PROPOSITION CXIV.

Evil is always, though accidentally and unintentionally, the effect of some efficient cause.

I. THE FIRST MEMBER of this Proposition, which affirms that Evil is always the effect of some efficient cause, has been virtually proved already in the exposition of the hundred and ninth Thesis. For it was pointed out there, that Evil cannot belong to Being intrinsically. Consequently, it is an extrinsic modification and, as such, postulates an efficient cause.

II. THE SECOND MEMBER, maintaining that the production of Evil is accidental and unintended on the part of the efficient cause, requires more elaborate declaration. In accordance with the order which has been hitherto followed in the discussion of more difficult questions, and because it is most consonant with the scope of this Work as suggested by the title, let the authority of the Angelic Doctor lead the way. 'That any entity,' says St. Thomas, 'should fall short of its natural and due disposition, can only happen from the action of some cause which draws the entity out of its disposition. For a ponderous body cannot receive upward motion, save from an impelling agent; and an agent does not fail in its action, save on account of some impediment. Now, to be a cause is an attribute only of that which is good. For nothing can be a cause, except it is Being; but all Being, as such, is good.'^{1} According to St. Thomas, then, all Evil in Being comes to it from without; and requires an efficient cause, external to the entity that is subject to the Evil. But here it is that the difficulty begins. For, how can it be that a real efficient cause should have for its effect a mere privation, seeing that a mere privation is a negation of a certain kind? But a real efficient cause would seem to postulate a real effect, as term of its action; not a negation. For a cause of nothing is, so far forth, no cause. The answer to the difficulty in brief, is this; that the evil effect, (or privation in the effect), attributed to the efficient cause, is neither directly intended by the agent nor the adequate or principal term of his or its action. But this answer needs a careful and minute examination, which shall be instituted with St. Thomas for our guide. In the passage which is about to be quoted, the Angelic Doctor is proving that the Good is cause of Evil, for the reason that every cause is a perfection and, therefore, in itself a Good. He confirms the statement, by introducing the four causes and considering their relation to Evil. 'That the Good is cause of Evil,' he says, 'as material cause, is evident from what has gone before; since it has been shown that the Good is the subject of Evil,' (i.e. that Evil exists in Good). 'But Evil has no formal cause; on the contrary, it is privation of form. In like manner, it has no final cause; but is rather the privation of the order conducing to the due end. . . . Evil, however, has an efficient cause; not absolutely, but by accident.' Having thus confirmed the truth of the preceding Thesis in this Article, he goes on to explain, in the following words, how efficient causation is, in the case of Evil, accidental and unintended; 'Evil is caused in action after another sort from what it is caused in an effect. In action it is caused from a defect in some one of the principles of action, either of the principal or of the instrumental agent. Thus, for instance, defect in the movement of an animal may arise, either from a debility of the motive power, as in children; or from a simple ineptness of the instrument of motion, as in the lame. But Evil is caused in an entity, sometimes from the virtue of the agent, (though the Evil is not in the proper effect of the agent), sometimes from a deficiency in the agent, sometimes from a deficiency in the matter' (which is subject of the action). 'It arises from the virtue or perfection of the agent, when the form intended by the agent necessarily carries along with it the exclusion of another form; as, e.g. the form of fire is necessarily accompanied by a privation of the form of air or water. . . . If there is a deficiency in the effect proper to fire, (for instance, that it fails to heat), this arises either from a defect in some one of the principles of action before mentioned, or from a defect in the disposition of the matter, which does not accept the action of the agent fire. But this very state of deficiency attaches to that which is good; and to the Good belongs the absolute power of action.'^{2} In another of his works, St. Thomas makes a similar division of the ways in which the Good may be efficient cause of Evil. 'Defect,' he writes, 'happens without the intention of the agent. And it occurs in three ways. Sometimes it is due to the intent of the agent which, as not enduring the coajunction of some other perfection with itself, excludes the other. And this is patent in natural generation. . . . Sometimes it arises out of the matter receptive of the action, which is not in the disposition to arrive at that perfection which the agent intends to produce. . . . Sometimes it is owing to the instrument; as may be seen in limping.'^{3} It is plain, then, from these two quotations, that, in the judgment of the Angelic Doctor, whether the effect be a simple action or some entity which is the term of operation, an efficient cause may produce Evil in its effect in one of three ways; either by the activity and perfection of its causality, or by deficiency in its perfection, or by impediment in the way of its due action. In each one of these ways it causes Evil accidentally and unintentionally. This is the point awaiting examination, which for the present will be restricted to natural Evil; since the question of moral Evil requires separate treatment.

