Prima Secundae · The Last End: Happiness

Of the Attainment of Happiness

I-II, q. 5 · Eight articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de ipsa adeptione beatitudinis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum homo possit consequi beatitudinem. Secundo, utrum unus homo possit esse alio beatior. Tertio, utrum aliquis possit esse in hac vita beatus. Quarto, utrum beatitudo habita possit amitti. Quinto, utrum, homo per sua naturalia possit acquirere beatitudinem. Sexto, utrum homo consequatur beatitudinem per actionem alicuius superioris creaturae. Septimo, utrum requirantur opera hominis aliqua ad hoc quod homo beatitudinem consequatur a Deo. Octavo, utrum omnis homo appetat beatitudinem.

We must now consider the attainment of Happiness. Under this heading there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether man can attain Happiness?

(2) Whether one man can be happier than another?

(3) Whether any man can be happy in this life?

(4) Whether Happiness once had can be lost?

(5) Whether man can attain Happiness by means of his natural powers?

(6) Whether man attains Happiness through the action of some higher creature?

(7) Whether any actions of man are necessary in order that man may obtain Happiness of God?

(8) Whether every man desires Happiness?

1 Whether Man Can Attain Happiness?
2 Whether One Man Can Be Happier Than Another?
3 Whether One Can Be Happy in This Life?
4 Whether Happiness Once Had Can Be Lost?
5 Whether Man Can Attain Happiness by His Natural Powers?
6 Whether Man Attains Happiness Through the Action of Some Higher Creature?
7 Whether Any Good Works Are Necessary That Man May Receive Happiness from God?
8 Whether Every Man Desires Happiness?

Articulus I

Whether Man Can Attain Happiness?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo beatitudinem adipisci non possit. Sicut enim natura rationalis est supra sensibilem ita natura intellectualis est supra rationalem ut patet per Dionysium in libro de Div. Nom., in multis locis. Sed bruta animalia, quae habent naturam sensibilem tantum, non possunt pervenire ad finem rationalis naturae. Ergo nec homo, qui est rationalis naturae, potest pervenire ad finem intellectualis naturae, qui est beatitudo.

It would seem that man cannot attain happiness. For just as the rational is above the sensible nature, so the intellectual is above the rational, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv, vi, vii) in several passages. But irrational animals that have the sensitive nature only, cannot attain the end of the rational nature. Therefore neither can man, who is of rational nature, attain the end of the intellectual nature, which is Happiness.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, beatitudo vera consistit in visione Dei, qui est veritas pura. Sed homini est connaturale ut veritatem intueatur in rebus materialibus, unde species intelligibiles in phantasmatibus intelligit, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo non potest ad beatitudinem pervenire.

Further, True Happiness consists in seeing God, Who is pure Truth. But from his very nature, man considers truth in material things: wherefore "he understands the intelligible species in the phantasm" (De Anima iii, 7). Therefore he cannot attain Happiness.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, beatitudo consistit in adeptione summi boni. Sed aliquis non potest pervenire ad summum, nisi transcendat media. Cum igitur inter Deum et naturam humanam media sit natura angelica, quam homo transcendere non potest; videtur quod non possit beatitudinem adipisci.

Further, Happiness consists in attaining the Sovereign Good. But we cannot arrive at the top without surmounting the middle. Since, therefore, the angelic nature through which man cannot mount is midway between God and human nature; it seems that he cannot attain Happiness.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo XCIII, beatus homo quem tu erudieris, domine.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 93:12): "Blessed is the man whom Thou shalt instruct, O Lord."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo nominat adeptionem perfecti boni. Quicumque ergo est capax perfecti boni, potest ad beatitudinem pervenire. Quod autem homo perfecti boni sit capax, ex hoc apparet, quia et eius intellectus apprehendere potest universale et perfectum bonum, et eius voluntas appetere illud. Et ideo homo potest beatitudinem adipisci. Apparet etiam idem ex hoc quod homo est capax visionis divinae essentiae, sicut in primo habitum est; in qua quidem visione perfectam hominis beatitudinem consistere diximus.

I answer that, Happiness is the attainment of the Perfect Good. Whoever, therefore, is capable of the Perfect Good can attain Happiness. Now, that man is capable of the Perfect Good, is proved both because his intellect can apprehend the universal and perfect good, and because his will can desire it. And therefore man can attain Happiness. This can be proved again from the fact that man is capable of seeing God, as stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 1): in which vision, as we stated above (Q. 3, A. 8) man's perfect Happiness consists.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliter excedit natura rationalis sensitivam, et aliter intellectualis rationalem. Natura enim rationalis excedit sensitivam quantum ad cognitionis obiectum, quia sensus nullo modo potest cognoscere universale, cuius ratio est cognoscitiva. Sed intellectualis natura excedit rationalem quantum ad modum cognoscendi eandem intelligibilem veritatem, nam intellectualis natura statim apprehendit veritatem, ad quam rationalis natura per inquisitionem rationis pertingit, ut patet ex his quae in primo dicta sunt. Et ideo ad id quod intellectus apprehendit, ratio per quendam motum pertingit. Unde rationalis natura consequi potest beatitudinem, quae est perfectio intellectualis naturae, tamen alio modo quam Angeli. Nam Angeli consecuti sunt eam statim post principium suae conditionis, homines autem per tempus ad ipsam perveniunt. Sed natura sensitiva ad hunc finem nullo modo pertingere potest.

The rational exceeds the sensitive nature, otherwise than the intellectual surpasses the rational. For the rational exceeds the sensitive nature in respect of the object of its knowledge: since the senses have no knowledge whatever of the universal, whereas the reason has knowledge thereof. But the intellectual surpasses the rational nature, as to the mode of knowing the same intelligible truth: for the intellectual nature grasps forthwith the truth which the rational nature reaches by the inquiry of reason, as was made clear in the First Part (Q. 58, A. 3; Q. 79, A. 8). Therefore reason arrives by a kind of movement at that which the intellect grasps. Consequently the rational nature can attain Happiness, which is the perfection of the intellectual nature: but otherwise than the angels. Because the angels attained it forthwith after the beginning of their creation: whereas man attains if after a time. But the sensitive nature can nowise attain this end.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod homini, secundum statum praesentis vitae, est connaturalis modus cognoscendi veritatem intelligibilem per phantasmata. Sed post huius vitae statum, habet alium modum connaturalem, ut in primo dictum est.

To man in the present state of life the natural way of knowing intelligible truth is by means of phantasms. But after this state of life, he has another natural way, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 84, A. 7; Q. 89, A. 1).

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod homo non potest transcendere Angelos gradu naturae, ut scilicet naturaliter sit eis superior. Potest tamen eos transcendere per operationem intellectus, dum intelligit aliquid super Angelos esse, quod homines beatificat; quod cum perfecte consequetur, perfecte beatus erit.

