Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
We have now to consider the effect of grace; (1) the justification of
the ungodly, which is the effect of operating grace; and (2) merit, which
is the effect of cooperating grace. Under the first head there are ten
points of inquiry:
(1) What is the justification of the ungodly?
(2) Whether grace is required for it?
(3) Whether any movement of the free-will is required?
(4) Whether a movement of faith is required?
(5) Whether a movement of the free-will against sin is required?
(6) Whether the remission of sins is to be reckoned with the foregoing?
(7) Whether the justification of the ungodly is a work of time or is
sudden?
(8) Of the natural order of the things concurring to justification;
(9) Whether the justification of the ungodly is God's greatest work?
(10) Whether the justification of the ungodly is miraculous?
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is not the
remission of sins. For sin is opposed not only to justice, but to all the
other virtues, as stated above (Question [71], Article [1]). Now justification signifies
a certain movement towards justice. Therefore not even remission of sin
is justification, since movement is from one contrary to the other.
Objection 2: Further, everything ought to be named from what is predominant in
it, according to De Anima ii, text. 49. Now the remission of sins is
brought about chiefly by faith, according to Acts 15:9: "Purifying their
hearts by faith"; and by charity, according to Prov. 10:12: "Charity
covereth all sins." Therefore the remission of sins ought to be named
after faith or charity rather than justice.
Objection 3: Further, the remission of sins seems to be the same as being
called, for whoever is called is afar off, and we are afar off from God
by sin. But one is called before being justified according to Rm. 8:30:
"And whom He called, them He also justified." Therefore justification is
not the remission of sins.
On the contrary, On Rm. 8:30, "Whom He called, them He also justified,"
the gloss says i.e. "by the remission of sins." Therefore the remission
of sins is justification.
I answer that, Justification taken passively implies a movement towards
heat. But since justice, by its nature, implies a certain rectitude of
order, it may be taken in two ways: first, inasmuch as it implies a right
order in man's act, and thus justice is placed amongst the
virtues---either as particular justice, which directs a man's acts by
regulating them in relation to his fellowman---or as legal justice, which
directs a man's acts by regulating them in their relation to the common
good of society, as appears from Ethic. v, 1.
Secondly, justice is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain
rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as
what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of the
soul are subject to the superior, i.e. to the reason; and this
disposition the Philosopher calls "justice metaphorically speaking"
(Ethic. v, 11). Now this justice may be in man in two ways: first, by
simple generation, which is from privation to form; and thus
justification may belong even to such as are not in sin, when they
receive this justice from God, as Adam is said to have received original
justice. Secondly, this justice may be brought about in man by a movement
from one contrary to the other, and thus justification implies a
transmutation from the state of injustice to the aforesaid state of
justice. And it is thus we are now speaking of the justification of the
ungodly, according to the Apostle (Rm. 4:5): "But to him that worketh
not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly," etc. And because
movement is named after its term "whereto" rather than from its term
"whence," the transmutation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of
sins from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice, borrows its
name from its term "whereto," and is called "justification of the
ungodly."
Reply to Objection 1: Every sin, inasmuch as it implies the disorder of a mind
not subject to God, may be called injustice, as being contrary to the
aforesaid justice, according to 1 Jn. 3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin,
committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity." And thus the removal of
any sin is called the justification of the ungodly.
Reply to Objection 2: Faith and charity imply a special directing of the human
mind to God by the intellect and will; whereas justice implies a general
rectitude of order. Hence this transmutation is named after justice
rather than after charity or faith.
Reply to Objection 3: Being called refers to God's help moving and exciting our
mind to give up sin, and this motion of God is not the remission of sins,
but its cause.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that for the remission of guilt, which is the
justification of the ungodly, no infusion of grace is required. For
anyone may be moved from one contrary without being led to the other, if
the contraries are not immediate. Now the state of guilt and the state of
grace are not immediate contraries; for there is the middle state of
innocence wherein a man has neither grace nor guilt. Hence a man may be
pardoned his guilt without his being brought to a state of grace.
Objection 2: Further, the remission of guilt consists in the Divine
imputation, according to Ps. 31:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
hath not imputed sin." Now the infusion of grace puts something into our
soul, as stated above (Question [110], Article [1]). Hence the infusion of grace is not
required for the remission of guilt.
