← Back to Distinction 31

Dist. 31, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 31

Textus Latinus
p. 678

Articulus I. De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.

Quaestio III. Utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia quantitas caritatis in ipso homine attenditur secundum liberalitatem Dei; sed Dei liberalitas non est arctata ipsi peccatori ad dandum tantum, nec plus nec minus: ergo sicut potest resurgere in maiori, ita et in minori.

2. Item, Deus dat homini gratiam, secundum quod se praeparat et disponit1; sed possibile est, quod peccator, cum resurgit, minus se praeparet ad gratiam, quam ante se praeparaverat: ergo possibile est, quod in minori caritate et gratia resurgat.

3. Item, caritas praecedens nihil meretur respectu caritatis subsequentis2, item culpa, quantum est de se, expelli potest per quantulamcumque gratiam: igitur nec caritas praecedens nec culpa subsequens exigit, quod homo in aequali caritate vel gratia resurgat: ergo possibile est, ipsum resurgere in minori.

4. Item, si homo non posset resurgere in minori caritate, tunc cadens a caritate perfecta non posset resurgere nisi in caritate perfecta; sed caritas, cum resurgit, est incipiens: ergo simul est incipiens et perfecta; quod manifeste falsum est, cum «nemo repente fiat summus3», et ante statum perfectionis necessario praecurrat status imperfectus et inceptionis.

Sed contra: 1. Ezechielis decimo octavo4: Si impius egerit poenitentiam, omnium iniquitatum eius, quas operatus est, non recordabor; constat, quod non intelligit de oblivione quantum ad actum cogitandi, sed quantum ad actum puniendi; sed homo non punitur solum per inflictionem mali, sed etiam per subtractionem boni: si ergo Dominus non recordatur illorum peccatorum ad poenam aeternam; cum diminutio caritatis faciat ad diminutionem praemii substantialis et ita ad damnum aeternum, videtur, quod necessarium sit, hominem in aequali caritate, vel in maiori resurgere.

2. Item, ad Romanos octavo5: Scimus, quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum; Glossa: «Ipse etiam casus in mortale»; sed casus in mortale peccatum non cooperaretur in bonum, nisi homo resurgeret in aequali, vel in maiori caritate: videtur ergo, quod necessarium sit, hominem in aequali caritate, vel maiori resurgere.

3. Item, super illud Genesis primo6: Factum est vespere et mane dies unus; Glossa: «Vespertina lux est, a qua quis cecidit; matutina, in qua resurgit»: si ergo lux matutina semper maior est vespertina, videtur, quod maior sit caritas, in qua quis resurgit, quam caritas, a qua cecidit.

4. Item, maioris virtutis est quod pellit, quam quod pellitur: sed caritas, in qua quis resurgit, pellit illud quod expulit caritatem, a qua quis cecidit: ergo necesse est, caritatem subsequentem maiorem et fortiorem esse illo quod caritatem expulit, et per consequens ipsa caritate, a qua quis cecidit.

Conclusio.

Possibile est, quod homo, amissa caritate, resurgat et in maiori et in minori et in aequali caritate.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod aliquorum aliquando fuit opinio, quod necesse erat, hominem resurgere in aequali, vel maiori caritate. Et ad hoc ponendum moti sunt tum ex consideratione divinae dispositionis sive praedestinationis, tum ex consideratione divinae retributionis, tum ex consideratione nostrae praeparationis. Ex consideratione namque divinae praedestinationis moti sunt: quia dixerunt, quod diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum, his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt Sancti7; ideo divinae praedestinationis immutabilitas nequaquam sineret hominem labi a caritate, nisi ex lapsu illo videret subsequentem utilitatem; nec regimen divinae providentiae filium regni permitteret cadere, nisi ex hoc simul praevideret8 maius bonum ex ipso casu elicere. — Ex parte vero retributionis ratiocinantur,

