QUESTIONS 109-114 QUESTION OF THE NECESSITY OF GRACE (TEN ARTICLES)

We must now consider the exterior principle of human acts, i.e. God, in so far as, through grace, we are helped by Him to do right: and, first, we must consider the grace of God; secondly, its cause; thirdly, its effects.

The first point of consideration will be threefold: for we shall consider (1) The necessity of grace; (2) grace itself, as to its essence; (3) its division.

Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry: (1) Whether without grace man can know anything? (2) Whether without God’s grace man can do or wish any good? (3) Whether without grace man can love God above all things? (4) Whether without grace man can keep the commandments of the Law? (5) Whether without grace he can merit eternal life? (6) Whether without grace man can prepare himself for grace? (7) Whether without grace he can rise from sin? (8) Whether without grace man can avoid sin? (9) Whether man having received grace can do good and avoid sin without any further Divine help? (10) Whether he can of himself persevere in good?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1) Whether without grace man can know any truth?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that without grace man can know no truth. For, on 1 Corinthians 12:3: “No man can say, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost,” a gloss says: “Every truth, by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost.” Now the Holy Ghost dwells in us by grace. Therefore we cannot know truth without grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, Augustine says (Solil. i, 6) that “the most certain sciences are like things lit up by the sun so as to be seen.

Now God Himself is He Whom sheds the light. And reason is in the mind as sight is in the eye. And the eyes of the mind are the senses of the soul.”

Now the bodily senses, however pure, cannot see any visible object, without the sun’s light. Therefore the human mind, however perfect, cannot, by reasoning, know any truth without Divine light: and this pertains to the aid of grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, the human mind can only understand truth by thinking, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7). But the Apostle says ( 2 Corinthians 3:5): “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God.”

Therefore man cannot, of himself, know truth without the help of grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 4): “I do not approve having said in the prayer, O God, Who dost wish the sinless alone to know the truth; for it may be answered that many who are not sinless know many truths.” Now man is cleansed from sin by grace, according to Psalm 50:12: “Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within my bowels.”

Therefore without grace man of himself can know truth.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1) —

I answer that, To know truth is a use or act of intellectual light, since, according to the Apostle ( Ephesians 5:13): “All that is made manifest is light.” Now every use implies movement, taking movement broadly, so as to call thinking and willing movements, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 4). Now in corporeal things we see that for movement there is required not merely the form which is the principle of the movement or action, but there is also required the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of corporeal things is the heavenly body. Hence no matter how perfectly fire has heat, it would not bring about alteration, except by the motion of the heavenly body. But it is clear that as all corporeal movements are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to the first corporeal mover, so all movements, both corporeal and spiritual, are reduced to the simple First Mover, Who is God. And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God; but this motion is according to the plan of His providence, and not by necessity of nature, as the motion of the heavenly body. Now not only is every motion from God as from the First Mover, but all formal perfection is from Him as from the First Act. And thus the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.

Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a determined act, which it can bring about in proportion to its own proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses. Higher intelligible things of the human intellect cannot know, unless it be perfected by a stronger light, viz. the light of faith or prophecy which is called the “light of grace,” inasmuch as it is added to nature.

Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act. But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowledge.

And yet at times God miraculously instructs some by His grace in things that can be known by natural reason, even as He sometimes brings about miraculously what nature can do.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Every truth by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost as bestowing the natural light, and moving us to understand and speak the truth, but not as dwelling in us by sanctifying grace, or as bestowing any habitual gift superadded to nature. For this only takes place with regard to certain truths that are known and spoken, and especially in regard to such as pertain to faith, of which the Apostle speaks.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1)- RO(2) —

The material sun sheds its light outside us; but the intelligible Sun, Who is God, shines within us. Hence the natural light bestowed upon the soul is God’s enlightenment, whereby we are enlightened to see what pertains to natural knowledge; and for this there is required no further knowledge, but only for such things as surpass natural knowledge.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(1)- RO(3) —

We always need God’s help for every thought, inasmuch as He moves the understanding to act; for actually to understand anything is to think, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7).

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2) Whether man can wish or do any good without grace?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that man can wish and do good without grace. For that is in man’s power, whereof he is master. Now man is master of his acts, and especially of his willing, as stated above ( Q(1) , A(1) ; Q(13), A(6) ). Hence man, of himself, can wish and do good without the help of grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, man has more power over what is according to his nature than over what is beyond his nature. Now sin is against his nature, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 30); whereas deeds of virtue are according to his nature, as stated above ( Q(71), A(1) ).

Therefore since man can sin of himself he can wish and do good.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, the understanding’s good is truth, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2). Now the intellect can of itself know truth, even as every other thing can work its own operation of itself.

Therefore, much more can man, of himself, do and wish good.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Romans 9:16): “It is not of him that willeth,” namely, to will, “nor of him that runneth,” namely to run, “but of God that showeth mercy.” And Augustine says (De Corrept. et Gratia ii) that “without grace men do nothing good when they either think or wish or love or act.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2) —

I answer that, Man’s nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above ( A(1) ). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured.

And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Man is master of his acts and of his willing or not willing, because of his deliberate reason, which can be bent to one side or another. And although he is master of his deliberating or not deliberating, yet this can only be by a previous deliberation; and since it cannot go on to infinity, we must come at length to this, that man’s freewill is moved by an extrinsic principle, which is above the human mind, to wit by God, as the Philosopher proves in the chapter “On Good Fortune” (Ethic. Eudem. vii). Hence the mind of man still unweakened is not so much master of its act that it does not need to be moved by God; and much more the free-will of man weakened by sin, whereby it is hindered from good by the corruption of the nature.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2)- RO(2) —

To sin is nothing else than to fail in the good which belongs to any being according to its nature. Now as every created thing has its being from another, and, considered in itself, is nothing, so does it need to be preserved by another in the good which pertains to its nature. For it can of itself fail in good, even as of itself it can fall into nonexistence, unless it is upheld by God.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Man cannot even know truth without Divine help, as stated above ( A(1) ). And yet human nature is more corrupt by sin in regard to the desire for good, than in regard to the knowledge of truth.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3) Whether by his own natural powers and without grace man can love God above all things?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that without grace man cannot love God above all things by his own natural powers. For to love God above all things is the proper and principal act of charity. Now man cannot of himself possess charity, since the “charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who is given to us,” as is said Romans 5:5.

Therefore man by his natural powers alone cannot love God above all things.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, no nature can rise above itself. But to love God above all things is to tend above oneself. Therefore without the help of grace no created nature can love God above itself.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, to God, Who is the Highest Good, is due the best love, which is that He be loved above all things. Now without grace man is not capable of giving God the best love, which is His due; otherwise it would be useless to add grace. Hence man, without grace and with his natural powers alone, cannot love God above all things.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3) —

On the contrary, As some maintain, man was first made with only natural endowments; and in this state it is manifest that he loved God to some extent. But he did not love God equally with himself, or less than himself, otherwise he would have sinned. Therefore he loved God above himself. Therefore man, by his natural powers alone, can love God more than himself and above all things.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3) —

I answer that, As was said above ( P(1) Q(60), A(5) ), where the various opinions concerning the natural love of the angels were set forth, man in a state of perfect nature, could by his natural power, do the good natural to him without the addition of any gratuitous gift, though not without the help of God moving him. Now to love God above all things is natural to man and to every nature, not only rational but irrational, and even to inanimate nature according to the manner of love which can belong to each creature. And the reason of this is that it is natural to all to seek and love things according as they are naturally fit (to be sought and loved) since “all things act according as they are naturally fit” as stated in Phys. ii, 8. Now it is manifest that the good of the part is for the good of the whole; hence everything, by its natural appetite and love, loves its own proper good on account of the common good of the whole universe, which is God. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “God leads everything to love of Himself.” Hence in the state of perfect nature man referred the love of himself and of all other things to the love of God as to its end; and thus he loved God more than himself and above all things. But in the state of corrupt nature man falls short of this in the appetite of his rational will, which, unless it is cured by God’s grace, follows its private good, on account of the corruption of nature. And hence we must say that in the state of perfect nature man did not need the gift of grace added to his natural endowments, in order to love God above all things naturally, although he needed God’s help to move him to it; but in the state of corrupt nature man needs, even for this, the help of grace to heal his nature.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Charity loves God above all things in a higher way than nature does. For nature loves God above all things inasmuch as He is the beginning and the end of natural good; whereas charity loves Him, as He is the object of beatitude, and inasmuch as man has a spiritual fellowship with God. Moreover charity adds to natural love of God a certain quickness and joy, in the same way that every habit of virtue adds to the good act which is done merely by the natural reason of a man who has not the habit of virtue.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3)- RO(2) —

When it is said that nature cannot rise above itself, we must not understand this as if it could not be drawn to any object above itself, for it is clear that our intellect by its natural knowledge can know things above itself, as is shown in our natural knowledge of God.

But we are to understand that nature cannot rise to an act exceeding the proportion of its strength. Now to love God above all things is not such an act; for it is natural to every creature, as was said above.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Love is said to be best, both with respect to degree of love, and with regard to the motive of loving, and the mode of love. And thus the highest degree of love is that whereby charity loves God as the giver of beatitude, as was said above.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4) Whether man without grace and by his own natural powers can fulfil the commandments of the Law?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that man without grace, and by his own natural powers, can fulfil the commandments of the Law. For the Apostle says ( Romans 2:14) that “the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the Law.”

Now what a man does naturally he can do of himself without grace. Hence a man can fulfil the commandments of the Law without grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, Jerome says (Expos. Cathol. Fide [*Symboli Explanatio ad Damasum, among the supposititious works of St. Jerome: now ascribed to Pelagius]) that “they are anathema who say God has laid impossibilities upon man.” Now what a man cannot fulfil by himself is impossible to him. Therefore a man can fulfil all the commandments of himself.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, of all the commandments of the Law, the greatest is this, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart” ( Matthew 27:37). Now man with his natural endowments can fulfil this command by loving God above all things, as stated above ( A(3) ).

Therefore man can fulfil all the commandments of the Law without grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Haeres. lxxxviii) that it is part of the Pelagian heresy that “they believe that without grace man can fulfil all the Divine commandments.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4) —

I answer that, There are two ways of fulfilling the commandments of the Law. The first regards the substance of the works, as when a man does works of justice, fortitude, and of other virtues. And in this way man in the state of perfect nature could fulfil all the commandments of the Law; otherwise he would have been unable to sin in that state, since to sin is nothing else than to transgress the Divine commandments. But in the state of corrupted nature man cannot fulfil all the Divine commandments without healing grace. Secondly, the commandments of the law can be fulfilled, not merely as regards the substance of the act, but also as regards the mode of acting, i.e. their being done out of charity. And in this way, neither in the state of perfect nature, nor in the state of corrupt nature can man fulfil the commandments of the law without grace. Hence, Augustine (De Corrupt. et Grat. ii) having stated that “without grace men can do no good whatever,” adds: “Not only do they know by its light what to do, but by its help they do lovingly what they know.” Beyond this, in both states they need the help of God’s motion in order to fulfil the commandments, as stated above ( AA(2),3 ).

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxvii), “do not be disturbed at his saying that they do by nature those things that are of the Law; for the Spirit of grace works this, in order to restore in us the image of God, after which we were naturally made.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4)- RO(2) —

What we can do with the Divine assistance is not altogether impossible to us; according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 3): “What we can do through our friends, we can do, in some sense, by ourselves.” Hence Jerome [*Symboli Explanatio ad Damasum, among the supposititious works of St. Jerome: now ascribed to Pelagius] concedes that “our will is in such a way free that we must confess we still require God’s help.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Man cannot, with his purely natural endowments, fulfil the precept of the love of God, as stated above ( A(3) ).

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5) Whether man can merit everlasting life without grace?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that man can merit everlasting life without grace. For Our Lord says ( Matthew 19:17): “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments”; from which it would seem that to enter into everlasting life rests with man’s will. But what rests with our will, we can do of ourselves. Hence it seems that man can merit everlasting life of himself.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, eternal life is the wage of reward bestowed by God on men, according to Matthew 5:12: “Your reward is very great in heaven.” But wage or reward is meted by God to everyone according to his works, according to Psalm 61:12: “Thou wilt render to every man according to his works.” Hence, since man is master of his works, it seems that it is within his power to reach everlasting life.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, everlasting life is the last end of human life. Now every natural thing by its natural endowments can attain its end. Much more, therefore, may man attain to life everlasting by his natural endowments, without grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Romans 6:23): “The grace of God is life everlasting.” And as a gloss says, this is said “that we may understand that God, of His own mercy, leads us to everlasting life.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5) —

I answer that, Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we have said above ( Q(5) , A(5) ). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as “to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends,” and the like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians [*Hypognosticon iii, among the spurious works of St. Augustine].

