← Back to Distinction 48

Dist. 48, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 48

Textus Latinus
p. 851

Articulus Unicus. De conformitate voluntatis nostrae ad divinam.

Quaestio I. Utrum possibile sit, voluntatem nostram divinae voluntati conformari.

Quod autem non sit possibile, nostram voluntatem conformari divinae, ostenditur sic.

1. Isaiae quinquagesimo quinto1: Sicut exaltantur caeli a terra, ita exaltatae sunt viae meae a viis vestris, et cogitationes meae a cogitationibus vestris. Sed sicut est in viis et cogitationibus, sic et in voluntatibus: ergo si caelum et terra non habent conformitatem, immo difformitatem, videtur similiter, quod nec voluntas nostra et voluntas divina. Si dicas, quod auctoritas intelligitur et loquitur de malis; contra: super illud Psalmi2: Exultate iusti, Glossa: « Quantum distat Deus ab homine, tantum distat voluntas Dei a voluntate hominis »: ergo etc.

2. Item, infinite distantium nulla est conformitas3; sed Deus et homo distant in infinitum, cum unum sit finitum et aliud infinitum: ergo nulla est conformitas voluntatum.

3. Item, si voluntas nostra conformatur divinae, aut ergo se ipsa, aut in tertio. Si in tertio: ergo divina voluntas et humana conveniunt in aliquo communi; et si hoc, ergo habent aliquid simplicius se4; quod est inconveniens, maxime in divina voluntate. Restat ergo, quod si est conformis, quod se ipsa conformetur: ergo voluntas est ipsa conformitas. Sed conformitas non potest esse difformis: ergo voluntas nostra non potest discordare a divina, quod est manifeste falsum.

4. Item, si voluntas nostra est conformis divinae, aut hoc convenit essentialiter, aut per participationem. Si essentialiter, redit idem quod prius5; si per participationem, quaero de illo, per cuius participationem voluntas est conformis, utrum sit conforme. Si non, non potest conformare; si sic, tunc aut essentialiter, aut participative: ergo vel erit abire in infinitum, vel stare in aliquo creato, quod sit conforme Deo per essentiam, vel voluntas conformatur Deo per increatum. Sed non est abire in infinitum, nec est ponere, quod Deus sit conformitas voluntatis humanae ad Deum: ergo aliquod creatum essentialiter est conforme. Sed quod essen-

p. 852

tialiter est conforme alicui, essentialiter convenit cum illo, et quod essentialiter convenit, est eiusdem essentiae: ergo etc.

Contra:

1. Primae ad Corinthios sexto6: Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est; sed non est unus spiritus per unitatem naturae: ergo est unus per conformitatem voluntatis.

2. Item, Matthaei duodecimo7: Omnis qui facit voluntatem Patris mei, qui est in caelis, ille meus frater et soror etc.; sed non est verum, quod sit frater per propinquitatem sanguinis: ergo est frater per conformitatem voluntatis et dilectionis.

3. Item, quascumque voluntates contingit velle idem et velle opposita, contingit conformari et difformari sive contrariari; sed voluntas divina et humana sunt huiusmodi: hoc patet8, ergo etc.

4. Item, quascumque voluntates contingit ad invicem ordinari per perfectam praesidentiam et obedientiam, contingit ad invicem conformari; sed voluntatem humanam contingit divinae per omnia subiacere et obedire9: ergo etc.

Conclusio.

Conclusio. Voluntas humana potest conformari voluntati divinae per similem habitudinem ad actum, ad obiectum et ad finem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliquid conformari alicui contingit dupliciter: aut quantum ad similitudinem, aut quantum ad habitudinem.

Quantum ad similitudinem contingit tripliciter: aut quando aliqua duo participant tertium, in quo assimilantur, ut cygnus et nix in10 albedine; aut cum aliqua duo sic se habent, quod unum est similitudo alterius, ut species coloris sive idolum assimilatur colori sive conformatur; aut quando aliquid participat similitudinem, ut speculum vel oculus assimilatur vel conformatur corpori obiecto.

Primo modo non est possibile, aliquam creaturam Deo conformari. Secundo modo aliqua creatura Deo conformatur, ut puta gratia, quae dicitur similitudo Dei, vel gloria, quae est deiformitas. Tertio modo assimilatur et conformatur anima, quae habet gratiam et gloriam. De hac conformitate nihil ad praesens.

