Question Twenty-Four: Free Choice

  1. Et primo quaeritur, utrum homo sit liberi arbitrii.
  2. Secundo utrum liberum arbitrium sit in brutis.
  3. Tertio utrum liberum arbitrium sit in Deo.
  4. Quarto utrum liberum arbitrium sit potentia, vel non.
  5. Quinto utrum liberum arbitrium sit una potentia vel plures.
  6. Sexto utrum liberum arbitrium sit voluntas, vel potentia alia a voluntate.
  7. Septimo utrum possit esse aliqua creatura quae liberum arbitrium habeat naturaliter confirmatum in bono.
  8. Octavo utrum liberum arbitrium creaturae possit confirmari in bono per aliquod donum gratiae.
  9. Nono utrum liberum arbitrium hominis in statu viae possit confirmari in bono.
  10. Decimo utrum liberum arbitrium creaturae possit esse obstinatum in malo, vel immutabiliter firmatum.
  11. Undecimo utrum liberum arbitrium hominis in statu viae possit esse obstinatum in malo.
  12. Duodecimo utrum liberum arbitrium sine gratia, in statu peccati mortalis, possit vitare peccatum mortale.
  13. Tertiodecimo utrum aliquis in gratia existens possit vitare peccatum mortale.
  14. Quartodecimo utrum liberum arbitrium possit in bonum sine gratia.
  15. Quintodecimo utrum homo sine gratia possit se praeparare ad gratiam habendam.
  1. Is man endowed with free choice?
  2. Is there free choice in brutes?
  3. Is there free choice in God?
  4. Is free choice a power or not?
  5. Is free choice one power or several?
  6. Is free choice the will or a power other than the will?
  7. Can there be any creature which has its free choice naturally confirmed in good?
  8. Can the free choice of a creature be confirmed in good by a gift of grace?
  9. Can the free choice of man in this present life be confirmed in good?
  10. Can the free choice of any creature be obstinate or unalterably hardened in evil?
  11. Can the free choice of man in this present life be obstinate in evil?
  12. Can free choice in the state of mortal sin avoid mortal sin without grace?
  13. Can a person in the state of grace avoid mortal sin?
  14. Is free choice capable of good without grace?
  15. Can man without grace prepare himself to have grace?
ARTICLE I

The question is about free choice,
and in the first article we ask:
Is man endowed with free choice?

[ARTICLE De ver., 22, 6; I I Sent., 25, a. 2; S.T., I 59, 3; 83, 1; I-II, 13, 6; De malo, 6; In I Perih., 14, nn. 23 & 24.]
Et primo quaeritur utrum in homine sit liberum arbitrium Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems that he is not, for
Ut enim dicitur Hierem. X, 23, non est hominis via, nec viri est ut ambulet et dirigat gressus suos. Secundum hoc autem dicitur aliquis esse liberi arbitrii, quod est dominus suorum operum. Ergo homo non est liberi arbitrii. 1. It is written in Jeremiah (10:23): “The way of man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk and to direct his steps.” But a man is said to be endowed with free choice inasmuch as he is the master of his own actions. Man is therefore not endowed with free choice.
Sed diceretur, quod verbum prophetae intelligitur de actibus meritoriis, qui non sunt in naturali hominis potestate. —Sed contra: ad ea quae non sunt in potestate nostra, non sumus liberi arbitrii. Si ergo merita non sunt in potestate nostra, non sumus liberi arbitrii ad merendum; et sic actus meritorii non procedent ex libero arbitrio. 2. The answer was given that the statement of the prophet refers to meritorious acts, which are not in man’s natural power.—On the contrary, regarding things that are not in our power we do not have free choice. If, then, merits are not in our power, we do not have free choice as to meriting; and so meritorious acts will not proceed from free choice.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in I metaphysicorum, liberum est quod sui causa est. Sed mens humana habet aliam causam sui motus quam seipsam, scilicet Deum: quia Rom. I, 26, super illud, propterea tradidit illos Deus, dicit Glossa: manifestum est Deum operari in mentibus hominum ad convertendas voluntates eorum in quodcumque voluerit. Ergo mens humana non est liberi arbitrii. 3. According to the Philosopher, “that is free which is for its own sake.” But the human mind has a cause of its own motion other than itself, namely, God. On the words of the Epistle to the Romans (1:24): “Wherefore, God gave them up...” the Gloss comments: “It is evident that God works in the minds of men to turn their wills to whatever He wishes.” The human mind therefore is not endowed with free choice.
Sed diceretur, quod mens humana est sicut causa principalis sui actus, Deus autem sicut remota; et hoc non impedit mentis libertatem.- Sed contra: quanto aliqua causa magis influit in effectum, tanto est principalior. Sed causa prima plus influit in effectum quam secunda, ut dicitur in Lib. de causis. Ergo causa prima est principalior quam secunda. Et ita mens nostra non est principalis causa sui actus, sed Deus. 4. It was answered that the human mind is as the principal cause of its own act and God is as the remote cause, and that this does not prevent the freedom of the mind.—On the contrary, the more a cause influences the effect, the more it stands as the principal cause. But the first cause influences the effect more than the second, as is said in The Causes. Hence the first cause is more the principal cause than the second; and thus our mind is not the principal cause of its own act, but God is.
Praeterea, omne quod movet, est sicut instrumentum, ut patet per Commentatorem in VIII Physic. Instrumentum autem non est liberum ad agendum, cum non agat nisi secundum quod aliquis eo utitur. Cum ergo mens humana non operetur nisi mota a Deo, videtur quod non sit liberi arbitrii. 5. Every mover that is moved, moves as an instrument, as is clear from the Commentator. But an instrument is not free in its action, since it does not act except inasmuch as it is used. Since, then, the human mind operates only when moved by God, it does not seem to be endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium dicitur esse facultas voluntatis et rationis, qua bonum eligitur gratia assistente, vel malum eadem deficiente. Sed multi sunt qui non habent gratiam. Ergo non possunt libere eligere bonum; et ita non habent liberum arbitrium ad bona. 6. Free choice is said to be a capability of the will and reason by which good is chosen with the help of grace or evil is chosen without it. But there are many who do not have grace. Hence they cannot freely choose good; and so they do not have free choice regarding good things.
Praeterea, servitus libertati opponitur. Sed in homine invenitur servitus peccati, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati, ut dicitur Ioan. VIII, 34. Ergo in homine non est liberum arbitrium. 7. Slavery is opposed to freedom. But in man there is found the slavery of sin, because “whoever commits sin is the servant of sin,” as is said in John (8: 34). In man, then, there is no freedom of choice.
Praeterea, Anselmus dicit in libro de libero arbitrio: si haberemus potentiam peccandi et non peccandi, gratia non indigeremus. Potentia autem peccandi et non peccandi est liberum arbitrium. Ergo, cum gratia indigeamus, liberum arbitrium non habemus. 8. Anselm says that if we had the power of sinning and not sinning, we should not need grace. But the power of sinning and not sinning is free choice. Then, since we need grace, we do not have free choice.
Praeterea, ab optimo unumquodque denominandum est, ut ex philosopho habetur in II de anima. Sed optimum inter humanos actus sunt actus meritorii. Cum igitur ad hos homo non sit liberi arbitrii, quia, ut dicitur Ioan. XV, 5, sine me nihil potestis facere, quod de actibus meritoriis intelligitur: videtur quod homo non sit dicendus liberi arbitrii. 9. Each thing is named from the best, as is gathered from the Philosopher. But as applied to human actions “the best” means meritorious acts. Therefore, since man does not have free choice as to these, because “without me you can do nothing,” as is said in John (15:5) with reference to meritorious acts, it seems that man should not be said to be endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit: quia homo noluit abstinere a peccato cum potuit, inflictum est ei non posse cum velit. Ergo non est in potestate hominis peccare et non peccare. Et sic videtur non esse dominus suorum actuum, nec liberi arbitrii. 10. Augustine says that, because man did not wish to abstain from sin when he could have, he has had inflicted upon him the inability to do so when he wishes. It is therefore not in man’s power to sin and not to sin; and so it seems that he is not the master of his own actions and is not endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, Bernardus, distinguit triplicem libertatem: scilicet libertatem arbitrii, libertatem consilii, et libertatem beneplaciti; et dicit, quod libertas arbitrii est qua discernimus quid liceat, libertas consilii qua discernimus quid expediat, libertas beneplaciti qua discernimus quid libeat. Sed discretio humana per ignorantiam est sauciata. Ergo videtur quod libertas arbitrii, quae in discretione consistit, in homine post peccatum non remansit. 11. Bernard distinguishes a threefold freedom: of choice, of counsel, and of liking. He says that freedom of choice is that by which we decide “what we are permitted to do”; freedom of counsel, that by which we decide “what it is expedient to do”; and freedom of liking, that by which we decide “what it pleases us to do.” But human discernment is wounded by ignorance. It therefore seems that freedom of choice, which consists in discernment, has not remained in man after his sin.
Praeterea, respectu eorum homo non habet libertatem respectu quorum habet necessitatem. Sed respectu peccatorum homo habet necessitatem: quia post peccatum, secundum Augustinum, necesse est hominem peccare, ante reparationem quidem mortaliter, post reparationem vero saltem venialiter. Ergo ad peccata homo non est liberi arbitrii. 12. Man does not have freedom concerning those things in regard to which he is under necessity. But in regard to sins man is under necessity, because, according to Augustine,) since original sin it has been necessary for man to sin—mortally before reparation and at least venially after reparation. Regarding sin, therefore, man does not have free choice.
Praeterea, quidquid Deus praescit, necesse est evenire, cum praescientia Dei falli non possit. Sed omnes actus humanos Deus praescit. Ergo de necessitate eveniunt; et ita homo non est liberi arbitrii ad agendum. 13. Whatever God foreknows must necessarily come about, since God’s foreknowledge cannot be in error. But God foreknows all human acts. They therefore come about of necessity, and so man is not endowed with free choice in his action.
Praeterea, quanto aliquod mobile est magis propinquum primo motori, tanto est magis uniforme in suo motu; sicut patet de corporibus caelestibus, quorum motus semper eodem modo se habent. Sed cum omnis creatura a Deo moveatur: movet enim creaturam corporalem per tempus et locum, spiritualem vero per tempus, ut dicit Augustinus VIII super Genesim ad litteram; rationalis creatura est mobile propinquissimum Deo, qui est primus omnium motor. Ergo habet motum maxime uniformem. Et sic facultas eius ad plura non se extendit, ut per hoc possit dici liberi arbitrii. 14. The nearer a mobile being is to the prime mover, the more uniform it is in its motion. This is apparent in the heavenly bodies, whose motions are always the same. Now, since every creature is moved by God, for “He moves corporeal creatures in time and space, and spiritual creatures in time,” as Augustine says, a rational creature is the mobile being nearest to God, the prime mover of all. It therefore has a motion most uniform; and its capacity accordingly does not extend to many different things so that it can by that fact be said to have free choice.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in II caeli et mundi, de nobilitate supremi caeli est ut finem suum motu unico consequatur. Sed anima rationalis est nobilior illo caelo, cum spiritus corpori praeferatur, secundum Augustinum, VIII de civitate Dei. Ergo anima humana habet unicum motum; et ita non videtur esse liberi arbitrii. 15. According to the Philosopher,” it belongs to the excellence of the highest heaven that it attain its end in a single motion. But the rational soul is more excellent than that heaven, since, according to Augustine, spirit ranks higher than body. The human soul therefore has a single motion, and so it does not seem to be endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, decuit divinam bonitatem ut creaturam sublimissimam optime collocaret. Sed optime collocatum est quod immobiliter optimo adhaeret. Ergo decuit ut Deus rationalem naturam, quae est sublimissima inter creaturas, faceret talem quae sibi immobiliter adhaereret: quod, si esset liberi arbitrii, ut videtur, non haberet. Ergo decuit ut natura rationalis sine libero arbitrio fieret. 16. It befitted the divine wisdom to place the most sublime creature in the best conditions. But that which immovably adheres to the most excellent being has been placed in the best conditions. It has therefore befitted God to make rational nature, which is the most sublime among creatures, such that it adheres to Him immovably. But if that nature were endowed with free choice, it would not have such immovable adherence, so it seems. It was therefore fitting that rational nature be made without free choice.
Praeterea, philosophi definiunt liberum arbitrium esse liberum de ratione iudicium: iudicium vero rationis cogi potest virtute demonstrationis. Quod autem cogitur, non est liberum. Ergo homo non est liberi arbitrii. 17. The philosophers define free choice as a free judgment of reason. The judgment of reason, however, can be constrained by the force of a demonstration. But what is constrained is not free. Man is therefore not endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, propter hoc intellectus seu ratio cogi potest, quia est aliquod verum cui nulla falsitas admiscetur, nec apparentia falsitatis; unde non est intellectus subterfugere quin ei assentiat. Sed similiter invenitur aliquod bonum cui nihil malitiae admiscetur nec secundum rei veritatem nec secundum apparentiam. Cum ergo bonum sit obiectum voluntatis, sicut verum intellectus, videtur quod sicut intellectus cogitur, ita voluntas, et sic homo non habet libertatem nec quantum ad voluntatem nec quantum ad rationem. Et sic non habebit liberum arbitrium, quod est facultas voluntatis et rationis. 18. The reason why the intellect or reason can be constrained is that there is some truth which has no admixture or appearance of falsity. On this account the intellect cannot escape assenting to it. But there is likewise found a good which has no admixture of evil either in fact or in appearance. Now since good is the object of the will as truth is that of the intellect, it therefore seems that the will is constrained just like the intellect. Thus man does not have freedom either as to his will or as to his reason; and so he does not have free choice as a capability of will and reason.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in III Ethicorum, qualis unusquisque est, talis finis videtur ei. Sed non est in potestate nostra quod sumus tales vel tales; cum hoc homo ex nativitate habeat, et dependeat, ut quibusdam videtur, ex dispositione stellarum. Ergo non est in potestate nostra ut hunc vel illum finem approbemus. Sed omne iudicium de agendis ex fine sumitur. Ergo non sumus liberi arbitrii. 19. According to the Philosopher, “each person judges of the end in accordance with his own character.” But it is not in our power to be one kind of person rather than another, since a man’s particular temperament is had from birth and, as some maintain, depends upon the arrangement of the stars. It is therefore not in our power to approve this or that end. But every judgment about a course of action is based upon the end. We are therefore not endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, liberum necessitati opponitur. Sed respectu quorumdam voluntas hominis necessitatem habet; de necessitate enim vult beatitudinem. Ergo non habet respectu omnium libertatem; et ita non est liberi arbitrii quantum ad omnia. 20. Free choice is opposed to necessity. But in certain respects the will of man is under necessity, for he necessarily wills happiness. He therefore does not have freedom in regard to all things, and so is not endowed with free choice in regard to all.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod dicitur, Eccli. XV, vers. 14: Deus ab initio constituit hominem, et reliquit eum in manu consilii sui; Glossa, id est in potestate liberi arbitrii. l. Sirach (15:14) says: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”; and the Gloss comments: “That is, in the power of his free choice.”
Praeterea, invenitur in rebus aliquod agens quod agit ex nihilo, et non ex necessitate, scilicet Deus; aliquod etiam agens quod agit ex aliquo, et ex necessitate, sicut agentia naturalia. Sed positis extremis in rerum natura, consequens est ut media ponantur, secundum philosophum in Lib. II caeli et mundi. Inter haec autem duo non potest esse nisi duplex medium; quorum alterum est impossibile esse, scilicet agens ex nihilo, et de necessitate: ex nihilo enim agere solius Dei est, qui non ex necessitate agit, sed ex voluntate. Ergo relinquitur esse aliquid quod agat ex aliquo, et non ex necessitate; et hoc est rationalis natura, quae agit ex praesupposita materia, et non ex necessitate, sed ex arbitrii libertate. 2. There is found in reality one agent which acts out of nothing and not from necessity. That is God. And there is found another agent which acts out of something and from necessity, namely, natural agents. But according to the Philosopher, when extremes are given in reality, it follows that means are given. But between the above two extremes there can be only two different means, and it is impossible for one of these to exist: namely, an agent acting out of nothing and of necessity; for only God acts out of nothing, and He does not act from necessity but from will. There is left, therefore, only a being which acts out of something and not from necessity. This is a rational nature, which acts upon pre-existing matter and not from necessity but from free choice.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium est facultas voluntatis et rationis. Sed in homine invenitur ratio et voluntas. Ergo et liberum arbitrium. 3. Free choice is a capability of will and reason. But reason and will are found in man. So too, then, is free choice.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in Lib. III Ethic., consilium non est nisi eorum quae in nobis sunt. Sed homines de suis actibus consiliantur. Ergo homines sunt domini suorum actuum, et per hoc liberi arbitrii. 4. According to the Philosopher, “counsel is taken only in regard to the things that are in our power.” But men take counsel about their own actions. Men are therefore masters of their own actions, and are accordingly endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, praecepta et prohibitiones fieri non debent nisi ei qui potest facere et non facere: alias enim frustra fierent. Sed homini divinitus fiunt prohibitiones et praecepta. Ergo in hominis potestate est facere et non facere; et ita est liberi arbitrii. 5. Commands and prohibitions should be imposed only upon one who can do or not do; otherwise they would be imposed in vain. But prohibitions and commands are divinely imposed upon man. It is therefore in man’s power to do or not to do; and so he is endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, nullus debet puniri vel praemiari pro eo quod non est in eius potestate facere et non facere. Sed homo iuste a Deo punitur et praemiatur pro suis operibus. Ergo homo potest operari et non operari; et ita est liberi arbitrii. 6. No one should be punished or rewarded for something which it is not in his power to do or not to do. But man is justly punished and rewarded by God for his deeds. Therefore man can do and not do; and so he is endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, omnium quae fiunt, aliquam causam ponere oportet. Sed humanorum actuum non possumus ponere causam ipsum Deum immediate: quia ea quae a Deo immediate sunt, non possunt esse nisi bona; actus autem humani sunt quandoque boni quandoque mali. Similiter non potest dici quod humanorum actuum sit causa necessitas: quia ex necessitate proveniunt quae semper eodem modo se habent; quod in humanis actibus non videmus. Similiter non potest dici quod fatum, vel stellarum dispositio, sit causa eorum: quia oporteret actus humanos ex necessitate accidere, sicut et causa necessaria est. Nec etiam natura eorum causa esse potest, quod ostendit humanorum actuum varietas: natura enim determinata est ad unum, nec ab eo deficit nisi in minori parte. Nec fortuna vel casus humanorum actuum causa esse potest: quia fortuna et casus sunt causa eorum quae raro et praeter intentionem accidunt, ut dicitur in II Physic., quod in humanis actibus non apparet. Relinquitur igitur ipsum hominem facientem, esse principium suorum propriorum actuum; et per hoc esse liberi arbitrii. 7. A cause must be assigned for everything which happens. But we cannot assign as the cause of human actions God Himself immediately, because the things which are immediately from God cannot be anything but good; and human actions are sometimes good, sometimes bad. It further cannot be said that the cause of human actions is necessity, because there proceed from necessity things which are always the same; but we do not see this verified in human actions. It likewise cannot be said that fate or the arrangement of the stars is the cause of these actions, because human actions would have to come about from necessity, just as their cause is necessary. Nor can nature be their cause, as is shown by the variety of human actions; for nature is determined to one course of action and cannot fail in it except in a minority of cases. Nor can fortune or chance be the cause of human actions, because fortune and chance are the cause of things that happen rarely and without being intended, as is said in the Physics; but this is not verified in human actions. Nothing is left, then, but that the man who is doing the acting is himself the principle of his own acts, and consequently has free choice.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod absque omni dubitatione hominem arbitrio liberum ponere oportet. Ad hoc enim fides astringit, cum sine libero arbitrio non possit esse meritum vel demeritum, iusta poena vel praemium. Ad hoc etiam manifesta indicia inducunt, quibus apparet hominem libere unum eligere, et aliud refutare. Ad hoc etiam evidens ratio cogit, quam quidem ad investigationem liberi arbitrii originem sequentes, hoc modo procedemus. Without any doubt it must be affirmed that man is endowed with free choice. The faith obliges us to this, since without free choice there cannot be merit and demerit, or just punishment and reward. Clear indications, from which it appears that man freely chooses one thing and refuses another, also lead us to this. Evident reasoning also forces us to this conclusion. Tracing out by its means the origin of free choice for the purposes of our investigation, we shall proceed as follows.
In rebus enim quae moventur vel aliquid agunt, haec invenitur differentia: quod quaedam principium sui motus vel operationis in seipsis habent; quaedam vero extra se, sicut ea quae per violentiam moventur, in quibus principium est extra, nil conferente vim passo, secundum philosophum in III Ethic.: in quibus liberum arbitrium ponere non possumus, eo quod non sunt causa sui motus; liberum autem est quod sui causa est, secundum philosophum in Princ. Metaphys. Among things which are moved or which act in any way, this difference is found. Some have within themselves the principle of their motion or operation; and some have it outside themselves, as is the case with those which are moved violently, “in which the principle is outside and the being subjected to the violence contributes nothing,” as the Philosopher teaches. We cannot hold free choice to be in the latter inasmuch as they are not the cause of their own motion, whereas a free being is “that which is for its own sake,” as the Philosopher teaches.
Eorum autem quorum principium motus et operis in ipsis est, quaedam talia sunt quod ipsa seipsa movent, sicut animalia; quaedam autem quae non movent seipsa, quamvis in seipsis sui motus aliquod principium habent, sicut gravia et levia: non enim ipsa seipsa movent, cum non possint distingui in duas partes, quarum una sit movens et alia mota, sicut in animalibus invenitur; quamvis motus eorum consequatur aliquod principium in seipsis, scilicet formam; quam, quia a generante habent, dicuntur a generante moveri per se, secundum philosophum in VIII Phys., sed a removente prohibens per accidens: et haec moventur seipsis, sed non a seipsis. Unde nec in his liberum arbitrium invenitur, quia non sunt sibi ipsis causa agendi vel movendi; sed astringuntur ad agendum vel movendum per id quod ab altero receperunt. Among the things whose principle of motion is within themselves some are such as to move themselves, as animals; but there are some which do not move themselves even though they do have within themselves some principle of their motion, as heavy and light things. These do not move themselves because they cannot be distinguished into two parts, of which one does the moving and the other is moved. This double principle is verified in animals. Their motion is consequent upon a principle within them, their form. Because they have this from the being which generated them, they are said to be moved essentially by their genitor and accidentally by that which removes an obstacle, according to the Philosopher. These are moved by means of themselves but not by themselves. Hence free choice is not found in these either, because they are not their own cause of acting and moving but are set to acting or moving by something which they have received from another.
Eorum autem quae a seipsis moventur, quorumdam motus ex iudicio rationis proveniunt, quorumdam vero ex iudicio naturali. Ex iudicio rationis homines agunt et moventur; conferunt enim de agendis; sed ex iudicio naturali agunt et moventur omnia bruta. Quod quidem patet tum ex hoc quod omnia quae sunt eiusdem speciei, similiter operantur, sicut omnes hirundines similiter faciunt nidum: tum ex hoc quod habent iudicium ad aliquod opus determinatum et non ad omnia; sicut apes non habent industriam ad faciendum aliquod aliud opus nisi favos mellis; et similiter est de aliis animalibus. Among those beings which are moved by themselves, the motions of some come from a rational judgment; those of others, from a natural judgment. Men act and are moved by a rational judgment, for they ~deliberate about what is to be done. But all brutes act and are moved by a natural judgment. This is evident from the fact that all brutes of the same species work in the same way, as all swallows build their nests alike. It is also evident from the fact that they have judgment in regard to some definite action, but not in regard to all. Thus bees have skill at making nothing but honeycombs; and the same is true of other animals.
Unde recte consideranti apparet quod per quem modum attribuitur motus et actio corporibus naturalibus inanimatis, per eumdem modum attribuitur brutis animalibus iudicium de agendis; sicut enim gravia et levia non movent seipsa, ut per hoc sint causa sui motus, ita nec bruta iudicant de suo iudicio, sed sequuntur iudicium sibi a Deo inditum. Et sic non sunt causa sui arbitrii, nec libertatem arbitrii habent. Homo vero per virtutem rationis iudicans de agendis, potest de suo arbitrio iudicare, in quantum cognoscit rationem finis et eius quod est ad finem, et habitudinem et ordinem unius ad alterum: et ideo non est solum causa sui ipsius in movendo, sed in iudicando; et ideo est liberi arbitrii, ac si diceretur liberi iudicii de agendo vel non agendo. It is accordingly apparent to anyone who considers the matter aright that judgment about what is to be done is attributed to brute animals in the same way as motion and action are attributed to inanimate natural bodies. Just as heavy and light bodies do not move themselves so as to be by that fact the cause of their own motion, so too brutes do not judge about their own judgment but follow the judgment implanted in them by God. Thus they are not the cause of their own decision nor do they have freedom of choice. But man, judging about his course of action by the power of reason, can also judge about his own decision inasmuch as he knows the meaning of an end and of a means to an end, and the relationship of the one with reference to the other. Thus he is his own cause not only in moving but also in judging. He is therefore endowed with free choice—that is to say, with a free judgment about acting or not acting.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in opere hominis duo est invenire: scilicet electionem operum, et haec semper in hominis potestate consistit; et operum gestionem sive executionem, et haec non semper in potestate hominis est, sed divina providentia gubernante, propositum hominis ad finem quandoque perducitur, quandoque vero non. Et ideo homo non dicitur esse liber suarum actionum, sed liber suae electionis, quae est iudicium de agendis. Et hoc ipsum nomen liberi arbitrii demonstrat. Vel potest distingui de meritorio opere, sicut in obiectionibus tactum est. Tamen prima responsio est Gregorii Nysseni. 1. In man’s activity two elements are to be found: (1) the choice of a course of action; and this is always in a man’s power; and (2) the carrying out or execution of the course of action; and this is not always within a man’s power; but under guidance of divine providence the project is sometimes brought to completion, sometimes not. Thus a man is not said to be free in his actions but free in his choice, which is a judgment about what is to be done. This is what the name free choice refers to.—Or we can distinguish concerning meritorious deeds, as has been done in the objections. The first answer, however, is that of Gregory of Nyssa.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod opus meritorium a non meritorio non distat in quid agere, sed in qualiter agere: nihil enim est quod unus homo meritorie agat et ex caritate, quod alius non possit absque merito agere vel velle. Et ideo hoc quod homo non potest sine gratia agere meritoria, nihil derogat perfectae libertati: quia homo dicitur esse liberi arbitrii secundum quod potest agere hoc vel illud, non secundum quod potest sic vel sic agere: quia secundum philosophum, ille qui nondum habet habitum virtutis, non habet in sua potestate agere taliter qualiter virtuosus agit, nisi in quantum potest acquirere habitum virtutis. 2. A meritorious deed does not differ from an unmeritorious deed by reason of what is done but by reason of how it is done; for there is nothing which one man does meritoriously and from charity which another cannot do or even will without merit. The fact, then, that a man cannot perform meritorious deeds without grace in no way detracts from the freedom of his choice, because a man is said to have free choice in so far as he can do this or that, not in so far as he can do it in this way or in that; for even according to the philosophers one who does not yet have the habit of a virtue does not have it in his power to act in the same way as a virtuous man acts except in the sense that he can acquire the habit of the virtue.
Gratiam autem, quae opera meritoria facit, quamvis homo non possit ex libero arbitrio acquirere, potest tamen se ad gratiam habendam praeparare, quae ei a Deo non denegabitur, si fecerit quod in se est. Et ideo non est omnino extra potestatem liberi arbitrii opera meritoria agere, quamvis ad hoc per se potestas liberi arbitrii non sufficiat, eo quod modus qui ad meritum requiritur, facultatem naturae excedit; non autem modus qui est in operibus ex virtutibus politicis. Nullus autem diceret, propter hoc hominem non esse liberi arbitrii, quia non potest taliter velle vel eligere qualiter Deus vel Angelus. Although man cannot by his free choice acquire the grace which makes works meritorious, he nevertheless can prepare himself to have grace, which will not be denied him by God if he does what is within his power. Thus it is not altogether outside the power of free choice to perform meritorious works, although the power of free choice does not of itself suffice for this, inasmuch as the manner of operating which is required for merit exceeds the capabilities of nature. The mode which is in works arising from the political virtues, however, does not. But no one would say that man does not have free choice merely because he cannot will or choose in the manner in which God or an angel can.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod Deus operatur in unoquoque agente etiam secundum modum illius agentis; sicut causa prima operatur in operatione causae secundae, cum secunda causa non possit in actum procedere nisi per virtutem causae primae. Unde per hoc quod Deus est causa operans in cordibus hominum, non excluditur quin ipsae humanae mentes sint causae suorum motuum: unde non tollitur ratio libertatis. 3. God works in each agent, and in accord with that agent’s manner of acting, just as the first cause operates in the operation of a secondary cause, since the secondary cause cannot become active except by the power of the first cause. By the fact, then, that God is a cause working in the hearts of men, human minds are not kept from being the cause of their own motions themselves. Hence the note of freedom is not taken away.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod causa prima dicitur esse principalis simpliciter loquendo, propter hoc quod magis influit in effectum; sed causa secunda secundum quid principalis est, in quantum effectus ei magis conformatur. 4. The first cause is called the principal cause, absolutely speaking, because it has the greater influence upon the effect. But the secondary cause is called the principal cause in a certain respect, inasmuch as the effect is more conformed to it.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod instrumentum dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo proprie; quando scilicet aliquid ita ab altero movetur quod non confertur ei a movente aliquod principium talis motus; sicut serra movetur a carpentario: et tale instrumentum est expers libertatis. Alio modo dicitur instrumentum magis communiter quidquid est movens ab alio motum, sive sit in ipso principium sui motus, sive non. Et sic ab instrumento non oportet quod omnino excludatur ratio libertatis; quia aliquid potest esse ab alio motum, quod tamen seipsum movet: et ita est de mente humana. 5. An instrument is spoken of in two ways: (1) Properly—when something is so moved by another that there is not conferred upon it by the mover any principle of such a motion, as a saw is moved by the carpenter. Such an instrument is wholly without freedom. (2) More commonly whatever moves something and is moved by another is called an instrument, whether there is in it the principle of its own motion or not. In this sense it is not necessary for the notion of freedom to be wholly excluded from that of an instrument, because something can be moved by another and still move itself. This is the case with the human mind.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod ille qui non habet gratiam, potest eligere bonum, sed non meritorie; hoc autem non derogat libertati arbitrii, ut dictum est, in solut. ad 2 argum. 6. One who does not have grace can choose good, but not meritoriously. This, however, does not detract from the freedom of choice, as has been said.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod servitus peccati non dicit coactionem; sed vel inclinationem, in quantum peccatum praecedens aliquo modo inducit ad sequentia; vel per defectum virtutis naturalis, quae non potest se a macula peccati eripere, cui se semel subdidit. Et ideo semper in homine remanet libertas a coactione, per quam naturaliter est liberi arbitrii. 7. The slavery of sin does not imply force, but either inclination, inasmuch as a preceding sin in some way leads to following ones, or a deficiency in natural virtue, which is unable to free itself from the stain of sin once it has subjected itself to it. Thus there always remains in man the freedom from force by which he naturally has free choice.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod Anselmus in verbis illis loquitur quasi obiiciendo; ipse enim postmodum ostendit quod indigentia gratiae libero arbitrio non contradicit. 8. In the words quoted Anselm is speaking as an objector. He himself shows later on that the need of grace does not contradict free choice.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod ad ipsum opus quod est meritorium, se extendit potestas liberi arbitrii, quamvis non sine Deo, sine cuius virtute nihil est in mundo quod agere possit; sed motus ille quo opus fit meritorium naturalem facultatem excedit, ut dictum est, loco citato. 9. The power of free choice extends to the very work which is meritorious, although not without God, without whose power nothing in the world can act. But the mode by which a work becomes meritorious exceeds the capabilities of nature, as has been said.
Ad decimum dicendum, quod circa hoc est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dicunt, quod homo in peccato mortali existens non potest vitare diu quin mortaliter peccet; potest tamen vitare hoc vel illud peccatum mortale, sicut communiter omnes dicunt de peccatis venialibus. Et sic non videtur haec necessitas tollere arbitrii libertatem. Alia opinio est, quod homo in peccato mortali existens potest omne peccatum vitare; non tamen potest vitare quin mortale sit sub peccato, quia non potest per seipsum a peccato resurgere, sicut potuit per seipsum in peccatum cadere. Et secundum hoc facilius sustinetur arbitrii libertas. De hoc tamen infra quaeretur, cum erit quaestio de potestate liberi arbitrii. 10. On this matter there are two opinions. Some say that a man in the state of mortal sin cannot long avoid sinning mortally, but he can avoid this or that particular mortal sin, as all say in common concerning venial sins. Thus this necessity does not seem to take away the freedom of choice. There is another opinion holding that a man in the state of mortal sin can avoid all mortal sin but cannot avoid being in the state of sin, because he cannot rise from sin by himself as he can fall into sin by himself. According to this opinion the freedom of choice is more easily upheld. We shall inquire about this below when the scope of free choice is treated.
Ad undecimum dicendum, quod voluntas nostra fertur in finem, vel in id quod est ad finem; in finem vero honestum vel delectabilem vel utilem secundum quod triplex bonum distinguitur, honestum, utile, et delectabile. Respectu ergo finis honesti ponit Bernardus libertatem arbitrii; respectu boni utilis, quod est ad finem, libertatem consilii; respectu autem boni delectabilis, libertatem beneplaciti. Quamvis autem discretio sit per ignorantiam diminuta, non tamen omnino ablata: et ideo libertas arbitrii per peccatum est quidem debilitata, sed non omnino amissa. 11. Our will is brought to bear upon an end or upon a means to an end. And the end may be honorable, useful, or pleasurable in accordance with the threefold division of good into the honorable, the useful, and the pleasurable. In regard to an honorable end Bernard lays down freedom of choice. In regard to a useful good, which is a means, he lays down freedom of counsel. In regard to a pleasurable good he lays down freedom of liking. Now, although our discernment is diminished by ignorance, it is still not altogether taken away. Thus the freedom of choice is indeed weakened by sin but is not wholly lost.
Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod homo habet necesse peccare post peccatum ante reparationem, id est habere peccatum; non autem habet necesse uti peccato, secundum unam opinionem. Sic igitur dupliciter peccare dicitur, sicut et videre, secundum philosophum in libro II de anima. Vel, secundum aliam opinionem, habet necesse peccare aliquo peccato, cum tamen respectu nullius habeat necessitatem. 12. According to one opinion after a sin and before reparation man necessarily sins in the sense of having sin but not in that of using sin. Thus sinning is spoken of in two ways, like seeing, as the Philosopher explains. Or, according to another opinion, man necessarily sins by some sin, though he is under no necessity in regard to any particular sin.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum, quod ex praescientia Dei non potest concludi quod actus nostri sint necessarii necessitate absoluta, quae dicitur necessitas consequentis; sed necessitate conditionata, quae dicitur necessitas consequentiae, ut patet per Boetium in fine de Consolat. philosophiae. 13. From God’s foreknowledge it cannot be concluded that acts are necessary with absolute necessity, which is called the necessity of the consequent, but merely by a conditioned necessity, which is called the necessity of consequence, as Boethius makes clear.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum, quod moveri dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo proprie, prout philosophus definit motum in III Physic., dicens, quod motus est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huiusmodi. Et sic verum est quod quanto aliquod mobile propinquius est primo motori, tanto in eo maior uniformitas motus invenitur: quia quanto est propinquius primo motori, tanto est perfectius, et magis in actu existens, et minus in potentia, et ideo paucioribus motibus mobile. Alio modo dicitur motus large operatio quaelibet, sicut intelligere vel sentire. Et sic accipiendo motum philosophus dicit in III de anima, quod motus est actus perfecti: quia unumquodque operatur secundum quod est in actu. Et sic quodammodo propositio habet veritatem, quodammodo vero non. 14. Being moved is spoken of in two ways: (1) Properly, as the Philosopher defines motion, saying that it is “the act of a being in potency in so far as it is such.” In this sense it is true that the nearer a mobile being is to the prime mover, the greater the uniformity of motion which is found in it, because the nearer it is to the prime mover, the more perfect it is and the more in act and less in potency, and therefore the fewer the motions by which it is movable. (2) Broadly, as applied to any operation, such as to understand or to sense. Taking motion in this sense, the Philosopher says” that motion is “the act of what is perfect,” because everything acts in so far as it is in act. Thus understood, the statement in question is in some sense true and—in some sense is not.
Si enim uniformitas motus attendatur ex parte effectuum, sic falsitatem habet; quia quanto aliquod operans est virtuosius et perfectius, tanto ad plures effectus eius virtus se extendit. Si vero attendatur quantum ad modum agendi, sic propositio veritatem habet; quia quanto est perfectius aliquod operans, tanto magis observat eumdem modum in agendo; quia minus variatur a sua natura et dispositione, quam sequitur modus agendi. If the uniformity of the motion is considered from the point of view of its effects, the statement is false, because the more powerful and perfect an operator is, the more effects its power extends to. But if it is considered from the point of view of the manner of acting, the statement is true; for the more perfect an operator is, the more it preserves the same manner in acting, since it departs less from its nature and disposition, and the manner of acting follows these.
Mentes autem rationales dicuntur esse mobiles non primo modo motus, quia talis motus est solum corporum, sed secundo. Sic etiam Plato posuit primum movens movere seipsum, in quantum vult se et intelligit se, ut Commentator dicit in Lib. VIII Physic. Et ideo non oportet quod mentes rationales sint determinatae ad aliquos effectus; sed respectu multorum efficaciam habent, ratione cuius competit eis libertas. Now rational minds are not called mobile in the first sense of motion, because such motion belongs only to bodies; but rather in the second. It is in this sense that Plato affirmed that the prime mover moves itself inasmuch as it wills and understands itself, as the Commentator points out. It is accordingly not necessary that rational minds be determined to any particular effects. They rather have efficacy in regard to many; and it is by reason of this that freedom belongs to them.
Ad decimumquintum dicendum, quod non semper oportet illud nobilius esse quod paucioribus motibus vel operationibus suum finem consequi potest; quia ante aliquid consequitur perfectiorem finem pluribus operationibus, quam alterum unica operatione consequi possit, sicut idem philosophus dicit. Et hoc modo mentes rationales perfectiores inveniuntur summo caelo, quod unum tantum motum habet, quia perfectiorem finem consequuntur quamvis pluribus operationibus. 15. It is not always necessary that a thing which can attain its end with fewer motions or operations be nobler, because sometimes one thing attains a more perfect end with many operations than another can attain with a single operation, as the Philosopher says. In this way rational minds are found to be more perfect than the highest heaven, which has only one motion, because they attain a more perfect end, although they do it with many operations.
Ad decimumsextum dicendum, quod quamvis creatura esset melior si immobiliter Deo adhaereret, tamen illa est bona quae potest Deo adhaerere et non adhaerere; et ita melius est universum ubi utraque creatura invenitur, quam si altera tantum invenitur. Et haec est responsio Augustini. Vel potest dici, secundum Gregorium Nyssenum et Damascenum, quod hoc est impossibile aliquam creaturam esse voluntate immutabili adhaerentem Deo per propriam naturam, eo quod, cum sit ex nihilo, flexibilis est. Si tamen aliqua creatura immobiliter adhaereret Deo, non propter hoc privatur libero arbitrio: quia potest adhaerendo multa facere vel non facere. 16. Although a creature would be better if it adhered unchangeably to God, nevertheless that one also is good which can adhere to God or not adhere. And so a universe in which both sorts of creatures are found is better than if only one or the other were found. And this is the answer of Augustine.—Or it can be said, following Gregory of Nyssa and Damascene, that it is impossible for any creature to be capable of adhering to God with an unchangeable will by its own nature, because, being from nothing, it is changeable. If however, any creature adheres unchangeably to God, it is not on this account deprived of free choice, because it can do or not do many things while adhering to God.
Ad decimumseptimum dicendum, quod iudicium cui attribuitur libertas, est iudicium electionis; non autem iudicium quo sententiat homo de conclusionibus in scientiis speculativis; nam ipsa electio est quasi quaedam scientia de praeconsiliatis. 17. The judgment to which freedom is attributed is a judgment of choice, not a judgment by which a man pronounces upon conclusions in speculative sciences. For choice is a sort of decision about what has been previously deliberated.
Ad decimumoctavum dicendum, quod sicut aliquid verum est quod propter impermixtionem falsi de necessitate ab intellectu recipitur, sicut prima principia demonstrationis; ita est aliquod bonum quod propter malitiae impermixtionem de necessitate a voluntate appetitur, scilicet ipsa felicitas. Non tamen sequitur quod ab illo obiecto voluntas cogatur; quia coactio dicit aliquid contrarium voluntati, quae est proprie inclinatio volentis; non autem dicit aliquid contrarium intellectui, qui non dicit inclinationem intelligentis. 18. Not only is there something true which is necessarily accepted by the intellect because of its freedom from any admixture of falsity, as the first principles of demonstration; but there is also a good which is necessarily desired by the will because of its freedom from any admixture of evil, namely, happiness itself. Yet it does not follow that the will is constrained by that object, because constraint implies something contrary to one’s will, which is the inclination of the one willing. Constraint does not imply anything contrary to the intellect, however, because intellect does not mean an inclination of the one understanding.
Nec ex necessitate illius boni inducitur necessitas voluntatis respectu aliorum volendorum, sicut ex necessitate primorum principiorum inducitur intellectui necessitas ad assentiendum conclusionibus; eo quod alia volita non habent necessariam habitudinem ad illud primum volitum vel secundum veritatem vel secundum apparentiam, ut scilicet absque illis primum volitum haberi non possit; sicut conclusiones demonstrativae habent necessariam habitudinem ad principia ex quibus demonstrantur, ita quod, conclusionibus non existentibus veris, necesse est principia non esse vera. From the necessity of that good, moreover, there is not introduced into the will any necessity in regard to other objects, as from the necessity of the first principles there is introduced into the intellect a necessity of assenting to conclusions. This is because to that first object of will other objects do not either really or apparently have a necessary relationship which would make it impossible to have the first object of will without those others; whereas demonstrative conclusions have a necessary relationship to the principles from which they are demonstrated such that, if the conclusions did not turn out to be true, the principles would necessarily not be true.
Ad decimumnonum dicendum, quod homines ex nativitate non consequuntur aliquam dispositionem immediate in anima intellectiva, per quam de necessitate inclinentur ad aliquem finem eligendum, nec a corpore caelesti, nec ab aliquo alio; nisi quod ex ipsa sui natura inest eis necessarius appetitus ultimi finis, scilicet beatitudinis, quod non impedit arbitrii libertatem, cum diversae viae remaneant eligibiles ad consecutionem illius finis. Et hoc ideo quia corpora caelestia non habent immediatam impressionem in animam rationalem. 19. Neither from the heavenly bodies nor from anything else do men acquire from birth immediately in the intellective soul any disposition by which they are inclined with necessity to choose any particular end; except that there is in them from their very nature a necessary appetite for their last end, happiness. But this does not prevent the freedom of choice, since different ways to attain that end remain open to choice. The reason for this is that the heavenly bodies do not have any immediate influence upon the rational soul.
Ex nativitate autem consequitur in corpore nati aliqua dispositio tum ex virtute corporum caelestium, tum ex causis inferioribus, quae sunt semen ex materia concepta, per quam anima quodammodo ad aliquid eligendum prona efficitur, secundum quod electio animae rationalis inclinatur ex passionibus, quae sunt in appetitu sensitivo, qui est potentia corporalis consequens corporis dispositiones. Sed ex hoc nulla necessitas inducitur eis ad eligendum; cum in potestate animae rationalis sit accipere, vel etiam refutare passiones subortas. Postmodum vero homo efficitur aliqualis per aliquem habitum acquisitum cuius nos causa sumus, vel infusum, qui sine nostro consensu non datur, quamvis eius causa non simus. Et ex hoc habitu efficitur quod homo efficaciter appetat finem consonum illi habitui. Et tamen ille habitus necessitatem non inducit, nec libertatem electionis tollit. There is acquired from birth, however, in the body of the child a certain disposition both from the power of the heavenly bodies and from inferior causes, which are the semen and the matter of the one conceived; and by it the soul is in some sense made prone to choose something inasmuch as the choice of the rational soul is inclined by the passions, which are in the sense appetite, a bodily power dependent upon the dispositions of the body. But no necessity in choosing is thereby introduced into it, since it is within the power of the rational soul to admit or to repress the passions which arise. Later on, however, a man is made to be of a certain sort by a habit—either an acquired habit, of which we are the cause, or an infused habit, which is not given without our consent even though we are not the cause of it. From this habit it results that the man efficaciously tends to an end consonant with that habit. And yet that habit does not introduce any necessity or take away the freedom of choice.
Ad vigesimum dicendum, quod cum electio sit quoddam iudicium de agendis, vel iudicium consequatur, de hoc potest esse electio quod sub iudicio nostro cadit. Iudicium autem in agendis sumitur ex fine, sicut de conclusionibus ex principiis. Unde, sicut de primis principiis non iudicamus ea examinantes, sed naturaliter ei assentimus, et secundum ea omnia alia examinamus; ita et in appetibilibus, de fine ultimo non iudicamus iudicio discussionis vel examinationis, sed naturaliter approbamus, propter quod de eo non est electio, sed voluntas. Habemus ergo respectu eius liberam voluntatem, cum necessitas naturalis inclinationis libertati non repugnet, secundum Augustinum, V de civitate Dei; non autem liberum iudicium, proprie loquendo, cum non cadat sub electione. 20. Since choice is a judgment about what is to be done or follows such a judgment, there can be choice only about what falls under our judgment. But in matters of action our judgment is drawn from the end, just as our judgment about conclusions is drawn from principles. We do not, however, judge about first principles, examining them, but naturally assent to them and examine all other things in their light. In the same way, then, when there is question of the objects of appetite, we do not judge about the last end by any judgment involving discussion and examination, but we naturally approve of it. Concerning it there is, accordingly, no choice, but there is will. We have in its regard, therefore, a free will, since according to Augustine 43 the necessity of natural inclination is not repugnant to freedom; but not a free judgment, properly speaking, since it does not fall under choice.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE II