Man cannot surmount the angels in the degree of nature so as to be above them naturally. But he can surmount them by an operation of the intellect, by understanding that there is above the angels something that makes men happy; and when he has attained it, he will be perfectly happy.

Articulus II

Whether One Man Can Be Happier Than Another?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unus homo alio non possit esse beatior. Beatitudo enim est praemium virtutis, ut philosophus dicit in I Ethic. Sed pro operibus virtutum omnibus aequalis merces redditur, dicitur enim Matth. XX, quod omnes qui operati sunt in vinea, acceperunt singulos denarios; quia, ut dicit Gregorius, aequalem aeternae vitae retributionem sortiti sunt. Ergo unus non erit alio beatior.

It would seem that one man cannot be happier than another. For Happiness is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 9). But equal reward is given for all the works of virtue; because it is written (Matt. 20:10) that all who labor in the vineyard "received every man a penny"; for, as Gregory says (Hom. xix in Evang.), "each was equally rewarded with eternal life." Therefore one man cannot be happier than another.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, beatitudo est summum bonum. Sed summo non potest esse aliquid maius. Ergo beatitudine unius hominis non potest esse alia maior beatitudo.

Further, Happiness is the supreme good. But nothing can surpass the supreme. Therefore one man's Happiness cannot be surpassed by another's.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, beatitudo, cum sit perfectum et sufficiens bonum, desiderium hominis quietat. Sed non quietatur desiderium, si aliquod bonum deest quod suppleri possit. Si autem nihil deest quod suppleri possit, non poterit esse aliquid aliud maius bonum. Ergo vel homo non est beatus, vel, si est beatus, non potest alia maior beatitudo esse.

Further, since Happiness is "the perfect and sufficient good" (Ethic. i, 7) it brings rest to man's desire. But his desire is not at rest, if he yet lacks some good that can be got. And if he lack nothing that he can get, there can be no still greater good. Therefore either man is not happy; or, if he be happy, no other Happiness can be greater.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. XIV, in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt; per quas, ut Augustinus dicit, diversae meritorum dignitates intelliguntur in vita aeterna. Dignitas autem vitae aeternae, quae pro merito datur, est ipsa beatitudo. Ergo sunt diversi gradus beatitudinis, et non omnium est aequalis beatitudo.

On the contrary, It is written (John 14:2): "In My Father's house there are many mansions"; which, according to Augustine (Tract. lxvii in Joan.) signify "the diverse dignities of merits in the one eternal life." But the dignity of eternal life which is given according to merit, is Happiness itself. Therefore there are diverse degrees of Happiness, and Happiness is not equally in all.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in ratione beatitudinis duo includuntur, scilicet ipse finis ultimus, qui est summum bonum; et adeptio vel fruitio ipsius boni. Quantum igitur ad ipsum bonum quod est beatitudinis obiectum et causa, non potest esse una beatitudo alia maior, quia non est nisi unum summum bonum, scilicet Deus, cuius fruitione homines sunt beati. Sed quantum ad adeptionem huiusmodi boni vel fruitionem, potest aliquis alio esse beatior, quia quanto magis hoc bono fruitur, tanto beatior est. Contingit autem aliquem perfectius frui Deo quam alium, ex eo quod est melius dispositus vel ordinatus ad eius fruitionem. Et secundum hoc potest aliquis alio beatior esse.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), Happiness implies two things, to wit, the last end itself, i.e. the Sovereign Good; and the attainment or enjoyment of that same Good. As to that Good itself, Which is the object and cause of Happiness, one Happiness cannot be greater than another, since there is but one Sovereign Good, namely, God, by enjoying Whom, men are made happy. But as to the attainment or enjoyment of this Good, one man can be happier than another; because the more a man enjoys this Good the happier he is. Now, that one man enjoys God more than another, happens through his being better disposed or ordered to the enjoyment of Him. And in this sense one man can be happier than another.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unitas denarii significat unitatem beatitudinis ex parte obiecti. Sed diversitas mansionum significat diversitatem beatitudinis secundum diversum gradum fruitionis.

The one penny signifies that Happiness is one in its object. But the many mansions signify the manifold Happiness in the divers degrees of enjoyment.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod beatitudo dicitur esse summum bonum, inquantum est summi boni perfecta possessio sive fruitio.

Happiness is said to be the supreme good, inasmuch as it is the perfect possession or enjoyment of the Supreme Good.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod nulli beato deest aliquod bonum desiderandum, cum habeat ipsum bonum infinitum, quod est bonum omnis boni, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed dicitur aliquis alio beatior, ex diversa eiusdem boni participatione. Additio autem aliorum bonorum non auget beatitudinem, unde Augustinus dicit, in V Confess., qui te et alia novit, non propter illa beatior, sed propter te solum beatus.

None of the Blessed lacks any desirable good; since they have the Infinite Good Itself, Which is "the good of all good," as Augustine says (Enarr. in Ps. 134). But one is said to be happier than another, by reason of diverse participation of the same good. And the addition of other goods does not increase Happiness, since Augustine says (Confess. v, 4): "He who knows Thee, and others besides, is not the happier for knowing them, but is happy for knowing Thee alone."

Articulus III

Whether One Can Be Happy in This Life?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo possit in hac vita haberi. Dicitur enim in Psalmo CXVIII, beati immaculati in via, qui ambulant in lege domini. Hoc autem in hac vita contingit. Ergo aliquis in hac vita potest esse beatus.

It would seem that Happiness can be had in this life. For it is written (Ps. 118:1): "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord." But this happens in this life. Therefore one can be happy in this life.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, imperfecta participatio summi boni non adimit rationem beatitudinis, alioquin unus non esset alio beatior. Sed in hac vita homines possunt participare summum bonum, cognoscendo et amando Deum, licet imperfecte. Ergo homo in hac vita potest esse beatus.

Further, imperfect participation in the Sovereign Good does not destroy the nature of Happiness, otherwise one would not be happier than another. But men can participate in the Sovereign Good in this life, by knowing and loving God, albeit imperfectly. Therefore man can be happy in this life.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, quod a pluribus dicitur, non potest totaliter falsum esse, videtur enim esse naturale quod in pluribus est; natura autem non totaliter deficit. Sed plures ponunt beatitudinem in hac vita, ut patet per illud Psalmi CXLIII, beatum dixerunt populum cui haec sunt, scilicet praesentis vitae bona. Ergo aliquis in hac vita potest esse beatus.

Further, what is said by many cannot be altogether false: since what is in many, comes, apparently, from nature; and nature does not fail altogether. Now many say that Happiness can be had in this life, as appears from Ps. 143:15: "They have called the people happy that hath these things," to wit, the good things in this life. Therefore one can be happy in this life.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Iob XIV, homo natus de muliere, brevi vivens tempore, repletur multis miseriis. Sed beatitudo excludit miseriam. Ergo homo in hac vita non potest esse beatus.

