad cognoscendam veritatem in omnibus, nova illustratione superaddita naturali illustrationi; sed in quibusdam, quae excedunt naturalem cognitionem. Et tamen quandoque Deus miraculose per suam gratiam aliquos instruit de his quae per naturalem rationem cognosci possunt, sicut et quandoque miraculose facit quaedam quae natura facere potest.    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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen, et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem. Non autem sicut ab inhabitante per gratiam gratum facientem, vel sicut a largiente aliquod habituale donum naturae superadditum, sed hoc solum est in quibusdam veris cognoscendis et loquendis; et maxime in illis quae pertinent ad fidem, de quibus apostolus loquebatur.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod sol corporalis illustrat exterius; sed sol intelligibilis, qui est Deus, illustrat interius. Unde ipsum lumen naturale animae inditum est illustratio Dei, qua illustramur ab ipso ad cognoscendum ea quae pertinent ad naturalem cognitionem. Et ad hoc non requiritur alia illustratio, sed solum ad illa quae naturalem cognitionem excedunt.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod semper indigemus divino auxilio ad cogitandum quodcumque, inquantum ipse movet intellectum ad agendum, actu enim intelligere aliquid est cogitare, ut patet per Augustinum, XIV de Trin.   Reply to Objection 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).

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether man can wish or do any good without grace?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo possit velle et facere bonum absque gratia. Illud enim est in hominis potestate cuius ipse est dominus. Sed homo est dominus suorum actuum, et maxime eius quod est velle, ut supra dictum est. Ergo homo potest velle et facere bonum per seipsum absque auxilio gratiae.   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 (Question [1], Article [1]; Question [13], Article [6]). Hence man, of himself, can wish and do good without the help of grace.
Praeterea, unumquodque magis potest in id quod est sibi secundum naturam, quam in id quod est sibi praeter naturam. Sed peccatum est contra naturam, ut Damascenus dicit, in II libro, opus autem virtutis est homini secundum naturam, ut supra dictum est. Cum igitur homo per seipsum possit peccare, videtur quod multo magis per seipsum possit bonum velle et facere.   Objection 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 (Question [71], Article [1]). Therefore since man can sin of himself he can wish and do good.
Praeterea, bonum intellectus est verum, ut philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic. Sed intellectus potest cognoscere verum per seipsum, sicut et quaelibet alia res potest suam naturalem operationem per se facere. Ergo multo magis homo potest per seipsum facere et velle bonum.   Objection 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.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. IX, non est volentis, scilicet velle, neque currentis, scilicet currere, sed miserentis Dei. Et Augustinus dicit, in libro de Corrept. et gratia, quod sine gratia nullum prorsus, sive cogitando, sive volendo et amando, sive agendo, faciunt homines bonum.   On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 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."
Respondeo dicendum quod natura hominis dupliciter potest considerari, uno modo, in sui integritate, sicut fuit in primo parente ante peccatum; alio modo, secundum quod est corrupta in nobis post peccatum primi parentis. Secundum autem utrumque statum, natura humana indiget auxilio divino ad faciendum vel volendum quodcumque bonum, sicut primo movente, ut dictum est. Sed in statu naturae integrae, quantum ad sufficientiam operativae virtutis, poterat homo per sua naturalia velle et operari bonum suae naturae proportionatum, quale est bonum virtutis acquisitae, non autem bonum superexcedens, quale est bonum virtutis infusae. Sed in statu naturae corruptae etiam deficit homo ab hoc quod secundum suam naturam potest, ut non possit totum huiusmodi bonum implere per sua naturalia. Quia tamen natura humana per peccatum non est totaliter corrupta, ut scilicet toto bono naturae privetur; potest quidem etiam in statu naturae corruptae, per virtutem suae naturae aliquod bonum particulare agere, sicut aedificare domos, plantare vineas, et alia huiusmodi; non tamen totum bonum sibi connaturale, ita quod in nullo deficiat. Sicut homo infirmus potest per seipsum aliquem motum habere; non tamen perfecte potest moveri motu hominis sani, nisi sanetur auxilio medicinae.   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 (Article [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.
Sic igitur virtute gratuita superaddita virtuti naturae indiget homo in statu naturae integrae quantum ad unum, scilicet ad operandum et volendum bonum supernaturale. Sed in statu naturae corruptae, quantum ad duo, scilicet ut sanetur; et ulterius ut bonum supernaturalis virtutis operetur, quod est meritorium. Ulterius autem in utroque statu indiget homo auxilio divino ut ab ipso moveatur ad bene agendum.    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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo est dominus suorum actuum, et volendi et non volendi, propter deliberationem rationis, quae potest flecti ad unam partem vel ad aliam. Sed quod deliberet vel non deliberet, si huius etiam sit dominus, oportet quod hoc sit per deliberationem praecedentem. Et cum hoc non procedat in infinitum, oportet quod finaliter deveniatur ad hoc quod liberum arbitrium hominis moveatur ab aliquo exteriori principio quod est supra mentem humanam, scilicet a Deo; ut etiam philosophus probat in cap. de bona fortuna. Unde mens hominis etiam sani non ita habet dominium sui actus quin indigeat moveri a Deo. Et multo magis liberum arbitrium hominis infirmi post peccatum, quod impeditur a bono per corruptionem naturae.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod peccare nihil aliud est quam deficere a bono quod convenit alicui secundum suam naturam. Unaquaeque autem res creata, sicut esse non habet nisi ab alio, et in se considerata est nihil, ita indiget conservari in bono suae naturae convenienti ab alio. Potest autem per seipsam deficere a bono, sicut et per seipsam potest deficere in non esse, nisi divinitus conservaretur.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam verum non potest homo cognoscere sine auxilio divino, sicut supra dictum est. Et tamen magis est natura humana corrupta per peccatum quantum ad appetitum boni, quam quantum ad cognitionem veri.   Reply to Objection 3: Man cannot even know truth without Divine help, as stated above (Article [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.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether by his own natural powers and without grace man can love God above all things?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non possit diligere Deum super omnia ex solis naturalibus sine gratia. Diligere enim Deum super omnia est proprius et principalis caritatis actus. Sed caritatem homo non potest habere per seipsum, quia caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis, ut dicitur Rom. V. Ergo homo ex solis naturalibus non potest Deum diligere super omnia.   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 Rm. 5:5. Therefore man by his natural powers alone cannot love God above all things.
Praeterea, nulla natura potest supra seipsam. Sed diligere aliquid plus quam se, est tendere in aliquid supra seipsum. Ergo nulla natura creata potest Deum diligere supra seipsam sine auxilio gratiae.   Objection 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.
