Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II q.23 a.2 (Leonine edition, 1895, archive.org operaomniaiussui08thom; text located via Corpus Thomisticum)

Datec. 1272PlaceParisBench / bandthomistDistinctionI d.17 · cap. 1–6 · ST II-II q.23 a.2

Spirit or habit Created charity and the indwelling

English

Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not something created in the soul. For Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 7): "He that loveth his neighbor, consequently, loveth love itself." Now God is love. Therefore it follows that he loves God in the first place. Again he says (De Trin. xv, 17): "It was said: God is Charity, even as it was said: God is a Spirit." Therefore charity is not something created in the soul, but is God Himself.

Objection 2. Further, God is the life of the soul spiritually just as the soul is the life of the body, according to Deuteronomy 30:20: "He is thy life." Now the soul by itself quickens the body. Therefore God quickens the soul by Himself. But He quickens it by charity, according to 1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren." Therefore God is charity itself.

Objection 3. Further, no created thing is of infinite power; on the contrary every creature is vanity. But charity is not vanity, indeed it is opposed to vanity; and it is of infinite power, since it brings the human soul to the infinite good. Therefore charity is not something created in the soul.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 10): "By charity I mean the movement of the soul towards the enjoyment of God for His own sake." But a movement of the soul is something created in the soul. Therefore charity is something created in the soul.

I answer that, The Master looks thoroughly into this question in 17 of the First Book, and concludes that charity is not something created in the soul, but is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in the mind. Nor does he mean to say that this movement of love whereby we love God is the Holy Ghost Himself, but that this movement is from the Holy Ghost without any intermediary habit, whereas other virtuous acts are from the Holy Ghost by means of the habits of other virtues, for instance the habit of faith or hope or of some other virtue: and this he said on account of the excellence of charity.

But if we consider the matter aright, this would be, on the contrary, detrimental to charity. For when the Holy Ghost moves the human mind the movement of charity does not proceed from this motion in such a way that the human mind be merely moved, without being the principle of this movement, as when a body is moved by some extrinsic motive power. For this is contrary to the nature of a voluntary act, whose principle needs to be in itself, as stated above ( I-II:6:1 ): so that it would follow that to love is not a voluntary act, which involves a contradiction, since love, of its very nature, implies an act of the will.

Likewise, neither can it be said that the Holy Ghost moves the will in such a way to the act of loving, as though the will were an instrument, for an instrument, though it be a principle of action, nevertheless has not the power to act or not to act, for then again the act would cease to be voluntary and meritorious, whereas it has been stated above ( I-II:114:4 ) that the love of charity is the root of merit: and, given that the will is moved by the Holy Ghost to the act of love, it is necessary that the will also should be the efficient cause of that act.

Now no act is perfectly produced by an active power, unless it be connatural to that power of reason of some form which is the principle of that action. Wherefore God, Who moves all things to their due ends, bestowed on each thing the form whereby it is inclined to the end appointed to it by Him; and in this way He "ordereth all things sweetly" ( Wisdom 8:1 ). But it is evident that the act of charity surpasses the nature of the power of the will, so that, therefore, unless some form be superadded to the natural power, inclining it to the act of love, this same act would be less perfect than the natural acts and the acts of the other powers; nor would it be easy and pleasurable to perform. And this is evidently untrue, since no virtue has such a strong inclination to its act as charity has, nor does any virtue perform its act with so great pleasure. Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.

Reply to Objection 1. The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even as It is wisdom and goodness. Wherefore just as we are said to be good with the goodness which is God, and wise with the wisdom which is God (since the goodness whereby we are formally good is a participation of Divine goodness, and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally we love our neighbor is a participation of Divine charity. For this manner of speaking is common among the Platonists, with whose doctrines Augustine was imbued; and the lack of adverting to this has been to some an occasion of error.

Reply to Objection 2. God is effectively the life both of the soul by charity, and of the body by the soul: but formally charity is the life of the soul, even as the soul is the life of the body. Consequently we may conclude from this that just as the soul is immediately united to the body, so is charity to the soul.