In the second article we ask:
Is there free choice in brutes?

[ARTICLE De Ver., 23, 1 c; II Sent., 25, 1, 1 ad 7; C.G., II, 48; S.T., I, 59, 3 c; 83, 1 c; I-II, 13, 2.]
Secundo quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium sit in brutis Difficulties
Et videtur quod sic. It seems that there is, for
Secundum hoc enim dicimur esse liberi arbitrii, quod actus nostri sunt voluntarii. Sed voluntario et pueri et bruta communicant, secundum philosophum in III Ethicorum. Ergo liberum arbitrium est in brutis. 1. We are said to have free choice in so far as our acts are voluntary. But according to the Philosopher “children and brutes share in the voluntary.” Then there is free choice in brutes.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in VIII Phys., in omni eo quod movet seipsum, est moveri et non moveri. Sed bruta movent seipsa; ergo in eis est moveri et non moveri. Sed secundum hoc dicimur esse liberi arbitrii, quod in nobis est agere aliquid, ut patet per Gregorium Nyssenum et Damascenum. Ergo in brutis est liberum arbitrium. 2. According to the Philosopher, in everything which moves itself there is the ability to be moved and not be moved. But brutes move themselves. There is in them, therefore, the ability to be moved and not be moved. But we are said to be endowed with free choice from the fact that there is in us the ability to do something, as is clear from Gregory of Nyssa and from Damascene. There is, therefore, free choice in brutes.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium duo importat: scilicet iudicium et libertatem, quorum utrumque est invenire in brutis. Habent enim aliquod iudicium de agendis, quod patet ex hoc quod unum prosequuntur, et aliud fugiunt; habent etiam libertatem, cum possint movere et moveri. Ergo in eis est liberum arbitrium. 3. Free choice implies two things, judgment and freedom, both of which are to be found in brutes. They have some judgment about what is to be done, as appears from the fact that they go after one thing and run from another. They have freedom, since they can be moved or not. Hence there is in them free choice.
Praeterea, posita causa, ponitur effectus. Sed Damascenus posuit causam libertatis arbitrii hoc quod anima nostra a versione incipit; quia ex nihilo est, et ideo vertibilis est, et se habet ad multa in potentia. Sed anima bruti a versione incipit. Ergo in ea est liberum arbitrium. 4. When a cause is placed, the effect is placed. But Damascene gives as the cause of free choice the fact that our soul begins with a change; because it is from nothing, it is changeable, and stands in potency to many different things. But the soul of a brute also begins with a change. Hence in it also there is free choice.
Praeterea, illud dicitur esse liberum quod non est obligatum alicui. Sed anima bruti non est obligata ad alterum oppositorum, quia potentia ipsius non est determinata ad unum, sicut potentia rerum naturalium, quae semper idem faciunt. Ergo anima bruti habet liberum arbitrium. 5. That is said to be free which is not obliged to anything. But the soul of a brute is not obliged to either of two opposites, because its power is not determined to one course of action, like the power of natural things, which always act in the same way. The soul of a brute thercfore has free choice.
Praeterea, poena non debetur nisi ei qui habet liberum arbitrium. Sed in veteri lege frequenter invenitur poena inflicta brutis, sicut Exod. XIX, patet de bestia tangente montem, et XXI, de bove cornupeta, et Lev. XX, de iumento cui mulier succubuit. Ergo bruta videntur esse liberi arbitrii. 6. Punishment is not due to anyone unless he has free choice. But in the Old Law punishment is found to be inflicted upon brutes, as appears in Exodus 19:13 in the case of the beast touching the mountain, in Exodus 21:2. in the case of the goring ox, and in Leviticus 20:16 in the case of the beast of burden with which a woman has intercourse. Brutes therefore seem to have free choice.
Praeterea, hoc est signum quod homo sit liberi arbitrii, ut sancti dicunt, quia praeceptis ad bonum instigatur, et a malo retrahitur. Videmus autem bruta allici beneficiis, et moveri praeceptis, aut terreri minis ad aliquid agendum vel dimittendum. Ergo bruta sunt liberi arbitrii. 7. As the saints point out, it is a sign that man has free choice that he is instigated to good and withdrawn from evil by commands. But we see brutes enticed by favors, moved by precepts, or made afraid by threats to do something or to let it alone. Brutes therefore have free choice.
Praeterea, divinum praeceptum non datur nisi habenti liberum arbitrium. Sed divinum praeceptum datur bruto; unde Ionae cap. IV, 7, secundum aliam litteram dicitur quod praecepit dominus vermi, et percussit hederam. Ergo bruta habent liberum arbitrium. 8. A divine command is given only to someone that has free choice. But a divine command is given to brutes. In Jonas (4:7) according to one version it is said: “God commanded a worm... and it struck the ivy.” Brutes therefore have free choice.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Ex hoc videtur homo esse ad imaginem Dei quod est liberi arbitrii, ut dicit Damascenus et etiam Bernardus. Sed bruta non sunt ad imaginem Dei. Ergo non sunt liberi arbitrii. 1. Man is seen to be made to the image of God from the fact that he has free choice, as Damascene” and Bernard both say. But brutes are not made to the image of God. Therefore they are not endowed with free choice.
Praeterea, omne quod est liberi arbitrii, agit, et non solum agitur. Sed bruta non agunt, sed aguntur, ut Damascenus dicit in II Lib. Ergo bruta non sunt liberi arbitrii. 2. Whatever is endowed with free choice acts and is not merely acted upon. But “brutes do not act but are acted upon,” as Damascene says. Brutes therefore do not have free choice.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod bruta nullo modo sunt liberi arbitrii. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod cum ad operationem nostram tria concurrant, scilicet cognitio, appetitus, et ipsa operatio, tota ratio libertatis ex modo cognitionis dependet. Appetitus enim cognitionem sequitur, cum appetitus non sit nisi boni, quod sibi per vim cognitivam proponitur. Et quod quandoque appetitus videatur cognitionem non sequi, hoc ideo est, quia non circa idem accipitur appetitus et cognitionis iudicium: est enim appetitus de particulari operabili, iudicium vero rationis quandoque est de aliquo universali, quod est quandoque contrarium appetitui. Sed iudicium de hoc particulari operabili, ut nunc, nunquam potest esse contrarium appetitui. Qui enim vult fornicari, quamvis sciat in universali fornicationem malum esse, tamen iudicat sibi ut nunc bonum esse fornicationis actum, et sub specie boni ipsum eligit. Nullus enim intendens ad malum operatur, ut Dionysius dicit. Brutes are by no means endowed with free choice. In explanation of this it should be noted that, since three elements concur in our activity: knowledge, appetite, and the activity itself, the whole formal character of freedom depends upon the manner of knowing. For appetite follows knowledge, since there is appetite only for a good which is proposed to it by a cognitive power. If appetite sometimes seems not to follow knowledge, this is because the appetite and the knowledge are not judged from the same point of view. Appetite is concerned with a particular object of operation, whereas the judgment of reason is sometimes concerned with something universal, and this is at times contrary to our appetite. But a judgment about this particular object of operation here and now can never be contrary to our appetite. A man who wishes to fornicate, for instance, although lie knows in general that fornication is evil, nevertheless judges this present act of fornication to be good for him and chooses it under the aspect of good. As Dionysius says,” no one acts intending evil.
Appetitum autem, si non sit aliquid prohibens, sequitur motus vel operatio. Et ideo, si iudicium cognitivae non sit in potestate alicuius, sed sit aliunde determinatum, nec appetitus erit in potestate eius, et per consequens nec motus vel operatio absolute. Iudicium autem est in potestate iudicantis secundum quod potest de suo iudicio iudicare: de eo enim quod est in nostra potestate, possumus iudicare. Iudicare autem de iudicio suo est solius rationis, quae super actum suum reflectitur, et cognoscit habitudines rerum de quibus iudicat, et per quas iudicat: unde totius libertatis radix est in ratione constituta. Unde secundum quod aliquid se habet ad rationem, sic se habet ad liberum arbitrium. Unless there is something to prevent it, a motion or operation follows the appetite. Thus, if the judgment of the cognitive faculty is not in a person’s power but is determined for him extrinsically, neither will his appetite be in his power; and consequently neither will his motion or operation be in his power absolutely. Now judgment is in the power of the one judging in so far as he can judge about his own judgment; for we can pass judgment upon the things which are in our power. But to judge about one’s own judgment belongs only to reason, which reflects upon its own act and knows the relationships of the things about which it judges and of those by which it judges. Hence the whole root of freedom is located in reason. Consequently, a being is related to free choice in the same way as it is related to reason.
Ratio autem plene et perfecte invenitur solum in homine: unde in eo solum liberum arbitrium plenarie invenitur. Reason is found fully and perfectly only in man. Only in him, therefore, is free choice in its full sense found.
Bruta autem habent aliquam similitudinem rationis, in quantum participant quamdam prudentiam naturalem, secundum quod natura inferior attingit aliqualiter ad id quod est naturae superioris. Quae quidem similitudo est secundum quod habent iudicium ordinatum de aliquibus. Sed hoc iudicium est eis ex naturali aestimatione, non ex aliqua collatione, cum rationem sui iudicii ignorent; propter quod huiusmodi iudicium non se extendit ad omnia, sicut iudicium rationis, sed ad quaedam determinata. Brutes have a certain semblance of reason inasmuch as they share in a certain natural prudence, and in this respect a lower nature ‘in some way attains to the property of a higher. This semblance consists in the well-regulated judgment which they have about certain things. But they have this judgment from a natural estimate, not from any deliberation, since they are ignorant of the basis of their judgment. On this account such a judgment does not extend to all things like that of reason, but only to certain determined objects.
Et similiter est in eis quaedam similitudo liberi arbitrii, in quantum possunt agere vel non agere unum et idem, secundum suum iudicium, ut sic sit in eis quasi quaedam conditionata libertas: possunt enim agere, si iudicant esse agendum, vel non agere, si non iudicant. Sed quia iudicium eorum est determinatum ad unum, per consequens et appetitus et actio ad unum determinatur; unde, secundum Augustinum, Lib. XI super Genes. ad litteram, moventur visis; et secundum Damascenum, aguntur passionibus, quia scilicet naturaliter de tali viso et de tali passione sic iudicant; unde necesse habent ab ipsa visione alicuius rei vel a passione insurgente moveri ad fugiendum vel prosequendum, sicut ovis viso lupo necesse habet timere et fugere; et canis insurgente passione irae, necesse habet latrare, et prosequi ad nocendum. Sed homo non necessario movetur ab his quae sibi occurrunt, vel a passionibus insurgentibus quia potest ea accipere vel refugere; et ideo homo est liberi arbitrii, non autem bruta. In like fashion there is in them a certain semblance of free choice inasmuch as they can, according to their judgment, do or not do one and the same thing. As a result there is in them a sort of conditional freedom. For they can act if they judge that they should or not act if they do not so judge. But because their judgment is determined to a single course of action, their appetite and activity also are consequently determined to a single course. Hence “they are moved by things seen,” as Augustine teaches; and as Damascene says, they are driven by passions, because they naturally judge as they do about a particular thing seen or a particular passion. They are accordingly under the necessity of being moved to flight or pursuit by the sight of a particular thing or by a passion which is aroused. A sheep, for example, is under the necessity of fearing and fleeing at the sight of a wolf, and a dog under the influence of the passion of anger has to bark and pursue, intent upon hurting. But man is not necessarily moved by the things which he meets or by the passions which arise, because he can admit or repress them. Consequently, man has free choice, but brutes do not.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod voluntarium ponitur a philosopho in brutis, non secundum quod convenit cum voluntate, sed secundum quod opponitur violento; ut sic dicatur voluntarium esse in brutis vel pueris, quia, sua sponte aliquid faciunt, non propter usum liberae electionis. 1. “Something voluntary” is held by the Philosopher to be in brutes, not in the sense of coming from will but in that of being opposed to what is violent. Thus the voluntary is said to be in brutes and in children because they act of their accord but not by the exercise of free choice.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod potentia motiva brutorum secundum se considerata non magis inclinatur ad unum oppositorum quam ad alterum; et sic dicitur quod possunt moveri et non moveri. Sed iudicium quo applicatur potentia motiva ad alterum oppositorum, est determinatum; et sic non sunt liberi arbitrii. 2. The motive power of brutes considered in itself is not any more inclined to one of two opposites than to the other. In this sense they are said to be able to be moved or not. But the judgment by which the motive power is applied to one or the other of the opposites is determined; and so they do not have free choice.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis in brutis sit quaedam indifferentia actionum, tamen non potest proprie dici quod sit in eis libertas actionum, sive agendi vel non agendi: tum quia actiones, cum per corpus exerceantur, cogi possunt vel prohiberi, non solum in brutis, sed in hominibus, unde nec ipse homo dicitur liber actionis suae; tum etiam, quia quamvis sit indifferentia ad agere et non agere in bruto, considerata ipsa actione secundum seipsam, tamen considerato ordine eius ad iudicium, a quo provenit quod est determinatum ad unum, etiam ad ipsas actiones obligatio quaedam derivatur, ut non possit in eis inveniri ratio libertatis absolute. Tamen, dato quod in eis esset libertas aliqua, et iudicium aliquod, non tamen sequeretur quod esset in eis libertas iudicii, cum iudicium eorum sit naturaliter determinatum ad unum. 3. Although there is in brutes a certain indifference in their actions, still there cannot properly be said to be in them freedom of action, that is, of acting or of not acting. This is so both because their actions, being carried out by the body, can be forced or prevented (which is true not only of brutes but also of men, so that not even man is said to be free in his action); and also because, although there is in brutes an indifference to acting or not acting if the action is considered in itself, nevertheless, if the relation of the action to the judgment from which it gets its determination is considered, a certain restriction passes over even to the actions themselves, so that there cannot be found in them the character of freedom in an absolute sense. Yet, even granted that there were in brutes some freedom and some judgment, it would still not follow that they have freedom of judgment, since their judgment is naturally determined to a single pronouncement.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod incipere a versione, vel esse ex nihilo, non assignat Damascenus causam libertatis arbitrii, sed causam flexibilitatis liberi arbitrii in malum; causam autem liberi arbitrii assignat tam Damascenus quam Gregorius quam Augustinus rationem. 4. Damascene assigns beginning from a change or being from nothing, not as the cause of the freedom of choice, but as the cause of the possibility of our free choice deflecting to evil. Not only Damascene but also Gregory” and Augustine” assign reason as the cause of free choice.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod quamvis potentia motiva in brutis non sit determinata ad unum, tamen iudicium eorum de agendis est determinatum ad unum, ut dictum est, in corp. et ad 3 arg. 5. Although the motive power in brutes is not determined to one type of action, their judgment about what is to be done is so determined, as has been said.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod cum bruta sint facta in obsequium hominis, secundum hoc de brutis disponitur quod hominibus expedit, propter quos facta sunt. Puniuntur ergo bruta lege divina, non propter hoc quod ipsa peccent, sed propter hoc quod ex eorum poena homines puniantur in eorum possessione, vel terreantur ex ipsa poenae acerbitate, vel etiam instruantur ex mysterii significatione. 6. Since brutes are made for the service of man, disposition is made of them according to the advantage of men, for whose sake they were made. By the divine law brutes are therefore punished, not because they have sinned themselves, but because the men who own them are punished by their punishment or frightened by the sharpness of their pains or instructed by the meaning of the mystery.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod tam homines quam bruta beneficiis inducuntur, et flagellis prohibentur, vel praeceptis et prohibitionibus; sed diversimode: quia in potestate hominum est ut eisdem rebus similiter repraesentatis, sive sint praecepta et prohibitiones, sive sint beneficia et flagella, eligant vel fugiant iudicio rationis; sed in brutis est iudicium naturale determinatum ad hoc quod id quod uno modo proponitur vel occurrit, eodem modo accipiatur vel fugiatur. Contingit autem ex memoria praeteritorum beneficiorum vel flagellorum ut bruta aliquid apprehendant quasi amicum, et prosequendum vel sperandum; et aliquid quasi inimicum, et fugiendum vel timendum: et ideo post flagella, ex passione timoris, quae inde eis insurgit, inducuntur ad obediendum nutui instructoris. Nec est necessarium huiusmodi brutis fieri propter libertatem arbitrii, sed propter indifferentiam actionum. 7. Both men and brutes are induced by favors and restrained by chastisements, or by commands and prohibitions, but in different ways. It is within the power of men when the same things are similarly represented, whether they be commands or prohibitions, favors or chastisements, to choose or refuse them by a judgment of reason. In brutes, however, there is a natural judgment so determined that whatever is proposed or met in one way is accepted or rejected in the same way. It happens, though, that from the memory of past favors or chastisements brutes apprehend something as friendly and to be pursued or hoped for, and something else as hostile and to be fled or feared. Thus after a beating they are induced by the passion of fear which arises from it to obey the wish of their instructor. Nor is it necessary that such things take place in brutes on account of freedom of choice, but on account of the indifference of their actions.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod secundum Augustinum super Genesim ad litteram, praeceptum divinum brutis factum, non ita factum esse credendum est ut vox aliqua iussionis de nube facta sit eis aliquibus verbis, quae rationales animae audientes, intelligere atque obedire solent: non enim hoc acceperunt ut possint bestiae vel aves. In suo tamen genere obtemperant Deo: non rationalis voluntatis arbitrio; sed, sicut movet illa omnia temporibus opportunis, non ipse temporaliter motus, moventur bruta temporaliter, ut iussa eius efficiant. 8. According to Augustine the divine command given to brutes “is not to be thought to have occurred in such a way that a voice expressing a command came to them from the clouds in certain words that rational souls, hearing them, are wont to understand and obey. For the beasts of the field and the birds have not received the ability to do such a thing. They obey God in their own way, however, and not by the choice of a rational will; but just as God moves all things in their own appointed times without being moved in time Himself, so too brutes are moved in time to carry out His commands.”
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE III

In the third article we ask:
Is there free choice in God?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 25, 1, 1; C.G., I, 88; S.T., I, 19, 10; De malo, 16, 5 c.]
Tertio quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium sit in Deo Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems that there is not, for
Liberum enim arbitrium est facultas voluntatis et rationis. Sed ratio non competit Deo, cum nominet cognitionem discursivam; Deus autem simplici intuitu omnia cognoscit. Ergo Deo liberum arbitrium non competit. 1. Free choice is a capability of will and reason. But reason is not attributable to God, since it designates discursive knowledge, whereas God knows all things in a simple intuition. Free choice, then, is not attributable to God.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium est facultas qua bonum et malum eligitur, ut per Augustinum patet. Sed in Deo non est facultas eligendi malum. Ergo in Deo non est liberum arbitrium. 2. Free choice is the capacity by which good and evil are chosen, as Augustine makes clear.” But in God there is no capacity for choosing evil. Hence there is no free choice in God.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium est potentia ad oppositos actus se habens. Sed Deus non se habet ad opposita, cum sit immutabilis, nec in malum flecti possit. Ergo liberum arbitrium non est in Deo. 3. Free choice is a potency capable of opposite acts. But God is not capable of opposites, since He is immutable and cannot turn to evil. There is therefore no free choice in God.
Praeterea, actus liberi arbitrii est eligere, ut patet per definitionem inductam. Electio autem Deo non competit; cum sequatur consilium, quod est dubitantis et inquirentis. Ergo in Deo non est liberum arbitrium. 4. The act of free choice is to choose, as is clear from the definition given. But choice is not proper to God, since it depends upon a deliberation, which is proper to one who doubts and inquires. Hence there is no free choice in God.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod dicit Anselmus: si posse peccare esset pars liberi arbitrii, et Deus et Angeli liberum arbitrium non haberent; quod est absurdum. Ergo inconveniens est dicere, quod Deus liberum arbitrium non habeat. 1. Anselm says that if the ability to sin were a part of free choice, God and the angels would not have free choice, but that that is most absurd. It is therefore fitting to say that God has free choice.
Praeterea. I Corinth. XII, 11: haec omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus, dividens singulis prout vult; Glossa pro libero voluntatis arbitrio. Ergo spiritus sanctus habet liberum arbitrium, et eadem ratione pater et filius. 2. Commenting on the words of the first Epistle to the Corinthians (12: 11): “But all these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to every one according as He will,” the Gloss adds: “according to the free choice of His will.” The Holy Spirit therefore has free choice, and by the same token, also the Father and the Son.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod in Deo est invenire liberum arbitrium; alio tamen modo in eo, et in Angelis, et in hominibus. Quod enim in Deo sit liberum arbitrium, hinc apparet quod ipse habet voluntatis suae finem, quem naturaliter vult, scilicet suam bonitatem; alia vero omnia vult quasi ordinata ad hunc finem: quae quidem, absolute loquendo, non necessario vult, ut in praecedenti quaestione ostensum est, eo quod bonitas eius his quae ad ipsam ordinantur, non indiget nisi ad eius manifestationem, quae convenienter pluribus modis fieri potest: unde remanet ei liberum iudicium ad volendum hoc vel illud, sicut in nobis est. Et propter hoc oportet dicere, in Deo liberum arbitrium inveniri, et similiter in Angelis: non enim ipsis ex necessitate volunt quidquid volunt; sed hoc quod volunt, ex libero iudicio volunt, sicut et nos. Free choice is to be found in God, but it is found in Him in a different way than in angels and in men. That there is free choice in God is apparent from the fact that He has for His will an end which He naturally wills, His own goodness; and all other things He wills as ordained to this end. These latter, absolutely speaking, He does not will necessarily, as has been shown in the preceding question, because His goodness has no need of the things which are ordained to it, and the manifestation of that goodness can suitably take place in a number of different ways. There remains for Him, then, a judgment free to will this or that, just as there is in us. On this account it must be said that free choice is found in God, and likewise in the angels; for they too do not of necessity will whatever they will. What they will they will by means of a free judgment, just as we.
Aliter tamen invenitur liberum arbitrium in nobis et in Angelis et in Deo: variatis enim prioribus necesse est posteriora variari. Facultas autem liberi arbitrii duo praesupponit: scilicet naturam, et vim cognitivam. Free choice is found in us and in the angels, however, in a different way than in God. When what is prior changes, what is posterior must also change. The capacity of free choice presupposes two things: a nature and a cognitive power.
Natura quidem alterius modi est in Deo quam sit in hominibus et in Angelis. Natura enim divina increata est, et est suum esse et sua bonitas; unde in eo non potest esse defectus aliquis nec quantum ad esse nec quantum ad bonitatem. Natura autem humana et angelica creata est, ex nihilo principium sumens; unde, quantum est de se, possibilis est ad defectum. Et propter hoc, liberum arbitrium Dei nullo modo flexibile est ad malum; liberum vero arbitrium hominis et Angeli, in suis naturalibus consideratum, in malum flexibile est. Nature is of a different sort in God than in men and in angels. The divine nature is uncreated and is its own act of being and its own goodness. Consequently there cannot be in it any deficiency either in existence or in goodness. But human and angelic nature is created, taking its origin from nothing. Hence, viewed in itself, it is capable of deficiency. For this reason God’s free choice is by no means able to be turned to evil, whereas the free will of men and angels, considered in its natural endowments, is capable of turning to evil.
Cognitio etiam alterius modi invenitur in homine quam in Deo et in Angelis. Homo enim habet cognitionem obumbratam, et cum discursu veritatis notitiam sumentem; unde accidit ei dubitatio et difficultas in discernendo et iudicando, quia cogitationes hominum timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae, ut dicitur Sapient., cap. IX, vers. 14. Sed in Deo et in Angelis suo modo est simplex notitia veritatis absque discursu et inquisitione; unde non cadit in eis dubitatio aut difficultas in discernendo vel iudicando. Et ideo Deus et Angeli habent promptam electionem liberi arbitrii; homo vero in eligendo difficultatem patitur propter incertitudinem et dubitationem. Et sic patet quod liberum arbitrium Angeli medium locum tenet inter liberum arbitrium Dei et hominis, participans aliqualiter cum utroque extremorum. Knowing also is found to be a different sort in man than in God and in the angels. Man has a process of knowing which is obscured and gets its view of the truth by means of a discourse. From this source comes his hesitation and difficulty in making decisions and in judging; for “the thoughts of... men are fearful, and our counsels are uncertain” (Wisdom 9:14). But in God, and also in angels in their own way, there is a simple view of the truth without any discourse or inquiry. There consequently does not occur in them any hesitation or difficulty in deciding or judging. And so God and the angels have a ready choice on the part of their free will, whereas man experiences difficulty in choosing because of his uncertainty and doubt. It is evident, then, that the free choice of an angel occupies a middle ground between that of God and that of man, having something in common with each of the two.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ratio quandoque sumitur large pro omni immateriali cognitione: et sic ratio invenitur in Deo; unde Dionysius inter divina nomina rationem ponit, VI cap. de Divin. Nomin. Alio modo accipitur proprie pro vi cognitiva cum discursu: et sic ratio nec in Deo nec in Angelis invenitur, sed in hominibus tantum. Potest ergo dici, quod ratio in definitione liberi arbitrii ponitur secundum primam acceptionem. Si vero sumatur in secunda acceptione, tunc definitur liberum arbitrium secundum illum modum quo est in hominibus. 1. Reason is sometimes taken broadly for any immaterial cognition; and in this sense reason is found in God. Dionysius accordingly places reason among the divine names. It is also taken properly, as meaning a power which knows with discourse. In this sense reason is not found in God, or the angels, but only in men. It can be said then, that reason is used in the definition of free choice in the first sense. But if it is taken in the second sense, then free choice is defined after the manner in which it is found in men.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod posse eligere malum, non est de ratione liberi arbitrii; sed consequitur liberum arbitrium, secundum quod est in natura creata possibili ad defectum. 2. The ability to choose evil is not essential to free choice. It is a consequence of free choice as found in a nature which is created and capable of failing.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod voluntas divina se habet ad opposita, non quidem ut aliquid velit et postea nolit, quod eius immutabilitati repugnaret; nec ut possit velle bonum et malum, quia defectibilitatem in Deo poneret; sed quia potest hoc velle et non velle. 3. The divine will is capable of opposites, not in the sense that it first wills something and afterwards does not (which would be repugnant to its immutability), nor in the sense that it can will good and evil (for that would put defectibility in God), but rather in the sense that it can will or not will this particular thing.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod hoc quod electio sequitur consilium, quod cum inquisitione agitur, accidit electioni secundum quod invenitur in natura rationali, quae veritatis notitiam capit per discursum rationis; sed in natura intellectuali, quae habet simplicem acceptionem veritatis, invenitur electio absque inquisitione praecedente. Et sic electio in Deo est. 4. The fact that choice follows a deliberation, which involves inquiry, is accidental to choice, occurring because it is found in a rational nature, which gets its view of the truth through a reasoning has a simple acceptance of the truth, choice is found without any previous inquiry. It is thus that choice is in God.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE IV