Praeterea, Deo, cum sit summum bonum, debetur summus amor, qui est ut super omnia diligatur. Sed ad summum amorem Deo impendendum, qui ei a nobis debetur, homo non sufficit sine gratia, alioquin frustra gratia adderetur. Ergo homo non potest sine gratia ex solis naturalibus diligere Deum super omnia.   Objection 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.
Sed contra, primus homo in solis naturalibus constitutus fuit, ut a quibusdam ponitur. In quo statu manifestum est quod aliqualiter Deum dilexit. Sed non dilexit Deum aequaliter sibi, vel minus se, quia secundum hoc peccasset. Ergo dilexit Deum supra se. Ergo homo ex solis naturalibus potest Deum diligere plus quam se, et super omnia.   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.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est in primo, in quo etiam circa naturalem dilectionem Angelorum diversae opiniones sunt positae; homo in statu naturae integrae poterat operari virtute suae naturae bonum quod est sibi connaturale, absque superadditione gratuiti doni, licet non absque auxilio Dei moventis. Diligere autem Deum super omnia est quiddam connaturale homini; et etiam cuilibet creaturae non solum rationali, sed irrationali et etiam inanimatae, secundum modum amoris qui unicuique creaturae competere potest. Cuius ratio est quia unicuique naturale est quod appetat et amet aliquid, secundum quod aptum natum est esse, sic enim agit unumquodque, prout aptum natum est, ut dicitur in II Physic. Manifestum est autem quod bonum partis est propter bonum totius. Unde etiam naturali appetitu vel amore unaquaeque res particularis amat bonum suum proprium propter bonum commune totius universi, quod est Deus. Unde et Dionysius dicit, in libro de Div. Nom., quod Deus convertit omnia ad amorem sui ipsius. Unde homo in statu naturae integrae dilectionem sui ipsius referebat ad amorem Dei sicut ad finem, et similiter dilectionem omnium aliarum rerum. Et ita Deum diligebat plus quam seipsum, et super omnia. Sed in statu naturae corruptae homo ab hoc deficit secundum appetitum voluntatis rationalis, quae propter corruptionem naturae sequitur bonum privatum, nisi sanetur per gratiam Dei. Et ideo dicendum est quod homo in statu naturae integrae non indigebat dono gratiae superadditae naturalibus bonis ad diligendum Deum naturaliter super omnia; licet indigeret auxilio Dei ad hoc eum moventis. Sed in statu naturae corruptae indiget homo etiam ad hoc auxilio gratiae naturam sanantis.   I answer that, As was said above (FP, Question [60], Article [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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritas diligit Deum super omnia eminentius quam natura. Natura enim diligit Deum super omnia, prout est principium et finis naturalis boni, caritas autem secundum quod est obiectum beatitudinis, et secundum quod homo habet quandam societatem spiritualem cum Deo. Addit etiam caritas super dilectionem naturalem Dei promptitudinem quandam et delectationem, sicut et quilibet habitus virtutis addit supra actum bonum qui fit ex sola naturali ratione hominis virtutis habitum non habentis.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum dicitur quod nulla natura potest supra seipsam, non est intelligendum quod non possit ferri in aliquod obiectum quod est supra se, manifestum est enim quod intellectus noster naturali cognitione potest aliqua cognoscere quae sunt supra seipsum, ut patet in naturali cognitione Dei. Sed intelligendum est quod natura non potest in actum excedentem proportionem suae virtutis. Talis autem actus non est diligere Deum super omnia, hoc enim est naturale cuilibet naturae creatae, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod amor dicitur summus non solum quantum ad gradum dilectionis, sed etiam quantum ad rationem diligendi, et dilectionis modum. Et secundum hoc, supremus gradus dilectionis est quo caritas diligit Deum ut beatificantem, sicut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 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.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether man without grace and by his own natural powers can fulfil the commandments of the Law?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo sine gratia per sua naturalia possit praecepta legis implere. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. II, quod gentes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciunt. Sed illud quod naturaliter homo facit, potest per seipsum facere absque gratia. Ergo homo potest legis praecepta facere absque gratia.   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 (Rm. 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.
Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, in expositione Catholicae fidei, illos esse maledicendos qui Deum praecepisse homini aliquid impossibile dicunt. Sed impossibile est homini quod per seipsum implere non potest. Ergo homo potest implere omnia praecepta legis per seipsum.   Objection 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.
Praeterea, inter omnia praecepta legis maximum est illud, diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo; ut patet Matth. XXII. Sed hoc mandatum potest homo implere ex solis naturalibus, diligendo Deum super omnia, ut supra dictum est. Ergo omnia mandata legis potest homo implere sine gratia.   Objection 3: Further, of all the commandments of the Law, the greatest is this, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart" (Mt. 27:37). Now man with his natural endowments can fulfil this command by loving God above all things, as stated above (Article [3]). Therefore man can fulfil all the commandments of the Law without grace.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de haeresibus, hoc pertinere ad haeresim Pelagianorum, ut credant sine gratia posse hominem facere omnia divina mandata.   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."
Respondeo dicendum quod implere mandata legis contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad substantiam operum, prout scilicet homo operatur iusta et fortia, et alia virtutis opera. Et hoc modo homo in statu naturae integrae potuit omnia mandata legis implere, alioquin non potuisset in statu illo non peccare, cum nihil aliud sit peccare quam transgredi divina mandata. Sed in statu naturae corruptae non potest homo implere omnia mandata divina sine gratia sanante. Alio modo possunt impleri mandata legis non solum quantum ad substantiam operis, sed etiam quantum ad modum agendi, ut scilicet ex caritate fiant. Et sic neque in statu naturae integrae, neque in statu naturae corruptae, potest homo implere absque gratia legis mandata. Unde Augustinus, in libro de Corrept. et Grat., cum dixisset quod sine gratia nullum prorsus bonum homines faciunt, subdit, non solum ut, monstrante ipsa quid faciendum sit, sciant; verum etiam ut, praestante ipsa, faciant cum dilectione quod sciunt. Indigent insuper in utroque statu auxilio Dei moventis ad mandata implenda, ut dictum est.   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 Corrupt. 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 (Articles [2],3).
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Spir. et Litt., non moveat quod naturaliter eos dixit quae legis sunt facere, hoc enim agit spiritus gratiae, ut imaginem Dei, in qua naturaliter facti sumus, instauret in nobis.   Reply to Objection 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."
Ad secundum dicendum quod illud quod possumus cum auxilio divino, non est nobis omnino impossibile; secundum illud philosophi, in III Ethic., quae per amicos possumus, aliqualiter per nos possumus. Unde et Hieronymus ibidem confitetur sic nostrum liberum esse arbitrium, ut dicamus nos semper indigere Dei auxilio.   Reply to Objection 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."
Ad tertium dicendum quod praeceptum de dilectione Dei non potest homo implere ex puris naturalibus secundum quod ex caritate impletur, ut ex supradictis patet.   Reply to Objection 3: Man cannot, with his purely natural endowments, fulfil the precept of the love of God, as stated above (Article [3]).

