Articulus 9 Article 9 Utrum voluntas Dei sit malorum Whether God wills evils? Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas Dei sit malorum. Omne enim bonum quod fit, Deus vult. Sed mala fieri bonum est, dicit enim Augustinus, in Enchirid., quamvis ea quae mala sunt, inquantum mala sunt, non sint bona; tamen, ut non solum bona, sed etiam ut sint mala, bonum est. Ergo Deus vult mala. Objection 1: It seems that God wills evils. For every good that exists, God wills. But it is a good that evil should exist. For Augustine says (Enchiridion 95): Although evil in so far as it is evil is not a good, yet it is good that not only good things should exist, but also evil things. Therefore God wills evil things. Praeterea, dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., erit malum ad omnis (idest universi) perfectionem conferens. Et Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., ex omnibus consistit universitatis admirabilis pulchritudo; in qua etiam illud quod malum dicitur, bene ordinatum, et loco suo positum, eminentius commendat bona; ut magis placeant, et laudabiliora sint, dum comparantur malis. Sed Deus vult omne illud quod pertinet ad perfectionem et decorem universi, quia hoc est quod Deus maxime vult in creaturis. Ergo Deus vult mala. Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 23): Evil would conduce to the perfection of everything, i.e., the universe. And Augustine says (Enchiridion 10, 11): Out of all things is built up the admirable beauty of the universe, wherein even that which is called evil, properly ordered and disposed, commends the good more evidently in that good is more pleasing and praiseworthy when contrasted with evil. But God wills all that appertains to the perfection and beauty of the universe, for this is what God desires above all things in His creatures. Therefore God wills evil. Praeterea, mala fieri, et non fieri, sunt contradictorie opposita. Sed Deus non vult mala non fieri, quia, cum mala quaedam fiant, non semper voluntas Dei impleretur. Ergo Deus vult mala fieri. Obj. 3: Further, that evil should exist, and should not exist, are contradictory opposites. But God does not will that evil should not exist; otherwise, since various evils do exist, God’s will would not always be fulfilled. Therefore God wills that evil should exist. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., nullo sapiente homine auctore, fit homo deterior; est autem Deus omni sapiente homine praestantior; multo igitur minus, Deo auctore, fit aliquis deterior. Illo autem auctore cum dicitur, illo volente dicitur. Non ergo volente Deo, fit homo deterior. Constat autem quod quolibet malo fit aliquid deterius. Ergo Deus non vult mala. On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. 83,3): No wise man is the cause of another man becoming worse. Now God surpasses all men in wisdom. Much less therefore is God the cause of man becoming worse; and when He is said to be the cause of a thing, He is said to will it. Therefore it is not by God’s will that man becomes worse. Now it is clear that every evil makes a thing worse. Therefore God wills not evil things. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum ratio boni sit ratio appetibilis, ut supra dictum est, malum autem opponatur bono; impossibile est quod aliquod malum, inquantum huiusmodi, appetatur, neque appetitu naturali, neque animali, neque intellectuali, qui est voluntas. Sed aliquod malum appetitur per accidens, inquantum consequitur ad aliquod bonum. Et hoc apparet in quolibet appetitu. Non enim agens naturale intendit privationem vel corruptionem; sed formam, cui coniungitur privatio alterius formae; et generationem unius, quae est corruptio alterius. Leo etiam, occidens cervum, intendit cibum, cui coniungitur occisio animalis. Similiter fornicator intendit delectationem, cui coniungitur deformitas culpae. I answer that, Since the ratio of good is the ratio of appetibility, as said before (Q. 5, A. 1), and since evil is opposed to good, it is impossible that any evil, as such, should be sought for by the appetite, either natural, or animal, or by the intellectual appetite which is the will. Nevertheless evil may be sought accidentally, so far as it accompanies a good, as appears in each of the appetites. For a natural agent intends not privation or corruption, but the form to which is annexed the privation of some other form, and the generation of one thing, which implies the corruption of another. Also when a lion kills a stag, his object is food, to obtain which the killing of the animal is only the means. Similarly the fornicator has merely pleasure for his object, and the deformity of sin is only an accompaniment. Malum autem quod coniungitur alicui bono, est privatio alterius boni. Nunquam igitur appeteretur malum, nec per