In the fourth article we ask:
Is free choice a power or not?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 24, 1, 1; S.T., I, 83, 2.]
Quarto quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium sit potentia, vel non Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems that it is not, for
Liberum enim arbitrium, secundum Augustinum, facultas est voluntatis et rationis. Facultas autem dicitur quasi facilis potestas. Cum ergo potentiae facilitas ex habitu proveniat quia, secundum Augustinum, habitus est quo facile quis agere potest, videtur quod liberum arbitrium sit habitus. 1. According to Augustine, free choice is a capability of will and reason. But a capability is spoken of as the ability to do easily. Since the ease of a power comes from a habit, because according to Augustine, a habit is that by which a person acts easily, it seems that free choice is a habit.
Praeterea, operationum quaedam sunt morales, quaedam naturales. Sed facultas quae est ad operationes morales, est habitus, non potentia, sicut patet de virtutibus moralibus. Ergo et liberum arbitrium, quod importat facilitatem ad operationes naturales, est habitus, non potentia. 2. Some operations are moral and some are natural. But the capability of moral operations is a habit, not a power, as is clear of the moral virtues. Hence free choice, which implies a facility for natural operations, is a habit, not a power.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in II Phys., si natura faceret navim, faceret eam sicut ars. Ergo facilitas naturalis est eiusdem conditionis cuius est facilitas quae fit per artem. Sed facilitas quae fit per artem, est habitus quidam ex operibus acquisitus, sicut patet in virtutibus moralibus; ut arte fieri dicamus omne id quod ratione agitur. Ergo et facultas, sive facilitas naturalis, quae est liberum arbitrium, erit habitus quidam. 3. According to the Philosopher, if nature were to make a ship it would make it the same as art makes one. Natural facility, then, is of the same character as the facility which comes from art. But the facility which comes from art is a habit acquired from acts, as is evident in the moral virtues. As a consequence we say that whatever is done by reason is produced by art. Then the capability or natural facility which is free choice will also be a habit.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in II Ethic., habitus sunt secundum quos nos aliqualiter agimus, potentiae vero secundum quas simpliciter agimus. Sed liberum arbitrium nominat non solum id quo agimus, sed id quo aliqualiter agimus, scilicet libere. Ergo liberum arbitrium nominat habitum. 4. According to the Philosopher it is by habits that we act in a given way, but by powers that we simply act. But free choice designates not only that by which we act, but also that by which we act in a given way—freely. Free choice therefore designates a habit.
Sed dicendum, quod cum dicitur: habitus est quo aliqualiter agimus; intelligendum est bene vel male. —Sed contra: illud quod est de ratione habitus, omni habitui est commune. Sed bene et male agere non est commune omni habitui; nam habitus speculativi non se habent ad bene vel male, ut dicitur. Ergo bene vel male agere non est de ratione habitus. 5. The answer was given that, when we say that a habit is that by which we act in a given way, we must understand rightly or wrongly.—On the contrary, whatever is essential to habit is common to all habits. But acting rightly or wrongly is not common to all habits; for speculative habits, as it seems, do not have any reference to acting rightly or wrongly. Acting rightly or wrongly is therefore not essential to habit.
Praeterea, id quod tollitur per peccatum, non potest esse potentia, sed habitus. Liberum autem arbitrium tollitur per peccatum, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, homo utens male libero arbitrio, et se perdidit et ipsum. Ergo liberum arbitrium est habitus, et non potentia. 6. Anything taken away by sin cannot be a power, but is a habit. Now free choice is taken away by sin, because, as Augustine says, “by using his free choice badly man has destroyed both it and himself.” Free choice is therefore a habit and not a power.
Sed dicendum, quod verbum Augustini intelligitur de libertate gratiae, quae est per habitum. —Sed contra: habitu gratiae, secundum Augustinum, nullus male utitur. Ergo liberum arbitrium, quo aliquis male utitur, non potest libertas gratiae intelligi. 7. The answer was given that the statement of Augustine is to be understood of the freedom of grace, which comes from a habit.—On the contrary, according to Augustine “no one uses badly” the habit of grace. Therefore the freedom of choice, which a person uses badly cannot be understood to be the freedom of grace.
Praeterea, Bernardus dicit in Lib. de libero arbitrio quod liberum arbitrium est habitus animi liber sui; et sic idem quod prius. 8. Bernard says that free choice is “a habit of the spirit which is free in its own regard.”Thus the conclusion is the same as before.
Praeterea, facilius est exire in actum cognitionis quam operationis. Sed potentiae cognitivae datus est aliquis habitus naturalis, scilicet intellectus principiorum, qui est in summo cognitionis. Ergo et potentiae operativae, sive motivae, datus est aliquis habitus naturalis. Cum ergo supremum locum in motivis liberum arbitrium tenere videatur, videtur quod sit habitus, vel potentia per habitum perfecta. 9. It is easier to undertake an act of knowing than of doing. But there has been given to the cognitive power a natural habit, the understanding of principles, which is at the summit of knowledge. Hence there has also been given to the operative or motive power a natural habit. Since in matters of motion free choice seems to hold the highest place, it seems to be a habit or else a power perfected by a habit.
Praeterea, potentia non restringitur nisi per habitum. Sed voluntas et ratio restringitur in libero arbitrio: voluntas enim est possibilium et impossibilium, cum tamen liberum arbitrium non sit impossibilium; similiter ratio est eorum quae sunt in nobis, et eorum quae non sunt in nobis: liberum autem arbitrium solum eorum quae sunt in nobis. Ergo liberum arbitrium habitum nominat. 10. A power is narrowed down only by a habit. But will and reason are narrowed down in free choice; for the will is concerned with both possibles and impossibles, while free choice is concerned only with possibles. In the same way reason is concerned both with the things that are in our power and with those that are not, whereas free choice is concerned only with those that are in our power. Free choice therefore designates a habit.
Praeterea, sicut potentia nominat aliquid superadditum essentiae, ita facultas dicit aliquid superadditum potentiae. Quod autem superadditur potentiae, est habitus. Cum ergo liberum arbitrium sit facultas, videtur quod sit habitus. 11. Just as a power designates something added to an essence, a capability designates something added to a power. But what is added to a power is a habit. Then, since free choice is a capability, it seems to be a habit.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, quod liberum arbitrium est vitalis et rationalis animae motus. Sed motus actum nominat. Ergo liberum arbitrium est actus, et non potentia. 12. Augustine says that free choice is “a motion of the vital and rational soul.” But “motion” refers to an act. Free choice is therefore an act and not a power.
Praeterea, iudicium, secundum Boetium, est actus iudicantis. Arbitrium autem idem est quod iudicium. Ergo et arbitrium est actus. Sed hoc quod additur liberum non trahit extra genus actus, quia actus liberi dicuntur qui sunt in potestate agentis. Ergo liberum arbitrium est actus, et non potentia. 13. According to Boethius “judgment is the act of one judging.” But a choice or decision is the same as a judgment. Then a choice or decision is also an act. But the addition of free does not take it out of the genus of act, because acts too are called free if they are in the power of the agent. Free choice, then, is an act and not a power.
Praeterea, secundum Augustinum in libro de Trinit., id quod excedit suum subiectum, inest alicui essentialiter, non accidentaliter: unde probat, quod amor et notitia insunt menti essentialiter, quia mens non solum seipsam amat et cognoscit, sed alia. Liberum autem arbitrium extendit se ultra subiectum, quia anima libere agit in ea quae sunt extra ipsam. Ergo liberum arbitrium essentialiter inest animae; et ita non est potentia, cum potentia essentiae superaddatur. 14. According to Augustine,” whatever goes beyond its subject is in something essentially, not accidentally. From this he proves that love and knowledge are in the mind essentially, because the mind loves and knows not only itself but also other things. Now free choice extends beyond its subject, because the soul acts by free choice upon things which are outside itself. Free choice is therefore in the soul essentially. Thus it is not a power, since powers are added to the essence.
Praeterea, nulla potentia educit se in actum. Sed liberum arbitrium educit se in actum cum voluerit. Ergo liberum arbitrium non est potentia. 15. No power brings itself into act. But free choice brings itself into act when it wishes. Hence free choice is not a power.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Secundum philosophum in II Ethic., cap. V, tria sunt in anima: potentia, habitus et passio. Liberum autem arbitrium non est passio, cum sit in superiori animae parte: passio autem et passibilis qualitas sunt solum circa partem sensitivam; similiter non est habitus, cum sit subiectum gratiae: habet enim se ad gratiam, secundum Augustinum, ut equus ad sessorem; habitus vero non potest alterius habitus esse subiectum. Ergo relinquitur quod liberum arbitrium sit potentia. 1. According to the Philosopher “there are three things in the soul: power, habit, and passion.” Now free choice is not a passion, since it is in the higher part of the soul, whereas passions and passible qualities are found only in the sensitive part. Similarly it is not a habit, since it is the subject of grace (for according to Augustine, its relation to grace is that of a horse to its rider), whereas a habit cannot be the subject of anything else. We are therefore left with the conclusion that free choice is a power.
Praeterea, hoc videtur inter potentiam et habitum distare, quod potentia quae se ad opposita habet, per habitum determinatur ad unum. Sed liberum arbitrium nominat aliquid ad opposita se habens, nullo modo determinatum ad unum. Ergo liberum arbitrium est potentia, et non habitus. 2. There seems to be this difference between a power and a habit, that a power which is open to opposites is determined to one of them by a habit. But free choice designates something which is open to opposites and by no means determined to one of them. Free choice is therefore a power and not a habit.
Praeterea, Bernardus dicit: tolle liberum arbitrium, et non est quod salvetur. Sed id quod salvatur, est anima, vel animae potentia. Ergo liberum arbitrium, cum non sit anima, quia ad solam partem superiorem pertinet, relinquitur quod sit potentia. 3. Bernard says: “Take away free choice and there is nothing which will be saved.” But what is saved is the soul or a power of the soul. Free choice, then, not being the soul, because it belongs only to the higher part of it, must, by elimination, be a power.
Praeterea, Magister dicit in II Sent., dist. 24: illa animae rationalis potentia qua velle bonum vel malum potest, utrumque discernens, liberum arbitrium nuncupatur; et sic liberum arbitrium est potentia. 4. The Master says: “That power of a rational soul by which it can will good or evil, distinguishing between the two, is called free choice.” And so free choice is a power.
Praeterea, Anselmus dicit, quod liberum arbitrium est potestas conservandi rectitudinem voluntatis propter se; et sic idem quod prius. 5. Anselm says that free choice is “the power of preserving the uprightness of the will for its own sake.” Thus the conclusion is the same as before.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium, si vis vocabuli attendatur, nominat actum; sed ex usu loquendi tractum est ut significet id quod est principium actus. Cum enim dicimus esse hominem liberi arbitrii, non intelligimus quod actu libere iudicet, sed quod habeat in se unde possit libere iudicare. Unde, si iste actus qui est libere iudicare, habeat in se aliquid quod vim potentiae excedat, tunc liberum arbitrium nominabit habitum vel potentiam per habitum perfectam; sicut moderate irasci dicit aliquid quod vim irascibilis excedit: nam moderari iram passionis non potest irascibilis per seipsam, nisi fuerit aliquo habitu perfecta, secundum quem in ea rationis moderatio imprimatur. Si vero libere iudicare non importet in se aliquid quod vim potentiae excedat, liberum arbitrium non nominabit nisi potentiam absolute; sicut irasci non excedit vim potentiae irascibilis, unde proprium eius principium potentia est, et non habitus. If the term is taken literally, free choice designates an act. But by usage it has been transferred to mean the principle of the act. When we say that a man has free choice, we do not mean that he is actually judging freely, but that he has within himself that by which he can judge freely. Consequently, if the act of judging freely should contain anything which goes beyond the capacity of a power, then it will designate a habit or a power perfected by some habit. To get angry with moderation, for instance, implies something which goes beyond the capacity of the irascible power; for the irascible power cannot moderate the passion of anger by itself unless it is perfected by a habit by means of which there is impressed upon it the moderation of reason. If, however, to judge freely should not imply anything that exceeds the capacity of the power, free choice will not designate anything but a power without any further addition, just as to get angry does not go beyond the capacity of the irascible power, and for this reason its proper principle is a power and not a habit.
Constat autem quod iudicare, si nihil addatur, non excedit vim potentiae, eo quod est alicuius potentiae actus, scilicet rationis, per propriam naturam, sine hoc quod aliquis habitus superadditus requiratur. Hoc autem quod additur libere, similiter vim potentiae non excedit. Nam secundum hoc aliquid libere fieri dicitur quod est in potestate facientis. Esse autem aliquid in potestate nostra inest nobis secundum aliquam potentiam, non autem per aliquem habitum, scilicet per voluntatem. Now it is clear that to judge, if nothing is added, does not go beyond the capacity of a power, because it is the act of a power, reason, by its own nature, without requiring the addition of any habit. Similarly, what is added in the adverb freely does not exceed the scope of the power, for something is said to be done freely inasmuch as it is in the power of the one doing it. But the fact that something is under our control is in us as the consequence of an operative power, not of a habit. That power is the will.
Et ideo liberum arbitrium habitum non nominat, sed potentiam voluntatis vel rationis, unam siquidem per ordinem ad alteram. Sic enim actus electionis progreditur, ab una scilicet earum per ordinem ad aliam, secundum hoc quod philosophus dicit VI Ethicorum, quod electio est appetitus intellectivi, vel intellectus appetitivi. Patet etiam ex dictis, unde quidam moti sunt ad ponendum liberum arbitrium esse habitum. Free choice accordingly does not designate a habit but the power of will or reason—one as subordinated to the other. Thus the act of choosing proceeds from one of them in subordination to the other in accordance with what the Philosopher says: choice is an appetite on the part of the intellective power or an understanding on the part of the appetitive.
Quidam enim hoc posuerunt propter id quod superaddit liberum arbitrium super voluntatem et rationem, scilicet ordinem unius ad alteram. Sed hoc non potest rationem habitus habere, nomine habitus proprie accepto: nam habitus est qualitas quaedam, secundum quam inclinatur potentia ad actum. Quidam vero dixerunt liberum arbitrium esse habitualem potentiam, considerantes facilitatem ex qua libere iudicamus. Sed hoc, ut iam dictum est rationem potentiae non excedit. It is clear too from what has been said why some were led to hold that free choice is a habit. For some” have held this on account of the addition which free choice makes to will and reason, the subordination of the one to the other. But this cannot have the character of a habit if the term is taken in the proper sense, for a habit is a quality by which a power is inclined to act. Others, considering the facility with which we judge freely, have said that free choice is a power modified by a habit. But, as has already been said, to judge freely does not go beyond the nature of a power.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur esse facile dupliciter: uno modo propter remotionem impedimenti; alio modo propter appositionem adiutorii. Facilitas igitur pertinens ad habitum est per adiutorii appositionem: nam habitus inclinat potentiam ad actum. Hanc autem facilitatem non nominat liberum arbitrium, eo quod, quantum est de se, non inclinatur in unum magis quam in aliud; sed nominat facilitatem quae est per remotionem impedimenti, eo quod liberum arbitrium non impeditur aliquo cogente a propria operatione. Et ideo Augustinus, proprie liberum arbitrium facultatem nominavit, non facilitatem: quia facultas hoc importare videtur ut aliquid sit in potestate facultatem habentis. 1. Something is said to be easy in two senses: (1) because of the removal of a hindrance, and(2) because of the reception of help. The ease which belongs to a habit is had by the reception of help, for a habit inclines a power to act. But free choice does not designate an ease of this kind, because of itself it is not inclined to one thing rather than to another; but it does designate an ease which is had by the removal of a hindrance, because free choice is not hindered from performing its own operation by anything which forces it. Augustine accordingly calls free choice a capability, not a facility, because a capability seems to imply that something is in the power of the one having the capability.
Et similiter est dicendum ad secundum et tertium, quae procedunt de falsitate habitus. 2-3. This same is to be said of these difficulties, which also argue from the facility of a habit.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod in actu duplex motus potest considerari: unus qui pertinet ad rationem habitus, sicut cum bene vel male aliquid agitur; alius qui pertinet ad rationem potentiae, sicut cognoscere immaterialiter convenit intellectui ex ipsa natura potentiae. Modus igitur importatus in hoc quod dico libere iudicare, non pertinet ad aliquem habitum superadditum, sed ad ipsam potentiae rationem pertinet, ut dictum est. 4. Regarding acts two senses of the term way can be taken into account, one which belongs to the essence of a habit, as when something is done rightly or wrongly, and another which belongs to the essence of a power, as it belongs to the intellect from the very nature of that power to know immaterially. The way implied in the phrase to judge freely does not pertain to a habit which is added, but to the very nature of the power, as has been said.
Et per hoc patet solutio ad quintum. 5. [Thus the answer to the fifth is clear.]
Ad sextum dicendum, quod homo male utendo libero arbitrio, non totaliter ipsum perdidit, sed quantum ad aliquid; quia scilicet post peccatum non potest esse sine peccato, sicut poterat ante peccatum. 6. Man has not entirely destroyed his [power of] free choice by using it badly, but just in a certain respect, because after sinning he cannot be without sin as he could before he sinned.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod quamvis gratia nullus possit male uti, libero tamen arbitrio habente gratiae libertatem potest aliquis male uti, prout dicimur aliquo male uti quod est principium mali usus, ut potentia vel habitus. Si autem dicamur aliquo male uti sicut obiecto usus, sic virtutibus et gratia male uti contingit, ut patet in his qui de virtutibus superbiunt. 7. Even though no one can use grace badly, nevertheless a person can use his free choice badly even when it has the freedom of grace, in the sense that we are said to use badly something which is the principle of bad use, such as a power or a habit. Moreover, if we should be said to use something badly as the object of the use, in this sense even virtues and grace are subject to bad use, as appears in those who get proud of their virtues.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod Bernardus improprie habitum accipit pro quacumque facilitate. 8. Bernard is taking habit loosely for any facility whatsoever.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod duplici ratione aliqua potentia habitu indiget. Primo quidem, quia operatio quae est per potentiam educenda, excedit vim potentiae, quamvis non excedat vim totius naturae humanae. Alio modo quia totius naturae vim excedit. Et hoc secundo modo habitibus indigent omnes animae potentiae, quibus actus meritorii eliciuntur, sive sint affectivae, sive intellectivae; quia in huiusmodi actus non possunt, nisi habitus gratiae superaddantur. 9. There are two reasons why a power needs a habit: (1) because the operation which is to be evoked by the power is beyond the ability of the power, though it is not beyond the ability of the whole of human nature; and (2) because it is beyond the ability of the whole of nature. In this second way all of the powers of the soul, whether affective or intellective, need habits by which meritorious acts are elicited, because they are not capable of such acts unless habits of grace are added to them.
Primo autem modo indiget habitu intellectus; eo quod intelligere aliquid non potest nisi assimiletur ei per speciem intelligibilem. Unde oportet species intelligibiles superaddi, quibus in actum exeat intellectus: specierum autem aliqualis ordinatio habitum efficit. In the first way the intellect has need of a habit because it cannot understand anything unless it is assimilated to it by an intelligible species. The intellect must accordingly have added to it intelligible species by which it is brought into act. An ordering of species, however, produces a habit.
Et eadem ratione appetitivae inferiores, scilicet irascibilis et concupiscibilis, habitibus indigent, unde perficiuntur virtutibus moralibus. Quod enim actus eorum moderati sint, non excedit naturam humanam, sed excedit vim dictarum potentiarum. Unde oportet quod id quod est superioris potentiae, scilicet rationis, eis imprimatur; et ipsa sigillatio rationis in inferioribus viribus formaliter perficit virtutes morales. For the same reason the lower appetitive powers, that is, the irascible and the concupiscible, need habits by which the moral virtues are completed. That their acts should be moderate does not exceed human nature, but it does exceed the scope of the powers mentioned. It is accordingly necessary that what belongs to a higher power, reason, be impressed upon them; and the very imprint of reason in the lower powers formally completes the moral virtues.
Affectiva autem superior non indiget hoc modo aliquo habitu, quia naturaliter tendit in bonum sibi connaturale sicut in proprium obiectum. Unde ad hoc quod velit bonum, non requiritur nisi quod ostendatur sibi per vim cognitivam. Et ideo philosophi in voluntate non posuerunt aliquem habitum nec naturalem nec acquisitum. Sed ad dirigendum in operativis posuerunt prudentiam in ratione, et temperantiam et fortitudinem et alias virtutes morales in irascibili et concupiscibili. Sed secundum theologos in voluntate ponitur habitus caritatis propter actus meritorios. The higher affective power, however, does not need any habit in this way, because it naturally tends to a good connatural to it as to its proper object. Consequently, in order that it will good, nothing is required except that good be shown to it by the cognitive power. For this reason the philosophers did not put in the will any habit, either natural or acquired; but in order to give direction in operative matters they put prudence in reason, and temperance and courage and the other moral virtues in the irascible and the concupiscible powers. But according to the theologians the habit of charity is put into the will for the sake of meritorious acts.
Ad decimum dicendum, quod ista restrictio rationis et voluntatis non fit per aliquem habitum superadditum, sed per ordinem unius potentiae ad aliam. 10. That narrowing down of reason and will does not take place by any habit that is added, but by the subordination of one power to the other.
Ad undecimum dicendum, quod facultas quae est per inclinationem habitus, addit supra potentiam aliquid quod est alterius naturae, scilicet habitum; sed facultas quae est per remotionem coactionis, addit determinatam naturam potentiae, quod tamen pertinet ad ipsam naturam potentiae; sicut differentia, quae superadditur generi, pertinet ad naturam speciei. 11. The capability which is had by the inclination of a habit adds to the power something which is of another nature, a habit. But the capability which is had through the removal of coercion adds to the power a positive determination which nevertheless belongs to the very nature of the power, just as a differentia which is added to a genus belong to the nature of the species.
Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod Augustinus definit liberum arbitrium per actum proprium, eo quod potentiae per actus cognoscuntur; unde praedicatio illa non est essentialis, sed causalis. 12. Augustine defines [the power of] free choice by its proper act, because powers come to be known by their acts. Hence the predication in that case is not essential but causal.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum, quod quamvis secundum proprietatem vocabuli liberum arbitrium actum nominet, tamen secundum usum loquentium ad significandum actus principium est translatum. 13. Though in the strict meaning of the term free choice designates an act, nevertheless by usage it has been transferred to mean the principle of the act.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum, quod notitia et amor dupliciter possunt comparari ad mentem. Uno modo ut ad amantem et cognoscentem; et sic ipsam mentem non excedunt, nec recedunt ab aliorum accidentium similitudine. Alio modo possunt comparari ad mentem ut ad amatam et cognitam; et sic excedunt mentem, quia mens non solum se amat et cognoscit, sed etiam alia; et sic recedunt ab aliorum accidentium similitudine. Nam accidentia alia illo respectu quo comparantur ad subiectum, non comparantur ad aliquid extra; sed agendo comparantur ad extra, inhaerendo ad subiectum. Amor vero et notitia aliquo uno modo comparantur ad subiectum et ad ea quae sunt extra; quamvis aliquis modus sit quo comparantur ad subiectum tantum. Sic ergo non oportet quod amor et notitia sint essentialia menti, nisi secundum quod mens per suam essentiam cognoscitur et amatur. 14. Knowledge and love can be referred to the mind in its two distinct aspects: (1) As loving and knowing. In this sense they do not exceed the mind, nor do they become unlike other accidents. (2) As loved and known. In this sense they exceed the mind, because the mind loves and knows not only itself but other things as well; and they also become unlike other accidents. For the other accidents in that regard in which they are referred to their subject are not referred to anything outside it. By acting they are referred to something outside; by inhering, to the subject. Love and knowledge, however, under a single aspect are referred to their subject and to things outside, though there is an aspect under which they are referred to the subject alone, In this sense it is therefore not necessary that they be essentials of the mind, except in so far as the mind is known and loved through its own essence.
Ad decimumquintum dicendum, quod ratio procedit de potentia passiva ad esse, qualis est materia prima, quae non perducit se ad actum; non autem locum habet de potentia operativa, qualis est liberum arbitrium, quae ad actum ducitur per obiectum. 15. [To the fifteen it must be answered that this reason has to do with passive potency to being, which is prime matter, which does not move itself to act; but this does not apply to operative potency, which is free will, which is brought into action by the object.]
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE V

In the fifth article we ask:
Is free choice one power or several?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 24, 1, 2; S.T., I, 83, 3 & 4.]
Quinto quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium sit una potentia, vel plures Difficulties
Et videtur quod sit plures potentiae. It seems that it is several powers, for
Ut enim dicit Augustinus, liberum arbitrium est facultas voluntatis et rationis. Ratio autem et voluntas sunt diversae potentiae. Ergo liberum arbitrium ad diversas potentias pertinet. 1. As Augustine says, free choice is a capability of will and reason. But reason and will are distinct powers. Free will then pertains to distinct powers.
Praeterea, potentiae cognoscuntur per actus. Sed libero arbitrio adscribuntur actus diversarum potentiarum; ut enim dicit Damascenus in Lib. II de libero arbitrio, in nobis hoc contingit, puta moveri et non moveri, impetum facere et non facere, appetere et non appetere, et alia huiusmodi, quae certum est ad plures potentias pertinere. Ergo liberum arbitrium est plures potentiae. 2. Powers are known by their acts. But acts of several different powers are ascribed to free choice; for, as Damascene says, “these things occur in us: to be moved or not, to attack or not, to desire or not, and the like, which unquestionably belong to several different powers. Free choice is therefore several powers.
Praeterea, Boetius dicit in libro de consolatione: divinis substantiis, scilicet Angelis, liberum arbitrium secundum hoc inest, quia est in eis perspicax iudicium, et voluntas incorrupta. Sed perspicacitas iudicii ad rationem pertinet. Ergo liberum arbitrium includit in se voluntatem et rationem; et ita liberum arbitrium est plures potentiae. 3. Boethius says that free choice is in “divine substances” (that is, angels) inasmuch as there is in them “a penetrating judgment and an uncorrupted will.” But penetration of judgment belongs to reason. Free choice therefore includes will and reason, and thus it is several powers.
Sed dicendum, quod est una potentia habens virtutem duarum.- Sed contra: sicut in parte superiori animae invenitur cognitiva et affectiva, ita in parte inferiori. Sed in parte superiori non est aliqua potentia quae habeat in se virtutem cognitivae et affectivae. Ergo nec in parte inferiori. 4. The answer was given that it is one power having the virtuality of two.—On the contrary, in the lower part of the soul are found an affective and a cognitive power just as they are in the higher. But in the lower part there is no power which has in itself the virtuality of the cognitive and the affective powers. Then neither is there any in the higher part.
Praeterea, Boetius dicit in libro de consolatione philosophiae, quod extrema servitus est cum mentes humanae vitiis deditae, mox in scientiae nube caligant, et perniciosis turbantur affectibus. Servitus autem de qua ibi loquitur, libertati arbitrii opponitur. Ergo liberum arbitrium includit in se rationem et affectum; et sic idem quod prius. 5. Boethius says that “the extreme form of slavery is had when human minds, given over to vices.... grow dark with the cloud of ignorance and are put in a turmoil with pernicious affections.” But the slavery of which there is question is opposed to free choice. Hence free choice includes reason and the affections, and so the conclusion is the same as before.
Sed contra, To the Contrary
homo dicitur minor mundus, in quantum in eo maioris mundi similitudo invenitur. Sed in maiori mundo non inveniuntur duae extremae naturae sine media. Ergo nec in homine inveniuntur duae potentiae extremae sine media. Invenitur autem una potentia in homine quae semper tendit in bonum, scilicet synderesis; et alia quasi huic opposita, quae semper inclinat in malum, scilicet sensualitas. Ergo invenitur aliqua una potentia quae se habet ad bonum et malum, et haec est liberum arbitrium. Et sic videtur quod liberum arbitrium sit una potentia. Man is called a microcosm inasmuch as there is found in him a resemblance to the macrocosm. But in the macrocosm two extreme natures are not found without an intermediate one. Then neither in man are two extreme powers found without one that is intermediate. We find in men, however, one power which always tends to good, synderesis, and another practically the opposite of this, which always inclines to evil, sensuality. Hence there is also found a power which is open to good and evil, and this is free choice. Thus it seems that free choice is one power.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod duplici consideratione fuerunt quidam moti ad ponendum liberum arbitrium esse plures potentias. Two considerations have led some to hold that free choice is several powers:
Una quidem ex hoc quod videbant, per liberum arbitrium, nos posse in actum omnium potentiarum: unde ponebant liberum arbitrium esse quasi totum universale respectu omnium potentiarum. Sed hoc esse non potest, quia sic sequeretur quod in nobis sint multa libera arbitria propter potentiarum multitudinem; multi enim homines sunt multa animalia. Nec hoc ad ponendum cogimur ratione praedicta. Omnes enim actus diversarum potentiarum non referuntur ad liberum arbitrium nisi mediante uno actu, qui est eligere: secundum hoc enim libero arbitrio movemur, quod libero arbitrio moveri eligimus; et sic de aliis actibus. Unde ex hoc non ostenditur liberum arbitrium esse plures potentias, sed esse unam potentiam moventem sua virtute potentias diversas. (1) They saw that by free choice we have control over the acts of all the powers. They accordingly affirmed that free choice is a sort of universal whole with respect to all the powers. But this cannot be, because, were it so, there would be required in us many powers of free choice on account of the multiplicity of powers; for many men are many animals. Nor are we forced to hold this by the reason mentioned, for all the acts of the different powers are referred to free choice only through the intermediary of one act, to choose. We are moved by free choice inasmuch as by our free choice we choose to be moved; and the same is true of other acts. It is therefore not shown by this that free choice is several powers, but rather that it is one power which moves different powers by its own efficacy.
Alia vero consideratione movebantur quidam ad ponendum pluralitatem potentiarum in libero arbitrio, ex hoc quod videbant in actu liberi arbitrii concurrere aliqua quae ad diversas potentias pertinent; scilicet iudicium, quod est rationis, et appetitum, qui est voluntatis. Unde dixerunt liberum arbitrium colligere in se plures potentias per modum quo totum integrale continet suas partes. Hoc autem esse non potest. Cum enim actus, qui libero arbitrio attribuitur, sit unus specialis actus, scilicet eligere, non potest a duabus potentiis immediate progredi; sed progreditur ab una immediate, et ab altera mediate, in quantum scilicet quod est prioris potentiae, in posteriori relinquitur. Unde restat, quod liberum arbitrium sit una potentia. (2) Some were moved to affirm a plurality of powers in free choice by the fact that they saw concur in the act of free choice the functions of different powers: judgment, which belongs to reason, and appetite, which belongs to will. They accordingly said that free choice includes several powers as an integral whole contains its parts. Now this cannot be true. Since the act which is attributed to free choice is a single specific act, to choose, it cannot proceed immediately from two distinct powers; but it proceeds from one immediately and from the other mediately, inasmuch as the characteristic of the prior power is communicated to the posterior. It remains, then, that free choice is a single power.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Augustinus dicit liberum arbitrium, esse facultatem voluntatis et rationis, quia ad actum liberi arbitrii homo per utramque ordinatur potentiam, licet non immediate. 1. Augustine says that free choice is a capability of will and reason because man is ordained to the act of free choice through both powers, though not immediately.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium non ordinatur ad actus diversarum potentiarum nisi mediante unico actu proprio suo, ut dictum est. 2. Free choice is not referred to the acts of different powers except through the intermediary of its own single act, as has been said.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod Boetius attribuit libero arbitrio id quod est diversarum potentiarum, in quantum per diversas potentias homo ad actum liberi arbitrii ordinatur, ut dictum est, in corp. articuli. 3. Boethius attributes to free choice the characteristics of different powers inasmuch as through different powers man is ordained to the act of free choice, as has been said.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod in parte irrationali vel inferiori animae est solum simplex apprehensio ex parte cognitiva: non autem alia collatio vel ordinatio, sicut est in apprehensiva rationali. Et ideo in parte sensitiva appetitus absolute fertur in obiectum sine hoc quod aliquis ordo ex apprehensiva in appetitiva relinquatur. Unde in parte sensitiva non est aliqua potentia comprehendens in se aliqualiter apprehensivam et appetitivam, sicut est in parte rationali. 4 In the irrational part of the soul there is found on the part of the cognitive power only simple apprehension and not any comparing or ordering, as is found in the rational apprehensive power. Consequently, in the sensitive part appetite is brought to bear upon its object absolutely, without having in the appetitive power any order derived from the apprehensive. In the sensitive part, therefore, there is no power which embraces in some sort both the apprehensive and the appetitive, as there is in the rational part.
Ad quintum dicendum sicut ad quartum. 5. This is to be answered in the same way as the fourth difficulty.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE VI

In the sixth article we ask:
Is free choice the will or a power other than the will?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 24,10; S.T., I, 83,4; I-II, 13, 1; III, 18, 3 & 4.]
Sexto quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium sit voluntas, vel alia potentia a voluntate Difficulties
Et videtur quod sit potentia alia. It seems that it is another power, for
Illud enim quod praedicatur de aliquo essentialiter, non debet poni oblique in definitione eius; sicut animal non ponitur oblique in definitione hominis. Sed ratio et voluntas ponuntur oblique in definitione liberi arbitrii; dicitur enim facultas voluntatis et rationis. Ergo liberum arbitrium non est ratio vel voluntas, sed alia potentia ab utraque. 1. Whatever is predicated of something essentially should not be put in its definition obliquely, as animal is not put obliquely in the definition of man. But reason and will are placed in the definition of free choice obliquely, for it is said to be “a capability of will and reason.” Free choice is therefore not reason or will but a power other than either.
Praeterea, differentiae potentiarum cognoscuntur secundum differentias actuum. Sed eligere, quod est actus liberi arbitrii, est aliud quam velle, quod est actus voluntatis, ut patet per philosophum in III Ethic. Ergo liberum arbitrium est alia potentia a voluntate. 2. The differences of powers are known from the differences of acts. But to choose, which is the act of free choice, is other than to will, which is the act of the will, as the Philosopher makes clear. Hence free choice is a power other than the will.
Praeterea, in nominatione liberi arbitrii, arbitrium ponitur in abstracto, sed libertas in concreto. Arbitrium autem est rationis, libertas voluntatis. Ergo id quod est rationis, essentialiter convenit libero arbitrio; quod autem est voluntatis, quasi denominative et actualiter: et sic liberum arbitrium magis videtur esse ratio quam voluntas. 3. In the term free choice, choice is expressed in the abstract and freedom in the concrete. Now choice or decision belongs to reason; freedom, to the will. What belongs to reason, then, pertains to free choice essentially; but what belongs to the will pertains to it denominatively and accidentally. Thus free choice seems to be reason rather than will.
Praeterea, secundum Damascenum, et Gregorium Nyssenum, secundum hoc sumus arbitrio liberi quod sumus rationales. Sed rationales sumus secundum quod habemus rationem. Ergo secundum quod habemus rationem sumus arbitrio liberi; et ita videtur quod liberum arbitrium sit ratio. 4. According to Damascene and Gregory of Nyssa we are free in our choice because we are rational. But we are rational because we have reason. Because we have reason, then, we are free in our choice; and so it seems that free choice is reason.
Praeterea, secundum ordinem habituum est ordo potentiarum. Sed actus fidei, quae est habitus rationis, informatur caritate, quae est habitus voluntatis. Ergo et actus rationis informatur voluntate, et non e converso. Et ita, si actus liberi arbitrii est duarum potentiarum, scilicet voluntatis et rationis, unius sicut elicientis, et alterius sicut informantis, videtur quod sit rationis sicut elicientis; et ita liberum arbitrium essentialiter est ratio, et sic altera potentia quam voluntas. 5. In accordance with the order among habits there is also an order among powers. But the act of faith, which is a habit of reason, is informed by charity, which is a habit of the will. An act of reason is accordingly informed by the will, and not the other way about. Thus, if the act of free choice belongs to one of two powers, the will and reason, to one as eliciting and to the other as informing, it seems that it belongs to reason as eliciting it. And so free choice is essentially reason, and therefore a power other than the will.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod Damascenus dicit in III Lib., XIV cap.: liberum arbitrium nihil aliud est nisi voluntas. 1. Damascene says: “Free choice is nothing but the will.”
Praeterea, philosophus dicit in III Ethicorum, quod electio appetitus est praeconsiliati. Electio autem est actus liberi arbitrii. Ergo liberum arbitrium est potentia appetitiva. Sed non est appetitus inferior, qui dividitur per irascibilem et concupiscibilem: sic enim bruta haberent liberum arbitrium. Ergo est appetitus superior: et hic est voluntas secundum philosophum in III de anima. Ergo liberum arbitrium est voluntas. 2. The Philosopher says that choosing is appetence for what has been previously deliberated. But choosing is the act of free choice. Free choice is therefore the appetitive power. But it is not the lower appetite, which is divided into the irascible and the concupiscible; for then brutes would have free choice. It is therefore the higher appetite, and according to the Philosopher this is the will.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod quidam dicunt, liberum arbitrium esse tertiam potentiam a voluntate et ratione, propter hoc quod vident actum liberi arbitrii, qui est eligere, differentem esse et ab actu simplicis voluntatis, et ab actu rationis. Nam rationis quidem actus in sola cognitione consistit; voluntas autem actum suum habet circa bonum quod est finis; liberum vero arbitrium circa bonum quod est ad finem. Sicut ergo bonum quod est ad finem, egreditur a ratione finis, appetitus vero boni a cognitione; ita dicunt quodammodo naturali ordine ex ratione voluntatem procedere, et ex duabus tertiam potentiam, quae est liberum arbitrium. Some say that free choice is a third power distinct from will and reason, because they see that the act of free choice, which is to choose, is different both from that of the will by itself and from that of reason. The act of reason consists in mere knowledge. The act of the will is concerned with a good which is an end. But free choice deals with a good which is a means to an end. just as a good which is a means to an end lies outside the nature of an end, and appetite is outside of knowledge, they say that in a natural order will proceeds from reason, and from these two a third power, free choice, proceeds.
Sed hoc convenienter stare non potest. Obiectum enim et id quod est ratio obiecti, ad eamdem potentiam pertinent, sicut color et lumen ad visum. Tota autem ratio appetibilitatis eius quod est ad finem, in quantum huiusmodi, est finis. Unde non potest esse quod ad aliam potentiam pertineat appetere finem et id quod est ad finem. Nec haec differentia, qua finis appetitur absolute, id autem quod est ad finem, in ordine ad alterum, potest appetitivarum potentiarum distinctionem inducere. Nam ordinatio unius ad alterum inest appetitui non per se, sed per aliud, scilicet per rationem, cuius est ordinare et conferre: unde non potest esse differentia specifica constituens speciem appetitus. But this cannot consistently stand. The object and that which constitutes the formality under which the object is attained belong to the same power, as color and light belong to sight. Now the whole formality of the appetibility of a means as such is the end. It is consequently impossible that it should belong to distinct powers to tend to the end and to tend to the means. Nor can this difference, that the end is sought absolutely and the means relatively, bring about a distinction of appetitive powers; for the reference of one thing to another is not in appetite of itself but because of something else, namely, reason, whose function it is to refer and compare. This can therefore not be a specific difference constituting a distinct species of appetite.
Utrum autem eligere sit actus rationis vel voluntatis, philosophus sub dubio videtur relinquere in VII Ethic., supponens tamen quod aliqualiter sit virtus utriusque; dicens quod electio vel est intellectus appetitivi, vel appetitus intellectivi. Sed quod sit appetitus dicit in III Ethic., definiens electionem esse desiderium praeconsiliati. Whether to choose is an act of reason or of will, however, the Philosopher seems to leave in doubt in the sixth book of the Ethics; but he supposes that it is somehow a function of the two, saying that choice is either an understanding on the part of the appetitive power or an appetite on the part of the intellective. That it is an act of appetite, however, he says in the third book, defining choice as a desire of what has been previously deliberated.
Quod quidem verum esse, et ipsum obiectum demonstrat (nam sicut bonum delectabile et honestum, quae habent rationem finis, sunt obiectum appetitivae virtutis, ita et bonum utile, quod proprie eligitur); That this is true its very object makes clear. For, just as the pleasurable and the honorable good, which have the formality of an end, are the object of the appetitive power, so too is the useful good, to which choice properly applies.
et patet ex nomine: nam liberum arbitrium, ut dictum est, art. 4 huius quaest., est potentia qua homo libere iudicare potest. Quod autem dicitur esse principium alicuius actus aliqualiter fiendi, non oportet quod sit principium illius actus simpliciter, sed aliqualiter significatur esse principium illius; sicut grammatica per hoc quod dicitur esse scientia recte loquendi, non dicitur quod sit principium locutionis simpliciter, quia sine grammatica potest homo loqui, sed quod sit principium rectitudinis in locutione. Ita et potentia qua libere iudicamus, non intelligitur illa qua iudicamus simpliciter, quod est rationis; sed quae facit libertatem in iudicando, quod est voluntatis. It is clear also from the name. For free choice, as has been said,” is the power by which man can freely judge. Now whatever is said to be the principle of performing an act in a determined way need not be the principle of that act taken without qualification, but it is designated chiefly as the principle of that particular manner of acting. Grammar, for example, when called the science of correct speech, is not taken to be the principle of speech in an unqualified sense, because man can speak even without grammar; but it is taken as the principle of correctness in speech. In the same way the power by which we freely judge is not taken to be that by which we judge without further qualification, for that is the function of reason; but it is taken as the power which accounts for our freedom in judging, and this belongs to the will.
Unde liberum arbitrium est ipsa voluntas. Nominat autem eam non absolute, sed in ordine ad aliquem actum eius, qui est eligere. Free choice is therefore the will. The term does not designate the will absolutely, however, but with reference to one of its acts, to choose.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quia liberum arbitrium non nominat voluntatem absolute, sed in ordine ad rationem, inde est quod ad hoc significandum voluntas et ratio in definitione liberi arbitrii oblique ponuntur. 1. Free choice does not refer to the will absolutely but in subordination to reason. To signify this, will and reason are put in the definition of free choice obliquely.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis eligere sit alius actus quam velle, tamen ista differentia non potest potentiarum distinctionem inducere. 2. Although choosing is a different act from willing, that difference cannot bring about a distinction of powers.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis iudicium sit rationis, tamen libertas iudicandi est voluntatis immediate. 3. Though judgment is a function of reason, the freedom of judging belongs immediately to the will.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod rationales dicimur non solum a potentia rationis, sed ab anima rationali, cuius potentia est voluntas; et sic secundum quod rationales sumus, dicimur esse liberi arbitrii. Si tamen rationale a rationis potentia sumeretur, praedicta auctoritas significaret rationem esse primam liberi arbitrii originem, non autem immediatum electionis principium. 4 We are called rational not merely from the power of reason, but from the rational soul, of which the will also is a power. In this sense we are said to have free choice inasmuch as we are rational. If rational were taken from the power of reason, however, the passages cited in authority would mean that reason is the primary source of free choice but not the immediate principle of choosing.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod voluntas quodammodo movet rationem imperando actum eius, et ratio movet voluntatem proponendo ei obiectum suum, quod est finis, et inde est quod utraque potentia potest aliqualiter per aliam informari. 5. The will in some sense moves reason by commanding its act; and reason moves the will by proposing to it its object, which is the end. Thus it is that either power can in some way be informed by the other.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE VII