i. An efficient cause, though necessarily good in itself, may be productive of Evil by reason of the very activity and perfection of its causality. The explanation is given by St. Thomas. The form which it intentionally introduces into the subject, essentially excludes its opposite; albeit this latter is likewise a form and a perfection. Nature abhors an absolute duality; and, therefore, when two independent forms meet in the same Subject, the one either absorbs or expels the other. Thus the efficient cause directly intends the communication of a form similar to its own, and the form so communicated is the direct term of its action; but this communication necessarily involves the expulsion of another form, incompatible with the presence of the former. in this way the Subject is deprived of its original form, which to it is an Evil; and it suffers the privation, prior, at least in order of nature, to its reception of the new form, according to the axiom that the corruption of one thing is the generation of another. Thus, for instance, the corruption of water is the generation of steam. Now, the form of fire or heat does not intend, so to speak, the expulsion of the form of water; but simply the introduction of its own form into the subjacent matter. As, however, the form of steam is incompatible with that of water; the latter is accidentally expelled by the presence of the former. The above statements are curiously illustrated by the metamorphosis of, (we will say for the sake of definiteness), the cabbage-caterpillar into the butterfly. There are three states or stages in this process of change. There is the primitive state of the worm or caterpillar, the state of transition, and the terminal state of evolution. It is clear that the butterfly is a higher and more organized form of life; and nature intends that form as her term of action. Furthermore, the two kinds of life are incompatible. The one is creeping; the other winged. The one feeds on the cabbage and requires jaws of more than ordinary strength, compared with its size; the other, if it feeds at all, as the female butterfly must, feeds on the honey of plants, and wants a long proboscis which can dive into the calyx of the flower. The one is in need of many feet for its motion on the earth's surface; the other cannot do without wings, by which to flutter about from flower to flower. There is a stage of transition, therefore, -- the chrysalis state, as it is called, -- during which the caterpillar-form recedes from the Subject, or the matter, in proportion as the butterfly-form becomes present by natural evolution. Now, it is plain that nature does not directly intend to deprive the Subject of its caterpillar-form. Its sole intention is to evolve the butterfly. But this includes the necessity of the expulsion of the preceding form; and, consequently, this privation, or Evil, in the Subject is caused accidentally and unintentionally. It is necessary again to remind the reader that, when the term, intention, is applied to unreasoning and material things, it is either used analogically, to express the direct term of causal action as determined by natural law, or it is used univocally of the intention of Him Who imposes His law on nature. It may, perhaps, be objected to the exposition just made, that, though the privation of the antecedent form is not principally intended; nevertheless, it is secondarily intended, as a necessary means for the attainment of the direct term of operation and, consequently, as a useful Good. The objection is true; but the statement only differs verbally from the explanation given. All that is contended for here is, that the said privation is not included in the primary or direct intention of the efficient cause.