On the contrary, It is written (Job 14:1): "Man born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries." But Happiness excludes misery. Therefore man cannot be happy in this life.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aliqualis beatitudinis participatio in hac vita haberi potest, perfecta autem et vera beatitudo non potest haberi in hac vita. Et hoc quidem considerari potest dupliciter. Primo quidem, ex ipsa communi beatitudinis ratione. Nam beatitudo, cum sit perfectum et sufficiens bonum, omne malum excludit, et omne desiderium implet. In hac autem vita non potest omne malum excludi. Multis enim malis praesens vita subiacet, quae vitari non possunt, et ignorantiae ex parte intellectus, et inordinatae affectioni ex parte appetitus, et multiplicibus poenalitatibus ex parte corporis; ut Augustinus diligenter prosequitur XIX de Civ. Dei. Similiter etiam desiderium boni in hac vita satiari non potest. Naturaliter enim homo desiderat permanentiam eius boni quod habet. Bona autem praesentis vitae transitoria sunt, cum et ipsa vita transeat, quam naturaliter desideramus, et eam perpetuo permanere vellemus, quia naturaliter homo refugit mortem. Unde impossibile est quod in hac vita vera beatitudo habeatur. Secundo, si consideretur id in quo specialiter beatitudo consistit, scilicet visio divinae essentiae, quae non potest homini provenire in hac vita, ut in primo ostensum est. Ex quibus manifeste apparet quod non potest aliquis in hac vita veram et perfectam beatitudinem adipisci.

I answer that, A certain participation of Happiness can be had in this life: but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life. This may be seen from a twofold consideration.

First, from the general notion of happiness. For since happiness is a "perfect and sufficient good," it excludes every evil, and fulfils every desire. But in this life every evil cannot be excluded. For this present life is subject to many unavoidable evils; to ignorance on the part of the intellect; to inordinate affection on the part of the appetite, and to many penalties on the part of the body; as Augustine sets forth in De Civ. Dei xix, 4. Likewise neither can the desire for good be satiated in this life. For man naturally desires the good, which he has, to be abiding. Now the goods of the present life pass away; since life itself passes away, which we naturally desire to have, and would wish to hold abidingly, for man naturally shrinks from death. Wherefore it is impossible to have true Happiness in this life.

Secondly, from a consideration of the specific nature of Happiness, viz. the vision of the Divine Essence, which man cannot obtain in this life, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 11). Hence it is evident that none can attain true and perfect Happiness in this life.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beati dicuntur aliqui in hac vita, vel propter spem beatitudinis adipiscendae in futura vita, secundum illud Rom. VIII, spe salvi facti sumus, vel propter aliquam participationem beatitudinis, secundum aliqualem summi boni fruitionem.

Some are said to be happy in this life, either on account of the hope of obtaining Happiness in the life to come, according to Rom. 8:24: "We are saved by hope"; or on account of a certain participation of Happiness, by reason of a kind of enjoyment of the Sovereign Good.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod participatio beatitudinis potest esse imperfecta dupliciter. Uno modo, ex parte ipsius obiecti beatitudinis, quod quidem secundum sui essentiam non videtur. Et talis imperfectio tollit rationem verae beatitudinis. Alio modo potest esse imperfecta ex parte ipsius participantis, qui quidem ad ipsum obiectum beatitudinis secundum seipsum attingit, scilicet Deum, sed imperfecte, per respectum ad modum quo Deus seipso fruitur. Et talis imperfectio non tollit veram rationem beatitudinis, quia, cum beatitudo sit operatio quaedam, ut supra dictum est, vera ratio beatitudinis, consideratur ex obiecto, quod dat speciem actui, non autem ex subiecto.

The imperfection of participated Happiness is due to one of two causes. First, on the part of the object of Happiness, which is not seen in Its Essence: and this imperfection destroys the nature of true Happiness. Secondly, the imperfection may be on the part of the participator, who indeed attains the object of Happiness, in itself, namely, God: imperfectly, however, in comparison with the way in which God enjoys Himself. This imperfection does not destroy the true nature of Happiness; because, since Happiness is an operation, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 2), the true nature of Happiness is taken from the object, which specifies the act, and not from the subject.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod homines reputant in hac vita esse aliquam beatitudinem, propter aliquam similitudinem verae beatitudinis. Et sic non ex toto in sua aestimatione deficiunt.

Men esteem that there is some kind of happiness to be had in this life, on account of a certain likeness to true Happiness. And thus they do not fail altogether in their estimate.

Articulus IV

Whether Happiness Once Had Can Be Lost?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo possit amitti. Beatitudo enim est perfectio quaedam. Sed omnis perfectio inest perfectibili secundum modum ipsius. Cum igitur homo secundum suam naturam sit mutabilis, videtur quod beatitudo mutabiliter ab homine participetur. Et ita videtur quod homo beatitudinem possit amittere.

It would seem that Happiness can be lost. For Happiness is a perfection. But every perfection is in the thing perfected according to the mode of the latter. Since then man is, by his nature, changeable, it seems that Happiness is participated by man in a changeable manner. And consequently it seems that man can lose Happiness.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, beatitudo consistit in actione intellectus, qui subiacet voluntati. Sed voluntas se habet ad opposita. Ergo videtur quod possit desistere ab operatione qua homo beatificatur, et ita homo desinet esse beatus.

Further, Happiness consists in an act of the intellect; and the intellect is subject to the will. But the will can be directed to opposites. Therefore it seems that it can desist from the operation whereby man is made happy: and thus man will cease to be happy.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, principio respondet finis. Sed beatitudo hominis habet principium, quia homo non semper fuit beatus. Ergo videtur quod habeat finem.

Further, the end corresponds to the beginning. But man's Happiness has a beginning, since man was not always happy. Therefore it seems that it has an end.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XXV, de iustis, quod ibunt in vitam aeternam; quae, ut dictum est, est beatitudo sanctorum. Quod autem est aeternum, non deficit. Ergo beatitudo non potest amitti.