In the seventh article we ask:
Can there be any creature which has its free choice naturally confirmed in good?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 5, 1,1; 23, 1, 1; C.G., III, 100-10; In Job, c. 4, lect. 3. (P 14: 20b); S.T., 63, 1; 95, 1 ad 3; De malo, 16, 2.]
Septimo quaeritur utrum possit esse aliqua creatura quae liberum arbitrium habeat naturaliter confirmatum in bono Difficulties
Et videtur quod sic. It seems that there can, for
Natura enim spiritualis est nobilior quam corporalis. Sed aliqua natura corporalis est cui hoc convenit quod in ea nulla motus inordinatio esse possit, scilicet natura caelestis corporis. Ergo multo fortius potest esse aliqua natura creata spiritualis, quae est capax liberi arbitrii, in cuius motibus naturaliter nulla inordinatio esse possit; quod est esse impeccabilem, vel confirmari in bono. 1. A spiritual nature is nobler than a corporeal one. But there is a corporeal nature for which it would be out of keeping to have any disorder in its motion. That is the nature of a heavenly body. With all the more reason, then, can there be a created spiritual nature capable of free choice in whose motions there naturally cannot be any disorder. But this means that it is impeccable or confirmed in good.
Sed dicendum quod hoc est de nobilitate creaturae spiritualis quod possit mereri; et hoc esse non posset, nisi posset peccare et non peccare.- Sed contra: ex hoc competit alicui creaturae spirituali posse mereri, quod habet dominium sui actus. Sed si non posset nisi bona agere, nihilominus ei sui actus dominium remaneret: posset enim aliquod bonum agere vel non agere, sine hoc quod in malum incideret, vel saltem eligere inter bonum et melius. Ergo ad merendum non requiritur posse peccare. 2. The answer was given that it belongs to the nobility of a spiritual creature that it be able to merit, but that this would be impossible unless it could sin or not.—On the contrary, the ability to merit is within the competence of a spiritual creature by reason of its having the mastery of its own acts. But if it were not able to do anything but good, it would nonetheless still have the mastery of its own acts; for it could do something good or not do it without falling into evil, or it could at least choose between something good and something better. The ability to sin is therefore not required for meriting.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium, quo meremur gratia adiuvante, est potentia activa. Sed de ratione potentiae activae non est deficere. Ergo potest creatura spiritualis habere potentiam ad merendum, si naturaliter sit impeccabilis. 3. Free choice, by which with the help of grace we merit, is an active power. But it is not of the nature of an active power that it fail. A spiritual creature can therefore have the power to merit even if it is naturally impeccable.
Praeterea, Anselmus dicit quod potestas peccandi nec est libertas, nec pars libertatis. Sed libertas est ratio qua homo est capax meriti. Ergo remota potentia peccandi, adhuc remanebit homini potentia merendi. 4. Anselm says: “The power of sinning is neither freedom nor a part of freedom.” But freedom is the reason why man is capable of meriting. Then, even if the power of sinning is taken away, there will still remain to man the power of meriting.
Praeterea, Gregorius Nyssenus et Damascenus, hanc rationem assignant quare creatura sit mutabilis secundum liberum arbitrium, quia est ex nihilo. Sed propinquius consequitur creaturam ex hoc quod est ex nihilo, posse in nihilum cedere, quam posse malum facere. Sed invenitur aliqua creatura quae naturaliter est incorruptibilis, sicut anima, et corpora caelestia. Ergo multo fortius potest inveniri aliqua creatura spiritualis quae naturaliter sit impeccabilis. 5. Gregory of Nyssa and Damascene assign as the reason why a creature is changeable in its free choice the fact that it is from nothing. But it is more closely a consequence of being a creature that it can fall into nothingness than that it can do evil. Now there are found creatures which are by nature incorruptible, such as the soul and heavenly bodies. Even more surely, then, can there be found a spiritual creature which is by nature impeccable.
Praeterea, illud quod Deus facit in uno, potest in aliis facere. Sed Deus creaturae spirituali dat ita immutabiliter ex sua natura tendere in aliquod bonum, scilicet felicitatem, quod nullo modo in contrarium tendere possit. Ergo eadem ratione posset alicui creaturae conferre ut ita naturaliter appeteret omne bonum, quod nullo modo posset in malum inclinari. 6. What God does in one thing He can do in others. But He grants to spiritual creatures by their very nature to tend so invariably to a certain good, happiness, that they can by no means tend to the contrary. He could in the same way, then, grant to some creature that it should naturally tend to all good so that it could by no means incline to evil.
Praeterea, Deus cum sit summe bonus, summe se communicat; unde omne id creaturae communicatur cuius creatura est capax. Sed huius perfectionis quae est confirmatio in bono, vel impeccabilitas, creatura est capax; quod patet, quia aliquibus creaturis per gratiam conceditur. Ergo aliqua creatura est naturaliter impeccabilis, vel confirmata in bono. 7. Since God is supremely good, He communicates Himself in the highest degree. He consequently communicates to creatures everything of which creatures are capable. But creatures are capable of the perfection which is confirmation in good or impeccability. This is evident because it is granted to some creatures by grace. Consequently there is also some creature which is naturally impeccable and confirmed in good.
Praeterea, substantia est principium virtutis; virtus vero operationis. Sed aliqua creatura est naturaliter immutabilis secundum substantiam. Ergo potest esse aliqua creatura, quae potest esse naturaliter immutabilis secundum operationem, ut sit naturaliter impeccabilis. 8. Substance is the principle of a power, and a power is the principle of operation. But there is a creature which is naturally invariable in substance. There can therefore be some creature naturally invariable in its operation so as to be naturally impeccable.
Praeterea, essentialius convenit creaturae quod convenit sibi ratione principii ex quo est, quam quod convenit sibi ratione principii a quo est; quia effectus sortitur similitudinem causae a qua est, habet autem oppositionem ad id ex quo est, opposita autem ex oppositis fiunt, ut album ex nigro. Sed confirmatio in bonum convenit alicui creaturae a Deo, a quo est. Ergo multo magis debet dici confirmatio in bono sibi naturalis quam posse peccare, quod convenit sibi secundum quod est ex nihilo. 9. Attributes of creatures consequent upon their efficient principle belong to them more essentially than those consequent upon their material principle, because the effect takes on a likeness of its efficient cause but stands opposed to its material cause. Opposites are from opposites, as white from black. But confirmation in good comes to some creatures from God, their efficient principle. Much more, then, should confirmation in good be said to be natural to them than the ability to sin, which belongs to them as being made out of nothing.
Praeterea, felicitas civilis immutabilitatem habet. Sed homo ex naturalibus potest pervenire ad felicitatem civilem. Ergo potest habere naturaliter immutabilitatem in bono. 10. Civic happiness is unvarying. But man can attain to civic happiness by natural means. He can therefore naturally have invariability in good.
Praeterea, quod inest a natura, est immutabile. Sed naturaliter homo appetit bonum. Ergo et immutabiliter. 11. Whatever is in a being from nature is unvarying. But man naturally tends to good. Hence he does it invariably.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Damascenus dicit, quod ex hoc creatura rationalis flexibilis est ad malum secundum electionem, quod est ex nihilo. Sed non potest esse aliqua creatura quae non sit ex nihilo. Ergo non potest esse aliqua creatura cuius liberum arbitrium sit naturaliter confirmatum in bono. 1. Damascene says that the reason why a rational creature can turn to evil in its choice is that it is from nothing. But there cannot be any creature which is not from nothing. Hence there cannot be any creature whose free choice is naturally confirmed in good.
Praeterea, proprietas naturae superioris non potest inferiori naturae naturaliter convenire, nisi in superiorem naturam convertatur; sicut non potest fieri quod aqua naturaliter sit calida, nisi convertatur in naturam ignis vel aeris. Sed habere indefectibilem bonitatem est divinae proprietas naturae. Ergo non potest esse quod alicui alii naturae conveniat naturaliter nisi in divinam naturam convertatur: quod est impossibile. 2. The characteristics of a higher nature cannot belong to a lower nature unless it is changed into the higher. Thus it is impossible for water to be naturally hot unless it is changed into the nature of fire or air. But to have a goodness incapable of failure is the characteristic of the divine nature. It is therefore impossible that this should naturally belong to any other nature unless it is changed into the divine nature. But that, of course, is impossible.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium non invenitur in aliqua creatura, nisi in Angelo et in homine. Sed tam homo quam Angelus peccavit. Ergo nullius creaturae liberum arbitrium est naturaliter confirmatum in bono. 3. Free choice is not found in any creatures except angels and men. But both man and the angels have sinned. The free choice of no creature, therefore, is naturally confirmed in good.
Praeterea, nulla creatura rationalis impeditur a beatitudine consequenda nisi ratione peccati. Si ergo aliqua creatura rationalis esset naturaliter impeccabilis, ex puris naturalibus sine gratia ad beatitudinem posset pervenire; quod Pelagianam haeresim sapere videtur. 4. No rational creature is kept from attaining happiness except by reason of sin. If any rational creature were naturally impeccable, therefore, it could attain to happiness by purely natural means without grace. But that seems to smack of the Pelagian heresy.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod nulla creatura nec est, nec esse potest, cuius liberum arbitrium sit naturaliter confirmatum in bono, ut hoc ei ex puris naturalibus conveniat quod peccare non possit. Cuius ratio est. Nam ex defectu principiorum actionis, causatur actionis defectus; unde si quid est in quo principia actionis nec in se deficere possunt, nec ab aliquo extrinseco impediri, impossibile est illius actionem deficere; sicut patet in motibus caelestium corporum. Ea vero in actionibus deficere possibile est in quibus principia agendi possunt deficere vel impediri, sicut patet in generalibus et corruptibilibus, quae ratione suae transmutabilitatis defectum in principiis activis patiuntur, unde et eorum actiones deficientes proveniunt: propter quod in operationibus naturae peccatum frequenter accidit, sicut patet in partubus monstruosis. Nihil enim est aliud peccatum, sive in rebus naturalibus sive artificialibus sive voluntariis dicatur, quam defectus vel inordinatio propriae actionis, cum aliquid agitur non secundum quod debitum est agi, ut patet II Phys. There is not and cannot be any creature whose free choice is naturally confirmed in good so that the inability to sin belong to it by its purely natural endowments. The reason is this. A failure in an action is caused by a failure in the principles of the action. Consequently, if there is something in which the principles of action cannot fail in themselves nor be hindered by something extrinsic, its action cannot possibly fail. This is seen in the motions of the heavenly bodies. But it is possible for a failure to occur in the actions of those things in which the principles of acting can fail or be hindered. This is seen in beings subject to generation and corruption, which undergo failure in their active principles by reason of their changeableness and have defective actions as a result. For this reason in the operations of nature something amiss frequently happens, of which the births of monsters are examples. For something amiss, whether it be spoken of in natural or artificial or voluntary matters, is nothing but a defect or disorder in the agent’s proper action when something is done otherwise than as it should be, as is explained in the Physics.
Differt autem in agendo natura rationalis praedita libero arbitrio ab omni alia natura. Alia enim natura ordinatur ad aliquod particulare bonum, et actiones eius sunt determinatae respectu illius boni; natura vero rationalis ordinatur ad bonum simpliciter. Sicut enim verum absolute obiectum est intellectus, ita et bonum absolute voluntatis; et inde est quod ad ipsum universale bonorum principium voluntas se extendit, ad quod nullus alius appetitus pertingere potest. Et propter hoc creatura rationalis non habet determinatas actiones, sed se habet sub quadam indifferentia respectu materialium actionum. Cum autem omnis actio ab agente proveniat sub ratione cuiusdam similitudinis, sicut calidum calefacit; oportet quod, si aliquod agens est quod secundum suam actionem ordinetur ad bonum aliquod particulare, ad hoc quod eius actio naturaliter sit indefectibilis, ratio illius boni naturaliter et immobiliter ei insit; sicut si alicui corpori inest naturaliter calor immutabilis, immutabiliter calefacit. A rational nature endowed with free choice, however, is different in its action from every other agent nature. Every other nature is ordained to some particular good, and its actions are determined in regard to that good. But a rational nature is ordained to good without further qualification. Good, taken absolutely, is the object of the will, just as truth, taken absolutely, is the object of the intellect. That is why the will reaches to the universal principle of good itself, to which no other appetite can attain. And for this reason a rational creature does not have determined actions but is in a state of indifference in regard to innumerable actions. Now, since every action proceeds from the agent with a certain similarity to the agent, as hot things heat, any agent which is ordained in its action to some particular good must have the formality of that good naturally and invariably within itself if its action is to be naturally indefectible. If a body, for instance, naturally has an unvarying heat, it heats invariably.
Unde et natura rationalis, quae ordinata est ad bonum absolute per actiones multifarias, non potest habere naturaliter actiones indeficientes a bono, nisi ei naturaliter et immutabiliter insit ratio universalis et perfecti boni; A rational nature, accordingly, which is directed to good, taken absolutely, through many different actions, cannot have actions naturally incapable of going astray from good unless it have in it naturally and invariably the formality of the universal and perfect good.
quod quidem esse non potest nisi natura divina. Nam Deus solus est actus purus nullius potentiae permixtionem recipiens, et per hoc est bonitas pura et absoluta. Creatura vero quaelibet, cum in natura sua habeat permixtionem potentiae, est bonum particulare. Quae quidem permixtio potentiae ei accidit propter hoc quod est ex nihilo. Et inde est quod inter naturas rationales solus Deus habet liberum arbitrium naturaliter impeccabile et confirmatum in bono: creaturae vero hoc inesse impossibile est, propter hoc quod est ex nihilo, ut Damascenus et Gregorius Nyssenus dicunt; et ex hoc est particulare bonum in quo fundatur ratio mali, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de divinis nominibus. That can be had, however, only in the divine nature. For God alone is pure act, admitting no admixture of any potentiality, and thus is pure and absolute goodness. But any creature is a particular good, since it has in its very nature the admixture of potentiality, which belongs to it because it is made out of nothing. And hence it is that among rational natures only God has a free choice naturally impeccable and confirmed in good, whereas it is impossible for this natural impeccability to be in a creature because of its being made out of nothing, as Damascene and Gregory of Nyssa say. From this, too, is the particular good in which the nature of evil is founded, as Dionysius says.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod creaturae corporales, ut dictum est in corp. art., sunt ordinatae ad aliquod particulare bonum per determinatas actiones. Et ideo ad hoc quod ab earum actionibus error et peccatum naturaliter absit, sufficit quod sint per suam naturam stabilitae in aliquo bono particulari; quod non sufficit in naturis spiritualibus ordinatis ad bonum absolute, ut dictum est. 1. Corporeal creatures are directed to some particular good through definite actions, as has been said. Consequently, in order that error and sin be naturally absent from their actions, it is sufficient for them to be fixed by their own nature in some particular good. But this is not sufficient in the case of spiritual natures ordained to good taken absolutely, as has been said.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod esse naturaliter impeccabile non repugnat ei quod est habere dominium sui actus, cum utrumque Deo conveniat; repugnat autem ei quod est habere dominium sui actus in natura creata, quae est particulare bonum: non enim aliqua creatura potest habere dominium sui actus, cuius sunt determinatae actiones ordinatae ad bonum particulare. 2. There is no contradiction between being naturally impeccable and having the mastery over one’s own actions, since both are verified in God. But there is a contradiction between natural impeccability and the possession of the mastery over one’s own actions by a created nature, which is a particular good; for no creature which has determined actions directed to a particular good has the mastery of its own acts.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis non sit de ratione potentiae activae quod deficiat, est tamen de ratione potentiae activae quae non habet in se suae actionis sufficientia principia et immutabilia, ut deficere possit. 3. Although it is not of the nature of an active power that it fail, it is of the nature of an active power which does not have within itself the sufficient and unvarying principles of its own action that it be able to fail.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod quamvis posse peccare non sit pars libertatis arbitrii, consequitur tamen libertatem in natura creata. 4. Though the ability to sin is not a part of free choice, yet it results from freedom of choice in a created nature.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod creaturae acquiritur esse determinatum et particulare ab alio. Unde creatura potest habere esse stabile et immutabile, quamvis in ea non inveniatur naturaliter ratio absoluti et perfecti boni; sed per actiones suas est ordinabile ad bonum absolute; et ideo non est simile. 5. A creature gets an act of existence which is determined, particular, and from another. Consequently, a creature can have a stable and unvarying existence even though there is not found in it the formality of the absolute and perfect good, but by its actions it can be directed to good taken absolutely. Hence there is no parallel.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod felicitatem indeterminate et in universali omnis rationalis mens naturaliter appetit, et circa hoc deficere non potest; sed in particulari non est determinatus motus voluntatis creaturae ad quaerendam felicitatem in hoc vel illo. Et sic in appetendo felicitatem aliquis peccare potest, si eam quaerat ubi quaerere non debet, sicut qui quaerit in voluptatibus felicitatem; et ita est respectu omnium bonorum: nam nihil appetitur nisi sub ratione boni, ut Dionysius dicit. Quod ideo est, quia naturaliter inest menti appetitus boni, sed non huius vel illius boni: unde in hoc, peccatum incidere potest. 6. Every rational mind naturally desires happiness in an undetermined and general way, and in this regard it cannot fail. But the motion of the will of a creature is not determined in particular to seek happiness in this or that. And so a person can sin even in seeking happiness if he seeks it where he should not, as one who seeks it in sensuous pleasures. The same is also true in regard to all goods, for nothing is desired except under the aspect of good, as Dionysius says. This is so because the tendency to good is naturally in the mind, but not to this or that good. Hence it can fall into sin in this matter.
Ad septimum dicendum quod creatura est capax impeccabilitatis, sed non ita quod eam naturaliter habeat: unde ratio non sequitur. 7. A creature is capable of impeccability, but not so as to have it naturally. Hence the conclusion does not follow.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod principium operationis rectae procedentis ex libero arbitrio non est sola substantia et virtus, sive potentia; sed requiritur debita applicatio voluntatis ad aliqua quae sunt extra, sicut ad finem, et ad alia huiusmodi. Et ideo non existente aliquo defectu in substantia animae vel in natura liberi arbitrii, potest sequi defectus in actione ipsius. Unde ex naturali immutabilitate substantiae non potest concludi naturalis impeccabilitas. 8. The principle of a correct operation proceeding from free choice is not merely the substance and the faculty or power, but there is also needed the due application of the will to certain things which are extrinsic, such as the end, and other things of the sort. Consequently, even when there is no defect in the substance of the soul or in the nature of free choice, a failure in its action can follow. From the natural invariability of the substance, then, natural impeccability cannot be concluded.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod Deus est causa creaturae non solum quantum ad sua naturalia, sed quantum ad superaddita. Unde non oportet quod quidquid creatura habet a Deo, sit ei naturale, sed solum illud quod Deus ei indidit instituendo naturam ipsius; et huiusmodi non est confirmatio in bono. 9. God is the cause of creatures not only in their natural endowments but also in everything additional. It is accordingly not necessary that whatever creatures have from God should be natural to them, but only what God has endowed them with in instituting their nature. But confirmation in good is not something of this sort.
Ad decimum dicendum, quod felicitas civilis, cum non sit felicitas simpliciter, non habet immutabilitatem simpliciter; sed dicitur immutabilis, quia non facile permutatur. Si tamen felicitas civilis esset simpliciter immutabilis, non propter hoc sequeretur quod liberum arbitrium naturaliter esset in bono confirmatum. Nam non dicimus hoc naturale quod per principia naturae acquiri potest; per quem modum virtutes politicae possunt dici naturales; sed illud quod consequitur ex necessitate principiorum naturae. 10. Since civic happiness is not happiness without qualification, it does not have invariability without qualification; but it is called unvarying because it is not easily changed. Yet even if civic happiness were simply unvarying, it would not follow on this account that free choice would be naturally confirmed in good. For we are not speaking of something natural in the sense that it can be acquired by the principles of nature, as political virtues can be called natural, but in the sense that it follows from the necessity of the principles of nature.
Ad undecimum dicendum, quod quamvis homo naturaliter bonum appetat in generali, non tamen in speciali, ut dictum est, in solutione ad 6 argumentum; et ex hac parte incidit peccatum et defectus. 11. Although man naturally tends to good in general, he does not so tend to a specific good, as has been said. It is for this reason that sin and failure occur.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE VIII

In the eighth article we ask:
Can the free choice of a creature be confirmed in good by a gift of grace?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 7, 1, 1; 23, 1, 1; III Sent., 3, 1, 2, sol. 2 & 3; IV Sent., 6, 1, 1 sol. 2; S.T., I, 62, 8; 100, 2; Expos. super salut. angel. ]
Octavo quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium creaturae possit confirmari in bono per aliquod donum gratiae Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems that it cannot, for
Gratia enim superveniens naturae non destruit eam. Cum ergo libero arbitrio creaturae hoc naturaliter insit quod ad malum flecti possit, videtur quod per gratiam ei auferri non possit. 1. Grace, coming to a nature, does not destroy but perfects it. Since it is a natural characteristic of the free choice of a creature that it can be turned to evil, it therefore seems that it cannot be removed from it by grace.
Praeterea in potestate liberi arbitrii est uti gratia vel non uti; nam liberum arbitrium a gratia cogi non potest. Sed si liberum arbitrium gratia superinfusa non utatur, decidit in malum. Ergo nulla gratia superveniens potest liberum arbitrium confirmare in bono. 2. It is within the power of free choice to use grace or not to use it, for free choice is not forced by grace. But if free choice does not use a grace imparted to it, it falls into evil. Consequently no grace that comes to it can confirm free choice in good.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium habet dominium sui actus. Sed uti gratia est quidam actus liberi arbitrii. Ergo hoc est in potestate liberi arbitrii uti vel non uti; et sic per gratiam confirmari non potest. 3. Free choice has the mastery of its own acts. But the use of grace is an act of free choice. It is therefore within the power of free choice to use it or not to use it, and so it cannot be confirmed by grace.
Praeterea, secundum hoc inest libero arbitrio creaturae flexibilitas ad malum, quod est ex nihilo, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed nulla gratia potest auferre creaturae esse ex nihilo. Ergo nulla gratia poterit liberum arbitrium confirmare in bono. 4. The possibility of turning to evil is in the free choice of a creature because it is from nothing, as Damascene says. But no grace can remove from a creature its origin from nothing. Then no grace can confirm our free choice in good.
Praeterea, Bernardus dicit, quod liberum arbitrium est potentissimum sub Deo, quod de gratia et iustitia non recipit augmentum, nec de culpa detrimentum. Sed confirmatio in bono superveniens libero arbitrio auget ipsum: quia, secundum Augustinum, in his quae mole magna sunt, idem est esse maius quod melius. Ergo liberum arbitrium per gratiam non potest confirmari in bono. 5. Bernard says that free choice is “the most powerful thing” under God, that it gets no increase from grace and justice, and that it suffers no loss from a fault. But confirmation in good when added to free choice increases it, because according to Augustine “in things of great mass to be larger is to be better.” Hence free choice cannot be confirmed in good by grace.
Praeterea, ut dicitur in Lib. de causis, quod est in aliquo, est in eo per modum eius in quo est. Sed liberum arbitrium secundum suam naturam est mutabile in bonum et malum. Ergo et gratia ei superveniens hoc modo in eo recipitur quod in bonum et malum mutari possit. Et ita videtur quod non possit ipsum confirmare in bono. 6. As is said in The Causes, whatever is in a subject is in it after the manner of that subject. But free choice is by its nature capable off change to good or evil. A grace that comes to it is therefore received into it in such a way that it can be turned to good or evil; and so it cannot confirm it in good.
Praeterea, quidquid Deus superaddit creaturae, posset (ut videtur) a principio suae conditionis conferre ei. Si ergo possit liberum arbitrium confirmari per aliquam gratiam superadditam, posset confirmari per aliquod inditum ipsi creaturae spirituali quantum ad naturae conditionem; et sic naturaliter esset confirmatum in bono; quod est impossibile, ut dictum est. Ergo nec per gratiam confirmari potest. 7. Whatever God adds to a creature He could also, as it seems, confer upon it from the beginning of its creation. Consequently, if He could confirm free choice by a grace added to it, He could also confirm it by something implanted in the spiritual creature in the very constitution of the nature; and so it would be naturally confirmed in good. But this is impossible, as has been said. Then neither can it be confirmed through grace.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est, quod sancti qui sunt in patria, ita sunt in bono confirmati, ut ulterius peccare non possint: alias de sua beatitudine securi non essent, et per consequens nec beati. Non autem haec confirmatio inest eis per naturam, ut dictum est, art. praeced. Ergo hoc est per gratiam. Et ita liberum arbitrium per donum gratiae confirmari potest. 1. The saints who are in their heavenly home are confirmed in good so as not to be able to sin any more; otherwise they would not be secure in their happiness and so would not be happy. But this confirmation is not in them by nature, as has been said. It is therefore by grace; and so free choice can be confirmed by a gift of grace.
Praeterea, sicut liberum arbitrium hominis ex sua natura habet quod sit flexibile in malum, ita corpus humanum habet ex sua natura quod sit corruptibile. Sed corpus humanum dono gratiae efficitur incorruptibile; I Cor. XV, 53: oportet corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem. Ergo liberum arbitrium potest per gratiam confirmari in bono. 2. The human body is by nature corruptible, just as man’s free choice is by nature capable of turning to evil. But the human body is made incorruptible by a gift of grace; for it is written in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (15: 5 3): “For this corruptible must put on incorruption.” Free choice can therefore be confirmed in good by grace.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod circa hanc quaestionem erravit Origenes: voluit enim quod liberum arbitrium creaturae nullatenus confirmaretur in bono nec in beatis, nisi in Christo propter unionem ad verbum. Ex hoc autem errore ponere cogebatur, quod beatitudo sanctorum et Angelorum non esset perpetua, sed aliquando esset finienda: ex quo sequitur eam non esse veram, cum immutabilitas et securitas sit de ratione beatitudinis. Et ideo propter hoc inconveniens quod sequitur, eius positio est penitus reprobanda. Et ideo dicendum est simpliciter, quod liberum arbitrium per gratiam potest confirmari in bono. Origen was in error concerning this question. He held that the free choice of a creature could in no way be confirmed in good, not even in the blessed, except in Christ because of the union to the Word. As a result of this error, moreover, he was forced to affirm that the happiness of the saints and even of the angels is not everlasting but is at some time to come to an end; and from this it follows that theirs is not true happiness, since changelessness and security are essential to happiness. Consequently because of its inadmissible consequences Origen’s position is to be entirely rejected; and we must say without cavil that free choice can be confirmed in good by grace.
Quod quidem ex hoc apparet. Propter hoc enim naturaliter liberum arbitrium creaturae in bono confirmatum esse non potest, quia in natura sua non habet perfecti et absoluti rationem boni, sed cuiusdam boni particularis: huic autem bono perfecto et absoluto, scilicet Deo, liberum arbitrium per gratiam unitur. Unde si fiat perfecta unio, ut ipse Deus sit libero arbitrio tota causa agendi, in malum flecti non poterit. Quod quidem in aliquibus contingit, et praecipue in beatis: This is evident from the following consideration. The free choice of a creature cannot be naturally confirmed in good, because it does not have in its nature the note of perfect and absolute good but only of a certain particular good. By grace, however, free choice is united to this perfect and absolute good, that is, God. If the union should be perfect, so that free choice would have God Himself as the whole cause of its acting, it could not turn to evil. That does happen in some cases, and especially in that of the blessed.
quod sic patet. Voluntas enim naturaliter tendit in bonum sicut in suum obiectum; quod autem aliquando in malum tendat, hoc non contingit nisi quia malum sibi sub specie boni proponitur. Malum enim est involuntarium, ut Dionysius dicit IV cap. de Divin. Nom. Unde non potest esse peccatum in motu voluntatis, scilicet quod malum appetat, nisi in apprehensiva virtute defectus praeexistat, per quem sibi malum ut bonum proponatur. Hic autem defectus in ratione potest dupliciter accidere: uno modo ex ipsa ratione; alio modo ex aliquo extrinseco. The reason is this. The will naturally tends to good as its object. That it sometimes tends to evil happens only because the evil is presented to it under the aspect of a good. But evil is involuntary, as Dionysius says. Consequently there cannot be any sin in the motion of the will so that it tends to evil unless there previously exists some deficiency in the apprehensive power, as a result of which something evil is presented as good. This deficiency in reason can come about in two ways: either from reason itself, or from something extrinsic to it.
Ex ipsa quidem ratione, quia inest ei naturaliter et immutabiliter sine errore cognitio boni in universali, tam boni quod est finis, quam boni quod est ad finem; non autem in particulari, sed circa hoc errare potest, ut aestimet aliquid esse finem quod non est finis, vel esse utile ad finem quod non est utile. Et propter hoc voluntas naturaliter appetit bonum quod est finis, scilicet felicitatem in generali, et similiter bonum quod est ad finem; unusquisque enim naturaliter appetit utilitatem suam; sed in hoc vel illo fine appetendo, aut hoc vel illo utili eligendo, incidit peccatum voluntatis. It can come about from reason itself because the knowledge of good in general, both of the good which is the end and of that which is a means, is had by it naturally and invariably and without error, but not of good in particular. In regard to the latter it can err so that it judges something which is not the end to be the end, or something which is not useful to the end to be useful. For this reason too the will naturally desires the good which is the end, namely, happiness in general, and likewise the good which is a means to the end (for everyone naturally desires his own profit); but the sin on the part of the will occurs in desiring this or that particular end or in choosing this or that means.
Sed ex aliquo extrinseco ratio deficit, cum propter vires inferiores quae intense moventur in aliquid, intercipitur actus rationis, ut non limpide et firmiter suum iudicium de bono voluntati proponat; sicut cum aliquis habens rectam existimationem de castitate servanda, per concupiscentiam delectabilis appetit contrarium castitati, propter hoc quod iudicium rationis aliqualiter a concupiscentia ligatur, ut philosophus dicit in VII Ethic. Reason proves deficient because of something extrinsic to it when the lower powers are drawn to something intensely and the act of reason is consequently interrupted so that it does not propose to the will its judgment about the good clearly and firmly. For example, someone with a proper regard for the necessity of observing chastity may desire something contrary to chastity through a lust for what is pleasurable, because the judgment of reason is in some sense fettered by concupiscence, as the Philosopher says.
Uterque autem istorum defectuum totaliter a beatis tolletur ex coniunctione ipsorum ad Deum. Nam divinam essentiam videntes, cognoscent ipsum Deum esse finem maxime amandum; cognoscent etiam omnia quae ei uniunt, vel quae ab eo disiungunt, in particulari, cognoscentes Deum non solum in se, sed prout est ratio aliorum; et hac cognitionis claritate in tantum mens roborabitur, quod in inferioribus viribus nullus motus insurgere poterit nisi secundum regulam rationis. Unde sicut nunc immutabiliter bonum in generali appetimus, ita immutabiliter in particulari bonum debitum appetunt beatorum mentes. Super naturalem autem inclinationem voluntatis erit in eis caritas perfecta, totaliter ligans eos cum Deo. Unde nullo modo in eis peccatum incidere poterit; et sic erunt per gratiam confirmati. Both of those types of deficiency will be entirely removed from the blessed by their union to God. For, seeing the divine essence, they will recognize that God Himself is the end to be loved above all else. They will know too in particular all the things which either unite a person with Him or separate one from Him, knowing God not only iii Himself but also as the reason for which other things are to be desired. And from the clarity of this knowledge their minds will be strengthened to such an extent that no motion will be able to arise in the lower powers except according to the rule of reason. Consequently, just as we now invariably desire good in general, the minds of the blessed invariably desire in particular the good which they ought. Furthermore, over and above this natural inclination of the will they will have perfect charity binding them entirely to God. Sin will therefore be unable to occur in them in any way; and so they will be confirmed by grace.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod hoc est ex defectu naturae creatae quod in malum flecti potest; et hunc defectum aufert percipiendo naturam gratia confirmans in bono, sicut lux superveniens aeri aufert obscuritatem eius, quam naturaliter sine luce habet. 1. It is due to the deficiency of a created nature that it can turn to evil; and grace removes this deficiency by perfecting the nature, confirming it in good, just as light which comes to the air takes away the darkness which it naturally has without light.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod in potestate liberi arbitrii est non uti habitu; tamen potest hoc ipsum quod est non uti habitu, sibi proponi sub specie boni; quod de gratia in beatis accidere non potest, ut dictum est, in corp. art. 2. It is within the power of free choice not to make use of a habit, yet even the non-use of a habit can be proposed to it under the aspect of good. But this cannot happen in the blessed regarding grace, as has been said.
Et per hoc patet solutio ad tertium. 3. The answer to this is clear from what has just been said.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod ex hoc quod liberum arbitrium est ex nihilo, convenit ei quod non sit naturaliter confirmatum in bono; nec hoc ei per gratiam concedi potest ut in bono naturaliter per gratiam confirmatum sit. Non autem libero arbitrio, secundum quod est ex nihilo, convenit quod nullo modo possit confirmari in bono; sicut nec aeri ex natura sua inest quod nullo modo possit illuminari, sed quod non sit naturaliter lucidus actu. 4. Because free choice is from nothing, it is consonant with it not to be naturally confirmed in good; nor can natural confirmation in good through grace be granted to it through grace. It is not, however, consonant with free choice as being from nothing to be incapable of confirmation in good in any way, just as it is not in air from its own nature to be altogether incapable of being illuminated, but merely to be not by nature actually luminous.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod Bernardus loquitur de libero arbitrio quantum ad libertatem a coactione, quae nec intensionem nec remissionem recipit. 5. Bernard is speaking of free choice with reference to freedom from force, which does not admit of increase or lessening.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod eius quod recipitur in aliquo, potest considerari et esse et ratio. Secundum quidem esse suum est in eo in quo recipitur, per modum recipientis, sed tamen ipsum recipiens trahitur ad suam rationem; sicut calor receptus in aqua habet esse in aqua per modum aquae, in quantum scilicet inest aquae ut accidens subiecto: tamen aquam trahit a naturali sua dispositione ad hoc quod fiat calida, et faciat actum caloris; et similiter lux aerem, licet non contra naturam aeris. Ita et gratia secundum esse suum est in libero arbitrio per modum eius sicut accidens in subiecto; sed tamen ad rationem suae immutabilitatis liberum arbitrium pertrahit, ipsum Deo coniungens. 6. Concerning anything received into a subject we can consider its existence and its formal character. In regard to its existence it is in its subject after the manner of the subject, but it nevertheless draws the subject to its own formal character. Thus heat that is received into water has existence in the water after the manner of the water, being in the water as an accident in a subject; yet it draws the water from its natural state to one in which it is hot and takes on the character of heat. Similarly, light affects the air, though not against the nature of air. In the same way grace too in regard to its existence is in free choice after its manner as an accident in a subject; yet it draws free choice to the formal character of its own invariability, joining it to God.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod bonum perfectum, quod est Deus, potest esse unitum menti humanae per gratiam, non autem per naturam; et ideo per gratiam liberum arbitrium potest confirmari in bono, non autem per naturam. 7. The perfect good, God, can be united to the human mind by grace but not by nature. Consequently free choice can be confirmed in good by grace but not by nature.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE IX

In the ninth article we ask:
Can the free choice of man in this present life be confirmed in good?

