De veritate EN 240
240
There can by no means be any forgiveness of sins without ingratiatory grace. For the clarification of this point it should be borne in mind that, since there are two elements in sin, turning away from something and turning toward something, the forgiveness and retention of sin do not have reference to the turning toward but rather to the turning away and its consequences. For this reason, when a per— son ceases to have the will to sin, he does not by this f act have his sin forgiven, even if he should change to a contrary attitude of will. Augustine accordingly says: "If ceasing to sin were the same as not having any sins, it would be enough for Scripture (Si 21,1) to admonish us: 'My son, hast thou sinned? Do so no more. But that is not enough; Scripture has added: 'But for thy former sins also pray that they may be forgiven thee. "Sin is therefore said to be forgiven in so far as the turning away and its consequences, the result of a past act of sin, are healed.
From the point of view of turning away, there are three factors which account for the impossibility of having sins forgiven without grace: the turning away, the offence against God, and the imputability. For the turning away is from the unchangeable good, which the person could have possessed but in regard to which he has made him self impotent; otherwise the turning away would not be culpable.
The turning away in question cannot, then, be removed unless there is brought about a union will the unchangeable good from which the man withdrew by his sin. But this union is effected only by means of grace, by which God dwells in souls and the soul cleaves to God by the love of charity. The healing of this turning away, accordingly, requires the infusion of grace and charity, just as the healing of blind ness requires the restoration of the power of sight.
The offence, moreover, which follows from sin cannot be blotted out without grace, whether the offence is viewed from the standpoint of man, inasmuch as by sinning he has offended God, or from the standpoint of God, inasmuch as He has taken offence at the sinner, according to the words of the Psalm (5:7): "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." For whoever puts the more worthy beneath the less worthy insults it, and the more so, the more worthy it is. Now whoever places his end in anything temporal, as everyone who sins mortally does, by this very fact prefers in his own affections a creature to the Creator, loving a creature more than the Creator; for the end is that which is loved most. Since God infinitely surpasses a creature, one who. sins mortally will have offered to God an infinite offence from the point of view of the dignity of Him who is insulted, seeing that God and His commandments are contemned. Human strength is accordingly incapable of blotting out this offence; the good offices of divine grace are required.
God Himself, moreover, is said to take offence at the sinner or to hate him—not will a hate that is opposed to the love which He has for all things, for in this sense He hates none of the things which He has made, as is said in Wisdom (11:25); but will a hate that is opposed to the love which He has for the saints, preparing for them eternal goods. The effect of this love is the gift of ingratiatory grace, as was explained in the question on grace. The offence which God takes at man is accordingly not removed except by His giving grace.
The imputability of sin, furthermore, is an obligation not merely to sensible pain, but especially to the pain of loss, which is the Jack of glory. The imputability is therefore not cancelled so long as man is not given the means to arrive at glory. This is grace; and so without grace there cannot be any forgiveness of sins.
Answers to Difficulties:
1. Sin itself is the demolition of grace, whereas the forgiveness of sin is its erection. It is consequently casier to incur sin than to get free of it.
2. There is contrariety among sins in so far as they imply turning toward something, but the forgiveness of sins does not have reference to this aspect, as has been said. From the viewpoint of turning away and its consequences, however, they are on common ground. As a re suit, nothing prevents the imputability of contrary preceding acts from remaining in the soul at the same time; for a man who turns from avarice does not cease to have the imputability of avarice but only its act or habit.
3. Even though sins are contrary from the viewpoint of turning toward something, the residual conditions of aversion or imputability do not have to be contrary, because they are the indirect effects of turning toward creatures since they come about independently of the intention of the agent. From the contrariety of causes there results the contrariety of the effects which are direct, not of those which are indirect. From contrary acts there accordingly follow contrary habits and dispositions, for these are the effects of sinful acts and agree will them in species.
4. if we grant the opinion that Adam at one time had neither grace nor guilt (though some will not concede it), we must say that nothing prevents some contraries from having a mean will regard to some particular subject taken simply, which nevertheless have no mean when limited by a definite time. With reference to a dog, for instance, blind and seeing have a mean, but not after the ninth day. Similarly will reference to man in the state of created nature, grace and guilt are related to each other as contraries will a mean. But from the time when Adam received grace, or could have received it, in such a way that it would be handed on to all his posterity, no one is without grace except by reason of guilt, either actual or original.