ii. Natural Evil may be produced in Being by deficiency in the efficient cause either principal or instrumental. For sometimes it is the result of a deficiency in the one, sometimes of a deficiency in the other. Thus, to adopt the illustration of St. Thomas, imperfect walking may sometimes arise from the weakness of the motive faculty, as in young children; sometimes, from a lameness or a deformity in the leg. This doctrine, however, suggests a serious difficulty. For it seems to admit that Evil in the efficient cause is the cause of Evil in the effect; if so, then it is not always true, as has been asserted, that Good is the cause of Evil. But it behoves us to remember, that deficiency in the efficient cause is no cause at all; because a privation cannot be a cause. Consequently, although the Evil in the effect is absolutely the result of Evil, or defect, in the agent; yet the Evil in the effect is accidental to the effect; and it is the positive effect, as effect, which the cause, as cause, intends to produce. Hence it follows, that Evil, as such, cannot be the cause of Evil; but that the Good produces the positive effect with which the Evil, or privation of perfectness, is accidentally united; because owing to an accidental Evil in the cause, (since all Evil is accidental to Being), it has not been able to exert its full causal energy. But this answer generates a fresh difficulty. For, according to what has been said, Evil in the effect always presupposes Evil in the efficient cause. If, however, this is conceded, then either we must admit an infinite process; or we must at length reach an efficient cause, is itself not evil, which produces Evil in its effect. Yet this latter alternative contradicts the original statement. Besides, it seems in itself an irrational hypothesis; for, since every cause terminates in that which is similar and proportional to itself, how could a perfect cause produce an imperfect effect? The answer to the above difficulty is very simple; and consists in a categorical denial of the supposition on which the objection rests. Evil in the effect does not invariably connote or postulate Evil, or defect, in the efficient cause. For, if the cause be in any way hindered in its operation; it may be free from all defect itself, and yet its effect will be imperfect. But it may be replied, this very liability to hindrance is itself a defect. Not so; for all created Being is finite, or limited; and, because it is essentially limited, it is naturally and essentially liable to hindrance from opposing forces. But a natural limitation is not a privation and, in consequence, not an Evil. To exhaust, however, the difficulty, -- it is to be noted that Evil in the effect may he traced either to Evil in the cause or to an external impediment. About this second case there can be no reasonable doubt, after what has been said. As to the former, though it be true that Evil in the effect supposes Evil in the efficient cause; nevertheless, there is no necessity for admitting an infinite process. For the Evil in the aforesaid cause may be due to the action of some efficient cause, perfect within its own limits, which, while intending to produce its perfect effect in the former cause that is Subject of its energy, expels some form from that cause, by reason of which the native activity of the latter is impaired. In such case, the causation of Evil in the effect is reduced to the first of the three categories already mentioned. Thus, then, although it is perfectly true, that from an efficient cause, (so far as it is a cause, i.e. good), can proceed only a good effect; nevertheless, it is possible that the effect should not receive the entire perfection that is its due, owing to an impediment which hinders the perfect action of the cause. This, however, argues no imperfection in the cause itself; but only the limitation of its nature. Hence, the natural limitation of one cause, together with some impediment interposed by the action of another, is sufficient to account for imperfection or evil in the effect, although there be no defect in either cause. The impediment is naturally created by the determined action, order, and mutual conjunction, of efficient causes. On the other hand, if the cause is itself defective and, so far forth, evil; that defect may arise from such efficient cause having been previously the Subject of another cause, which has either expelled the due perfection by the perfectness of its own energy according to the manner indicated under the first heading, or has itself been hindered, by conflict with another cause, from expending in the effect the fulness of its energy. Wherefore, there is no need of an infinite process.