Alio modo contingit conformari aliquid alicui secundum consimilem11 habitudinem sive comparationem, quae potest dici proportio, cum est rerum eiusdem generis, et proportionalitas, cum est rerum diversorum generum sive non communicantium, ut fiat vis in verbo12. Large tamen loquendo utraque potest dici proportio; et haec nihil ponit commune, quia est per comparationem duorum ad duo, et potest esse et est inter summe distantia.

Et secundum hanc potest voluntas nostra conformari divinae, videlicet per similem habitudinem ad actum, ut sicut Deus quod vult vult liberaliter et caritative, ita et homo; et per similem comparationem ad obiectum, ut quod vult Deus, velit homo; et eodem fine, quo vult Deus, velit homo. Hoc totum possibile est esse, et totum possibile est non esse; et ideo possibile est, voluntatem nostram divinae conformari et difformari. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

Ad argumenta:

Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod distat Deus ab homine, et humana voluntas a divina in infinitum; iam patet responsio: quia hoc non impedit conformitatem comparationis, licet impediat conformitatem aequalitatis et univocationis.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum se ipsa vel in tertio conformetur; dicendum, quod non se ipsa13, nisi loquamur de conformitate longinqua, quae attenditur in imagine. Si autem loquamur de conformitate propinqua, quae consistit in similitudine, sic non se ipsa conformatur, sed mediante gratia, quae non est tanquam tertium ab utroque participatum, sed est sicut similitudo unius et proprietas alterius. Unde gratia est similitudo essentialiter; non tamen oportet, quod essentialiter conveniant14 in tertio, quia similitudo se ipsa convenit cum eo cuius est similitudo; et sic patent ambo obiecta.

p. 853

Similiter si loquamur de conformitate quantum ad habitudinem, dicemus, quod voluntas non se ipsa conformatur, sed per comparationem ad alterum, quod tamen neque est de essentia divinae voluntatis, nec humanae, nec tanquam tertium participatum ab utroque. Et sic patet illud.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, utrum conformetur per essentiam, aut per participationem; dicendum, quod nec sic nec sic, sed conformatur per proportionem sive per consimilem habitudinem. Et sic patet illud.

Scholion

I. Supra (d. 31. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.) triplex distinguitur conformitas: in natura, in voluntate, in operatione sive in actibus voluntatis. Quaestio est de conformitate in actibus liberis sive in volendo et nolendo, et quidem non secundum entitatem naturalem, sed moralem. — Attendendum est ad multiplices distinctiones in corpore positas. Duo membra primae et principalis divisionis (conformitas secundum similitudinem et habitudinem) non indigent explicatione. Tria membra primae subdivisionis fundantur in triplici similitudine, quae esse potest vel in una forma eiusdem speciei (v. g. in albedine), vel in imitatione et repraesentatione (ut in statua), vel in ratione exemplaritatis. Hoc tertium membrum differt a secundo, quia in secundo ipsa statua conformis est originali, sed in tertio membro iuxta exempla adhibita nec oculus nec speculum est aliquid conforme, sed potius continet per participationem exemplar. — Secunda subdivisio coincidit cum communi distinctione analogiae in analogiam attributionis (proportionis) et proportionalitatis. De analogia attributionis vide supra d. 45. q. 5, ubi sanum tripliciter distinguitur; de analogia proportionalitatis agitur supra d. 1. a. 3. q. I. ad 1. et in Scholio, et d. 7. q. 4. in Scholio. — Docet autem S. Bonav., conformitatem voluntatis attendi tantum secundum habitudinem et per comparationem ad alterum. Tamen quatenus voluntas informatur gratia, est etiam conformitas secundum similitudinem, ut docetur in solut. ad 3. — Conformitas habitudinis secundum actum et secundum finem vulgo vocatur conformitas in modo volendi, conformitas autem secundum obiectum dicitur conformitas in volito.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 41. m. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. II. q. 19. a. 9. 10. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; de hac et seqq. qq. S. p. 1. tr. 20. q. 80. m. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

Article Unique. On the conformity of our will to the divine.

Question I. Whether it is possible for our will to be conformed to the divine will.

That it is not possible for our will to be conformed to the divine is shown as follows.

