Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de divisione gratiae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. | We must now consider the division of grace; under which head there are five points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum convenienter dividatur gratia per gratiam gratis datam et gratiam gratum facientem. |
(1) Whether grace is fittingly divided into gratuitous grace and sanctifying grace? |
| Secundo, de divisione gratiae gratum facientis per operantem et cooperantem. | (2) Of the division into operating and cooperating grace; |
| Tertio, de divisione eiusdem per gratiam praevenientem et subsequentem. | (3) Of the division of it into prevenient and subsequent grace; |
| Quarto, de divisione gratiae gratis datae. | (4) Of the division of gratuitous grace; |
| Quinto, de comparatione gratiae gratum facientis et gratis datae. | (5) Of the comparison between sanctifying and gratuitous grace. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gratia non convenienter dividatur per gratiam gratum facientem et gratiam gratis datam. Gratia enim est quoddam Dei donum, ut ex supradictis patet. Homo autem ideo non est Deo gratus quia aliquid est ei datum a Deo, sed potius e converso, ideo enim aliquid datur alicui gratis a Deo, quia est homo gratus ei. Ergo nulla est gratia gratum faciens. |
Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into sanctifying grace and gratuitous grace. For grace is a gift of God, as is clear from what has been already stated (Question [110], Article [1]). But man is not therefore pleasing to God because something is given him by God, but rather on the contrary; since something is freely given by God, because man is pleasing to Him. Hence there is no sanctifying grace. |
| Praeterea, quaecumque non dantur ex meritis praecedentibus, dantur gratis. Sed etiam ipsum bonum naturae datur homini absque merito praecedenti, quia natura praesupponitur ad meritum. Ergo ipsa natura est etiam gratis data a Deo. Natura autem dividitur contra gratiam. Inconvenienter igitur hoc quod est gratis datum, ponitur ut gratiae differentia, quia invenitur etiam extra gratiae genus. | Objection 2: Further, whatever is not given on account of preceding merits is given gratis. Now even natural good is given to man without preceding merit, since nature is presupposed to merit. Therefore nature itself is given gratuitously by God. But nature is condivided with grace. Therefore to be gratuitously given is not fittingly set down as a difference of grace, since it is found outside the genus of grace. |
| Praeterea, omnis divisio debet esse per opposita. Sed etiam ipsa gratia gratum faciens, per quam iustificamur, gratis nobis a Deo conceditur; secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Ergo gratia gratum faciens non debet dividi contra gratiam gratis datam. | Objection 3: Further, members of a division are mutually opposed. But even sanctifying grace, whereby we are justified, is given to us gratuitously, according to Rm. 3:24: "Being justified freely [gratis] by His grace." Hence sanctifying grace ought not to be divided against gratuitous grace. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus utrumque attribuit gratiae, scilicet et gratum facere, et esse gratis datum. Dicit enim quantum ad primum, ad Ephes. I, gratificavit nos in dilecto filio suo. Quantum vero ad secundum, dicitur ad Rom. XI, si autem gratia, iam non ex operibus, alioquin gratia iam non est gratia. Potest ergo distingui gratia quae vel habet unum tantum, vel utrumque. |
On the contrary, The Apostle attributes both to grace, viz. to sanctify and to be gratuitously given. For with regard to the first he says (Eph. 1:6): "He hath graced us in His beloved son." And with regard to the second (Rm. 2:6): "And if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise grace is no more grace." Therefore grace can be distinguished by its having one only or both. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Rom. XIII, quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. In hoc autem ordo rerum consistit, quod quaedam per alia in Deum reducuntur; ut Dionysius dicit, in Cael. Hier. Cum igitur gratia ad hoc ordinetur ut homo reducatur in Deum, ordine quodam hoc agitur, ut scilicet quidam per alios in Deum reducantur. |
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1), "those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'those that are, are ordained by God]." Now the order of things consists in this, that things are led to God by other things, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). And hence since grace is ordained to lead men to God, this takes place in a certain order, so that some are led to God by others. |
| Secundum hoc igitur duplex est gratia. Una quidem per quam ipse homo Deo coniungitur, quae vocatur gratia gratum faciens. Alia vero per quam unus homo cooperatur alteri ad hoc quod ad Deum reducatur. Huiusmodi autem donum vocatur gratia gratis data, quia supra facultatem naturae, et supra meritum personae, homini conceditur, sed quia non datur ad hoc ut homo ipse per eam iustificetur, sed potius ut ad iustificationem alterius cooperetur, ideo non vocatur gratum faciens. Et de hac dicit apostolus, I ad Cor. XII, unicuique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem, scilicet aliorum. |