p. 679

quia Deus opera remunerat secundum quantitatem caritatis, ex qua sunt facta9. Si ergo caritas, in qua quis resurgit, vivificat opera prius mortua et facit ea remuneratione digna; cum remuneratio adaequetur quantitati caritatis, ex qua opera facta sunt, nec possit excedere quantitatem caritatis, in qua quis resurgit: ratiocinantur ex hoc, quod impossibile sit, minorem caritatem esse in resurgente, quam prius fuerit in cadente. — Ex parte nostrae praeparationis ratiocinantur sic: quia, quanto homo magis est ineptus ad gratiam, tanto maiori indiget praeparatione ad hoc, ut ipsam suscipiat; sed quanto a maiori gratia cecidit, tanto magis peccavit et magis ad gratiam ineptus fuit10. Restat igitur, ut asserunt, quod quantitas praeparationis debeat proportionari quantitati caritatis, a qua quis cecidit; et quantitas caritatis sequentis mensuratur secundum quantitatem praeparationis: propter quod consequi videtur, quod caritas subsequens adaequetur praecedenti, vel eam excedat. Et hoc confirmant per illud Baruch quarto11: Sicut fuit sensus vester, ut erraretis a Domino, decies tantum iterum revertentes invenietis eum; et Isaiae trigesimo primo: Convertimini, filii Israel, sicut in profundum recessistis.

Sed hic modus dicendi est contra rationem, et sensibile experimentum, nec habet stabile fundamentum. Contra rationem enim est dicere, quod perfectus, si cadat a caritate, non possit resurgere nisi in statu et complemento perfectionis suae; et de multis apparet, quod cadentes non resurgunt ad illam perfectionem, a qua ceciderunt. Stabile etiam fundamentum non habet, quia divinae praedestinationis dispositio non exigit, quod homo semper procedat in bono, sed quod sit finaliter bonus. Dei etiam retributio non pensat quantum ad meriti efficaciam caritatem initialem, sed caritatem finalem. Nostra etiam praeparatio ad gratiam potest esse maior in eo qui minus peccavit, et minor in eo qui magis peccavit. Et verba illa prophetica non intelliguntur de quacumque praeparatione, sed de praeparatione perfecta et poenitentia consummata, quae restituit omnia ablata, sicut in quarto libro explanatur distinctione decima quarta12; non autem habent veritatem de qualicumque poenitentia et conversione sive praeparatione. — Unde cum homo se praeparare possit ad maiorem et ad minorem et ad aequalem caritatem, communis tenet opinio, quod homo potest et in maiori et in minori et in aequali caritate resurgere. Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad istam partem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Dominus non recordatur peccatorum post poenitentiam peccatoris; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad punitionem aeternam. Et quod gratia minor detur homini, quam fuerat praecedens, hoc non est propter peccatorum praecedentium punitionem, sed hoc est propter ipsius negligentem et tepidam praeparationem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum; dicendum, quod illud non intelligitur, quia semper cooperentur in bonum quantum ad augmentum praemii substantialis; sed hoc potest esse quantum ad quandam humiliationem et diligentiorem boni conservationem et cautiorem mali vitationem, quae adiuvant hominem ad hoc, quod perseveret usque in finem13. Et utilius est homini habere parvam caritatem usque in finem perseverantem quam magnam et in media via deficientem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est lux matutina quam vespertina; dicendum, quod caritas resurgens non comparatur luci matutinae propter magnitudinem, sed propter novitatem et ordinem ad proficiendum; et ideo in ratione illa peccatur secundum consequens14, quia non est omnino simile hinc et inde.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fortius est quod pellit, quam quod pellitur; dicendum, quod illud verum est de his quae pelluntur per mutuam actionem et passionem; sic autem non est de peccato et gratia, sicut explanatum fuit supra15: et ideo in nullo cogit ratio illa16.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the duration of charity in comparison with the sin opposed to it.

Question III. Whether a man can rise again in a lesser charity.