On the contrary, It is written (Matt. 25:46) of the righteous that "they shall go . . . into life everlasting," which, as above stated (A. 2), is the Happiness of the saints. Now what is eternal ceases not. Therefore Happiness cannot be lost.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, si loquamur de beatitudine imperfecta, qualis in hac vita potest haberi, sic potest amitti. Et hoc patet in felicitate contemplativa, quae amittitur vel per oblivionem, puta cum corrumpitur scientia ex aliqua aegritudine; vel etiam per aliquas occupationes, quibus totaliter abstrahitur aliquis a contemplatione. Patet etiam idem in felicitate activa, voluntas enim hominis transmutari potest, ut in vitium degeneret a virtute, in cuius actu principaliter consistit felicitas. Si autem virtus remaneat integra, exteriores transmutationes possunt quidem beatitudinem talem perturbare, inquantum impediunt multas operationes virtutum, non tamen possunt eam totaliter auferre, quia adhuc remanet operatio virtutis, dum ipsas adversitates homo laudabiliter sustinet. Et quia beatitudo huius vitae amitti potest, quod videtur esse contra rationem beatitudinis; ideo philosophus dicit, in I Ethic., aliquos esse in hac vita beatos, non simpliciter, sed sicut homines quorum natura mutationi subiecta est. Si vero loquamur de beatitudine perfecta quae expectatur post hanc vitam, sciendum est quod Origenes posuit, quorundam Platonicorum errorem sequens, quod post ultimam beatitudinem homo potest fieri miser. Sed hoc manifeste apparet esse falsum dupliciter. Primo quidem, ex ipsa communi ratione beatitudinis. Cum enim ipsa beatitudo sit perfectum bonum et sufficiens, oportet quod desiderium hominis quietet, et omne malum excludat. Naturaliter autem homo desiderat retinere bonum quod habet, et quod eius retinendi securitatem obtineat, alioquin necesse est quod timore amittendi, vel dolore de certitudine amissionis, affligatur. Requiritur igitur ad veram beatitudinem quod homo certam habeat opinionem bonum quod habet, nunquam se amissurum. Quae quidem opinio si vera sit, consequens est quod beatitudinem nunquam amittet. Si autem falsa sit, hoc ipsum est quoddam malum, falsam opinionem habere, nam falsum est malum intellectus, sicut verum est bonum ipsius, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Non igitur iam vere erit beatus, si aliquod malum ei inest. Secundo idem apparet, si consideretur ratio beatitudinis in speciali. Ostensum est enim supra quod perfecta beatitudo hominis in visione divinae essentiae consistit. Est autem impossibile quod aliquis videns divinam essentiam, velit eam non videre. Quia omne bonum habitum quo quis carere vult, aut est insufficiens, et quaeritur aliquid sufficientius loco eius, aut habet aliquod incommodum annexum, propter quod in fastidium venit. Visio autem divinae essentiae replet animam omnibus bonis, cum coniungat fonti totius bonitatis, unde dicitur in Psalmo XVI, satiabor cum apparuerit gloria tua; et Sap. VII, dicitur, venerunt mihi omnia bona pariter cum illa, scilicet cum contemplatione sapientiae. Similiter etiam non habet aliquod incommodum adiunctum, quia de contemplatione sapientiae dicitur, Sap. VIII, non habet amaritudinem conversatio illius, nec taedium convictus eius. Sic ergo patet quod propria voluntate beatus non potest beatitudinem deserere. Similiter etiam non potest eam perdere, Deo subtrahente. Quia, cum subtractio beatitudinis sit quaedam poena, non potest talis subtractio a Deo, iusto iudice, provenire, nisi pro aliqua culpa, in quam cadere non potest qui Dei essentiam videt, cum ad hanc visionem ex necessitate sequatur rectitudo voluntatis, ut supra ostensum est. Similiter etiam nec aliquod aliud agens potest eam subtrahere. Quia mens Deo coniuncta super omnia alia elevatur; et sic ab huiusmodi coniunctione nullum aliud agens potest ipsam excludere. Unde inconveniens videtur quod per quasdam alternationes temporum transeat homo de beatitudine ad miseriam, et e converso, quia huiusmodi temporales alternationes esse non possunt, nisi circa ea quae subiacent tempori et motui.

I answer that, If we speak of imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, in this sense it can be lost. This is clear of contemplative happiness, which is lost either by forgetfulness, for instance, when knowledge is lost through sickness; or again by certain occupations, whereby a man is altogether withdrawn from contemplation.

This is also clear of active happiness: since man's will can be changed so as to fall to vice from the virtue, in whose act that happiness principally consists. If, however, the virtue remain unimpaired, outward changes can indeed disturb such like happiness, in so far as they hinder many acts of virtue; but they cannot take it away altogether because there still remains an act of virtue, whereby man bears these trials in a praiseworthy manner. And since the happiness of this life can be lost, a circumstance that appears to be contrary to the nature of happiness, therefore did the Philosopher state (Ethic. i, 10) that some are happy in this life, not simply, but "as men," whose nature is subject to change.

But if we speak of that perfect Happiness which we await after this life, it must be observed that Origen (Peri Archon. ii, 3), following the error of certain Platonists, held that man can become unhappy after the final Happiness.

This, however, is evidently false, for two reasons. First, from the general notion of happiness. For since happiness is the "perfect and sufficient good," it must needs set man's desire at rest and exclude every evil. Now man naturally desires to hold to the good that he has, and to have the surety of his holding: else he must of necessity be troubled with the fear of losing it, or with the sorrow of knowing that he will lose it. Therefore it is necessary for true Happiness that man have the assured opinion of never losing the good that he possesses. If this opinion be true, it follows that he never will lose happiness: but if it be false, it is in itself an evil that he should have a false opinion: because the false is the evil of the intellect, just as the true is its good, as stated in Ethic. vi, 2. Consequently he will no longer be truly happy, if evil be in him.

Secondly, it is again evident if we consider the specific nature of Happiness. For it has been shown above (Q. 3, A. 8) that man's perfect Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now it is impossible for anyone seeing the Divine Essence, to wish not to see It. Because every good that one possesses and yet wishes to be without, is either insufficient, something more sufficing being desired in its stead; or else has some inconvenience attached to it, by reason of which it becomes wearisome. But the vision of the Divine Essence fills the soul with all good things, since it unites it to the source of all goodness; hence it is written (Ps. 16:15): "I shall be satisfied when Thy glory shall appear"; and (Wis. 7:11): "All good things came to me together with her," i.e. with the contemplation of wisdom. In like manner neither has it any inconvenience attached to it; because it is written of the contemplation of wisdom (Wis. 8:16): "Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any tediousness." It is thus evident that the happy man cannot forsake Happiness of his own accord. Moreover, neither can he lose Happiness, through God taking it away from him. Because, since the withdrawal of Happiness is a punishment, it cannot be enforced by God, the just Judge, except for some fault; and he that sees God cannot fall into a fault, since rectitude of the will, of necessity, results from that vision as was shown above (Q. 4, A. 4). Nor again can it be withdrawn by any other agent. Because the mind that is united to God is raised above all other things: and consequently no other agent can sever the mind from that union. Therefore it seems unreasonable that as time goes on, man should pass from happiness to misery, and vice versa; because such like vicissitudes of time can only be for such things as are subject to time and movement.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beatitudo est perfectio consummata, quae omnem defectum excludit a beato. Et ideo absque mutabilitate advenit eam habenti, faciente hoc virtute divina, quae hominem sublevat in participationem aeternitatis transcendentis omnem mutationem.