[ARTICLE In Job, c. 4, lect. 3 (P 14: 21a); S.T., III, 27,4; 5 ad2; Comp. theol., I, 224.]
Nono quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium hominis in statu viae possit confirmari in bono Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems that it cannot, for
Principium enim in appetibilibus est finis, ut philosophus dicit in VII Ethic., sicut principium in speculativis sunt dignitates. Sed in speculativis intellectus non confirmatur in veritate, certitudinem scientiae accipiens, nisi facta resolutione ad primas dignitates. Ergo nec liberum arbitrium potest confirmari in bono, nisi postquam pervenerit ad ultimum finem. Sed hoc non est in statu viae. Ergo liberum arbitrium in statu viae non potest confirmari in bono. 1. In appetitive matters the principle is the end, as the Philosopher says, just as in speculative matters axioms are the principle. But in speculative matters the intellect is not confirmed in truth when it takes on the certitude of science unless it makes the reduction to the first axioms. Then neither can free choice be confirmed in good except after it shall have come to the last end. But this is not attained in this pre sent life. Consequently in this present life free choice cannot be confirmed in good.
Praeterea, natura humana non est potior quam angelica. Sed Angelis non est collata confirmatio liberi arbitrii ante statum gloriae. Ergo nec hominibus conferri debet. 2. Human nature is not more highly endowed than angelic nature. But the confirmation of their free choice was not granted to the angels before the state of glory. Then neither should it be granted to men.
Praeterea, motus non quietatur nisi in fine. Sed liberum arbitrium non pervenit ad finem suum, quamdiu est in statu viae. Ergo nec eius mutabilitas quietatur, quin possit in bonum et malum ferri. 3. A mover comes to rest only in the end. But free choice does not come to its end so long as it is in this present life. Then neither does its variability, by which it can be directed to good and evil, come to rest here.
Praeterea, quamdiu aliquid est imperfectum, potest deficere. Sed imperfectio ab hominibus non tollitur quamdiu sunt in statu viae: videmus enim nunc per speculum in aenigmate, ut dicitur I Corinth. XIII, 12. Ergo quamdiu homo est in statu viae, potest deficere per peccatum. 4. As long as something is imperfect it can fail. But men’s imperfection is not taken away from them so long as they are in this present life, as is said in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (13:12) “We see now through a glass in a dark manner.” Then, as long as man is in this present life he can fail through sin.
Praeterea, quamdiu aliquis est in statu merendi, non debet sibi subtrahi quod meritum auget. Sed posse peccare ad meritum proficit; unde in laudem iusti viri dicitur Eccli. XXXI, 10: qui potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus; facere malum, et non fecit. Ergo quamdiu homo est in statu viae, in qua potest mereri, non debet liberum arbitrium eius confirmari in bono. 5. As long as a person is in the state of meriting, that which increases his merit should not be taken away from him. But the ability to sin is advantageous for merit. For this reason it is said in praise of a just man in Sirach (3 1: 10): “He that could have transgressed, and has not transgressed; and could do evil things, and has not done them.” Hence, as long as a man is in this present life in which he can merit, his free choice should not be confirmed in good.
Praeterea, sicut defectus liberi arbitrii est peccatum, ita defectus corporis est corruptio. Sed corpus hominis non fit incorruptibile in statu viae. Ergo nec in statu viae liberum arbitrium hominis potest confirmari in bono. 6. The failing of the body is corruption, just as that of free choice is sin. But the body of man does not become incorruptible in this present life. Then neither can man’s free choice be confirmed in good in this life.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod beata virgo in statu viae confirmata fuit in bono; nam de ea, ut dicit Augustinus, cum de peccatis agitur, mentio fieri non debet. l. The Blessed Virgin was confirmed in good in this life; for, as Augustine says, “when there is question of sin,” no mention should be made of her.
Praeterea, apostoli per adventum spiritus sancti confirmati fuerunt in bono, ut videtur per hoc quod dicitur in Psalm. LXXIV, vers. 4: ego confirmavi columnas eius; quod Glossa de apostolis exponit. 2. The Apostles too were confirmed in good by the coming of the Holy Spirit, as is seen from what is said in the Psalms (74:4): “I have made its pillars firm,” which the Gloss applies to the Apostles.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod aliquis potest confirmari in bono dupliciter. Uno modo simpliciter; ita scilicet, quod habeat in se sufficiens suae firmitatis principium, quod omnino peccare non possit. Et sic beati sunt confirmati in bono ratione prius dicta, in art. praeced. Alio modo dicuntur aliqui confirmati in bono per hoc quod eis datur aliquod munus gratiae, quo ita inclinantur in bonum quod non de facili possunt a bono deflecti; non tamen per hoc ita retrahuntur a malo, quin omnino peccare non possint, nisi divina providentia custodiente. Sicut dicitur de immortalitate Adae, qui ponitur immortalis, non quod omnino aliquo sibi intrinseco protegi posset ab omni exteriori mortifero, utpote ab incisione gladii et aliis huiusmodi; a quibus tamen divina providentia conservabatur. Et hoc modo aliqui in statu viae possunt confirmari in bono, et non primo: A person can be confirmed in good in two ways: (1) Absolutely, so that he has within himself a principle of his firmness sufficient to make him unable to sin at all. It is in this sense that the blessed are confirmed in good in the way explained above. (2) Some are said to be confirmed in good because there is given to them some gift of grace by which they are so inclined to good that they cannot easily be drawn away from it; but they are not thereby so drawn away from evil that apart from the protection of divine providence they are unable to sin at all. It is like the immortality of Adam, who is held to have been immortal, not because he was entirely protected by some intrinsic principle from every external lethal agent, like a wound from a sword, etc., but because divine providence preserved him from such things. It is in this way that some in the present life are confirmed in good, and not in the first way.
quod sic patet. Non enim potest aliquis omnino impeccabilis reddi, nisi omnis origo peccati auferatur. Origo autem peccati est vel ex rationis errore, quae in particulari decipitur circa finem boni, et circa utilia, quae in universali naturaliter appetit; vel ex hoc quod iudicium rationis intercipitur propter aliquam passionem inferiorum virium. Quamvis autem alicui viatori concedi possit ut ratio nullatenus erret circa finem boni, et circa utilia in particulari, per dona sapientiae et consilii, tamen non posse intercipi iudicium rationis, excedit statum viae, propter duo. Primo et principaliter, quia rationem esse semper in actu rectae contemplationis in statu viae, ita quod omnium operum ratio sit Deus, est impossibile. Secundo, quia in statu viae non contingit inferiores vires ita rationi esse subditas, ut actus rationis nullatenus propter eas impediatur, nisi in domino Iesu Christo, qui simul viator et comprehensor fuit. This is shown as follows. A person cannot be made altogether impeccable unless every source of sin is removed. Now the source of sin is found either in an error of reason, which is led astray in a particular case concerning the end (good) and the means to it, which he naturally desires in general; or in the obstruction of the judgment of reason by some passion of the lower powers. Although it could be granted to someone in this life through the gift of wisdom and of counsel that his reason should in no way err regarding the end (good) and regarding the means in particular, yet to have the judgment of reason unobstructable surpasses the state of this present life for two reasons: primarily and principally because it is impossible for reason in this life here below to be always in the act of correct contemplation so that the reason for everything we do is God; secondly, because the lower powers do not happen to be so subject to reason in this life that the act of reason is in no wise obstructed by them, except in the case of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who was at the same time on the way to God and in possession of Him.
Sed tamen per gratiam viae ita potest homo bono astringi, quod non nisi valde de difficili peccare possit, per hoc quod ex virtutibus infusis inferiores vires refrenantur, et voluntas in Deum fortius inclinatur, et ratio perficitur in contemplatione veritatis divinae, cuius continuatio ex fervore amoris proveniens hominem retrahit a peccato. Sed totum quod deficit ad confirmationem, completur per custodiam divinae providentiae in illis qui confirmati dicuntur; ut scilicet quandocumque occasio peccati se ingerit, eorum mens divinitus excitetur ad resistendum. By the grace proper to this life, however, a man can be so attached to good that he cannot sin except with great difficulty because his lower powers are held in check by the infused virtues, his will is more firmly inclined to God, and his reason is made perfect in the contemplation of the divine truth with a continuousness that comes from the fervor of love and withdraws the man from sin. But everything that is lacking for confirmation in good is supplied by the watchfulness of divine providence over those who are said to be confirmed. As a consequence, whenever the occasion for sin presents itself, their mind is divinely inspired to resist.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod affectus pervenit ad finem, non solum quando finem perfecte possidet, sed etiam quodammodo quando ipsum intense desiderat; et per hunc modum aliquo modo in statu viae aliquis potest confirmari in bono. 1. Affection attains the end not only when it perfectly possesses the end but also in some sense when it intensely desires it. It is in this way that a person in the present life can in a sense be confirmed in good.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod dona gratiae non sequuntur ordinem naturae de necessitate; et ideo, quamvis humana natura non sit angelica dignior, tamen alicui homini collata est maior gratia quam alicui Angelo, sicut beatae virgini, et homini Christo. Confirmatio autem in bono beatae virgini competebat, quia mater erat divinae sapientiae, in quam nihil inquinatum incurrit, ut dicitur Sap. VII, 25. Similiter apostolos decuit, quia erant quasi fundamentum et basis totius ecclesiastici aedificii; unde eos firmos esse oportuit. 2. The gift of grace does not follow the order of nature with necessity. Consequently, although human nature is not nobler than that of an angel, there has nevertheless been conferred upon a human being a grace greater than upon any angel, namely, upon the Blessed Virgin and upon Christ as man. Now confirmation was fitting for the Blessed Virgin because she was the mother of divine wisdom, into which nothing defiled comes, as is said in the Book of Wisdom (7:25). It was similarly fitting for the Apostles because they served as the foundation and groundwork of the whole ecclesiastical edifice and for that reason had to be firm.
Ad tertium dicendum sicut ad primum. 3. The answer is the same as that given for the first difficulty.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod ratione illa potest haberi, quod non est aliquis in statu viae omnino confirmatus, sicut nec omnino perfectus; sed aliquo modo potest dici confirmatus, sicut et perfectus. 4. From that line of argument it can be concluded that there is no one in this present life wholly confirmed, just as there is no one wholly perfect. In some sense, however, a person can be said to be confirmed, just as he can be said in some sense to be perfect.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod posse peccare non facit ad meritum, sed ad meriti manifestationem, in quantum ostendit opus bonum esse voluntarium; et ideo inter laudes viri iusti ponitur, quia laus est virtutis manifestatio. 5. The ability to sin does not contribute to merit, but only to the manifestation of merit, inasmuch as it shows that a good work is voluntary. It is put among the praises of the just man because praise is the manifestation of virtue.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod corruptio corporis materialiter facit ad meritum, in quantum ea aliquis patienter utitur; et ideo homini in statu merendi existenti per gratiam non aufertur. 6. The corruption of the body does contribute to merit in a material way, in so far as a person suffers it with patience. For this reason it is not taken away by grace from a man in the state of meriting.
Answers to Contrary Difficulties
Ad alia quae sunt in oppositum, patet solutio ex dictis. The answers to these are clear from what has been said.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE X

In the tenth article we ask:
Can the free choice of any creature be obstinate or unalterably hardened in evil?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 7, 1, 2; S.T., I, 64, 2; De malo, 16, 5; cf. parallels to art. 11.]
Decimo quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium alicuius creaturae possit esse obstinatum in malo, vel immutabiliter firmatum Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems that it cannot, for
Peccatum enim, ut dicit Augustinus, XI de Civit. Dei, est contra naturam. Sed nihil quod est contra naturam, est perpetuum, secundum philosophum in principio caeli et mundi. Ergo peccatum non potest perpetuo in libero arbitrio permanere. 1. Sin is “contrary to nature,” as Augustine says. But according too the Philosopher nothing contrary to nature is permanent. Hence sin cannot remain permanently in free choice.
Praeterea, natura spiritualis est potentior quam corporalis. Sed si naturae corporali superinducatur aliquod accidens praeternaturale, redit ad id quod est suae naturae conveniens, nisi illud accidens superinductum aliqua causa continue agente conservetur; sicut si aqua calefiat, redit ad frigiditatem naturalem, nisi sit aliquid perpetuo conservans caliditatem. Ergo et natura spiritualis liberi arbitrii, si eam contigerit incidere in peccatum, non perpetuo remanebit subdita peccato; sed quandoque ad statum iustitiae redibit nisi assignetur aliqua causa quae perpetuo malitiam in eo servet: quam non est assignare, ut videtur. 2. A spiritual nature is stronger than a corporeal one. But if there is introduced into a corporeal nature an accident which is beyond its nature, it returns what is in keeping with its nature unless the accident introduced is preserved by some cause acting continually. If water is heated, for example, it returns to its natural coolness unless there is something constantly keeping it hot. Then a spiritual nature having free will, if it should happen to fall into sin, will likewise not remain permanently subject to sin, but will eventually return to the state of justice unless some cause is assigned to preserve the evil in it constantly. But it seems that no such cause is to be assigned.
Sed dicendum, quod causa peccatum inducens et conservans, est et interior et exterior: interior est ipsa voluntas; exterior est ipsum voluntatis obiectum, quod scilicet allicit ad peccandum.- Sed contra: res quae est extra animam, est bona. Bonum autem non potest esse causa mali nisi per accidens. Ergo res extra animam existens, non est causa peccati nisi per accidens. Omnis autem causa per accidens reducitur ad causam per se; et sic oportet ponere aliquid quod sit per se causa peccati; quod non potest esse nisi voluntas. Voluntas autem quando ad aliquid inclinatur, remanet ei facultas quod adhuc in oppositum tendat; cum id in quod inclinatur, suam naturam ei non tollat, qua in opposita potest. Ergo nec voluntas nec aliquid aliud potest esse causa faciens liberum arbitrium peccato immobiliter et quasi necessario adhaerere. 3. It was said in answer that the cause introducing and preserving sin is internal and external. The internal cause is the will itself. The external is the object of the will, which attracts it to sin.—On the contrary, the thing which is outside the soul is good. Now a good cannot be the cause of evil except accidentally. The thing existing outside the soul is therefore only accidentally the cause of sin. But every accidental cause is reduced to an essential cause. Something must therefore be assigned which is the cause of sin essentially. But that cannot be anything but the will. Now when the will inclines to anything, it retains the ability still to tend to the opposite, since the object of its inclination does not take away from it its nature, by which it can be directed to opposites. Then neither the will nor anything else can be the cause making free choice invariably and more or less necessarily adhere to sin.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in V Metaphysic., duplex est necessarium: quoddam a seipso, quoddam ab alio necessitatem habens. Peccatum autem esse in libero arbitrio, non potest esse necessarium sicut id quod est necessitatem a seipso habens, quia hoc solius Dei est, ut Avicenna dicit; nec iterum est necessarium quasi ab alio necessitatem habens, quia omne huiusmodi necessarium reducitur ad id quod est per seipsum necessarium; Deus autem causa peccati esse non potest. Ergo nullo modo potest esse necessarium, liberum arbitrium in peccato posse permanere. Et sic nullum liberum arbitrium creaturae immobiliter peccato adhaeret. 4. According to the Philosopher, there are two kinds of necessary being: one has its necessity of itself; the other has it from something else. That sin should be in free choice cannot be necessary with a necessity of itself, because to be necessary in this way is proper to God alone, as even Avicenna says. Nor again is it necessary with a necessity from something else, because everything necessary in this way is reduced to what is necessary of itself. God, however, cannot be the cause of sin. It can therefore in no way be necessary for free choice to remain in sin; and so the free choice of no creature adheres immovably to sin.
Praeterea, Augustinus in V de Civit. Dei, videtur duplicem necessitatem distinguere: quarum una adimit libertatem, faciens non esse aliquid in potestate nostra, quae dicitur necessitas coactionis; alia est quae libertatem non adimit, quae est naturalis inclinationis. Hac autem necessitate peccatum inesse libero arbitrio non est necesse, cum non sit naturale, sed magis contra naturam: similiter nec prima, quia tunc libertas arbitrii tolleretur. Ergo nullo modo est necessarium; et sic idem quod prius. 5. Augustine seems to distinguish two kinds of necessity: one, called the necessity of constraint, takes away freedom, removing something from our power; the other, which is the necessity of natural inclination, does not take away freedom. Now it is not necessary that sin be in free choice by the latter necessity, since sin is not natural but rather against nature; nor again by the former, because then the freedom of choice would be removed. It is therefore in no way necessary; and so the same must be concluded as before.
Praeterea, Anselmus dicit, quod liberum arbitrium est potestas servandi rectitudinem voluntatis propter seipsam. Si ergo sit aliquod liberum arbitrium quod non possit habere rectitudinem voluntatis, amitteret propriae naturae rationem; quod est impossibile. 6. Anselm says that free choice is “the power of preserving the rectitude of the will for its own sake.” Then if there is any free choice which cannot have rectitude of will, it will lose the character of its own nature. But that is impossible.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium non suscipit magis et minus. Sed minus est liberum arbitrium quod non potest in bonum, quam illud quod potest. Ergo non est aliquod liberum arbitrium quod non possit in bonum. 7. Free choice is not susceptible of degrees. But a free choice which is incapable of good is less than one which is capable of it. Consequently there is no free choice which is incapable of good.
Praeterea, sicut se habet motus naturalis ad quietem naturalem, ita se habet motus voluntarius ad quietem voluntariam. Sed secundum philosophum, si motus est naturalis, et quies naturalis; et si motus est voluntarius, et quies voluntaria. Sed motus quo peccatum committitur, est voluntarius. Ergo et quies qua in peccato commisso persistitur, est voluntaria: non ergo necessaria. 8. Voluntary motion is related to voluntary rest as natural motion to natural rest. But according to the Philosopher, if the motion is natural, then the rest in which it terminates is also natural. So too, if the motion is voluntary. Then the rest by which one persists in a sin committed is also voluntary, and therefore not necessary.
Praeterea, sicut intellectus se habet ad verum et falsum, ita affectus ad bonum et malum. Sed intellectus nunquam ita inhaeret falso quin possit reduci ad cognitionem veri. Ergo affectus nunquam ita inhaeret malo quin possit reduci ad amorem boni. 9. The will stands to good and evil in the same relation as the intellect to the true and the false. But the intellect never so clings to the false that it cannot be brought back to the knowledge of what is true. Then the will never so clings to evil that it cannot be brought back to a love of good.
Praeterea, secundum Anselmum in libro de Lib. Arb., posse peccare non est libertas, nec pars libertatis. Ergo essentialis actus liberi arbitrii est posse in bonum. Si ergo liberum arbitrium alicuius creaturae non possit in bonum, erit frustra; cum res unaquaeque in vanum sit, si actu proprio destituatur, quia unaquaeque res est propter suam operationem, ut dicit philosophus in II caeli et mundi. 10. According to Anselm “the ability to sin is not freedom nor a part of freedom.” The essential act of free choice is therefore the ability to do good. Consequently, if the free choice of any creature were unable to do good, it would be useless, since nothing is of any avail if it is deprived of its proper act; for “each thing exists for the sake of its operation,” as the Philosopher says.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium non potest nisi in bonum vel in malum. Si ergo posse peccare non est libertas, nec pars libertatis, remanet quod tota libertas sit posse facere bonum et ita creatura quae non poterit facere bonum nihil habebit libertatis. Et ita liberum arbitrium non potest esse ita confirmatum in malo quod nullo modo possit facere bonum. 11. Free choice is incapable of anything but good or evil. Consequently, if the ability to sin is not freedom nor a part of freedom, it remains that the whole of freedom consists in the ability to do good; and so a creature which could not do good would not have any freedom. Free choice can accordingly not be so confirmed in evil that it cannot do any good at all.
Praeterea, secundum Hugonem de sancto Victore, mutatio quae est secundum accidentalia, non mutat de essentialibus rei. Sed posse facere bonum est essentiale libero arbitrio, ut probatum est, art. 7 huius quaest. Ergo cum peccatum libero arbitrio accidentaliter superveniat, non poterit ex peccato taliter immutari quod in bonum non possit. 12. According to Hugh of St. Victor, a change in accidentals does not change any of the essentials of a thing. But the ability to do good is essential to free choice, as has been proved. Since sin comes to free choice accidentally, this power cannot be so changed as to be rendered incapable of good.
Praeterea, naturalia, ut communiter dicitur, per peccatum vulnerantur; non autem totaliter tolluntur. Sed posse in bonum, naturale est libero arbitrio. Ergo nunquam per peccatum ita est obstinatum in malo quin possit in bonum. 13. Natural endowments are wounded by sin, as is commonly said; but they are not entirely taken away. But the capability of good is natural to free choice. Hence this power is never so hardened in evil by sin that it is impotent regarding good.
Praeterea, si peccatum causat in libero arbitrio obstinationem in malo, aut hoc facit subtrahendo aliquid de naturalibus, aut superaddendo. Non autem subtrahendo: quia in Daemonibus data naturalia integra manent, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom.: similiter nec superaddendo: quia cum illud quod superadditur, sit accidens, oportet quod insit per modum recipientis; et sic, cum liberum arbitrium in utrumque sit flexibile, non reddetur per hoc immobiliter inhaerens malo. Ergo nullo modo liberum arbitrium potest totaliter confirmari in malo. 14. If sin causes in free choice obstinacy in evil, it does this either by subtracting something from natural endowments or by adding something to them. Now it does not do it by subtracting, because even in the demons natural gifts remain intact, as Dionysius says. Neither is it done by adding, because what is added, being an accident, must be in the recipient in the manner of the recipient. Thus, since free choice can be directed to either of two alternatives, it is not thereby made to cling immovably to evil. Free choice can therefore in no way be entirely confirmed in evil.
Praeterea, Bernardus dicit, quod impossibile est voluntatem sibi ipsi non obedire. Sed peccatum est actus qui volendo committitur. Ergo impossibile est quin liberum arbitrium possit velle bonum, si velit. Quod autem potest aliquis si velit, non est ei impossibile. Ergo cuicumque habenti liberum voluntatis arbitrium non est impossibile facere bonum. 15. Bernard says: “It is impossible for the will not to obey itself.” But sin and a good act are committed by willing. It is therefore impossible that free choice should not be able to will good if it wished. But whatever a person can do if he wishes is not impossible. It is therefore not impossible for anyone having the free choice of will to do good.
Praeterea, fortior est caritas quam cupiditas ad peccatum pertrahens: quia plus diligit caritas legem Dei quam cupiditas millia auri et argenti, ut dicit Glossa, super illud Ps. CXVIII, 72: bonum mihi lex oris tui, et cetera. Sed Daemones vel homines a caritate in peccatum deciderunt. Ergo multo fortius possunt a peccato redire ad appetitum boni; et sic idem quod prius. 16. Charity is stronger than the cupidity which attracts us to sin, because “charity loves the law of God more than cupidity loves thousands in gold and silver,” as the Gloss says” in comment upon the words of the Psalm (118:72): “The law of your mouth is good to me, above thousands of silver and gold.” But the demons and even men have fallen from charity into sin. So much the more, then, can they return from sin to an attachment to good. Thus the conclusion is the same as before.
Praeterea, bonitas et rectitudo appetitus obstinationi eius opponitur. Sed Daemones et damnati habent bonum et rectum appetitum, quia bonum et optimum appetunt, scilicet esse, vivere et intelligere, ut Dionysius dicit. Ergo non habent liberum arbitrium obstinatum in malo. 17. The goodness and rectitude of the will are opposed to its obstinacy. But the demons and the damned have a good and correct will, because they desire what is good and the best: “to be, to live, and to understand,” as Dionysius says. They therefore do not have a free choice obstinate in evil.
Praeterea, Anselmus in Lib. de Lib. Arb., investigat eamdem rationem liberi arbitrii in Deo, in Angelo et in homine. Sed liberum arbitrium Dei non potest esse obstinatum in malo. Ergo nec in Angelo nec in homine. 18. Anselm traces out the common nature of free choice in God, in the angels, and in men. But God’s free choice cannot become obstinate in evil. Then neither can it in angels and in men.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod felicitati beatorum opponitur miseria damnatorum. Sed ad felicitatem beatorum pertinet quod habent liberum arbitrium ita firmatum in bono quod nullo modo possunt in malum deflecti. Ergo et ad miseriam damnatorum pertinet quod ita sint confirmati in malo quod nullo modo possint in bonum. 1. The misery of the damned is opposed to the happiness of the blessed. But it is a property of the happiness of the blessed that they have a free choice so strengthened in good that they can by no means turn aside to evil. It is therefore also a property of the misery of the damned that they are so confirmed in evil that they are by no means capable of good.
Praeterea, hoc idem expresse Augustinus, dicit in libro de fide ad Petrum. 2. Augustine expressly says the same thing.
Praeterea, non patet reditus de peccato in bonum nisi per poenitentiam. Sed in Angelum malum non cadit poenitentia. Ergo est immutabiliter confirmatus in malo. Probatio mediae. In eum poenitentia cadere non videtur qui ex malitia peccat. Sed Angelus ex malitia peccavit: quia, cum habeat deiformem intellectum, rem aliquam considerans, simul omnia quae sunt illius rei, intuetur: et ita non potest nisi ex certa scientia peccare. Ergo in eum poenitentia non cadit. 3. There is no means of return from sin to good other than by repentance. But repentance does not take place in a bad angel. He is therefore unalterably confirmed in evil.—Proof of the minor: Repentance does not seem to take place in one who sins from malice. But an angel has sinned from malice, because, having an intellect like God’s, when he considers anything he at the same time beholds everything which pertains to that thing; and so he cannot sin except with certain knowledge. Repentance therefore does not take place in him.
Praeterea secundum Damascenum, quod est homini mors, hoc est Angelis casus. Sed homines post mortem non sunt capaces poenitentiae. Ergo nec Angeli post casum. Probatio mediae. Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civit. Dei: quia post hanc vitam decedentibus sine gratia, locus conversionis non erit, nulla pro eis fiat oratio; et sic patet quod post mortem homines non sunt poenitentiae capaces. 4. In the words of Damascene, “the fall is the same for the angels as death for men.”But after death men are incapable of repentance. Then so too are the angels after the fall.—Proof of the minor: Augustine says that, because there will be no room for conversion after this life for those who depart without grace, no prayers are to be offered for them. Thus it is evident that after death men are not capable of repentance.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod circa hanc quaestionem invenitur errasse Origenes: posuit enim quod post longa temporum curricula tam Daemonibus quam hominibus damnatis pateret reditus ad iustitiam. Et ad hoc ponendum movebatur propter arbitrii libertatem. Quae quidem sententia omnibus Catholicis doctoribus displicuit, ut Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civit. Dei; non quia salutem Daemonibus et damnatis hominibus inviderent, sed quia pari ratione oporteret dicere, iustitiam et gloriam beatorum Angelorum et hominum aliquando terminandam: simul enim et bonorum gloria et damnatorum miseria fore perpetua demonstratur Matth. XXV, 46, ubi dicitur: ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in vitam aeternam; quod etiam Origenes sapere videbatur. Unde simpliciter concedendum est, quod ipsorum Daemonum liberum arbitrium ita est obfirmatum in malo quod ad bene volendum redire non potest. On this question we find that Origen has erred. He held that after a long, course of time the way would lie open for both demons and damned men to return to justice; and he was led to affirm this because of the freedom of choice. Now this opinion has been disliked by all Catholics, as Augustine says, not because they begrudged the demons and damned men their salvation, because it would seem necessary to say with equal reason that the justice and glory of the blessed angels and men is at some time to come to an end. For a verse in Matthew (25:46) makes clear at the same time that the glory of the blessed and the misery of the damned will be everlasting: “And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.” And Origen seems to have been of this opinion also. It must therefore be simply granted that the free choice of the demons is so hardened in evil that it cannot return to right willing.
Cuius quidem rationem ex illa parte oportet accipere unde causatur liberatio a peccato; ad quam duo concurrunt: divina gratia principaliter operans, et humana voluntas gratiae cooperans: quia, secundum Augustinum, qui creavit te sine te, non iustificabit te sine te. Causa igitur confirmationis in malo, partim quidem accipienda est ex Deo, partim ex libero arbitrio. Ex Deo quidem, non sicut faciente vel conservante malitiam, sed sicut non largiente gratiam; quod quidem eius iustitia deposcit: iustum est enim ut qui bene velle dum possent noluerunt, ad hanc miseriam deducantur ut bene velle omnino non possint. Ex parte vero liberi arbitrii causa reversibilitatis a peccato vel irreversibilitatis accipienda est secundum ea quibus homo incidit in peccatum. Cum autem naturaliter insit cuilibet creaturae appetitus boni, nullus ad peccandum inducitur nisi sub aliqua specie apparentis boni. Quamvis enim fornicator in universali sciat fornicationem esse malum, tamen cum in fornicationem consentit, aestimat fornicationem esse sibi bonum ut nunc ad agendum. The basis for this conclusion is to be sought in the cause of deliverance from sin. Now two things concur in this deliverance: divine grace working as the principal agent, and the human will cooperating with grace; for according to Augustine “He who created you without you, will not justify you without you.” The cause of obduracy in evil is therefore to be found partly in God and partly in free choice. It is to be found in God, not as causing or preserving evil, but as not bestowing grace. And indeed His justice demands this, for it is just that those who have not been willing to will rightly when they could, should be brought to such a pass of misery that they are altogether unable to will rightly. On the part of free choice, however, the cause of the possibility or impossibility of turning away from sin is to be found in the things by means of which man falls into sin. Now, since there is naturally in any creature the desire for good, no one is led to commit a sin except by some appearance of good. Though a fornicator, for instance, knows in general that fornication is evil, nevertheless when he consents to fornication he judges that fornication is good for him to commit at the time.
In qua quidem aestimatione tria pensanda sunt. Quorum primum est ipse impetus passionis, puta concupiscentiae vel irae, per quam intercipitur iudicium rationis, ne actu iudicet in particulari quod in universali habitu tenet, sed sequatur passionis inclinationem, ut consentiat in illud in quod passio tendit quasi per se bonum. Secundum est inclinatio habitus: qui quidem cum sit quasi quaedam natura habentis, ut philosophus dicit, quod consuetudo est altera natura, et Tullius in rhetoricis, quod virtus consentit rationi in modum naturae; pari ratione vitii habitus quasi natura quaedam inclinat in id quod est sibi conveniens; unde fit ut habenti habitum luxuriae bonum videatur id quod luxuriae convenit, quasi connaturale. Et hoc est quod philosophus dicit in III Ethicorum, quod qualis intus unusquisque est, talis et finis videtur ei. Tertium vero est falsa aestimatio rationis in particulari eligibili: quae quidem provenit vel ex altero praedictorum, scilicet impetu passionis, aut inclinatione habitus; vel iterum ex ignorantia universali, sicut cum quis est in hoc errore, quod fornicatio non sit peccatum. In this judgment three influences are to be taken into account. The first is the surge of passion, such as concupiscence or anger, by which the judgment of reason is hindered from actually judging in particular what it habitually holds in general, but is moved rather to follow the inclination of passion so that it consents to that to which passion is tending as good in itself. The second is the inclination of habit, which is a sort of nature for the one having it. The Philosopher says, for instance, that custom is a second nature; and Tully says that virtue accords with reason after the manner of a nature, and in the same way a habit of vice inclines one as a sort of nature to what agrees with it. The result is that to the one who has the habit of lust whatever fits in with lust as being of the same nature seems good. This is the Philosopher’s meaning when he says that “each person judges of the end in accordance with his own character.” The third is a false judgment of reason in regard to a particular object of choice. It comes either from one of the two influences mentioned above, the surge of passion or the penchant of habit, or else from a universal ignorance, as when one is of the erroneous opinion that fornication is not a sin.
Contra primum igitur horum liberum arbitrium remedium habet, quod possit peccatum deserere. Ille enim in quo est impetus passionis, habet rectam existimationem de fine, qui est quasi principium in operabilibus, ut philosophus dicit in VI Ethicor. Unde, sicut homo per veram existimationem quam habet de principio, potest a se repellere, si quos errores circa conclusiones patitur, ita per hoc quod recte circa finem disponitur, potest a se repellere omnem impetum passionum; unde dicit philosophus in VII Ethic., quod incontinens, qui propter passionem peccat, est poenituus et sanabilis. Against the first of these influences free choice has a remedy whereby it can abandon sin. He in whom the surge of passion occurs has a right judgment of the end, and the end is equivalently a principle in matters of operation, as the Philosopher says. By means of the true judgment which he has of the principle, a man can do away with any errors that he may have fallen into regarding his conclusions. In the same way by being rightly disposed regarding the end, he can do away with every surge of passion. The Philosopher accordingly says that an incontinent man who sins because of passion is capable of repentance and remedy.
Similiter habet remedium contra inclinationem habitus. Nullus enim habitus omnes potentias animae corrumpit; et ita, cum una potentia est corrupta per habitum, ex hoc quod remanet aliquid rectitudinis in aliis potentiis, homo inducitur ad meditandum et agendum ea quae sunt contraria illi habitui; sicut si aliquis habet concupiscibilem per habitum luxuriae corruptam, ex ipsa irascibili incitatur ad aliquid arduum aggrediendum, cuius exercitatio mollitiem luxuriae tollit; sicut dicit philosophus in praedicamentis, quod pravus ad meliores exercitationes deductus proficiet, ut melior sit. Against the penchant of habit there is likewise a remedy. No habit corrupts all the powers of the soul. Consequently, when one power is corrupted by a habit, a man is led by any rectitude that remains in the other powers to ponder and to take action against that habit. If, for example, someone has his concupiscible power corrupted by the habit of lust, he is urged by the irascible power to attempt something hard, and its exercise will take away the softness of lust. Thus the Philosopher says: “A wicked person who is brought to better practices will advance and become better.”
Contra tertium etiam remedium habet: quia homo illud quod accipit, quasi rationabiliter accipit, id est per viam inquisitionis et collationis. Unde, quando ratio in aliquo errat, ex quocumque error ille contingat, potest tolli per contrarias ratiocinationes; et inde est quod homo a peccato potest tolli et desistere. Against the third influence too there is a remedy. What a man assents to he assents to in a rational manner, by way of inquiry and comparison. Consequently, when reason errs in one respect, from whatever source the error may have come, it can be removed by contrary reasonings. This is why a man can abandon sin.
In Angelo vero peccatum ex passione esse non potest: quia, secundum philosophum in VII Ethic., passio non est nisi in sensibili parte animae, quam Angeli non habent. Unde in peccato Angeli sola duo concurrunt: scilicet inclinatio habitualis in peccatum et falsa aestimatio virtutis cognitivae de particulari eligibili. Cum autem in Angelis non sit multitudo appetitivarum potentiarum, sicut est in hominibus; quando appetitus eorum tendit in aliquid, totaliter inclinatur in illud, ut non sit ei aliqua inclinatio inducens in contrarium. Quia vero rationem non habent, sed intellectum, quidquid aestimant, per modum intelligibilem accipiunt. Quod autem accipitur intelligibiliter, accipitur irreversibiliter; ut cum quis accipit, omne totum esse maius sua parte. Unde Angeli aestimationem quam semel accipiunt, deponere non possunt, sive sit vera, sive sit falsa. In an angel, however, sin cannot be from passion, because, as the Philosopher says, passion is only in the sensitive part of the soul, which an angel does not have. In the sin of an angel, therefore, only two influences concur: a habitual inclination to the sin and a false judgment of the cognitive power about a particular object of choice. Now, since angels do not have a multiplicity of appetitive powers as men have, when their appetite tends to something, it inclines to it altogether, so that it does not have any inclination drawing it to the contrary. And because they do not have reason but intelligence, whatever they judge, they accept in the manner of understanding. But whatever is accepted in the manner of understanding is accepted irreversibly, as when one accepts the proposition that every whole is greater than its part. As a consequence angels cannot put aside a judgment which they have once accepted, whether it be true or false.
Patet igitur ex praedictis, quod causa confirmationis Daemonum in malo ex tribus dependet, ad quae omnes rationes a doctoribus assignatae reducuntur. Primum est et principale divina iustitia: unde pro causa obstinationis eorum assignatur, quod quia per alium non ceciderunt, nec per alium resurgere debent; vel si quid aliud est huiusmodi quod ad congruitatem divinae iustitiae pertineat. Secundum est indivisibilitas appetitivae virtutis: unde quidam dicunt, quod quia Angelus simplex est, ad quod se convertit, totaliter se convertit; quod intelligi oportet non de simplicitate essentiae, sed de simplicitate quae divisionem potentiarum unius generis tollit. Tertium est intellectiva cognitio; et hoc est quod quidam dicunt, quod Angeli irremediabiliter peccaverunt, quia peccaverunt contra intellectum deiformem. It is therefore clear from what has been said that the cause of the confirmation of the demons in evil depends upon three factors, to which all of the reasons assigned by the doctors can be reduced. The first and principal one is the divine justice. There has accordingly been assigned as the cause of the obstinacy of the demons that, because they have not fallen through the instrumentality of anyone else, they should not rise through the instrumentality of anyone else, and any other such reason based upon congruity with divine justice. The second factor is the indivisibility of the appetitive power. In this connection some say that, because an angel is simple, it turns entirely to whatever it turns to. This must not be understood of the simplicity of its essence, but of a simplicity excluding the distinction of different powers of the same genus. The third is intellectual knowledge. This is the cause assigned by some who say that the angels have sinned irremediably because they have sinned against an intellect like God’s.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur naturale dupliciter. Uno modo cuius principium sufficiens habetur ex quo de necessitate illud consequitur, nisi aliquid impediat; sicut terrae est naturale moveri deorsum; et de hoc intelligit philosophus, quod nihil quod est contra naturam, est perpetuum. Alio modo dicitur aliquid alicui naturale, quia habet naturalem inclinationem in illud, quamvis in se non habeat sufficiens illius principium ex quo necessario consequatur; sicut mulieri dicitur naturale concipere filium, quod tamen non potest nisi semine maris suscepto. Id autem quod est contra hoc naturale, nihil prohibet esse perpetuum; sicut quod aliqua mulier perpetuo absque prole remaneret. Hoc autem modo libero arbitrio est naturale tendere in bonum; et contra naturam, peccare. Unde ratio non sequitur. 1. Something is said to be natural in two ways: (1) A sufficient principle exists from which it follows necessarily unless something interferes. In this sense it is natural for the element earth to move downward. And this is the Philosopher’s meaning when he says that nothing which is against nature is permanent. (2) Something is called natural for a thing— because it has a natural inclination to it, although it does not have within itself a sufficient principle from which it necessarily follows. In this sense it is said to be natural for a woman to conceive a son though she cannot do so without receiving the male see. Now nothing prevents what is contrary to nature in this sense from being permanent, as that a particular woman should remain permanently without issue. But it is in this second sense that it is natural for free choice to tend to good, and also to sin against nature. The argument therefore proves nothing.
Vel dicendum, quod quamvis menti rationali secundum suam institutionem consideratae peccatum sit contra naturam, tamen secundum quod adhaesit peccato effectum est ei quasi naturale, ut Augustinus dicit in Lib. de perfectione iustitiae. Philosophus dicit tamen, IX Ethicorum, quod quando homo de virtute in vitium transit, fit quasi alius, eo quod quasi in aliam naturam transit. Or the answer may be given that, although sin is against nature for a rational mind as it was established, yet inasmuch as it has already adhered to sin, sin has become in some sense natural for it, as Augustine says. The Philosopher also says that, when a man passes from virtue to vice, he becomes in a way another man because he takes on, as it were, another nature.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod aliter est de natura corporali et spirituali. Natura enim corporalis est determinata unius generis; et ideo non potest sibi aliquid effici naturale, nisi natura eius totaliter corrumpatur; sicut aquae non potest fieri calor naturalis, nisi corrumpatur in ea species aquae; et inde est quod redit ad naturam suam remoto prohibente. Sed natura spiritualis est facta quantum ad secundum esse suum indeterminata, et omnium capax; sicut dicitur in III de anima, quod anima est quodammodo omnia: et per hoc quod alicui adhaeret, efficitur unum cum eo; sicut intellectus fit quodammodo ipsum intelligibile intelligendo, et voluntas ipsum appetibile amando. Et sic, quamvis inclinatio voluntatis sit naturaliter ad unum, tamen contrarium potest per amorem ei effici naturale in tantum quod non revertatur ad pristinum statum nisi aliqua causa hoc agente. Et hoc modo peccatum efficitur quasi naturale ei qui peccato adhaeret; unde nihil prohibet liberum arbitrium perpetuo in peccato remanere. 2. The situation is different for a corporeal nature and for a spiritual nature. A corporeal nature is determinately of a single genus. Consequently nothing else can be made natural to it without entirely corrupting its nature. Thus heat cannot be made natural to water unless the species of water is destroyed. And because its heat is not natural, when the obstacle is removed, the water returns to its own nature. But a spiritual nature is created undetermined and capable of becoming all things in its secondary act of being. Thus it is said in The Soul, “The soul is in some sense all things.” By adhering to something it is made one with it, as the intellect in some sense becomes the intelligible object by understanding it, and the will becomes the object of appetite by loving it. And so, although the inclination of the will is naturally directed to one determined object, the contrary can be made natural to it by love to such an extent that it does not return to its original disposition unless some cause brings this about. In this way sin is made as it were natural to the one who clings to sin. Hence nothing prevents free choice from remaining permanently in sin.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod per se causa peccati voluntas est, et per ipsam peccatum conservatur: quae quamvis a principio ad utrumque se haberet aequaliter, tamen postquam se peccato subiecit, efficitur ei peccatum quasi naturale; et ex hoc immutabiliter, quantum est de se, manet in illo. 3. The essential cause of sin is the will, and by it sin is preserved. Although in the beginning the will was equally determinable to sin or to good, after it submitted to sin, sin became in a sense natural to it. As a consequence, as far as depends upon itself it remains unalterably in it.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod ista necessitas permanendi in peccato reducitur in Deum sicut in causam dupliciter: uno modo ex parte iustitiae ipsius, ut dictum est, in corp. art., in quantum scilicet non apponit gratiam sanantem; alio modo in quantum talem naturam condidit quae et peccare possit, et necessitatem in peccato remanendi ex conditione suae naturae haberet postquam peccato se subderet. 4. The necessity of remaining in sin is reduced to God as its cause in two senses: (1) from the point of view of His justice, as has been said, inasmuch as He does not confer healing grace; (2) inasmuch as He established such a nature, which was also capable of sinning and had from the condition of its own nature the necessity of remaining in sin after having submitted to it.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod, cum peccatum sit menti rationali quasi naturale effectum, illa necessitas non erit coactionis, sed quasi naturalis inclinationis. 5. Since sin has been made in some sense natural to the rational mind, the necessity in question will not be one of force but one of a quasi-natural inclination.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod potestas servandi rectitudinem voluntatis cum habetur, inest omni habenti liberum arbitrium, ut Anselmus dicit. Daemones autem et alii damnati eam servare non possunt, cum non habeant. 6. The power of preserving the rectitude of one’s will when one has it is in everyone having free choice, as Anselm says. But the demons and other damned cannot preserve it since they do not have it.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium, secundum quod dicitur liberum a coactione, non suscipit magis et minus; sed considerata libertate a peccato et a miseria, dicitur in uno statu esse magis liberum quam in alio. 7. Free choice is not susceptible of degrees in so far as it is said to be free from force. But when freedom from sin and from misery is taken into account, it is said to be freer in one state than in another.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod effectus naturae semper est naturalis; et inde est quod eius actio et motus semper ad quietem naturalem terminatur. Sed actio et motus voluntatis potest terminari ad effectum et quietem naturalem, in quantum voluntas et ars adiuvant naturam; unde potest esse motus voluntarius, et effectus vel quies consequens, erit naturalis et necessitatem habens; sicut ex percussione voluntaria sequitur mors naturalis et necessaria. 8. An effect of nature is always natural. For this reason the motion and action of nature always terminate in a natural rest. But the action and motion of the will can terminate in a natural effect and natural rest inasmuch as the will and art help nature. A motion can accordingly be voluntary while at the same time the effect or the rest consequent upon it is natural and has a natural necessity. Thus from a voluntary blow death follows as natural and necessary.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod intellectus Angeli si aliquam falsam existimationem accipiat, eam deponere non potest, ratione supradicta, in corp. art. Unde ratio procedit ex suppositione falsi. 9. If the intellect of an angel accepts some false judgment, it is unable to set it aside for the reason given above. The argument is therefore based upon a false supposition.
Ad decimum dicendum, quod quamvis aliquis destituatur fine proximo, non tamen sequitur quod sit omnino frustra, quia adhuc remanet ordo ad finem ultimum: et ideo, quamvis liberum arbitrium destituatur operatione bona, ad quam naturaliter ordinatur, non tamen est frustra; quia hoc ipsum cedit ad gloriam Dei, qui est finis ultimus, in quantum per hoc eius iustitia declaratur. 10. Even though something is deprived of its proximate end, it is not as a consequence altogether useless, because it still retains its ordination to its ultimate end. Accordingly, even though free choice is deprived of the good operation to which it is naturally destined, it is still not without purpose, because this very fact turns to the glory of God, who is its ultimate end, inasmuch as His justice is thereby manifested.
Ad undecimum dicendum, quod peccatum per liberum arbitrium non committitur nisi per electionem apparentis boni; unde in qualibet actione peccati remanet aliquid de bono. Et quantum ad hoc libertas conservatur: remota enim specie boni, electio cessaret, quae est actus liberi arbitrii. 11. A sin is not committed through free choice except by the choosing of an apparent good. In any sinful action there accordingly remains some good, and in this respect freedom is preserved. If the aspect of good were taken away, the act of free choice, choosing, would cease.
Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod posse bonum non est essentiale libero arbitrio quasi ad primum esse pertinens, sed ad secundum. Hugo autem loquitur de his quae sunt essentialia quantum ad primum esse rei. 12. The ability to do good is not essential to free choice as belonging to its primary existence, but rather as belonging to its secondary existence. But Hugh is speaking of essentials with reference to primary existence.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de naturali quod est de constitutione naturae, non autem de naturali ad quod natura ordinatur; et hoc modo est naturale posse facere bonum. 13. That argument is speaking of the natural in the sense of that which belongs to the constitution of a nature, not in the sense of that to which the nature is ordained. But it is in the latter sense that it is natural to be able to do good.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum, quod peccatum libero arbitrio adveniens, non adimit aliquid essentialium, quia sic species liberi arbitrii non remaneret; sed per peccatum aliquid additur, scilicet unitio quaedam liberi arbitrii cum fine perverso, quae ei quodammodo naturalis efficitur. Et ex hoc necessitatem habet sicut et alia quae sunt libero arbitrio naturalia. 14. The sin which comes to free choice does not take away any of its essentials, because in that case the species of free choice would not remain. But something is added by sin—the coupling of free choice with a perverse end; and this becomes in a sense natural to it. It thereby has necessity, like the other things which are natural to free choice.
Ad decimumquintum dicendum, quod voluntas sibi ipsi quodammodo semper obedit, ut sc. homo qualitercumque velit illud quod vult se velle. Quodam autem modo non semper sibi obedit, in quantum scilicet aliquis non perfecte et efficaciter vult quod vellet se perfecte et efficaciter velle, ut Augustinus dicit. Nec sequitur quod, si voluntas Daemonum sibi ipsi obedit, propter hoc non sit confirmatus in malo; quia impossibile est eum velle quod velit efficaciter bonum: unde si etiam conditionalis esset vera, non sequeretur consequens esse possibile, cum antecedens sit impossibile. 15. In some sense the will always obeys itself, so that, however a man wills what he wills, he wills that he will it. But in another sense it does not always obey itself, inasmuch as a person does not perfectly and efficaciously will what he wishes that he perfectly and efficaciously willed, as Augustine explains. Nor does it follow that, if the will of the demons obeys itself, it is for that reason not confirmed in evil, because it cannot possibly will that it efficaciously will good. Hence, even if the conditional proposition were true, it would not follow that the apodosis is possible, since the protasis is impossible.
Ad decimumsextum dicendum, quod caritas fortior est quam peccatum, quantum est de se, si fiat comparatio unius ad alterum secundum eumdem modum habendi; ut scilicet ex utraque parte accipiatur liberum arbitrium pervenientis ad terminum vel adhuc existentis in via. Sed tamen existens in termino malitiae firmius se habet ad malitiam quam existens in via caritatis ad caritatem. Daemones autem vel nunquam caritatem habuerunt, secundum quosdam, vel si habuerunt, nunquam eam nisi sicut in statu viae habuerunt. Homines autem damnati similiter cadere non potuerunt nisi a gratia viatoris. 16. In itself charity is more powerful than sin if the two are compared as had under the same conditions; that is, if for both of them we take the free choice either of one who has reached his final state or of one who is still on the way. One in the final state of wickedness, however, is more firmly established in evil than one going along in the way of charity is established in charity. Now the demons either never had charity, as some hold; or, if they ever had it, they never had it except as being on the way. Damned men, however, could not similarly have fallen except from the grace proper to wayfarers.
Ad decimumseptimum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de bonitate et rectitudine ipsius naturae, non liberi arbitrii. Appetitus enim quo Daemones appetunt bonum et optimum, est inclinatio quaedam ipsius naturae, non autem ex electione liberi arbitrii. Et ideo haec rectitudo obstinationi liberi arbitrii non opponitur. 17. That argument proceeds on the supposition of the goodness and rectitude of the nature itself, not the goodness and rectitude of free choice. The appetite by which demons desire good and the best is an inclination of their very nature, not one by the election of free choice. Such a rectitude is consequently not opposed to the obstinacy of free choice.
Ad decimumoctavum dicendum, quod Anselmus venatur communem rationem liberi arbitrii in Deo, Angelis et hominibus, secundum quamdam communissimam analogiam; unde non oportet quod quantum ad omnes speciales conditiones similitudo inveniatur. 18. Anselm is searching for that element in the nature of free choice which is common to God, to angels, and to men on the basis of a very broad analogy. It is therefore not necessary that likeness be found from the standpoint of all the special conditions.
24: Free Choice