And thus there is a twofold grace: one whereby man himself is united to God, and this is called "sanctifying grace"; the other is that whereby one man cooperates with another in leading him to God, and this gift is called "gratuitous grace," since it is bestowed on a man beyond the capability of nature, and beyond the merit of the person. But whereas it is bestowed on a man, not to justify him, but rather that he may cooperate in the justification of another, it is not called sanctifying grace. And it is of this that the Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:7): "And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto utility," i.e. of others. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gratia non dicitur facere gratum effective, sed formaliter, scilicet quia per hanc homo iustificatur, et dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus; secundum quod dicitur ad Coloss. I, dignos nos fecit in partem sortis sanctorum in lumine. | Reply to Objection 1: Grace is said to make pleasing, not efficiently but formally, i.e. because thereby a man is justified, and is made worthy to be called pleasing to God, according to Col. 1:21: "He hath made us worthy to be made partakers of the lot of the saints in light." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia, secundum quod gratis datur, excludit rationem debiti. Potest autem intelligi duplex debitum. Unum quidem ex merito proveniens, quod refertur ad personam, cuius est agere meritoria opera; secundum illud ad Rom. IV, ei qui operatur, merces imputatur secundum debitum, non secundum gratiam. Aliud est debitum ex conditione naturae, puta si dicamus debitum esse homini quod habeat rationem et alia quae ad humanam pertinent naturam. Neutro autem modo dicitur debitum propter hoc quod Deus creaturae obligatur, sed potius inquantum creatura debet subiici Deo ut in ea divina ordinatio impleatur, quae quidem est ut talis natura tales conditiones vel proprietates habeat, et quod talia operans talia consequatur. Dona igitur naturalia carent primo debito, non autem carent secundo debito. Sed dona supernaturalia utroque debito carent, et ideo specialius sibi nomen gratiae vindicant. | Reply to Objection 2: Grace, inasmuch as it is gratuitously given, excludes the notion of debt. Now debt may be taken in two ways: first, as arising from merit; and this regards the person whose it is to do meritorious works, according to Rm. 4:4: "Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt." The second debt regards the condition of nature. Thus we say it is due to a man to have reason, and whatever else belongs to human nature. Yet in neither way is debt taken to mean that God is under an obligation to His creature, but rather that the creature ought to be subject to God, that the Divine ordination may be fulfilled in it, which is that a certain nature should have certain conditions or properties, and that by doing certain works it should attain to something further. And hence natural endowments are not a debt in the first sense but in the second. Hence they especially merit the name of grace. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod gratia gratum faciens addit aliquid supra rationem gratiae gratis datae quod etiam ad rationem gratiae pertinet, quia scilicet hominem gratum facit Deo. Et ideo gratia gratis data, quae hoc non facit, retinet sibi nomen commune, sicut in pluribus aliis contingit. Et sic opponuntur duae partes divisionis sicut gratum faciens et non faciens gratum. | Reply to Objection 3: Sanctifying grace adds to the notion of gratuitous grace something pertaining to the nature of grace, since it makes man pleasing to God. And hence gratuitous grace which does not do this keeps the common name, as happens in many other cases; and thus the two parts of the division are opposed as sanctifying and non-sanctifying grace. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gratia inconvenienter dividatur per operantem et cooperantem. Gratia enim accidens quoddam est, ut supra dictum est. Sed accidens non potest agere in subiectum. Ergo nulla gratia debet dici operans. |
Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace. For grace is an accident, as stated above (Question [110], Article [2]). Now no accident can act upon its subject. Therefore no grace can be called operating. |
| Praeterea, si gratia aliquid operetur in nobis, maxime operatur iustificationem. Sed hoc non sola gratia operatur in nobis, dicit enim Augustinus, super illud Ioan. XIV, opera quae ego facio, et ipse faciet, qui creavit te sine te, non iustificabit te sine te. Ergo nulla gratia debet dici simpliciter operans. | Objection 2: Further, if grace operates anything in us it assuredly brings about justification. But not only grace works this. For Augustine says, on Jn. 14:12, "the works that I do he also shall do," says (Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee without thyself, will not justify thee without thyself." Therefore no grace ought to be called simply operating. |
| Praeterea, cooperari alicui videtur pertinere ad inferius agens, non autem ad principalius. Sed gratia principalius operatur in nobis quam liberum arbitrium; secundum illud Rom. IX, non est volentis neque currentis, sed miserentis Dei. Ergo gratia non debet dici cooperans. | Objection 3: Further, to cooperate seems to pertain to the inferior agent, and not to the principal agent. But grace works in us more than free-will, according to Rm. 9:16: "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Therefore no grace ought to be called cooperating. |