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 5  [<< | >>]

Whether man can merit everlasting life without grace?

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo possit mereri vitam aeternam sine gratia. Dicit enim dominus, Matth. XIX, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, ex quo videtur quod ingredi in vitam aeternam sit constitutum in hominis voluntate. Sed id quod in nostra voluntate constitutum est, per nos ipsos possumus. Ergo videtur quod homo per seipsum possit vitam aeternam mereri.   Objection 1: It would seem that man can merit everlasting life without grace. For Our Lord says (Mt. 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.
Praeterea, vita aeterna est praemium vel merces quae hominibus redditur a Deo; secundum illud Matth. V, merces vestra multa est in caelis. Sed merces vel praemium redditur a Deo homini secundum opera eius; secundum illud Psalmi LXI, tu reddes unicuique secundum opera eius. Cum igitur homo sit dominus suorum operum, videtur quod in eius potestate constitutum sit ad vitam aeternam pervenire.   Objection 2: Further, eternal life is the wage of reward bestowed by God on men, according to Mt. 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.
Praeterea, vita aeterna est ultimus finis humanae vitae. Sed quaelibet res naturalis per sua naturalia potest consequi finem suum. Ergo multo magis homo, qui est altioris naturae, per sua naturalia potest pervenire ad vitam aeternam absque aliqua gratia.   Objection 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.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VI, gratia Dei vita aeterna. Quod ideo dicitur, sicut Glossa ibidem dicit, ut intelligeremus Deum ad aeternam vitam pro sua miseratione nos perducere.   On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 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."
Respondeo dicendum quod actus perducentes ad finem oportet esse fini proportionatos. Nullus autem actus excedit proportionem principii activi. Et ideo videmus in rebus naturalibus quod nulla res potest perficere effectum per suam operationem qui excedat virtutem activam, sed solum potest producere per operationem suam effectum suae virtuti proportionatum. Vita autem aeterna est finis excedens proportionem naturae humanae, ut ex supradictis patet. Et ideo homo per sua naturalia non potest producere opera meritoria proportionata vitae aeternae, sed ad hoc exigitur altior virtus, quae est virtus gratiae. Et ideo sine gratia homo non potest mereri vitam aeternam. Potest tamen facere opera perducentia ad aliquod bonum homini connaturale, sicut laborare in agro, bibere, manducare, et habere amicum, et alia huiusmodi; ut Augustinus dicit, in tertia responsione contra Pelagianos.   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 (Question [5], Article [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].
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo sua voluntate facit opera meritoria vitae aeternae, sed, sicut Augustinus in eodem libro dicit, ad hoc exigitur quod voluntas hominis praeparetur a Deo per gratiam.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Glossa dicit Rom. VI, super illud, gratia Dei vita aeterna, certum est vitam aeternam bonis operibus reddi, sed ipsa opera quibus redditur, ad Dei gratiam pertinent, cum etiam supra dictum sit quod ad implendum mandata legis secundum debitum modum, per quem eorum impletio est meritoria, requiritur gratia.   Reply to Objection 2: As the gloss upon Rm. 6:23, "The grace of God is life everlasting," says, "It is certain that everlasting life is meter to good works; but the works to which it is meted, belong to God's grace." And it has been said (Article [4]), that to fulfil the commandments of the Law, in their due way, whereby their fulfilment may be meritorious, requires grace.
Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de fine homini connaturali. Natura autem humana, ex hoc ipso quod nobilior est, potest ad altiorem finem perduci, saltem auxilio gratiae, ad quem inferiores naturae nullo modo pertingere possunt. Sicut homo est melius dispositus ad sanitatem qui aliquibus auxiliis medicinae potest sanitatem consequi, quam ille qui nullo modo; ut philosophus introducit in II de caelo.   Reply to Objection 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).

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 6  [<< | >>]

Whether a man, by himself and without the external aid of grace, can prepare himself for grace?

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo possit seipsum ad gratiam praeparare per seipsum, absque exteriori auxilio gratiae. Nihil enim imponitur homini quod sit ei impossibile, ut supra dictum est. Sed Zach. I dicitur, convertimini ad me, et ego convertar ad vos, nihil autem est aliud se ad gratiam praeparare quam ad Deum converti. Ergo videtur quod homo per seipsum possit se ad gratiam praeparare absque auxilio gratiae.   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 (Article [4], ad 1). But it is written (Zach. 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.