Objection 3: Further, no one can be subject to two contraries at once. Now
some sins are contraries, as wastefulness and miserliness. Hence whoever
is subject to the sin of wastefulness is not simultaneously subject to
the sin of miserliness, yet it may happen that he has been subject to it
hitherto. Hence by sinning with the vice of wastefulness he is freed from
the sin of miserliness. And thus a sin is remitted without grace.
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 3:24): "Justified freely by His
grace."
I answer that, by sinning a man offends God as stated above (Question [71], Article [5]). Now an offense is remitted to anyone, only when the soul of the
offender is at peace with the offended. Hence sin is remitted to us, when
God is at peace with us, and this peace consists in the love whereby God
loves us. Now God's love, considered on the part of the Divine act, is
eternal and unchangeable; whereas, as regards the effect it imprints on
us, it is sometimes interrupted, inasmuch as we sometimes fall short of
it and once more require it. Now the effect of the Divine love in us,
which is taken away by sin, is grace, whereby a man is made worthy of
eternal life, from which sin shuts him out. Hence we could not conceive
the remission of guilt, without the infusion of grace.
Reply to Objection 1: More is required for an offender to pardon an offense, than
for one who has committed no offense, not to be hated. For it may happen
amongst men that one man neither hates nor loves another. But if the
other offends him, then the forgiveness of the offense can only spring
from a special goodwill. Now God's goodwill is said to be restored to man
by the gift of grace; and hence although a man before sinning may be
without grace and without guilt, yet that he is without guilt after
sinning can only be because he has grace.
Reply to Objection 2: As God's love consists not merely in the act of the Divine
will but also implies a certain effect of grace, as stated above (Question [110], Article [1]), so likewise, when God does not impute sin to a man, there is
implied a certain effect in him to whom the sin is not imputed; for it
proceeds from the Divine love, that sin is not imputed to a man by God.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i, 26), if to leave
off sinning was the same as to have no sin, it would be enough if
Scripture warned us thus: "'My son, hast thou sinned? do so no more?' Now
this is not enough, but it is added: 'But for thy former sins also pray
that they may be forgiven thee.'" For the act of sin passes, but the
guilt remains, as stated above (Question [87], Article [6]). Hence when anyone passes
from the sin of one vice to the sin of a contrary vice, he ceases to have
the act of the former sin, but he does not cease to have the guilt, hence
he may have the guilt of both sins at once. For sins are not contrary to
each other on the part of their turning from God, wherein sin has its
guilt.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of the free-will is required for
the justification of the ungodly. For we see that by the sacrament of
Baptism, infants and sometimes adults are justified without a movement of
their free-will: hence Augustine says (Confess. iv) that when one of his
friends was taken with a fever, "he lay for a long time senseless and in
a deadly sweat, and when he was despaired of, he was baptized without his
knowing, and was regenerated"; which is effected by sanctifying grace.
Now God does not confine His power to the sacraments. Hence He can
justify a man without the sacraments, and without any movement of the
free-will.
Objection 2: Further, a man has not the use of reason when asleep, and without
it there can be no movement of the free-will. But Solomon received from
God the gift of wisdom when asleep, as related in 3 Kgs. 3 and 2 Paral 1.
Hence with equal reason the gift of sanctifying grace is sometimes
bestowed by God on man without the movement of his free-will.
Objection 3: Further, grace is preserved by the same cause as brings it into
being, for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) that "so ought man to
turn to God as he is ever made just by Him." Now grace is preserved in
man without a movement of his free-will. Hence it can be infused in the
beginning without a movement of the free-will.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 6:45): "Every one that hath heard of
the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me." Now to learn cannot be
without a movement of the free-will, since the learner assents to the
teacher. Hence, no one comes to the Father by justifying grace without a
movement of the free-will.
I answer that, The justification of the ungodly is brought about by God
moving man to justice. For He it is "that justifieth the ungodly"
according to Rm. 4:5. Now God moves everything in its own manner, just as
we see that in natural things, what is heavy and what is light are moved
differently, on account of their diverse natures. Hence He moves man to
justice according to the condition of his human nature. But it is man's
proper nature to have free-will. Hence in him who has the use of reason,
God's motion to justice does not take place without a movement of the
free-will; but He so infuses the gift of justifying grace that at the
same time He moves the free-will to accept the gift of grace, in such as
are capable of being moved thus.
