Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-19-21

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XIX - XXI

Question 19.1 The Will of God
Question 19.2
Question 19.3
Question 19.4
Question 19.5
Question 19.6
Question 19.7
Question 19.8
Question 19.9
Question 19.10
Question 19.11
Question 19.12

Question 20.1 God's Love
Question 20.2
Question 20.3
Question 20.4

Question 21.1 The Justice and Mercy of God
Question 21.2
Question 21.3
Question 21.4

Latin	Latin
IЄ q. 19 pr. Post considerationem eorum quae ad divinam scientiam pertinent, considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad voluntatem divinam, ut sit prima consideratio de ipsa Dei voluntate; secunda, de his quae ad voluntatem absolute pertinent; tertia, de his quae ad intellectum in ordine ad voluntatem pertinent. Circa ipsam autem voluntatem quaeruntur duodecim. Primo, utrum in Deo sit voluntas. Secundo, utrum Deus velit alia a se. Tertio, utrum quidquid Deus vult, ex necessitate velit. Quarto, utrum voluntas Dei sit causa rerum. Quinto, utrum voluntatis divinae sit assignare aliquam causam. Sexto, utrum voluntas divina semper impleatur. Septimo, utrum voluntas Dei sit mutabilis. Octavo, utrum voluntas Dei necessitatem rebus volitis imponat. Nono, utrum in Deo sit voluntas malorum. Decimo, utrum Deus habeat liberum arbitrium. Undecimo, utrum sit distinguenda in Deo voluntas signi. Duodecimo, utrum convenienter circa divinam voluntatem ponantur quinque signa.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sit voluntas. Obiectum enim voluntatis est finis et bonum. Sed Dei non est assignare aliquem finem. Ergo voluntas non est in Deo.	Objection 1. It seems that there is not will in God. For the object of will is the end and the good. But we cannot assign to God any end. Therefore there is not will in God.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, voluntas est appetitus quidam. Appetitus autem, cum sit rei non habitae, imperfectionem designat, quae Deo non competit. Ergo voluntas non est in Deo.	Objection 2. Further, will is a kind of appetite. But appetite, as it is directed to things not possessed, implies imperfection, which cannot be imputed to God. Therefore there is not will in God.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum philosophum, in III de anima, voluntas est movens motum. Sed Deus est primum movens immobile. Ut probatur VIII Physic. Ergo in Deo non est voluntas.	Objection 3. Further, according to the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 54), the will moves, and is moved. But God is the first cause of movement, and Himself is unmoved, as proved in Phys. viii, 49. Therefore there is not will in God.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, Rom. XII, ut probetis quae sit voluntas Dei.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 12:2): "That you may prove what is the will of God."
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum in Deo voluntatem esse, sicut et in eo est intellectus, voluntas enim intellectum consequitur. Sicut enim res naturalis habet esse in actu per suam formam, ita intellectus intelligens actu per suam formam intelligibilem. Quaelibet autem res ad suam formam naturalem hanc habet habitudinem, ut quando non habet ipsam, tendat in eam; et quando habet ipsam, quiescat in ea. Et idem est de qualibet perfectione naturali, quod est bonum naturae. Et haec habitudo ad bonum, in rebus carentibus cognitione, vocatur appetitus naturalis. Unde et natura intellectualis ad bonum apprehensum per formam intelligibilem, similem habitudinem habet, ut scilicet, cum habet ipsum, quiescat in illo; cum vero non habet, quaerat ipsum. Et utrumque pertinet ad voluntatem. Unde in quolibet habente intellectum, est voluntas; sicut in quolibet habente sensum, est appetitus animalis. Et sic oportet in Deo esse voluntatem, cum sit in eo intellectus. Et sicut suum intelligere est suum esse, ita suum velle.	I answer that, There is will in God, as there is intellect: since will follows upon intellect. For as natural things have actual existence by their form, so the intellect is actually intelligent by its intelligible form. Now everything has this aptitude towards its natural form, that when it has it not, it tends towards it; and when it has it, it is at rest therein. It is the same with every natural perfection, which is a natural good. This aptitude to good in things without knowledge is called natural appetite. Whence also intellectual natures have a like aptitude as apprehended through its intelligible form; so as to rest therein when possessed, and when not possessed to seek to possess it, both of which pertain to the will. Hence in every intellectual being there is will, just as in every sensible being there is animal appetite. And so there must be will in God, since there is intellect in Him. And as His intellect is His own existence, so is His will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet nihil aliud a Deo sit finis Dei, tamen ipsemet est finis respectu omnium quae ab eo fiunt. Et hoc per suam essentiam, cum per suam essentiam sit bonus, ut supra ostensum est, finis enim habet rationem boni.	Reply to Objection 1. Although nothing apart from God is His end, yet He Himself is the end with respect to all things made by Him. And this by His essence, for by His essence He is good, as shown above (6, 3): for the end has the aspect of good.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas in nobis pertinet ad appetitivam partem, quae licet ab appetendo nominetur, non tamen hunc solum habet actum, ut appetat quae non habet; sed etiam ut amet quod habet, et delectetur in illo. Et quantum ad hoc voluntas in Deo ponitur; quae semper habet bonum quod est eius obiectum, cum sit indifferens ab eo secundum essentiam, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. Will in us belongs to the appetitive part, which, although named from appetite, has not for its only act the seeking what it does not possess; but also the loving and the delighting in what it does possess. In this respect will is said to be in God, as having always good which is its object, since, as already said, it is not distinct from His essence.
IЄ q. 19 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod voluntas cuius obiectum principale est bonum quod est extra voluntatem, oportet quod sit mota ab aliquo. Sed obiectum divinae voluntatis est bonitas sua, quae est eius essentia. Unde, cum voluntas Dei sit eius essentia, non movetur ab alio a se, sed a se tantum, eo modo loquendi quo intelligere et velle dicitur motus. Et secundum hoc Plato dixit quod primum movens movet seipsum.	Reply to Objection 3. A will of which the principal object is a good outside itself, must be moved by another; but the object of the divine will is His goodness, which is His essence. Hence, since the will of God is His essence, it is not moved by another than itself, but by itself alone, in the same sense as understanding and willing are said to be movement. This is what Plato meant when he said that the first mover moves itself.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non velit alia a se. Velle enim divinum est eius esse. Sed Deus non est aliud a se. Ergo non vult aliud a se.	Objection 1. It seems that God does not will things apart from Himself. For the divine will is the divine existence. But God is not other than Himself. Therefore He does not will things other than Himself.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, volitum movet voluntatem, sicut appetibile appetitum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Si igitur Deus velit aliquid aliud a se, movebitur eius voluntas ab aliquo alio, quod est impossibile.	Objection 2. Further, the willed moves the willer, as the appetible the appetite, as stated in De Anima iii, 54. If, therefore, God wills anything apart from Himself, His will must be moved by another; which is impossible.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, cuicumque voluntati sufficit aliquod volitum, nihil quaerit extra illud. Sed Deo sufficit sua bonitas, et voluntas eius ex ea satiatur. Ergo Deus non vult aliquid aliud a se.	Objection 3. Further, if what is willed suffices the willer, he seeks nothing beyond it. But His own goodness suffices God, and completely satisfies His will. Therefore God does not will anything apart from Himself.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, actus voluntatis multiplicatur secundum volita. Si igitur Deus velit se et alia a se, sequitur quod actus voluntatis eius sit multiplex, et per consequens eius esse, quod est eius velle. Hoc autem est impossibile. Non ergo vult alia a se.	Objection 4. Further, acts of will are multiplied in proportion to the number of their objects. If, therefore, God wills Himself and things apart from Himself, it follows that the act of His will is manifold, and consequently His existence, which is His will. But this is impossible. Therefore God does not will things apart from Himself.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I Thess. IV, haec est voluntas Dei, sanctificatio vestra.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Thessalonians 4:3): "This is the will of God, your sanctification."
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Deus non solum se vult, sed etiam alia a se. Quod apparet a simili prius introducto. Res enim naturalis non solum habet naturalem inclinationem respectu proprii boni, ut acquirat ipsum cum non habet, vel ut quiescat in illo cum habet; sed etiam ut proprium bonum in alia diffundat, secundum quod possibile est. Unde videmus quod omne agens, inquantum est actu et perfectum, facit sibi simile. Unde et hoc pertinet ad rationem voluntatis, ut bonum quod quis habet, aliis communicet, secundum quod possibile est. Et hoc praecipue pertinet ad voluntatem divinam, a qua, per quandam similitudinem, derivatur omnis perfectio. Unde, si res naturales, inquantum perfectae sunt, suum bonum aliis communicant, multo magis pertinet ad voluntatem divinam, ut bonum suum aliis per similitudinem communicet, secundum quod possibile est. Sic igitur vult et se esse, et alia. Sed se ut finem, alia vero ut ad finem, inquantum condecet divinam bonitatem etiam alia ipsam participare.	I answer that, God wills not only Himself, but other things apart from Himself. This is clear from the comparison which we made above (1). For natural things have a natural inclination not only towards their own proper good, to acquire it if not possessed, and, if possessed, to rest therein; but also to spread abroad their own good amongst others, so far as possible. Hence we see that every agent, in so far as it is perfect and in act, produces its like. It pertains, therefore, to the nature of the will to communicate as far as possible to others the good possessed; and especially does this pertain to the divine will, from which all perfection is derived in some kind of likeness. Hence, if natural things, in so far as they are perfect, communicate their good to others, much more does it appertain to the divine will to communicate by likeness its own good to others as much as possible. Thus, then, He wills both Himself to be, and other things to be; but Himself as the end, and other things as ordained to that end; inasmuch as it befits the divine goodness that other things should be partakers therein.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet divinum velle sit eius esse secundum rem, tamen differt ratione, secundum diversum modum intelligendi et significandi, ut ex superioribus patet. In hoc enim quod dico Deum esse, non importatur habitudo ad aliquid, sicut in hoc quod dico Deum velle. Et ideo, licet non sit aliquid aliud a se, vult tamen aliquid aliud a se.	Reply to Objection 1. The divine will is God's own existence essentially, yet they differ in aspect, according to the different ways of understanding them and expressing them, as is clear from what has already been said (13, 4). For when we say that God exists, no relation to any other object is implied, as we do imply when we say that God wills. Therefore, although He is not anything apart from Himself, yet He does will things apart from Himself.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in his quae volumus propter finem, tota ratio movendi est finis, et hoc est quod movet voluntatem. Et hoc maxime apparet in his quae volumus tantum propter finem. Qui enim vult sumere potionem amaram, nihil in ea vult nisi sanitatem, et hoc solum est quod movet eius voluntatem. Secus autem est in eo qui sumit potionem dulcem, quam non solum propter sanitatem, sed etiam propter se aliquis velle potest. Unde, cum Deus alia a se non velit nisi propter finem qui est sua bonitas, ut dictum est, non sequitur quod aliquid aliud moveat voluntatem eius nisi bonitas sua. Et sic, sicut alia a se intelligit intelligendo essentiam suam, ita alia a se vult, volendo bonitatem suam.	Reply to Objection 2. In things willed for the sake of the end, the whole reason for our being moved is the end, and this it is that moves the will, as most clearly appears in things willed only for the sake of the end. He who wills to take a bitter draught, in doing so wills nothing else than health; and this alone moves his will. It is different with one who takes a draught that is pleasant, which anyone may will to do, not only for the sake of health, but also for its own sake. Hence, although God wills things apart from Himself only for the sake of the end, which is His own goodness, it does not follow that anything else moves His will, except His goodness. So, as He understands things apart from Himself by understanding His own essence, so He wills things apart from Himself by willing His own goodness.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc quod voluntati divinae sufficit sua bonitas, non sequitur quod nihil aliud velit, sed quod nihil aliud vult nisi ratione suae bonitatis. Sicut etiam intellectus divinus, licet sit perfectus ex hoc ipso quod essentiam divinam cognoscit, tamen in ea cognoscit alia.	Reply to Objection 3. From the fact that His own goodness suffices the divine will, it does not follow that it wills nothing apart from itself, but rather that it wills nothing except by reason of its goodness. Thus, too, the divine intellect, though its perfection consists in its very knowledge of the divine essence, yet in that essence knows other things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut intelligere divinum est unum, quia multa non videt nisi in uno; ita velle divinum est unum et simplex, quia multa non vult nisi per unum, quod est bonitas sua.	Reply to Objection 4. As the divine intellect is one, as seeing the many only in the one, in the same way the divine will is one and simple, as willing the many only through the one, that is, through its own goodness.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod quidquid Deus vult, ex necessitate velit. Omne enim aeternum est necessarium. Sed quidquid Deus vult, ab aeterno vult, alias, voluntas eius esset mutabilis. Ergo quidquid vult, ex necessitate vult.	Objection 1. It seems that whatever God wills He wills necessarily. For everything eternal is necessary. But whatever God wills, He wills from eternity, for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus vult alia a se, inquantum vult bonitatem suam. Sed Deus bonitatem suam ex necessitate vult. Ergo alia a se ex necessitate vult.	Objection 2. Further, God wills things apart from Himself, inasmuch as He wills His own goodness. Now God wills His own goodness necessarily. Therefore He wills things apart from Himself necessarily.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, quidquid est Deo naturale, est necessarium, quia Deus est per se necesse esse, et principium omnis necessitatis, ut supra ostensum est. Sed naturale est ei velle quidquid vult, quia in Deo nihil potest esse praeter naturam, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Ergo quidquid vult, ex necessitate vult.	Objection 3. Further, whatever belongs to the nature of God is necessary, for God is of Himself necessary being, and the principle of all necessity, as above shown (2, 3). But it belongs to His nature to will whatever He wills; since in God there can be nothing over and above His nature as stated in Metaph. v, 6. Therefore whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, non necesse esse, et possibile non esse, aequipollent. Si igitur non necesse est Deum velle aliquid eorum quae vult, possibile est eum non velle illud; et possibile est eum velle illud quod non vult. Ergo voluntas divina est contingens ad utrumlibet. Et sic imperfecta, quia omne contingens est imperfectum et mutabile.	