Thirdly it is asked, whether a man can rise again in a lesser charity. And that he can seems true:

1. Because the quantity of charity in a man himself is reckoned according to the liberality of God; but God's liberality is not constricted, with regard to the sinner himself, to giving just so much, neither more nor less: therefore just as he can rise again in a greater charity, so also in a lesser.

2. Likewise, God gives a man grace according as he prepares and disposes himself1; but it is possible that the sinner, when he rises again, should prepare himself for grace less than he had prepared himself before: therefore it is possible that he should rise again in a lesser charity and grace.

3. Likewise, preceding charity merits nothing with respect to subsequent charity2, and likewise sin, so far as it is of itself, can be expelled by however little grace: therefore neither preceding charity nor subsequent sin requires that a man rise again in an equal charity or grace: therefore it is possible that he rise again in a lesser one.

4. Likewise, if a man could not rise again in a lesser charity, then one falling from a perfect charity could not rise again except in a perfect charity; but charity, when it rises again, is beginning: therefore it is at the same time beginning and perfect; which is manifestly false, since "no one becomes the highest all at once3," and before the state of perfection there necessarily runs ahead the state that is imperfect and of beginning.

On the contrary: 1. Ezekiel 184: If the wicked man does penance, I will not remember all his iniquities that he has wrought; it is plain that this is not understood of forgetfulness as to the act of thinking, but as to the act of punishing; but a man is punished not only by the infliction of evil, but also by the subtraction of good: if therefore the Lord does not remember those sins unto eternal punishment; since a diminution of charity makes for a diminution of the substantial reward and so for eternal loss, it seems that it is necessary for a man to rise again in an equal charity, or in a greater.

2. Likewise, to the Romans 85: We know that to those who love God all things work together unto good; the Gloss: "even the very fall into mortal sin"; but the fall into mortal sin would not work together unto good unless the man rose again in an equal, or in a greater charity: it seems therefore that it is necessary for a man to rise again in an equal charity, or a greater.

3. Likewise, on that text of Genesis 16: And there was evening and morning, one day; the Gloss: "The evening light is that from which one fell; the morning, that in which he rises again": if therefore the morning light is always greater than the evening, it seems that the charity in which one rises again is greater than the charity from which he fell.

4. Likewise, of greater power is that which drives out than that which is driven out: but the charity in which one rises again drives out that which expelled the charity from which he fell: therefore it is necessary that the subsequent charity be greater and stronger than that which expelled the charity, and consequently than the very charity from which one fell.

Conclusion.

It is possible that a man, having lost charity, should rise again both in a greater and in a lesser and in an equal charity.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some at one time held the opinion that it was necessary for a man to rise again in an equal, or a greater charity. And to maintaining this they were moved both from a consideration of the divine disposition or predestination, and from a consideration of the divine retribution, and from a consideration of our preparation. For from the consideration of the divine predestination they were moved: because they said that to those who love God all things work together unto good, to those who according to purpose are called Saints7; therefore the immutability of the divine predestination would in no way allow a man to fall from charity, unless from that fall it foresaw a subsequent benefit; nor would the governance of the divine providence permit a son of the kingdom to fall, unless from this it also at the same time foresaw8 that a greater good would be drawn out from the fall itself. — And on the part of retribution they reason

that God rewards works according to the quantity of the charity out of which they were done9. If therefore the charity in which one rises again vivifies the works formerly dead and makes them worthy of reward; since the reward is made equal to the quantity of the charity out of which the works were done, and cannot exceed the quantity of the charity in which one rises again: they reason from this that it is impossible for there to be a lesser charity in the one rising again than there was before in the one falling. — On the part of our preparation they reason thus: because, the more a man is unfit for grace, the greater is the preparation he needs in order to receive it; but the greater the grace from which he fell, the more he sinned and the more unfit for grace he was10. It remains therefore, as they assert, that the quantity of the preparation ought to be proportioned to the quantity of the charity from which one fell; and the quantity of the subsequent charity is measured according to the quantity of the preparation: on account of which it seems to follow that the subsequent charity is made equal to the preceding, or exceeds it. And this they confirm by that text of Baruch 411: As it was your mind to go astray from God, so when you return ten times as much you shall seek him; and Isaiah 31: Be converted, O children of Israel, as you had deeply revolted.