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Man, by his will, does works meritorious of everlasting life; but as Augustine says, in the same book, for this it is necessary that the will of man should be prepared with grace by God.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5)- RO(2) —

As the gloss upon Romans 6:23, “The grace of God is life everlasting,” says, “It is certain that everlasting life is meter to good works; but the works to which it is meted, belong to God’s grace.”

And it has been said ( A(4) ), that to fulfil the commandments of the Law, in their due way, whereby their fulfilment may be meritorious, requires grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(5)- RO(3) —

This objection has to do with the natural end of man. Now human nature, since it is nobler, can be raised by the help of grace to a higher end, which lower natures can nowise reach; even as a man who can recover his health by the help of medicines is better disposed to health than one who can nowise recover it, as the Philosopher observes (De Coelo ii, 12).

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6) Whether a man, by himself and without the external aid of grace, can prepare himself for grace?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that man, by himself and without the external help of grace, can prepare himself for grace. For nothing impossible is laid upon man, as stated above ( A(4), ad 1). But it is written ( Zechariah 1:3): “Turn ye to Me . . . and I will turn to you.”

Now to prepare for grace is nothing more than to turn to God. Therefore it seems that man of himself, and without the external help of grace, can prepare himself for grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, man prepares himself for grace by doing what is in him to do, since if man does what is in him to do, God will not deny him grace, for it is written ( Matthew 7:11) that God gives His good Spirit “to them that ask Him.” But what is in our power is in us to do. Therefore it seems to be in our power to prepare ourselves for grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, if a man needs grace in order to prepare for grace, with equal reason will he need grace to prepare himself for the first grace; and thus to infinity, which is impossible. Hence it seems that we must not go beyond what was said first, viz. that man, of himself and without grace, can prepare himself for grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- O(4) —

Further, it is written ( Proverbs 16:1) that “it is the part of man to prepare the soul.” Now an action is said to be part of a man, when he can do it by himself. Hence it seems that man by himself can prepare himself for grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6) —

On the contrary, It is written ( John 6:44): “No man can come to Me except the Father, Who hath sent Me, draw him.”

But if man could prepare himself, he would not need to be drawn by another. Hence man cannot prepare himself without the help of grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6) —

I answer that, The preparation of the human will for good is twofold: the first, whereby it is prepared to operate rightly and to enjoy God; and this preparation of the will cannot take place without the habitual gift of grace, which is the principle of meritorious works, as stated above ( A(5) ). There is a second way in which the human will may be taken to be prepared for the gift of habitual grace itself. Now in order that man prepare himself to receive this gift, it is not necessary to presuppose any further habitual gift in the soul, otherwise we should go on to infinity. But we must presuppose a gratuitous gift of God, Who moves the soul inwardly or inspires the good wish. For in these two ways do we need the Divine assistance, as stated above ( AA(2),3 ). Now that we need the help of God to move us, is manifest. For since every agent acts for an end, every cause must direct is effect to its end, and hence since the order of ends is according to the order of agents or movers, man must be directed to the last end by the motion of the first mover, and to the proximate end by the motion of any of the subordinate movers; as the spirit of the soldier is bent towards seeking the victory by the motion of the leader of the army — and towards following the standard of a regiment by the motion of the standard-bearer. And thus since God is the First Mover, simply, it is by His motion that everything seeks to be likened to God in its own way. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “God turns all to Himself.” But He directs righteous men to Himself as to a special end, which they seek, and to which they wish to cling, according to Psalm 72:28, “it is good for Me to adhere to my God.” And that they are “turned” to God can only spring from God’s having “turned” them.

Now to prepare oneself for grace is, as it were, to be turned to God; just as, whoever has his eyes turned away from the light of the sun, prepares himself to receive the sun’s light, by turning his eyes towards the sun.

Hence it is clear that man cannot prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the gratuitous help of God moving him inwardly.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- RO(1) —

Man’s turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is bidden to turn himself to God. But free-will can only be turned to God, when God turns it, according to Jeremiah 31:18: “Convert me and I shall be converted, for Thou art the Lord, my God”; and Lamentations 5:21: “Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- RO(2) —

Man can do nothing unless moved by God, according to John 15:5: “Without Me, you can do nothing.” Hence when a man is said to do what is in him to do, this is said to be in his power according as he is moved by God.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- RO(3) —

This objection regards habitual grace, for which some preparation is required, since every form requires a disposition in that which is to be its subject. But in order that man should be moved by God, no further motion is presupposed since God is the First Mover. Hence we need not go to infinity.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(6)- RO(4) —

It is the part of man to prepare his soul, since he does this by his free-will. And yet he does not do this without the help of God moving him, and drawing him to Himself, as was said above.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7) Whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7)- O(1) —

It would seem that man can rise from sin without the help of grace. For what is presupposed to grace, takes place without grace. But to rise to sin is presupposed to the enlightenment of grace; since it is written ( Ephesians 5:14): “Arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten thee.” Therefore man can rise from sin without grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, sin is opposed to virtue as illness to health, as stated above ( Q(71), A(1), ad 3). Now, man, by force of his nature, can rise from illness to health, without the external help of medicine, since there still remains in him the principle of life, from which the natural operation proceeds. Hence it seems that, with equal reason, man may be restored by himself, and return from the state of sin to the state of justice without the help of external grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, every natural thing can return by itself to the act befitting its nature, as hot water returns by itself to its natural coldness, and a stone cast upwards returns by itself to its natural movement. Now a sin is an act against nature, as is clear from Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 30). Hence it seems that man by himself can return from sin to the state of justice.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Galatians 2:21; Cf. Galatians 3:21): “For if there had been a law given which could give life — then Christ died in vain,” i.e. to no purpose. Hence with equal reason, if man has a nature, whereby he can he justified, “Christ died in vain,” i.e. to no purpose. But this cannot fittingly be said. Therefore by himself he cannot be justified, i.e. he cannot return from a state of sin to a state of justice.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7) —

I answer that, Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the help of grace. For since sin is transient as to the act and abiding in its guilt, as stated above ( Q(87), A(6) ), to rise from sin is not the same as to cease the act of sin; but to rise from sin means that man has restored to him what he lost by sinning. Now man incurs a triple loss by sinning, as was clearly shown above ( Q(85), A(1) ; Q(86), A(1) ; Q(87), A(1) ), viz. stain, corruption of natural good, and debt of punishment. He incurs a stain, inasmuch as he forfeits the lustre of grace through the deformity of sin. Natural good is corrupted, inasmuch as man’s nature is disordered by man’s will not being subject to God’s; and this order being overthrown, the consequence is that the whole nature of sinful man remains disordered. Lastly, there is the debt of punishment, inasmuch as by sinning man deserves everlasting damnation.

Now it is manifest that none of these three can be restored except by God.

For since the lustre of grace springs from the shedding of Divine light, this lustre cannot be brought back, except God sheds His light anew: hence a habitual gift is necessary, and this is the light of grace. Likewise, the order of nature can only be restored, i.e. man’s will can only be subject to God when God draws man’s will to Himself, as stated above ( A(6) ). So, too, the guilt of eternal punishment can be remitted by God alone, against Whom the offense was committed and Who is man’s Judge. And thus in order that man rise from sin there is required the help of grace, both as regards a habitual gift, and as regards the internal motion of God.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7)- RO(1) —

To man is bidden that which pertains to the act of free-will, as this act is required in order that man should rise from sin. Hence when it is said, “Arise, and Christ shall enlighten thee,” we are not to think that the complete rising from sin precedes the enlightenment of grace; but that when man by his free-will, moved by God, strives to rise from sin, he receives the light of justifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7)- RO(2) —

The natural reason is not the sufficient principle of the health that is in man by justifying grace. This principle is grace which is taken away by sin. Hence man cannot be restored by himself; but he requires the light of grace to be poured upon him anew, as if the soul were infused into a dead body for its resurrection.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(7)- RO(3) —

When nature is perfect, it can be restored by itself to its befitting and proportionate condition; but without exterior help it cannot be restored to what surpasses its measure. And thus human nature undone by reason of the act of sin, remains no longer perfect, but corrupted, as stated above ( Q(85) ); nor can it be restored, by itself, to its connatural good, much less to the supernatural good of justice.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8) Whether man without grace can avoid sin?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8)- O(1) —

It would seem that without grace man can avoid sin. Because “no one sins in what he cannot avoid,” as Augustine says (De Duab. Anim. x, xi; De Libero Arbit. iii, 18). Hence if a man in mortal sin cannot avoid sin, it would seem that in sinning he does not sin, which is impossible.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, men are corrected that they may not sin. If therefore a man in mortal sin cannot avoid sin, correction would seem to be given to no purpose; which is absurd.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, it is written (Ecclus. 15:18): “Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him.” But by sinning no one ceases to be a man. Hence it is still in his power to choose good or evil; and thus man can avoid sin without grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Perfect Just. xxi): “Whoever denies that we ought to say the prayer ‘Lead us not into temptation’ (and they deny it who maintain that the help of God’s grace is not necessary to man for salvation, but that the gift of the law is enough for the human will) ought without doubt to be removed beyond all hearing, and to be anathematized by the tongues of all.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8) —

I answer that, We may speak of man in two ways: first, in the state of perfect nature; secondly, in the state of corrupted nature. Now in the state of perfect nature, man, without habitual grace, could avoid sinning either mortally or venially; since to sin is nothing else than to stray from what is according to our nature — and in the state of perfect nature man could avoid this. Nevertheless he could not have done it without God’s help to uphold him in good, since if this had been withdrawn, even his nature would have fallen back into nothingness.

But in the state of corrupt nature man needs grace to heal his nature in order that he may entirely abstain from sin. And in the present life this healing is wrought in the mind — the carnal appetite being not yet restored. Hence the Apostle ( Romans 7:25) says in the person of one who is restored: “I myself, with the mind, serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.” And in this state man can abstain from all mortal sin, which takes its stand in his reason, as stated above ( Q(74), A(5) ); but man cannot abstain from all venial sin on account of the corruption of his lower appetite of sensuality. For man can, indeed, repress each of its movements (and hence they are sinful and voluntary), but not all, because whilst he is resisting one, another may arise, and also because the reason is always alert to avoid these movements, as was said above ( Q(74), A(3), ad 2).

So, too, before man’s reason, wherein is mortal sin, is restored by justifying grace, he can avoid each mortal sin, and for a time, since it is not necessary that he should be always actually sinning. But it cannot be that he remains for a long time without mortal sin. Hence Gregory says (Super Ezech. Hom. xi) that “ a sin not at once taken away by repentance, by its weight drags us down to other sins”: and this because, as the lower appetite ought to be subject to the reason, so should the reason be subject to God, and should place in Him the end of its will. Now it is by the end that all human acts ought to be regulated, even as it is by the judgment of the reason that the movements of the lower appetite should be regulated.

And thus, even as inordinate movements of the sensitive appetite cannot help occurring since the lower appetite is not subject to reason, so likewise, since man’s reason is not entirely subject to God, the consequence is that many disorders occur in the reason. For when man’s heart is not so fixed on God as to be unwilling to be parted from Him for the sake of finding any good or avoiding any evil, many things happen for the achieving or avoiding of which a man strays from God and breaks His commandments, and thus sins mortally: especially since, when surprised, a man acts according to his preconceived end and his pre-existing habits, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii); although with premeditation of his reason a man may do something outside the order of his preconceived end and the inclination of his habit. But because a man cannot always have this premeditation, it cannot help occurring that he acts in accordance with his will turned aside from God, unless, by grace, he is quickly brought back to the due order.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8)- RO(1) —

Man can avoid each but every act of sin, except by grace, as stated above. Nevertheless, since it is by his own shortcoming that he does not prepare himself to have grace, the fact that he cannot avoid sin without grace does not excuse him from sin.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8)- RO(2) —

Correction is useful “in order that out of the sorrow of correction may spring the wish to be regenerate; if indeed he who is corrected is a son of promise, in such sort that whilst the noise of correction is outwardly resounding and punishing, God by hidden inspirations is inwardly causing to will,” as Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vi). Correction is therefore necessary, from the fact that man’s will is required in order to abstain from sin; yet it is not sufficient without God’s help. Hence it is written ( Ecclesiastes 7:14): “Consider the works of God that no man can correct whom He hath despised.”