5. Even though Adam in the state in which he was created did not have grace, as some hold, he is nevertheless held by the same theologians to have been given grace before the fall. He consequently fell from the state of grace and not just from the state of nature. But even if he had fallen only from the state of nature, the gift of divine grace would nonetheless be required for the expiation of an infinite offence.
6. God’s love for us leaves in us a certain ensuing effect, namely grace, by which we are made worthy of eternal life; for that is the extent to which He loves us. In the same way God’s abstention from holding us accountable for our sins resultantly leaves in us something by which we deserve to be absolved of the imputability in question; and this is grace.
7. A sinner is the direct cause of his sin from the point of view of turning to something; but from that of turning away and the consequences of this he is the indirect cause, since he does not intend these. They cannot in fact have a direct cause, since the character of evil in sin comes from these, and evil does not have a cause, as Dionysius holds.
Or the answer can be and is better given that the sinner is the cause of his sin II its becoming, but not the cause of the permanence of the remains of the sin. The cause of these is rather in part the divine justice, by which it has been justly ordained that anyone who has not wished to remain in grace when he could, should not be able to do so even if he should so will; in part the cause is the deficiency of the powers of nature, which are insufficient for this expiation, for the reasons already indicated. When a man jumps into a ditch, he is the cause of his fall, but the state of rest which follows upon it is from nature; and for this reason he cannot get out of the ditch as he was able to jump into it. It is the same in the question at hand.
8. The expression to bring about the forgiveness of guilt can be taken in either of two ways, effectively or formally, as making some thing white applies to the painter effectively, but formally to white ness. Now in the forgiveness of guilt grace is the means of bringing it about, not effectively, but only formally. When it is said that only God enters into the soul, the qualities of the soul, either natural or gratuitous, are not excluded; for by these the soul is informed. But other subsistent substances are excluded; for they cannot be within the soul in the same way as God, who is within it even more intimately than the forms just mentioned. God is in the very existence of the soul, causing and conserving it; whereas the forms or qualities in question do not reach to the existence but surround as it were the essence of the soul.
9. Grace which exists and exists in the soul drives out guilt—not a guilt which but rather one which does not exist but formerly existed. It does not drive out guilt in the same way as an efficient cause, for in that case it would have to act upon an existing guilt in order to expel it. Rather it drives it out formally. From the fact that grace in forms the subject it follows that guilt is not in the subject, as is seen in the example of health and sickness.
10. To this and similar difficulties a number of answers are ordinarily given.
The first is that, although that instant is really one, it is nevertheless several in thought, being the beginning of the future and the end of the past; and so nothing prevents guilt and grace from being in the soul at the same time, but in such a way that guilt is in that instant in so far as it is the end of the past, whereas grace is in it in so far as it is the beginning of the future.
But this cannot stand. For the distinction given implies different aspects of the instant which do not multiply its substance but leave it one. The real consequence is that guilt and grace are in the soul in the same indivisible point of time; for the term instant means an in divisible point of time. But this is to be together at the same time; and so it follows that contraries are in the same subject at the same time. Furthermore, according to the Philosopher, when anything in moving makes use of one point as two, a period of rest must intervene. It is by this argument that he proves that reciprocating motions are not continuous. Likewise, if anyone makes use of one instant as two, he must understand some interval; as a consequence the soul would at some time be without guilt or grace. But this is inadmissible.
On this account others say that, just as a line extends between two points on a single lime but not between two points on two lime-segments in contact at their end-points; in the same way it is mot necessary that between the instant which is the last of the time in which guilt was present and the instant which is the first of the time in which grace is present, there be any intervening time, since they are instants of distinct times.
But this again cannot stand. Because a lime is an intrinsic measure, it is divided according to the distinction of real things. But time is an extrinsic measure and is one will regard to all things that are in time; for the existence of guilt is not measured by one time and that of grace by another, unless we mean by another time another part of the same continuous time. It is therefore necessary that between any two instants, whatever the things to which they may be referred, there should be an intervening time. Furthermore, two points on two line- segments in contact described on located bodies are united at a single point designated on an external line on the locating body; for contiguous beings are those whose extremities coincide. If, then, it is granted that distinct beings have distinct times which are not continuous but in a sense contiguous, it will nevertheless be necessary that in the time serving as the extrinsic measure there correspond to their end-points a single indivisible instant. Consequently the same in admissible conclusion mentioned above, that guilt and grace are together, comes back again.
For this reason others say that such spiritual changes are not measured by a time which us the number of the movement of the heavens, because the soul and every spiritual substance are above time; but they have their own time inasmuch as there is found in them a before and after. But this time is not continuous, since according to the Philosopher the continuity of time is dependent upon the continuity of motion, whereas the affections of the soul are not continuous.