Objection 4. Further, being that is not necessary, and being that is possible not to be, are one and the same thing. If, therefore, God does not necessarily will a thing that He wills, it is possible for Him not to will it, and therefore possible for Him to will what He does not will. And so the divine will is contingent upon one or the other of two things, and imperfect, since everything contingent is imperfect and mutable.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 arg. 5 Praeterea, ab eo quod est ad utrumlibet, non sequitur aliqua actio, nisi ab aliquo alio inclinetur ad unum, ut dicit Commentator, in II Physic. Si ergo voluntas Dei in aliquibus se habet ad utrumlibet, sequitur quod ab aliquo alio determinetur ad effectum. Et sic habet aliquam causam priorem.	Objection 5. Further, on the part of that which is indifferent to one or the other of two things, no action results unless it is inclined to one or the other by some other power, as the Commentator [Averroes] says in Phys. ii. If, then, the Will of God is indifferent with regard to anything, it follows that His determination to act comes from another; and thus He has some cause prior to Himself.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 arg. 6 Praeterea, quidquid Deus scit, ex necessitate scit. Sed sicut scientia divina est eius essentia, ita voluntas divina. Ergo quidquid Deus vult, ex necessitate vult.	Objection 6. Further, whatever God knows, He knows necessarily. But as the divine knowledge is His essence, so is the divine will. Therefore whatever God wills, He wills necessarily.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, Ephes. I, qui operatur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis suae. Quod autem operamur ex consilio voluntatis, non ex necessitate volumus. Non ergo quidquid Deus vult, ex necessitate vult.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 1:11): "Who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will." Now, what we work according to the counsel of the will, we do not will necessarily. Therefore God does not will necessarily whatever He wills.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necessarium dicitur aliquid dupliciter, scilicet absolute, et ex suppositione. Necessarium absolute iudicatur aliquid ex habitudine terminorum, utpote quia praedicatum est in definitione subiecti, sicut necessarium est hominem esse animal; vel quia subiectum est de ratione praedicati, sicut hoc est necessarium, numerum esse parem vel imparem. Sic autem non est necessarium Socratem sedere. Unde non est necessarium absolute, sed potest dici necessarium ex suppositione, supposito enim quod sedeat, necesse est eum sedere dum sedet. Circa divina igitur volita hoc considerandum est, quod aliquid Deum velle est necessarium absolute, non tamen hoc est verum de omnibus quae vult. Voluntas enim divina necessariam habitudinem habet ad bonitatem suam, quae est proprium eius obiectum. Unde bonitatem suam esse Deus ex necessitate vult; sicut et voluntas nostra ex necessitate vult beatitudinem. Sicut et quaelibet alia potentia necessariam habitudinem habet ad proprium et principale obiectum, ut visus ad colorem; quia de sui ratione est, ut in illud tendat. Alia autem a se Deus vult, inquantum ordinantur ad suam bonitatem ut in finem. Ea autem quae sunt ad finem, non ex necessitate volumus volentes finem, nisi sint talia, sine quibus finis esse non potest, sicut volumus cibum, volentes conservationem vitae; et navem, volentes transfretare. Non sic autem ex necessitate volumus ea sine quibus finis esse potest, sicut equum ad ambulandum, quia sine hoc possumus ire; et eadem ratio est in aliis. Unde, cum bonitas Dei sit perfecta, et esse possit sine aliis, cum nihil ei perfectionis ex aliis accrescat; sequitur quod alia a se eum velle, non sit necessarium absolute. Et tamen necessarium est ex suppositione, supposito enim quod velit, non potest non velle, quia non potest voluntas eius mutari.	I answer that, There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex hoc quod Deus ab aeterno vult aliquid, non sequitur quod necesse est eum illud velle, nisi ex suppositione.	Reply to Objection 1. From the fact that God wills from eternity whatever He wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by supposition.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet Deus ex necessitate velit bonitatem suam, non tamen ex necessitate vult ea quae vult propter bonitatem suam, quia bonitas eius potest esse sine aliis.	Reply to Objection 2. Although God necessarily wills His own goodness, He does not necessarily will things willed on account of His goodness; for it can exist without other things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod non est naturale Deo velle aliquid aliorum, quae non ex necessitate vult. Neque tamen innaturale, aut contra naturam, sed est voluntarium.	Reply to Objection 3. It is not natural to God to will any of those other things that He does not will necessarily; and yet it is not unnatural or contrary to His nature, but voluntary.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod aliquando aliqua causa necessaria habet non necessariam habitudinem ad aliquem effectum, quod est propter defectum effectus, et non propter defectum causae. Sicut virtus solis habet non necessariam habitudinem ad aliquid eorum quae contingenter hic eveniunt, non propter defectum virtutis solaris, sed propter defectum effectus non necessario ex causa provenientis. Et similiter, quod Deus non ex necessitate velit aliquid eorum quae vult, non accidit ex defectu voluntatis divinae, sed ex defectu qui competit volito secundum suam rationem, quia scilicet est tale, ut sine eo esse possit perfecta bonitas Dei. Qui quidem defectus consequitur omne bonum creatum.	Reply to Objection 4. Sometimes a necessary cause has a non-necessary relation to an effect; owing to a deficiency in the effect, and not in the cause. Even so, the sun's power has a non-necessary relation to some contingent events on this earth, owing to a defect not in the solar power, but in the effect that proceeds not necessarily from the cause. In the same way, that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum ergo dicendum quod causa quae est ex se contingens, oportet quod determinetur ab aliquo exteriori ad effectum. Sed voluntas divina, quae ex se necessitatem habet, determinat seipsam ad volitum, ad quod habet habitudinem non necessariam.	Reply to Objection 5. A naturally contingent cause must be determined to act by some external power. The divine will, which by its nature is necessary, determines itself to will things to which it has no necessary relation.
IЄ q. 19 a. 3 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut divinum esse in se est necessarium, ita et divinum velle et divinum scire, sed divinum scire habet necessariam habitudinem ad scita, non autem divinum velle ad volita. Quod ideo est, quia scientia habetur de rebus, secundum quod sunt in sciente, voluntas autem comparatur ad res, secundum quod sunt in seipsis. Quia igitur omnia alia habent necessarium esse secundum quod sunt in Deo; non autem secundum quod sunt in seipsis, habent necessitatem absolutam ita quod sint per seipsa necessaria; propter hoc Deus quaecumque scit, ex necessitate scit, non autem quaecumque vult, ex necessitate vult.	Reply to Objection 6. As the divine essence is necessary of itself, so is the divine will and the divine knowledge; but the divine knowledge has a necessary relation to the thing known; not the divine will to the thing willed. The reason for this is that knowledge is of things as they exist in the knower; but the will is directed to things as they exist in themselves. Since then all other things have necessary existence inasmuch as they exist in God; but no absolute necessity so as to be necessary in themselves, in so far as they exist in themselves; it follows that God knows necessarily whatever He wills, but does not will necessarily whatever He wills.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas Dei non sit causa rerum. Dicit enim Dionysius, cap. IV de Div. Nom., sicut noster sol, non ratiocinans aut praeeligens, sed per ipsum esse illuminat omnia participare lumen ipsius valentia; ita et bonum divinum per ipsam essentiam omnibus existentibus immittit bonitatis suae radios. Sed omne quod agit per voluntatem, agit ut ratiocinans et praeeligens. Ergo Deus non agit per voluntatem. Ergo voluntas Dei non est causa rerum.	Objection 1. It seems that the will of God is not the cause of things. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1): "As our sun, not by reason nor by pre-election, but by its very being, enlightens all things that can participate in its light, so the divine good by its very essence pours the rays of goodness upon everything that exists." But every voluntary agent acts by reason and pre-election. Therefore God does not act by will; and so His will is not the cause of things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, id quod est per essentiam, est primum in quolibet ordine sicut in ordine ignitorum est primum, quod est ignis per essentiam sed Deus est primum agens. Ergo est agens per essentiam suam, quae est natura eius. Agit igitur per naturam, et non per voluntatem. Voluntas igitur divina non est causa rerum.	Objection 2. Further, The first in any order is that which is essentially so, thus in the order of burning things, that comes first which is fire by its essence. But God is the first agent. Therefore He acts by His essence; and that is His nature. He acts then by nature, and not by will. Therefore the divine will is not the cause of things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, quidquid est causa alicuius per hoc quod est tale, est causa per naturam, et non per voluntatem, ignis enim causa est calefactionis, quia est calidus; sed artifex est causa domus, quia vult eam facere. Sed Augustinus dicit, in I de Doct. Christ., quod quia Deus bonus est, sumus. Ergo Deus per suam naturam est causa rerum, et non per voluntatem.	Objection 3. Further, Whatever is the cause of anything, through being "such" a thing, is the cause by nature, and not by will. For fire is the cause of heat, as being itself hot; whereas an architect is the cause of a house, because he wills to build it. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 32), "Because God is good, we exist." Therefore God is the cause of things by His nature, and not by His will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, unius rei una est causa. Sed rerum creatarum est causa scientia Dei, ut supra dictum est. Ergo voluntas Dei non debet poni causa rerum.	Objection 4. Further, Of one thing there is one cause. But the created things is the knowledge of God, as said before (14, 8). Therefore the will of God cannot be considered the cause of things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. XI, quomodo posset aliquid permanere, nisi tu voluisses?	On the contrary, It is said (Wisdom 11:26), "How could anything endure, if Thou wouldst not?"
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere voluntatem Dei esse causam rerum, et Deum agere per voluntatem, non per necessitatem naturae, ut quidam existimaverunt. Quod quidem apparere potest tripliciter. Primo quidem, ex ipso ordine causarum agentium. Cum enim propter finem agat et intellectus et natura, ut probatur in II Physic., necesse est ut agenti per naturam praedeterminetur finis, et media necessaria ad finem, ab aliquo superiori intellectu; sicut sagittae praedeterminatur finis et certus modus a sagittante. Unde necesse est quod agens per intellectum et voluntatem, sit prius agente per naturam. Unde, cum primum in ordine agentium sit Deus, necesse est quod per intellectum et voluntatem agat. Secundo, ex ratione naturalis agentis, ad quod pertinet ut unum effectum producat, quia natura uno et eodem modo operatur, nisi impediatur. Et hoc ideo, quia secundum quod est tale, agit, unde, quandiu est tale, non facit nisi tale. Omne enim agens per naturam, habet esse determinatum. Cum igitur esse divinum non sit determinatum, sed contineat in se totam perfectionem essendi, non potest esse quod agat per necessitatem naturae, nisi forte causaret aliquid indeterminatum et infinitum in essendo; quod est impossibile, ut ex superioribus patet. Non igitur agit per necessitatem naturae sed effectus determinati ab infinita ipsius perfectione procedunt secundum determinationem voluntatis et intellectus ipsius. Tertio, ex habitudine effectuum ad causam. Secundum hoc enim effectus procedunt a causa agente, secundum quod praeexistunt in ea, quia omne agens agit sibi simile. Praeexistunt autem effectus in causa secundum modum causae. Unde, cum esse divinum sit ipsum eius intelligere, praeexistunt in eo effectus eius secundum modum intelligibilem. Unde et per modum intelligibilem procedunt ab eo. Et sic, per consequens, per modum voluntatis, nam inclinatio eius ad agendum quod intellectu conceptum est, pertinet ad voluntatem. Voluntas igitur Dei est causa rerum.	I answer that, We must hold that the will of God is the cause of things; and that He acts by the will, and not, as some have supposed, by a necessity of His nature. This can be shown in three ways: First, from the order itself of active causes. Since both intellect and nature act for an end, as proved in Phys. ii, 49, the natural agent must have the end and the necessary means predetermined for it by some higher intellect; as the end and definite movement is predetermined for the arrow by the archer. Hence the intellectual and voluntary agent must precede the agent that acts by nature. Hence, since God is first in the order of agents, He must act by intellect and will. This is shown, secondly, from the character of a natural agent, of which the property is to produce one and the same effect; for nature operates in one and the same way unless it be prevented. This is because the nature of the act is according to the nature of the agent; and hence as long as it has that nature, its acts will be in accordance with that nature; for every natural agent has a determinate being. Since, then, the Divine Being is undetermined, and contains in Himself the full perfection of being, it cannot be that He acts by a necessity of His nature, unless He were to cause something undetermined and indefinite in being: and that this is impossible has been already shown (7, 2). He does not, therefore, act by a necessity of His nature, but determined effects proceed from His own infinite perfection according to the determination of His will and intellect. Thirdly, it is shown by the relation of effects to their cause. For effects proceed from the agent that causes them, in so far as they pre-exist in the agent; since every agent produces its like. Now effects pre-exist in their cause after the mode of the cause. Wherefore since the Divine Being is His own intellect, effects pre-exist in Him after the mode of intellect, and therefore proceed from Him after the same mode. Consequently, they proceed from Him after the mode of will, for His inclination to put in act what His intellect has conceived appertains to the will. Therefore the will of God is the cause of things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius per verba illa non intendit excludere electionem a Deo simpliciter, sed secundum quid, inquantum scilicet, non quibusdam solum bonitatem suam communicat, sed omnibus, prout scilicet electio discretionem quandam importat.	Reply to Objection 1. Dionysius in these words does not intend to exclude election from God absolutely; but only in a certain sense, in so far, that is, as He communicates His goodness not merely to certain things, but to all; and as election implies a certain distinction.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, quia essentia Dei est eius intelligere et velle, ex hoc ipso quod per essentiam suam agit, sequitur quod agat per modum intellectus et voluntatis.	Reply to Objection 2. Because the essence of God is His intellect and will, from the fact of His acting by His essence, it follows that He acts after the mode of intellect and will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum est obiectum voluntatis. Pro tanto ergo dicitur, quia Deus bonus est, sumus, inquantum sua bonitas est ei ratio volendi omnia alia, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. Good is the object of the will. The words, therefore, "Because God is good, we exist," are true inasmuch as His goodness is the reason of His willing all other things, as said before (2, ad 2).