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(8)- RO(3) —

As Augustine says (Hypognosticon iii [*Among the spurious works of St. Augustine]), this saying is to be understood of man in the state of perfect nature, when as yet he was not a slave of sin. Hence he was able to sin and not to sin. Now, too, whatever a man wills, is given to him; but his willing good, he has by God’s assistance.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9) Whether one who has already obtained grace, can, of himself and without further help of grace, do good and avoid sin?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9)- O(1) —

It would seem that whoever has already obtained grace, can by himself and without further help of grace, do good and avoid sin. For a thing is useless or imperfect, if it does not fulfil what it was given for. Now grace is given to us that we may do good and keep from sin. Hence if with grace man cannot do this, it seems that grace is either useless or imperfect.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9)- O(2) —

Further, by grace the Holy Spirit dwells in us, according to 1 Corinthians 3:16: “Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

Now since the Spirit of God is omnipotent, He is sufficient to ensure our doing good and to keep us from sin. Hence a man who has obtained grace can do the above two things without any further assistance of grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9)- O(3) —

Further, if a man who has obtained grace needs further aid of grace in order to live righteously and to keep free from sin, with equal reason, will he need yet another grace, even though he has obtained this first help of grace. Therefore we must go on to infinity; which is impossible. Hence whoever is in grace needs no further help of grace in order to do righteously and to keep free from sin.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxvi) that “as the eye of the body though most healthy cannot see unless it is helped by the brightness of light, so, neither can a man, even if he is most righteous, live righteously unless he be helped by the eternal light of justice.” But justification is by grace, according to Romans 3:24: “Being justified freely by His grace.” Hence even a man who already possesses grace needs a further assistance of grace in order to live righteously.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(5) ), in order to live righteously a man needs a twofold help of God — first, a habitual gift whereby corrupted human nature is healed, and after being healed is lifted up so as to work deeds meritoriously of everlasting life, which exceed the capability of nature. Secondly, man needs the help of grace in order to be moved by God to act.

Now with regard to the first kind of help, man does not need a further help of grace, e.g. a further infused habit. Yet he needs the help of grace in another way, i.e. in order to be moved by God to act righteously, and this for two reasons: first, for the general reason that no created thing can put forth any act, unless by virtue of the Divine motion. Secondly, for this special reason — the condition of the state of human nature. For although healed by grace as to the mind, yet it remains corrupted and poisoned in the flesh, whereby it serves “the law of sin,” Romans 7:25. In the intellect, too, there seems the darkness of ignorance, whereby, as is written ( Romans 8:26): “We know not what we should pray for as we ought”; since on account of the various turns of circumstances, and because we do not know ourselves perfectly, we cannot fully know what is for our good, according to Wis. 9:14: “For the thoughts of mortal men are fearful and our counsels uncertain.” Hence we must be guided and guarded by God, Who knows and can do all things. For which reason also it is becoming in those who have been born again as sons of God, to say: “Lead us not into temptation,” and “Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” and whatever else is contained in the Lord’s Prayer pertaining to this.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9)- RO(1) —

The gift of habitual grace is not therefore given to us that we may no longer need the Divine help; for every creature needs to be preserved in the good received from Him. Hence if after having received grace man still needs the Divine help, it cannot be concluded that grace is given to no purpose, or that it is imperfect, since man will need the Divine help even in the state of glory, when grace shall be fully perfected.

But here grace is to some extent imperfect, inasmuch as it does not completely heal man, as stated above.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9)- RO(2) —

The operation of the Holy Ghost, which moves and protects, is not circumscribed by the effect of habitual grace which it causes in us; but beyond this effect He, together with the Father and the Son, moves and protects us.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(9)- RO(3) —

This argument merely proves that man needs no further habitual grace.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) Whether man possessed of grace needs the help of grace in order to persevere?

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) - O(1) —

It would seem that man possessed of grace needs no help to persevere. For perseverance is something less than virtue, even as continence is, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 7,9).

Now since man is justified by grace, he needs no further help of grace in order to have the virtues. Much less, therefore, does he need the help of grace to have perseverance.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) - O(2) —

Further, all the virtues are infused at once.

But perseverance is put down as a virtue. Hence it seems that, together with grace, perseverance is given to the other infused virtues.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) - O(3) —

Further, as the Apostle says ( Romans 5:20) more was restored to man by Christ’s gift, than he had lost by Adam’s sin. But Adam received what enabled him to persevere; and thus man does not need grace in order to persevere.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Persev. ii): “Why is perseverance besought of God, if it is not bestowed by God? For is it not a mocking request to seek what we know He does not give, and what is in our power without His giving it?” Now perseverance is besought by even those who are hallowed by grace; and this is seen, when we say “Hallowed be Thy name,” which Augustine confirms by the words of Cyprian (De Correp. et Grat. xii). Hence man, even when possessed of grace, needs perseverance to be given to him by God.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) —

I answer that, Perseverance is taken in three ways.

First, to signify a habit of the mind whereby a man stands steadfastly, lest he be moved by the assault of sadness from what is virtuous. And thus perseverance is to sadness as continence is to concupiscence and pleasure, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7). Secondly, perseverance may be called a habit, whereby a man has the purpose of persevering in good unto the end. And in both these ways perseverance is infused together with grace, even as continence and the other virtues are. Thirdly, perseverance is called the abiding in good to the end of life. And in order to have this perseverance man does not, indeed, need another habitual grace, but he needs the Divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions, as appears from the preceding article. And hence after anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of his life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) - RO(1) —

This objection regards the first mode of perseverance, as the second objection regards the second.

Hence the solution of the second objection is clear.

P(2a)- Q(109)- A(10) - RO(3) —

As Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xliii) [*Cf. De Correp. et Grat. xii]: “in the original state man received a gift whereby he could persevere, but to persevere was not given him. But now, by the grace of Christ, many receive both the gift of grace whereby they may persevere, and the further gift of persevering,” and thus Christ’s gift is greater than Adam’s fault. Nevertheless it was easier for man to persevere, with the gift of grace in the state of innocence in which the flesh was not rebellious against the spirit, than it is now. For the restoration by Christ’s grace, although it is already begun in the mind, is not yet completed in the flesh, as it will be in heaven, where man will not merely be able to persevere but will be unable to sin.

QUESTION OF THE GRACE OF GOD AS REGARDS ITS ESSENCE (FOUR ARTICLES)

We must now consider the grace of God as regards its essence; and under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether grace implies something in the soul? (2) Whether grace is a quality? (3) Whether grace differs from infused virtue? (4) Of the subject of grace.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1) Whether grace implies anything in the soul?

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace does not imply anything in the soul. For man is said to have the grace of God even as the grace of man. Hence it is written ( Genesis 39:21) that the Lord gave to Joseph “grace [Douay: ‘favor’] in the sight of the chief keeper of the prison.” Now when we say that a man has the favor of another, nothing is implied in him who has the favor of the other, but an acceptance is implied in him whose favor he has. Hence when we say that a man has the grace of God, nothing is implied in his soul; but we merely signify the Divine acceptance.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, as the soul quickens the body so does God quicken the soul; hence it is written ( Deuteronomy 30:20): “He is thy life.” Now the soul quickens the body immediately. Therefore nothing can come as a medium between God and the soul. Hence grace implies nothing created in the soul.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, on Romans 1:7, “Grace to you and peace,” the gloss says: “Grace, i.e. the remission of sins.” Now the remission of sin implies nothing in the soul, but only in God, Who does not impute the sin, according to Psalm 31:2: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.” Hence neither does grace imply anything in the soul.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Light implies something in what is enlightened. But grace is a light of the soul; hence Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxii): “The light of truth rightly deserts the prevaricator of the law, and those who have been thus deserted become blind.” Therefore grace implies something in the soul.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1) —

I answer that, According to the common manner of speech, grace is usually taken in three ways. First, for anyone’s love, as we are accustomed to say that the soldier is in the good graces of the king, i.e. the king looks on him with favor. Secondly, it is taken for any gift freely bestowed, as we are accustomed to say: I do you this act of grace.

Thirdly, it is taken for the recompense of a gift given “gratis,” inasmuch as we are said to be “grateful” for benefits. Of these three the second depends on the first, since one bestows something on another “gratis” from the love wherewith he receives him into his good “graces.” And from the second proceeds the third, since from benefits bestowed “gratis” arises “gratitude.”

Now as regards the last two, it is clear that grace implies something in him who receives grace: first, the gift given gratis; secondly, the acknowledgment of the gift. But as regards the first, a difference must be noted between the grace of God and the grace of man; for since the creature’s good springs from the Divine will, some good in the creature flows from God’s love, whereby He wishes the good of the creature. On the other hand, the will of man is moved by the good pre-existing in things; and hence man’s love does not wholly cause the good of the thing, but presupposes it either in part or wholly. Therefore it is clear that every love of God is followed at some time by a good caused in the creature, but not coeternal with the eternal love. And according to this difference of good the love of God to the creature is looked at differently. For one is common, whereby He loves “all things that are” (Wis. 11:25), and thereby gives things their natural being. But the second is a special love, whereby He draws the rational creature above the condition of its nature to a participation of the Divine good; and according to this love He is said to love anyone simply, since it is by this love that God simply wishes the eternal good, which is Himself, for the creature.

Accordingly when a man is said to have the grace of God, there is signified something bestowed on man by God. Nevertheless the grace of God sometimes signifies God’s eternal love, as we say the grace of predestination, inasmuch as God gratuitously and not from merits predestines or elects some; for it is written ( Ephesians 1:5): “He hath predestinated us into the adoption of children . . . unto the praise of the glory of His grace.”

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Even when a man is said to be in another’s good graces, it is understood that there is something in him pleasing to the other; even as anyone is said to have God’s grace — with this difference, that what is pleasing to a man in another is presupposed to his love, but whatever is pleasing to God in a man is caused by the Divine love, as was said above.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1)- RO(2) —

God is the life of the soul after the manner of an efficient cause; but the soul is the life of the body after the manner of a formal cause. Now there is no medium between form and matter, since the form, of itself, “informs” the matter or subject; whereas the agent “informs” the subject, not by its substance, but by the form, which it causes in the matter.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Augustine says (Retract. i, 25): “When I said that grace was for the remission of sins, and peace for our reconciliation with God, you must not take it to mean that peace and reconciliation do not pertain to general peace, but that the special name of grace signifies the remission of sins.” Not only grace, therefore, but many other of God’s gifts pertain to grace. And hence the remission of sins does not take place without some effect divinely caused in us, as will appear later ( Q(113), A(2) ).

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2) Whether grace is a quality of the soul?

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not a quality of the soul. For no quality acts on its subject, since the action of a quality is not without the action of its subject, and thus the subject would necessarily act upon itself. But grace acts upon the soul, by justifying it.

Therefore grace is not a quality.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2)- O(2) —

Furthermore, substance is nobler than quality.

But grace is nobler than the nature of the soul, since we can do many things by grace, to which nature is not equal, as stated above ( Q(109), AA(1),2 ,3). Therefore grace is not a quality.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2)- O(3) —

Furthermore, no quality remains after it has ceased to be in its subject. But grace remains; since it is not corrupted, for thus it would be reduced to nothing, since it was created from nothing; hence it is called a “new creature”( Galatians 6:15).

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2) —

On the contrary, on <19A315> Psalm 103:15: “That he may make the face cheerful with oil”; the gloss says: “Grace is a certain beauty of soul, which wins the Divine love.” But beauty of soul is a quality, even as beauty of body. Therefore grace is a quality.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), there is understood to be an effect of God’s gratuitous will in whoever is said to have God’s grace. Now it was stated ( Q(109), A(1) ) that man is aided by God’s gratuitous will in two ways: first, inasmuch as man’s soul is moved by God to know or will or do something, and in this way the gratuitous effect in man is not a quality, but a movement of the soul; for “motion is the act of the mover in the moved.” Secondly, man is helped by God’s gratuitous will, inasmuch as a habitual gift is infused by God into the soul; and for this reason, that it is not fitting that God should provide less for those He loves, that they may acquire supernatural good, than for creatures, whom He loves that they may acquire natural good. Now He so provides for natural creatures, that not merely does He move them to their natural acts, but He bestows upon them certain forms and powers, which are the principles of acts, in order that they may of themselves be inclined to these movements, and thus the movements whereby they are moved by God become natural and easy to creatures, according to Wis. 8:1: “she . . . ordereth all things sweetly.” Much more therefore does He infuse into such as He moves towards the acquisition of supernatural good, certain forms or supernatural qualities, whereby they may be moved by Him sweetly and promptly to acquire eternal good; and thus the gift of grace is a quality.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Grace, as a quality, is said to act upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Every substance is either the nature of the thing whereof it is the substance or is a part of the nature, even as matter and form are called substance. And because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul. Now what is substantially in God, becomes accidental in the soul participating the Divine goodness, as is clear in the case of knowledge. And thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(2)- RO(3) —

As Boethius [*Pseudo-Bede, Sent.