Reply to Objection 1: Infants are not capable of the movement of their free-will;
hence it is by the mere infusion of their souls that God moves them to
justice. Now this cannot be brought about without a sacrament; because as
original sin, from which they are justified, does not come to them from
their own will, but by carnal generation, so also is grace given them by
Christ through spiritual regeneration. And the same reason holds good
with madmen and idiots that have never had the use of their free-will.
But in the case of one who has had the use of his free-will and
afterwards has lost it either through sickness or sleep, he does not
obtain justifying grace by the exterior rite of Baptism, or of any other
sacrament, unless he intended to make use of this sacrament, and this can
only be by the use of his free-will. And it was in this way that he of
whom Augustine speaks was regenerated, because both previously and
afterwards he assented to the Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Solomon neither merited nor received wisdom whilst asleep;
but it was declared to him in his sleep that on account of his previous
desire wisdom would be infused into him by God. Hence it is said in his
person (Wis. 7:7): "I wished, and understanding was given unto me."
Or it may be said that his sleep was not natural, but was the sleep of
prophecy, according to Num. 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet of the
Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a
dream." In such cases the use of free-will remains.
And yet it must be observed that the comparison between the gift of
wisdom and the gift of justifying grace does not hold. For the gift of
justifying grace especially ordains a man to good, which is the object of
the will; and hence a man is moved to it by a movement of the will which
is a movement of free-will. But wisdom perfects the intellect which
precedes the will; hence without any complete movement of the free-will,
the intellect can be enlightened with the gift of wisdom, even as we see
that things are revealed to men in sleep, according to Job 33:15,16:
"When deep sleep falleth upon men and they are sleeping in their beds,
then He openeth the ears of men, and teaching, instructeth them in what
they are to learn."
Reply to Objection 3: In the infusion of justifying grace there is a certain
transmutation of the human soul, and hence a proper movement of the human
soul is required in order that the soul may be moved in its own manner.
But the conservation of grace is without transmutation: no movement on
the part of the soul is required but only a continuation of the Divine
influx.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of faith is required for the
justification of the ungodly. For as a man is justified by faith, so also
by other things, viz. by fear, of which it is written (Ecclus. 1:27):
"The fear of the Lord driveth out sin, for he that is without fear cannot
be justified"; and again by charity, according to Lk. 7:47: "Many sins
are forgiven her because she hath loved much"; and again by humility,
according to James 4:6: "God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the
humble"; and again by mercy, according to Prov. 15:27: "By mercy and
faith sins are purged away." Hence the movement of faith is no more
required for the justification of the ungodly, than the movements of the
aforesaid virtues.
Objection 2: Further, the act of faith is required for justification only
inasmuch as a man knows God by faith. But a man may know God in other
ways, viz. by natural knowledge, and by the gift of wisdom. Hence no act
of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly.
Objection 3: Further, there are several articles of faith. Therefore if the
act of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly, it would
seem that a man ought to think on every article of faith when he is first
justified. But this seems inconvenient, since such thought would require
a long delay of time. Hence it seems that an act of faith is not required
for the justification of the ungodly.
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 5:1): "Being justified therefore by
faith, let us have peace with God."
I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]) a movement of free-will is
required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man's mind is
moved by God. Now God moves man's soul by turning it to Himself according
to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): "Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to
life." Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind
is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God
is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: "He that cometh to God must believe
that He is." Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification
of the ungodly.
Reply to Objection 1: The movement of faith is not perfect unless it is quickened
by charity; hence in the justification of the ungodly, a movement of
charity is infused together with the movement of faith. Now free-will is
moved to God by being subject to Him; hence an act of filial fear and an
act of humility also concur. For it may happen that one and the same act
of free-will springs from different virtues, when one commands and
another is commanded, inasmuch as the act may be ordained to various
ends. But the act of mercy counteracts sin either by way of satisfying
for it, and thus it follows justification; or by way of preparation,
inasmuch as the merciful obtain mercy; and thus it can either precede
justification, or concur with the other virtues towards justification,
inasmuch as mercy is included in the love of our neighbor.
Reply to Objection 2: By natural knowledge a man is not turned to God, according
as He is the object of beatitude and the cause of justification. Hence
such knowledge does not suffice for justification. But the gift of wisdom
presupposes the knowledge of faith, as stated above (Question [68], Article [4], ad 3).