IЄ q. 19 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod unius et eiusdem effectus, etiam in nobis, est causa scientia ut dirigens, qua concipitur forma operis, et voluntas ut imperans, quia forma, ut est in intellectu tantum, non determinatur ad hoc quod sit vel non sit in effectu, nisi per voluntatem. Unde intellectus speculativus nihil dicit de operando. Sed potentia est causa ut exequens, quia nominat immediatum principium operationis. Sed haec omnia in Deo unum sunt.	Reply to Objection 4. Even in us the cause of one and the same effect is knowledge as directing it, whereby the form of the work is conceived, and will as commanding it, since the form as it is in the intellect only is not determined to exist or not to exist in the effect, except by the will. Hence, the speculative intellect has nothing to say to operation. But the power is cause, as executing the effect, since it denotes the immediate principle of operation. But in God all these things are one.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntatis divinae sit assignare aliquam causam. Dicit enim Augustinus, libro octoginta trium quaest., quis audeat dicere Deum irrationabiliter omnia condidisse? Sed agenti voluntario, quod est ratio operandi, est etiam causa volendi. Ergo voluntas Dei habet aliquam causam.	Objection 1. It seems that some cause can be assigned to the divine will. For Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, 46): "Who would venture to say that God made all things irrationally?" But to a voluntary agent, what is the reason of operating, is the cause of willing. Therefore the will of God has some cause.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, in his quae fiunt a volente qui propter nullam causam aliquid vult, non oportet aliam causam assignare nisi voluntatem volentis. Sed voluntas Dei est causa omnium rerum, ut ostensum est. Si igitur voluntatis eius non sit aliqua causa, non oportebit in omnibus rebus naturalibus aliam causam quaerere, nisi solam voluntatem divinam. Et sic omnes scientiae essent supervacuae, quae causas aliquorum effectuum assignare nituntur, quod videtur inconveniens. Est igitur assignare aliquam causam voluntatis divinae.	Objection 2. Further, in things made by one who wills to make them, and whose will is influenced by no cause, there can be no cause assigned except by the will of him who wills. But the will of God is the cause of all things, as has been already shown (4). If, then, there is no cause of His will, we cannot seek in any natural things any cause, except the divine will alone. Thus all science would be in vain, since science seeks to assign causes to effects. This seems inadmissible, and therefore we must assign some cause to the divine will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod fit a volente non propter aliquam causam, dependet ex simplici voluntate eius. Si igitur voluntas Dei non habeat aliquam causam, sequitur quod omnia quae fiunt, dependeant ex simplici eius voluntate, et non habeant aliquam aliam causam. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 3. Further, what is done by the willer, on account of no cause, depends simply on his will. If, therefore, the will of God has no cause, it follows that all things made depend simply on His will, and have no other cause. But this also is not admissible.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., omnis causa efficiens maior est eo quod efficitur; nihil tamen maius est voluntate Dei; non ergo causa eius quaerenda est.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, 28): "Every efficient cause is greater than the thing effected." But nothing is greater than the will of God. We must not then seek for a cause of it.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nullo modo voluntas Dei causam habet. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod, cum voluntas sequatur intellectum, eodem modo contingit esse causam alicuius volentis ut velit, et alicuius intelligentis ut intelligat. In intellectu autem sic est quod, si seorsum intelligat principium, et seorsum conclusionem, intelligentia principii est causa scientiae conclusionis. Sed si intellectus in ipso principio inspiceret conclusionem, uno intuitu apprehendens utrumque, in eo scientia conclusionis non causaretur ab intellectu principiorum, quia idem non est causa sui ipsius. Sed tamen intelligeret principia esse causas conclusionis. Similiter est ex parte voluntatis, circa quam sic se habet finis ad ea quae sunt ad finem, sicut in intellectu principia ad conclusiones. Unde, si aliquis uno actu velit finem, et alio actu ea quae sunt ad finem, velle finem erit ei causa volendi ea quae sunt ad finem. Sed si uno actu velit finem et ea quae sunt ad finem, hoc esse non poterit, quia idem non est causa sui ipsius. Et tamen erit verum dicere quod velit ordinare ea quae sunt ad finem, in finem. Deus autem, sicut uno actu omnia in essentia sua intelligit, ita uno actu vult omnia in sua bonitate. Unde, sicut in Deo intelligere causam non est causa intelligendi effectus, sed ipse intelligit effectus in causa; ita velle finem non est ei causa volendi ea quae sunt ad finem, sed tamen vult ea quae sunt ad finem, ordinari in finem. Vult ergo hoc esse propter hoc, sed non propter hoc vult hoc.	I answer that, In no wise has the will of God a cause. In proof of which we must consider that, since the will follows from the intellect, there is cause of the will in the person who wills, in the same way as there is a cause of the understanding, in the person that understands. The case with the understanding is this: that if the premiss and its conclusion are understood separately from each other, the understanding the premiss is the cause that the conclusion is known. If the understanding perceive the conclusion in the premiss itself, apprehending both the one and the other at the same glance, in this case the knowing of the conclusion would not be caused by understanding the premisses, since a thing cannot be its own cause; and yet, it would be true that the thinker would understand the premisses to be the cause of the conclusion. It is the same with the will, with respect to which the end stands in the same relation to the means to the end, as do the premisses to the conclusion with regard to the understanding. Hence, if anyone in one act wills an end, and in another act the means to that end, his willing the end will be the cause of his willing the means. This cannot be the case if in one act he wills both end and means; for a thing cannot be its own cause. Yet it will be true to say that he wills to order to the end the means to the end. Now as God by one act understands all things in His essence, so by one act He wills all things in His goodness. Hence, as in God to understand the cause is not the cause of His understanding the effect, for He understands the effect in the cause, so, in Him, to will an end is not the cause of His willing the means, yet He wills the ordering of the means to the end. Therefore, He wills this to be as means to that; but does not will this on account of that.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntas Dei rationabilis est, non quod aliquid sit Deo causa volendi, sed inquantum vult unum esse propter aliud.	Reply to Objection 1. The will of God is reasonable, not because anything is to God a cause of willing, but in so far as He wills one thing to be on account of another.
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum velit Deus effectus sic esse, ut ex causis certis proveniant, ad hoc quod servetur ordo in rebus; non est supervacuum, etiam cum voluntate Dei, alias causas quaerere. Esset tamen supervacuum, si aliae causae quaererentur ut primae, et non dependentes a divina voluntate. Et sic loquitur Augustinus in III de Trin., placuit vanitati philosophorum etiam aliis causis effectus contingentes tribuere, cum omnino videre non possent superiorem ceteris omnibus causam, idest voluntatem Dei.	Reply to Objection 2. Since God wills effects to proceed from definite causes, for the preservation of order in the universe, it is not unreasonable to seek for causes secondary to the divine will. It would, however, be unreasonable to do so, if such were considered as primary, and not as dependent on the will of God. In this sense Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 2): "Philosophers in their vanity have thought fit to attribute contingent effects to other causes, being utterly unable to perceive the cause that is shown above all others, the will of God."
IЄ q. 19 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum Deus velit effectus esse propter causas, quicumque effectus praesupponunt aliquem alium effectum, non dependent ex sola Dei voluntate, sed ex aliquo alio. Sed primi effectus ex sola divina voluntate dependent. Utpote si dicamus quod Deus voluit hominem habere manus, ut deservirent intellectui, operando diversa opera, et voluit eum habere intellectum, ad hoc quod esset homo, et voluit eum esse hominem, ut frueretur ipso, vel ad complementum universi. Quae quidem non est reducere ad alios fines creatos ulteriores. Unde huiusmodi dependent ex simplici voluntate Dei, alia vero ex ordine etiam aliarum causarum.	Reply to Objection 3. Since God wills effects to come from causes, all effects that presuppose some other effect do not depend solely on the will of God, but on something else besides: but the first effect depends on the divine will alone. Thus, for example, we may say that God willed man to have hands to serve his intellect by their work, and intellect, that he might be man; and willed him to be man that he might enjoy Him, or for the completion of the universe. But this cannot be reduced to other created secondary ends. Hence such things depend on the simple will of God; but the others on the order of other causes.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas Dei non semper impleatur. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Tim. II, quod Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire. Sed hoc non ita evenit. Ergo voluntas Dei non semper impletur.	Objection 1. It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:4): "God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But this does not happen. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut se habet scientia ad verum, ita voluntas ad bonum. Sed Deus scit omne verum. Ergo vult omne bonum. Sed non omne bonum fit, multa enim bona possunt fieri, quae non fiunt. Non ergo voluntas Dei semper impletur.	Objection 2. Further, as is the relation of knowledge to truth, so is that of the will to good. Now God knows all truth. Therefore He wills all good. But not all good actually exists; for much more good might exist. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, voluntas Dei, cum sit causa prima, non excludit causas medias, ut dictum est. Sed effectus causae primae potest impediri per defectum causae secundae, sicut effectus virtutis motivae impeditur propter debilitatem tibiae. Ergo et effectus divinae voluntatis potest impediri propter defectum secundarum causarum. Non ergo voluntas Dei semper impletur.	Objection 3. Further, since the will of God is the first cause, it does not exclude intermediate causes. But the effect of a first cause may be hindered by a defect of a secondary cause; as the effect of the motive power may be hindered by the weakness of the limb. Therefore the effect of the divine will may be hindered by a defect of the secondary causes. The will of God, therefore, is not always fulfilled.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo CXIII, omnia quaecumque voluit Deus, fecit.	On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 113:11): "God hath done all things, whatsoever He would."
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est voluntatem Dei semper impleri. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod, cum effectus conformetur agenti secundum suam formam, eadem ratio est in causis agentibus, quae est in causis formalibus. In formis autem sic est quod, licet aliquid possit deficere ab aliqua forma particulari, tamen a forma universali nihil deficere potest, potest enim esse aliquid quod non est homo vel vivum, non autem potest esse aliquid quod non sit ens. Unde et hoc idem in causis agentibus contingere oportet. Potest enim aliquid fieri extra ordinem alicuius causae particularis agentis, non autem extra ordinem alicuius causae universalis, sub qua omnes causae particulares comprehenduntur. Quia, si aliqua causa particularis deficiat a suo effectu, hoc est propter aliquam aliam causam particularem impedientem, quae continetur sub ordine causae universalis, unde effectus ordinem causae universalis nullo modo potest exire. Et hoc etiam patet in corporalibus. Potest enim impediri quod aliqua stella non inducat suum effectum, sed tamen quicumque effectus ex causa corporea impediente in rebus corporalibus consequatur, oportet quod reducatur per aliquas causas medias in universalem virtutem primi caeli. Cum igitur voluntas Dei sit universalis causa omnium rerum, impossibile est quod divina voluntas suum effectum non consequatur. Unde quod recedere videtur a divina voluntate secundum unum ordinem, relabitur in ipsam secundum alium, sicut peccator, qui, quantum est in se, recedit a divina voluntate peccando, incidit in ordinem divinae voluntatis, dum per eius iustitiam punitur.	I answer that, The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with active causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in active causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud verbum apostoli, quod Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri etc., potest tripliciter intelligi. Uno modo, ut sit accommoda distributio, secundum hunc sensum, Deus vult salvos fieri omnes homines qui salvantur, non quia nullus homo sit quem salvum fieri non velit, sed quia nullus salvus fit, quem non velit salvum fieri, ut dicit Augustinus secundo potest intelligi, ut fiat distributio pro generibus singulorum, et non pro singulis generum, secundum hunc sensum, Deus vult de quolibet statu hominum salvos fieri, mares et feminas, Iudaeos et gentiles, parvos et magnos; non tamen omnes de singulis statibus. Tertio, secundum Damascenum, intelligitur de voluntate antecedente, non de voluntate consequente. Quae quidem distinctio non accipitur ex parte ipsius voluntatis divinae, in qua nihil est prius vel posterius; sed ex parte volitorum. Ad cuius intellectum, considerandum est quod unumquodque, secundum quod bonum est, sic est volitum a Deo. Aliquid autem potest esse in prima sui consideratione, secundum quod absolute consideratur, bonum vel malum, quod tamen, prout cum aliquo adiuncto consideratur, quae est consequens consideratio eius, e contrario se habet. Sicut hominem vivere est bonum, et hominem occidi est malum, secundum absolutam considerationem, sed si addatur circa aliquem hominem, quod sit homicida, vel vivens in periculum multitudinis, sic bonum est eum occidi, et malum est eum vivere. Unde potest dici quod iudex iustus antecedenter vult omnem hominem vivere; sed consequenter vult homicidam suspendi. Similiter Deus antecedenter vult omnem hominem salvari; sed consequenter vult quosdam damnari, secundum exigentiam suae iustitiae. Neque tamen id quod antecedenter volumus, simpliciter volumus, sed secundum quid. Quia voluntas comparatur ad res, secundum quod in seipsis sunt, in seipsis autem sunt in particulari, unde simpliciter volumus aliquid, secundum quod volumus illud consideratis omnibus circumstantiis particularibus, quod est consequenter velle. Unde potest dici quod iudex iustus simpliciter vult homicidam suspendi, sed secundum quid vellet eum vivere, scilicet inquantum est homo. Unde magis potest dici velleitas, quam absoluta voluntas. Et sic patet quod quidquid Deus simpliciter vult, fit; licet illud quod antecedenter vult, non fiat.	Reply to Objection 1. The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways. First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will." Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed. To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod actus cognoscitivae virtutis est secundum quod cognitum est in cognoscente, actus autem virtutis appetitivae est ordinatus ad res, secundum quod in seipsis sunt. Quidquid autem potest habere rationem entis et veri, totum est virtualiter in Deo; sed non totum existit in rebus creatis. Et ideo Deus cognoscit omne verum, non tamen vult omne bonum, nisi inquantum vult se, in quo virtualiter omne bonum existit.	Reply to Objection 2. An act of the cognitive faculty is according as the thing known is in the knower; while an act of the appetite faculty is directed to things as they exist in themselves. But all that can have the nature of being and truth virtually exists in God, though it does not all exist in created things. Therefore God knows all truth; but does not will all good, except in so far as He wills Himself, in Whom all good virtually exists.