Philippians ex Artist] says, the “being of an accident is to inhere.” Hence no accident is called being as if it had being, but because by it something is; hence it is said to belong to a being rather to be a being (Metaph. vii, text. 2). And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be in act with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, “created in Jesus Christ in good works.”

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3) Whether grace is the same as virtue?

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is the same as virtue.

For Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xiv) that “operating grace is faith that worketh by charity.” But faith that worketh by charity is a virtue.

Therefore grace is a virtue.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, what fits the definition, fits the defined. But the definitions of virtue given by saints and philosophers fit grace, since “it makes its subject good, and his work good,” and “it is a good quality of the mind, whereby we live righteously,” etc. Therefore grace is virtue.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, grace is a quality. Now it is clearly not in the “fourth” species of quality; viz. “form” which is the “abiding figure of things,” since it does not belong to bodies. Nor is it in the “third,” since it is not a “passion nor a passion-like quality,” which is in the sensitive part of the soul, as is proved in Physic. viii; and grace is principally in the mind. Nor is it in the “second” species, which is “natural power” or “impotence”; since grace is above nature and does not regard good and evil, as does natural power. Therefore it must be in the “first” species which is “habit” or “disposition.” Now habits of the mind are virtues; since even knowledge itself is a virtue after a manner, as stated above ( Q(57), AA(1),2 ). Therefore grace is the same as virtue.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3) —

On the contrary, If grace is a virtue, it would seem before all to be one of the three theological virtues. But grace is neither faith nor hope, for these can be without sanctifying grace. Nor is it charity, since “grace foreruns charity,” as Augustine says in his book on the Predestination of the Saints (De Dono Persev. xvi). Therefore grace is not virtue.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3) —

I answer that, Some held that grace and virtue were identical in essence, and differed only logically — in the sense that we speak of grace inasmuch as it makes man pleasing to God, or is given gratuitously — and of virtue inasmuch as it empowers us to act rightly.

And the Master seems to have thought this (Sent. ii, D 27).

But if anyone rightly considers the nature of virtue, this cannot hold, since, as the Philosopher says (Physic. vii, text. 17), “virtue is disposition of what is perfect — and I call perfect what is disposed according to its nature.” Now from this it is clear that the virtue of a thing has reference to some pre-existing nature, from the fact that everything is disposed with reference to what befits its nature. But it is manifest that the virtues acquired by human acts of which we spoke above ( Q(55), seqq.) are dispositions, whereby a man is fittingly disposed with reference to the nature whereby he is a man; whereas infused virtues dispose man in a higher manner and towards a higher end, and consequently in relation to some higher nature, i.e. in relation to a participation of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Peter 1:4: “He hath given us most great and most precious promises; that by these you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature.”

And it is in respect of receiving this nature that we are said to be born again sons of God.

And thus, even as the natural light of reason is something besides the acquired virtues, which are ordained to this natural light, so also the light of grace which is a participation of the Divine Nature is something besides the infused virtues which are derived from and are ordained to this light, hence the Apostle says ( Ephesians 5:8): “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord.

Walk then as children of the light.”

For as the acquired virtues enable a man to walk, in accordance with the natural light of reason, so do the infused virtues enable a man to walk as befits the light of grace.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Augustine calls “faith that worketh by charity” grace, since the act of faith of him that worketh by charity is the first act by which sanctifying grace is manifested.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Good is placed in the definition of virtue with reference to its fitness with some pre-existing nature essential or participated. Now good is not attributed to grace in this manner, but as to the root of goodness in man, as stated above.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Grace is reduced to the first species of quality; and yet it is not the same as virtue, but is a certain disposition which is presupposed to the infused virtues, as their principle and root.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4) Whether grace is in the essence of the soul as in a subject, or in one of the powers?

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not in the essence of the soul, as in a subject, but in one of the powers. For Augustine says (Hypognosticon iii [*Among the spurious works of St. Augustine]) that grace is related to the will or to the free will “as a rider to his horse.” Now the will or the free will is a power, as stated above ( P(1) Q(83), A(2) ).

Hence grace is in a power of the soul, as in a subject.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, “Man’s merit springs from grace” as Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. vi). Now merit consists in acts, which proceed from a power. Hence it seems that grace is a perfection of a power of the soul.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, if the essence of the soul is the proper subject of grace, the soul, inasmuch as it has an essence, must be capable of grace. But this is false; since it would follow that every soul would be capable of grace. Therefore the essence of the soul is not the proper subject of grace.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- O(4) —

Further, the essence of the soul is prior to its powers. Now what is prior may be understood without what is posterior.

Hence it follows that grace may be taken to be in the soul, although we suppose no part or power of the soul — viz. neither the will, nor the intellect, nor anything else; which is impossible.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4) —

On the contrary, By grace we are born again sons of God. But generation terminates at the essence prior to the powers.

Therefore grace is in the soul’s essence prior to being in the powers.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4) —

I answer that, This question depends on the preceding. For if grace is the same as virtue, it must necessarily be in the powers of the soul as in a subject; since the soul’s powers are the proper subject of virtue, as stated above ( Q(56), A(1) ). But if grace differs from virtue, it cannot be said that a power of the soul is the subject of grace, since every perfection of the soul’s powers has the nature of virtue, as stated above ( Q(55), A(1) ; Q(56), A(1) ). Hence it remains that grace, as it is prior to virtue, has a subject prior to the powers of the soul, so that it is in the essence of the soul. For as man in his intellective powers participates in the Divine knowledge through the virtue of faith, and in his power of will participates in the Divine love through the virtue of charity, so also in the nature of the soul does he participate in the Divine Nature, after the manner of a likeness, through a certain regeneration or re-creation.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As from the essence of the soul flows its powers, which are the principles of deeds, so likewise the virtues, whereby the powers are moved to act, flow into the powers of the soul from grace. And thus grace is compared to the will as the mover to the moved, which is the same comparison as that of a horseman to the horse — but not as an accident to a subject.

And thereby is made clear the Reply to the Second Objection. For grace is the principle of meritorious works through the medium of virtues, as the essence of the soul is the principal of vital deeds through the medium of the powers.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The soul is the subject of grace, as being in the species of intellectual or rational nature. But the soul is not classed in a species by any of its powers, since the powers are natural properties of the soul following upon the species. Hence the soul differs specifically in its essence from other souls, viz. of dumb animals, and of plants.

Consequently it does not follow that, if the essence of the human soul is the subject of grace, every soul may be the subject of grace; since it belongs to the essence of the soul, inasmuch as it is of such a species.

P(2a)- Q(110)- A(4)- RO(4) —

Since the powers of the soul are natural properties following upon the species, the soul cannot be without them.

Yet, granted that it was without them, the soul would still be called intellectual or rational in its species, not that it would actually have these powers, but on account of the essence of such a species, from which these powers naturally flow.

QUESTION OF THE DIVISION OF GRACE (FIVE ARTICLES)

We must now consider the division of grace; under which head there are five points of inquiry: (1) Whether grace is fittingly divided into gratuitous grace and sanctifying grace? (2) Of the division into operating and cooperating grace; (3) Of the division of it into prevenient and subsequent grace; (4) Of the division of gratuitous grace; (5) Of the comparison between sanctifying and gratuitous grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1) Whether grace is fittingly divided into sanctifying grace and gratuitous grace?

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into sanctifying grace and gratuitous grace. For grace is a gift of God, as is clear from what has been already stated ( Q(110), A(1) ). But man is not therefore pleasing to God because something is given him by God, but rather on the contrary; since something is freely given by God, because man is pleasing to Him. Hence there is no sanctifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, whatever is not given on account of preceding merits is given gratis. Now even natural good is given to man without preceding merit, since nature is presupposed to merit. Therefore nature itself is given gratuitously by God. But nature is condivided with grace. Therefore to be gratuitously given is not fittingly set down as a difference of grace, since it is found outside the genus of grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, members of a division are mutually opposed. But even sanctifying grace, whereby we are justified, is given to us gratuitously, according to Romans 3:24: “Being justified freely [gratis] by His grace.” Hence sanctifying grace ought not to be divided against gratuitous grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1) —

On the contrary, The Apostle attributes both to grace, viz. to sanctify and to be gratuitously given. For with regard to the first he says ( Ephesians 1:6): “He hath graced us in His beloved son.”

And with regard to the second ( Romans 2:6): “And if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” Therefore grace can be distinguished by its having one only or both.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1) —

I answer that, As the Apostle says ( Romans 13:1), “those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: ‘those that are, are ordained by God].”

Now the order of things consists in this, that things are led to God by other things, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). And hence since grace is ordained to lead men to God, this takes place in a certain order, so that some are led to God by others.

And thus there is a twofold grace: one whereby man himself is united to God, and this is called “sanctifying grace”; the other is that whereby one man cooperates with another in leading him to God, and this gift is called “gratuitous grace,” since it is bestowed on a man beyond the capability of nature, and beyond the merit of the person. But whereas it is bestowed on a man, not to justify him, but rather that he may cooperate in the justification of another, it is not called sanctifying grace. And it is of this that the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 12:7): “And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto utility,” i.e. of others.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Grace is said to make pleasing, not efficiently but formally, i.e. because thereby a man is justified, and is made worthy to be called pleasing to God, according to Colossians 1:21: “He hath made us worthy to be made partakers of the lot of the saints in light.”

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Grace, inasmuch as it is gratuitously given, excludes the notion of debt. Now debt may be taken in two ways: first, as arising from merit; and this regards the person whose it is to do meritorious works, according to Romans 4:4: “Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt.”

The second debt regards the condition of nature. Thus we say it is due to a man to have reason, and whatever else belongs to human nature. Yet in neither way is debt taken to mean that God is under an obligation to His creature, but rather that the creature ought to be subject to God, that the Divine ordination may be fulfilled in it, which is that a certain nature should have certain conditions or properties, and that by doing certain works it should attain to something further. And hence natural endowments are not a debt in the first sense but in the second. Hence they especially merit the name of grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Sanctifying grace adds to the notion of gratuitous grace something pertaining to the nature of grace, since it makes man pleasing to God. And hence gratuitous grace which does not do this keeps the common name, as happens in many other cases; and thus the two parts of the division are opposed as sanctifying and non-sanctifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2) Whether grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace?

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace. For grace is an accident, as stated above ( Q(110), A(2) ). Now no accident can act upon its subject.

Therefore no grace can be called operating.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, if grace operates anything in us it assuredly brings about justification. But not only grace works this. For Augustine says, on John 14:12, “the works that I do he also shall do,” says (Serm. clxix): “He Who created thee without thyself, will not justify thee without thyself.” Therefore no grace ought to be called simply operating.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, to cooperate seems to pertain to the inferior agent, and not to the principal agent. But grace works in us more than free-will, according to Romans 9:16: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Therefore no grace ought to be called cooperating.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- O(4) —

Further, division ought to rest on opposition.

But to operate and to cooperate are not opposed; for one and the same thing can both operate and cooperate. Therefore grace is not fittingly divided into operating and cooperating.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib.

Arbit. xvii): “God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, beings by operating that they may will.” But the operations of God whereby He moves us to good pertain to grace. Therefore grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(110), A(2) ) grace may be taken in two ways; first, as a Divine help, whereby God moves us to will and to act; secondly, as a habitual gift divinely bestowed on us.

Now in both these ways grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating. For the operation of an effect is not attributed to the thing moved but to the mover. Hence in that effect in which our mind is moved and does not move, but in which God is the sole mover, the operation is attributed to God, and it is with reference to this that we speak of “operating grace.” But in that effect in which our mind both moves and is moved, the operation is not only attributed to God, but also to the soul; and it is with reference to this that we speak of “cooperating grace.” Now there is a double act in us. First, there is the interior act of the will, and with regard to this act the will is a thing moved, and God is the mover; and especially when the will, which hitherto willed evil, begins to will good.

And hence, inasmuch as God moves the human mind to this act, we speak of operating grace. But there is another, exterior act; and since it is commanded by the will, as was shown above ( Q(17), A(9) ) the operation of this act is attributed to the will. And because God assists us in this act, both by strengthening our will interiorly so as to attain to the act, and by granting outwardly the capability of operating, it is with respect to this that we speak of cooperating grace. Hence after the aforesaid words Augustine subjoins: “He operates that we may will; and when we will, He cooperates that we may perfect.” And thus if grace is taken for God’s gratuitous motion whereby He moves us to meritorious good, it is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace.