But this manner of speaking is against reason, and sensible experience, nor does it have a stable foundation. For it is against reason to say that a perfect man, if he fall from charity, cannot rise again except in the state and completion of his perfection; and it appears in many cases that those who fall do not rise again to that perfection from which they fell. Neither does it have a stable foundation, because the disposition of the divine predestination does not require that a man always advance in good, but that he be finally good. God's retribution too does not weigh, as to the efficacy of merit, the initial charity, but the final charity. Our preparation for grace too can be greater in him who sinned less, and lesser in him who sinned more. And those prophetic words are not understood of any preparation whatever, but of perfect preparation and consummated penance, which restores all that was taken away, as is explained in the fourth book, distinction fourteen12; but they do not hold true of any penance and conversion or preparation whatever. — Hence, since a man can prepare himself for a greater and for a lesser and for an equal charity, the common opinion holds that a man can rise again both in a greater and in a lesser and in an equal charity. And the reasons which are for this side are to be granted.

1. To that therefore which is objected first to the contrary, that the Lord does not remember sins after the penance of the sinner; it must be said that this is understood as to eternal punishment. And that a lesser grace be given to a man than had been the preceding, this is not on account of the punishment of the preceding sins, but it is on account of his negligent and lukewarm preparation.

2. To that which is objected, that to those who love God all things work together unto good; it must be said that this is not understood as though they always work together unto good as to the increase of the substantial reward; but this can be as to a certain humiliation and a more diligent preservation of good and a more cautious avoidance of evil, which help a man toward this, that he persevere unto the end13. And it is more useful for a man to have a small charity persevering unto the end than a great one failing in mid-course.

3. To that which is objected, that the morning light is greater than the evening; it must be said that the charity rising again is not compared to the morning light on account of magnitude, but on account of newness and order toward advancing; and therefore in that argument there is a fallacy of the consequent14, because the case is not altogether alike on the one side and the other.