But this likewise has no place in the matter at hand. For not only things essentially in time, which is the movement of the heavens, are measured by time, but also those having an accidental reference to the movement of the heavens because they are dependent upon things that have an essential reference to the time just mentioned. And this holds even for the justification of sinners, which is dependent upon thoughts, conversations, and other such motions that are essentially measured by the time of the movement of the heavens.
A different explanation must therefore be given: we cannot indicate the last instant in which the sinner had guilt, but the last time. We can, however, indicate the first instant in which he has grace, and this instant is the end of the time in which he had guilt; but between a time and the end of that time nothing intervenes. We therefore do not have to indicate any time or instant in which a person would have neither guilt nor grace.
This is explained as follows. Since the infusion of grace takes place in an instant, it is the end of a continuous movement, such as a meditation by which the will is disposed for the reception of grace; and the end of the same movement is the forgiveness of guilt, for guilt is forgiven by the very fact that grace is infused. In that first instant, then, there is the end of the forgiveness of guilt, that is, the absence of guilt, and the end of the infusion of grace, that is, the possession of grace. Then in the whole preceding time that ends at this instant, by which the movement of the meditation just mentioned was measured, the sinner had guilt and not grace, except only at the last instant, as we have said. But before the last instant of this time we cannot pick out another immediately next to it, because, if any instant at all other than the last is taken, between it and the last there will be an infinite number of intervening instants.
Thus it is clear that we cannot distinguish a last instant in which the person justified would have guilt and not have grace; but we can distinguish a first instant in which he has grace and does not have guilt. This solution can be gathered from the words of the Philosopher is
11. By His love God not only causes the gift of grace in us but also the forgiveness of guilt. Consequently the forgiveness of guilt does not have to precede grace. Such a necessity would follow, however, if the forgiveness of guilt preceded God’s love instead of following from it.
12. The sacraments cause by signifying, for they cause what they represent. And because circumcision has its signification in removing, its effectiveness was directly related to the removal of original guilt and only consequently to grace, whether grace was given in virtue of circumcision in the same way as it 15 given in virtue of baptism, as some say, or was given by God concomitantly will circumcision. Thus the forgiveness of guilt did not take place without grace. Yet that grace did not as completely repress concupiscence as does the grace of baptism. It was accordingly harder for a circumcised person to resist concupiscence than it is for a baptized person. From this circumstance the Old Law was said to kill by giving occasion, although circumcision is not included among the sacraments of the Mosaic law because it is not "of Moses but of the fathers," as is said in John (7:22). Thus, if circumcision gave any grace, this is not contrary to the state merit that the Old Law did not justify.
Parallel readings: II Sentences 27, a. 2 act 7; 1V Sentences '7, 1, 3 sol. 2; In Ephes., c. 5, lectura 5; Sum. Theol., I-II, 113, 3; in Joan., C. 4, lectura 2, § s (P 10: 3
Difficulties:
It seems that it does not, for
1. Anything that applies to those who do not have the use of free choice does not require the exercise of free choice. But justification applies to children who do not yet have the use of free choice, for they are justified by baptism. The justification of sinners therefore does not require the exercise of free choice.
2. The answer was given that this is something special for children, who are in the grip only of a sin which is contracted from someone else; and it does not apply to adults, who are in the grip of their own sins.—On the contrary, Augustine says that when a certain friend of his "was suffering from fever, he lay unconscious for a long time in a deadly sweat. Since all hope for him had been given up, he was baptized without his knowledge. I was not much concerned and assumed that his soul would retain what it had received from me rather than what was done to his body while lie was unaware of it. But the event proved far different, for he recovered." But recovery takes place by reason of justifying grace. Justifying grace is accordingly sometimes conferred upon an adult without the motion of his free choice.
3. It was said in answer that this takes place only when man is justified by a sacrament. On the contrary, God has not tied His power down to the sacraments. Since justification is a divine work depending upon His power, it therefore seems that an adult can be justified even without the sacraments independently of the motion of his free choice.
4. A man can be in a state in which he is an adult and does not have any actual sin but only original sin. For at the first instant at which a person is an adult, if he has not been baptized he is still subject to original sin without as yet having any actual sin, because by not transgressing anything he has as yet done nothing for which he would be held guilty of sin; nor again is he guilty of omission, because affirmative precepts do not oblige to constant compliance, so that a man does not immediately have to observe affirmative precepts the first instant he is an adult. It accordingly appears that an adult can have original sin without any actual sin. if, then, that is the reason why a child can be justified without any motion of his free choice, it seems that the same reason may apply for an adult.