Happiness is consummate perfection, which excludes every defect from the happy. And therefore whoever has happiness has it altogether unchangeably: this is done by the Divine power, which raises man to the participation of eternity which transcends all change.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas ad opposita se habet in his quae ad finem ordinantur, sed ad ultimum finem naturali necessitate ordinatur. Quod patet ex hoc, quod homo non potest non velle esse beatus.

The will can be directed to opposites, in things which are ordained to the end; but it is ordained, of natural necessity, to the last end. This is evident from the fact that man is unable not to wish to be happy.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod beatitudo habet principium ex conditione participantis, sed caret fine, propter conditionem boni cuius participatio facit beatum. Unde ab alio est initium beatitudinis; et ab alio est quod caret fine.

Happiness has a beginning owing to the condition of the participator: but it has no end by reason of the condition of the good, the participation of which makes man happy. Hence the beginning of happiness is from one cause, its endlessness is from another.

Articulus V

Whether Man Can Attain Happiness by His Natural Powers?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo per sua naturalia possit beatitudinem consequi. Natura enim non deficit in necessariis. Sed nihil est homini tam necessarium quam id per quod finem ultimum consequitur. Ergo hoc naturae humanae non deest. Potest igitur homo per sua naturalia beatitudinem consequi.

It would seem that man can attain Happiness by his natural powers. For nature does not fail in necessary things. But nothing is so necessary to man as that by which he attains the last end. Therefore this is not lacking to human nature. Therefore man can attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, homo, cum sit nobilior irrationalibus creaturis, videtur esse sufficientior. Sed irrationales creaturae per sua naturalia possunt consequi suos fines. Ergo multo magis homo per sua naturalia potest beatitudinem consequi.

Further, since man is more noble than irrational creatures, it seems that he must be better equipped than they. But irrational creatures can attain their end by their natural powers. Much more therefore can man attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, beatitudo est operatio perfecta, secundum philosophum. Eiusdem autem est incipere rem, et perficere ipsam. Cum igitur operatio imperfecta, quae est quasi principium in operationibus humanis, subdatur naturali hominis potestati, qua suorum actuum est dominus; videtur quod per naturalem potentiam possit pertingere ad operationem perfectam, quae est beatitudo.

Further, Happiness is a "perfect operation," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 13). Now the beginning of a thing belongs to the same principle as the perfecting thereof. Since, therefore, the imperfect operation, which is as the beginning in human operations, is subject to man's natural power, whereby he is master of his own actions; it seems that he can attain to perfect operation, i.e. Happiness, by his natural powers.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, homo est principium naturaliter actuum suorum per intellectum et voluntatem. Sed ultima beatitudo sanctis praeparata, excedit intellectum hominis et voluntatem, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. II, oculus non vidit, et auris non audivit, et in cor hominis non ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus diligentibus se. Ergo homo per sua naturalia non potest beatitudinem consequi.

On the contrary, Man is naturally the principle of his action, by his intellect and will. But final Happiness prepared for the saints, surpasses the intellect and will of man; for the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:9) "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him." Therefore man cannot attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo imperfecta quae in hac vita haberi potest, potest ab homine acquiri per sua naturalia, eo modo quo et virtus, in cuius operatione consistit, de quo infra dicetur. Sed beatitudo hominis perfecta, sicut supra dictum est, consistit in visione divinae essentiae. Videre autem Deum per essentiam est supra naturam non solum hominis, sed etiam omnis creaturae, ut in primo ostensum est. Naturalis enim cognitio cuiuslibet creaturae est secundum modum substantiae eius, sicut de intelligentia dicitur in libro de causis, quod cognoscit ea quae sunt supra se, et ea quae sunt infra se, secundum modum substantiae suae. Omnis autem cognitio quae est secundum modum substantiae creatae, deficit a visione divinae essentiae, quae in infinitum excedit omnem substantiam creatam. Unde nec homo, nec aliqua creatura, potest consequi beatitudinem ultimam per sua naturalia.

I answer that, Imperfect happiness that can be had in this life, can be acquired by man by his natural powers, in the same way as virtue, in whose operation it consists: on this point we shall speak further on (Q. 63). But man's perfect Happiness, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 8), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the vision of God's Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but also of every creature, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 4). For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De Causis; Prop. viii) that "it knows things that are above it, and things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance." But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man, nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut natura non deficit homini in necessariis, quamvis non dederit sibi arma et tegumenta sicut aliis animalibus quia dedit ei rationem et manus, quibus possit haec sibi conquirere; ita nec deficit homini in necessariis, quamvis non daret sibi aliquod principium quo posset beatitudinem consequi; hoc enim erat impossibile. Sed dedit ei liberum arbitrium, quo possit converti ad Deum, qui eum faceret beatum. Quae enim per amicos possumus, per nos aliqualiter possumus, ut dicitur in III Ethic.

Just as nature does not fail man in necessaries, although it has not provided him with weapons and clothing, as it provided other animals, because it gave him reason and hands, with which he is able to get these things for himself; so neither did it fail man in things necessary, although it gave him not the wherewithal to attain Happiness: since this it could not do. But it did give him free-will, with which he can turn to God, that He may make him happy. "For what we do by means of our friends, is done, in a sense, by ourselves" (Ethic. iii, 3).

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod nobilioris conditionis est natura quae potest consequi perfectum bonum, licet indigeat exteriori auxilio ad hoc consequendum, quam natura quae non potest consequi perfectum bonum, sed consequitur quoddam bonum imperfectum, licet ad consecutionem eius non indigeat exteriori auxilio, ut philosophus dicit in II de caelo. Sicut melius est dispositus ad sanitatem qui potest consequi perfectam sanitatem, licet hoc sit per auxilium medicinae; quam qui solum potest consequi quandam imperfectam sanitatem, sine medicinae auxilio. Et ideo creatura rationalis, quae potest consequi perfectum beatitudinis bonum, indigens ad hoc divino auxilio, est perfectior quam creatura irrationalis, quae huiusmodi boni non est capax, sed quoddam imperfectum bonum consequitur virtute suae naturae.

The nature that can attain perfect good, although it needs help from without in order to attain it, is of more noble condition than a nature which cannot attain perfect good, but attains some imperfect good, although it need no help from without in order to attain it, as the Philosopher says (De Coel. ii, 12). Thus he is better disposed to health who can attain perfect health, albeit by means of medicine, than he who can attain but imperfect health, without the help of medicine. And therefore the rational creature, which can attain the perfect good of happiness, but needs the Divine assistance for the purpose, is more perfect than the irrational creature, which is not capable of attaining this good, but attains some imperfect good by its natural powers.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, quando imperfectum et perfectum sunt eiusdem speciei, ab eadem virtute causari possunt. Non autem hoc est necesse, si sunt alterius speciei, non enim quidquid potest causare dispositionem materiae, potest ultimam perfectionem conferre. Imperfecta autem operatio, quae subiacet naturali hominis potestati, non est eiusdem speciei cum operatione illa perfecta quae est hominis beatitudo, cum operationis species dependeat ex obiecto. Unde ratio non sequitur.