IЄ q. 19 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod causa prima tunc potest impediri a suo effectu per defectum causae secundae, quando non est universaliter prima, sub se omnes causas comprehendens, quia sic effectus nullo modo posset suum ordinem evadere. Et sic est de voluntate Dei, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. A first cause can be hindered in its effect by deficiency in the secondary cause, when it is not the universal first cause, including within itself all causes; for then the effect could in no way escape its order. And thus it is with the will of God, as said above.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas Dei sit mutabilis. Dicit enim dominus Genes. VI, poenitet me fecisse hominem. Sed quemcumque poenitet de eo quod fecit, habet mutabilem voluntatem. Ergo Deus habet mutabilem voluntatem.	Objection 1. It seems that the Will of God is changeable. For the Lord says (Genesis 6:7): "It repenteth Me that I have made man." But whoever repents of what he has done, has a changeable will. Therefore God has a changeable will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, Ierem. XVIII, ex persona domini dicitur, loquar adversus gentem et adversus regnum, ut eradicem et destruam et disperdam illud; sed si poenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo, agam et ego poenitentiam super malo quod cogitavi ut facerem ei. Ergo Deus habet mutabilem voluntatem.	Objection 2. Further, it is said in the person of the Lord: "I will speak against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it; but if that nation shall repent of its evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them" (Jeremiah 18:7-8) Therefore God has a changeable will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, quidquid Deus facit, voluntarie facit. Sed Deus non semper eadem facit, nam quandoque praecepit legalia observari, quandoque prohibuit. Ergo habet mutabilem voluntatem.	Objection 3. Further, whatever God does, He does voluntarily. But God does not always do the same thing, for at one time He ordered the law to be observed, and at another time forbade it. Therefore He has a changeable will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 arg. 4 Praeterea, Deus non ex necessitate vult quod vult, ut supra dictum est. Ergo potest velle et non velle idem. Sed omne quod habet potentiam ad opposita, est mutabile, sicut quod potest esse et non esse, est mutabile secundum substantiam; et quod potest esse hic et non esse hic, est mutabile secundum locum. Ergo Deus est mutabilis secundum voluntatem.	Objection 4. Further, God does not will of necessity what He wills, as said before (3). Therefore He can both will and not will the same thing. But whatever can incline to either of two opposites, is changeable substantially; and that which can exist in a place or not in that place, is changeable locally. Therefore God is changeable as regards His will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Num. XXIII, non est Deus, quasi homo, ut mentiatur; neque ut filius hominis, ut mutetur.	On the contrary, It is said: "God is not as a man, that He should lie, nor as the son of man, that He should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod voluntas Dei est omnino immutabilis. Sed circa hoc considerandum est, quod aliud est mutare voluntatem; et aliud est velle aliquarum rerum mutationem. Potest enim aliquis, eadem voluntate immobiliter permanente, velle quod nunc fiat hoc, et postea fiat contrarium. Sed tunc voluntas mutaretur, si aliquis inciperet velle quod prius non voluit, vel desineret velle quod voluit. Quod quidem accidere non potest, nisi praesupposita mutatione vel ex parte cognitionis, vel circa dispositionem substantiae ipsius volentis. Cum enim voluntas sit boni, aliquis de novo dupliciter potest incipere aliquid velle. Uno modo sic, quod de novo incipiat sibi illud esse bonum. Quod non est absque mutatione eius, sicut adveniente frigore, incipit esse bonum sedere ad ignem, quod prius non erat. Alio modo sic, quod de novo cognoscat illud esse sibi bonum, cum prius hoc ignorasset, ad hoc enim consiliamur, ut sciamus quid nobis sit bonum. Ostensum est autem supra quod tam substantia Dei quam eius scientia est omnino immutabilis. Unde oportet voluntatem eius omnino esse immutabilem.	I answer that, The will of God is entirely unchangeable. On this point we must consider that to change the will is one thing; to will that certain things should be changed is another. It is possible to will a thing to be done now, and its contrary afterwards; and yet for the will to remain permanently the same: whereas the will would be changed, if one should begin to will what before he had not willed; or cease to will what he had willed before. This cannot happen, unless we presuppose change either in the knowledge or in the disposition of the substance of the willer. For since the will regards good, a man may in two ways begin to will a thing. In one way when that thing begins to be good for him, and this does not take place without a change in him. Thus when the cold weather begins, it becomes good to sit by the fire; though it was not so before. In another way when he knows for the first time that a thing is good for him, though he did not know it before; hence we take counsel in order to know what is good for us. Now it has already been shown that both the substance of God and His knowledge are entirely unchangeable (9, 1; 14, 15). Therefore His will must be entirely unchangeable.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud verbum domini metaphorice intelligendum est, secundum similitudinem nostram, cum enim nos poenitet, destruimus quod fecimus. Quamvis hoc esse possit absque mutatione voluntatis, cum etiam aliquis homo, absque mutatione voluntatis, interdum velit aliquid facere, simul intendens postea illud destruere. Sic igitur Deus poenituisse dicitur, secundum similitudinem operationis, inquantum hominem quem fecerat, per diluvium a facie terrae delevit.	Reply to Objection 1. These words of the Lord are to be understood metaphorically, and according to the likeness of our nature. For when we repent, we destroy what we have made; although we may even do so without change of will; as, when a man wills to make a thing, at the same time intending to destroy it later. Therefore God is said to have repented, by way of comparison with our mode of acting, in so far as by the deluge He destroyed from the face of the earth man whom He had made.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas Dei, cum sit causa prima et universalis, non excludit causas medias, in quarum virtute est ut aliqui effectus producantur. Sed quia omnes causae mediae non adaequant virtutem causae primae, multa sunt in virtute et scientia et voluntate divina, quae non continentur sub ordine causarum inferiorum; sicut resuscitatio Lazari. Unde aliquis respiciens ad causas inferiores, dicere poterat, Lazarus non resurget, respiciens vero ad causam primam divinam, poterat dicere, Lazarus resurget. Et utrumque horum Deus vult, scilicet quod aliquid quandoque sit futurum secundum causam inferiorem, quod tamen futurum non sit secundum causam superiorem; vel e converso. Sic ergo dicendum est quod Deus aliquando pronuntiat aliquid futurum, secundum quod continetur in ordine causarum inferiorum, ut puta secundum dispositionem naturae vel meritorum; quod tamen non fit, quia aliter est in causa superiori divina. Sicut cum praedixit Ezechiae, dispone domui tuae, quia morieris et non vives, ut habetur Isaiae XXXVIII; neque tamen ita evenit, quia ab aeterno aliter fuit in scientia et voluntate divina, quae immutabilis est. Propter quod dicit Gregorius, quod Deus immutat sententiam, non tamen mutat consilium, scilicet voluntatis suae. Quod ergo dicit, poenitentiam agam ego, intelligitur metaphorice dictum, nam homines quando non implent quod comminati sunt, poenitere videntur.	Reply to Objection 2. The will of God, as it is the first and universal cause, does not exclude intermediate causes that have power to produce certain effects. Since however all intermediate causes are inferior in power to the first cause, there are many things in the divine power, knowledge and will that are not included in the order of inferior causes. Thus in the case of the raising of Lazarus, one who looked only on inferior causes might have said: "Lazarus will not rise again," but looking at the divine first cause might have said: "Lazarus will rise again." And God wills both: that is, that in the order of the inferior cause a thing shall happen; but that in the order of the higher cause it shall not happen; or He may will conversely. We may say, then, that God sometimes declares that a thing shall happen according as it falls under the order of inferior causes, as of nature, or merit, which yet does not happen as not being in the designs of the divine and higher cause. Thus He foretold to Ezechias: "Take order with thy house, for thou shalt die, and not live" (Isaiah 38:1). Yet this did not take place, since from eternity it was otherwise disposed in the divine knowledge and will, which is unchangeable. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xvi, 5): "The sentence of God changes, but not His counsel"--that is to say, the counsel of His will. When therefore He says, "I also will repent," His words must be understood metaphorically. For men seem to repent, when they do not fulfill what they have threatened.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ex ratione illa non potest concludi quod Deus habeat mutabilem voluntatem; sed quod mutationem velit.	Reply to Objection 3. It does not follow from this argument that God has a will that changes, but that He sometimes wills that things should change.
IЄ q. 19 a. 7 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet Deum velle aliquid non sit necessarium absolute, tamen necessarium est ex suppositione, propter immutabilitatem divinae voluntatis, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 4. Although God's willing a thing is not by absolute necessity, yet it is necessary by supposition, on account of the unchangeableness of the divine will, as has been said above (3).
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas Dei rebus volitis necessitatem imponat. Dicit enim Augustinus, in Enchirid., nullus fit salvus, nisi quem Deus voluerit salvari. Et ideo rogandus est ut velit, quia necesse est fieri, si voluerit.	Objection 1. It seems that the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed. For Augustine says (Enchiridion 103): "No one is saved, except whom God has willed to be saved. He must therefore be asked to will it; for if He wills it, it must necessarily be."
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis causa quae non potest impediri, ex necessitate suum effectum producit, quia et natura semper idem operatur, nisi aliquid impediat, ut dicitur in II Physic. Sed voluntas Dei non potest impediri, dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. IX, voluntati enim eius quis resistit? Ergo voluntas Dei imponit rebus volitis necessitatem.	Objection 2. Further, every cause that cannot be hindered, produces its effect necessarily, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 84) "Nature always works in the same way, if there is nothing to hinder it." But the will of God cannot be hindered. For the Apostle says (Romans 9:19): "Who resisteth His will?" Therefore the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed.
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod habet necessitatem ex priori, est necessarium absolute, sicut animal mori est necessarium, quia est ex contrariis compositum. Sed res creatae a Deo, comparantur ad voluntatem divinam sicut ad aliquid prius, a quo habent necessitatem, cum haec conditionalis sit vera, si aliquid Deus vult, illud est; omnis autem conditionalis vera est necessaria. Sequitur ergo quod omne quod Deus vult, sit necessarium absolute.	Objection 3. Further, whatever is necessary by its antecedent cause is necessary absolutely; it is thus necessary that animals should die, being compounded of contrary elements. Now things created by God are related to the divine will as to an antecedent cause, whereby they have necessity. For the conditional statement is true that if God wills a thing, it comes to pass; and every true conditional statement is necessary. It follows therefore that all that God wills is necessary absolutely.
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra, omnia bona quae fiunt, Deus vult fieri. Si igitur eius voluntas imponat rebus volitis necessitatem, sequitur quod omnia bona ex necessitate eveniunt. Et sic perit liberum arbitrium et consilium, et omnia huiusmodi.	On the contrary, All good things that exist God wills to be. If therefore His will imposes necessity on things willed, it follows that all good happens of necessity; and thus there is an end of free will, counsel, and all other such things.
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod divina voluntas quibusdam volitis necessitatem imponit, non autem omnibus. Cuius quidem rationem aliqui assignare voluerunt ex causis mediis quia ea quae producit per causas necessarias, sunt necessaria; ea vero quae producit per causas contingentes, sunt contingentia. Sed hoc non videtur sufficienter dictum, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia effectus alicuius primae causae est contingens propter causam secundam, ex eo quod impeditur effectus causae primae per defectum causae secundae; sicut virtus solis per defectum plantae impeditur. Nullus autem defectus causae secundae impedire potest quin voluntas Dei effectum suum producat. Secundo, quia, si distinctio contingentium a necessariis referatur solum in causas secundas, sequitur hoc esse praeter intentionem et voluntatem divinam, quod est inconveniens. Et ideo melius dicendum est, quod hoc contingit propter efficaciam divinae voluntatis. Cum enim aliqua causa efficax fuerit ad agendum, effectus consequitur causam non tantum secundum id quod fit, sed etiam secundum modum fiendi vel essendi, ex debilitate enim virtutis activae in semine, contingit quod filius nascitur dissimilis patri in accidentibus, quae pertinent ad modum essendi. Cum igitur voluntas divina sit efficacissima, non solum sequitur quod fiant ea quae Deus vult fieri; sed quod eo modo fiant, quo Deus ea fieri vult. Vult autem quaedam fieri Deus necessario, et quaedam contingenter, ut sit ordo in rebus, ad complementum universi. Et ideo quibusdam effectibus aptavit causas necessarias, quae deficere non possunt, ex quibus effectus de necessitate proveniunt, quibusdam autem aptavit causas contingentes defectibiles, ex quibus effectus contingenter eveniunt. Non igitur propterea effectus voliti a Deo, eveniunt contingenter, quia causae proximae sunt contingentes, sed propterea quia Deus voluit eos contingenter evenire, contingentes causas ad eos praeparavit.	I answer that, The divine will imposes necessity on some things willed but not on all. The reason of this some have chosen to assign to intermediate causes, holding that what God produces by necessary causes is necessary; and what He produces by contingent causes contingent. This does not seem to be a sufficient explanation, for two reasons. First, because the effect of a first cause is contingent on account of the secondary cause, from the fact that the effect of the first cause is hindered by deficiency in the second cause, as the sun's power is hindered by a defect in the plant. But no defect of a secondary cause can hinder God's will from producing its effect. Secondly, because if the distinction between the contingent and the necessary is to be referred only to secondary causes, this must be independent of the divine intention and will; which is inadmissible. It is better therefore to say that this happens on account of the efficacy of the divine will. For when a cause is efficacious to act, the effect follows upon the cause, not only as to the thing done, but also as to its manner of being done or of being. Thus from defect of active power in the seed it may happen that a child is born unlike its father in accidental points, that belong to its manner of being. Since then the divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in the way that He wills. Now God wills some things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for the building up of the universe. Therefore to some effects He has attached necessary causes, that cannot fail; but to others defectible and contingent causes, from which arise contingent effects. Hence it is not because the proximate causes are contingent that the effects willed by God happen contingently, but because God prepared contingent causes for them, it being His will that they should happen contingently.
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per illud verbum Augustini intelligenda est necessitas in rebus volitis a Deo, non absoluta, sed conditionalis, necesse est enim hanc conditionalem veram esse, si Deus hoc vult, necesse est hoc esse.	Reply to Objection 1. By the words of Augustine we must understand a necessity in things willed by God that is not absolute, but conditional. For the conditional statement that if God wills a thing it must necessarily be, is necessarily true.
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, ex hoc ipso quod nihil voluntati divinae resistit, sequitur quod non solum fiant ea quae Deus vult fieri; sed quod fiant contingenter vel necessario, quae sic fieri vult.	Reply to Objection 2. From the very fact that nothing resists the divine will, it follows that not only those things happen that God wills to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently according to His will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod posteriora habent necessitatem a prioribus, secundum modum priorum. Unde et ea quae fiunt a voluntate divina, talem necessitatem habent, qualem Deus vult ea habere, scilicet, vel absolutam, vel conditionalem tantum. Et sic, non omnia sunt necessaria absolute.	Reply to Objection 3. Consequents have necessity from their antecedents according to the mode of the antecedents. Hence things effected by the divine will have that kind of necessity that God wills them to have, either absolute or conditional. Not all things, therefore, are absolute necessities.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 arg. 1 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 arg. 2 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.	Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 arg. 3 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.	Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 s. c. 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 co. 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. 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.	I answer that, Since the ratio of good is the ratio of appetibility, as said before (5, 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. 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 ad 1 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 ab 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 to Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 ad 2 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 to Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 9 ad 3 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 to Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 10 arg. 1 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 [Ep. 146, ad Damas.]; "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."
IЄ q. 19 a. 10 arg. 2 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.	Objection 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 (9). Therefore there is not free-will in God.
IЄ q. 19 a. 10 s. c. 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."
IЄ q. 19 a. 10 co. 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 be 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 (3), He has free will with respect to what He does not necessarily will.
IЄ q. 19 a. 10 ad 1 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 to Objection 1. Jerome seems to deny free-will to God not simply, but only as regards the inclination to sin.
