Chapter XXVII. The growth of hapsits (q. 52)

IN THREE articles we ask: Do habits grow? Do they grow by addition? Does each and every act of the habit increase the habit? This question is difficult, but important, especially in its pedagogical consequences.

ART. 1. DO HABITS GROW?

It seems that habits cannot grow. First, growth, augmentation, is a quantitative term, whereas habit is a quality. Secondly, habit is a kind of perfection, and perfection, since it means an ultimate, does not admit degrees. Thirdly, qualitative augmentation would at best be nothing but alteration.

Authority sustains our thesis. “Lord, increase our faith.” “Grow in grace and in the knowledge of God.” + “Fructify in every good work and grow in the knowledge of God.” ? The Council of Trent: He who says that the justice received from God cannot be augmented before God by good works, let him be anathema.*

Conclusion. 1. Certain habits can be augmented in extension, e.g., knowledge, which becomes greater by being extended to new conclusions. 2. All habits grow in intensity as they are more and more rooted in the subject. Thus charity becomes more intense, knowledge becomes more profound. The foundations of this demonstration are thus proposed by St. Thomas.

a) While it is true that augmentation, in its primary mean-¹ ing, belongs to quantity, still, in an analogical and true sense, it belongs also to spiritual qualities, since we know spiritual things only by analogy with the sense-world.

b) Perfection of quality or form can be considered in two ways. First, abstractly, as form. Thus we say knowledge is small or great. Secondly, concretely, as participated by the subject. Thus we say that a man is more or less healthy, or that one philosopher is more profound than another.

Here we find four fields of thought. 1. Plotinus and other Platonists hold that habit grows in itself. 2. Some think that habits are not augmented in themselves, but only more deeply participated in by the subject. 3. A medium between the two foregoing views is that of the Stoics, who say that certain habits, arts and sciences, are also in themselves augmented in extension, but that other habits, virtues, are augmented only in intensity. 4. Others hold that immaterial qualities and forms do not admit variation in degree, but that material forms do admit variation.

To find the truth here, St. Thomas appeals to the great principle which governs specification of qualities. It runs thus: The specificating element must be something stable and indivisible. Things below this point are in a lower species, things above this point are in a higher species. To illustrate. Rationality is the element that differentiates man. Animals, without rationality, are below men. Angels, who transcend rationality, are above men. Now qualitative hierarchies are governed by the same principle. Species are like numbers. Add one, subtract one, and you have a different species. Of this principle we have two applications, one on absolute qualities, the other on relative qualities.

1. A form or quality that is absolute does not admit of more or less, and is incapable of augmentation. Thus it is with the human soul: below it is the brute animal; above it is the angel.

2. A quality that is relative, i.e., differentiated by its essential object or terminus, while it may increase as it approaches its goal, remains specifically the same, because its terminus is one. Thus motion in any line is more intense or more remiss, and health grows better by greater harmony with the nature wherein it exists.

Here rests the first part of our conclusion, namely: certain habits can be augmented extensively, i.e., can be extended to new termini under the same formal object. Thus grow arts and sciences. Thus theology in itself was greater in the thirteenth century than it was in the eighth century.

On this point, then, the Stoics were right: extensive augmentation takes place when the habit is extended to a new material object under the same formal aspect, that is, in arts and sciences. But this extensive augmentation does not find place in moral and theological virtues, because the man who has, e.g., the moral virtue of temperance, has it in relation to all objects of temperance, and he who has even the lowest degree of charity reaches out to all objects that can be loved by charity. This same truth governs the virtues of hope and faith. Since the death of the apostles, the smallest level of faith embraces all objects to be believed, though there can be a transition from implicit to explicit.

The second part of the conclusion treats of intensive augmentation. It says: As shared by the subject, some qualities and some forms admit degrees, but others do not. Forms participated substantially are incapable of intensification and remission. But here, too, we appeal to the general principle of specification, namely, that the differentiating element must be stable and indivisible. From this principle it follows that substantial forms do not admit variational degrees, A rational soul makes man to be a man, and nothing else. It follows further also that accidental forms which are in themselves indivisible do not admit degrees. Each number is constituted by an indivisible unity, Geometric figures cannot be more or less triangular or circular. Thirdly, it follows that habits (sciences and virtues), since they do not give substantial species to the subject, and do not in their nature include indi- visibility, may be possessed in various degrees by different men.

Recapitulation

First conclusion. Certain habits grow in extension. Proof. That quality can be increased in itself which can be extended to one to more or fewer termini under the same formal object. Now certain habits, namely, sciences and arts, can be extended to more or fewer termini under the same formal object.

Second conclusion. All habits can be increased in intensity. Proof. Any quality that does not give its subject a substantial differentiation, and which does not in its nature include indivisibility, can grow in intensity. Now every habit is a quality which does not give its subject substantial differentiation, and does not in its nature include indivisibility.