Praeterea, homo se ad gratiam praeparat faciendo quod in se est, quia si homo facit quod in se est, Deus ei non denegat gratiam; dicitur enim Matth. VII, quod Deus dat spiritum bonum petentibus se. Sed illud in nobis esse dicitur quod est in nostra potestate. Ergo videtur quod in nostra potestate sit constitutum ut nos ad gratiam praeparemus.   Objection 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 (Mt. 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.
Praeterea, si homo indiget gratia ad hoc quod praeparet se ad gratiam, pari ratione indigebit gratia ad hoc quod praeparet se ad illam gratiam, et sic procederetur in infinitum, quod est inconveniens. Ergo videtur standum in primo, ut scilicet homo sine gratia possit se ad gratiam praeparare.   Objection 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.
Praeterea, Prov. XVI dicitur, hominis est praeparare animum. Sed illud dicitur esse hominis quod per seipsum potest. Ergo videtur quod homo per seipsum se possit ad gratiam praeparare.   Objection 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.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. VI, nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum. Si autem homo seipsum praeparare posset, non oporteret quod ab alio traheretur. Ergo homo non potest se praeparare ad gratiam absque auxilio gratiae.   On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 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.
Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est praeparatio voluntatis humanae ad bonum. Una quidem qua praeparatur ad bene operandum et ad Deo fruendum. Et talis praeparatio voluntatis non potest fieri sine habituali gratiae dono, quod sit principium operis meritorii, ut dictum est. Alio modo potest intelligi praeparatio voluntatis humanae ad consequendum ipsum gratiae habitualis donum. Ad hoc autem quod praeparet se ad susceptionem huius doni, non oportet praesupponere aliquod aliud donum habituale in anima, quia sic procederetur in infinitum, sed oportet praesupponi aliquod auxilium gratuitum Dei interius animam moventis, sive inspirantis bonum propositum. His enim duobus modis indigemus auxilio divino, ut supra dictum est. Quod autem ad hoc indigeamus auxilio Dei moventis, manifestum est. Necesse est enim, cum omne agens agat propter finem, quod omnis causa convertat suos effectus ad suum finem. Et ideo, cum secundum ordinem agentium sive moventium sit ordo finium, necesse est quod ad ultimum finem convertatur homo per motionem primi moventis, ad finem autem proximum per motionem alicuius inferiorum moventium, sicut animus militis convertitur ad quaerendum victoriam ex motione ducis exercitus, ad sequendum autem vexillum alicuius aciei ex motione tribuni. Sic igitur, cum Deus sit primum movens simpliciter, ex eius motione est quod omnia in ipsum convertantur secundum communem intentionem boni, per quam unumquodque intendit assimilari Deo secundum suum modum. Unde et Dionysius, in libro de Div. Nom., dicit quod Deus convertit omnia ad seipsum. Sed homines iustos convertit ad seipsum sicut ad specialem finem, quem intendunt, et cui cupiunt adhaerere sicut bono proprio; secundum illud Psalmi LXXII, mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est. Et ideo quod homo convertatur ad Deum, hoc non potest esse nisi Deo ipsum convertente. Hoc autem est praeparare se ad gratiam, quasi ad Deum converti, sicut ille qui habet oculum aversum a lumine solis, per hoc se praeparat ad recipiendum lumen solis, quod oculos suos convertit versus solem. Unde patet quod homo non potest se praeparare ad lumen gratiae suscipiendum, nisi per auxilium gratuitum Dei interius moventis.   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 (Article [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 (Articles [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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod conversio hominis ad Deum fit quidem per liberum arbitrium; et secundum hoc homini praecipitur quod se ad Deum convertat. Sed liberum arbitrium ad Deum converti non potest nisi Deo ipsum ad se convertente; secundum illud Ierem. XXXI, converte me, et convertar, quia tu dominus Deus meus; et Thren. ult., converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur.   Reply to Objection 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."
Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil homo potest facere nisi a Deo moveatur; secundum illud Ioan. XV, sine me nihil potestis facere. Et ideo cum dicitur homo facere quod in se est, dicitur hoc esse in potestate hominis secundum quod est motus a Deo.   Reply to Objection 2: Man can do nothing unless moved by God, according to Jn. 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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de gratia habituali, ad quam requiritur aliqua praeparatio, quia omnis forma requirit susceptibile dispositum. Sed hoc quod homo moveatur a Deo non praeexigit aliquam aliam motionem, cum Deus sit primum movens. Unde non oportet abire in infinitum.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad quartum dicendum quod hominis est praeparare animum, quia hoc facit per liberum arbitrium, sed tamen hoc non facit sine auxilio Dei moventis et ad se attrahentis, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 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.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 7  [<< | >>]

Whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace?

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo possit resurgere a peccato sine auxilio gratiae. Illud enim quod praeexigitur ad gratiam, fit sine gratia. Sed resurgere a peccato praeexigitur ad illuminationem gratiae, dicitur enim ad Ephes. V, exurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus. Ergo homo potest resurgere a peccato sine gratia.   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 to 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.
Praeterea, peccatum virtuti opponitur sicut morbus sanitati, ut supra dictum est. Sed homo per virtutem naturae potest resurgere de aegritudine ad sanitatem sine auxilio exterioris medicinae, propter hoc quod intus manet principium vitae, a quo procedit operatio naturalis. Ergo videtur quod, simili ratione, homo possit reparari per seipsum, redeundo de statu peccati ad statum iustitiae, absque auxilio exterioris gratiae.   Objection 2: Further, sin is opposed to virtue as illness to health, as stated above (Question [71], Article [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.
Praeterea, quaelibet res naturalis potest redire ad actum convenientem suae naturae, sicut aqua calefacta per seipsam redit ad naturalem frigiditatem, et lapis sursum proiectus per seipsum redit ad suum naturalem motum. Sed peccatum est quidam actus contra naturam; ut patet per Damascenus, in II libro. Ergo videtur quod homo possit per seipsum redire de peccato ad statum iustitiae.   Objection 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.
.Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Gal. II, si data est lex quae potest iustificare, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est, idest sine causa. Pari ergo ratione, si homo habet naturam per quam potest iustificari, Christus gratis, idest sine causa, mortuus est. Sed hoc est inconveniens dicere. Ergo non potest homo per seipsum iustificari, idest redire de statu culpae ad statum iustitiae.   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.
Respondeo dicendum quod homo nullo modo potest resurgere a peccato per seipsum sine auxilio gratiae. Cum enim peccatum transiens actu remaneat reatu, ut supra dictum est; non est idem resurgere a peccato quod cessare ab actu peccati. Sed resurgere a peccato est reparari hominem ad ea quae peccando amisit. Incurrit autem homo triplex detrimentum peccando, ut ex supradictis patet, scilicet maculam, corruptionem naturalis boni, et reatum poenae. Maculam quidem incurrit, inquantum privatur decore gratiae ex deformitate peccati. Bonum autem naturae corrumpitur, inquantum natura hominis deordinatur voluntate hominis Deo non subiecta, hoc enim ordine sublato, consequens est ut tota natura hominis peccantis inordinata remaneat. Reatus vero poenae est per quem homo peccando mortaliter meretur damnationem aeternam.   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 (Question [87], Article [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 (Question [85], Article [1]; Question [86], Article [1]; Question [87], Article [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.
Manifestum est autem de singulis horum trium, quod non possunt reparari nisi per Deum. Cum enim decor gratiae proveniat ex illustratione divini luminis, non potest talis decor in anima reparari, nisi Deo denuo illustrante, unde requiritur habituale donum, quod est gratiae lumen. Similiter ordo naturae reparari non potest, ut voluntas hominis Deo subiiciatur, nisi Deo voluntatem hominis ad se trahente, sicut dictum est. Similiter etiam reatus poenae aeternae remitti non potest nisi a Deo, in quem est offensa commissa, et qui est hominum iudex. Et ideo requiritur auxilium gratiae ad hoc quod homo a peccato resurgat, et quantum ad habituale donum, et quantum ad interiorem Dei motionem.    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 (Article [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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud indicitur homini quod pertinet ad actum liberi arbitrii qui requiritur in hoc quod homo a peccato resurgat. Et ideo cum dicitur, exsurge, et illuminabit te Christus, non est intelligendum quod tota exurrectio a peccato praecedat illuminationem gratiae, sed quia cum homo per liberum arbitrium a Deo motum surgere conatur a peccato, recipit lumen gratiae iustificantis.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod naturalis ratio non est sufficiens principium huius sanitatis quae est in homine per gratiam iustificantem; sed huius principium est gratia, quae tollitur per peccatum. Et ideo non potest homo per seipsum reparari, sed indiget ut denuo ei lumen gratiae infundatur, sicut si corpori mortuo resuscitando denuo infunderetur anima.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, quando natura est integra, per seipsam potest reparari ad id quod est sibi conveniens et proportionatum, sed ad id quod superexcedit suam proportionem, reparari non potest sine exteriori auxilio. Sic igitur humana natura defluens per actum peccati, quia non manet integra sed corrumpitur, ut supra dictum est, non potest per seipsam reparari neque etiam ad bonum sibi connaturale; et multo minus ad bonum supernaturalis iustitiae.   Reply to Objection 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 (Question [85]); nor can it be restored, by itself, to its connatural good, much less to the supernatural good of justice.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 8  [<< | >>]