IЄ q. 19 a. 10 ad 2 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 to Objection 2. Since the evil of sin consists in turning away from the divine goodness, by which God wills all things, as above shown (De Fide ii, 3), 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 11 arg. 1 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 11 arg. 2 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.	Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 11 s. c. 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 11 co. 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 (13, 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" (Matthew 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 11 ad 1 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 to Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 11 ad 2 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 to Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 arg. 1 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 arg. 2 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.	Objection 2. Further, God works nothing unless He wills it, as the Scripture says (Wisdom 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 arg. 3 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.	Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 arg. 4 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.	Objection 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 co. 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. 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.	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. 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 Mt. 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.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 ad 1 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 to Objection 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 not reason why the same thing should not be the subject of precept, operation, and counsel; or of prohibition or permission.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Deus potest significari metaphorice velle id quod non vult voluntate proprie accepta, ita potest metaphorice significari velle id quod proprie vult. Unde nihil prohibet de eodem esse voluntatem beneplaciti, et voluntatem signi. Sed operatio semper est eadem cum voluntate beneplaciti, non autem praeceptum vel consilium, tum quia haec est de praesenti, illud de futuro; tum quia haec per se est effectus voluntatis, illud autem per alium, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. As God may by metaphor be said to will what by His will, properly speaking, He wills not; so He may by metaphor be said to will what He does, properly speaking, will. Hence there is nothing to prevent the same thing being the object of the will of good pleasure, and of the will of expression. But operation is always the same as the will of good pleasure; while precept and counsel are not; both because the former regards the present, and the two latter the future; and because the former is of itself the effect of the will; the latter its effect as fulfilled by means of another.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod creatura rationalis est domina sui actus, et ideo circa ipsam specialia quaedam signa divinae voluntatis assignantur, inquantum rationalem creaturam Deus ordinat ad agendum voluntarie et per se. Sed aliae creaturae non agunt nisi motae ex operatione divina, et ideo circa alias non habent locum nisi operatio et permissio.	Reply to Objection 3. Rational creatures are masters of their own acts; and for this reason certain special expressions of the divine will are assigned to their acts, inasmuch as God ordains rational creatures to act voluntarily and of themselves. Other creatures act only as moved by the divine operation; therefore only operation and permission are concerned with these.
IЄ q. 19 a. 12 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod omne malum culpae, licet multipliciter contingat, tamen in hoc convenit, quod discordat a voluntate divina et ideo unum signum respectu malorum assignatur, scilicet prohibitio. Sed diversimode bona se habent ad bonitatem divinam. Quia quaedam sunt, sine quibus fruitionem divinae bonitatis consequi non possumus, et respectu horum est praeceptum. Quaedam vero sunt, quibus perfectius consequimur, et respectu horum est consilium. Vel dicendum quod consilium est non solum de melioribus bonis assequendis, sed etiam de minoribus malis vitandis.	Reply to Objection 4. All evil of sin, though happening in many ways, agrees in being out of harmony with the divine will. Hence with regard to evil, only one expression is assigned, that of prohibition. On the other hand, good stands in various relations to the divine goodness, since there are good deeds without which we cannot attain to the fruition of that goodness, and these are the subject of precept; and there are others by which we attain to it more perfectly, and these are the subject of counsel. Or it may be said that counsel is not only concerned with the obtaining of greater good; but also with the avoiding of lesser evils.
IЄ q. 20 pr. Deinde considerandum est de his quae absolute ad voluntatem Dei pertinent. In parte autem appetitiva inveniuntur in nobis et passiones animae, ut gaudium, amor, et huiusmodi; et habitus moralium virtutum, ut iustitia, fortitudo, et huiusmodi. Unde primo considerabimus de amore Dei; secundo, de iustitia Dei, et misericordia eius. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum in Deo sit amor. Secundo, utrum amet omnia. Tertio, utrum magis amet unum quam aliud. Quarto, utrum meliora magis amet.
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor non sit in Deo. Nulla enim passio est in Deo. Amor est passio. Ergo amor non est in Deo.	Objection 1. It seems that love does not exist in God. For in God there are no passions. Now love is a passion. Therefore love is not in God.
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, amor, ira, tristitia, et huiusmodi, contra se dividuntur. Sed tristitia et ira non dicuntur de Deo nisi metaphorice. Ergo nec amor.	Objection 2. Further, love, anger, sorrow and the like, are mutually divided against one another. But sorrow and anger are not attributed to God, unless by metaphor. Therefore neither is love attributed to Him.
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., amor est vis unitiva et concretiva. Hoc autem in Deo locum habere non potest, cum sit simplex. Ergo in Deo non est amor.	Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "Love is a uniting and binding force." But this cannot take place in God, since He is simple. Therefore love does not exist in God.
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. IV, Deus caritas est.	On the contrary, It is written: "God is love" (John 4:16).
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est ponere amorem in Deo. Primus enim motus voluntatis, et cuiuslibet appetitivae virtutis, est amor. Cum enim actus voluntatis, et cuiuslibet appetitivae virtutis tendat in bonum et malum, sicut in propria obiecta; bonum autem principalius et per se est obiectum voluntatis et appetitus, malum autem secundario et per aliud, inquantum scilicet opponitur bono, oportet naturaliter esse priores actus voluntatis et appetitus qui respiciunt bonum, his qui respiciunt malum; ut gaudium quam tristitia, et amor quam odium. Semper enim quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per aliud. Rursus, quod est communius, naturaliter est prius, unde et intellectus per prius habet ordinem ad verum commune, quam ad particularia quaedam vera. Sunt autem quidam actus voluntatis et appetitus, respicientes bonum sub aliqua speciali conditione, sicut gaudium et delectatio est de bono praesenti et habito; desiderium autem et spes, de bono nondum adepto. Amor autem respicit bonum in communi, sive sit habitum, sive non habitum. Unde amor naturaliter est primus actus voluntatis et appetitus. Et propter hoc, omnes alii motus appetitivi praesupponunt amorem, quasi primam radicem. Nullus enim desiderat aliquid, nisi bonum amatum, neque aliquis gaudet, nisi de bono amato. Odium etiam non est nisi de eo quod contrariatur rei amatae. Et similiter tristitiam, et cetera huiusmodi, manifestum est in amorem referri, sicut in primum principium. Unde in quocumque est voluntas vel appetitus, oportet esse amorem, remoto enim primo, removentur alia. Ostensum est autem in Deo esse voluntatem. Unde necesse est in eo ponere amorem.	I answer that, We must needs assert that in God there is love: because love is the first movement of the will and of every appetitive faculty. For since the acts of the will and of every appetitive faculty tend towards good and evil, as to their proper objects: and since good is essentially and especially the object of the will and the appetite, whereas evil is only the object secondarily and indirectly, as opposed to good; it follows that the acts of the will and appetite that regard good must naturally be prior to those that regard evil; thus, for instance, joy is prior to sorrow, love to hate: because what exists of itself is always prior to that which exists through another. Again, the more universal is naturally prior to what is less so. Hence the intellect is first directed to universal truth; and in the second place to particular and special truths. Now there are certain acts of the will and appetite that regard good under some special condition, as joy and delight regard good present and possessed; whereas desire and hope regard good not as yet possessed. Love, however, regards good universally, whether possessed or not. Hence love is naturally the first act of the will and appetite; for which reason all the other appetite movements presuppose love, as their root and origin. For nobody desires anything nor rejoices in anything, except as a good that is loved: nor is anything an object of hate except as opposed to the object of love. Similarly, it is clear that sorrow, and other things like to it, must be referred to love as to their first principle. Hence, in whomsoever there is will and appetite, there must also be love: since if the first is wanting, all that follows is also wanting. Now it has been shown that will is in God (19, 1), and hence we must attribute love to Him.
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vis cognitiva non movet, nisi mediante appetitiva. Et sicut in nobis ratio universalis movet mediante ratione particulari, ut dicitur in III de anima; ita appetitus intellectivus, qui dicitur voluntas, movet in nobis mediante appetitu sensitivo. Unde proximum motivum corporis in nobis est appetitus sensitivus. Unde semper actum appetitus sensitivi concomitatur aliqua transmutatio corporis; et maxime circa cor, quod est primum principium motus in animali. Sic igitur actus appetitus sensitivi, inquantum habent transmutationem corporalem annexam, passiones dicuntur, non autem actus voluntatis. Amor igitur et gaudium et delectatio, secundum quod significant actus appetitus sensitivi, passiones sunt, non autem secundum quod significant actus appetitus intellectivi. Et sic ponuntur in Deo. Unde dicit philosophus, in VII Ethic., quod Deus una et simplici operatione gaudet. Et eadem ratione, sine passione amat.	Reply to Objection 1. The cognitive faculty does not move except through the medium of the appetitive: and just as in ourselves the universal reason moves through the medium of the particular reason, as stated in De Anima iii, 58,75, so in ourselves the intellectual appetite, or the will as it is called, moves through the medium of the sensitive appetite. Hence, in us the sensitive appetite is the proximate motive-force of our bodies. Some bodily change therefore always accompanies an act of the sensitive appetite, and this change affects especially the heart, which, as the Philosopher says (De part. animal. iii, 4), is the first principle of movement in animals. Therefore acts of the sensitive appetite, inasmuch as they have annexed to them some bodily change, are called passions; whereas acts of the will are not so called. Love, therefore, and joy and delight are passions; in so far as they denote acts of the intellective appetite, they are not passions. It is in this latter sense that they are in God. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii): "God rejoices by an operation that is one and simple," and for the same reason He loves without passion.
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in passionibus sensitivi appetitus, est considerare aliquid quasi materiale, scilicet corporalem transmutationem; et aliquid quasi formale, quod est ex parte appetitus. Sicut in ira, ut dicitur in I de anima, materiale est accensio sanguinis circa cor, vel aliquid huiusmodi; formale vero, appetitus vindictae. Sed rursus, ex parte eius quod est formale, in quibusdam horum designatur aliqua imperfectio; sicut in desiderio, quod est boni non habiti; et in tristitia, quae est mali habiti. Et eadem ratio est de ira, quae tristitiam supponit. Quaedam vero nullam imperfectionem designant, ut amor et gaudium. Cum igitur nihil horum Deo conveniat secundum illud quod est materiale in eis, ut dictum est; illa quae imperfectionem important etiam formaliter, Deo convenire non possunt nisi metaphorice, propter similitudinem effectus, ut supra dictum est. Quae autem imperfectionem non important, de Deo proprie dicuntur, ut amor et gaudium, tamen sine passione, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. In the passions of the sensitive appetite there may be distinguished a certain material element--namely, the bodily change--and a certain formal element, which is on the part of the appetite. Thus in anger, as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 15,63,64), the material element is the kindling of the blood about the heart; but the formal, the appetite for revenge. Again, as regards the formal element of certain passions a certain imperfection is implied, as in desire, which is of the good we have not, and in sorrow, which is about the evil we have. This applies also to anger, which supposes sorrow. Certain other passions, however, as love and joy, imply no imperfection. Since therefore none of these can be attributed to God on their material side, as has been said (ad 1); neither can those that even on their formal side imply imperfection be attributed to Him; except metaphorically, and from likeness of effects, as already show (3, 2, ad 2; 19, 11). Whereas, those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be properly predicated of God, though without attributing passion to Him, as said before (19, 11).
IЄ q. 20 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod actus amoris semper tendit in duo, scilicet in bonum quod quis vult alicui; et in eum cui vult bonum. Hoc enim est proprie amare aliquem, velle ei bonum. Unde in eo quod aliquis amat se, vult bonum sibi. Et sic illud bonum quaerit sibi unire, inquantum potest. Et pro tanto dicitur amor vis unitiva, etiam in Deo, sed absque compositione, quia illud bonum quod vult sibi, non est aliud quam ipse, qui est per suam essentiam bonus, ut supra ostensum est. In hoc vero quod aliquis amat alium, vult bonum illi. Et sic utitur eo tanquam seipso, referens bonum ad illum, sicut ad seipsum. Et pro tanto dicitur amor vis concretiva, quia alium aggregat sibi habens se ad eum sicut ad seipsum. Et sic etiam amor divinus est vis concretiva, absque compositione quae sit in Deo, inquantum aliis bona vult.	Reply to Objection 3. An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible, union with that good. So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as above shown (6, 1, 3). And by the fact that anyone loves another, he wills good to that other. Thus he puts the other, as it were, in the place of himself; and regards the good done to him as done to himself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates another to ourselves, and refers his good to our own. And then again the divine love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to others; yet it implies no composition in God.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non omnia amet. Quia, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom., amor amantem extra se ponit, et eum quodammodo in amatum transfert. Inconveniens autem est dicere quod Deus, extra se positus, in alia transferatur. Ergo inconveniens est dicere quod Deus alia a se amet.	Objection 1. It seems that God does not love all things. For according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 1), love places the lover outside himself, and causes him to pass, as it were, into the object of his love. But it is not admissible to say that God is placed outside of Himself, and passes into other things. Therefore it is inadmissible to say that God loves things other than Himself.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, amor Dei aeternus est. Sed ea quae sunt alia a Deo, non sunt ab aeterno nisi in Deo. Ergo Deus non amat ea nisi in seipso. Sed secundum quod sunt in eo, non sunt aliud ab eo. Ergo Deus non amat alia a seipso.	Objection 2. Further, the love of God is eternal. But things apart from God are not from eternity; except in God. Therefore God does not love anything, except as it exists in Himself. But as existing in Him, it is no other than Himself. Therefore God does not love things other than Himself.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, duplex est amor, scilicet concupiscentiae, et amicitiae. Sed Deus creaturas irrationales non amat amore concupiscentiae, quia nullius extra se eget, nec etiam amore amicitiae, quia non potest ad res irrationales haberi, ut patet per philosophum, in VIII Ethic. Ergo Deus non omnia amat.	Objection 3. Further, love is twofold--the love, namely, of desire, and the love of friendship. Now God does not love irrational creatures with the love of desire, since He needs no creature outside Himself. Nor with the love of friendship; since there can be no friendship with irrational creatures, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic. viii, 2). Therefore God does not love all things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, in Psalmo dicitur, odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem. Nihil autem simul odio habetur et amatur. Ergo Deus non omnia amat.	Objection 4. Further, it is written (Psalm 5:7): "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." Now nothing is at the same time hated and loved. Therefore God does not love all things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. XI, diligis omnia quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti.	On the contrary, It is said (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made."