But if grace is taken for the habitual gift, then again there is a double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of which is “being,” and the second, “operation”; thus the work of heat is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Inasmuch as grace is a certain accidental quality, it does not act upon the soul efficiently, but formally, as whiteness makes a surface white.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- RO(2) —

God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God’s justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- RO(3) —

One thing is said to cooperate with another not merely when it is a secondary agent under a principal agent, but when it helps to the end intended. Now man is helped by God to will the good, through the means of operating grace. And hence, the end being already intended, grace cooperates with us.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(2)- RO(4) —

Operating and cooperating grace are the same grace; but are distinguished by their different effects, as is plain from what has been said.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3) Whether grace is fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent grace?

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent. For grace is an effect of the Divine love. But God’s love is never subsequent, but always prevenient, according to 1 John 4:10: “Not as though we had loved God, but because He hath first loved us.” Therefore grace ought not to be divided into prevenient and subsequent.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, there is but one sanctifying grace in man, since it is sufficient, according to 2 Corinthians 12:9: “My grace is sufficient for thee.” But the same thing cannot be before and after.

Therefore grace is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, grace is known by its effects. Now there are an infinite number of effects — one preceding another. Hence it with regard to these, grace must be divided into prevenient and subsequent, it would seem that there are infinite species of grace. Now no art takes note of the infinite in number. Hence grace is not fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3) —

On the contrary, God’s grace is the outcome of His mercy. Now both are said in Psalm 58:11: “His mercy shall prevent me,” and again, Psalm 22:6: “Thy mercy will follow me.” Therefore grace is fittingly divided into prevenient and subsequent.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3) —

I answer that, As grace is divided into operating and cooperating, with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us, is called prevenient with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it causes the second, it is called subsequent with respect to the first effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to that, so may grace be called prevenient and subsequent on account of the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): “It is prevenient, inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified.”

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3)- RO(1) —

God’s love signifies something eternal; and hence can never be called anything but prevenient. But grace signifies a temporal effect, which can precede and follow another; and thus grace may be both prevenient and subsequent.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The division into prevenient and subsequent grace does not divide grace in its essence, but only in its effects, as was already said of operating and cooperating grace. For subsequent grace, inasmuch as it pertains to glory, is not numerically distinct from prevenient grace whereby we are at present justified. For even as the charity of the earth is not voided in heaven, so must the same be said of the light of grace, since the notion of neither implies imperfection.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Although the effects of grace may be infinite in number, even as human acts are infinite, nevertheless all reduced to some of a determinate species, and moreover all coincide in this — that one precedes another.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4) Whether gratuitous grace is rightly divided by the Apostle?

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that gratuitous grace is not rightly divided by the Apostle. For every gift vouchsafed to us by God, may be called a gratuitous grace. Now there are an infinite number of gifts freely bestowed on us by God as regards both the good of the soul and the good of the body — and yet they do not make us pleasing to God. Hence gratuitous graces cannot be contained under any certain division.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, gratuitous grace is distinguished from sanctifying grace. But faith pertains to sanctifying grace, since we are justified by it, according to Romans 5:1: “Being justified therefore by faith.” Hence it is not right to place faith amongst the gratuitous graces, especially since the other virtues are not so placed, as hope and charity.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, the operation of healing, and speaking divers tongues are miracles. Again, the interpretation of speeches pertains either to wisdom or to knowledge, according to Daniel 1:17: “And to these children God gave knowledge and understanding in every book and wisdom.”

Hence it is not correct to divide the grace of healing and kinds of tongues against the working of miracles; and the interpretation of speeches against the word of wisdom and knowledge.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- O(4) —

Further, as wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the Holy Ghost, so also are understanding, counsel, piety, fortitude, and fear, as stated above ( Q(68), A(4) ). Therefore these also ought to be placed amongst the gratuitous gifts.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Corinthians 12:8,9,10): “To one indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of speeches.”

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4) —

I answer that, As was said above ( A(1) ), gratuitous grace is ordained to this, viz. that a man may help another to be led to God. Now no man can help in this by moving interiorly (for this belongs to God alone), but only exteriorly by teaching or persuading. Hence gratuitous grace embraces whatever a man needs in order to instruct another in Divine things which are above reason. Now for this three things are required: first, a man must possess the fullness of knowledge of Divine things, so as to be capable of teaching others. Secondly, he must be able to confirm or prove what he says, otherwise his words would have no weight. Thirdly, he must be capable of fittingly presenting to his hearers what he knows.

Now as regards the first, three things are necessary, as may be seen in human teaching. For whoever would teach another in any science must first be certain of the principles of the science, and with regard to this there is “faith,” which is certitude of invisible things, the principles of Catholic doctrine. Secondly, it behooves the teacher to know the principal conclusions of the science, and hence we have the word of “wisdom,” which is the knowledge of Divine things. Thirdly, he ought to abound with examples and a knowledge of effects, whereby at times he needs to manifest causes; and thus we have the word of “knowledge,” which is the knowledge of human things, since “the invisible things of Him . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” ( Romans 1:20).

Now the confirmation of such things as are within reason rests upon arguments; but the confirmation of what is above reason rests on what is proper to the Divine power, and this in two ways: first, when the teacher of sacred doctrine does what God alone can do, in miraculous deeds, whether with respect to bodily health — and thus there is the “grace of healing,” or merely for the purpose of manifesting the Divine power; for instance, that the sun should stand still or darken, or that the sea should be divided — and thus there is the “working of miracles.” Secondly, when he can manifest what God alone can know, and these are either future contingents — and thus there is “prophecy,” or also the secrets of hearts — and thus there is the “discerning of spirits.”

But the capability of speaking can regard either the idiom in which a person can be understood, and thus there is “kinds of tongues”; or it can regard the sense of what is said, and thus there is the “interpretation of speeches.”

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As stated above ( A(1) ), not all the benefits divinely conferred upon us are called gratuitous graces, but only those that surpass the power of nature — e.g. that a fisherman should be replete with the word of wisdom and of knowledge and the like; and such as these are here set down as gratuitous graces.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Faith is enumerated here under the gratuitous graces, not as a virtue justifying man in himself, but as implying a super-eminent certitude of faith, whereby a man is fitted for instructing others concerning such things as belong to the faith. With regard to hope and charity, they belong to the appetitive power, according as man is ordained thereby to God.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The grace of healing is distinguished from the general working of miracles because it has a special reason for inducing one to the faith, since a man is all the more ready to believe when he has received the gift of bodily health through the virtue of faith. So, too, to speak with divers tongues and to interpret speeches have special efficacy in bestowing faith. Hence they are set down as special gratuitous graces.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(4)- RO(4) —

Wisdom and knowledge are not numbered among the gratuitous graces in the same way as they are reckoned among the gifts of the Holy Ghost, i.e. inasmuch as man’s mind is rendered easily movable by the Holy Ghost to the things of wisdom and knowledge; for thus they are gifts of the Holy Ghost, as stated above ( Q(68), AA(1),4 ).

But they are numbered amongst the gratuitous graces, inasmuch as they imply such a fullness of knowledge and wisdom that a man may not merely think aright of Divine things, but may instruct others and overpower adversaries. Hence it is significant that it is the “word” of wisdom and the “word” of knowledge that are placed in the gratuitous graces, since, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1), “It is one thing merely to know what a man must believe in order to reach everlasting life, and another thing to know how this may benefit the godly and may be defended against the ungodly.”

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5) Whether gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace?

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace. For “the people’s good is better than the individual good,” as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 2). Now sanctifying grace is ordained to the good of one man alone, whereas gratuitous grace is ordained to the common good of the whole Church, as stated above ( AA(1),4 ).

Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, it is a greater power that is able to act upon another, than that which is confined to itself, even as greater is the brightness of the body that can illuminate other bodies, than of that which can only shine but cannot illuminate; and hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) “that justice is the most excellent of the virtues,” since by it a man bears himself rightly towards others. But by sanctifying grace a man is perfected only in himself; whereas by gratuitous grace a man works for the perfection of others. Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, what is proper to the best is nobler than what is common to all; thus to reason, which is proper to man is nobler than to feel, which is common to all animals. Now sanctifying grace is common to all members of the Church, but gratuitous grace is the proper gift of the more exalted members of the Church. Hence gratuitous grace is nobler than sanctifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 12:31), having enumerated the gratuitous graces adds: “And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way”; and as the sequel proves he is speaking of charity, which pertains to sanctifying grace. Hence sanctifying grace is more noble than gratuitous grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5) —

I answer that, The higher the good to which a virtue is ordained, the more excellent is the virtue. Now the end is always greater than the means. But sanctifying grace ordains a man immediately to a union with his last end, whereas gratuitous grace ordains a man to what is preparatory to the end; i.e. by prophecy and miracles and so forth, men are induced to unite themselves to their last end. And hence sanctifying grace is nobler than gratuitous grace.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5)- RO(1) —

As the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, text. 52), a multitude, as an army, has a double good; the first is in the multitude itself, viz. the order of the army; the second is separate from the multitude, viz. the good of the leader — and this is better good, since the other is ordained to it. Now gratuitous grace is ordained to the common good of the Church, which is ecclesiastical order, whereas sanctifying grace is ordained to the separate common good, which is God. Hence sanctifying grace is the nobler.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5)- RO(2) —

If gratuitous grace could cause a man to have sanctifying grace, it would follow that the gratuitous grace was the nobler; even as the brightness of the sun that enlightens is more excellent than that of an object that is lit up. But by gratuitous grace a man cannot cause another to have union with God, which he himself has by sanctifying grace; but he causes certain dispositions towards it. Hence gratuitous grace needs not to be the more excellent, even as in fire, the heat, which manifests its species whereby it produces heat in other things, is not more noble than its substantial form.

P(2a)- Q(111)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Feeling is ordained to reason, as to an end; and thus, to reason is nobler. But here it is the contrary; for what is proper is ordained to what is common as to an end. Hence there is no comparison.

QUESTION OF THE CAUSE OF GRACE (FIVE ARTICLES)

We must now consider the cause of grace; and under this head there are five points of inquiry: (1) Whether God alone is the efficient cause of grace? (2) Whether any disposition towards grace is needed on the part of the recipient, by an act of free-will? (3) Whether such a disposition can make grace follow of necessity? (4) Whether grace is equal in all? (5) Whether anyone may know that he has grace?

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1) Whether God alone is the cause of grace?

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that God alone is not the cause of grace. For it is written ( John 1:17): “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Now, by the name of Jesus Christ is understood not merely the Divine Nature assuming, but the created nature assumed. Therefore a creature may be the cause of grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, there is this difference between the sacraments of the New Law and those of the Old, that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law merely signify it. Now the sacraments of the New Law are certain visible elements. Therefore God is not the only cause of grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, according to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iii, iv, vii, viii), “Angels cleanse, enlighten, and perfect both lesser angels and men.” Now the rational creature is cleansed, enlightened, and perfected by grace. Therefore God is not the only cause of grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Psalm 83:12): “The Lord will give grace and glory.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1) —

I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Christ’s humanity is an “organ of His Godhead,” as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19). Now an instrument does not bring forth the action of the principal agent by its own power, but in virtue of the principal agent. Hence Christ’s humanity does not cause grace by its own power, but by virtue of the Divine Nature joined to it, whereby the actions of Christ’s humanity are saving actions.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1)- RO(2) —

As in the person of Christ the humanity causes our salvation by grace, the Divine power being the principal agent, so likewise in the sacraments of the New Law, which are derived from Christ, grace is instrumentally caused by the sacraments, and principally by the power of the Holy Ghost working in the sacraments, according to John 3:5: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Angels cleanse, enlighten, and perfect angels or men, by instruction, and not by justifying them through grace. Hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that “this cleansing and enlightenment and perfecting is nothing else than the assumption of Divine knowledge.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2) Whether any preparation and disposition for grace is required on man’s part?

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that no preparation or disposition for grace is required on man’s part, since, as the Apostle says ( Romans 4:4), “To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt.”

Now a man’s preparation by free-will can only be through some operation.

Hence it would do away with the notion of grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, whoever is going on sinning, is not preparing himself to have grace. But to some who are going on sinning grace is given, as is clear in the case of Paul, who received grace whilst he was “breathing our threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord” (Act 9:1). Hence no preparation for grace is required on man’s part.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, an agent of infinite power needs no disposition in matter, since it does not even require matter, as appears in creation, to which grace is compared, which is called “a new creature” ( Galatians 6:15). But only God, Who has infinite power, causes grace, as stated above ( A(1) ). Hence no preparation is required on man’s part to obtain grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Amos 4:12): “Be prepared to meet thy God, O Israel,” and ( 1 Kings 7:3): “Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(111), A(2) ), grace is taken in two ways: first, as a habitual gift of God. Secondly, as a help from God, Who moves the soul to good. Now taking grace in the first sense, a certain preparation of grace is required for it, since a form can only be in disposed matter. But if we speak of grace as it signifies a help from God to move us to good, no preparation is required on man’s part, that, as it were, anticipates the Divine help, but rather, every preparation in man must be by the help of God moving the soul to good. And thus even the good movement of the free-will, whereby anyone is prepared for receiving the gift of grace is an act of the free-will moved by God. And thus man is said to prepare himself, according to Proverbs 16:1: “It is the part of man to prepare the soul”; yet it is principally from God, Who moves the free-will. Hence it is said that man’s will is prepared by God, and that man’s steps are guided by God.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2)- RO(1) —

A certain preparation of man for grace is simultaneous with the infusion of grace; and this operation is meritorious, not indeed of grace, which is already possessed — but of glory which is not yet possessed. But there is another imperfect preparation, which sometimes precedes the gift of sanctifying grace, and yet it is from God’s motion. But it does not suffice for merit, since man is not yet justified by grace, and merit can only arise from grace, as will be seen further on ( Q(114), A(2) ).