1. Isaiah fifty-five1: As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. But as it is in ways and thoughts, so also in wills: therefore if heaven and earth have no conformity, but rather difformity, it seems likewise that neither do our will and the divine will. If you say that the authority is to be understood and speaks of the wicked; on the contrary: on that text of the Psalm2, Rejoice, ye just, the Gloss: « As far as God is distant from man, so far is the will of God distant from the will of man »: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, of things infinitely distant there is no conformity3; but God and man are distant infinitely, since the one is finite and the other infinite: therefore there is no conformity of wills.

3. Likewise, if our will is conformed to the divine, then either by itself or in a third. If in a third: then the divine will and the human agree in something common; and if so, then they have something simpler than themselves4; which is unfitting, especially in the divine will. It remains, therefore, that if it is conformed, it is conformed by itself: therefore the will is conformity itself. But conformity cannot be difform: therefore our will cannot disagree from the divine, which is manifestly false.

4. Likewise, if our will is conformed to the divine, either this belongs to it essentially or by participation. If essentially, the same returns as before5; if by participation, I ask concerning that, by the participation of which the will is conformed, whether it is itself conformed. If not, it cannot conform [anything]; if yes, then either essentially or participatively: therefore either there will be an infinite regress, or one must stop at some created thing which is conformed to God by essence, or the will is conformed to God by something uncreated. But there is no infinite regress, nor can it be posited that God is the conformity of the human will to God: therefore some created thing is essentially conformed. But what is essentially conformed to something essentially agrees with it, and what essentially agrees is of the same essence: therefore etc.

On the contrary:

1. First to the Corinthians, sixth6: He who cleaves to God is one spirit; but he is not one spirit through unity of nature: therefore he is one through conformity of will.

2. Likewise, Matthew twelve7: Everyone who does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister, etc.; but it is not true that he is a brother through nearness of blood: therefore he is a brother through conformity of will and love.

3. Likewise, whatever wills can will the same thing and will opposite things can be conformed and difformed or made contrary; but the divine and human wills are of this kind: this is plain8, therefore etc.

4. Likewise, whatever wills can be ordered to one another through perfect rulership and obedience can be conformed to one another; but the human will can in all things be subject and obey the divine9: therefore etc.

Conclusion.

Conclusion. The human will can be conformed to the divine will by a similar relation to act, to object, and to end.

Respondeo: It must be said that one thing can be conformed to another in two ways: either as to likeness, or as to relation.

As to likeness it can happen in three ways: either when two things participate in a third, in which they are made alike, as a swan and snow in10 whiteness; or when two things are so related that one is the likeness of the other, as the species of a color or an image (idolum) is made like, or conformed, to the color; or when something participates in the likeness, as a mirror or an eye is made like or conformed to the body that is its object.

In the first way it is not possible for any creature to be conformed to God. In the second way some creature is conformed to God, as for example grace, which is called the likeness of God, or glory, which is deiformity. In the third way the soul which has grace and glory is made like and conformed [to God]. Of this conformity, nothing at present.

In another way something can be conformed to another according to a like11 relation or comparison, which can be called proportion, when it is of things of the same genus, and proportionality, when it is of things of diverse genera, or of things not having communication, that emphasis may be put on the word12. But, broadly speaking, both can be called proportion; and this posits nothing common, because it is by the comparison of two things to two, and it can be and is between things most distant.

And it is according to this [latter] that our will can be conformed to the divine, namely, by a like relation to act, so that, as God wills what he wills liberally and charitably, so also does man; and by a like comparison to object, so that what God wills, man may will; and by the same end by which God wills, man wills. All this is possible to be, and all is possible not to be; and therefore it is possible for our will to be conformed to and difformed from the divine. — And the reasons brought for this are to be conceded.

To the arguments:

To 1, 2. To that which is objected, that God is distant from man, and the human will from the divine, infinitely; the response is now plain: because this does not impede the conformity of comparison, although it impedes the conformity of equality and univocation.

To 3. To that which is objected, whether it is conformed by itself or in a third; it must be said that not by itself13, unless we speak of remote conformity, which is observed in the image. But if we speak of proximate conformity, which consists in likeness, then it is not conformed by itself, but by the mediation of grace, which is not as a third participated by both, but is as the likeness of the one and the property of the other. Whence grace is essentially a likeness; nor yet is it necessary that they agree essentially14 in a third, because likeness agrees by itself with that of which it is the likeness; and so both objections are clear.