iii. Natural Evil may be produced in an effect by simple subtraction of causal efficiency. For, since Evil is a privation, it requires no positive action to produce it; therefore, to the existence of natural Evil it suffices, that the Subject should not receive that perfection to which it ceases not to lay claim. Now, as in the nature of things efficient causation is not free, and, consequently, an efficient cause, positis ponendis, has no power of restraining or withholding its own energy; it follows, that the suspension of its efficiency must be traced in some way or other to the Subject. Hence, St. Thomas, in both the passages quoted at the beginning, attributes it to a defective disposition of the matter. Thus, -- to quote his example, -- a carver desires to work a figure out of a piece of wood; but there is a knot in the centre of the wood, and he fails. In this case, there is no deficiency (as is supposed) either in the principal or instrumental cause, i.e. in the skilful manipulation of the carver, or in the tool which he employs; but the wood does not receive the perfect form, because it is defective. There is another example which will serve to illustrate all the three cases. Let us suppose that a baker is making white and brown bread. In the former case, he uses pure wheat flour for his matter; in the latter, flour mixed with the bran. He makes use of precisely the same barm in both instances; yet he finds, that the dough rises very unequally in the two. The reason is, that the bran offers an impediment to the full action of the yeast; in other words, the matter in the brown bread is defectively disposed. Similarly, the baker may by chance make use of flour which has been obtained from what is called sprit wheat, damaged by rain. The barm may be excellent, but the bread will be heavy. Again, if the barm is flat or sickly, the bread will be bad, now owing to a defect in the efficient cause. Lastly, if the barm is over active, the alcohol that has been generated in the process is not wholly evaporated; and the remainder becomes transformed into acetic acid, which makes the bread sour. Here, the perfection of the efficient cause introduces a form into the matter, which is incompatible with the natural sweetness of the bread. There can be little or no doubt, that the generation of monsters is due for the most part to the deficient disposition of the matter. But this indisposition of the matter supposes the positive action of some cause, which produces an effect in the Subject, or matter, incompatible with the action of the other cause. Now, it is plain that in this, as in the former cases, the defect in the effect is not directly intended by the efficient cause; but is rather an accidental accompaniment. Therefore, though natural Evil postulates an efficient cause; the causation itself is unintentional and accidental.

It now remains to consider the same question in connection with moral Evil. And, here again, St. Thomas shall be our guide. 'There are two ways,' he says, 'in which Evil is caused by Good. In one way, the Good is cause of Evil, forasmuch as it is defective in another way accidentally.' This latter category, as may be plainly seen, includes the first and third modes of the division which the Angelic Doctor has given in the passages previously quoted, and which has been adopted in the present Thesis. For, where there is no defect in the cause itself, it is clear that defect in the Subject of its action, or rather in the effect, can be only an accidental result of its energy. The Angelic Doctor proceeds: 'Now, in actions of the will, there is a certain amount of similarity; but not in every respect. For it is manifest that it is sensual pleasure which moves the will of the adulterer, and induces him to seek for gratification in a way that goes against the natural order and the Divine law.. Such is moral Evil. If, then, it were the case, that the will admitted of necessity the impression of the Pleasurable, which attracts it in the same way as a physical body receives its impression from an efficient cause; there would be no difference between the things of nature and the acts of the will. But such is not the case. For, however much a sensile Good may attract externally; it is still in the power of the will to admit or not admit it. Hence, the cause of the evil resulting from its admission is not the Pleasurable which allures; but rather the will itself. Now, the will is cause of Evil in both of the aforesaid ways, i.e. accidentally, and as being defectively good. It is so accidentally; in that the will is attracted towards that which is a qualified Good, but conjoined with what is absolutely evil. It is cause of Evil also, as being a defective Good since it is necessary to presuppose in the will the existence of some defect, antecedently to the defective election itself, by which it chooses a qualified Good which is an absolute Evil. Now, this will plainly appear from what follows. For, in all cases in which one thing is the rule and measure of another, the one which is subject to rule and measure is good, in that it is ruled and conformed to measure; and evil, in that it is not under rule and measure. Thus, for instance, if a workman, whose duty it is to cut a piece of wood in a straight line by a rule, does not cut it straight, (which is the same as cutting it badly); the badness of his cutting will be caused by the workman being without his rule and measure. Similarly, pleasure and everything else in human affairs must be measured and ruled in accordance with the rule of measure and of the Divine Law. Wherefore, a failure to use the rule of reason and of the Divine Law, is presupposed in the will, antecedently to the inordinate election. Now, it is not necessary to search for a cause of such failure to make use of the aforesaid rule; because the liberty of the will, by which it has the power of acting or not acting, alone suffices. Further; the mere fact of not actually attending to such a rule, considered in itself, is not an Evil, whether in the shape of sin or of punishment; because the mind is not bound, and is in truth unable, continually to pay actual attention to such a rule. But it first begins to assume the nature of sin, when, -- without actual consideration of the rule, -- it proceeds to an election of this sort. Just as the workman does not commit a fault in not always having his rule by him; but because he proceeds to cut the wood, without having his rule.'^{4}