When imperfect and perfect are of the same species, they can be caused by the same power. But this does not follow of necessity, if they be of different species: for not everything, that can cause the disposition of matter, can produce the final perfection. Now the imperfect operation, which is subject to man's natural power, is not of the same species as that perfect operation which is man's happiness: since operation takes its species from its object. Consequently the argument does not prove.

Articulus VI

Whether Man Attains Happiness Through the Action of Some Higher Creature?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo possit fieri beatus per actionem alicuius superioris creaturae, scilicet Angeli. Cum enim duplex ordo inveniatur in rebus, unus partium universi ad invicem, alius totius universi ad bonum quod est extra universum; primus ordo ordinatur ad secundum sicut ad finem, ut dicitur XII Metaphys.; sicut ordo partium exercitus ad invicem est propter ordinem totius exercitus ad ducem. Sed ordo partium universi ad invicem attenditur secundum quod superiores creaturae agunt in inferiores, ut in primo dictum est, beatitudo autem consistit in ordine hominis ad bonum quod est extra universum, quod est Deus. Ergo per actionem superioris creaturae, scilicet Angeli, in hominem, homo beatus efficitur.

It would seem that man can be made happy through the action of some higher creature, viz. an angel. For since we observe a twofold order in things—one, of the parts of the universe to one another, the other, of the whole universe to a good which is outside the universe; the former order is ordained to the second as to its end (Metaph. xii, 10). Thus the mutual order of the parts of an army is dependent on the order of the parts of an army is dependent on the order of the whole army to the general. But the mutual order of the parts of the universe consists in the higher creatures acting on the lower, as stated in the First Part (Q. 109, A. 2): while happiness consists in the order of man to a good which is outside the universe, i.e. God. Therefore man is made happy, through a higher creature, viz. an angel, acting on him.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, quod est in potentia tale, potest reduci in actum per id quod est actu tale, sicut quod est potentia calidum, fit actu calidum per id quod est actu calidum. Sed homo est in potentia beatus. Ergo potest fieri actu beatus per Angelum, qui est actu beatus.

Further, that which is such in potentiality, can be reduced to act, by that which is such actually: thus what is potentially hot, is made actually hot, by something that is actually hot. But man is potentially happy. Therefore he can be made actually happy by an angel who is actually happy.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, beatitudo consistit in operatione intellectus, ut supra dictum est. Sed Angelus potest illuminare intellectum hominis, ut in primo habitum est. Ergo Angelus potest facere hominem beatum.

Further, Happiness consists in an operation of the intellect as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4). But an angel can enlighten man's intellect as shown in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 1). Therefore an angel can make a man happy.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo LXXXIII, gratiam et gloriam dabit dominus.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give grace and glory."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, cum omnis creatura naturae legibus sit subiecta, utpote habens limitatam virtutem et actionem; illud quod excedit naturam creatam, non potest fieri virtute alicuius creaturae. Et ideo si quid fieri oporteat quod sit supra naturam, hoc fit immediate a Deo; sicut suscitatio mortui, illuminatio caeci, et cetera huiusmodi. Ostensum est autem quod beatitudo est quoddam bonum excedens naturam creatam. Unde impossibile est quod per actionem alicuius creaturae conferatur, sed homo beatus fit solo Deo agente, si loquamur de beatitudine perfecta. Si vero loquamur de beatitudine imperfecta, sic eadem ratio est de ipsa et de virtute, in cuius actu consistit.

I answer that, Since every creature is subject to the laws of nature, from the very fact that its power and action are limited: that which surpasses created nature, cannot be done by the power of any creature. Consequently if anything need to be done that is above nature, it is done by God immediately; such as raising the dead to life, restoring sight to the blind, and such like. Now it has been shown above (A. 5) that Happiness is a good surpassing created nature. Therefore it is impossible that it be bestowed through the action of any creature: but by God alone is man made happy, if we speak of perfect Happiness. If, however, we speak of imperfect happiness, the same is to be said of it as of the virtue, in whose act it consists.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod plerumque contingit in potentiis activis ordinatis, quod perducere ad ultimum finem pertinet ad supremam potentiam, inferiores vero potentiae coadiuvant ad consecutionem illius ultimi finis disponendo, sicut ad artem gubernativam, quae praeest navifactivae, pertinet usus navis, propter quem navis ipsa fit. Sic igitur et in ordine universi, homo quidem adiuvatur ab Angelis ad consequendum ultimum finem, secundum aliqua praecedentia, quibus disponitur ad eius consecutionem, sed ipsum ultimum finem consequitur per ipsum primum agentem, qui est Deus.

It often happens in the case of active powers ordained to one another, that it belongs to the highest power to reach the last end, while the lower powers contribute to the attainment of that last end, by causing a disposition thereto: thus to the art of sailing, which commands the art of shipbuilding, it belongs to use a ship for the end for which it was made. Thus, too, in the order of the universe, man is indeed helped by the angels in the attainment of his last end, in respect of certain preliminary dispositions thereto: whereas he attains the last end itself through the First Agent, which is God.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, quando aliqua forma actu existit in aliquo secundum esse perfectum et naturale, potest esse principium actionis in alterum; sicut calidum per calorem calefacit. Sed si forma existit in aliquo imperfecte, et non secundum esse naturale, non potest esse principium communicationis sui ad alterum, sicut intentio coloris quae est in pupilla, non potest facere album; neque etiam omnia quae sunt illuminata aut calefacta, possunt alia calefacere et illuminare; sic enim illuminatio at calefactio essent usque ad infinitum. Lumen autem gloriae, per quod Deus videtur, in Deo quidem est perfecte secundum esse naturale, in qualibet autem creatura est imperfecte, et secundum esse similitudinarium vel participatum. Unde nulla creatura beata potest communicare suam beatitudinem alteri.

When a form exists perfectly and naturally in something, it can be the principle of action on something else: for instance a hot thing heats through heat. But if a form exist in something imperfectly, and not naturally, it cannot be the principle whereby it is communicated to something else: thus the intention of color which is in the pupil, cannot make a thing white; nor indeed can everything enlightened or heated give heat or light to something else; for if they could, enlightening and heating would go on to infinity. But the light of glory, whereby God is seen, is in God perfectly and naturally; whereas in any creature, it is imperfectly and by likeness or participation. Consequently no creature can communicate its Happiness to another.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus beatus illuminat intellectum hominis, vel etiam inferioris Angeli, quantum ad aliquas rationes divinorum operum non autem quantum ad visionem divinae essentiae, ut in primo dictum est. Ad eam enim videndam, omnes immediate illuminantur a Deo.