ART. 2. ARE HABITS AUGMENTED BY ADDITION?

Preliminaries

It seems that even intensive augmentation takes place by addition. 1. The term “augmentation” is a quantitative term, and quantity is not augmented except by addition. 2. The agent, unless he produces augmentation by addition, would produce nothing. 3. A white thing becomes more white by the addition of a greater whiteness, just as a heap of coins or grain grows by addition.

Contrary authority. A thing already hot becomes hotter without any addition of heat newly produced.‘

First conclusion. Sciences and arts are augmented in extension by the addition of a new conclusion, but not by a new partial habit. Geometry may serve as an example. Analogy confirms the thesis. Motion can increase, not only in velocity, but can also be extended in space and time.

Let us note that this extensive augment does not take place

4 Aristotle, IV Phys., cap. IX.

by a collection of many qualities, but by a new mode and manner of one and the same habit.

All Thomists defend this view against Vasquez and the nominalists, and also against Scotus and Suarez, who hold that the habit of science is not a simple quality, but an aggregation of many particular habits.

Corollary. St. Thomas,’ holding that theology is one simple habit, by reason of its formal object quod and quo, is in direct Opposition to those moderns who say that sacred theology is a collection of many sciences. Each of these two conceptions dictates its own mentality and pedagogical method. One is satisfied with unrelated acquisitions, the other unifies the spirit.

Second conclusion. Intensive augmentation, arising from deeper participation of the subject in the form, does not take place by the addition of form to form. This Thomistic view, held by many outside the Thomistic school, is against Durandus, who holds that intensive augmentation takes place by generation of a new and more perfect quality, and also against Scotus, Suarez, and Vasquez, who hold that augmentation takes place by the addition of a new qualitative entity. The thesis is proved, first directly, secondly indirectly.

Direct proof. ‘The law of augmentation follows the law of production. A thing becomes hot by participating in the form already present. Form is not that which is, but that by which a thing is so and so. Rotundity is not an existing thing, but is that whereby a round thing is round. It is impossible to make rotundity, but it is possible to make a round thing. Again, humanity is not generated, but this man, the subject which participates in humanity.

We must therefore conclude that intensive augmentation of quality does not take place, as Durandus wills, by generation of a new form, nor by the addition of a new entity, as Scotus, Suarez, and Vasquez maintain.

Indirect proof. If intensive augmentation took place by

addition, this would be owing either to the form or to the subject, but neither view is possible. Any addition owing to form would vary the species. And any addition owing to the subject would presuppose some part of the subject to receive the form which it had so far lacked, and we would be dealing again with extensive augmentation. Hence generation (or augmentation) of habit does not mean that one part is generated after another part, but that the subject participates more and more perfectly in the quality.

Only a rude imagination can think of charity, say, as a heap of minor little charities. Again, this new partial charity is either more perfect than the pre-existing or not. If it is more perfect, the pre-existing is superfluous. But if it is not more perfect, it cannot make the subject more perfect, but will be a mere extension of the form, an extension which is inconceivable in a spiritual subject.

The growth of charity is growth, not in size, but in perfection. Charity grows intense by being more deeply rooted in the subject. As trees grow by deepening their roots, charity grows by penetrating ever more deeply into the potentialities of the will. As charity grows, sin becomes ever more difficult, One and the same man is successively an infant, a boy, a youth, and an adult, not by the advent of a new partial man, but by advance to a more perfect state of life. And so, too, one and the same quality may grow from remissness to intensity, not by the advent of a new partial quality, but by advance to a more perfect mode of being. In the phrase “degrees of charity,” degrees means, not a partial quality, but a higher mode of perfection. Each new degree contains virtually all degrees lower than itself. Even if, by a miracle, charity were separated from its subject, it would still be rooted in its subject, not actually, but aptitudinally.

Corollary. The opposition between these two theories begets two opposed pedagogical systems and methods: One, mechanical and external, proceeding by juxtaposition of acts and exercises, the other, dynamic and internal, guided by the purified formal object of the science or of the virtue. The first method, unless corrected by the second, will not lead to the unitive life, but only to multiplied and unorganized perfections.

ART. 3. DOES EACH AND EVERY ACT INCREASE THE HABIT?

This question faces modern theories, on progress in civilization, in science, in philosophy, in theology.

Preliminaries

It seems that each and every act increases the habit: first, when cause is multiplied, effect also is multiplied; secondly, all acts that proceed from one and the same habit are similar; thirdly, one similar thing is increased by another similar thing, But the response is negative: Not every act increases habit.

Authority. “Some acts proceeding from habit diminish the habit.” € As illustration, think of the fourteenth century, which did little to develop philosophy and theology, which rather, in Occam, saw a great regress that prepared the way for Luther. What holds good in society, holds good likewise in the individual.

Reason. Only an act as intense as the habit can increase the habit. Cause must be proportioned to effect. If a remiss act caused increase of habit, more would be produced from less, the more perfect from the imperfect.