Reply to Objection 3: As the Apostle says (Rm. 4:5), "to him that . . . believeth
in Him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is reputed to justice,
according to the purpose of the grace of God." Hence it is clear that in
the justification of the ungodly an act of faith is required in order
that a man may believe that God justifies man through the mystery of
Christ.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of the free-will towards sin is
required for the justification of the ungodly. For charity alone suffices
to take away sin, according to Prov. 10:12: "Charity covereth all sins."
Now the object of charity is not sin. Therefore for this justification of
the ungodly no movement of the free-will towards sin is required.
Objection 2: Further, whoever is tending onward, ought not to look back,
according to Phil. 3:13,14: "Forgetting the things that are behind, and
stretching forth myself to those that are before, I press towards the
mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation." But whoever is stretching
forth to righteousness has his sins behind him. Hence he ought to forget
them, and not stretch forth to them by a movement of his free-will.
Objection 3: Further, in the justification of the ungodly one sin is not
remitted without another, for "it is irreverent to expect half a pardon
from God" [*Cap., Sunt. plures: Dist. iii, De Poenit.]. Hence, in the
justification of the ungodly, if man's free-will must move against sin,
he ought to think of all his sins. But this is unseemly, both because a
great space of time would be required for such thought, and because a man
could not obtain the forgiveness of such sins as he had forgotten. Hence
for the justification of the ungodly no movement of the free-will is
required.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 31:5): "I will confess against
myself my injustice to the Lord; and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of
my sin."
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), the justification of the ungodly
is a certain movement whereby the human mind is moved by God from the
state of sin to the state of justice. Hence it is necessary for the human
mind to regard both extremes by an act of free-will, as a body in local
movement is related to both terms of the movement. Now it is clear that
in local movement the moving body leaves the term "whence" and nears the
term "whereto." Hence the human mind whilst it is being justified, must,
by a movement of its free-will withdraw from sin and draw near to justice.
Now to withdraw from sin and to draw near to justice, in an act of
free-will, means detestation and desire. For Augustine says on the words
"the hireling fleeth," etc. (Jn. 10:12): "Our emotions are the movements
of our soul; joy is the soul's outpouring; fear is the soul's flight;
your soul goes forward when you seek; your soul flees, when you are
afraid." Hence in the justification of the ungodly there must be two acts
of the free-will---one, whereby it tends to God's justice; the other
whereby it hates sin.
Reply to Objection 1: It belongs to the same virtue to seek one contrary and to
avoid the other; and hence, as it belongs to charity to love God, so
likewise, to detest sin whereby the soul is separated from God.
Reply to Objection 2: A man ought not to return to those things that are behind,
by loving them; but, for that matter, he ought to forget them, lest he be
drawn to them. Yet he ought to recall them to mind, in order to detest
them; for this is to fly from them.
Reply to Objection 3: Previous to justification a man must detest each sin he
remembers to have committed, and from this remembrance the soul goes on
to have a general movement of detestation with regard to all sins
committed, in which are included such sins as have been forgotten. For a
man is then in such a frame of mind that he would be sorry even for those
he does not remember, if they were present to his memory; and this
movement cooperates in his justification.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the remission of sins ought not to be reckoned
amongst the things required for justification. For the substance of a
thing is not reckoned together with those that are required for a thing;
thus a man is not reckoned together with his body and soul. But the
justification of the ungodly is itself the remission of sins, as stated
above (Article [1]). Therefore the remission of sins ought not to be reckoned
among the things required for the justification of the ungodly.
Objection 2: Further, infusion of grace and remission of sins are the same; as
illumination and expulsion of darkness are the same. But a thing ought
not to be reckoned together with itself; for unity is opposed to
multitude. Therefore the remission of sins ought not to be reckoned with
the infusion of grace.
Objection 3: Further, the remission of sin follows as effect from cause, from
the free-will's movement towards God and sin; since it is by faith and
contrition that sin is forgiven. But an effect ought not to be reckoned
with its cause; since things thus enumerated together, and, as it were,
condivided, are by nature simultaneous. Hence the remission of sins ought
not to be reckoned with the things required for the justification of the
ungodly.
On the contrary, In reckoning what is required for a thing we ought not
to pass over the end, which is the chief part of everything. Now the
remission of sins is the end of the justification of the ungodly; for it
is written (Is. 27:9): "This is all the fruit, that the sin thereof
should be taken away." Hence the remission of sins ought to be reckoned
amongst the things required for justification.