Whether man without grace can avoid sin?

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo sine gratia possit non peccare. Nullus enim peccat in eo quod vitare non potest; ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Duab. Animab., et de Lib. Arb. Si ergo homo existens in peccato mortali non possit vitare peccatum, videtur quod peccando non peccet. Quod est inconveniens.   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.
Praeterea, ad hoc corripitur homo ut non peccet. Si igitur homo in peccato mortali existens non potest non peccare, videtur quod frustra ei correptio adhibeatur. Quod est inconveniens.   Objection 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.
Praeterea, Eccli. XV dicitur, ante hominem vita et mors, bonum et malum, quod placuerit ei, dabitur illi. Sed aliquis peccando non desinit esse homo. Ergo adhuc in eius potestate est eligere bonum vel malum. Et ita potest homo sine gratia vitare peccatum.   Objection 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.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Perfect. Iustit., quisquis negat nos orare debere ne intremus in tentationem (negat autem hoc qui contendit ad non peccandum gratiae Dei adiutorium non esse homini necessarium, sed, sola lege accepta, humanam sufficere voluntatem), ab auribus omnium removendum, et ore omnium anathematizandum esse non dubito.   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."
Respondeo dicendum quod de homine dupliciter loqui possumus, uno modo, secundum statum naturae integrae; alio modo, secundum statum naturae corruptae. Secundum statum quidem naturae integrae, etiam sine gratia habituali, poterat homo non peccare nec mortaliter nec venialiter, quia peccare nihil aliud est quam recedere ab eo quod est secundum naturam, quod vitare homo poterat in integritate naturae. Non tamen hoc poterat sine auxilio Dei in bono conservantis, quo subtracto, etiam ipsa natura in nihilum decideret.   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.
In statu autem naturae corruptae, indiget homo gratia habituali sanante naturam, ad hoc quod omnino a peccato abstineat. Quae quidem sanatio primo fit in praesenti vita secundum mentem, appetitu carnali nondum totaliter reparato, unde apostolus, ad Rom. VII, in persona hominis reparati, dicit, ego ipse mente servio legi Dei, carne autem legi peccati. In quo quidem statu potest homo abstinere a peccato mortali quod in ratione consistit, ut supra habitum est. Non autem potest homo abstinere ab omni peccato veniali, propter corruptionem inferioris appetitus sensualitatis, cuius motus singulos quidem ratio reprimere potest (et ex hoc habent rationem peccati et voluntarii), non autem omnes, quia dum uni resistere nititur, fortassis alius insurgit; et etiam quia ratio non semper potest esse pervigil ad huiusmodi motus vitandos; ut supra dictum est.    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 (Rm. 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 (Question [74], Article [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 always alert to avoid these movements, as was said above (Question [74], Article [3], ad 2).
Similiter etiam antequam hominis ratio, in qua est peccatum mortale, reparetur per gratiam iustificantem, potest singula peccata mortalia vitare, et secundum aliquod tempus, quia non est necesse quod continuo peccet in actu. Sed quod diu maneat absque peccato mortali, esse non potest. Unde et Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., quod peccatum quod mox per poenitentiam non deletur, suo pondere ad aliud trahit. Et huius ratio est quia, sicut rationi subdi debet inferior appetitus, ita etiam ratio debet subdi Deo, et in ipso constituere finem suae voluntatis. Per finem autem oportet quod regulentur omnes actus humani, sicut per rationis iudicium regulari debent motus inferioris appetitus. Sicut ergo, inferiori appetitu non totaliter subiecto rationi, non potest esse quin contingant inordinati motus in appetitu sensitivo; ita etiam, ratione hominis non existente subiecta Deo, consequens est ut contingant multae inordinationes in ipsis actibus rationis. Cum enim homo non habet cor suum firmatum in Deo, ut pro nullo bono consequendo vel malo vitando ab eo separari vellet; occurrunt multa propter quae consequenda vel vitanda homo recedit a Deo contemnendo praecepta ipsius, et ita peccat mortaliter, praecipue quia in repentinis homo operatur secundum finem praeconceptum, et secundum habitum praeexistentem, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic.; quamvis ex praemeditatione rationis homo possit aliquid agere praeter ordinem finis praeconcepti, et praeter inclinationem habitus. Sed quia homo non potest semper esse in tali praemeditatione, non potest contingere ut diu permaneat quin operetur secundum consequentiam voluntatis deordinatae a Deo, nisi cito per gratiam ad debitum ordinem reparetur.    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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo potest vitare singulos actus peccati, non tamen omnes, nisi per gratiam, ut dictum est. Et tamen quia ex eius defectu est quod homo se ad gratiam habendam non praeparet, per hoc a peccato non excusatur, quod sine gratia peccatum vitare non potest.   Reply to Objection 1: Man can avoid each but 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod correptio utilis est ut ex dolore correptionis voluntas regenerationis oriatur. Si tamen qui corripitur filius est promissionis, ut, strepitu correptionis forinsecus insonante ac flagellante, Deus in illo intrinsecus occulta inspiratione operetur et velle; ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Corrept. et Grat. Ideo ergo necessaria est correptio, quia voluntas hominis requiritur ad hoc quod a peccato abstineat. Sed tamen correptio non est sufficiens sine Dei auxilio, unde dicitur Eccle. VII, considera opera Dei, quod nemo possit corrigere quem ille despexerit.   Reply to Objection 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."
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in Hypognost., verbum illud intelligitur de homine secundum statum naturae integrae, quando nondum erat servus peccati, unde poterat peccare et non peccare. Nunc etiam quodcumque vult homo, datur ei. Sed hoc quod bonum velit, habet ex auxilio gratiae.   Reply to Objection 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.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 9  [<< | >>]