ARTICLE XI

In the eleventh article we ask:
Can the free choice of man in this present life be obstinate in evil?

[ARTICLE I Sent., 40, 4, 2; In Matt., c. 13, lect. 2, §1 (P 10: 124b- 125a, 127ab); S.T., III, 162; In II Cor., c. 4, lect. 2 (P 13:318a); S.T., I-II, 79, 3; In Joan., c. 12, lect. 7, §3 (P 10: 520a); In Rom., c. 9, lect. 3 (end) (P 13:98ab).]
Undecimo quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium hominis in statu viae possit esse obstinatum in malo Difficulties
Et videtur quod sic. It seems that it can, for
Illud enim quod infligitur ex merito naturae lapsae, inest omnibus ante naturae lapsae reparationem. Sed meritum obstinationis est peccatum naturae lapsae, ut dicit Glossa, Rom. IX, 18. Ergo quilibet homo ante reparationem in statu viae est obstinatus. 1. Whatever is inflicted because of the deserts of fallen nature is present in all before the reparation of fallen nature. But the sin of fallen nature is deserving of obstinacy, as the Gloss says in commenting upon the Epistle to the Romans (9:18). Hence every man before reparation in this present life is obstinate.
Praeterea, peccatum in spiritum sanctum, quantum ad omnes suas species, potest in viatore inveniri. Obstinatio vero est species peccati in spiritum sanctum, ut habetur in II Sentent. Ergo aliquis in statu viae potest esse obstinatus. 2. A sin against the Holy Spirit in all its species can be found in a person in this life. But obstinacy is a species of sin against the Holy Spirit, as is taught in the Sentences. Consequently a person in this present life can be obstinate.
Praeterea, nullus in peccato existens potest redire ad bonum, nisi in eo aliqua inclinatio ad bonum maneat. Sed quicumque cadit in peccatum mortale, caret omni inclinatione ad bonum. Peccat enim aliquis mortaliter per amorem inordinatum. Amor autem, secundum Augustinum, in spiritibus, est sicut pondus in corporibus; corpus autem ponderosum ita inclinatur in unam partem, ut lapis deorsum, quod nulla remanet ei inclinatio sursum. Et sic nec peccatori, ut videtur, remanet inclinatio ad bonum. Ergo quicumque peccat mortaliter, est obstinatus in malo. 3. No one in the state of sin can return to good unless there remains in him some inclination to good. But whoever falls into mortal sin lacks all inclination to good; for a person sins mortally through an inordinate love; but according to Augustine in spirits love is like weight in bodies. A heavy body is so inclined in one direction, as a stone downward, that it retains no contrary inclination—e.g., upward. Then neither does a sinner retain any inclination to good. Whoever sins mortally is accordingly obstinate in evil.
Praeterea, nullus a malo culpae recedit nisi per poenitentiam. Sed ille qui peccat ex malitia, est impoenitibilis, secundum philosophum in VII Ethicorum, quia est corruptus circa principium eligibilium, scilicet circa finem. Cum ergo contingat aliquem in statu viae ex malitia peccare, videtur quod sit possibile aliquem in statu viae obstinatum esse in malo. 4. No one withdraws from the evil of guilt except by repentance. But according to the Philosopher one who sins through malice is incapable of repentance, because he is corrupted in regard to the principle in matters of choice, namely, the end. Consequently, since it happens that a person in this present life may sin from malice, it seems that it is possible for man in this life to be obstinate in evil.
Sed dicendum, quod quamvis talis sit impoenitibilis ex viribus propriis, potest tamen reduci ad poenitentiam ex munere divinae gratiae.- Sed contra: quando aliquid est impossibile secundum causas inferiores, licet divina operatione fieri possit, dicimus simpliciter loquendo illud esse impossibile; sicut caecum videre, vel mortuum resurgere. Si ergo ex viribus propriis aliquis non sit capax poenitentiae, simpliciter debet dici quod est obstinatus in malo, quamvis divina virtute possit reduci ad poenitentiam. 5. It was said in answer that, although such a person is incapable of repentance by his own powers, he can nevertheless be brought back to repentance by the gift of divine grace.—On the contrary, when something is impossible from the viewpoint of lower causes even though it could be done by a divine operation, we say that simply speaking it is impossible; for example, that a blind man should see or a dead person rise. If, then, someone is not capable of repentance by his own powers, he should simply be said to be obstinate in evil, even though he could be brought to repentance by the divine power.
Praeterea, omnis morbus qui contra operatur suae curationi, est incurabilis, secundum medicos. Sed peccatum in spiritum sanctum contra operatur suae curationi, idest divinae gratiae, per quam aliquis a peccato liberatur. Ergo aliquis in statu viae potest habere morbum incurabilem spiritualem, et ita potest esse obstinatus in malo. 6. Every sickness that works against its cure seems to be incurable, as the physicians say. But a sin against the Holy Spirit works against its cure, divine grace, by which a person is freed from sin. A person in this present life can therefore have an incurable spiritual sickness, and can accordingly be obstinate in evil.
Praeterea, ad hoc videtur esse quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum dicitur esse irremissibile, Matth. XII, quod tamen peccatum aliqui viatores committunt. 7. In support of this seems to be the fact that a sin against the Holy Spirit is called unforgivable (Matthew 12: 3 1). But that is a sin which some people in this life commit.
Praeterea, Augustinus, XXI de Civ. Dei, et Gregorius in moralibus, assignant istam causam quare sancti non orabunt pro damnatis in die iudicii, quia videlicet redire non possunt ad statum iustitiae. Sed aliqui sunt in statu viae pro quibus non est orandum; I Ioann. V, 16: est peccatum ad mortem: non pro eo dico ut quis oret; et Hierem. VII, 16: tu ergo noli orare pro populo isto, nec assumas pro eis laudem et orationem; et non obsistas mihi, quia non exaudiam te. Ergo aliqui sunt in statu viae ita obstinati, quod ad statum iustitiae redire non possunt. 8. Augustine and Gregory assign as the reason why the saints will not pray for the damned in the day of judgment that the damned cannot return to the state of justice. But there are some in the present life for whom we are not to pray, as is written in the first Epistle of St. John (5: 16): “There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask”; and in Jeremiah (7: 16): “Therefore do not you pray for this people There are therefore some in this present life so obstinate that they cannot return to the state of justice.
Praeterea, sicut esse confirmatum in bono pertinet ad gloriam sanctorum, ita esse confirmatum in malo pertinet ad miseriam damnatorum. Sed aliquis in statu viae potest esse confirmatus in bono, ut supra, art. IX huius quaest., dictum est. Ergo pari ratione videtur quod aliquis viator possit esse obstinatus in malo. 9. It belongs to the misery of the damned to be confirmed in evil, just as it belongs to the glory of the saints to be confirmed in good. But a person in this present life can be confirmed in good, as was shown above. With equal reason, then, it seems that a person in this life can be obstinate in evil.
Praeterea, Augustinus sic dicit in libro de fide ad Petrum: maiori facultate praeditus est Angelus quam homo. Sed Angelus post peccatum redire ad iustitiam non potuit. Ergo nec homo potest. Et sic aliquis in statu viae est obstinatus. 10. Augustine speaks to the effect that the angels are endowed with greater capabilities than man. But after sinning the angels could not return to justice. Then neither can man; and so man in this life can be obstinate.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod Augustinus dicit in libro de verbis domini, et habetur in Glossa Rom. II, 5: ista impoenitentia, vel cor impoenitens, quamdiu quisque in hac carne vivit, non potest iudicari; de nullo enim desperandum est quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam deducit. Et ita videtur quod nullus in statu viae sit obstinatus in malo. 1. Concerning the Epistle to the Romans (2:4-5) Augustine says, and is quoted in the Gloss: “That impenitence or impenitent heart cannot be judged as long as a person is living in this flesh; for we are not to despair of anyone so long as the patience of God leads him to repentance.” And so it seems that no one in this present life is obstinate in evil.
Praeterea, in Psal. LXVII, 23, dicitur: convertar in profundum maris id est ad eos qui erant desperatissimi; et ita illi qui videntur esse desperatissimi in hac vita, quandoque convertuntur ad Deum, et Deus ad eos. 2. It is written in the Psalm (67:23): “I shall turn to the depth of the sea,” i.e., to those who are the most desperate. And so those who seem to be the most desperate in this life are sometimes converted to God and God to them.
Praeterea, in Psalm. CXLVII, 6, super illud: mittit crystallum suum sicut buccellas, dicit Glossa: crystallum dicit obstinatos, de quibus et aliquos pastores, id est tales facit, ut pascant alios verbo Dei; et sic idem quod prius. 3. On the words of the Psalm (147:6): “He sends his crystal... the Gloss comments: “Crystal means the obstinate, by whom He feeds others; that is, He makes them such that they feed others with the word of God.” And so the same is to be concluded as before.
Praeterea, morbus aliquis potest esse incurabilis vel propter naturam morbi, vel propter imperitiam medici, vel propter indispositionem subiecti. Sed morbus spiritualis hominis viatoris, scilicet peccatum, non est incurabilis ex natura morbi: non enim pervenit ad terminum malitiae; nec iterum ex imperitia medici, quia Deus et scit et potest curare; nec iterum ex indispositione hominis, quia sicut per alium cecidit, ita per alium resurgere potest. Ergo homo in statu viae nullatenus potest esse confirmatus in malo. 4. A sickness can be incurable either because of the nature of the sickness or because of the lack of skill of the physician or because of the indisposition of the patient. But the spiritual sickness of a man in this life, sin, is not incurable from the nature of the sickness; for he has not arrived at the term of malice. Nor again is it incurable because of the lack of skill of the physician, because God has the knowledge and ability to cure. Nor again is it incurable because of the indisposition of the man, because he can rise by another’s means just as he has fallen by another’s means. Man in this present life can therefore by no means be confirmed in evil.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum quod obstinatio importat quamdam firmitatem in peccato, per quam aliquis a peccato reverti non possit. Quod autem aliquis non possit a peccato reverti, potest intelligi dupliciter. Obstinacy implies a certain firmness in sin by reason of which a person cannot turn from sin. Now the inability to turn from sin can be understood in two senses:
Uno modo ita quod vires suae non sufficiant ad hoc quod a peccato totaliter liberetur; et sic quilibet in peccato mortali cadens, dicitur non posse ad iustitiam redire. Sed ex ista firmitate in peccato non dicitur aliquis proprie obstinatus In the first sense the person’s own powers are not sufficient to free him entirely from sin. It is in this sense that anyone who falls into mortal sin is said to be unable to return to justice. But from this sort of firmness in sin a person is not properly called obstinate.
Alio modo habet aliquis firmitatem in peccato, ita quod nec cooperari potest ad hoc quod a peccato resurgat. Sed dupliciter est hoc. Uno modo ita quod nullo modo possit cooperari; et haec est perfecta obstinatio, qua Daemones sunt obstinati. Adeo enim eorum mens est firmata in malo, quod omnis motus liberi arbitrii ipsorum est inordinatus, et peccatum; et ideo nullo modo se possunt ad gratiam habendam praeparare, per quam peccatum dimittitur. Alio modo ita quod non de facili possit cooperari ad hoc quod exeat de peccato; et haec est obstinatio imperfecta, qua aliquis potest esse obstinatus in statu viae, dum scilicet habet aliquis ita firmatam voluntatem in peccato quod non surgunt motus ad bonum nisi debiles. Quia tamen aliqui surgunt, ex eis datur via ut praeparentur ad gratiam. In the second sense he has a firmness in sin such that he cannot even cooperate in rising from sin. But this inability can be of two kinds: (1) It is such that he is unable to cooperate at all. This is the perfect obstinacy by which the demons are obstinate. For their minds are so hardened in evil that every motion of their free choice is ‘inordinate and sinful. They can accordingly in no way prepare themselves to have the grace by which sin is remitted. (2) It is such that the person is not able easily to cooperate in his deliverance from sin. This is the imperfect obstinacy by which a person can be obstinate in this present life, as long as he has a will so hardened in sin that there do not arise in him any except weak motions to good. Nevertheless, because some arise, the way is open by their means to prepare for grace.
Quod aliquis homo in statu viae non possit esse ita obstinatus in malo quin ad suam liberationem cooperari possit, ratio patet ex dictis: quia et passio solvitur et reprimitur, et habitus non totaliter animam corrumpit, et ratio non ita pertinaciter falso adhaeret quin per contrariam rationem possit abduci. Sed post statum viae anima separata non intelliget accipiendo a sensibus, nec erit in actu potentiarum appetitivarum sensibilium. Et sic anima separata Angelo conformatur et quantum ad modum intelligendi, et quantum ad indivisibilitatem appetitus, quae erant causa obstinationis in Angelo peccante; unde per eamdem rationem in anima separata obstinatio erit. In resurrectione autem corpus sequetur animae conditionem; et ideo non redibit anima ad statum in quo modo est, in quo a corpore necesse habet accipere, quamvis corporeis instrumentis utatur. Et ita tunc eadem obstinationis ratio manebit. The reason why no one can be so obstinate in evil in this life that he is unable to cooperate in his liberation is clear from what has been said. For passion is dissipated and repressed; habit does not wholly corrupt the soul; and reason does not cling so stubbornly to what is false that it cannot be led away from it by a contrary argument. But after this present life the separated soul will not understand by receiving anything from the senses, nor will it engage in the act of the sense appetitive powers. The separated soul is thus conformed to the angels in the manner of understanding and in the indivisibility of its appetite, which were seen to be the causes of the perfect obstinacy in the sinful angels. Hence there will be obstinacy in the separated soul for the same reason. In the resurrection, moreover, the body will follow the condition of the soul; and so the soul will not return to its present state, in which it must necessarily receive something from the body, though it will use bodily instruments. Consequently, even then the same reason for obstinacy will remain.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod peccatum naturae lapsae meritum esse dicitur obstinationis, in quantum idem peccatum est meritum perpetuae damnationis: merito enim primi peccati tota natura humana est damnationi subiecta, nisi aliqui exinde per gratiam redemptoris eruerentur; non autem ita quod statim a principio nativitatis homo sit obstinatus, sicut nec damnatus ultima damnatione. 1. The sin of fallen nature is said to be deserving of obstinacy inasmuch as the same sin is deserving of everlasting damnation. For by the deserts of the first sin the whole human nature became subject to damnation, except that some should be snatched from it by the grace of the Redeemer. But this does not mean that a man is obstinate immediately from his birth, nor that he is damned with final damnation.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa loquitur de imperfecta obstinatione, per quam aliquis non est simpliciter confirmatus in malo: haec enim est species peccati in spiritum sanctum. 2. That argument is speaking of imperfect obstinacy, by which a person is not absolutely confirmed in evil. Such an obstinacy is a species of sin against the Holy Spirit.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod Augustinus comparat amorem ponderi, quia utrumque inclinat. Non tamen oportet quod sit similitudo quantum ad omnia. Et ideo non sequitur quod ille qui amat aliquid, nullam habeat ad contrarium inclinationem; nisi forte de amore perfectissimo, qualis est amor sanctorum in patria. 3. Augustine compares love to weight because both incline. It is not necessary, however, that there be likeness in all respects. It consequently does not follow that one who loves something has no inclination to the contrary, except perhaps in the case of perfect love, such as the love of the saints in heaven.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod ille qui peccat ex malitia, dicitur esse impoenitibilis, non quod nullo modo possit poenitere, sed quia non de facili poenitere potest. Non enim perfecte poenitet per solam rationis exhortationem, quia exhortatio procedit ex aliquo principio, scilicet fine, circa quod malus est corruptus; potest tamen induci ad hoc quod poeniteat, paulatim in contrarium assuescendo. Ad quam consuetudinem induci potest tum propter modum aestimandi, quia rationabiliter et quasi collative accipit: tum quia non tota vis appetitiva tendit ad unum: per assuetudinem autem adipiscitur rectam rationem de principio, id est, de fine appetibili. Unde philosophus dicit in VII Ethicorum, quod neque in speculativis ratio est deductiva principiorum, neque in operativis; sed virtus vel naturalis vel assuefactiva, est causa eius quod est recte opinari circa principium. 4. One who sins from malice is said to be incapable of repentance, not because he cannot repent at all, but because he cannot easily repent. He does not perfectly repent upon the urging of reason alone, because this urging proceeds from a principle, the end, regarding which the sinner is corrupted. He can, however, be led to repent by gradually growing accustomed to the contrary. He can be led to this customary attitude both by reason of the manner of judging, because he comes to a judgment rationally and more or less by comparison, and also because his whole appetitive power does not tend to a single objective. From this familiarity he will get a correct conception of the principle, that is, the appetible end. The Philosopher accordingly says: “Neither in speculative matters nor in operative can reasoning teach principles; but virtue, whether natural or acquired by habit, is the reason why we have a correct opinion about the principle.”
Ad quintum dicendum, quod quando natura inferior potest aliquid disponere, vel qualitercumque operari, non dicitur impossibile simpliciter, quamvis non possit perfici nisi divina operatione; sicut non dicimus esse impossibile simpliciter prolem in materno utero anima rationali animari. Et similiter quamvis liberatio a peccato fiat operatione divina, quia tamen ad hoc liberum arbitrium cooperatur, non dicitur esse impossibile simpliciter. 5. When a lower nature is able to dispose things for some operation or in any way cooperate in it, that operation is not called simply impossible even though it cannot be achieved except by divine action. We do not say, for instance, that it is simply impossible for the offspring in the womb of the mother to be animated by a rational soul. In the same way, although deliverance from sin takes place by the divine action, nevertheless, because free choice also cooperates in this, it is not said to be simply impossible.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod quamvis ille qui peccat in spiritum sanctum, ex inclinatione peccati contra gratiam spiritus sancti operetur; quia tamen per hoc peccatum totaliter non est corruptus animus, remanet aliquis motus, licet debilis, per quem potest aliqualiter gratiae cooperari: non enim semper actu gratiae resistit. 6. Although one who sins against the Holy Spirit works against the grace of the Holy Spirit because of the inclination of sin, yet, because he is not wholly corrupted by this sin, there remains some motion, though weak, by which he can cooperate in some way with grace; for he does not always actually resist grace.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non dicitur irremissibile quin in hac vita remitti possit, sed quia non facile in hac vita remitti potest. Cuius difficultatis ratio est, quia peccatum praedictum contrariatur gratiae directe, per quam peccatum dimittitur. Vel irremissibile dicitur quia non habet in se causam remissionis, cum sit ex malitia commissum, sicut habet peccatum quod ex infirmitate vel ignorantia committitur. 7. A sin against the Holy Spirit is not called unforgivable in the sense that it cannot be forgiven in this life, but because it cannot easily be forgiven. The reason for this difficulty is that the sin in question goes directly contrary to grace, by which sin is remitted.—Or it is called unforgivable because, being committed out of malice, it does not have in itself the cause of its forgiveness, as does a sin committed out of weakness or ignorance.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod non prohibetur aliquis pro quibuscumque peccatoribus in hac vita orare. Sed in verbis apostoli inductis significatur quod non ad quemcumque pertinet pro obduratis in peccato orare, sed ad aliquem perfectum virum. Vel apostolus loquitur de peccato ad mortem, quod scilicet usque ad mortem durat. In verbis autem prophetae ostenditur quod populus ille iusto Dei iudicio indignus erat quod misericordiam consequeretur, non quod essent totaliter obstinati in malo. 8. We are not forbidden to pray for sinners, however great, in this life. But in the words of the Apostle which were quoted, the meaning is that it is not the business of anyone and everyone to pray for those hardened in sin but of a perfect man.—Or the Apostle is speaking of a sin unto death, that is, which continues all the way up to death. In the words of the prophet, however, the people in question are shown to have been in the just judgment of God unworthy of obtaining mercy, but not to have been altogether obstinate in evil.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod confirmatio in bono fit ex dono divino. Et ideo nihil prohibet ex speciali privilegio gratiae aliquibus viatoribus esse concessum, quamvis non hoc modo sint confirmati in bono, sicut et beati in patria, ut supra, art. 9 huius quaest., dictum est. Hoc autem de confirmatione in malum dici non potest. 9. Confirmation in good is brought about by a divine gift. Consequently, nothing prevents its being granted to some people in this life as a special privilege even though they are not confirmed in good in the same way as the blessed in heaven, as was said above. But this cannot be said of confirmation in evil.
Ad decimum dicendum, quod ex hoc ipso quod Angelus erat maiori facultate praeditus, sequitur quod statim post primam electionem fuerit in peccato obstinatus, ut ex dictis patet. Augustinus autem non intendit probare quod homo sit in peccato obstinatus, sed quia non sufficit ad hoc quod per seipsum a peccato resurgat. 10. From the very fact that the angels were endowed with greater capabilities it follows that immediately after their first choice they were obstinate in sin, as is clear from what has been said..It is not Augustine’s intention, however, to prove that man is obstinate in sin, but that he lacks the power to rise from sin by himself.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE XII

In the twelfth article we ask:
Can free choice in the state of mortal sin avoid mortal sin without grace?