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Since a man cannot prepare himself for grace unless God prevent and move him to good, it is of no account whether anyone arrive at perfect preparation instantaneously, or step by step. For it is written (Ecclus. 11:23): “It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich.” Now it sometimes happens that God moves a man to good, but not perfect good, and this preparation precedes grace.

But He sometimes moves him suddenly and perfectly to good, and man receives grace suddenly, according to John 6:45: “Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me.” And thus it happened to Paul, since, suddenly when he was in the midst of sin, his heart was perfectly moved by God to hear, to learn, to come; and hence he received grace suddenly.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(2)- RO(3) —

An agent of infinite power needs no matter or disposition of matter, brought about by the action of something else; and yet, looking to the condition of the thing caused, it must cause, in the thing caused, both the matter and the due disposition for the form. So likewise, when God infuses grace into a soul, no preparation is required which He Himself does not bring about.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3) Whether grace is necessarily given to whoever prepares himself for it, or to whoever does what he can?

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is necessarily given to whoever prepares himself for grace, or to whoever does what he can, because, on Romans 5:1, “Being justified . . . by faith, let us have peace,” etc. the gloss says: “God welcomes whoever flies to Him, otherwise there would be injustice with Him.” But it is impossible for injustice to be with God. Therefore it is impossible for God not to welcome whoever flies to Him. Hence he receives grace of necessity.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, Anselm says (De Casu Diaboli. iii) that the reason why God does not bestow grace on the devil, is that he did not wish, nor was he prepared, to receive it. But if the cause be removed, the effect must needs be removed also. Therefore, if anyone is willing to receive grace it is bestowed on them of necessity.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, good is diffusive of itself, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Now the good of grace is better than the good of nature. Hence, since natural forms necessarily come to disposed matter, much more does it seem that grace is necessarily bestowed on whoever prepares himself for grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Man is compared to God as clay to the potter, according to Jeremiah 18:6: “As clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in My hand.” But however much the clay is prepared, it does not necessarily receive its shape from the potter. Hence, however much a man prepares himself, he does not necessarily receive grace from God.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(2) ), man’s preparation for grace is from God, as Mover, and from the free-will, as moved. Hence the preparation may be looked at in two ways: first, as it is from free-will, and thus there is no necessity that it should obtain grace, since the gift of grace exceeds every preparation of human power. But it may be considered, secondly, as it is from God the Mover, and thus it has a necessity — not indeed of coercion, but of infallibility — as regards what it is ordained to by God, since God’s intention cannot fail, according to the saying of Augustine in his book on the Predestination of the Saints (De Dono Persev. xiv) that “by God’s good gifts whoever is liberated, is most certainly liberated.” Hence if God intends, while moving, that the one whose heart He moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45: “Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3)- RO(1) —

This gloss is speaking of such as fly to God by a meritorious act of their free-will, already “informed” with grace; for if they did not receive grace, it would be against the justice which He Himself established. Or if it refers to the movement of free-will before grace, it is speaking in the sense that man’s flight to God is by a Divine motion, which ought not, in justice, to fail.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The first cause of the defect of grace is on our part; but the first cause of the bestowal of grace is on God’s according to Osee 13:9: “Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Even in natural things, the form does not necessarily ensue the disposition of the matter, except by the power of the agent that causes the disposition.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4) Whether grace is greater in one than in another?

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not greater in one than in another. For grace is caused in us by the Divine love, as stated above ( Q(110), A(1) ). Now it is written (Wis. 6:8): “He made the little and the great and He hath equally care of all.” Therefore all obtain grace from Him equally.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, whatever is the greatest possible, cannot be more or less. But grace is the greatest possible, since it joins us with our last end. Therefore there is no greater or less in it. Hence it is not greater in one than in another.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, grace is the soul’s life, as stated above ( Q(110), A(1), ad 2). But there is no greater or less in life. Hence, neither is there in grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Ephesians 4:7): “But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ.”

Now what is given in measure, is not given to all equally. Hence all have not an equal grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(52), AA(1),2 ; Q(56), AA(1),2 ), habits can have a double magnitude: one, as regards the end or object, as when a virtue is said to be more noble through being ordained to a greater good; the other on the part of the subject, which more or less participates in the habit inhering to it.

Now as regards the first magnitude, sanctifying grace cannot be greater or less, since, of its nature, grace joins man to the Highest Good, which is God. But as regards the subject, grace can receive more or less, inasmuch as one may be more perfectly enlightened by grace than another. And a certain reason for this is on the part of him who prepares himself for grace; since he who is better prepared for grace, receives more grace. Yet it is not here that we must seek the first cause of this diversity, since man prepares himself, only inasmuch as his free-will is prepared by God. Hence the first cause of this diversity is to be sought on the part of the God, Who dispenses His gifts of grace variously, in order that the beauty and perfection of the Church may result from these various degree; even as He instituted the various conditions of things, that the universe might be perfect. Hence after the Apostle had said ( Ephesians 4:7): “To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ,” having enumerated the various graces, he adds ( Ephesians 4:12): “For the perfecting of the saints . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The Divine care may be looked at in two ways: first, as regards the Divine act, which is simple and uniform; and thus His care looks equally to all, since by one simple act He administers great things and little. But, “secondly,” it may be considered in those things which come to be considered by the Divine care; and thus, inequality is found, inasmuch as God by His care provides greater gifts to some, and lesser gifts for others.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4)- RO(2) —

This objection is based on the first kind of magnitude of grace; since grace cannot be greater by ordaining to a greater good, but inasmuch as it more or less ordains to a greater or less participation of the same good. For there may be diversity of intensity and remissness, both in grace and in final glory as regards the subjects’ participation.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Natural life pertains to man’s substance, and hence cannot be more or less; but man partakes of the life of grace accidentally, and hence man may possess it more or less.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5) Whether man can know that he has grace?

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that man can know that he has grace. For grace by its physical reality is in the soul. Now the soul has most certain knowledge of those things that are in it by their physical reality, as appears from Augustine (Genesis ad lit. xii, 31). Hence grace may be known most certainly by one who has grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, as knowledge is a gift of God, so is grace. But whoever receives knowledge from God, knows that he has knowledge, according to Wis. 7:17: The Lord “hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are.” Hence, with equal reason, whoever receives grace from God, knows that he has grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, light is more knowable than darkness, since, according to the Apostle ( Ephesians 5:13), “all that is made manifest is light,” Now sin, which is spiritual darkness, may be known with certainty by one that is in sin. Much more, therefore, may grace, which is spiritual light, be known.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- O(4) —

Further, the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 2:12): “Now we have received not the Spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God.”

Now grace is God’s first gift. Hence, the man who receives grace by the Holy Spirit, by the same Holy Spirit knows the grace given to him.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- O(5) —

Further, it was said by the Lord to Abraham ( Genesis 22:12): “Now I know that thou fearest God,” i.e. “I have made thee know.” Now He is speaking there of chaste fear, which is not apart from grace. Hence a man may know that he has grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Ecclesiastes 9:1): “Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred.” Now sanctifying grace maketh a man worthy of God’s love. Therefore no one can know whether he has sanctifying grace.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5) —

I answer that, There are three ways of knowing a thing: first, by revelation, and thus anyone may know that he has grace, for God by a special privilege reveals this at times to some, in order that the joy of safety may begin in them even in this life, and that they may carry on toilsome works with greater trust and greater energy, and may bear the evils of this present life, as when it was said to Paul ( 2 Corinthians 12:9): “My grace is sufficient for thee.”

Secondly, a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty; and in this way no one can know that he has grace. For certitude about a thing can only be had when we may judge of it by its proper principle. Thus it is by undemonstrable universal principles that certitude is obtained concerning demonstrative conclusions. Now no one can know he has the knowledge of a conclusion if he does not know its principle. But the principle of grace and its object is God, Who by reason of His very excellence is unknown to us, according to Job 36:26: “Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge.” And hence His presence in us and His absence cannot be known with certainty, according to Job 9:11: “If He come to me, I shall not see Him; if He depart I shall not understand.” And hence man cannot judge with certainty that he has grace, according to Corinthians 4:3,4: “But neither do I judge my own self . . . but He that judgeth me is the Lord.”

Thirdly, things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin. And thus it is written ( Revelation 2:17): “To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna . . . which no man knoweth, but he that receiveth it,” because whoever receives it knows, by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it, does not experience.

Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 4:4): “I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified,” since, according to Psalm 18:13: “Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from those of others spare Thy servant.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Those things which are in the soul by their physical reality, are known through experimental knowledge; in so far as through acts man has experience of their inward principles: thus when we wish, we perceive that we have a will; and when we exercise the functions of life, we observe that there is life in us.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- RO(2) —

It is an essential condition of knowledge that a man should have certitude of the objects of knowledge; and again, it is an essential condition of faith that a man should be certain of the things of faith, and this, because certitude belongs to the perfection of the intellect, wherein these gifts exist. Hence, whoever has knowledge or faith is certain that he has them. But it is otherwise with grace and charity and such like, which perfect the appetitive faculty.

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Sin has for its principal object commutable good, which is known to us. But the object or end of grace is unknown to us on account of the greatness of its light, according to 1 Timothy 6:16: “Who . . . inhabiteth light inaccessible.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- RO(4) —

The Apostle is here speaking of the gifts of glory, which have been given to us in hope, and these we know most certainly by faith, although we do not know for certain that we have grace to enable us to merit them. Or it may be said that he is speaking of the privileged knowledge, which comes of revelation. Hence he adds ( Corinthians 2:10): “But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit.”

P(2a)- Q(112)- A(5)- RO(5) —

What was said to Abraham may refer to experimental knowledge which springs from deeds of which we are cognizant. For in the deed that Abraham had just wrought, he could know experimentally that he had the fear of God. Or it may refer to a revelation.

QUESTION OF THE EFFECTS OF GRACE (TEN ARTICLES)

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?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1) Whether the justification of the ungodly is the remission of sins?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1)- O(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 ( Q(71), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1)- O(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 Proverbs 10:12: “Charity covereth all sins.” Therefore the remission of sins ought to be named after faith or charity rather than justice.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1)- O(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 Romans 8:30: “And whom He called, them He also justified.” Therefore justification is not the remission of sins.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1) —

On the contrary, On Romans 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1) —

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 ( Romans 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.”

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1)- RO(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 John 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2) Whether the infusion of grace is required for the remission of guilt, i.e. for the justification of the ungodly?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, the remission of guilt consists in the Divine imputation, according to Psalm 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 ( Q(110), A(1) ). Hence the infusion of grace is not required for the remission of guilt.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Romans 3:24): “Justified freely by His grace.”

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2) —

I answer that, by sinning a man offends God as stated above ( Q(71), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2)- RO(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 ( Q(110), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(2)- RO(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 ( Q(87), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3) Whether for the justification of the ungodly is required a movement of the free-will?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that no movement of the freewill 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3)- O(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 Kings 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 freewill.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, grace is preserved by the same cause as brings it into being, for Augustine says (Genesis 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3) —

On the contrary, It is written ( John 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3) —

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 Romans 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3)- RO(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 Numbers 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.”

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4) Whether a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4)- O(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 Luke 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 Proverbs 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Romans 5:1): “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God.”

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(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 Psalm 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 Hebrews 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4)- RO(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 ( Q(68), A(4), ad 3).

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(4)- RO(3) —

As the Apostle says ( Romans 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5) Whether for the justification of the ungodly there is required a movement of the free-will towards sin?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that no movement of the freewill towards sin is required for the justification of the ungodly. For charity alone suffices to take away sin, according to Proverbs 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, whoever is tending onward, ought not to look back, according to Philippians 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Psalm 31:5): “I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord; and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin.”