5. Whenever anything is found in a number of things in common, they must agree in some common cause. Now to be justified applies alike to children and to adults. Since grace alone is the cause of justification in children, it therefore seems that grace without the use of free choice is sufficient for justification in adults.
6. Wisdom is a gift of God as well as justice. But Solomon received wisdom while he was asleep, as is recorded in the third book of Kings (3:5-15). Then in the same way man can also receive justifying grace while he is asleep and without the use of his free choice.
7. It was said that Solomon received wisdom in his sleep as a reward for a previous act of his will.—On the contrary, will is required in evil acts just as well as in good, because nothing is a sin unless it is voluntary. But an act of will previous to sleep does not make what is done during sleep a sin. Then neither does it have anything to do will the reception of a divine gift during sleep.
8. The use of free choice is inhibited not only in one asleep but also in a sick person. But a sick person can be justified without the use of his free choice, as is clear from the passage from Augustine which was cited. Consequently so can one who is sleeping.
9. God is more powerful than any created agent. But the material sun diffuses its light into the air without any previous preparation in the air itself. Then all the more does God infuse the light of His grace without any preparation, which is made through the act of free choice.
10. Since good tends to communicate itself, according to Dionysius, God, who is supremely good, most fully communicates Himself. This would not be true, however, unless He communicated Himself both w those who prepare and to those who do not. Consequently the exercise of free choice as a preparation on the part of man is not required in the justification of sinners.
11. Augustine says that God causes justice in man in the same way as the sun causes light in the air; when the sun’s influence ceases, the light ceases. He is not like a cabinetmaker working upon a cabinet, upon which he does nothing once it is made. The sun works in the air in the same way when the air is first illuminated and as long as the light continues in it. God accordingly causes justice in man when he is first justified and as long as justice is conserved in him. But justice is conserved in man even when the exercise of free choice ceases, as is seen in one asleep. Mari can therefore be justified in the beginning without any movement of his free choice.
12. The disposition which is required as a necessity for the introduction of a form is such that without it the form cannot remain, as is exemplified in heat and the form of fire. But without the exercise of free choice justice can remain, as it does in one asleep. Consequently the exercise of free choice is not a disposition which is required as a necessity for the infusion of grace.
13. Anything which is naturally prior to something else and can exist either will or without that which comes after it, has no need of the latter in order to be brought into existence. An example would be heaviness and falling; there can be heaviness without failing, as occurs when a heavy body is kept from its proper motion. But grace naturally comes before the exercise of free choice, and can either be without that exercise or not; for it is the formal principle of free choice as heaviness is that of natural motion. Grace can therefore be infused without the exercise of free choice.
14. An ailing body introduces original sin into the soul without any exercise of free choice. All the more, then, does God, who is most powerful, not need the exercise of free choice in order to infuse grace.
15. God is more ready to have mercy than to condemn, as is said in the Gloss in the beginning of its commentary upon Jeremias. But God punishes children who die without baptism independently of any use of free choice. He therefore much more surely has mercy by infusing grace.
6. The disposition for a form which is needed in the recipient of the form is not from the recipient but from another. Thus heat, which is in wood antecedently as a disposition for the form of fire, is not from the wood itself. But the exercise of free choice is from the man who is to be justified. It is therefore not needed as a disposition for having grace.
17. Justification comes about by the infusion of grace and the virtues. But according to Augustine6 only God causes virtue in us will out our own efforts. Consequently our own activity, which takes place through the use of free choice, is not needed for our justification.
18. According to the Apostle (Rm 4,4) "to him that worked, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt." But the exercise of free choice is a form of working. If, then, the exercise of free choice is required for justification, justification will not be from grace but from debt. But that is heretical.
19. One who works against grace is farther removed from grace than one who does not work at all. But God sometimes gives grace to someone who by his free choice works against grace, as He did to Paul, to whom it was said: "It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Acts 9:5). With all the more reason, then, grace is sometimes imparted to a person independently of his use of free choice.
20. An agent will infinite power does not need any disposition in the patient; for the more powerful the agent, the less he needs a previous disposition for the production of his effect. But God is an agent will infinite power, even to the extent that He does not need pre existing matter but draws His products out of nothing. Much less, then, does He need a disposition; and so in the justification of sinners, which is a divine work, God does not need the exercise of free choice as a disposition on the part of man.