Likewise, if we speak of conformity as to relation, we shall say that the will is not conformed by itself, but by comparison to another, which yet is not of the essence of the divine will, nor of the human, nor as a third participated by both. And so that is plain.

To 4. To that which is asked last, whether it is conformed by essence or by participation; it must be said, that neither thus nor thus, but it is conformed by proportion or by a like relation. And so that is plain.

Scholion

I. Above (d. 31, p. II, a. 2, q. 2) a threefold conformity is distinguished: in nature, in will, and in operation, or in the acts of the will. The question is about conformity in free acts, that is, in willing and not-willing, and indeed not according to natural entity, but moral. — One must attend to the manifold distinctions set forth in the body. The two members of the first and principal division (conformity according to likeness and according to relation) need no explanation. The three members of the first subdivision are founded on a threefold likeness, which can be either in one form of the same species (e.g., in whiteness), or in imitation and representation (as in a statue), or in the character of exemplarity. This third member differs from the second, because in the second the statue itself is conformed to the original, but in the third, according to the examples adduced, neither eye nor mirror is anything conformed, but rather contains the exemplar by participation. — The second subdivision coincides with the common distinction of analogy into analogy of attribution (proportion) and of proportionality. On the analogy of attribution, see above d. 45, q. 5, where "sound" (sanum) is threefold distinguished; on the analogy of proportionality, [see] above d. 1, a. 3, q. 1, ad 1, and in the Scholion, and d. 7, q. 4, in the Scholion. — St. Bonaventure teaches that conformity of will is observed only according to relation and by comparison to another. Yet inasmuch as the will is informed by grace, there is also a conformity according to likeness, as is taught in the solution ad 3. — Conformity of relation according to act and according to end is commonly called conformity in the mode of willing, while conformity according to object is called conformity in the thing willed.