Whether one who has already obtained grace, can, of himself and without further help of grace, do good and avoid sin?

Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ille qui iam consecutus est gratiam, per seipsum possit operari bonum et vitare peccatum, absque alio auxilio gratiae. Unumquodque enim aut frustra est, aut imperfectum, si non implet illud ad quod datur. Sed gratia ad hoc datur nobis ut possimus bonum facere et vitare peccatum. Si igitur per gratiam hoc homo non potest, videtur quod vel gratia sit frustra data, vel sit imperfecta.   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.
Praeterea, per gratiam ipse spiritus sanctus in nobis habitat; secundum illud I ad Cor. III, nescitis quia templum Dei estis, et spiritus Dei habitat in vobis? Sed spiritus sanctus, cum sit omnipotens, sufficiens est ut nos inducat ad bene operandum, et ut nos a peccato custodiat. Ergo homo gratiam consecutus potest utrumque praedictorum absque alio auxilio gratiae.   Objection 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.
Praeterea, si homo consecutus gratiam adhuc alio auxilio gratiae indiget ad hoc quod recte vivat et a peccato abstineat, pari ratione et si illud aliud auxilium gratiae consecutus fuerit, adhuc alio auxilio indigebit. Procedetur ergo in infinitum, quod est inconveniens. Ergo ille qui est in gratia, non indiget alio auxilio gratiae ad hoc quod bene operetur et a peccato abstineat.   Objection 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.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de natura et gratia, quod sicut oculus corporis plenissime sanus, nisi candore lucis adiutus, non potest cernere; sic et homo perfectissime etiam iustificatus, nisi aeterna luce iustitiae divinitus adiuvetur, recte non potest vivere. Sed iustificatio fit per gratiam; secundum illud Rom. III. Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Ergo etiam homo iam habens gratiam indiget alio auxilio gratiae ad hoc quod recte vivat.   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 Rm. 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.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, homo ad recte vivendum dupliciter auxilio Dei indiget. Uno quidem modo, quantum ad aliquod habituale donum, per quod natura humana corrupta sanetur; et etiam sanata elevetur ad operandum opera meritoria vitae aeternae, quae excedunt proportionem naturae. Alio modo indiget homo auxilio gratiae ut a Deo moveatur ad agendum.   I answer that, As stated above (Article [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 meritoriously 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.
Quantum igitur ad primum auxilii modum, homo in gratia existens non indiget alio auxilio gratiae quasi aliquo alio habitu infuso. Indiget tamen auxilio gratiae secundum alium modum, ut scilicet a Deo moveatur ad recte agendum. Et hoc propter duo. Primo quidem, ratione generali, propter hoc quod, sicut supra dictum est, nulla res creata potest in quemcumque actum prodire nisi virtute motionis divinae. Secundo, ratione speciali, propter conditionem status humanae naturae. Quae quidem licet per gratiam sanetur quantum ad mentem, remanet tamen in ea corruptio et infectio quantum ad carnem, per quam servit legi peccati, ut dicitur ad Rom. VII. Remanet etiam quaedam ignorantiae obscuritas in intellectu, secundum quam, ut etiam dicitur Rom. VIII, quid oremus sicut oportet, nescimus. Propter varios enim rerum eventus, et quia etiam nosipsos non perfecte cognoscimus, non possumus ad plenum scire quid nobis expediat; secundum illud Sap. IX, cogitationes mortalium timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae. Et ideo necesse est nobis ut a Deo dirigamur et protegamur, qui omnia novit et omnia potest. Et propter hoc etiam renatis in filios Dei per gratiam, convenit dicere, et ne nos inducas in tentationem, et, fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra, et cetera quae in oratione dominica continentur ad hoc pertinentia.    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," Rm. 7:25. In the intellect, too, there seems the darkness of ignorance, whereby, as is written (Rm. 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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod donum habitualis gratiae non ad hoc datur nobis ut per ipsum non indigeamus ulterius divino auxilio, indiget enim quaelibet creatura ut a Deo conservetur in bono quod ab ipso accepit. Et ideo si post acceptam gratiam homo adhuc indiget divino auxilio, non potest concludi quod gratia sit in vacuum data, vel quod sit imperfecta. Quia etiam in statu gloriae, quando gratia erit omnino perfecta, homo divino auxilio indigebit. Hic autem aliqualiter gratia imperfecta est, inquantum hominem non totaliter sanat, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod operatio spiritus sancti qua nos movet et protegit, non circumscribitur per effectum habitualis doni quod in nobis causat; sed praeter hunc effectum nos movet et protegit, simul cum patre et filio.   Reply to Objection 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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa concludit quod homo non indigeat alia habituali gratia.   Reply to Objection 3: This argument merely proves that man needs no further habitual grace.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 109  [<< | >>]
Article: 10  [<< | >>]