To the Contrary:
2'. The comment on the words of III Kings (3:5): "Ask what thou will that E should give thee" that is given in the Gloss is this: "The grace of God requires free choice." But justification is brought about by the grace of God, as is taught in the Epistle to the Romans (3:24). The exercise of free choice is therefore required for justification.
2’. Bernard says that "there cannot be justification without either the consent of the recipient or the grace of the giver." But the con sent of the recipient is an act of free choice. Man therefore cannot be justified without the use of free choice.
3'. For the reception of a form a disposition is needed in the recipient, for it is not possible for just any form at all to be received in any given subject. But the act of free choice serves as a disposition for grace. The exercise of free choice is therefore required for the reception of justifying grace.
4'. In the justification of sinners man contracts a kind of spiritual marriage will God, as is written in Osee (2: I 9): "I will espouse thee to me in justice." But in carnal marriage mutual consent is required. With all the more reason, then, is this true of the justification of sinners. And so the use of free choice is needed for it.
5’. The justification of sinners does not take place without charity, because, as is written in Proverbs (10: 12), "charity covereth all sins." But since charity is a kind of friendship, it demands mutual love. For, as the Philosopher makes clear, friendship involves reciprocated love. But mutual love requires the use of free choice in each of the parties. Consequently there cannot be justification without the use of free choice.
241
No one having the use of free choice can be justified without the use of free choice at the instant of his justification. But in those who do not have control over their own wills, such as children, this is not needed for justification. Three reasons can be assigned for this.
The first reason is taken from the mutual relationship of agent and patient. It is clear that in corporeal beings an action is not performed without some contact. It may be that only the agent touches the patient. This occurs when the patient is not capable of touching the agent, as when higher bodies act upon lower, touching them and not being touched by them. Or it may be that the agent and patient each touch the other. This occurs when both are capable of touching and being touched, as when lire acts upon water or vice versa.
Among spiritual beings, when mutual contact is possible, action is not performed without mutual contact. In other cases it is enough for the agent to touch the patient. Now God, who justifies sinners, touches the soul, causing grace in it. It is accordingly said in the Psalm (143:5): "Touch the mountains"; and the Gloss adds: "will thy grace." But the human soul in some sense touches God by knowing Him or loving Him. As a consequence there is required in adults, who can know and love God, some exercise of free choice by which they know and love Him. That is the turning to God of which Zacharias (1:3) speaks: "Turn ye to me,... and 1 will turn to you." Children lacking the use of reason, however, cannot know and love God. This is why it is sufficient for their justification that they be touched by Him through the infusion of grace.
The second reason is taken from the very notion of justification. According w Anselm justice is "the rectitude of the will kept for its own sake." Justification is accordingly a change of the will. Now will can be taken either as the power itself or as the act of the power. But the act of the power of will cannot be changed except will its own cooperation; for if it were not from the power, it would not be its act. The power of will, however, can be changed without its co operation, just as it was made without its cooperation.
In adults a change in the act of the will is needed for justification; for by an act of the will they are turned to something inordinately. The direction in which they are turned cannot be changed except by a contrary act of the will. For the justification of adults an act of free choice is therefore required. But children, who do not have their will turned to anything by the act of their own will but have only the power of will culpably deprived of original justice, can be justified without the activity of them own will.
The third reason is drawn from a likeness to the divine operation upon corporeal things. When producing an effect which nature can likewise produce, God produces it in accordance will the same disposition as nature does. If, for example, God were to heal someone miraculously, He would cause health in him will a certain balance of humans which nature also in some cases brings about w heal a man. This agrees will the statement of the Philosopher that, if nature produced a work of ant, it would produce it in just the same way as art does, and conversely. Now from his natural endowments a man can have some kind of justice in two ways: (1) as natural or innate, inasmuch as some have a natural bent for works of justice; and (2) as acquired. The infused justice, then, by which adults are justified is like that acquired by deeds. Consequently, just as in acquired political justice an act of the will is needed by which one loves justice, similarly justification is not accomplished in adults without the exercise of free choice. But the infused justice by which infants are justified is like the natural aptitude for justice, which is also found in infants; for neither, however, is the exercise of free choice required.
Answers to Difficulties:
1. Because children do not have the means of turning to the justifying cause, the justifying cause itself, namely, the passion of Christ, is applied to them through the sacrament of baptism. By this they are justified.