[ARTICLE De ver., 22, 5 ad 7; 24, 1 ad 10 & 12; II Sent., 20, 2, 3 ad 5; 24,1,4 ad 2; 28, a. 2; S.T., III, 160; In I Cor., c. 12, lect. 1 (P 13:251b-252a); In Hebr., c. 10, lect. 3 (P 13:751a); S.T., I-II, 63, ad 2; 74,3 ad 2; 109, 8; De malo, 3, 1 ad 9.]
Duodecimo quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium sine gratia in statu peccati mortalis possit vitare peccatum mortale Difficulties:
Et videtur quod non. It seems that it cannot, for
Per hoc quod dicitur Roman. VII, 15: non enim quod volo bonum, hoc ago; sed quod odi malum, illud facio; et loquitur ex persona damnati hominis, ut ibi quaedam Glossa dicit. Ergo homo sine gratia peccatum vitare non potest. 1. In the Epistle to the Romans (7:15) it is said: “For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do.” This is said in the person of the damned, as the Gloss says in commenting on this passage. Hence a man without grace cannot avoid sin.
Praeterea, peccatum mortale actuale gravius est quam originale. Sed aliquis in peccato originali, si sit adultus, non potest vitare quin peccet mortaliter sine gratia: sic enim vitaret damnationem poenae sensibilis, quae peccato actuali mortali debetur; et ita cum quantum ad adultos non sit medium inter illam damnationem et gloriam vitae aeternae, sequeretur quod possit adipisci vitam aeternam sine gratia, quod est haeresis Pelagiana. Ergo multo minus in statu peccati mortalis aliquis potest peccatum mortale vitare, nisi gratia accepta. 2. Actual mortal sin is more serious than original sin. But a person in original sin, if he is an adult, cannot avoid sinning mortally without grace; for in that case he would avoid damnation to the pain of sense, which actual mortal sin merits. Since in the case of adults there is no mean between that damnation and the glory of eternal life, it would accordingly follow that he could obtain eternal life without grace. But that is the Pelagian heresy. Even less, then, can a person in the state of mortal sin avoid mortal sin unless he receives grace.
Praeterea, Roman. VII, 19, super illud sed quod nolo, illud facio etc., dicit Glossa Augustini: nunc homo describitur sub lege positus ante gratiam. Tunc enim homo peccatis vincitur, dum viribus suis iuste vivere conatur sine adiutorio gratiae liberantis, quae liberum arbitrium liberat, ut liberatori credat, atque ita contra legem non peccet. Peccare autem contra legem, est peccare mortaliter. Ergo videtur quod homo sine gratia peccatum mortale vitare non possit. 3. On the words of the Epistle to the Romans (7:20): “Now if I do that which I will not...” the Gloss quotes the comment of Augustine: “This is a description of man living under the Law and prior to grace. For man is bound by his sins as long as he tries to live justly by his own strength without the help of liberating grace, which frees the free choice so that it trusts in its liberator and so does not sin against the Law.” But to sin against the Law is to sin mortally. It therefore seems that a man without grace cannot avoid mortal sin.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. de perfectione iustitiae, quod malitia se habet ad animam sicut curvitas ad tibiam; et quod actus peccati claudicationi comparatur. Claudicatio autem non potest vitari ab habente tibiam curvam, nisi prius tibia sanetur. Ergo nec peccatum mortale potest vitari ab eo qui est in peccato, nisi prius per gratiam a peccato liberetur. 4. Augustine says that evil has the same relation to the soul as crookedness has to the lower leg, and that the act of sin is like limping. Now limping cannot be avoided by one having a crooked leg unless the leg is first made straight. Neither can mortal sin be avoided, then, by one who is in sin unless he first be freed from sin by grace.
Praeterea, Gregorius dicit: peccatum quod per poenitentiam non deletur, mox suo pondere ad aliud trahit. Sed non deletur nisi per gratiam. Ergo sine gratia homo peccator peccatum vitare non potest. 5. Gregory says: “A sin which is not wiped out by repentance soon by its weight pulls the person into another.” But sin is wiped out only by grace. Without grace, then, a sinner cannot avoid sin.
Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, timor et ira sunt quaedam passiones et peccata. Sed passiones homo vitare non potest per liberum arbitrium. Ergo nec a peccatis potest abstinere. 16. According to Augustine, fear and anger are passions and sins. But man cannot avoid passions by his free choice. Then neither can he refrain from sinning.
Praeterea, illud quod necessarium, vitari non potest. Sed peccata quaedam sunt necessaria, ut patet per illud Psalm. XXIV, 17: de necessitatibus meis erue me, domine. Ergo homo per liberum arbitrium peccatum vitare non potest. 7. What is necessary cannot be avoided. But some sins are necessary, as is clear from the words of the Psalm (24:17): “Deliver me from my necessities.” Consequently man cannot avoid sin by his free choice.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit: nonnullum peccatum est, cum caro adversus spiritum concupiscit. Sed hoc non est in potestate liberi arbitrii quin caro concupiscat adversus spiritum. Ergo potestas liberi arbitrii non se extendit ad hoc quod peccatum vitetur. 8. Augustine says: “When flesh lusts against the spirit there is some sin.” But it is not within the power of free choice to have flesh not lust against the spirit. Hence the power of free choice does not extend to the avoidance of sin.
Praeterea, potentia moriendi consequitur potentiam peccandi; homo enim in statu innocentiae non poterat mori, nisi quia poterat peccare. Ergo et necessitas moriendi consequitur ad necessitatem peccandi. Sed homo in statu isto non potest vitare quin moriatur. Ergo nec potest vitare quin peccet. 9. The possibility of dying is a consequence of the possibility of sinning, for in the state of innocence man could die only in the sense that he could sin. Then the necessity of dying also is a consequence of the necessity of sinning. But in the present state man cannot keep from dying. Then neither can he keep from sinning.
Praeterea, ideo, secundum Augustinum, homo poterat in statu innocentiae stare, quia habebat sinceritatem naturae ab omni labe peccati immunem. Sed ista sinceritas non est in homine peccatore gratia destituto. Ergo non potest stare, sed necesse habet cadere post peccatum. 10. According to Augustine” in the state of innocence man could remain upright because he had an uncontaminated nature free from all stain of sin. But that incontamination is not in a sinner destitute of grace. He consequently cannot stand up, but after sinning is under the necessity of falling.
Praeterea, vincenti debetur corona, ut patet Apocal. III, 11. Sed si aliquis vitat peccatum, cum de peccato tentatur, vincet peccatum et Diabolum: Iac. IV, 7: resistite Diabolo, et fugiet a vobis. Si ergo potest aliquis sine gratia peccatum vitare, poterit sine gratia coronam mereri; quod est haereticum. 11. To the victor a crown is due, as is evident from the Apocalypse (3: 11). But if anyone avoids sin when he is tempted, he conquers sin and the devil, as appears from the Epistle of St. James (4:7): “Resist the devil, and he will fly from you.” If, then, a person can avoid sin without grace, he will be able to merit a crown without grace. But that is heretical.
Praeterea, Augustinus in libro Retractationum dicit: cogenti cupiditati voluntas resistere non potest. Sed cupiditas ad peccatum inducit. Ergo voluntas humana sine gratia non potest peccatum vitare. 12. Augustine says: “When cupidity compels, the will cannot resist.” But cupidity leads to sin. Hence the human will without grace cannot avoid sin.
Praeterea, qui habet habitum, necessario secundum habitum agit. Sed ille qui est in peccato, habet habitum peccati. Ergo videtur quod non possit vitare quin peccet. 13. One who has a habit necessarily acts according to the habit. But a person in sin has the habit of sin. It therefore seems that he cannot avoid sinning.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium, secundum Augustinum, est quo bonum eligitur gratia assistente et malum gratia desistente. Ergo videtur quod ille qui caret gratia, per liberum arbitrium semper eligat malum. 14. According to Augustine, free choice is that by which we choose good with the assistance of grace and evil with its lack. It therefore seems that one who lacks grace always chooses evil by his free choice.
Praeterea, quicumque potest non peccare, potest vincere mundum: nullus enim aliter vincit mundum nisi desistendo a peccato. Sed nullus potest vincere mundum nisi per gratiam; quia, ut dicitur I Ioann. V, 4, haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, fides nostra. Ergo aliquis sine gratia non potest peccatum vitare. 15. Whoever can avoid sin can conquer the world, for no one conquers the world in any other way than by ceasing to sin. But no one can conquer the world except by grace, because “this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith,” as is said in the first Epistle of St. John (5:4). Consequently a person without grace cannot avoid sin.
Praeterea, praeceptum de diligendo Deum est affirmativum, et ita obligat ad hoc quod observetur pro loco et tempore, et ita quod, si non observetur, peccat homo mortaliter. Sed praeceptum caritatis non potest aliquis sine gratia observare; quia, ut dicitur Rom. V, 5, caritas diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis. Ergo sine gratia homo non potest facere quin peccet mortaliter. 16. The commandment to love God is affirmative and accordingly so obliges to its observance as place and time demand, that if it is not observed one sins mortally. But the commandment of charity cannot be observed without grace, because “the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts; by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us,” as is said in the Epistle to the Romans (5:5). Without grace, then, a man cannot help sinning mortally.
Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, Enchir., cap. LXXVIII, in praecepto de misericordia proximi includitur praeceptum de misericordia sui. Sed aliquis peccaret mortaliter, nisi misereretur proximo in necessitate corporalis mortis existenti. Ergo multo fortius peccat mortaliter, nisi misereatur sui in peccato existentis, de peccato poenitendo; et sic, nisi peccatum per poenitentiam deleatur, non potest homo vitare quin peccet. 17. According to Augustine” the precept of mercy to oneself is included in the precept of mercy to one’s neighbor. But a person sins mortally unless he is merciful to his neighbor in a necessity involving bodily death. All the more, then, does he sin mortally unless he has mercy upon himself when he is in sin, by repenting of his sin. And so, unless his sin is wiped out by repentance, a man cannot avoid sinning.
Praeterea, sicut se habet dilectio Dei ad virtutem, ita contemptus Dei ad peccatum. Sed necesse est omnem virtuosum diligere Deum. Ergo necesse est omnem peccatorem contemnere Deum, et ita peccare; et sic idem quod prius. 18. The contempt of God is related to sin in the same way as the love of God is to virtue. But every virtuous man must necessarily love God. Then every sinner must contemn God and thus sin.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in II Ethic., ex similibus habitibus similes actus procedunt. Si quis ergo est in peccato, necesse est, ut videtur, quod habeat similes actus producere, scilicet actus peccati. 19. According to the Philosopher, like acts come from like habits. If a man is in sin, then, it seems that he must necessarily produce like acts, that is, acts of sin.
Praeterea, cum forma sit principium operationis, qui caret forma, caret operatione propria illius formae. Sed declinare a malo est operatio iustitiae. Cum igitur ille qui est in peccato, careat iustitia, videtur quod non possit declinare a malo. 20. Since form is the principle of operation, whatever lacks form lacks the operation proper to that form. But to turn away from evil is the work of justice. Then, since one who is in sin lacks justice, it seems that he cannot turn away from evil.
Praeterea, Magister dicit in II sententiarum, 25 dist., quod post peccatum ante reparationem gratiae premitur liberum arbitrium a concupiscentia et vincitur, et habet infirmitatem in malo, si non habet gratiam in bono; et ideo potest peccare damnabiliter; et ita sine gratia aliquis non potest peccatum mortale vitare. 21. The Master says: “After sin and before the reparation of grace free choice is pressed and conquered by concupiscence and has a weakness for evil. But it does not have grace for good. It can accordingly sin even so as to merit damnation.” And so without grace a person cannot avoid mortal sin.
Sed si dicatur, quod non potest non peccare, id est non habere peccatum, potest tamen non peccare, id est non uti peccato; contra est quod hoc Pelagiani concedebant, et tamen eorum opinionem quantum ad hoc Augustinus reprehendit in Lib. de gratia et libero arbitrio, sic dicens: dicunt enim Pelagiani, gratiam Dei, quae data est per fidem Iesu Christi, quae nec lex neque natura est, ad hoc tantum valere ut peccata dimittantur, non ut futura vitentur, vel repugnantia superentur. Sed si hoc verum esset, utique in oratione dominica cum dixissemus, dimitte debita nostra, non adderemus, et ne nos inferas in tentationem. Illud enim dicimus, ut peccata dimittantur; hoc autem, ut caveantur, sive vincantur; quod a patre qui est in caelis, nulla ratione peteremus, si virtute voluntatis humanae hoc possemus efficere. 22. Should it be answered that he is unable not to sin in the sense of not having sin, but he is able not to sin in the sense of not using sin; on the contrary, even the Pelagians conceded this, and yet their opinion is censured by Augustine, who says: “The Pelagians say that the grace of God which is given through faith in Jesus Christ, which is neither the law nor nature, exerts its influence only in the remission of sins, not in the avoidance of future sins or in overcoming resistance. But if this were true, in the Lord’s Prayer after saying ‘Forgive us our trespasses’ we should surely not add ‘and lead us not into temptation.’ The former phrase we say in order that sins be forgiven, but the latter, that they be warded off or overcome. We should by no means ask this of our Father who is in heaven if we were able to bring it about by the effort of the human will.”
Ergo videtur quod responsio illa nulla sit. It therefore seems that the supposed answer is invalid.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. de natura et gratia: praevaricatorem legis digne lux deserit veritatis; qua desertus utique fit caecus; et plus necesse est offendat, et cadendo vexetur, vexatusque non surgat. Ergo et peccator destitutus gratia necesse habet peccare. 23. Augustine says: “The light of truth deservedly abandons the transgressor of the law, and when he is abandoned by it he becomes blind; and it is furthermore necessary for him to stumble and, falling, to be kicked about, and after he has been kicked about, not to rise.” Hence the sinner who is destitute of grace must necessarily sin.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod Hieronymus dicit ad Damasum Papam: nos dicimus, homines semper peccare et non peccare posse, ut semper nos liberi confiteamur esse arbitrii. Ergo dicere, quod homo in statu peccati non possit vitare peccatum, est negare arbitrii libertatem; quod est haereticum. 1. Jerome says: “We say that man is always able to sin or not to sin, so that we always profess that we have free choice.” To say that a man in the state of sin cannot avoid sin is therefore to deny free choice. But this is heretical.
Praeterea, si aliquis defectus sit in agente aliquo, in cuius potestate sit vel uti illo vel non uti, non necesse habet in sua actione deficere; sicut si tibia curva posset non uti, ambulando, sua curvitate, posset non claudicare. Sed liberum arbitrium subiectum peccato, peccato uti potest et non uti, eo quod uti peccato est actus liberi arbitrii quod habet dominium sui actus. Ergo, quantumcumque sit in peccato, potest non peccare. 2. If there is a defect in an agent which has it in its power to use or not use that defect, it is not necessary for the agent to fail in its action. If a lower leg which is crooked, for instance, could avoid the use of that crookedness in walking, it could avoid limping. But free choice subject to sin can make use of sin or not, because making use of sin is an act of free choice, which is master of its own action. Consequently, however much it is in sin, it is able not to sin.
Praeterea, in Psalm. CXVIII, 95, dicitur: me expectaverunt peccatores, ut perderent me; Glossa, meum consensum. Ergo aliquis non deducitur ad peccandum nisi consentiendo. Sed consensus est in potestate liberi arbitrii. Ergo aliquis potest per liberum arbitrium non peccare. 3. In the Psalm (118:95) it is written: “The wicked have waited for me to destroy me”; and the Gloss comments: “That is, they have waited for my consent.” A person is therefore not led to commit sin without consenting. But consent is in the power of free choice. A person is therefore able by his free choice not to sin.
Praeterea, Daemon, quia non potest non peccare, dicitur irremediabiliter peccasse. Sed homo non irremediabiliter peccavit, ut communiter dicitur. Ergo potest non peccare. 4. Because the devil is unable not to sin, he is said to have sinned irremediably. But man has sinned remediably, as is commonly said. He is therefore able not to sin.
Praeterea, de uno extremo non transitur in alterum nisi per medium. Sed homo ante peccatum habet potentiam non peccandi. Ergo non immediate post peccatum ducitur ad aliud extremum, ut scilicet non possit non peccare. 5. The passage from one extreme to the other is not made except by going through the mean. But before sin man has the power of not sinning. Therefore after sin he is not led immediately to the other extreme, so as to be unable not to sin.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium peccatoris peccare potest. Sed non potest nisi eligendo; cum eligere sit actus liberi arbitrii: sicut nec visus aliquid operatur nisi videndo. Sed electio, cum sit desiderium praeconsiliati, secundum philosophum in III Ethicorum, sequitur consilium, quod non est nisi eorum quae sunt in nobis, ut dicitur ibidem. Ergo peccatum vitare, vel facere, est in potestate hominis in peccato existentis. 6. The free choice of a sinner can sin. But it sins only by choosing, since choosing is the act of free choice, just as sight operates only by seeing. But since choosing is the desire of what has been previously deliberated, as the Philosopher says,” it follows deliberation or counsel, which is concerned only with the things which are within our power, as he also says. Therefore to avoid or to commit sin is in the power of a man in the state of sin.
Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest, quia iam hoc esset necessarium. Si ergo aliquis in peccato existens peccatum vitare non posset, peccatum committendo non peccat; quod est absurdum. 71. According to Augustine, no one sins in doing something which he cannot avoid, because it would then be necessary. If, then, a person in the state of sin could not avoid sin, he would not sin in committing a sin. But that is absurd.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium est aequaliter a coactione liberum ante peccatum, et post. Sed necessitas peccandi ad coactionem pertinere videtur; eo quod, etiam si nolimus, illa necessitas nobis inest. Ergo homo post peccatum non habet necessitatem peccandi. 8. Free choice is equally free from constraint before and after sinning. But the necessity of sinning seems to be one of constraint inasmuch as, even if we are unwilling, that necessity is in us. After sin a man therefore does not have the necessity of sinning.
Praeterea, omnis necessitas, vel est coactionis, vel naturalis inclinationis. Sed necessitas peccandi non est naturalis inclinationis, quia sic natura mala esset, quia in malum inclinaret. Ergo, si peccatori inesset necessitas ad peccandum, cogeretur peccare. 9. All necessity is either that of constraint or that of natural inclination. But the necessity of sinning is not one of natural inclination; for then our nature would be evil, since it would incline us to evil. Consequently, if there were any necessity for sinning in the sinner, he would be constrained to sin.
Praeterea, quod est necessarium, non est voluntarium. Si ergo necessarium sit peccare eum qui est in peccato, peccatum non est voluntarium; quod est falsum. 10. What is necessary is not voluntary. If, then, it is necessary for one who is in sin to sin, sin is not voluntary. But that is false.
Praeterea, si peccator necesse habet peccare, haec necessitas ei non competit nisi ratione peccati. Potest autem de peccato exire: alias peccatoribus non praeciperetur, Isai. LII, 11: recedite, exite inde, pollutum nolite tangere. Ergo potest peccator non peccare. 11. If a sinner must necessarily sin, this necessity attaches to him only by reason of sin. He can, however, withdraw from sin; otherwise sinners would not be commanded: “Depart, depart, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing,” as is written in Isaiah (5 2: 11).
Respondeo REPLY
Dicendum, quod circa hanc quaestionem contrariae haereses insurrexerunt. Quidam enim, aestimantes naturam mentis humanae ad modum corporalium naturarum, opinati sunt, omne illud in quod videbant mentis humanae inclinationem esse, hominem ex necessitate operari; et ex hoc in contrarios errores inciderunt. Habet enim humana mens duas contrarias inclinationes. Unam quidem in bonum, ex instinctu rationis; quam considerans Iovinianus, dixit hominem non posse peccare. Alia inclinatio inest humanae menti ex inferioribus viribus; et praecipue secundum quod sunt ex originali peccato corruptae: qua scilicet inclinatur mens ad ea eligenda quae sunt secundum carnalem sensum delectabilia. Et hanc inclinationem considerantes, Manichaei dixerunt quod homo necessario peccat, nec aliquo modo peccatum vitare potest. Et sic utrique, licet viis contrariis, in idem inconveniens inciderunt, ut liberum arbitrium denegarent; non enim homo erit liberi arbitrii si vel ad bonum vel ad malum necessitate impellitur. Quod esse inconveniens; et experimento et philosophorum doctrinis et divinis auctoritatibus probatur, ut aliquatenus ex supradictis patet. Opposite heresies have arisen regarding this question. Some, judging of the nature of the human mind after the manner of corporeal natures, have been of the opinion that man does from necessity everything to which they saw there was an inclination of the human mind. For the human mind has two contrary inclinations. One, from the instinct of reason, is to good. Noting this, Jovinian said that man cannot sin. The other inclination is in the human mind from the lower powers, especially as corrupted by original sin. By this the mind is inclined to choose the things which are pleasurable to the carnal senses. Noting this inclination, the Manicheans said that man necessarily sins and cannot in any way avoid sin. Thus both, though by opposite paths, fell into the same inadmissible position, denying free choice; for man does not have free choice if he is driven with necessity to either good or evil. That it is inadmissible is proved by experience, by the doctrines of the philosophers, and by arguments from Scripture, as appears to some extent from what has been said above.
Unde e contrario surrexit Pelagius, qui volens liberum arbitrium defendere, gratiae Dei adversatus est, dicens, absque Dei gratia hominem peccatum evitare. Qui quidem error manifestissime doctrinae evangelicae contradicit: unde est per Ecclesiam condemnatus. On the other hand there arose Pelagius, who, wishing to defend free choice, opposed divine grace and said that man is able to avoid sin without the grace of God. This error very evidently contradicts the teaching of the gospels, and has therefore been condemned by the Church.
Fides autem Catholica media via incedit; ita libertatem arbitrii salvans, quod necessitatem gratiae non excludit. Now the Catholic faith takes a middle course, so saving free choice as not to exclude the necessity of grace.
Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod, cum liberum arbitrium sit quaedam potentia constituta infra rationem, et supra motivam exequentem, dupliciter aliquid extra potestatem liberi arbitrii invenitur. Uno modo ex hoc quod excedit efficaciam motivae exequentis, quae ad imperium liberi arbitrii operatur; sicut volare non subest libero arbitrio hominis, quia excedit vim potentiae motivae in homine. Alio modo aliquid est extra potestatem liberi arbitrii, quia ad ipsum rationis actus non se extendit. Cum enim actus liberi arbitrii sit electio, quae consilium, id est deliberationem rationis, sequitur, ad illud se liberum arbitrium extendere non potest quod deliberationem rationis subterfugit, sicut sunt ea quae impraemeditate occurrunt. For the clarification of this point it should be noted that, since free choice is a power established under reason and over the executive and motive power, something is found to be outside the power of free choice for either of two reasons: (1) It exceeds the efficacy of the motive and executive power, which works at the command of free choice. For example, to fly does not fall within the free choice of a man, because it exceeds the power of man’s motive faculty. (2) The act of reason does not extend to it. For since the act of free choice is choosing, which depends upon counsel, that is, the deliberation of reason, free choice cannot extend to anything that escapes the deliberation of reason. Such, for example, would be actions which occur without premeditation.
Primo igitur modo peccati vitatio vel peccatum potestatem liberi arbitrii non excedit: quia quamvis expletio peccati per actum exteriorem executione virtutis motivae peragatur, tamen peccatum in ipsa voluntate perficitur ante operis executionem per solum consensum. Unde propter defectum virtutis motivae non impeditur liberum arbitrium a peccato vel eius vitatione; quamvis interdum impediatur ab executione, sicut cum quis vult occidere vel fornicari vel furari, nec tamen potest. The avoidance or commission of sin does not exceed the power of free choice for the first reason, because, though the accomplishment of a sin by an external act is carried out by the execution of the motive power, nevertheless the sin is completed in the will by mere consent before the execution of the deed. Consequently free choice is not kept from a sin or its avoidance by the failure of the motive power, even though it is sometimes kept from its execution. This would be the case, for example, when someone wishes to kill or fornicate or steal and cannot.
Sed secundo modo peccatum vel eius vitatio potest excedere liberi arbitrii potestatem, eo scilicet quod aliquod peccatum subito et quasi repente occurrit, et sic electionem liberi arbitrii subterfugit, quamvis liberum arbitrium hoc possit facere vel vitare, si ad hoc suam attentionem vel conatum dirigeret. A sin or its avoidance can exceed the power of free choice for thee second reason, however, inasmuch as a particular sin occurs suddenly and more or less by surprise, thus escaping the election of free choice, even though by directing its attention or efforts to it free choice could commit the sin or avoid it.
Dupliciter autem aliquid in nobis quasi repentine accidit. Uno modo ex impetu passionis: motus enim irae et concupiscentiae interdum deliberationem rationis praevenit. Qui quidem motus in illicitum tendens ex corruptione naturae, peccatum veniale est. Et ideo post statum naturae corruptae non est in potestate liberi arbitrii omnia huiusmodi peccata vitare, quia eius actum effugiunt, quamvis possit impedire aliquem istorum motuum, si contra conetur. Non est autem possibile ut homo continue contra conetur ad huiusmodi motus vitandos, propter varias humanae mentis occupationes et quietem necessariam. Quod quidem contingit ex hoc quod inferiores vires non sunt totaliter rationi subiectae, sicut erant in statu innocentiae, quando homini huiusmodi peccata omnia et singula per liberum arbitrium vitare facillimum erat, eo quod nullus motus in inferioribus viribus insurgere poterat nisi secundum dictamen rationis. Ad hanc autem rectitudinem homo in praesenti per gratiam non reducitur communiter loquendo; sed hanc rectitudinem expectamus in statu gloriae. Et ideo in hoc statu miseriae, post reparationem gratiae, homo non potest omnia peccata venialia vitare, cum tamen hoc in nullo libertati arbitrii praeiudicet. Now something can happen in us more or less by surprise in two ways: (1) From a fit of passion. For the movement of anger or concupiscence sometimes anticipates the deliberation of reason. Tending to something illicit by reason of the corruption of our nature, this movement constitutes a venial sin. In the state of corrupt nature it is accordingly not within the: power of free choice to avoid all sins of this sort, because they escape its act, although it can prevent any particular one of those movements if it makes the effort against it. But it is not possible for man continuously to make the contrary effort to avoid movements of this kind on account of the various occupations of the human mind and the rest required for it. This comes about from the fact that the lower powers are not wholly subject to reason as they were in the state of innocence. It was then easy for man to avoid each and every one of these sins by his free choice, because no movement could arise in the lower powers except at the dictate of reason. In his present state, however, man is not, commonly speaking, restored by grace to this harmonious condition; but we look forward to it in the state of glory. In this state of misery, then, even after reparation by grace man cannot avoid all venial sins. This is, however, in no respect prejudicial to the freedom of choice.
Alio modo contingit aliquid in nobis quasi repente ex inclinatione habitus: ut enim philosophus dicit in III Ethicorum, fortioris est in repentinis timoribus impavidum et imperturbatum esse, quam in praemanifestis. Ab habitu enim est magis operatio, quanto minus est ex praemeditatione: praemanifesta enim, id est praecognita, aliquis praeeliget ex ratione et cogitatione sine habitu; sed repentina sunt secundum habitum. Nec hoc est intelligendum quod operatio secundum habitum virtutis possit esse omnino absque deliberatione, cum virtus sit habitus electivus; sed quia habenti habitum iam est in eius electione finis determinatus; unde quandocumque aliquid occurrit ut conveniens illi fini, statim eligitur, nisi ex aliqua attentiori et maiori deliberatione impediatur. (2) Something happens in us more or less by surprise by reason of the inclination of habit; for, as the Philosopher says: “It is more indicative of a brave man to remain fearless and unperturbed in sudden terrors than in those seen coming.” The less an action is from preparedness, the more it is from habit; for a person chooses things seen coming, that is, known ahead of time, by reason and thought even without a habit, but sudden things according to habit. Now this is not to be taken as meaning that an action according to the habit of a virtue can be altogether without deliberation, since a virtue is a habit of choice, but that one having the habit already has the end determined in his choice. Consequently, whenever anything agreeable to that end presents itself, it is immediately chosen unless the choice is blocked by a greater and more attentive deliberation.
Homo autem qui est in peccato mortali, habitualiter peccato inhaeret. Quamvis enim non semper habeat habitum vitii, quia ex uno actu luxuriae habitus non generatur: voluntas tamen peccantis, derelicto incommutabili bono, bono commutabili quasi fini adhaesit, et huiusmodi adhaesionis vis et inclinatio in ea manet quousque iterato bono incommutabili quasi fini inhaereat. Et ideo quando homini sic disposito occurrit aliquid faciendum quod praecedenti electioni conveniat, repente fertur in illud per electionem, nisi multa deliberatione seipsum cohibeat. Nec tamen per hoc quod sic repente illud eligit, a peccato mortali excusatur, quod aliqua deliberatione indiget: quia deliberatio illa sufficit ad peccatum mortale, qua perpenditur id quod eligitur esse peccatum mortale et contra Deum. A man who is in the state of mortal sin, however, habitually clings to sin. He may not always have the habit of a vice, because from one act of lust, for instance, the habit of lust is not formed; but the will of one sinning has abandoned the unchangeable good and clung to a changeable good as its end, and the force and bent of this clinging remains in it up to the time that it again clings to the unchangeable good as its end. As a consequence, when something to be done which is conformable to the previous choice presents itself to a man so disposed, he straightway goes out to it in a choice unless he holds himself in check by much deliberation. And yet by the fact that he chooses it straightway in this fashion he is not excused from mortal sin, which requires some deliberation, because that deliberation suffices for a mortal sin in which what is chosen is judged to be a mortal sin and against God.
Ista autem deliberatio non sufficit ad retrahendum eum qui est in peccato mortali. Non enim retrahitur aliquis ab aliquo agendo in quod inclinatur, nisi in quantum illud sibi proponitur ut malum. Ille autem qui iam bonum incommutabile repudiavit pro commutabili bono, non iam existimat ut malum, a bono incommutabili averti, in quo ratio peccati mortalis perficitur: unde non retrahitur a peccando per hoc ipsum quod advertit aliquid esse peccatum mortale; sed oportet ulterius in considerando procedere quousque perveniatur ad aliquid quod non possit non existimare malum, sicut est miseria, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Unde antequam tanta deliberatio fiat quanta requiritur in homine sic disposito ad vitandum peccatum mortale, praecedit consensus in peccatum mortale. Such a deliberation, however, does not suffice to restrain one who is in the state of mortal sin. For no one is held back from doing anything to which he is inclined except in so far as it is proposed to him as evil; but one who has already repudiated the unchangeable good for a changeable good no longer considers it an evil to be turned away from the unchangeable good, and mortal sin essentially consists in being so turned away. He is consequently not restrained from sinning by adverting that something is a mortal sin. What is further needed is to go ahead in the consideration until one arrives at something that one cannot fail to judge evil, such as unhappiness or something of the sort. The consequence is that, before as much deliberation as a man so disposed requires to avoid mortal sin, consent to a mortal sin is given.
Et ideo, supposita adhaesione liberi arbitrii ad peccatum mortale, sive ad finem indebitum, non est in potestate eius quod vitet omnia peccata mortalia, quamvis unumquodque possit vitare, si contra nitatur: quia etsi hoc vel illud vitaverit adhibendo tantam deliberationem quanta requiritur, non tamen potest facere quin aliquando ante tantam deliberationem praeveniat consensus in peccatum mortale: cum impossibile sit hominem semper vel diu in tanta vigilantia esse, quanta ad hoc requiritur propter multa in quibus mens hominis occupatur. Ab hac autem dispositione non removetur nisi per gratiam, per quam solam efficitur ut mens humana bono incommutabili per caritatem tamquam fini adhaereat. Given the adherence of free choice to a mortal sin or to an illicit end, it is not in the power of free choice to avoid all mortal sins, though it can avoid any particular one if it resists. For, even though it has avoided this one or that by employing as much deliberation as is required, it is still unable to keep consent to a mortal sin from sometimes stealing up on a person before so much deliberation when he is not ready to deliberate, since it is impossible, because of the many cares with which the human mind is occupied, for a man always or for a long time to remain in such great watchfulness as is required for this. Furthermore, he is removed from this disposition only by grace, by which alone the human mind is made to adhere by charity to the unchangeable good as its end.
Patet ergo ex dictis, quod nec liberum arbitrium tollimus, cum dicimus quodlibet peccatum singulariter liberum arbitrium posse vitare vel facere: nec iterum tollimus necessitatem gratiae, cum dicimus, hominem non posse vitare omnia peccata venialia, quamvis possit singula vitare, etiam habentem gratiam, antequam gratia perficiatur in statu gloriae; et hoc propter fomitis corruptionem. Et cum dicamus, hominem in peccato mortali existentem gratia destitutum omnia peccata mortalia non posse vitare, nisi gratia superveniat, quamvis singula possit vitare, et hoc propter adhaesionem voluntatis habitualem ad finem inordinatum; quae duo, Augustinus, comparat curvitati tibiae, ex qua sequitur necessitas claudicandi; sic verificantur doctorum sententiae quae circa hoc variae videntur. It is therefore clear from what we have said that we do not take away free choice, since we say that free choice can avoid or commit any sin taken singly; nor again do we take away the necessity of grace, since we say that man (even one having grace, as long as that grace has not been made perfect in the state of glory), because of the corruption of human nature called “fuel of sin,” cannot avoid all venial sins though he can avoid each one. Since we say, moreover, that a man in the state of mortal sin and deprived of grace cannot avoid all mortal sins unless grace should come to his aid (though he can avoid each one singly) because of the habitual adherence of his will to an inordinate end (referred to by Augustine under the figure of the crookedness of a lower leg which brings on the necessity of limping)—in this way are verified the opinions of the doctors which appear quite different on this question.
Quorum quidam dicunt, hominem absque habituali gratia gratum faciente posse peccatum mortale vitare, quamvis non sine divino auxilio, quod hominem sua providentia ad bona agenda et mala vitanda gubernat: hoc enim verum est, cum contra peccatum conari voluerit, ex quo contingit ut possint singula vitari. Alii vero dicunt, quod non potest homo sine gratia diu stare quin peccet mortaliter: quod quidem verum est quantum ad hoc quod non diu contingit hominem esse habitualiter dispositum ad peccandum quin occurrat sibi repente aliquod operandum, in quo ex inclinatione mali habitus labitur in consensum peccati mortalis, cum non sit possibile hominem diu esse vigilem ad hoc quod sufficientem sollicitudinem adhibeat ad vitandum peccatum mortale. Some of them say that without habitual ingratiatory grace man can avoid mortal sin, though not without the divine help by which divine providence guides man to do good and avoid evil. This is true when the person has been willing to make an effort against sin; and as a result of it any single mortal sin can be avoided. Others say that without grace man cannot remain long without sinning mortally. This is true in the respect that man cannot be habitually disposed to sin for a long time without having unexpectedly presented to him a need for action. When that occurs, because of the inclination of the bad habit he slips into consent to a mortal sin, since it is not possible for a man long to be sufficiently attentive to the need of taking pains to avoid mortal sin.
Quia ergo utraeque rationes verum concludunt aliquo modo, et aliquo modo falsum, ad utrasque respondendum est. Now because the conclusion to the arguments for either side is to a certain extent true and to a certain extent false, answers to both sets of arguments must be given.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum est, quod verbum illud apostoli secundum diversas expositiones potest intelligi et de peccato mortali, et de malo peccati mortalis, secundum quod loquitur ex persona hominis peccatoris; vel de malo peccati venialis quantum ad primos motus, secundum quod loquitur in persona sua, vel aliorum iustorum. Et utroque modo intelligendum est, quod cum voluntas naturalis sit ad vitationem omnis mali, non potest homo peccator facere sine gratia ut vitet omnia peccata mortalia, quamvis possit vitare singula; et sic non potest sine gratia voluntatem naturalem implere; et similiter est de iusto, respectu peccatorum venialium. 1. That statement of the Apostle, according to different explanations, can be understood either of mortal sin and the evil of mortal sin if we take Paul to be speaking in the person of a sinner, or of the evil of venial sin as regards the first movements if we take him to be speaking in his own person or in that of other just men. But in either interpretation it must be understood that, though there is a natural will to avoid all evil, a sinner without grace cannot succeed in avoiding all mortal sins, even though he can avoid each one singly; and so he cannot without grace fulfill his natural will. And the same is true of a just man in regard to venial sins.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod non est possibile aliquem adultum esse in solo peccato originali absque gratia: quia statim cum usum liberi arbitrii acceperit, si se ad gratiam praeparaverit, gratiam habebit; alias ipsa negligentia ei imputabitur ad peccatum mortale. Ratio etiam praedicta videtur supponere inconveniens ad quod ducit. Si enim possibile est aliquem adultum in solo peccato originali esse; si in ipso instanti contingat eum mori, erit medius inter beatos et eos qui poena sensibili puniuntur; ad quod inconveniens praedicta ratio ducit. Ut tamen in hoc vis non fiat, sciendum est, quod in peccato originali est habitualis aversio a bono incommutabili, cum habens peccatum originale non habeat cor Deo coniunctum per caritatem; et sic quantum ad habitualem aversionem eadem ratio est de existente in peccato originali et mortali, licet in peccato mortali super hoc sit habitualis conversio ad indebitum finem. Et propterea non sequitur quod si aliquis evadat damnationem ex libero arbitrio, propter hoc ex viribus liberi arbitrii possit gloriam acquirere: hoc enim maius est, ut patet instantia de homine in statu innocentiae. 2. It is not possible for an adult without grace to be only in original sin, because as soon as he has attained the use of free choice, if he has prepared himself for grace, he will have grace; otherwise his very negligence will be imputed to him as a mortal sin. The argument given, moreover, seems to suppose the very difficulty which it adduces. If it is possible for an adult to be in original sin and no other, should he happen to die at that instant, he will be midway between the blessed and those who are being punished with the pain of sense—which is the difficulty which the argument itself adduces. In order that no force may be attributed to this argument, it should be observed that there is in original sin a habitual aversion from the unchangeable good, since the man having original sin does not have his heart joined to God by charity; and consequently, as far as the habitual aversion goes, the same is to be said of one in original sin and of one in mortal sin, though in mortal sin there is added to this an habitual conversion to an undue end. Furthermore, it does not follow that if someone should escape damnation by his free choice, he can for that reason by the strength of his free choice attain glory; for that is something more. And the rejoinder about man in the state of innocence is obvious.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod homo sine gratia peccato vincitur, ut contra legem agat; quia si hoc vel illud peccatum vitare possit in contrarium conando, non tamen potest vitare omnia, ratione iam dicta. 3. Man without grace is bound by sin so that he acts contrary to the law, because, even though he can avoid this or that sin by a contrary effort, he still cannot avoid all sins, for the reason already given.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod exemplum Augustini de curvitate, quantum ad aliquid non est simile; quia scilicet non est in potestate tibiae ut utatur curvitate vel non utatur, ideo oportet omnem motum tibiae curvae claudicationem esse; liberum autem arbitrium potest uti vel non uti sua curvitate: et ideo non oportet quod in quolibet actu suo peccet, sed potest quandoque vitare peccatum. Est autem simile quantum ad hoc quod non est possibile omnia vitare, sicut dictum est. 4. Augustine’s example about the crookedness of the leg is not parallel in some respects, because it is not within the power of the leg to make use of crookedness or not, and so every movement of the crooked leg must be a limp. But free choice can make use of its crookedness or not; and so it is not necessary for it to sin in every one of its acts, but it can sometimes avoid sin. But the example is parallel in this, that it is not possible to avoid all sins, as has been said.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod quamvis peccatum per poenitentiam non deletum trahat ad aliud inclinando, tamen non est necessarium quod liberum arbitrium semper huic inclinationi obediat; sed potest in aliquo uno actu contra eam niti. 5. Although a sin not wiped out by repentance leads to another sin by giving an inclination, it is not necessary for free choice always to obey that inclination, but in an individual act it can make efforts against it.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod timor et ira, secundum quod sunt passiones, non sunt peccata mortalia, sed venialia: sunt enim primi motus. 6. Fear and anger, as passions, are not mortal sins but venial; for they are first movements.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod peccata dicuntur necessaria, in quantum non possunt vitari omnia, quamvis possint vitari singula. 7. Sins are said to be necessary inasmuch as not all can be avoided, though each singly can.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod cum caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, est vitium, sed venialis peccati. 8. When flesh lusts against the spirit it is a vice, but one of venial sin.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod necessitatem moriendi concomitatur necessitas peccandi vel venialiter vel mortaliter, nisi in personis privilegiatis, scilicet Christo et beata virgine; non autem necessitas peccandi mortaliter, et patet in habentibus gratiam. 9. The necessity of sinning either venially or mortally accompanies the necessity of dying except in the privileged persons, Christ and the Blessed Virgin; but the necessity of sinning mortally does not, as is clear of those having grace.
Ad decimum respondetur sicut ad septimum. 10. [The anwswer to the seventh suffices for the tenth.].
Ad undecimum dicendum, quod corona datur ei qui totaliter vincit mundum et peccatum. Qui autem unum peccatum vitat, in alio perseverans, cum sit servus, non est victor nisi secundum quid, unde non meretur coronam. 11. A crown is given to one who entirely conquers the devil and sin. But a man who avoids one sin while continuing in another, being a slave, is not a victor except perhaps in a certain respect. He therefore does not deserve a crown.
Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod cupiditas non potest intelligi esse cogens absolute liberum arbitrium, quia semper est liberum a coactione; sed dicitur cogens propter vehementiam inclinationis, cui tamen potest resisti, licet cum difficultate. 12. Cupidity cannot be understood absolutely to compel free choice, which is always free from force. But it is called compelling because of the vehemence of the inclination, which can still be resisted, though only with difficulty.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium potest uti habitu vel non uti. Unde non oportet quod semper aliquis agat secundum habitum; sed potest aliquando contra habitum agere, licet cum difficultate. Non tamen manente habitu potest contingere quod diu maneat, nihil secundum habitum agens. 13. Free choice can make use of a habit or not. It is accordingly not necessary for a person always to act according to a habit, but he can sometimes also act contrary to it, though with difficulty. While the habit lasts, however, the person cannot by any chance remain long without acting according to the habit.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum, quod gratia desistente, liberum arbitrium per se potest malum eligere; non tamen necesse est quod absque gratia gratum faciente semper malum eligat. 14 When grace is lacking, free choice can of itself choose evil. It is not, however, necessary that without ingratiatory grace it always choose evil.
Ad decimumquintum dicendum, quod non sequitur quod aliquis vitando peccatum vincat mundum, nisi omnino sit immunis a peccato, ut dictum est. 15. It does not follow that by avoiding sin a person conquers the world, unless he is altogether free from sin, as was said above.
Ad decimumsextum dicendum, quod praeceptum dupliciter observatur. Uno modo sic quod observatum est meritum gloriae; et sic nullus potest sine gratia praedictum praeceptum nec alia observare. Alio modo sic quod observatum facit vitare poenam; et sic sine gratia gratum faciente observari potest. Primo modo observatur quando substantia actus impletur cum modo convenienti, quem caritas ponit; et sic etiam praeceptum praedictum de dilectione non tam est praeceptum, quam finis praecepti et forma aliorum praeceptorum. Secundo modo observatur, sola substantia actus adimpleta; quod contingit omnino in eo qui non habet habitum caritatis: potest enim et iniustus iusta agere, secundum philosophum in II Ethic. 16. A commandment is observed in two ways: (1) Its observance merits glory. In this sense no one can observe the commandment in question or any other without grace. (2) Its observance averts punishment. In this sense it can be observed without ingratiatory grace. It is observed in the first way when the substance of the act is fulfilled along with the appointed manner, which is supplied by charity. In this sense the commandment to love is not so much a commandment as the end of the commandment and the form of other commandments. It is observed in the second way when only the substance of the act is fulfilled. This undoubtedly happens even in one who does not have the habit of charity. For according to the Philosopher” even an unjust man can do something just.
Ad decimumseptimum dicendum, quod ratio illa non est ad propositum. Dato enim quod aliquis non miserendo sibi in hoc quod praeparet se ad poenitentiam, novum peccatum committit, tamen potest hoc peccatum vitare, cum possit se praeparare. Nec tamen oportet quod peccator quandocumque sui non miseretur poenitendo, novum peccatum committat; sed tunc solum quando ad hoc ex aliqua speciali causa tenetur. 17. That argument is not to the point. Granted that a man would commit a new sin in not having mercy upon himself by preparing himself for repentance, he is still able to avoid this sin, since he can prepare himself. Nor does a sinner necessarily commit a new sin whenever he does not have mercy upon himself by repenting, but only when for some special reason he is obliged to this.
Ad decimumoctavum dicendum, quod virtuosus potest non diligere Deum actualiter, sed contrarium agere, ut patet cum peccat. 18. A man of virtue is able not to love God actually but to act in a contrary fashion, as appears when he sins.
Ad decimumnonum dicendum quod quamvis habitus semper reddant similes actus, tamen habens habitum potest exire in actum contrarium habitui, quia non est necesse eum semper uti habitu. 19. Although habits always produce acts like themselves, the one who has a habit can still enter upon an act contrary to the habit, because he does not always have to make use of the habit.
Ad vigesimum dicendum, quod carens iustitia potest facere actum iustitiae imperfectum, qui est iusta agere: et hoc propter principia naturalis iuris rationi indita; non autem potest facere actum iustitiae perfectum, qui est facere iusta iuste. Et sic aliquis iniustus potest interdum declinare a malo. 20. A man who lacks justice can perform an imperfect act of justice, which is to do something just—and this by reason of the principles of natural law implanted in reason. But he cannot perform an act of perfect justice, which is to do something just in a just manner. An unjust person can accordingly sometimes turn aside from evil.
Ad vigesimumprimum dicendum, quod verbum Magistri non est intelligendum sic quod necesse sit hominem existentem in peccato mortali cuilibet tentationi succumbere; sed quia, nisi per gratiam a peccato liberetur, in aliquod peccatum mortale quandoque incidet. 21. The statement of the Master is not to be understood as meaning that it is necessary for a man in the state of mortal sin to succumb to every temptation, but that, unless he is freed from sin by grace, he will fall into some mortal sin at some time.
Ad vigesimumsecundum dicendum, quod ideo necesse habemus in oratione dominica petere non solum ut peccata praeterita nobis dimittantur, sed ut a futuris liberemur; quia, nisi homo per gratiam liberetur necesse habet quandoque incidere in peccatum per modum praedictum; quamvis hoc vel illud contra nitendo vitare possit. 22. It is necessary for us to pray in the Lord’s Prayer not only that past sins be forgiven but also that we be freed from future sins, because, unless a man is freed by grace, he must necessarily sometimes fall into sin in the manner mentioned, though he can avoid this or that sin by striving against it.
Ad vigesimumtertium dicendum, quod desertus a luce gratiae necesse est ut aliquando cadat; non tamen necesse est ut in qualibet tentatione succumbat. 23. It is necessary for a man abandoned by the light of grace to fall at some time; but it is not necessary for him to succumb to every temptation.
Answers to Contrary Difficulties
Ad primum vero quod in contrarium obiicitur, dicendum, quod libertati arbitrii praeiudicaret, si peccatum vitare non posset in contrarium conando: non autem praeiudicat libertati arbitrii, si hoc homo facere non potest, ut sit in continua sollicitudine resistendi peccato; homine autem circa hoc non sollicito pertrahit eum habitualis inclinatio in id quod est habitui conveniens. 1. It would be prejudicial to the freedom of choice if we could not avoid sin by making an effort to the contrary. It is not, however, prejudicial to this freedom if a man cannot succeed in being constantly careful to resist sin. But when a man is not careful about this, he is drawn by his habitual inclination to what agrees with the habit.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium, propter hoc quod habet dominium sui actus, potest quandoque ad hoc curam apponere, et non uti proprio defectu. Sed quia impossibile est eum semper curam apponere, aliquando sequitur ut in actu deficiat. 2. Because free choice has the mastery over its own act, it can, when it takes the trouble, not make use of its own defect. But since it is impossible for it always to take the trouble, the consequence is that it sometimes fails in its act.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod sine consensu liberi arbitrii peccatum non agitur: sed consensus sequitur habitualem inclinationem, nisi multa deliberatione praehabita, ut dictum est. 3. Mortal sin is not committed without the consent of free choice. But consent follows the habitual inclination unless a great deal of deliberation is exercised beforehand, as has been said.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod homo dicitur remediabiliter cecidisse, quia potest auxilio gratiae remedium habere, quamvis ad hoc potestas liberi arbitrii non sufficiat. 4. A man is said to have fallen remediably because he can find a remedy in the help of grace even though the power of his free choice is not sufficient for this.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod non posse peccare et non posse non peccare, sunt contraria; posse vero peccare et non peccare est medium inter ea. Unde ratio supponit falsum. 5. To be unable to sin and to be unable not to sin are contraries, but to be able to sin and not sin falls between them. The supposition of the argument is therefore false.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod eligere et consiliari non est nisi eorum quae sunt in nobis. Sed, sicut dicitur in libro III Ethicorum, ea quae per amicos facimus, aliqualiter per nos facimus: et ideo liberum arbitrium potest habere electionem et consilium non solum de illis ad quae sufficit propria potestas, sed de illis ad quae indiget divino auxilio. 6. Choosing and deliberating are concerned only with what is in our power; but, as is said in the Ethics, “what we do through friends we somehow do through ourselves.” Free choice can accordingly have choice and deliberation not only about the matters for which its own power suffices but also about those for which it needs divine help.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod aliquis existens in peccato mortali potest vitare omnia peccata mortalia auxilio gratiae: potest etiam ex naturali virtute singula vitare, quamvis non omnia; et ideo non sequitur quod peccatum committendo non peccet. 7. A person in the state of mortal sin can avoid all mortal sins by the help of grace. He can also avoid them singly by his own natural power, though not all. It therefore does not follow that in committing a sin he does not sin.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod necessitas peccandi coactionem liberi arbitrii non ponit. Quamvis enim homo per seipsum ex illa necessitate se non possit eximere, potest tamen resistere aliqualiter ei cuius necessitas dicitur, in quantum potest singula vitare, licet non omnia. 8. The necessity of sinning does not impose any constraint upon free choice. For even though a man cannot by himself free himself from that necessity, he can nevertheless to some extent resist that to which he is said to be necessitated, inasmuch as he can avoid individual sins, though not all.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod peccatum effectum est quasi naturale peccatori: habitus enim sicut quaedam natura operatur in habente; unde necessitas quae ex habitu est, reducitur ad naturalem inclinationem. 9. Sin becomes in some sense natural to the sinner, for a habit works in the one who has it like a sort of nature. The necessity which is had from a habit, then, is reduced to a natural inclination.
Ad decimum dicendum, quod secundum Augustinum, aliquid potest esse necessarium, et tamen voluntarium. Necessario enim voluntas miseriam abhorret; et hoc propter naturalem inclinationem, cui assimilatur inclinatio habitus. 10. According to Augustine, something can be necessary and still voluntary. The will, for instance, necessarily abhors misery; and it does so because of a natural inclination. It is to such a natural inclination that the inclination of a habit is likened.
Ad undecimum dicendum, quod homo existens in peccato nullo modo potest se a peccato eximere, quod iam commisit, nisi auxilio gratiae: quia non eximitur a peccato, quod in aversione perficitur, nisi mens eius Deo adhaereat per caritatem, quae non ex libero arbitrio, sed in cordibus sanctorum per spiritum sanctum diffunditur, ut dicitur Roman. cap. V, 5. 11. A man in the state of sin can by no means free himself from a sin which he has already committed except by the help of grace; for, since sin consists fin’ aversion, he is not freed from it unless his mind clings to God by charity, which does not come from free choice but is poured into the hearts of the saints by the Holy Spirit, as is said in the Epistle to the Romans (5:5).
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE XIII

In the thirteenth article we ask:
Can a person in the state of grace avoid mortal sin?