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(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 freewill, 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 freewill, means detestation and desire. For Augustine says on the words “the hireling fleeth,” etc. ( John 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(5)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6) Whether the remission of sins ought to be reckoned amongst the things required for justification?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6)- O(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 ( A(1) ). Therefore the remission of sins ought not to be reckoned among the things required for the justification of the ungodly.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6) —

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 ( Isaiah 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6) —

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 ( A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6)- RO(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 ( A(5) ).

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(6)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7) Whether the justification of the ungodly takes place in an instant or successively?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- O(1) —

It would seem that the justification of the ungodly does not take place in an instant, but successively, since, as already stated ( A(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 ( Q(13), A(1) ). Hence, since deliberation implies a certain reasoning process, and this implies succession, the justification of the ungodly would seem to be successive.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- O(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 ( P(1) Q(85), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- O(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 ( Q(112), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- O(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 ( Q(114), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7) —

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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7) —

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 ( Q(112), A(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 ( Q(112), A(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 freewill, whose movement is by nature instantaneous. Therefore the justification of the ungodly by God takes place in an instant.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- RO(2) —

As stated above ( P(1) Q(85), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(7)- RO(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 ( P(1) Q(53), AA(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 ( P(1) Q(85), AA(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8) Whether the infusion of grace is naturally the first of the things required for the justification of the ungodly?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8)- O(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 Psalm 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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8) —

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 ( A(7) ). Therefore it is naturally prior to it.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8) —

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 ( A(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 ( A(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 ( A(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 freewill’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 ( AA(1),6 ).

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(8)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9) Whether the justification of the ungodly is God’s greatest work?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9)- O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9)- O(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 ( A(3) ). Hence the justification of the ungodly is not God’s greatest work.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9) —

On the contrary, It is written ( <19E409> Psalm 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 allmightiness most by pardoning and having mercy,” and Augustine, expounding the words, “greater than these shall he do” ( John 14:12) says that “for a just man to be made from a sinner, is greater than to create heaven and earth.”

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9) —

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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9)- RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(9)- RO(3) —

This objection rests on the manner of acting, in which way creation is God’s greatest work.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) Whether the justification of the ungodly is a miraculous work?

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) - O(1) —

It would seem that the justification of the ungodly is a miraculous work. For miraculous works are greater than nonmiraculous.

Now the justification of the ungodly is greater than the other miraculous works, as is clear from the quotation from Augustine ( A(9) ).

Hence the justification of the ungodly is a miraculous work.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) - O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) - O(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) —

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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) —

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 ( P(1) Q(105), A(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) - RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) - RO(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.

P(2a)- Q(113)- A(10) - RO(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.

QUESTION OF MERIT (TEN ARTICLES)

We must now consider merit, which is the effect of cooperating grace; and under this head there are ten points of inquiry: (1) Whether a man can merit anything from God? (2) Whether without grace anyone can merit eternal life? (3) Whether anyone with grace may merit eternal life condignly? (4) Whether it is chiefly through the instrumentality of charity that grace is the principle of merit? (5) Whether a man may merit the first grace for himself? (6) Whether he may merit it for someone else? (7) Whether anyone can merit restoration after sin? (8) Whether he can merit for himself an increase of grace or charity? (9) Whether he can merit final perseverance? (10) Whether temporal goods fall under merit?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1) Whether a man may merit anything from God?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that a man can merit nothing from God. For no one, it would seem, merits by giving another his due.

But by all the good we do, we cannot make sufficient return to God, since yet more is His due, as also the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 14). Hence it is written ( Luke 17:10): “When you have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.”

Therefore a man can merit nothing from God.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, it would seem that a man merits nothing from God, by what profits himself only, and profits God nothing.

Now by acting well, a man profits himself or another man, but not God, for it is written ( Job 35:7): “If thou do justly, what shalt thou give Him, or what shall He receive of thy hand.”

Hence a man can merit nothing from God.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, whoever merits anything from another makes him his debtor; for a man’s wage is a debt due to him. Now God is no one’s debtor; hence it is written ( Romans 11:35): “Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made to him?”

Hence no one can merit anything from God.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Jeremiah 31:16): “There is a reward for thy work.” Now a reward means something bestowed by reason of merit. Hence it would seem that a man may merit from God.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1) —

I answer that, Merit and reward refer to the same, for a reward means something given anyone in return for work or toil, as a price for it. Hence, as it is an act of justice to give a just price for anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to make a return for work or toil. Now justice is a kind of equality, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3), and hence justice is simply between those that are simply equal; but where there is no absolute equality between them, neither is there absolute justice, but there may be a certain manner of justice, as when we speak of a father’s or a master’s right (Ethic. v, 6), as the Philosopher says. And hence where there is justice simply, there is the character of merit and reward simply. But where there is no simple right, but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively, in so far as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord.

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Man merits, inasmuch as he does what he ought, by his free-will; otherwise the act of justice whereby anyone discharges a debt would not be meritorious.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1)- RO(2) —

God seeks from our goods not profit, but glory, i.e. the manifestation of His goodness; even as He seeks it also in His own works. Now nothing accrues to Him, but only to ourselves, by our worship of Him. Hence we merit from God, not that by our works anything accrues to Him, but inasmuch as we work for His glory.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Since our action has the character of merit, only on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, it does not follow that God is made our debtor simply, but His own, inasmuch as it is right that His will should be carried out.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2) Whether anyone without grace can merit eternal life?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that without grace anyone can merit eternal life. For man merits from God what he is divinely ordained to, as stated above ( A(1) ). Now man by his nature is ordained to beatitude as his end; hence, too, he naturally wishes to be blessed. Hence man by his natural endowments and without grace can merit beatitude which is eternal life.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, the less a work is due, the more meritorious it is. Now, less due is that work which is done by one who has received fewer benefits. Hence, since he who has only natural endowments has received fewer gifts from God, than he who has gratuitous gifts as well as nature, it would seem that his works are more meritorious with God.

And thus if he who has grace can merit eternal life to some extent, much more may he who has no grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, God’s mercy and liberality infinitely surpass human mercy and liberality. Now a man may merit from another, even though he has not hitherto had his grace. Much more, therefore, would it seem that a man without grace may merit eternal life.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Romans 6:23): “The grace of God, life everlasting.”

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2) —

I answer that, Man without grace may be looked at in two states, as was said above ( Q(109), A(2) ): the first, a state of perfect nature, in which Adam was before his sin; the second, a state of corrupt nature, in which we are before being restored by grace. Therefore, if we speak of man in the first state, there is only one reason why man cannot merit eternal life without grace, by his purely natural endowments, viz. because man’s merit depends on the Divine pre-ordination. Now no act of anything whatsoever is divinely ordained to anything exceeding the proportion of the powers which are the principles of its act; for it is a law of Divine providence that nothing shall act beyond its powers. Now everlasting life is a good exceeding the proportion of created nature; since it exceeds its knowledge and desire, according to 1 Corinthians 2:9: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man.”

And hence it is that no created nature is a sufficient principle of an act meritorious of eternal life, unless there is added a supernatural gift, which we call grace. But if we speak of man as existing in sin, a second reason is added to this, viz. the impediment of sin. For since sin is an offense against God, excluding us from eternal life, as is clear from what has been said above ( Q(71), A(6) ; Q(113), A(2) ), no one existing in a state of mortal sin can merit eternal life unless first he be reconciled to God, through his sin being forgiven, which is brought about by grace. For the sinner deserves not life, but death, according to Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death.”

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2)- RO(1) —

God ordained human nature to attain the end of eternal life, not by its own strength, but by the help of grace; and in this way its act can be meritorious of eternal life.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Without grace a man cannot have a work equal to a work proceeding from grace, since the more perfect the principle, the more perfect the action. But the objection would hold good, if we supposed the operations equal in both cases.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(2)- RO(3) —

With regard to the first reason adduced, the case is different in God and in man. For a man receives all his power of well-doing from God, and not from man. Hence a man can merit nothing from God except by His gift, which the Apostle expresses aptly saying ( Romans 11:35): “Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made to him?” But man may merit from man, before he has received anything from him, by what he has received from God.

But as regards the second proof taken from the impediment of sin, the case is similar with man and God, since one man cannot merit from another whom he has offended, unless he makes satisfaction to him and is reconciled.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3) Whether a man in grace can merit eternal life condignly?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that a man in grace cannot merit eternal life condignly, for the Apostle says ( Romans 8:18): “The sufferings of this time are not worthy [condignae] to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us.”

But of all meritorious works, the sufferings of the saints would seem the most meritorious. Therefore no works of men are meritorious of eternal life condignly.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, on Romans 6:23, “The grace of God, life everlasting,” a gloss says: “He might have truly said: ‘The wages of justice, life everlasting’; but He preferred to say ‘The grace of God, life everlasting,’ that we may know that God leads us to life everlasting of His own mercy and not by our merits.” Now when anyone merits something condignly he receives it not from mercy, but from merit. Hence it would seem that a man with grace cannot merit life everlasting condignly.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, merit that equals the reward, would seem to be condign. Now no act of the present life can equal everlasting life, which surpasses our knowledge and our desire, and moreover, surpasses the charity or love of the wayfarer, even as it exceeds nature.

Therefore with grace a man cannot merit eternal life condignly.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3) —

On the contrary, What is granted in accordance with a fair judgment, would seem a condign reward. But life everlasting is granted by God, in accordance with the judgment of justice, according to 2 Timothy 4:8: “As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that day.”

Therefore man merits everlasting life condignly.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3) —

I answer that, Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.

If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14: “Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.” And the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Romans 8:17: “If sons, heirs also.”

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The Apostle is speaking of the substance of these sufferings.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3)- RO(2) —

This saying is to be understood of the first cause of our reaching everlasting life, viz. God’s mercy. But our merit is a subsequent cause.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(3)- RO(3) —

The grace of the Holy Ghost which we have at present, although unequal to glory in act, is equal to it virtually as the seed of a tree, wherein the whole tree is virtually. So likewise by grace of the Holy Ghost dwells in man; and He is a sufficient cause of life everlasting; hence, 2 Corinthians 1:22, He is called the “pledge” of our inheritance.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4) Whether grace is the principle of merit through charity rather than the other virtues?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that grace is not the principle of merit through charity rather than the other virtues. For wages are due to work, according to Matthew 20:8: “Call the laborers and pay them their hire.” Now every virtue is a principle of some operation, since virtue is an operative habit, as stated above ( Q(55), A(2) ). Hence every virtue is equally a principle of merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 3:8): “Every man shall receive his own reward according to his labor.”

Now charity lessens rather than increases the labor, because as Augustine says (De Verbis Dom., Serm. lxx), “love makes all hard and repulsive tasks easy and next to nothing.” Hence charity is no greater principle of merit than any other virtue.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, the greatest principle of merit would seem to be the one whose acts are most meritorious. But the acts of faith and patience or fortitude would seem to be the most meritorious, as appears in the martyrs, who strove for the faith patiently and bravely even till death. Hence other virtues are a greater principle of merit than charity.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Our Lord said ( John 14:21): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father; and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him.”

Now everlasting life consists in the manifest knowledge of God, according to John 17:3: “This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true” and living “God.”

Hence the merit of eternal life rests chiefly with charity.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4) —

I answer that, As we may gather from what has been stated above ( A(1) ), human acts have the nature of merit from two causes: first and chiefly from the Divine ordination, inasmuch as acts are said to merit that good to which man is divinely ordained. Secondly, on the part of free-will, inasmuch as man, more than other creatures, has the power of voluntary acts by acting by himself. And in both these ways does merit chiefly rest with charity. For we must bear in mind that everlasting life consists in the enjoyment of God. Now the human mind’s movement to the fruition of the Divine good is the proper act of charity, whereby all the acts of the other virtues are ordained to this end, since all the other virtues are commanded by charity. Hence the merit of life everlasting pertains first to charity, and secondly, to the other virtues, inasmuch as their acts are commanded by charity. So, likewise, is it manifest that what we do out of love we do most willingly. Hence, even inasmuch as merit depends on voluntariness, merit is chiefly attributed to charity.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4)- RO(1) —

Charity, inasmuch as it has the last end for object, moves the other virtues to act. For the habit to which the end pertains always commands the habits to which the means pertain, as was said above ( Q(9) , A(1) ).

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4)- RO(2) —

A work can be toilsome and difficult in two ways: first, from the greatness of the work, and thus the greatness of the work pertains to the increase of merit; and thus charity does not lessen the toil — rather, it makes us undertake the greatest toils, “for it does great things, if it exists,” as Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxx). Secondly, from the defect of the operator; for what is not done with a ready will is hard and difficult to all of us, and this toil lessens merit and is removed by charity.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The act of faith is not meritorious unless “faith . . . worketh by charity” ( Galatians 5:6). So, too, the acts of patience and fortitude are not meritorious unless a man does them out of charity, according to 1 Corinthians 13:3: “If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5) Whether a man may merit for himself the first grace?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that a man may merit for himself the first grace, because, as Augustine says (Ep. clxxxvi), “faith merits justification.” Now a man is justified by the first grace. Therefore a man may merit the first grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, God gives grace only to the worthy.

