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). Ad secundum dicendum quod illis in quibus caritas incipit, quamvis proficiant, principalior tamen cura imminet ut resistant peccatis, quorum impugnatione inquietantur. Sed postea, hanc impugnationem minus sentientes, iam quasi securius ad profectum intendunt; ex una tamen parte facientes opus, et ex alia parte habentes manum ad gladium, ut dicitur in Esdra de aedificatoribus Ierusalem. Reply Obj. 2: Although those who are beginners in charity may progress, yet the chief care that besets them is to resist the sins which disturb them by their onslaught. Afterwards, however, when they come to feel this onslaught less, they begin to tend to perfection with greater security; yet with one hand doing the work, and with the other holding the sword as related in 2 Esdr. 4:17 about those who built up Jerusalem. Ad tertium dicendum quod perfecti etiam in caritate proficiunt, sed non est ad hoc principalis eorum cura, sed iam eorum studium circa hoc maxime versatur ut Deo inhaereant. Et quamvis hoc etiam quaerant et incipientes et proficientes, tamen magis sentiunt circa alia sollicitudinem, incipientes quidem de vitatione peccatorum, proficientes vero de profectu virtutum. Reply Obj. 3: Even the perfect make progress in charity: yet this is not their chief care, but their aim is principally directed towards union with God. And though both the beginner and the proficient seek this, yet their solicitude is chiefly about other things, with the beginner, about avoiding sin, with the proficient, about progressing in virtue. Articulus 10 Article 10 Utrum caritas possit diminui Whether charity can decrease? Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas possit diminui. Contraria enim nata sunt fieri circa idem. Sed diminutio et augmentum sunt contraria. Cum igitur caritas augeatur, ut dictum est supra, videtur quod etiam possit diminui. Objection 1: It would seem that charity can decrease. For contraries by their nature affect the same subject. Now increase and decrease are contraries. Since then charity increases, as stated above (A. 4), it seems that it can also decrease. Praeterea, Augustinus, X Confess., ad Deum loquens, dicit, minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat. Et in libro Octoginta trium Quaest. dicit quod nutrimentum caritatis est diminutio cupiditatis, ex quo videtur quod etiam e converso augmentum cupiditatis sit diminutio caritatis. Sed cupiditas, qua amatur aliquid aliud quam Deus, potest in homine crescere. Ergo caritas potest diminui. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine, speaking to God, says (Confess. x) He loves Thee less, who loves aught besides Thee: and (83 Questions, Q. 36) he says that what kindles charity quenches cupidity. From this it seems to follow that, on the contrary, what arouses cupidity quenches charity. But cupidity, whereby a man loves something besides God, can increase in man. Therefore charity can decrease. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, VIII super Gen. ad Litt., non ita Deus operatur hominem iustum iustificando eum, ut, si abscesserit, maneat in absente quod fecit, ex quo potest accipi quod eodem modo Deus operatur in homine caritatem eius conservando, quo operatur primo ei caritatem infundendo. Sed in prima caritatis infusione minus se praeparanti Deus minorem caritatem infundit. Ergo etiam in conservatione caritatis minus se praeparanti minorem caritatem conservat. Potest ergo caritas diminui. Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (Gen ad lit. viii, 12) God makes the just man, by justifying him, but in such a way, that if the man turns away from God, he no longer retains the effect of the Divine operation. From this we may gather that when God preserves charity in man, He works in the same way as when He first infuses charity into him. Now at the first infusion of charity God infuses less charity into him that prepares himself less. Therefore also in preserving charity, He preserves less charity in him that prepares himself less. Therefore charity can decrease. Sed contra est quod caritas in Scriptura igni comparatur, secundum illud Cant. VIII, lampades eius, scilicet caritatis, lampades ignis atque flammarum. Sed ignis, quandiu manet, semper ascendit. Ergo caritas, quandiu manet, ascendere potest; sed descendere, idest diminui, non potest. On the contrary, In Scripture, charity is compared to fire, according to Cant 8:6: The lamps thereof, i.e., of charity, are fire and flames. Now fire ever mounts upward so long as it lasts. Therefore as long as charity endures, it can ascend, but cannot descend, i.e., decrease. Respondeo dicendum quod quantitas caritatis quam habet in comparatione ad obiectum proprium, minui non potest, sicut nec augeri, ut supra dictum est. I answer that, The quantity which charity has in comparison with its proper object, cannot decrease, even as neither can it increase, as stated above (A. 4, ad 2). Sed cum augeatur secundum quantitatem quam habet per comparationem ad subiectum, hic oportet considerare utrum ex hac parte diminui possit. Si autem diminuatur, oportet quod vel diminuatur per aliquem actum; vel per solam cessationem ab actu. Per cessationem quidem ab actu diminuuntur virtutes ex actibus acquisitae, et quandoque etiam corrumpuntur, ut supra dictum est, unde de amicitia Philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic., quod multas amicitias inappellatio solvit, idest non appellare amicum vel non colloqui ei. Sed hoc ideo est quia conservatio uniuscuiusque rei dependet ex sua causa; causa autem virtutis acquisitae est actus humanus; unde, cessantibus humanis actibus, virtus acquisita diminuitur et tandem totaliter corrumpitur. Sed hoc in caritate locum non habet, quia caritas non causatur ab humanis actibus, sed solum a Deo, ut supra dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod etiam cessante actu, propter hoc nec diminuitur nec corrumpitur, si desit peccatum in ipsa cessatione. Since, however, it increases in that quantity which it has in comparison with its subject, here is the place to consider whether it can decrease in this way. Now, if it decrease, this must needs be either through an act, or by the mere cessation from act. It is true that virtues acquired through acts decrease and sometimes cease altogether through cessation from act, as stated above (I-II, Q. 53, A. 3). Wherefore the Philosopher says, in reference to friendship (Ethic. viii, 5) that want of intercourse, i.e., the neglect to call upon or speak with one’s friends, has destroyed many a friendship. Now this is because the safe-keeping of a thing depends on its cause, and the cause of human virtue is a human act, so that when human acts cease, the virtue acquired thereby decreases and at last ceases altogether. Yet this does not occur to charity, because it is not the result of human acts, but is caused by God alone, as stated above (A. 2). Hence it follows that even when its act ceases, it does not for this reason decrease, or cease altogether, unless the cessation involves a sin.