| Praeterea, divisio debet dari per opposita. Sed operari et cooperari non sunt opposita, idem enim potest operari et cooperari. Ergo inconvenienter dividitur gratia per operantem et cooperantem. | Objection 4: Further, division ought to rest on opposition. But to operate and to cooperate are not opposed; for one and the same thing can both operate and cooperate. Therefore grace is not fittingly divided into operating and cooperating. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Grat. et Lib. Arb., cooperando Deus in nobis perficit quod operando incipit, quia ipse ut velimus operatur incipiens, qui volentibus cooperatur perficiens. Sed operationes Dei quibus movet nos ad bonum, ad gratiam pertinent. Ergo convenienter gratia dividitur per operantem et cooperantem. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. xvii): "God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, beings by operating that they may will." But the operations of God whereby He moves us to good pertain to grace. Therefore grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, gratia dupliciter potest intelligi, uno modo, divinum auxilium quo nos movet ad bene volendum et agendum; alio modo, habituale donum nobis divinitus inditum. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [110], Article [2]) grace may be taken in two ways; first, as a Divine help, whereby God moves us to will and to act; secondly, as a habitual gift divinely bestowed on us. |
| Utroque autem modo gratia dicta convenienter dividitur per operantem et cooperantem. Operatio enim alicuius effectus non attribuitur mobili, sed moventi. In illo ergo effectu in quo mens nostra est mota et non movens, solus autem Deus movens, operatio Deo attribuitur, et secundum hoc dicitur gratia operans. In illo autem effectu in quo mens nostra et movet et movetur, operatio non solum attribuitur Deo, sed etiam animae, et secundum hoc dicitur gratia cooperans. Est autem in nobis duplex actus. Primus quidem, interior voluntatis. Et quantum ad istum actum, voluntas se habet ut mota, Deus autem ut movens, et praesertim cum voluntas incipit bonum velle quae prius malum volebat. Et ideo secundum quod Deus movet humanam mentem ad hunc actum, dicitur gratia operans. Alius autem actus est exterior; qui cum a voluntate imperetur, ut supra habitum est, consequens est ut ad hunc actum operatio attribuatur voluntati. Et quia etiam ad hunc actum Deus nos adiuvat, et interius confirmando voluntatem ut ad actum perveniat, et exterius facultatem operandi praebendo; respectu huius actus dicitur gratia cooperans. Unde post praemissa verba subdit Augustinus, ut autem velimus operatur, cum autem volumus, ut perficiamus nobis cooperatur. Sic igitur si gratia accipiatur pro gratuita Dei motione qua movet nos ad bonum meritorium, convenienter dividitur gratia per operantem et cooperantem. |
Now in both these ways grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating. For the operation of an effect is not attributed to the thing moved but to the mover. Hence in that effect in which our mind is moved and does not move, but in which God is the sole mover, the operation is attributed to God, and it is with reference to this that we speak of "operating grace." But in that effect in which our mind both moves and is moved, the operation is not only attributed to God, but also to the soul; and it is with reference to this that we speak of "cooperating grace." Now there is a double act in us. First, there is the interior act of the will, and with regard to this act the will is a thing moved, and God is the mover; and especially when the will, which hitherto willed evil, begins to will good. And hence, inasmuch as God moves the human mind to this act, we speak of operating grace. But there is another, exterior act; and since it is commanded by the will, as was shown above (Question [17], Article [9]) the operation of this act is attributed to the will. And because God assists us in this act, both by strengthening our will interiorly so as to attain to the act, and by granting outwardly the capability of operating, it is with respect to this that we speak of cooperating grace. Hence after the aforesaid words Augustine subjoins: "He operates that we may will; and when we will, He cooperates that we may perfect." And thus if grace is taken for God's gratuitous motion whereby He moves us to meritorious good, it is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace. |
| Si vero accipiatur gratia pro habituali dono, sic etiam duplex est gratiae effectus, sicut et cuiuslibet alterius formae, quorum primus est esse, secundus est operatio; sicut caloris operatio est facere calidum, et exterior calefactio. Sic igitur habitualis gratia, inquantum animam sanat vel iustificat, sive gratam Deo facit, dicitur gratia operans, inquantum vero est principium operis meritorii, quod etiam ex libero arbitrio procedit, dicitur cooperans. | But if grace is taken for the habitual gift, then again there is a double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of which is "being," and the second, "operation"; thus the work of heat is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum quod gratia est quaedam qualitas accidentalis, non agit in animam effective; sed formaliter, sicut albedo dicitur facere albam superficiem. | Reply to Objection 1: Inasmuch as grace is a certain accidental quality, it does not act upon the soul efficiently, but formally, as whiteness makes a surface white. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non sine nobis nos iustificat, quia per motum liberi arbitrii, dum iustificamur, Dei iustitiae consentimus. Ille tamen motus non est causa gratiae, sed effectus. Unde tota operatio pertinet ad gratiam. | Reply to Objection 2: God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God's justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod cooperari dicitur aliquis alicui non solum sicut secundarium agens principali agenti, sed sicut adiuvans ad praesuppositum finem. Homo autem per gratiam operantem adiuvatur a Deo ut bonum velit. Et ideo, praesupposito iam fine, consequens est ut gratia nobis cooperetur. | Reply to Objection 3: One thing is said to cooperate with another not merely when it is a secondary agent under a principal agent, but when it helps to the end intended. Now man is helped by God to will the good, through the means of operating grace. And hence, the end being already intended, grace cooperates with us. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod gratia operans et cooperans est eadem gratia, sed distinguitur secundum diversos effectus, ut ex dictis patet. | Reply to Objection 4: Operating and cooperating grace are the same grace; but are distinguished by their different effects, as is plain from what has been said. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod gratia inconvenienter dividatur in praevenientem et subsequentem. Gratia enim est divinae dilectionis effectus. Sed Dei dilectio nunquam est subsequens, sed semper praeveniens; secundum illud I Ioan. IV, non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, sed quia ipse prior dilexit nos. Ergo gratia non debet poni praeveniens et subsequens. | Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent. For grace is an effect of the Divine love. But God's love is never subsequent, but always prevenient, according to 1 Jn. 4:10: "Not as though we had loved God, but because He hath first loved us." Therefore grace ought not to be divided into prevenient and subsequent. |
| Praeterea, gratia gratum faciens est una tantum in homine, cum sit sufficiens, secundum illud II ad Cor. XII, sufficit tibi gratia mea. Sed idem non potest esse prius et posterius. Ergo gratia inconvenienter dividitur in praevenientem et subsequentem. | Objection 2: Further, there is but one sanctifying grace in man, since it is sufficient, according to 2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for thee." But the same thing cannot be before and after. Therefore grace is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent. |
| Praeterea, gratia cognoscitur per effectus. Sed infiniti sunt effectus gratiae, quorum unus praecedit alium. Ergo si penes hoc gratia deberet dividi in praevenientem et subsequentem, videtur quod infinitae essent species gratiae. Infinita autem relinquuntur a qualibet arte. Non ergo gratia convenienter dividitur in praevenientem et subsequentem. | Objection 3: Further, grace is known by its effects. Now there are an infinite number of effects—one preceding another. Hence it with regard to these, grace must be divided into prevenient and subsequent, it would seem that there are infinite species of grace. Now no art takes note of the infinite in number. Hence grace is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent. |
| Sed contra est quod gratia Dei ex eius misericordia provenit. Sed utrumque in Psalmo legitur, misericordia eius praeveniet me; et iterum, misericordia eius subsequetur me. Ergo gratia convenienter dividitur in praevenientem et subsequentem. | On the contrary, God's grace is the outcome of His mercy. Now both are said in Ps. 58:11: "His mercy shall prevent me," and again, Ps. 22:6: "Thy mercy will follow me." Therefore grace is fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut gratia dividitur in operantem et cooperantem secundum diversos effectus, ita etiam in praevenientem et subsequentem, qualitercumque gratia accipiatur. Sunt autem quinque effectus gratiae in nobis, quorum primus est ut anima sanetur; secundus est ut bonum velit; tertius est ut bonum quod vult, efficaciter operetur; quartus est ut in bono perseveret; quintus est ut ad gloriam perveniat. Et ideo gratia secundum quod causat in nobis primum effectum, vocatur praeveniens respectu secundi effectus; et prout causat in nobis secundum, vocatur subsequens respectu primi effectus. Et sicut unus effectus est posterior uno effectu et prior alio, ita gratia potest dici et praeveniens et subsequens secundum eundem effectum, respectu diversorum. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Nat. et Grat., praevenit ut sanemur, subsequitur ut sanati vegetemur, praevenit ut vocemur, subsequitur ut glorificemur. | I answer that, As grace is divided into operating and cooperating, with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us, is called prevenient with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it causes the second, it is called subsequent with respect to the first effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to that, so may grace be called prevenient and subsequent on account of the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): "It is prevenient, inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dilectio Dei nominat aliquid aeternum, et ideo nunquam potest dici nisi praeveniens. Sed gratia significat effectum temporalem, qui potest praecedere aliquid et ad aliquid subsequi. Et ideo gratia potest dici praeveniens et subsequens. | Reply to Objection 1: God's love signifies something eternal; and hence can never be called anything but prevenient. But grace signifies a temporal effect, which can precede and follow another; and thus grace may be both prevenient and subsequent. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia non diversificatur per hoc quod est praeveniens et subsequens, secundum essentiam, sed solum secundum effectum, sicut et de operante et cooperante dictum est. Quia etiam secundum quod gratia subsequens ad gloriam pertinet, non est alia numero a gratia praeveniente per quam nunc iustificamur. Sicut enim caritas viae non evacuatur, sed perficitur in patria, ita etiam et de lumine gratiae est dicendum, quia neutrum in sui ratione imperfectionem importat. | Reply to Objection 2: The division into prevenient and subsequent grace does not divide grace in its essence, but only in its effects, as was already said of operating and cooperating grace. For subsequent grace, inasmuch as it pertains to glory, is not numerically distinct from prevenient grace whereby we are at present justified. For even as the charity of the earth is not voided in heaven, so must the same be said of the light of grace, since the notion of neither implies imperfection. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis effectus gratiae possint esse infiniti numero, sicut sunt infiniti actus humani; tamen omnes reducuntur ad aliqua determinata in specie. Et praeterea omnes conveniunt in hoc quod unus alium praecedit, | Reply to Objection 3: Although the effects of grace may be infinite in number, even as human acts are infinite, nevertheless all reduced to some of a determinate species, and moreover all coincide in this—that one precedes another. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gratia gratis data inconvenienter ab apostolo distinguatur. Omne enim donum quod nobis a Deo gratis datur, potest dici gratia gratis data. Sed infinita sunt dona quae nobis gratis a Deo conceduntur, tam in bonis animae quam in bonis corporis, quae tamen nos Deo gratos non faciunt. Ergo gratiae gratis datae non possunt comprehendi sub aliqua certa divisione. | Objection 1: It would seem that gratuitous grace is not rightly divided by the Apostle. For every gift vouchsafed to us by God, may be called a gratuitous grace. Now there are an infinite number of gifts freely bestowed on us by God as regards both the good of the soul and the good of the body—and yet they do not make us pleasing to God. Hence gratuitous graces cannot be contained under any certain division. |
| Praeterea, gratia gratis data distinguitur contra gratiam gratum facientem. Sed fides pertinet ad gratiam gratum facientem, quia per ipsam iustificamur, secundum illud Rom. V, iustificati ergo ex fide, et cetera. Ergo inconvenienter fides ponitur inter gratias gratis datas, praesertim cum aliae virtutes ibi non ponantur, ut spes et caritas. | Objection 2: Further, gratuitous grace is distinguished from sanctifying grace. But faith pertains to sanctifying grace, since we are justified by it, according to Rm. 5:1: "Being justified therefore by faith." Hence it is not right to place faith amongst the gratuitous graces, especially since the other virtues are not so placed, as hope and charity. |
| Praeterea, operatio sanitatum, et loqui diversa genera linguarum, miracula quaedam sunt. Interpretatio etiam sermonum ad sapientiam vel scientiam pertinet; secundum illud Dan. I, pueris his dedit Deus scientiam et disciplinam in omni libro et sapientia. Ergo inconvenienter dividitur gratia sanitatum, et genera linguarum, contra operationem virtutum; et interpretatio sermonum contra sermonem sapientiae et scientiae. | Objection 3: Further, the operation of healing, and speaking divers tongues are miracles. Again, the interpretation of speeches pertains either to wisdom or to knowledge, according to Dan. 1:17: "And to these children God gave knowledge and understanding in every book and wisdom." Hence it is not correct to divide the grace of healing and kinds of tongues against the working of miracles; and the interpretation of speeches against the word of wisdom and knowledge. |
| Praeterea, sicut sapientia et scientia sunt quaedam dona spiritus sancti, ita etiam intellectus et consilium, pietas, fortitudo et timor, ut supra dictum est. Ergo haec etiam deberent poni inter gratias gratis datas. |
Objection 4: Further, as wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the Holy Ghost, so also are understanding, counsel, piety, fortitude, and fear, as stated above (Question [68], Article [4]). Therefore these also ought to be placed amongst the gratuitous gifts. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XII, alii per spiritum datur sermo sapientiae, alii autem sermo scientiae secundum eundem spiritum, alteri fides in eodem spiritu, alii gratia sanitatum, alii operatio virtutum, alii prophetia, alii discretio spirituum, alii genera linguarum, alii interpretatio sermonum. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:8,9,10): "To one indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of speeches." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, gratia gratis data ordinatur ad hoc quod homo alteri cooperetur ut reducatur ad Deum. Homo autem ad hoc operari non potest interius movendo, hoc enim solius Dei est; sed solum exterius docendo vel persuadendo. Et ideo gratia gratis data illa sub se continet quibus homo indiget ad hoc quod alterum instruat in rebus divinis, quae sunt supra rationem. Ad hoc autem tria requiruntur. Primo quidem, quod homo sit sortitus plenitudinem cognitionis divinorum, ut ex hoc possit alios instruere. Secundo, ut possit confirmare vel probare ea quae dicit, alias non esset efficax eius doctrina. Tertio, ut ea quae concipit, possit convenienter auditoribus proferre. |