Whether man possessed of grace needs the help of grace in order to persevere?

Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo in gratia constitutus non indigeat auxilio gratiae ad perseverandum. Perseverantia enim est aliquid minus virtute, sicut et continentia, ut patet per philosophum in VII Ethic. Sed homo non indiget alio auxilio gratiae ad habendum virtutes, ex quo est iustificatus per gratiam. Ergo multo minus indiget auxilio gratiae ad habendum perseverantiam.   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.
Praeterea, omnes virtutes simul infunduntur. Sed perseverantia ponitur quaedam virtus. Ergo videtur quod, simul cum gratia infusis aliis virtutibus, perseverantia detur.   Objection 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.
Praeterea, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Rom. V, plus restitutum est homini per donum Christi, quam amiserit per peccatum Adae. Sed Adam accepit unde posset perseverare. Ergo multo magis nobis restituitur per gratiam Christi ut perseverare possimus. Et ita homo non indiget gratia ad perseverandum.   Objection 3: Further, as the Apostle says (Rm. 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.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de perseverantia, cur perseverantia poscitur a Deo, si non datur a Deo? An et ista irrisoria petitio est, cum id ab eo petitur quod scitur non ipsum dare, sed, ipso non dante, esse in hominis potestate? Sed perseverantia petitur etiam ab illis qui sunt per gratiam sanctificati, quod intelligitur cum dicimus, sanctificetur nomen tuum, ut ibidem Augustinus confirmat per verba Cypriani. Ergo homo etiam in gratia constitutus, indiget ut ei perseverantia a Deo detur.   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.
Respondeo dicendum quod perseverantia tripliciter dicitur. Quandoque enim significat habitum mentis per quem homo firmiter stat, ne removeatur ab eo quod est secundum virtutem, per tristitias irruentes, ut sic se habeat perseverantia ad tristitias sicut continentia ad concupiscentias et delectationes ut philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic. Alio modo potest dici perseverantia habitus quidam secundum quem habet homo propositum perseverandi in bono usque in finem. Et utroque istorum modorum, perseverantia simul cum gratia infunditur sicut et continentia et ceterae virtutes. Alio modo dicitur perseverantia continuatio quaedam boni usque ad finem vitae. Et ad talem perseverantiam habendam homo in gratia constitutus non quidem indiget aliqua alia habituali gratia, sed divino auxilio ipsum dirigente et protegente contra tentationum impulsus, sicut ex praecedenti quaestione apparet. Et ideo postquam aliquis est iustificatus per gratiam, necesse habet a Deo petere praedictum perseverantiae donum, ut scilicet custodiatur a malo usque ad finem vitae. Multis enim datur gratia, quibus non datur perseverare in gratia.   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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de primo modo perseverantiae, sicut et secunda obiectio procedit de secundo.   Reply to Objection 1: This objection regards the first mode of perseverance, as the second objection regards the second.
Unde patet solutio ad secundum.    Hence the solution of the second objection is clear.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de natura et gratia, homo in primo statu accepit donum per quod perseverare posset, non autem accepit ut perseveraret. Nunc autem per gratiam Christi multi accipiunt et donum gratiae quo perseverare possunt, et ulterius eis datur quod perseverent. Et sic donum Christi est maius quam delictum Adae. Et tamen facilius homo per gratiae donum perseverare poterat in statu innocentiae, in quo nulla erat rebellio carnis ad spiritum, quam nunc possumus, quando reparatio gratiae Christi, etsi sit inchoata quantum ad mentem, nondum tamen est consummata quantum ad carnem. Quod erit in patria, ubi homo non solum perseverare poterit, sed etiam peccare non poterit.   Reply to Objection 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.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:20 1998.