2. Regarding an adult who is not in the possession of his faculties a distinction must be made. If he never had the use of reason, he is to be judged in the same way as infants; but if at any time he had the use of reason, then if he desired baptism during the time when he was in possession of his faculties and is baptized while out of his senses, not being aware of it or even resisting, he obtains the effect of baptism because of his previous disposition of will. This is particularly true when after baptism he recovers the use of his free choice and is pleased will what was done. This is the situation of which Augustine speaks. The resistance which is offered is not imputed to the sick man, since he does not act by his will but is acted upon by his imagination.
If, however, while he was in possession of his faculties he did not desire baptism, he is not to be given baptism even when he is unaware of it or offering no resistance, however great may be the danger of death; for he is to be judged on the basis of the last instant in which he was in his right mind. And if he is given baptism, he receives neither the sacrament nor the grace of the sacrament; though from the invocation of the Holy Trinity and the consecration of the water some disposition may miraculously be left in him so that when he re covers the use of his free choice he will more easily be changed for the good.
3. Even without any sacrament God gives grace to some infants, as is evident of those sanctified in the womb. And He could similarly confer grace without any sacrament upon an adult who was out of his mind, just as he does will a sacrament.
4. The opinion that an adult may have original sin without any actual sin is held by some to be an impossible position. For when he begins to be adult, if he does what he can, there will be given to Mm the grace by which he will be freed from original sin; but if he does not do what be can, be will be guilty of a sin of omission. Since every one is obliged to avoid sin and he cannot do this without setting his aim upon the due end, as soon as anyone is in possession of his faculties he is obliged to turn to God and make Him his end. By so doing he is disposed for grace. Furthermore, Augustine says that the concupiscence deriving from original sin makes infants disposed to experience concupiscence, and adults actually to do So; for it is unlikely that one who is infected will original sin will not submit to the concupiscence of sin by consent to a sin.
5. Justification is in infants and in adults from a common cause, grace, which is, however, received differently by infants and by adults in accordance will their different condition. For whatever is received in another is in it after the manner of the recipient. For this reason the reception of grace in an adult is associated will the exercise of free choice, but not in an infant.
6. Three different answers to this difficulty can be given:
(1) It can be said that the sleep in which wisdom was imparted to Solomon was not a natural sleep but one of prophecy, of which it is written in Numbers (12:6): "If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will speak to him in a dream or in a vision."15 In such a sleep, however, the use of free choice is not prevented.
(2) It can be said that in the infusion of wisdom the intellect must be turned to God, just as in the infusion of justice the will, which is its subject, must be turned to Him. Now in sleep the intellect can be turned to God but not free choice or the will. This is because the intellect has two operations, perceiving and judging about what it has perceived.
In sleep the intellect is not prevented from perceiving something either from what it has previously considered (and this is why a man sometimes makes syllogisms in his sleep) or from illumination by some higher substance. The intellect of n sleeping person is more adapted to the reception of this illumination because of the repose of his senses and freedom from their acts, and especially because his phantasms are at rest. It is accordingly written in Job (33:15—16): "By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, and they are sleeping in their beds: then he opened the ears of men, and teaching instructed them in what they are to learn." That is the chief reason why future things are foreseen in sleep.
But the perfect judgment of the intellect cannot be found in one who is sleeping, because at that time our senses, which are the primary source of our knowledge, are inhibited. For a judgment is made by reducing to principles, and for this reason we must judge about every thing on the basis of what we receive by the senses, as is said in Heaven and Earth.1o But the exercise of free choice depends upon rational judgment; and so the exercise of free choice, which is the means by which the will turns to God, cannot be sufficient during sleep; for even if there should be some motion of the will, it depends more upon the imagination than upon a complete rational judgment. Consequently a man can receive wisdom while sleeping, but not justice.
(2) It can be said that the intellect is forced by the intelligible object, but the will cannot be forced by the object of appetite. For this reason wisdom, which is the rectitude of the intellect, can be infused independently of the use of free choice, but not justice, which is the rectitude of the will.
7. The movement of free choice in one awake antecedent to sleep cannot cause the act of one asleep to be meritorious or demeritorious in itself, but it can cause it to have some aspect of goodness or badness insofar as the influence of our waking acts is left in what we do while asleep, as the influence of the cause is left in the effect. That is why virtuous men have better dreams in their sleep than others who are not virtuous, as is said in the Ethics. That is why, too, nocturnal Pollution is sometimes accounted as culpable. Solomon could according 'y dispose himself while awake to receive wisdom in his sleep.