A happy angel enlightens the intellect of a man or of a lower angel, as to certain notions of the Divine works: but not as to the vision of the Divine Essence, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 106, A. 1): since in order to see this, all are immediately enlightened by God.

Articulus VII

Whether Any Good Works Are Necessary That Man May Receive Happiness from God?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non requirantur aliqua opera hominis ad hoc ut beatitudinem consequatur a Deo. Deus enim, cum sit agens infinitae virtutis, non praeexigit in agendo materiam, aut dispositionem materiae, sed statim potest totum producere. Sed opera hominis, cum non requirantur ad beatitudinem eius sicut causa efficiens, ut dictum est, non possunt requiri ad eam nisi sicut dispositiones. Ergo Deus, qui dispositiones non praeexigit in agendo, beatitudinem sine praecedentibus operibus confert.

It would seem that no works of man are necessary that he may obtain Happiness from God. For since God is an agent of infinite power, He requires before acting, neither matter, nor disposition of matter, but can forthwith produce the whole effect. But man's works, since they are not required for Happiness, as the efficient cause thereof, as stated above (A. 6), can be required only as dispositions thereto. Therefore God who does not require dispositions before acting, bestows Happiness without any previous works.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sicut Deus est auctor beatitudinis immediate, ita et naturam immediate instituit. Sed in prima institutione naturae, produxit creaturas nulla dispositione praecedente vel actione creaturae; sed statim fecit unumquodque perfectum in sua specie. Ergo videtur quod beatitudinem conferat homini sine aliquibus operationibus praecedentibus.

Further, just as God is the immediate cause of Happiness, so is He the immediate cause of nature. But when God first established nature, He produced creatures without any previous disposition or action on the part of the creature, but made each one perfect forthwith in its species. Therefore it seems that He bestows Happiness on man without any previous works.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Rom. IV, beatitudinem hominis esse cui Deus confert iustitiam sine operibus. Non ergo requiruntur aliqua opera hominis ad beatitudinem consequendam.

Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 4:6) that Happiness is of the man "to whom God reputeth justice without works." Therefore no works of man are necessary for attaining Happiness.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. XIII, si haec scitis, beati eritis si feceritis ea. Ergo per actionem ad beatitudinem pervenitur.

On the contrary, It is written (John 13:17): "If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them." Therefore Happiness is obtained through works.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod rectitudo voluntatis, ut supra dictum est, requiritur ad beatitudinem, cum nihil aliud sit quam debitus ordo voluntatis ad ultimum finem; quae ita exigitur ad consecutionem ultimi finis, sicut debita dispositio materiae ad consecutionem formae. Sed ex hoc non ostenditur quod aliqua operatio hominis debeat praecedere eius beatitudinem, posset enim Deus simul facere voluntatem recte tendentem in finem, et finem consequentem; sicut quandoque simul materiam disponit, et inducit formam. Sed ordo divinae sapientiae exigit ne hoc fiat, ut enim dicitur in II de caelo, eorum quae nata sunt habere bonum perfectum, aliquid habet ipsum sine motu, aliquid uno motu, aliquid pluribus. Habere autem perfectum bonum sine motu, convenit ei quod naturaliter habet illud. Habere autem beatitudinem naturaliter est solius Dei. Unde solius Dei proprium est quod ad beatitudinem non moveatur per aliquam operationem praecedentem. Cum autem beatitudo excedat omnem naturam creatam, nulla pura creatura convenienter beatitudinem consequitur absque motu operationis, per quam tendit in ipsam. Sed Angelus, qui est superior ordine naturae quam homo, consecutus est eam, ex ordine divinae sapientiae, uno motu operationis meritoriae, ut in primo expositum est. Homines autem consequuntur ipsam multis motibus operationum, qui merita dicuntur. Unde etiam, secundum philosophum, beatitudo est praemium virtuosarum operationum.

I answer that, Rectitude of the will, as stated above (Q. 4, A. 4), is necessary for Happiness; since it is nothing else than the right order of the will to the last end; and it is therefore necessary for obtaining the end, just as the right disposition of matter, in order to receive the form. But this does not prove that any work of man need precede his Happiness: for God could make a will having a right tendency to the end, and at the same time attaining the end; just as sometimes He disposes matter and at the same time introduces the form. But the order of Divine wisdom demands that it should not be thus; for as is stated in De Coelo ii, 12, "of those things that have a natural capacity for the perfect good, one has it without movement, some by one movement, some by several." Now to possess the perfect good without movement, belongs to that which has it naturally: and to have Happiness naturally belongs to God alone. Therefore it belongs to God alone not to be moved towards Happiness by any previous operation. Now since Happiness surpasses every created nature, no pure creature can becomingly gain Happiness, without the movement of operation, whereby it tends thereto. But the angel, who is above man in the natural order, obtained it, according to the order of Divine wisdom, by one movement of a meritorious work, as was explained in the First Part (Q. 62, A. 5); whereas man obtains it by many movements of works which are called merits. Wherefore also according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 9), happiness is the reward of works of virtue.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod operatio hominis non praeexigitur ad consecutionem beatitudinis propter insufficientiam divinae virtutis beatificantis, sed ut servetur ordo in rebus.

Works are necessary to man in order to gain Happiness; not on account of the insufficiency of the Divine power which bestows Happiness, but that the order in things be observed.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod primas creaturas statim Deus perfectas produxit, absque aliqua dispositione vel operatione creaturae praecedente, quia sic instituit prima individua specierum, ut per ea natura propagaretur ad posteros. Et similiter, quia per Christum, qui est Deus et homo, beatitudo erat ad alios derivanda, secundum illud apostoli ad Heb. II, qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat; statim a principio suae conceptionis, absque aliqua operatione meritoria praecedente, anima eius fuit beata. Sed hoc est singulare in ipso, nam pueris baptizatis subvenit meritum Christi ad beatitudinem consequendam, licet desint eis merita propria, eo quod per Baptismum sunt Christi membra effecti.

God produced the first creatures so that they are perfect forthwith, without any previous disposition or operation of the creature; because He instituted the first individuals of the various species, that through them nature might be propagated to their progeny. In like manner, because Happiness was to be bestowed on others through Christ, who is God and Man, "Who," according to Heb. 2:10, "had brought many children into glory"; therefore, from the very beginning of His conception, His soul was happy, without any previous meritorious operation. But this is peculiar to Him: for Christ's merit avails baptized children for the gaining of Happiness, though they have no merits of their own; because by Baptism they are made members of Christ.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod apostolus loquitur de beatitudine spei, quae habetur per gratiam iustificantem, quae quidem non datur propter opera praecedentia. Non enim habet rationem termini motus, ut beatitudo, sed magis est principium motus quo ad beatitudinem tenditur.