[ARTICLE De ver., 24, 14; 27, 5 ad 3; II Sent., 29, expos. text.; S.T., I-II, 109, 9; In Psalm. 31:7 (P 14:258b).]
Tertiodecimo quaeritur utrum aliquis in gratia existens possit peccatum mortale vitare Difficulties
Et videtur quod non. It seems not, for
Nullus enim necessario habet petere a Deo illud quod per seipsum potest. Sed aliquis, quantumcumque habeat gratiam, necesse habet petere a Deo ut a futuris peccatis liberetur; unde II Corinth. XIII, 7, apostolus dicit, fidelibus et sanctis loquens: oramus autem Deum ut nihil mali faciatis. Ergo gratiam habentes non possunt peccatum vitare. 1. No one has to ask of God what he can do by himself. But however much grace a person has, he must ask of God that he be freed from future sins. In the second Epistle to the Corinthians (13:7) the Apostle, addressing the faithful and the saints, accordingly says: “Now we pray God, that you may do no evil.” Hence even those having grace cannot avoid sin.
Praeterea, gratiam habentes necesse habent orationem dominicam dicere. Sed in ea petitur ut homo absque peccato perseveret, secundum expositionem Cypriani, ut Augustinus narrat in Lib. de perseverantia. Ergo habens gratiam non potest per se peccatum mortale vitare. 2. Even those having grace must say the Lord’s Prayer. Now in that prayer the petition is made that man may persevere without sin, according to the interpretation of Cyprian, as Augustine reports. A person having grace therefore cannot of himself avoid mortal sin.
Praeterea, perseverantia donum est spiritus sancti. Dona autem spiritus sancti habere non est in potestate gratiam habentis. Cum ergo ad perseverantiam pertineat abstinere a peccato mortali usque ad finem vitae, videtur quod habens gratiam non possit peccatum mortale vitare. 3. Perseverance is a gift of the Holy Spirit. But it is not within the power even of a person having grace to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Since abstaining from mortal sin up to the end of one’s life belongs to perseverance, it therefore seems that even a person having grace cannot avoid mortal sin.
Praeterea, sicut se habet nihilum ad esse naturae, ita se habet defectus peccati ad esse gratiae. Sed creatura quae consecuta est esse naturae a Deo, non potest seipsam conservare in esse naturae quin in nihilum decidat, nisi manu conditoris conservetur. Ergo aliquis qui est consecutus gratiam non potest per seipsum facere quin in peccatum mortale incidat. 4. The defect of sin is related to the existence deriving from grace as nothingness is related to natural existence. But a creature, which has obtained natural existence from God, cannot keep itself in natural existence without falling into nothingness unless it is conserved by the hand of its Creator. Consequently, a person who has obtained grace likewise cannot of himself keep from falling into mortal sin.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod dicitur II Corinth. cap. XII, 9: sufficit tibi gratia mea. Non autem sufficit, si per eam peccatum mortale vitare non possit. Ergo per gratiam homo peccatum mortale vitare potest. 1. In the second Epistle to the Corinthians (12:9) it is written: “My grace is sufficient for thee.” Now it would not suffice if mortal sin could not be avoided by its means. A man can therefore avoid mortal sin by means of grace.
Praeterea, hoc videtur ex verbis Magistri in II Sent., 25 dist., ubi sic dicit: post reparationem homo ante confirmationem premitur concupiscentia, sed non vincitur: et habet quidem infirmitatem in malo, sed gratiam in bono: ut possit peccare propter libertatem et infirmitatem, et possit non peccare ad mortem, propter libertatem et gratiam adiuvantem. 2. This is seen from the words of the Master: “After reparation before a man is confirmed in good he is pressed by concupiscence, but lie is not conquered. He has, to be sure, weakness in regard to evil, but grace in regard to good. As a result he is able to sin because of his freedom and weakness, and he is able not to sin mortally because of his freedom and helping grace.”
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod aliud est dicere, posse abstinere a peccato, et posse perseverare usque ad finem vitae in abstinentia a peccato. Cum enim dicitur aliquis posse abstinere a peccato, potentia fertur super negationem tantum ut scilicet aliquis possit non peccare; et hoc potest quilibet in gratia existens, loquendo de peccato mortali, quia habenti gratiam non inest aliqua habitualis inclinatio in peccatum; quin potius inest ei habitualis inclinatio ad vitandum peccatum. Et ideo, quando occurrit ei aliquid sub ratione peccati mortalis, ex habituali inclinatione dissentit ab illo, nisi in contrarium nitatur, concupiscentias sequendo: quas tamen non necesse habet sequi, etsi non possit vitare quando aliquis motus concupiscentiae insurgit praeveniens totaliter actum liberi arbitrii. Sic ergo, quia non potest facere quin aliquis motus concupiscentiae totaliter actum liberi arbitrii praeveniat, non potest omnia peccata venialia vitare. Quia vero nullus motus liberi arbitrii in eo praecedit plenam deliberationem pertrahens ad peccatum, quasi inclinatione habitus, ideo potest omnia peccata mortalia vitare. It is one thing to say that someone can abstain from sin and another to say that he can persevere until the end of his life in abstaining from sin. When it is said that someone can abstain from sin, emphasis is placed only upon the negation, as meaning that someone is able not to sin. And, when there is question of mortal sin, anyone in the state of grace is able to do this, because there is no habitual inclination to sin in one who has grace. Rather there is in him a habitual inclination to avoid sin. As soon as anything is presented to him under the aspect of mortal sin, therefore, because of his habitual inclination he refuses it consent, unless he makes an effort to the contrary, following his concupiscence. But there is no necessity of following it, even though he cannot avoid having some movement of concupiscence arise entirely preceding the act of free choice. Because, then, he cannot help having such movements, he is not able to avoid all venial sins. But because in him no movement of free choice precedes full deliberation, drawing him to sin as by the inclination of a habit, he is therefore able to avoid all mortal sins.
Sed cum dicitur: iste potest perseverare usque ad finem vitae in abstinentia peccati; potentia fertur ad aliquid affirmativum, ut scilicet aliquis ponat se in tali statu quod peccatum in eo esse non possit: aliter enim homo per actum liberi arbitrii non posset se facere perseverare, nisi se impeccabilem faceret. Hoc autem non cadit sub potestate liberi arbitrii, quia virtus motiva exequens ad hoc non se extendit. Et ideo homo causa perseverantiae sibi esse non potest, sed necesse habet perseverantiam a Deo petere. But when it is said that he can persevere in abstaining from sin up to the end of his life, the emphasis is placed upon something affirmative, meaning that a person places himself in a state such that sin cannot be in him; for in no other way could a man make himself persevere by the act of his free choice than by making himself impeccable. This, however, does not fall within the power of free choice, because the motive and executive power does not extend to this. Consequently, a man cannot be the cause of his own perseverance, but is under the necessity of begging for perseverance from God.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod apostolus secundum hoc orabat ut nihil mali facerent, in quantum ad perseverandum in abstinentia mali sufficere non possent nisi divino auxilio assistente. 1. The Apostle prayed that they do no evil in view of the fact that they could not succeed in persevering in abstinence from evil except with divine help.
Et similiter dicendum ad secundum. 2. The same is to be said in answer to this.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod perseverantia dupliciter dicitur. Quandoque enim est specialis virtus; et sic est quidam habitus, cuius actus est habere propositum firmiter operandi. Et sic perseverantiam habet omnis habens gratiam, quamvis non sit usque in finem perseveraturus. Alio modo accipitur perseverantia prout est circumstantia quaedam virtutis designans permanentiam virtutis usque in finem vitae. Et sic perseverantia non est in potestate habentis gratiam. 3. Perseverance is spoken of in two senses: (1) Sometimes it is a special virtue; and so it is a habit whose act is to have the determination to persevere unshakably. In this sense everyone who has grace has perseverance, even though he is in fact not going to persevere until the end. (2) Perseverance is taken as a particular circumstance of virtue designating the permanence of virtue up to the end of life. In this sense perseverance is not in the power of one who has grace.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod sicut cum loquimur de natura, non excludimus ea per quae natura conservatur in esse: ita cum loquimur de gratia, non excludimus divinam operationem conservantem gratiam in esse; sine qua nec in esse naturae nec in esse gratiae aliquis persistere valet. 4. When we speak of nature we do not exclude the things by which nature is kept in existence. In the same way, when we speak of grace we do not exclude the operation of God conserving grace in existence. Without God’s operation a person is not able to continue either in natural existence or in the existence deriving from grace.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE XIV

In the fourteenth article we ask:
Is free choice capable of good without grace?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 28, a. 1; and as in art. 13, especially S.T., I-II, 109, 9.]
Quartodecimo quaeritur utrum liberum arbitrium possit in bonum sine gratia Difficulties
Et videtur quod sic. It seems that it is, for
Quia praeceptum non datur de impossibili: unde Hieronymus, dicit: maledictus qui dicit, Deum homini aliquid impossibile praecepisse. Sed homini praecipitur ut bonum faciat. Ergo homo potest per liberum arbitrium bonum facere. 1. A commandment is not given about something impossible. Jerome says in this respect: “Cursed is he who says that God has commanded man to do anything impossible.” But man is commanded to do good. Man is therefore able to do good by his free choice.
Praeterea, nullus debet corripi si non faciat quod facere non potest. Sed homo iuste corripitur si omittat facere bonum. Ergo per liberum arbitrium homo bonum facere potest. 2. No one should be reprimanded if he does not do what he is not able to do. But a man is justly reprimanded if he omits doing good. Hence man is able by his free choice to do good.
Praeterea, homo per liberum arbitrium aliquo modo peccatum vitare potest, ad minus quantum ad unum singularem actum. Sed vitare peccatum est aliquod bonum. Ergo homo per liberum arbitrium potest aliquod bonum facere. 3. Man is able by his free choice to avoid sin to some extent, at least as regards a single act. But it is good to avoid sin. Man can therefore do something good by his free choice.
Praeterea, unaquaeque res magis potest in id quod est sibi naturale, quam in id quod est sibi contra naturam. Sed liberum arbitrium naturaliter ordinatur in bonum; peccatum autem est ei contra naturam. Ergo magis potest in bonum quam in malum. Sed potest in malum per seipsum. Ergo multo magis in bonum. 4. Everything is more capable of what is natural to it than of what is against its nature. But free choice is naturally ordained to good, and sin is against its nature. It is therefore more capable of good than of evil. But it is capable of evil by itself. Much more, then, is it capable of good.
Praeterea, creatura in se creatoris similitudinem retinet ratione vestigii, et multo magis ratione imaginis. Sed creator potest per seipsum bonum facere. Ergo et creatura; et praecipue liberum arbitrium, quod est ad imaginem. 5. A creature retains a likeness to the Creator by reason of the vestige, and much more by reason of the image. But the Creator can do good by Himself. Then so too can a creature, especially free choice, which pertains to the image.
Praeterea, secundum philosophum in II Ethic., per eadem corrumpitur virtus et generatur. Sed per liberum arbitrium potest virtus corrumpi; quia peccatum mortale, quod homo potest per liberum arbitrium facere, virtutem corrumpit. Ergo per liberum arbitrium homo potest in generationem boni, quod est virtus. 6. According to the Philosopher, it is by the same causes that virtue is destroyed and engendered. But by free choice virtue can be destroyed, because mortal sin, which a man can commit of his free choice, destroys virtue. By his free choice, then, man is capable of engendering the good which is virtue.
Praeterea, I Ioan. cap. V, 3, dicitur: mandata eius gravia non sunt. Sed illud quod non est grave, potest homo ex libero arbitrio facere. Ergo homo potest ex libero arbitrio mandata implere: quod maxime bonum est. 7. In the first Epistle of St. John (5:3) it is said: “His commandments are not heavy.” But what is not heavy man can do by his free choice. Man can therefore of his free choice fulfill the commandments, and that is good above all.
Praeterea, liberum arbitrium, secundum Anselmum in libro de libero arbitrio est potestas servandi rectitudinem voluntatis: quae non servatur nisi bene faciendo. Ergo per liberum arbitrium potest aliquis bonum facere. 8. According to Anselm free choice “is the power of preserving the rectitude of the will for its own sake. But the rectitude of the will is preserved only by doing good. A person can therefore do good by his free choice.
Praeterea, gratia est fortior quam peccatum. Sed gratia non ita ligat liberum arbitrium quin homo possit facere peccatum. Ergo nec peccatum ita ligat liberum arbitrium quin homo existens in peccato absque gratia possit facere bonum. 9. Grace is stronger than sin. But grace does not so bind free choice that man cannot commit sin. Then neither does sin so bind free choice that a man in the state of sin cannot do good without grace.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod dicitur Roman. cap. VII, 18: velle, adiacet mihi; perficere autem bonum, non invenio. Ergo homo per liberum arbitrium non potest facere bonum. 1. In the Epistle to the Romans (7:18) we read: “For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not.” Man therefore cannot do good by his free choice.
Praeterea, homo non potest facere bonum nisi vel actu interiori vel exteriori. Sed ad neutrum sufficit liberum arbitrium; quia, ut dicitur Rom. IX, 16, non est volentis, scilicet velle (quod pertinet ad interiorem actum), nec currentis, scilicet currere (quod pertinet ad exteriorem), sed miserentis Dei. Ergo liberum arbitrium sine gratia nullo modo potest facere bonum. 2. Man can do good only by an external or an internal act. But free choice does not suffice for either; for, as is said in the Epistle to the Romans (9: 16): “It is not of him that wills”; i.e., to will, which refers to the internal act, [is not in his power]; “nor of him that runs”; i.e., to run., which refers to the external act; “but of God that shows mercy.”Free choice without grace can therefore in no way do good.
Praeterea, Rom. VII, 15, super illud: quod odi malum, illud facio, dicit Glossa: naturaliter quidem homo vult bonum; sed voluntas hoc semper caret effectu, si sine gratia Dei suum velle addiderit. Ergo sine gratia homo non potest efficere bonum. 3. Commenting on the words of the Epistle to the Romans (7:15): “The evil which I hate, that I do,” the Gloss says: “Man wills good naturally, to be sure; but this will always is without effect unless God’s grace has strengthened his act of willing.” Without grace, then, man cannot accomplish any good.
Praeterea, cogitatio boni operationem boni praecedit, ut patet ex philosopho in II Ethicorum. Sed homo non potest cogitare bonum per seipsum, quia dicitur II Corinth. cap. III, 5: non quod sufficientes simus cogitare aliquid a nobis, quasi ex nobis. Ergo non potest homo per seipsum bonum operari. 4. The thought of good precedes the doing of good, as the Philosopher makes clear. But man cannot think anything good by himself; for it is said in the second Epistle to the Corinthians (3:5): “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves.” Hence man cannot do good by himself.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod nulla res agit ultra suam speciem; sed secundum exigentiam suae speciei unaquaeque res agere potest, cum nulla res propria actione destituatur. Nothing acts outside the limits of its own species. But everything can act according to the requirements of its species, since nothing is deprived of its proper activity.
Est autem duplex bonum: quoddam quod est humanae naturae proportionatum; quoddam vero quod excedit humanae naturae facultatem. Et haec duo bona, si de actibus loquamur, non differunt secundum substantiam actus, sed secundum modum agendi: utpote iste actus qui est dare eleemosynam, est bonum proportionatum viribus humanis, secundum quod ex quadam naturali dilectione vel benignitate homo ad hoc movetur; excedit autem humanae naturae facultatem, secundum quod ad hoc homo inducitur ex caritate, quae mentem hominis Deo unit. Now there are two kinds of good, one which is proportioned to human nature, and another which is beyond the ability of human nature. If we are speaking of acts, these two kinds of good do not differ in the substance of the act but in the manner of acting. Take, for instance, the act of giving alms. It is a good proportioned to human powers in so far as a man is moved to it by a certain natural love or kindness; but it is beyond the ability of human nature in so far as a man is led to it by charity, which unites man’s heart to God.
Ad hoc ergo bonum quod est supra naturam humanam, constat liberum arbitrium non posse sine gratia; quia, cum per huiusmodi bonum homo vitam aeternam meretur, constat quod sine gratia homo mereri non potest. Illud autem bonum quod est naturae humanae proportionatum, potest homo per liberum arbitrium explere; unde dicit Augustinus quod homo per liberum arbitrium potest agros colere, domos aedificare, et alia plura bona facere sine gratia operante. It is apparent that without grace free choice is incapable of the kind of good which is above human nature; and—because it is by this kind of good that man merits eternal life—it is apparent that man cannot merit without grace. The kind of good which is proportioned to human nature, however, man can accomplish by his free choice. Augustine accordingly says that man can cultivate fields, build houses, and do a number of other things by his free choice without actual grace.
Quamvis autem huiusmodi bona homo possit facere sine gratia gratum faciente, non tamen potest ea facere sine Deo; cum nulla res possit in naturalem operationem exire nisi virtute divina, quia causa secunda non agit nisi per virtutem causae primae, ut dicitur in Lib. de causis. Et hoc verum est tam in naturalibus agentibus quam in voluntariis. Tamen hoc alio modo habet necessitatem in utrisque. Although man can perform good actions of this kind without ingratiatory grace, he cannot perform them without God, since nothing can enter upon its natural operation except by the divine power, because a secondary cause acts only by the power of the first cause, as is said in The Causes. This is true of both natural and voluntary agents. Yet it is verified in a different way in either case.
Operationis enim naturalis Deus est causa, in quantum dat et conservat id quod est principium naturalis operationis in re, ex quo de necessitate determinata operatio sequitur; sicut dum conservat gravitatem in terra, quae est principium motus deorsum. Sed voluntas hominis non est determinata ad aliquam unam operationem, sed se habet indifferenter ad multas; et sic quodammodo est in potentia, nisi mota per aliquid activum: vel quod ei exterius repraesentatur, sicut est bonum apprehensum; vel quod in ea interius operatur, sicut est ipse Deus; ut Augustinus dicit in Lib. de gratia et libero Arbitr., ostendens multipliciter Deum operari in cordibus hominum. Omnes autem exteriores motus a divina providentia moderantur, secundum quod ipse iudicat aliquem esse excitandum ad bonum his vel illis actionibus. Unde, si gratiam Dei velimus dicere non aliquod habituale donum, sed ipsam misericordiam Dei, per quam interius motum mentis operatur, et exteriora ordinat ad hominis salutem; sic nec ullum bonum homo potest facere sine gratia Dei. Sed communiter loquentes utuntur nomine gratiae pro aliquo dono habituali iustificante. Et sic patet quod utraeque rationes aliquo modo falsum concludunt; et ideo ad utrasque respondendum est. In natural beings God is the cause of their natural operation inasmuch as He gives and conserves the intrinsic principle of their natural operation, and from that principle a determined operation flows of necessity. In the element earth, for example, He conserves its heaviness, which is the principle of its motion downward. But man’s will is not determined to any particular operation but remains indifferent in regard to many. It is thus in some sense in potency unless it is moved by an activating principle, which is either something presented to it from the outside, such as an apprehended good, or something which works within it interiorly, as God Himself. Augustine explains this, showing that God works in the hearts of men in many ways. All external motions, moreover, are also governed by divine providence, according as God judges that someone is to be aroused to good by such and such particular actions. Should we wish, accordingly, to call the grace of God, not a habitual gift, but the very mercy of God by which He interiorly moves the mind and arranges external conditions for man’s salvation, in this sense also man cannot do any good without God’s grace. But commonly speaking, we use the name of grace for a habitual gift which justifies. It is accordingly clear that each set of reasons comes to a conclusion in some sense false. Consequently answers must be given to both.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod illud quod praecipit Deus, non est impossibile homini ad servandum, quia et substantiam actus potest ex libero arbitrio servare, et modum quo elevatur supra facultatem naturae, prout scilicet fit ex caritate, potest servare ex dono gratiae, quamvis non ex solo libero arbitrio. 1. What God commands is not impossible for man to observe; for the substance of the act can be observed by his free choice; and the prescribed manner—by which the act is raised above the ability of nature, that is, in so far as it is done from charity, can be observed by a gift of grace, though not by man’s free choice alone.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod recte homo corripitur qui praecepta non implet; quia ex eius negligentia est quod gratiam non habet, per quam potest servare mandata quantum ad modum; cum possit nihilominus per liberum arbitrium ea servare quantum ad substantiam. 2. A man who does not fulfill the commandments is rightly reprimanded, because it is by reason of his negligence that he does not have the grace by which he can observe the commandments even as to the manner (since he could, even without grace, observe them as to their substance).
Ad tertium dicendum, quod faciendo actum de genere bonorum, homo vitat peccatum, quamvis non mereatur praemium; et ideo, licet per liberum arbitrium aliquod peccatum homo possit vitare, non tamen sequitur quod in bonum meritorium possit per liberum arbitrium solum. 3. By performing an act that is good generically man avoids sin, though he does not merit a reward. Consequently, even though man can avoid a particular sin by his free choice, it still does not follow that he is capable of any meritorious good by his free choice alone.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod in bonum quod est connaturale homini, homo potest per liberum arbitrium; sed bonum meritorium est supra naturam eius, ut dictum est, in corp. art. 4. By his free choice man is capable of a good which is natural to him; but a meritorious good is above his nature, as has been said.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod quamvis in creatura sit similitudo creatoris, non tamen perfecta; hoc enim solius filii est; et ideo non oportet quod quidquid in Deo invenitur, in creatura inveniatur. 5. Although in a creature there is a likeness to the Creator, it is not perfect. Such a likeness is exclusively proper to the Son. It is therefore not necessary that whatever is found in God be found in a creature.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod philosophus loquitur de virtute politica, quae ex actibus acquiritur, non autem de virtute infusa, quae sola est principium actus meritorii. 6. The Philosopher is speaking of political virtue, which is acquired by acts; not of infused virtue, which is the only principle of a meritorious act.
Ad septimum dicendum, quod sicut dicit Augustinus in Lib. de natura et gratia, praecepta Dei intelliguntur esse levia amori, quae sunt dura timori; unde non sequitur quod ea possit implere perfecte, nisi caritatem habens; non habens autem caritatem, etsi possit aliquod unum implere quantum ad substantiam et cum difficultate; non tamen potest implere omnia, sicut nec omnia peccata vitare. 7. As Augustine says, the commandments of God are understood to be easy for love but hard for fear. It accordingly does not follow that they can be fulfilled perfectly by anyone but a person having charity. Though a person without charity could fulfill a particular one as to its substance and with difficulty, he could not fulfill all, just as he could not avoid all sins.
Ad octavum dicendum, quod etsi liberum arbitrium potest servare rectitudinem habitam, non tamen quando eam non habet. 8. Though free choice can keep the rectitude which it has, it cannot keep it when it does not have it.
Ad nonum dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium non indiget ligatione ad hoc quod in bonum meritorium non possit, quia eius naturam excedit; sicut homo, etiam si non ligetur, volare non potest. 9. Free choice does not need to be bound for it to be incapable of meritorious good, since this is beyond its nature, just as a man is incapable of flying even if he is not bound.
Answers to Contrary Difficulties
Ad ea vero quae sunt in contrarium, patet solutio; quia vel procedunt de bono meritorio, vel ostendunt quod sine operatione Dei, homo nullum bonum facere potest. The answers to these are clear, because they are either arguing on the basis of meritorious good, or they show that man can do no good without the operation of God.
Q. 24: Free Choice

ARTICLE XV

In the fifteenth article we ask:
Can man without grace prepare himself to have grace?

[ARTICLE II Sent., 5, 2, 1; 28, a. 4; IV Sent., 17, 1, 2 sol. 2; C.G., III, 149; In Hebr., c. 12, lect. 3 (P 13:778a); Quodl. I, (4), 7; S.T., I, 62, 2; I-II, 109, 6; In Joan., c. 1, lect. 6 (P 10:302b-303a).]
Quintodecimo quaeritur utrum homo sine gratia se possit praeparare ad habendum gratiam Difficulties
Et videtur quod sic. It seems that he can, for
Quia frustra inducitur homo ad hoc quod facere non potest. Sed homo inducitur ad hoc quod se ad gratiam praeparet Zachar. c. I, 3: convertimini ad me (...) et ego convertar ad vos. Ergo homo sine gratia se potest ad gratiam praeparare. 1. It is useless to exhort a man to something which he is unable to do. But man is exhorted to prepare himself for grace (Zacharias 1: 3): “Turn yet to me...: and I will turn to you.” Man without grace can therefore prepare himself for grace.
Praeterea, hoc videtur ex hoc quod habetur Apocal. III, 20: si quis aperuerit mihi intrabo ad eum. Ergo videtur quod ad hominem pertineat aperire cor suum Deo, quod est se ad gratiam praeparare. 2. This is seen from the words of the Apocalypse (3:20): “If any man shall... open to me the door, I will come in to him.” It appears, then, that it is man’s business to open his heart to God—which means to prepare himself for grace.
Praeterea, secundum Anselmum, causa quare aliquis non habet gratiam, non est quia Deus eam non det, sed quia homo eam non accipit. Hoc autem non esset, si homo ad gratiam habendam sine gratia praeparare se non posset. Ergo homo se potest per liberum arbitrium ad gratiam praeparare. 3. According to Anselm, the reason why a person does not have grace is not that God does not give it, but that man does not accept it. But this would not be true if man were not able without grace to prepare himself to have grace. Man can therefore by his free choice prepare for grace.
Praeterea, Isa. I, 19, dicitur: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis; et ita in voluntate hominis est ut ad Deum accedat, et gratia repleatur. 4. It is written in Isaiah (1:19): “If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land.” It accordingly depends upon man’s will to approach God and be filled with grace.
Sed contra. To the Contrary
Est quod dicitur Ioann. VI, vers. 44: nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater, qui misit me, traxerit illum. 1. It is written (John 6:44): “No man can come to me, except the Father, who has sent me, draw him.”
Praeterea, in Psalm. XLII, 3, dicitur: emitte lucem tuam, et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt. 2. It is said in the Psalm (47:3): “Send forth your light and your truth: they have conducted me...”
Praeterea, orando, a Deo petimus ut nos ad se convertat, ut patet in Ps. LXXXIV, 5: converte nos, Deus, salutaris noster. Non autem esset necesse ut homo hoc peteret, si per liberum arbitrium se praeparare ad gratiam posset. Ergo videtur quod sine gratia hoc non possit. 3. In praying we ask of God to convert us to Himself, as is shown in the Psalm (84:5): “Convert us, O God our saviour...” But it would not be necessary for man to ask this if he could by his free choice prepare himself for grace. It therefore seems that without grace man cannot do so.
Respondeo. REPLY
Dicendum, quod quidam dicunt quod homo non potest se praeparare ad gratiam habendam nisi per aliquam gratiam gratis datam. Quod quidem non videtur esse verum, si per gratiam gratis datam intelligant aliquod habituale gratiae donum, duplici ratione. Some say that man cannot prepare himself to have grace except through a gratuitous grace. But this does not seem to be true if by a gratuitous grace they mean some habitual gift of grace; and this for two reasons:
Primo quidem, quia propter hoc ponitur praeparatio ad gratiam necessaria, ut ostendatur aliqualis ratio ex parte nostra, ex qua quibusdam datur gratia gratum faciens, quibusdam non. Si autem nec ipsa praeparatio gratiae sine aliqua gratia habituali esse potest: aut ista gratia datur omnibus, aut non. Si omnibus datur, non videtur aliud esse quam aliquod naturale donum; nam in nullo inveniuntur omnes homines convenire nisi in aliquo naturali: ipsa autem naturalia gratiae dici possunt, in quantum nullis praecedentibus meritis homini a Deo dantur. Si autem non omnibus datur, oportebit iterum ad praeparationem redire, et eadem ratione aliquam aliam gratiam ponere, et sic in infinitum; et ita melius est ut stetur in primo. (1) Because the whole reason for speaking of the preparation necessary for grace is to point out some sort of reason on our part why ingratiatory grace is given to some and not to others. Now if there cannot even be this preparation for grace without some habitual grace, either that grace is given to all or it is not. If it is given to all, it does not seem to be any different from a natural gift; for there is no respect in which all men are found to agree except in what is natural; but even natural gifts can be called graces inasmuch as they are given to man by God without any previous merits on man’s part. If they are not given to all, however, we shall have to return to the preparation again and for the same reason posit some other grace, and so on to infinity. And so it is better to stop at the first stage.
Secundo, quia praeparare se ad gratiam, alio modo dicitur facere quod in se est; sicut est consuetum dici, quod si homo facit quod in se est, Deus dat ei gratiam. Hoc autem dicitur in aliquo esse, quod est in potestate eius. Unde, si homo per liberum arbitrium non potest se ad gratiam praeparare, facere quod in se est, non erit praeparare se ad gratiam. (2) Because to prepare oneself for grace is just another way of saying: to do what one is capable of—as it is commonly said that, if a man does what he is capable of, God gives him grace. But a man is said to be capable of that which is within his power. If, then, a man is not able by his free choice to prepare himself for grace, to do what one is capable of will not mean to prepare oneself for grace.
Si autem per gratiam gratis datam intelligant divinam providentiam, qua misericorditer homo ad bonum dirigitur; sic verum est quod sine gratia homo non potest se praeparare ad habendum gratiam gratum facientem. Quod quidem patet duplici ratione. If, on the other hand, those who hold this opinion mean by gratuitous grace the divine providence by which a man is mercifully directed to good, then it is true that without grace man cannot prepare himself to have ingratiatory grace. And this is evident for two reasons:
Primo, quia impossibile est hominem incipere aliquid de novo, nisi sit aliquid quod ipsum moveat; sicut patet per philosophum, in VIII Phys., quod motus animalium post quietem necesse est praecedere alios motus, quibus anima excitatur ad agendum. Et sic, cum homo se ad gratiam incipit praeparare, de novo voluntatem suam convertendo ad Deum, oportet quod ad hoc inducatur aliquibus exterioribus actionibus, utpote exteriori admonitione, aut corporali aegritudine, aut aliquo huiusmodi; vel aliquo interiori instinctu, secundum quod Deus in mentibus hominum operatur; vel etiam utroque modo. Haec autem omnia ex divina misericordia homini providentur; et sic ex divina misericordia contingit quod homo se ad gratiam praeparet. (1) Because it is impossible for a man to begin to will something originally unless there is something to move him. It is as the Philosopher explains when he says that the movements of animals after rest must be preceded by other movements by which the soul is aroused to action. Thus, when a man begins to prepare himself for grace by turning his will to God for the first time, he must be brought to this by some external occasions, such as an external admonition or a bodily sickness or something of the sort, or else by some interior instinct, as God works in the hearts of men, or even in both ways together. All of this, however, is taken care of for man by divine providence; and so it comes about by divine mercy that man prepares himself for grace.
Secundo, quia non qualiscumque motus voluntatis est sufficiens praeparatio ad gratiam, sicut nec qualiscumque dolor sufficit ad remissionem peccati; sed oportet esse aliquem determinatum modum. Qui quidem modus homini notus esse non potest, cum ipsum donum gratiae cognitionem hominis excedat: non enim potest sciri modus praeparationis ad formam, nisi forma ipsa cognoscatur. Quandocumque autem ad aliquid faciendum requiritur aliquis certus modus operationis ignotus operanti, operans indiget gubernante et dirigente. (2) Because not any movement whatsoever of the will is a sufficient preparation for grace, just as not any sorrow whatsoever suffices for the forgiveness of sins, but it must occur in a definite manner. And this cannot be known by man, since even the gift of grace surpasses human knowledge. The manner of preparation for a form cannot be known unless the form itself is known. But whenever a definite manner of acting which is unknown to the agent is required for doing something, he needs someone to govern and direct him.
Unde patet quod liberum arbitrium non potest se ad gratiam praeparare, nisi ad hoc divinitus dirigatur. Et propter has duas rationes duplici modo loquendi in Scripturis Deus exoratur ut hanc praeparationem gratiae in nobis operetur. Uno modo petendo quod nos convertat, quasi ab eo in quo erramus, ad se convertat; et hoc propter primam rationem, ut cum dicitur: converte nos, Deus, salutaris noster.- Secundo, petendo quod nos dirigat, ut cum dicitur: dirige me in veritate tua; et hoc propter secundam rationem. It is accordingly evident that free choice cannot prepare itself for grace unless it is divinely directed to this end. And because of the two reasons given, God is supplicated in two different ways in the Scriptures to work this preparation for grace in us: (1) By asking that He convert us, turning us from the state in which we were to Himself, as when it is written (Psalm 84:5): “Convert us, 0 God, our salvation.” This is because of the first reason. (2) By asking that he direct us, as when it is written (Psalm 24:5): “Direct me in your truth.” This is because of the second reason.
Answers to Difficulties
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod videtur nobis quod convertamus nos ad Deum, quia hoc facere possumus, sed non sine divino auxilio: unde ab eo petimus, Thren. V, 21: converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur. 1. We are told to turn to God because we can do this, but not without divine help. We accordingly beg of Him (Lamentations 5:21): “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted.”
Ad secundum dicendum, quod nos aperire cor nostrum Deo possumus, sed non sine divino auxilio; unde ab eo petitur, II Machab. c. I, 4: adaperiat dominus cor vestrum in lege sua et in praeceptis suis, et faciat pacem. 2. We can open our hearts to God, but not without His help. For this reason we beg of Him (2 Machabees 1:4): “May he open your heart...”
Et sic dicendum est ad alia: nam nec praeparare nec velle homo potest, nisi hoc Deus in eo operetur, ut dictum est, in corp. art. 3-4. The same is to be said in answer to these; for man can neither prepare nor will unless God brings this about in him, as has been said.