Article — Billuart, Summa Summae · from Schola Thomistica
On the motive of the will as to exercise
Note that it is one thing for the will to act or to will, another for the will to move itself. The will is said to act simply, when it elicits a volition. It is said properly to move itself, when it passes from one act into another, as while from volition of the end it applies itself to acting for its attainment; for each thing moves insofar as it is in act. These things noted,
Nota quod aliud sit voluntatem agere seu velle, aliud voluntatem se movere. Voluntas dicitur agere simpliciter, quando volitionem elicit. Dicitur se movere proprie, quando ex uno actu procedit in alium, ut dum ex volitione finis se applicat ad agendum pro ejus consecutione; nam unumquodque in tantum movet, in quantum est in actu. His notatis,
I say 1°: The will moves itself as to exercise in certain acts3. 3 Ibid., a. 3, o.
Dico 1° : Voluntas seipsam movet quoad exercitium in aliquibus actibus3. 3 Ibid., a. 3, o.
Proof. The end holds itself in desirable things as the principle in intelligibles. But the intellect, by the fact that it knows the principle, reduces itself from potency into act, as to the knowledge of conclusions, and in this mode moves itself. Therefore similarly the will, by the fact that it wills the end, moves itself to willing those things which are unto the end.
Prob. Sic se habet finis in appetibilibus, sicut principium in intelligibilibus. Atqui intellectus, per hoc quod cognoscit principium, reducit seipsum de potentia in actum, quantum ad cognitionem conclusionum, et hoc modo movet seipsum. Ergo similiter voluntas per hoc quod vult finem, movet seipsam ad volendum ea quae sunt ad finem.
You will say, according to the common axiom: « Whatever is moved is moved by another. » Therefore the will is not moved by itself.
Dices, juxta commune axioma : « Omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur. » Ergo voluntas non movetur a seipsa.
I answer. I deny the consequence. Because self-moving and being moved by another stand together. « When something moves itself, says the Author, q. 3 de Malo, a. 2, ad 4, it is not excluded that it be moved by another, from which it has this very thing that it move itself, namely from God. »
Resp. Nego consequentiam. Quia stant simul se movere, et ab alio moveri. « Cum aliquid movet seipsum, inquit Author, q. 3 de Malo, a. 2, ad 4, non excluditur quin ab alio moveatur, a quo habet hoc ipsum quod seipsum moveat, scilicet a Deo. »
I say 2°: The will, in the first volition of the end simply and with respect to the whole of life, does not move itself as to exercise, but is moved by God1. 1 Ibid., a. 4, o.
Dico 2° : Voluntas, in prima volitione finis simpliciter et respectu totius vitae, non se movet quoad exercitium, sed movetur a Deo1. 1 Ibid., a. 4, o.
Proof 1°. What is in potency needs to be moved by what is in act; because, as I already said, a thing moves insofar as it is in act, and is moved insofar as it is in potency. But the will with respect to the first volition simply is not in act, otherwise it would not be first volition. Therefore.
Prob. 1°. Quod est in potentia, indiget moveri ab eo quod est in actu; quia, ut jam dixi, in tantum aliquid movet, in quantum est in actu, et in tantum movetur, in quantum est in potentia. Atqui voluntas respectu primae volitionis simpliciter non est in actu, alias non foret prima volitio. Ergo.
2°. In every life, the first motion of that life is from the generator, as appears in the motion of the heart. But God is author and begetter of intellectual life. Therefore the first motion of that life, namely the first cognition of the intellect and the first volition of the will, is specially from God.
2°. In omni vita, primus motus illius vitae est a generante, ut patet in motu cordis. Atqui Deus est author et genitor vitae intellectualis. Ergo primus motus illius vitae, scilicet prima cognitio intellectus, et prima volitio voluntatis, est specialiter a Deo.
Beware however lest thence you infer that God moves the will only unto the first volition, and not unto its other volitions. Indeed he moves unto the first volition with a special motion which supplies the prior act from which the will would move itself and apply itself to the subsequent act; but moreover, as first mover and first universal cause, he moves the will unto all its volitions, inasmuch as it is a second cause subordinate to the first, of itself indifferent and active only in first act, as is broadly proved in philosophy concerning physical premotion.