One other passage shall be added, in order to set the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor, touching this portion of the subject, completely before the reader. In the Article from which the ensuing quotation has been taken, St. Thomas makes that threefold division of modes by which an efficient cause may produce, or be responsible for, natural Evil in the effect; viz, owing to the intention of the agent, owing to defective disposition in the subject-matter, and, thirdly, owing to the instrument. Thence he pursues the investigation touching the production of moral Evil, or the Evil of sin, after this manner. 'The Evil of sin may occur in two of these ways, viz. owing to the intention, or owing to the instrument. . . . For, in every sin that is committed with deliberation of reason, Evil results from the intention. To explain: as in things of nature there cannot be two ultimate substantial forms actually perfecting the same portion of matter; so, there cannot be two ultimate ends of the will. Wherefore, as a natural agent, by introducing one form, causes the loss of some other; so the will likewise, by reason of its adhering to some object which is not its proper end as the ultimate end, is turned away from its proper ultimate end, (and in this consists the complete nature of the Evil of sin), apart from any intention of the will. Sins, on the other hand, which proceed without deliberation of reason' (and are, therefore, only analogically called sins), 'such as first movements of a passion, occur from defect in the instrument, i.e. in the inferior faculties of the soul, which are, as it were, instruments of the will or of the reason.^{5}