8. The sacrament of baptism is not to be given to a sick person while he is out of his senses, even if he previously had the desire for baptism, unless the danger of death is feared; but in the case of a sleeping per son that is not feared. In this respect, then, the two cases differ, though in other respects they are alike.
9. According to the nature of its species air is in the final disposition to receive light by reason of its transparency. Thus immediately upon the presence of a source of light it is lighted; and no other preparation is needed unless it be the removal of an obstacle. But the intellectual soul is not in the final disposition for the reception of justice except when it is actually willing, because a power is perfected by its act, being in potency to either of two opposites until determined to one of them by that act, just as matter, which is in potency to a number of forms, by being disposed is fitted for one form rather than another.
10. With infinite goodness God communicates Himself to creatures by means of a certain similarity to His goodness, which He imparts to them by the very fact that He communicates His goodness in the best possible way. It belongs to this way that He impart His gifts in an orderly fashion according to His wisdom; that is to say, He gives to each one according to its own condition. That is why a disposition or some preparation is needed on the part of those to whom God gives His gifts.
An alternative answer would be that the difficulty argues from a preparation which precedes in time the infusion of grace. God sometimes gives grace without such preparation, suddenly causing in someone a sentiment of Contrition and pouring in His grace; for, as is written in Ecclesiasticus (11:23), "it is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich." This does not, however, exclude the use of free choice at the instant at which grace is infused. God reveals a more perfect communication of His goodness by causing simultaneously in man the habit and the act of justice than He would by causing the habit alone.
11. The sun is the cause of light not only in its being but also in its becoming. In the same way God is the cause of grace both in its being and in its becoming. Something not required for the existence of a thing is required for its becoming, which involves a kind of change. Thus when light comes to be in the air, it is required that the air stand in a relation to the sun different from before. This comes about through the movement of the sun, though without this movement there could be conservation of the light in the air by the constant presence of die sun. Similarly, for grace to come to be, the will must be related to God in a way different from before. For this a change in the will is required, and this is not had in adults without the exercise of free choice, as we have said.
12. A disposition not needed for the existence of a thing is needed for its becoming, as is particular clear in the procreation of animals and plants. After a thing has already been made, nothing prevents its being kept in existence even though such dispositions disappear. And so when the motion of free choice, which was necessary for justification, ceases, justice can remain as a habit.
13. Even though something which by nature comes before some thing else can exist without the latter, that does not mean that it can come into being without the thing which comes after it. Thus the soul, being the formal, efficient, and final cause of the body, as is said in The Sou1, is naturally prior to the body and can exist without the body; yet in accordance will the order of nature it can come into being only in the body. The same is true of grace and the exercise of free choice.
14. The body infects the soul will original sin by the very fact that it is united to the soul. This sin, however, does not concern the will of the one infected but his nature. It is therefore not surprising if the use of free choice is not needed for such infection. Now in a similar way the soul of a child gets grace by the very fact that it is united to Christ through the sacrament of baptism without the exercise of free choice. In adults, however, the exercise of free choice is required, for the reason already explained.
15. The fact that God is said to be more ready to have mercy than to punish does not mean that nothing more is needed for the good which God brings about in us by having mercy than for the evil which God punishes in us; for according to Dionysius good arises from an integral cause all taken together, but evil from any single defect. This shows that God has mercy because of what is from Him, whereas He punishes because of what is from us; and this product of ours is such that it cannot have a place in right order except by means of punishment. He accordingly has mercy from His principal intention but punishes as if it were beyond the intention of His antecedent will by a consequent will. Yet on the point at issue it can be said that by a certain resemblance the justification of children before the use of free choice corresponds to the infection of original sin, which enters the soul before it has the use of free choice.
16. The things of nature can be disposed for a form by a sort of violence, having an extrinsic source of their disposition and contributing nothing themselves to their change. In them, then, the disposition for a form is not from an intrinsic principle but from without. But the will cannot suffer violence. There is accordingly no parallel from which to draw an argument.
17. God causes virtues in us without our causing them but not will out our consent.
18. The act of free choice involved in the justification of sinners is related in one way w the habit of justice in general explained above, and in a different way to the execution and increase of justice. It can not be related to the habit as merit, because justice, the principle of meriting, is infused at the very instant; but it is related merely as a disposition. It is related to the execution and increase of justice, how ever, in the line of merit, because man merits divine help in these by the first act which has grace as its form. Thus justice is not given to human deeds as a reward, but the increase and perdurance of justice are of the nature of a reward will reference w previous meritorious acts.