I answer that, There are four things which are accounted to be necessary
for the justification of the ungodly, viz. the infusion of grace, the
movement of the free-will towards God by faith, the movement of the
free-will towards sin, and the remission of sins. The reason for this is
that, as stated above (Article [1]), the justification of the ungodly is a
movement whereby the soul is moved by God from a state of sin to a state
of justice. Now in the movement whereby one thing is moved by another,
three things are required: first, the motion of the mover; secondly, the
movement of the moved; thirdly, the consummation of the movement, or the
attainment of the end. On the part of the Divine motion, there is the
infusion of grace; on the part of the free-will which is moved, there are
two movements---of departure from the term "whence," and of approach to
the term "whereto"; but the consummation of the movement or the
attainment of the end of the movement is implied in the remission of
sins; for in this is the justification of the ungodly completed.
Reply to Objection 1: The justification of the ungodly is called the remission of
sins, even as every movement has its species from its term. Nevertheless,
many other things are required in order to reach the term, as stated
above (Article [5]).
Reply to Objection 2: The infusion of grace and the remission of sin may be
considered in two ways: first, with respect to the substance of the act,
and thus they are the same; for by the same act God bestows grace and
remits sin. Secondly, they may be considered on the part of the objects;
and thus they differ by the difference between guilt, which is taken
away, and grace, which is infused; just as in natural things generation
and corruption differ, although the generation of one thing is the
corruption of another.
Reply to Objection 3: This enumeration is not the division of a genus into its
species, in which the things enumerated must be simultaneous; but it is
division of the things required for the completion of anything; and in
this enumeration we may have what precedes and what follows, since some
of the principles and parts of a composite thing may precede and some
follow.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly does not take
place in an instant, but successively, since, as already stated (Article [3]),
for the justification of the ungodly, there is required a movement of
free-will. Now the act of the free-will is choice, which requires the
deliberation of counsel, as stated above (Question [13], Article [1]). Hence, since
deliberation implies a certain reasoning process, and this implies
succession, the justification of the ungodly would seem to be successive.
Objection 2: Further, the free-will's movement is not without actual
consideration. But it is impossible to understand many things actually
and at once, as stated above (FP, Question [85], Article [4]). Hence, since for the
justification of the ungodly there is required a movement of the
free-will towards several things, viz. towards God and towards sin, it
would seem impossible for the justification of the ungodly to be in an
instant.
Objection 3: Further, a form that may be greater or less, e.g. blackness or
whiteness, is received successively by its subject. Now grace may be
greater or less, as stated above (Question [112], Article [4]). Hence it is not received
suddenly by its subject. Therefore, seeing that the infusion of grace is
required for the justification of the ungodly, it would seem that the
justification of the ungodly cannot be in an instant.
Objection 4: Further, the free-will's movement, which cooperates in
justification, is meritorious; and hence it must proceed from grace,
without which there is no merit, as we shall state further on (Question [114], Article [2]). Now a thing receives its form before operating by this form. Hence
grace is first infused, and then the free-will is moved towards God and
to detest sin. Hence justification is not all at once.
Objection 5: Further, if grace is infused into the soul, there must be an
instant when it first dwells in the soul; so, too, if sin is forgiven
there must be a last instant that man is in sin. But it cannot be the
same instant, otherwise opposites would be in the same simultaneously.
Hence they must be two successive instants; between which there must be
time, as the Philosopher says (Phys. vi, 1). Therefore the justification
of the ungodly takes place not all at once, but successively.
On the contrary, The justification of the ungodly is caused by the
justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit comes to men's
minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: "And suddenly there came a sound
from heaven as of a mighty wind coming," upon which the gloss says that
"the grace of the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts." Hence the
justification of the ungodly is not successive, but instantaneous.
I answer that, The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to
its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is
moved and sin is remitted. Now the infusion of grace takes place in an
instant and without succession. And the reason of this is that if a form
be not suddenly impressed upon its subject, it is either because that
subject is not disposed, or because the agent needs time to dispose the
subject. Hence we see that immediately the matter is disposed by a
preceding alteration, the substantial form accrues to the matter; thus
because the atmosphere of itself is disposed to receive light, it is
suddenly illuminated by a body actually luminous. Now it was stated
(Question [112], Article [2]) that God, in order to infuse grace into the soul, needs no
disposition, save what He Himself has made. And sometimes this sufficient
disposition for the reception of grace He makes suddenly, sometimes
gradually and successively, as stated above (Question [112], Article [2], ad 2). For the
reason why a natural agent cannot suddenly dispose matter is that in the
matter there is a resistant which has some disproportion with the power
of the agent; and hence we see that the stronger the agent, the more
speedily is the matter disposed. Therefore, since the Divine power is
infinite, it can suddenly dispose any matter whatsoever to its form; and
much more man's free-will, whose movement is by nature instantaneous.