Now, no one is said to be worthy of some good, unless he has merited it condignly. Therefore we may merit the first grace condignly.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, with men we may merit a gift already received. Thus if a man receives a horse from his master, he merits it by a good use of it in his master’s service. Now God is much more bountiful than man. Much more, therefore, may a man, by subsequent works, merit the first grace already received from God.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The nature of grace is repugnant to reward of works, according to Romans 4:4: “Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt.”

Now a man merits what is reckoned to him according to debt, as the reward of his works. Hence a man may not merit the first grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5) —

I answer that, The gift of grace may be considered in two ways: first in the nature of a gratuitous gift, and thus it is manifest that all merit is repugnant to grace, since as the Apostle says ( Romans 11:6), “if by grace, it is not now by works.” Secondly, it may be considered as regards the nature of the thing given, and thus, also, it cannot come under the merit of him who has not grace, both because it exceeds the proportion of nature, and because previous to grace a man in the state of sin has an obstacle to his meriting grace, viz. sin. But when anyone has grace, the grace already possessed cannot come under merit, since reward is the term of the work, but grace is the principle of all our good works, as stated above ( Q(109) ). But of anyone merits a further gratuitous gift by virtue of the preceding grace, it would not be the first grace. Hence it is manifest that no one can merit for himself the first grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5)- RO(1) —

As Augustine says (Retract. i, 23), he was deceived on this point for a time, believing the beginning of faith to be from us, and its consummation to be granted us by God; and this he here retracts. And seemingly it is in this sense that he speaks of faith as meriting justification. But if we suppose, as indeed it is a truth of faith, that the beginning of faith is in us from God, the first act must flow from grace; and thus it cannot be meritorious of the first grace. Therefore man is justified by faith, not as though man, by believing, were to merit justification, but that, he believes, whilst he is being justified; inasmuch as a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly, as stated above ( Q(113), A(4) ).

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5)- RO(2) —

God gives grace to none but to the worthy, not that they were previously worthy, but that by His grace He makes them worthy, Who alone “can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed” ( Job 14:4).

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Man’s every good work proceeds from the first grace as from its principle; but not from any gift of man.

Consequently, there is no comparison between gifts of grace and gifts of men.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6) Whether a man can merit the first grace for another?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that a man can merit the first grace for another. Because on Matthew 9:2: “Jesus seeing their faith,” etc. a gloss says: “How much is our personal faith worth with God, Who set such a price on another’s faith, as to heal the man both inwardly and outwardly!” Now inward healing is brought about by grace. Hence a man can merit the first grace for another.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, the prayers of the just are not void, but efficacious, according to James 5:16: “The continued prayer of a just man availeth much.” Now he had previously said: “Pray one for another, that you may be saved.” Hence, since man’s salvation can only be brought about by grace, it seems that one man may merit for another his first grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, it is written ( Luke 16:9): “Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail they may receive you into everlasting dwellings.”

Now it is through grace alone that anyone is received into everlasting dwellings, for by it alone does anyone merit everlasting life as stated above ( A(2) ; Q(109), A(5) ). Hence one man may by merit obtain for another his first grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Jeremiah 15:1): “If Moses and Samuel shall stand before Me, My soul is not towards this people” — yet they had great merit with God. Hence it seems that no one can merit the first grace for another.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6) —

I answer that, As shown above ( AA(1),3,4 ), our works are meritorious from two causes: first, by virtue of the Divine motion; and thus we merit condignly; secondly, according as they proceed from free-will in so far as we do them willingly, and thus they have congruous merit, since it is congruous that when a man makes good use of his power God should by His super-excellent power work still higher things. And therefore it is clear that no one can merit condignly for another his first grace, save Christ alone; since each one of us is moved by God to reach life everlasting through the gift of grace; hence condign merit does not reach beyond this motion. But Christ’s soul is moved by God through grace, not only so as to reach the glory of life everlasting, but so as to lead others to it, inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, and the Author of human salvation, according to Hebrews 2:10: “Who hath brought many children into glory [to perfect] the Author of their salvation.”

But one may merit the first grace for another congruously; because a man in grace fulfils God’s will, and it is congruous and in harmony with friendship that God should fulfil man’s desire for the salvation of another, although sometimes there may be an impediment on the part of him whose salvation the just man desires. And it is in this sense that the passage from Jeremias speaks.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6)- RO(1) —

A man’s faith avails for another’s salvation by congruous and not by condign merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6)- RO(2) —

The impetration of prayer rests on mercy, whereas condign merit rests on justice; hence a man may impetrate many things from the Divine mercy in prayer, which he does not merit in justice, according to Daniel 9:18: “For it is not for our justifications that we present our prayers before Thy face, but for the multitude of Thy tender mercies.”

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(6)- RO(3) —

The poor who receive alms are said to receive others into everlasting dwellings, either by impetrating their forgiveness in prayer, or by meriting congruously by other good works, or materially speaking, inasmuch as by these good works of mercy, exercised towards the poor, we merit to be received into everlasting dwellings.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7) Whether a man may merit restoration after a fall?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7)- O(1) —

It would seem that anyone may merit for himself restoration after a fall. For what a man may justly ask of God, he may justly merit. Now nothing may more justly be besought of God than to be restored after a fall, as Augustine says [*Cf. Ennar. i super Psalm lxx.], according to Psalm 70:9: “When my strength shall fail, do not Thou forsake me.” Hence a man may merit to be restored after a fall.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, a man’s works benefit himself more than another. Now a man may, to some extent, merit for another his restoration after a fall, even as his first grace. Much more, therefore, may he merit for himself restoration after a fall.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, when a man is once in grace he merits life everlasting by the good works he does, as was shown above ( A(2) ; Q(109), A(5) ). Now no one can attain life everlasting unless he is restored by grace. Hence it would seem that he merits for himself restoration.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7) —

On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 18:24): “If the just man turn himself away from his justice and do iniquity . . . all his justices which he hath done shall not be remembered.” Therefore his previous merits will nowise help him to rise again. Hence no one can merit for himself restoration after a fall.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7) —

I answer that, No one can merit for himself restoration after a future fall, either condignly or congruously. He cannot merit for himself condignly, since the reason of this merit depends on the motion of Divine grace, and this motion is interrupted by the subsequent sin; hence all benefits which he afterwards obtains from God, whereby he is restored, do not fall under merit — the motion of the preceding grace not extending to them. Again, congruous merit, whereby one merits the first grace for another, is prevented from having its effect on account of the impediment of sin in the one for whom it is merited. Much more, therefore, is the efficacy of such merit impeded by the obstacle which is in him who merits, and in him for whom it is merited; for both these are in the same person. And therefore a man can nowise merit for himself restoration after a fall.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7)- RO(1) —

The desire whereby we seek for restoration after a fall is called just, and likewise the prayer whereby this restoration is besought is called just, because it tends to justice; and not that it depends on justice by way of merit, but only on mercy.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7)- RO(2) —

Anyone may congruously merit for another his first grace, because there is no impediment (at least, on the part of him who merits), such as is found when anyone recedes from justice after the merit of grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(7)- RO(3) —

Some have said that no one “absolutely” merits life everlasting except by the act of final grace, but only “conditionally,” i.e. if he perseveres. But it is unreasonable to say this, for sometimes the act of the last grace is not more, but less meritorious than preceding acts, on account of the prostration of illness. Hence it must be said that every act of charity merits eternal life absolutely; but by subsequent sin, there arises an impediment to the preceding merit, so that it does not obtain its effect; just as natural causes fail of their effects on account of a supervening impediment.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8) Whether a man may merit the increase of grace or charity?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8)- O(1) —

It would seem that a man cannot merit an increase of grace or charity. For when anyone receives the reward he merited no other reward is due to him; thus it was said of some ( Matthew 6:2): “They have received their reward.” Hence, if anyone were to merit the increase of charity or grace, it would follow that, when his grace has been increased, he could not expect any further reward, which is unfitting.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, nothing acts beyond its species. But the principle of merit is grace or charity, as was shown above ( AA(2), 4 ).

Therefore no one can merit greater grace or charity than he has.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, what falls under merit a man merits by every act flowing from grace or charity, as by every such act a man merits life everlasting. If, therefore, the increase of grace or charity falls under merit, it would seem that by every act quickened by charity a man would merit an increase of charity. But what a man merits, he infallibly receives from God, unless hindered by subsequent sin; for it is written ( 2 Timothy 1:12): “I know Whom I have believed, and I am certain that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him.”

Hence it would follow that grace or charity is increased by every meritorious act; and this would seem impossible since at times meritorious acts are not very fervent, and would not suffice for the increase of charity.

Therefore the increase of charity does not come under merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (super Ep. Joan.; cf. Ep. clxxxvi) that “charity merits increase, and being increased merits to be perfected.” Hence the increase of grace or charity falls under merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8) —

I answer that, As stated above ( AA(6),7 ), whatever the motion of grace reaches to, falls under condign merit. Now the motion of a mover extends not merely to the last term of the movement, but to the whole progress of the movement. But the term of the movement of grace is eternal life; and progress in this movement is by the increase of charity or grace according to Proverbs 4:18: “But the path of the just as a shining light, goeth forward and increaseth even to perfect day,” which is the day of glory. And thus the increase of grace falls under condign merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8)- RO(1) —

Reward is the term of merit. But there is a double term of movement, viz. the last, and the intermediate, which is both beginning and term; and this term is the reward of increase. Now the reward of human favor is as the last end to those who place their end in it; hence such as these receive no other reward.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8)- RO(2) —

The increase of grace is not above the virtuality of the pre-existing grace, although it is above its quantity, even as a tree is not above the virtuality of the seed, although above its quantity.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(8)- RO(3) —

By every meritorious act a man merits the increase of grace, equally with the consummation of grace which is eternal life. But just as eternal life is not given at once, but in its own time, so neither is grace increased at once, but in its own time, viz. when a man is sufficiently disposed for the increase of grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9) Whether a man may merit perseverance?

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9)- O(1) —

It would seem that anyone may merit perseverance. For what a man obtains by asking, can come under the merit of anyone that is in grace. Now men obtain perseverance by asking it of God; otherwise it would be useless to ask it of God in the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, as Augustine says (De Dono Persev. ii). Therefore perseverance may come under the merit of whoever has grace.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9)- O(2) —

Further, it is more not to be able to sin than not to sin. But not to be able to sin comes under merit, for we merit eternal life, of which impeccability is an essential part. Much more, therefore, may we merit not to sin, i.e. to persevere.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9)- O(3) —

Further, increase of grace is greater than perseverance in the grace we already possess. But a man may merit an increase of grace, as was stated above ( A(8) ). Much more, therefore, may he merit perseverance in the grace he has already.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9) —

On the contrary, What we merit, we obtain from God, unless it is hindered by sin. Now many have meritorious works, who do not obtain perseverance; nor can it be urged that this takes place because of the impediment of sin, since sin itself is opposed to perseverance; and thus if anyone were to merit perseverance, God would not permit him to fall into sin. Hence perseverance does not come under merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9) —

I answer that, Since man’s free-will is naturally flexible towards good and evil, there are two ways of obtaining from God perseverance in good: first, inasmuch as free-will is determined to good by consummate grace, which will be in glory; secondly, on the part of the Divine motion, which inclines man to good unto the end. Now as explained above ( AA(6),7,8 ), that which is related as a term to the free-will’s movement directed to God the mover, falls under human merit; and not what is related to the aforesaid movement as principle. Hence it is clear that the perseverance of glory which is the term of the aforesaid movement falls under merit; but perseverance of the wayfarer does not fall under merit, since it depends solely on the Divine motion, which is the principle of all merit. Now God freely bestows the good of perseverance, on whomsoever He bestows it.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9)- RO(1) —

We impetrate in prayer things that we do not merit, since God hears sinners who beseech the pardon of their sins, which they do not merit, as appears from Augustine [*Tract. xliv in Joan.] on John 11:31, “Now we know that God doth not hear sinners,” otherwise it would have been useless for the publican to say: “O God, be merciful to me a sinner,” Luke 18:13. So too may we impetrate of God in prayer the grace of perseverance either for ourselves or for others, although it does not fall under merit.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(9)- RO(2) —

The perseverance which is in heaven is compared as term to the free-will’s movement; not so, the perseverance of the wayfarer, for the reason given in the body of the article.

In the same way may we answer the third objection which concerns the increase of grace, as was explained above.

P(2a)- Q(114)- A(10) Whether temporal goods fall under merit?