From these two passages certain conclusions may be drawn touching the causality of sin, or of moral Evil, properly so called. i. All sin, univocally understood, is the result in some way of a positive action of free-will. For the sin commences with the inordinate election, which is the second or completed act of the will. The Evil of sin commences with the act; and as the will is autonomous, (or free to act as it pleases), so far as concerns the eliciting of the act; consequently, ii. there is no need of looking further for the origin of the Evil; and the efficient cause is not in itself evil, independently of, and antecedently to, the act of deliberate choice. Herein, then, lie the principal points of difference between natural and moral Evil. But the Angelic Doctor tells us that there are also points of similarity between the two, which he enumerates. iii. There is this point of similarity between them, that, just as the energy of the efficient cause in the things of nature, by communicating a form like itself to the Subject, thereby expels another form incompatible with that which it engenders; so it is, in like manner, with the will. For, as there cannot be two substantial forms in the same material Subject, so that the presence of one necessarily involves the desition or absence of the other; neither, in like manner, can the will have two ultimate ends in the same act. Consequently, if it adheres to an unworthy end as its true ultimate end, such a choice inevitably involves exclusion of, and aversion from, the true ultimate end; even though the will may have no direct and explicit intention of rejecting it. Now, the essential nature of sin consists precisely in this exclusion of, and aversion from, man's true end. Further, in proportion to the energy with which the will adheres to the unworthy, and is averted from the true, end; in the same proportion is the moral Evil more intense: just as the energetic action of fire on water ends by destroying the substantial nature of the latter. iv. Another point of similarity between the two is to be found in this, that Evil results from the deficiency of the cause in both cases. This has been already pointed out as regards natural Evil; it remains to show how it is verified in the case of sin. A choice of the will is good, inasmuch as it is conformable to the eternal and natural law of right, i.e. to the law of God as revealed to human reason, -- or, in other words, to the dictates of conscience. Why so? Because Goodness, in that which is subject to direction, consists in this latter being so directed. But, as we are taught in Ethics, actions of free-will are essentially subject to rule or direction. Now, a free election of the will necessarily presupposes deliberation on the part of the reason. When, then, the claims of man's true end are not recognized in the deliberative act; the rule or measure is absent. But it ought to be there. Here, accordingly, it is, that a deficiency is observable in the efficient cause; and, owing to this deficiency, the choice is evil. There are two principles included in this teaching of the Angelic Doctor, which merit notice by reason of their importance. The one is, that it is not necessary to have the natural law ceaselessly present to the mind. The thing is impossible; and, if a man were foolishly to attempt it, he would lose his head. What is required, is this; that the law should be recalled to memory in the deliberation which precedes the choice of the will, -- that the rule or measure should be applied, when the act is meditated which requires measurement and regulation. The other is, that sin does not, ordinarily at least, consist in an explicit and direct rejection of the ultimate end, or in a formal determination to disobey the law which is the measure of free-will. It suffices that, by the deliberate choice of the will, an illegitimate end should be preferred and, consequently, the true end virtually rejected, for the reason that the two are incompatible. v. There is another point of similarity; though it is far more remote than the others. It has been seen, that natural Evil may be produced in an effect by some deficiency in the secondary, or instrumental, cause. A distant resemblance to this is to be found in the production of moral Evil. For the first involuntary motions of concupiscence and of other passions may be regarded as sins in three ways; first of all, by reason of their origin, since it often happens, that these perturbations are the result of previous habitual indulgence. Then, they may be so considered in regard of their tendency. For they are the most powerful allurements to actual sin. Lastly, they may be considered sins theologically, as being one among the consequences of original sin. It is principally in this last light, that they are regarded by St. Thomas in the second of the foregoing quotations. For the Christian Revelation teaches, that man was not originally created in a purely natural condition, as he might have been; but was raised into a supernatural state, among whose privileges, exemption from these rebellions of our nature was not the least. Consequently, these involuntary motions, which would otherwise have been purely natural, are now a privation, and, as such, a moral Evil. But, looking at the question according to the light of reason only, as Philosophy must do, such motions would be purely natural; and could in no wise, of themselves, partake of the nature of sin, save in the first two ways already indicated. To the existence of actual sin it is absolutely necessary that there should be free choice of the will and previous deliberation of some sort. But there are such things as half-voluntary sins, which suppose a sort of half-election, (to a certain extent free), and an attenuated deliberation. In these, there is moral Evil; but less, in proportion, to the diminution of these two essential elements. Perhaps St. Thomas had an eye partially to such instances; at all events, they may be included here. In whatever way, therefore, these motions lead to the commission of sin venial or mortal, it may be said that the moral Evil is in great measure due to a deficiency in the instrumental cause. For the passions of our lower nature are intended to be instruments of the will and reason; whenever, then, they are not so, (as in the case of involuntary motions they are not), they are, as instruments, deficient. If moral Evil results in deliberate action of the will, in consequence of this deficiency; it is partially attributable to the defective instrument, though not wholly. For the will is free in its election; and, if at any time, (as may happen), it is not free, owing to the sudden inroad of exorbitant passion, there is no sin. To these points of similarity, suggested by the Angelic Doctor, may be added another: vi. As, in the things of nature, efficient causes, though good in themselves, produce Evil in the subject of their action, by reason of the limitation of their nature; so, in the human will, a similar root of Evil is to be found. For it is because the will is limited, that it requires an external rule and measure of its action. For the same reason it is mutable. From the concurrence of these two facts follows defectibility from the rule or measure. Hence arises possibility, now of imperfection in obedience, now of deliberate disobedience, i.e. possibility of defect, -- of venial and mortal sin. Yet, the will, (as is plain), is in itself good, till it becomes evil in its choice.