Reply to Objection 3. Charity works formally. Now the efficacy of a form depends on the power of the agent, who instills the form, wherefore it is evident that charity is not vanity. But because it produces an infinite effect, since, by justifying the soul, it unites it to God, this proves the infinity of the Divine power, which is the author of charity.

Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920 · pd

Latin

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non sit aliquid creatum in anima. Dicit enim Augustinus, in VIII de Trin., qui proximum diligit, consequens est ut ipsam dilectionem diligat. Deus autem dilectio est. Consequens est ergo ut praecipue Deum diligat. Et in XV de Trin. dicit, ita dictum est, Deus caritas est, sicut dictum est, Deus spiritus est. Ergo caritas non est aliquid creatum in anima, sed est ipse Deus.

Praeterea, Deus est spiritualiter vita animae, sicut anima vita corporis, secundum illud Deut. XXX, ipse est vita tua. Sed anima vivificat corpus per seipsam. Ergo Deus vivificat animam per seipsum. Vivificat autem eam per caritatem, secundum illud I Ioan. III, nos scimus quoniam translati sumus de morte ad vitam, quoniam diligimus fratres. Ergo Deus est ipsa caritas.

Praeterea, nihil creatum est infinitae virtutis, sed magis omnis creatura est vanitas. Caritas autem non est vanitas, sed magis vanitati repugnat, et est infinitae virtutis, quia animam hominis ad bonum infinitum perducit. Ergo caritas non est aliquid creatum in anima.

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., caritatem voco motum animi ad fruendum Deo propter ipsum. Sed motus animi est aliquid creatum in anima. Ergo et caritas est aliquid creatum in anima.

Respondeo dicendum quod Magister perscrutatur hanc quaestionem in XVII dist. I Lib. Sent., et ponit quod caritas non est aliquid creatum in anima, sed est ipse spiritus sanctus mentem inhabitans. Nec est sua intentio quod iste motus dilectionis quo Deum diligimus sit ipse spiritus sanctus, sed quod iste motus dilectionis est a spiritu sancto non mediante aliquo habitu, sicut a spiritu sancto sunt alii actus virtuosi mediantibus habitibus aliarum virtutum, puta habitu spei aut fidei aut alicuius alterius virtutis. Et hoc dicebat propter excellentiam caritatis. Sed si quis recte consideret, hoc magis redundat in caritatis detrimentum. Non enim motus caritatis ita procedit a spiritu sancto movente humanam mentem quod humana mens sit mota tantum et nullo modo sit principium huius motus, sicut cum aliquod corpus movetur ab aliquo exteriori movente. Hoc enim est contra rationem voluntarii, cuius oportet principium in ipso esse, sicut supra dictum est. Unde sequeretur quod diligere non esset voluntarium. Quod implicat contradictionem, cum amor de sui ratione importet quod sit actus voluntatis. Similiter etiam non potest dici quod sic moveat spiritus sanctus voluntatem ad actum diligendi sicut movetur instrumentum quod, etsi sit principium actus, non tamen est in ipso agere vel non agere. Sic enim etiam tolleretur ratio voluntarii, et excluderetur ratio meriti, cum tamen supra habitum sit quod dilectio caritatis est radix merendi. Sed oportet quod sic voluntas moveatur a spiritu sancto ad diligendum quod etiam ipsa sit efficiens hunc actum. Nullus autem actus perfecte producitur ab aliqua potentia activa nisi sit ei connaturalis per aliquam formam quae sit principium actionis. Unde Deus, qui omnia movet ad debitos fines, singulis rebus indidit formas per quas inclinantur ad fines sibi praestitutos a Deo, et secundum hoc disponit omnia suaviter, ut dicitur Sap. VIII. Manifestum est autem quod actus caritatis excedit naturam potentiae voluntatis. Nisi ergo aliqua forma superadderetur naturali potentiae per quam inclinaretur ad dilectionis actum, secundum hoc esset actus iste imperfectior actibus naturalibus et actibus aliarum virtutum, nec esset facilis et delectabilis. Quod patet esse falsum, quia nulla virtus habet tantam inclinationem ad suum actum sicut caritas, nec aliqua ita delectabiliter operatur. Unde maxime necesse est quod ad actum caritatis existat in nobis aliqua habitualis forma superaddita potentiae naturali, inclinans ipsam ad caritatis actum, et faciens eam prompte et delectabiliter operari.