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Deus omnia existentia amat. Nam omnia existentia, inquantum sunt, bona sunt, ipsum enim esse cuiuslibet rei quoddam bonum est, et similiter quaelibet perfectio ipsius. Ostensum est autem supra quod voluntas Dei est causa omnium rerum et sic oportet quod intantum habeat aliquid esse, aut quodcumque bonum, inquantum est volitum a Deo. Cuilibet igitur existenti Deus vult aliquod bonum. Unde, cum amare nil aliud sit quam velle bonum alicui, manifestum est quod Deus omnia quae sunt, amat. Non tamen eo modo sicut nos. Quia enim voluntas nostra non est causa bonitatis rerum, sed ab ea movetur sicut ab obiecto, amor noster, quo bonum alicui volumus, non est causa bonitatis ipsius, sed e converso bonitas eius, vel vera vel aestimata, provocat amorem, quo ei volumus et bonum conservari quod habet, et addi quod non habet, et ad hoc operamur. Sed amor Dei est infundens et creans bonitatem in rebus.	I answer that, God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (19, 4) that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod amans sic fit extra se in amatum translatus, inquantum vult amato bonum, et operatur per suam providentiam, sicut et sibi. Unde et Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., audendum est autem et hoc pro veritate dicere, quod et ipse omnium causa, per abundantiam amativae bonitatis, extra seipsum fit ad omnia existentia providentiis.	Reply to Objection 1. A lover is placed outside himself, and made to pass into the object of his love, inasmuch as he wills good to the beloved; and works for that good by his providence even as he works for his own. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1): "On behalf of the truth we must make bold to say even this, that He Himself, the cause of all things, by His abounding love and goodness, is placed outside Himself by His providence for all existing things."
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet creaturae ab aeterno non fuerint nisi in Deo, tamen per hoc quod ab aeterno in Deo fuerunt, ab aeterno Deus cognovit res in propriis naturis, et eadem ratione amavit. Sicut et nos per similitudines rerum, quae in nobis sunt, cognoscimus res in seipsis existentes.	Reply to Objection 2. Although creatures have not existed from eternity, except in God, yet because they have been in Him from eternity, God has known them eternally in their proper natures; and for that reason has loved them, even as we, by the images of things within us, know things existing in themselves.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod amicitia non potest haberi nisi ad rationales creaturas, in quibus contingit esse redamationem, et communicationem in operibus vitae, et quibus contingit bene evenire vel male, secundum fortunam et felicitatem, sicut et ad eas proprie benevolentia est. Creaturae autem irrationales non possunt pertingere ad amandum Deum, neque ad communicationem intellectualis et beatae vitae, qua Deus vivit. Sic igitur Deus, proprie loquendo, non amat creaturas irrationales amore amicitiae, sed amore quasi concupiscentiae; inquantum ordinat eas ad rationales creaturas, et etiam ad seipsum; non quasi eis indigeat, sed propter suam bonitatem et nostram utilitatem. Concupiscimus enim aliquid et nobis et aliis.	Reply to Objection 3. Friendship cannot exist except towards rational creatures, who are capable of returning love, and communicating one with another in the various works of life, and who may fare well or ill, according to the changes of fortune and happiness; even as to them is benevolence properly speaking exercised. But irrational creatures cannot attain to loving God, nor to any share in the intellectual and beatific life that He lives. Strictly speaking, therefore, God does not love irrational creatures with the love of friendship; but as it were with the love of desire, in so far as He orders them to rational creatures, and even to Himself. Yet this is not because He stands in need of them; but only on account of His goodness, and of the services they render to us. For we can desire a thing for others as well as for ourselves.
IЄ q. 20 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod nihil prohibet unum et idem secundum aliquid amari, et secundum aliquid odio haberi. Deus autem peccatores, inquantum sunt naturae quaedam, amat, sic enim et sunt, et ab ipso sunt. Inquantum vero peccatores sunt, non sunt, sed ab esse deficiunt, et hoc in eis a Deo non est. Unde secundum hoc ab ipso odio habentur.	Reply to Objection 4. Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from God. Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus aequaliter diligat omnia. Dicitur enim Sap. VI, aequaliter est ei cura de omnibus. Sed providentia Dei, quam habet de rebus, est ex amore quo amat res. Ergo aequaliter amat omnia.	Objection 1. It seems that God loves all things equally. For it is said: "He hath equally care of all" (Wisdom 6:8). But God's providence over things comes from the love wherewith He loves them. Therefore He loves all things equally.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, amor Dei est eius essentia. Sed essentia Dei magis et minus non recipit. Ergo nec amor eius. Non igitur quaedam aliis magis amat.	Objection 2. Further, the love of God is His essence. But God's essence does not admit of degree; neither therefore does His love. He does not therefore love some things more than others.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut amor Dei se extendit ad res creatas, ita et scientia et voluntas. Sed Deus non dicitur scire quaedam magis quam alia, neque magis velle. Ergo nec magis quaedam aliis diligit.	Objection 3. Further, as God's love extends to created things, so do His knowledge and will extend. But God is not said to know some things more than others; nor will one thing more than another. Neither therefore does He love some things more than others.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, super Ioann., omnia diligit Deus quae fecit; et inter ea magis diligit creaturas rationales; et de illis eas amplius, quae sunt membra unigeniti sui; et multo magis ipsum unigenitum suum.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. in Joan. cx): "God loves all things that He has made, and amongst them rational creatures more, and of these especially those who are members of His only-begotten Son Himself."
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum amare sit velle bonum alicui, duplici ratione potest aliquid magis vel minus amari. Uno modo, ex parte ipsius actus voluntatis, qui est magis vel minus intensus. Et sic Deus non magis quaedam aliis amat, quia omnia amat uno et simplici actu voluntatis, et semper eodem modo se habente. Alio modo, ex parte ipsius boni quod aliquis vult amato. Et sic dicimur aliquem magis alio amare, cui volumus maius bonum; quamvis non magis intensa voluntate. Et hoc modo necesse est dicere quod Deus quaedam aliis magis amat. Cum enim amor Dei sit causa bonitatis rerum, ut dictum est, non esset aliquid alio melius, si Deus non vellet uni maius bonum quam alteri.	I answer that, Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a twofold way anything may be loved more, or less. In one way on the part of the act of the will itself, which is more or less intense. In this way God does not love some things more than others, because He loves all things by an act of the will that is one, simple, and always the same. In another way on the part of the good itself that a person wills for the beloved. In this way we are said to love that one more than another, for whom we will a greater good, though our will is not more intense. In this way we must needs say that God loves some things more than others. For since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said (2), no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dicitur Deo aequaliter esse cura de omnibus, non quia aequalia bona sua cura omnibus dispenset; sed quia ex aequali sapientia et bonitate omnia administrat.	Reply to Objection 1. God is said to have equally care of all, not because by His care He deals out equal good to all, but because He administers all things with a like wisdom and goodness.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de intensione amoris ex parte actus voluntatis, qui est divina essentia. Bonum autem quod Deus creaturae vult, non est divina essentia. Unde nihil prohibet illud intendi vel remitti.	Reply to Objection 2. This argument is based on the intensity of love on the part of the act of the will, which is the divine essence. But the good that God wills for His creatures, is not the divine essence. Therefore there is no reason why it may not vary in degree.
IЄ q. 20 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod intelligere et velle significant solum actus, non autem in sua significatione includunt aliqua obiecta, ex quorum diversitate possit dici Deus magis vel minus scire aut velle; sicut circa amorem dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. To understand and to will denote the act alone, and do not include in their meaning objects from the diversity of which God may be said to know or will more or less, as has been said with respect to God's love.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non semper magis diligat meliora. Manifestum est enim quod Christus est melior toto genere humano, cum sit Deus et homo. Sed Deus magis dilexit genus humanum quam Christum, quia dicitur Rom. VIII, proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Ergo Deus non semper magis diligit meliora.	Objection 1. It seems that God does not always love more the better things. For it is manifest that Christ is better than the whole human race, being God and man. But God loved the human race more than He loved Christ; for it is said: "He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all" (Romans 8:32). Therefore God does not always love more the better things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angelus est melior homine, unde in Psalmo VIII dicitur de homine, minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis. Sed Deus plus dilexit hominem quam Angelum, dicitur enim Hebr. II, nusquam Angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit. Ergo Deus non semper magis diligit meliora.	Objection 2. Further, an angel is better than a man. Hence it is said of man: "Thou hast made him a little less than the angels" (Psalm 8:6). But God loved men more than He loved the angels, for it is said: "Nowhere doth He take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold" (Hebrews 2:16). Therefore God does not always love more the better things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Petrus fuit melior Ioanne, quia plus Christum diligebat. Unde dominus, sciens hoc esse verum, interrogavit Petrum, dicens, Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his? Sed tamen Christus plus dilexit Ioannem quam Petrum, ut enim dicit Augustinus, super illud Ioan. XXI, Simon Ioannis diligis me? Hoc ipso signo Ioannes a ceteris discipulis discernitur; non quod solum eum, sed quod plus eum ceteris diligebat. Non ergo semper magis diligit meliora.	Objection 3. Further, Peter was better than John, since he loved Christ more. Hence the Lord, knowing this to be true, asked Peter, saying: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" Yet Christ loved John more than He loved Peter. For as Augustine says, commenting on the words, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?": "By this very mark is John distinguished from the other disciples, not that He loved him only, but that He loved him more than the rest." Therefore God does not always love more the better things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, melior est innocens poenitente; cum poenitentia sit secunda tabula post naufragium, ut dicit Hieronymus. Sed Deus plus diligit poenitentem quam innocentem, quia plus de eo gaudet, dicitur enim Luc. XV, dico vobis quod maius gaudium erit in caelo super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente, quam super nonaginta novem iustis, qui non indigent poenitentia. Ergo Deus non semper magis diligit meliora.	Objection 4. Further, the innocent man is better than the repentant, since repentance is, as Jerome says (Cap. 3 in Isa.), "a second plank after shipwreck." But God loves the penitent more than the innocent; since He rejoices over him the more. For it is said: "I say to you that there shall be joy in heaven upon the one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance" (Luke 15:7). Therefore God does not always love more the better things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 arg. 5 Praeterea, melior est iustus praescitus, quam peccator praedestinatus. Sed Deus plus diligit peccatorem praedestinatum, quia vult ei maius bonum, scilicet vitam aeternam. Ergo Deus non semper magis diligit meliora.	Objection 5. Further, the just man who is foreknown is better than the predestined sinner. Now God loves more the predestined sinner, since He wills for him a greater good, life eternal. Therefore God does not always love more the better things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, unumquodque diligit sibi simile; ut patet per illud quod habetur Eccli. XIII, omne animal diligit sibi simile. Sed intantum aliquid est melius, inquantum est Deo similius. Ergo meliora magis diliguntur a Deo.	On the contrary, Everything loves what is like it, as appears from (Sirach 13:19): "Every beast loveth its like." Now the better a thing is, the more like is it to God. Therefore the better things are more loved by God.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere, secundum praedicta, quod Deus magis diligat meliora. Dictum est enim quod Deum diligere magis aliquid, nihil aliud est quam ei maius bonum velle, voluntas enim Dei est causa bonitatis in rebus. Et sic, ex hoc sunt aliqua meliora, quod Deus eis maius bonum vult. Unde sequitur quod meliora plus amet.	I answer that, It must needs be, according to what has been said before, that God loves more the better things . For it has been shown (2, 3), that God's loving one thing more than another is nothing else than His willing for that thing a greater good: because God's will is the cause of goodness in things; and the reason why some things are better than others, is that God wills for them a greater good. Hence it follows that He loves more the better things.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus Christum diligit, non solum plus quam totum humanum genus, sed etiam magis quam totam universitatem creaturarum, quia scilicet ei maius bonum voluit, quia dedit ei nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut verus Deus esset. Nec eius excellentiae deperiit ex hoc quod Deus dedit eum in mortem pro salute humani generis, quinimo ex hoc factus est victor gloriosus; factus enim est principatus super humerum eius, ut dicitur Isaiae IX.	Reply to Objection 1. God loves Christ not only more than He loves the whole human race, but more than He loves the entire created universe: because He willed for Him the greater good in giving Him "a name that is above all names," in so far as He was true God. Nor did anything of His excellence diminish when God delivered Him up to death for the salvation of the human race; rather did He become thereby a glorious conqueror: "The government was placed upon His shoulder," according to Is. 9:6.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod naturam humanam assumptam a Dei verbo in persona Christi, secundum praedicta, Deus plus amat quam omnes Angelos, et melior est, maxime ratione unionis. Sed loquendo de humana natura communiter, eam angelicae comparando, secundum ordinem ad gratiam et gloriam, aequalitas invenitur; cum eadem sit mensura hominis et Angeli, ut dicitur Apoc. XXI; ita tamen quod quidam Angeli quibusdam hominibus, et quidam homines quibusdam Angelis, quantum ad hoc, potiores inveniuntur. Sed quantum ad conditionem naturae, Angelus est melior homine. Nec ideo naturam humanam assumpsit Deus, quia hominem absolute plus diligeret, sed quia plus indigebat. Sicut bonus paterfamilias aliquid pretiosius dat servo aegrotanti, quod non dat filio sano.	Reply to Objection 2. God loves the human nature assumed by the Word of God in the person of Christ more than He loves all the angels; for that nature is better, especially on the ground of the union with the Godhead. But speaking of human nature in general, and comparing it with the angelic, the two are found equal, in the order of grace and of glory: since according to Rev 21:17, the measure of a man and of an angel is the same. Yet so that, in this respect, some angels are found nobler than some men, and some men nobler than some angels. But as to natural condition an angel is better than a man. God therefore did not assume human nature because He loved man, absolutely speaking, more; but because the needs of man were greater; just as the master of a house may give some costly delicacy to a sick servant, that he does not give to his own son in sound health.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod haec dubitatio de Petro et Ioanne multipliciter solvitur. Augustinus namque refert hoc ad mysterium, dicens quod vita activa, quae significatur per Petrum, plus diligit Deum quam vita contemplativa, quae significatur per Ioannem, quia magis sentit praesentis vitae angustias, et aestuantius ab eis liberari desiderat, et ad Deum ire. Contemplativam vero vitam Deus plus diligit, quia magis eam conservat; non enim finitur simul cum vita corporis, sicut vita activa. Quidam vero dicunt quod Petrus plus dilexit Christum in membris; et sic etiam a Christo plus fuit dilectus; unde ei Ecclesiam commendavit. Ioannes vero plus dilexit Christum in seipso; et sic etiam plus ab eo fuit dilectus; unde ei commendavit matrem. Alii vero dicunt quod incertum est quis horum plus Christum dilexerit amore caritatis, et similiter quem Deus plus dilexerit in ordine ad maiorem gloriam vitae aeternae. Sed Petrus dicitur plus dilexisse, quantum ad quandam promptitudinem vel fervorem, Ioannes vero plus dilectus, quantum ad quaedam familiaritatis indicia, quae Christus ei magis demonstrabat, propter eius iuventutem et puritatem. Alii vero dicunt quod Christus plus dilexit Petrum, quantum ad excellentius donum caritatis, Ioannem vero plus, quantum ad donum intellectus. Unde simpliciter Petrus fuit melior, et magis dilectus, sed Ioannes secundum quid. Praesumptuosum tamen videtur hoc diiudicare, quia, ut dicitur Prov. XVI, spirituum ponderator est dominus, et non alius.	Reply to Objection 3. This doubt concerning Peter and John has been solved in various ways. Augustine interprets it mystically, and says that the active life, signified by Peter, loves God more than the contemplative signified by John, because the former is more conscious of the miseries of this present life, and therefore the more ardently desires to be freed from them, and depart to God. God, he says, loves more the contemplative life, since He preserves it longer. For it does not end, as the active life does, with the life of the body. Some say that Peter loved Christ more in His members, and therefore was loved more by Christ also, for which reason He gave him the care of the Church; but that John loved Christ more in Himself, and so was loved more by Him; on which account Christ commended His mother to his care. Others say that it is uncertain which of them loved Christ more with the love of charity, and uncertain also which of them God loved more and ordained to a greater degree of glory in eternal life. Peter is said to have loved more, in regard to a certain promptness and fervor; but John to have been more loved, with respect to certain marks of familiarity which Christ showed to him rather than to others, on account of his youth and purity. While others say that Christ loved Peter more, from his more excellent gift of charity; but John more, from his gifts of intellect. Hence, absolutely speaking, Peter was the better and more beloved; but, in a certain sense, John was the better, and was loved the more. However, it may seem presumptuous to pass judgment on these matters; since "the Lord" and no other "is the weigher of spirits" (Proverbs 16:2).