4. To that which is objected, that what drives out is stronger than what is driven out; it must be said that this is true of those things which are driven out by mutual action and passion; but it is not so with sin and grace, as was explained above15: and therefore that argument in no way compels16.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cfr. supra pag. 677, nota 1.
    Cf. above, p. 677, note 1.
  2. Vide II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. I.
    See II Sent. d. 27, a. 2, q. I.
  3. Gregor., II. Homil. in Ezech. hom. 3. n. 3. Cfr. verba Bernardi tom. II. pag. 984, nota 3. allata. — Deinde pro imperfectus cod. Z imperfectionis, codd. GITUVX profectus, quod multi codd. male mutaverunt in perfectus.
    Gregory, Homilies on Ezekiel II, hom. 3, n. 3. Cf. the words of Bernard cited in tom. II, p. 984, note 3. — Then for imperfectus codex Z reads imperfectionis, codices GITUVX profectus, which many manuscripts wrongly altered into perfectus.
  4. Vers. 21. seq. Post poenitentiam Vulgata plura addit. — Inferius pro cum diminutio caritatis faciat plurimi codd. minus congrue et diminutio caritatis faciat, Supplement. Alex. Hal. collat. 73. a. 3. rectius et diminutio caritatis facit.
    Verse 21 f. After poenitentiam the Vulgate adds more. — Below, for cum diminutio caritatis faciat very many manuscripts less fittingly read et diminutio caritatis faciat; the Supplement to Alexander of Hales, collation 73, a. 3, more correctly et diminutio caritatis facit.
  5. Vers. 28. — Apud Petr. Lombardum Glossa in hunc locum, ex August., de Corrept. et gratia, c. 9. n. 24, sic sonat: Talibus Deus diligentibus eum [i. e. qui perseverant usque in finem] omnia cooperatur in bonum, usque adeo prorsus omnem sumserunt.
    Verse 28. — In Peter Lombard the Gloss on this passage, from Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, c. 9, n. 24, runs thus: To such, who love him [i.e. who persevere unto the end], God works together all things unto good, even to the point that they took on absolutely every [good].
  6. Vers. 5, quibus verbis August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 33, glossando adiicit: «Ut per hoc, quod facta est vespera, peccatum rationalis creaturae, quod autem factum est mane, renovatio eius significata videatur». — Pro veriore scriptura a qua quis cecidit, quam in cod. U invenimus, cui etiam B. Albert., S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar. favent, cod. G habet qua quis cecidit, alii codd. et edd. in qua quis cecidit.
    Verse 5, to which words Augustine, On Genesis to the Letter I, c. 17, n. 33, in glossing adds: "So that by this, that evening was made, the sin of the rational creature, but by that which was made morning, its renewal may be signified." — For the truer reading a qua quis cecidit, which we find in codex U, and which B. Albert, St. Thomas, and Peter of Tarentaise also favor, codex G has qua quis cecidit, other manuscripts and editions in qua quis cecidit.
  7. Rom. 8, 28. — Paulo superius pro nostrae praeparationis edd. cum pluribus codd. nostrae reparationis. Idem vitium recurrit aliquanto inferius.
    Romans 8, 28. — A little above, for nostrae praeparationis the editions with several manuscripts read nostrae reparationis. The same fault recurs somewhat below.
  8. Codd. G bb provideret.
    Codices G bb read provideret.
  9. Cfr. supra pag. 650, nota 2. — De vivificatione operum mortuorum vide IV. Sent. d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Paulo inferius cod. F voci remuneratio praefigit praemium cet. Deinde in fine eiusdem enuntiati pro prius fuerit multi codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. prius fuerat.
    Cf. above, p. 650, note 2. — On the vivification of dead works see IV Sent. d. 14, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — A little below, codex F prefixes praemium etc. to the word remuneratio. Then at the end of the same statement, for prius fuerit many manuscripts and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales read prius fuerat.
  10. Cod. V est. Fortasse legendum fit.
    Codex V reads est. Perhaps it should be read fit.
  11. Vers. 28; Vulgata: Sicut... iterum convertentes requiretis eum. — Seq. Scripturae locus est Isai. 31, 6; ubi Vulgata, quam sequitur Vat., recesseritis pro recessistis.
    Verse 28; the Vulgate: So... again returning you shall seek him. — The following Scripture passage is Isaiah 31, 6; where the Vulgate, which the Vatican edition follows, reads recesseritis for recessistis.
  12. Partis II. a. 2. q. 2. — Subinde pro habent veritatem codd. et edd. 1, 2, Vat. excepta, perperam habet veritatem. Paulo inferius pro Unde plurimi codd. ut, e quibus nonnulli (BCD) etiam deinde esset opinio pro tenet opinio.
    Part II, a. 2, q. 2. — Thereupon, for habent veritatem the manuscripts and editions 1, 2 — the Vatican edition excepted — wrongly read habet veritatem. A little below, for Unde very many manuscripts read ut, of which some (BCD) then also read esset opinio for tenet opinio.
  13. Cfr. dictum Augustini, supra pag. 678, nota 5. allatum. — Proxime post pro Et utilius edd. 1, 2 Et melius, Vat. Et melius et utilius.
    Cf. the saying of Augustine cited above, p. 678, note 5. — Immediately after, for Et utilius the editions 1, 2 read Et melius, the Vatican edition Et melius et utilius.
  14. Vide supra pag. 99, nota 7.
    See above, p. 99, note 7.
  15. Quaest. I. ad 2. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.
    Question I, to the 2nd [objection]. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article.
  16. Hic in lit. c. 2.
    Here in the [Master's] text, c. 2.
← Dist. 31, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 1→