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ipsa essentia divina caritas est, sicut et sapientia est, et sicut bonitas est. Unde sicut dicimur boni bonitate quae Deus est, et sapientes sapientia quae Deus est, quia bonitas qua formaliter boni sumus est participatio quaedam divinae bonitatis, et sapientia qua formaliter sapientes sumus est participatio quaedam divinae sapientiae; ita etiam caritas qua formaliter diligimus proximum est quaedam participatio divinae caritatis. Hic enim modus loquendi consuetus est apud Platonicos, quorum doctrinis Augustinus fuit imbutus. Quod quidam non advertentes ex verbis eius sumpserunt occasionem errandi.

Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus est vita effective et animae per caritatem et corporis per animam, sed formaliter caritas est vita animae, sicut et anima corporis. Unde per hoc potest concludi quod, sicut anima immediate unitur corpori, ita caritas animae.

Ad tertium dicendum quod caritas operatur formaliter. Efficacia autem formae est secundum virtutem agentis qui inducit formam. Et ideo quod caritas non est vanitas, sed facit effectum infinitum dum coniungit animam Deo iustificando ipsam, hoc demonstrat infinitatem virtutis divinae, quae est caritatis auctor.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II q.23 a.2 (Leonine edition, 1895, archive.org operaomniaiussui08thom; text located via Corpus Thomisticum) · pd

Notes

Thomas returning to the question twenty years later, and the one witness on this page that cites the distinction by its number: Magister perscrutatur hanc quaestionem in XVII dist. I Lib. Sent. He is also fairer to Lombard here than the Scriptum was — he grants that the Master never meant that the motion of love is the Holy Spirit, only that it comes from him without a habit intervening, and that he said it propter excellentiam caritatis, out of regard for charity's excellence. Then he turns that regard against the thesis: hoc magis redundat in caritatis detrimentum. The English is the public-domain Dominican Fathers translation of 1920, not an in-house draft. Anchored on this distinction under the second clause of the anchor rule; it is not a Sentences commentary, but it argues this distinction's question and names it.

A created habit

Threads

→ parallel · Thomas Aquinas
Thomas twenty years later, saying what the Master did not mean and why he said it — non quod ipse motus dilectionis sit spiritus sanctus, and propter excellentiam caritatis — where the Scriptum had simply drawn the ontological consequence. The same author on the same question, and the later text is the one that gives Lombard a motive.
→ contests · Bonaventure
Thomas names the distinction and the thesis he is refuting: Magister perscrutatur hanc quaestionem in XVII dist. I Lib. Sent., et ponit quod caritas non est aliquid creatum in anima, sed est ipse spiritus sanctus mentem inhabitans. The divisio is the witness that carries Lombard's own text and division on this page, so the contest is drawn to it.
← transmits · John Capreolus
Capreolus proves his first conclusion by quoting this article: Probatur sic ista conclusio, secundum sanctum Thomam, 2a 2ae, q. 23, art. 2, ubi sic arguit. The quotation runs on for most of a column. His copy reads mens humana sit tantummodo mota where the Leonine has humana mens sit mota tantum.
← contests · Gabriel Biel
Biel affirms the Thomist conclusion and withdraws its demonstration: haec conclusio naturali ratione probari non potest, quia non potest concludi ratione naturali quod sit aliquis habitus infusus. Thomas's article is the fullest natural-reason argument for the created habit on this page — its corpus turns on what an act of the will requires of the power that elicits it — so the denial that any such argument can reach the conclusion is drawn to it. The contest is over the proof, not the thesis: they agree on the answer.
← contests · Peter Auriol
Auriol argues from a Thomist text against the Thomist conclusion: Sed secundum istos, 1a 2ae, q. 109, art. 3, homo in naturalibus constitutus potest Deum diligere super se, et super omnia. ⚠ The article he cites is Ia IIae q.109 a.3, not the article of the Summa that stands on this page; the thread is drawn to Thomas's note because it is where this edition prints the position Auriol says is at odds with itself, not because the two texts cite each other.