The Apostle is speaking of the Happiness of Hope, which is bestowed on us by sanctifying grace, which is not given on account of previous works. For grace is not a term of movement, as Happiness is; rather is it the principle of the movement that tends towards Happiness.

Articulus VIII

Whether Every Man Desires Happiness?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnes appetant beatitudinem. Nullus enim potest appetere quod ignorat, cum bonum apprehensum sit obiectum appetitus, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed multi nesciunt quid sit beatitudo, quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in XIII de Trin., patet ex hoc, quod quidam posuerunt beatitudinem in voluptate corporis, quidam in virtute animi, quidam in aliis rebus. Non ergo omnes beatitudinem appetunt.

It would seem that not all desire Happiness. For no man can desire what he knows not; since the apprehended good is the object of the appetite (De Anima iii, 10). But many know not what Happiness is. This is evident from the fact that, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 4), "some thought that Happiness consists in pleasures of the body; some, in a virtue of the soul; some in other things." Therefore not all desire Happiness.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, essentia beatitudinis est visio essentiae divinae, ut dictum est. Sed aliqui opinantur hoc esse impossibile, quod Deus per essentiam ab homine videatur, unde hoc non appetunt. Ergo non omnes homines appetunt beatitudinem.

Further, the essence of Happiness is the vision of the Divine Essence, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 8). But some consider it impossible for man to see the Divine Essence; wherefore they desire it not. Therefore all men do not desire Happiness.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in XIII de Trin. quod beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult, et nihil male vult. Sed non omnes hoc volunt, quidam enim male aliqua volunt, et tamen volunt illa se velle. Non ergo omnes volunt beatitudinem.

Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he who has all he desires, and desires nothing amiss." But all do not desire this; for some desire certain things amiss, and yet they wish to desire such things. Therefore all do not desire Happiness.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., si minus dixisset, omnes beati esse vultis, miseri esse non vultis, dixisset aliquid quod nullus in sua non cognosceret voluntate. Quilibet ergo vult esse beatus.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3): "If that actor had said: 'You all wish to be happy; you do not wish to be unhappy,' he would have said that which none would have failed to acknowledge in his will." Therefore everyone desires to be happy.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo dupliciter potest considerari. Uno modo, secundum communem rationem beatitudinis. Et sic necesse est quod omnis homo beatitudinem velit. Ratio autem beatitudinis communis est ut sit bonum perfectum, sicut dictum est. Cum autem bonum sit obiectum voluntatis, perfectum bonum est alicuius, quod totaliter eius voluntati satisfacit. Unde appetere beatitudinem nihil aliud est quam appetere ut voluntas satietur. Quod quilibet vult. Alio modo possumus loqui de beatitudine secundum specialem rationem, quantum ad id in quo beatitudo consistit. Et sic non omnes cognoscunt beatitudinem, quia nesciunt cui rei communis ratio beatitudinis conveniat. Et per consequens, quantum ad hoc, non omnes eam volunt.

I answer that, Happiness can be considered in two ways. First according to the general notion of happiness: and thus, of necessity, every man desires happiness. For the general notion of happiness consists in the perfect good, as stated above (AA. 3, 4). But since good is the object of the will, the perfect good of a man is that which entirely satisfies his will. Consequently to desire happiness is nothing else than to desire that one's will be satisfied. And this everyone desires. Secondly we may speak of Happiness according to its specific notion, as to that in which it consists. And thus all do not know Happiness; because they know not in what thing the general notion of happiness is found. And consequently, in this respect, not all desire it. Wherefore the reply to the first Objection is clear.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Unde patet responsio ad primum.

—

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum voluntas sequatur apprehensionem intellectus seu rationis, sicut contingit quod aliquid est idem secundum rem, quod tamen est diversum secundum rationis considerationem; ita contingit quod aliquid est idem secundum rem, et tamen uno modo appetitur, alio modo non appetitur. Beatitudo ergo potest considerari sub ratione finalis boni et perfecti, quae est communis ratio beatitudinis, et sic naturaliter et ex necessitate voluntas in illud tendit, ut dictum est. Potest etiam considerari secundum alias speciales considerationes, vel ex parte ipsius operationis, vel ex parte potentiae operativae, vel ex parte obiecti, et sic non ex necessitate voluntas tendit in ipsam.

Since the will follows the apprehension of the intellect or reason; just as it happens that where there is no real distinction, there may be a distinction according to the consideration of reason; so does it happen that one and the same thing is desired in one way, and not desired in another. So that happiness may be considered as the final and perfect good, which is the general notion of happiness: and thus the will naturally and of necessity tends thereto, as stated above. Again it can be considered under other special aspects, either on the part of the operation itself, or on the part of the operating power, or on the part of the object; and thus the will does not tend thereto of necessity.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ista definitio beatitudinis quam quidam posuerunt, beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult, vel, cui omnia optata succedunt, quodam modo intellecta, est bona et sufficiens; alio vero modo, est imperfecta. Si enim intelligatur simpliciter de omnibus quae vult homo naturali appetitu, sic verum est quod qui habet omnia quae vult, est beatus, nihil enim satiat naturalem hominis appetitum, nisi bonum perfectum, quod est beatitudo. Si vero intelligatur de his quae homo vult secundum apprehensionem rationis, sic habere quaedam quae homo vult, non pertinet ad beatitudinem, sed magis ad miseriam inquantum huiusmodi habita impediunt hominem ne habeat quaecumque naturaliter vult, sicut etiam ratio accipit ut vera interdum quae impediunt a cognitione veritatis. Et secundum hanc considerationem, Augustinus addidit ad perfectionem beatitudinis, quod nihil mali velit. Quamvis primum posset sufficere, si recte intelligeretur, scilicet quod beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult.

This definition of Happiness given by some—"Happy is the man that has all he desires," or, "whose every wish is fulfilled," is a good and adequate definition, if it be understood in a certain way; but an inadequate definition if understood in another. For if we understand it simply of all that man desires by his natural appetite, thus it is true that he who has all that he desires, is happy: since nothing satisfies man's natural desire, except the perfect good which is Happiness. But if we understand it of those things that man desires according to the apprehension of the reason, thus it does not belong to Happiness, to have certain things that man desires; rather does it belong to unhappiness, in so far as the possession of such things hinders man from having all that he desires naturally; thus it is that reason sometimes accepts as true things that are a hindrance to the knowledge of truth. And it was through taking this into consideration that Augustine added so as to include perfect Happiness—that he "desires nothing amiss": although the first part suffices if rightly understood, to wit, that "happy is he who has all he desires."

Showing Thomas's answers only.