Summa Theologica Part II (Pars Prima Secundae) Part 182

_I answer that,_ There are three ways of knowing a thing: first, by revelation, and thus anyone may know that he has grace, for G.o.d by a special privilege reveals this at times to some, in order that the joy of safety may begin in them even in this life, and that they may carry on toilsome works with greater trust and greater energy, and may bear the evils of this present life, as when it was said to Paul (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee."

Secondly, a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty; and in this way no one can know that he has grace. For cert.i.tude about a thing can only be had when we may judge of it by its proper principle. Thus it is by undemonstrable universal principles that cert.i.tude is obtained concerning demonstrative conclusions. Now no one can know he has the knowledge of a conclusion if he does not know its principle. But the principle of grace and its object is G.o.d, Who by reason of His very excellence is unknown to us, according to Job 36:26: "Behold G.o.d is great, exceeding our knowledge." And hence His presence in us and His absence cannot be known with certainty, according to Job 9:11: "If He come to me, I shall not see Him; if He depart I shall not understand." And hence man cannot judge with certainty that he has grace, according to 1 Cor. 4:3, 4: "But neither do I judge my own self ... but He that judgeth me is the Lord."

Thirdly, things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in G.o.d, and of despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin. And thus it is written (Apoc. 2:17): "To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna ... which no man knoweth, but he that receiveth it," because whoever receives it knows, by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it, does not experience. Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified," since, according to Ps. 18:13: "Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from those of others spare Thy servant."

Reply Obj. 1: Those things which are in the soul by their physical reality, are known through experimental knowledge; in so far as through acts man has experience of their inward principles: thus when we wish, we perceive that we have a will; and when we exercise the functions of life, we observe that there is life in us.

Reply Obj. 2: It is an essential condition of knowledge that a man should have cert.i.tude of the objects of knowledge; and again, it is an essential condition of faith that a man should be certain of the things of faith, and this, because cert.i.tude belongs to the perfection of the intellect, wherein these gifts exist. Hence, whoever has knowledge or faith is certain that he has them. But it is otherwise with grace and charity and such like, which perfect the appet.i.tive faculty.

Reply Obj. 3: Sin has for its princ.i.p.al object commutable good, which is known to us. But the object or end of grace is unknown to us on account of the greatness of its light, according to 1 Tim. 6:16: "Who ... inhabiteth light inaccessible."

Reply Obj. 4: The Apostle is here speaking of the gifts of glory, which have been given to us in hope, and these we know most certainly by faith, although we do not know for certain that we have grace to enable us to merit them. Or it may be said that he is speaking of the privileged knowledge, which comes of revelation. Hence he adds (1 Cor. 2:10): "But to us G.o.d hath revealed them by His Spirit."

Reply Obj. 5: What was said to Abraham may refer to experimental knowledge which springs from deeds of which we are cognizant. For in the deed that Abraham had just wrought, he could know experimentally that he had the fear of G.o.d. Or it may refer to a revelation.

________________________

QUESTION 113

OF THE EFFECTS OF GRACE (In Ten Articles)

We have now to consider the effect of grace; (1) the justification of the unG.o.dly, which is the effect of operating grace; and (2) merit, which is the effect of cooperating grace. Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) What is the justification of the unG.o.dly?

(2) Whether grace is required for it?

(3) Whether any movement of the free-will is required?

(4) Whether a movement of faith is required?

(5) Whether a movement of the free-will against sin is required?

(6) Whether the remission of sins is to be reckoned with the foregoing?

(7) Whether the justification of the unG.o.dly is a work of time or is sudden?

(8) Of the natural order of the things concurring to justification;

(9) Whether the justification of the unG.o.dly is G.o.d's greatest work?

(10) Whether the justification of the unG.o.dly is miraculous?

________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 1]

Whether the Justification of the UnG.o.dly Is the Remission of Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that the justification of the unG.o.dly is not the remission of sins. For sin is opposed not only to justice, but to all the other virtues, as stated above (Q. 71, A. 1). Now justification signifies a certain movement towards justice. Therefore not even remission of sin is justification, since movement is from one contrary to the other.

Obj. 2: Further, everything ought to be named from what is predominant in it, according to _De Anima_ ii, text. 49. Now the remission of sins is brought about chiefly by faith, according to Acts 15:9: "Purifying their hearts by faith"; and by charity, according to Prov. 10:12: "Charity covereth all sins." Therefore the remission of sins ought to be named after faith or charity rather than justice.

Obj. 3: Further, the remission of sins seems to be the same as being called, for whoever is called is afar off, and we are afar off from G.o.d by sin. But one is called before being justified according to Rom. 8:30: "And whom He called, them He also justified." Therefore justification is not the remission of sins.

_On the contrary,_ On Rom. 8:30, "Whom He called, them He also justified," the gloss says i.e. "by the remission of sins." Therefore the remission of sins is justification.

_I answer that,_ Justification taken pa.s.sively implies a movement towards justice, as heating implies a movement towards heat. But since justice, by its nature, implies a certain rect.i.tude of order, it may be taken in two ways: first, inasmuch as it implies a right order in man's act, and thus justice is placed amongst the virtues--either as particular justice, which directs a man's acts by regulating them in relation to his fellowman--or as legal justice, which directs a man's acts by regulating them in their relation to the common good of society, as appears from _Ethic._ v, 1.