I answer that, As was said above (Article [1]), gratuitous grace is ordained to this, viz. that a man may help another to be led to God. Now no man can help in this by moving interiorly (for this belongs to God alone), but only exteriorly by teaching or persuading. Hence gratuitous grace embraces whatever a man needs in order to instruct another in Divine things which are above reason. Now for this three things are required: first, a man must possess the fullness of knowledge of Divine things, so as to be capable of teaching others. Secondly, he must be able to confirm or prove what he says, otherwise his words would have no weight. Thirdly, he must be capable of fittingly presenting to his hearers what he knows. |
| Quantum igitur ad primum, tria sunt necessaria, sicut etiam apparet in magisterio humano. Oportet enim quod ille qui debet alium instruere in aliqua scientia, primo quidem, ut principia illius scientiae sint ei certissima. Et quantum ad hoc ponitur fides, quae est certitudo de rebus invisibilibus, quae supponuntur ut principia in Catholica doctrina. Secundo, oportet quod doctor recte se habeat circa principales conclusiones scientiae. Et sic ponitur sermo sapientiae, quae est cognitio divinorum. Tertio, oportet ut etiam abundet exemplis et cognitione effectuum, per quos interdum oportet manifestare causas. Et quantum ad hoc ponitur sermo scientiae, quae est cognitio rerum humanarum, quia invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, conspiciuntur. | Now as regards the first, three things are necessary, as may be seen in human teaching. For whoever would teach another in any science must first be certain of the principles of the science, and with regard to this there is "faith," which is certitude of invisible things, the principles of Catholic doctrine. Secondly, it behooves the teacher to know the principal conclusions of the science, and hence we have the word of "wisdom," which is the knowledge of Divine things. Thirdly, he ought to abound with examples and a knowledge of effects, whereby at times he needs to manifest causes; and thus we have the word of "knowledge," which is the knowledge of human things, since "the invisible things of Him... are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rm. 1:20). |
| Confirmatio autem in his quae subduntur rationi, est per argumenta. In his autem quae sunt supra rationem divinitus revelata, confirmatio est per ea quae sunt divinae virtuti propria. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, ut doctor sacrae doctrinae faciat quae solus Deus facere potest, in operibus miraculosis, sive sint ad salutem corporum, et quantum ad hoc ponitur gratia sanitatum; sive ordinentur ad solam divinae potestatis manifestationem, sicut quod sol stet aut tenebrescat, quod mare dividatur; et quantum ad hoc ponitur operatio virtutum. Secundo, ut possit manifestare ea quae solius Dei est scire. Et haec sunt contingentia futura, et quantum ad hoc ponitur prophetia; et etiam occulta cordium, et quantum ad hoc ponitur discretio spirituum. | Now the confirmation of such things as are within reason rests upon arguments; but the confirmation of what is above reason rests on what is proper to the Divine power, and this in two ways: first, when the teacher of sacred doctrine does what God alone can do, in miraculous deeds, whether with respect to bodily health—and thus there is the "grace of healing," or merely for the purpose of manifesting the Divine power; for instance, that the sun should stand still or darken, or that the sea should be divided—and thus there is the "working of miracles." Secondly, when he can manifest what God alone can know, and these are either future contingents—and thus there is "prophecy," or also the secrets of hearts—and thus there is the "discerning of spirits." |
| Facultas autem pronuntiandi potest attendi vel quantum ad idioma in quo aliquis intelligi possit, et secundum hoc ponuntur genera linguarum, vel quantum ad sensum eorum quae sunt proferenda, et quantum ad hoc ponitur interpretatio sermonum. | But the capability of speaking can regard either the idiom in which a person can be understood, and thus there is "kinds of tongues"; or it can regard the sense of what is said, and thus there is the "interpretation of speeches." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, non omnia beneficia quae nobis divinitus conceduntur, gratiae gratis datae dicuntur, sed solum illa quae excedunt facultatem naturae, sicut quod piscator abundet sermone sapientiae et scientiae et aliis huiusmodi. Et talia ponuntur hic sub gratia gratis data. |