Therefore the justification of the ungodly by God takes place in an
instant.
Reply to Objection 1: The movement of the free-will, which concurs in the
justification of the ungodly, is a consent to detest sin, and to draw
near to God; and this consent takes place suddenly. Sometimes, indeed, it
happens that deliberation precedes, yet this is not of the substance of
justification, but a way of justification; as local movement is a way of
illumination, and alteration to generation.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (FP, Question [85], Article [5]), there is nothing to
prevent two things being understood at once, in so far as they are
somehow one; thus we understand the subject and predicate together,
inasmuch as they are united in the order of one affirmation. And in the
same manner can the free-will be moved to two things at once in so far as
one is ordained to the other. Now the free-will's movement towards sin is
ordained to the free-will's movement towards God, since a man detests
sin, as contrary to God, to Whom he wishes to cling. Hence in the
justification of the ungodly the free-will simultaneously detests sin and
turns to God, even as a body approaches one point and withdraws from
another simultaneously.
Reply to Objection 3: The reason why a form is not received instantaneously in
the matter is not the fact that it can inhere more or less; for thus the
light would not be suddenly received in the air, which can be illumined
more or less. But the reason is to be sought on the part of the
disposition of the matter or subject, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 4: The same instant the form is acquired, the thing begins to
operate with the form; as fire, the instant it is generated moves
upwards, and if its movement was instantaneous, it would be terminated in
the same instant. Now to will and not to will---the movements of the
free-will---are not successive, but instantaneous. Hence the
justification of the ungodly must not be successive.
Reply to Objection 5: The succession of opposites in the same subject must be
looked at differently in the things that are subject to time and in those
that are above time. For in those that are in time, there is no last
instant in which the previous form inheres in the subject; but there is
the last time, and the first instant that the subsequent form inheres in
the matter or subject; and this for the reason, that in time we are not
to consider one instant, since neither do instants succeed each other
immediately in time, nor points in a line, as is proved in Physic. vi, 1.
But time is terminated by an instant. Hence in the whole of the previous
time wherein anything is moving towards its form, it is under the
opposite form; but in the last instant of this time, which is the first
instant of the subsequent time, it has the form which is the term of the
movement.
But in those that are above time, it is otherwise. For if there be any
succession of affections or intellectual conceptions in them (as in the
angels), such succession is not measured by continuous time, but by
discrete time, even as the things measured are not continuous, as stated
above (FP, Question [53], Articles [2],3). In these, therefore, there is a last instant
in which the preceding is, and a first instant in which the subsequent
is. Nor must there be time in between, since there is no continuity of
time, which this would necessitate.
Now the human mind, which is justified, is, in itself, above time, but
is subject to time accidentally, inasmuch as it understands with
continuity and time, with respect to the phantasms in which it considers
the intelligible species, as stated above (FP, Question [85], Articles [1],2). We must,
therefore, decide from this about its change as regards the condition of
temporal movements, i.e. we must say that there is no last instant that
sin inheres, but a last time; whereas there is a first instant that grace
inheres; and in all the time previous sin inhered.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the infusion of grace is not what is naturally
required first for the justification of the ungodly. For we withdraw from
evil before drawing near to good, according to Ps. 33:15: "Turn away from
evil, and do good." Now the remission of sins regards the turning away
from evil, and the infusion of grace regards the turning to good. Hence
the remission of sin is naturally before the infusion of grace.
Objection 2: Further, the disposition naturally precedes the form to which it
disposes. Now the free-will's movement is a disposition for the reception
of grace. Therefore it naturally precedes the infusion of grace.
Objection 3: Further, sin hinders the soul from tending freely to God. Now a
hindrance to movement must be removed before the movement takes place.
Hence the remission of sin and the free-will's movement towards sin are
naturally before the infusion of grace.
On the contrary, The cause is naturally prior to its effect. Now the
infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the
justification of the ungodly, as stated above (Article [7]). Therefore it is
naturally prior to it.