Cave tamen ne inde inferas, Deum movere dumtaxat voluntatem ad primam volitionem, et non ad alias ejus volitiones. Equidem movet ad primam volitionem et speciali motione quae suppleat actum priorem ex quo voluntas se moveret, et ad actum sequentem se applicaret; at insuper, ut primus motor et prima universalis causa, movet voluntatem ad omnes suas volitiones, quatenus est secunda causa primae subordinata, de se indifferens et activa tantum in actu primo, ut late probatur in philosophia, de praemotione physica.
You will say: Man can sin in the first instant of reason. Therefore he moves himself in it; otherwise sin would be refunded into God.
Dices : Homo potest peccare in primo instanti rationis. Ergo in eo se movet; alias peccatum refunderetur in Deum.
I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. Man can sin in the first instant initiating the use of reason; I deny; terminating, I concede. The instant of acquired use of reason through discourse is moral, consisting of several physical instants. In the first, man specially moved by God does not move himself, nor can he sin; in the following, now posited in act, moving himself, he can sin.
Resp. Dist. ant. Homo potest peccare in primo instanti initiativo usus rationis, nego; terminativo, conc. Instans usus rationis acquisitus per discursum est morale, constans pluribus instantibus physicis. In primo, homo specialiter motus a Deo non se movet, nec peccare potest; in sequenti, jam in actu positus, ut se movens, peccare potest.
I say 3°: The use of reason supposed, when new affairs begin and a new end is intended, unto its first volition thereof the will sometimes moves not itself, but is moved by God, namely when in the will no act preceded having connection with this new end, but there are rather contrary dispositions; as when God specially and suddenly moves an infidel to faith, a sinner to penance1. Sometimes indeed it moves itself, namely when some act or effect preceded having connection with that new affair. 1 Here q. 9, a. 6, ad 3.
Dico 3° : Supposito usu rationis, quando nova negotia incipiunt, et novus finis intenditur, ad primam ejus volitionem voluntas quandoque se non movet, sed a Deo movetur, quando scilicet in voluntate nullus praecessit actus habens connexionem cum isto novo fine, sed sunt potius dispositiones contraria; ut cum Deus specialiter et subito movet infidelem ad fidem, peccatorem ad poenitentiam1. Quandoque vero se movet, quando scilicet praecessit aliquis actus vel effectus habens connexionem cum illo novo negotio. 1 Hic q. 9, a. 6, ad 3.
To many it gives trouble the reply which St. Thomas has here, a. 6, ad 3, wherein he says: « God moves the will of man, as universal mover, to the universal object of the will which is good, and without this universal motion man cannot will anything; but man determines himself by reason to will this or that which is true good or apparent good. Yet sometimes God specially moves some to will something determinately, which is good, as in those whom he moves by grace, as will be said below. » From which reply not a few infer that St. Thomas admits not physical premotion unto all acts, but only unto good ones.
Multis facessit negotium responsio quam habet hic S. Thomas, a. 6, ad 3, in qua dicit : « Deus movet voluntatem hominis, sicut universalis motor, ad universale objectum voluntatis quod est bonum, et sine hac universali motione homo non potest aliquid velle ; sed homo per rationem se determinat ad volendum hoc vel illud quod est vere bonum vel apparens bonum. Sed tamen interdum specialiter Deus movet aliquos ad aliquid determinate volendum, quod est bonum, sicut in his quos movet per gratiam, ut infra dicetur. » Ex qua responsione non pauci inferunt, S. Thomam non admittere praemotionem physicam ad omnes actus, sed tantum ad bonos.
But this understanding diametrically repugns the constant doctrine of St. Thomas in almost innumerable places, nor is it the legitimate [understanding] of the present text. And so by the first motion, in that reply, the holy Doctor understands not that common motion whereby God, as first mover, moves all secondary causes subordinated to himself, and whereby thus secondary causes are moved so as to move themselves; but he understands that singular motion whereby God so moves the will to the first volition of the end that it moves not itself, whereof he had spoken at a. 4, and we said a little above. Indeed St. Thomas calls this motion universal, both because it is of the universal mover, both because it is unto the universal object of the will which is good, both because it is universally necessary to every first agent cause. We however called it above special or singular, not that we might exclude those universals, but that we might signify that it adds something above the common, namely that it supplies the prior act from which the will itself could move itself, which the general or common motion required unto all other actions of secondary causes does not do.