It has doubtless been made evident, during the course of this elaborate discussion, that, as in natural Evil so in moral Evil, the efficient cause produces Evil in its effect by accident and unintentionally. For the positive action of the will is entitatively perfect, even in its commission of sin. It pursues that which is undeniably a qualified good; and it is accidental to the act and, for the most part, not expressly intended by the will, that adhesion to this end necessarily should involve aversion from man's true ultimate end. But this aversion constitutes the sin. Consequently, the sin is, as sin, a simple privation which is not absolutely and directly intended by the act. The same truth is elicited, by considering the action of the will as subject to rule and measure. The action of cutting the wood is (we will suppose) entitatively perfect; yet, the carpenter has sawed it badly. Why? He has forgotten to bring his rule with him; and it is all out of the straight line. But the crookedness is purely accidental to the act of sawing; and unintentional on the part of the workman. The defect has arisen from his not having guided his action by the rule, as he ought to have done; and for this he is responsible to his employer. The application of this illustration is too plain to require any expenditure of words. The case is yet clearer as regards the involuntary motions of our lower nature. For, considered absolutely as they are in their own entity, they are perfect; and, so far as they are involuntary, cannot be considered irregular, save in a theological sense, according to the explanation already given. They become evil, when they are deliberately accepted by the will under circumstances wherein their indulgence is prohibited by the rule of reason and of Divine law. But then, the moral Evil is attributable to the will. The action of these lower faculties is, in itself, good and intended for a wise purpose; and, when it is considered morally dangerous, it is only in relation to the will that it is so considered, over whose elections it exerts so powerful an influence.

Hence, then, it is concluded, that Evil in general is only by accident and unintentionally the effect of its efficient cause.

{1} 'Quod aliquid deficiat a sua naturali et debita dispositione, non potest provenire nisi, ex aliqua causa trahente rem extra suam dispositionem. Non enim grave movetur sursum nisi ab aliquo impellente, nec agens deficit a sua actione nisi propter aliquod impedimentum. Esse autem causam non potest provenire nisi bono; quia nihil potest esse causa, nisi inquantum est ens; omne autem ens, inquantum hujusmodi, bonum est.' 1ae xlix, I, c.

{2} 'Esse causam non potest convenire nisi bono; quia nihil potest esse causa, nisi in quantum est ens; omne autem ens, in quantum hujusmodi, bonum est. Et si consideremus speciales rationes causarum, agens et forma et finis perfectionem quamdam important, quae pertinet ad rationem boni. Sed et materia, in quantum est in potentia ad bonum, habet rationem boni. Et quidem quod bonum sit causa mali per modum causae materialis, jam ex praemissis patet. Ostensum est enim quod bonum est subjectum mali. Causam autem formalem malum non habet, sed est magis privatio formas; et similiter nec causam finalem, sed magis est privatio ordinis ad finem debitum. . . . Causam autem per modum agentis habet malum, non autem per se, sed per accidens. Ad cujus evidentiam sciendum est, quod aliter causatur malum in actione et aliter in effectu. In actione quidem causatur malum propter defectum alicujus principiorum actionis, vel principalis agentis vel instrumentalis; sicut defectus in motu animalis potest contingere, vel propter debilitatem virtutis motivi, ut in pueris, vel propter solam ineptitudinem instrumenti, ut in claudis. Causator malum in re aliqua quandoque ex virtute agentis, non tamen in proprio effectu agentis; quandoque autem ex defectu ipsius vel materiae. Ex virtute quidem vel perfections agentis, quando ad formam intentam ab agento sequitur ex necessitate alterius formae privatio, sicut ad formam ignis sequitur privatio formae aeris vel aquae. . . . Sed si sit defectus in effecto proprio ignis, puta quod deficiat a calefaciendo, hoc est vel propter defectum actionis, qui redundat in defectum alicujus principii, ut dictum est, vel ex indispositione materiae, quae non recipit actionem ignis agentis. Sed et hoc ipsum quod est esse deficiens, accidit bono, cui per se competit agere.' 1ae xlix, I, o.

{3} 'Defectus incidit praeter intentionem agentis. Hoc autem contingit tripliciter. Aut ex parte ejus quod intentum est ab agente, quod cum non compatiatur secum quandam aliam perfectionem, excludit eam, ut patet in generatione naturali. Aut ex parte materiae recipientis actionem, quae indisposita est ad consequendam perfectionem quam agens intendit producere. . . . Aut ex parte instrumenti, ut patet in claudicatione.' In 2 d. xxxiv, a. 3, c.