I answer that, The aforesaid four things required for the justification
of the ungodly are simultaneous in time, since the justification of the
ungodly is not successive, as stated above (Article [7]); but in the order of
nature, one is prior to another; and in their natural order the first is
the infusion of grace; the second, the free-will's movement towards God;
the third, the free-will's movement towards sin; the fourth, the
remission of sin.
The reason for this is that in every movement the motion of the mover is
naturally first; the disposition of the matter, or the movement of the
moved, is second; the end or term of the movement in which the motion of
the mover rests, is last. Now the motion of God the Mover is the infusion
of grace, as stated above (Article [6]); the movement or disposition of the
moved is the free-will's double movement; and the term or end of the
movement is the remission of sin, as stated above (Article [6]). Hence in their
natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the
infusion of grace; the second is the free-will's movement towards God;
the third is the free-will's movement towards sin, for he who is being
justified detests sin because it is against God, and thus the free-will's
movement towards God naturally precedes the free-will's movement towards
sin, since it is its cause and reason; the fourth and last is the
remission of sin, to which this transmutation is ordained as to an end,
as stated above (Articles [1],6).
Reply to Objection 1: The withdrawal from one term and approach to another may be
looked at in two ways: first, on the part of the thing moved, and thus
the withdrawal from a term naturally precedes the approach to a term,
since in the subject of movement the opposite which is put away is prior
to the opposite which the subject moved attains to by its movement. But
on the part of the agent it is the other way about, since the agent, by
the form pre-existing in it, acts for the removal of the opposite form;
as the sun by its light acts for the removal of darkness, and hence on
the part of the sun, illumination is prior to the removal of darkness;
but on the part of the atmosphere to be illuminated, to be freed from
darkness is, in the order of nature, prior to being illuminated, although
both are simultaneous in time. And since the infusion of grace and the
remission of sin regard God Who justifies, hence in the order of nature
the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at
what is on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about,
since in the order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the
obtaining of justifying grace. Or it may be said that the term "whence"
of justification is sin; and the term "whereto" is justice; and that
grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice.
Reply to Objection 2: The disposition of the subject precedes the reception of
the form, in the order of nature; yet it follows the action of the agent,
whereby the subject is disposed. And hence the free-will's movement
precedes the reception of grace in the order of nature, and follows the
infusion of grace.
Reply to Objection 3: As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 9), in movements of the
soul the movement toward the speculative principle or the practical end
is the very first, but in exterior movements the removal of the
impediment precedes the attainment of the end. And as the free-will's
movement is a movement of the soul, in the order of nature it moves
towards God as to its end, before removing the impediment of sin.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is not God's
greatest work. For it is by the justification of the ungodly that we
attain the grace of a wayfarer. Now by glorification we receive heavenly
grace, which is greater. Hence the glorification of angels and men is a
greater work than the justification of the ungodly.
Objection 2: Further, the justification of the ungodly is ordained to the
particular good of one man. But the good of the universe is greater than
the good of one man, as is plain from Ethic. i, 2. Hence the creation of
heaven and earth is a greater work than the justification of the ungodly.
Objection 3: Further, to make something from nothing, where there is nought to
cooperate with the agent, is greater than to make something with the
cooperation of the recipient. Now in the work of creation something is
made from nothing, and hence nothing can cooperate with the agent; but
in the justification of the ungodly God makes something from something,
i.e. a just man from a sinner, and there is a cooperation on man's part,
since there is a movement of the free-will, as stated above (Article [3]). Hence
the justification of the ungodly is not God's greatest work.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 144:9): "His tender mercies are over
all His works," and in a collect [*Tenth Sunday after Pentecost] we say:
"O God, Who dost show forth Thine all-mightiness most by pardoning and
having mercy," and Augustine, expounding the words, "greater than these
shall he do" (Jn. 14:12) says that "for a just man to be made from a
sinner, is greater than to create heaven and earth."
I answer that, A work may be called great in two ways: first, on the
part of the mode of action, and thus the work of creation is the greatest
work, wherein something is made from nothing; secondly, a work may be
called great on account of what is made, and thus the justification of
the ungodly, which terminates at the eternal good of a share in the
Godhead, is greater than the creation of heaven and earth, which
terminates at the good of mutable nature. Hence, Augustine, after saying
that "for a just man to be made from a sinner is greater than to create
heaven and earth," adds, "for heaven and earth shall pass away, but the
justification of the ungodly shall endure."
