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 Utrum caritas augeatur in infinitum Whether charity increases indefinitely? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non augeatur in infinitum. Omnis enim motus est ad aliquem finem et terminum, ut dicitur in II Metaphys. Sed augmentum caritatis est quidam motus. Ergo tendit ad aliquem finem et terminum. Non ergo caritas in infinitum augetur. Objection 1: It would seem that charity does not increase indefinitely. For every movement is towards some end and term, as stated in Metaph. ii, text. 8, 9. But the increase of charity is a movement. Therefore it tends to an end and term. Therefore charity does not increase indefinitely. Praeterea, nulla forma excedit capacitatem sui subiecti. Sed capacitas creaturae rationalis, quae est subiectum caritatis, est finita. Ergo caritas in infinitum augeri non potest. Obj. 2: Further, no form surpasses the capacity of its subject. But the capacity of the rational creature who is the subject of charity is finite. Therefore charity cannot increase indefinitely. Praeterea, omne finitum per continuum augmentum potest pertingere ad quantitatem alterius finiti quantumcumque maioris, nisi forte id quod accrescit per augmentum semper sit minus et minus; sicut Philosophus dicit, in III Physic., quod si uni lineae addatur quod subtrahitur ab alia linea quae in infinitum dividitur, in infinitum additione facta, nunquam pertingetur ad quandam determinatam quantitatem quae est composita ex duabus lineis, scilicet divisa et ea cui additur quod ex alia subtrahitur. Quod in proposito non contingit, non enim necesse est ut secundum caritatis augmentum sit minus quam prius; sed magis probabile est quod sit aequale aut maius. Cum ergo caritas patriae sit quiddam finitum, si caritas viae in infinitum augeri potest, sequitur quod caritas viae possit adaequare caritatem patriae, quod est inconveniens. Non ergo caritas viae in infinitum potest augeri. Obj. 3: Further, every finite thing can, by continual increase, attain to the quantity of another finite thing however much greater, unless the amount of its increase be ever less and less. Thus the Philosopher states (Phys. iii, 6) that if we divide a line into an indefinite number of parts, and take these parts away and add them indefinitely to another line, we shall never arrive at any definite quantity resulting from those two lines, viz. the one from which we subtracted and the one to which we added what was subtracted. But this does not occur in the case in point: because there is no need for the second increase of charity to be less than the first, since rather is it probable that it would be equal or greater. As, therefore, the charity of the blessed is something finite, if the charity of the wayfarer can increase indefinitely, it would follow that the charity of the way can equal the charity of heaven; which is absurd. Therefore the wayfarer’s charity cannot increase indefinitely. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Philipp. III. Non quod iam acceperim, aut iam perfectus sim, sequor autem si quo modo comprehendam. Ubi dicit Glossa, nemo fidelium, etsi multum profecerit, dicat, sufficit mihi. Qui enim hoc dicit, exit de via ante finem. Ergo semper in via caritas potest magis ac magis augeri. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil 3:12): Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may, by any means apprehend, on which words a gloss says: Even if he has made great progress, let none of the faithful say: ‘Enough.’ For whosoever says this, leaves the road before coming to his destination. Therefore the wayfarer’s charity can ever increase more and more. Respondeo dicendum quod terminus augmento alicuius formae potest praefigi tripliciter. Uno modo, ex ratione ipsius formae, quae habet terminatam mensuram, ad quam cum perventum fuerit, non potest ultra procedi in forma, sed si ultra processum fuerit, pervenietur ad aliam formam, sicut patet in pallore, cuius terminos per continuam alterationem aliquis transit, vel ad albedinem vel ad nigredinem perveniens. Alio modo, ex parte agentis, cuius virtus non se extendit ad ulterius augendum formam in subiecto. Tertio, ex parte subiecti, quod non est capax amplioris perfectionis. I answer that, A term to the increase of a form may be fixed in three ways: first by reason of the form itself having a fixed measure, and when this has been reached it is no longer possible to go any further in that form, but if any further advance is made, another form is attained. An example of this is paleness, the bounds of which may, by continual alteration, be passed, either so that whiteness ensues, or so that blackness results. Second, on the part of the agent, whose power does not extend to a further increase of the form in its subject. Third, on the part of the subject, which is not capable of ulterior perfection. Nullo autem istorum modorum imponitur terminus augmento caritatis in statu viae. Ipsa enim caritas secundum rationem propriae speciei terminum