II. Authors: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. 1, q. 41, m. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Summa I-II, q. 19, a. 9–10. — B. Albert, here a. 1; on this and the following questions, Summa p. 1, tr. 20, q. 80, m. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard de Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here 1 princ., q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 9. — Paulo inferius pro difformitatem Vat. cum pluribus mss. incongrue deformitatem; ed. 1 omittit immo difformitatem.
    Verse 9. — A little further down, for difformitatem the Vatican edition with several mss. incongruously reads deformitatem; ed. 1 omits immo difformitatem.
  2. Psalm. 32, 1. — Glossa cit. sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in dictum Psalm. n. 2.
    Psalm 32:1. — The Gloss cited is taken from Augustine, Enarration on the said Psalm, n. 2.
  3. Ratio est, quia conformitas est secundum aliquam convenientiam et approximationem. Cfr. Aristot., VII. Phys. text. 24. seqq. (c. 4.). Quoad propos. minorem respiciendum est illud Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 52. et 64. (c. 6. et 7.): Finiti ad infinitum nulla est proportio (ratio).
    The reason is that conformity is according to some agreement and approximation. Cf. Aristotle, VII Physics text 24 ff. (c. 4). As to the minor proposition, one must consider that of Aristotle, I On the Heavens and the World, text 52 and 64 (c. 6 and 7): Of the finite to the infinite there is no proportion (ratio).
  4. Nempe illud commune, in quo conveniunt. Cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. c. 20. (c. 24.), ubi universale (commune) particularibus simplicius esse docetur. — Paulo post pro difformis Vat. cum cod. cc difformitas.
    Namely, that common thing in which they agree. Cf. Aristotle, I Posterior [Analytics] c. 20 (c. 24), where the universal (common) is taught to be simpler than the particulars. — A little later, for difformis the Vatican edition with cod. cc has difformitas.
  5. Scilicet, quod nostra voluntas non possit discordare a voluntate divina; quod manifeste falsum est, ut in arg. praeced. dicebatur. — Paulo inferius post utrum sit conforme Vat. addit vel non. Dein pro aut participative cod. T cum pluribus aliis codd. aut participatione. In ultima argumenti propositione Vat. et cod. cc post secundum convenit repetunt cum illo.
    Namely, that our will could not disagree from the divine will; which is manifestly false, as was said in the preceding argument. — A little further down, after utrum sit conforme, the Vatican edition adds vel non. Then, for aut participative, cod. T with several other codices [reads] aut participatione. In the last proposition of the argument, the Vatican edition and cod. cc, after secundum convenit, repeat cum illo.
  6. Vers. 17. Vulgata: Qui autem adhaeret Domino unus spiritus est.
    Verse 17. Vulgate: But he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit.
  7. Vers. 50. Vulgata: Quicumque enim fecerit voluntatem... in caelis, ipse meus frater etc.
    Verse 50. Vulgate: For whoever shall do the will... in heaven, he is my brother, etc.
  8. Cfr. August., Enarrat. 2. in Psalm. 31. n. 26.
    Cf. Augustine, Enarration 2 on Psalm 31, n. 26.
  9. Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Psalm. 44, 7. sub n. 17, et VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 23. n. 44.
    Cf. Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 44:7, under n. 17, and VIII On Genesis to the Letter, c. 23, n. 44.
  10. Cum Vat. retinuimus in, etsi haec particula in plurimis codd. desideratur. Cod. X, qui etiam omittit in, pro albedine exhibet albedinem, referens hanc vocem ad verbum participant, quam lectionem sequitur Marra in suo Commentario anecdoto. Exemplum in secundo disiunctionis membro allatum: ut species coloris sive idolum assimilatur colori sive conformatur, in codd. diversimode mutilatum exhibetur. Plures codd. sic referunt: ut species coloris sive conformatur; cod. V, insuper omissis vocibus sive conformatur, legit sic: ut species coloris; cod. R: ut species coloris sibi conformatur; cod. F clarius: ut species coloris ipsi colori conformatur; ed. 1 et Vat. denique: ut species coloris sive idolum assimilatur sive conformatur lovi. Nostra lectio nititur auctoritate codd. H K M T V et edd. 2, 3. Quid sit idolum vide supra pag. 663, nota 5. In tertio disiunctionis membro post similitudinem codd. F M P Q adiiciunt alterius.
    With the Vatican edition we have retained in, although this particle is lacking in very many codices. Cod. X, which also omits in, for albedine reads albedinem, referring this word to the verb participant; Marra in his unpublished Commentary follows this reading. The example brought forward in the second member of the disjunction — as the species of a color or an image is made like or conformed to the color — is variously mutilated in the codices. Several codices report thus: ut species coloris sive conformatur; cod. V, omitting moreover the words sive conformatur, reads: ut species coloris; cod. R: ut species coloris sibi conformatur; cod. F more clearly: ut species coloris ipsi colori conformatur; ed. 1 and the Vatican, finally: ut species coloris sive idolum assimilatur sive conformatur lovi [to Jove]. Our reading rests on the authority of codd. H K M T V and edd. 2, 3. What an idolum is, see above p. 663, note 5. In the third member of the disjunction, after similitudinem, codd. F M P Q add alterius.
  11. Plures codd. ut H M P Q cum ed. 1 consimilem, quam vocem codd. P Q etiam paulo superius ante habitudinem adhibent pro similem.
    Several codices, such as H M P Q with ed. 1, [read] consimilem, which word codd. P Q also use a little earlier, before habitudinem, in place of similem.
  12. Boeth., II. de Arithmetica, c. 40: Proportionalitas est duarum vel plurium proportionum similis habitudo, etiamsi non eisdem quantitatibus et differentiis constitutae sint. Differentia vero est inter numeros quantitas. Proportio est duorum terminorum ad se invicem quaedam habitudo et quasi quodammodo continentia. — Pro proportionalitas Vat. cum paucis codd. proportionabilitas. Paulo inferius eadem Vat. cum cod. cc omittit et est.
    Boethius, II On Arithmetic, c. 40: Proportionality is a like relation of two or more proportions, even if they are not constituted of the same quantities and differences. Difference, however, is a quantity between numbers. Proportion is a certain relation of two terms to one another, and as it were a certain containing. — For proportionalitas the Vatican edition with a few codices reads proportionabilitas. A little further down, the same Vatican edition with cod. cc omits et est.
  13. Vat. cum cod. cc hic et paulo ante in se ipsa.
    The Vatican edition with cod. cc, here and a little earlier, [reads] in se ipsa.
  14. Plures codd. cum Vat. et ed. 1 conveniat; perperam. Paulo superius pro sed est sicut plures codd. cum edd. 2, 3 sed etiam sicut.
    Several codices with the Vatican edition and ed. 1 [read] conveniat; wrongly. A little higher up, for sed est sicut, several codices with edd. 2, 3 [read] sed etiam sicut.
← Dist. 48, Divisio TextusDist. 48, Art. 1, Q. 2→