Again, we must bear in mind that a thing is called great in two ways:
first, in an absolute quantity, and thus the gift of glory is greater
than the gift of grace that sanctifies the ungodly; and in this respect
the glorification of the just is greater than the justification of the
ungodly. Secondly, a thing may be said to be great in proportionate
quantity, and thus the gift of grace that justifies the ungodly is
greater than the gift of glory that beatifies the just, for the gift of
grace exceeds the worthiness of the ungodly, who are worthy of
punishment, more than the gift of glory exceeds the worthiness of the
just, who by the fact of their justification are worthy of glory. Hence
Augustine says: "Let him that can, judge whether it is greater to create
the angels just, than to justify the ungodly. Certainly, if they both
betoken equal power, one betokens greater mercy."
And thus the reply to the first is clear.
Reply to Objection 2: The good of the universe is greater than the particular
good of one, if we consider both in the same genus. But the good of grace
in one is greater than the good of nature in the whole universe.
Reply to Objection 3: This objection rests on the manner of acting, in which way
creation is God's greatest work.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 113 [<< | >>]
Article: 10 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is a
miraculous work. For miraculous works are greater than non-miraculous.
Now the justification of the ungodly is greater than the other miraculous
works, as is clear from the quotation from Augustine (Article [9]). Hence the
justification of the ungodly is a miraculous work.
Objection 2: Further, the movement of the will in the soul is like the natural
inclination in natural things. But when God works in natural things
against their inclination of their nature, it is a miraculous work, as
when He gave sight to the blind or raised the dead. Now the will of the
ungodly is bent on evil. Hence, since God in justifying a man moves him
to good, it would seem that the justification of the ungodly is
miraculous.
Objection 3: Further, as wisdom is a gift of God, so also is justice. Now it
is miraculous that anyone should suddenly obtain wisdom from God without
study. Therefore it is miraculous that the ungodly should be justified by
God.
On the contrary, Miraculous works are beyond natural power. Now the
justification of the ungodly is not beyond natural power; for Augustine
says (De Praed. Sanct. v) that "to be capable of having faith and to be
capable of having charity belongs to man's nature; but to have faith and
charity belongs to the grace of the faithful." Therefore the
justification of the ungodly is not miraculous.
I answer that, In miraculous works it is usual to find three things: the
first is on the part of the active power, because they can only be
performed by Divine power; and they are simply wondrous, since their
cause is hidden, as stated above (FP, Question [105], Article [7]). And thus both the
justification of the ungodly and the creation of the world, and,
generally speaking, every work that can be done by God alone, is
miraculous.
Secondly, in certain miraculous works it is found that the form
introduced is beyond the natural power of such matter, as in the
resurrection of the dead, life is above the natural power of such a body.
And thus the justification of the ungodly is not miraculous, because the
soul is naturally capable of grace; since from its having been made to
the likeness of God, it is fit to receive God by grace, as Augustine
says, in the above quotation.
Thirdly, in miraculous works something is found besides the usual and
customary order of causing an effect, as when a sick man suddenly and
beyond the wonted course of healing by nature or art, receives perfect
health; and thus the justification of the ungodly is sometimes miraculous
and sometimes not. For the common and wonted course of justification is
that God moves the soul interiorly and that man is converted to God,
first by an imperfect conversion, that it may afterwards become perfect;
because "charity begun merits increase, and when increased merits
perfection," as Augustine says (In Epist. Joan. Tract. v). Yet God
sometimes moves the soul so vehemently that it reaches the perfection of
justice at once, as took place in the conversion of Paul, which was
accompanied at the same time by a miraculous external prostration. Hence
the conversion of Paul is commemorated in the Church as miraculous.
Reply to Objection 1: Certain miraculous works, although they are less than the
justification of the ungodly, as regards the good caused, are beyond the
wonted order of such effects, and thus have more of the nature of a
miracle.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not a miraculous work, whenever a natural thing is
moved contrary to its inclination, otherwise it would be miraculous for
water to be heated, or for a stone to be thrown upwards; but only
whenever this takes place beyond the order of the proper cause, which
naturally does this. Now no other cause save God can justify the ungodly,
even as nothing save fire can heat water. Hence the justification of the
ungodly by God is not miraculous in this respect.
Reply to Objection 3: A man naturally acquires wisdom and knowledge from God by
his own talent and study. Hence it is miraculous when a man is made wise
or learned outside this order. But a man does not naturally acquire
justifying grace by his own action, but by God's. Hence there is no
parity.