Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus est naturae intellectualis, et secundum suam conditionem competit ei ut totaliter feratur in omne id in quod fertur, ut in primo habitum est. Et ideo in superioribus Angelis fuit maior conatus et ad bonum in perseverantibus et ad malum in cadentibus. Et ideo superiorum Angelorum persistentes facti sunt meliores et cadentes facti sunt peiores aliis. Sed homo est rationalis naturae, cui competit esse quandoque in potentia et quandoque in actu. Et ideo non oportet quod feratur totaliter in id in quod fertur; sed eius qui habet meliora naturalia potest esse minor conatus, et e converso. Et ideo non est simile. Reply Obj. 3: The angel’s is an intellectual nature, and it is consistent with his condition that he should be borne wholly whithersoever he is borne, as stated in the First Part (Q. 61, A. 6). Hence there was a greater effort in the higher angels, both for good in those who persevered, and for evil in those who fell, and consequently those of the higher angels who remained steadfast became better than the others, and those who fell became worse. But man’s is a rational nature, with which it is consistent to be sometimes in potentiality and sometimes in act: so that it is not necessarily borne wholly whithersoever it is borne, and where there are greater natural gifts there may be less effort, and vice versa. Thus the comparison fails. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum caritas augeri possit Whether charity can increase? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas augeri non possit. Nihil enim augetur nisi quantum. Duplex autem est quantitas, scilicet dimensiva, et virtualis. Quarum prima caritati non convenit, cum sit quaedam spiritualis perfectio. Virtualis autem quantitas attenditur secundum obiecta, secundum quae caritas non crescit, quia minima caritas diligit omnia quae sunt ex caritate diligenda. Ergo caritas non augetur. Objection 1: It would seem that charity cannot increase. For nothing increases save what has quantity. Now quantity is twofold, namely dimensive and virtual. The former does not befit charity which is a spiritual perfection, while virtual quantity regards the objects in respect of which charity does not increase, since the slightest charity loves all that is to be loved out of charity. Therefore charity does not increase. Praeterea, illud quod est in termino non recipit augmentum. Sed caritas est in termino, quasi maxima virtutum existens et summus amor optimi boni. Ergo caritas augeri non potest. Obj. 2: Further, that which consists in something extreme receives no increase. But charity consists in something extreme, being the greatest of the virtues, and the supreme love of the greatest good. Therefore charity cannot increase. Praeterea, augmentum quidam motus est. Ergo quod augetur movetur. Quod ergo augetur essentialiter movetur essentialiter. Sed non movetur essentialiter nisi quod corrumpitur vel generatur. Ergo caritas non potest augeri essentialiter, nisi forte de novo generetur vel corrumpatur, quod est inconveniens. Obj. 3: Further, increase is a kind of movement. Therefore wherever there is increase there is movement, and if there be increase of essence there is movement of essence. Now there is no movement of essence save either by corruption or generation. Therefore charity cannot increase essentially, unless it happen to be generated anew or corrupted, which is unreasonable. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod caritas meretur augeri, ut aucta mereatur et perfici. On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxiv in Joan.) that charity merits increase that by increase it may merit perfection. Respondeo dicendum quod caritas viae potest augeri. Ex hoc enim dicimur esse viatores quod in Deum tendimus, qui est ultimus finis nostrae beatitudinis. In hac autem via tanto magis procedimus quanto Deo magis propinquamus, cui non appropinquatur passibus corporis, sed affectibus mentis. Hanc autem propinquitatem facit caritas, quia per ipsam mens Deo unitur. Et ideo de ratione caritatis viae est ut possit augeri, si enim non posset augeri, iam cessaret viae processus. Et ideo apostolus caritatem viam nominat, dicens I ad Cor. XII, adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro. I answer that, The charity of a wayfarer can increase. For we are called wayfarers by reason of our being on the way to God, Who is the last end of our happiness. In this way we advance as we get nigh to God, Who is approached, not by steps of the body but by the affections of the soul: and this approach is the result of charity, since it unites man’s mind to God. Consequently it is essential to the charity of a wayfarer that it can increase, for if it could not, all further advance along the way would cease. Hence the Apostle calls charity the way, when he says (1 Cor 12:31): I show unto you yet a more excellent way. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritati non convenit quantitas dimensiva, sed solum quantitas virtualis. Quae non solum attenditur secundum numerum obiectorum, ut scilicet plura vel pauciora diligantur, sed etiam secundum intensionem actus, ut magis vel minus aliquid diligatur. Et hoc modo virtualis quantitas caritatis augetur. Reply Obj. 1: Charity is not subject to dimensive, but only to virtual quantity: and the latter depends not only on the number of objects, namely whether they be in greater number or of greater excellence, but also on the intensity of the act, namely whether a thing is loved more, or less; it is in this way that the virtual quantity of charity increases. Ad secundum dicendum quod caritas est in summo ex parte obiecti, inquantum scilicet eius obiectum est summum bonum, et ex hoc sequitur quod ipsa sit excellentior aliis virtutibus. Sed non est omnis caritas in summo quantum ad intensionem actus. Reply Obj. 2: Charity consists in an extreme with regard to its object, insofar as its object is the Supreme Good, and from this it follows that charity is the most excellent of the virtues. Yet not every charity consists in an extreme, as regards the intensity of the act. Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam dixerunt caritatem non augeri secundum suam essentiam, sed solum secundum radicationem in subiecto, vel secundum fervorem. Reply Obj. 3: Some have said that charity does not increase in its essence, but only as to its radication in its subject, or according to its fervor. Sed hi propriam vocem ignoraverunt. Cum enim sit accidens, eius esse est inesse, unde nihil est aliud ipsam secundum essentiam augeri quam eam magis inesse subiecto, quod est eam magis radicari in subiecto. Similiter etiam ipsa essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum, unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam et ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum. Augetur ergo essentialiter non quidem ita quod esse incipiat vel esse desinat in subiecto, sicut obiectio procedit, sed ita quod magis in subiecto esse incipiat. But these people did not know what they were talking about. For since charity is an accident, its being is to be in something. So that an essential increase of charity means nothing else but that it is yet more in its subject, which implies a greater radication in its subject. Furthermore, charity is essentially a virtue ordained to act, so that an essential increase of charity implies ability to produce an act of more fervent love. Hence charity increases essentially, not by beginning anew, or ceasing to be in its subject, as the objection imagines, but by beginning to be more and more in its subject. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum caritas augeatur per additionem Whether charity increases by addition? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas augeatur per additionem. Sicut enim est augmentum secundum quantitatem corporalem, ita secundum quantitatem virtualem. Sed augmentum quantitatis corporalis fit per additionem, dicit enim philosophus, in I de Gen., quod augmentum est praeexistenti magnitudini additamentum. Ergo etiam augmentum caritatis, quod est secundum virtualem quantitatem, erit per additionem. Objection 1: It would seem that charity increases by addition. For just as increase may be in respect of bodily quantity, so may it be according to virtual quantity. Now increase in bodily quantity results from addition; for the Philosopher says (De Gener. i, 5) that increase is addition to pre-existing magnitude. Therefore the increase of charity which is according to virtual quantity is by addition. Praeterea, caritas in anima est quoddam spirituale lumen, secundum illud I Ioan. II, qui diligit fratrem suum in lumine manet. Sed lumen crescit in aere per additionem, sicut in domo lumen crescit alia candela superaccensa. Ergo etiam caritas crescit in anima per additionem. Obj. 2: Further, charity is a kind of spiritual light in the soul, according to 1 John 2:10: He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. Now light increases in the air by addition; thus the light in a house increases when another candle is lit. Therefore charity also increases in the soul by addition. Praeterea, augere caritatem ad Deum pertinet, sicut et ipsam creare, secundum illud II ad Cor. IX, augebit incrementa frugum iustitiae vestrae. Sed Deus primo infundendo caritatem aliquid facit in anima quod ibi prius non erat. Ergo etiam augendo caritatem aliquid ibi facit quod prius non erat. Ergo caritas augetur per additionem. Obj. 3: Further, the increase of charity is God’s work, even as the causing of it, according to 2 Cor. 9:10: He will increase the growth of the fruits of your justice. Now when God first infuses charity, He puts something in the soul that was not there before. Therefore also, when He increases charity, He puts something there which was not there before. Therefore charity increases by addition. Sed contra est quod caritas est forma simplex. Simplex autem simplici additum non facit aliquid maius, ut probatur in VI Physic. Ergo caritas non augetur per additionem. On the contrary, Charity is a simple form. Now nothing greater results from the addition of one simple thing to another, as proved in Phys. iii, text. 59, and Metaph. ii, 4. Therefore charity does not increase by addition. Respondeo dicendum quod omnis additio est alicuius ad aliquid. Unde in