Verum haec intelligentia diametraliter repugnat constanti doctrinae D. Thomae in innumeris pene locis, neque legitima est praesentis textus. Itaque per primam motionem, in ista responsione, S. Doctor non intelligit illam motionem communem qua Deus, ut primus motor, movet omnes causas secundas sibi subordinatas, et qua sic causae secundae moventur ut se moveant; sed intelligit singularem illam motionem qua Deus ita movet voluntatem ad primam volitionem finis, ut ipsa se non moveat, de qua dixerat a. 4, et nos diximus paulo superius. Vocat quidem S. Thomas hanc motionem universalem, tum quia est motoris universalis, tum quia est ad universale objectum voluntatis quod est bonum, tum quia est universaliter necessaria omni causae primo agenti. Nos autem diximus supra specialem seu singularem, non ut excluderamus istas universalitates, sed ut significaremus eam addere aliquid supra communem, scilicet quod suppleat actum priorem ex quo voluntas ipsa possit se movere, quod non facit generalis seu communis motio requisita ad omnes alias actiones causarum secundarum.
But when the holy Doctor subjoins: « But man determines himself by reason to will this or that which is true good or apparent good, » he excludes not the common motion whereby God, as first mover, so moves secondary causes that they also move themselves, but that singular motion whereby he so moves the will that it move not itself. And thus he satisfies the argument which he objects to himself, namely that « if the will were moved by God alone, it would never be moved to evil. » A distinction must be made. If the will were moved by God alone, so that it would not move itself, it would never be moved to evil; I concede; if it is so moved by God that it also moves itself, I deny. For from the fact that under the common motion of God the will also moves itself, it can move itself to evil or apparent good; and this is refunded into the defectible cause itself, not into the first indefectible, as will be expounded elsewhere.
Quando autem S. Doctor subdit : « Sed homo per rationem determinat se ad volendum hoc vel illud quod est vere bonum vel apparens bonum, » non excludit motionem communem qua Deus, ut primus motor, sic movet causas secundas, ut etiam se moveant, sed illam singularem motionem qua voluntatem sic movet, ut ipsa se non moveat. Et sic satisfacit argumento quod sibi objicit, nempe quod, « si a solo Deo voluntas moveretur, nunquam moveretur ad malum. » Distinguendum est. Si a solo Deo voluntas moveretur, sic ut se non moveret, nunquam moveretur ad malum, conc.; si sic a Deo moveretur, ut etiam se moveat, nego. Ex hoc enim quod sub communi Dei motione voluntas se etiam moveat, se movere potest ad malum seu apparens bonum; idque refunditur in ipsam causam defectibilem, non in primam indefectibilem, ut alias explicabitur.
Finally, when St. Thomas adds: « Yet sometimes God specially moves some to will something determinately, which is good, as in those whom he moves by grace, » the sense is that, as God moves us to good as such without our moving ourselves to it, so sometimes he specially moves us to a determinate particular good, without our moving ourselves to it: as in those whom he moves by operative grace, e.g., infidels to faith, sinners to penance, thinking nothing at all of faith or penance. But this singular motion, as appears from what has been said, excludes neither cooperating graces unto other supernatural acts, nor common motions unto other natural acts, whereby man is so moved that he also moves himself.
Tandem, quando addit S. Thomas : « Sed interdum specialiter Deus movet aliquos ad aliquid determinate volendum, quod est bonum, sicut in his quos movet per gratiam, » sensus est quod, sicut Deus nos movet ad bonum, ut sic, absque eo quod ad illud nos moveamus, ita quandoque specialiter nos movet ad bonum particulare determinatum, absque eo quod ad illud nos moveamus : sicut in his quos movet per gratiam operantem, v. g., infideles ad fidem, peccatores ad poenitentiam, nihil prorsus de fide aut poenitentia cogitantes. At haec singularis motio, ut patet ex dictis, non excludit gratias cooperantes ad alios actus supernaturales, neque motiones communes ad alios actus naturales, a quibus homo sic movetur, ut etiam se moveat.