To illustrate. A man with a habit equal, say, to ten talents sometimes works remissly, from negligence or tepidity, as if he had only two talents. Hence not every act proceeding from a habit augments that habit.

Second conclusion. An act equal or superior in intensity to the habit either increases the habit or disposes proximately to such increase.

Third conclusion. But if the intensity of the act is not proportioned to the intensity of the habit, such an act does not dis-

pose proximately to increase of the habit, but rather for its decrease. This conclusion is against the modern dogma of necessary progress. We are dealing here with the physical disposition necessary to increase habit. We are not dealing with merit, because, as will be said later, an act of charity, even though remiss, is still meritorious. Yet it disposes to decrease, since it opens the road to contraries. Every act of charity, says St. Thomas,’ even though it be remiss, merits eternal life and an increase of charity. Charity, however, is not always increased at once, but only when the subject endeavors to reach such an increase. In illustration, we may point to the laborer who daily increases in riches, because daily he acquires a new right to a reward or merit, though in fact he does not receive this reward except at the end of the week.

We must here notice the difference between an acquired habit and an infused habit. Our acts, just as they are the physical cause of an acquired habit, so likewise they are the physical cause of increase in the habit. But since our acts, even under actual grace, are not the physical cause of an infused habit, but only dispositions for its infusion, they are likewise not physical causes, but only dispositions for the increase of charity. Hence a remiss act of charity, while it is meritorious, does not dispose us to an increase of charity except remotely, and may even dispose us for a decrease of the habit, since he who works remissly easily yields to contrary acts whereby the habit is corrupted. Thus imperfections may be dangerous. We must progress, in order not to regress. Unless the boy grows, he remains an abnormal man.

St. Thomas and Suarez

Suarez maintains that by each and every act, however remiss, the habit is at once increased. And he differs again from St. Thomas on this question: Does the precept of charity bind a man to greater charity even up to the time of death? To this question St. Thomas answers affirmatively, since the per-

fection of charity falls under precept, at least as an ultimate goal. Suarez denies, saying that the perfection of charity does not fall under precept even as a goal. Perfection of charity, he adds, is a counsel, not a precept.

The doctrine of St. Thomas, rejected by Suarez, leads to a very important corollary in the spiritual life. It runs thus: * The rate of increase in virtue should be continually accelerated, as it was in the saints, and especially in the Blessed Virgin. Growth in faith (or in any virtue) corresponds to natural motion, where rate of increase is measured by nearness to the goal, whereas the contrary holds good of violent motion. “The nearer you see the day approaching,” says Scripture.®? And again, “The path of the just, like a shining light, grows unto perfect day.” 1°

Why does natural motion grow ever more intense? Because the goal attracts it ever more strongly. A stone falls ever more rapidly, whereas thrown upward by force, it rises ever more slowly. Man’s soul, says St. Thomas, tends more vehemently to joy than it flees from sadness, hence is drawn more strongly by God the nearer it comes to Him.

Material gravitation illustrates spiritual gravitation. If the velocity of a falling body is equivalent to 20 in the first second, it will be 40 in the second that follows, 6o in the third, 80 in the fourth, and 100 in the fifth. Here lies a far-off view, an inkling, of Mary’s final state. Her initial plentitude of grace surpassed the grace of all saints and angels, and her rate of increase suffered no interruption even by sleep. Hence no creature is more beautiful or more faithful to God.

Objections Analyzed

1. Acts, coming from a habit, must increase that habit. Yes, but only when the act is proportioned to the habit, 2. But if one act increases the habit, why not all similar

acts? Yes, but only if they are similar, not merely in species, but also in degree of intensity.

3. But every act is similar to its habit. Yes, similar in species, but not necessarily in degree of intensity.

4. If a remiss act is sufficient disposition, both for the infusion of grace and charity, and for its sacramental] increase, then, also outside the sacramental! world, a remiss act should be sufficient disposition to increase the habit. We deny the parity. Grace and its increase come from the sacraments ex opere operato, and God supplies the lack of disposition in adults as he supplies the entire lack of disposition in infants who are baptized. But, outside the sacraments, grace and its increase arise ex opere operantis, i.e., by personal acts of contrition and charity.

5. But does not the Council of Trent say that the sacraments cause grace according to the disposition of each recipient? Yes, but the phrase “according to” is to be understood, not arithmetically, but proportionally, i.e., the better the disposition the greater is the grace received, but the grace is not necessarily equal to a man’s disposition.

Corollary. He who has charity represented by two talents and elicits an act equivalent to three, receives the augmentation of charity at once. But he who has charity measured by five talents and elicits an act worth four does not at once receive an increase of charity, though his act is meritorious, and he will receive the increase when he performs an act suffciently intense.

Footnotes

1. II Peter, 3:18. 2 Col. 1:10. 3 D.834. 842. ↩