augmenti non habet, est enim participatio quaedam infinitae caritatis, quae est Spiritus Sanctus. Similiter etiam causa augens caritatem est infinitae virtutis, scilicet Deus. Similiter etiam ex parte subiecti terminus huic augmento praefigi non potest, quia semper, caritate excrescente, superexcrescit habilitas ad ulterius augmentum. Unde relinquitur quod caritatis augmento nullus terminus praefigi possit in hac vita. Now, in none of these ways, is a limit imposed to the increase of man’s charity, while he is in the state of the wayfarer. For charity itself considered as such has no limit to its increase, since it is a participation of the infinite charity which is the Holy Spirit. In like manner the cause of the increase of charity, viz. God, is possessed of infinite power. Furthermore, on the part of its subject, no limit to this increase can be determined, because whenever charity increases, there is a corresponding increased ability to receive a further increase. It is therefore evident that it is not possible to fix any limits to the increase of charity in this life. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod augmentum caritatis est ad aliquem finem, sed ille finis non est in hac vita, sed in futura. Reply Obj. 1: The increase of charity is directed to an end, which is not in this, but in a future life. Ad secundum dicendum quod capacitas creaturae spiritualis per caritatem augetur, quia per ipsam cor dilatatur, secundum illud II ad Cor. VI, cor nostrum dilatatum est. Et ideo adhuc ulterius manet habilitas ad maius augmentum. Reply Obj. 2: The capacity of the rational creature is increased by charity, because the heart is enlarged thereby, according to 2 Cor. 6:11: Our heart is enlarged; so that it still remains capable of receiving a further increase. Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit in his quae habent quantitatem eiusdem rationis, non autem in his quae habent diversam rationem quantitatis; sicut linea, quantumcumque crescat, non attingit quantitatem superficiei. Non est autem eadem ratio quantitatis caritatis viae, quae sequitur cognitionem fidei, et caritatis patriae, quae sequitur visionem apertam. Unde ratio non sequitur. Reply Obj. 3: This argument holds good in those things which have the same kind of quantity, but not in those which have different kinds: thus however much a line may increase it does not reach the quantity of a superficies. Now the quantity of a wayfarer’s charity which follows the knowledge of faith is not of the same kind as the quantity of the charity of the blessed, which follows open vision. Hence the argument does not prove. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum caritas in hac vita possit esse perfecta Whether charity can be perfect in this life? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas in hac vita non possit esse perfecta. Maxime enim haec perfectio in apostolis fuisset. Sed in eis non fuit, dicit enim apostolus, ad Philipp. III, non quod iam conprehenderim aut perfectus sim. Ergo caritas in hac vita perfecta esse non potest. Objection 1: It would seem that charity cannot be perfect in this life. For this would have been the case with the apostles before all others. Yet it was not so, since the Apostle says (Phil 3:12): Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect. Therefore charity cannot be perfect in this life. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro Octoginta trium Quaest., quod nutrimentum caritatis est diminutio cupiditatis; perfectio, nulla cupiditas. Sed hoc non potest esse in hac vita, in qua sine peccato vivere non possumus, secundum illud I Ioan. I, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, omne autem peccatum ex aliqua inordinata cupiditate procedit. Ergo in hac vita caritas perfecta esse non potest. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (83 Questions, Q. 36) that whatever kindles charity quenches cupidity, but where charity is perfect, cupidity is done away altogether. But this cannot be in this world, wherein it is impossible to live without sin, according to 1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Now all sin arises from some inordinate cupidity. Therefore charity cannot be perfect in this life. Praeterea, illud quod iam perfectum est non habet ulterius crescere. Sed caritas in hac vita semper potest augeri, ut dictum est. Ergo caritas in hac vita non potest esse perfecta. Obj. 3: Further, what is already perfect cannot be perfected any more. But in this life charity can always increase, as stated above (A. 7). Therefore charity cannot be perfect in this life. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Prim. Canonic. Ioan., caritas cum fuerit roborata, perficitur, cum ad perfectionem pervenerit, dicit, cupio dissolvi et esse cum Christo. Sed hoc possibile est in hac vita, sicut in Paulo fuit. Ergo caritas in hac vita potest esse perfecta. On the contrary, Augustine says (In prim. canon. Joan. Tract. v) Charity is perfected by being strengthened; and when it has been brought to perfection, it exclaims, ‘I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.’ Now this is possible in this life, as in the case of Paul. Therefore charity can be perfect in this life. Respondeo dicendum quod perfectio caritatis potest intelligi dupliciter, uno modo, ex parte diligibilis; alio modo, ex parte diligentis. Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta est caritas ut diligatur aliquid quantum diligibile est. Deus autem tantum diligibilis est quantum bonus est. Bonitas autem eius est infinita. Unde infinite diligibilis est. Nulla autem creatura potest eum diligere infinite, cum quaelibet virtus creata sit finita. Unde per hunc modum nullius creaturae caritas potest esse perfecta, sed solum caritas Dei, qua seipsum diligit. I answer that, The perfection of charity may be understood in two ways: first with regard to the object loved, second with regard to the person who loves. With regard to the object loved, charity is perfect, if the object be loved as much as it is lovable. Now God is as lovable as He is good, and His goodness is infinite, wherefore He is infinitely lovable. But no creature can love Him infinitely since all created power is finite. Consequently no creature’s charity can be perfect in this way; the charity of God alone can, whereby He loves Himself. Ex parte vero diligentis caritas dicitur perfecta quando aliquis secundum totum suum posse diligit. Quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Uno modo, sic quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum. Et haec est perfectio caritatis patriae, quae non est possibilis in hac vita, in qua impossibile est, propter humanae vitae infirmitatem, semper actu cogitare de Deo et moveri dilectione ad ipsum. Alio modo, ut homo studium suum deputet ad vacandum Deo et rebus divinis, praetermissis aliis nisi quantum necessitas praesentis vitae requirit. Et ista est perfectio caritatis quae est possibilis in via, non tamen est communis omnibus caritatem habentibus. Tertio modo, ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor suum ponat in Deo, ita scilicet quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod sit divinae dilectioni contrarium. Et haec perfectio est communis omnibus caritatem habentibus. On the part of the person who loves, charity is perfect, when he loves as much as he can. This happens in three ways. First, so that a man’s whole heart is always actually borne towards God: this is the perfection of the charity of heaven, and is not possible in this life, wherein, by reason of the weakness of human life, it is impossible to think always actually of God, and to be moved by love towards Him. Second, so that man makes an earnest endeavor to give his time to God and Divine things, while scorning other things except insofar as the needs of the present life demand. This is the perfection of charity that is possible to a wayfarer; but is not common to all who have charity. Third, so that a man gives his whole heart to God habitually, viz. by neither thinking nor desiring anything contrary to the love of God; and this perfection is common to all who have charity. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus negat de se perfectionem patriae. Unde Glossa ibi dicit quod perfectus erat viator, sed nondum ipsius itineris perfectione perventor. Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle denies that he has the perfection of heaven, wherefore a gloss on the same passage says that he was a perfect wayfarer, but had not yet achieved the perfection to which the way leads. Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc dicitur propter peccata venialia. Quae non contrariantur habitui caritatis, sed actui, et ita non repugnant perfectioni viae, sed perfectioni patriae. Reply Obj. 2: This is said on account of venial sins, which are contrary, not to the habit, but to the act of charity: hence they are incompatible, not with the perfection of the way, but with that of heaven. Ad tertium dicendum quod perfectio viae non est perfectio simpliciter. Et ideo semper habet quo crescat. Reply Obj. 3: The perfection of the way is not perfection simply, wherefore it can always increase. Articulus 9 Article 9 Utrum convenienter distinguantur tres gradus caritatis: incipiens, proficiens, et perfecta Whether charity is rightly distinguished into three degrees: beginning, progress, and perfection? Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter distinguantur tres gradus caritatis, scilicet caritas incipiens, proficiens et perfecta. Inter principium enim caritatis et eius ultimam perfectionem sunt multi gradus medii. Non ergo unum solum medium debuit poni. Objection 1: It would seem unfitting to distinguish three degrees of charity, beginning, progress, and perfection. For there are many degrees between the beginning of charity and its ultimate perfection. Therefore it is not right to put only one. Praeterea, statim cum caritas incipit esse, incipit etiam proficere non ergo debet distingui caritas proficiens a caritate incipiente. Obj. 2: Further, charity begins to progress as soon as it begins to be. Therefore we ought not to distinguish between charity as progressing and as beginning. Praeterea, quantumcumque aliquis habeat in hoc mundo caritatem perfectam, potest etiam eius caritas augeri, ut dictum est. Sed caritatem augeri est ipsam proficere. Ergo caritas perfecta non debet distingui a caritate proficiente. Inconvenienter igitur praedicti tres gradus caritatis assignantur. Obj. 3: Further, in this world, however perfect a man’s charity may be, it can increase, as stated above (A. 7). Now for charity to increase is to progress. Therefore perfect charity ought not to be distinguished from progressing charity: and so the aforesaid degrees are unsuitably assigned to charity. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Prim. Canonic. Ioan., caritas cum fuerit nata, nutritur, quod pertinet ad incipientes; cum fuerit nutrita, roboratur, quod pertinet ad proficientes; cum fuerit roborata, perficitur, quod pertinet ad perfectos. Ergo est triplex gradus caritatis. On the contrary, Augustine says (In prim. canon. Joan. Tract. v) As soon as charity is born it takes food, which refers to beginners, after taking food, it waxes strong, which refers to those who are progressing, and when it has become strong it is perfected, which refers to the perfect. Therefore there are three degrees of charity. Respondeo dicendum quod spirituale augmentum caritatis considerari potest quantum ad aliquid simile corporali hominis augmento. Quod quidem quamvis in plurimas partes distingui possit, habet tamen aliquas determinatas distinctiones secundum determinatas actiones vel studia ad quae homo perducitur per augmentum, sicut infantilis aetas dicitur antequam habeat usum rationis; postea autem distinguitur alius status hominis quando iam incipit loqui et ratione uti; iterum tertius status eius est pubertatis, quando iam incipit posse generare; et sic inde quousque perveniatur ad perfectum. I answer that, The spiritual increase of charity may be considered in respect of a certain likeness to the growth of the human body. For although this latter growth may be divided into many parts, yet it has certain fixed divisions according to those particular actions or pursuits to which man is brought by this same growth. Thus we speak of a man being an infant until he has the use of reason, after which we distinguish another state of man wherein he begins to speak and to use his reason, while there is again a third state, that of puberty when he begins to acquire the power of generation, and so on until he arrives at perfection. Ita etiam et diversi gradus caritatis distinguuntur secundum diversa studia ad quae homo perducitur per caritatis augmentum. Nam primo quidem incumbit homini studium principale ad recedendum a peccato et resistendum concupiscentiis eius, quae in contrarium caritatis movent. Et hoc pertinet ad incipientes, in quibus caritas est nutrienda vel fovenda ne corrumpatur. Secundum autem studium succedit, ut homo principaliter intendat ad hoc quod in bono proficiat. Et hoc studium pertinet ad proficientes, qui ad hoc principaliter intendunt ut in eis caritas per augmentum roboretur. Tertium autem studium est ut homo ad hoc principaliter intendat ut Deo inhaereat et eo fruatur. Et hoc pertinet ad perfectos, qui cupiunt dissolvi et esse cum Christo. In like manner the diverse degrees of charity are distinguished according to the different pursuits to which man is brought by the increase of charity. For at first it is incumbent on man to occupy himself chiefly with avoiding sin and resisting his concupiscences, which move him in opposition to charity: this concerns beginners, in whom charity has to be fed or fostered lest it be destroyed: in the second place man’s chief pursuit is to aim at progress in good, and this is the pursuit of the proficient, whose chief aim is to strengthen their charity by adding to it: while man’s third pursuit is to aim chiefly at union with and enjoyment of God: this belongs to the perfect who desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Sicut etiam videmus in motu corporali quod primum est recessus a termino; secundum autem est appropinquatio ad alium terminum; tertium autem quies in termino. In like manner we observe in local motion that at first there is withdrawal from one term, then approach to the other term, and third, rest in this term. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnis illa determinata distinctio quae potest accipi in augmento caritatis, comprehenditur sub istis tribus quae dicta sunt. Sicut etiam omnis divisio continuorum comprehenditur sub tribus his, principio, medio et fine; ut philosophus dicit, in I de caelo. Reply Obj. 1: All these distinct degrees which can be discerned in the increase of charity, are comprised in the aforesaid three, even as every division of continuous things is included in these three—the beginning, the middle, and the end, as the Philosopher states (De Caelo i, 1).