omni additione oportet saltem praeintelligere distinctionem eorum quorum unum additur alteri, ante ipsam additionem. Si igitur caritas addatur caritati, oportet praesupponi caritatem additam ut distinctam a caritate cui additur, non quidem ex necessitate secundum esse, sed saltem secundum intellectum. Posset enim Deus etiam quantitatem corporalem augere addendo aliquam magnitudinem non prius existentem, sed tunc creatam, quae quamvis prius non fuerit in rerum natura, habet tamen in se unde eius distinctio intelligi possit a quantitate cui additur. Si igitur caritas addatur caritati, oportet praesupponere, ad minus secundum intellectum, distinctionem unius caritatis ab alia. I answer that, Every addition is of something to something else: so that in every addition we must at least presuppose that the things added together are distinct before the addition. Consequently if charity be added to charity, the added charity must be presupposed as distinct from charity to which it is added, not necessarily by a distinction of reality, but at least by a distinction of thought. For God is able to increase a bodily quantity by adding a magnitude which did not exist before, but was created at that very moment; which magnitude, though not pre-existent in reality, is nevertheless capable of being distinguished from the quantity to which it is added. Wherefore if charity be added to charity we must presuppose the distinction, at least logical, of the one charity from the other. Distinctio autem in formis est duplex, una quidem secundum speciem; alia autem secundum numerum. Distinctio quidem secundum speciem in habitibus est secundum diversitatem obiectorum, distinctio vero secundum numerum est secundum diversitatem subiecti. Potest igitur contingere quod aliquis habitus per additionem augeatur dum extenditur ad quaedam obiecta ad quae prius se non extendebat, et sic augetur scientia geometriae in eo qui de novo incipit scire aliqua geometricalia quae prius nesciebat. Hoc autem non potest dici de caritate, quia etiam minima caritas se extendit ad omnia illa quae sunt ex caritate diligenda. Non ergo talis additio in augmento caritatis potest intelligi praesupposita distinctione secundum speciem caritatis additae ad eam cui superadditur. Now distinction among forms is twofold: specific and numeric. Specific distinction of habits follows diversity of objects, while numeric distinction follows distinction of subjects. Consequently a habit may receive increase through extending to objects to which it did not extend before: thus the science of geometry increases in one who acquires knowledge of geometrical matters which he ignored hitherto. But this cannot be said of charity, for even the slightest charity extends to all that we have to love by charity. Hence the addition which causes an increase of charity cannot be understood, as though the added charity were presupposed to be distinct specifically from that to which it is added. Relinquitur ergo, si fiat additio caritatis ad caritatem, quod hoc fit praesupposita distinctione secundum numerum, quae est secundum diversitatem subiectorum, sicut albedo augetur per hoc quod album additur albo, quamvis hoc augmento non fiat aliquid magis album. Sed hoc in proposito dici non potest. Quia subiectum caritatis non est nisi mens rationalis, unde tale caritatis augmentum fieri non posset nisi per hoc quod una mens rationalis alteri adderetur, quod est impossibile. Quamvis etiam si esset possibile tale augmentum, faceret maiorem diligentem, non autem magis diligentem. Relinquitur ergo quod nullo modo caritas augeri potest per additionem caritatis ad caritatem, sicut quidam ponunt. It follows therefore that if charity be added to charity, we must presuppose a numerical distinction between them, which follows a distinction of subjects: thus whiteness receives an increase when one white thing is added to another, although such an increase does not make a thing whiter. This, however, does not apply to the case in point, since the subject of charity is none other than the rational mind, so that such like an increase of charity could only take place by one rational mind being added to another; which is impossible. Moreover, even if it were possible, the result would be a greater lover, but not a more loving one. It follows, therefore, that charity can by no means increase by addition of charity to charity, as some have held to be the case. Sic ergo caritas augetur solum per hoc quod subiectum magis ac magis participat caritatem, idest secundum quod magis reducitur in actum illius et magis subditur illi. Hic enim est modus augmenti proprius cuiuslibet formae quae intenditur, eo quod esse huiusmodi formae totaliter consistit in eo quod inhaeret susceptibili. Et ideo, cum magnitudo rei consequitur esse ipsius, formam esse maiorem hoc est eam magis inesse susceptibili, non autem aliam formam advenire. Hoc enim esset si forma haberet aliquam quantitatem ex seipsa, non per comparationem ad subiectum. Sic igitur et caritas augetur per hoc quod intenditur in subiecto, et hoc est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam, non autem per hoc quod caritas addatur caritati. Accordingly charity increases only by its subject partaking of charity more and more subject thereto. For this is the proper mode of increase in a form that is intensified, since the being of such a form consists wholly in its adhering to its subject. Consequently, since the magnitude of a thing follows on its being, to say that a form is greater is the same as to say that it is more in its subject, and not that another form is added to it: for this would be the case if the form, of itself, had any quantity, and not in comparison with its subject. Therefore charity increases by being intensified in its subject, and this is for charity to increase in its essence; and not by charity being added to charity. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quantitas corporalis habet aliquid inquantum est quantitas; et aliquid inquantum est forma accidentalis. Inquantum est quantitas, habet quod sit distinguibilis secundum situm vel secundum numerum. Et ideo hoc modo consideratur augmentum magnitudinis per additionem; ut patet in animalibus. Inquantum vero est forma accidentalis, est distinguibilis solum secundum subiectum. Et secundum hoc habet proprium augmentum, sicut et aliae formae accidentales, per modum intensionis eius in subiecto, sicut patet in his quae rarefiunt, ut probat Philosophus, in IV Physic. Et similiter etiam scientia habet quantitatem, inquantum est habitus, ex parte obiectorum. Et sic augetur per additionem, inquantum aliquis plura cognoscit. Habet etiam quantitatem, inquantum est quaedam forma accidentalis, ex eo quod inest subiecto. Et secundum hoc augetur in eo qui certius eadem scibilia cognoscit nunc quam prius. Similiter etiam et caritas habet duplicem quantitatem. Sed secundum eam quae est ex parte obiecti, non augetur, ut dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod per solam intensionem augeatur. Reply Obj. 1: Bodily quantity has something as quantity, and something else, insofar as it is an accidental form. As quantity, it is distinguishable in respect of position or number, and in this way we have the increase of magnitude by addition, as may be seen in animals. But insofar as it is an accidental form, it is distinguishable only in respect of its subject, and in this way it has its proper increase, like other accidental forms, by way of intensity in its subject, for instance in things subject to rarefaction, as is proved in Phys. iv, 9. In like manner science, as a habit, has its quantity from its objects, and accordingly it increases by addition, when a man knows more things; and again, as an accidental form, it has a certain quantity through being in its subject, and in this way it increases in a man who knows the same scientific truths with greater certainty now than before. In the same way charity has a twofold quantity; but with regard to that which it has from its object, it does not increase, as stated above: hence it follows that it increases solely by being intensified. Ad secundum dicendum quod additio luminis ad lumen potest intelligi in aere propter diversitatem luminarium causantium lumen. Sed talis distinctio non habet locum in proposito, quia non est nisi unum luminare influens lumen caritatis. Reply Obj. 2: The addition of light to light can be understood through the light being intensified in the air on account of there being several luminaries giving light: but this distinction does not apply to the case in point, since there is but one luminary shedding forth the light of charity. Ad tertium dicendum quod infusio caritatis importat quandam mutationem secundum habere caritatem et non habere, et ideo oportet quod aliquid adveniat quod prius non infuit. Sed augmentatio caritatis importat mutationem secundum minus aut magis habere. Et ideo non oportet quod aliquid insit quod prius non infuerit, sed quod magis insit quod prius minus inerat. Et hoc est quod facit Deus caritatem augendo, scilicet quod magis insit, et quod perfectius similitudo spiritus sancti participetur in anima. Reply Obj. 3: The infusion of charity denotes a change to the state of having charity from the state of not having it, so that something must needs come which was not there before. On the other hand, the increase of charity denotes a change to more having from less having, so that there is need, not for anything to be there that was not there before, but for something to be more there that previously was less there. This is what God does when He increases charity, that is He makes it to have a greater hold on the soul, and the likeness of the Holy Spirit to be more perfectly participated by the soul. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum quolibet actu caritatis caritas augeatur Whether charity increases through every act of charity? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod quolibet actu caritatis caritas augeatur. Quod enim potest id quod maius est, potest id quod minus est. Sed quilibet actus caritatis meretur vitam aeternam, quae maius est quam simplex caritatis augmentum, quia vita aeterna includit caritatis perfectionem. Ergo multo magis quilibet actus caritatis caritatem auget. Objection 1: It would seem that charity increases through every act of charity. For that which can do what is more, can do what is less. But every act of charity can merit everlasting life; and this is more than a simple addition of charity, since it includes the perfection of charity. Much more, therefore, does every act of charity increase charity. Praeterea, sicuti habitus virtutum acquisitarum generatur ex actibus, ita etiam augmentum caritatis causatur per actus caritatis. Sed quilibet actus virtuosus operatur ad virtutis generationem. Ergo etiam quilibet actus caritatis operatur ad caritatis augmentum. Obj. 2: Further, just as the habits of acquired virtue are engendered by acts, so too an increase of charity is caused by an act of charity. Now each virtuous act conduces to the engendering of virtue. Therefore also each virtuous act of charity conduces to the increase of charity. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit quod in via Dei stare retrocedere est. Sed nullus, dum movetur actu caritatis, retrocedit. Ergo quicumque movetur actu caritatis, procedit in via Dei. Ergo quolibet actu caritatis caritas augetur. Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says that to stand still in the way to God is to go back. Now no man goes back when he is moved by an act of charity. Therefore whoever is moved by an act of charity goes forward in the way to God. Therefore charity increases through every act of charity. Sed contra est quod effectus non excedit virtutem causae. Sed quandoque aliquis actus caritatis cum aliquo tepore vel remissione emittitur. Non ergo perducit ad excellentiorem caritatem, sed magis disponit ad minorem. On the contrary, The effect does not surpass the power of its cause. But an act of charity is sometimes done with tepidity or slackness. Therefore it does not conduce to a more excellent charity, rather does it dispose one to a lower degree. Respondeo dicendum quod augmentum spirituale caritatis quodammodo simile est augmento corporali. Augmentum autem corporale in animalibus et plantis non est motus continuus, ita scilicet quod, si aliquid tantum augetur in tanto tempore, necesse sit quod proportionaliter in qualibet parte illius temporis aliquid augeatur, sicut contingit in motu locali, sed per aliquod tempus natura operatur disponens ad augmentum et nihil augens actu, et postmodum producit in effectum id ad quod disposuerat, augendo animal vel plantam in actu. Ita etiam non quolibet actu caritatis caritas actu augetur, sed quilibet actus caritatis disponit ad caritatis augmentum, inquantum ex uno actu caritatis homo redditur promptior iterum ad agendum secundum caritatem; et, habilitate crescente, homo prorumpit in actum ferventiorem dilectionis, quo conetur ad caritatis profectum; et tunc caritas augetur in actu. I answer that, The spiritual increase of charity is somewhat like the increase of a body. Now bodily increase in animals and plants is not a continuous movement, so that, to wit, if a thing increase so much in so much time, it need to increase proportionally in each part of that time, as happens in local movement; but for a certain space of time nature works by disposing for the increase, without causing any actual increase, and afterwards brings into effect that to which it had disposed, by giving the animal or plant an actual increase. In like manner charity does not actually increase through every act of charity, but each act of charity disposes to an increase of charity, insofar as one act of charity makes man more ready to act again according to charity, and this readiness increasing, man breaks out into an act of more fervent love, and strives to advance in charity, and then his charity increases actually. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quilibet actus caritatis meretur vitam aeternam, non quidem statim exhibendam, sed suo tempore. Similiter etiam quilibet actus caritatis meretur caritatis augmentum, non tamen statim augetur, sed quando aliquis conatur ad huiusmodi augmentum. Reply Obj. 1: Every act of charity merits everlasting life, which, however, is not to be bestowed then and there, but at its proper time. In like manner every act of charity merits an increase of charity; yet this increase does not take place at once, but when we strive for that increase. Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam in generatione virtutis acquisitae non quilibet actus complet generationem virtutis, sed quilibet operatur ad eam ut disponens, et ultimus, qui est perfectior, agens in virtute omnium praecedentium, reducit eam in actum. Sicut etiam est in multis guttis cavantibus lapidem. Reply Obj. 2: Even when an acquired virtue is being engendered, each act does not complete the formation of the virtue, but conduces towards that effect by disposing to it, while the last act, which is the most perfect, and acts in virtue of all those that preceded it, reduces the virtue into act, just as when many drops hollow out a stone. Ad tertium dicendum quod in via Dei procedit aliquis non solum dum actu caritas eius augetur, sed etiam dum disponitur ad augmentum. Reply Obj. 3: Man advances in the way to God, not merely by actual increase of charity, but also by being disposed to that increase. Articulus 7 Article 7