19. Although before he was justified Paul was fighting directly against the grace of faith, yet in the very instant of his justification he consented to grace by his free choice, which was moved by divine grace. For God can in an instant induce the movement of a will elevated by grace without which there is no justification; but there can be justification without any previous preparation.
20. The disposition in question is needed, not because of the 1m- potency of the agent, but because of the condition of the recipient, the will, which cannot be changed by violence but is changed by its own motion. The motion of free choice, moreover, is related to grace not only as a disposition but also as a complement; for operations are in a sense the completion of habits. It therefore attests the perfection of the agent if the habit is introduced at the same time as its operation, because the perfection of the effect is a sign of the perfection of the cause.
Parallel readings: IV Sentences I, 1, 3 sol. 3; in Ephes., C. 2, lectura Sum. Theol., I-II, 113, 4.
Difficulties.
It seems that a motion toward God is not required, for
2. Nothing that follows justification is required for justification. But since being moved toward God comes from grace, this follows justification. Hence it is written in Lamentations (5:2 1): "Convent us, O Lord, to thee..."The motion of free choice toward God is therefore not one of the things required for justification.
2. A motion of free choice is required for justification as a disposition of the part of free choice. Now that to which man needs to be drawn does not pertain to free choice. But since man needs to be drawn in order to be turned toward God, according w the words recorded in John (6:44): "No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him," it therefore seems that the motion of free choice toward God is not one of the things required for the justification of sinners.
3. Man comes w justice by way of fear, "for he that is without fear, cannot be justified," as is written in Ecclesiasticus (1:28). But through fear man is not moved toward God but rather toward punishment. The motion of free choice required for justification of sinners is therefore not a motion toward God.
4. Should it be said that this is true of servile, not of filial fear, the rejoinder would be: all fear includes flight in its essential notion. But by flight we withdraw from that which we are fleeing; we do not approach it. By fearing God, then, a man does not move toward God but rather away from Him.
. If a motion of free choice toward God is required for justification, that motion in particular should be required through which man is most completely moved toward God. Now man is more completely moved toward God through charity than through faith. Consequently, if a motion of free choice toward God is required for justification, justification should not be attributed to faith but rather to charity. The contrary, however, appears in the Epistle to the Ro mans (5:1): "Being justified therefore by faith".
6. The motion of free choice required in justification is like the last disposition for grace, at the presence of which grace is infused. Now a disposition for a form, at the presence of which the form is introduced, is such that it cannot exist without the form, since it is an exigency for the form. Since the motion of faith can exist without grace, it accordingly seems that justification should not be attributed to the motion of faith.
7. Man can know God by his natural reason. But faith is required for justification only because it makes us know God. It therefore seems that man can be justified without the motion of faith.
8. Man knows God not only by a motion of faith but also by an act of wisdom. Then justification should not be attributed to faith any more than to wisdom.
9. Many articles are contained in faith. Now if a motion of faith is required for justification, it therefore seems that one would have to think of all the articles of faith. But that cannot be done instantaneously.
10. In the Epistle of St. James (4:6) we read that God "giveth grace to the humble." There is accordingly required for justification a motion of humility, which is not a motion toward God; otherwise humility would have God as its object and end and would be a theological virtue. The motion that is required for the justification of sinners is therefore not a motion of free choice toward God.
11. In the justification of sinners man’s will is changed to justice. The motion of free choice should therefore be an act of justice; but that is not a motion toward God, for justice does not have God as its object. The motion required for the justification of sinners is there fore not a motion toward God.
Man is related to the justification of sinners as the remover of an obstacle, just as one who opens the shutters is called the cause of lighting the house. But the obstacle to grace is sin. On the part of the one justified, then, a motion of free choice toward God is not required but only one toward sin.
To the Contrary:
1'. In the Epistle of St. James (4:8) it is written: "Draw nigh to God: and he will draw nigh w you." Now God draws near to us by the infusion of grace. Consequently for us w be justified by grace we are required to draw near to God through the motion of our free choice toward Him.
2’. The justification of sinners is a kind of enlightenment of man. But we read in the Psalm ( 3:6): "Come ye w him and be enlightened." Now, since man does not come to God by steps of the body but by movements of the mind, as Augustine says, it therefore seems that a motion of free choice is required for the justification of sinners.
3’. In the Epistle to the Romans (4:5) we read: "To him that believeth in him that justified the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice." For a sinner to be justified, then, a motion of faith toward God is required.
De veritate EN 240