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article [1]), not all the benefits divinely conferred upon us are called gratuitous graces, but only those that surpass the power of nature—e.g. that a fisherman should be replete with the word of wisdom and of knowledge and the like; and such as these are here set down as gratuitous graces. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod fides non numeratur hic inter gratias gratis datas secundum quod est quaedam virtus iustificans hominem in seipso, sed secundum quod importat quandam supereminentem certitudinem fidei, ex qua homo sit idoneus ad instruendum alios de his quae ad fidem pertinent. Spes autem et caritas pertinent ad vim appetitivam, secundum quod per eam homo in Deum ordinatur. | Reply to Objection 2: Faith is enumerated here under the gratuitous graces, not as a virtue justifying man in himself, but as implying a super-eminent certitude of faith, whereby a man is fitted for instructing others concerning such things as belong to the faith. With regard to hope and charity, they belong to the appetitive power, according as man is ordained thereby to God. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod gratia sanitatum distinguitur a generali operatione virtutum, quia habet specialem rationem inducendi ad fidem; ad quam aliquis magis promptus redditur per beneficium corporalis sanitatis quam per fidei virtutem assequitur. Similiter etiam loqui variis linguis, et interpretari sermones, habent speciales quasdam rationes movendi ad fidem, et ideo ponuntur speciales gratiae gratis datae. | Reply to Objection 3: The grace of healing is distinguished from the general working of miracles because it has a special reason for inducing one to the faith, since a man is all the more ready to believe when he has received the gift of bodily health through the virtue of faith. So, too, to speak with divers tongues and to interpret speeches have special efficacy in bestowing faith. Hence they are set down as special gratuitous graces. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod sapientia et scientia non computantur inter gratias gratis datas secundum quod enumerantur inter dona spiritus sancti, prout scilicet mens hominis est bene mobilis per spiritum sanctum ad ea quae sunt sapientiae vel scientiae, sic enim sunt dona spiritus sancti, ut supra dictum est. Sed computantur inter gratias gratis datas secundum quod important quandam abundantiam scientiae et sapientiae, ut homo possit non solum in seipso recte sapere de divinis, sed etiam alios instruere et contradicentes revincere. Et ideo inter gratias gratis datas signanter ponitur sermo sapientiae, et sermo scientiae, quia ut Augustinus dicit, XIV de Trin., aliud est scire tantummodo quid homo credere debeat propter adipiscendam vitam beatam; aliud, scire quemadmodum hoc ipsum et piis opituletur, et contra impios defendatur. |
Reply to Objection 4: Wisdom and knowledge are not numbered among the gratuitous graces in the same way as they are reckoned among the gifts of the Holy Ghost, i.e. inasmuch as man's mind is rendered easily movable by the Holy Ghost to the things of wisdom and knowledge; for thus they are gifts of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Question [68], Articles [1],4). But they are numbered amongst the gratuitous graces, inasmuch as they imply such a fullness of knowledge and wisdom that a man may not merely think aright of Divine things, but may instruct others and overpower adversaries. Hence it is significant that it is the "word" of wisdom and the "word" of knowledge that are placed in the gratuitous graces, since, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1), "It is one thing merely to know what a man must believe in order to reach everlasting life, and another thing to know how this may benefit the godly and may be defended against the ungodly." |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 111 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gratia gratis data sit dignior quam gratia gratum faciens. Bonum enim gentis est melius quam bonum unius; ut philosophus dicit, in I Ethic. Sed gratia gratum faciens ordinatur solum ad bonum unius hominis, gratia autem gratis data ordinatur ad bonum commune totius Ecclesiae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo gratia gratis data est dignior quam gratia gratum faciens. |
Objection 1: It would seem that gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace. For "the people's good is better than the individual good," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 2). Now sanctifying grace is ordained to the good of one man alone, whereas gratuitous grace is ordained to the common good of the whole Church, as stated above (Articles [1],4). Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace. |
| Praeterea, maioris virtutis est quod aliquid possit agere in aliud, quam quod solum in seipso perficiatur, sicut maior est claritas corporis quod potest etiam alia corpora illuminare, quam eius quod ita in se lucet quod alia illuminare non potest. Propter quod etiam philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod iustitia est praeclarissima virtutum, per quam homo recte se habet etiam ad alios. Sed per gratiam gratum facientem homo perficitur in seipso, per gratiam autem gratis datam homo operatur ad perfectionem aliorum. Ergo gratia gratis data est dignior quam gratia gratum faciens. | Objection 2: Further, it is a greater power that is able to act upon another, than that which is confined to itself, even as greater is the brightness of the body that can illuminate other bodies, than of that which can only shine but cannot illuminate; and hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) "that justice is the most excellent of the virtues," since by it a man bears himself rightly towards others. But by sanctifying grace a man is perfected only in himself; whereas by gratuitous grace a man works for the perfection of others. Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace. |