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod poenitentes et innocentes se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. Nam sive sint innocentes, sive poenitentes, illi sunt meliores et magis dilecti, qui plus habent de gratia. Ceteris tamen paribus, innocentia dignior est et magis dilecta. Dicitur tamen Deus plus gaudere de poenitente quam de innocente, quia plerumque poenitentes cautiores, humiliores et ferventiores resurgunt. Unde Gregorius dicit ibidem, quod dux in praelio eum militem plus diligit, qui post fugam conversus, fortiter hostem premit, quam qui nunquam fugit, nec unquam fortiter fecit. Vel, alia ratione, quia aequale donum gratiae plus est, comparatum poenitenti, qui meruit poenam, quam innocenti, qui non meruit. Sicut centum marcae maius donum est, si dentur pauperi, quam si dentur regi.	Reply to Objection 4. The penitent and the innocent are related as exceeding and exceeded. For whether innocent or penitent, those are the better and better loved who have most grace. Other things being equal, innocence is the nobler thing and the more beloved. God is said to rejoice more over the penitent than over the innocent, because often penitents rise from sin more cautious, humble, and fervent. Hence Gregory commenting on these words (Hom. 34 in Ev.) says that, "In battle the general loves the soldier who after flight returns and bravely pursues the enemy, more than him who has never fled, but has never done a brave deed." Or it may be answered that gifts of grace, equal in themselves, are more as conferred on the penitent, who deserved punishment, than as conferred on the innocent, to whom no punishment was due; just as a hundred pounds [marcoe] are a greater gift to a poor man than to a king.
IЄ q. 20 a. 4 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum voluntas Dei sit causa bonitatis in rebus, secundum illud tempus pensanda est bonitas eius qui amatur a Deo, secundum quod dandum est ei ex bonitate divina aliquod bonum. Secundum ergo illud tempus quo praedestinato peccatori dandum est ex divina voluntate maius bonum, melior est; licet secundum aliquod aliud tempus, sit peior; quia et secundum aliquod tempus, non est nec bonus neque malus.	Reply to Objection 5. Since God's will is the cause of goodness in things, the goodness of one who is loved by God is to be reckoned according to the time when some good is to be given to him by divine goodness. According therefore to the time, when there is to be given by the divine will to the predestined sinner a greater good, the sinner is better; although according to some other time he is the worse; because even according to some time he is neither good nor bad.
IЄ q. 21 pr. Post considerationem divini amoris, de iustitia et misericordia eius agendum est. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum in Deo sit iustitia. Secundo, utrum iustitia eius veritas dici possit. Tertio, utrum in Deo sit misericordia. Quarto, utrum in omni opere Dei sit iustitia et misericordia.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sit iustitia. Iustitia enim contra temperantiam dividitur. Temperantia autem non est in Deo. Ergo nec iustitia.	Objection 1. It seems that there is not justice in God. For justice is divided against temperance. But temperance does not exist in God: neither therefore does justice.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, quicumque facit omnia pro libito suae voluntatis, non secundum iustitiam operatur. Sed, sicut dicit apostolus, ad Ephes. I, Deus operatur omnia secundum consilium suae voluntatis. Non ergo ei iustitia debet attribui.	Objection 2. Further, he who does whatsoever he wills and pleases does not work according to justice. But, as the Apostle says: "God worketh all things according to the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11). Therefore justice cannot be attributed to Him.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, actus iustitiae est reddere debitum. Sed Deus nulli est debitor. Ergo Deo non competit iustitia.	Objection 3. Further, the act of justice is to pay what is due. But God is no man's debtor. Therefore justice does not belong to God.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, quidquid est in Deo, est eius essentia. Sed hoc non competit iustitiae, dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Hebdomad., quod bonum essentiam, iustum vero actum respicit. Ergo iustitia non competit Deo.	Objection 4. Further, whatever is in God, is His essence. But justice cannot belong to this. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "Good regards the essence; justice the act." Therefore justice does not belong to God.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo X, iustus dominus, et iustitias dilexit.	On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 10:8): "The Lord is just, and hath loved justice."
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est species iustitiae. Una, quae consistit in mutua datione et acceptione, ut puta quae consistit in emptione et venditione, et aliis huiusmodi communicationibus vel commutationibus. Et haec dicitur a philosopho, in V Ethic., iustitia commutativa, vel directiva commutationum sive communicationum. Et haec non competit Deo, quia, ut dicit apostolus, Rom. XI, quis prior dedit illi, et retribuetur ei? Alia, quae consistit in distribuendo, et dicitur distributiva iustitia, secundum quam aliquis gubernator vel dispensator dat unicuique secundum suam dignitatem. Sicut igitur ordo congruus familiae, vel cuiuscumque multitudinis gubernatae, demonstrat huiusmodi iustitiam in gubernante; ita ordo universi, qui apparet tam in rebus naturalibus quam in rebus voluntariis, demonstrat Dei iustitiam. Unde dicit Dionysius, VIII cap. de Div. Nom., oportet videre in hoc veram Dei esse iustitiam, quod omnibus tribuit propria, secundum uniuscuiusque existentium dignitatem; et uniuscuiusque naturam in proprio salvat ordine et virtute.	I answer that, There are two kinds of justice. The one consists in mutual giving and receiving, as in buying and selling, and other kinds of intercourse and exchange. This the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) calls commutative justice, that directs exchange and intercourse of business. This does not belong to God, since, as the Apostle says: "Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made him?" (Romans 11:35). The other consists in distribution, and is called distributive justice; whereby a ruler or a steward gives to each what his rank deserves. As then the proper order displayed in ruling a family or any kind of multitude evinces justice of this kind in the ruler, so the order of the universe, which is seen both in effects of nature and in effects of will, shows forth the justice of God. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii, 4): "We must needs see that God is truly just, in seeing how He gives to all existing things what is proper to the condition of each; and preserves the nature of each in the order and with the powers that properly belong to it."
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutum moralium quaedam sunt circa passiones; sicut temperantia circa concupiscentias, fortitudo circa timores et audacias, mansuetudo circa iram. Et huiusmodi virtutes Deo attribui non possunt, nisi secundum metaphoram, quia in Deo neque passiones sunt, ut supra dictum est; neque appetitus sensitivus, in quo sunt huiusmodi virtutes sicut in subiecto, ut dicit philosophus in III Ethic. Quaedam vero virtutes morales sunt circa operationes; ut puta circa dationes et sumptus, ut iustitia et liberalitas et magnificentia; quae etiam non sunt in parte sensitiva, sed in voluntate. Unde nihil prohibet huiusmodi virtutes in Deo ponere, non tamen circa actiones civiles sed circa actiones Deo convenientes. Ridiculum est enim secundum virtutes politicas Deum laudare, ut dicit philosophus in X Ethic.	Reply to Objection 1. Certain of the moral virtues are concerned with the passions, as temperance with concupiscence, fortitude with fear and daring, meekness with anger. Such virtues as these can only metaphorically be attributed to God; since, as stated above (20, 1), in God there are no passions; nor a sensitive appetite, which is, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10), the subject of those virtues. On the other hand, certain moral virtues are concerned with works of giving and expending; such as justice, liberality, and magnificence; and these reside not in the sensitive faculty, but in the will. Hence, there is nothing to prevent our attributing these virtues to God; although not in civil matters, but in such acts as are not unbecoming to Him. For, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8), it would be absurd to praise God for His political virtues.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum bonum intellectum sit obiectum voluntatis, impossibile est Deum velle nisi quod ratio suae sapientiae habet. Quae quidem est sicut lex iustitiae, secundum quam eius voluntas recta et iusta est. Unde quod secundum suam voluntatem facit, iuste facit, sicut et nos quod secundum legem facimus, iuste facimus. Sed nos quidem secundum legem alicuius superioris, Deus autem sibi ipsi est lex.	Reply to Objection 2. Since good as perceived by intellect is the object of the will, it is impossible for God to will anything but what His wisdom approves. This is, as it were, His law of justice, in accordance with which His will is right and just. Hence, what He does according to His will He does justly: as we do justly what we do according to law. But whereas law comes to us from some higher power, God is a law unto Himself.
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod unicuique debetur quod suum est. Dicitur autem esse suum alicuius, quod ad ipsum ordinatur; sicut servus est domini, et non e converso; nam liberum est quod sui causa est. In nomine ergo debiti, importatur quidam ordo exigentiae vel necessitatis alicuius ad quod ordinatur. Est autem duplex ordo considerandus in rebus. Unus, quo aliquid creatum ordinatur ad aliud creatum, sicut partes ordinantur ad totum, et accidentia ad substantias, et unaquaeque res ad suum finem. Alius ordo, quo omnia creata ordinantur in Deum. Sic igitur et debitum attendi potest dupliciter in operatione divina, aut secundum quod aliquid debetur Deo; aut secundum quod aliquid debetur rei creatae. Et utroque modo Deus debitum reddit. Debitum enim est Deo, ut impleatur in rebus id quod eius sapientia et voluntas habet, et quod suam bonitatem manifestat, et secundum hoc iustitia Dei respicit decentiam ipsius, secundum quam reddit sibi quod sibi debetur. Debitum etiam est alicui rei creatae, quod habeat id quod ad ipsam ordinatur, sicut homini, quod habeat manus, et quod ei alia animalia serviant. Et sic etiam Deus operatur iustitiam, quando dat unicuique quod ei debetur secundum rationem suae naturae et conditionis. Sed hoc debitum dependet ex primo, quia hoc unicuique debetur, quod est ordinatum ad ipsum secundum ordinem divinae sapientiae. Et licet Deus hoc modo debitum alicui det, non tamen ipse est debitor, quia ipse ad alia non ordinatur, sed potius alia in ipsum. Et ideo iustitia quandoque dicitur in Deo condecentia suae bonitatis; quandoque vero retributio pro meritis. Et utrumque modum tangit Anselmus, dicens, cum punis malos, iustum est, quia illorum meritis convenit; cum vero parcis malis, iustum est, quia bonitati tuae condecens est.	Reply to Objection 3. To each one is due what is his own. Now that which is directed to a man is said to be his own. Thus the master owns the servant, and not conversely, for that is free which is its own cause. In the word debt, therefore, is implied a certain exigence or necessity of the thing to which it is directed. Now a twofold order has to be considered in things: the one, whereby one created thing is directed to another, as the parts of the whole, accident to substance, and all things whatsoever to their end; the other, whereby all created things are ordered to God. Thus in the divine operations debt may be regarded in two ways, as due either to God, or to creatures, and in either way God pays what is due. It is due to God that there should be fulfilled in creatures what His will and wisdom require, and what manifests His goodness. In this respect, God's justice regards what befits Him; inasmuch as He renders to Himself what is due to Himself. It is also due to a created thing that it should possess what is ordered to it; thus it is due to man to have hands, and that other animals should serve him. Thus also God exercises justice, when He gives to each thing what is due to it by its nature and condition. This debt however is derived from the former; since what is due to each thing is due to it as ordered to it according to the divine wisdom. And although God in this way pays each thing its due, yet He Himself is not the debtor, since He is not directed to other things, but rather other things to Him. Justice, therefore, in God is sometimes spoken of as the fitting accompaniment of His goodness; sometimes as the reward of merit. Anselm touches on either view where he says (Prosolog. 10): "When Thou dost punish the wicked, it is just, since it agrees with their deserts; and when Thou dost spare the wicked, it is also just; since it befits Thy goodness."
IЄ q. 21 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet iustitia respiciat actum, non tamen per hoc excluditur quin sit essentia Dei, quia etiam id quod est de essentia rei, potest esse principium actionis. Sed bonum non semper respicit actum, quia aliquid dicitur esse bonum, non solum secundum quod agit, sed etiam secundum quod in sua essentia perfectum est. Et propter hoc ibidem dicitur quod bonum comparatur ad iustum, sicut generale ad speciale.	Reply to Objection 4. Although justice regards act, this does not prevent its being the essence of God; since even that which is of the essence of a thing may be the principle of action. But good does not always regard act; since a thing is called good not merely with respect to act, but also as regards perfection in its essence. For this reason it is said (De Hebdom.) that the good is related to the just, as the general to the special.
IЄ q. 21 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia Dei non sit veritas. Iustitia enim est in voluntate, est enim rectitudo voluntatis, ut dicit Anselmus. Veritas autem est in intellectu, secundum philosophum in VI Metaphys. et in VI Ethic. Ergo iustitia non pertinet ad veritatem.	Objection 1. It seems that the justice of God is not truth. For justice resides in the will; since, as Anselm says (Dial. Verit. 13), it is a rectitude of the will, whereas truth resides in the intellect, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi; Ethic. vi, 2,6). Therefore justice does not appertain to truth.
IЄ q. 21 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, veritas, secundum philosophum in IV Ethic., est quaedam alia virtus a iustitia. Non ergo veritas pertinet ad rationem iustitiae.	Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 7), truth is a virtue distinct from justice. Truth therefore does not appertain to the idea of justice.
IЄ q. 21 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo LXXXIV dicitur, misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi; et ponitur ibi veritas pro iustitia.	On the contrary, it is said (Psalm 84:11): "Mercy and truth have met each other": where truth stands for justice.