accidens, nisi bonum cui coniungitur malum, magis appeteretur quam bonum quod privatur per malum. Nullum autem bonum Deus magis vult quam suam bonitatem, vult tamen aliquod bonum magis quam aliud quoddam bonum. Unde malum culpae, quod privat ordinem ad bonum divinum, Deus nullo modo vult. Sed malum naturalis defectus, vel malum poenae vult, volendo aliquod bonum, cui coniungitur tale malum, sicut, volendo iustitiam, vult poenam; et volendo ordinem naturae servari, vult quaedam naturaliter corrumpi. Now the evil that accompanies one good, is the privation of another good. Never therefore would evil be sought after, not even accidentally, unless the good that accompanies the evil were more desired than the good of which the evil is the privation. Now God wills no good more than He wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another. Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; and in willing the preservation of the natural order, He wills some things to be naturally corrupted. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod, licet Deus non velit mala, vult tamen mala esse vel fieri, quia, licet mala non sint bona, bonum tamen est mala esse vel fieri. Quod ideo dicebant, quia ea quae in se mala sunt, ordinantur ad aliquod bonum, quem quidem ordinem importari credebant in hoc quod dicitur, mala esse vel fieri. Sed hoc non recte dicitur. Quia malum non ordinatur ad bonum per se, sed per accidens. Praeter intentionem enim peccantis est, quod ex hoc sequatur aliquod bonum; sicut praeter intentionem tyrannorum fuit, quod ex eorum persecutionibus claresceret patientia martyrum. Et ideo non potest dici quod talis ordo ad bonum importetur per hoc quod dicitur, quod malum esse vel fieri sit bonum, quia nihil iudicatur secundum illud quod competit ei per accidens, sed secundum illud quod competit ei per se. Reply Obj. 1: Some have said that although God does not will evil, yet He wills that evil should be or be done, because, although evil is not a good, yet it is good that evil should be or be done. This they said because things evil in themselves are ordered to some good end; and this order they thought was expressed in the words that evil should be or be done. This, however, is not correct, since evil is not of itself ordered to good, but accidentally. For it is beside the intention of the sinner, that any good should follow from his sin; as it was beside the intention of tyrants that the patience of the martyrs should shine forth from all their persecutions. It cannot therefore be said that such an ordering to good is implied in the statement that it is a good thing that evil should be or be done, since nothing is judged of by that which appertains to it accidentally, but by that which belongs to it essentially. Ad secundum dicendum quod malum non operatur ad perfectionem et decorem universi nisi per accidens, ut dictum est. Unde et hoc quod dicit Dionysius, quod malum est ad universi perfectionem conferens, concludit inducendo quasi ad inconveniens. Reply Obj. 2: Evil does not operate towards the perfection and beauty of the universe, except accidentally, as said above (ad 1). Therefore Dionysius in saying that evil would conduce to the perfection of the universe, draws a conclusion by reduction to an absurdity. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet mala fieri, et mala non fieri, contradictorie opponantur; tamen velle mala fieri, et velle mala non fieri, non opponuntur contradictorie, cum utrumque sit affirmativum. Deus igitur neque vult mala fieri, neque vult mala non fieri, sed vult permittere mala fieri. Et hoc est bonum. Reply Obj. 3: The statements that evil exists, and that evil exists not, are opposed as contradictories; yet the statements that anyone wills evil to exist and that he wills it not to be, are not so opposed; since either is affirmative. God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good. Articulus 10 Article 10 Utrum Deus habeat liberum arbitrium Whether God has free-will? Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non habeat liberum arbitrium. Dicit enim Hieronymus, in homilia de filio prodigo, solus Deus est, in quem peccatum non cadit, nec cadere potest; cetera, cum sint liberi arbitrii, in utramque partem flecti possunt. Objection 1: It seems that God has not free-will. For Jerome says, in a homily on the prodigal son; God alone is He who is not liable to sin, nor can be liable: all others, as having free-will, can be inclined to either side. Praeterea, liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis et voluntatis, qua bonum et malum eligitur. Sed Deus non vult malum, ut dictum est. Ergo liberum arbitrium non est in Deo. Obj. 2: Further, free-will is the faculty of the reason and will, by which good and evil are chosen. But God does not will evil, as has been said (A. 9). Therefore there is not free-will in God. Sed contra est quod dicit Ambrosius, in libro de fide, Spiritus Sanctus dividit singulis prout vult, idest pro liberae voluntatis arbitrio, non necessitatis obsequio. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 3): The Holy Spirit divideth unto each one as He will, namely, according to the free choice of the will, not in obedience to necessity. Respondeo dicendum quod liberum arbitrium habemus respectu eorum quae non necessario volumus, vel naturali instinctu. Non enim ad liberum arbitrium pertinet quod volumus esse felices, sed ad naturalem instinctum. Unde et alia animalia, quae naturali instinctu moventur ad aliquid, non dicuntur libero arbitrio moveri. Cum igitur Deus ex necessitate suam bonitatem velit, alia vero non ex necessitate, ut supra ostensum est; respectu illorum quae non ex necessitate vult, liberum arbitrium habet. I answer that, We have free-will with respect to what we will not of necessity, nor by natural instinct. For our will to be happy does not appertain to free-will, but to natural instinct. Hence other animals, that are moved to act by natural instinct, are not said to be moved by free-will. Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but other things not necessarily, as shown above (A. 3), He has free will with respect to what He does not necessarily will. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Hieronymus videtur excludere a Deo liberum arbitrium, non simpliciter, sed solum quantum ad hoc quod est deflecti in peccatum. Reply Obj. 1: Jerome seems to deny free-will to God not simply, but only as regards the inclination to sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum malum culpae dicatur per aversionem a bonitate divina, per quam Deus omnia vult, ut supra ostensum est, manifestum est quod impossibile est eum malum culpae velle. Et tamen ad opposita se habet, inquantum velle potest hoc esse vel non esse. Sicut et nos, non peccando, possumus velle sedere, et non velle sedere. Reply Obj. 2: Since the evil of sin consists in turning away from the divine goodness, by which God wills all things, as above shown, it is manifestly impossible for Him to will the evil of sin; yet He can make choice of one of two opposites, inasmuch as He can will a thing to be, or not to be. In the same way we ourselves, without sin, can will to sit down, and not will to sit down. Articulus 11 Article 11 Utrum sit distinguenda in Deo voluntas signi Whether the will of expression is to be distinguished in God? Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit distinguenda in Deo voluntas signi. Sicut enim voluntas Dei est causa rerum, ita et scientia. Sed non assignantur aliqua signa ex parte divinae scientiae. Ergo neque debent assignari aliqua signa ex parte divinae voluntatis. Objection 1: It seems that the will of expression is not to be distinguished in God. For as the will of God is the cause of things, so is His wisdom. But no expressions are assigned to the divine wisdom. Therefore no expressions ought to be assigned to the divine will. Praeterea, omne signum quod non concordat ei cuius est signum, est falsum. Si igitur signa quae assignantur circa voluntatem divinam, non concordant divinae voluntati, sunt falsa, si autem concordant, superflue assignantur. Non igitur sunt aliqua signa circa voluntatem divinam assignanda. Obj. 2: Further, every expression that is not in agreement with the mind of him who expresses himself, is false. If therefore the expressions assigned to the divine will are not in agreement with that will, they are false. But if they do agree, they are superfluous. No expressions therefore must be assigned to the divine will. Sed contra est quod voluntas Dei est una, cum ipsa sit Dei essentia. Quandoque autem pluraliter significatur, ut cum dicitur, magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius. Ergo oportet quod aliquando signum voluntatis pro voluntate accipiatur. On the contrary, The will of God is one, since it is the very essence of God. Yet sometimes it is spoken of as many, as in the words of Ps. 110:2: Great are the works of the Lord, sought out according to all His wills. Therefore sometimes the sign must be taken for the will. Respondeo dicendum quod in Deo quaedam dicuntur proprie, et quaedam secundum metaphoram, ut ex supradictis patet. Cum autem aliquae passiones humanae in divinam praedicationem metaphorice assumuntur, hoc fit secundum similitudinem effectus, unde illud quod est signum talis passionis in nobis, in Deo nomine illius passionis metaphorice significatur. Sicut, apud nos, irati punire consueverunt, unde ipsa punitio est signum irae, et propter hoc, ipsa punitio nomine irae significatur, cum Deo attribuitur. Similiter id quod solet esse in nobis signum voluntatis, quandoque