{4} 'Est ergo duplex modus quo malum causatur ex bono. Uno modo bonum est causa mali inquantum est deficiens; alio modo inquantum est per accidens. . . . In voluntariis autem quodammodo similiter se habet, sed non quantum ad omnia. Manifestum est enim quod delectabile secundum sensum movet voluntatem adulteri, et afficit eam ad delectandum tali delectatione quae excludit ordinem rationis et legis divinas; quod est malum morale. Si ergo ita esset, quod voluntas ex necessitate reciperet impressionem delectabilis allicientis, sicut ex necessitate corpus naturale recipit impressionem agentis, omnino idem esset in voluntariis et naturalibus. Non est autem sic; quia quantumcumque exterius sensibile alliciat, in potestate tamen voluntatis set recipere vel non recipere. Unde mali, quod accidit ex hoc quod recipit, non est causa ipsum delectabile movens, sed magis ipsa voluntas. Quae quidem est causa mali secundum utrumque praedictorum modorum, scil. et per accidens, et inquantum est bonum deficiens; per accidens quidem, inquantum voluntas fertur in aliquid quod est bonum secundum quid, sed habet conjunctum quod est simpliciter malum; sed ut bonum deficiens, inquantum in voluntate oportet praeconsiderare aliquem defectum ante ipsam electionem deficientem, per quam eligit secundum quid bonum quod est simpliciter malum. Quod sic patet. In omnibus enim, quorum unum debet esse regula et mensura alterius, bonum in regulato et mensurato est ex hoc quod regulatur et conformatur regulae et mensurae; malum vero ex hoc quod est non regulari et mensurari. Si ergo sit aliquis artifex qui debeat aliquod lignum recte incidere secundum aliquam regulam, si non directe incidat, (quod est male incidere), haec mala incisio causabitur ex hoc defectu quod artifex erat sine regula et mensura. Similiter, delectatio et quodlibet aliud in rebus humanis est mensurandum et regulandum secundum regulam rationis et legis divinae. Unde, non uti regula rationis et legis divinae praeintelligitur in voluntate ante inordinatam electionem. Hujusmodi autem quod non est uti regula praedicta, non oportet aliquam causam quaerere; quia ad hoc sufficit ipsa libertas voluntatis, per quam potest agere vel non agere. Et hoc ipsum quod est non attendere actu ad talem regulam, in se consideratum, non est malum nec culpa nec poena. Quia anima non tenetur nec potest attendere ad hujusmodi regulam semper in actu. Sed ex hoc accipit primo rationem culpae, quod sine actuali consideratione regulae procedit ad hujusmodi electionem. Sicut artifex non peccat in eo quod non semper tenet mensuram, sed ex hoc quod non tenens mensuram procedit ad incidendum.' De Ma. Q. s, e. 3, c, in m.

{5} 'Malum autem culpae ex duobus horum modorum contingere potest, scil., vel ex parte ejus quod intentum est, vel ex parte instrumenti. . . . In omnibus enim peccatis quae per deliberationem rationis procedunt, malum incidit ex parte ejus quod intentum est. Sicut enim in naturalibus non possunt esse duae formae substantiales ultimae actu perficientes eamdem partem materiae, ita non possunt esse duo ultimi fines voluntatis. Unde, sicut agens naturale ex hoc quod inducit unam formam, causat defectum alterius formae; ita etiam voluntas, ex hoc quod alieni tanquam ultimi fini inhaeret quod. debitus sibi finis non est, avertitur a fine ultimo sibi debito, (in quo completur ratio mali culpae), praeter intentionem voluntatis. Peccata vero quae praeter deliberationem rationis procedunt, ut primi motus, incidunt ex defectu instrumenti, id est inferiorum virium, quae sunt sicut instrumenta voluntatis aut rationis.' In 2 ci. xxxiv, a. 3, e.