ARTICLE V

In the Fifth Article We Ask: DOES THE DIVINE WILL IMPOSE NECESSITY UPON THE THINGS WILLED?

Difficulties:

It seems that it does, for

1. When a sufficient cause is placed, it is necessary that the effect be placed. Avicenna proves this as follows. If, when the cause is placed, the effect is not necessarily placed, then even after the placing of the cause the effect remains open to the alternatives of either existence or non-existence. But whatever has the potentiality of alternatives is not determined to either one of them unless there is something to determine it. Consequently, after the placing of the cause it is still necessary to posit something which will make the effect exist. The cause was accordingly not sufficient. But if the cause is sufficient, when it is placed, the placing of the effect must be necessary. Now the divine will is a sufficient cause, and not a contingent but a necessary cause. The things willed by God are therefore necessary.

2. The answer was given that from a necessary cause there sometimes follows a contingent effect because of the contingency of an intervening cause; e.g., from a major premise expressing what is necessary a contingent conclusion follows because of a subsumption expressing what is contingent.--On the contrary, whenever a contingent effect follows from a necessary cause because of the contingency of an intermediate cause, this comes from the deficiency of the second cause. The blossoming of a tree, for example, is contingent and not necessary because of the possible failure of the germinative power, which is the intermediate cause, although the motion of the sun, the first cause, is a necessary cause. But the divine will can remove all deficiency from the second cause, and likewise every hindrance. The contingency of a second cause, therefore, does not keep the effect from being necessary because of the necessity of the divine will.

3. When the effect is contingent because of the contingency of the second cause, given a necessary first cause, the non-existence of the effect is compatible with the existence of the first cause. Thus the non-blossoming of a tree in spring is compatible with the motion of the sun. But the non-existence of what is willed by God is not compatible with the divine will. For these two things, God's willing something to be and its not being, are irreconcilable. Consequently the contingency of second causes does not prevent the things willed by God from being necessary because of the necessity of the divine will.

4. The answer was given that, although the non-existence of a divine effect is not compatible with the divine will, even so, because the second cause can fail, the effect itself is contingent.--On the contrary, the effect does not fail to occur except by the failure of the second cause. But it is impossible that the second cause should fail, given the divine will; for in that case there would simultaneously be verified the existence of the divine will and the non-existence of what is willed by God. But this is manifestly false. Hence the contingency of second causes does not prevent the effect of the divine will from being necessary.

To the Contrary:

All goods come about because God wills them. Now if the divine will imposes necessity upon things, all the goods that there are in the world will therefore exist from necessity; and so free choice and other contingent causes will be eliminated.

REPLY:

The divine will does not impose necessity upon all things. The reason for this is ascribed by some to the fact that, since this will is the first cause of all things, it produces certain effects through the mediation of secondary causes which are contingent and can fail. Thus the effect follows the contingency of the proximate cause, not the necessity of the first cause. But this seems to be in agreement with those who held that all things proceed from God with natural necessity, just as they held that from the simple One there proceeds immediately a single being having some multiplicity, and through its mediation the whole multitude of things proceeds. In like fashion they say that from a single wholly immobile principle there proceeds something which is immobile in its substance but mobile and undetermined as to position, and through the mediation of this being generation and corruption occur in the things here below. In this line of argument it could not be held that multiplicity and corruptible and contingent things are caused immediately by God. But that position is contrary to the doctrine of the faith, which holds that a multitude even of corruptible things was immediately created by God; for example, the first individuals of trees and brute animals.

It is accordingly necessary to assign a different principal reason for the contingency in things, to which the previously assigned cause will be subordinated. For the patient must be assimilated to the agent; and, if the agent is most powerful, the likeness of the effect to the agent cause will be perfect; but if the agent is weak, the likeness will be imperfect. Thus because of the strength of the formative power in the semen a son is made like his father not only in the nature of the species but also in many accidents. On the other hand, because of the weakness of the power mentioned the aforesaid assimilation is done away with, as is said in Animals. Now the divine will is a most powerful agent. Hence its effect must be made like it in all respects, so that there not only comes about what God wants to come about (a sort of likening in species), but it comes about in the manner in which God wants it to come about--necessarily or contingently, quickly or slowly (and this is a sort of likening in its accidents).

The divine will determines this manner for things beforehand in the order of God's wisdom. According as it arranges for certain things to come into being in this way or in that, it adapts their causes to the manner fixed upon. It could, however, introduce this manner into things even without the mediation of those causes. We accordingly say that some of the divine effects are contingent not merely because of the contingency of secondary causes but rather because of the appointment of the divine will, which saw to such an order for things.

Answers to Difficulties:

1. That argument is applicable in the case of causes acting from the necessity of nature and in regard to their immediate effects; but it is beside the point in the case of voluntary causes, because a thing follows from the will in the way in which the will disposes and not in the way in which the will has existence, as occurs among natural causes. In the latter we look to an assimilation as regards the condition of the cause and the thing caused, which is the same in both, whereas in voluntary causes we look to an assimilation as regards the fulfillment of the will of the agent in the effect, as has been said.* And even in regard to natural causes the argument does not apply in the case of their mediate effects.

2. Even though God can remove every hindrance from a secondary cause when He so wills, yet He does not always will to remove it. Thus there remains contingency in the secondary cause and, consequently, in the effect.

3. Although the non-existence of an effect of the divine will is incompatible with the divine will, the possibility that the effect should be lacking is given simultaneously with the divine will. God's willing someone to be saved and the possibility that that person be damned are not incompatible; but God's willing him to be saved and his actually being damned are incompatible.

4. The same is to be said about the deficiency of the intervening cause.