metaphorice in Deo voluntas dicitur. Sicut, cum aliquis praecipit aliquid, signum est quod velit illud fieri, unde praeceptum divinum quandoque metaphorice voluntas Dei dicitur, secundum illud Matth. VI, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Sed hoc distat inter voluntatem et iram, quia ira de Deo nunquam proprie dicitur, cum in suo principali intellectu includat passionem, voluntas autem proprie de Deo dicitur. Et ideo in Deo distinguitur voluntas proprie, et metaphorice dicta. Voluntas enim proprie dicta, vocatur voluntas beneplaciti, voluntas autem metaphorice dicta, est voluntas signi, eo quod ipsum signum voluntatis voluntas dicitur. I answer that, Some things are said of God in their strict sense; others by metaphor, as appears from what has been said before (Q. 13, A. 3). When certain human passions are predicated of the Godhead metaphorically, this is done because of a likeness in the effect. Hence a thing that is in us a sign of some passion, is signified metaphorically in God under the name of that passion. Thus with us it is usual for an angry man to punish, so that punishment becomes an expression of anger. Therefore punishment itself is signified by the word anger, when anger is attributed to God. In the same way, what is usually with us an expression of will, is sometimes metaphorically called will in God; just as when anyone lays down a precept, it is a sign that he wishes that precept obeyed. Hence a divine precept is sometimes called by metaphor the will of God, as in the words: Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven (Matt 6:10). There is, however, this difference between will and anger, that anger is never attributed to God properly, since in its primary meaning it includes passion; whereas will is attributed to Him properly. Therefore in God there are distinguished will in its proper sense, and will as attributed to Him by metaphor. Will in its proper sense is called the will of good pleasure; and will metaphorically taken is the will of expression, inasmuch as the sign itself of will is called will. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod scientia non est causa eorum quae fiunt, nisi per voluntatem, non enim quae scimus facimus, nisi velimus. Et ideo signum non attribuitur scientiae, sicut attribuitur voluntati. Reply Obj. 1: Knowledge is not the cause of a thing being done, unless through the will. For we do not put into act what we know, unless we will to do so. Accordingly expression is not attributed to knowledge, but to will. Ad secundum dicendum quod signa voluntatis dicuntur voluntates divinae, non quia sint signa quod Deus velit, sed quia ea quae in nobis solent esse signa volendi, in Deo divinae voluntates dicuntur. Sicut punitio non est signum quod in Deo sit ira, sed punitio, ex eo ipso quod in nobis est signum irae, in Deo dicitur ira. Reply Obj. 2: Expressions of will are called divine wills, not as being signs that God wills anything; but because what in us is the usual expression of our will, is called the divine will in God. Thus punishment is not a sign that there is anger in God; but it is called anger in Him, from the fact that it is an expression of anger in ourselves. Articulus 12 Article 12 Utrum convenienter circa divinam voluntatem ponantur quinque signa Whether five expressions of will are rightly assigned to the divine will? Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter circa divinam voluntatem ponantur quinque signa, scilicet, prohibitio, praeceptum, consilium, operatio et permissio. Nam eadem quae nobis praecipit Deus vel consulit, in nobis quandoque operatur, et eadem quae prohibet, quandoque permittit. Ergo non debent ex opposito dividi. Objection 1: It seems that five expressions of will—namely, prohibition, precept, counsel, operation, and permission—are not rightly assigned to the divine will. For the same things that God bids us do by His precept or counsel, these He sometimes operates in us, and the same things that He prohibits, these He sometimes permits. They ought not therefore to be enumerated as distinct. Praeterea, nihil Deus operatur, nisi volens, ut dicitur Sap. XI. Sed voluntas signi distinguitur a voluntate beneplaciti. Ergo operatio sub voluntate signi comprehendi non debet. Obj. 2: Further, God works nothing unless He wills it, as the Scripture says (Wis 11:26). But the will of expression is distinct from the will of good pleasure. Therefore operation ought not to be comprehended in the will of expression. Praeterea, operatio et permissio communiter ad omnes creaturas pertinent, quia in omnibus Deus operatur, et in omnibus aliquid fieri permittit. Sed praeceptum, consilium et prohibitio pertinent ad solam rationalem creaturam. Ergo non veniunt convenienter in unam divisionem, cum non sint unius ordinis. Obj. 