| Praeterea, id quod est proprium meliorum, dignius est quam id quod est commune omnium, sicut ratiocinari, quod est proprium hominis, dignius est quam sentire, quod est commune omnibus animalibus. Sed gratia gratum faciens est communis omnibus membris Ecclesiae, gratia autem gratis data est proprium donum digniorum membrorum Ecclesiae. Ergo gratia gratis data est dignior quam gratia gratum faciens. | Objection 3: Further, what is proper to the best is nobler than what is common to all; thus to reason, which is proper to man is nobler than to feel, which is common to all animals. Now sanctifying grace is common to all members of the Church, but gratuitous grace is the proper gift of the more exalted members of the Church. Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus, I ad Cor. XII, enumeratis gratiis gratis datis, subdit, adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro, et sicut per subsequentia patet, loquitur de caritate, quae pertinet ad gratiam gratum facientem. Ergo gratia gratum faciens excellentior est quam gratia gratis data. |
On the contrary, The Apostle (1 Cor. 12:31), having enumerated the gratuitous graces adds: "And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way"; and as the sequel proves he is speaking of charity, which pertains to sanctifying grace. Hence sanctifying grace is more noble than gratuitous grace. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod unaquaeque virtus tanto excellentior est, quanto ad altius bonum ordinatur. Semper autem finis potior est his quae sunt ad finem. Gratia autem gratum faciens ordinat hominem immediate ad coniunctionem ultimi finis. Gratiae autem gratis datae ordinant hominem ad quaedam praeparatoria finis ultimi, sicut per prophetiam et miracula et alia huiusmodi homines inducuntur ad hoc quod ultimo fini coniungantur. Et ideo gratia gratum faciens est multo excellentior quam gratia gratis data. | I answer that, The higher the good to which a virtue is ordained, the more excellent is the virtue. Now the end is always greater than the means. But sanctifying grace ordains a man immediately to a union with his last end, whereas gratuitous grace ordains a man to what is preparatory to the end; i.e. by prophecy and miracles and so forth, men are induced to unite themselves to their last end. And hence sanctifying grace is nobler than gratuitous grace. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in XII Metaphys., bonum multitudinis, sicut exercitus, est duplex. Unum quidem quod est in ipsa multitudine, puta ordo exercitus. Aliud autem quod est separatum a multitudine, sicut bonum ducis, et hoc melius est, quia ad hoc etiam illud aliud ordinatur. Gratia autem gratis data ordinatur ad bonum commune Ecclesiae quod est ordo ecclesiasticus, sed gratia gratum faciens ordinatur ad bonum commune separatum, quod est ipse Deus. Et ideo gratia gratum faciens est nobilior. | Reply to Objection 1: As the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, text. 52), a multitude, as an army, has a double good; the first is in the multitude itself, viz. the order of the army; the second is separate from the multitude, viz. the good of the leader—and this is better good, since the other is ordained to it. Now gratuitous grace is ordained to the common good of the Church, which is ecclesiastical order, whereas sanctifying grace is ordained to the separate common good, which is God. Hence sanctifying grace is the nobler. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, si gratia gratis data posset hoc agere in altero quod homo per gratiam gratum facientem consequitur, sequeretur quod gratia gratis data esset nobilior, sicut excellentior est claritas solis illuminantis quam corporis illuminati. Sed per gratiam gratis datam homo non potest causare in alio coniunctionem ad Deum, quam ipse habet per gratiam gratum facientem; sed causat quasdam dispositiones ad hoc. Et ideo non oportet quod gratia gratis data sit excellentior, sicut nec in igne calor manifestativus speciei eius, per quam agit ad inducendum calorem in alia, est nobilior quam forma substantialis ipsius. | Reply to Objection 2: If gratuitous grace could cause a man to have sanctifying grace, it would follow that the gratuitous grace was the nobler; even as the brightness of the sun that enlightens is more excellent than that of an object that is lit up. But by gratuitous grace a man cannot cause another to have union with God, which he himself has by sanctifying grace; but he causes certain dispositions towards it. Hence gratuitous grace needs not to be the more excellent, even as in fire, the heat, which manifests its species whereby it produces heat in other things, is not more noble than its substantial form. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sentire ordinatur ad ratiocinari sicut ad finem, et ideo ratiocinari est nobilius. Hic autem est e converso, quia id quod est proprium, ordinatur ad id quod est commune sicut ad finem. Unde non est simile. | Reply to Objection 3: Feeling is ordained to reason, as to an end; and thus, to reason is nobler. But here it is the contrary; for what is proper is ordained to what is common as to an end. Hence there is no comparison. |