Secondly, justice is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain rect.i.tude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as what is highest in man is subject to G.o.d, and the inferior powers of the soul are subject to the superior, i.e. to the reason; and this disposition the Philosopher calls "justice metaphorically speaking"

(Ethic. v, 11). Now this justice may be in man in two ways: first, by simple generation, which is from privation to form; and thus justification may belong even to such as are not in sin, when they receive this justice from G.o.d, as Adam is said to have received original justice. Secondly, this justice may be brought about in man by a movement from one contrary to the other, and thus justification implies a trans.m.u.tation from the state of injustice to the aforesaid state of justice. And it is thus we are now speaking of the justification of the unG.o.dly, according to the Apostle (Rom. 4:5): "But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the unG.o.dly," etc. And because movement is named after its term _whereto_ rather than from its term _whence,_ the trans.m.u.tation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of unG.o.dliness to the state of justice, borrows its name from its term _whereto,_ and is called "justification of the unG.o.dly."

Reply Obj. 1: Every sin, inasmuch as it implies the disorder of a mind not subject to G.o.d, may be called injustice, as being contrary to the aforesaid justice, according to 1 John 3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity." And thus the removal of any sin is called the justification of the unG.o.dly.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith and charity imply a special directing of the human mind to G.o.d by the intellect and will; whereas justice implies a general rect.i.tude of order. Hence this trans.m.u.tation is named after justice rather than after charity or faith.

Reply Obj. 3: Being called refers to G.o.d's help moving and exciting our mind to give up sin, and this motion of G.o.d is not the remission of sins, but its cause.

________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 2]

Whether the Infusion of Grace Is Required for the Remission of Guilt, i.e., for the Justification of the UnG.o.dly?

Objection 1: It would seem that for the remission of guilt, which is the justification of the unG.o.dly, no infusion of grace is required.

For anyone may be moved from one contrary without being led to the other, if the contraries are not immediate. Now the state of guilt and the state of grace are not immediate contraries; for there is the middle state of innocence wherein a man has neither grace nor guilt.

Hence a man may be pardoned his guilt without his being brought to a state of grace.

Obj. 2: Further, the remission of guilt consists in the Divine imputation, according to Ps. 31:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin." Now the infusion of grace puts something into our soul, as stated above (Q. 110, A. 1). Hence the infusion of grace is not required for the remission of guilt.

Obj. 3: Further, no one can be subject to two contraries at once. Now some sins are contraries, as wastefulness and miserliness. Hence whoever is subject to the sin of wastefulness is not simultaneously subject to the sin of miserliness, yet it may happen that he has been subject to it hitherto. Hence by sinning with the vice of wastefulness he is freed from the sin of miserliness. And thus a sin is remitted without grace.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 3:24): "Justified freely by His grace."

_I answer that,_ by sinning a man offends G.o.d as stated above (Q. 71, A. 5). Now an offense is remitted to anyone, only when the soul of the offender is at peace with the offended. Hence sin is remitted to us, when G.o.d is at peace with us, and this peace consists in the love whereby G.o.d loves us. Now G.o.d's love, considered on the part of the Divine act, is eternal and unchangeable; whereas, as regards the effect it imprints on us, it is sometimes interrupted, inasmuch as we sometimes fall short of it and once more require it. Now the effect of the Divine love in us, which is taken away by sin, is grace, whereby a man is made worthy of eternal life, from which sin shuts him out. Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without the infusion of grace.

Reply Obj. 1: More is required for an offender to pardon an offense, than for one who has committed no offense, not to be hated. For it may happen amongst men that one man neither hates nor loves another.

But if the other offends him, then the forgiveness of the offense can only spring from a special goodwill. Now G.o.d's goodwill is said to be restored to man by the gift of grace; and hence although a man before sinning may be without grace and without guilt, yet that he is without guilt after sinning can only be because he has grace.

Reply Obj. 2: As G.o.d's love consists not merely in the act of the Divine will but also implies a certain effect of grace, as stated above (Q. 110, A. 1), so likewise, when G.o.d does not impute sin to a man, there is implied a certain effect in him to whom the sin is not imputed; for it proceeds from the Divine love, that sin is not imputed to a man by G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i, 26), if to leave off sinning was the same as to have no sin, it would be enough if Scripture warned us thus: "'My son, hast thou sinned? do so no more?' Now this is not enough, but it is added: 'But for thy former sins also pray that they may be forgiven thee.'" For the act of sin pa.s.ses, but the guilt remains, as stated above (Q. 87, A. 6). Hence when anyone pa.s.ses from the sin of one vice to the sin of a contrary vice, he ceases to have the act of the former sin, but he does not cease to have the guilt, hence he may have the guilt of both sins at once. For sins are not contrary to each other on the part of their turning from G.o.d, wherein sin has its guilt.

________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 113, Art. 3]

Whether for the Justification of the UnG.o.dly Is Required a Movement of the Free-will?

Objection 1: It would seem that no movement of the free-will is required for the justification of the unG.o.dly. For we see that by the sacrament of Baptism, infants and sometimes adults are justified without a movement of their free-will: hence Augustine says (Confess.

iv) that when one of his friends was taken with a fever, "he lay for a long time senseless and in a deadly sweat, and when he was despaired of, he was baptized without his knowing, and was regenerated"; which is effected by sanctifying grace. Now G.o.d does not confine His power to the sacraments. Hence He can justify a man without the sacraments, and without any movement of the free-will.

Obj. 2: Further, a man has not the use of reason when asleep, and without it there can be no movement of the free-will. But Solomon received from G.o.d the gift of wisdom when asleep, as related in 3 Kings 3 and 2 Paral 1. Hence with equal reason the gift of sanctifying grace is sometimes bestowed by G.o.d on man without the movement of his free-will.