3: Further, operation and permission appertain to all creatures in common, since God works in them all, and permits some action in them all. But precept, counsel, and prohibition belong to rational creatures only. Therefore they do not come rightly under one division, not being of one order. Praeterea, malum pluribus modis contingit quam bonum, quia bonum contingit uno modo, sed malum omnifariam, ut patet per Philosophum in II Ethic., et per Dionysium in IV cap. de Div. Nom. Inconvenienter igitur respectu mali assignatur unum signum tantum, scilicet prohibitio; respectu vero boni, duo signa, scilicet consilium et praeceptum. Obj. 4: Further, evil happens in more ways than good, since good happens in one way, but evil in all kinds of ways, as declared by the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), and Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 22). It is not right therefore to assign one expression only in the case of evil—namely, prohibition—and two—namely, counsel and precept—in the case of good. Respondeo dicendum quod huiusmodi signa voluntatis dicuntur ea, quibus consuevimus demonstrare nos aliquid velle. Potest autem aliquis declarare se velle aliquid, vel per seipsum, vel per alium. Per seipsum quidem, inquantum facit aliquid, vel directe, vel indirecte et per accidens. Directe quidem, cum per se aliquid operatur, et quantum ad hoc, dicitur esse signum operatio. Indirecte autem, inquantum non impedit operationem, nam removens prohibens dicitur movens per accidens, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Et quantum ad hoc, dicitur signum permissio. Per alium autem declarat se aliquid velle, inquantum ordinat alium ad aliquid faciendum; vel necessaria inductione, quod fit praecipiendo quod quis vult, et prohibendo contrarium; vel aliqua persuasoria inductione, quod pertinet ad consilium. I answer that, By these signs we name the expression of will by which we are accustomed to show that we will something. A man may show that he wills something, either by himself or by means of another. He may show it by himself, by doing something either directly, or indirectly and accidentally. He shows it directly when he works in his own person; in that way the expression of his will is his own working. He shows it indirectly, by not hindering the doing of a thing; for what removes an impediment is called an accidental mover. In this respect the expression is called permission. He declares his will by means of another when he orders another to perform a work, either by insisting upon it as necessary by precept, and by prohibiting its contrary; or by persuasion, which is a part of counsel. Quia igitur his modis declaratur aliquem velle aliquid, propter hoc ista quinque nominantur interdum nomine voluntatis divinae, tanquam signa voluntatis. Quod enim praeceptum, consilium et prohibitio dicantur Dei voluntas, patet per id quod dicitur Matth. VI fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Quod autem permissio vel operatio dicantur Dei voluntas patet per Augustinum, qui dicit in Enchirid., nihil fit, nisi omnipotens fieri velit, vel sinendo ut fiat, vel faciendo. Vel potest dici quod permissio et operatio referuntur ad praesens, permissio quidem ad malum, operatio vero ad bonum. Ad futurum vero, prohibitio, respectu mali; respectu vero boni necessarii, praeceptum; respectu vero superabundantis boni, consilium. Since in these ways the will of man makes itself known, the same five are sometimes denominated with regard to the divine will, as the expression of that will. That precept, counsel, and prohibition are called the will of God is clear from the words of Matt. 6:10: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That permission and operation are called the will of God is clear from Augustine (Enchiridion 95), who says: Nothing is done, unless the Almighty wills it to be done, either by permitting it, or by actually doing it. Or it may be said that permission and operation refer to present time, permission being with respect to evil, operation with regard to good. Whilst as to future time, prohibition is in respect to evil, precept to good that is necessary and counsel to good that is of supererogation. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet, circa eandem rem, aliquem diversimode declarare se aliquid velle, sicut inveniuntur multa nomina idem significantia. Unde nihil prohibet idem subiacere praecepto et consilio et operationi, et prohibitioni vel permissioni. Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to prevent anyone declaring his will about the same matter in different ways; thus we find many words that mean the same thing. Hence there is no reason why the same thing should not be the subject of precept, operation, and counsel; or of prohibition or permission.