IЄ q. 21 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod veritas consistit in adaequatione intellectus et rei, sicut supra dictum est. Intellectus autem qui est causa rei, comparatur ad ipsam sicut regula et mensura, e converso autem est de intellectu qui accipit scientiam a rebus. Quando igitur res sunt mensura et regula intellectus, veritas consistit in hoc, quod intellectus adaequatur rei, ut in nobis accidit, ex eo enim quod res est vel non est, opinio nostra et oratio vera vel falsa est. Sed quando intellectus est regula vel mensura rerum, veritas consistit in hoc, quod res adaequantur intellectui, sicut dicitur artifex facere verum opus, quando concordat arti. Sicut autem se habent artificiata ad artem, ita se habent opera iusta ad legem cui concordant. Iustitia igitur Dei, quae constituit ordinem in rebus conformem rationi sapientiae suae, quae est lex eius, convenienter veritas nominatur. Et sic etiam dicitur in nobis veritas iustitiae.	I answer that, Truth consists in the equation of mind and thing, as said above (16, 1). Now the mind, that is the cause of the thing, is related to it as its rule and measure; whereas the converse is the case with the mind that receives its knowledge from things. When therefore things are the measure and rule of the mind, truth consists in the equation of the mind to the thing, as happens in ourselves. For according as a thing is, or is not, our thoughts or our words about it are true or false. But when the mind is the rule or measure of things, truth consists in the equation of the thing to the mind; just as the work of an artist is said to be true, when it is in accordance with his art. Now as works of art are related to art, so are works of justice related to the law with which they accord. Therefore God's justice, which establishes things in the order conformable to the rule of His wisdom, which is the law of His justice, is suitably called truth. Thus we also in human affairs speak of the truth of justice.
IЄ q. 21 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia, quantum ad legem regulantem, est in ratione vel intellectu, sed quantum ad imperium, quo opera regulantur secundum legem, est in voluntate.	Reply to Objection 1. Justice, as to the law that governs, resides in the reason or intellect; but as to the command whereby our actions are governed according to the law, it resides in the will.
IЄ q. 21 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod veritas illa de qua loquitur philosophus ibi, est quaedam virtus per quam aliquis demonstrat se talem in dictis vel factis, qualis est. Et sic consistit in conformitate signi ad significatum, non autem in conformitate effectus ad causam et regulam, sicut de veritate iustitiae dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. The truth of which the Philosopher is speaking in this passage, is that virtue whereby a man shows himself in word and deed such as he really is. Thus it consists in the conformity of the sign with the thing signified; and not in that of the effect with its cause and rule: as has been said regarding the truth of justice.
IЄ q. 21 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod misericordia Deo non competat. Misericordia enim est species tristitiae, ut dicit Damascenus. Sed tristitia non est in Deo. Ergo nec misericordia.	Objection 1. It seems that mercy cannot be attributed to God. For mercy is a kind of sorrow, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 14). But there is no sorrow in God; and therefore there is no mercy in Him.
IЄ q. 21 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, misericordia est relaxatio iustitiae. Sed Deus non potest praetermittere id quod ad iustitiam suam pertinet. Dicitur enim II ad Tim. II, si non credimus, ille fidelis permanet, seipsum negare non potest, negaret autem seipsum, ut dicit Glossa ibidem, si dicta sua negaret. Ergo misericordia Deo non competit.	Objection 2. Further, mercy is a relaxation of justice. But God cannot remit what appertains to His justice. For it is said (2 Timothy 2:13): "If we believe not, He continueth faithful: He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself, as a gloss says, if He should deny His words. Therefore mercy is not becoming to God.
IЄ q. 21 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo CX, miserator et misericors dominus.	On the contrary, it is said (Psalm 110:4): "He is a merciful and gracious Lord."
IЄ q. 21 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod misericordia est Deo maxime attribuenda, tamen secundum effectum, non secundum passionis affectum. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod misericors dicitur aliquis quasi habens miserum cor, quia scilicet afficitur ex miseria alterius per tristitiam, ac si esset eius propria miseria. Et ex hoc sequitur quod operetur ad depellendam miseriam alterius, sicut miseriam propriam, et hic est misericordiae effectus. Tristari ergo de miseria alterius non competit Deo, sed repellere miseriam alterius, hoc maxime ei competit, ut per miseriam quemcumque defectum intelligamus. Defectus autem non tolluntur, nisi per alicuius bonitatis perfectionem, prima autem origo bonitatis Deus est, ut supra ostensum est. Sed considerandum est quod elargiri perfectiones rebus, pertinet quidem et ad bonitatem divinam, et ad iustitiam, et ad liberalitatem, et misericordiam, tamen secundum aliam et aliam rationem. Communicatio enim perfectionum, absolute considerata, pertinet ad bonitatem, ut supra ostensum est. Sed inquantum perfectiones rebus a Deo dantur secundum earum proportionem, pertinet ad iustitiam, ut dictum est supra. Inquantum vero non attribuit rebus perfectiones propter utilitatem suam, sed solum propter suam bonitatem, pertinet ad liberalitatem. Inquantum vero perfectiones datae rebus a Deo, omnem defectum expellunt, pertinet ad misericordiam.	I answer that, Mercy is especially to be attributed to God, as seen in its effect, but not as an affection of passion. In proof of which it must be considered that a person is said to be merciful [misericors], as being, so to speak, sorrowful at heart [miserum cor]; being affected with sorrow at the misery of another as though it were his own. Hence it follows that he endeavors to dispel the misery of this other, as if it were his; and this is the effect of mercy. To sorrow, therefore, over the misery of others belongs not to God; but it does most properly belong to Him to dispel that misery, whatever be the defect we call by that name. Now defects are not removed, except by the perfection of some kind of goodness; and the primary source of goodness is God, as shown above (6, 4). It must, however, be considered that to bestow perfections appertains not only to the divine goodness, but also to His justice, liberality, and mercy; yet under different aspects. The communicating of perfections, absolutely considered, appertains to goodness, as shown above (6, 1, 4); in so far as perfections are given to things in proportion, the bestowal of them belongs to justice, as has been already said (1); in so far as God does not bestow them for His own use, but only on account of His goodness, it belongs to liberality; in so far as perfections given to things by God expel defects, it belongs to mercy.
IЄ q. 21 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum igitur dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de misericordia, quantum ad passionis affectum.	Reply to Objection 1. This argument is based on mercy, regarded as an affection of passion.
IЄ q. 21 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus misericorditer agit, non quidem contra iustitiam suam faciendo, sed aliquid supra iustitiam operando, sicut si alicui cui debentur centum denarii, aliquis ducentos det de suo, tamen non contra iustitiam facit, sed liberaliter vel misericorditer operatur. Et similiter si aliquis offensam in se commissam remittat. Qui enim aliquid remittit, quodammodo donat illud, unde apostolus remissionem donationem vocat, Ephes. V, donate invicem, sicut et Christus vobis donavit. Ex quo patet quod misericordia non tollit iustitiam, sed est quaedam iustitiae plenitudo. Unde dicitur Iac. II, quod misericordia superexaltat iudicium.	Reply to Objection 2. God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: "Mercy exalteth itself above judgement" (James 2:13).
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non in omnibus Dei operibus sit misericordia et iustitia. Quaedam enim opera Dei attribuuntur misericordiae, ut iustificatio impii, quaedam vero iustitiae, ut damnatio impiorum. Unde dicitur Iac. II, iudicium sine misericordia fiet ei qui non fecerit misericordiam. Non ergo in omni opere Dei apparet misericordia et iustitia.	Objection 1. It seems that not in every work of God are mercy and justice. For some works of God are attributed to mercy, as the justification of the ungodly; and others to justice, as the damnation of the wicked. Hence it is said: "Judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy" (James 2:13). Therefore not in every work of God do mercy and justice appear.
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus, ad Rom. XV, conversionem Iudaeorum attribuit iustitiae et veritati; conversionem autem gentium, misericordiae. Ergo non in quolibet opere Dei est iustitia et misericordia.	Objection 2. Further, the Apostle attributes the conversion of the Jews to justice and truth, but that of the Gentiles to mercy (Rm. 15). Therefore not in every work of God are justice and mercy.
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, multi iusti in hoc mundo affliguntur. Hoc autem est iniustum. Non ergo in omni opere Dei est iustitia et misericordia.	Objection 3. Further, many just persons are afflicted in this world; which is unjust. Therefore not in every work of God are justice and mercy.
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, iustitiae est reddere debitum, misericordiae autem sublevare miseriam, et sic tam iustitia quam misericordia aliquid praesupponit in suo opere. Sed creatio nihil praesupponit. Ergo in creatione neque misericordia est, neque iustitia.	Objection 4. Further, it is the part of justice to pay what is due, but of mercy to relieve misery. Thus both justice and mercy presuppose something in their works: whereas creation presupposes nothing. Therefore in creation neither mercy nor justice is found.
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo XXIV, omnes viae domini misericordia et veritas.	On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth."
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est quod in quolibet opere Dei misericordia et veritas inveniantur; si tamen misericordia pro remotione cuiuscumque defectus accipiatur; quamvis non omnis defectus proprie possit dici miseria, sed solum defectus rationalis naturae, quam contingit esse felicem; nam miseria felicitati opponitur. Huius autem necessitatis ratio est, quia, cum debitum quod ex divina iustitia redditur, sit vel debitum Deo, vel debitum alicui creaturae, neutrum potest in aliquo opere Dei praetermitti. Non enim potest facere aliquid Deus, quod non sit conveniens sapientiae et bonitati ipsius; secundum quem modum diximus aliquid esse debitum Deo. Similiter etiam quidquid in rebus creatis facit, secundum convenientem ordinem et proportionem facit; in quo consistit ratio iustitiae. Et sic oportet in omni opere Dei esse iustitiam. Opus autem divinae iustitiae semper praesupponit opus misericordiae, et in eo fundatur. Creaturae enim non debetur aliquid, nisi propter aliquid in eo praeexistens, vel praeconsideratum, et rursus, si illud creaturae debetur, hoc erit propter aliquid prius. Et cum non sit procedere in infinitum, oportet devenire ad aliquid quod ex sola bonitate divinae voluntatis dependeat, quae est ultimus finis. Utpote si dicamus quod habere manus debitum est homini propter animam rationalem; animam vero rationalem habere, ad hoc quod sit homo; hominem vero esse, propter divinam bonitatem. Et sic in quolibet opere Dei apparet misericordia, quantum ad primam radicem eius. Cuius virtus salvatur in omnibus consequentibus; et etiam vehementius in eis operatur, sicut causa primaria vehementius influit quam causa secunda. Et propter hoc etiam ea quae alicui creaturae debentur, Deus, ex abundantia suae bonitatis, largius dispensat quam exigat proportio rei. Minus enim est quod sufficeret ad conservandum ordinem iustitiae, quam quod divina bonitas confert, quae omnem proportionem creaturae excedit.	I answer that, Mercy and truth are necessarily found in all God's works, if mercy be taken to mean the removal of any kind of defect. Not every defect, however, can properly be called a misery; but only defect in a rational nature whose lot is to be happy; for misery is opposed to happiness. For this necessity there is a reason, because since a debt paid according to the divine justice is one due either to God, or to some creature, neither the one nor the other can be lacking in any work of God: because God can do nothing that is not in accord with His wisdom and goodness; and it is in this sense, as we have said, that anything is due to God. Likewise, whatever is done by Him in created things, is done according to proper order and proportion wherein consists the idea of justice. Thus justice must exist in all God's works. Now the work of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy; and is founded thereupon. For nothing is due to creatures, except for something pre-existing in them, or foreknown. Again, if this is due to a creature, it must be due on account of something that precedes. And since we cannot go on to infinity, we must come to something that depends only on the goodness of the divine will--which is the ultimate end. We may say, for instance, that to possess hands is due to man on account of his rational soul; and his rational soul is due to him that he may be man; and his being man is on account of the divine goodness. So in every work of God, viewed at its primary source, there appears mercy. In all that follows, the power of mercy remains, and works indeed with even greater force; as the influence of the first cause is more intense than that of second causes. For this reason does God out of abundance of His goodness bestow upon creatures what is due to them more bountifully than is proportionate to their deserts: since less would suffice for preserving the order of justice than what the divine goodness confers; because between creatures and God's goodness there can be no proportion.
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quaedam opera attribuuntur iustitiae et quaedam misericordiae, quia in quibusdam vehementius apparet iustitia, in quibusdam misericordia. Et tamen in damnatione reproborum apparet misericordia, non quidem totaliter relaxans, sed aliqualiter allevians, dum punit citra condignum. Et in iustificatione impii apparet iustitia, dum culpas relaxat propter dilectionem, quam tamen ipse misericorditer infundit, sicut de Magdalena legitur, Luc. VII, dimissa sunt ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum.	Reply to Objection 1. Certain works are attributed to justice, and certain others to mercy, because in some justice appears more forcibly and in others mercy. Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved. In the justification of the ungodly, justice is seen, when God remits sins on account of love, though He Himself has mercifully infused that love. So we read of Magdalen: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much" (Luke 7:47).
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod iustitia et misericordia Dei apparet in conversione Iudaeorum et gentium, sed aliqua ratio iustitiae apparet in conversione Iudaeorum, quae non apparet in conversione gentium, sicut quod salvati sunt propter promissiones patribus factas.	Reply to Objection 2. God's justice and mercy appear both in the conversion of the Jews and of the Gentiles. But an aspect of justice appears in the conversion of the Jews which is not seen in the conversion of the Gentiles; inasmuch as the Jews were saved on account of the promises made to the fathers.
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in hoc etiam quod iusti puniuntur in hoc mundo, apparet iustitia et misericordia; inquantum per huiusmodi afflictiones aliqua levia in eis purgantur, et ab affectu terrenorum in Deum magis eriguntur; secundum illud Gregorii, mala quae in hoc mundo nos premunt, ad Deum nos ire compellunt.	Reply to Objection 3. Justice and mercy appear in the punishment of the just in this world, since by afflictions lesser faults are cleansed in them, and they are the more raised up from earthly affections to God. As to this Gregory says (Moral. xxvi, 9): "The evils that press on us in this world force us to go to God."
IЄ q. 21 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet creationi non praesupponatur aliquid in rerum natura, praesupponitur tamen aliquid in Dei cognitione. Et secundum hoc etiam salvatur ibi ratio iustitiae, inquantum res in esse producitur, secundum quod convenit divinae sapientiae et bonitati. Et salvatur quodammodo ratio misericordiae, inquantum res de non esse in esse mutatur.	Reply to Objection 4. Although creation presupposes nothing in the universe; yet it does presuppose something in the knowledge of God. In this way too the idea of justice is preserved in creation; by the production of beings in a manner that accords with the divine wisdom and goodness. And the idea of mercy, also, is preserved in the change of creatures from non-existence to existence.

Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-19-21

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

semantic

Site statistics

Tools

Search